Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Cops, gun owners
humanevents.com ^ | 21 April, 2013 | Richard L. Johnson

Posted on 04/22/2013 9:01:32 AM PDT by marktwain

Almost to a man, police officers think gun owners are dangerous. Cops strongly believe the best way to reduce crime is to ban “assault weapons,” high capacity magazines and small, concealable handguns. They also believe that the best way to solve crimes is to establish a comprehensive, national database of firearms and gun sales.

Or at least, that’s what anti-gun politicians and the media would like you to believe.

It wasn’t that long ago that most people assumed police officers supported the rights of gun owners to keep, carry and use firearms for self defense. Yet, it seems that in modern days the popular belief is most cops would prefer a disarmed populace.

In my experience from years of law enforcement, police officers almost always support the rights of gun owners to keep and use firearms for self-defense. The problem is that most cops are never heard. With rare exception, the media only talks to police chiefs, sheriffs and other designated command staff members. I’ve never had a member of the media walk up to me and ask, “Hey, do you think citizens should be able to own firearms?”

Ever see that group of cops standing behind the president or some other gun-banning politician? Typically what you are seeing is a group of handpicked, political appointees, not rank and file police officers. However, it creates the illusion that everyone wearing the uniform supports whatever dubious liniment the politician is pedaling.

What is the truth? Cops trust citizens with guns. In a recent PoliceOne.com survey of more than 15,000 active duty and retired law enforcement officers, more than 90 percent surveyed believe that citizens should be able to carry concealed firearms “…without question and without further restrictions.” That’s not a typo: better than nine out of ten cops believe citizens should be able to carry concealed guns “without question.”

When asked what would be most likely to help prevent “large scale shootings in public,” the most popular response was “more permissive concealed carry policies for civilians.” Additionally, when asked what impact a legally armed citizen could have made at the spree killings in Aurora, Colo., and Newton, Conn., 80 percnet of officers responded that “casualties would likely have been reduced.”

Other key statistics:

70 percent of officers are opposed to a national database of firearm sales.

Based on this survey, it is easy to see that the vast majority of law enforcement officers support the public’s rights to own and use firearms. Just like any other population segment there are exceptions, but by and large officers support the rights of citizens to own, carry and use firearms for self-defense.

Police officers may be one of the largest pro-gun blocks of voters in the United States. May I suggest that strengthening the bonds between the gun owner and law enforcement communities would be a way to both reduce negative incidents between the groups and improve our ability to defend our rights from new legislation?


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist; ccw; constitution; guncontrol; police; secondamendment
The MSM likes to drive a wedge between police and citizens. The want the police to see themselves as "government" and the citizens as others.

It is in the interests of all citizens that police be seen as citizens who are delegated some authority to do jobs that any citizen could do, but would rather delegate for reasons of efficiency.

1 posted on 04/22/2013 9:01:32 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marktwain

From what I’ve seen in the last couple of decades cops are doing a fine job of wedge drving all by themselves.


2 posted on 04/22/2013 9:04:23 AM PDT by Lurker (Violence is rarely the answer. But when it is it is the only answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

http://www.policeone.com/Gun-Legislation-Law-Enforcement/articles/6183787-PoliceOnes-Gun-Control-Survey-11-key-lessons-from-officers-perspectives/


3 posted on 04/22/2013 9:05:42 AM PDT by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

I beleive it would be more accurate to state that police UNIONS beleive in gun control, not necessarily cops....

RLTW


4 posted on 04/22/2013 9:05:47 AM PDT by military cop (I carry a .45....cause they don't make a .46....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Citizens existed before cops existed.
Citizens created the cops.
Cops derive their powers from citizens.
Cops are servants of the citizens.
Cops are not superior to citizens.


5 posted on 04/22/2013 9:08:39 AM PDT by bunkerhill7 (("The Second Amendment has no limits on firepower"-NY State Senator Kathleen A. Marchione.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

I quit reading after the unsubtantiated first sentence, which I do not believe to be true.


