Please note that I have not entered an argument here, and I wish not to, as there are some who would bash law enforcement, and that I care not to read or respond to. I just added to somebody's post about the "obligations" an officer has. I don't believe any of us should get disarmed, but some people would like to take the time to argue about privileges and cops vs chl.Goldspurs wrote:A lot of people who are forced to be unarmed by their occupation are being targeted. Does the military recruiting station shooting ring any bells? In stead of advocating for special privileges I think your argument would be better served by asking for the end of "gun free zones". That being said, I will always believe private property should be left to the discretion of the owner, to include businesses. I f try choose to prohibit firearms I don't agree with their view, but I would rather not give them my business, instead of forcing my views on them through legislation.Charlies.Contingency wrote:NO obligation is broad and speculative. Must I remind people of departmental obligations as well as moral obligations? Not that some people care, but I would hate to be at the scene of a murder or something of the such, and be found out that I did nothing to stop it or assist. Good by career! Some might no see it the same way us LEO's do, but I have people that would like to kill me because of my occupation, on top of any other reasons such as religious views. I know that not everybody agrees...MONGOOSE wrote:He is under no "obligation " to draw his gun. He can evaluate the situation first and determine if he wants to engage
I am all for expanded rights, and I'm certain we all are, so why are people on here arguing about tis and dat? Lets push to have the playing field equal for both LEO and CHL. I am for that.