Closing the Police Loophole. Support list. Refusing LEO sales.


PDA






joeschmoe
February 22, 2013, 07:03 PM
The goal is to support the companies on the nice list and encourage other companies to join them by email and letter campaign. Not only telling them you want them to join the list, but send them copies of your reciepts for gear you bought off the nice list.

click the link to see the list.

What is the police loophole?

There are some states, counties, cities, and municipalities in our great nation that fail to allow their citizens to fully exercise their right to keep and bear arms with restrictions such as magazine capacity or types of firearms that are widely available to citizens of other states, counties, cities, and municipalities. However, these government entities do not place these restrictions upon their own employees, such as police officers.

What is this list?

This is a list of companies that have taken the step to publicly announce that they will not sell items to states, counties, cities, and municipalities that restrict their citizens rights to own them; therefore closing the "police loophole" themselves.

Don't see one that belongs on here or want your company on the list? Send me an email at (you must have javascript enabled to see my email address) or tweet us @policeloophole with #thepoliceloophole. Please also include a link to the written policy either on Facebook or your website


http://www.thepoliceloophole.com/

If you enjoyed reading about "Closing the Police Loophole. Support list. Refusing LEO sales." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Texan Scott
February 22, 2013, 08:31 PM
A) This list should be alphabetized, and
B) Where are Glock and S&W?

beatledog7
February 22, 2013, 09:17 PM
Awesome idea! I'd love to see loads of companies in al sorts of industries decline Federal government business until it passes a budget and gets serious about cutting spending. Of course, they all want a piece of that spending, so it'll never happen.

Outlaw Man
February 23, 2013, 10:00 AM
I love the progression of posts on Alex Arms' website (link on that page):

"Alex Arms is now an Armalite dealer."

"No exceptions for law enforcement."

"Armalite has no backbone."

Skylerbone
February 23, 2013, 10:34 AM
Springfield Armory is owned by the Reese family and is not affiliated with ArmaLite, owned by Westrom. They share a hometown.

HOOfan_1
February 23, 2013, 10:42 AM
The list can be alphabetized by clicking on the heading that says "company"

Sam1911
February 23, 2013, 11:14 AM
However lets keep focus on the polititians and not blame tyhe companies who make the guns.We've covered this heavily in other threads. (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=704248)

This is a move to encourage gun makers to aid in the cause of their customers, not really to hurt gunmakers. Sometimes, though, the request has to come with a little "spur to prick the sides of their intent" as Shakespeare would have said.

Let's not sidetrack this thread with another "don't hurt the gunmakers" debate.

Captain33036
February 23, 2013, 04:48 PM
Thank you for posting the list. I now see the companies that I will be doing business with. Glad to see there are a good number. A company that I get many parts and accessories is on the list, I will continue to do business with them. One that I also bought from in the past is not on the list, and so, won't be buying from them for quite a while.

I see a maker of an AR upper I have been thinking about is on the list. Good. Will stick with them.

Best

J

SigSour
February 23, 2013, 05:05 PM
I hope Daniel Defense gets on that list.

I like this idea.. it shouldn't be gun owners fighting for 2nd Amendment rights alone. Gun Makers need people to sell to!

Thanks for the list.

hso
February 23, 2013, 06:26 PM
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2013/0223/Firearms-makers-to-politicians-on-gun-rights-You-balk-we-walk

Demitrios
February 24, 2013, 10:46 AM
This was taken directly from the Freedom Outpost website but I have checked other sites to validate this information.

http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/02/gun-companies-boycotting-law-enforcement-in-anti-gun-states-grow-by-more-than-700-in-1-week/

The list of companies that have decided to stop selling firearms and ammunition to law enforcement agencies, in states that are hostile to the Second Amendment and putting forth gun control legislation, is growing and has grown more than seven times the number that I informed you about one week ago today (2-23-13).

Previously I listed the following companies:

Olympic Arms, Inc
La Rue Tactical
EFI, LLC – Extreme Firepower
York Arms
Templar Custom
Cheaper Than Dirt
Barrett Firearms Manufacturing

Now the list has expanded to include:

Bullwater Enterprises 2-16-13
West Fork Armory 2-16-13
Smith Enterprise 2-17-13
Alex Arms 2-17-13
Spike’s Tactical 2-18-13
Quality Arms Idaho 2-19-13
Liberty Suppressors 2-19-13
Doublestar Corp 2-19-13 (Includes J&T Distributing & Ace LTD)
American Spirit Arms 2-19-13 (complete with a video!)
Trident Armory 2-17-13 (reported to me 2-20-13)
Head Down Products 2-20-13
J&G Sales 2-20-13
Exile Machine 2-20-13
Tier One Arms 2-15-13 (reported to me 2-20-13)
Bravo Company USA 2-20-13
Primary Weapons Systems 2-21-13 (read my blog post on PWS)
Crusader Weaponry 2-20-13
Top Gun Supply 2-21-13
Kiss Tactical 2-21-13
Clark Fork Tactical 2-21-13
OFA Tactical 2-17-13 (reported to me 2-21-13)
One Source Tactical 2-21-13 (Scroll down to shipping restrictions)
Templar Tactical Arms 2-12-13 (reported 2-21-13)
NEMO Arms 2-21-13 (check out their photo!)
Old Grouch’s Military Surplus 1-15-13 (NOT a typo!)
Big Horn Armory 2-22-13
Midway USA 2-22-13
CMMG Inc 2-22-13
Rocky Top Tactical 2-22-13
Badger Peak 2-22-13
Controlled Chaos Arms 2-22-13
SRT Arms 2-22-13
Norton Firearms 2-22-13
Umlaut Industries 2-22-13
Predator Intelligence 2-2-13 (Read comments)
Citizen Arms 2-23-13 (At the bottom of the page)
Evolution Weaponry 2-17-13
Chaos Arms 2-23-13
Warbirds Custom Guns 2-23-13 (Scroll to the bottom)
JBTAC 2-23-13
Stoner Arms 2-22-13
Ammoclip (Date of policy unknown)
3 Rivers Precision 2-22-13
2A Firearms 2-22-13
Lanco Tactical 2-22-13
Predator Tactical 2-23-13
Umlaut Industries LLC 2-23-13
Rhino Arms LLC 2-23-13

Jeffrey Norton, of Norton Firearms, issued a statement on the company’s website:

Norton Firearms, Inc. is a strong defender of the US Constitution, not only the 2nd amendment. We believe that a government that restricts it Citizens from executing their Constitutional Rights is no longer a government for the people or by the people. It is our policy not to sell our products or services to any organization that tries to diminish the rights given to us by our US Constitution and our Creator. If you are a government agency with a policy of restricting our Constitutional Rights we ask that you take our tax dollars and spend it somewhere else. I am sure there is some profiteering communist foreign company that will be glad to take our dollars for their gain. We will only sell to law abiding, Citizens and those agencies that truly support and will defend The US Constitution.

Others, like Kiss Tactical, posted to their Facebook page:

On Saturday I refused to sell a AR-15 rifle to a police officer from California. He came into my shop and wanted to buy his duty gun in AZ because the same gun in his home state would cost him more. I told him that I would not sell him the gun even though he had his department letter saying he was able to buy it. I told him that if the gun was not legal for law abiding men and women in CA I would not sell it to him. After he told me that “civilians don’t need them type of guns,” I asked to leave my shop. He stomped out mad.

I have made a decision to not sell to any gun to police department that are not legal for civilians. We build custom AR-15 and have sold more then a few to cops in a few states. I am not sure how this will effect us but as we grow and our name gets out there more we will not change this policy.

Following New York’s gun control laws, Steve Adelmann, of Citizen Arms, made the following statement on the home page of his company’s website:

”Due to legal, ethical and moral concerns, Citizen Arms offers only those custom firearms that are legal for all lawful citizens of a given state to possess, regardless of law enforcement status. LE personnel living in states where citizens must have restrictive features will only receive like product support from Citizen Arms. We’re very appreciative of the sacrifices made by the law enforcement community but we’re even more appreciative of the right guaranteed to all law-abiding US citizens by the Second Amendment to the US Constitution: ‘A well regulated militia, necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’”

If you know of other companies that are joining in this protest against attacks by tyrannical Federal and State governments, please click on the “Contact” button at the top of the page and send me a link to the company’s statement and I’ll add it to the growing list. Please consider supporting companies like these as they value freedom and the responsibility we have to both keep and bear arms.

Firearms Policy Coalition offers a digital option for those wishing to send an email encouraging companies to get on board with this movement.

Ronnie Barrett posted the following letter at the company’s Facebook page:

Barrett opposes those who are illegally disarming the American public from their efficient arms and creating superior armed elitist government agencies.

Elected state officials of New York, having been sworn to protect our Constitution, have instead committed an offense against it and their citizens by stripping inalienable rights duly protected and guaranteed under the Second Amendment. By their deliberate and sinister actions, these officials now cause their state and local policing agencies to enforce these unconstitutional and illegal so called “laws”.

By current law, Barrett cannot be an accomplice with any lawbreaker, therefore, cannot and will not service or sell to New York government agencies. Barrett also applies this stance to the individual elected official who, as a matter of public record, has voted for or created regulation that violates the constitutional rights of their citizens. This is an expansion of our 2002 ban against the California government due to their second amendment infringements, and shall apply to any future violators.

In the course of world history there have been officials that strip inalienable rights from the people that were given to all by our Creator. Most of these officials inevitably come to trial, some do not.

Intentionally violating constitutional rights by officials that have sworn to uphold them should have severe prison sentences.

With the clear vision of horrible events in history repeating itself, all manufacturers of firearms or related equipment remaining in partnership with such violators should have a respectable fear of being found with the guilty on their day of trial.

During this era of assault on liberty, Barrett will remain steadfast in our efforts to serve law-abiding citizens of all fifty states, and stands together with you in the struggles we will fight and win.

Ronnie Barrett
Chairman and CEO

Sam1911
February 24, 2013, 12:03 PM
See here: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=704706

joeschmoe
February 28, 2013, 04:41 PM
Huh? You posted a link to this thread.

smalls
February 28, 2013, 05:00 PM
You can add Wilson Combat to the list, effective today:


Wilson Combat will no longer provide any products or services to any State Government imposing legislation that infringes on the second amendment rights of its law abiding citizens. This includes any Law Enforcement Department, Law Enforcement Officers, or any State Government Entity or Employee of such an entity. This also applies to any local municipality imposing such infringements.

States currently included in our No-Sale Policy are:
California
Hawaii
Maryland
Massachusetts
New Jersey
New York
Washington D.C.
The City of Chicago, Illinois
Wilson Combat will in NO way support the government of these states or their anti-gun agenda that only limits the rights of law-abiding citizens. Wilson Combat will continue to supply any product and/or service they can legally sell in these states to all non-government affiliated citizens.

Ryan Wilson,
Vice President

Eb1
February 28, 2013, 05:09 PM
Were is Smith and Wesson and Glock? Why are they not on that list? They would loose to much money? A few choice words could be said for them. Hopefully they will come around, but I seriously doubt it.

NosaMSirhC
February 28, 2013, 05:19 PM
Wilson is a big deal. Not as big a Glock of S&W but it's starting to get some real traction...

Be Safe!

