Top law enforcement officials beg legislators not to override concealed carry veto

[thperez1972]

regardless if they agree or not they will following orders. I really doubt that any of the sheriffs speaking would leave it up to the officers discretion to arrest or not arrest someone for CC. You are also as a cop a direct reflection of your department and superiors.

I'm not sure if you've ever worked in law enforcement but I would bet you haven't. The chief/sheriff is generally not on the scene when the cop on patrol is doing his thing. But it really doesn't matter what I say. People who are anti-cop will always find a way for their position to be right, even when it isn't.

 

[Emperor]

Listen folks! This is not about the Constitution! This is not about safety! This is not about law enforcement! This is not about training!

This is about power, money, & politics.

You guys have to come to terms with politicians (mostly democrats), not GIVING A RAT'S ASS about you, your family, your property, or YOUR RIGHTS!

If someone can explain to me why almost EVERY BLACK democrat politician or person of power is against this on the basis of race, then we may get some where on these other questions.

Louisiana is a **** hole! We have corrupt politicians in both parties, but the level of current and historic "democrat" corruption is off the charts, and why law abiding citizens are always being **** on!

 

[DBMJR1]

Education… lol

The CHP requirements are pitiful.

As are the Post requirements.

Let's not pretend that all LEO's are proficient with a firearm. Most don't even know how to clean their sidearm these days.

Of course there are many who are VERY proficient on the other side of that coin.

 

[Xeon64]

When I grew up every kid have a pellet gun and we went around the neighbor hood shooting birds and cans. Now kid would be arrest for that and all of the places that you use to be able to go shoot are now posted. People do not get to freely shoot like they use to. You either have to own a lot of property in a rural area or go to over crowded ranges that there very few of. City of Baton Rouge only has two. Baker and Precision both of which are trash in my opinion.

There was a time when kids received firearms training through the NRA at school. Most kids also had a BB gun and learned the basics of gun handling. If we're going to allow everyone to CCW then a bit of gun handling training could be taught in school. At least teach the 4 basic safety rules and stress the need for training.

Local police could offer a free gun safety class to the local populations. Not to mention set up more local ranges- let people shoot at a nearby dump, etc.

Finally, all those CCW instructors are going to have to start earning their customers. Seems like a good time for an advertising blitz...

 

[RaleighReloader]

=Basic training and competence testing unfortunately refers to the inconvenient part of everyone's favorite amendment, "well-regulated."

No it doesn't.

In the context of 18th century semantics, "well regulated" means "well prepared and effective." It has noting to do with "let's put lots of regulations in place."

The education requirement is a fool's errand. CHP classes educate a person about some of the laws and rules governing conceal carry, and only the most basic of information about firearms and shooting. If shooting proficiency had anything to do with it, attendees would undergo a hell of a lot more training than they are currently required to take. The current CHP class is "training theater" on the best of days, and on the worst of days it can give attendees a false sense of competency.

Interestingly, I think the second amendment is the only one that we even contemplate the idea of requiring training. Can you imagine the outcry if we required a high school diploma for people voting? Or some sort of language proficiency before exercising free speech? It's actually a measure of how far down this rabbit hole we've already gone, that we're even willing to have this discussion.

The real nose in the camel's tent here is to give the police the ability to regulate a fundamental, constitutionally-protected right. We do this under the auspices of the police being "firearms experts," despite the fact that police firearms training is only nominally more comprehensive than CHP training. But Joe Q. Public is under the impression that the police are "gun experts," and that somehow people tasked with "law enforcement" should now be in the business of administering regulatory schemes and permission slips. As a society we've come to accept this, but it only takes a bit of scrutiny to realize that it's bone-headedness taken to a new level.

It would be a bit like assuming that taxi drivers are car experts because they drive every day for a living — and then giving taxi agencies the power to decide who gets a driver's license.

The interesting thing is, none of this will stop criminals from carrying guns unlawfully. And repealing the requirement for a CHP does nothing to make criminal behaviors any less criminal.

And please don't think that I'm criticizing the notion of gun training ... anything but. I try to do at least one training class every 4 months, and I go to the range very regularly (at least once a week) to stay proficient. Not only is that part of being a responsible gun owner," but it's part of one's civic duty for good citizenship.

