I was having a discussion with a person the other day about HB 560. This person is not anti gun at all. He even carries one in his truck all the time. I was trying to encourage him to apply for his LTC and I covered a few of the bills that are in the legislature this session. When I talked about HB560 expanding the places that an LTC can carry he was not for that at all, which surprised me. His reasoning? LEO's have more training and they will be safer with their guns.
I would not be surprised if that same type of thinking is pervasive in our legislature.
I was having another discussion with a hunting buddy who happens to be a DPS trooper and the subject of LTC stops came up. He related a story where he stopped someone who immediately showed him their LTC. He asked if they had a gun, and they replied yes. He asked where it was and they said in the glove box, and the 'clip' is in the trunk.
He then asked them why they were even carrying a gun, "Are you going to throw it at them?" This trooper was not happy. He went on to ask what they were going to do if they saw an LEO that needed help?
He said he told the person he was going back to his car and he wanted them to open their trunk, get the 'clip' and put it in the gun, and then get back in their car.
Now both of these stories really have nothing to do with most LTC holders, but it can explain some sentiment about LTC holders in general. Sad as it may be, not everyone knows that LTC is the most law abiding group of citizens in the state.
There is still a very pervasive attitude among the general public, even LTC holders, that the police are somehow so much better trained with firearms, even to the point that a LEO is somehow more intuitively knowledgeable about firearms than the average civilian. There are several LEO who are very well trained, and knowledgeable, about them, but those folks have received extra training. The average LEO , gets a bare minimum of hands on training, through normal police training procedures, and usually only have to qualify twice a year.
This attitude is borne out of years of indoctrination of anti gun folks, who insist that only those in government jobs are safely qualified to handle guns. This is evident with the passage of legislation which exempts LEO from carrying in restricted places, even off duty.
As a former LEO, I know that most LEO are no safer, or knowledgeable about guns than John Q. Public, and often times less so.
These attitudes, are very prevalent among Legislators, who are very supportive of LEO, and unfortunately, listen to the administrators in law enforcement, rather than the LEO who actually work the streets. LEO understand the importance of having a law abiding, armed populace, and welcome those of us , as almost an extension of themselves, while administrators, believe that we are a problem and distraction.
Getting back on topic, I don't understand the relevance, or need for this legislation. I have not heard of anyone, prohibiting LEO from carrying, in their businesses, or on their property. It may have happened, but I haven't heard of it. I wonder if this is in response to the case in Washington State, where the Sheriff was denied entry to an entertainment venue with his gun?