NosaM

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk HD

Teachu2
February 28, 2013, 05:39 PM
In times of panic buying and long backorders, it's pretty easy for companies to state who they will exclude - they can't keep up with demand anyway. The test will be when demand falls off.

rooter
February 28, 2013, 06:09 PM
Wilson is a big deal. Not as big a Glock of S&W but it's starting to get some real traction...

How many firearms does Wilson sell to state governments annually?

Wow, a bunch of companies, many of whom have never sold ANYTHING to a LE agency to begin with, "taking a stand" by vowing not to sell to them. Effective! Why not include the Federal Govt. as well?

I also see cheaper than dirt on the list, which is comical considering the way they rape consumers.

Certainly there are more intelligent means!

joeschmoe
February 28, 2013, 06:15 PM
Certainly there are more intelligent means!

What are your suggestions?

Fireforger
February 28, 2013, 06:29 PM
Let's see... what would prevent those on the naughty list from straw purchases (i.e., a friendly agency buying for them)?

archigos
February 28, 2013, 06:32 PM
How many firearms does Wilson sell to state governments annually?

Wow, a bunch of companies, many of whom have never sold ANYTHING to a LE agency to begin with, "taking a stand" by vowing not to sell to them. Effective! Why not include the Federal Govt. as well?

I also see cheaper than dirt on the list, which is comical considering the way they rape consumers.

Certainly there are more intelligent means!
Note that these are mostly not just about preventing sales to departments but also individual police who are elevated to a high class than citizens in these states.

smalls
February 28, 2013, 07:08 PM
I don't think Wilson has a huge name outside of the firearms community, but it's nice to see they have our backs, whether or not they derive huge profits from LE.

These agencies will no doubt but other brands of guns, but it's more about showing them these laws are not OK, and that private citizens have the support of the industry.

Deltaboy
February 28, 2013, 07:10 PM
Good for these companies.

Skylerbone
February 28, 2013, 08:47 PM
There are plenty in law enforcement familiar with these companies. I've had a number of discussions with local SWAT, PD and DCI about brands from Holland & Holland to Steyr and Cooper. Being issued an M&P 9mm or G22 does not make them the Barney Fifes some people think.

When armorers, Sheriffs, FBI agents and the like loose LE discounts, warranty support and priority status we can all hope they apply the pressure needed to either change attitudes or politicians.

joeschmoe
February 28, 2013, 09:10 PM
For years the anti's have been supported by the Police Associations, Unions and associations of Police Chiefs, Sheriffs organizations, etc.
Individual officers often claim these organizations don't represent them, but of course they do represent them in a literal and figurative sense.

The anti's have been drawing a bright clear line, claiming that LEO's stand with them. We need to put an end to this;

Obama's AWB speech.

http://www.theblogismine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Obama-assault-weapons-ban-vote-in-Congress-01.jpg

joeschmoe
March 1, 2013, 09:21 PM
Looks like we can add Magpul to the nice list. Seems a bunch of people badgered them into compliance. I'd prefer we just support the ones on the nice list and "encourage" others to join, maybe by not buying from them and letting them know.. Not aggressively beat up on those who don't.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=706060

HorseSoldier
March 2, 2013, 02:12 AM
People like Wilson and LaRue may not do mass sales to LE agencies, but I think there is a certain psychological impact for the guys who are boots on the ground, even if the politicians are too oblivious, stupid, or uninterested to notice or care.

As I noted in the the thread about Wilson opting out, I carried one of their pistols and a bunch (9) of their mags when I was a cop on the street, because if I'm betting my life on it I want the best. Had I been in a state where LE is now cut off and I was shopping for a high end 1911, a ultra-high quality scope mount for an optic for my carbine or shotgun, some PMags, etc., and I got informed I was working for an agency on the banned list -- that would annoy the hell out of me and that, in turn, might make me get out and vote against the morons whose irresponsible actions were putting my life at greater risk when I clocked in every day.

powder
March 2, 2013, 08:40 AM
It is important to note that we are against gun control; we are not against any particular government agency or individuals.

Then why use the word police in your activist movement?

Municipal, County, State, and Federal LEOs are sworn to uphold the Constitution-right out of the box.

You don't get to even hit the street or your first pile of HR paperwork before we take that oath. So, why in the world do you believe that applying imaginary pressure to
LEOs and agencies is going to change anything?

In borrowing an anti-gunners' term like "loophole" (2) things are done: you show that desperation is your best friend in a time of need, and blanket pairing it with law enforcement officers? For every agency in the United States? You harken back to the NRA of the early 90s in their stance against LEOs.

Sad days for ALL who own firearms and those who NEED them in duty. I can certainly appreciate the emotional sentiment behind this. However, if you want the austerity of UK-style bobbies who just walk around with hickory sticks, you're headed in the right direction with these companies. Criminals love it and so do the antis.

Sam1911
March 2, 2013, 08:48 AM
Surely powder, all of us understand what you're saying. However, it is not "our" side that creates the "us-vs-them" mentality. When civilian peace officers are granted the right to own and carry weapons with which to defend themselves, that are illegal for the rest of the citizens to own and carry -- THAT creates and/or fosters the "us-vs-them" view.

Truth is, when facing criminals we're all in this together with much the same risks and dangers, and we should be afforded the same RIGHTS. If the world was fair and logical, police officers would stand with the non-sworn citizens in this (and many, MANY of them DO!). But that is unfortunately not universal.

One good way to encourage the enlightenment of sworn police officers to the plight of their non-sworn neighbors is to hold them to the same standard. To REMOVE that "they're different from us" condition. Police officers don't like it any more than the rest of us, and that gets them putting pressure on their higher-ups, and gets them voting for freedom.

Of course, some never will get this, never will understand why a citizen needs or should be allowed the special tools they are granted. But such troglodytes always have existed and always will.

Sam1911
March 2, 2013, 08:50 AM
And why call it a "police loophole?" Specifically because the POLICE are those exempted from the draconian new restrictions. Again, us the citizens didn't come up with that. The OTHER side did.

We say, "what's good for the goose is good for the gander," and if defending yourself with a 7-round weapon and/or with a shotgun instead of an AR-15 is good enough for Joe Homeowner, then it surely is good enough for Jim State Trooper.

If you feel it ISN'T good enough ... put pressure where you can to change that.

powder
March 2, 2013, 09:24 AM
My idea of "pressure" is actually taking action, in being a multi-disciplined NRA Instructor, and teaching the safe use of firearms. Particularly to kids.

It is a horrible day in RKBA history to see us eating ourselves.

Another aspect of being a LEO is to never aid/train an individual or group, who is actively against the U.S. Government. I do NOT stand with the POTUS on these issues, as one photo above would have you believe represents all LEOs. Nor am I against free speech or dissent, but to put such a blanket on all LEOs and their agencies? Insane. Yes, you have now breached back into the US history of the 1980s, Posse-Commitatus style, et al..

I don't have a more reasonable solution than to train America's youth in safe firearms use, but it looks like those credentials and ideals can be burned with your other bridges. Good day.

PedalBiker
March 2, 2013, 09:40 AM
Then why use the word police in your activist movement?


Sad days for ALL who own firearms and those who NEED them in duty. I can certainly appreciate the emotional sentiment behind this. However, if you want the austerity of UK-style bobbies who just walk around with hickory sticks, you're headed in the right direction with these companies. Criminals love it and so do the antis.



In Colorado who were the LE officials who spoke out in our favor? I heard Justin Smith, Larmier County Sheriff did a good job. Who else stood with him - were there any police willing to stand for us?

powder
March 2, 2013, 09:57 AM
Who else stood with him - were there any police willing to stand for us?

Everyday, they all do when they put on that uniform.

Inside every one of the most seasoned and cynical LE veterans is still the rookie that just wants to help the people in their community. Turn your back on them all, now?

You cannot un-ring this bell, just as it is still ringing from from the early 90s, when the NRA lead that anti-LE charge. Try to paint it as anything else you might want to, with colorful words and phrases, but hedging away from it only highlights it more as being anti-LE.

ilbob
March 2, 2013, 10:09 AM
It is time to close ALL of the police loopholes.

Sam1911
March 2, 2013, 10:24 AM
My idea of "pressure" is actually taking action, in being a multi-disciplined NRA Instructor, and teaching the safe use of firearms. Particularly to kids. I'm not sure I gather what kind of "pressure" that brings? How does that encourage law enforcement officers to add their voices to ours in opposing these laws?

Sam1911
March 2, 2013, 10:26 AM
It is a horrible day in RKBA history to see us eating ourselves. Is it "eating ourselves" to say that a rule applied to one law-abiding citizen must apply to all law-abiding citizens? I don't agree with that. A standard is a standard. Why is one "class" of citizen to be granted more ability to defend themselves than others?

I'm sure you don't believe that a police officer has more right to defensive arms than any other citizen, but that's what these laws are saying. All these companies are saying in reply is, "let us then apply a consistent standard."

walking arsenal
March 2, 2013, 10:26 AM
Sheep in wolf's clothing.

Are police just normal guys like us doing a tough job or are they a special class of citizen that deserves special treatment because of a job they chose to do?

All these companies are doing is causing the police to think and remember that they're just normal men and women. Just like us. Not special. Not privileged. Not different. Not elite. Just like us. Just regular people doing a tough job.

Same with politicians.

Just regular people who need to be held to the same laws and standards that we are.

Sam1911
March 2, 2013, 10:30 AM
Another aspect of being a LEO is to never aid/train an individual or group, who is actively against the U.S. Government. I do NOT stand with the POTUS on these issues, as one photo above would have you believe represents all LEOs. Nor am I against free speech or dissent, but to put such a blanket on all LEOs and their agencies? Insane. Yes, you have now breached back into the US history of the 1980s, Posse-Commitatus style, et al.. Well I think you need to explain this better. I'm not sure I see all how these concepts all mesh.

No one in these companies, or the groups and individuals calling them to action, is "against the US government." We/they are merely opposed to one policy of various state governments, and a policy that is being considered by the federal government. We are not (YET) in open revolt. We surely, SURELY, hope and pray never to be so.

I'm not understanding applying a "blanket on all LEOs and their agencies." These company statements ONLY apply to agencies and officers who are under very specific jurisdictions which have passed blanket laws to restrict their citizens' rights. They have added exemptions for one special class of citizen. These companies and individuals are merely saying, "NO" to such exemptions. Surely you'd agree that this is utterly fair and righteous.

Sam1911
March 2, 2013, 10:31 AM
I don't have a more reasonable solution than to train America's youth in safe firearms use, but it looks like those credentials and ideals can be burned with your other bridges. Good day.

What? I'm sorry, I don't follow this paragraph at all. Who's burning someone's credentials and ideals?

Sam1911
March 2, 2013, 10:36 AM
were there any police willing to stand for us?
Everyday, they all do when they put on that uniform. Well, not really. We thank the officers who put on the uniform and go out to do their jobs, sincerely. However, that is not at all the same thing as standing up for the rights of their fellow citizens -- nor is it rejecting the idea that they are above the law that applies to a law-abiding citizen of their state. Going to work every day is a good thing. But it doesn't offer the hand of support and equality to those neighbors held under oppression by these laws. And that's what we're asking for.

Inside every one of the most seasoned and cynical LE veterans is still the rookie that just wants to help the people in their community. Turn your back on them all, now? Not in any way. As I said, these measures do NOT say "cops don't need ARs," or "cops don't need high-cap mags." They say, "We are all equal. Restrict one of us, restrict ALL of us. We stand together."

