PDA

View Full Version : Does LEO LTC = de facto "Title of Nobility?'


Tarn_Helm
08-26-2013, 10:33 PM
Does the "automatic" right of a law enforcement officer to an LTC amount to a title of nobility as defined in Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section9)?

Before you answer, please read this article (http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/08/26/constitution-government-officials-privileges-column/2696945/) by law professor (and Second Amendment champion) Glenn Harlan Reynolds.

Reynolds argues that special privileges for "public servants" transmogrify them into "public masters," thus violating Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution (?).

What say you?

LTC for all?

Or only for the de facto "nobility (http://www.cato.org/raidmap)?"

:cool:

SonofWWIIDI
08-26-2013, 10:48 PM
The link took me to article one and its sections, not an article by a law professor. Did I miss something?

:confused:

Hoshnasi
08-26-2013, 10:54 PM
Link doesn't seem right :\

RickD427
08-26-2013, 10:59 PM
No, it doesn't

yellowfin
08-29-2013, 6:13 AM
Their exemption from the NFA also qualifies.

EM2
08-29-2013, 6:55 AM
Does LEO LTC = de facto "Title of Nobility?'

Yes

glockman19
08-29-2013, 7:07 AM
A clear violation of the 14th and equal protection, as it carves out a special class of citizen.

Frito Bandido
08-29-2013, 8:57 AM
I think even more significant than their de-facto LTC is their near-impunity from the law. I wouldn't go so far as to call it a title of nobility, but it's definitely an inequality that is both systemic and increasingly accepted as the status quo.

robcoe
08-29-2013, 10:15 AM
Yes, they get special rights that normal citizens do not get even when not on the job, that means they are a special, higher class of citizens, which means they are by default minor nobles in America.

JDay
08-29-2013, 1:57 PM
Has this been brought before SCOTUS in the past?

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 4

SVT-40
08-29-2013, 4:47 PM
Hmmm I kind of like the sound of "King of all SVT-40"......;)

Gutpile66
08-29-2013, 6:52 PM
Yes, it's so true. Was raised to respect them. Now they scare the hell out of me.

Here's one now

JaMail
08-29-2013, 7:41 PM
this

http://marketingforhippies.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/arrow_pointing_down_black_and_white_custom_photosc ulpture-p153262780712582178u7j7_400.jpg


I think even more significant than their de-facto LTC is their near-impunity from the law. I wouldn't go so far as to call it a title of nobility, but it's definitely an inequality that is both systemic and increasingly accepted as the status quo.

SVT-40
08-30-2013, 10:11 PM
Does the "automatic" right of a law enforcement officer to an LTC amount to a title of nobility as defined in Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution[URL]?

Before you answer, please read this [URL="http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section9"]article (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section9) by law professor (and Second Amendment champion) Glenn Harlan Reynolds.

Reynolds argues that special privileges for "public servants" transmogrify them into "public masters," thus violating Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution (?).

What say you?

LTC for all?

Or only for the de facto "nobility (http://www.cato.org/raidmap)?"

:cool:

It's not a "automatic right"... to carry a concealed firearm. In fact it's not a "right" at all, nor a "license".

It's part of the duties of a LEO and enumerated in the California Penal code....


From the Constitution...

"No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state."

So we can have no kings, princes, queens Etc...

AND Without the consent of congress cannot accept any gift, title or office from any king, prince or foreign state....

Not even close to a LEO's lawful ability to carry a firearm, as they are peace officers 24-7....... not just while on duty.

No gifts from any foreigners, and no title of nobility....

Tincon
08-30-2013, 11:03 PM
A clear violation of the 14th and equal protection, as it carves out a special class of citizen.

Yes, they get special rights that normal citizens do not get even when not on the job, that means they are a special, higher class of citizens, which means they are by default minor nobles in America.

Heh, by this reasoning all the handicapped have titles of nobility.

The Shadow
08-31-2013, 5:22 AM
Heh, by this reasoning all the handicapped have titles of nobility.

Actually, I take issue with this statement. The handicapped have needs, and handicapped parking is one way of making life easier. Why does a LEO need a gun off duty if citizens don't ned one ? 95% of them don't live anywhere near the community they work in, so the possibility of being attacked is no different than anyone else.

retiredAFcop
08-31-2013, 10:32 AM
Not even close to a LEO's lawful ability to carry a firearm, as they are peace officers 24-7....... not just while on duty.

If this statement were true, then there would be no shift differential, and no overtime pay for any peace officer. That's included in 24/7.

Of course, if you want to claim that the TITLE, and not the job duties (which apply only when on duty) is what is important, then you have just made the point that it is a title that comes with special powers and privileges, which is exactly what a title of nobility is.

GringoBandito6136
08-31-2013, 2:13 PM
LEO LTC = a necessity for those of us who actually work in the trenches.

Its not a title of nobility to be granted the license to carry while off-duty. When I was 22 I chose to be a proactive young officer, and did a lot of good work in my community. As a result, without going into explicit detail, it behooves me to carry my duty weapon and a spare mag with me everywhere I go. That's not a damn privilege, fellas. It's not something that I enjoy. Not any more.

For those of you who think LEO LTC = nobility. I'm formally calling you all out as snot-nosed whiners with a chip on your shoulders. Knock it off.

Ron-Solo
08-31-2013, 2:59 PM
If this is the case, I insist on being called "Sir" Ron-Solo.

That said, I believe the current manner of LTC issue is wrong, as do most of the LEOs here. Why don't you quit attacking us, lose the chip on your shoulder, and do something useful.

Or, I could always call the Waaaaambulance. :D

EM2
08-31-2013, 3:42 PM
It's not a "automatic right"... to carry a concealed firearm. In fact it's not a "right" at all, nor a "license".

It's part of the duties of a LEO and enumerated in the California Penal code....


From the Constitution...

"No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state."

So we can have no kings, princes, queens Etc...

AND Without the consent of congress cannot accept any gift, title or office from any king, prince or foreign state....

Not even close to a LEO's lawful ability to carry a firearm, as they are peace officers 24-7....... not just while on duty.

No gifts from any foreigners, and no title of nobility....


Only because the government says so.
Rights are beyond the government and can and will be exercised in spite of the government.

gobler
08-31-2013, 7:00 PM
If this is the case, I insist on being called "Sir" Ron-Solo.

That said, I believe the current manner of LTC issue is wrong, as do most of the LEOs here. Why don't you quit attacking us, lose the chip on your shoulder, and do something useful.

Or, I could always call the Waaaaambulance. :D

OK, I will stop having problems (or the chip on my shoulder) when the "beat cops" stop infringing on my right to carry. As long as I am not "Prohibited" i.e. felon, then if/when I am discovered carrying (with out a permission slip) the only thing you deed to do is let me be on my way with gun as long as I have not committed a crime. I do not consider carrying a loaded gun by non prohibited persons a crime.

SVT-40
08-31-2013, 7:26 PM
If this statement were true, then there would be no shift differential, and no overtime pay for any peace officer. That's included in 24/7.

Of course, if you want to claim that the TITLE, and not the job duties (which apply only when on duty) is what is important, then you have just made the point that it is a title that comes with special powers and privileges, which is exactly what a title of nobility is.

Thats just silly and again shows your ignorance to civilian policing...

There is zero connection between a officers authority to carry a firearm, and his compensation.

Besides a "job title" is not a "title of nobility"....

Every civil servant.. (notice the "servant" title") has a job title... From tree trimmer to police officer to mayor up to the president..

Just because they have a job title does not make it a title of nobility...

Even the military has "titles" or ranks.. Does that mean every person in the military is a "title of nobility"... Our military certainly has certain privileges not even LEO's have???

After all officers in our military order soldiers into battle just like kings of olden times.......:rolleyes:

glockman19
08-31-2013, 9:29 PM
Heh, by this reasoning all the handicapped have titles of nobility.

I never said nobility. I said "special class" of citizen. One that is exempt from laws governing all others. This is what violates the 14th amendment of equal protection under the law.

The Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction. This clause was the basis for Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court decision that precipitated the dismantling of racial segregation, and for many other decisions rejecting irrational or unnecessary discrimination against people belonging to various groups.

SVT-40
08-31-2013, 9:39 PM
OK, I will stop having problems (or the chip on my shoulder) when the "beat cops" stop infringing on my right to carry. As long as I am not "Prohibited" i.e. felon, then if/when I am discovered carrying (with out a permission slip) the only thing you deed to do is let me be on my way with gun as long as I have not committed a crime. I do not consider carrying a loaded gun by non prohibited persons a crime.

"Beat cops" are not the ones infringing on your right to carry. That would be the silly California lawmakers....

How many "Beat cops" have actually stopped or arrested you for carrying????? I would be willing to bet ZERO!!!!!

So stop scapegoating the police!!!!!!

Since according to you carrying a gun is not a crime, then by all means carry... No one is stopping you but yourself......

So remove your so called "chip on your shoulder"!!!!

SVT-40
08-31-2013, 9:41 PM
Only because the government says so.
Rights are beyond the government and can and will be exercised in spite of the government.

So exercise your rights, and stop blaming the police...

SVT-40
08-31-2013, 9:44 PM
If this is the case, I insist on being called "Sir" Ron-Solo. :D

I changed my mind... I want the title

"SVT-40...Lord of all C&R firearms"!!!!!

:43:

madjack956
08-31-2013, 10:00 PM
It's not a "automatic right"... to carry a concealed firearm. In fact it's not a "right" at all, nor a "license".

It's part of the duties of a LEO and enumerated in the California Penal code....


From the Constitution...

"No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state."

So we can have no kings, princes, queens Etc...
AND Without the consent of congress cannot accept any gift, title or office from any king, prince or foreign state....

Not even close to a LEO's lawful ability to carry a firearm, as they are peace officers 24-7....... not just while on duty.

No gifts from any foreigners, and no title of nobility....

What about Czars...:D

POLICESTATE
08-31-2013, 10:08 PM
Title of Nobility? Not really, it doesn't scale to that at all. More like Being one of the Town Guard. You want nobility then you look at our so-called elected representatives. They are chosen by their parties, and then we get to pick between two.

Look at Feinstein, the Duchess of Socialism.
Or Boxer, the Countess of C***tery
Pelosi is just the Wicked Witch of the West but IIRC she started out as a princess or some crap.
Then there's the Baroness of Snobbery, or as most people know her: Emily Eschoo (or is it Aschoo? I forget). You'd have to live in my district to know who that is. Silicon Valley nobility basically.

