The Cop Revolt Against Gun Control

RichardPoe.com ^ | October 23, 2003 | Richard Poe

[Richard Poe]

AN ALL-OUT REVOLT against gun control may be brewing among rank-and-file police officers.

In my last column, "Gray Davis’ Cop-Killing Gun Law," I revealed that anti-gun zealots such as Sarah Brady and Ted Kennedy have found a new enemy: cops. No longer content to disarm ordinary citizens, gun prohibitionists now want to strip off-duty and retired police of the right to keep and bear arms.

Reader reaction to my column was mixed. Virtually every correspondent favored gun rights, but many expressed disdain for the rights of police.

"Maybe when their CCW [Concealed Carry Weapon] rights are stripped away they will look more favorably on ALL of us being allowed to carry," grumped one reader on the FreeRepublic.com message board. "Police officers should not get special rights."

"Hear Hear! Screw the cops… let them see how it feels!" responded another.

"[I] find it hard to feel too sorry for the cops," opined a third reader by e-mail. "…Let them taste some of what we supposedly free Americans have been dealing with. If I can't carry across state lines or into a government building, why the hell should a cop be able to?"

The resentment these readers express is understandable. Police spokesmen often publicly applaud gun crackdowns. But police brass in big cities are not free to speak their minds. They get their marching orders from City Hall. If they want to keep their jobs, they must toe the party line. Often that means pretending to support gun control, when in fact they oppose it.

During a 1990 crime wave in New York City, an ex-cop named Stephen D’Andrilli suggested on a TV talk show that the city issue one million permits to carry handguns. Host Dick Oliver asked then-New York Governor Mario Cuomo to respond. Cuomo snapped, "Why don’t you ask the cops what they think of everybody packing guns?"

Oliver replied that a Mr. Byrne, then head of the Police Benevolent Association, had said of D’Andrilli’s plan, "It’s a good idea."

"Well, somebody better talk to Mr. Byrne, straighten him out," said the governor.

Many high-ranking police have been "straightened out" behind the scenes just as Governor Cuomo prescribed.

"The Clinton Administration was particularly successful at enlisting police support for gun control," notes the Web site of the Law Enforcement Alliance of America (LEAA) a national anti-crime organization of law enforcement professionals, crime victims and concerned citizens, based in Falls Church, VA.

"[The Clinton White House] funneled millions of your tax dollars in political payoffs, disguised as `research’ into the pockets of national law enforcement organizations…," states an online article published by the LEAA. "…In one year during the Clinton Administration, the Police Executive Research Forum, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Sheriffs Association and the Police Foundation collectively hauled in $4.4 million in Justice Department grants. …[P]olice groups that scurried to do Clinton's bidding happen to be the same ones that were awarded the lucrative federal grants."

The same LEAA article notes that many police officers were literally ordered to support the Brady Bill and the 1994 "Assault Weapons" Ban. "In some outrageous cases, police officers who actually opposed the legislation were forced by their superiors to appear in staged photographs as if they were solidly behind gun control!" charges the LEAA.

Despite all the payoffs and political arm-twisting, when the National Association of Chiefs of Police conducted a mail survey of 15,000 sheriffs and police chiefs in 1996, 93 percent said they approved of law-abiding citizens arming themselves for self-defense.

More and more pro-gun cops are working at the grassroots level in support of citizen gun rights.

Shortly after the 9-11 attacks, Sheriff John Raichl of Clatsop County, Oregon proposed recruiting armed citizens to guard docks, bridges, reservoirs, power stations, gas lines and other potential terrorist targets. Governor John Kitzhaber shot down Raichl’s plan.

Kennesaw, Georgia and Virgin, Utah passed laws requiring every household to own at least one gun. "Hundreds of towns and cities are passing or considering similar ordinances," claims VirginUtah.com, a Web site which promotes the town’s unusual gun laws.

Meanwhile, Sarah Brady and Ted Kennedy continue antagonizing police by opposing Senate bill 253 – a law that would permit active and retired cops to carry concealed weapons anywhere in the USA, without restriction.

Gun-ban activists have made a fatal error by targeting police. They have laid the groundwork for a grassroots alliance of gun owners and lawmen – a coalition that could well tip the scales in favor of our beleaguered Second Amendment.

__________________________________

Richard Poe is a New-York-Times bestselling author and cyberjournalist. His book The Seven Myths of Gun Control was just released in paperback. Poe’s forthcoming book, The New Underground: How Conservatives Conquered the Internet will be available soon.

