|
|
|
OpenCarry.org - Discussion Forum > Stories From The States > New York > Why does HE have the right but NOT the people
|
|
||
| OpenCarry.org - Discussion Forum > Stories From The States > New York > Why does HE have the right but NOT the people
|
|||
| Moderated by: jpierce | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
yankees98a Regular Member
|
The cop is off duty. Why should he receieve specials rights when he is in the role of a citizen (not working) where regular citizens don't! http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/nyregion/07shoot.html?ref=nyregion |
|||||||||
|
Grapeshot Founder's Club Member 
|
Because you have the type of elected officials that you have. I have one word for you to consider: BLOOMIE Yata hey |
|||||||||
|
openryan State Researcher 
|
yankees98a wrote: The cop is off duty. Why should he receieve specials rights when he is in the role of a citizen (not working) where regular citizens don't!What is your problem here, him being able to carry a firearm? If so, they go through much more rigorous background and mental eval's than even the hardest states to get a license perform on regular citizens, and I am not saying that it is right, but it is just their reasoning, if you don't like it, become a cop -- or vote. I agree that we should ALL have the right to carry a firearm as long as we demonstrate responsibility and sound practices, but especially police in their line of duty do not make too many friends, some people just hate them, and some people hate them because of 'catching' them and will try to find them off duty, on the whole, I think police probably have one of the highest job related fatalities "off duty" but related to work, but I could be wrong, and certainly did not research that... If I misunderstood you, please redirect me. |
|||||||||
|
ilbob Activist Member
|
Part of the reason for the special privileges is to bond the cops to the government hacks that hired them. if they didn't get special privileges, the job would just be a job, and cops might be inclined to just move on when they didn't like what was going on. the special perks tend to keep them in the group. |
|||||||||
|
openryan State Researcher
|
ilbob wrote: Part of the reason for the special privileges is to bond the cops to the government hacks that hired them. if they didn't get special privileges, the job would just be a job, and cops might be inclined to just move on when they didn't like what was going on. the special perks tend to keep them in the group.Too bad personal protection is now a perk!  |
|||||||||
|
IdahoCorsair State Researcher 
|
openryan wrote: yankees98a wrote: The cop is off duty. Why should he receieve specials rights when he is in the role of a citizen (not working) where regular citizens don't! What is your problem here, him being able to carry a firearm? Then it's not a RIGHT, but a priviledge. |
|||||||||
|
DKSuddeth Regular Member 
|
because if a NORMAL citizen would have been packing, there would have been a total massacre of dozens of innocent bystanders due to all the crossfire.  |
|||||||||
|
.40 Cal State Researcher 
|
They need to train their cops a little better. Put the right person on the trigger and the would-be killer would be dead. It disgusts me to think that more places are using NY city as an example of the effective use of gun control. As one man put it, "gun control is holding your gun with both hands!" Last edited on Thu Oct 18th, 2007 04:29 pm by .40 Cal |
|||||||||
|
garyl43 Regular Member
|
Seems to me NY needs to ban those kitchen knives  . |
|||||||||
|
Smurfologist Regular Member 
|
DKSuddeth wrote: because if a NORMAL citizen would have been packing, there would have been a total massacre of dozens of innocent bystanders due to all the crossfire. ......Or, cops would have shot at the criminal 54 times just to hit him 19 times...... And, your point is?!? 2nd Amendment..........Use it.........Or, lose it!!  |
|||||||||
|
abrink Regular Member
|
Because they think the cops there are so much better than regular people. And have you ever seen those NY cops shoot? they really suck. I know some 13 year olds that do better than that. They better get their heads out of their you know whats and make it a shall issue state. |
|||||||||
|
DT4E31 Regular Member 
|
If you check the article 265 of the NYS Penal Law, you will see that police officers and peace officers are exempt from certain laws in article 265 (weapons possession) That is why off duty cops can carry, considering that they put their life on the live to protect others...........why not? |
