Kingcreek
Member
I think that we should support them ONLY if they come out and say they support similar laws for the rest of us.
The upper level LE leaders and spokespersons are politicians and don't always represent the rank and file.
Illinois LE want more privileges for themselves...
- Thread starter Autolycus
- Start date
- Status
The upper level LE leaders and spokespersons are politicians and don't always represent the rank and file.
SkiLune
Member
Agreed 100%. But, LEOs ARE citizens. They are not in the military.
I've had good and bad experiences with the cops, and so have my kids. My kid just caught a break for doing 40 in a 30mph zone in my home town. The cop gave him a written warning, and treated him fairly. It made a strong favorable impression on my kid. We need more of that, IMO.
When I was a kid, in the 60s and 70s, the cops could use judgement when they caught a kid doing something stupid. Now, in some departments, cops are incentivized to make arrests and issue citations, rather than act as Peace Officers. And that creates ill will.
I know three NYC cops, and one of them speaks frankly about the many frustrations of wearing a badge in NYC. He happens to be very pro CCW, but can't utter a word of that in NY, where it would be considered treasonous.
I really wish we could return to those days. But now, the us vs. them mentality seems to be pretty common, which is a sad thing, because we should all be in this together.
Outraged reactions to different sets of standards for those Citizens in blue vs. those who have chosen a different career path are to be expected in America.
By supporting them, we are tacitly [sic?] admitting that there is a difference between them and us. We are conceeding the point that one group is more worthy of carry than another.
The parts of LE that matter, the parts that get invited to the big table (chiefs, captains, organizational representatives, etc.) can never come out in support of RKBA, or more specifically, CCW. They are union. They are in bed with the Dems. The muscle and the money comes from big cities where Dems (or libs) tend to hold control.
Giving them any support at all is suicidal to the far more important cause of advocating for CCW for EVERYONE!
I think it's cute how so many LEOs and their friends post about all the good they do. If they really want to make a difference they should work toward some organizational changes. Force their unions to represent a pro-CCW stance. Lobby for CCW in general, not just for themselves.
By asking for this legislation they have tipped their hand. They think they're better than me... and you.
The parts of LE that matter, the parts that get invited to the big table (chiefs, captains, organizational representatives, etc.) can never come out in support of RKBA, or more specifically, CCW. They are union. They are in bed with the Dems. The muscle and the money comes from big cities where Dems (or libs) tend to hold control.
Giving them any support at all is suicidal to the far more important cause of advocating for CCW for EVERYONE!
I think it's cute how so many LEOs and their friends post about all the good they do. If they really want to make a difference they should work toward some organizational changes. Force their unions to represent a pro-CCW stance. Lobby for CCW in general, not just for themselves.
By asking for this legislation they have tipped their hand. They think they're better than me... and you.
DKSuddeth
Member
NO!! You are citizens who have chosen a profession of law enforcement. You are no better or worse than I, or anybody else for that matter. You should not have any better priviledges or rights granted to you simply because you chose to become a government employee.
As far as trying to tie our support for theirs later.....you'd think we'd learn from getting burnt once, wouldn't you?
Last edited:
The legislation increases the divide by itself as it implies that LEO's are somehow more deserving of self-protection than any other citizen.
That IS the topic, no more no less.
The question the legislation brings up is Are COPS somehow more deserving of the tools required for self-defense than other non-government lackey citizens.
That IS the topic, no more no less.
The question the legislation brings up is Are COPS somehow more deserving of the tools required for self-defense than other non-government lackey citizens.
I disagree.
The question of whether or not a cop is an ordinary citizen when he or she is off duty is the fundamental question. If the officer is an officer in his pajamas then there is a basis for this legislation, if he takes off the mantle of "Peace Officer" with his badge then there is no basis that does not include all other citizens.
The question of whether or not a cop is an ordinary citizen when he or she is off duty is the fundamental question. If the officer is an officer in his pajamas then there is a basis for this legislation, if he takes off the mantle of "Peace Officer" with his badge then there is no basis that does not include all other citizens.
Autolycus
Member
As I said earlier, the fact that I oppose any law which gives one group benefits of any sort while the same lawmakers deny those rights to anyone.
For all the police on the board, why don't LE groups start advocating a more pro-2nd Amendment stance? If ,as someone said earlier, they are represenative of department policy then if the majority of LEOs are pro 2nd Amendment wouldnt the department policy be 2nd Amendment?