6 posted on 04/22/2013 9:08:46 AM PDT by NEMDF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: military cop

Two of the biggest anti-gun law enforcement associations are:

IACP

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE
Consisting of all of the big-city Democrat kiss-ass Chiefs.

NOBLE
The National Organization of
Black Law Enforcement Executives

Same as IACP

However, the majority of street cops support the Second Amendment.


7 posted on 04/22/2013 9:11:10 AM PDT by KeyLargo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NEMDF

-—try the fourth sentence—


8 posted on 04/22/2013 9:11:17 AM PDT by rellimpank (--don't believe anything the media or government says about firearms or explosives--)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

He has it wrong. Either that, or he’s lying.
Almost to a man, politically appointed police chiefs believe that gun owners are dangerous.
Real cops, not so much. I think a survey showed about 85% of cops (not police chiefs) didn’t really have a problem.


9 posted on 04/22/2013 9:13:57 AM PDT by Little Ray (How did I end up in this hand-basket, and why is it getting so hot?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
The best way to reduce crime is to ban “assault weapons,” high capacity magazines, pressure cookers, Keuric coffee makers, juice blenders, crock pots, Cozy Kitchens (ya' never know), and small, concealable handguns . . .
10 posted on 04/22/2013 9:14:41 AM PDT by laweeks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: laweeks

unions, as a general rule, do not like informed citizens, informed members, or informed public.

Unions depend on the UNINFORMED for their very survival.


11 posted on 04/22/2013 9:16:41 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: NEMDF

Pays to read on! Almost did the same. Better now, sip of coffee, some work.....

Much better.

Cheers


12 posted on 04/22/2013 9:16:42 AM PDT by petro45acp (It's a fabian thing.....how do you boil a frog? How's that water feelin right about now?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Police personnel cannot be everywhere at all times. That is why citizens should, MUST, have the right to keep and bear arms. Of course, the corollary to that belief is, that the citizen should at all times regard that self-protection measure as being exercised only with full responsibility and with considered judgment.

Nor should we WANT there to be that many police on patrol. First, the expense is horrendous, and secondly, after while, just to keep the individual police members on their toes, they are going to have to start LOOKING for problems, where perhaps none existed before. Also, when the general public is no longer on the watch for potential danger to themselves, they become slack and downright lazy, thinking their personal safety is somebody else’s problem, and they should take no responsibility for their own carelessness.


13 posted on 04/22/2013 9:17:44 AM PDT by alloysteel (Every generation laughs at the old fashions, but follows religiously the new.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NEMDF

I almost quit reading too, but it’s really the opposite of what you were thinking.


14 posted on 04/22/2013 9:18:06 AM PDT by andyk (I have sworn...eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: NEMDF
I quit reading after the unsubtantiated first sentence, which I do not believe to be true.

Keep reading. It gets better.

15 posted on 04/22/2013 9:18:21 AM PDT by Oberon (Big Brutha Be Watchin'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray

Didn’t read the whole article, did you.


16 posted on 04/22/2013 9:18:48 AM PDT by Oberon (Big Brutha Be Watchin'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: NEMDF
I quit reading after the unsubtantiated first sentence, which I do not believe to be true.

The rest of the article shreds the first sentence...

17 posted on 04/22/2013 9:19:13 AM PDT by piytar (The predator-class is furious that their prey are shooting back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Based on this survey, it is easy to see that the vast majority of law enforcement officers support the public’s rights to own and use firearms. Just like any other population segment there are exceptions, but by and large officers support the rights of citizens to own, carry and use firearms for self-defense.

I was surprised by the results of that survey.

The plural of "anecdote" most emphatically is not "data," so I'll leave my own experience and impressions out of this.

