Originally Posted by 1911love
I firmly agree Tack. No one is a super citizen. I fully respect LEOs...but not one of them is better than me. We are all citizens protected by the BOR.
I have also thought for a long time that any anti gun politician shouldn't have armed bodyguards. They can have bodyguards, they can't be armed though.
Our country was built on equality for all, and it should be the same today regardless of your chosen profession.
All very true... but it could not be based on a politicians views. I would simply need to reflect the local laws where a politician serves.
Our focus should be to pass laws "banning" concealed carry "exemptions" for ANYONE and modifying existing CCW laws to "prohibit" discretion based on "special need".
This all goes back to one more reason for LEO's go get behind the BOR by ensuring they do not get to enjoy "off duty" rights that are denied to citizens.
Now, the jurisdictions where I live and travel throughout of Washington State and Oregon are "shall issue". Any citizen without a Felony conviction must be given a CCW if they request it. I've NO problem with my Local LEO's being armed "off duty" because here, it is not a "special" right to LEO's... It's every citizens right.
This would need to be accomplished at the Federal Level using the "Equal Protection" argument by asking the Constitution questions.
Is it Constitutional for any jurisdiction to grant "special rights" to people based on there profession while denying those same rights to everyone else?
To my mind, these "Unconstitutional" exemptions for those Government deems to be somehow "special" are no different than the way many States used to discriminate against Black Americans with Jim Crow laws.
Those laws were "discriminatory" and were struck down using the "Equal Protection under the Law" argument.
I fail to see how Government Employees and Security Contractors getting "special" gun rights in jurisdiction that deny these same rights to there law abiding citizens are any different?