5 ms·

Why would retired police have special access to this sort of permit? The entire justification for it is that their dangerous job necessitates special privileges

by bww 6y ago

Why would retired police have special access to this sort of permit? The entire justification for it is that their dangerous job necessitates special privileges. That justification doesn’t apply to retired people. It may apply to actively employed private security, I don’t know. At least the reasoning makes sense, though.

Grakel 6y ago
Good question. I believe if anyone would be qualified for a permit, it would be them. Not that they should receive special access. The current system isn't based on qualification, but on privilege.
- tonyztan 6y ago
  See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enforcement_Officers_Safety_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enforcement_Officers_Safet... "The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) is a United States federal law, enacted in 2004, that allows two classes of persons—the 'qualified law enforcement officer' and the 'qualified retired or separated law enforcement officer'—to carry a concealed firearm in any jurisdiction in the United States, regardless of state or local laws, with certain exceptions."
- smachiz 6y ago
  or need. A retired NYPD cop doesn't need a gun - a bodyguard might. Often those bodyguards are ex-NYPD, which is how they got the concealed permit in the first place. The whole point is demonstrating a need for a concealed weapon, not qualification or competency.
  - anonymousiam 6y ago
    The 2nd amendment does not require "need". The whole "may issue" concept is broken. Why doesn't California have a reciprocity policy like most other states? Not only can I not carry there, I cannot even bring the gun I have in my pocket right now into the state because it's not "approved" there.
    - Karunamon 6y ago
      Which is, itself, a violation of the full faith and credit clause of the constitution.
    - Grakel 6y ago
      Hopefully with the supreme court we have now, we can strike down every unconstitutional gun law (all of them) in the next few years.
    - kls 6y ago
      The issue, is that we have not even got to the CCW "need" part. The issue is they are still battling out is: is public carry a right or a privilege? Currently the state views it legally as a privilege, per the last supreme court ruling, thus at the moment it does not fall under the purview of the 2nd amendment. And can be restricted not unlike a drivers licence as driving is a privilege. If that changes, then all states would be restricted from placing any requirements on the public possession of weapons. The problem is there is a lot of precedence dating back to at least the early 1800's on the restrictions of carrying in public. See my post above for details on the right vs privilege of public carry. To be clear, the argument that is being played out is not on owning weapons, that has been decided. The argument that is being played out is does the spirit of the 2A incorporate a conferred right to carry in public. History and precedent dating back to the early 1800's says it does not. But there is that tricky "bare" part in the 2A as the spirit of the law would assume that they were not just protecting the right to "bare" them on one's own private property, given the pre clause about people needed to be armed so that the militias had a good supply of armed men, to ensure a free state. On a related note, I see magazine restrictions as a more direct affront to the 2nd amendment. If they stand, then it can be abstracted to the amount (any amount) of ammunition can be restricted, which means the most restrictive states can and will outlaw everything, but single shot weapons to comply with the letter of the 2A rather than the spirit.
      - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
        This is a 14A issue, not a 2A issue. Restricting CCWs in a manner that would absolutely not fly for free speech, voting, or some other right isn't the issue. The issue is that some states have set up discretionary license issuing schemes that in practice violate the 14th amendment.
lsllc 6y ago
If you've been an LEO for 10 years or more there's a federal law that allows you CCW anywhere (without a specific permit, just some ID that affirms your LEO status). So much for equal rights, some I guess are more equal than others!
- kls 6y ago
  You are referring to the LEOSA Laws but even they are problematic as a former LEO could be arrested for having a magazine that holds more than 7 rounds.
joecool1029 6y ago
>Why would retired police have special access to this sort of permit? Ask New Jersey. They explicitly allow retired LEO to have CCP. Meanwhile the law is so complicated and it's so unusual for even security guards to get a CCP that they sometimes get arrested anyway even with the permit: https://reason.com/2020/03/10/new-jersey-security-guard-arrested-for-gun-he-has-permit-to-carry/ https://reason.com/2020/03/10/new-jersey-security-guard-arre...

by bww 6y ago

Grakel 6y ago

Good question. I believe if anyone would be qualified for a permit, it would be them. Not that they should receive special access. The current system isn't based on qualification, but on privilege.

tonyztan 6y ago
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enforcement_Officers_Safety_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enforcement_Officers_Safet... "The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) is a United States federal law, enacted in 2004, that allows two classes of persons—the 'qualified law enforcement officer' and the 'qualified retired or separated law enforcement officer'—to carry a concealed firearm in any jurisdiction in the United States, regardless of state or local laws, with certain exceptions."
smachiz 6y ago
or need. A retired NYPD cop doesn't need a gun - a bodyguard might. Often those bodyguards are ex-NYPD, which is how they got the concealed permit in the first place. The whole point is demonstrating a need for a concealed weapon, not qualification or competency.
- anonymousiam 6y ago
  The 2nd amendment does not require "need". The whole "may issue" concept is broken. Why doesn't California have a reciprocity policy like most other states? Not only can I not carry there, I cannot even bring the gun I have in my pocket right now into the state because it's not "approved" there.
  - Karunamon 6y ago
    Which is, itself, a violation of the full faith and credit clause of the constitution.
  - Grakel 6y ago
    Hopefully with the supreme court we have now, we can strike down every unconstitutional gun law (all of them) in the next few years.
  - kls 6y ago
    The issue, is that we have not even got to the CCW "need" part. The issue is they are still battling out is: is public carry a right or a privilege? Currently the state views it legally as a privilege, per the last supreme court ruling, thus at the moment it does not fall under the purview of the 2nd amendment. And can be restricted not unlike a drivers licence as driving is a privilege. If that changes, then all states would be restricted from placing any requirements on the public possession of weapons. The problem is there is a lot of precedence dating back to at least the early 1800's on the restrictions of carrying in public. See my post above for details on the right vs privilege of public carry. To be clear, the argument that is being played out is not on owning weapons, that has been decided. The argument that is being played out is does the spirit of the 2A incorporate a conferred right to carry in public. History and precedent dating back to the early 1800's says it does not. But there is that tricky "bare" part in the 2A as the spirit of the law would assume that they were not just protecting the right to "bare" them on one's own private property, given the pre clause about people needed to be armed so that the militias had a good supply of armed men, to ensure a free state. On a related note, I see magazine restrictions as a more direct affront to the 2nd amendment. If they stand, then it can be abstracted to the amount (any amount) of ammunition can be restricted, which means the most restrictive states can and will outlaw everything, but single shot weapons to comply with the letter of the 2A rather than the spirit.
    - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
      This is a 14A issue, not a 2A issue. Restricting CCWs in a manner that would absolutely not fly for free speech, voting, or some other right isn't the issue. The issue is that some states have set up discretionary license issuing schemes that in practice violate the 14th amendment.

lsllc 6y ago

If you've been an LEO for 10 years or more there's a federal law that allows you CCW anywhere (without a specific permit, just some ID that affirms your LEO status). So much for equal rights, some I guess are more equal than others!

kls 6y ago
You are referring to the LEOSA Laws but even they are problematic as a former LEO could be arrested for having a magazine that holds more than 7 rounds.

joecool1029 6y ago

>Why would retired police have special access to this sort of permit? Ask New Jersey. They explicitly allow retired LEO to have CCP. Meanwhile the law is so complicated and it's so unusual for even security guards to get a CCP that they sometimes get arrested anyway even with the permit: https://reason.com/2020/03/10/new-jersey-security-guard-arrested-for-gun-he-has-permit-to-carry/ https://reason.com/2020/03/10/new-jersey-security-guard-arre...