Deanimator
March 2, 2013, 03:11 PM
Sad days for ALL who own firearms and those who NEED them in duty. I can certainly appreciate the emotional sentiment behind this. However, if you want the austerity of UK-style bobbies who just walk around with hickory sticks, you're headed in the right direction with these companies. Criminals love it and so do the antis.

Police have no legal duty to protect individuals.
Police have no legal liability when they fail to protect individuals.
Police have virtually no physical ability to protect individuals.

When your life is in danger RIGHT NOW, you're either going to protect YOURSELF, or you're just not going to get "protected" AT ALL. Anybody who tells you different is a liar.

You could arm my local police force with Louisville sluggers and it wouldn't affect my personal safety in any meaningful way. They're not "protecting" me as an individual. The ONLY person doing that is ME. Them not having firearms would only affect their ability to enforce certain laws, which I may or may not support.

Deanimator
March 2, 2013, 03:13 PM
I don't have a more reasonable solution than to train America's youth in safe firearms use, but it looks like those credentials and ideals can be burned with your other bridges.
And when there are no firearms to train them to safely use?

You'll still have yours, so no harm no foul?

Deanimator
March 2, 2013, 03:15 PM
Municipal, County, State, and Federal LEOs are sworn to uphold the Constitution-right out of the box.
And did the municipal, county, state and federal LEOs who unlawfully confiscated firearms during and after Katrina do that?

Deanimator
March 2, 2013, 03:25 PM
Inside every one of the most seasoned and cynical LE veterans is still the rookie that just wants to help the people in their community. Turn your back on them all, now?
You first sentence implies a power of telepathy which I doubt you possess.

Any cop who confiscated guns during Katrina or who enforces ANY laws like those just passed in New York has turned his back on the United States constitution and his fellow Americans.

joeschmoe
March 2, 2013, 03:35 PM
I do NOT stand with the POTUS on these issues, as one photo above would have you believe represents all LEOs. Nor am I against free speech or dissent, but to put such a blanket on all LEOs and their agencies? Insane. Yes, you have now breached back into the US history of the 1980s, Posse-Commitatus style, et al.




You seem to be missing the important issue here. That these laws have been supported by LEO's and their organizations. They have gotten special exemptions from them that make them immune from the laws they are supporting and enforcing against the citizens at large. They chose to publicly support these laws. They should have remained neutral or come out against them. Instead they chose to publicly support these laws. They were wrong to do that, now they deserve the same rules they advocate for others.
As I posted with the photo above, many individual officers often claim they don't support these laws, but their official organizations very publicly do support them. Why should the officers in the photo above not be subject to the same rules they are advocating for everyone else?
I don't see how you can draw an analogy between treating LEO's the same as citizens is somehow hateful of LEO's. The point is to eliminate the hypocrisy (double standard), but to you that is "anti-LE". :banghead: Then that is exactly what we intend to change by this. If those officers and their organizations support these rules, then let them live by it as well. Since they have chosen sides already, then they must be shown to be on the wrong side.
They polarized this and choose sides first. We hope to make them change sides. They don't get to abuse their influence politically then ask to be immune from the politics.

Don't like it? Then stop publicly supporting these laws or taste your own medicine.

"VP Biden Says He Needs Cops’ Help to Reinstate ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban and Much More"

representing law enforcement were
-the leaders of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association,
-the Fraternal Order of Police,
-the International Association of Chiefs of Police,
-the Major County Sheriffs’ Association,
-the National Association of Police Organizations,
-the National Latino Peace Officers Association,
-the National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence,
-the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives,
-the National Sheriffs’ Association,
-the National Troopers Coalition,
-the Police Executive Research Forum &
-the Major Cities Chiefs Association, and
-the Police Executive Research Forum.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/12/vp-biden-says-he-needs-cops-help-to-reinstate-assault-weapons-ban-and-much-more/

Sam1911
March 2, 2013, 03:40 PM
It IS important not to be (or to be thought to be) "Anti-L.E."

But that isn't what's happening here.

Cast your mind back to the Jim Crow laws of the post-Civil War Reconstruction era.

Now the black community says, "If you want to pass a law that say we may not have guns, at the very least you must require that white folks don't have guns either."

Is this "anti-white?"

If not, then what these companies and groups and individuals are saying is not at all "anti-LE."

Skylerbone
March 2, 2013, 04:02 PM
LEO stands for Law Enforcement Officer. Law Enforcement has nothing to do with being a friend to the Community you live in. You're sworn to serve and protect the Law, not citizens, unless or until a law is broken. To assume any law is for protection of citizens and is therefore worthy of enforcement implies anything put to paper is inherently good. Seeing the Officer who enforces such law as a person worthy of absolute support is equivalent to commending SS Troops for what they did in Nazi Germany. Enforcing Law for a living does not make the individual any more important or moral a man than any other.

OldMac
March 2, 2013, 04:08 PM
Some of the statements from these companies are inspiring and a sign that true patriots are everywhere and these companies should be supported over any of the greedy boot lickers. Individual officers do have influence in their cities and states. If they cant get their prefered arms/ammo they are unhappy. They vote and have families and friends that vote. Their bosses are either elected or appointed by elected officials. The fop and those elected officials have a lot of influence over lawmakers. Grass root movements in the system work.

joeschmoe
March 2, 2013, 04:25 PM
The nice list is now up to 113 companies who have publicly stated policies to support this movement.

HorseSoldier
March 2, 2013, 04:47 PM
Another aspect of being a LEO is to never aid/train an individual or group, who is actively against the U.S. Government. I do NOT stand with the POTUS on these issues, as one photo above would have you believe represents all LEOs. Nor am I against free speech or dissent, but to put such a blanket on all LEOs and their agencies? Insane. Yes, you have now breached back into the US history of the 1980s, Posse-Commitatus style, et al..

As previously noted, LEOs take an oath to protect and defend the US Constitution (along with state and local laws), and advocating overthrow of the US government is a beyond-red flag political stance for not getting into law enforcement work. (This actually probably comes up more here in Alaska than elsewhere, since we have a third political party dedicated to secession from the union and independence for Alaska as a sovereign nation.)

If one takes those oaths seriously, and places a sworn oath over pensions, putting a roof over your and your family's head, etc., then, from the perspective of a former LEO, I don't know how anyone can work as a police officer in places like Chicago, NYC, or California. In those settings and various others the police are a tool of a government that is in a state of insurrection against the US Constitution by unlawfully violating Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

I absolutely understand that feeding and housing ones family and other similar obligations absolutely complicate the issue for lots of people in this situation and many, many others but there is a heavy dose of hypocrisy in trying to wrap loyalty to the US Constitution and opposition to those who would do it harm as being central to LEO work in those jurisdictions where the elected governments are the insurgency against that document and the institutions and rights it mandates.

Deanimator
March 2, 2013, 05:00 PM
I absolutely understand that feeding and housing ones family and other similar obligations absolutely complicate the issue for lots of people in this situation and many, many others but there is a heavy dose of hypocrisy in trying to wrap loyalty to the US Constitution and opposition to those who would do it harm as being central to LEO work in those jurisdictions where the elected governments are the insurgency against that document and the institutions and rights it mandates.
It's painfully simple:

An LEO can claim to support and defend the Constitution or he can enforce unjust and unconstitional laws and take advantage of the exemptions they provide (as well as the establishment of a de facto if not de jure caste system).

Pick ONE.

When somebody holds himself above his fellow citizens and is complicit in the deprivation of their fundamental rights, he cannot make any claim on their sympathies. To try to make them guilty for resenting their oppression is simply contemptible.

joeschmoe
March 2, 2013, 05:41 PM
Even if they just stayed out of the debate then I could understand not wanting to be dragged into the politics.

...but, since they are the first ones front and center at each of these attacks on our rights and propaganda campaigns to paint all gun owners as criminals against the police, then they have chosen the wrong side. They could have stayed neutral. They have not.

They put themselves into this debate. They don't get to play the victim card now.

powder
March 9, 2013, 01:46 PM
You're not encouraging anything, but creating a division between LEOs and the people in their communities, as evidenced by the multiple anti-LE comments herein.

Educating young shooters and creating more enthusiasts was part of my activism, as an NRA Instructor, and creates the "pressure" of a new generation of shooters to follow in my footsteps.

However, as the NRA has decided to repeat their failed History of the early 1990s and take a general stance against LEOs and their duty firearms, I have re-considered. In a letter to the NRA I gave them some basic options to consider. No response.

In borrowing the terminology of the antis, by co-opting the term "loophole" with law enforcement officers and their agencies around the nation, the NRA has crossed the line and rung that bell again. It's not my opinion, it's a fact of simply repeating failed history:divided we fall/fail and get legislation like the AWB of '94. Lo and behold, here it comes again almost 20 years later, and the NRA has decided to us the same tactics of divisionalism with LE and their communities served? As a reminder that We The People will not be ruled by a police state, and we have decided to label cops as enemies? That's a lose/lose scenario, as we've seen in the past.

I can appreciate the remote idea that Manufacturer's are helping by refusing to sell to LE agencies in cities/states where new legislation has unfortunately taken root. However, at the end of the day what you have there is an anti win: a gun manufacturer has stopped selling firearms to a certain demographic, and the pro 2A lobby is being divided from within.

I don't see any "pressure" being created anywhere by these tactics, with my fellow LEOs. They are simply disgusted to be put in the middle of these politics (that photo-shopped picture on first page of LE surrounding BHO), because somebody hates cops. When one of your last resorts is to alienate part of your crew, look for new leadership.

I'm not sure I gather what kind of "pressure" that brings? How does that encourage law enforcement officers to add their voices to ours in opposing these laws?

Sam1911
March 9, 2013, 02:23 PM
Powder, I think I've thought of a compromise effort we can all agree to support. Why don't you spearhead a movement among your fellow officers to VOLUNTARILY hold themselves to the standard the other citizens of their state are held to?

Surely that's not so confrontational. I can't imagine any LEO of good faith refusing to join in such a stand.

What a great way to close that us-vs.-them divide! And you don't have to wait on the disorganized non-sworn citizens to make the first step in healing the rift that seems to divide us. YOU can do this, if you are courageous enough to stand with your neighbors!

So, how about it? What should we call your new "stand together" movement?

Derek Zeanah
March 9, 2013, 02:50 PM
In borrowing the terminology of the antis, by co-opting the term "loophole" with law enforcement officers and their agencies around the nation, the NRA has crossed the line and rung that bell again. It's not my opinion, it's a fact of simply repeating failed history:divided we fall/fail and get legislation like the AWB of '94. Lo and behold, here it comes again almost 20 years later, and the NRA has decided to us the same tactics of divisionalism with LE and their communities served? As a reminder that We The People will not be ruled by a police state, and we have decided to label cops as enemies? That's a lose/lose scenario, as we've seen in the past.
Well, I have a couple of points in response.

In the nineties there was a push for national CCW reciprocity. Organizations representing law enforcement argued that this was a lot to push for, and that if we (the non-LE types) would support national LE reciprocity, then they'd support ours in turn. We did, then they came out against ours. Some of us have forgotten the details, but we'll never forget the general gist of the process. We still feel betrayed.

The second point is this: in a time when the government at all levels in increasing its power and there are nationwide campaigns to move toward civilian disarmament, we come back 'round to the purpose of the second amendment. The goal is that The People be as well armed as The Government.

