Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

concealed carry

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Bill Warnock
    replied
    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
    Exagerated? I'd say outright fabricated.
    Nathan:
    You should have seen the expression of the faces of the two folks who reported that story when the US Army Ballistics Research Laboratory explained what the .50 caliber round was capability of doing and not doing.
    I thought the one woman was going to have a fit when she said she saw WWII fighter bomber film footage of a German tank being blown up by the bullets from a P-47 on a strafing run. Dr. Atwater explained the etymology of that word, German (Gott strafe England = May God punish England) was a propaganda slogan during World War I.
    The tank he explained was destroyed by a 500-pound bomb from the P-47.
    It was just as you stated, a complete fabrication.
    Enjoy the day,
    Bill

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    Originally posted by EMTGuard
    They exagerated. The M82 fires a 50 caliber armor peircing round which is identical to what is fired from the M2 heavy machine gun. This round will bust through lightly armored vehicles (humvees, trucks) and many Armored Personel Carriers (M113) but will not stop a modern Main Battle Tank. Take it from a former M1A1 tanker.
    Exagerated? I'd say outright fabricated.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rooney
    replied
    I'm not sure many people would carry an M82 concealed though. With it being approx. 1.5 meters in length and 13-15kg. Although I would like to have one to take to the long distance range (1000 yd) about 2 miles from my house. (And I've never had rounds land on my house)

    Leave a comment:


  • EMTGuard
    replied
    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
    Amusingly enough, the AP ran a story about the devistating capabilities of the M82 Sniper Weapon System from Barrett...

    It could punch through TANK ARMOR, they said!
    They exagerated. The M82 fires a 50 caliber armor peircing round which is identical to what is fired from the M2 heavy machine gun. This round will bust through lightly armored vehicles (humvees, trucks) and many Armored Personel Carriers (M113) but will not stop a modern Main Battle Tank. Take it from a former M1A1 tanker.
    Last edited by EMTGuard; 12-06-2006, 08:11 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    Amusingly enough, the AP ran a story about the devistating capabilities of the M82 Sniper Weapon System from Barrett...

    It could punch through TANK ARMOR, they said!

    Leave a comment:


  • SecTrainer
    replied
    Personally, I agree with Mark Twain, who said that "An armed society is a polite society."

    There have been many studies showing that in jurisdictions where citizens are granted the right to bear arms the crime and victimization rates are significantly reduced while any gun-related crimes committed by such (legal-carrying) citizens are so miniscule that they pale in comparison to knifings, poisonings and even assaults using automobiles or wet squirrels, for that matter.

    I know of no study, on the other hand, that contradicts these findings, so the point would seem to be inarguable...and yet we have people like the governor of Wisconsin and the police chief mentioned in these posts.

    I remember some of the dire predictions about "rising gun crime rates" when gun sales to private citizens jumped by about 200% after 9/11. These were usually silly, uninformed news anchors who implied that soon we'd all be shooting each other as a matter of purely normal routine on finding that the laundry had starched our shorts or because someone didn't tip his hat to grandma on the street.

    These predictions, of course, never came true but you never saw any of these deeply-concerned-faced-dire-consequence-predicting pundits admit that they were wrong...and you never will.

    I think there should be a federal/national weapons license for security officers - especially those whose assignments take them across state lines - (and also federal/national security agency licensing for companies operating in multiple states as well), with the proper restrictions and requirements, of course. I can only imagine the licensing departments that the national companies must have to support, keeping up on each state's changing laws, the costs, making sure renewals are done in time, etc., etc.
    Last edited by SecTrainer; 12-05-2006, 07:50 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    Originally posted by Black Caesar
    I know quite a few guys are are royally ticked off about that too. Friends of mine who work for Private Institutions (Baylor Health Care System Police, Methodist Hospital of Dallas Police, and Southern Methodist University PD specifically).

    Same academy requirement, same state requirements to become peace officers, same authority, but if they want to carry legally in another state they have to get a CCW. "Civillians" who take a one day CCW class can carry out of state, but they can't.

    I know that would tick me off. The provision about officer's "working for the gvernment" was pushed but FoP and other unions I heard, for what reasons I'm not sure..
    Because the Fraternal Order of Police lobbies for the betterment of government-derived law enforcement officers, not specials or auxiliaries or other private law enforcement. Without speaking for the Grand Lodge, they consider them security personnel taking jobs away from government sanctioned police forces.

    In other words, they wanted to make sure that only government-appointed LEOs got to carry. Those who are not government-appointed cannot join the FOP, and are not "brothers in blue" to the FOP. They're the competition.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lawson
    replied
    SEC. 3. EXEMPTION OF QUALIFIED RETIRED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS FROM STATE LAWS PROHIBITING THE CARRYING OF CONCEALED FIREARMS.

    (a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is further amended by inserting after section 926B the following:

    `Sec. 926C. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified retired law enforcement officers

    `(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified retired law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).

    `(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that--

    `(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or

    `(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.

    `(c) As used in this section, the term `qualified retired law enforcement officer' means an individual who--

    `(1) retired in good standing from service with a public agency as a law enforcement officer, other than for reasons of mental instability;

    `(2) before such retirement, was authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and had statutory powers of arrest;

    `(3)(A) before such retirement, was regularly employed as a law enforcement officer for an aggregate of 15 years or more; or

    `(B) retired from service with such agency, after completing any applicable probationary period of such service, due to a service-connected disability, as determined by such agency;

    `(4) has a nonforfeitable right to benefits under the retirement plan of the agency;

    `(5) during the most recent 12-month period, has met, at the expense of the individual, the State's standards for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry firearms;

    `(6) is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance; and

    `(7) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm.