|||||||||
|
abrink Regular Member
|
DT4E31 wrote: If you check the article 265 of the NYS Penal Law, you will see that police officers and peace officers are exempt from certain laws in article 265 (weapons possession) OK i get that but why cant ordinary citizens carry? |
|||||||||
|
vmathis12019 State Researcher 
|
Because we're immature, irresponsible, and otherwise incapable of effectively and safely behaving ourselves with weapons in public. (The real reason is that by disarming the public, you create a power differential; one that those in power wish to keep in existence in order to maintain their own levels of power and security.) |
|||||||||
|
vmathis12019 State Researcher
|
Because we're immature, irresponsible, and otherwise incapable of effectively and safely behaving ourselves with weapons in public. (The real reason is that by disarming the public, you create a power differential; one that those in power wish to keep in existence in order to maintain their own levels of power and security.) |
|||||||||
|
Tomahawk Regular Member 
|
These People Put Their Lives On The Line for us poor slobs, even though we can't tell them not to bother and have to pay them whether we like it or not, so they should be allowed lots of special priviledges and rights. Any employee of the State is more important than you are, and should get special stuff that you can't have. That's how things work in a free country, isn't it? What's your problem with that? |
|||||||||
|
abrink Regular Member
|
Tomahawk wrote: These People Put Their Lives On The Line for us poor slobs, even though we can't tell them not to bother and have to pay them whether we like it or not, so they should be allowed lots of special priviledges and rights. OK i agree that cops should have some special rights that maybe ordinary people cant have. I dont believe the right to defend yourself is one of them. Everyone should have the right to defend themselves. |
|||||||||
|
Tomahawk Regular Member
|
I was being sarcastic! Geez, I guess I'm losing my edge. |
|||||||||
|
abrink Regular Member
|
Tomahawk wrote: I was being sarcastic! Geez, I guess I'm losing my edge. lol... Well u wrote a lot so i thought u were serious  |
|||||||||
|
Tomahawk Regular Member
|
Speaking of NY cops, this ought to make us all feel safer. And on topic, this quote seems applicable to the subject of special rights for government employees: Beneficium accipere libertatem est vendere - To accept a favour is to sell freedom. (Publilius Syrus) Last edited on Sun Feb 3rd, 2008 05:43 pm by Tomahawk |
|||||||||
|
abrink Regular Member
|
Instead fo hiring and training lots and lots of people why don't they realize that letting citizens carry would also do a good job for both terrorists and regular criminals. |
|||||||||
|
Citizen Founder's Club Member
|
yankees98a wrote: The cop is off duty. Why should he receieve specials rights when he is in the role of a citizen (not working) where regular citizens don't! I don't think yankee's98a is really questioning why the cop gets to carry off-duty, although it came out that way. I think he's questioning the citizen prohibition when there is an obvious need for it. He's also suggested another good point. If off-duty police need to carry in order to stop crime, then so do the citizens. Last edited on Sun Feb 3rd, 2008 09:10 pm by Citizen |
|||||||||
|
Citizen Founder's Club Member
|
Tomahawk wrote: 1. Speaking of NY cops, this ought to make us all feel safer. 1. It does not make me feel at all safer. I've just read Massad Ayoob's column in the current Combat Handguns, or whatever it is called. Its real hair-raising how many innocent bystanders were hit during police shootings and how many people got hit with shoot-throughs before NYPD went to hollow-points. 2. I have GOT to see your library. |
|||||||||
|
Tomahawk Regular Member
|
Citizen wrote: yankees98a wrote:The cop is off duty. Why should he receieve specials rights when he is in the role of a citizen (not working) where regular citizens don't! I can't speak for yank98, but I certainly am questioning it. Either there are special people or there are not. When not on duty, police officers can abide by the same laws as everyone else. If that means using whatever permit system NY has (if there even is one), then so be it. No carry for private citizens? No carry for off-duty government officials, either. Recently here in Virginia Phillip Van Cleeve sent out an email alert pertaining to a bill that would allow Commonwealth's Attornies to carry concealed without a permit. VCDL opposes it for the same reason. Those officials can get a permit like the rest of us, or they can eliminate the permit requirement for all. No special people. |
