Skip to comments.
The Cop Revolt Against Gun Control
RichardPoe.com ^
| October 23, 2003
| Richard Poe
Posted on 10/23/2003 4:36:27 PM PDT by Richard Poe
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60 next last
To: *bang_list
bang
21
posted on
10/23/2003 5:51:53 PM PDT
by
Ches
To: dasboot
A lot of the fellows get their brains washed but good.The thin edge of the wedge, getting thicker by the day.
22
posted on
10/23/2003 6:00:18 PM PDT
by
headsonpikes
(Spirit of '76 bttt!)
To: Monty22
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.
23
posted on
10/23/2003 6:23:54 PM PDT
by
Liberal Bob
(http://democrap.com)
To: dasboot
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 Ive been there and for the most part you are wrong, there are always exceptions to the rule.
24
posted on
10/23/2003 6:33:53 PM PDT
by
Liberal Bob
(http://democrap.com)
To: philetus
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.
25
posted on
10/23/2003 6:39:11 PM PDT
by
Liberal Bob
(http://democrap.com)
To: Monty22
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 officers 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.
26
posted on
10/23/2003 6:45:48 PM PDT
by
philetus
(Keep doing what you always do and you'll keep getting what you always get)
To: Liberal Bob
Good site BOB
27
posted on
10/23/2003 6:46:16 PM PDT
by
philetus
(Keep doing what you always do and you'll keep getting what you always get)
To: Liberal Bob
What I was speaking of, is when police enforce a law they know is unconstitutional.
28
posted on
10/23/2003 6:51:17 PM PDT
by
philetus
(Keep doing what you always do and you'll keep getting what you always get)
To: philetus
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.
29
posted on
10/23/2003 6:57:09 PM PDT
by
Liberal Bob
(http://democrap.com)
To: Liberal Bob
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.
30
posted on
10/23/2003 6:59:16 PM PDT
by
dasboot
(Celebrate UNITY!)
To: dasboot
Favorite quote I hear at the station, I can flush this down the toilet or book you. What can you do for me?
31
posted on
10/23/2003 7:07:13 PM PDT
by
Liberal Bob
(http://democrap.com)
To: Liberal Bob
Community Police?
32
posted on
10/23/2003 7:09:30 PM PDT
by
dasboot
(Celebrate UNITY!)
To: dasboot
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.
33
posted on
10/23/2003 7:16:29 PM PDT
by
Liberal Bob
(http://democrap.com)
To: Liberal Bob
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.
34
posted on
10/23/2003 7:37:25 PM PDT
by
dasboot
(Celebrate UNITY!)
To: 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.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*.
35
posted on
10/23/2003 7:46:24 PM PDT
by
dasboot
(Celebrate UNITY!)
To: Liberal Bob
Thanks for the reality check Bob.
36
posted on
10/23/2003 8:22:06 PM PDT
by
philetus
(Keep doing what you always do and you'll keep getting what you always get)
To: Richard Poe
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.
37
posted on
10/23/2003 8:53:44 PM PDT
by
DMZFrank
Comment #38 Removed by Moderator
To: Liberal Bob
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 its 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.
39
posted on
10/23/2003 9:52:15 PM PDT
by
El Gato
(Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
To: Liberal Bob
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.
40
posted on
10/23/2003 9:56:58 PM PDT
by
El Gato
(Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson