LE groups against our rights


PDA






LAR-15
January 27, 2008, 06:41 PM
They joined the Brady Camp in opposing the Heller Decision:

The groups joining the Brady Center brief include the International Association of Chiefs of Police; the Major Cities Chiefs; the International Brotherhood of Police Officers; the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives; the Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association; the National Latino Peace Officers Association; the National Black Police Association; the School Safety Advocacy Council; and the Police Executive Research Forum.

If you enjoyed reading about "LE groups against our rights" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
dave_pro2a
January 27, 2008, 06:53 PM
Yes, police as a whole are rabidly anti gun: their Associations, Unions, etc.

Hardly matter if a few rank and file support it, if the vast majority of the mouth pieces oppose it.

Swear and oath to defend Constitution and BoR, and then try to rip it apart as a part of your job.

tinygnat219
January 27, 2008, 07:14 PM
Yeesh, where's the Disabled, or Deaf police association?

Javelin
January 27, 2008, 07:18 PM
Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, the Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association; the National Latino Peace Officers Association;

What the heck is this honestly some kind of joke? And they all joined the Brady campaign? This is a made-for-tv-movie right here.

:)

GuyWithQuestions
January 27, 2008, 07:27 PM
Well, maybe if there was a law saying that the governement and law enforcement could be sued for failing to protect individuals they'd make some sense. But since they have no obligation to protect individual citizens, all these law enforcement agencies supporting DC make me want to puke! :barf: Just imagine if you call 911 and they're like "Sorry, we're on donut break! We don't want to help you at this time. We'll arrest the murderer after it's done, because that's our legal duty. By the way, it should be illegal for anyone but us to have guns and to protect themselves." :banghead: I wish someone would make a cartoon like that to put in the newspapers, although a lot of police officers I know don't like donut jokes and may become offended.

People always say that if the law was changed so that law enforcement could be held accountable for not protecting individual citizens in situations where they reasonable could, it would be violating our rights and privacy. In all the cases brought up in the book "Dial 911 and Die", I don't understand how the police responding to any of these 911 calls would have been violating citizen rights! If someone calls 911 and says, "Please help me, this guy with a crowbar is breaking my windows and is coming in," is she really going to be upset and think her rights are violated if the police come over and help? I guess they just need more revenue from writing speeding tickets, even though statistics say that the majority of habits that actually lead up to car accidents are rarely ticketed! :banghead: The U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal Highway Administration http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/speed/speed.htm says that 30% of fatal car accidents and 12% of all crashes are speed related, but that the majority of these crashes were "driving too fast for the conditions" rather than "going over the posted speed limit" by itself (also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limit#Speed_and_crash_factors). How often do police pull people over for tailgating or not staying in the slower lanes except to pass, which defensive driving classes say are more often causes of car accidents. I guess revenue is a big part of it.

GRB
January 27, 2008, 07:36 PM
Dave Pro2A,

Oh please, TICSMYD!

Yes, police as a whole are rabidly anti gun: their Associations, Unions, etc. Such an, in my opinion, amount to little more that blabbering. What, first of all, makes you think that these groups represent police officers as a whole.

Maybe you should read the names of the groups before making what I find to be such offensively assinine statements as your quoted above.aybe there is some clue in their names as to whom they represent:

the International Association of Chiefs of Police - Hmm, how many chiefs of police are thre as compared to polic eofficers. Do you think your boss has your interests in mind when he makmes decisions about his company?


the Major Cities Chiefs Chiefs of what? It does not even say, but if means police this one is even more restrictive that the first as it covers only police chiefs in MAJOR cities

the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives Again only exceutives or chiefs, and this time limited to blacks (what racists).

Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association (what the heck is this? Have you heard of it before. How many police members do they have who agree with their policy oin firearms?

the National Latino Peace Officers Association Another group of which I have never heard. Amazing, they must have a huge membership, and again I ask, does the membership agree with their policies on guns? If so show me the data that proves it.

Same goes for the others.

Know what AARP support gun control too. Do you think even 75% of their membership is aware of that?

You are casting aspersions that do not necessarily hold water.