|||||||||
|
Citizen Founder's Club Member
|
Tomahawk wrote: SNIP I can't speak for yank98, but I certainly am questioning it. Either there are special people or there are not. When not on duty, police officers can abide by the same laws as everyone else. If that means using whatever permit system NY has (if there even is one), then so be it. I understand and agree with the general concept. However, I think the argument, despite being valid generally, would lose on one exact point: Police are not truly off-duty at the end of their shift. Their oath and powers do not stop at the end of their shift. |
|||||||||
|
abrink Regular Member
|
Citizen wrote: Tomahawk wrote:SNIP I can't speak for yank98, but I certainly am questioning it. Either there are special people or there are not. When not on duty, police officers can abide by the same laws as everyone else. If that means using whatever permit system NY has (if there even is one), then so be it. Good point and i agree but everyone should have the right to defend themselves. Just because police officers took that oath and all that that doesn't mean that they should be able to protect themselves and we ordinary citizens cant. I think thats what you're trying to say tho so i'm not arguing with you. |
|||||||||
|
Tomahawk Regular Member
|
Citizen wrote: Tomahawk wrote:SNIP I can't speak for yank98, but I certainly am questioning it. Either there are special people or there are not. When not on duty, police officers can abide by the same laws as everyone else. If that means using whatever permit system NY has (if there even is one), then so be it. If the system is jacked up enough to prevent private citizens from exercising their rights, I see no reason why it couldn't be equally jacked up for off-duty cops as well. Just as cops are never truly off-duty, the private citizen is never to be deprived of his rights. If one has to suffer than all should. Before you can get such government employees to support our efforts to restore our freedoms, you must make them feel our pain and ride in the same boat for a while. You must drill it into their heads that they are equal under the law and that freedom isn't reserved for them alone. Last edited on Sun Feb 3rd, 2008 10:11 pm by Tomahawk |
|||||||||
|
Citizen Founder's Club Member
|
Tomahawk wrote: SNIP If the system is jacked up enough to prevent private citizens from exercising their rights, I see no reason why it couldn't be equally jacked up for off-duty cops as well. You might be on to something there. I'd forgotten how it felt to go around unarmed. How to implement it? Would it even fly? There would be an awful lot of support for the "heroes in blue" to continue to carry off duty. Also, many police do already support 2A, according to reports on OCDO. Maybe better to just continue to focus on the rest of us getting our rights back rather than deny their basic human right to self-defense. |
|||||||||
|
Tomahawk Regular Member
|
It wouldn't fly, of course, but you can still make an issue of the inequality under the law, and use that as a way to argue for shall issue. |
|||||||||
|
glocknroll Regular Member
|
Tomahawk wrote: It wouldn't fly, of course, but you can still make an issue of the inequality under the law, and use that as a way to argue for shall issue. The argument for all cops being to carry off duty will always be "In the course of their duties, the police make enemies of those they arrest. They have to be prepared to defend against those enemies at any time." I can understand that argument. What I don't understand is, knowing that bad things happen to good people every day, why the rest of us don't have the same right. It's already federal law that off duty or retired cops can carry in any state, so you won't have much luck taking that away from them. I have to agree with Citizen, I would stress that their lives are not worth more than yours or mine. |
|||||||||
|
thnycav Regular Member 
|
