Why are some law-enforcement against the Second Amendment?

[Frank_N_Stein]

in the political section? You said it not me

Uh, yeah.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Admit it. You come in here to bask in the glowing light of my posts.

I'm basking in something, not sure if it is glowing light.

 

[Cameramonkey]

I think I know why. One word. Lazy.

Without Constitutional Carry, No permit=you can has no gun. So that makes it less likely for an individual to be armed. And if the citizen DOES have a gun sans permit, its an easy arrest. Its immediately obvious who should and shouldnt have a gun based on a prescribed permission slip. Just like carrying your drivers license.

With CC, now "ANYONE" could have a gun. And if they do, now its up to the officer to figure out if its legal or not for them to have it. Its no longer defaulting to "no permit, no permission". Now the officer has to figure out "is this person prohibited?" on their own. Before they could assume "no permit, no gun=ride to jail". Not so cut and dried anymore, putting more burden on the officers and dispatch.

Granted most, if not all LEOs here disagree with that sentiment. Of course those here are the same ones who dont use the "officer safety" argument for disarming even under basic traffic infraction stops.

 

[Trigger Time]

Every real cop I know supports constitutional carry. If they don't then I don't care to know them. It's the politician Leo's that don't. The ones grasping for title and power not the ones on the road actualy keeping us safe.

 

[JTScribe]

Every real cop I know supports constitutional carry. If they don't then I don't care to know them. It's the politician Leo's that don't. The ones grasping for title and power not the ones on the road actualy keeping us safe.

I think that's an important, and correct, distinction. The guys on the road don't have donors telling them how to lean.

 

[cbhausen]

No limitations whatsoever?

That's right, no infringments. It isn't what one possesses; it's what one does with said possessed item.

 

[cbhausen]

Bad news INGO peace officers. No disarming arrestees...or detainees...or inmates. "Shall not be infringed"!!!!

Now THERE'S a leap in logic! Inmates lose the right (but should be made whole again upon release and possibly a probationary period).

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Now THERE'S a leap in logic! Inmates lose the right (but should be made whole again upon release and possibly a probationary period).

Thats not something I will ever agree on. Prison stays don't reform anyone.

 

[Trigger Time]

Now THERE'S a leap in logic! Inmates lose the right (but should be made whole again upon release and possibly a probationary period).

the system now is set up to **** you and push you to reoffend in some way. Too many hoops once people serve their time.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Thats not something I will ever agree on. Prison stays don't reform anyone.

You mean like when an inept, petty criminal from Mooresville went up the river for 10 years and came out as a skilled bank robber who rose to be Public Enemy #1? Ok that's not the kind of reform we're looking for...

 

[cbhausen]

Thats not something I will ever agree on. Prison stays don't reform anyone.

So, let them out less than whole? I've only been a "guest" of a county jail twice and visited a prison once so I claim nothing but naïveté here... but some do come out reformed. They deserve their rights back. As for the others, don't let them out if they're not ready for the outside. And fix what's wrong on the inside so whole men and women come out.

/threadjack

 

[Denny347]

Gabby Giffords' gun-control group gets new law enforcement allies

You mean why are some politically appointed police administrators against the 2nd amendment?

 

[cbhausen]

According to Guy Relford, 86/92 elected Indiana County Sheriffs are against or had no position on HB 1159... Reflord skewered their arguments on WIBC earlier tonight. The ISA was invited to participate; didn't even respond to the invitation.

Yes, I consider them opposing 2A no matter what lip service they give it. The proof's in the pudding and they (along with several other LEO organizations) showed their true colors when releasing that position paper last Thursday.

Shame, shame on all of you.

 

[KLB]

According to Guy Relford, 86/92 elected Indiana County Sheriffs are against or had no position on HB 1159... Reflord skewered their arguments on WIBC earlier tonight. The ISA was invited to participate; didn't even respond to the invitation.

Yes, I consider them opposing 2A no matter what lip service they give it. The proof's in the pudding and they (along with several other LEO organizations) showed their true colors when releasing that position paper last Thursday.

Shame, shame on all of you.

I wish we could find out who the six were that spoke against it.

 

[Woobie]

Thats not something I will ever agree on. Prison stays don't reform anyone.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ls-man-who-ambushed-shot-arizona-officer.html

 

[cbhausen]

I wish we could find out who the six were that spoke against it.

Only six SUPPORT HB 1159... I've asked Guy Relford for a list.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Gabby Giffords' gun-control group gets new law enforcement allies

I've seen a metric crap-ton of arguments here, from treason to making someone's job easier to disrespect for the oath to disrespect for the people to disrespect for the Constitution itself.

IMHO, every one of those reasons has missed the mark.

The only person who surprises me by missing it is Leadeye, who has made the saying so ubiquitous as to be a sig line: Always follow the money.

Some percentage of the money from every LTCH goes to the agency that performs the background check for their training budget.

The agencies stand to stop bringing in money if Constitutional Carry passes and they no longer need to do those checks. How would you react if your boss wanted to make a change that would reduce your income, and asked your opinion?

Note that I don't agree with refusal to support, certainly not on those grounds, but I understand the likelihood that that is indeed the primary motivation behind the decision.

Oh... and treason is defined as making war against the United States or giving aid and comfort to her enemies. Only the very loosest reading of it would encompass the refusal to support Constitutional carry.

Considering that the penalty for that crime is death, I think the bar for it needs to be as highly set as possible.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Shame, shame on all of you.

Don't lump me in with that bunch.

 

[Trigger Time]

Don't lump me in with that bunch.

Unless youre one of the elected sherriffs that voted for this (which I know you aren't), then he wasn't.

 

[churchmouse]

I've seen a metric crap-ton of arguments here, from treason to making someone's job easier to disrespect for the oath to disrespect for the people to disrespect for the Constitution itself.

IMHO, every one of those reasons has missed the mark.

The only person who surprises me by missing it is Leadeye, who has made the saying so ubiquitous as to be a sig line: Always follow the money.

Some percentage of the money from every LTCH goes to the agency that performs the background check for their training budget.

The agencies stand to stop bringing in money if Constitutional Carry passes and they no longer need to do those checks. How would you react if your boss wanted to make a change that would reduce your income, and asked your opinion?

Note that I don't agree with refusal to support, certainly not on those grounds, but I understand the likelihood that that is indeed the primary motivation behind the decision.

Oh... and treason is defined as making war against the United States or giving aid and comfort to her enemies. Only the very loosest reading of it would encompass the refusal to support Constitutional carry.

Considering that the penalty for that crime is death, I think the bar for it needs to be as highly set as possible.

Blessings,
Bill

Using the money angle in a few debates/discussions lately has been a positive for my arguments. So few see this.
Those agencies and many others are revenue streams. They exist on the taxes they take from us so we can the 2-A rights we should have for free.