Call the major pro-gun groups NRA, Gun Owners of America, and the JPFO and ask them how many law enforcement members they have.

The truth is that POLICE AS A WHOLE ARE NOT RABIDLY ANTI GUN, but you are quite possibly anti-police, or simply off the mark, in making such a statement about them.

Regards,
Glenn B

Frightener 88
January 27, 2008, 07:36 PM
Guy with questions, i was once ticketed for "fallowing too closely" which is tailgating. Just sayin. And im none too happy with LEO unions and organizations taking a political stance about anything. Im not paying them to have a political stance.

GRB
January 27, 2008, 07:54 PM
You are not paying police unions or organizations made of of police chiefs anything. They are made of of citizens of the USA, why should they not have a ploitical opinion? I do not agree with those above, if in fact they "joined" the Brady campaign. I think that abhorrent, but certainly well within their rights as citizens - don't you agree? If they should not have political opinions, then why should you? Of course, if this is a violation ofthe law, whic it may well be if police are expressing themselves as police officers and then politicking, why not call them on it. Certain political actions are forbidden at least to federal law enforcement officers. If that is not the case though, they have as much right as you or I to state their opinion of political issues.

GuyWithQuestions
January 27, 2008, 08:24 PM
Glenn Bartley,

Don't the police owe their legal duties to the government and are paid by the government, instead of civilians? Weren't police originally made to bring to the government who they needed and also arrest the law breakers? Then eventually they had things like 911 and when you call 911 you're making a request service, but if they refuse to help you and do get in trouble it's not because they refused to help you but because they may have failed in some duty they had to the government instead?

Anonymous Coward
January 27, 2008, 08:25 PM
The groups joining the Brady Center brief include the International Association of Chiefs of Police; the Major Cities Chiefs; the International Brotherhood of Police Officers; the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives; the Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association; the National Latino Peace Officers Association; the National Black Police Association; the School Safety Advocacy Council; and the Police Executive Research Forum.

These sound like insignificant, special-interest groups representing political hires, and not the will of the majority of officers.

What about the Fraternal Order of Police? You know, the 300,000 member group who opposed repealing the Tiahrt amendment and got called "a fringe group" by NY Mayor Bloomberg.

Crimp
January 27, 2008, 08:33 PM
After reading the original post, I wish I was on some other forum than The High Road so I could really express my feelings. Can y'all please read between the lines? :fire:

GRB
January 27, 2008, 08:37 PM
I wonder why you are apparently perturbed. I do not try to read between the lines, I would rather read what someone has written, and beleive that they had enough intelligence to write what they meant instead of in code that required betwixt line reading gurus to figure it out. Most of the posts here seem pretty straightforward, but maybe you can share something with us, that you see hidden between the lines. Why that would be difficult here on this forum as opposed to another is beyond me; I am one of the foulest mouthed people yopu could ever meet, yet I can keep it gentlemanly here and follow the rules. Why not give it a try and tell us, in a nice way, about what is seemingly upsetting you because, I for one, and probably others, have no idea about what you are writing.

Best regards,
Glenn B

Bad Voodoo
January 27, 2008, 09:05 PM
Of course police management is anti. Who do you think is going to be required to knock on your door when it's time to confiscate your firearms?

I'm convinced that the entire government conspiracy to heavily infringe/eliminate 2A rights is designed to mitigate an appropriate response from America's citizens when it's time to hit the reset button. They don't want to be fighting against the same weapons they currently deploy on foreign soil. The last time a fair fight happened it didn't go very well for the establishment, did it?

dave_pro2a
January 27, 2008, 09:13 PM
Quote Glen Bartley
Dave Pro2A,

Oh please, TICSMYD!

Such an, in my opinion, amount to little more that blabbering. What, first of all, makes you think that these groups represent police officers as a whole.

Maybe you should read the names of the groups before making what I find to be such offensively assinine statements as your quoted above.aybe there is some clue in their names as to whom they represent:

I have read countless incidents of RANK AND FILE police officers LYING about firearm laws on the open carry forum.

Yes most cops are anti gun. They fear encounters with armed citizens, and every citizen is viewed as a enemy until proven otherwise (thin blue line bull crap and 1* garbage, etc.).

