Groups & Leaders Oppose This Type of Elitist Special Exemption
Where Gun Rights Groups and
Prominent Leaders Stand
on the concept of Giving Law Enforcement
Concealed Carry Laws in all
While Those Same
Laws Continue to Be Enforced
Against The People
If you lead an organization or have achieved
some level of success as a leader for gun rights and would like to put your
name or organization's name on this chart, click
here and send it in. Include a statement to be used below, as well, if it
"Cops-Only National CCW" Home Page
Leaders Speak Out...
Following are statements offered by some of the
above gun rights activists and organizations. Use the link above to
allow you to add your organization to the above listing. Click on the names
below to be taken to the related statements addressing this issue:
Author, Gun Laws of America
The bill, H.R. 218, raises important questions:
Should we exempt police from gun laws in all 50 states?
Why are gun possession restrictions in place to begin with?
Should denial of 2nd Amendment rights for public continue?
Do government workers deserve a waiver from obeying the law?
If the law is so bad, why would you want to force the public to obey it?
Why would honest government workers support rights for themselves, without
supporting it for their fellow citizens?
The current government proposal to arm active, or off-duty or retired
government employees so they needn't be defenseless, in every place where the
rest of the public is unconscionably required to be unarmed, is the exact
opposite of what the Constitution intends. It is Newthink.
It is preposterous that agents of the government would grant themselves gun
rights that have been stripped from the public. It shows how far we've sunken
from the rule of law we claim to cherish. Ex-police and the other government
employees I pay for should be made to suffer like the rest of us, until the
onerous tarpaulin of repression is lifted from all.
I'm in favor of and support full restoration of self-defense rights for the
public. I'm against the discriminatory notion of granting rights solely to any
Denying a person the right to self defense is treachery.
Females of America
By giving Cops special status we are telling
them that they are better than we are. Just as a pilot is only a pilot as long
as he is in an airplane, so it is with LEOs -- when they're on duty they're Law
Enforcement Officers, but when they're off duty they're just like the rest of us
"ordinary" citizens. The laws that we must endure, so must they.
Special status exemption would open the doors
to a whole new set of problems. It wouldn't be long before a "National
Police Force" was created, and with the stroke of a pen the exempt LEOs
would have the authority to investigate, detain and arrest anyone outside of
AFA is NO-COMPROMISE, therefore we fully
support a Vermont style carry. The Second Amendment gives each citizen the right
to carry openly or concealed, whichever way they choose. We do not support any
legislation that would allow one group special privileges over another group.
This would be elitism at it's best.
It would foster LESS from the pro-second
amendment/pro-rights citizens. They are already aware of the attack on their
liberties and what special exemption status would mean to them. However, I'm
afraid it would be just what the anti-second amendment arena would applaud.
AFA believes that until such time as there is a
Vermont style CCW, LEOs should be subjected to the same laws that the citizenry
is. The majority of LEOs would like to see a disarmed populace. Every LEO has a
duty to uphold the law of the land, but only within his/her jurisdiction.
National LEO CCW would erode and pervert that duty.
It is for this very reason I am opposed. I find
it offensive that an LEO from NO CCW California could carry in pro-CCW Arizona.
I oppose this legislation adamantly, both because it is elitist (and based on
the wrong-headed assumption that all police are morally superior and more
skilled and judicious with firearms than other citizens are) and because I
oppose all legislation that gives government the authority to determine who can
and can't go armed.
We are very close to a police state -- so close since September 11 that if we
stop and use our senses, we can feel it breathing down our necks. If you want to
feel its iron hand closing on you, give police a personal, 24-hour a day
exemption from laws that govern the rest of the people.
State Shooting Association
The Colorado State Shooting Association does not support the proposed
measure. We believe you have, for the most part, adequately addressed the pros
and cons in your message and have demonstrated that the cons outweigh the pros.
We would, however, add a new wrinkle in that this proposal also appears to be
unconstitutional--from where does the federal government derive the authority
for this measure? We do not believe interstate commerce is affected by the
travel of state peace officers to the point that Congress can invoke the
Commerce Clause in this matter, and that regulation of concealed weapons is a
matter traditionally and appropriately left to the individual states. The only
way around this constitutional argument would be for the federal government to
make all law enforcement officers everywhere federal peace officers. I don't
think I need to explain what a bad idea that is.