Then there's the various Alderman and Town Mayors that tell the Town Guard (or Law Enforcement Officers as we know them) what to do.

You see? The more things change, the more they stay the same. Of course they can't pass the title to their progeny so that's a good thing, and they can be voted out or in extreme circumstances recalled, but they typically get replaced with another just like them.

gobler
08-31-2013, 11:24 PM
"Beat cops" are not the ones infringing on your right to carry. That would be the silly California lawmakers....

It is the street cop who enforces the unconstitutional laws. As long as they continue they are infringing

How many "Beat cops" have actually stopped or arrested you for carrying????? I would be willing to bet ZERO!!!!!

So what you are saying is that I have nothing to worry about? Great!

So stop scapegoating the police!!!!!!

Just call it like I see it.

Since according to you carrying a gun is not a crime, then by all means carry... No one is stopping you but yourself......

I will just say this, as a former scout my motto is be prepared

So remove your so called "chip on your shoulder"!!!

Oh that's rich. Just because I demand our public servants to honor there oaths, I have a chip??





Sent from somewhere in time & space...

SilverTauron
09-01-2013, 1:54 AM
No.
Were that so,then every US citizen with a valid CCW permit would be considered royalty.

EM2
09-01-2013, 7:35 AM
So exercise your rights, and stop blaming the police...

I do, and I wasn't.
I was responding to your use of 'right', which was, in my humble opinion, wrong.

Were you responding to perhaps some of my past posts where I hold the police accountable?

I sometimes wonder who really has the 'chip' on their shoulder?

BillCA
09-01-2013, 10:59 AM
Does the "automatic" right of a law enforcement officer to an LTC amount to a title of nobility as defined in Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution[URL]?

Before you answer, please read this [URL="http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section9"]article (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section9) by law professor (and Second Amendment champion) Glenn Harlan Reynolds.

Reynolds argues that special privileges for "public servants" transmogrify them into "public masters," thus violating Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution (?).


I also read the same article you did.

As to your question about a CCW permit equating to a title of nobility - No

However...

If you combine a gun permit - especially in places where just trying to legally own a gun is onerous, like D.C., Chicago or NYC - with other "privileges" granted to some government employees, then it becomes legitimate to ask if those combine privileges are an American equivalent to "nobility". This could be especially true when combined with the concept of "professional courtesy" which often confers preferential treatment of one government employee by another.

CapS
09-01-2013, 10:21 PM
I believe it's meant to include specific titles, not the elevation of people's rank.
However, a quick search turns up a number of people & organizations who are in the business of selling, or facilitating the sale of, titles of nobility.

I think the equal protection clause is more applicable here.

:oji:

Cap

SVT-40
09-01-2013, 11:00 PM
Only because the government says so.
Rights are beyond the government and can and will be exercised in spite of the government.

I do, and I wasn't.
I was responding to your use of 'right', which was, in my humble opinion, wrong.

Reading "fail" on your part....

My use of the term "rights" and "license" was in response to the OP's first sentence in his original post..

Does the "automatic" right of a law enforcement officer to an LTC amount to a title of nobility

My response (copied below) was referring to LEO's ONLY. NOT anyone else. The OP erroneously stated that LEO's had a "right" to a "license" to carry (LTC)....

It's not a "automatic right"... to carry a concealed firearm. In fact it's not a "right" at all, nor a "license".

It's part of the duties of a LEO and enumerated in the California Penal code.

Maybe more clearly LEO's don't have a "right" or "license" to carry a firearm. They do not need one.

The authority for them carry a firearm is simply enumerated in the California Penal Code....

If anyone would bother to actually read the penal code as well as the various other codes where laws are listed they would find literally hundreds and hundreds of exceptions written into many many laws which exempt many folks including some LEO's from the various sections.....

So it's not just LEO's who are exempt from some laws......

deckhandmike
09-02-2013, 11:32 AM
Yeah, having inmates tell you your home address is awesome. Death threats against your family are fun. Running into felons that you have force medicated and restrained while out with your wife at your side is super fun. And I live in a nice area.

LEO and corrections employees need to carry while off duty. Hopefully the laws change soon and it's a right for everyone (except felons). I see the frustration but you guys are barking up the wrong tree. However I think exemption from stuff like NFA or CA roster etc is not needed and just rubs the general public the wrong way for legitimate reasons.

RSC
09-02-2013, 12:31 PM
Historically one of the distinguishing marks of nobility was the privilege to bear arms where and when the peasants where not, i.e. In the presence of the king, duke or whatever. You swore allegiance to your liege and, voila, you could carry. The flip side was that you were expected to use your arms to do the bidding of your lord, whenever and wherever. Taking this into consideration the current situation is not that far off from medival times. So, yes this situation comes dangerously close to creation of a new class of nobility.

emtmark
09-02-2013, 1:08 PM
If this is the case, I insist on being called "Sir" Ron-Solo.

That said, I believe the current manner of LTC issue is wrong, as do most of the LEOs here. Why don't you quit attacking us, lose the chip on your shoulder, and do something useful.

Or, I could always call the Waaaaambulance. :D

Hey don't drag is into this!
We the waaaaaambulance folk are privileged to carry narcotics! Not quite as cool as a weapon, which is prohibited by policy, but we can get ya stoned in a hurry :))

JaMail
09-03-2013, 8:28 PM
for you ron


https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/1265701_10201302901628831_391610130_o.jpg

If this is the case, I insist on being called "Sir" Ron-Solo.

That said, I believe the current manner of LTC issue is wrong, as do most of the LEOs here. Why don't you quit attacking us, lose the chip on your shoulder, and do something useful.

Or, I could always call the Waaaaambulance. :D

spalterego
09-12-2013, 1:59 PM
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/08/26/constitution-government-officials-privileges-column/2696945/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/08/26/constitution-government-officials-privileges-column/2696945/

Tarn_Helm
09-14-2013, 12:14 PM
The link took me to article one and its sections, not an article by a law professor. Did I miss something?

:confused:

NO.

I missed something. I botched the links.

But they are fixed now.
:o

Tarn_Helm
09-14-2013, 12:23 PM
It's not a "automatic right"... to carry a concealed firearm. In fact it's not a "right" at all, nor a "license".

It's part of the duties of a LEO and enumerated in the California Penal code....


From the Constitution...

"No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state."

So we can have no kings, princes, queens Etc...

AND Without the consent of congress cannot accept any gift, title or office from any king, prince or foreign state....

Not even close to a LEO's lawful ability to carry a firearm, as they are peace officers 24-7....... not just while on duty.

No gifts from any foreigners, and no title of nobility....

The key qualifier is "de facto."

While no actual title belongs to them, they do obtain through their job status many of the exact same privileges that historically attached to the English nobility.

In most jurisdictions, LEOs have something--whether you call it a "right," a "right to an LTC permit," or whatever, that amounts to the same thing as privilege derived from a "de facto" title of nobility.

Tarn_Helm
09-14-2013, 12:29 PM
No.
Were that so,then every US citizen with a valid CCW permit would be considered royalty.

NO.

More requirements and restrictions apply to those who are not LEOs.

LEOs have, as a matter of black letter law, far fewer hoops to jump through and far fewer restrictions on carrying (when, where, what, and how).

LEOs also have, as a matter of custom, far greater latitude in what they can get away with when they do carry off-duty.

Lastly, the inconsistencies in LTC issuance with regard to non-LEOs is a failure of the 14th amendment, a fact which the SCOTUS has yet to acknowledge.

kcbrown
09-14-2013, 8:46 PM
Yeah, having inmates tell you your home address is awesome. Death threats against your family are fun. Running into felons that you have force medicated and restrained while out with your wife at your side is super fun. And I live in a nice area.

LEO and corrections employees need to carry while off duty. Hopefully the laws change soon and it's a right for everyone (except felons). I see the frustration but you guys are barking up the wrong tree. However I think exemption from stuff like NFA or CA roster etc is not needed and just rubs the general public the wrong way for legitimate reasons.

True as this may be, those circumstances are not unique to LEOs. But among those who are subject to those circumstances, only LEOs and "special" people (e.g., those who are "friends" of the Sheriff) are allowed to carry in jurisdictions that otherwise prohibit carry.

That LEOs have privileges which are available to them even when they are not officially performing their duties (e.g., when outside their jurisdiction) that the general citizenry does not makes them "more equal" than the general citizenry.

Whether or not that translates to some kind of "title of nobility" I cannot say.

All I can say is that I do refer to any LEO as "sir" or "ma'am" when interacting with them. :D


I agree with SVT-40 that this is the wrong fight ... at the moment. But it may become the right fight sometime down the line. I don't want the police to have any less ability to defend themselves and theirs, I want us to have more ability to defend ourselves and ours. That is the fight that we need to be fighting.


The real question is: how can we get more of those in the police on our side as regards that fight? Some of them will surely be tempted to preserve the current situation as it gives them a potential "leg up" on anyone they might encounter and may make their job "easier" (by giving them more things that they can arrest on the basis of). Whomever might be tempted to preserve the status quo, and I cannot say how many such there are, needs to be persuaded that the status quo is ultimately detrimental to them.

That might be difficult.

LEOs: you know who those people are. As such, you're in a unique position to convince them of the rightness of our cause, and the wrongness of their position. Please attempt to do so if you're not already.

meaty-btz
09-14-2013, 9:33 PM
Historically one of the distinguishing marks of nobility was the privilege to bear arms where and when the peasants where not, i.e. In the presence of the king, duke or whatever. You swore allegiance to your liege and, voila, you could carry. The flip side was that you were expected to use your arms to do the bidding of your lord, whenever and wherever. Taking this into consideration the current situation is not that far off from medival times. So, yes this situation comes dangerously close to creation of a new class of nobility.

Excepting the very factual posting by SVT-40 considering the legal nuances, the above is perhaps the most interesting.

History says there were far more than two classes. What we seem to be talking about in this thread is less about pure nobility and more about "king's men". In most feudal systems the peasant classes and to a lesser extent, the merchant classes, were absolutely disbarred the use of arms often even possession. This was less true during earlier and more barbaric eras where the entire population was often needed to defend against raiding forces at any given time which resulted in the absolute fully armed population because everyone was part of the militia which might be needed at any moment.

As that changed the use of arms was indeed disbarred from the lesser classes, excepting one group, Agents of the Crown or King's Men. Job titles and duties for such non-noble or low-noble (land owner) varied but often were constables and tax collectors.

