Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Retired cop CCW kills bad perp at Mc Donalds


BlackhawkPaul

Recommended Posts

Well, GG they did give me a badge to go with the pittance of a salary. The sidearm, leather, cuffs, baton, OC, boots and all other equipment came out of my pitifully poor own pocket. Those were not "given" to me.

 

Before anyone gets to envying LEOs for their "priveleged" status think about the vow of poverty that goes with the badge and the almost NO thanks from anyone for the sacrifice and shortened life span.

 

 

You missed my point dude...but it's not the first time from you :rolleyes:

 

I am one who has highest respects for LEO's so don't even go there with me!

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Texas Justice;

Some years ago a friend of mine ended up on a grand jury and one case was about a home owner who came home to find his front door busted open and a thug coming down the hallway with a armfull of the home owners rifles. Well it so happen that the homeowner had been raised out in the ranch country like My friend and I had and from an early age we were around guns and from experence of being out miles from anyone and never knowing what he may run into like drug runners or smugglers and who knows what else including rattlesnakes the homeowner had a S&W M-29 44 mag. in the back of his shirt tucked under the belt. With as little thought of the same as finding a rattler in from of him and to some of us a rattler is what God made him and a thug is what he made himself. When the thug saw the homeowner and as He pulled the 44 the thug started saying "OH S--- I think I picked the wrong house" And the home owner replyed "Yes You SOB You Did" As the home owner simply pulled the 44 and placed one bullet dead center in the thugs chest. He give a statement to the police and it was clear that the thug was armed and dead right there. The homeowners wife was upset because she had just placed new white carpet in the hallway and now it had bloodstains on it.

 

O.K. Now on to the Grand Jury, When asked by the jury forman was the thug armed, Yes He was, He had my rifles in his hands. And did You know what he was going to do when You caught him? No. Well Men, I dont see that we have anything more to discuss. I reconmend We no bill on this case. O.K. Now whats the next case?

 

I Love Texas,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Texas Man

Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw the TV reporting on the wire. I live less than 15 miles from Sunland and that was the first I heard of the shooting. I don't think it made any of the other TV stations and/or radio news shows. That is the way with a person using a gun to stop a robbery it never makes the news only when it is used illegally/ Boy will that make the news.

 

The law for public CCW has been in Sacramento for years, it just can't get out of committee as the Dems don't want to let it out. Each county issues CCW for that country only. In San Francisco county they issue less than 50, in Fresno County more than a 1000 per year. Not fair! The state won't issue CCW for the whole state.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think any cop or retired cop should be issued a cwp or any citizen for that matter. These cwp topics just kill me. No where in the second amendment is there a reference of a cwp, certain people that have had proper training, or requiring individuals to have training to own or carry a gun. The second treats us all as equals and puts no restrictions on gun ownership or carrying concealed or openly. A ccw is just an infringment plain and simple, therefore not needed by any american citizen no matter what training they have had.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know any law enforcement officers on the job or retired who think it is a privilege to carry a gun. A law enforcement officer carries a gun as a tool of the trade. Like some doctors and other medical professionals might carry a medical bag in their car. A lot of folks know first aid and if I'm hurt I'll welcome any help I can get, however if a retired doctor or other retired medical professional steps in to help I'm going to feel really lucky. I feel the same way about a LEO retired or not, I'll welcome their help in all matters pretaining to violence and please bring a gun. It's not about privilege or how good or bad they can shoot its about training, judgement and experience. Their privilege is to serve and protect the public.

 

Just an ole retired has been who is more than damn glad to let someone else wear that privileged smoke wagon.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think any cop or retired cop should be issued a cwp or any citizen for that matter. These cwp topics just kill me. No where in the second amendment is there a reference of a cwp, certain people that have had proper training, or requiring individuals to have training to own or carry a gun. The second treats us all as equals and puts no restrictions on gun ownership or carrying concealed or openly. A ccw is just an infringment plain and simple, therefore not needed by any American citizen no matter what training they have had.