Like it or not, as an employee of The Government, and granted the power to kill in the name of The Law, you're a part of that Government. You might be like-minded and believe that civilian disarmament is a bad thing, but you're still one of the guys the founders of this country worried about. Well, mostly -- law enforcement didn't exist then, just armies, but the archetype is there, and like it or not you fit it.

If there's no possible need for me to own an "assault weapon" because it's only designed for producing mass-casualties on battlefields, then I can't see a possible reason why we would issue these mass killing machines to agents of the state. It's ideologically consistent. Why issue cops with tools whose only purpose is to kill Little Innocent Babies?

Beyond that, if we mandate that law enforcement happen with tools readily available to the public at large, then we'll quickly see the end of lines of police chiefs arguing against "high capacity clips" and pushing to outlaw all semi-automatic weapons. If 6 rounds is enough for me, then it should be enough for you. If it's not enough for you, who I'm supposed to call when I'm in dire need, then maybe I need access to the same sorts of tools you have access to in order to keep my family alive until you get here.

Unless of course they want to issue their officers .38 Spl revolvers again, with double-barreled shotguns in the car. Maybe they can limit themselves to wadcutters as well, since hollowpoint ammo is only designed for killing...

powder
March 9, 2013, 02:59 PM
What we already call it is the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.

I cannot speak for all Officers. However, I already DO voluntarily hold myself to the same standard as those in our community: starts at the Golden Rule and moves through my legal and policy obligations to serve and protect the People, and uphold the Constitution. Period.

When "movements" like this get fired up, and the blanket anti-LE people come out of the woodwork, it's not my place to reason with every anti-government/LE voice out there. Particularly when their being backed and sponsored by the NRA.

Sidenote: Interesting that this got fired up AFTER the SHOT Show, and orders were taken.

If you don't remember how this ended up, with this same NRA tact back in '94, ask your Local NRA-ILA reps about it and why there are not more cops in the NRA ranks.




So, how about it? What should we call your new "stand together" movement?

powder
March 9, 2013, 03:04 PM
Wow. That's your interpretation.

"The Law"(s) which I am empowered by to use deadly force, come with a WHOLE lot more of a legal, policy, and constant training package than you have just misrepresented all LEOs to be just killers for The Government.

Where did the high road go...




Like it or not, as an employee of The Government, and granted the power to kill in the name of The Law, you're a part of that Government. You might be like-minded and believe that civilian disarmament is a bad thing, but you're still one of the guys the founders of this country worried about. Well, mostly -- law enforcement didn't exist then, just armies, but the archetype is there, and like it or not you fit it.

Deanimator
March 9, 2013, 03:14 PM
You're not encouraging anything, but creating a division between LEOs and the people in their communities, as evidenced by the multiple anti-LE comments herein.
You are encouraging a caste system of cops on top and everyone else beneath.

Clearly you don't mind a "division between LEOs and the people in their communities" so long as it works to YOUR advantage.

One law for everyone or no law for anyone.

Derek Zeanah
March 9, 2013, 03:18 PM
"The Law"(s) which I am empowered by to use deadly force, come with a WHOLE lot more of a legal, policy, and constant training package than you have just misrepresented all LEOs to be just killers for The Government.
Hey, you wanted to understand where the thinking's coming from. That's it, boiled down and distilled. Let's try it from a different angle.

Why should Chicago PD be armed to the teeth (armored personnel carriers, automatic weapons, body armor, and all the rest) while law abiding citizens of Chicago are disarmed? Why should NJ citizens be denied access to hollowpoint ammunition when their police feel they are necessary to perform their duties effectively?

Why are CA citizens required to have "bullet buttons" on their ARs, while the LAPD gets M4 variants, CS grenades, and the rest?

How is society as it exists now consistent with the goals behind the second amendment? I'd argue it's not, and it's getting worse.

There are folks out there who feel that if we the people can't be armed to effectively defend ourselves, then at the very least we can have parity with government agents.

There are others (and I'm in this group) who believe that if the same rules were applied to everyone, LE and citizen alike, then we'd have totally different arguments. If the head of (choose one) NYC law enforcement agency realized that under the new state constitutional amendment he needed to equip his officers with magazines that hold a maximum of seven rounds because he's treated to the same rules the public is, and said offers needed to comply with safe storage laws while off-duty rather than having access to CCW that citizens don't have access to, he'd no longer go out in public arguing for these same laws.

Because those laws are stupid, ineffective, and have horrible consequences for those subject to them. We all know that. But until we can get away from this "It's OK for me but not for thee" attitude that treats law enforcement as a separate class of citizen, this is going to keep getting worse.

But don't be shocked when bug chunks of the population start to sour on law enforcement (mainly because of the attitudes at the top), and that starts to color their perception of the Good Guys on the ground as well.

As an aside, the Sheriff in Tuscaloosa AL was quoted on NPR as supporting the current gun control push as the head of the national sheriff's organization (I've forgotten its name). Tuscaloosa citizens weren't impressed, and at a recent chili cookoff there (note: Alabama folks have terrible taste in chili - no heat) it was rumored he had accepted a position in California...

Skylerbone
March 9, 2013, 07:27 PM
(that photo-shopped picture on first page of LE surrounding BHO)

Here you go, it also made national news if you care to see truth for what it is: http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-02-04/politics/36737710_1_assault-weapons-gun-buyers-background-checks

Now we recognize that the "LEO vs. Citizens" agenda was created by the anti-gun anti-rights politicians but we ask again powder, who it is in those photos and videos standing with that divide and conquer crowd? Certainly doesn't appear to be the NRA. No, they're the group fighting elitism, 2A violation and yes, those behind it.

Do you stand with us powder, as a United States Citizen preserving a more perfect union or as an agent of government that enforces illegal law? Will you round us up and send us to the ovens if your law declares it so or will you stand with us in refusal?

You can claim your job necessitates certain tools but that should in no way affect my right to those same tools. How angry would you be if screwdrivers were only legal for those who used them professionally? I bet you'd have a real beef with mechanics, gunsmiths, electricians and the like because, after all, those tools, when used improperly, can endanger the lives of professionals when used by amateurs without rigorous training. How golden will your rule be if the government bans all firearms for citizens? Will you put on that uniform and turn in your guns?

A little sample of those rigorous standards held by LEOs, witness my NYPD trade-in as it arrived, full of carbon, rust, dirt and a striker channel packed with grease:

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=167508&d=1341375471

I'd wager I've put more rounds through it since July than the officer who professionally carried it for 7 years. Says a lot about your blanket statements.

Pressure is what is being applied by those opposed to the 2A. If solidarity, equal rights and the "Golden Rule" are what you desire then an armed populace is your best friend and you'll see your way to applying "pressure" to those who represent you to stand with the free citizens of OUR Nation instead of on a stage with those who would "Fundamentally Change" it.

joeschmoe
March 9, 2013, 07:49 PM
They are simply disgusted to be put in the middle of these politics (that photo-shopped picture on first page of LE surrounding BHO), because somebody hates cops.


Wow! Do you really believe that? It is LEO who have repeatedly put themselves front and center at each of these events to show their support for every gun grabbing measure for decades. I already posted lists, links and photos, but you simply refuse to believe them? Follow the links. Do your own research but you are showing yourself to be seriously misinformed.

Check my post #45 response to you. I listed 13 police organizations who presented themselves for photo ops for Biden's gun control task force. They put themselves into the political debate. Now you're "disgusted to be put in the middle of these politics"?
Then why did they put themselves in it?

http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=8781318&postcount=45

joeschmoe
March 9, 2013, 08:14 PM
They are simply disgusted to be put in the middle of these politics (that photo-shopped picture on first page of LE surrounding BHO), because somebody hates cops.


Time to open your eyes. They are already using the purchasing power of our tax dollars against us, but you don't like the idea of us doing the same? Too bad. We will.

Minneapolis, Monday Feb 4, 2013

"MINNEAPOLIS (KMSP) -

President Obama was in Minneapolis on Monday to discuss his gun control plan with law enforcement officials and address the nation on the administration's "common sense ideas" to reduce gun violence.

The president delivered his remarks at the Minneapolis Police Department Special Operations Center.

Read more: Obama gun laws: President pushes gun control plan in Minneapolis - KMSP-TV http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/story/20955969/obama-gun-laws-minneapolis-speech#ixzz2N5vfsidH
...

Obama entered a room packed with applauding officers and deputies, and he began by praising the law enforcement leaders for their efforts to reduce youth gun violence.
Before his speech, Obama met one-on-one with both law enforcement leaders and the victims of gun crimes, including Mayes' mother and Sami Rahamim, whose father was killed in the Accent Signage shooting.

"This is huge," Rahamim said. "Gun violence, or gun control, is a very divisive issue in this state."

Rahamim added that he thinks the president's visit -- and his call for people to let their representatives know their stance -- will result in action.
"There won't be perfect solutions, we won't save every life, but we can make a difference," Obama said in his speech.
Starting on Tuesday, Minnesota lawmakers will begin discussing a total of 15 gun safety bills at the Capitol. Six will be introduced in House committee on Tuesday alone.
Some of the bills call for bans on high capacity ammunition magazines, tougher background checks for gun buyers and more restrictions on gun show sales.

"Our law enforcement officers should never be out-gunned on the streets," Obama said, directly addressing high-capacity ammunition.

On a more local level, the city of Minneapolis spent $800,000 on guns and ammunition in the last few years, and Mayor R.T. Rybak says that purchasing power gives the city influence with gun manufacturers who don't meet the city's standards of safety.

"President Obama gave a great speech today, but the most important thing he did was listen -- for nearly an hour -- to people who, day after day, are building peace on our streets. He knows that they, and all Americans, can help everyone in Washington understand that we need common-sense laws that make all of us safer," Rybak said.

Rybak said that collaboration has been key in finding solutions. In fact, the idea to use the city's financial clout in its gun purchases came from a recent summit with Midwest leaders, mayors and law enforcement officers about ways to reduce gun violence.

Read more: Obama gun laws: President pushes gun control plan in Minneapolis - KMSP-TV http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/story/20955969/obama-gun-laws-minneapolis-speech#ixzz2N5w2L8sP



http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/04/obama-talks-gun-control-in-minneapolis/

http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/story/20956009/live-video-president-obama-gun-control-speech-in-minneapolis

http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/story/20956009/live-video-president-obama-gun-control-speech-in-minneapolis

http://kmsp.images.worldnow.com/images/20956009_BG2.jpg

r1derbike
March 9, 2013, 10:21 PM
Do you know what is absolutely sickening about this? None of us law-abiding citizens have the desire or need to shoot-it-out in the streets with law enforcement. Many of the so-called common sense laws put forth by this administration, will do absolutely nothing to make us safer, from the criminals with 30 round magazines, handguns, full-auto weapons, or any other banned firearms that are on the streets, that criminals will always be able to get.

I see hordes of LE clapping and nodding and all the while I'm thinking, my God, this whole facade is window dressing so that LEOs may feel safer in their jobs, in out of control metropolitan areas, and an incremental disarmament of we, the people, who employ our government servants. Our government servants have forgotten their lot in life, and don't like to be told that. Elitists and representatives with delusions of grandeur in our government need to be brought down a few notches, as well as their minions, and that includes law enforcement officers in some areas.