Parallels that you can reasonably draw are, the US was very uncivilized in it's earlier periods. Use of arms was a daily need, for food and for defense. Raids by savages or criminal bands was not just likely but fairly common. Everyone had arms and everyone wore or carried them daily as that was life. Now we are "civilized" and crime it seems has never been one of the "acceptable reasons" for an armed citizenry, from a historical perspective.

We might like to think we are somehow different but the forces that drove our early government and that drive ours today are the same forces that drove Rome and even mighty Persia.

Our continued possession and majority of states allowing use and carry of arms with few restrictions is actually something that from a historical perspective makes us look an awful lot like Renaissance Italy. Particularity the Waring Popes periods and the Waring States Period, not exactly something to be proud of. Otherwise I have trouble finding similar situations anywhere else in history that is similar in attitude towards arms as to America currently.

So, no, I don't think LEO are "nobility". They are most certainly "King's Men". While some may harbor loyalty and good intentions towards the commoners they remain bound to the King and His Will/Law and they will enforce His edicts.

Coming as I do from a noble house, Police lack almost everything that makes someone a noble. The social contract being the primary difference. It might surprise you but there is a powerful social contract binding Lord to his people, look to Japan for a modern expression of what that social contract entails in practice. The same reason why I wouldn't call our politicians nobles. They have more in common with the usurping thuggery of the October Revolution than they do with noble houses of Japan and old Europe.

SVT-40
09-15-2013, 5:30 PM
It's interesting the terms some use here to try and justify their opinion that somehow LEO's are "Nobility".

The terms:

"De facto"

"Transmogrify"

"Public Masters"

"Default"

"Special class"

"Historically"

These are nothing but "Weasel" words to try and justify their modifying the original intent of the Constitution prohibiting "Titles of Nobility"... with the intent to to malign LEO's, and help continue their Us V them mentality..


Here again is the section of the constitution which is alleged to make LEO's nobility...


From the Constitution...

"No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state."


Seems pretty straight forward to me...

What is really interesting is the fact that if these same "Weasel" words were used interpreting the second amendment all Hell would break loose...

So if you can bend one section of the constitution to fit your own bias against LEO's why can't the anti 2A folks bend the 2A with the same "weasel" words and justify their agenda to take our firearms???

pdsmith505
09-15-2013, 8:18 PM
How do the LEO's who've commented feel about the special protections offered to retired LEO's in the LEOSA?

TRICKSTER
09-15-2013, 10:04 PM
How do the LEO's who've commented feel about the special protections offered to retired LEO's in the LEOSA?

I have no problem with extending the same benefits that LEOSA gives to retired LEO's to everyone one after they have spent 30 years of their lives locking up felons or a law is passed granting them those benefits. Until then, :nopity: because I am tired of all the whining and blame being directed at the wrong people.

As far as the unconstitutional arguments, please read Article III. If your going to claim that you believe in the Constitution, then it's all or nothing. You can't just pick and choose what parts you believe should be followed.

SVT-40
09-16-2013, 2:28 PM
How do the LEO's who've commented feel about the special protections offered to retired LEO's in the LEOSA?

"Special protections"......... is not the correct definition of the "Authority" granted to retired LEO's as well as active LEO's under the LEOSA...


So a more appropriate question would be asking how the LEO's "feel" about the "authority" granted under the LEOSA.....

To answer that question... Great.. It was a long time coming. Before the LEOSA a active LEO had to unload at the border of his or her home state...

Retired LEO's had no authority to carry in other states also.

The legislature recognized the issue, and acted properly..

You too should be very happy this legislation passed and was enacted into law...

Because it allows some citizens to CCW across the country without the worry of violating some other states laws...

In addition it also sets up the possibility that others in the future could possibly also enjoy full 50 state CCW if they have a CCW in their home state..

Kind of like the camels nose under the tent idea...

So instead of beating up the cops and complaining, you should fully support the LEOSA, as someday that piece of law may be applied to other citizens!!!!!

SVT-40
09-16-2013, 3:22 PM
I did some poking around on the net...

It seems this "Titles of Nobility Amendment " AKA the 13th Amendment was never ratified..

From the linked article below;

http://www.thirdamendment.com/missing.html

"An insufficient number of states ratified the Titles of Nobility Amendment ("TONA") to make it part of the Constitution.(17) But, although mostly forgotten in this century, the amendment was more than just a footnote to history in the last century. Well into the second half of the nineteenth century, some textbooks, state compilations of law, and even on one occasion a compilation of law published under the auspices of Congress erroneously included TONA as if ratified.(18) Further, after the ratification of the Twenty-seventh Amendment to the Constitution in 1992, scholars noted that if James Madison's amendment could be ratified after 203 years, there was no immediately obvious reason why TONA was not still viable, if still far distant from becoming part of the Constitution.(19)"


In addition some nut jobs such as the "Sovereign Citizens" have attempted to use the "TONA" as a defense when accused of killing police officers.....

Some more links.

http://www.thirdamendment.com/campion.pdf

http://www.thirdamendment.com/nobility.html

Unratified
See also: Amendments approved by Congress and awaiting ratification and Amendments approved by Congress that were not ratified

Of the thirty-three amendments that have been proposed by Congress, twenty-seven have passed and six have failed ratification by the required three-quarters of the state legislatures. Of these six, two have passed their deadlines; the other four are technically in the eyes of a Court, still pending before state lawmakers (see Coleman v. Miller). All but one are dead-ends.
One remaining

The "Titles of Nobility Amendment" (TONA), proposed by the 11th Congress on May 1, 1810, would have ended the citizenship of any American accepting "any Title of Nobility or Honour" from any foreign power. Some maintain that the amendment was ratified by the legislatures of enough states, and that a conspiracy has suppressed it, but this has been thoroughly debunked.[43]

The proposed amendment addressed the same "republican" and nationalist concern evident in the original Constitution, Article I, Section 9. No officer of the United States, "without the Consent of the Congress, [shall] accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State." The Constitutional provision is unenforceable because the offense is not subject to a penalty.

Known to have been ratified by lawmakers in twelve states, the last in 1812, this amendment contains no expiration date for ratification and could still be ratified were the state legislatures to take it up.


It seems many believe TONA was to prevent Lawyers and Bankers from holding office....

INTERNATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION

In Colonial America, attorneys trained attorneys but most held no "title of nobility" or "honor". There was no requirement that one be a lawyer to hold the position of district attorney, attorney general, or judge; a citizen's "counsel of choice" was not restricted to a lawyer; there were no state or national bar associations. The only organization that certified lawyers was the International Bar Association (IBA), chartered by the King of England, headquartered in London, and closely associated with the international banking system. Lawyers admitted to the IBA received the rank "Esquire" -- a "title of nobility".

"Esquire" was the principle title of nobility which the 13th Amendment sought to prohibit from the United States. Why? Because the loyalty of "Esquire" lawyers was suspect. Bankers and lawyers with an "Esquire" behind their names were agents of the monarchy, members of an organization whose principle purposes were political, not economic, and regarded with the same wariness that some people today reserve for members of the KGB or the CIA.

Article 1, Sect. 9 of the Constitution sought to prohibit the International Bar Association (or any other agency that granted titles of nobility) from operating in America. But the Constitution neglected to specify a penalty, so the prohibition was ignored, and agents of the monarchy continued to infiltrate and influence the government (as in the Jay Treaty and the US Bank charter incidents). Therefore, a "title of nobility" amendment that specified a penalty (loss of citizenship) was proposed in 1789, and again in 1810. The meaning of the amendment is seen in its intent to prohibit persons having titles of nobility and loyalties foreign governments and bankers from voting, holding public office, or using their skills to subvert the government.

pdsmith505
09-16-2013, 5:10 PM
"Special protections"......... is not the correct definition of the "Authority" granted to retired LEO's as well as active LEO's under the LEOSA...


So a more appropriate question would be asking how the LEO's "feel" about the "authority" granted under the LEOSA.....

To answer that question... Great.. It was a long time coming. Before the LEOSA a active LEO had to unload at the border of his or her home state...

Retired LEO's had no authority to carry in other states also.

The legislature recognized the issue, and acted properly..

You too should be very happy this legislation passed and was enacted into law...

Because it allows some citizens to CCW across the country without the worry of violating some other states laws...

In addition it also sets up the possibility that others in the future could possibly also enjoy full 50 state CCW if they have a CCW in their home state..

Kind of like the camels nose under the tent idea...

So instead of beating up the cops and complaining, you should fully support the LEOSA, as someday that piece of law may be applied to other citizens!!!!!

I'm sorry, you'll have to excuse me, cause I think that's a load of ****.

For the Active LEO side of things:

1) I can maybe, just maybe, understand the idea the a cop is on the job, 24/7, and need the tools of the trade to be available at all times in a more acute way than the average Joe. Particularly if they are physically in their jurisdiction. But when Barney Fife visits New York City, he's not on the job.

2) I can maybe, just maybe, understand that a cop is subject to a greater risk of being attacked due to the nature of his/her job. But you know what, if I'm walking (hell, even driving) down the streets of Salinas, I'm subject to a pretty real ****ing risk of being attacked too. And there again, when Barney Fife goes to New York, I'd venture that that argument goes away.

30 years later when ol' Barney is retired, working Scooby-Doo reruns:

1) He's not on the job anymore, that argument doesn't even apply.

2) I can understand that maybe, just maybe, Mr. Fife has made a few enemies over his 30-year career as a law officer. I can understand that he's at risk of being attacked for it. But, guess what, anyone else is at risk of being attacked just for walking around Salinas, or LA, or Oakland with the wrong colored sweater. Some poor Navy squid from the hills of NM probably wouldn't know that his UNM sweater would get him shot...

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying a person shouldn't be free to be armed... I'm firmly believe that going armed is the prudent thing to do.

But here's the rub: good ol' Barney Fife is no more deserving of special protection from New York's tyrannical laws than any other American.

And it is "special protection". Don't spout off this bull**** about authority. Authority has to come from somewhere. In the USA, that is supposed to come from the people. The people have given Congress the authority to act in certain, enumerated circumstances. So the question is, under what AUTHORITY does Congress give one group of people immunity to the laws of the states while the rest of the population is left out to dry?

The LEOSA is junk law, better suited to Orwell's Animal Farm than a constitutional republic.

Look at it from an honest perspective, and you'll see that it's nothing more than a way to buy off the police unions. Some animals are more equal, right comrade?

