Off-duty police officers banned from carrying firearms at New York State Fair

[Truebeliever]

THAT is the ENTIRE issue.

We need law enforcement officers that understand and defend the U. S. Constitution. If LEOs are not on the side of the people, then they stand against the people. If the latter is the case then the hard Left Progressives are correct.

Did you read the article I linked. It says that 2/3 of police are pro-gun, and the liberals are having a hissyfit over that.
Police officer opinions are varied just like most of America.

 

[Beerman]

Are there places I think retired guys should be allowed to carry where regular permit holders can’t ? Yes, but it’s more like I would like to visit where I used to work. It’s not open to the public in certain areas but that’s more to do with very specific areas. Maybe allow carry with an invitation sort of thing.
Does that clear up my position.

Soon the entire state will be a “carry with an invitation sort of thing” with signs required granting permission to enter private businesses while carrying. That’s nice.

 

[Phazer]

Did you read the article I linked. It says that 2/3 of police are pro-gun, and the liberals are having a hissyfit over that.
Police officer opinions are varied just like most of America.

As I posted, I did read the article.

Police are certainly allowed to have their personal opinions. However, a basic litmus test for LEOs should be, "Will you defend the Constitution even if you disagree with it?"

LEOs are supposed to be apolitical when performing their job. If 1/3 of police believe that law-abiding citizens should not have firearms, that's fine. The question is: Will those officers enforce unconstitutional laws to restrict law-abiding citizens from exercising their natural rights as enshrined in the second amendment? If their answer is, "No, we will follow the orders we are given," then they should not be involved in law enforcement.

 

[Truebeliever]

Well..they get a bite of the $hit pie. I'm retired AF with a secret security clearance but now can't have access to the flightline. I don't accept the idea that when a cop retires, they have "privileges" the ordinary law abiding citizen does not have. I have no issue with cops. My issue is exception..privilege..and "professional courtesy"

Now, change the paradigm. You retire from the US Air Force but have to live in Iraq. That’s the equivalent of what officers are asked. If you don’t think people we have arrested can’t find our home addresses with a little effort, you are not well informed.
As a stated before, attacks on officers are so common that it rarely makes the news. This is when they know we are armed Now imagine if retired /off duty cops are disarmed .

 

[Truebeliever]

Soon the entire state will be a “carry with an invitation sort of thing” with signs required granting permission to enter private businesses while carrying. That’s nice.

I was taking about going into a secured area. Not a place open to the public .

 

[Phazer]

Now, change the paradigm. You retire from the US Air Force but have to live in Iraq. That’s the equivalent of what officers are asked. If you don’t think people we have arrested can’t find our home addresses with a little effort, you are not well informed.
As a stated before, attacks on officers are so common that it rarely makes the news. This is when they know we are armed Now imagine if retired /off duty cops are disarmed .

So, put up a sign that says, "Assaulting occupants of this house is forbidden. No weapons are permitted on these premises."

After all, that's all the protection that our state government believes law-abiding citizens are allowed.

 

[Truebeliever]

As I posted, I did read the article.

Police are certainly allowed to have their personal opinions. However, a basic litmus test for LEOs should be, "Will you defend the Constitution even if you disagree with it?"

LEOs are supposed to be apolitical when performing their job. If 1/3 of police believe that law-abiding citizens should not have firearms, that's fine. The question is: Will those officers enforce unconstitutional laws to restrict law-abiding citizens from exercising their natural rights as enshrined in the second amendment? If their answer is, "No, we will follow the orders we are given," then they should not be involved in law enforcement.

There is a debate on what the constitution says. Before Heller, most so called constitutional scholars and 4 out of the 9 SCOTUS justices would have said it’s a state right and not an individual right.
They honestly believe that.

 

[Beerman]

I was taking about going into a secured area. Not a place open to the public .

Oh- right. The two tiered public vs retired police officer public. How could I forget? You’d “have to move out of state” if you couldn’t go visit your old work HQ.

 

[Truebeliever]

So, put up a sign that says, "Assaulting occupants of this house is forbidden. No weapons are permitted on these premises."

After all, that's all the protection that our state government believes law-abiding citizens are allowed.

Hello, where did I say the public can’t be armed?

 

[Truebeliever]

Oh- right. The two tiered public vs retired police officer public. How could I forget? You’d “have to move out of state” if you couldn’t go visit your old work HQ.

No, I would have to move if all of the new law restrictions applied. Sorry if I didn’t make that clear. I could not go to any business for almost anything without that exception . It would be open season on retired police officers in general and very specific threats would be able to take advantage.

 

[Phazer]

There is a debate on what the constitution says. Before Heller, most so called constitutional scholars and 4 out of the 9 SCOTUS justices would have said it’s a state right and not an individual right.
They honestly believe that.