Being a responsible good citizen has nothing to do with government permission slips. This CHP stupidity needs to go, and someone needs to tell Edwards to stop selling out to the sycophants. And if our pro-2A state organizations have the balls, they should step up and call out every single one of these so-called "law enforcement leaders" for pandering the most stupid among us.

Mike

 

[Riverc]

Makes no difference if it passes or not people will continue to carry concealed.In these times you are a fool not to carry legal or illegal.

 

[Emperor]

No it doesn't.

In the context of 18th century semantics, "well regulated" means "well prepared and effective." It has noting to do with "let's put lots of regulations in place."

The education requirement is a fool's errand. CHP classes educate a person about some of the laws and rules governing conceal carry, and only the most basic of information about firearms and shooting. If shooting proficiency had anything to do with it, attendees would undergo a hell of a lot more training than they are currently required to take. The current CHP class is "training theater" on the best of days, and on the worst of days it can give attendees a false sense of competency.

Interestingly, I think the second amendment is the only one that we even contemplate the idea of requiring training. Can you imagine the outcry if we required a high school diploma for people voting? Or some sort of language proficiency before exercising free speech? It's actually a measure of how far down this rabbit hole we've already gone, that we're even willing to have this discussion.

The real nose in the camel's tent here is to give the police the ability to regulate a fundamental, constitutionally-protected right. We do this under the auspices of the police being "firearms experts," despite the fact that police firearms training is only nominally more comprehensive than CHP training. But Joe Q. Public is under the impression that the police are "gun experts," and that somehow people tasked with "law enforcement" should now be in the business of administering regulatory schemes and permission slips. As a society we've come to accept this, but it only takes a bit of scrutiny to realize that it's bone-headedness taken to a new level.

It would be a bit like assuming that taxi drivers are car experts because they drive every day for a living — and then giving taxi agencies the power to decide who gets a driver's license.

The interesting thing is, none of this will stop criminals from carrying guns unlawfully. And repealing the requirement for a CHP does nothing to make criminal behaviors any less criminal.

And please don't think that I'm criticizing the notion of gun training ... anything but. I try to do at least one training class every 4 months, and I go to the range very regularly (at least once a week) to stay proficient. Not only is that part of being a responsible gun owner," but it's part of one's civic duty for good citizenship.

Being a responsible good citizen has nothing to do with government permission slips. This CHP stupidity needs to go, and someone needs to tell Edwards to stop selling out to the sycophants. And if our pro-2A state organizations have the balls, they should step up and call out every single one of these so-called "law enforcement leaders" for pandering the most stupid among us.

Mike

Good points, all!

The ignorance/naivety of firearms by the general populace is the biggest chip in the pot for anti-gun power hungry retards!

 

[Lets_Ride]

It is important to realize that once LEOs get to this level, they are more politician than LEO. Most are now in elected positions. Take note and vote them out.

 

[thperez1972]

The real nose in the camel's tent here is to give the police the ability to regulate a fundamental, constitutionally-protected right. We do this under the auspices of the police being "firearms experts," despite the fact that police firearms training is only nominally more comprehensive than CHP training. But Joe Q. Public is under the impression that the police are "gun experts," and that somehow people tasked with "law enforcement" should now be in the business of administering regulatory schemes and permission slips. As a society we've come to accept this, but it only takes a bit of scrutiny to realize that it's bone-headedness taken to a new level.

No. Someone's criminal record is needed to determine if they are legally allowed to possess a firearm. The police have access to someone's criminal record. That's why they regulate concealed carry permits.

 

[Emperor]

No. Someone's criminal record is needed to determine if they are legally allowed to possess a firearm. The police have access to someone's criminal record. That's why they regulate concealed carry permits.

I think you missed the point.

The general public definitely and overwhelmingly believes that just because someone is a "sheriff" or police "Chief", they must understand everything about the issue and therefore must be taken to a higher degree of influence in that issue.

 

[thperez1972]

It is important to realize that once LEOs get to this level, they are more politician than LEO. Most are now in elected positions. Take note and vote them out.

Yes. One would be mistaken to believe people like Nancy Pelosi speaks for everyone she represents. It's the same way for the top cop in the department. But unlike with your representative in Washington, if you publicly speak out in opposition to what the top cop says, there could be consequences. So you cannot determine what the average patrol cop thinks or what they will do based on the words coming from the top cop.

