Separate names with a comma.
Are you a current member with account or password issues?
Please visit following page for more information
Discussion in 'The Breakroom' started by kertap75, Jan 16, 2014.
where do you live that you cannot get a ccw...
thought i would point out to all the people here in support of leos...
thanks to the warren vs. d.c. ruling the police are not under any obligation to protect the individual...
so if you find yourself in a do or die situation and the cops are across the street eating doughnuts and get the call they are not under any obligation to save you...
they will secure the scene after you are dead though and get paid lots of overtime to stand around the yellow tape...
I live in NJ, TwoGun. As a "may issue" state, CCW is really only theoretical. A rare, few connected people supposedly have them, but you are more likely to run into a real life yeti than find one. In all my travels and interactions with gun owners in this state, and there have been many in the forty years I've lived here, I've only met one person (non LEO) who claimed to have a CCW license.
I also live in a rural part of the state, so it is even more difficult because I'd have to prove to the state police I have a "need" rather than just a small town police chief who may have to answer to a small town mayor who may have to answer to a voter.
Basically, it is next to impossible for a regular person to get one.
Here is a quote from USA Carry-
May Issue to Residents and Non-Residents
Issuance of the permit is almost completely discretionary, and New Jersey courts have upheld the policy of strictly limiting permits “to persons pecifically employed in security work . . . and to others who can establish an urgent necessity for carrying guns for self-protection.”
Application is made to the police chief where the applicant resides or to the Superintendent of State Police if the community does not have a police chief or if the applicant is a nonresident. The licensing authority makes a recommendation to a judge of the Superior Court who grants or denies the permit. The judge may also place restrictions on the permit."
So, when you live somewhere that is anti-gun and where you need to "show cause", getting a permit simply isn't going to happen. Heck, it can take well over six months to get a permit to simply purchase a handgun and that's after you already have a NJ firearms ID card. I've seen the number of CCWs in NJ as low as 1,600 (and as high as 32,000) in a state that has 8,900,000 people. That puts the percentage of CCWs in the total population anywhere from 0.018 and 0.36 percent.
Which makes me both and .
But it totally makes us safe... oh, wait, we have the country's most crime ridden and deadly city- Camden- so maybe keep the law abiding from exercising their natural born Rights doesn't actually make us safer. But, hey, what do I know?
BTW, Ive said this many times in this thread, on this forum, and elsewhere. I'm totally supportive and appreciative of what the law enforcement community does. I have thanked them numerous times on the forum and in real life (along with our military). I simply don't think they are any more noble, fair, honorable, righteous, trustworthy, or Solomon like than I am. They were hired by the rest of us to do a specific job and I admire each of them for their willingness to put their lives at risk for the rest of us; but the job they were hired to do doesn't include oppressing me.
Which doesn't really happen to me in real life. But there is a reason for that. They simply isn't that much opportunity for that to happen.
I am squeaky clean. I have to pass an FBI background check every three years for my job. I haven't- knock on wood- gotten a ticket for a moving violation in decades; including on my motorcycle. I'm a middle aged guy with a family, a house, and obligations. As such, I have virtually no interactions with LEOs other than the one's I'm related to.
I just don't like the road we are on and the issue we are discussing here is but a small part of it.
In the end, I'd feel a lot better if more of them believed and expressed the same strict Constitutional Libertarian philosophy that I believe in. Actually, I'd really feel a lot better if more of my fellow citizens felt that way too, for if they did, this particular issue would not exist because none of us would allow it to happen.
So, yes, the police are being militarized, but it is you and I, TwoGun, who are ultimately to blame because we don't push back at the ballot box or at town council meetings. Heck, most of us who feel like we do are so cowed that we are afraid to speak out to or family friends, coworkers, or neighbors in an effort to persuade. Well, I do, and maybe you do too, but we are in the minority. I venture to say that there have been plenty of people who visited this thread, had a point of view- one way or the other- and didn't speak their mind.
We are collectively getting what we deserve and tolerate. We all have a 1A Right and Obligation to object, argue, and dissent. More of us should use it.
Thanks for that. I'm aware of the ruling and have mentioned it several times here, but can never remember the actual case.
Fun tidbit for the day: "Massachusetts SWAT teams claim they’re private corporations, immune from open records laws"
Washington Post article, dated June 26.
Kind of ironic compared to other areas where SWAT usage/deployment metrics being made available are being mandated by law.
If they want to claim they are a private corporation, they need to have their federal and municipal funding yanked.... as well as automatic exclusion from the 1033 program.
Private means they are a Militia, or as the Feds like to call them " homegrown terrorist"
My current reading was meant to be lighter and it's a work of fiction. But "winter of the world" by Ken Follett is historical fiction about the start of ww2. I'm at the beginning and there is a young man from England in Germany witnessing Hitler's rise to power. And thinking all the while how easy it would be for something similar to happen in his own country. The people of Germany sacrificed there freedom for what they thought would be safety. Sound familiar? How many people do you know who are willing to give up what they think are little freedoms to feel safer? How far down that road do we need to go before we say no more? How much farther can we go before it's too late?