I say comrade, because you've apparently eaten it up. Your entire argument is predicated on the idea that you get that privilege, so it's a great thing. As for us other animals, well, someone has to keep the peace, right comrade? And of course, there's the promise of some day in the future, the rest of the barnyard will be able to enjoy such things...

But what about that "camel's nose"? If that were the case, wouldn't we have seen, after 10 years, some results from it? Then again (and again I'm sorry, because I disagree), the treat of being given a ****ing permission slip to exercise a fundamental right isn't exactly something that I would consider "results".

pdsmith505
09-16-2013, 6:44 PM
I have no problem with extending the same benefits that LEOSA gives to retired LEO's to everyone one after they have spent 30 years of their lives locking up felons or a law is passed granting them those benefits. Until then, :nopity: because I am tired of all the whining and blame being directed at the wrong people.


Oh yes, :nopity: . Because a retired LEO is deserves special privileges more than say, a retired service member. Not that either does deserve special treatment under the law.

I'll go back to Orwell's Animal Farm, if you want to be a pig on the farm, go for it. Personally, I think that is a disgusting standpoint to come from.


As far as the unconstitutional arguments, please read Article III. If your going to claim that you believe in the Constitution, then it's all or nothing. You can't just pick and choose what parts you believe should be followed.

Ok, I give. What part of Article III applies here?


Article III.

Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section. 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State,--between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section. 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

TRICKSTER
09-16-2013, 7:05 PM
Oh yes, :nopity: . Because a retired LEO is deserves special privileges more than say, a retired service member. Not that either does deserve special treatment under the law.

I'll go back to Orwell's Animal Farm, if you want to be a pig on the farm, go for it. Personally, I think that is a disgusting standpoint to come from.



Ok, I give. What part of Article III applies here?

The problem is that you are complaining to the wrong people. I didn't ask or lobby for HR218, heck I didn't even hear about it until it passed and it was probably that way for many LEO's. But never the less, misguided people like you feel the need to direct your anger at us instead of the actual people responsible. But then again, so what else is new, it is just one of the reasons that this country is so screwed up, the sheeple are easily misdirected into directing their anger at the wrong people.

glockman19
09-16-2013, 7:22 PM
Oh yes, :nopity: . Because a retired LEO is deserves special privileges more than say, a retired service member. Not that either does deserve special treatment under the law.

I'll go back to Orwell's Animal Farm, if you want to be a pig on the farm, go for it. Personally, I think that is a disgusting standpoint to come from.



Ok, I give. What part of Article III applies here?

I had the same question...what part of article 3?

How about Section 1 of the 14th Amendment?

AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

As long as LE are exempt from laws of the rest of us it is a clear violation of equal protection. And it SPECIFICALLY mentions that it is NOT a State's right togrant rights to a group that would violate equal protection.

pdsmith505
09-16-2013, 7:28 PM
The problem is that you are complaining to the wrong people. I didn't ask or lobby for HR218, heck I didn't even hear about it until it passed and it was probably that way for many LEO's. But never the less, misguided people like you feel the need to direct your anger at us instead of the actual people responsible. But then again, so what else is new, it is just one of the reasons that this country is so screwed up, the sheeple are easily misdirected into directing their anger at the wrong people.

I'm not mad at cops in general for the law. Nope, I squarely blame the politicians. But, it pisses me off when I hear this "we've earned it, you haven't" drivel.

TRICKSTER
09-16-2013, 8:01 PM
"We've earned it, you haven't"

Now go be pissed off, as if your being pissed off at the wrong people is going to change anything.:facepalm:

pdsmith505
09-16-2013, 8:19 PM
"We've earned it, you haven't"

Now go be pissed off, as if your being pissed off at the wrong people is going to change anything.:facepalm:

No sah massah. Isa not pissed off no way no how. If it'd please ya massah, I'll sit down in da back-a da bus now.

SVT-40
09-16-2013, 10:38 PM
I'm sorry, you'll have to excuse me, cause I think that's a load of ****.

Your entitled to your opinion, however it is just your opinion....

For the Active LEO side of things:

1) I can maybe, just maybe, understand the idea the a cop is on the job, 24/7, and need the tools of the trade to be available at all times in a more acute way than the average Joe. Particularly if they are physically in their jurisdiction. But when Barney Fife visits New York City, he's not on the job.

2) I can maybe, just maybe, understand that a cop is subject to a greater risk of being attacked due to the nature of his/her job. But you know what, if I'm walking (hell, even driving) down the streets of Salinas, I'm subject to a pretty real ****ing risk of being attacked too. And there again, when Barney Fife goes to New York, I'd venture that that argument goes away.

30 years later when ol' Barney is retired, working Scooby-Doo reruns:


1) He's not on the job anymore, that argument doesn't even apply.

2) I can understand that maybe, just maybe, Mr. Fife has made a few enemies over his 30-year career as a law officer. I can understand that he's at risk of being attacked for it. But, guess what, anyone else is at risk of being attacked just for walking around Salinas, or LA, or Oakland with the wrong colored sweater. Some poor Navy squid from the hills of NM probably wouldn't know that his UNM sweater would get him shot...

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying a person shouldn't be free to be armed... I'm firmly believe that going armed is the prudent thing to do.

Your insults do nothing to further your "opinion"....

So I'm not even going to reply to your insults....

But here's the rub: good ol' Barney Fife is no more deserving of special protection from New York's tyrannical laws than any other American.

And it is "special protection". Don't spout off this bull**** about authority. Authority has to come from somewhere. In the USA, that is supposed to come from the people. The people have given Congress the authority to act in certain, enumerated circumstances. So the question is, under what AUTHORITY does Congress give one group of people immunity to the laws of the states while the rest of the population is left out to dry?

Still with the insults and no real truth..


LEOSA grants Authorities...to active and retired LEO's

If calling the authority granted under the LEOSA "special privileges" better fits your narow and flawed view.. Well go on by all means. Ignorance is bliss....




The LEOSA is junk law, better suited to Orwell's Animal Farm than a constitutional republic.

So you are against some civilians from being allowed to carry concealed weapons across the country????

Look at it from an honest perspective, and you'll see that it's nothing more than a way to buy off the police unions. Some animals are more equal, right comrade?

Honest???? I am.... So the "police unions" were "bought off".... Seriously when will you and the other haters get off the anti police "union" band wagon...It appears that more honestly YOU are just jealous....

I say comrade, because you've apparently eaten it up. Your entire argument is predicated on the idea that you get that privilege, so it's a great thing. As for us other animals, well, someone has to keep the peace, right comrade? And of course, there's the promise of some day in the future, the rest of the barnyard will be able to enjoy such things...

I'm not your "comrade".... I only associate with reasonable people.... Not those who cannot see beyond their own noses...


But what about that "camel's nose"? If that were the case, wouldn't we have seen, after 10 years, some results from it? Then again (and again I'm sorry, because I disagree), the treat of being given a ****ing permission slip to exercise a fundamental right isn't exactly something that I would consider "results".

It took many many years for the LEOSA to become law... And unfortunately it will probably take many more for any meaningful movement regarding non leo's to be able to CCW in all states...


But I'm not going to demonize non LEO's in the process...

Again the LEO's are not the enemy... So stop demonizing them, and especially stop with the insults....

kcbrown
09-16-2013, 10:48 PM
Again the LEO's are not the enemy... So stop demonizing them, and especially stop with the insults....

I completely agree. They're not the enemy.

I hope to God they never become the enemy, because it is through LEOs that tyranny will be enforced upon the people.

You know it. I know it. That danger is always there, in every society. We've seen countless societies go down the road towards oppression, and law enforcement has always been at the forefront of that.

It's up to you LEOs to ensure that you are the exception to that, because there's certainly no reason to believe at this juncture that the government is going to pull back from that particular abyss.


But for now, you are not the enemy, and it is up to all of us, most especially you LEOs, to do everything we can to ensure that never changes.

Decoligny
09-17-2013, 12:18 PM
If this statement were true, then there would be no shift differential, and no overtime pay for any peace officer. That's included in 24/7.

Of course, if you want to claim that the TITLE, and not the job duties (which apply only when on duty) is what is important, then you have just made the point that it is a title that comes with special powers and privileges, which is exactly what a title of nobility is.

You miss the point of an LEO being an LEO 24 hours a day. They are not actually on the clock, or being paid 24 hours a day, but if an off-duty LEO is walking past a bank, and sees that it is being robbed, he is immediately back on the clock. He is expected to perform his duties whenever necessary, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. If he has to arrest the bank robbers and detain them until backup can arrive to take them to jail, he will be submitting paperwork to get paid for the time he worked.

Southwest Chuck
09-17-2013, 12:46 PM
I completely agree. They're not the enemy.

I hope to God they never become the enemy, because it is through LEOs that tyranny will be enforced upon the people.

You know it. I know it. That danger is always there, in every society. We've seen countless societies go down the road towards oppression, and law enforcement has always been at the forefront of that.

It's up to you LEOs to ensure that you are the exception to that, because there's certainly no reason to believe at this juncture that the government is going to pull back from that particular abyss.


But for now, you are not the enemy, and it is up to all of us, most especially you LEOs, to do everything we can to ensure that never changes.

I don't even hear any crickets the silence is so deafening.
Hoping KC? Get back to reality :43:

kcbrown
09-17-2013, 5:37 PM
I don't even hear any crickets the silence is so deafening.
Hoping KC? Get back to reality :43:

Already there. :D

Reality is that it's unknown how much actual support for RKBA on the part of the general citizenry there is amongst the LEO population, or even what form that support takes. Inasmuch as I do not in advance presume ill will on the part of others, I must presume that most of them actually support it, with the caveat that I expect most of them support prohibitions on felons and the mentally ill (the former of which I do not because such prohibitions are nearly as counterproductive as outright prohibitions on all, and for precisely the same reasons).

We're constantly told that most LEOs support RKBA as a real right. While I expect there to be a significant difference in the rates of support between LEOs in urban areas and LEOs in rural areas, that statement might hold true even for urban LEOs.


But note that just because someone claims they support RKBA, and may even be willing to express that support through the political process, that doesn't mean they will refrain from enforcing anti-RKBA laws. Which is to say, they may support it in principle but not in fact. This is where the rubber meets the road, and is the situation that, as they say, separates the men from the boys.