    `(d) The identification required by this subsection is--

    `(1) a photographic identification issued by the agency from which the individual retired from service as a law enforcement officer that indicates that the individual has, not less recently than one year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the agency to meet the standards established by the agency for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm; or

    `(2)(A) a photographic identification issued by the agency from which the individual retired from service as a law enforcement officer; and

    `(B) a certification issued by the State in which the individual resides that indicates that the individual has, not less recently than one year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the State to meet the standards established by the State for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm.

    `(e) As used in this section, the term `firearm' does not include--

    `(1) any machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the National Firearms Act);

    `(2) any firearm silencer (as defined in section 921 of this title); and

    `(3) a destructive device (as defined in section 921 of this title).'.

    (b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for such chapter is further amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926B the following:

    `926C. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified retired law enforcement officers.'
    http://www.kcpoa.org/legal/hr218.html

    Leave a comment:


  • Special Investigator
    replied
    Originally posted by Jackhole
    You have funny ways of proving your points then. I told you a few times that I was not a retired in-state LEO, yet you continued to insist that I wouldn't be allowed to carry there.

    I can't think of any reason I would need to travel to WI with my weapon, other than to kill myself with it because I was in WI.
    Originally Posted by Special Investigator
    .....but if you are a retired LEO, you cannot carry a CW in WI.

    Your answer - Yes, you can.
    No you cant! I didn't say if your a 'current' LEO you couldn't, only if your a retired LEO.

    Looking foreward to your visit to WI.
    Last edited by Special Investigator; 12-02-2006, 07:59 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Security
    replied
    Originally posted by Jackhole
    You have funny ways of proving your points then. I told you a few times that I was not a retired in-state LEO, yet you continued to insist that I wouldn't be allowed to carry there.

    It's a moot point anyway. I can't think of any reason I would need to travel to WI with my weapon, other than to kill myself with it because I was in WI.
    There goes that psych. test....

    Leave a comment:


  • Jackhole
    replied
    Originally posted by Special Investigator
    Exactly my point!!!
    You have funny ways of proving your points then. I told you a few times that I was not a retired in-state LEO, yet you continued to insist that I wouldn't be allowed to carry there.

    It's a moot point anyway. I can't think of any reason I would need to travel to WI with my weapon, other than to kill myself with it because I was in WI.

    Leave a comment:


  • Black Caesar
    replied
    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
    Its "agent of the goverment." A Company Police Officer in NC can't carry, nor can someone like Histfan71 (Government contractor, no matter what his badge says) but a state university or state junior college officer can.
    I know quite a few guys are are royally ticked off about that too. Friends of mine who work for Private Institutions (Baylor Health Care System Police, Methodist Hospital of Dallas Police, and Southern Methodist University PD specifically).

    Same academy requirement, same state requirements to become peace officers, same authority, but if they want to carry legally in another state they have to get a CCW. "Civillians" who take a one day CCW class can carry out of state, but they can't.

    I know that would tick me off. The provision about officer's "working for the gvernment" was pushed but FoP and other unions I heard, for what reasons I'm not sure..

    Leave a comment:


  • Black Caesar
    replied
    Originally posted by Bill Warnock
    Please go to that site and enter the following: Title 18, US Code Sections 926B and 926C.
    Enjoy the day,
    Bill
    Here's another:

    hr218

    Leave a comment:


  • Special Investigator
    replied
    Originally posted by Black Caesar
    The problem with Wisconsin (as I understand it) has nothing to do with OUT OF STATe LEOs. Nothing Wisconsin can do can prevent out of state active and retired LEOs cover under the act from carrying concealed. The probelm exists for IN STATE retired LEOs. Supposedly, Hr216 conflicts with some existing laws and such in wisconsin.

    Exactly my point!!!

    If WI allowed retired PO's to carry conceled, then they would have to allow PI's & security personal to carry concealed. The state is very against any CCW laws.

    Leave a comment:


  • Black Caesar
    replied
    Originally posted by Jackhole
    "We disagree" isn't a special circumstance.

    ???

    What are we disagreeing about?

    EDIT: Oh, I see what you mean, Wisconsin can't just disagree with the Feds.

    You're right, BUT they have ways of doing things, allowed in HR218. If they wanted to they could make a law saying out of state LEOs can't carry in wisconsin, see below:

    (from HR218)
    `Sec. 926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law enforcement officers

    `(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).

    `(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that--

    `(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or

    `(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.
    The underlined parts are those that allow the states to restrict where LEOs covered by HR218 can carry. New Jersey says you can't carry in their casinos, so you can't. The Federal Government says you can't carry on a military base, so you can't. Ect Ect.

    But it also means that HR218 covered LEOs can carry in places where "civilians" with CCWs can't. Thats how it was explained to me anyways.

    It's moot for active and retired "out of state" LEOs, you just have to meet the requirements in your state, Wisconsin can't say anything to you about that.

    Wisconsin's problem is Sec. 3 of HR218. The part about Retired LEOs. In state retired LEOs are facing an up hill battle getting the right to carry off duty in Wisconsin it seems.

    HR218 text
    Last edited by Black Caesar; 12-02-2006, 07:14 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Leaderboard

Collapse
Working...
X