50% of PA Police Officers Would Enforce Confiscation?


PDA






Bartholomew Roberts
December 6, 2004, 03:42 PM
An interesting survey of PA police officer at Kim Du Toit's blog. Thought it would make an excellent discussion here (so long as we can keep the discussion civil and avoid broad, over-generalized bigotry towards either cops or the average joe).

http://www.kimdutoit.com/dr/weblog.php?id=P5666

If you enjoyed reading about "50% of PA Police Officers Would Enforce Confiscation?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Shield529
December 6, 2004, 03:52 PM
Since we have no way of knowing how accurate that poll is or how it was conducted, I will assume it is BS.
However if it is accurate and true, then it is the most disheartening thing I have ever seen come from a large group of fellow officers. :(

Sistema1927
December 6, 2004, 04:36 PM
If true, then three words come to mind: "Jack Booted Thugs".

Werewolf
December 6, 2004, 04:38 PM
Compare this response in the survey:29.If the private ownership of guns were outlawed: True False
a.the amount and/or rate of crime would decrease.
. . . . . . . 8.9% 91.1%

b.citizens would not be morally bound to obey the law.
. . . . . . . . . . 21.5% 78.5%

c.the use of the military to enforce the law would be
justified . . . . . . . . 12.0% 88.0%

d.citizens would be justified in revolting against the
government . . . . . 29.0% 71.0%

To this response in the survey:36. If a law were passed making it illegal for civilians to possess semi-automatic, military looking firearms, would you participate in dynamic entry, house to house searches to seize these firearms if so ordered by a superior?. . .

YES: 58.1% -- NO: 41.9%


37. If a law were passed making it illegal for civilians to possess any type of firearm, would you participate in dynamic entry, house to house searches to seize them if so ordered by a superior? . . .

YES: 53.0% -- NO: 47.0%

The results above trip my BS meter alarm.

How can they overwhelming say that citizens would be justified in revolting against the government but then say they'd be a part of that government and enforce confiscation.

I don't buy it.

TheFederalistWeasel
December 6, 2004, 04:43 PM
37. If a law were passed making it illegal for civilians to possess any type of firearm, would you participate in dynamic entry, house to house searches to seize them if so ordered by a superior? . . .

I dunno how they do ???? up in PA but down here in GA we got this thing called the law, which must be obeyed.

And when I went thru the academy I don’t remember anything about the ability of police supervisors to order warrant less searches.

Law or no law you still need a warrant to enter a dwelling w/o exigent circumstances and the mere possession or potential possession of contraband is not exigent circumstances, if it was I’d been kicking in the doors of about 10 housing projects apartments tonight because I know they have dope in them, guaranteed.

But even my hard hunch, direct knowledge won’t win me a search warrant in Magistrate court w/o hard documented probable cause.

Bartholomew Roberts
December 6, 2004, 04:47 PM
Since we have no way of knowing how accurate that poll is or how it was conducted, I will assume it is BS.

If you click on the link to the actual survey, it explains in detail how the survey was conducted - including the wording of the questions, sample size, participants, etc.

lostone1413
December 6, 2004, 04:54 PM
If a law was passed were the goverment wanted your guns be it AW or your Handguns and the police were told to go door to door and confiscate your guns. Being they do it or it would mean their job. Their is no doubt in my mind nation wide way over 90% of the LEOs would be out knocking on doors. I truly believe we will see it. Don't forget as of now they have federal law to protect their right to own and carry a gun. You thnk if their job is at stake they will care about your 2nd amendment rights?? Don't bet on it!

Bartholomew Roberts
December 6, 2004, 04:56 PM
How can they overwhelming say that citizens would be justified in revolting against the government but then say they'd be a part of that government and enforce confiscation.

Well only 21.5% say that citizens would not be morally bound to follow the law and only 29% say that citizens would be jusitifed in revolting. So I don't see how that is overwhelming support in those cases.

Steve in PA
December 6, 2004, 06:43 PM
Wow, police in two counties somehow equal 50% of all PA police?? Some survey.

Nothing but BS.

magsnubby
December 6, 2004, 08:11 PM
An LEO would have to ask his self a few questions.

"Do i really want to disobey my superiors and loose my job even though it's a morally reprehensible law? What happens when i run up against somebody i've arressted who's out to settle a grudge against me? I'm nolonger an LEO, they've confiscated my private collection, now i'm totally unarmed just like the rest of the population"

What do you think his real answer will be?

carp killer
December 6, 2004, 08:23 PM
I really hope that survey was bogus. Because during WWII rounding up Jews was morally wrong too. But someone did it. :what: :(

jefnvk
December 6, 2004, 10:46 PM
Because during WWII rounding up Jews was morally wrong too. But someone did it.

