Chicago Won't Let Retired Cops Carry Concealed Guns

[MoW]

http://www.officer.com/article/artic...ion=1&id=27385

[USP45usp]

I agree with Chicago.

If we, the People, aren't allowed to carry concealed guns, why should retired LEO's have that Right?

For once I actually agree with their Mayor. If the residents there can't do it, why should anyone else have a greater right to do so? Federal law or not.

Wayne

[XavierBreath]

I agree as well. If a private citizen is not to be trusted with a concealed weapon, then how can you trust a retired LEO? If it's OK for retired LEOs, then how about retired military? How about retired bus drivers? How about retired fry cooks?

Oh.......perhaps retired LEOs should get behind the idea of a shall issue state.....you know, a state where all law abiding citizens can carry a weapon.......

[azurefly]

Yeah, it's definitely past time for cops to open their freaking mouths in support of good people who want to carry a gun for self defense. They've sold us down the river for so long, because THEY had THEIR privileges. Now they're feeling the sting of being "regular joes," and they don't like it? TOUGH. Get out and support CCW and then we'll, in turn, get behind YOU.


-azurefly

[RBK]

I like it when the chickens come home to roost, so to speak. Now, perhaps some more LEOs will take up our position.
I am however, about to be 'one up on them' when I get my Keltec .223 pistol.
Something that I can carry legally and THEY can not get.
Going to be a good feeling!

[gb_in_ga]

I for one, would avoid having anything at all to do with that festering fever swamp.

On the face of it, this is intended to be yet another piece of anti-gun trash heaped on that benighted dump.

In the short run, this is going to tick off the affected retired LEO's. In the long run, this is going to be a good thing for the people of that blight by the lake. It evens the playing field, helping to eliminate the privileged nature of the LEO class, bringing their situation to be more on-par with that of the run of the mill citizen there. And that will tend to bring the LEO class more on board with the RKBA efforts there, and that's a good thing.

[Gary Conner]

I disagree with the Mayor.
The retired cop is one of the people.
The 2nd Amendment says he has the right to keep and bear arms.
The Mayor is violating the U.S. Constitution, and should be recalled.

[MRex21]

Interesting. Only one post before the bigots came out from under their rocks with their 'get-even-with-em-ism'. What a surprise.

Pathetic.

[gb_in_ga]

Interesting. Only one post before the bigots came out from under their rocks with their 'get-even-with-em-ism'. What a surprise.

So, am I to assume that you are in favor of LEO's having a more privileged niche in society than run of the mill citizens, even after retirement? Isn't that in fact being in favor of a multi-tiered society, setting up "us", the current and former LEO's as being somehow superior and more trustworthy than "them", the little folk, the peons? Isn't that outlook itself the one that is bigotted?

Physician, heal thyself.

Your position makes it seem that you are in favor of RKBA only in the case of LEO's, not for the common folks. My position is that it is the correct thing for all folks, LEO as well as not, and that the edict will in the long run help that by the Law of Unintended Consequences.

[azurefly]

We already know that plenty of "joe citizens" carry, and have long carried, despite not being legally allowed to.

What makes anyone think that retired cops in Chicago are going to stop carrying if they currently do? Or that if they are found by other cops to be carrying, that they'll be arrested, charged, convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm??

This is Chicago, people. You're thinking it was someplace that wasn't corrupt?


-azurefly

[Sulaco2]

This was never about civilian CCW get over it. It was a good first step towards getting the gov to accept civilain carry but with the pycho whinning it will never happen. :barf:

[Wildcard]

If we, the People, aren't allowed to carry concealed guns, why should retired LEO's have that Right?

Agreed. Cant have a "special class of people".

[jcoiii]

If I can't do it, no one can! (even if allowing them to do it might eventually move into me being able to)

[Weeg]

*Sigh*


"Chicagostan"

[USP45usp]

This was never about civilian CCW get over it. It was a good first step towards getting the gov to accept civilain carry but with the pycho whinning it will never happen.

I beg to differ. This would have removed the "need" for "civilians" to carry in the minds of the anti's as well as the government.

We say that we want to CCW because LEO's can't be around us 24/7. But with this law, they (anti's, etc..) could use it against us and say that since the criminal won't know if a RETIRED LEO is around that they won't attack/rape/kill you, the mere citizen.

And once this passed, I didn't hear an outcry from LEO's, active and retired, calling out for everyone (all the People) to be able to carry concealed in all states/cities/counties. Did you?