But in my post here, since you have a reading comprehension problem, I did draw a small deliniation between rank and file versus those that run the unions/Association (the politically appointed or elected sworn officers).

It's a small deliniation. Those in appointed positions almost always are anti gun, depending on the political view of the mayor, govenor, et cetera. While those in the rank and file are just 'most likely' anti-gun.

Of course it goes without saying that the attitude of leo in Montana will be slightly different than the attitude of those on either coast (and major metropolitan areas).

Oh here's my data: I have had several police officers lie to me about the law, and lie about me under oath. I have also heard some lie about gun laws.

I know of several other people who have had the exact same experience, people I know and trust explicitly.

On opencarry.org I have read countless examples of rank and file cops lying about gun laws in order to try and change behavior, acting under color of authority, harrassing people who were peacefully going about their personal business.

I have read countless examples (as in, I have personally read the email responses) from police higher on the food chain who backed up the ANTI-GUN intimidation tactics of the rank and file... going so far as to seemily cover up lies, instances of false imprisonment, illegal search & seizures, harassment, intimidation, etc.

So yes, I feel very confident in my opinion that *most police are antigun on some level. As a 'political force' they (for the most part) actively campaigh against the Second Amendment.

Just ask Ronnie Barret.

http://www.thegunzone.com/shot/barrett.html

"I was very surprised to see an LAPD officer seated front and center with a Barrett 82A1 .50 cal rifle.

It was the centerpiece of the discussion. As you know, there have been no crimes committed with these rifles, and most importantly, current California law does not allow the sale of the M82AI in the state because of its detachable magazine and features that make it an "assault weapon."

This rifle was being deceptively used by your department. The officer portrayed it as a sample of a currently available .50 cal rifle, available for sale to the civilians of Los Angeles.

Your officer, speaking for the LAPD, endorsed the banning of this rifle and its ammunition. Then he used the rifle for photo ops with the Councilmen each of whom, in handling the firearm, may have been committing a felony. I was amazed."

So go ahead and call me assinine Glen buddy, but go look in a mirror before you do so you can check the definition of the word.

Charles Daly
January 27, 2008, 09:25 PM
Years ago (maybe 8) my company exhibited at the IACP (International Association of Chiefs of Police) show in Philadelphia. We wanted to see if we should be trying to sell some of our tactical pumps to LE.

There was a constant barrage of anti-gun messages during that show and when the purchasing officers would visit our booth, I couldn't help but ask why they were so against the 2nd Amendment. Time and time again we were told, off the record so to speak, that the public was not to be trusted with firearms.

Since 100% of our business then was commercial/civilian sales, I had a diffcult time reconciling our attendance at that show. I mean, here we were spending good money, to attend an event that, if the buyers had their way, they would have put us out of business. We have not exhibited at that show since.

Now that we're in the AR market, and we want to pursue LE sales, I'm going to have to find a way to deal with these opposing viewpoints. We want LE sales, but we don't want to be beholding to buyers that don't trust our citizen consumers. Hell of a balancing act for a gun company...

Blackfork
January 27, 2008, 09:44 PM
I watched police operations during Katrina. The LEOs came from all over the nation. They are anti-gun, period.

Green Lantern
January 27, 2008, 09:46 PM
Mr. Kassnar - good to see you here! By your post, I'm optimistic that we won't one day have to read of Charles Daly going to the "Dark Side" and selling out civilian gun owners to garner favor or extra $$$ from the .gov! :)

...as SOME have been known to do...:mad:

I don't know how many people hold a grudge like I do, but I won't even look at a Ruger until the company "disavows" the late Bill Ruger's disdain for letting us poor serfs have "high-cap" weapons...

Samuel Adams
January 27, 2008, 09:47 PM
To go off on a tangent, one misconception a lot of people have with 911 dispatchers is that it is the policeman or the firefighter or the paramedic answering the phone and responding from there. Unless it happens to be a one-horse town, that is incorrect. 911 is simply a phone number to access the system.