 

SS, you're so right. Vermont, Alaska, Arizona, & Wyoming all have 2nd Amendment carry laws. Any law abiding citizen may carry openly or concealed with or without a license. If one has a license they may choose to keep it so that they can carry in states that have reciprocity with the issuing state and so that they may purchase from FFL dealers without going through the background check. The movement is afoot in other states (Iowa & Colorado are 2) as I type, and it's spreading across the country.

http://www.concealgun.com/ http://www.usacarry.com/ http://concealedcarryforum.com/forum/default.asp Start working to get such a law passed in your state and do what you can to help other states pass the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, if only the political hacks would drop their anti gun drums and realize that an armed society is a polite society and allow mainstream CCW for all law abiding people. I am fortunate that my LEO retirement allows me 50 state carry, short of airplane travel. But, I know tons of Coppers, both retired and active that I would feel safer in front of them rather than beside them. I have never had a problem with "Regular people" for lack of a better term at this time, owning and carrying firearms for personal defense. I carry now because I want to, not because I have to. That obligation ended last August when I retired.

 

 

CCW, along with training as to the laws and plain teachings of when, where and how a firearm can legally be deployed as a civilian is my goal for the rest of the subjects of The Peoples Republic of Illinois. CCW is gaining steam and thanks to the new legislators, mostly from Downstate, it just might make it soon. It is in committe and up for further discussion, which in Illinois means "How am I going to sell my vote and what will I get for it

'...

Link to post
Share on other sites

You missed my point dude...but it's not the first time from you :rolleyes:

 

I am one who has highest respects for LEO's so don't even go there with me!

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:

 

I didn't miss anything "dude". Merely pointing out to you and everyone else that to go along with the abysmally poor pay, LEOs most times have to buy their own equipment including sidearms. Only a few VERY large departments "issue" pistols.

 

Of course all CCP requirements for ANYone are unconstitutional infringements on the God-given Second Amendment affirmed right of all citizens to bear arms in common and self defense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, pard I never intended to rile ye up any.

 

But I do not like to be called dude. Do you?

 

Round these parts it's a derogatory term.

 

I been called many things - I don't care - too bad you do.

 

Have a nice day.

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't miss anything "dude". Merely pointing out to you and everyone else that to go along with the abysmally poor pay, LEOs most times have to buy their own equipment including sidearms. Only a few VERY large departments "issue" pistols.

 

Of course all CCP requirements for ANYone are unconstitutional infringements on the God-given Second Amendment affirmed right of all citizens to bear arms in common and self defense.

 

 

Pard, when I came on, The Chicago P.D. has an authorized strength os 13,500 Sworn Officers. We never had our sidearms issued and only a select few since then has "Like our SWAT Team because of the round counts in practice causing short life spans).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know any law enforcement officers on the job or retired who think it is a privilege to carry a gun. A law enforcement officer carries a gun as a tool of the trade. Like some doctors and other medical professionals might carry a medical bag in their car. A lot of folks know first aid and if I'm hurt I'll welcome any help I can get, however if a retired doctor or other retired medical professional steps in to help I'm going to feel really lucky. I feel the same way about a LEO retired or not, I'll welcome their help in all matters pretaining to violence and please bring a gun. It's not about privilege or how good or bad they can shoot its about training, judgement and experience. Their privilege is to serve and protect the public.

 

Just an ole retired has been who is more than damn glad to let someone else wear that privileged smoke wagon.

 

If your an off-duty Doc/Nurse/Medic you'll probably get your butt sued for carrying the tools of the trade while off-duty.

 

I agree with the peeps that say the CCW is an infringement in itself. The very nature of it declares that we do not have a right but a privilege. Like a drivers license.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If your an off-duty Doc/Nurse/Medic you'll probably get your butt sued for carrying the tools of the trade while off-duty.

 

I agree with the peeps that say the CCW is an infringement in itself. The very nature of it declares that we do not have a right but a privilege. Like a drivers license.

 

 

Unfortunately, the SCOTUS has ruled that way and their opinion is the one that counts.