 

[Emperor]

Yes. One would be mistaken to believe people like Nancy Pelosi speaks for everyone she represents. It's the same way for the top cop in the department. But unlike with your representative in Washington, if you publicly speak out in opposition to what the top cop says, there could be consequences. So you cannot determine what the average patrol cop thinks or what they will do based on the words coming from the top cop.

Agreed! But any one in the ranks has the ability to refuse to enforce an order he/she believes to be unconstitutional. The problem is the blurred interpretation of the 2nd Amendment by government in general. The Supreme Court has danced around the primary issue way too long with Heller and other decisions. It is well beyond the time to decide the issue in black and white.

The question of a full blown Right and shall not be infringed must be settled so we can end this silly **** once and for all.

 

[ozarkpugs]

I keep seeing peoples posts comparing permitless carry being online with letting people drive without a test and license . That argument is in the favor or permitless carry . Seriously , have you seen how many of those idiots drive ? Would you not say most people who drives drunk or careless or even have road rage passed the drivers test and received a license.

Sent from my LM-K920 using Tapatalk

 

[thperez1972]

I think you missed the point.

The general public definitely and overwhelmingly believse that just because someone is a "sheriff" or police "Chief", they must understand everything about the issue and therefore must be taken to a higher degree of influence in that issue.

I didn't miss the point. RaleighReloader claimed the police have the task because they are believed to be firearms experts. Even if the general public believes they are firearms experts, that's not why they got the job. RaleighReloader then went on about taxi cab agencies as if it were equivalent to the permits. To get both a drivers license and a carry permit, one must meet an objective list of requirements. Someone has to make sure all of the boxes are checked. In the case of a permit, the police are in the best position because they have access to the needed records. But with a drivers license, there are non-government entities deciding who gets a license. You can go to what is basically a notary office to get your license. Express OMV, LLC for example. (https://offices.omv.la.gov/details.html?office=835) They are not part of the DMV. I'm sure they're not driving experts. But they don't need to be to make sure boxes are checked.

 

[Jstudz220]

I'm not sure if you've ever worked in law enforcement but I would bet you haven't. The chief/sheriff is generally not on the scene when the cop on patrol is doing his thing. But it really doesn't matter what I say. People who are anti-cop will always find a way for their position to be right, even when it isn't.

Well your wrong, I was not a cop however I was in the military, approved request chit to go to security for 12 months, and in that time did training with local and state PD. I don’t claim to know it all because I don’t but I do have more experience than your average Joe. Never did I say I was anti police I said it was becoming harder and harder to support them. I can’t think of anyone who is anti police yet willingly donates money to them annually. Although I will say as of now I can’t see myself sending them another .01 of my money.

 

[Jstudz220]

No it doesn't.

In the context of 18th century semantics, "well regulated" means "well prepared and effective." It has noting to do with "let's put lots of regulations in place."

The education requirement is a fool's errand. CHP classes educate a person about some of the laws and rules governing conceal carry, and only the most basic of information about firearms and shooting. If shooting proficiency had anything to do with it, attendees would undergo a hell of a lot more training than they are currently required to take. The current CHP class is "training theater" on the best of days, and on the worst of days it can give attendees a false sense of competency.

Interestingly, I think the second amendment is the only one that we even contemplate the idea of requiring training. Can you imagine the outcry if we required a high school diploma for people voting? Or some sort of language proficiency before exercising free speech? It's actually a measure of how far down this rabbit hole we've already gone, that we're even willing to have this discussion.

The real nose in the camel's tent here is to give the police the ability to regulate a fundamental, constitutionally-protected right. We do this under the auspices of the police being "firearms experts," despite the fact that police firearms training is only nominally more comprehensive than CHP training. But Joe Q. Public is under the impression that the police are "gun experts," and that somehow people tasked with "law enforcement" should now be in the business of administering regulatory schemes and permission slips. As a society we've come to accept this, but it only takes a bit of scrutiny to realize that it's bone-headedness taken to a new level.

It would be a bit like assuming that taxi drivers are car experts because they drive every day for a living — and then giving taxi agencies the power to decide who gets a driver's license.

The interesting thing is, none of this will stop criminals from carrying guns unlawfully. And repealing the requirement for a CHP does nothing to make criminal behaviors any less criminal.

