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.
From what I’ve seen in the last couple of decades cops are doing a fine job of wedge drving all by themselves.
I beleive it would be more accurate to state that police UNIONS beleive in gun control, not necessarily cops....
RLTW
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.
I quit reading after the unsubtantiated first sentence, which I do not believe to be true.
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.
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.
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.
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..
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.
*** 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!
“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.
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.
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.
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
How many dogs killed by police were shoot by the chief?
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.
Methinks cops are dangerous!(especially to you and any pets you have )
bkmk