Doesn't matter that we law-abiding citizens may get shot to death by criminals, as WE will be the ones who are outgunned. Our safety is not even a consideration! Guess what? Law-abiding citizens aren't the enemy!

Some of my best friends are LEOs here. And they cannot believe the atrocities passed-off as LEO or citizen life saving legislation, to make our city streets safer.

The divisiveness we citizens feel at this point, is the same shared by many, many brothers in blue, all across this nation. And it stinks. Absolute effluent.

Tom from WNY
March 9, 2013, 11:12 PM
To the Law Enforcement posters here who think that it is terrible that we, the people believe that the "police loophole" should be closed, I offer the following:

Law Enforcement is not Military Operations. Period. Remember Posse Comitatus? The concept that there is a distinct division between the function of enforcing the laws enacted by a legislative body duly elected by the people to represent their interests in Governance and a military force authorized by that Government to defend the body of the Governed from external attack? There is a difference. When we have a breach of that division by such persons as Emperor Cuomo and Dictator Bloomberg who refer to "assault weapons" (we call them semi-automatic modern sporting rifles) and handguns with standard capacity magazines as "weapons of warfare" and "deadly killing machines" when possessed by civilians and "lifesaving tools" when possessed by law enforcement, then there is a disconnect, especially when the firearms in question are one and the same. I call it HYPOCRACY and, when I was younger, hypocrites were not looked upon with favor.

Law Enforcement officers are essentially CIVILIANS granted the authority by the Government to investigate and impinge on the Civil Rights guaranteed by citizens under Constitutionally derived laws. Such laws are enacted by such Government authorized legislatures, the members of which are duly elected by the people to represent their interests. In a Constitutional Republic such as the United States of America, the legislative process is designed to protect the rights of the minority as well as represent the majority (unless perverted by the Administration and the Legislature as was done to pass the NY SAFE act). They are not MILITARY personnel who are authorized by the Government to wage an offensive action to destroy the capability of a foreign entity to attack and destroy the Government, the people it represents and the land and economy the Government protects. Again, when the Law Enforcement entities and its personnel demand the same types of equipment the MILITARY uses, then the Civilian Citizens of that Government are subject to the depravations of those authoritarian Law Enforcement personnel.

The authority of Law Enforcement to use force is limited to defense of self and protection of innocent citizens from violence by others. The latter is usually defined as being used to prevent the escape of a felon who may be deemed likely to commit further violent depravation should they escape from the immediate presence of a Law Enforcement officer. Realistically, this may be accomplished with the same firearms that are legally permissible for Citizen Civilians to own. The NEED for fully automatic weapons, percussive munitions (flashbang grenades), chemical or incendiary munitions and heavy armored vehicles (MRAV's) is unnecessary for Civilian Law Enforcement, UNLESS those Law Enforcement personnel wish to gain a tactical advantage on the population. That makes their operations no different from MILITARY MARTIAL LAW as practiced by an Occupying Military Force. That has been banned in the United States by virtue of the Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

The notion that the "police loophole" is necessary for "officer safety" is hypocritical; by and large a product of a mindset that the Public and Law Enforcement "are at war with each other". While at one time, I thought that "officer safety" was a good concept, it has led to a mindset by some, not all, and hopefully, not a majority, of law enforcement officers that the use of "overwhelming force" when dealing with the public is necessary for them to come home safe at the end of the shift. This mindset has led to tragic results in some circumstances. It must be addressed by police administrators; the incident where 2 Latina women in the Los Angeles CA area were shot up by 2 police officers for the crime of driving the same make (not color or plate number) of truck as Christopher Dorner is but the most glaring example. One may understand the sensitivity and criticality of the conditions and circumstances, but the outcome was tragically driven by a "at war" mindset. A cousin of mine now is very well aware of this concept of Overwhelming Force used in the name of "officer safety" (fortunately he is alive, but had a physical disability further exacerbated for the "crime" of leaving his house to investigate why there were flashing lights in the street directly in front of his house).

To the need for "lifesaving tools"; I can speak to the situation in my area of residence in New York State. That is that a call for assistance to 911 MAY be answered between 5 to 25 minutes. That is from experience. A civilian undergoing a home invasion or violent felony does not have the luxury of backup by multiple armed assistants as would a Law Enforcement Officer. The need for a firearm that is the same as what a Law Enforcement officer has available to them is just as great and just for the civilian.

The People calling out the "police loophole" and supporting those manufacturers and vendors who refuse to sell "assault rifles" and standard capacity handgun magazines that civilians are prohibited from owning are supporting the rights of others. Keep in mind, that as of today, as I post this, that the NY SAFE act still has not specifically exempted Law Enforcement officers from the onerous provisions of this act. All we are asking manufacturer's and vendors to do is be law-abiding and follow the law.

Claude Clay
March 9, 2013, 11:38 PM
Powder....interesting that you repeatedly call the NRA to task, as you speak about them in a manor beyond dislike;
yet I hesitate to call it hatred; it rings closer to contempt.

you revel in your NRA sanctioned teaching regards youth.
I'm gonna go with your a member cause you need the credentials.
rather hypocritical, no?
a question-- Outside any possible police duties, do you teach Non-LEO adults?

Derek said "The goal is that The People be as well armed as The Government"
a fine though at a time when it was possible. there were no planes or tanks, sub's or trains or even a phone or satellite to tap.

today citizens own what can best be described as 'small arms'. guns, long & short and a very few full autos. oh, and a smattering of various small cannons. we have
-no tanks; unlike the alphabet group of 3200 IED proof APC's that scurred about the east coast this week. What possible dangers are you preparing for? please tell me why tools for War are on MY strrets.
us--no planes, fighters, predators ( well, were safe from them now, right) though you have No-Knocks, spy on us with cameras & listen with (among others...) laser devices.

and my apologies to any police that respect the Constitution in their interactions with "non-LEO's" (a term commonly heard spoken by LEO's and its seldom said in a positive manor. i know cause I've been 'outsourced' by them over the years.

police are not special. they are Americans who choose a profession for personal reasons knowing full well its conditions. to think that position places you above the law or grants you extra power is wrong thinking.
It is anti-Americian.

-----------------------
Kent State

Katrina

Not Being Our Friends Since 1970

Sam1911
March 10, 2013, 09:21 AM
What we already call it is the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.

I cannot speak for all Officers. However, I already DO voluntarily hold myself to the same standard as those in our community: starts at the Golden Rule and moves through my legal and policy obligations to serve and protect the People, and uphold the Constitution. Period.

I'm sorry, but I want to make sure I understand, you do hold yourself to follow all gun laws that your fellow citizens must follow? That's fantastic, and brave of you!

Why can you not speak for other officers? You should be encouraging them to uphold your own high standard!

This WILL bring law enforcement and the "average" citizen back together and start to heal the rift caused by heated rhetoric and the increasing militarization of law enforcement in the US!

Good on you!

powder
March 10, 2013, 10:43 AM
Absolutely, I am not "above the law", simply because I have discretionary powers. However, and there has to be a however with an analogy, we sworn LE are different than our citizens in that it is part of our job description to carry firearms where/when/how others cannot. School zones for one example. With body armor is another example, etc..

Here are some basic analogies which will probably not fly with this crowd, but: I can drive a school bus, but I do not have the credentials to do so legally. I know how to work on our home's electrical systems but I'm not licensed to do certain tasks as an electrician. To make some money on the side I can "flip" cars and motorcycles for sales, but I would need a dealer's license to do it legally.

It's simply about education, training, and credentials-it's NOT about LEOs feeling they have more rights than, or privileges that we can hold over our communities. As far as local gun laws are concerned, no. IF these restrictions come into our jurisdiction for the community, but our agency does NOT have the same restrictions, our LEOs WILL carry what is agency policy. Not my call to make.

It is my call to make IF we have to abide by magazine restrictions and are going to serve arrest warrants on drug dealers, who are known to have guns and dogs, and sentinel systems of personnel.

No, I don't speak for other Officers in the same vein as I have the freedom to speak out for myself: it is their right to abstain from such a volatile and political scenario.

Yes, I do have a disdain for the NRA on this topic, as it fuels and incites cop killings. Plain and simple. Read the venom here aimed at a complete LE stranger.

Playing the victim card? Absolutely not, just discussing the facts such as the photo-shopped/fake photo of BHO surrounded by LEO on page 1: it's a blatant lie and a misrepresentation.

Just discussing the fact that manufacturers have decided to NOT sell firearms, as a form of protest against people who WANT them to STOP SELLING firearms and trying to use LE agencies as a lever, while alienating said LE agencies? This tactic is a living definition of the word oxymoron. That's not an insult and it's not my opinion, it's just plain truth.

We have to agree to disagree, and remain civil about it.




I'm sorry, but I want to make sure I understand, you do hold yourself to follow all gun laws that your fellow citizens must follow? That's fantastic, and brave of you!

Why can you not speak for other officers? You should be encouraging them to uphold your own high standard!

Deanimator
March 10, 2013, 11:23 AM
Yes, I do have a disdain for the NRA on this topic, as it fuels and incites cop killings. Plain and simple.
Ah, I get it. Failure to blindly support ANYTHING cops do, and to support elevating police as an unaccountable caste above the citizenry "incites" cop killings.

Maybe criticism of the police should be made a criminal offense, you know, "incitement" or something...

Deanimator
March 10, 2013, 11:26 AM
We have to agree to disagree, and remain civil about it.
...while accusing people of "inciting cop killings".

Yep, that's mighty civil.

Well, actually it's petulant and juvenile.

Sol
March 10, 2013, 12:11 PM
Ha! That picture on the first page cracked me up.

I can only imagine the event organizer for that one.
"Uhh, we are going to need some police to stand behind the president. Get me a schmattering of brown blue and black uniforms. Get me a couple o' white guys, throw in a few blacks, pepper in some women and Latinos....hmm one more thing, get me an Asian or two to round off my diverse "American Police force".

For my on topic comment, police will always have guns, when Peter won't give it to you, Paul is right there to fill it in.

Sam1911
March 10, 2013, 12:37 PM
Absolutely, I am not "above the law", simply because I have discretionary powers. However, and there has to be a however with an analogy, we sworn LE are different than our citizens in that it is part of our job description to carry firearms where/when/how others cannot. School zones for one example. With body armor is another example, etc..
Powder, school zones aren't prohibited places in many states, and I think the number of states that prohibit a citizen from wearing armor hovers around only one or two.
Regardless, pointing out how LEOs are placed above other citizens does't help remove the distrust you see from non-sworn citizens. Nor does it help support your pledge to not avail yourself of a weapon forbidden to your fellow citizens.

Sam1911
March 10, 2013, 12:49 PM
It's simply about education, training, and credentials-it's NOT about LEOs feeling they have more rights than, or privileges that we can hold over our communities.

Well that can't be it. I, and many other average joe citizens have far more firearms training, and it seems more legal education as well, than all but a very few law officers. So it all comes down to the credential? I think that might be what we all have a problem with.


As far as local gun laws are concerned, no. IF these restrictions come into our jurisdiction for the community, but our agency does NOT have the same restrictions, our LEOs WILL carry what is agency policy. Not my call to make.
Oh. That's a very sad, small-minded cop-out. You should demand better of yourself.

Sam1911
March 10, 2013, 12:53 PM
it is their right to abstain from such a volatile and political scenario.
Well then they probably should stop giving the anti- gun president such a shiny backdrop for his disarmament press conferences. And major LEOs really should stop calling for guns to be taken out of the hands of everyone but their men.

