Yeah. Believe it or not there are some police departments where officers don’t carry firearms. Most of them are college or university police, but they are still real cops with arrest powers. I’ve been in law enforcement for 20+ years both full & part-time and couldn’t image not have my sidearm. There is a force continuum that is taught in training, lethal force being at the end of it. How any jurisdiction can’t take that away from an officer is beyond me. I’d be surprised if it hasn’t gotten someone killed.
I still want to know what you’re talking about here. I’ve never heard of a federal CCW permit. please provide a cite!
Perhaps we can not take everything said by a Doper attorney as legal gospel, if no cite is provided? Yes. That might be best. We all do have the same Internet access.
George W. Bush and Laura Bush must legally declare their place of residence on their US 1040 Tax Form, just like everybody else has to. ( No doubt it is against the law to make up a place of residence that is not in fact your legal one and list it on your 1040 Form. )
THAT is their legal address as of the 2004 tax year, and they are therefore legally bound by the laws applied to citizens of Illinois.
It actually doesn’t mean jack shit where a public servant lives while they are serving the public. If I am stationed in Iraq for 2 years, I am not barred from voting in a Presidential election because I’m living in Iraq- and what- suddenly I’m a citizen of Iraq? Sorry. Doesn’t work that way at all.
Their legal address has been provided above. They are not, and do not legally declare themselves to be, citizens of the District of Columbia.
I didn’t take his word for it, and I don’t know what this internet thing is. At any rate, the White House has been the official residence of the POTUS for over 200 years, it wasn’t a long stretch to think that after living there for 8 years he had residency.
Their legal address is irrelevant. Anyone who is within the city limits is subject to the laws of that jurisdiction, whether they are residents or not. While Dubya is at home in the White House, he is subject to the laws of Washington DC. When he is in Crawford, Texas, he is subject to the laws of that muninicpality. His “legal residence” has no bearing on what laws he must obey.
As a commander in chief, he is a member of the military. He can carry whatever he pleases, and the Department of Defense will back him up. Why is there any confusion over this?
Flashback to college.
We had a campus security force separate from, but under the jurisdiction of, the campus police.
The campus security folks got no sidearms, but did get bullet-proof vests.
I once worked in the last convenience store in the South to not have surveillance cameras, but working a job where I get to patrol a facility with a bullet-resistand vest on and nothing more dangerous than pepper spray to draw crosses my line from dumb into dumber.
The federal gun permit is not open to private citizens. It is documentation that a certain person is legally allowed to CCW in plainclothes. It is to avoid issues where a person may not know that a Treasury Agent (for example) is allow to carry weapons. I’ve seen a couple of these since I know a few people that are allowed to CCW for their federal jobs.
:eek: Cartooniverse! You have been on these boards for quite some time. You know better than this.
20+ years of L.E. & I know nothing of this. SaintCad has done a post-n-bail. Can anyone fill me in on this?
This WILL go to court, and Daley will lose.
QUOTE=AskNott]As a commander in chief, he is a member of the military. He can carry whatever he pleases, and the Department of Defense will back him up. Why is there any confusion over this?
[/QUOTE]
Cite? By what written legal authority is this true? I’m not saying you’re incorrect, but Simply being a member of the military does not give one the status to carry a weapon anywhere one pleases, especially concealed.
QUOTE=Mr. Slant]The campus security folks got no sidearms, but did get bullet-proof vests.
[/QUOTE]
Suicide. But keep in mind there is a difference between security & police. The police have a duty to make arrests, and sometimes a firearm is needed to affect that arrest. Whenever I hear someone say “coolege police don’t need guns” I ask them what weapons they’re issued by the police department they work for. Then I get “well…um…I’m not a cop”. Then shut up, you don’t know what you’re talking about. :rolleyes:
Whoops. I posted before seeing this post. This is not a permit at all, as you implied in your previous post. It is simply documentation that one is a peace officer with the status to carry a weapon. Almost every department I know of has this, including my own. It’s usually typed on department letter head., in form.
You had implied previously that there was a “permit”, which this obviously isn’t.
Either way, I’m not certain POTUS is eligible for this. But that goes back to the OP doesn’t it? We’re back to square one!
Think of it this way: by the standard set in your post my Fadder-in-law can legally carry a concealed weapon when he visits here in Wisconsin because he is a resident of Florida & is legally bound to their laws which allows him to CCW with their permit.
When it was shown to me the first time, the person called it a federal gun permit. It may be a misnomer, but that’s what I knew it as.
Also, my post was in reply to a couple of people who believed that the President carrying a gun would fall under state or local laws. The point was IF he were allowed to carry a gun, it would be under federal jurisdiction - not local.
Actually, that’s the post office box of the trust company and trust officer that signs the President and First Lady’s income tax returns under a power of attorney. As far as I am aware, they are still domiciled in Texas, where there’s no state income tax.
That brings up something else; domicile is different from residence. Your domicile, sometimes called “legal residence,” is your permanent address, the physical location that you intend to return to. A residence, sometimes called “physical residence,” is any place that you reside. You can only claim one domicile at any given time, but you can have many residences. Regardless of his domicile, the President undeniably keeps a residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. in D.C.
Not that that matters for purposes of the discussion; as stated, I can’t go to D.C. and claim a Texas CCW lets me carry a gun there. Of course, I’m not the most powerful man in the world, and I can’t issue Executive Orders that carry the weight of federal law, unlike the President. If the President wants to carry a weapon, who the heck’s going to stop him?
Sadly, no. Although I believe the constitution SHOULD be interpreted to prevent the wholesale ban of handguns, in fact, current precedent permits this. The right to bear arms is a collective right, not an individual right. That’s unwise, in my view, but it is the law of the land.
Not according to John Ashcroft who indicated, while U.S. Attorney General, that it is an individual right.
The “collective right” thing flies in the face of history and statements our founders made when the 2nd Amendment was being written/debated. There were actually a few versions of it.
But beyond that, most state constitutions are clear that it is an individual right. D.C. has none as far as I know.
Not sure how any of this applies the the POTUS though, or the OP.
I am also led to believe that there are law enforcement agencies that permit their officers to be armed only while they are on duty and prohibit them from carrying a firearm when they are off duty. I should think that this also factors into the equation.
You might not be a citizen of Iraq, but you had damn better obey the laws of Iraq, whoever is setting them these days.