I believe we patriots ought to undertake or commission some truly serious, solidly scientific surveys of various groups, then have someone of John Lott's statistical caliber analyze and present the results. I have a hunch we think we know a great deal more about attitudes toward both firearms and the Second Amendment than we actually do.

All that said™, no part of the Second Amendment is subject to negotiation. I believe those of us who've been defending it all this time—whether weeks or decades—could probably do a better job if we built coalitions among supporters and shared verifiable facts about attitudes.

You may recall President You Didn't Build That recently shrieking at the top of his lungs about 90% support for leftist extremist so-called "gun control." I believe that goes hand in hand with his earlier shrieking that 90% of the firearms used by Mexican narcotics cartels were bought in American gun shops.

Nothing confounds lies better than the truth.

18 posted on 04/22/2013 9:22:10 AM PDT by Standing Wolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Throughout all my years in the hardware store I was always the one to answer calls when the burglar alarm went off. It was an old creaky building with ancient wiring and often the alarm would go off for no obvious reason at all.

There was always a cop standing by when I got there with the keys. I would get out of my truck and announce to the cop that I was holstering my gun, and most had no problem with that. One rookie got all bent out of shape, didn't want me to carry while we searched the store, until I handed him the keys and told him "son, it's darker than Hell in that warehouse and I ain't going in there without this S&W, you can have at it". He reconsidered, right away. There was an unlighted flight of stairs in that place that could have been in a funhouse spookshow, you could easily imagine something jumping out at you. The rookie followed me up the steps, about 20 feet back.

Hell, he wasn't even born when I bought that pistol, why do some of them think they are the only ones who can shoot? Most of them would just ask which side we should start on, and that was it, we could form a working unit on the spot, but they were usually locals too, not big city types..

19 posted on 04/22/2013 9:23:05 AM PDT by SWAMPSNIPER (The Second Amendment, a Matter of Fact, Not a Matter of Opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

I think people should get to know their local cops.

One of my neighbors is a former Detroit cop and he says its a whole different world out here.


20 posted on 04/22/2013 9:24:22 AM PDT by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bunkerhill7
Citizens existed before cops existed.
Citizens created the cops.
Cops derive their powers from citizens.
Cops are servants of the citizens.
Cops are not superior to citizens.

The only difference between cops and civilians are that certified law enforcement officers can serve misdemeanor warrants and issue traffic citations. THAT is the ONLY difference!

21 posted on 04/22/2013 9:25:36 AM PDT by DCBryan1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

*** Cops strongly believe the best way to reduce crime is to ban “assault weapons,” high capacity magazines and small, concealable handguns.***

It has been almost a week now. Has ANYONE seen a photo of the firearms used by the Boston bombers?

Usually the police will give a photo op with demands for more gun control, but in this case ...nada!


22 posted on 04/22/2013 9:28:12 AM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar (Do we now register our pressure cookers?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NEMDF
I quit reading after the unsubtantiated first sentence, which I do not believe to be true.

Read the rest. The first sentence is only a teaser. Don't make up your mind before you have all the facts, eh?

23 posted on 04/22/2013 9:29:41 AM PDT by imardmd1 (An armed society is a polite society -- but dangerous for the fool --)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Lurker; military cop
A close friend (female) has a de facto spouse who is a retired state police officer. His take on the current condition of police/public relations is interesting. He mentioned three things that have changed since he was a state officer:

1. Training is much more extensive and is on-going as ‘continuing education’. A significant part of the training package contains marxist PC tropes disguised in the training. These portray white men who fit Freeper profiles as inherently dangerous. The general white population is presented as violent, untrustworthy , padophiliac and misogynistic. These hostile stereotypes are constantly repeated in training materials. This sort of training, is similar to how Iron Curtain nations used to instruct their police forces. He thinks the reasons are the same. Make LEOs inherently have a deep visceral distrust of what is considered to be normal white middle class Americans. The goal is to drive as deep a wedge between the police and the population as possible so police will do whatever the political leadership wants to do to the general population.