I have heard of something called the Blue Flu? I believe it is when the police do not get something they want, well why don't these Pro-2nd Amendment officers stand up and help out the citizens?
And what happended to the support from LE groups for national reciprocity?
For all the police on the board, why don't LE groups start advocating a more pro-2nd Amendment stance? If ,as someone said earlier, they are represenative of department policy then if the majority of LEOs are pro 2nd Amendment wouldnt the department policy be 2nd Amendment?
I have heard of something called the Blue Flu? I believe it is when the police do not get something they want, well why don't these Pro-2nd Amendment officers stand up and help out the citizens?
And what happended to the support from LE groups for national reciprocity?
The support for national reciprocity is still there. Perhaps you can check out the LEAA. HR218 was pushed by the LEAA against most of the other police groups. The problem you have is that outside of the FOP (which is a union and shares the same socialist politics as every other union) is that there is no organization besides LEAA for rank and file officers. The other organizations are all representing management, who we had to fight to get HR 218 passed.
As for the blue flu, you can forget that. I'm sorry if that doesn't meet your standards of activism but police officers, being public employees have legal limits on political activity. This never stops the command element from doing it, but the rank and file can be disciplined for it. While you're checking out LEAA take a look at the lawsuits that were filed over rank and file officers being ordered to participate in political activities during the Clinton administration. You don't think the president always just happened to have bunch of antigun officers on call to stand behind him when he got on the bully pulpit about how evil assault weapons were do you? They bought and paid for those officers, many of whom were progun with DOJ grants to their agencies.
The fatc is that in survey after survey you'll find that the majority of the police are progun. But like any other government employee there are legal restrictions on their political activities.
Jeff
As for the blue flu, you can forget that. I'm sorry if that doesn't meet your standards of activism but police officers, being public employees have legal limits on political activity. This never stops the command element from doing it, but the rank and file can be disciplined for it. While you're checking out LEAA take a look at the lawsuits that were filed over rank and file officers being ordered to participate in political activities during the Clinton administration. You don't think the president always just happened to have bunch of antigun officers on call to stand behind him when he got on the bully pulpit about how evil assault weapons were do you? They bought and paid for those officers, many of whom were progun with DOJ grants to their agencies.
The fatc is that in survey after survey you'll find that the majority of the police are progun. But like any other government employee there are legal restrictions on their political activities.
Jeff
Don Gwinn
Moderator Emeritus
Tecumseh, you really have no comment on what Jeff and I and others posted directly to you on the last page?
Now, like it or not, the question they're trying to get addressed is NOT whether parole officers are "better" or "more deserving" or "more equal" than other citizens. What they're arguing, right or wrong, is that parole officers face dangers and odds that other citizens do not and therefore need additional protection. In addition, we all know that these people think there's a huge gulf between a "trained LEO" (which these parole officers are, if they're armed while on duty) and the average citizen.
Now, you and I know those things aren't true. But you and I are NEVER, EVER going to get the chance to make that argument if we waste our time shouting "DOWN WITH OUR FEUDAL OVERLORDS! HELP! HELP! I'M BEING REPRESSED! COME SEE THE VIOLENCE INHERENT IN THE SYSTEM!"
It's time to grow up and get serious.
Now, like it or not, the question they're trying to get addressed is NOT whether parole officers are "better" or "more deserving" or "more equal" than other citizens. What they're arguing, right or wrong, is that parole officers face dangers and odds that other citizens do not and therefore need additional protection. In addition, we all know that these people think there's a huge gulf between a "trained LEO" (which these parole officers are, if they're armed while on duty) and the average citizen.
Now, you and I know those things aren't true. But you and I are NEVER, EVER going to get the chance to make that argument if we waste our time shouting "DOWN WITH OUR FEUDAL OVERLORDS! HELP! HELP! I'M BEING REPRESSED! COME SEE THE VIOLENCE INHERENT IN THE SYSTEM!"
It's time to grow up and get serious.
You've heard Illinois parole officers discourage CCW for citizens? You're right, that might change my mind. Is that what happened?
Don Gwinn
Moderator Emeritus
By the way, on the subject of "cops and their friends," if the worst anyone ever says of me is that I'm a friend of cops, I'll take it.