It says, "The right of THE PEOPLE," not "the state." No other right where "the people" is specified has been deemed to be anything other than an individual right.

 

[Truebeliever]

It says, "The right of THE PEOPLE," not "the state." No other right where "the people" is specified has been deemed to be anything other than an individual right.

You are like a person trying to convince an atheist that God exists when you shout that stuff . You aren’t going to change their mind like t
I believed it was an individual right before Heller but it was believed to be a state right before Heller and McDonald.
That was Scilica’s power. He could reason with them and show how they were wrong with textual and historical evidence.

 

[Truebeliever]

This is from today’s news:

“But the New York City Police Pension Fund has continued to challenge public disclosure of their members’ names, citing instances in which retirees have had their handguns stolen or have been assaulted by individuals they arrested during their careers”

New York law makes state retirees' names public. What it means

A new NY law requires that all state retirees' names be public. It could force New York City to reveal names of retired NYPD officers and their pensions.

www.lohud.com

 

[Phazer]

You are like a person trying to convince an atheist that God exists when you shout that stuff . You aren’t going to change their mind like t
I believed it was an individual right before Heller but it was believed to be a state right before Heller and McDonald.
That was Scilica’s power. He could reason with them and show how they were wrong with textual and historical evidence.

Oh, I fully understand that.

I joust with the unconvertible, like you, so that others may question, investigate, and possibly form their own opinions based on history and text.

A originalist (strict constructionist) believes that the U.S. Constitution is a contract with text that means what the written text states. The constitution may be amended, legally. But, until it is, it says what it says.

Progressives believe in a "living and breathing" constitution that has emanations and penumbras so that the text can be twisted to mean whatever they feel.

The bank that holds my mortgage has engaged in a contract with me. They would not take kindly to me interpreting the text to mean that I could pay what I want, when I want, because of redefinition of terms due to the penumbras around the phraseology of the payment schedule.

 

[Truebeliever]

Oh, I fully understand that.

I joust with the unconvertible, like you, so that others may question, investigate, and possibly form their own opinions based on history and text.

A originalist (strict constitutionalist) believes that the U.S. Constitution is a contract with text that means what the written text states. The constitution may be amended, legally. But, until it is, it says what it says.

Progressives believe in a "living and breathing" constitution that has emanations and penumbras so that the text can be twisted to mean whatever they feel.

The bank that holds my mortgage has engaged in a contract with me. They would not take kindly to me interpreting the text to mean that I could pay what I want, when I want, because of redefinition of terms due to the penumbras around the phraseology of the payment schedule.

I think it’s both. I think some of it is intent like freedom of the press isn’t limited to just newspapers but other forms as well. I think the right to privacy goes beyond “ to be secure in their papers “.
But to paraphrase one justice, it’s not a suicide pact either.
If your mortgage says it will be paid in USD but you don’t pay cash but a electronic payment, are you technically in violation of the contract if it wasn’t covered by another agreement ( US banking law)

 

[Phazer]

I think it’s both. I think some of it is intent like freedom of the press isn’t limited to just newspapers but other forms as well. I think the right to privacy goes beyond “ to be secure in their papers “.
But to paraphrase one justice, it’s not a suicide pact either.
If your mortgage says it will be paid in USD but you don’t pay cash but a electronic payment, are you technically in violation of the contract if it wasn’t covered by another agreement ( US banking law)

Given current times, they might request that I pay in boxes of ammunition.

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

As a stated before, attacks on officers are so common that it rarely makes the news. This is when they know we are armed Now imagine if retired /off duty cops are disarmed .

Not a single person in this thread or forum is saying or advocating that retired or off duty police "can't" be armed. No one is saying disarm retired or off duty police.

We probably all feel that retired or off duty police should be able to carry exactly just as regular citizens can.

Same rules for all. We should all be able to defend ourselves.

Like @Mr. terzmo I "had" a secret security clearance. It's gone now. I also had all my personal information stolen in a defense data leak. (thanks a lot). I try to hide my personal information and practice infosec but it's still out there. I'm just a regular citizen now. Regular citizens are also at risk too not only police that's not a special exclusive "at risk" club they are the only members of. but my right to self defense is being taken from me and only a select class of .gov enforcers get to enjoy these privileges extended to them solely because the powers that be want to keep LEOs happy so they don't cause a stir.

I bet everyone in this thread is completely fine with all LEOs being able to carry to defend themselves in exactly all the same places and same methods as every other lawful citizen is able to.

That retired and off duty LEOs are given this preferential treatment (carrying where citizens are forbidden)and will still enforce the laws preventing state vetted and trusted (pistol licenced) citizens from performing the exact same act that off duty or retired LEOs are doing sucks and they should have a moral problem with it.