2. Being really proficient in using a firearm and being a good shot with various weapons and knowing a lot of general information on firearms (not just trained in how to hold the weapon and keep the finger off the trigger) is not considered desirable in a LEO. Such as do have this knowledge base are stigmatized as ‘gun nuts’ and considered to be unreliable police officers and probable ‘white racist militia types’.

3. While being proficient with firearms is discouraged physical fitness has become almost a mania in many police departments far beyond any practical application to have officers strong and fit enough to perform their duties. Cliques of officers who make weight training almost a fetish exist in many departments. Many of these officers use so many growth and strength aids they effectively become steroid addicts. From his circle of friends who are LEO’s and about his age, he said these weight lifting fanatics are considered to be bombs waiting to go off. Men with hair trigger tempers and a generally crazy adrenalin addicted personality. He refers to these people as ‘roid head dog shooters’. He believes this sort of dysfunctional personality is tolerated and even rewarded in order to make the police more ‘scary’ and threatening to the general populace.
One can draw whatever conclusions one wants from this mans insights. i found them frightening indeed.

24 posted on 04/22/2013 9:30:50 AM PDT by robowombat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

He is spot on. Most people have not a clue what really goes on, good and bad. All you hear is the news marketable and everything that makes police look bad.


25 posted on 04/22/2013 9:31:06 AM PDT by Resolute Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

“almost to a man”

Dream on . . . I have very direct knowledge, comming directly from cops that (at least in the west) are suoppoerters of the 2nd ammendent . . .
“almost to a man.”

What an appointed (political) Cheif of Police or what a police union supports, has nothing to do whith what the rank and file believe. Even more, it has nothing to do with what the press prints as “truth.”

Many of us would NEVER stand on a platform & be the wallpaper behind an Obama speech. Those who do, do not represent the overwhelming majority.

Cops are armed for a reason . . . it the same reason the public needs to be armed as well.


26 posted on 04/22/2013 9:31:26 AM PDT by rjamesca
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

As a former LEO I can say with certainty that 90+% are not in favor of any gun control measures. Problems most of the chiefs and elected sheriffs (not all) are in favor and they get the microphones. As a line officer if you were to give your opinion and it differs from the top you are very quickly fired. Most chiefs and their immediate staff were more than likely not very good street officers themselves, hence why they promoted since most working officers don’t have time to study for promotional exams nor kiss butts.


27 posted on 04/22/2013 9:35:08 AM PDT by Resolute Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Resolute Conservative

He was an ass when he transferred to our little 5 man force but we trained him. The inner city made him hard and we turned him into Andy Griffith.

He came out here to get his family out of the city and found that he didn’t have to worry about them during the day when he was working.


28 posted on 04/22/2013 9:42:00 AM PDT by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: bunkerhill7

BINGO!

Now, that having been said, I truly value the service of any who sign up with this mindset.


29 posted on 04/22/2013 9:42:02 AM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: robowombat

Just an extension of public school indoctrination re guns, freedom of speech, and Christianity—much different than my school days from WWII times to Korea.


30 posted on 04/22/2013 9:45:21 AM PDT by imardmd1 (An armed society is a polite society -- but dangerous for the fool --)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Very good analysis and probably accurate and true.

Those “law-enforcement experts” are indeed political animals on the make for a higher office, not officers on the beat who are forced to live in the real world and deal with real problems.

The function of the police is to track down and catch malefactors and present them to the courts for justice, not to be a personal bodyguard for every citizen.

31 posted on 04/22/2013 9:45:24 AM PDT by ZULU
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Albany Police Officers Union, local 2841, “We respectfully demand that you do the right thing and repeal the law.”

The letter:

To: Andrew M. Cuomo / Dean G. Skelos / Neil D. Breslin / John T- McDonald III / Phil Steck / Sheldon Silver / Jeffrey D. Klein / Cecilia Tkaczyk / Patricia Fahy Note; see the formal list of people this letter went to at the bottom.