I've worked all of these jobs and am working in a 911 center on a military installation at the time of this writing. We have a union here but they are, in my humble opinion, for people who don't like to work. Lazy ass people who whine about everything management does are the norm and the "leaders" of those unions act like they swore an oath to the Communist Manifesto.

Having read some of these organization's policies and statements, I'm not surprised.

dave_pro2a
January 27, 2008, 09:47 PM
I watched police operations during Katrina. They are anti-gun, period.

Great point Blackfork.

Rank and file officers from around the country, directly going against the 2A.

LT1coupe
January 27, 2008, 10:12 PM
I know & have known many LEO's & I have yet to meet one that has any issue with people legally owning & carrying guns. I have thankfully spent most of my life in TX & AZ.

Reyn
January 27, 2008, 10:18 PM
I know & have known many LEO's & I have yet to meet one that has any issue with people legally owning & carrying guns. I have thankfully spent most of my life in TX & AZ

Me neither.

Ragnar Danneskjold
January 27, 2008, 10:49 PM
Is there a National Caucasian Police Officers Association?

Bad Voodoo
January 27, 2008, 10:54 PM
Nope. There isn't an NAAWP either.

P-32
January 27, 2008, 11:18 PM
As a full time LEO with 6 years until retirement, I can assure you the rank and file is not anti gun. I'm talking about the guys in the trenches. Many of the orgs. listed by the OP is full of politicing boso's who think they speak for everyone. The union I belong to supports the Demo's. My co-workers and I don't as we have a mind of our own.

Having said that.....if every gun owner in the US was a member of the NRA we would not have to worry about a few Demorats. I'm a Life member, you?

ArfinGreebly
January 28, 2008, 12:02 AM
I'm in Idaho, recently of Nevada.

In both these states, the LEOs with whom I've had conversations have all -- with a single exception -- been in favor of armed citizens.

In their eyes, it would make their work easier if more people could protect themselves.

This is anecdotal, from a statistically insignificant sampling of officers, but I figure that, if I contact dozens of these guys, and only one of them has a problem, I say the numbers are on our side.

That having been said, and since we are, after all, discussing this in Activism . . .

I there any suggested ACTION that anyone would like to propose?

If the thread serves only to gripe and counter-gripe, then I'll have to close it.

Anyone?

Robert Hairless
January 28, 2008, 12:34 AM
Having said that.....if every gun owner in the US was a member of the NRA we would not have to worry about a few Demorats. I'm a Life member, you?

There's the activism: join and support the NRA. Here's the application form (https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/signup.asp). Do it now.

It might be worth knowing that the current NRA President, John Sigler, is a retired police captain.

Grizzly Adams
January 28, 2008, 09:56 AM
Yes most cops are anti gun. They fear encounters with armed citizens, and every citizen is viewed as a enemy until proven otherwise (thin blue line bull crap and 1* garbage, etc.).

On what do you base this statement? Can you provide proof? How many LEO have you dealt with? What's your involvement with LEO? How long have you had dealing with LEO?

Give us answers to these questions so we have a feel as to where you are coming from.

Or are you just stating a biased opinion!

I've been dealing with LEO for over 45 years, from the Fed level down to the locals. I can tell you for a fact that of the ones that I have dealt with I have never, repeat never, had ONE state that he or she was opposed to the general public owning firearms, in particular handguns!

Blackfork
January 28, 2008, 01:38 PM
It doesn't matter if the rank and file are pro-Bill of Rights, though I see very little evidence for that opinion, if individual officers are going to follow orders, even plainly illegal ones, as was the case in New Orleans. Ray Nagin decided to illegally disarm the citizenry and issued an immoral, unconstitutional and illegal order. No unit, officer, agency or department stood up and challenged him. They went out and, to watch the videos and hear the evidence, enthusiastically enforced his order.

Individual officers with paychecks and pensions are going to do whatever they are told to do even if it's illegal, unconstitutional, immoral or un-American. That's just the way it is.

The first step in activism is to be able to grasp reality. This is the reality of where we are as a country. Are we going to do something about it? if so, what?

Deanimator
January 28, 2008, 01:57 PM
That having been said, and since we are, after all, discussing this in Activism . . .