Well simply stated a police officer even when off duty if a crime happens in front of him he would have to do something about it. If he did not and his agency found out he would be in all kinds of problems. A normal citizen seeing a crime is under no obligation to do anything about it. You can leave the area or just not get involved at all. |
|||||||||
|
glocknroll Regular Member
|
thnycav wrote: Well simply stated a police officer even when off duty if a crime happens in front of him he would have to do something about it. If he did not and his agency found out he would be in all kinds of problems. A normal citizen seeing a crime is under no obligation to do anything about it. You can leave the area or just not get involved at all. What if the crime happening in front of you is also happening to you? The whole "leave the area" thing goes right out the window. I, for one, feel a moral obligation to assist those weaker or less prepared than I. You can leave the area if you so choose. I have to live with my conscience. |
|||||||||
|
thnycav Regular Member
|
Well first of all I do think the NY gun laws are all wrong, but having said that you still have the option. I would choose to help if I could as well but remember it is a option to do so. |
|||||||||
|
glocknroll Regular Member
|
thnycav wrote: Well first of all I do think the NY gun laws are all wrong, but having said that you still have the option. I would choose to help if I could as well but remember it is a option to do so. I sincerely apologize for any assumptions on my part. Yes, ignoring other's problems is an option, just one that you, I, and most posters on this forum wouldn't choose. |
|||||||||
|
thnycav Regular Member
|
A police officer would not have that option to just walk away. Especially if it was in the city he worked for. |
|||||||||
|
glocknroll Regular Member
|
thnycav wrote: A police officer would not have that option to just walk away. Especially if it was in the city he worked for. Agreed, but that is because he is sworn to "protect and serve". I don't doubt that some officers have chosen to walk away, especially if dressed in civilian clothes (out of uniform). The police are hired from the rest of society. A few bad apples will always slip through the cracks. |
|||||||||
|
I_Hate_Illinois Regular Member 
|
.40 Cal wrote: They need to train their cops a little better. Put the right person on the trigger and the would-be killer would be dead. It disgusts me to think that more places are using NY city as an example of the effective use of gun control. As one man put it, "gun control is holding your gun with both hands!"One of the most brilliant things I have ever heard. |
|||||||||
|
Wynder State Researcher 
|
thnycav wrote: Well simply stated a police officer even when off duty if a crime happens in front of him he would have to do something about it. If he did not and his agency found out he would be in all kinds of problems. A normal citizen seeing a crime is under no obligation to do anything about it. You can leave the area or just not get involved at all. The Supreme Court has ruled that the police have NO DUTY to protect. Additionally, the Fourteenth Amendment provides equal protection under the law -- laws that affect citizens should also apply to police. Granted, legislature gets around this by crafting laws based on job titles, but that's just furthering the concept that there are different classes of citizens. Don't think that an officer HAS to do anything while there're off-duty... much less ON-duty, at least in the eyes of the Supreme Court. |
|||||||||
|
DT4E31 Regular Member
|
There is no reason to WHINE and bitch about the police having carry rights when off duty. That will not help the CCW cause. Why hasnt anyone complained about the JUDGES, who can carry 24/7 or the Assistant District Attorneys who can carry 24/7?? |
|||||||||
|
Smurfologist Regular Member
|
DT4E31 wrote: There is no reason to WHINE and bitch about the police having carry rights when off duty. That will not help the CCW cause. Why hasnt anyone complained about the JUDGES, who can carry 24/7 or the Assistant District Attorneys who can carry 24/7?? DT4E31, people have been complaining (i.e. "Special People"). I wonder how good of a shot they are; I wonder how often they go to the range. Do these "special people" just go get a gun and CC because they can? Riddle me that, Batman!! 2nd Amendment.........Use it.........Or, lose it!! |
|||||||||
|
DT4E31 Regular Member
|