When support for RKBA on the part of LEOs is defined as refusal to enforce anti-RKBA laws, I expect there to be much less real support for RKBA on the part of the LEO community. There will be some who are "men" and who will refuse to enforce those laws, but the plain fact of the matter is that people who will jeopardize their livelihood in order to remain consistent with their principles are rare. Most people come up with all sorts of wishy-washy excuses as to why they "can't" do what their principles say is the right thing when faced with such circumstances.

It is precisely for that reason that tyranny is the norm, and not the exception, throughout history. And it is precisely for that reason that we are here where we are now, with a government that is high on power and shows no signs of slowing its headlong plunge towards tyranny.


This shouldn't surprise anyone. After all, the nature of tyranny is to turn the real world against the principles of those who would see tyranny defeated, to make people choose between liberty and survival. Evolution itself will favor those who choose the latter, which means that those who favor liberty will eventually be eliminated from the gene pool entirely (or nearly so). This is a process that will take thousands of years, but it will happen. The only reason it hasn't already is that, for a (relatively) brief period of time, the power of the citizenry was roughly equal to the power of those who would act to force tyranny upon it. That time is now gone. We now live in a time when the disparity of force between the citizenry and the government is far greater than it has ever been in human history.

That is why I believe that liberty is doomed. Not just here, and not just temporarily, but everywhere and for all time.

Were it not for the fact that the nature of liberty is such that it must be fought for no matter the odds, I would have exited the fight long ago.

SVT-40
09-17-2013, 5:49 PM
I completely agree. They're not the enemy.

I hope to God they never become the enemy, because it is through LEOs that tyranny will be enforced upon the people.

Actually it would probably be the military....There are far far to few LEO's here in the US to enforce any "tyranny" on such a large scale....In addition the military are the only folks with the equipment necessary to carry out such "tyranny"

You know it. I know it. That danger is always there, in every society. We've seen countless societies go down the road towards oppression, and law enforcement has always been at the forefront of that.

Actually again it's the military which has been at the forefront. Not the LEO's Or society as a whole which pushes such actions....


It's up to you LEOs to ensure that you are the exception to that, because there's certainly no reason to believe at this juncture that the government is going to pull back from that particular abyss.

Again if there were any such breakdown of society LEO's would be far far to busy dealing with other issues....The real "heavy lifting" of any "tyranny" would fall on the military...



But for now, you are not the enemy, and it is up to all of us, most especially you LEOs, to do everything we can to ensure that never changes.

Gee it's good to know, "for now" that LEO's are not the enemy...:rolleyes:
Not a real confidence builder...If you want the support of LEO's you need to give support..No qualifiers, such as "for now"....

And it's not "especially" up to LEO's to be sure that LEO's don't become the "enemy"...

LEO's only make up a very small percentage of society....

So it's up to the majority to to not unnecessarily demonize LEO's..

Calguns has a history of anti LEO behavior...

This thread is a perfect example of the anti LEO undercurrent which is common here......

So don't blame LEO's regarding the ills of society or the stupid gun laws...and don't hold them responsible for the ill's of society as a whole....

Sunday
09-17-2013, 6:00 PM
But then here is the Sheriff of Shasta county. He is pro second amendment. The war to keep our rights is a battle now we are fighting with money. We are posting how we are buying new guns and $1.00 per round ammo" I haven't bought and guns or ammo but have been active in $upporting Pro second amendment organizations and political positions please give till it hurts . I am sure we all like out sport. It is said that less than 6% of shooters donate to the cause. Help because it is later than you think. http://www.co.shasta.ca.us/index/sheriff_index.aspx He is up for reelection 2014!! This is the kind of people you want in or keep in office. There are many other pro second amendment people that need your $upport ,do it.

meaty-btz
09-17-2013, 6:09 PM
Actually it would probably be the military....There are far far to few LEO's here in the US to enforce any "tyranny" on such a large scale....In addition the military are the only folks with the equipment necessary to carry out such "tyranny"



Actually again it's the military which has been at the forefront. Not the LEO's Or society as a whole which pushes such actions....




Again if there were any such breakdown of society LEO's would be far far to busy dealing with other issues....The real "heavy lifting" of any "tyranny" would fall on the military...





Gee it's good to know, "for now" that LEO's are not the enemy...:rolleyes:
Not a real confidence builder...If you want the support of LEO's you need to give support..No qualifiers, such as "for now"....

And it's not "especially" up to LEO's to be sure that LEO's don't become the "enemy"...

LEO's only make up a very small percentage of society....

So it's up to the majority to to not unnecessarily demonize LEO's..

Calguns has a history of anti LEO behavior...

This thread is a perfect example of the anti LEO undercurrent which is common here......

So don't blame LEO's regarding the ills of society or the stupid gun laws...and don't hold them responsible for the ill's of society as a whole....
Aww come on, don't get your nickers in a wad. As long as LEO are king's men enforcing laws (especially unfavorable, though that matters less than people don't like encounters with law, even in the long ago past) against the people that will usually mean an antagonistic relationship. Anyways you are not a king's man anymore. The only thing you are enforcing is a relaxing day and ensuring your C&R collection is to be envied.. which I do..

Your job is to enforce the law, as handed down to you by dictum. If you enforce them (and thus keep your job) then you, not the politicians are the ones actually doing the harm.

The question boils down to: who is responsible for an act.. the brain that thinking it up and sends the command or the hand that executes the action? I'd say both, but.. most people don't see the brain but they sure do see the hand at work.

And for the last time, LEO are not Nobility nor a defacto title there of.

kcbrown
09-17-2013, 7:05 PM
Gee it's good to know, "for now" that LEO's are not the enemy...:rolleyes:
Not a real confidence builder...If you want the support of LEO's you need to give support..No qualifiers, such as "for now"....


My support is conditional upon LEOs refraining from enforcing anti-RKBA laws (and tyranny in general, but inasmuch as this is a 2nd Amendment forum, I'll limit this discussion to RKBA).

Is it your contention that I must support LEOs even when they are enforcing anti-RKBA laws? That would be tantamount to treason on my part, for what makes someone the enemy of liberty is when they intentionally and knowingly take action that squashes it, which enforcing an anti-RKBA law most certainly qualifies as. And supporting the enemies of liberty is treason as far as I'm concerned.

No, sir. I will not do that.



And it's not "especially" up to LEO's to be sure that LEO's don't become the "enemy"...
Oh yes it is. For to claim otherwise is to claim that LEOs are not the ones who are primarily responsible for their own actions.

What makes someone the enemy or not is their actions.

Either people are responsible for their own actions, or they're not. Which is it?



LEO's only make up a very small percentage of society....

So it's up to the majority to to not unnecessarily demonize LEO's..
I agree.



Calguns has a history of anti LEO behavior...

This thread is a perfect example of the anti LEO undercurrent which is common here......

So don't blame LEO's regarding the ills of society or the stupid gun laws...and don't hold them responsible for the ill's of society as a whole....I blame people for the roles they play in where we are now, period. As long as you're not taking an action under the equivalent of gunpoint, that action is yours. You own it, you are responsible for it, and you take the blame for it.

I do not, and will not, treat LEOs as a special class in any way when it comes to this stuff.

kcbrown
09-17-2013, 7:09 PM
Actually it would probably be the military....There are far far to few LEO's here in the US to enforce any "tyranny" on such a large scale....In addition the military are the only folks with the equipment necessary to carry out such "tyranny"


The Gestapo was not the military. The Stasi was not the military. The KGB was not the military.

The military is brought in when police forces fail. Law enforcement is always in the forefront, because it is through tyrannical laws that tyranny is shoved down the throats of the citizens.

kcbrown
09-17-2013, 7:15 PM
The question boils down to: who is responsible for an act.. the brain that thinking it up and sends the command or the hand that executes the action? I'd say both, but.. most people don't see the brain but they sure do see the hand at work.


That is not a terribly illuminating analogy.

A hand does not have a brain with which it thinks and makes decisions. It is an automaton, something that does what it's told because it cannot do anything else.

Such is not true of those who enforce the law.

meaty-btz
09-17-2013, 7:26 PM
That is not a terribly illuminating analogy.

A hand does not have a brain with which it thinks and makes decisions. It is an automaton, something that does what it's told because it cannot do anything else.

Such is not true of those who enforce the law.

However it is a very accurate description for the function of most society. There are brains which think and there are those who act at their call. There is a reason for "zwischen Hand und Kopf".. there must be heart, the very concept of Metropolis, now over a hundred years old. The analogy of society as a body is both old and descriptive.

Like it or not society works as a singular organism made up of many parts working in concert. The function in society of law enforcement throughout the centuries has never centered on "brain" but on "hand". It isn't talking about their individual ability to think or deduce it is about if that social position is "calling the shots" or not. They are not, and as many a LEO here has stated "it isn't their job to interpret the constitution". Which is an accurate thing to say. Their social position is enforcement. This is abstract of anything positive or negative. It simple IS.

SVT-40
09-17-2013, 7:31 PM
The Gestapo was not the military. The Stasi was not the military. The KGB was not the military.


Nor were they the "police"....They were something else and ALL Operated under military authority....... So don't confuse or compare our police here in the US with the Gestapo the Stasi or the KGB..

THAT is insulting....

The military is brought in when police forces fail. Law enforcement is always in the forefront, because it is through tyrannical laws that tyranny is shoved down the throats of the citizens.

Wrong again... The military is forefront in any majority usurping of rights...

pdsmith505
09-17-2013, 7:57 PM
Your entitled to your opinion, however it is just your opinion....

Your insults do nothing to further your "opinion"....

So I'm not even going to reply to your insults....


Gonna stop right here for a second, cause you seem confused. You see, you didn't respond to a legitimate argument about whether the special privileges afforded by the LEOSA have any merit or not. Maybe you were offended by my choice of hypothetical LEO... but at any rate, you did proceed to reply to the part of my post that actually was an insult. Just sayin, might wanna brush up on your vocab.

How about this, if I had chosen Commissioner Gordon, would that have been better? Just sub it in, the argument's the same. Kinda like when I talk to sailors about Seaman Schmuckatelli.


Still with the insults and no real truth..


LEOSA grants Authorities...to active and retired LEO's

If calling the authority granted under the LEOSA "special privileges" better fits your narow and flawed view.. Well go on by all means. Ignorance is bliss....


Again, you've imagined insults where there are none...

How about some truth:

The federal gov't extends those privileges granted under LEOSA, right? The federal government derives it's authority from the constitution, right? The constitution lists certain powers that the federal government has, right?