I there any suggested ACTION that anyone would like to propose?

If the thread serves only to gripe and counter-gripe, then I'll have to close it.

Anyone?

You could always do what I used to before I stopped answering the phone entirely.

If you get fundraising calls from people like FOP, ask them what their stance on various gun control issues is. If the boilerroom bot on the line can't elucidate a clear position, demand to speak to a supervisor. Keep asking until you get a straight answer. When they tell you that they support "X" gun grab scheme tell them that because of that you will NOT give them ANY money and that you will be advising all of your friends and relatives to do likewise.

Autolycus
January 28, 2008, 02:05 PM
If it is the chiefs then why do their officers follow them? COuldnt the officers start an organization, besides LEAA, and start campaigning to arm the public?

LT1coupe
January 28, 2008, 02:16 PM
They follow for the same reason most of us follow our employer's work instructions to a point. It's a job, that does not mean they agree with the boss's politics or affliations. I'm sure there are many LEO's that belong to the NRA etc. Every CCW instructor I've been taught by was either an LEO or a retired LEO. If they didn't want citizens to CCW why would they facilitate us getting CCW?

Sage of Seattle
January 28, 2008, 02:47 PM
And how many people really understand that the "rank and file" DISAGREES with a nationally vocal union, organization or whatever that tells everyone that it represents the "rank and file"?

If the "rank and file" don't do diddly squat to send the message to those REPRESENTING their opinions -- their chiefs, commissioners, bosses -- then it's kind of a moot point, isn't it?

Who here really thinks the average joe or soccermom says to him/herself, "geez, the FOP supports removing all these evil guns, but the cop on the street doesn't mind, so I guess I'll believe them instead. And I know this because I personally had to interview dozens of LEO's from the local level, on up to the feds and they all were open and honest with me regarding their 2nd Amendment stance. Oh, but my friend just got busted because his legally owned firearm was considered concealed while he was driving his car, but, hey, they all have a job to do too, so I don't blame them in the least."

ArfinGreebly
January 28, 2008, 02:51 PM
. . . that the problem is in union/association leadership.

So, then, how do we go about getting the voices of the (pro-2a) majority out where they can be heard?

Sage of Seattle
January 28, 2008, 03:09 PM
Well, Arfin, I for one, do not belong to any of those organizations, so there isn't much that I can do about it.

I made a promise on THR last month to join the NRA and I was thoughtfully provided a link where it would save me a bit of money. I will follow through with that promise and post on THR when I am able to.

I write letters to the editor and emails to my representatives as well. In fact, I did none of these things until I joined THR and became much more politically aware.

In this case, what else can I do?

308win
January 28, 2008, 03:12 PM
How Newark, Ohio LEOs view CCW. From the Newark, Ohio Advocate.
(http://www.newarkadvocate.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080123/NEWS01/801230302/1002/NEWS17)
Newark police Sgt. John Brnjic said concealed carry has not posed many problems for his department either, but he added it still makes officers uncomfortable.

When license plates are run before a traffic stop, Brnjic said other units respond when the driver has a CCW permit, just in case.

"The minute you hear 'CCW,' officers pay a little bit more attention," he said.

Brnjic said he would like to see penalties strengthened for violations.

A couple of weeks ago, he stopped a CCW holder who repeatedly lied about having a weapon in his possession, Brnjic said.

The man was charged with a felony, but because of the structure of the law the deception was not a more serious infraction, Brnjic said.

"If he would have had it in a holster, it would just be a misdemeanor," he said.

novaDAK
January 28, 2008, 03:17 PM
In Virginia, if a police officer asks you for assistance, you must comply. If not, you go to jail.

In Virginia, if you ask a police officer for assistance, and they can't help you, you're SOL.

Ask not what your police state can do for you, but what you can do for your police state.

:sigh: :eek:

Autolycus
January 28, 2008, 09:54 PM
Originally posted by LT1coupe: They follow for the same reason most of us follow our employer's work instructions to a point. It's a job, that does not mean they agree with the boss's politics or affliations. I'm sure there are many LEO's that belong to the NRA etc. Every CCW instructor I've been taught by was either an LEO or a retired LEO. If they didn't want citizens to CCW why would they facilitate us getting CCW?