Look closer to home. Rounding up Japanese-Americans and putting them into camps was illegal, and it happened in America.

I'm gonna go with werewolf on this one.

Nightfall
December 6, 2004, 11:09 PM
1/2 of officers in some areas would enforce confiscation? Man, that's a lot of people to shoot. I sure hope our PA members are well-stocked on ammo (just in case). :)

OpenRoad
December 7, 2004, 12:04 AM
I would doubt the results of this poll even if it were of NYC police. Most cops (the good ones) are pro-CCW for Joe Public. I imagine some of the bad ones don't like to see the expansion of civilian CCW across the country because it lowers crime and decreases the employment opportunities in their line of work.

Alot of cops, though not an overwhelming percentage (mostly the police chiefs and others with chair shaped a$$es) seem to have a hang-up against scary looking rifles though....

geekWithA.45
December 7, 2004, 12:25 AM
I remember seeing this survey a few years back, and the results don't surprise me a whole lot.

With respect to the discrepancies between general support of armed citizens and willingness to confiscate, all I can say is that a lot of people are poorly equiped to reconcile conflicting law and determine that law B is inconsistent with higher law A, and take appropriate action based soley on their own authority.

That's just how humans are wired.

Double Naught Spy
December 7, 2004, 12:41 AM
50% of PA Police Officers Would Enforce Confiscation?

When it comes to questioning the argument, first you must get the information correct. The thread title is incorrect. It is NOT 50% of PA police that said they would enforce confiscation. First, the cited story states that the survey was only for EASTERN PA, not the whole state. And if you follow the link there to the survey, as noted below, the survey was in only 2 counties.

The 50% issue noted also is not representative of the over all survey and police attitudes towards guns. If you look at all the questions, you will find that most of the responses are pro gun. However, the officers will do their job as ordered. Failure to follow commands would no doubt result in job loss. Most probably are not willing to make some sort of Constitutional stand on the matter at the risk of job loss and being able to provide for their families.

Something else to keep in mind is that while most gun folks feel the 2nd Amendment is all encompassing pertaining to the right to keep and bear arms, this has not proven true in real life application, laws passed, and court rulings. So, given that literal interpretations don't appear to be supported legally, I am sure officers would be inclined for enforce new laws. Such new laws would not be in conflict with some of the current patterns in 2nd Amendment interpretation.

How can they overwhelming say that citizens would be justified in revolting against the government but then say they'd be a part of that government and enforce confiscation.

Based on the math, this is possible. The 29% who say citizens would be justified in revolting against such laws probably does not include many of the 50+% of officers who say they would uphold the law.

Bartholomew Roberts
December 7, 2004, 12:48 AM
When it comes to questioning the argument, first you must get the information correct. The thread title is incorrect.

Well, unfortunately the title is fairly limited with regards to characters. If by some chance, you can come up with a superior option that fits the character limits, then by all means let me know.

I can't change the existing thread title; but perhaps I can use it in the future.

pax
December 7, 2004, 12:53 AM
50% of PA Police Officers Would Enforce Confiscation?

That means 50% would NOT enforce confiscation -- a very remarkable number, all things considered.

Frankly I'm surprised more officers wouldn't blindly follow orders.

(Whoops, edited to add -- not because officers are lousy dirty rotten scumbags, but because they're ordinary humans beings with the very ordinary human being desire to get along with the boss...)

pax

artherd
December 7, 2004, 01:25 AM
Law or no law you still need a warrant to enter a dwelling w/o exigent circumstances and the mere possession or potential possession of contraband is not exigent circumstances, if it was I’d been kicking in the doors of about 10 housing projects apartments tonight because I know they have dope in them, guaranteed.

But even my hard hunch, direct knowledge won’t win me a search warrant in Magistrate court w/o hard documented probable cause.

I'm not sure about PA, but in CA we hand Law Enforcement all the Probable Cause they can stomach on a platter.

It's called REGISTRATION!

That's all you need. Gard documented articulatable evidence.

Hell, it's HAPPENED in ca. Robinson M96s were deemed legal for sale, then deemed illegal, confiscated (and then eventually returned.)

Fletchette
December 7, 2004, 04:38 AM
After reading the survey and this thread, one of two possibilities exist:
a) it's BS
b) it's not BS

Either way, the solution is to buy more ammo.

cracked butt
December 7, 2004, 05:38 AM
I think if the poll were done in New York City, Chicago, or DC, 50% would be way too low.