You seem to be saying that whatever political stands LEs make, the rest of the citizens should accept those statements from the bully pulpit of their official position and anti-gun grandstanding without taking any offense. Let them use their publicly provided authority to work to disarm their neighbors, and we should, what? Just grin and bear it?

I don't think that will produce the kind of change we want.

Sam1911
March 10, 2013, 01:00 PM
It is my call to make IF we have to abide by magazine restrictions and are going to serve arrest warrants on drug dealers, who are known to have guns and dogs, and sentinel systems of personnel.
Not sure if I understand you exactly here. Did you just say that you face danger and might need these weapons, that are forbidden to an average citizen? :eek:

Ask yourself again why there's a rift between us!

Sam1911
March 10, 2013, 01:03 PM
Read the venom here aimed at a complete LE stranger.
If you see anyone posting anti-cop "venom" hit the report post button. We have strict rules against cop-bashing here.

Deanimator
March 10, 2013, 01:05 PM
it is their right to abstain from such a volatile and political scenario.

They're literally up to their necks in the "volatile and political scenario" of repressive, unconstitutional gun control.

There are ALWAYS rank and file cops willing to lend themselves to the most dishonest, propagandistic photo ops pushing gun control.

There were always cops willing to stand around Richard M. Daley, just as there are cops willing to be props for Bloomberg, Obama, Biden, Feinstein etc.

Does pointing out this UNDENIABLE truth "incite cop killings"?

If TRUTH "incites cop killings", does that mean we have a duty to LIE???

cluck
March 10, 2013, 01:13 PM
I'm finding in my personal experience with LEO's that Chiefs, Commissioners, and Sheriffs seem to be the ones coming out publicly against 2nd amendment rights while run of the mill patrol officers (the ones I talk to) are all FOR citizen armament. Anybody else see this?

Deanimator
March 10, 2013, 01:30 PM
Anybody else see this?
My observation says it's mixed, and dependent upon where you are.

Rural and small town cops generally seem less inclined to support repressive gun controls.

Big city cops seem much more receptive, both to citizen disarmament, and a privileged position above such laws.

The truth is, anti-gun politicians can ALWAYS find rank and file cops to act as props.

mister_murphy
March 10, 2013, 02:36 PM
I seem to notice that its generally larger city Chiefs and some Sheriffs, perhaps a few state guys being used as a back drop, who also tend to speak out on their views, as if its the view of te entire department/city administration.

What I dont see is a ton of the media rushing out to interview a patrol officer/deputy who does not support gun control. The rank and file guys dont have the clout, or else they more then likely would have been promoted for one reason or another in some departments. Many departments I know of have a policy forbiding the rank and file from using their position for political issues.

I also dont see companies who want LEO to speak out against gun control, who are offering a possible job, when said LEO is fired for violating department policy by using his position to speak politically either.

Unfortunately there is no right answer. Folks want LEO's to speak out now about this topic politcally, but I doubt they want LEO's to speak out politically on other topics. I personally do not want law enforcement in politics at all. LE should be impartial and enforce the laws enacted, by the elected reps, who were voted in to ofice by the public.

I do not think this effort to "close the police loophole" will be effective in the end. I really dont. There is no direction, as in some people I have spoke with, look at it to keep away an AWB, others looking at it to open NFA, some want to remove import restrictions, some want to "Mail order" firearms like LE does...List goes on and on, without any specific direction.

Deanimator
March 10, 2013, 03:09 PM
I also dont see companies who want LEO to speak out against gun control, who are offering a possible job, when said LEO is fired for violating department policy by using his position to speak politically either.

How about they don't speak out IN FAVOR OF gun control?

That never seems to be an option...

Skylerbone
March 10, 2013, 03:24 PM
If a LEO truly respects our Constitutional rights then there are only so many choices that can be made.

1. Refuse to enforce any law that LEOs are not subject to. Note subject implies a master and in this Republic the People are the Government and therefore should never be subjects of any elevated agency or individual.

2. Turn in his badge and speak out for freedom. One cannot be at odds with the law one enforces, we call that hipocracy whether it's "Department Policy" or not.

3. Privately encourage all companies that refuse Agency sales and the NRA as a means of upholding Constitutional Rights for all.

Agreeing to break the "Golden Rule", subjugating Citizens, claiming special needs and denying the truth of what's going on wont earn my respect. The fact powder that you cite your need for special equipment is your own indictment. Whether you claim the opposite or not you don't believe other people should have access to the same.

mister_murphy
March 10, 2013, 03:50 PM
How about they don't speak out IN FAVOR OF gun control?

That never seems to be an option...

Guess I must be on another planet... There are around 750,000 to 1,000,000 LEO's in the USA, I just havent seen anywhere near that many on the news speaking in favor of gun control. All I typically see are the NYC, northeast big cities, Chicago, and California Chiefs/Sheriffs who speak out for it... Again, the ones I see speaking out are the political appointees (large metro areas) or those elected (large metro areas) who are speaking out for gun more gun control. The ones I see speaking out against any new gun control are LE political appointees (rural areas) or those elected (rural areas).

At the end of the day, stay quiet, or speak out (either way), many will disagree totally. There is really no common ground on it.

2. Turn in his badge and speak out for freedom.

This would be a bad move as well IMO. Why give all of LE to the anti's? Why not encourage those LEO's who are pro firearm ownership to work within the laws/policy to make many departments more pro firearm ownership, including changing laws/policy, instead of letting the anti's do as they wish? I would rather work on making things better then just giving up to the anti's...But I digress, perhaps I should agree with you that all the departments should employee and be controlled by anti's, even the departments that are very much pro firearm ownership now.

mnhntr
March 10, 2013, 04:17 PM
Just my .02 as a former LEO. I salute any company who states they will not sell guns or parts to government entities that a citizen cannot buy. In my life time I have seen the LEO crowd go from Officer Friendly to the Storm Trooper mentality. I know not all LEOs fall into this statement but it is a trend. In my line of work I am side by side with LEO's on calls all day and night. When I was a kid the officers were your neighbors and friends and the way they approached things were more Mayberry for lack of a better term. It seems over the years, even in rural areas the attitude has progressed into a militant storm trooper that is above the average joe. I am not trying to bash a profession but I think we are all in this together and given the fact that you are more likely to be a victim of a crime by a LEO than a CCW permit holder, I think that we should all have the same right to the way we protect ourselves. No one is better or above another because of the job they do.

Skylerbone
March 10, 2013, 04:20 PM
Well MM, if there's only a handful of LEOs standing for totalitarianism then when the rank and file walk off the job the idea may finally hit home. Or we can go with your train of thought that fighting 2A attacks is pointless if it involves a multi-faceted approach and hope they magically reverse direction.

Deanimator
March 10, 2013, 04:26 PM
Again, the ones I see speaking out are the political appointees (large metro areas) or those elected (large metro areas) who are speaking out for gun more gun control.
There are virtually ALWAYS rank and file cops willing to be props for anti-gun photo ops. Even if they don't say a word, they're speaking out in favor of repressive anti-gun measures.

I wonder what would happen if Wayne La Pierre went to a pro-Christopher Dorner event and just stood behind the main speaker without saying a word...

joeschmoe
March 10, 2013, 04:42 PM
discussing the facts such as the photo-shopped/fake photo of BHO surrounded by LEO on page 1: it's a blatant lie and a misrepresentation.


:what:

You just refuse to accept it happened? I posted multiple sources, pics, location, time and date. Look it up yourself. Google "Obama + Minneapolis + gun control". It's even on the official White House website.
:banghead:
I guess this is how you have convinced yourself that LEO are the victims here despite their current and decades of continued support for these anti 2nd Amendment attacks.

coloradokevin
March 10, 2013, 08:05 PM
Whoa there... hold up on the "anti-gun" police for a moment, if you would please.

First, most line officers I know support gun rights (and I'm a police officer, so I know a BUNCH of them). Most police chiefs are against gun rights. Most line officers consider police chiefs to be office-dwelling politicians who have lost touch with police work.

So, to suggest that officers are against 2nd Amendment rights deserves much further scrutiny. Did you happen to notice the 30 county sheriffs who spoke in favor of gun rights during the Colorado debate (the actual top dog, not deputies)? Did you happen to notice the other officers who spoke up on this issue in favor of gun rights? Most of us can't attend hearings in uniform, or identify our department in these debates... we were given that specific order regarding the gun issue. Our brass doesn't want us taking a stance on this issue as representatives of our departments. So, we represent ourselves, and all of you.

Like the rest of our citizens, we need our gun rights. And, unlike most of the rest of our citizens, we routinely volunteer to go into situations where the use of a gun may become necessary, and sometimes does.

I don't want to take your rights away, but I don't think the best way to defend 2nd Amendment rights is by trying to make sure that the police are equally underarmed in the performance of their duties. Shall we disarm the military while we're at it?

Personally, I like the Magpul approach, even if it is a ceremonial statement more than anything:

Require officers in ban states to pledge to defend the constitution, and support gun rights for all citizens.

Doing that sends a message, without just sounding like we're trying to strip more people of their guns.


Just my $0.02

joeschmoe
March 10, 2013, 08:21 PM
Whoa there... hold up on the "anti-gun" police for a moment, if you would please.

First, most line officers I know support gun rights (and I'm a police officer, so I know a BUNCH of them). Most police chiefs are against gun rights. Most line officers consider police chiefs to be office-dwelling politicians who have lost touch with police work.

So, to suggest that officers are against 2nd Amendment rights deserves much further scrutiny....

Doing that sends a message, without just sounding like we're trying to strip more people of their guns.


Do you, like Powder above, think these things never happened. Scrutinize this;

"VP Biden Says He Needs Cops’ Help to Reinstate ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban and Much More"

representing law enforcement were
-the leaders of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association,
-the Fraternal Order of Police,
-the International Association of Chiefs of Police,
-the Major County Sheriffs’ Association,
-the National Association of Police Organizations,
-the National Latino Peace Officers Association,
-the National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence,
-the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives,
-the National Sheriffs’ Association,
-the National Troopers Coalition,
-the Police Executive Research Forum &
-the Major Cities Chiefs Association, and
-the Police Executive Research Forum.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/12/vp-biden-says-he-needs-cops-help-to-reinstate-assault-weapons-ban-and-much-more/


Obama's Gun Control speech. Minn, Feb 4, 2013

http://www.theblogismine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Obama-assault-weapons-ban-vote-in-Congress-01.jpg

Deanimator
March 10, 2013, 08:29 PM
I don't want to take your rights away, but I don't think the best way to defend 2nd Amendment rights is by trying to make sure that the police are equally underarmed in the performance of their duties.
So ONLY citizens should be "underarmed"?

If a citizen in New York only needs seven rounds, why does a cop in New York need more?

Shall we disarm the military while we're at it?
Do you believe that the police should be armed as the military are armed, with indirect fire weapons such as mortars, artillery and multiple launch rocket systems? How about M16A1 bounding mines?

Do you consider that the police should carry out their duties in a manner similar to that of the military? Should the police have handled the Christopher Dorner incident the way the 1st Cavalry Division handled the taking of Manila? Would you consider the rules of engagement in play in Aachen to be appropriate for Chicago or Cleveland?

joeschmoe
March 10, 2013, 08:31 PM
Apparently police think this is fiction? You need to open your eyes. Do your own research since you refuse to believe anything we post no matter how many sources we provide.