Some of your Dastardly Feudal Overlords here at THR and TFL include:
Jeff White
4V50 Gary
Matt Guest (Long Path)
Johnny Guest
George Hill (former)
Denny Hansen
Pat Rogers
Massad Ayoob
Coronach
Obviously I'm leaving out a lot of people . . . . but that's pretty good company.
Some of your Dastardly Feudal Overlords here at THR and TFL include:
Jeff White
4V50 Gary
Matt Guest (Long Path)
Johnny Guest
George Hill (former)
Denny Hansen
Pat Rogers
Massad Ayoob
Coronach
Obviously I'm leaving out a lot of people . . . . but that's pretty good company.
So what the thin blue line is saying is "Do as I say not as I do"
I find it harder and harder to respect the Law Enforcement Community.
Their continued silence on these matters is damning.
I honestly don't care if their superiors approve or not. Nuremburg proved that following bad orders and being unwilling to face a superior's disapproval is no defense. When you are not on duty you are NO different than me. If I am disallowed by law to do something so should you be. At least the officers have a credible threat, the average citizen has no such comforts, thus the need for readily deployable tools is greater. With no special penalties for damaging a citizen unlike for damaging an officer even an off duty one it makes us even more vulnerable.
How can the LEO's of this board justify their continued silence and adherence to orders that they know are wrong?
Jefferson
I find it harder and harder to respect the Law Enforcement Community.
Their continued silence on these matters is damning.
I honestly don't care if their superiors approve or not. Nuremburg proved that following bad orders and being unwilling to face a superior's disapproval is no defense. When you are not on duty you are NO different than me. If I am disallowed by law to do something so should you be. At least the officers have a credible threat, the average citizen has no such comforts, thus the need for readily deployable tools is greater. With no special penalties for damaging a citizen unlike for damaging an officer even an off duty one it makes us even more vulnerable.
How can the LEO's of this board justify their continued silence and adherence to orders that they know are wrong?
Jefferson
gc70
Member
How do you suggest dealing with the legislation?
Don Gwinn
Moderator Emeritus
Talk it up, pass it. Then point to it (and HR218) every time a legislator says he's afraid of what will happen when everybody else gets CCW.
The same way we handled across-the-board CCW in other states--instead of whining about it and demanding that MOCCW and the MCRGO and Kentucky Grassroots help us pass our CCW bill at the same time, use them as our positive example of what happens when CCW bills pass.
I'm sorry, but that statement was actual nonsense.
I'm tempted to say "Keep transforming friends into enemies and see where it gets you." The problem is that I'll end up there, too, and I'd like to have CCW in Illinois someday.
This attitude that it should happen right now, and if it doesn't, then somebody on our side has to pay is ridiculous.
The same way we handled across-the-board CCW in other states--instead of whining about it and demanding that MOCCW and the MCRGO and Kentucky Grassroots help us pass our CCW bill at the same time, use them as our positive example of what happens when CCW bills pass.
What are you talking about? Which LEO members of THR are silent? Do you have any idea what people like Jeff White, Coronach, Lawdog and the rest have done for RKBA?
I'm sorry, but that statement was actual nonsense.
The police are saying different things because they're not a monolith. The Chiefs and the heads of FOP overwhelmingly think they should have guns and you shouldn't. The rank and file overwhelmingly say the opposite every time they're asked in significant numbers. They make up the membership of the LEAA, which coincidentally enough spends a lot of time supporting the RKBA for everybody.
I'm tempted to say "Keep transforming friends into enemies and see where it gets you." The problem is that I'll end up there, too, and I'd like to have CCW in Illinois someday.
This attitude that it should happen right now, and if it doesn't, then somebody on our side has to pay is ridiculous.
Autolycus
Member
So I have seen two pro-gun LE organization (The LEAA and Buckeye Sheriffs org. from an article support or do not oppose CCW) while these organizations listed above support the Tiarht Amendment.
One thing to remember about the LEAA is that non-LEOs can join which may skewer the numbers. I will keep looking for more organizations that support our rights and oppose our rights. So far I have seen more LE organizations that oppose our rights.
All I am asking is that the LEOs campaign for us as we campaigned for them. I dont think there is anything wrong with this.
All I am saying is that I oppose any law that gives one group of people their rights while denying another theres. Its kind of like Jim Crow laws.
I am sorry if you all take offense to the fact that I feel that Parole Officers should not get to carry guns if teachers, doctors, lawyers, gas station attendants, movie ushers, cashiers, economists, business people, authors, farmers, electricians, HVAC guys, chefs, or the numerious other jobs people do cannot carry a gun.
