More on special privilege of police
While I generally opposed the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004, which granted retired and off duty police the means to carry concealed weapons any where in the country, because it granted special privilege to special citizens, I understand why it was viewed as a good idea. More armed and trustworthy people on the streets can prevent crime. The Chicago Tribune, in its typical anti-gun hysterical way, opposes that idea:
At a time when the city is trying to get guns off the street, a new federal law that permits retired law-enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons promises to have the opposite effect, and the measure could cost Chicago taxpayers millions of dollars in legal claims, a senior city lawyer said Monday.
“Washington, D.C., should not decide who carries [weapons] in Chicago,” deputy corporation counsel Lawrence Rosenthal told the City Council’s Police and Fire Committee. “Very significant questions of liability are raised.”
The city could be named in suits alleging wrongful force simply because it issues identification cards to retired Chicago officers, opening the door for them to be armed, Rosenthal said.
Chicago goes back and forth every year with DC as murder capital of the world. Their strict gun ban isn’t working for them. The real problem Chicago seems to have is that they can’t control who gets the right to carry concealed weapons:
The right to carry concealed weapons under the federal Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004 applies to former officers who retired in “good standing.” But the act does not define what that means, and it provides the right to people who served “a wide variety of agencies” nationwide, Rosenthal said.
That means that a retiree “from some mosquito abatement district in Louisiana” conceivably could carry a weapon while visiting Chicago, he said.
“What the federal government is saying is that they are going to turn this country into the wild, wild West,” said Ald. Isaac Carothers (29th), the committee’s chairman.
The last ironic bit from the article:
“We’re in trouble,” said Ald. Ariel Reboyras (30th).
I think you’re in trouble now with the highest murder rate in the country.
December 8th, 2004 at 7:30 pm
Frankly, the idea of a special privilege law for police would likely be a bad idea. As was quoted a few posts back, law enforcement is seen as a highly trained group of weapons operators when in reality few of them ever fire their weapons outside the police qualification range (and even then, only when required). Which is why we see so many of these ‘highly trained’ individuals shooting themselves, or worse, leaving their firearms in sensitive areas (in schools, on planes, etc).
Alternatively, I view the possibility of a federal concealed carry law as a good thing, but why should we limit it to a special group of people? So long as there were some kind of federal certification for the permit, that would work just fine. It’s worked so far in the states that have it, or am I somehow wrong that crime rates have gone down?
…maybe I should start my own blog…
December 8th, 2004 at 8:22 pm
“…maybe I should start my own blog…”
Yes, you should. See email.