Ok, so here's the question, 'cause it bears repeating:

Where in the constitution does it authorize the federal government to treat one group (LEO's) differently than other groups (non-LEO's) under the law?

Cause I only see a place where it forbids that.


So you are against some civilians from being allowed to carry concealed weapons across the country????


No, I'm against unequal treatment under the law. So are you FOR unequal treatment under the law????


I'm not your "comrade".... I only associate with reasonable people.... Not those who cannot see beyond their own noses...


Look, you are most likely an intelligent person... there's no need to go into an English lesson here. Of course you aren't my "comrade." It's the symbolism that's important.

(Also, this was the insult)



It took many many years for the LEOSA to become law... And unfortunately it will probably take many more for any meaningful movement regarding non leo's to be able to CCW in all states...

But I'm not going to demonize non LEO's in the process...

Again the LEO's are not the enemy... So stop demonizing them, and especially stop with the insults....

Valid points, all of them. Again, the problem is the willingness to believe that it is anything different than a new set of "Black Codes", and that either 1) it's a good thing when there are separate classes of people or 2) that somehow LEO's have "earned" special treatment under the law.

Yes sir, it took a while for blacks in the south to be able to walk free. Didn't make the fact that they still were second class citizens any better though.

kcbrown
09-17-2013, 8:04 PM
Nor were they the "police"....They were something else and ALL Operated under military authority.......


This appears to be completely incorrect.

The Gestapo, for instance, was headed by Heinrich Himmler, who was appointed Chief of German Police and supervised the Gestapo in that role. Himmler answered directly to Hitler, not to any sort of military command structure.

The Stasi operated under the Ministry of State Security, which included a whole bunch of entities, none of which were the military.

Of these, only the KGB appears to have been regarded as a military service. However, it operated directly under the Council of Ministers rather than under any of the traditional branches of the military. The reason it was regarded as a military service is that it seems to have operated under army laws and regulations.


As for whether or not they were the "police", what else would you call an organization that enforces the law, whatever that law may happen to be?



So don't confuse or compare our police here in the US with the Gestapo the Stasi or the KGB..
Believe me, I'm not. My point is only that law enforcement has historically been at the forefront of the imposition of tyranny. That does not guarantee that the same would be true of U.S. law enforcement. That would be up to how the individual LEOs in U.S. law enforcement decide to act, in the event tyrannical laws were put into place.



THAT is insulting....
It was not intended to be. Please do not read what I say as if I were making any sort of accusation. I am attempting to speak factually here. I cannot help if the facts are unpleasant, however. They are what they are.



Wrong again... The military is forefront in any majority usurping of rights...Then you should be able to give examples of this. It wasn't true of Germany (either before the end of WW2 or, in the case of East Germany, after). Aside from its role in the civil war that followed the October Revolution (where its opposition was in favor of restoring the monarchy, so it's not like there was a side that was fighting for liberty here), it doesn't appear to have been true in the USSR, either.

From what I can see, military forces have generally been used to overthrow governments, but when one refers to "the military", one generally is referring to the military of the sitting government. If that military is the one that initially and primarily enforces tyranny against the population, I know of no examples of it. I'm sure you're right for some cases, but the major ones I know of are ones in which some sort of law enforcement body winds up enforcing tyranny.

mossy
09-17-2013, 8:04 PM
Yes.

Dvrjon
09-17-2013, 9:00 PM
Does the "automatic" right of a law enforcement officer to an LTC amount to a title of nobility as defined in Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section9)?

Before you answer, please read this article (http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/08/26/constitution-government-officials-privileges-column/2696945/) by law professor (and Second Amendment champion) Glenn Harlan Reynolds.

Reynolds argues that special privileges for "public servants" transmogrify them into "public masters," thus violating Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution (?).

What say you?
LTC for all?

Or only for the de facto "nobility (http://www.cato.org/raidmap)?"

:cool:

Hilarious. "What do you think about 'X'?" BUT FIRST, read this tract which marginally supports the answer which I want you to give.

What drivel.

There is a nobility at work in the country and they are the Royal A-Holes who put forth this crap.

Good Knight to you Sir.

JR

meaty-btz
09-17-2013, 9:06 PM
Hilarious. "What do you think about 'X'?" BUT FIRST, read this tract which marginally supports the answer which I want you to give.

What drivel.

There is a nobility at work in the country and they are the Royal A-Holes who put forth this crap.

Good Knight to you Sir.

JR

There are no "nobility" in this country. There are some farm animals who have gotten power and think that makes them noble. That is different.

SVT-40
09-17-2013, 10:04 PM
The Gestapo was not the military. The Stasi was not the military. The KGB was not the military.

They certainly were not your neighborhood cop either.....

So you believe your average LEO here in the US are the same as the Gestapo, Stazi and the KGB......

:rolleyes:

The military is brought in when police forces fail. Law enforcement is always in the forefront, because it is through tyrannical laws that tyranny is shoved down the throats of the citizens.

So if the police "fail" why is that so???


Maybe because here the police are just another member of the citizenry....

But to you they are no different then the Gestapo, Stazi or the KGB...

Shameful and cowardly comparisons....

TRICKSTER
09-17-2013, 11:02 PM
There are no "nobility" in this country. There are some farm animals who have gotten power and think that makes them noble. That is different.

Sounds more like there are a small number of black sheep that are jealous and envious that the rest or the sheep hired the sheepdogs to protect them from the wolves and figure that by spreading the rumor that the sheepdogs are just as bad as the wolves, that they can cause unrest on the farm. Sorry guys, the regular sheep are more numerous and much smarter than the black sheep.

kcbrown
09-17-2013, 11:48 PM
They certainly were not your neighborhood cop either.....

So you believe your average LEO here in the US are the same as the Gestapo, Stazi and the KGB......

:rolleyes:


Where did I say that?

You're drawing conclusions that you can't legitimately draw from what I've stated.

No, I only said that it is through LEOs (i.e., "law enforcement") that tyranny will be enforced. That is based on historical precedent. That doesn't mean that I believe that the average LEO is the same as the average Gestapo member, but it does mean that I believe that law enforcement agencies here in the U.S. are not immune to becoming the same.

As for the average LEO here in the U.S., like I said, it's going to depend on them. But we don't even need to go outside of our own history to see what the average LEO can do. We need only look back a few decades to see that. Or do you think the enforcement of discriminatory laws against blacks was done by some special law enforcement branch? That was imposition of tyranny just as surely as any other.


And note that the average LEO in those other countries also enforced tyranny. For who do you think enforced the laws of those countries during the period of time they were under the rule of tyranny?

Do you really think they split enforcement of the laws among various law enforcement agencies, and reserved the tyrannical laws to only certain "special" agencies? Do you really think local law enforcement consistently refused to arrest citizens for violating those tyrannical laws? Please. :rolleyes:

From Wikipedia:


On 17 June 1936, Hitler decreed the unification of all police forces in the Reich and named Himmler as Chief of German Police.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestapo#cite_note-Williams.2C_Max_p_77-9) While Himmler was still nominally subordinate to Frick, this action effectively merged the police into the SS, removing it from Frick's control. Himmler, as Reichsführer-SS, answered only to Hitler. This move gave Himmler operational control over Germany's entire detective force.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestapo#cite_note-Longerich.2C_Peter_p_204-10) The Gestapo became a national state agency rather than a Prussian state agency. Himmler also gained authority over all of Germany's uniformed law enforcement agencies, which were amalgamated into the new Ordnungspolizei (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnungspolizei) (Orpo: Order Police), which became a national agency under SS general Kurt Dalueg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Daluege)e.


(emphasis mine)

So, yes, all law enforcement participated in the imposition of tyranny throughout the Reich. All, that is, except those who left beforehand or were arrested/killed for refusing. Of course there were some who resisted doing so to the degree they could without risking their livelihoods or lives. We see how well that worked out in the end. In the end, it took military victory from outside to sweep the entire thing away, to put an end to the tyranny that was Nazi Germany.



So if the police "fail" why is that so???
For a number of reasons. The resisting population might be too well-equipped and/or too organized and/or too numerous. The police might be too reluctant (I don't know of a situation in which that has happened, but it could). The political situation might be such that a major show of force is deemed by the government to be required (e.g., if it appears that revolution is imminent).

To be honest, I'm not explicitly aware of terribly many situations in which the military has been called in to quash a resisting population within that military's own country. But it has happened. Generally, tyranny has been imposed through law. And guess who enforced the law?



Maybe because here the police are just another member of the citizenry....
And the members of the police in those other countries weren't?

What exactly is the difference? I suspect you'll find it surprisingly hard to articulate.

I think the main difference right now is the attitudes and the general applicability of the law. In those other countries, members of the police believed themselves to be special, and they were treated in that way by other police, the rulers, and the laws themselves. In our country, they don't seem to have that attitude to nearly the same degree, and are generally accountable to the law. That seems to be changing right in front of our eyes (witness, e.g., the increasing militarization of our law enforcement agencies and the ever-increasing exemptions in the law for law enforcement).


If you believe the police in this country cannot be turned into a force that imposes tyranny, then you have failed to learn from history, for the people in every country that has turned towards tyranny believed themselves to be immune from the darkness. They believed themselves to be different. They were wrong. As we will be, if we continue to believe ourselves to be different and to believe that it can't happen here. Because it surely can.



But to you they are no different then the Gestapo, Stazi or the KGB...

Shameful and cowardly comparisons....Stop putting words into my mouth. :mad:

I do not believe they are the same right now. But whereas you cannot seem to even imagine U.S. police forces becoming an instrument of tyranny, I can. That's because I don't have an emotional attachment to or personal investment in the police forces of the U.S. But even if I did, I go strictly where the evidence leads regardless of any emotional desire not to. If that leads towards the conclusion that U.S. police forces can become an instrument of tyranny, then that is the conclusion I will come to. And that conclusion is precisely what the evidence currently leads towards.

But just because U.S. police forces can become instruments of tyranny doesn't mean they will. That will be up to those who comprise those forces. It will be their decision as to whether or not to become an instrument of tyranny. It will be their decision as to whether or not to become the exception to history.

History only sets my expectations, what I think will probably happen. But the history we write today can always be different from the history of the past if we really want it to be and are willing to do what it takes to make it different. And that is why I'm currently in support of law enforcement: because right now, they're the good guys (with the occasional exception, something that's unavoidable), and they need our support to remain the good guys.