I understand they have an increased risk but nowhere does the Bill of Rights say that some people should be allowed to carry because their job puts them in danger of criminals. Afterall there are numerous jobs that put people in positions where they maybe a victim of a violent criminal. Teachers, social workers, gas station attendants, security guards at the mall, janitors, actors and actresses, taxi drivers, and others to be sure but they are not given the same consideration.
How about those LE organizations like the local FOP Lodge in the article start calling there politicians and asking them to pass CCW laws that allow Everyone to carry? Wouldn't that be a better idea?
If we start working towards these laws hand in hand we will get them passed. All of the numerous anti-gun politicians has to do is point to one of the larger Anti-Gun LEO organizations like the FOP while ignoring the smaller ones like LEAA.
Autolycus
Member
Question for LEOs about something...
do you have to join the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP)? As Jeff White said it is a union. Couldn't the membership vote to change policy to a progun outlook when it comes to politics?
do you have to join the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP)? As Jeff White said it is a union. Couldn't the membership vote to change policy to a progun outlook when it comes to politics?
I LIKE IT!
Member
There is NOTHING the average joe can't do that a cop can, both bleed and both can make the difference.
We the people....
Stop with the elitist crap.
Just my .02
We the people....
Stop with the elitist crap.
Just my .02
Molon Labe
Member
If LEOs are protected under this law, and no one else, it may be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment:
See Suspect Classification for more details.
See Suspect Classification for more details.
Tecumseh,
How many of those organizations you listed are for rank and file officers? Virtually all of them are for chiefs and other command rank people who are beholden to their political masters, and the majority of those organizations were opposed to HR218.
We are!! How many times do I have to explain to you that there are very strict laws about what kind of political activity government employees can get involved in. We can only lobby as individuals. For the most part we can't lobby as police officers. What part of the Hatch Act and it's state and local counterpart legislation are you having such a hard time understanding?
Unless you live in a right to work state, if your agency is covered by the FOP you have to join to be employed just like any other union.
After the 94 AWB was passed, the FOP national president, Dewey Stokes was voted out of office. He was removed by the membership because of the FOP's public support for gun control. My agency isn't FOP so I don't know what the current policy is, but after Stokes was voted out, the FOP was supposed to take no stand on the issue. If you are going to come down on the FOP, you darn well better come down on the rest of the AFL/CIO. Do you think all the truck drivers, electricians, plumbers, carpenters, laborers and other trades people are all anti gun? You had better to be consistent in your thinking, because all of their unions support the democratic platform on guns....All of them. Where is your post demanding they change the stand of their national organization?
Are you really naive enough to believe that a legislature that won't allow the people it hires to deal with convicted criminals to carry a gun, they are going to let teachers, doctors, lawyers, gas station attendants, movie ushers, cashiers, economists, business people, authors, farmers, electricians, HVAC guys, and chefs carry? The institutional mindset against concealed carry is going to have to be broken down one group at a time. Your all or nothing approach will never succeed. I would like for my family to be able to legally carry here in Illinois someday. But quite frankly, with attitudes like yours on our side, I don't see it happening in my lifetime.
Why don't you just come out and tell me what you've got against cops? One of Carbondale's finest bust you for underage drinking? Get pulled over a lot when you first got your drivers license for having a lead foot? Spend your early teen years skateboarding where it wasn't permitted? What did one or more of us do to you to make you hate us so much?
I really want to know. PM me with your answer if you don't want to post it here.
Jeff
How many of those organizations you listed are for rank and file officers? Virtually all of them are for chiefs and other command rank people who are beholden to their political masters, and the majority of those organizations were opposed to HR218.
We are!! How many times do I have to explain to you that there are very strict laws about what kind of political activity government employees can get involved in. We can only lobby as individuals. For the most part we can't lobby as police officers. What part of the Hatch Act and it's state and local counterpart legislation are you having such a hard time understanding?
Unless you live in a right to work state, if your agency is covered by the FOP you have to join to be employed just like any other union.
After the 94 AWB was passed, the FOP national president, Dewey Stokes was voted out of office. He was removed by the membership because of the FOP's public support for gun control. My agency isn't FOP so I don't know what the current policy is, but after Stokes was voted out, the FOP was supposed to take no stand on the issue. If you are going to come down on the FOP, you darn well better come down on the rest of the AFL/CIO. Do you think all the truck drivers, electricians, plumbers, carpenters, laborers and other trades people are all anti gun? You had better to be consistent in your thinking, because all of their unions support the democratic platform on guns....All of them. Where is your post demanding they change the stand of their national organization?