Wayne

[USP45usp]

Interesting. Only one post before the bigots came out from under their rocks with their 'get-even-with-em-ism'. What a surprise.

Pathetic.

Please expand/explain. How is it that the People are upset that a special class of citizen is created, with Rights/rights that are not given to all, they are bigots for being upset?

If anything, it would seem that you are the bigot against the People. That you should have special rights but others should not.

This is not LEO bashing, you may try to turn the thread into such and I'm pretty sure that you will be ignored. This thread is about how certain people get special rights and that is wrong. You would have heard the same comments here if you change retired LEO's to retired Union Workers, retired Bus Drivers, etc..

Wayne

[jcoiii]

I beg to differ. This would have removed the "need" for "civilians" to carry in the minds of the anti's as well as the government.

We say that we want to CCW because LEO's can't be around us 24/7. But with this law, they (anti's, etc..) could use it against us and say that since the criminal won't know if a RETIRED LEO is around that they won't attack/rape/kill you, the mere citizen.

And once this passed, I didn't hear an outcry from LEO's, active and retired, calling out for everyone (all the People) to be able to carry concealed in all states/cities/counties. Did you?

Good post. I had not considered how anti's would use this.
EVERYONE WHO IS NOT A CRIMINAL SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO CARRY A WEAPON ON THEIR PERSON IN ORDER TO PROTECT THEMSELVES FROM THOSE WHO WOULD ATTACK THEM!!!

(trying to cry out for you there Wayne )

[MRex21]

Please expand/explain. How is it that the People are upset that a special class of citizen is created, with Rights/rights that are not given to all, they are bigots for being upset?

If anything, it would seem that you are the bigot against the People. That you should have special rights but others should not.

This is not LEO bashing, you may try to turn the thread into such and I'm pretty sure that you will be ignored. This thread is about how certain people get special rights and that is wrong. You would have heard the same comments here if you change retired LEO's to retired Union Workers, retired Bus Drivers, etc..

Yes it is.

Simple, and not entirely unexpected, cop-bigotry.......again.

You hypocrites wail and moan that cops are just like 'everyone else', but suddenly their a 'special class' when they might be able to carry when retired.

You want them armed or not?

Do you want to be armed or not?

Simple fact of the matter is, they are different because they do come in contact with the filth of society every day as part of the normal course of their duties. This puts them at a greater risk. That is not to say that 'Joe Lay-citizen' daily life doesn't entail risk, but it is not his normal course of action.

Be that as it may, all citizens should have the right to carry affirmed. What I see in this thread is a bunch of children wailing and throwing a temper tantrum, "If I can't have my cake, no one can have cake." Instead of worrying about what you have (or do not have, as the case may be), you are just pointing fingers at a 'special class' and shouting...MAKE THEM PAY!

You also haven't thought it through. Whether retired peace officers end up carrying or not, the general populous will still be denied that right. So, instead of trying to make everyone equally powerless (as the leftists desire to do), why don't you try working towards the positive outcome of having everyone able to carry concealed.

Or is it just cop-bigotry that's urging you on?

[azurefly]

Originally Posted by sulaco

This was never about civilian CCW get over it. It was a good first step towards getting the gov to accept civilain carry but with the pycho whinning it will never happen.

Yeah, you go on believing that. Daley is just waiting with baited breath to be convinced by something to let the serfs of Chicago carry.



Anyone who believes that COP off-duty carry is a lead-in for CIVILIAN carry is being foolish. Cop off-duty carry has been the rule rather than the exception in most places for most of the time, right? Anyone really believe that's the reason we got CCW laws passed? Gimme a break. :barf:

Cops have never stood up publicly in favor of our right to carry.
Oh, sure, the rank-and-file support it -- quietly -- and occasionally write in to the NRA magazine. But the ones who get the PRESS -- the politician-cops (the Chiefs) -- are always anti-gun, and gee, why does it seem that we never hear from the regular guys that their chiefs are outta their minds and wrong about the issue? Why are the rank-and-file cops never standing up and heard? And why do they line up at the photo-ops dutifully when some new anti-gun law has been trotted out and the politicos are grandstanding. Do the cops who appear there lack the strength of their convictions to tell the higher-ups to stuff it when they want smiling cop faces to cheer on an anti-gun law?


-azurefly

[USP45usp]

MRex,

Nope. I want ACTIVE DUTY LEO's armed, I don't want retired LEO's to have special rights.