But don't go believing that it can't happen here. It can, and is a lot more likely to if you and others believe it can't, precisely because that belief will lull one into a false sense of complacency.

meaty-btz
09-18-2013, 8:32 AM
Sounds more like there are a small number of black sheep that are jealous and envious that the rest or the sheep hired the sheepdogs to protect them from the wolves and figure that by spreading the rumor that the sheepdogs are just as bad as the wolves, that they can cause unrest on the farm. Sorry guys, the regular sheep are more numerous and much smarter than the black sheep.

Well in my case I was referring to the Politicians.

I've dealt with a few "robocops" that would better be described as "Dredds". I AM THE LAW.. THESE BLOCKS.. ARE UNDER ARREST... Anyways even they would not be so foolish as to consider themselves "noble" etc.

The greatest game of a politician is to keep people watching "the hand" and ignoring everything else. Where is the picture of the brit punk protesting asking for bigger government with the arrow pointing at the line of police saying.. bigger government.

As there are more and more onerous laws passed people are going to get more agitated.. are they going to direct it where it belongs? No, they are just going to get angry at the hand while continuing to vote the democrats into power.. the same ones who are writing and passing said laws.

In the end though what we need are more police standing up.. namely sheriffs as in Colorado.. no.. we are not going to enforce your law... go ahead and pass it, we won't enforce it. There is generally quite a difference though between police departments and sheriffs.. police departments being headed by a political flunky of the local government vs an elected official in the case of a sheriff results in two different animals. A sheriff can say no to an unpopular law and keep his job. A police chief cannot, if he goes against the city council he is out.

glockman19
09-18-2013, 9:19 AM
They certainly were not your neighborhood cop either.....

So you believe your average LEO here in the US are the same as the Gestapo, Stazi and the KGB......
:rolleyes:



So if the police "fail" why is that so???


Maybe because here the police are just another member of the citizenry....

But to you they are no different then the Gestapo, Stazi or the KGB...

Shameful and cowardly comparisons....

I believe that most LE Follow Orders, regardless of the order.

And, KCBrown is correct in his statement, KGB, Stazi, Nazi SS, were NOT military, you are the one who assumed the LE comparison.

And...

Police are NOT just another member of the citizenry as they have special powers and are exempt from the law of ordinary citizens...that's what the whole thread is about...the exemptions and special designation given to LE.

LE are clearly not Nobility, but are a special protected class.

SVT-40
09-18-2013, 12:03 PM
I believe that most LE Follow Orders, regardless of the order.

As if somehow you know any LEO which has followed a illegal order.. I'm sure it's happened, however the rate would be so small as to be non existent...

In my 29 year career I was never given a "illegal" order, nor do I know of any officers who were

And, KCBrown is correct in his statement, KGB, Stazi, Nazi SS, were NOT military, you are the one who assumed the LE comparison.

If he did not mean to compare the Gestapo, Stazi or the KGB to US LEO's then why did he bring it up....? It was because he was making a backhanded comparison.

And...

Police are NOT just another member of the citizenry as they have special powers and are exempt from the law of ordinary citizens...that's what the whole thread is about...the exemptions and special designation given to LE.

LE are clearly not Nobility, but are a special protected class.

Gee many rant and rave here on Calguns that LEO's are nothing but common "citizens"..

Now you say they are not....

Yup LEO's do have a very few "special powers" which relate to arrests, or other duties associated with their jobs... Just like many other occupations...

Yup there are a very few "exemptions" which LEO's enjoy, however these too are again very few, and shared with others which also enjoy the same exemptions.....


As far as being a "protected class", Well that description is not valid, and shows your prejudice.

kcbrown
09-18-2013, 12:37 PM
If he did not mean to compare the Gestapo, Stazi or the KGB to US LEO's then why did he bring it up....? It was because he was making a backhanded comparison.


Wrong.

I brought it up to illustrate where US LEOs could go if they are not careful and diligent. Which is to say, what is likely to happen if there is not refusal on the part of the vast majority of them to enforce laws that impose tyranny.

You are attempting to conflate the potential (however likely or unlikely) future with the present, and that is leading you to draw incorrect conclusions about what I said and what I meant by it.


You can continue to presume ill will on my part if you wish, but that will only cause you to continue to be incorrect, and continue to cause me to be unhappy about it.

What do you want me to say? That the past didn't happen? It did. That U.S. LEOs are somehow magically special and, thus, magically immune to the forces that LEOs of the past (even in our own country) weren't and which caused those other LEOs to impose darkness? I can't, absent some serious proof of it. I go where the evidence leads. It tells me what is possible, and perhaps even likely. I'm sorry if that makes you unhappy. Deal with it.

kcbrown
09-18-2013, 7:14 PM
Gee many rant and rave here on Calguns that LEO's are nothing but common "citizens"..


If it's the rants I'm thinking of, they're saying that LEOs are civilians, and are ranting about the fact that LEOs often refer to normal citizens as "civilians".

LEOs are civilians, because they're not military. But being a civilian does not make one a "common citizen".

The president of the United States is a civilian, but he is most certainly not a "common citizen".



Yup LEO's do have a very few "special powers" which relate to arrests, or other duties associated with their jobs... Just like many other occupations...

Yup there are a very few "exemptions" which LEO's enjoy, however these too are again very few, and shared with others which also enjoy the same exemptions.....
Exactly. But that is subject to change without notice, as it is an artifact of how the law is written.

Also, I'm curious which others you're referring to that enjoy the same exemptions that are not, themselves, LEOs.

glockman19
09-28-2013, 1:54 PM
As if somehow you know any LEO which has followed a illegal order.. I'm sure it's happened, however the rate would be so small as to be non existent...

In my 29 year career I was never given a "illegal" order, nor do I know of any officers who were

Correct you do not make a distinction between legal and illegal orders, they are just orders and none are illegal. Thanks for making my point.



If he did not mean to compare the Gestapo, Stazi or the KGB to US LEO's then why did he bring it up....? It was because he was making a backhanded comparison.

I think you miss the point.

And...




Gee many rant and rave here on Calguns that LEO's are nothing but common "citizens"..

Now you say they are not....

Yup LEO's do have a very few "special powers" which relate to arrests, or other duties associated with their jobs... Just like many other occupations...

Yup there are a very few "exemptions" which LEO's enjoy, however these too are again very few, and shared with others which also enjoy the same exemptions.....

"Special Powers", "Exemptions" = "Special Class", Please share the "other occupations" that have "Special Powers and Exemptions"



As far as being a "protected class", Well that description is not valid, and shows your prejudice.

I obviously disagree. 218 has NOTHING with their jobs as it addresses retirees. LE Are a protected class exempt from laws of the average citizen. Accept it and let it be.

I'm not attacking LE just pointing out the "benefits" to a "class" of citizen. No prejudice, just reality.

SVT-40
09-28-2013, 4:33 PM
Correct you do not make a distinction between legal and illegal orders, they are just orders and none are illegal. Thanks for making my point.

I think you miss the point.

No, you miss the point....

As I said I was never given a "illegal order" nor do I know of any officer who has been given a illegal order...

Many here seem to believe in their biased minds that LEO's, will or would follow any order illegal or legal.

My point is it's never happened to me, or anyone I've known, mainly because those giving the orders also believe in the constitution and would not give a illegal order..

However I believe based on my decades of law enforcement that if given a "illegal order the vast majority of LEO's would refuse...

So no your "point " is not proven....

In addition you base your opinion on what? Years of reading information on the internet???


"Special Powers", "Exemptions" = "Special Class", Please share the "other occupations" that have "Special Powers and Exemptions"

Well just off the top of my head....

Non governmental.
Security guards, and companies... Armored car guards and companies......Doctors.....Pharmacists....Miners.. ....Blasters......Movie makers......Actors.......Prop companies...FFL dealers C&R FFL holders...commercial Pilots....

Governmental.
Firefighters....Military folks....

I'm sure if I were to really research the PC or other codes I could probably come up with a many many more...

ALL of the above jobs or companies enjoy "exemptions" or "special powers" found in the Penal Code or other codes.....



I obviously disagree. 218 has NOTHING with their jobs as it addresses retirees. LE Are a protected class exempt from laws of the average citizen. Accept it and let it be.

Your use of the term "protected class" by it's self labels you as biased....

The LEOSA addresses both active and retired LEO's . That is because contrary to your belief, after a long career LEO's do face the entirely probable situation where they will confront a past "customer".

Or are you just jealous because the LEO "unions":rolleyes: were able to get this legislation passed...



I'm not attacking LE just pointing out the "benefits" to a "class" of citizen. No prejudice, just reality.

Being a LEO does not make one a different "class" of citizen.. Contrary to those biased against LEO's..

And yes it is your "bias" and "prejudice" which causes you to "attack" LEO's....


Oh and please, from this point on use the title "Sir SVT-40" in any further conversations.....:) As that is more befitting my "Nobility".....

EM2
09-28-2013, 7:20 PM
SVT-40,
Would you believe the order to confiscate residents firearms after huricane Katrina to be a legal order?
In your mind does the mayor of any city possess the legal authority to confiscate legally owned firearms for any reason?
I understand that you may not know these officers or have first hand knowledge of the orders given and the action taken but I am trying to get a reading on what you may consider a legal order.

Defenseless On the Bayou (http://reason.com/archives/2005/09/10/defenseless-on-the-bayou)


In the nearly two weeks since Hurricane Katrina, the government of New Orleans has devolved from its traditional status as an elective kleptocracy into something far more dangerous: an anarcho-tyranny that refuses to protect the public from criminals while preventing people from protecting themselves. At the orders of New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, the New Orleans Police, the National Guard, the Oklahoma National Guard, and U.S. Marshals have begun breaking into homes at gunpoint, confiscating their lawfully-owned firearms, and evicting the residents. "No one is allowed to be armed. We're going to take all the guns," says P. Edwin Compass III, the superintendent of police.

BobB35
09-29-2013, 9:30 AM
What is hilarious about this whole thread is in the end this Republic/ now democracy will end the same as all the others as a tyranny supported by those who have the most to lose - the government apparatus.

The fact that those are the current mechanism of that support don't realize it just shows how far down the path we are.

SVT....never an illegal order. Since you just get an order and don't get to question it's legality how would you now. Katrina, Waco, Ruby Ridge, Boston sweep and clear, Dorner manhunt....how many of those were "Illegal"? yet they still happened. How many things happen everyday in DIRECT violation of the law? Give me break.