Thanks for seeking our input.
Action Committee - Tucson
I am adamantly opposed to HR 218. I frame my
stance against this piece of legislation just as I did at the Arizona State
legislation allowing CCW permittees to defend themselves in parks less than one
square mile in size but not those without CCW permits.
It is unfair, unjust and blatantly
unconstitutional. Whenever a group of legiscritters grants privileges or
immunities for one group of People over another group of People, they harm their
own credibility because People such as myself know they are wrong in doing so.
It further disenfranchises the People from the
political process and in the end, the legiscritters win because the only People
left in the process when all is said and done is the sheeple who will vote them
back into office because they got their grains of rice thrown to them from the
hand of government.
Keep 'em fat, dumb and happy.
Shooting Sports Association
While law enforcement officers (LEOs) are super people, and we all thank them
for their selfless service to the public, they are no better people than we are,
and they have no more need or ability to protect themselves in places strange to
them than do the rest of us.
There is not supposed to be any such thing in the U.S. as elite classes of
people with more rights and privileges than the majority. Such an arrangement
would be reminiscent of the Gestapo and SS of Hitler's Germany.
Further, citizens with concealed weapon permits (CWP) have proven nationwide
to have an impeccable record of absence of misadventure with firearms, even
better (unfortunately) than that for sworn law enforcement officers. Law
enforcement personnel have more accidental discharges per 100,000 than do CWP-holders,
and law enforcement personnel more commonly shoot the wrong person, or shoot
without sufficient justification than do non-police CWP-holders. Any rationale
that cops are somehow more competent to have firearms is simply nonexistent. The
only acceptable rationale for awarding cops national concealed weapon privileges
is to reward them for their service. However, the Lott study demonstrates that
CWP-holders offer a significant service and benefit to their communities too.
Why not reward everyone who contributes to public safety, and who is competent
to do so?
I believe that LEOs should benefit from the CWP laws passed in many states,
and that all states should respect the laws passed by other states, as is
currently the case with drivers' licenses. Such an arrangement would solve
everyone's problem, without attempting to create an elite class of citizens who
have more rights and privileges than others.
HR 218, whatever the intentions of its misguided supporters, is a giant step
backwards for gun owners.
On Nov. 8th, 2001, Sarah Brady said to her suicidal followers:
"I must tell you that that our financial shortfall is seriously
jeopardizing our ability to meet this challenge. In fact, as a part of our
forced downsizing and restructuring, we have been forced to lay off
approximately 20 percent of our staff."
Clearly the tide is turning for gun owners. It would be the height of lunacy
to support any bill which reinforces the elitist, even fascist, concept that the
police are entitled to more rights than the people who employ them.
This is the very notion that Brady and her cronies have been foisting on
America for years, that the natural right to self defense belongs only to
The fact remains, while police officers accept a job that can be dangerous,
they are no different from the rest of us. They are not created in test tubes
with super human skills and judgment.
Agreeing that government employees have greater rights than do the rest of us
will accomplish one thing. It will relieve the Bradys of the world from the ever
more difficult task of raising funds to promote their lies because we will be
doing it for them.
Mountain Gun Owners
Rocky Mountain Gun Owners opposed similar state legislation based on one
simple fact: it creates two classes of citizens, elevating the lives of police
officers above other citizens.
Police officers are no different than the citizens they are sworn to protect,
and shouldn't be treated differently. They should have to stand in line for
their permits, if indeed permits are required.
Frankly, if we had a nationwide Vermont law, where all law-abiding citizens
(cops, bakers, plumbers, homemakers) could carry without government restriction
or harassment, law enforcement would be better off -- and so would U.S.
Amendment Coalition of Florida
SACFLA is diametrically opposed to H.R. 218 -- the Second Amendment makes no provision for any such exception. It, in it's own words, emphatically states the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. There is nothing magical or exceptional about any person wearing a badge.
They tell us equal protection is for all Americans, don't they? This is not Animal Farm -- some are not more equal than others. Special privileges from the law are only for tyrants. "The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states."
The proposed bill is in direct violation of Article IV, Section 2 of the United States Constitution.
Lick the boot of the tyrant who oppresses you? Throw gasoline on a fire to put it out? Give them more power in hope they will leave you alone?