So now ccw should be based on how often you go to the range......its that a rational argument for individual rights or just sour grapes |
|||||||||
|
kparker Regular Member
|
Riddle me Ouch! I don't think you should use that phrase in the current context! |
|||||||||
|
Smurfologist Regular Member
|
DT4E31 wrote: So now ccw should be based on how often you go to the range......its that a rational argument for individual rights or just sour grapes DT4E31, I am not suggesting that CC should be based on how often someone goes to the range (although, I know of at least one state - Texas - that has a range test in order to fulfill their CC requirement). The reason I said what I said is because it has been suggested that only private citizens should not be able to CC (or OC) because they are not "special" in some way (i.e. a Judge or a DA). I am not aware that "special people" are required to go through the same requirements that private citizens do to CC a weapon (i.e. like private citizens have to in Texas). I may have said what I said because I had just returned from the range where I have to re-qualify with my 9mm three times a year in order to work (300 out of 300, perfect score). So, there you have it. Oh, I do apologize if I offended you by the way I presented my post. 2nd Amendment........Use it.........Or, lose it!! Last edited on Wed Mar 19th, 2008 03:55 pm by Smurfologist |
|||||||||
|
Smurfologist Regular Member
|
kparker wrote: Riddle me Don't you just love the United States of America?!? 2nd Amendment........Use it........Or, lose it!! |
|||||||||
|
Sonora Rebel Regular Member 
|
'Been readin' all of these comments... in this thread 'n others. There's a common 'Mother-May-I" perception among many that you need 'permission' to do something that's already a recognized Right. By doing so... you've already accepted the tyranny of the State or Municipality in which you reside. Major difference between License and Rights. The "State' cannot grant you license to do anything that was your Pre-Existiing Right at birth. The 'Inalienable' Rights'... of which self defense is one. I've posted this all over this forum... but I'm gonna do it again 'til it 'sinks in' somewhere. Justice Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, aptly noted in 2005: "As long as judges tinker with the Constitution to 'do what the people want,' instead of what the document actually commands, politicians who pick and confirm new federal judges will naturally want only those who agree with them politically." In the Heller case, Justice Scalia wrote: "Nowhere else in the Constitution does a "right" attributed to "the people" refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention "the people," the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. ... The Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms.... The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it 'shall not be infringed'." Amazingly... the MSM and even the talk radio wonks won't touch this decision. Subset meaning 'The Milita' argument... and Municipality... Which is now Dead. 'All instrumets that constitute bearable arms. Arms, people! Not just 'firearms'... or even some type specific arms or firearms. 'Bearable arms... for self defense or defense of the State. The news weenies focused attention on DC... but this is a Constitutional decision affecting ALL of us. Those states and municipalites which prohibit free exercise of the 2A by legitimate citizens are in violation of Constitutionally recognized Rights. They have been for a long time. So long in fact, it's been accepted as the norm. The Constitution does NOT bestow Rights... It's recognition and codification of their pre-existance. The people who 'inhabit' government have all sworn the oath to uphold and defend the Constitution (all of it). They do not. They have no intention of ever doing so. Tyranny! "Those who would sacrifice liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.": Ben Franklin Last edited on Sun Aug 24th, 2008 09:24 pm by Sonora Rebel |
|||||||||
|
glocknroll Regular Member
|
Sonora Rebel wrote: 'Been readin' all of these comments... in this thread 'n others. There's a common 'Mother-May-I" perception among many that you need 'permission' to do something that's already a recognized Right. By doing so... you've already accepted the tyranny of the State or Municipality in which you reside. Major difference between License and Rights. The "State' cannot grant you license to do anything that was your Pre-Existiing Right at birth. The 'Inalienable' Rights'... of which self defense is one. Can I get an amen? Freedom! Power to, from, and for the people. It's better to die on your feet than live on your knees. |
