TexasCHLforum.com

gigag04 wrote:Why is this a "us vs the cops" issue....

You're the one supporting a law that allows "the cops" to exercise a civil right but denies "us" equal rights.

tacticool wrote:

gigag04 wrote:Why is this a "us vs the cops" issue....

You're the one supporting a law that allows "the cops" to exercise a civil right but denies "us" equal rights.

I'm not saying I'm not for your right to carry...I'd love a nationwide reciprocity law...but I am definitely thankful that I chose to work in a profession where I am allowed that privilege.

Don't get your garments in a wad at me, or any other LEO because they get this right and you don't...let's work together and get you a nationwide carry option.

For example (this is made up...i do have a CHL and I don't have anything on my record):
Let's say that I didn't qualify for a CHL (maybe I have a DOC loud music ticket on my record), I say the CHL program is unconstitutional because you shouldn't need a license to exercise a right, THEN I get mad at you for supporting the CHL program....and you have a CHL. This is how I feel like you are approaching this issue.

Get over the fact that Cops get nationwide carry and let's get back onboard with getting all law abiding citizens nationwide carry.

gigag04 wrote:

tacticool wrote:Why not ignore the 4th and 5th Amendments too?

the Constitution. As long as the cops are happy.

Sounds good...


Why is this a "us vs the cops" issue....

I'm not sure if I would call this a "TRAMPLING" of state's rights afterall...

It seems like a limited protection of 2A rights....it's only truly protected for LEOs etc. Oh, and for the record I completely agree with everything Austinrealtor posted last. A great choice of words for SURE.


As far as capital felonies - you know that you can get to a capital felony by committing murder in course of committing any other felony? IE killing an 8 yoa person during a kidnapping..

Or shooting your spouse while DWI the third time....etc.

It would be Protection of the 2nd if current Rulings didnt say that Conceal carry is a States Right issue, if the Next big gun ruling goes our way maybe.
But say for example, you couldnt get an abortion in Texas, but they said that Military Bases or Former Military could still do abortions
not a great example, but I'm making dinner and it took 30 minutes to write this
on

Maybe I'm looking at this all convoluted like, but in my mind having a LEOSA certificate(to be able to carry everywhere), is a privilege that a LEO earns for working at a LEO job until retirement. It's a benefit of retirement.

Very much like a retired member from active duty in our Armed Forces, who can go on any BX or PX and shop for clothes, groceries, jewelery.....you name it, at GREATLY reduced prices(at least they used to be greatly reduced). And I'm assuming they still can.

I don't get bent out of shape because a retired military person has those privileges. Gosh, he/she EARNED that right. Just as a retired cop has EARNED that right to carry. I look at it like a retirement benefit.

They deserve it. Plain and simple.

That's my $.02 worth, and only my opinion.

marksiwel wrote: It would be Protection of the 2nd if current Rulings didnt say that Conceal carry is a States Right issue, if the Next big gun ruling goes our way maybe.
But say for example, you couldnt get an abortion in Texas, but they said that Military Bases or Former Military could still do abortions
not a great example, but I'm making dinner and it took 30 minutes to write this
on

Yeah I see your point. I still don't see this as a trampling of Texas' Statehood...

I think it is still better to make headway in the logic that "well cops still probably need protection, even under some of these states' crazy gun laws so we will make a federal protection of their right to carry"

That logic existed before nationwide CC made waves, so hopefully it will spread into nationwide CC. We just need the right Legislature and SC justices.

joe817 wrote:Maybe I'm looking at this all convoluted like, but in my mind having a LEOSA certificate(to be able to carry everywhere), is a privilege that a LEO earns for working at a LEO job until retirement. It's a benefit of retirement.

Very much like a retired member from active duty in our Armed Forces, who can go on any BX or PX and shop for clothes, groceries, jewelery.....you name it, at GREATLY reduced prices(at least they used to be greatly reduced). And I'm assuming they still can.

I don't get bent out of shape because a retired military person has those privileges. Gosh, he/she EARNED that right. Just as a retired cop has EARNED that right to carry. I look at it like a retirement benefit.

They deserve it. Plain and simple.

That's my $.02 worth, and only my opinion.

Are we in Starship troopers now where Military/Civilian service gets you Extra Rights?
Do Firefighters get to carry guns? Did they not earn it?

marksiwel wrote:

joe817 wrote:Maybe I'm looking at this all convoluted like, but in my mind having a LEOSA certificate(to be able to carry everywhere), is a privilege that a LEO earns for working at a LEO job until retirement. It's a benefit of retirement.

Very much like a retired member from active duty in our Armed Forces, who can go on any BX or PX and shop for clothes, groceries, jewelery.....you name it, at GREATLY reduced prices(at least they used to be greatly reduced). And I'm assuming they still can.

I don't get bent out of shape because a retired military person has those privileges. Gosh, he/she EARNED that right. Just as a retired cop has EARNED that right to carry. I look at it like a retirement benefit.

They deserve it. Plain and simple.

That's my $.02 worth, and only my opinion.

Are we in Starship troopers now where Military/Civilian service gets you Extra Rights?
Do Firefighters get to carry guns? Did they not earn it?

Are you suggesting that retired members of our Armed Forces should NOT receive benefits such as BX/PX privileges just because you don't???? Are you further suggesting that those same people should not be given the opportunity to go to college at greatly reduced tuition costs, due to the G.I. Bill just because you don't have that privilege???