April 15,2013

Honorable Ladies and Gentlemen:

The Albany Police Officers Union condemns and opposes the New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act (the SAFE Act) Substantively, we believe that it violates fundamental constitutional rights, that it is unduly and purposely burdensome on law-abiding citizens, and” that it will not deter criminals or menially ill individuals from plotting and carrying out bloodshed and violence.

Procedurally, we believe that the way in which the bill was rammed into law via an unjustified and expedient “message of necessity”, which circumvents the right and the ability of the citizens of this State to voice their concerns about the bill and have them addressed, is an outrage. This flawed law’ and the w ay in which it was rushed and passed., shows the apparent contempt that those who govern have for the governed, and. calls into question whether we truly have a representational government. Morally, we believe that this law is about ideology and politics and not about making anyone any safer. We respectfully demand that you do the right thing and repeal the law.

First, while we applaud and support your overall concern for public safety and your desire to improve it. The SAFE Act will not improve public safety. Criminals and the mentally ill will not abide by it, and it is either foolish or dishonest to think or suggest otherwise. While law-abiding citizens will abide by the law and not load a ten-round magazine with more than seven rounds, do you really expect a criminal or mentally ill individual intent on doing violence not load ten rounds into a ten-round magazine? While law-abiding citizens will abide by the law that previously legal thirty-round magazines must be sold within one-year to an out-of-state resident or turn in to local authorities, do you really expect a criminal or mentally ill individual intent on doing violence to sell or turn in his thirty-round magazines? While law-abiding citizens will abide by the law requiring that they register weapons which they already do and which have been deemed “assault weapons”, do you really expect a criminal or mentally ill individual intent on doing violence to do so? Do you really expect a criminal or mentally ill individual intent on doing violence to be concerned about any increase in penalties for shooting first responders? Do you really expect that a mentally ill individual who owns firearms and who is intent on doing violence will voice his intentions to his or her mental health professional and thus put into motion the confiscation of his or her firearms? Do you-really expect that a mentally ill individual will “safely store” his firearms? Of course you don’t. Again, only law-abiding citizens, who are not intent on doing violence, will abide the NY SAFE Act criminals and the mentally ill who are intent on doing violence will not do so. The public will not be any safer under this 1aw. What then, have you accomplished?

Second., the SAFE Act carries with it unfair burdens on law abiding citizen. What is the point of making law-abiding citizens register their previously lawfully owned and lawfully used firearms which are now deemed to be “assault weapons”? What is the point of making law-abiding citizens who affirmatively “opt into” protection from public identification that they hold permits or own firearms? What is the point of making law-abiding citizens renew their pistol permits or “assault weapon” registrations every five years? Why are you preemptively punishing those who have done nothing wrong? Third, -we fully believe that the SAFE ACT broad prohibitions against will not. withstand constitutional challenge and scrutiny. The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides and U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the right of individuals to possess and carry firearms and to use them for lawful purposes. The SAFE Act, however, infringes on that right as it bans the possession and use of certain firearms that were heretofore possessed and” used lawfully for the defense of life, liberty, and property, and as it bans the possession and use of certain firearms that were heretofore possessed and used lawfully for safe use of firearms recreation, hunting, and shooting. We as police officers are on the front lines of public safety. Respectfully, none of you are. We see, feel, work, and live with the effects of gun violence in ways that you cannot. We believe that you see gun violence as a means to move your agenda and your ambitions forward. You know that the SAFE Act will not work in the way that you pretend it will. You know that this shameful SAFE Act was about ideology and politics and not about making anyone safer. Regarding the reduction in violent crime this new legislation is proposed to have, in 2011 the most current year for which FBI crime statistics are available, New York State had 77l homicides, 445 were committed with a firearm, 394 of that 445 were committed with a handgun, 5 were committed with a rifle, 16 were committed with a shotgun, in 30 the firearm type was unknown, 160 were committed with a cutting instrument, 143 were committed with another type of weapon, and 26 were committed with bare hands. We believe based on these statistics, that the SAFE Act will do nothing to reduce violent crime as the primary target of the legislation is the “assault rifle” which would be included statistically with standard rifles and used in less than 1% of New York homicides in 2011.These so called “Assault Weapons” were not used in the commission of one reported crime in Albany County in 2011. For the reasons set forth above, the Albany Police Union believes that the SAFE Act is wrong - substantively, procedurally, and morally. The SAFE Act infringes on the rights of law-abiding citizens, it will burden and negatively impact firearms ownership by law-abiding citizens and will not affect the willingness of criminals or those who are mentally ill from perpetrating violence. Again, we respectfully demand that each and all of you do the right thing and repeal the law. Very truly yours,