Let's change this around using YOUR "logic":

By your logic then I should be able to have (and no one else except ex-military) a fully auto M-16, M-60 (if I so wish), a Fighter Jet, access to RPG's, and all hardware that I used or was around in the military... right?

And I don't know what type of chip you have on your shoulder. When a person disagrees anything LEO, then it's being bigoted. But if we disagree with any other career CHOICE out there, then you are mum/silent on the subject of bigotry and are one of the first agreeing..

I will say that this is the last time that I even bother to read and/or answer your questions/remarks. Consider this the last time I "listen" to your bigoted and anti-People remarks.

Quite frankly, some people it's just not worth the waste of energy typing a response when you know that they will always be the same and won't listen to others.

Wayne

*edited for my mistake of misspelling MRex's moniker.

[MRex21]

Mex,

Nope. I want ACTIVE DUTY LEO's armed, I don't want retired LEO's to have special rights.

Let's change this around using YOUR "logic":

By your logic then I should be able to have (and no one else except ex-military) a fully auto M-16, M-60 (if I so wish), a Fighter Jet, access to RPG's, and all hardware that I used or was around in the military... right?

And I don't know what type of chip you have on your shoulder. When a person disagrees anything LEO, then it's being bigoted. But if we disagree with any other career CHOICE out there, then you are mum/silent on the subject of bigotry and are one of the first agreeing..

I will say that this is the last time that I even bother to read and/or answer your questions/remarks. Consider this the last time I "listen" to your bigoted and anti-People remarks.

Quite frankly, some people it's just not worth the waste of energy typing a response when you know that they will always be the same and won't listen to others.

Wayne

First of all, it's MRex21...not Mex.

Second, by all means, put me on your ignore list and end your suffering. You'll show me, by golly.

[azurefly]

Originally Posted by mrex21

You hypocrites wail and moan that cops are just like 'everyone else', but suddenly their a 'special class' when they might be able to carry when retired.

You're seeing it wrong.
We're "moaning" the exact opposite: they should not be a special class. Giving them the right to carry when they retire makes them a special class. Our point is that now, if they complain about losing that privilege (right?), they are arguing for being a special class, and we say, "If you won't let US carry when we're not cops, YOU should not carry when you're not cops. You're not a privileged class of people. So either support carry for all, or shut your yap."

You want them armed or not?

Not if I won't be allowed to be, no.

Do you want to be armed or not?

Yes, and a good way to make that happen is to have cops on our side, arguing in favor of would-be victims being allowed to bear arms. If they get special privileges, they won't really be driven to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with us as a united front in favor of CCW rights, will they.

Originally Posted by mrex21

Simple fact of the matter is, they are different because they do come in contact with the filth of society every day as part of the normal course of their duties. This puts them at a greater risk. That is not to say that 'Joe Lay-citizen' daily life doesn't entail risk, but it is not his normal course of action.

Yes, and when they are on duty and facing this daily risk, no one is challenging their being able to carry then. So why are you arguing about that?

Originally Posted by mrex21

Be that as it may, all citizens should have the right to carry affirmed. What I see in this thread is a bunch of children wailing and throwing a temper tantrum, "If I can't have my cake, no one can have cake." Instead of worrying about what you have (or do not have, as the case may be), you are just pointing fingers at a 'special class' and shouting...MAKE THEM PAY!

Make them pay? No one is saying that, that I can see. We're saying, don't give them privileges that you won't give to "lay-citizens." Our point is, yeah, let them be barred from retired-carry, so that they can see what WE deal with. And then when they see it our way, they can join with us to get EVERYONE CCW rights. It's not about "making them pay." It's about forcing the issue to a head.


-azurefly

[MRex21]

Sorry, but you sound like a liberal.

Follow me on this:
When you look into your neighbor's yard, and you see him driving a shiny new car (which just so happens to be the same sort of shiny new car you've had your eye on for a while), do you:

A. Go do what you have to do to get the shiny new car you want?

B. Pout, moan, and whine and say, "It's not fair. If I can't have it, then he shouldn't have it either."

[azurefly]

Okay, you're acting stupid now, so I'm dropping my end of this discussion. You're turning a blind eye to my explanation, and then assembling idiotic strawmen and calling me a liberal for no good cause. If you won't read and see my point there in my text, I'm not going to repeat it in vain.


-azurefly

[gb_in_ga]

duplicate post, delete