[Ches]

bang

[headsonpikes]

A lot of the fellows get their brains washed but good.

The thin edge of the wedge, getting thicker by the day.

[Liberal Bob]

No, my gripe is that there shouldn't be a set of laws for police, and then some for everyone else.

So you answer is to fight with them instead of joining them. Go to that link under my post to you and see what Leroy went through working for Joe Mac. His fight was well publicized in print and local TV but not one of you citizens came foreword to object to the way he was treated for his membership in the NRA and his fight for the second amendment.

[Liberal Bob]

Suffice to say, don't depend on protection for your rights from PO's. Conservatives are marginalized: Libs are awarded rank. You wouldn't believe the stuff some of these college educated cops spew as 'known fact'. It's like "The Body Snatchers".

Sorry but I’ve been there and for the most part you are wrong, there are always exceptions to the rule.

[Liberal Bob]

So you will leave it up to every cop to determined what laws are unconstitutional? What a free hand they would have in our society, talk about corruption. Better to concentrate on the law makers not the law enforcers.

[philetus]

The Privileged Elite?

Cops Are The Wrong Target

By: Leroy Pyle

(This article composed in 1992, but appropriate in these times)

It is ironic that Chief Joe McNamara, San Jose PD, found the Achilles Heel of the American Gun owner, and gun owners are doing the most to take his lead and act on it. McNamara marked the target, and gun owners are taking all the shots!

I refer to the generally declining respect for law enforcement demonstrated by the Second Amendment Community, in general, and, specifically, that community's response to a call for a national concealed weapon carry law for law enforcement.

RKBA enthusiasts communicating on electronic bulletin boards, the Internet, or in everyday conversations at clubs and meeting places display this very negative attitude quite openly. It is especially evident when the topic of the national CCW for cops is brought up, and was very apparent in the response to any media addressing the subject.

The proposed legislation would make it lawful for licensed and trained LEO's to travel across state lines while armed. It was drafted and proposed by pro-gun LEO's in an attempt to re-establish some lines of pro-gun communication with the law enforcement community at the line officer (grassroots) level.

It wasn't too many years ago that law enforcement was the traditional, recognized, friend and ally of the gun owner. That was made very obvious in the battle over Proposition 15 in California, in 1982, which called for a handgun ban. Initial polls showed a two-third majority of Californians supported a ban on sales of handguns.

And then a concerted campaign by gun owners resulted in a defeat of that proposition by a truly amazing turnaround. Much of the credit for the two-third-majority win is attributed to the law enforcement support of the N.R.A. and The Right To Keep and Bear Arms!

It was the results of that election that led Joe McNamara and HCI to the conclusion that something must be done to drive a wedge between those traditional allies, cops and gun owners. Together, he guessed correctly, they were invincible, and he initiated his campaign to "divide and conquer".

And by listening to Second Amendment Activists, I think we can agree that his efforts have met with great success.

In response to those few political police-types who parrot the HCI agenda, and the obviously biased media support of that agenda, gun-owning activists have developed considerable resentment. I try to consider that it is understandable, since most legislation has been carried on the emotional claims of a police loss in the so-called gun wars. But it is now being carried to an extreme by a minority of those who have a personal grudge against authority, or by individuals who's personal agenda or affiliations involve a greater resentment of government and/or authority than the average RKBA'er.

And whether justified, or not, the resentment is misdirected when aimed at the beat cop who is restricted from political involvement by that very same political police administrator who makes the false claims, and then muzzles any attempt by department members to debate or tell the truth.

Think about the times you have heard the claim that the police "need this legislation", or are "outgunned" and "losing the battle". Those statements are made by a political cop or a politician and seldom, if ever, by a line officer.

And yet, the typical claim is that a CCW law for cops creates a "privileged elite". There is, no doubt, a privileged elite. The antics of Diane Feinstein, Joe McNamara or Carl Rowan have been well publicized. More examples include the FBI Director breaking with tradition to go political, and an aid to Barbara Boxer (D-CA) discovered packing a 9mm semi-auto.

There, you have your privileged elite!

In the case of the average police officer, though, I think we may be confusing privilege with responsibility. The cop is hired to assume the responsibility of enforcing the laws of the community. Those responsibilities are many and varied, and include the carrying and use of a firearm.

Unlike a privilege or entitlement, which connotes a special advantage, the law enforcement officer's role is voluntary and includes the obligations and accountability of an office of trust. The prerequisites are many, and include the requirements of many months of classroom and on-the-job training.