For years the anti's have been supported by the Police Associations, Unions and associations of Police Chiefs, Sheriffs organizations, etc.
Individual officers often claim these organizations don't represent them, but of course they do represent them in a literal and figurative sense.

The anti's have been drawing a bright clear line, claiming that LEO's stand with them. We need to put an end to this;

Obama's AWB speech.

http://www.theblogismine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Obama-assault-weapons-ban-vote-in-Congress-01.jpg

Deanimator
March 10, 2013, 08:35 PM
Obama's Gun Control speech. Minn, Feb 4, 2013

http://www.theblogismine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Obama-assault-weapons-ban-vote-in-Congress-01.jpg

Are we to believe that the uniformed LEOs in this picture are:

rogues acting against policy
actors
imposters

Either there are rank and file cops MORE than willing to support a governmental monopoly on the means of armed force... when it redounds to their advantage, or there AREN'T.

"Photoshopped"... like the moon landings?

Sam1911
March 10, 2013, 08:37 PM
Kevin, I appreciate your thoughts. I am torn, slightly, on this issue as I know that there are many GOOD cops and sheriffs and deputies who will be inconvenienced (at least!) by these efforts. That is very unfortunate. I wish is was not so. But putting them under the same constraint may be the only way to show some of them what it is like to live under the laws we'd like their help to resist.

First, most line officers I know support gun rights (and I'm a police officer, so I know a BUNCH of them). Most police chiefs are against gun rights. Most line officers consider police chiefs to be office-dwelling politicians who have lost touch with police work. Yes, that does seem to be the case. However, when "Law Enforcement" steps up to stand against the rights of the citizen, then the citizen and those who support/supply them certainly have the right to stand up and demand that what's good for one citizen is good for every other. No special classes when it comes to the right to arms.

Did you happen to notice the 30 county sheriffs who spoke in favor of gun rights during the Colorado debate (the actual top dog, not deputies)? Did you happen to notice the other officers who spoke up on this issue in favor of gun rights? Yes! And that's beautiful and well appreciated. That's the kind of Law Enforcement we can support.

Most of us can't attend hearings in uniform, or identify our department in these debates... we were given that specific order regarding the gun issue. Our brass doesn't want us taking a stance on this issue as representatives of our departments. So, we represent ourselves, and all of you.
Right. That's your department declaring what Law Enforcement will say on the matter. Notice how they at the upper levels don't hold themselves above the battle? They don't want your voices clouding the issue. Their voices and opinions are what matter. And they (not just in CO, but all across the country, usually quite against citizens' rights) are not above making political stands.

Like the rest of our citizens, we need our gun rights. And, unlike most of the rest of our citizens, we routinely volunteer to go into situations where the use of a gun may become necessary, and sometimes does.This is where I run the risk of offending every cop in the world, but I'll speak the truth. The fact that you draw a paycheck based on your willful decision to go into situations where a gun might be necessary makes your inherent right to those weapons NOT ONE BIT MORE VALID than your neighbor for whom the violence may come to him, in his home, based on no willful act of his.

So "but I might need those guns" is a horrid thing to say for your own sake when your neighbor is being disarmed.

I don't want to take your rights away, but I don't think the best way to defend 2nd Amendment rights is by trying to make sure that the police are equally underarmed in the performance of their duties. None of us truly WANTS the police "underarmed." However, if that is a tool to achieve a higher end, than sometimes such sacrifices are warranted. I am sorry, truly, if you find yourself in a bad way due to such efforts -- but I'm even sorrier for the non-sworn citizen who's arms are limited by his government.

Surely, if he can make due with 10 round mags, etc. -- then so can you.

Shall we disarm the military while we're at it?The military is not a civilian entity. They are not allowed to operate as a military force on US soil (under almost any conditions). That's a red herring.

Skylerbone
March 10, 2013, 08:38 PM
I am squarely against abortion and gun control which is why I will never work for Planned Parenthood or the Brady Campaign. I don't traffic in narcotics to support my local churches and I don't see how any officer anywhere can work for an agency enforcing laws contradictory to the Constitution in good faith. No, I'm just the armed messenger here to haul you off to jail to await your hearing doesn't cut it. Men of integrity don't assist the enemy, they would sooner find another line of work.

joeschmoe
March 10, 2013, 09:11 PM
Are we to believe that the uniformed LEOs in this picture are:

rogues acting against policy
actors
imposters

Either there are rank and file cops MORE than willing to support a governmental monopoly on the means of armed force... when it redounds to their advantage, or there AREN'T.
"Photoshopped"... like the moon landings?


At least when politicians pose in front of Military personnel we all understand they are following orders and have no choice by to be used as props. So we don't apply any support by the troops to the hack standing in front of them. The public believes, as the anti's claim, that they have the support of "rank and file" LEO's on the street.
Decades of unbroken support by every single LEO organization cannot be confused for anything except the unanimous support of LEO's for attacks on the 2nd Amendment.

Deanimator
March 10, 2013, 09:22 PM
At least when politicians pose in front of Military personnel we all understand they are following orders and have no choice by to be used as props.
But can't those cops be sent to Leavenworth (or the Russian front) if they refuse to be props for gun control???

HOOfan_1
March 10, 2013, 09:22 PM
None of us truly WANTS the police "underarmed." However, if that is a tool to achieve a higher end, than sometimes such sacrifices are warranted.

When you have police leaders claiming the Second Amendment is dangerous...then having his underlings limited by the same laws as other citizens can certainly make him think before he opens his mouth again.

These companies are not discriminating against anyone...they are making sure we are all equal.

Egalitarianism at its best.

coloradokevin
March 10, 2013, 09:44 PM
This is where I run the risk of offending every cop in the world, but I'll speak the truth. The fact that you draw a paycheck based on your willful decision to go into situations where a gun might be necessary makes your inherent right to those weapons NOT ONE BIT MORE VALID than your neighbor for whom the violence may come to him, in his home, based on no willful act of his.

So "but I might need those guns" is a horrid thing to say for your own sake when your neighbor is being disarmed.

...

None of us truly WANTS the police "underarmed." However, if that is a tool to achieve a higher end, than sometimes such sacrifices are warranted. I am sorry, truly, if you find yourself in a bad way due to such efforts -- but I'm even sorrier for the non-sworn citizen who's arms are limited by his government.

Surely, if he can make due with 10 round mags, etc. -- then so can you.

A couple of quick counterpoints:

1) I'm not trying to disarm my neighbor. I'm trying to ensure that all of the good folks in our society have the right to keep arms for the defense of themselves, their family, and their community.

2) In my fight to ensure that we all have gun rights, I haven't found that the most effectual way to ensure those rights is to make sure that we disarm more people. Is it fair that police can have stuff that citizens can't? No, it isn't... it wasn't fair during the last AWB, either, and I was not an officer for part of that ban period.

3) We need to fight for our rights. I've been working years for that cause, and have dedicated what literally must be over 100 hours of time to this cause since the Sandy Hook incident alone. Why not focus our efforts on stopping these laws, rather than focusing on what appears to be thinly-veiled punitive measures against law enforcement officers?

4) The chiefs don't care. When we asked to carry AR-15's as patrol rifles, they didn't like it. When we asked to carry more suitable weapons for the job(s) we were doing, they didn't like it. They don't care, and they won't change. The only victims in this issue are all of the rest of us (police or not).

5) I already carry a duty weapon with a 10-round magazine. I own my own AR-15, which I carry as a patrol rifle, and lets just say that I'm already well set on magazines. So, this is really just a statement I'm trying to make philosophically in saying that we don't gain gun rights by trying to further restrict gun rights.


I am squarely against abortion and gun control which is why I will never work for Planned Parenthood or the Brady Campaign. I don't traffic in narcotics to support my local churches and I don't see how any officer anywhere can work for an agency enforcing laws contradictory to the Constitution in good faith. No, I'm just the armed messenger here to haul you off to jail to await your hearing doesn't cut it. Men of integrity don't assist the enemy, they would sooner find another line of work.

I'm not sure I entirely understand what you're talking about, or if your comment is direct towards me or someone else. But, the job I have does not place me at odds with the constitution that I swore to defend. I'm not unjustly arresting people, or unjustly hauling innocent people off to jail. I'm arresting criminals for real crimes, and spending much of my own time advocating for the rights of our citizens when I'm not at work. My job isn't to serve as an assistant to a politician, or a private mercenary squad for the government... my job is to serve the citizens of my jurisdiction by enforcing law and order within the bounds of the US Constitution. The oath I swore required no more of me than that.

I started another thread in this section of the forum last night (seeking to amend the Colorado constitution). So far that thread has received no replies, though I believe it is an idea that is very well in-line with protecting the rights of Coloradans. If you are questioning my stance on this issue, or if you somehow believe that I'm coming for your guns, you might want to review my other posts on this forum.

Deanimator
March 10, 2013, 09:47 PM
These companies are not discriminating against anyone...they are making sure we are all equal.
In the crazy cloudcuckooland of gun control advocacy (and privileged classes) treating everybody the same is "discrimination", and limiting the police to the same arms as everyone else is "underarming" them...

Tom from WNY
March 11, 2013, 08:34 AM
I would like to remind all LE posters here that your paychecks are 110% citizen taxpayer supported and funded. The same folks that are now suffering under laws designed to strip us of our 2A rights.

Why are you arguing for a position that places you above them in a Government approved hierarchy? Are we supposed to exist solely for your economic benefit and obey without question or be suppressed?

Sam1911
March 11, 2013, 10:10 AM
1) I'm not trying to disarm my neighbor. I'm trying to ensure that all of the good folks in our society have the right to keep arms for the defense of themselves, their family, and their community.Personally, that certainly may be so. Professionally, you may be (especially in CO...and SOON!) ordered to do exactly the opposite. Will you conscientiously object and refuse to enforce such a law? If not (and that would seem to be a huge decision to make, career wise) then you will be the public face of confiscation, mag bans, etc.

Why should the people of your state not work to hold you to the same standard they'll be placed under? What's in your heart won't matter in the least if you are the arm of the government reaching out at them.

The chiefs don't care. ... They don't care, and they won't change. The only victims in this issue are all of the rest of us (police or not).They don't care? Obviously they don't. BUT, several thousands (or tens of thousands) of their employees angry about these restrictions will go a whole lot farther to change their minds than several thousands or tens of thousands of their officers sitting fat and happy because they've got their rifles and mags, so who cares about the common folks?

The only way to make change that goes contrary to political personalities' desires is to make them so uncomfortable (and/or scared for their jobs) that they choose the correct path in order to stop the pain or fear. And one of the only possible ways of putting pressure on these goons is secondarily, by putting the same pressure on their officers that is put on the rest of the citizens. Yeah, that's you and your brother officers. I am sorry about that. But that's politics. If you don't like it, help us turn the chiefs and politicos around.

In my fight to ensure that we all have gun rights, I haven't found that the most effectual way to ensure those rights is to make sure that we disarm more people ... Why not focus our efforts on stopping these laws, rather than focusing on what appears to be thinly-veiled punitive measures against law enforcement officers? ... I own my own AR-15, which I carry as a patrol rifle, and lets just say that I'm already well set on magazines.
So you've got yours. That's what you're saying? You've got yours and it isn't fair to make these unavailable to law officers, just because they are forbidden to the public at large? I hear what you're saying, but it rings very, very hollow. I'm glad you have your rifle and your mags. How will you feel when you're enforcing that ban on your neighbor? It's coming soon, Kevin, in your state. What will YOU do?