 

 

Big difference between a person's opinion and rule of law... I am in the middle somewhere... I do not believe that everybody walking/breathing/ etc. has the right of ownership, much less being allowed to carry based on certain factors like criminal history, feebleness, sight etc.

 

 

I do believe that if a person FEELS a need and is of good moral character with a clean criminal record (A person with a non violent felony record can get a pardon from the State Governor if they go through the necessary steps. I know a few people that have done so after 20 years of being law abiding citizens). I also do not believe that a local sheriff or Chief of Police, who just happens to be a political appointee or a politician, should have the right to deny without outlined just cause. I also believe that a person should demonstrate a knowledge of the law pertaining to use of deadly force. A proficiency test with the firearm to be carried to show that they can hit what they are aiming at and handle the firearm safely. I also do not want a person that has a history of mental problems owning, much less being allowed to carry a firearm. Nobody wants a whackadoodle with a capability of killing our loved ones.

 

The only way to do this is to regulate it, like a Driver's License, which also like a Driver's License, should be 50 State honored. Non resi9dent CCW licenses will be a thing of the past then.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, the SCOTUS has ruled that way and their opinion is the one that counts.

 

 

Big difference between a person's opinion and rule of law... I am in the middle somewhere... I do not believe that everybody walking/breathing/ etc. has the right of ownership, much less being allowed to carry based on certain factors like criminal history, feebleness, sight etc.

 

 

I do believe that if a person FEELS a need and is of good moral character with a clean criminal record (A person with a non violent felony record can get a pardon from the State Governor if they go through the necessary steps. I know a few people that have done so after 20 years of being law abiding citizens). I also do not believe that a local sheriff or Chief of Police, who just happens to be a political appointee or a politician, should have the right to deny without outlined just cause. I also believe that a person should demonstrate a knowledge of the law pertaining to use of deadly force. A proficiency test with the firearm to be carried to show that they can hit what they are aiming at and handle the firearm safely. I also do not want a person that has a history of mental problems owning, much less being allowed to carry a firearm. Nobody wants a whackadoodle with a capability of killing our loved ones.

 

The only way to do this is to regulate it, like a Driver's License, which also like a Driver's License, should be 50 State honored. Non resi9dent CCW licenses will be a thing of the past then.

Who is to judge moral character? A Christian? Buddhist? Law Enforcement? GOVERNOR? (BLOGOJEVICH etc...)

Anyone with a criminal record or mental illness doesn't have the same rights to begin with there are many rights/privileges that they are denied.

I don't THINK that any of us are saying we should ignore Common Sense here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see indications of this thread deteriorating into a dumb cop rant.

Here's all I have to say about it:

 

Don't be angry because law enforcement officers are allowed to carry.

Help campaign against anti-gun candidates.

Join the NRA

Make your voices heard until every law abiding citizen is granted their 2nd Amendment rights.

 

I had a feeling that would happen because there would be those who would interpret my statements as being slanted towards the "elite". That wasn't the case at all but they become blinded to the rest of my statement.

 

The "Why didn't he shoot first?" comment makes it clear to me 4TR needs to be more well versed on the CAPC, reference the use of deadly force. It certainly doesn't mean he shouldn't be allowed a CCW, it simply means he needs to understand the laws better so that he can make a qualified decision given the strict parameters of the law.

 

Please consider the consequeces of shooting first and finding out it was a civilian who was using his/her weapon leagally that you shot. There are cases to prove it happens, even by police.

 

I have no qualms about anyone having a CCW as long as they can show they have a basic understanding of the use of deadly force. Nuff said.

Link to post
Share on other sites

+1

 

 

Forty I agree that ccws should be more available to citizens in California. If so maybe this perp would never have made it past his first robbery where he pistol whipped the employees.

 

I can't speculate on exactly what went down as I haven't read the reports and wasn't there so I don't know. I might have done the same thing or I might not. I'll leave it to talking anchorheads to speculate with little info. They do it all the time. :lol:

 

The government needs to realize that armed law abiding citizens are not a threat to society!

Unless you're a dictator.