|||||||||
|
GlockLover Regular Member
|
Smurfologist wrote: DT4E31 wrote:There is no reason to WHINE and bitch about the police having carry rights when off duty. That will not help the CCW cause. Why hasnt anyone complained about the JUDGES, who can carry 24/7 or the Assistant District Attorneys who can carry 24/7?? Sorry to say judges and DAs and ADA, both have to apply for a CCW in NYC; but they get placed to the front of the line before everybody else. |
|||||||||
|
GlockLover Regular Member
|
Smurfologist wrote
The police only have to go to the range twice a year, and they all dont go (NYCPD that is). |
|||||||||
|
Sonora Rebel Regular Member
|
As a former cop... You're never 'off duty'. One of these 'Take the oath' jobs that those who've never done it don't understand. I was required by the Department to carry off duty... handcuffs too. They even specified the mfg. 'Colt, S&W or Charter Arms'... nuthin' else. '38 spl `156 gr. semi-wadgutters only... Nuthin' else. 'Even effected an arrest in a restaurant for 'Disorderly Conduct & Resisting Arrest' (he was a real piece of work... trust me... ) 'n a street wimp for 'Soliciting 'n whatever else went with that... 'Lewd 'n Lacivious Conduct' or somethin'. 'Sent a drunk German merchant sailor out the door at the request of the owner... 'cause this sheeetfaced clown spoke no English... 'n I speak enuff German to get the job done. "Komen sie bitte... Ich bin Baltimore Polizei... Aus machen. Verstadt? Schnell..." That worked. This guy could hardly stand up. Sometimes I'd stay 'til the barkeep locked up in this one joint... He closed at midnite. (I'd done the 7-11 shift.) Sort'a iffy neighborhood. At that time... since the BPD Commish was appointed by the Gov... we had jurisdiction Statewide... Which P.O'd the Statts Polizei to no end. I didn't 'look' like a cop in civvies. (Boots, Levis, leather jacket... ) 'Most people never knew 'n I didn't announce it. |
|||||||||
|
marshaul Activist Member 
|
openryan wrote:if you don't like it, become a cop -- or vote. Yeah, cuz, you know, the 2nd amendment is easily and effectively defended by merely voting in today's political climate. |
|||||||||
|
glocknroll Regular Member
|
Sonora Rebel wrote: As a former cop... You're never 'off duty'. One of these 'Take the oath' jobs that those who've never done it don't understand. I was required by the Department to carry off duty... handcuffs too. They even specified the mfg. 'Colt, S&W or Charter Arms'... nuthin' else. '38 spl `156 gr. semi-wadgutters only... Nuthin' else. Baltimore PD? That goes a long way towards explaining your attitude towards the average citizen having the same rights as the police. At least you had sense enough to leave the Peoples Republik of Maryland. |
|||||||||
|
Sonora Rebel Regular Member
|
Yeah... Baltimore PD... Southern District... Sector 2. Cherry Hill, Westport, Highlandtown, Morrell Park 'n Hollinswood area. Ay-yi-yi... OY! Yeah, I did have the good sense to flee. I never did belong in that environment (I've always been a cowboy at heart). Now I are one!  |
|||||||||
|
glocknroll Regular Member
|
Sonora Rebel wrote: Yeah... Baltimore PD... Southern District... Sector 2. Cherry Hill, Westport, Highlandtown, Morrell Park 'n Hollinswood area. Ay-yi-yi... OY! Yippee -ki-yay! Glad to hear that you found a good home in a gun friendly state. |
|||||||||
|
Sonora Rebel Regular Member
|
I came to this desert over 40 years ago with a Navy Ordnance crew... 'been in/out over the years... and finally had the good sense to pack it in and leave that 'place' behind forever. Maryland is a basket case... and we all know why. |
|||||||||
|
hudson valley Regular Member
|
ilbob wrote: Part of the reason for the special privileges is to bond the cops to the government hacks that hired them. if they didn't get special privileges, the job would just be a job, and cops might be inclined to just move on when they didn't like what was going on. the special perks tend to keep them in the group.Read COMMON SENSE by Thomas Paine....Police and almost all city employees are the "Knights" serving the "King"....if you've read it ya know what I mean and no disrespect intended to LE or City employees.....great respect for both and the jobs they do... |
|||||||||