Possibly because they are getting paid. Just as they teach classes they also enforce unconstitutional laws. Follow the money.

GRB
January 28, 2008, 11:38 PM
Horse feathers to you who call the USA a police state. Go out, make a determined effort, and find someone who lived through a Nazi death camp, or find someone who has spent time in a Soviet Gulag. I have had a few discussions with the former, and only one with someone who was the latter. They will fully explain Police State to you in no uncertain terms. Anyone who truly believes the USA to be a Police State, is in my view, either paranoid, out of his or her mind, or are just full of the solid wastes that smell bad. Now if what I just said is not high road enough for the High Road, why don't you go back and look at some of the other things said in this very same thread. Absolutely disgusting and full of emotional flaming and trolling, rather than full of fact to support the police state argument or anti police rhetoric. Sure you should be on your toes, be prepared to prevent a police state if it gets even near to that, but first why not get some understanding about the meaning of those two words!

RP88
January 29, 2008, 12:08 AM
my neighbor is a police officer. He's anti-gun in the sense that he would wish that guns were never invented, but I've never heard him say anything about how he has a problem with citizens with guns.

If anything, police should praise law-abiding citizens with guns because it means that the police wouldnt have to worry about protecting everyone since citizens could protect themselves in most instances. But honestly, I dont see the big deal with a bunch of small special interest groups backing the Brady campaign. NRA still dwarfs BC in size and lobbying power by a HUGE margin. If you listed all the LEOs, VIPs, or special interest groups backing the NRA, then that list would probably make your jaw drop.

And +2000 for Glenn for saying what only a few of us have been saying this whole time. I am not very fond of the police either, nor do I like our government's current state, but good god; ease up on the conspiracy theories. Politicians and LEOs are people like you and me and everyone else.

CentralTexas
January 29, 2008, 12:20 AM
Having traveled and lived in the US and several foreign countries, it equates to this- most cops are products of their environment and culture and become police not too far from where they were hatched. If the majority of Americans become anti-gun the majority of police reflect that opinion.
In my personal opinion I have never met or seen a police officer who became a cop to defend the Constitution. Mainly the job is sought by well intentioned folk but many (not all) are seeking a "power" position in society....

ArfinGreebly
January 29, 2008, 12:36 AM
Still waiting for something that might be construed as activism.

Anyone?

Ragnar Danneskjold
January 29, 2008, 12:48 AM
Glenn Bartley is right. We may be on the path towards a police state, but we are still farrrr from it. Now is the time to change course while we still can.

As for police unions being anti, the leaders of most unions hold views and enact policies that are actually contrary and harmful to the gerneral membership. Just look how UAW got in bed with Granholm and other Dems before her, and ended up getting screwed out of jobs by the Dems anti-capitalism, anti-business ideas. They voted their own auto industry into the grave. Or look at teacher's unions that pay much more time looking for ways to just get more money than actually looking to better the education system. There was a time in the past where unions were absolutely the savior to the normal worker. But the pendulum has swung the other way and now most unions in this country do more harm to normal people than good. They are too interested in short term financial gains for themselves than long term stability for their members.

GuyWithQuestions
January 29, 2008, 03:13 AM
Maybe this would be better moved to Legal? If it's not activism

ArfinGreebly
January 29, 2008, 02:20 PM
Well, it's neither Activism nor Legal, so the only place this might belong is General.

Unhappily, it's inflamatory enough that it would simply become a noise fest in General.

So, unless there's some activism that can derive from this, I'm gonna close the thread.

Anyone?

Autolycus
January 29, 2008, 06:13 PM
Perhaps we can stop funding police departments? What about suing departments for failure to comply with the Bill of Rights? Just tieing up the legal funds of PDs so they dont have funding to hire anyone who would harm our interests or replace their gear? Always vote in opposition of raising taxes that would benefit PDs in any way? How about petition for a slow disarmament of police and other LEOs? How about asking our legislators to reaappeal LEOSA?