And please don't think that I'm criticizing the notion of gun training ... anything but. I try to do at least one training class every 4 months, and I go to the range very regularly (at least once a week) to stay proficient. Not only is that part of being a responsible gun owner," but it's part of one's civic duty for good citizenship.

Being a responsible good citizen has nothing to do with government permission slips. This CHP stupidity needs to go, and someone needs to tell Edwards to stop selling out to the sycophants. And if our pro-2A state organizations have the balls, they should step up and call out every single one of these so-called "law enforcement leaders" for pandering the most stupid among us.

Mike

very well said

 

[Emperor]

I didn't miss the point. RaleighReloader claimed the police have the task because they are believed to be firearms experts. Even if the general public believes they are firearms experts, that's not why they got the job. RaleighReloader then went on about taxi cab agencies as if it were equivalent to the permits. To get both a drivers license and a carry permit, one must meet an objective list of requirements. Someone has to make sure all of the boxes are checked. In the case of a permit, the police are in the best position because they have access to the needed records. But with a drivers license, there are non-government entities deciding who gets a license. You can go to what is basically a notary office to get your license. Express OMV, LLC for example. (https://offices.omv.la.gov/details.html?office=835) They are not part of the DMV. I'm sure they're not driving experts. But they don't need to be to make sure boxes are checked.

He (Raleigh), may not have been clear enough on that sentence. He can speak for himself if I am wrong, but I think he meant the police are deciding the enforcement of a regulated Right?!? The "regulation" of that right in my context is the creation of laws concerning said Right. Obviously a totally different bunch of deciders. However, since this thread is about the "chiefs" & "Sheriffs" coming out against this Bill, an argument can be made that they are trying to influence the outcome of a Constitutional issue.

I kind of don't think that is of their concern! They are elected/chosen to "uphold" the people's laws. Not decide/influence the potential outcomes of which ones they may like and dislike. This issue has been decided by a majority of lawmakers. They (the chiefs and sheriffs), had their say and their day in the Legislative process. It's time for them to stand down and live with the consequences of what the "lawmakers" have done! After all, it is they (Legislators), that will pay for their votes or not on this issue.

 

[thperez1972]

Well your wrong, I was not a cop however I was in the military, approved request chit to go to security for 12 months, and in that time did training with local and state PD. I don’t claim to know it all because I don’t but I do have more experience than your average Joe. Never did I say I was anti police I said it was becoming harder and harder to support them. I can’t think of anyone who is anti police yet willingly donates money to them annually. Although I will say as of now I can’t see myself sending them another .01 of my money.

If you worked with the police then you know the chief is not there for every traffic stop and call for service and cannot be aware of every use of discretion. And if you know that and still pull support from the patrolman based on what the chief says, I don't know what to say. You may not be anti-cop but it's tough to argue you are for them.

 

[thperez1972]

He (Raleigh), may not have been clear enough on that sentence. He can speak for himself if I am wrong, but I think he meant the police are deciding the enforcement of a regulated Right?!? The "regulation" of that right in my context is the creation of laws concerning said Right. Obviously a totally different bunch of deciders. However, since this thread is about the "chiefs" & "Sheriffs" coming out against this Bill, an argument can be made that they are trying to influence the outcome of a Constitutional issue.

Yes, they are trying to influence the lawmakers. They are saying their experience with enforcing the law puts them in a position of authority to provide needed information. You are welcome to disagree with them. You are also welcome to try to influence lawmakers.

I kind of don't think that is of their concern! They are elected/chosen to "uphold" the people's laws. Not decide/influence the potential outcomes of which ones they may like and dislike. This issue has been decided by a majority of lawmakers. They (the chiefs and sheriffs), had their say and their day in the Legislative process. It's time for them to stand down and live with the consequences of what the "lawmakers" have done! After all, it is they (Legislators), that will pay for their votes or not on this issue.

So the lawmakers have not passed concealed carry without a permit. So right now, the law says that someone carrying a concealed weapon without a permit can be arrested. That issue was decided by a majority of lawmakers. Are you saying you support the arrest of people carrying concealed without a permit? After all, they're "elected/chosen to 'uphold' the people's laws."

 

[DAVE_M]

As are the Post requirements.

Let's not pretend that all LEO's are proficient with a firearm. Most don't even know how to clean their sidearm these days.

Of course there are many who are VERY proficient on the other side of that coin.

My comment had nothing to do with LE.

Everyone should better themselves.