We have been trained to get caught up in discussing these meaningless side issues when the focus should be on the meaning, intent, and letter of the Second Amendment. Our politicians must be made to understand that this is the real issue or they will be flipping burgers after the next election. There's no interpretation here. There's no interpretation in any of our forefathers' writings or speeches. They were very clear on their intent of the Second Amendment. Our elected "representatives" have sworn to "uphold, protect and defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic" and have largely violated that oath. Some would call that treasonous.
United Supporting the Second Amendment
Any time we can put more armed people on the streets the society becomes
safer. Exempting anyone from the unconstitutional state bans on the right to
bear arms is an idea that looks good when one first hears it.
Unfortunately, this will create more problems than it solves. Many law
officers only become aware of the importance of the right to bear arms when they
are denied that right. Vacations and retirement bring many police officers to
the realization that unarmed citizens are easy prey. Suddenly these people face
the same situation as the average citizen faces. They have to prepare to defend
themselves and their families unarmed.
This law also sets up a new privileged class who has special rights. This
proposed law also reinforces the spurious idea that the right to bear arms is a
privilege instead of a right. Privileges are doled out to favored groups. Rights
belong to everyone.
It also reinforces the idea that the federal government may over ride the
will of the states at any time for any reason. This is a direct attack on the
This bill should never become law.
"This country doesn't need yet another
elite group who exercise rights that have been taken away from everybody
else." --L. Neil Smith
Tennessee may be a case study.
Tennessee requires it citizens to obtain civilian handgun carry permits. Law
enforcement officers can obtain the civilian permits and actually have
exceptions to some of the training requirements.
However, Tennesseans are burdened by restrictions on where and when they may
carry their handguns such that they can only carry with certain on most public
streets. Almost every other location is proscribed by law or subject to posting
at the whims of property owners.
Last year, the state of Tennessee created special exemptions to the civilian
handgun carry laws for off-duty law enforcement officers. As a result of that
legislation, which was opposed by many civilian handgun permit holders, off duty
law enforcement officers can now carry their firearms in places and under
circumstances where other civilians cannot carry. The enactment of this
legislation may have been form over substance because off duty law enforcement
have carried full time in Tennessee wherever and whenever they wanted for many
years based upon the policies of their departments and their presumption that
they had a right or obligation to do so. Indeed, we can all assume that they
felt that they were unlikely, if caught, to be arrested for carrying their
weapons once it was determined they were off duty law enforcement. The
legislation, however, arose as a result of a Tennessee attorney's general
opinion which addressed the issue and made law enforcement rush to the
legislature to pass a law which would solve the potential problems addressed in
the attorney general opinion. Now, the law is clear in Tennessee as a result of
a Tennessee Supreme Court decision approximately a year ago that an off duty law
enforcement officer is 'just another citizen' - they have no special status
under Tennessee law. Nevertheless, the Tennessee legislature has rushed in for
the purpose of creating for them a special class of civilian permit holder
status - the off duty officer.
This legislation demonstrated the fact that law enforcement has seen itself
in Tennessee as deserving special status and privileges. The arguments were
manifest - they were more likely to be able to prevent a crime if armed while
off-duty; they were "required" to carry 24/7; they were obligated by
statute (although no such statute exists) to immediately go "on duty"
and intervene if they witnessed a crime; they were more likely to be assaulted
by those that they had arrested and prosecuted - the excuses went on. The fact
is that their lives and those of their families are as important but not more
important than those of every other Tennessean.
Factors not considered by Tennessee law enforcement and issues left open by
the Tennessee legislation:
Do the officers get paid "overtime" if they while off-duty come
to the aid of a citizen?
Are the officers entitled to workers compensation and pension benefits if
injured while "off-duty" but while coming to the aid of a third
Is the government liable if an "off-duty" officer shoots or
injures an innocent third party while armed and "off duty"?
Why do we have or need to distinguish between "on" and
"off" duty officers - why aren't they just officers like the rest of
us are just teachers, doctors, lawyers, accountants, government employees, and
blue collar works?
Why do we presume that an "off duty" officer has any greater
civic duty than any other citizen to render aid to third parties?
Why do we presume that an "off duty" officer will assume any
Creating special exceptions to civilian carry rights and laws based upon
present or past employment or training is arbitrary and capricious. It panders
to specific groups for nothing more than political purposes. Once passed, it
either takes them out of the
debate or moves them to the other side of the issue.
"Cops-Only National CCW" Home Page