Please don't answer that question. It was rhetorical. I've contributed my comments and opinion to this thread and will contribute to it no more.

marksiwel wrote:

joe817 wrote:Maybe I'm looking at this all convoluted like, but in my mind having a LEOSA certificate(to be able to carry everywhere), is a privilege that a LEO earns for working at a LEO job until retirement. It's a benefit of retirement.

Very much like a retired member from active duty in our Armed Forces, who can go on any BX or PX and shop for clothes, groceries, jewelery.....you name it, at GREATLY reduced prices(at least they used to be greatly reduced). And I'm assuming they still can.

I don't get bent out of shape because a retired military person has those privileges. Gosh, he/she EARNED that right. Just as a retired cop has EARNED that right to carry. I look at it like a retirement benefit.

They deserve it. Plain and simple.

That's my $.02 worth, and only my opinion.

Are we in Starship troopers now where Military/Civilian service gets you Extra Rights?
Do Firefighters get to carry guns? Did they not earn it?

They didn't carry guns in the public's defense...so...I would say that is why they aren't listed under LEOSA....

There are some that are actually FF and sworn LEOs as fire investigators and/or tactical medics (our tac team's medics are fire dept investigators) that would qualify though.

So...I would say the answer is....some do?

[

joe817 wrote:
Are you suggesting that retired members of our Armed Forces should NOT receive benefits such as BX/PX privileges just because you don't???? Are you further suggesting that those same people should not be given the opportunity to go to college at greatly reduced tuition costs, due to the G.I. Bill just because you don't have that privilege???

Please don't answer that question. It was rhetorical. I've contributed my comments and opinion to this thread and will contribute to it no more.

1st.
The GI Bill is "Basically" part of the pay for the military. I know its one of the main reasons ALL of my friends/family joined the Military (well my father was drafted )

2nd.
The Base Store, same thing, its just a perk they get for serving, but its a monetary perk. Its not flying in the face of State Laws.

Now if they got to BREAK State Laws , like for example Ex-Military didnt have to obey Zoning Laws, than I would be against it.
Or if Ex-Military got to pay RX prices at the local HEB by LAW, I would have a problem with that.

But this isnt about the Military, this is about Civilian ex-Police getting to carry in states where in some cases NO ONE is allowed to conceal carry. If the LEOSA said that former State Senators, Congressman, got to Carry wherever they'd like in violation of the law, would that be okay with you? or anyone?

Also I know this is a wiki article but everyone can deal with it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
You werent asking a Rhetorical Question, you were leveling accusations against me (trying to paint me as Anti-Military)and then told me not to defend myself, come on man, you're better than that.
Its like me asking you "Do you still beat your wife?"

joe817 wrote:
I've contributed my comments and opinion to this thread and will contribute to it no more.

Well, I'm taking my ball and going home too!

For the record...I'd like to hear the real story behind handog's arrest.


Oh wait. Wrong topic.

GrayGhost wrote:

joe817 wrote:
I've contributed my comments and opinion to this thread and will contribute to it no more.

Well, I'm taking my ball and going home too!

Cant stand the heat, you shouldnt have played with matches.
Oh wait what?

They get that perk because of the job they do and they deserve it. If you want that perk than do that job. If not than quit complaining about it. I am about sick and tired of people complaining about not being able to carry everywhere like LEOS when all they do is sit in an office. LEOs have to put away BGs. Some of the BGs take it personal and want revenge. Some may track LEOs down out of state to get this revenge. LEOs do a dangerous job and earn that right to carry everywhere.

I believe that everyone should be able to carry everywhere but thats not the case right now. Its a perk that come with a dangerous job. Again, if you want that perk buck up and do that job.



Military does not pay state taxes for the state they live in only to the state listed as their HOR (Home of Record). Should they pay taxes to a state because the Miltary moved them to that state?

XtremeDuty.45 wrote:They get that perk because of the job they do and they deserve it. If you want that perk than do that job. If not than quit complaining about it. I am about sick and tired of people complaining about not being able to carry everywhere like LEOS when all they do is sit in an office. LEOs have to put away BGs. Some of the BGs take it personal and want revenge. Some may track LEOs down out of state to get this revenge. LEOs do a dangerous job and earn thatright to carry everywhere.

I believe that everyone should be able to carry everywhere but thats not the case right now. Its a perk that come with a dangerous job. Again, if you want that perkbuck up and do that job.



Military does not pay state taxes for the state they live in only to the state listed as their HOR (Home of Record). Should they pay taxes to a state because the Miltary moved them to that state?

So wait is it a RIGHT or a PERK? Whats the difference?
its for retired LEOs, and the perks only been around since 2004

Also some LEOs just sit behind a desk, are you saying they dont deserve that right/perk?
Fire Fighters have a dangerous job, should they have the same right? EMS deal with some "Interesting" people should they get that right? What about Celebirtys, people go after them all the time? Should they get a special perk?
Why not Congressmen, Judges, City workers, Post Office employees and Dog Catchers?
I think it just boils down to the Police have better lobbyists than we do

OK folks, remember, blatant LEO bashing is not allowed. Make sure you are not breaking the rules on this or the thread wil be locked.