Sage of Seattle
January 29, 2008, 06:18 PM
Arfin,

May I remind you of my post upthread (#34)? Did I not ask what I could do in this instance?

You want action, I'm asking for your input. Maybe someone else before the thread is locked?

Reyn
January 29, 2008, 06:21 PM
Perhaps we can stop funding police departments? What about suing departments for failure to comply with the Bill of Rights? Just tieing up the legal funds of PDs so they dont have funding to hire anyone who would harm our interests or replace their gear? Always vote in opposition of raising taxes that would benefit PDs in any way? How about petition for a slow disarmament of police and other LEOs? How about asking our legislators to reaappeal LEOSA?


If this is the best "activism" we can come up with then close the thread.

ilbob
January 29, 2008, 06:31 PM
The vast majority of police unions are in bed with the democratic party as a means of increasing their political power and the benefits they receive from it.

Police executives do as they are told or risk their cushy jobs. they will say what their masters tell them to say.

My guess is most individual officers are more like average Americans in their political views, after all they are just average Americans like the rest of us.

I would not get all that worked up about it.

benEzra
January 29, 2008, 06:42 PM
Note that the Fraternal Order of Police (nation's largest police union, makes the others look like a bunch of facades) is not supporting the D.C. ban.

wheelgunslinger
January 29, 2008, 07:02 PM
Maybe, just maybe, what gun owners need to do is start a new organization that puts LEOs and civvies in the same activism basket under the heading that the officers and civvies want the same thing.
Like:
Law Enforcement and Firearms Owners for Protection of the 2nd Amendment.
LEAFOP 2a <--- that even sounds cool enough for the ninjas.

wheelgunslinger
January 29, 2008, 07:09 PM
And, in my mind, a lot of the issue of contempt from both sides could be resolved simply by High Roaders going to the range with a local LEO.

Getting to know and putting a face on a stereotype really tends to screw up your preconceived notions. There's no getting around what happened during Katrina, but having a "Take a LEO shooting" day will do more for the cause than to continue on with throwing stones.

Fat_Tony
January 29, 2008, 07:49 PM
I have several suggestions for activism:

1.) As Robert Hairless suggested in post # 26, if you are not already a member, join the NRA.

2.) I am not a police officer, nor a union member, so I do not believe that I can affect the policy of the FOP. I do respectfully request however that the pro-2nd amendment officers on this board attempt to pressure their FOP union representatives to get the FOP hierarchy to submit a brief in favor of a broad-ranging individual rights interpretation in the Heller case.

3.) If my 2nd suggestion is not doable, will an FOP member please inform the rest us of why this is the case, and if the rest of us can do anything to help?

Thanks,

FT

mrreynolds
January 29, 2008, 07:58 PM
TRUTH VERSUS LIES

On MSNBC LEAA's Ted Deeds takes on notorious anti-gun, anti-self defense leader, Paul Helmke, President of The Brady Campaign.

LEAA made the case in support of new laws to protect those innocent parties who use a gun for self defense from being sued by the very criminals who first put them in jeopardy.

Without such protections, greedy members of the Trial Bar are all too willing to take cases and prosecute otherwise innocent folks whose only 'crime' was to use a gun for selfdefense and put the good guy on trial.

LEAA has always supported the right of honest, law abiding Americans to own, carry and use guns as a means of self-defense.

Each innocent prospective crime victim should have the right to choose.. the right to choose self-defense and life!

MSNBC chose to term the debate with an inflamatory approach calling it "Shoot to Kill" laws, etc.

LEAA (http://www.leaa.org/deedsv.helmkemsn.html)

I LIKE IT!
January 29, 2008, 08:29 PM
Who gives a hoot what LEOs think? They're Gov. employees, nothing else.

Only time I give a heck about what one thinks is when he/she is signing off
on my Form 4.

LEO are humans with firearms doing a job not supreme overlords.

beemerphile
January 29, 2008, 08:57 PM
RE: What about the Fraternal Order of Police? You know, the 300,000 member group who opposed repealing the Tiahrt amendment and got called "a fringe group" by NY Mayor Bloomberg.