RealGun
December 7, 2004, 07:17 AM
It's apparent that even members of Congress, a high percentage of them attorneys, don't understand the 2A, its real purpose, or the limitations it places upon them. State legislators often act as if free of US Constitutional constraints. Why should law enforcement be expected to be any more sophisticated in their thinking? I think education is a key factor here and would not assume that LEOs have some demonic purpose.

The arbiters are the Courts, and they only want to deal with fringe abstractions. Really acknowledging the 2A head on would be an extreme embarrassment.

If the police had their way, they would simply ensure that they would never be outgunned.

The Constitution predated police departments, and therein lies the problem. How much power and authority should police really have?

What would I do? I would stop importing criminals and I would stop breeding them here. It is also no time to get soft about capital punishment. It is a time to rethink victim-less crimes.

Baba Louie
December 7, 2004, 07:51 AM
We all do realize that the vast majority of LEO's are men and women who enforce laws that they DO NOT CREATE, right?

So, head em off at the pass and keep your legislaters in-line. LE has enough to do what with catching criminals and writing paperwork and doing it again tomorrow.

Failing that, keep in mind why the second was crafted, with proper historical references to Lexington/Concord and Paul Revere's ride; knowing that you will one day cross the line somewhere, just as the simple soldiers in red did back on April 19, 1775. I'm sure that at least 50% of the lobsterbacks didn't really like the idea of going out to deal with enforcing the Governor's law and those pesky "damned rebels".

I first heard my father predicting all of this back in '68 with the passage of the GCA68. So far so good, exceptions of course in some places. It all begins in the Halls of Congress and the Statehouses with some do-gooder or two (or three... whatever takes a majority vote)

Gordon Fink
December 7, 2004, 03:53 PM
As I’ve often said, many if not most gun owners are law-abiding to a fault, or at least they pretend to be on the Internet. However, the lack of dead gun-control advocates would appear to bear this out. These gun owners also seem to be the ones who revere the military and police as automatic heroes.

Invariably, they are shocked and dismissive whenever anyone suggests that cops and soldiers might someday enforce a ban on firearms. They will argue that though politically minded commanders may support gun control, the rank and file will defend the right to keep and bear arms.

Of course, this is nonsense. When it comes down to it, soldiers and to a lesser extent civilian cops will follow orders. That’s what they do, because they are just normal people and not super heroes.

~G. Fink

alan
December 7, 2004, 04:06 PM
IF this poll in fact based, as opposed to being based on something else, perhaps the residue from "controlled substances", the following comes to mind.

Just think of that pile of spent brass that such activity might perhaps generate, to say nothing about mounds of dead and wounded.

S Roper
December 7, 2004, 05:04 PM
I don't understand your point, Werewolf. I assume the percentages are true false respectively.

" b.citizens would not be morally bound to obey the law.
. . . . . . . . . . 21.5% 78.5%"

In other words 78.6% would agree with the statement that citizens would be morally bound to obey a law that banned all guns.

" d.citizens would be justified in revolting against the
government . . . . . 29.0% 71.0%"

So 71.0% said revolution would not be justified.

How do these two percentages not agree with the 53.0% who answered that they would comply an order for a house to house search?

Double Naught Spy
December 7, 2004, 09:26 PM
Well, unfortunately the title is fairly limited with regards to characters. If by some chance, you can come up with a superior option that fits the character limits, then by all means let me know.

How about...

"50% E PA Officers Would Enforce Confiscation?"

While representative of the cited article, but not the actual 2 county descriptors, it uses the same number of spaces as your title and hence fits just fine. It would have been more accurate of the title that you presented that gave the impression that the survey was for half of PA's police officers and that just was not the case. Your abbreviation erred on the side of sensationalizing the facts to make the survey seem much more than it really was.

I don't buy into the excuse that titles are terribly limited and so your title was the best you could do with the space you had available, if that is what you meant by the title having character limits.

Just what is the character limit? I ask because you seemed to have used much less than some other people and so I don't see it as much of a justification for selective deletions of representative facts that could have been included in the title. My count shows you used only about 54 characters and spaces. There are threads with much longer titles such as...

Anyone else collect firearms from the year that you were born?"

Misdemeanor domestic violence...does the crime fit the punishment?

Humane Society of the United States to challenge hunting via courts

Need help of a NETWORK ADMIN - tech question but trust me, MAJOR political import!!!

