So you think the majority of LEO's are anti-gun?

[koginam]

One of the reasons LEO's become more anti-gun as they gain rank is because they become more political as they gain rank and as we know many politicians are anti-gun.

Many cops have mainly other cops as friends and they get the us against them mentality, (the same thing happens with other professions and in the military) the problem is the them is us, and the vast majority of us are not bad people but we are treated as bad. I feel some of the cops were arrogant and if they fear citizens legally caring CCW they need to find another profession.

The comments of some of the officers in the officer.com thread was very irritating, They don't see any reason to be upset because a legally carried weapon was taken away for only a few minutes and then given back, In my state their is no law that says I have to surrender my gun if I have a CCW, and after looking at some others I could find none that said you had to either, the Second amendment was even called outdated because we aren't fighting indians now. This is one of the reasons their is so much ditrust of the police which is to bad because their are many good cops out their.

 

[Deanimator]

I like the quote in you sig line Deanimator.

Few things set hardcore anti-gunners off as effectively too!

 

[akodo]

DC300a writes

Sounds to me that thread is more about whether someone should be disarmed during a traffic stop or not. Not whether or not the officer's are pro-2ndAmendment.

Actually, that is EXACTLY what it is about.

Taking away a person's right, just for a short time, is still taking away that person's right. To do so you damned well better have a good reason.

Let me clarify. If what the driver did was so bad you are going to cuff him and throw him on the roof, then gun or no gun, go ahead.

However, what part of a gun being present changes that equation? If the LEGALLY OWNED AND CARRIED gun causes the police to go from standard "insurance and DL please" to "HAND OVER YOUR PERSONAL PROPERTY NOW!" then he is indeed showing his anti 2nd amendment bias.

Same way a cop who treats a black man differerent, or a cop who treats a person different because he saw a bumpersticker denoting the person a as a pagan.

If what you are doing, have, or who you are is legal, the the cop should not react to it.

 

[akodo]

I can almost assume you with 98.667% certainty that if you are unarmed during the 15 minutes of said traffic stop; you will not be robbed, carjacked, raped, acosted, or otherwise offended by persons who may pass your way... so, maybe you will not have the need of said firearm until you are on your merry way.

I must note the many cases of civil rights activists being pulled over for no cause in the deep south in the 50's and 60's and ending up riddled with bullet holes at the bottom of the swamp thanks to the dedication of the local law enforcement agency.

See, that's the truth about freedom and rights, you don't get to take them away even temporarily, even if it is a 98.667% situation.

let me ask you this. Why do you pull over speeders? Because they could get in an accident and kill someone? I'd bet 99.999% of the people on the road right now speeding will get to their destination without a traffic accident. So why do you still pull over and ticket people for it? Because it is against the law. Is a cop within his rights to pull someone over for doing 60 in a 55, even though it is speeding "just a little bit" yes.

Guess what else is against the law, infiringing the 2nd amendment, even a little bit.

 

[shadowalker]

Law enforcement policies on firearms will mirror the community's, if the community is accepting of firearm ownership so will the police. For example Alaska, Montana, Idaho vs California, New York, DC. The reason being the police chief reports to the mayor, an elected official, the sheriff is a directly elected official, they aren't going to do something to cause them to not get re-elected.

Our local law enforcement is very pro armed citizen, the sheriff's office runs a free CCW class and the deputies beg the attendees to get their CWL and to carry.

Something to keep in mind is that as a person goes up the rank their liberty to reveal personal opinions decreases and oversight by lawyers increase, burdens of leadership.

They may personally be pro gun but be pressured to take a middle of the road stance.

I don't take the obligatory "don't fight armed robbers" or "violence isn't the solution" statements to be anti gun, just regurgitated official policies.

 

[gunseller2]

Twenty-two years as an LEO, Life NRA Member, work for a firearms retailer...what do you think?

 

[bharen]

Law enforcement personnel are a slice of their community and their views reflect their prejudices, upbringing and political orientation.

My (very) small sampling of Atlanta city police officers tells me that many are anti-gun and there seems to be a clear race and gender bias - more black officers are anti-gun than white officers and almost every female officer (black, white and latino) I've spoken with was anti-gun. Their views clearly reflects the leadership of the City of Atlanta and it's politically appointed police chief.

Move just 20 miles south to one of the surrounding counties, where most of the deputies grew up in a rural setting, and you'll find the attitudes much different. Far more of them (I'd say a clear majority) are pro-gun, as is their leadership.

 

[jakemccoy]

Yes, the majority of LEO's are anti-gun.

Most think that they should be the only ones with guns.

However, I have to admit that in play land on the Internet, it's fun to imagine a world where most LEO's are pro-gun.

 

[Deus Machina]

In my experience, it really depends on the area.

In northern Illinois and downtown Tampa and Miami, the rank-and-file patrol officers think they should be the only people with guns because most of the people they meet with them is being arrested.

Outside of the cities, every officer I've met loves CHL holders because they're generally a higher quality of citizens--and easier to track if they turn out otherwise.

In both cases, the paper pushers that never leave the station are generally anti (see the first example) and the higher-ups are generally Pro2A--as it applies to them and the bigwigs they're mooching up to.

 

[Loomis]

jakemccoy :

I think you are mistaken. Maybe in a large city like chicago or new york, city cops tend to be anti gun. But state troopers, and sherrifs are generally pro gun. Most small town cops are pro gun.

I've heard alot of cops complain about cheap guns though. They aren't so much against the concept of private owned guns...they just don't like to see so many $50 junkers floating around the gettos.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Well, Up Here . . .

. . . in [strike]Texas[/strike], er, Idaho . . .

We have reg'lar ol' citizens who invite ossifers to go shootin' out past the lake.

The ossifers don't get no credit for the exercise, but all the ones I've shot with have been pretty good on the paper.

Then there's the state trooper who moonlights as a lawn maintenance guy, and who does our yard prep for winter and spring, I keep inviting him but he's always busy -- he trains other troopers in tactical shooting out at their range.

Did you know that up here in [strike]Texas[/strike], er, Idaho, a guy can walk in to the sheriff's office with a DD214 and walk out with a CCW?

And I think I've figured out what the difference is between TX and ID is. Up here, if you're in a gun shoppe and there happens to be an LEO present, he'll help you pick out a holster suitable for open carry. Well, that, and the sand is harder to find, 'cuz the trees keep gettin' in the way.

 

[Tyris]

I've heard alot of cops complain about cheap guns though. They aren't so much against the concept of private owned guns...they just don't like to see so many $50 junkers floating around the gettos.

Heh.

Translation: Cops dont like poor blacks to own guns.

-T

 

[Low-Sci]

While I may be coming down on the wrong side of this for this particular forum, I have to admit that I'm much more sympathetic to the police than the CCW holder when it comes to a temporary disarmament during a traffic stop.

The particular cops in question in that second forum thread that was posted might have been pretty asinine about it, but I do agree that they have a legitimate (if remote) safety concern.

Naturally, during any traffic stop, you don't do anything that you're not legally required to do, and you treat the officer with respect. But if it's the officer's legal right to disarm you temporarily while he prosecutes the stop, then whatever your feelings about how 2A applies to that, it's nothing but unfortunate.

If it's about respect, I can understand that too. If you've been nothing but polite and legal, it might suck to have your weapon taken from you as the respect you're showing clearly isn't reciprocated. But if that temporary confiscation is legal, just like asking you to turn off your car is legal, then it will probably take a side seat to the officer's safety.

I guess my overall point about it is that the temporary confiscation battle is one we're not likely to win, and it's a pretty low-yield venture anyway. Fight that one if you like, but you probably have more important uses of your time.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

No, it's just the Chief's Associations and FOP heads that are rabidly anti-freedom. They don't represent their constituents properly.

 

[dalepres]

or the head LEO is anti-enough that they must all act anti to keep him happy

LEOs are sheeple, too... er... I mean are people, too. When their leaders are anti-gun, many of them will actually believe that they, themselves, are anti-gun.