 

[Phazer]

I bet everyone in this thread is completely fine with all LEOs being able to carry to defend themselves in exactly all the same places and same methods as every other lawful citizen is able to.

That retired and off duty LEOs are given this preferential treatment (carrying where citizens are forbidden)and will still enforce the laws preventing state vetted and trusted (pistol licenced) citizens from performing the exact same act that off duty or retired LEOs are doing sucks and they should have a moral problem with it.

EXACTLY!

I want off-duty LEOs carrying EVERYWHERE. I want them in theaters. I want them in stadiums. I want them in restaurants where I'm eating with my family. That said, I want to carry in theaters, stadiums, and restaurants, too.

 

[Truebeliever]

Not a single person in this thread or forum is saying or advocating that retired or off duty police "can't" be armed. No one is saying disarm retired or off duty police.

We probably all feel that retired or off duty police should be able to carry exactly just as regular citizens can.

Same rules for all. We should all be able to defend ourselves.

Like @Mr. terzmo I "had" a secret security clearance. It's gone now. I also had all my personal information stolen in a defense data leak. (thanks a lot). I try to hide my personal information and practice infosec but it's still out there. I'm just a regular citizen now. Regular citizens are also at risk too not only police that's not a special exclusive "at risk" club they are the only members of. but my right to self defense is being taken from me and only a select class of .gov enforcers get to enjoy these privileges extended to them solely because the powers that be want to keep LEOs happy so they don't cause a stir.

I bet everyone in this thread is completely fine with all LEOs being able to carry to defend themselves in exactly all the same places and same methods as every other lawful citizen is able to.

That retired and off duty LEOs are given this preferential treatment (carrying where citizens are forbidden)and will still enforce the laws preventing state vetted and trusted (pistol licenced) citizens from performing the exact same act that off duty or retired LEOs are doing sucks and they should have a moral problem with it.

It’s more than a “ stir”. We would be forced to move out of the state . They couldn’t get guys to take the job.
It’s not about a “ bribe” to get cops to enforce the particular law. It’s about being able to retain and recruit cops in general.
And some are advocating that if they can’t carry, no one should.

 

[Nighttrain]

Is the NYS fair now enabling—stop and frisk,

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

It’s more than a “ stir”. We would be forced to move out of the state . They couldn’t get guys to take the job.
It’s not about a “ bribe” to get cops to enforce the particular law. It’s about being able to retain and recruit cops in general.
And some are advocating that if they can’t carry, no one should.

I think in a round about way you just made my point and agreed with me.

My point is the powers that be grant police special rights that go above and beyond what citizens get. I'm not talking about police during the course of their on duty working time that is a different discussion but referring to off duty and or retired.

The politicals want police on their side to enforce their stupid laws and provide protection for the political figures. They are the regime enforce and protectors. They do the bidding of the elected. They enforce the crappy unconstitutional laws. The elected need LEOs. The elected can't have LEOs actively undermining them so by hook or crook they will keep LEOs happy and content. If they piss off too many LEOs human nature says they will just quit and leave or passive aggressively undermine their authority. The elected don't want that to happen. So they will give LEOs rights and privileges above and beyond regular citizens they should be on par and equal with. There should not be separate classes and 2 sets of rights.

LEOs seem content as long as "they get theirs" to fall in line and continue to enforce crappy laws.

I'm not faulting police for taking advantage of rights given to them. I would do the same thing.

Its very concerning that more LEOs don't seem to have a moral problem with this type of behavior though where they recognize that having separate classes of citizens can be problematic.

Police would arrest me for carrying at the fair sep1 but would pat the off duty brother on the back who is doing the same exact thing as I would be on both private time. That's the issue.

 

[nortatoga]

This whole thread......

 

[Truebeliever]

I think in a round about way you just made my point and agreed with me.

My point is the powers that be grant police special rights that go above and beyond what citizens get. I'm not talking about police during the course of their on duty working time that is a different discussion but referring to off duty and or retired.

The politicals want police on their side to enforce their stupid laws and provide protection for the political figures. They are the regime enforce and protectors. They do the bidding of the elected. They enforce the crappy unconstitutional laws. The elected need LEOs. The elected can't have LEOs actively undermining them so by hook or crook they will keep LEOs happy and content. If they piss off too many LEOs human nature says they will just quit and leave or passive aggressively undermine their authority. The elected don't want that to happen. So they will give LEOs rights and privileges above and beyond regular citizens they should be on par and equal with. There should not be separate classes and 2 sets of rights.

LEOs seem content as long as "they get theirs" to fall in line and continue to enforce crappy laws.

I'm not faulting police for taking advantage of rights given to them. I would do the same thing.

Its very concerning that more LEOs don't seem to have a moral problem with this type of behavior though where they recognize that having separate classes of citizens can be problematic.