Thomas Mahar: President Albany Police Officers Union, local 2841 Council 82, AFSCME, AFI-CIO

32 posted on 04/22/2013 9:51:26 AM PDT by Colorado Doug (Now I know how the Indians felt to be sold out for a few beads and trinkets)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

How many dogs killed by police were shoot by the chief?


33 posted on 04/22/2013 10:13:05 AM PDT by knife6375 (US Navy Veteran)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KeyLargo

Luckily some of the first sheriffs to oppose Obama’s gun grabs were Black Sheriffs.


34 posted on 04/22/2013 10:14:27 AM PDT by Clock King
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Clock King

Yes, the Left really hates the Milwaukee County Sheriff.

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/01/28/interview-milwaukee-county-sheriff-david-clarke-jr-criticized-for-telling-residents-to-take-gun-safety-training-in-the-wake-of-police-layoffs


35 posted on 04/22/2013 10:22:20 AM PDT by KeyLargo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

I’ve worked with, and known a lot of cops, and to a man can’t think of a single one who was against citizens owning guns. In fact, they are all gun nuts of a sort, with or without the badge. But, I don’t know about the young bunch of kids I see in law enforcement today. From some of the attitudes I’ve observed, a good number of them would make faithful brown shirts. I hope I’m wrong.


36 posted on 04/22/2013 10:24:35 AM PDT by pallis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Methinks cops are dangerous!(especially to you and any pets you have )


37 posted on 04/22/2013 11:24:52 AM PDT by Renegade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

bkmk


38 posted on 04/22/2013 11:29:13 AM PDT by Sergio (An object at rest cannot be stopped! - The Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs at Midnight)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Resolute Conservative
As a former LEO I can say with certainty that 90+% are not in favor of any gun control measures.

Good to know! Now we won't have to worry about the police enforcing anti-Second Amendment laws in NY, CT and wherever else they pop up.

They will refuse to enforce them... right?

39 posted on 04/22/2013 12:00:13 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Oberon

Yep. Missed the fourth sentence.


40 posted on 04/22/2013 12:14:33 PM PDT by Little Ray (How did I end up in this hand-basket, and why is it getting so hot?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Ken H

All of the ones I worked with will not, but that Texas, not the NE or left coast. I fear it will be a more mixed bag but have hope that it will still be a majority will refuse.


41 posted on 04/22/2013 12:20:32 PM PDT by Resolute Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: NEMDF

“I quit reading after the unsubtantiated first sentence, which I do not believe to be true.”

The rest of the article goes on the debunk the first paragraph.


42 posted on 04/22/2013 12:40:14 PM PDT by marktwain (The MSM must die for the Republic to live. Long live the new media!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: bunkerhill7

Citizens existed before cops existed.
Citizens created the cops.
Cops derive their powers from citizens.
Cops are servants of the citizens.
Cops are not superior to citizens.
*****************************************
But, the mayor and city council does the hiring and firing and establishes pay grades.


43 posted on 04/23/2013 6:07:04 PM PDT by RobinOfKingston (Democrats--the party of Evil. Republicans--the party of Stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson