Law Enforcement Exemptions Unconstitutional?

[turtlespeed 212]

cvfd1399

I am not angry at all just perplexed at how a person could flip their stated beliefs just to argue with someone for the other side who is posting for INCREASED measures of gun safety. This dude is posting against them just to argue! The same dude who any other day is crying about gun deaths and shootings.

Welcome to SC.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

normiss

I know a number of SF retirees that retired with a full kit, trained from handguns to rocket launchers, EOD, explosives, battery of ordinance launchers, I even know some nuke weapons experts I served with.
I'd like to meet a career cop that isn't former military with anywhere near that experience.

You surely realize the benefits a Veteran presents to a police force after they leave service, including fire fighting, EMS, weapons, tactics, chain of command training and experience, don't you?
But yet you think they aren't qualified to carry??

Talk about a not thought out response.

I also know a guy who served his draft requirement as a cook. Back in the early 60s. Qualified with a rifle in boot camp and maybe once or twice more.

Yet his DD-214 is just as valid as any.

Good idea?

Keep in mind that most of a CCW course doesn't cover the actual gun. The "gun stuff" is simply showing that the person knows how to operate the thing and put the bullets in a target.

Most of it is on the legalities of use of deadly force. And the proper protocols and procedures for dealing with the aftermath of a DGU.

How much of that does the military teach?

I'm fully in favor of the "right to keep and bear arms" being that. A right.

But I also believe that if a person wants to exercise that right out among the public, a certain level of training should be required.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[normiss 622]

Refusing to understanding what military training is vs. civilian cop training is, is laughable.
Yet you seem to think I'm missing the point.

[cvfd1399 0]

normiss

Refusing to understanding what military training is vs. civilian cop training is, is laughable.
Yet you seem to think I'm missing the point.

Once again no one but you is still talking about the level of training, it is about the elapsed time since you have proved you are still up to a safe level, and have not had life altering changes in your physical or mental state that would make you a danger to others when carrying a weapon.

Obviously someone who was a military MP, and just got out 2 years ago is not who I am talking about. I am worried about the cook with a pistol qualification who got out 30 years ago, has never held a pistol since then and has had a stroke and has poor eyesight from cataracts.

At this point I either think you understand what I am getting at but are acting obtuse to keep up the arguement, or you have something else going on. Either way you are making a fool of yourself by going against your stated opinions here on gun safety by thinking the above described person is safe to carry a weapon without demonstrating it just because he WAS trained by the all mighty military 30 years ago. SMH

[normiss 622]

Your apparent dislike of current gun laws and requirements for CWP isn't my problem.
I was simply point out how little you know about military weapons training. In no way am I "making a fool of myself" as you claim.
I was simply trying to explain to you your lack of understanding.
By all means, continue to support one old boy's network while insulting another.

[turtlespeed 212]

normiss

Your apparent dislike of current gun laws and requirements for CWP isn't my problem.
I was simply point out how little you know about military weapons training. In no way am I "making a fool of myself" as you claim.
I was simply trying to explain to you your lack of understanding.
By all means, continue to support one old boy's network while insulting another.

Ok, so, hypothetically, should I be in the same circle as those you describe above?

Hypothetically - in 1988 I qualified expert on a modified 45, chambered for a 22.

So . . . I'm a vet, and as I see it, you are saying I am ok to have what ever weapon I want without having to show proficiency.

Or am I missing something.

My actual training is beside the point.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[normiss 622]

Honorable DD-214?
In most states that's good for CWP AFAIK.
It has less than zero to do with what I think is OK.
Why do so many people in here hate the facts???

I never said dick about what I thought was ok, what cvfd would approve of, nor your specific training.

Explaining this shit AS WRITTEN seems to always generate an argument.


But, how is this support of veterans any different from support of veteran cops?

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

Hi normiss,

Quote

Why do so many people in here hate the facts???

Oh, come on, you do know the answer don't you: Because they are such pesky little things.



Jerry Baumchen

PS) Oh, and they do get in the way of a perceived reality.

[turtlespeed 212]

normiss

Honorable DD-214?
In most states that's good for CWP AFAIK.
It has less than zero to do with what I think is OK.
Why do so many people in here hate the facts???

I never said dick about what I thought was ok, what cvfd would approve of, nor your specific training.

Explaining this shit AS WRITTEN seems to always generate an argument.


But, how is this support of veterans any different from support of veteran cops?

As i follow the conversation, and I'm not saying I didn't misinterpret what was said, but, it seems that you are saying that any military training makes you eligible for an automatic set of carry liscenses.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[normiss 622]

No, the DD-214 does qualify for a CWP in some states.
No clue how you got "any military training makes you eligible for an automatic set of carry liscenses" [sic].

[turtlespeed 212]

normiss

No, the DD-214 does qualify for a CWP in some states.
No clue how you got "any military training makes you eligible for an automatic set of carry liscenses" [sic].

I see where I got it wrong.

Thanks.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[cvfd1399 0]

normiss

Your apparent dislike of current gun laws and requirements for CWP isn't my problem.
I was simply point out how little you know about military weapons training. In no way am I "making a fool of myself" as you claim.
I was simply trying to explain to you your lack of understanding.
By all means, continue to support one old boy's network while insulting another.

You are completely lost in this conversation....SMH

What am I missing about military weapons training? Do they train you to overcome your post discharge mental illnesses? Do they teach you how to shoot past the limitations of your recent stroke which left half of your body at 25% capacity? Did they instruct you in the ways of sight alignment, and sight picture through debilitating cataracts? Which target do you hit when you are hallucinating?


I am not downing any service. I know that most military have the time, and money to be more trained than a LEO. I have demonstrated my issues with the dd214 being accepted by the states. My issue is with the states accepting that as a show of current proficiency, not any issue with the military.

What level of training they HAD is irrelevant in this discussion. What is relevant is how long it has been since you have shown you can still safely operate that weapon. A reasonable time should be the same for everyone.

You are stone cold out of dialogue is the reason you keep bringing that shit up. The only thing I have stated about your hated "good old boy" network is the FEDERAL LAW mandates that police qualify ANNUALLY which (yayy) is above and beyond the requirements of a DD214 CCW, or private CCW process.

[cvfd1399 0]

Quote

B. Whoever commits an aggravated battery shall be fined not more than five thousand dollars, imprisoned with or without hard labor for not more than ten years, or both. At least one year of the sentence imposed shall be served without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence if the offender knew or should have known that the victim is an active member of the United States Armed Forces or is a disabled veteran and the aggravated battery was committed because of that status.

Here is an example of you getting special treatment. Why should someone get a harsher punishment because you are active military, you are a human just like the rest of us. /Sarcasm

[jgoose71 0]

cvfd1399

Quote

B. Whoever commits an aggravated battery shall be fined not more than five thousand dollars, imprisoned with or without hard labor for not more than ten years, or both. At least one year of the sentence imposed shall be served without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence if the offender knew or should have known that the victim is an active member of the United States Armed Forces or is a disabled veteran and the aggravated battery was committed because of that status.

Here is an example of you getting special treatment. Why should someone get a harsher punishment because you are active military, you are a human just like the rest of us. /Sarcasm

That's not special treatment for me, that's special treatment for anyone who beats me up.....

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[cvfd1399 0]

You want thinGS to be equal for everyone but laugh when it is shown you yourself due to your employment type get certain preferential treatment in legal matters.

[jgoose71 0]

cvfd1399

You want thinGS to be equal for everyone but laugh when it is shown you yourself due to your employment type get certain preferential treatment in legal matters.

And how does that effect me? It doesn't. Like I said, it only effects the person that attacks me. It doesn't get me a job, free beer, or free jumps. It doesn't get me anything.

Sorry, but you are a little off target on this one. And quite frankly, if they were to revoke that law tomorrow, I wouldn't give a shit. Beating people up is supposed to be illegal anyway.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[cvfd1399 0]

Ignore it all you want the point is people are not always treated equally, or has certain "protections" such as being able to hold fully auto weapons others usually can't, or are looked upon by the law as something that needs to be protected or have harsher punishments attached for attacking that person.


Billvon has already shown you, and you ignore it then, not sure why I thought you would see it this way.


I don't get free beer, or jumps either, what is your point on that line???

[jgoose71 0]

cvfd1399

Ignore it all you want the point is people are not always treated equally, or has certain "protections" such as being able to hold fully auto weapons others usually can't, or are looked upon by the law as something that needs to be protected or have harsher punishments attached for attacking that person.


Billvon has already shown you, and you ignore it then, not sure why I thought you would see it this way.


I don't get free beer, or jumps either, what is your point on that line???

You are just not getting it. That law simply does not give me anything. You seem to think that it gives me an extra protection, but it doesn't.

Nothing in that law is going to stand between me and someone who wants to do me harm, no matter how much you insist. All it does is add maybe extra punishment if they catch the guy.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[cvfd1399 0]

jgoose71

***Ignore it all you want the point is people are not always treated equally, or has certain "protections" such as being able to hold fully auto weapons others usually can't, or are looked upon by the law as something that needs to be protected or have harsher punishments attached for attacking that person.


Billvon has already shown you, and you ignore it then, not sure why I thought you would see it this way.


I don't get free beer, or jumps either, what is your point on that line???

You are just not getting it. That law simply does not give me anything. You seem to think that it gives me an extra protection, but it doesn't.

Nothing in that law is going to stand between me and someone who wants to do me harm, no matter how much you insist. All it does is add maybe extra punishment if they catch the guy.

You don't get it that's why I bring it up.... Why should the bolded underline part apply to you and not any other old citizen. What makes you different than the rest of us that requires extra punishment?

[jgoose71 0]

cvfd1399

******Ignore it all you want the point is people are not always treated equally, or has certain "protections" such as being able to hold fully auto weapons others usually can't, or are looked upon by the law as something that needs to be protected or have harsher punishments attached for attacking that person.