You know, in just using two more characters than you used, you could have actually had a better representative title and it still would have been shorter than some other thread titles.

"50+% E PA LEOs in 2 Counties Would Enforce Confiscation?"

You asked and Double Naught Spy delivered.

Rexrider
December 8, 2004, 04:30 AM
Eastern Counties? I bet that is Philadelphia. Which is a very blue city. I have no doubt they would be for confiscation.

However, I can assure you the rest of the state would have no part of it

Give Philly to NJ and you have a very pro-gun state.

Bartholomew Roberts
December 8, 2004, 09:34 AM
Thank you for that extensive essay on more appropriate thread titles, Double Naught. In the future I will do my level best to thoroughly consider all possible options for a thread title before impetuously selecting one that is less than perfect.

borderguy
December 8, 2004, 10:29 AM
2 things stand out about this to me:

#1: It only took 3 replies before some cried "Jack Booted Thugs"

#2: Any overall gun ban is sure to be federal and state/local police don't enfore federal laws.

Double Naught Spy
December 8, 2004, 10:34 AM
That would be nice and I would appreciate it.

The survey alone, in its actual format, was already quite interesting and really didn't needed the sensationalization. You know, pro gun folks are always harping on anti gun folks for mispresentations of gun and shooting data and vice versa. Both turn out looking silly when somebody calls their bluff. It all comes down to credibility. The more we keep fudging information, the less credible we appear. The less credible we appear, the less likely we are to gain main stream society support. Last I recall, gaining main stream society support is a signficant concern to both sides of the pro and anti gun camps.

Werewolf
December 8, 2004, 10:37 AM
How do these two percentages not agree with the 53.0% who answered that they would comply an order for a house to house search? Actually they do agree - I was in HUA mode and not paying attention and read the stats backassward. That happens sometimes... :banghead:

Sergeant Bob
December 8, 2004, 10:49 AM
Police all over already enforce plenty of unconstitutional laws. What makes anyone think most of them would do differently in regards to gun confiscation?

Gordon Fink
December 8, 2004, 11:00 AM
See my post above. :D

~G. Fink

Rexrider
December 8, 2004, 01:23 PM
Furious Styles,
I stand corrected. I only scanned the survey and missed the counties that were identified.

I will do my best not to post comments at 2:30 in the morning while working an on-call shift from home. Now that I am awake and semi-alert, I realize there was no point in posting anything without actually reading the details.

My bad...

longeyes
December 8, 2004, 01:26 PM
People opt for security and follow orders. Most of them, most of the time.

If and when it gets to that point, it will be no time to rely on "good will" or "idealism."

Rexrider
December 8, 2004, 03:43 PM
No problem Furious Styles

You were right to point out information that I did not read. I would have the same issue with someone making comments on a subject when they obviously did not bother to check the facts.

I am originally from Reading, PA. So whenever I see stuff like this it gets my attention. Of course, Philly was the first thing that popped into my half asleep head.

It disturbs me even more that a survey like that would even be taken in PA. If it came from NY or NJ, I would not be surprised at all. I have noticed what seems to be a growing trend of anti-gun attitudes in PA these days. Wasn't there some type of AWB proposed there recently if I am not mistaken?

I may live in AZ now, but PA will always be home. I would hate to see it turn into the next NJ or NY.

Jmurman
December 8, 2004, 04:29 PM
I wonder what those numbers would be if some of the 50% that approved of a dynamic entry walked into a buzz saw?

dustind
December 8, 2004, 11:16 PM
A simple way to tell if the police would confiscate something that is legal now if it was made illegal would be to ask them if they would confiscate something similar that is already illegal.

Would the police confiscate illegal sound suppressors owned by citizens without a criminal record? I would say "Yes," almost all of them would. Thus I will say that almost all police would confiscate illegal semiautomatic firearms.(ones that are legal now, but illegal in this hypothetical example)

When have the police ever gone against the political wind to stand up for individual rights? If the law was snuck through and passed tomarrow, then I would believe that the police (and everyone else) as a whole would laugh and not touch it. The only way we will have police refusing to obey the order is if the order is very unpopular.

7.62FullMetalJacket
December 8, 2004, 11:44 PM
dustind hits the nail on the head. I would also add that our boys in blue, to a large extent, are not gun rights advocates. Most that I have met have little love for guns and only carry one for duty.

Present company, excluded, of course. A man of the law frequenting a gun board clearly has an interest in guns and gun rights.

Bartholomew Roberts
December 9, 2004, 08:45 AM
It all comes down to credibility. The more we keep fudging information, the less credible we appear.