;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a feeling that would happen because there would be those who would interpret my statements as being slanted towards the "elite". That wasn't the case at all but they become blinded to the rest of my statement.

 

The "Why didn't he shoot first?" comment makes it clear to me 4TR needs to be more well versed on the CAPC, reference the use of deadly force. It certainly doesn't mean he shouldn't be allowed a CCW, it simply means he needs to understand the laws better so that he can make a qualified decision given the strict parameters of the law.

 

Please consider the consequeces of shooting first and finding out it was a civilian who was using his/her weapon leagally that you shot. There are cases to prove it happens, even by police.

 

I have no qualms about anyone having a CCW as long as they can show they have a basic understanding of the use of deadly force. Nuff said.

 

So would you have Vermont and Alaska change to your way of thinking even though the statistic in those two permit-less carry states don't support your position?

 

Law-abiding citizens are just that because they tend to think things through applying logic and common sense and generally aren't confrontational to begin with. When they decide to carry you can rest assured it wasn't done in a flippant, casual spur of the moment manor. Sometimes the decision was made because there was eminent threat, where taking the time to prove proficiency and knowledge may have got them killed. (there have been cases where this has happened too.)

 

Bottom line is please try to have some faith in your fellow law-abiding citizen and don’t judge them based on your experiences with the lawless you see in your line of work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So would you have Vermont and Alaska change to your way of thinking even though the statistic in those two permit-less carry states don't support your position?

I am not saying a permit is needed, I am saying the person should understand the premise behind the use of deadly force.

Law-abiding citizens are just that because they tend to think things through applying logic and common sense and generally aren't confrontational to begin with. When they decide to carry you can rest assured it wasn't done in a flippant, casual spur of the moment manor. Sometimes the decision was made because there was eminent threat, where taking the time to prove proficiency and knowledge may have got them killed. (there have been cases where this has happened too.)

I tend to aggree with you for the most part however, if the citizen does not possess the basic premise, then how can they apply the logic. A person can be wholly competant with a FA yet not possess adequate reasoning to determine the point where the eminent threat threshold has been met.

Bottom line is please try to have some faith in your fellow law-abiding citizen and don’t judge them based on your experiences with the lawless you see in your line of work.

Nate, I have faith in my fellow citizens but you are 100% right that my experience with the lawless tends to make me more skeptical than someone who isn't faced with it daily.

 

Something else I have not spoken to is that I am a certified rangemaster who is charged with teaching both law enforcement and citzens the legal and moral aspects of firearms use. I have seen and experienced things and ideas by wholesome law abiding citizens and law officers that cause me to question their suitability to carry a weapon and use in judiciously. Again, that is based on my first hand experience with these citzens.

 

You must understand too, that retired officer and I live in a litigous state without the Castle Doctrine. Citzens are bound to retreat whereas your state allows you to protect your person and property. I applaud your state for allowing that. I would like to have a gun in every household with unresticted carry for everyone who is law abiding but that is unrealist for California at this point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nate, I have faith in my fellow citizens but you are 100% right that my experience with the lawless tends to make me more skeptical than someone who isn't faced with it daily.

 

Something else I have not spoken to is that I am a certified rangemaster who is charged with teaching both law enforcement and citzens the legal and moral aspects of firearms use. I have seen and experienced things and ideas by wholesome law abiding citizens and law officers that cause me to question their suitability to carry a weapon and use in judiciously. Again, that is based on my first hand experience with these citzens.

 

You must understand too, that retired officer and I live in a litigous state without the Castle Doctrine. Citzens are bound to retreat whereas your state allows you to protect your person and property. I applaud your state for allowing that. I would like to have a gun in every household with unresticted carry for everyone who is law abiding but that is unrealist for California at this point.

 

 

Well Jim,

I do understand how you can come to those conclusions. I too am a certified handgun/rifle and personal protection Instructor. I too have seen those same folks doing and saying things that down right scare the hell out of me.

But, my point is this. I would rather those folks be held accountable for their actions rather than have some pencil pushing left leaning politician/bureaucrat making the rules as to who should be able to carry a gun.