Thanks for the heads up. I just went and read the article. I didn't realize before reading the article that Massachusetts was ridden with so much police corruption.
I was not at all surprised to see that the ACLU is suing over this.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
An interesting turn of events and worth a read.
Google "Myths and Misconceptions About Indiana's New Self-Defense Law".... article by Radley Balko (author of "Rise Of The Warrior Cop")Indiana law being referenced:
(i) A person is justified in using reasonable force against a public servant if the person reasonably believes the force is necessary to:(1) protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force;(2) prevent or terminate the public servant’s unlawful entry of or attack on the person’s dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle; or(3) prevent or terminate the public servant’s unlawful trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person’s possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person’s immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect.
There was a interesting counterpoint to this discussion of overarmed cops in the July/August issue of American Handgunner by Massad Ayoob,
search "American Handgunner are cops too aggressive".
Food for thought.
I just had time to look up this article. He makes anyone who questions police aggression to be ill informed, but then he gives very little, and nothing in the area of actual numbers ti support his own position. I'll address a few of his points though
1. He asserts that the police have always been modeled after the military and gives the rank structure as an example. This is true. Police forces have modeled the STRUCTURE of their organizations after military structure. But how does that make it okay for the police to copy the military in other areas? In no way is the fact that the rank of captain exists in both the military and civilian police justification for SWAT teams busting down the doors of citizens suspected of non violent crimes.
2. On uniforms. He says that that century old police gear, like flat, leather sole dress shoes, is outdated and police deserve the same right to updated gear that other public servants, like postal workers have gotten..........again, on the surface this is true. But how does it justify the deliberate trend toward scary, intimidating garb? Remember the old joke about women and the way they dress? Well it applies here too. If you don't want to be called a jack booted thug then maybe you shouldn't dress like one?
3. He defends armored personnel carriers with "what ifs". There is always a "what if" to justify almost anything. Wasn't Mr. Ayoob the one who dismisses people who ask "what if" questions as being "what if monkeys"?regardless, his argument here is week and flawed. First, the equipment isn't "free". Since it is coming from the federal government we all pay for it. Also there is opportunity cost here. Is it really effective for police in a town of say 1000 to spend time preparing for "what ifs" for their fancy new toy? His point that these vehicles are most often used to help rescue flood victims is great. Floods are a way more possible "what if" and I'm certain that a better tool for the job exists.
Heh. This quote has been attributed to Ayoob, although I'm certain it predates him by quite a bit:
I'll go one further.... not only are they not free.... but they will be extremely spendy over the long run.
Cost to fill the tank: $300 at current diesel prices.
Cost of tires: $2,500 per.
In some cases, the acquisitions were not approved by the applicable city councils.
Once the MRAP is acquired by local police all repair and maintenance costs gets picked up by the municipality. In some cases, those costs rack up.... really, really quickly.
"UPDATE: Councilman Blasts PD's Acquisition of MRAP Vehicle, City Manager 'Not Happy'""
"UPDATE: Police Acquisition of Armored Vehicles, Costly Crash Under Scrutiny"
Flood rescue? Really?
An MRAP has a fording depth of 3 ft 3 inches. An armored Humvee has a fording depth of 2 ft 6 inches, but that gets bumped up to 5 feet with a water fording kit.
Here's a few stories you fold should Google up for yourselves since I'm too lazy to post them for you. First is people being fined for feeding homeless in Florida I think. Apparently some communities are making it illegal to give food to homeless people because that is the government's job?! Second one is a grandma from N.Y.that was just convicted and sentenced to a year in jail for non violent protest of a drone base. I guess the air base had an order of protection against her and she violated it?
These stories are more troubling to me then most of the other stuff in this thread. If an officer is out of line it's easy to call it an isolated event. But both off these point out just how ed up our country is getting. These are problems with the system not individual government employees.
My grandfather was a beat cop, then a detective over 50 years ago, this was in England though but he carried a truncheon, hat/helmet, and hand cuffs. As a detective he carried nothing and wore civilian suits. Just having a truncheon on your belt was intimidating enough I suppose. I have to wonder what has changed to make such an approach seem outdated and quaint.
I think there is the potential for anyone who has read all this, or some of my posts elsewhere, to get the false impression that I'm anti-cop. I am actually pro law enforcement, but as a strict Constitutional Libertarian, certain things worry me. In fact, they worry me a lot. Such is the case with this-
The worse part of that vid was when the reporter says, "I have a few questions." and the Chief says, "Well then, this interview is over." LOL, what does he think an "interview" is?
Of course, I did have to laugh when the fictitious LEO said, "Warrant? Ya, they're a band from the eighties... pretty good too."
At least we can still laugh about it.
For what it's worth, anyone who has read a serious "anti-cop" rant will appreciate the difference between that and what you say.
Being generally in favor of a thing doesn't mean supporting it absolutely and unequivocally in defiance of all good sense and reason.