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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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?
 
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?
 
Last edited:
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
National Sheriff's Association is supporting the new AWB, and they supported the old AWB. Just like all the other national LEO organizations.
 
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.
 
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/...icial_stand_on_gun_control_in_America_323.jsp

sspba.org said:
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
 
This list might be meaningful if we actually knew how much their yearly sales to these governments were, if they had any at all.
 
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.
 
I do not understand why leos do not have their own gun forums and why they have to go on civilian forums. they are not supposed to refer to us as civilians but they do like an occupying army would. they perceive themselves as gods anyway. when I hear an leo say you are making it us against them I say when you got your first tank you made it us against them
 
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

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
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/201...rained-by-a-system-our-founders-put-in-place/
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

AR-130409909.jpg&ExactW=620
 
This dog and pony show in Denver is down right disgusting.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top