Deanimator
March 11, 2013, 10:39 AM
I would rather work on making things better then just giving up to the anti's..
Well, if as the story goes, you have neither influence on the leadership nor the willingness to disassociate yourself from their enterprise, just HOW exactly could you "make things better"???


You can't or won't speak out on the record for gun rights.
You can't or won't refuse to be a prop for anti-gun theater.
You're willing to take advantage of a position of privilege to have things the rest can't.

At best, you're a helpless pawn, at worst, a willing participant.

There's going to come a point where you have to CHOOSE.

if you choose pay, pension, power and privilege over your duty as a citizen, will you demand to be respected for selling the rest out? Will you demand that we not citicize you for doing so because it "incites cop killing"? Do the rest of us have a DUTY to THANK our oppressors for oppressing us?

Skylerbone
March 11, 2013, 11:41 AM
Coloradokevin, I didn't mean to address you specifically in my post and I have indeed read a good many of your posts and I do commend you on your personal stance and appreciate the time you've taken. Having read those posts, I did indeed know your home State and so what I put forth was aptly described by Sam1911: the requirements of duty are headed your way and will make CO residents who were law abiding yesterday the criminals you must lawfully arrest come July.

Imagine if you would the impact of a general strike called for by the police unions to show solidarity with Citizens. How fast might politicians and chiefs statewide backpedal with no Indians to fight with them? That, I believe is the purpose of the agency sales policies we are seeing now.

Deanimator
March 11, 2013, 11:56 AM
Imagine if you would the impact of a general strike called for by the police unions to show solidarity with Citizens. How fast might politicians and chiefs statewide backpedal with no Indians to fight with them? That, I believe is the purpose of the agency sales policies we are seeing now.
As a general rule, the police unions are in lockstep with the anti-gunners. It's a matter of power and privilege.

The ONE exception I've seen was the Cleveland Police Patrolmen's Association which advised its members to ignore an order by Mayor Frank Jackson to enforce a state preempted "assault weapon" ban. They didn't do it out of principle. They did it because they KNEW that any cop who KNOWINGLY enforced that nullified law was toast in civil court and open to liability as an individual.

joeschmoe
March 13, 2013, 05:41 PM
Another rebuttal to the military comparison is; we don't allow the military to lobby the government the way the police have on the 2nd Amendment issue. We maintain civilian control over the military. The police are exerting their influence over the civilian authority to lobby for more control over us, that is supposed to control them, not us. They are abusing the deference and sympathy, we would normally give them, on a political issue. They are government employee's, not a political party.

Boycott list is now: 136 companies

Why does this thread no longer appear under activism where I started it? Now it's under a sub category you can't get to from the main page.

-Xero-
March 13, 2013, 05:44 PM
Several Sheriffs in this state have sent letters to the POTUS, stating that they will decline to enforce new federal gun restrictions that violate 2nd. Amendment and RKBA.

Sam1911
March 13, 2013, 05:56 PM
Why does this thread no longer appear under activism where I started it? Now it's under a sub category you can't get to from the main page.When threads become more about discussing the whys and why-nots of an action, rather than simply promoting that action, they go in "Activism Discussion."

Activism is specifically for calling other members to action, rather than debating and arguing over whether those actions are good or bad.

You can read all about it in the forum stickies.

HOOfan_1
March 13, 2013, 06:05 PM
Several Sheriffs in this state have sent letters to the POTUS, stating that they will decline to enforce new federal gun restrictions that violate 2nd. Amendment and RKBA.

Sheriffs are elected, big city police chiefs are appointed. Sheriffs generally have more sway in more rural and gun friendly areas.

joeschmoe
March 13, 2013, 07:29 PM
National Sheriff's Association is supporting the new AWB, and they supported the old AWB. Just like all the other national LEO organizations.

Deanimator
March 13, 2013, 09:07 PM
National Sheriff's Association is supporting the new AWB, and they supported the old AWB. Just like all the other national LEO organizations.
The "law enforcement" INDUSTRY is a wholly owned subsidiary of the gun control industry.

Any individual cop who goes against that is strictly outside of the "mainstream". Hence, most "go along to get along".

Somebody's secret opinions are utterly irrelevant. It's what they DO that matters.

A cop who willingly serves as a prop for anti-gun propaganda shows, takes advantage of class based privileges, or worse, who enforces oppressive, un-American laws is no friend of gun owners, the 2nd Amendment or the Constitution in general. After all, if you'd step on the 2nd Amendment, there's absolutely no reason in the world not to step on the 1st, 4th and 5th Amendments in the process.

mister_murphy
March 14, 2013, 07:19 AM
National Sheriff's Association is supporting the new AWB, and they supported the old AWB. Just like all the other national LEO organizations.

Hmmm... Its interesting a lot of folks mention about LE groups are anti-gun, but the SSPBA has historically been in favor of firearm ownership. Below is a quote from their website...

https://www.sspba.org/gen/articles/The_Southern_States_PBA_official_stand_on_gun_control_in_America_323.jsp

As president of Southern States PBA, a professional law enforcement association with over 31,000 members from federal, state, county and municipal agencies, I would like to express our support for the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution and for law abiding citizens to purchase and own firearms...

Going back to the 90's the SSPBA did some polling of their own members, which showed support for firearm ownership.

http://www.coastalpost.com/97/9/22.htm

va1911
March 14, 2013, 07:34 AM
This list might be meaningful if we actually knew how much their yearly sales to these governments were, if they had any at all.

mister_murphy
March 14, 2013, 07:58 AM
This list might be meaningful if we actually knew how much their yearly sales to these governments were, if they had any at all.

Not only that, but it would be interesting to know of these companies, how many have sales/contracts with the feds, and supply federal agencies in the ban states with firearms that the public can not own.

joeschmoe
March 23, 2013, 07:41 PM
140 companies are now supporting this movement.

http://www.thepoliceloophole.com/

joeschmoe
April 6, 2013, 11:22 PM
Once again Obama is able to use a back drop of Police officers for his gun grabbing speech. Police gladly show their support. As do their unions, police chiefs and all police associations. Follow this links, since Powder thinks this is all just Photoshop.

April 3, 2013

http://www.usnews.com/pubdbimages/image/46437/FE_DA_130403ObamaColorado425x283.jpg
"From the beginning of this effort, we've wanted law enforcement front and center in shaping the discussion and the reforms that emerge from it," Obama said, after meeting with law enforcement officials at the Denver Police Academy. "After all, you're often the first to see the terrible consequences of gun violence – lives lost; families broken; communities irrevocably changed. You know what works and what doesn't, and we wanted that experience and that advice."

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/04/03/obama-blames-politics-for-stalled-gun-reform
http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/600x408.jpg

Gun Control Won’t Lead to Confiscation Because ‘I Am Constrained by a System Our Founders Put in Place’

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/03/obama-gun-control-wont-lead-to-confiscation-because-i-am-constrained-by-a-system-our-founders-put-in-place/

PBR Streetgang
April 6, 2013, 11:38 PM
A lot of those officers were ordered to be there. As we speak some of the officers from Denver are filling grievences with the FOP reps for being forced to be there instead of their regular duties

joeschmoe
April 6, 2013, 11:59 PM
Do you have a source for that claim? I would be glad if true. Soldiers don't have a choice when ordered. Police do not take orders from the President.

PBR Streetgang
April 7, 2013, 12:39 AM
Post from the Denver LEO forum. These officers were ordered /assigned to be there at the last moment, not given enough time to grieve the change of assignment.
The LEO groups sponsoring aint-gun views are mostly political LEO groups and not the views of a lot of rank and file officers. I will say many of the younger officers these days don't have the pro-gun views of the older officers due to politics of department policy. A lot of Police departments are now run by chiefs or public safety directors who are in their positions due to political considerations and not their ability to properly run the department.

SuperNaut
April 7, 2013, 01:16 AM
At some point this will stop being theoretical, cops will have to break down the door of a family's home and with lethal force confiscate newly illegal firearms and magazines. A line will be drawn and all these vaunted oaths swearing to uphold the constitution will be shown to be ceremonial horse puckey.

joeschmoe
April 7, 2013, 02:12 AM
not the views of a lot of rank and file officers.


Ah, that old myth. Their union, chiefs and members openly support gun control, but we are supposed to believe that the silent minority don't. Evidence does not support that.

http://www.cortezjournal.com/storyimage/CJ/20130404/NEWS01/130409909/AR/0/AR-130409909.jpg&ExactW=620

Eb1
April 7, 2013, 03:59 AM
This dog and pony show in Denver is down right disgusting.

joeschmoe
April 7, 2013, 03:27 PM
140 companies now.

zorro45
April 7, 2013, 03:56 PM
There is a third path that LEOs can take between being lapdogs of the administration and flagrant renegades who are going to be fired.
1.make sure there are not any health and safety/OSHA violations at your workplace
2.lead abatement at your department's range
3.strict adherence to contractually mandated breaks/rest periods
4.make sure the roads leading away from bars frequented by lawmakers are really, really safe from drunk drivers
5.make sure that briefings before start of shift do not include any jokes or references that are offensive or discriminatory based on race, age,gender,handicap, etc.and report those that do to the proper authorities for investigation
6.make sure your department does not discriminate against you based on your religion; according to the EEOC they need to make reasonable accommodations based on your religion. (even I would admit that this can get really ridiculous)
7.be especially scrupulous that any contact w/ supervisors which could conceivably result in adverse disciplinary action have legal counsel from your union present.
All of this is legal, it is just using the system against itself.

PabloJ
April 7, 2013, 04:22 PM
Well, if as the story goes, you have neither influence on the leadership nor the willingness to disassociate yourself from their enterprise, just HOW exactly could you "make things better"???


You can't or won't speak out on the record for gun rights.
You can't or won't refuse to be a prop for anti-gun theater.
You're willing to take advantage of a position of privilege to have things the rest can't.

At best, you're a helpless pawn, at worst, a willing participant.

There's going to come a point where you have to CHOOSE.

if you choose pay, pension, power and privilege over your duty as a citizen, will you demand to be respected for selling the rest out? Will you demand that we not citicize you for doing so because it "incites cop killing"? Do the rest of us have a DUTY to THANK our oppressors for oppressing us?
I always thought police officials and politicians "sleep in the same bed". Isn't that so or am I just thinking about old 'Dirty Harry' movies?

joeschmoe
April 8, 2013, 08:38 PM
I think they have chosen. They have sided against the Constitution they swore to uphold.

http://historicconnections.webs.com/30%20pieces%20silver%20003.JPG

joeschmoe
April 9, 2013, 05:42 PM
They support outlawing private sales and mandatory federal registration


The Fraternal Order of Police is the world's largest organization of sworn law enforcement officers, with more than 325,000 members in more than 2,100 lodges.

Legislation Supported by the National Fraternal Order of Police

S. 54 (Leahy, D-VT), the "Stop Illegal Trafficking Firearms Act," would revise and expand Federal laws ro combat trafficking in firearms

http://www.fop.net/legislative/support.shtml

If you enjoyed reading about "Closing the Police Loophole. Support list. Refusing LEO sales." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!