You of all people, living there in California should know how that turns out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

States implementing constitutional carry

 

Vermont

The first to practice constitutional carry was Vermont. Vermont has never had a restriction on the method of how one could carry a firearm and has stood entirely separate from the rest of the United States for many many years, because of this sometimes constitutional carry is referred to as "Vermont carry".

 

 

Alaska

On June 11, 2003, Alaska Governor Frank Murkowski signed House Bill 102 which removed the requirement to obtain a concealed weapons permit in order to carry a concealed firearm. The law went into effect September 9, 2003.

 

 

Arizona

On April 16, 2010, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed Senate Bill 1108 which acted similarly to Alaska's bill. The law went into effect July 29, 2010.

 

 

Wyoming

On March 2, 2011 Wyoming Governor Matt Mead signed legislation to allow constitutional carry. The law goes into effect in July 1, 2011. Under the law residents can carry concealed or openly without a permit but visitors to the state must have a valid CCW permit that recognizes Wyoming's CCW permits.

 

 

States considering constitutional carry

 

Colorado

Colorado introduced legislation to allow constitutional carry in early 2011. The bill passed out of the house with a vote of 40-25 and is currently with the senate. Currently Colorado issues CCWs on a shall-issue basis and open carry is legal without a permit.

 

 

Idaho

Idaho introduced a bill early in 2011 to allow constitutional carry. Currently Idaho issues CCWs on a shall-issue basis and open carry is legal without a permit.

 

 

Kentucky

Kentucky representative Mike Harmon introduced a bill to allow constitutional carry early in 2011. Kentucky currently issues CCWs on a shall-issue basis and open carry is legal without a permit.

 

 

Maine

Maine representative Dale Crafts introduced bill LD 685 in early 2011 to allow constitutional carry. Currently Maine issues CCWs on a shall-issue basis and open carry is legal without a permit.

 

 

Montana

Montana introduced a bill early in 2011 to allow constitutional carry. The bill passed out of the house with a vote of 55-45, and passed out of the senate with a vote of 29-21. Montana is currently a shall-issue state for concealed weapon permits and open carry is legal without a permit.

 

Nevada

 

In early 2011 Nevada senators James Settelmeyer and John Lee introduced Senate Bill 126 which would allow constitutional carry. Nevada is currently a shall-issue state for CCWs and open carry is lawful without a permit.

 

 

New Hampshire

New Hampshire had two competing bills introduced in 2011 which would both legalize constitutional carry. On March 15, 2011 HB330 passed out of the House.[New Hampshire currently issues CCWs on a shall-issue basis and open carry is legal without a permit.

 

 

South Carolina

South Carolina introduced a bill early in 2011 to allow constitutional carry. Currently South Carolina issues CCWs on a shall-issue basis and open carry is illegal.

 

 

Tennessee

Tennessee introduced legislation early in 2011 to allow constitutional carry. Currently Tennessee issues CCWs on a shall-issue basis and open carry is only legal with a permit.

 

 

West Virginia

West Virginia introduced legislation to allow constitutional carry at the beginning of 2011. Currently West Virginia issues CCWs on a shall-issue basis and open carry is legal without a permit.

 

 

States with legislation that did not become law

 

Utah

Utah introduced legislation to allow constitutional carry at the beginning of 2011. The short legislation session of Utah came to an end without the bill becoming law. Currently Utah issues CCWs on a shall-issue basis and open carry is legal without a permit provided that the firearm is kept in a state where two actions must take place before the weapon will fire. There is no such restriction for CCW holders.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Jim,

I do understand how you can come to those conclusions. I too am a certified handgun/rifle and personal protection Instructor. I too have seen those same folks doing and saying things that down right scare the hell out of me.

But, my point is this. I would rather those folks be held accountable for their actions rather than have some pencil pushing left leaning politician/bureaucrat making the rules as to who should be able to carry a gun. You of all people, living there in California should know how that turns out.

 

I agree, point well taken.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.