Are you really naive enough to believe that a legislature that won't allow the people it hires to deal with convicted criminals to carry a gun, they are going to let teachers, doctors, lawyers, gas station attendants, movie ushers, cashiers, economists, business people, authors, farmers, electricians, HVAC guys, and chefs carry? The institutional mindset against concealed carry is going to have to be broken down one group at a time. Your all or nothing approach will never succeed. I would like for my family to be able to legally carry here in Illinois someday. But quite frankly, with attitudes like yours on our side, I don't see it happening in my lifetime.
Why don't you just come out and tell me what you've got against cops? One of Carbondale's finest bust you for underage drinking? Get pulled over a lot when you first got your drivers license for having a lead foot? Spend your early teen years skateboarding where it wasn't permitted? What did one or more of us do to you to make you hate us so much?
I really want to know. PM me with your answer if you don't want to post it here.
Jeff
Autolycus
Member
I have nothing against police at all. The last time I was arrested for anything was just about 7 years ago. It was a misdemeanor and even the officer laughed but he said "rules are rules".
I am just tired of the legislature implying that the LEOs are somehow more qualified and need guns because of the fact they deal with criminals. So do lawyers and judges? I dont think that prison guards in all counties can carry and I am not 100% sure about IDOC guards. What about the doctors and nurses who work at the prison?
The difference between the AFL/CIO unions is that they are not consulted for their views on guns. Please show me a case where an anti-politician used the safety of a Plumber or Electrician for their advertisments? I am sorry but nobody consults these unions in regards to criminal matters or matters of social policy. Just like a police officer deals with criminals on a daily basis they also deal with guns. So people accept them as an authority.
Next time the politicians need to discuss the requirments for a license to weld pipes should they call a boilermaker or a cop? I mean they are all unions and support the same politicians.
I am just tired of the legislature implying that the LEOs are somehow more qualified and need guns because of the fact they deal with criminals. So do lawyers and judges? I dont think that prison guards in all counties can carry and I am not 100% sure about IDOC guards. What about the doctors and nurses who work at the prison?
The difference between the AFL/CIO unions is that they are not consulted for their views on guns. Please show me a case where an anti-politician used the safety of a Plumber or Electrician for their advertisments? I am sorry but nobody consults these unions in regards to criminal matters or matters of social policy. Just like a police officer deals with criminals on a daily basis they also deal with guns. So people accept them as an authority.
Next time the politicians need to discuss the requirments for a license to weld pipes should they call a boilermaker or a cop? I mean they are all unions and support the same politicians.
pacodelahoya
Member
Jeff, I am not a moderator, but that does not seem very high road.
That kind of baiting is exaclty why I cannot support them.
If I don't fall immediately into line I must harbor some kind of grudge against the Badge Gang.
Well, I do harbor a grudge. The police as a paragon of virtue is long dead.
The fact that no organization yet exists is NOT an excuse. If you cannot find a leader Be One.
Create a stink, Stand on the statehouse steps and tell the media that you will accept no special privileges that do not apply to the whole of the citizenry. That is what I mean by silence.
The utter lack of any action by supposedly pro-RKBA officers is tacit agreement with the Anti-RKBA establishment.
We cannot trust you anymore. You have turned on us "for our own good" one too many times. You willingly participate in a system that strips the rights from those too poor to afford lawyers to protect them.
That is why I, at least, cannot support this legislation.
Jefferson
If I don't fall immediately into line I must harbor some kind of grudge against the Badge Gang.
Well, I do harbor a grudge. The police as a paragon of virtue is long dead.
The fact that no organization yet exists is NOT an excuse. If you cannot find a leader Be One.
Create a stink, Stand on the statehouse steps and tell the media that you will accept no special privileges that do not apply to the whole of the citizenry. That is what I mean by silence.
The utter lack of any action by supposedly pro-RKBA officers is tacit agreement with the Anti-RKBA establishment.
We cannot trust you anymore. You have turned on us "for our own good" one too many times. You willingly participate in a system that strips the rights from those too poor to afford lawyers to protect them.
That is why I, at least, cannot support this legislation.
Jefferson
- Status