SVT-40
09-29-2013, 2:29 PM
Yup back in 2005 during Hurricane Katrina there were some illegal orders given and some LEO's followed them...

But one incident almost a decade ago does not prove that today or in the future LEO's would make the same decisions. In fact many laws have been put into effect based on the violations committed by the LEO's during the Katrina disaster to specifically prevent a similar situation...

Never say never, but because of the Katrina debacle, LEO's across the US were made very aware of the constitutional violations which occurred there. I don't believe any similar situation will occur based on this awareness.

What is hilarious about this whole thread is in the end this Republic/ now democracy will end the same as all the others as a tyranny supported by those who have the most to lose - the government apparatus.

The fact that those are the current mechanism of that support don't realize it just shows how far down the path we are.

SVT....never an illegal order. Since you just get an order and don't get to question it's legality how would you now. Katrina, Waco, Ruby Ridge, Boston sweep and clear, Dorner manhunt....how many of those were "Illegal"? yet they still happened. How many things happen everyday in DIRECT violation of the law? Give me break.

So what "illegal orders" were given during the "Boston sweep" and the "Dorner manhunt"?....

Please educate us....

I know mistakes were made by officers. That will always be the case. However officers making a bad judgement call or shooting when they should not, clearly is not a situation where any "illegal orders" were given or followed...

However as far as any "illegal orders" ?????

I'll not comment on the others as they are decades old....


Every officer has a duty to NOT follow illegal orders.

Besides it's pretty clear if an order is illegal, as it would be something very abnormal to what LEO's do every day....So any variance to how situations are normally handled would bring about serious questions... In addition Officers have rules, policies and laws which govern their actions... Any orders which would be in violation to these orders, polices and laws, Officers have no duty to follow, as that would constitute a "illegal" order.

TRICKSTER
09-29-2013, 3:28 PM
I was given an unlawful order twice during my career. I advised the LT that gave the order that it was unlawful and I refused to follow it. That was the end of it. What we seem to have here is a bunch of internet wannabe scholars that assume they know what is and isn't illegal when the reality is that they don't.

EM2
09-29-2013, 8:01 PM
Yup back in 2005 during Hurricane Katrina there were some illegal orders given and some LEO's followed them...

But one incident almost a decade ago does not prove that today or in the future LEO's would make the same decisions. In fact many laws have been put into effect based on the violations committed by the LEO's during the Katrina disaster to specifically prevent a similar situation...

Never say never, but because of the Katrina debacle, LEO's across the US were made very aware of the constitutional violations which occurred there. I don't believe any similar situation will occur based on this awareness.




This is laughable if it weren't such a serious situation.
You are actually telling us that a law(s) have been passed to prevent law enforcement from violating the law.:facepalm:

kcbrown
09-30-2013, 11:59 AM
Yup back in 2005 during Hurricane Katrina there were some illegal orders given and some LEO's followed them...

But one incident almost a decade ago does not prove that today or in the future LEO's would make the same decisions. In fact many laws have been put into effect based on the violations committed by the LEO's during the Katrina disaster to specifically prevent a similar situation...

Never say never, but because of the Katrina debacle, LEO's across the US were made very aware of the constitutional violations which occurred there. I don't believe any similar situation will occur based on this awareness.


So your contention here is that the LEOs who confiscated arms in the wake of Katrina didn't know or suspect that what they were doing was unlawful?

That's an interesting take on the situation, one I've not heard before. It does make one wonder what other things those same LEOs wouldn't know or suspect is unlawful for them to do...

SVT-40
09-30-2013, 5:10 PM
Never said the actions of some LEO's during the Katrina disaster were not illegal..
In fact as I said

"but because of the Katrina debacle, LEO's across the US were made very aware of the constitutional violations which occurred there"


But I thought this thread was about LEO's supposedly having a "title of nobility"...

NOT for you or others to dredge up issues which occurred almost a decade ago...that have nothing to do with the subject of this thread...

That is unless you just want to insert your LEO bashing into any thread related to LEO's.....

kcbrown
09-30-2013, 6:06 PM
Never said the actions of some LEO's during the Katrina disaster were not illegal..
In fact as I said

"but because of the Katrina debacle, LEO's across the US were made very aware of the constitutional violations which occurred there"


But I thought this thread was about LEO's supposedly having a "title of nobility"...


Well, we know that you, at least, have a (well deserved, based on my past conversations with you) title of nobility, Sir SVT-40. :D


Seriously, though, I do hope Katrina was a wake-up call to LEOs across the land. But it's also an illustration of exactly what I was talking about earlier.


One other thing: "legal" and "Constitutional" are not the same thing, as evidenced by the existence of laws that were enforced and for violations of which people have been, and even remain, incarcerated that were later found Unconstitutional by the courts.



NOT for you or others to dredge up issues which occurred almost a decade ago...that have nothing to do with the subject of this thread...
Oh, but it does have something to do with the subject of this thread. LEOs have powers that go well beyond those of the normal citizenry, and de facto if not de jure immunity from many violations of the law. Want proof? How many of the LEOs who participated in the illegal confiscation of firearms during the Katrina aftermath have been jailed for doing so? You know damned well that normal citizens attempting to do the same would have been jailed immediately once they'd been identified.

Extraordinary powers (i.e., those the normal citizenry does not have), whether de facto or de jure, granted due to title is de facto title of nobility ("Nobility is a social class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class) that possesses more acknowledged privileges (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilege) or eminence (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Eminence) than most other classes in a society"). Now, it may be that the nature of what LEOs have is not a "Title of Nobility" as per the reference in the Constitution, but that would mean that what LEOs have is the essence of it without the official recognition of it.



That is unless you just want to insert your LEO bashing into any thread related to LEO's.....It would be LEO bashing if it were unevenly directed, or untruthful. Neither is the case here. None of this illustrates what all or even most LEOs will do, only what they can do. And history has not been kind in this regard.

I know it's gotta be tough to be a member of a group that receives such harsh criticism, and because you put your life in the hands of your fellow LEOs, and they in yours, it's hard (very hard) to not do everything you can to defend your group from it, but that doesn't mean that the criticism isn't deserved, and you'd do well to examine things objectively here. I know you don't want your group to be above the law (more precisely, for your group to be subject to a different, more lenient set of laws than those applied to the rest of the citizenry), but what you want and what reality serves up aren't necessarily the same thing. Why do you think I keep my my expectations cleanly separated from my hopes?

Ronin2
10-03-2013, 8:54 PM
I understand and somewhat agree with the OP, however,in my opinion, the Film Industry has had true "nobility" bestowed on it by the Politburo in Sacramento. They are exempt from EVERYTHING!!!!

DisgruntledReaper
10-03-2013, 10:24 PM
Hell yea, a LOT of them THINK they ARE 'nobility', get stuff free, get to buy what they want, snubbing us 'normal citizens' , have immunity pretty much against anything including murder(dont get crappy on me, we all see and read about the abuses) and here is one little tid bit which is total BS in MY opinion...
'Not even close to a LEO's lawful ability to carry a firearm, as they are peace officers 24-7....... not just while on duty.'

I call total BS on this due to the fact that they can 'legally kill you' even off duty,drunk in a bar or where ever,get in a fight and EVEN IF you are DEFENDING YOURSELF against such behavior... 'they feel threatened and shoot your assssssss and they go off scott free... ONCE off the clock and out of uniform they are or should be subjected to the same crap 'we ' have to put up with..... if they get drunk in , wave a gun,beat on someone, whatever, or generally act like a turd,same penalties...... their 'job' supposedly holds them to a higher level, yet so many act like crap.....
Then they whine about the stress, how tough their job is, blah blah blah.... well I have a news flash They Chose Their Job and Profession , they knew the risks going in, they are not drafted into being cops, on and on.......... can not deal with it, get a different job like anyone else.... but the perks are toooo good to turn away from and the pension plans and 'teflon legal shield' allows a lot to do what they want with basically no repercussions due to the 'blue line'

Say what you want, get the flame throwers out, but the facts are the facts....
and the same goes for a lot of the firefighters out there in tems of acting like asses when out and about, crying about their jobs,etc..... cant tell you how many potential accidents i have had to avoid while idiots or family members of,with little fire fighter hat decals on their cars cut me off,tail gate, box me in in parking, yak on the phone,text,etc....

SelfGovernor
10-04-2013, 11:33 PM
Being a LEO does not make one a different "class" of citizen.. Contrary to those biased against LEO's..



I voted affirmative in the poll, but in hindsight, I now think the real issue is not that LEOs are elevated, but that the citizens have been put down, having their civil rights infringed upon. We have been made to be 2nd class citizens by the political establishment.

When I visit my LGS and see products in the display case with an LEO ONLY sticker, it is a stark reminder.

SG

TRICKSTER
10-05-2013, 12:11 AM
Hell yea, a LOT of them THINK they ARE 'nobility', get stuff free, get to buy what they want, snubbing us 'normal citizens' , have immunity pretty much against anything including murder(dont get crappy on me, we all see and read about the abuses) and here is one little tid bit which is total BS in MY opinion...
'Not even close to a LEO's lawful ability to carry a firearm, as they are peace officers 24-7....... not just while on duty.'

I call total BS on this due to the fact that they can 'legally kill you' even off duty,drunk in a bar or where ever,get in a fight and EVEN IF you are DEFENDING YOURSELF against such behavior... 'they feel threatened and shoot your assssssss and they go off scott free... ONCE off the clock and out of uniform they are or should be subjected to the same crap 'we ' have to put up with..... if they get drunk in , wave a gun,beat on someone, whatever, or generally act like a turd,same penalties...... their 'job' supposedly holds them to a higher level, yet so many act like crap.....
Then they whine about the stress, how tough their job is, blah blah blah.... well I have a news flash They Chose Their Job and Profession , they knew the risks going in, they are not drafted into being cops, on and on.......... can not deal with it, get a different job like anyone else.... but the perks are toooo good to turn away from and the pension plans and 'teflon legal shield' allows a lot to do what they want with basically no repercussions due to the 'blue line'

Say what you want, get the flame throwers out, but the facts are the facts....
and the same goes for a lot of the firefighters out there in tems of acting like asses when out and about, crying about their jobs,etc..... cant tell you how many potential accidents i have had to avoid while idiots or family members of,with little fire fighter hat decals on their cars cut me off,tail gate, box me in in parking, yak on the phone,text,etc....

Your funny. :rofl2: