Law Enforcement personnel, active and retired, don’t need permits. Permits issued to Special Police are valid only while performing their SPO duties. |
They would need a permit for their own weapon. If I was a SPO I would get a CCW just to remove ambiguity about issues around commuting and threatening behavior in my own neighborhood. |
Come back and tell us when you use it, OP. |
The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act creates a federal scheme exempting active and retired law enforcement from most state gun laws, including carry permit requirements in the states that still have them. SPO’s cannot use a personal firearm on duty. They frequently do not take the company gun home. If they want to carry a gun on their own time in DC they need their own permit as an individual. |
A question for any Jewish democrats that have historically been adverse to acquiring a firearm, given events in Israel and Gaza, as well as the increase of anti-Semitic sentiments on the left — are you now acquiring (or considering acquiring) a firearm? |
The most anti gun people I know personally range from being suicidal/formerly suicidal to chronically depressed about the direction their life has taken and have a history of making very stupid and illogical life choices, often bad money/career/relationship choices, and overall are truly miserable individuals. It’s definitely projection, they don’t trust themselves with a firearm so they assume most other people can’t be trusted either. |
+1 Yes, let us know when you are some super hero that saves the day, you dumb mutt. |
That's good, but apparently lots are, at a rate of 1000 a day. You might have missed the part where I said I lived most of my life in NoVa where I also never felt a need for a gun because I lived in safe neighborhoods. I would never live in Miami, or Atlanta, or Jacksonville, or DC, because it seems you must have a gun to survive living in places like that, or so I gather from this thread. |
You always vote D to protect women’s reproductive rights? No? Then you are fine with women losing bodily autonomy. |
And yet you want all of those people to easily acquire guns. |
I’m fine with 2A “rights” - with limitations. And just because I have a uterus doesn’t mean I don’t have “certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” 14th Amendment “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/liberty liberty The term “liberty” appears in the due process clauses of both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. As used in the Constitution, liberty means freedom from arbitrary and unreasonable restraint upon an individual. Freedom from restraint refers to more than just physical restraint, but also the freedom to act according to one's own will. On numerous occasions the Supreme Court has sought to explain what liberty means and what it encompasses. For example: The Supreme Court in Meyer v. Nebraska stated “[liberty] denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” In Bolling v. Sharpe, the Supreme Court stated “[liberty] is not confined to mere freedom from bodily restraint. Liberty under law extends to the full range of conduct which the individual is free to pursue, and it cannot be restricted except for a proper governmental objective.” In Ingraham v. Wright, the Supreme Court stated liberty includes “freedom from bodily restraint and punishment” and “a right to be free from and to obtain judicial relief, for unjustified intrusions on personal security.” |
Just don’t get all the animosity toward OP. She is making an informed decision, exercising her constitutional right and complying with the policies and procedures set forth by the DC government to obtain a concealed carry permit.
Unless you assault her she is no threat to anyone. CCW holders are as a group are rule followers and law abiding citizens. As daily life in DC, other large US cities and around the world demonstrate, you don’t need a gun to protect yourself, until that moment when you actually do. But then it is too late to go through the 30-45 day process to get a permit, pop by the gun store, hit the range for practice, etc. OP is now prepared to act to save herself if necessary, i for one applaud her for her decision. Others are free to criticize. |
We anxiously await her stories of putting it to use. |
We have a registered handgun. I won't lie-when I could hear the windows breaking and sirens in 2019, it made me feel a lot safer. We don't really go out enough in places where violence would pop up (not denying that it is almost continual these days) but we are pretty much homebodies - to need a concealed weapon. If we did , I would totally see the case for it. I believe you have to make a case to the city you are under threat? Isn't that pretty much everyone in DC these days, except for the criminals? Thanks ultra liberals! You just made us all want guns. |
Literally, the more I think about it the more ironic it is. Liberal law and order policy driving up private gun ownership. Could there be anything more ironic than everyone feeling like they are basically responsible to be their own little sheriff? Not exactly the socialist utopia. |