I would have to disagree that a less-than-perfect title falls under the same category as "fudging data" or in some way hurts our credibility. All one has to do is click the links in order to find out the details.

I would suggest that anyone who has to be spoon fed the information because they are too lazy to click on the link and read it for themselves is probably not going to be an effective advocate in any case.

2nd Amendment
December 9, 2004, 09:43 AM
Nevermind the poll, here's the reality: If tomnorrow "they" ban firearms almost every LEO will participate in the confiscation thereof. Scarcely a one would break ranks. The alternative? Be fired. Lose the work of your life. Lose your retirement. Be publicly branded a reactionary. And, with any government that would ban and confiscate firearms, certainly wind up on some kind of "subversives" list.

All I see here is a slightly larger percentage being honest about that hard reality. And this honesty in no way conflicts with their saying the people would be right to revolt. It just acknowledges what they would do when the chips are down to feed their families and protect themselves. That's human nature, get used to it.

Double Naught Spy
December 9, 2004, 04:10 PM
I would suggest that anyone who has to be spoon fed the information because they are too lazy to click on the link and read it for themselves is probably not going to be an effective advocate in any case.

People who misrepresent information and get caught doing so often turn out to be ineffective advocates for their causes as well. :eek:

Kim
December 9, 2004, 09:48 PM
2nd amendment----------What you write is unfortunately true of many people. Money would make some people even commit treason and sell out their Mom. But there are many people who would never do such a thing espically for a dang job and pension. I would quit practicing medicine tomorrow if forced to give info on who I knew owned a firearm or If forced to participate in an abortion even if the USSC sent a Federal marshall to arrest me. Nope some people are not so shallow and will not be bought. No job, no pension, no amount of money can make me do something morally wrong. : Physical torture would probaly work.

Roadkill Coyote
December 9, 2004, 10:21 PM
I call your attention to the major flaw in the study.

"Each chief was responsible for distributing the surveys and for collecting them upon completion."

"Sealed envelopes" or not, this study by and large reflects what some officers in eastern PA were willing to put on paper and turn in to their chief. How many people would trust their bosses with a sealed envelope, when the opinions inside might have negative consequences on their career? Wasn't this the subject of a Dilbert cartoon some years back? For that matter this study appears to be seven years old...

2nd Amendment
December 9, 2004, 11:31 PM
I think, Kim, that some people fail to consider something. They look at these sorts of questions as entailing a one time decision, yes or no, and that's it with whatever consequences immediately stem from that decision.

But that is not what we're talking about here. This sort of question presumes we're well past any arguments about whether a government would or would not do such a thing. We've postulated they will. That means everything has now changed. And the odds are it won't go back to the way it was in the lifetime of anyone who has to make this sort of decision. It's for life. At least their's.

So yeah, there are those who would still take a stand. But for most? We're asking them to basically terminate everything they have and are. Family, home, security, friends, community standing AND their futures and probably the planned futures of their children. No income, no possibility of further employment in their chosen career. And almost certainly no kind of "aid", since it is that same government's shoes they have just pissed all over.

That's asking a lot. It's especially asking a lot of people who may well not have any investment in gun ownership and the 2A. It's an abstract concept to them. Might they feel it is right, and indeed a Right? Certainly...but is that abstract enough to become a rebel whose name and face is about as well known to the enemy you just created as possible? I for one am an arrogant SOB who's never much cared for what many consider the "important" things of life, but I still won't sit here and say I could do it. I think I would, but when the chips were down?

It's not just yourself you have to answer to... :scrutiny:

alan
December 10, 2004, 12:30 AM
Furious Styles answered in response to the following

Quote:
Originally Posted by RR
Wasn't there some type of AWB proposed there recently if I am not mistaken?



Yeah, some jerk from Western PA with his head vertically enveloped by his pelvic girdle and surrounding posterior organic material introduced it last year, where it sat and died, so far as I remember. I heard something about another try this year, but I honestly don't know where it's at right now.

The person so aptly described is Dan Frankel, State Representative from a part of Pittsburgh. There were a few co-sponsors. The proposal went nowhere, but that sort of thing bears watching never-the-less.

As this confiscation bit, I'm inclined to agree that most police would go along with it. I also believe that "the forces of law and order" would be significantly thinned, not so much by the average gun owner, but rather by the actions of the relatively few "piss on it, if this stands, what next" type hard heads

If you enjoyed reading about "50% of PA Police Officers Would Enforce Confiscation?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!