So wrong, in so many ways.
No carve outs for anyone. No ones right or need is greater then anyone else's, or less, especially as applied to 2a issues. Period.
No ones rights should be infringed. That said...
Retired, your rights are not more or less then mine. Your rights shoud be infringed as much or as little as mine. You are no better or worse then me.
On duty, well, let's just say we can start googling cops gone bad.
I say the same for retired military, retired police, retired other Feds.
Carve outs are an attempt to curry favor with a segment of society, nothing more or less.
If you think I Have less rights, 2a or otherwise, then you or anyone, we've just agreed that you are not pro2a or any rights. We've agreed that you are a sell out for a carve out.
if you want to carry nation wide, do what everyone else has to do. apply for the right to carry in states accordingly. Florida, to get many, Utah for a few others, then each and every other state as required for the ones not honoring Forida, Utah, Delaware and so on.
and good luck with California, New Jersey, New York, and the others INFRINGERS who think no one but the carve outs should carry.
then, after suffering as much as us peasants, push for national reciprocity, so that a least you only have to pay for one set of finger prints, background check, "class" where required, and so on.
then maybe push for just having everyone honor the 2a, without paying to do it.
DMac wrote:For the record, I am entirely pro second amendment. In their wisdom, the founders saw fit to codify the God given right of every human being to defend oneself. Based on the text of the amendment, I don't believe that any level of government has any legal right to regulate any firearm... period. "Shall not be infringed," means what it says.
The problem is however, that the literal interpretation of the amendment is not being applied in the world in which we live. The ideal and the reality are therefore two very different things. This being the case, the "need" of retired LEOs IS in fact relevant and federal law (H.R. 218) acknowledges this.
So, in the real world in which we exist:
-Do retired LEOs need to be able to carry? Yes, of course they do.
-Do some state and local laws tend to inhibit their ability to carry? Yes, of course they do.
-Is therefore a federal statute needed, in order to guarantee the right of retired LEOs to carry? Yes, absolutely. And that is what we have in H.R. 218.
But now I'll give all of you some even deeper insight into all of this. The deeper reality is that all of this is actually completely moot. Why? Because I know of no law enforcement officer in this country who would ever even think of bringing a firearm charge against an otherwise law abiding retired officer. If he/she ever did such a thing, they would be an instant outcast in their department. There is a brotherhood of blue and it is sacred.