Billvon has already shown you, and you ignore it then, not sure why I thought you would see it this way.


I don't get free beer, or jumps either, what is your point on that line???

You are just not getting it. That law simply does not give me anything. You seem to think that it gives me an extra protection, but it doesn't.

Nothing in that law is going to stand between me and someone who wants to do me harm, no matter how much you insist. All it does is add maybe extra punishment if they catch the guy.

You don't get it that's why I bring it up.... Why should the bolded underline part apply to you and not any other old citizen. What makes you different than the rest of us that requires extra punishment?

Nothing makes me different. I don't get anything from the law, I think the law is dumb. This law does nothing for me. At what point did I Ever say I supported it? I started this thread because I think shit like this should go away. It's just politicians doing shit to say they did something.

Just like I don't think we should give any special privileges to law enforcement. They are people that live in the US they should have all the same rights and restrictions as everyone else.

When I was in the military, I was not allowed to bring my M4 home. Police should lock there firearms up in the armory at night too instead of bringing them home. Maybe they will stop getting stolen.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[cvfd1399 0]

No the title was about law enforcement exemptions. If you don't beleive me look up its right there. Now that you have been shown by many that different treatment is rampant you now change gears and shift the goalposts. Wanna start a new thread with a better title or admit your wrong?

[jgoose71 0]

cvfd1399

No the title was about law enforcement exemptions. If you don't beleive me look up its right there. Now that you have been shown by many that different treatment is rampant you now change gears and shift the goalposts. Wanna start a new thread with a better title or admit your wrong?

Wrong about what?

So you think that a guy who is about to beat me up, and knows that it is illegal, is going to stop because instead of breaking 8 laws he might be breaking 9? Do most criminals have a 9 law limit or something?

As for the name of the thread, yes, I do believe race/class/status based exemptions are unconstitutional. If they wanted to make a blanket law concerning aggravating circumstances that effect everyone equally (which I'm pretty sure they already have a couple) that is OK.

I'm not debating that race/class/status based laws are not out there. I'm saying they are wrong.

And yes, there is a difference between a law that gives someone and extra right or privilege like giving them permission to carry a fire arm in an otherwise prohibited township, or allows them into a college with a lower standard (these laws effect the individual) and laws that effect the people around them (hate crime statutes). And once again, I think they are all wrong.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[turtlespeed 212]

jgoose71

***No the title was about law enforcement exemptions. If you don't beleive me look up its right there. Now that you have been shown by many that different treatment is rampant you now change gears and shift the goalposts. Wanna start a new thread with a better title or admit your wrong?

Wrong about what?

So you think that a guy who is about to beat me up, and knows that it is illegal, is going to stop because instead of breaking 8 laws he might be breaking 9? Do most criminals have a 9 law limit or something?

As for the name of the thread, yes, I do believe race/class/status based exemptions are unconstitutional. If they wanted to make a blanket law concerning aggravating circumstances that effect everyone equally (which I'm pretty sure they already have a couple) that is OK.

I'm not debating that race/class/status based laws are not out there. I'm saying they are wrong.

And yes, there is a difference between a law that gives someone and extra right or privilege like giving them permission to carry a fire arm in an otherwise prohibited township, or allows them into a college with a lower standard (these laws effect the individual) and laws that effect the people around them (hate crime statutes). And once again, I think they are all wrong.

Intention aloofness.
You cannot be so dense as to not see that the law is written and designed to add an extra layer of protection to you. The whole point of the language of that law is so that you are just a little more insulated from assault.

Really? You don't have to "get" anything to benefit from a law.

Just because you believe that the law is not a deterrent, doesn't mean it's not.

I compare it, fundamentally, to the laws surrounding politicians and heads of state.

Do you think it should be a higher crime to assault Joe Blow, or You, or VP Biden?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[jgoose71 0]

turtlespeed

Do you think it should be a higher crime to assault Joe Blow, or You, or VP Biden?

Actually, no I don't. Mostly because if we are all subjected to the same levels of protection (especially politicians) then maybe we can have a serious discussion about what constitutes "Adequate self protection."

I am willing to let the politicians continue to have there armed guards though. They just can't carry anything more than what I'm allowed to carry....

Fuck you if you say I can't have a gun or only carry a 6-shooter while you are surrounded by full auto assault rifles, .50 cal sniper rifles, sub-machine guns, and any other form of belt fed happiness.....

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[SkyDekker 1,123]

jgoose71

***
Do you think it should be a higher crime to assault Joe Blow, or You, or VP Biden?

Actually, no I don't. Mostly because if we are all subjected to the same levels of protection (especially politicians) then maybe we can have a serious discussion about what constitutes "Adequate self protection."

I am willing to let the politicians continue to have there armed guards though. They just can't carry anything more than what I'm allowed to carry....

Fuck you if you say I can't have a gun or only carry a 6-shooter while you are surrounded by full auto assault rifles, .50 cal sniper rifles, sub-machine guns, and any other form of belt fed happiness.....

I am so thankful I live in a society where this simply isn't that big an issue.