Culpability and liability are major factors in a law enforcement officer’s daily assignment, also. There are specific laws directed at the misuse of the authority, or the tools of that authority, by an officer.

So it might be best to reconsider your target. Aim a little higher on the political chain. It should be a shot (figuratively speaking, of course) just above the line officer's level. And for Harry Thomas's sake, be a little picky with lieutenants!

I do not claim that law enforcement support is the major factor in the battle for our RKBA, but no one can deny the value of a positive coalition with that audience, and we do find ourselves in dire straights without it.

If we continue to shoot at what Joe McNamara and HCI have defined as our Achilles Heel, we may well be shooting ourselves in the foot.

[philetus]

Good site BOB

[philetus]

What I was speaking of, is when police enforce a law they know is unconstitutional.

[Liberal Bob]

philetus

I understand that but there are many opinions of what is constitutional here on freepers. And I would guess I could find a libertarian cop that would say that child molestation laws are unconstitutional as long as everyone consents.

[dasboot]

I'm still there. 2 to get to my 20.

Favorite quote I hear in the station: "Sorry I had to arrest you, I'm just following orders." That one don't fly with me.

I have a nice spot to spend my time remaining. I run the jail. I have the pleasure of seeing people arrested because our state supreme court determined that a mere complaint is probable cause for arrest. No need to do investigations anymore. The system is chewing up innocent people. More now than ever before. It used to be an unfortunate circumstance; now it's business as usual. Like we need the bad PR.

And you're dead wrong about it not being the duty of every LEO to determine what is, or is not, lawful and constututional. It is essential to the proper execution of duty. Peace officers were never intended to be soldiers. You don't know what you're talking about.

[Liberal Bob]

Favorite quote I hear at the station, “I can flush this down the toilet or book you. What can you do for me?”

[dasboot]

Community Police?

[Liberal Bob]

That's what you're asking for isn't it? The right to make the call as you see it. That's a lot of power to give to anyone and can go the wrong way quick.

[dasboot]

Your train of thought seems illogical. Every cop has to call it as he sees it. And defend that call (although the courts are covering shabby stuff relating to domestic violence)

By its nature, the job requires discrimination, objectivity, and knowledge. Are you implying that it's the duty of an officer to arrest or summon without an application of knowledge or law; without discriminating between what is, and is not, an offense?

I'm not sure what you're trying to express.

[dasboot]

So you will leave it up to every cop to determined what laws are unconstitutional? What a free hand they would have in our society, talk about corruption. Better to concentrate on the law makers not the law enforcers.

I, on dutious patrol, observe and hear you express your displeasure at a certain politician. Are you engaged in free speech, or are you a common disturber of the peace?

Ah, let the court figure it out, *click*.

[philetus]

Thanks for the reality check Bob.

[DMZFrank]

I am a retired police officer who has gone toe to toe with my colleagues over this issue innumerable times in my career. I believe that the 2nd amendment guarantees a clear constitutional individual right for military pattern small arms suitable for modern day militia use, and incidentally allowing for concealed firearms for personal public protection. Many of my compatriots did not share this position. I even said that no police officer should have one scintilla more right to personally own a firearm than any other law-abiding citizen.

Despite this, I believe that most rank and file PO's substantially support the classic rights of the 2nd amendment. It is the brass, particularly in the big cities, who kowtow to the gun grabbing tyranny of their political masters.

[El Gato]

Or do you believe that they should not enforce these laws that they swore to uphold?

Actually yes, they are also sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and of their state as well. That includes the second amendment and whatever RKBA provision their state Constitutions might inclue. From Article 4 of the Consititution for the United States:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

So yes, they should refuse to enforce any unconstitutional "gun" laws.

Maybe it’s some kind of class envy everyone or no one? How about convicted felons or illegal aliens should they be part of the everyone?

Illegal aliens should be deported, making the question moot. Convicted felons should have their rights restored after they have served their time, and that would include probation time. It was that way, not so very long ago. At the federal level it was 1968.

[El Gato]

The right to make the call as you see it. That's a lot of power to give to anyone and can go the wrong way quick.

The alternative is the "I was just following orders" defense. I believe that one was discredited in the mid 1940s. I'd trust cops before I'd trust politicians to do the right thing. It's when the cops follow unconsitutional orders, and enforce unconstitutional laws that most of the potential for corruption, and the actual corruption, occurs.