I checked the FOP's legislative positions before donating to them last year. I did not see any gun control positions that they were promoting and made the decision (again) to provide support. Now the "chiefs" and "mayors" organizations are another story. I would look at the legislative agenda of each agency individually to see where they stand and not paint them all with the same broad brush.

copper4262
January 29, 2008, 10:16 PM
Good thread - alot of good questions being brought up - My opinion if obviously biased due to my current employment as an LEO - First off - i think when it goes to the big LEO organizations - yes - they are anti-gun - Its all politics and money - thats what it boils down to - and yes - there are some rank and file guys who are anti as well - i think part of that comes from where they work and the amount of gun violence they deal with everyday - sometimes its hard to remember there are good people in your community when you deal with nothing but the bottom of the barrel all day/night long - iv had that problem myself - forgetting there are decent hard working people - its really hard to not get cynical - i think that is where alot of mistrust comes in on the part of the LEOs - that being said - i can honestly say that where i work most of the LEOs are pro gun - sure there are always going to be exceptions, but most of the guys i have worked with like guns at least a little and they also realize that we can't protect everyone - sure we dont want guns in the hands of criminals and will do anything we can to take them away - but thats part of protecting the community we serve - i also dont want drunk drivers on the road and will do anything i can to take them off the street - doesn't mean i want to ban Budlite - anyway - just wanted to share my thoughts - I have an interest in guns and that hasn't changed since i became a cop - i believe citizens have a right to defend themself and i believe that no-one can take that right away - that hasn't changed either since i became a cop - most rank and file agree with me - and no we are not out there trying to infringe on peoples rights - i cant speak for every cop everywhere but i try my best to uphold the oath i took and to continue do my job with pride and i will not compramise my ethics for anyone - im sorry to everyone who has ever had a bad run in with a cop - i have and because of that i strive everyday to treat people with respect - Maybe im just lucky to live in a nice quiet mid-west state(ND) where people still consider the right to bear arms - well a right - and a duty - im honestly surprised more people haven't discovered our little seceret up here and started the migration - but then maybe thats not such a bad thing for us -
but again - my 2cents

dave_pro2a
January 29, 2008, 10:34 PM
Activism?

Get more gun manufactuers and ammo suppliers to stop selling to LEOs/agencies.

Write letters. Explain that even Glock, Colt and Federal will lose in the long term if USA falls the way Australia and England have.

EVERY firearm and ammunition manufacturer should swear the following pledge:
"I will not sell, nor service, my rifles to those seeking to infringe upon the Constitution and the crystal clear rights it affords individuals to own firearms." ~ Ronnie Barrett http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2727

Barrett did. Just imagine if Colt and Glock did too!

Apply market pressure, just like the pro2A community has in the past with S&W, Ruger, etc.

It seems Charles Daly get's the point.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=4132316&postcount=15
"Now that we're in the AR market, and we want to pursue LE sales, I'm going to have to find a way to deal with these opposing viewpoints. We want LE sales, but we don't want to be beholding to buyers that don't trust our citizen consumers. Hell of a balancing act for a gun company."

Colt has screwed average consumers on their ARs, branding them LEO only and trying to strong arm retailers to not sell them to peon citizens. Their greedy quest for OUR tax dollars have caused them to abandon civic Constitutional principles -- and consumers should encourage them to change.

What if *most* people rejected companies that pandered for LEO contracts. What if our hard earned money went to smaller manufacturers that do no business with police agencies? The larger companies could regain our patronage... if they stopped supporting lies, deception, gun banning, etc.


On changing the anti-gun political leanings of the police unions, only voting members can do that afaik.

The rank and file are responsible for their union representatives, while we simply deal with the fall out.

ilbob
January 30, 2008, 04:44 PM
what gun owners need to do is start a new organization that puts LEOs and civvies in the same activism basket
The NRA had some kind of hand in forming the LEAA which is something like what you are suggesting. I don't know how much sway it has, if any.

ORYGUN
January 30, 2008, 05:06 PM
I live in a neighborhood surrounded by six police officers, one of them being my cousin they all support me packing...

If you enjoyed reading about "LE groups against our rights" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!