Police would arrest me for carrying at the fair sep1 but would pat the off duty brother on the back who is doing the same exact thing as I would be on both private time. That's the issue.

And what do you think would have happened if they didn’t change their mind about the fairgrounds?
Nothing except cops wouldn’t go.
They already ban off duty and retired cops from certain areas and events . The 9/11 memorial bans off duty cops and retired cops from carrying. We just don’t go.
The same thing would have happened at the fairgrounds.
The exception is not a “ bribe” to get them to enforce gun laws. The exception is to retain retired cops from completely moving out of the state and have people take the job in the first place. It’s not to get cops to enforce the gun law.
As far as being arrested at the fairgrounds, if it wasn’t for the new law, you would just be turned away, not arrested unless you tried to sneak it in.

 

[Beerman]

No, I would have to move if all of the new law restrictions applied. Sorry if I didn’t make that clear. I could not go to any business for almost anything without that exception . It would be open season on retired police officers in general and very specific threats would be able to take advantage.

It’s “open season” on the general public in case you’re not keeping up on current events. I guess we should all move since we won’t be able to carry in public in 3 weeks? (For the record: I’m no coward. I’m not gonna run.) Have a nice day.

I live in northern Warren County. The Deputies that I (rarely) encounter are pretty cool, very calm, polite, friendly, helpful and often grew up locally. I respect them and they make it well understood that they respect the local residents. They act like they exist to help. It’s almost, I don’t know… the way it’s supposed to be.

 

[Truebeliever]

It’s “open season” on the general public in case you’re not keeping up on current events. I guess we should all move since we won’t be able to carry in public in 3 weeks? (For the record: I’m no coward. I’m not gonna run.) Have a nice day.

I live in northern Warren County. The Deputies that I (rarely) encounter are pretty cool, very calm, polite, friendly, helpful and often grew up locally. I respect them and they make it well understood that they respect the local residents. They act like they exist to help. It’s almost, I don’t know… the way it’s supposed to be.

The “open season” on the public is different. As a general rule, the public doesn’t have the same threat as retired cops do. In general the public doesn’t have specific creditable threats against them the same way LEOs do. People have attempted to murder us on a regular basis. We get attacked for what we are or what we were even if we had no prior connection with our attacker. That’s in addition to specific and targeted attacks and not just a random street attack that the public is generally subject to as well.
As someone pointed out, a guard in a prison makes enemies who are known murderers and they do let them out. They also want revenge on who put them there. And if not the specific officer, an officer or retired officer.

Not to recognize that is a lie. To compare the general public’s threat to the general LEO’s threat is not equal. It just isn’t .

In general, cops are nice to most people but it depends on the situation

 

[FRB]

There are literally thousands of videos showing the stellar temperment of LEO's all over youtube ! How wonderful they are as they're slamming people's heads into the pavement for no reason, and slamming people against their car because they had the nerve to tell the cop he was wrong. It's awesome to see them plant evidence and lie about the encounter. Threatening and intimidating people is fabulous to watch. Lying about what the law says simply because they don't want to admit they don't know what the law says is great entertainment. Hundreds of these videos end with the cop being fired and prosecuted for crimes against innocent civilians. Contempt of cop is a real thing. A huge number of cops, dare I say a vast majority ? have a God complex the size of Montana. That badge makes them believe they can do no wrong, they should be allowed to do whatever they desire without question, and that everyone NOT in blue should do every damn thing they say. BULLSHIT. They're no better than any other man, and many times aren't as good. I have absolutely no use for anyone that bought into and promotes the Thin Blue Line / Us vs Them garbage. If there wasn't a LONG history of abuse of power and violations of civil liberties, cops would not be hated. You brought this on yourselves, and now cry about how you're a target and nobody trusts you. Boo hoo.

So true, and thus why it is idiotic to give them special privileges outside of the job simply based on the job they have!

 

[FRB]

As someone pointed out, a guard in a prison makes enemies who are known murderers and they do let them out. They also want revenge on who put them there. And if not the specific officer, an officer or retired officer.

Shame on the guard who makes enemies in prison. Respect goes a long way.

 

[Truebeliever]

Shame on the guard who makes enemies in prison. Respect goes a long way.

Respectful guards make enemies too by just doing their job and don’t overlook something when the inmate tells them to.

 

[FrankenCub]

I was just about to post this very thing. This is just lip service. Do you all really think off duty guys are gonna abide by this? If they get caught then what?

If off duty LEOS get caught, nothing. If any of us serfs get caught, guarantee we get arrested and permits pulled now.

 

[Truebeliever]

If off duty LEOS get caught, nothing. If any of us serfs get caught, guarantee we get arrested and permits pulled now.

Not now. The person with the permit will just get turned away.