While I may be coming down on the wrong side of this for this particular forum, I have to admit that I'm much more sympathetic to the police than the CCW holder when it comes to a temporary disarmament during a traffic stop.

So the perfect societal disarmament/confiscation tool is the traffic stop. All they have to do is not give the guns back afterwards.

 

[bwavec]

Far too many LEOs I have dealt with seem to feel that having a firearm is their exclusive right.

"I am the only one special enough to handle this Glock40......"

 

[Old Dog]

Same old thread, only the title changes.

 

[209]

Responses to five of the posts.

:banghead:

That one there is a response to any post where someone wrote that yes indeedy, without a doubt, the majority of LEOs are anti-gun. [paraphase of course]. I have never seen any stats that would even allow someone to make that claim. Of course, the post was missing the "IMO" part which would have put it in better perpective.

 

[sacp81170a]

Same old thread, only the title changes.

Yep.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Law enforcement policies on firearms will mirror the community's, if the community is accepting of firearm ownership so will the police.

Precisely. Those decrying disarming by police or police following orders to confiscate, let me ask you this: do you want the norm to be police making laws and choosing which laws on their own to enforce? Do you really want to make arbitrarily choosing to disregard law or orders the standard for police? I think not. The actions and behaviors of your police are reflective of the populous. If police are disarming people because they were ordered, the question isn't why aren't they ignoring the orders. It's why did you allow your politicians to give those orders in the first place.

YOU are a voter. YOU decide who makes the laws. YOU can take part in your community. YOU can help shape police behavior and law. The police are the ones following the rulebook, however it's written, good or bad(and trust me, you don't want them doing anything but following the rulebook). YOU are the one who helps shape what's in that rulebook. If the police are doing something wrong, it's because YOU as a citizen and voter have failed at doing your duty and taking part in how your community and laws are shaped.


The idea of police just making up law, or picking and choosing which laws to enforce or ignore on the roadside without oversight is far more terrifying than police following misguided orders. At least with the bad orders, the problem can be solved at the source: get rid of the one giving the bad orders. Expect police to arbitrarily and randomly implement law that may or may not really be law, and it's a crap shoot with no single solution in sight.

 

[wideym]

I've met many police officers over the years who were strongly pro RKBA off duty. On duty however was a different story, with most citing "officer safety" as a reason to confiscate a civilians gun.

 

[jorb]

I followed the link and joined the site. I do not believe "gun control" works. No need to go into all the reasons as most of you already know them. I do believe that if a Dem gets elected we are in trouble Big Brother wise. I really hope I am wrong. Trust in God and your real friends and hang together. I mean support each other.

 

[Werewolf]

It's why did you allow your politicians to give those orders in the first place.

YOU are a voter. YOU decide who makes the laws. YOU can take part in your community.

Ahh the wonders of Democracy AND the tyranny of the majority . NEWS FLASH! The number of people in this country who are gun owners makes up a minority voting block in most places.

So yeah - let's put it up to a vote. Oh wait we have put it up to a vote and elected politicians that want to take our guns away. And if the pundits are right that number is going to grow even larger in the upcoming election. The way things are going the likelihood of confiscation within the next 20 or so years isn't all that remote.

BUT IT'LL BE OK TO DISARM GUN OWNERS BECAUSE THE MAJORITY THINK ITS OK AND VOTED IN POLITICIANS WHO'D MAKE IT HAPPEN. IT WON'T BE RIGHT, OR JUST, OR IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BILL OF RIGHTS BUT IT'LL BE OK BECAUSE AFTER ALL THE MAJORITY SAID SO.

Yeah - that works!

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Werewolf, America is not a democracy. It's a constitutional republic. Yes there's a difference.

 

[Tommygunn]

The comments of some of the officers in the officer.com thread was very irritating, They don't see any reason to be upset because a legally carried weapon was taken away for only a few minutes and then given back, In my state their is no law that says I have to surrender my gun if I have a CCW, and after looking at some others I could find none that said you had to either, the Second amendment was even called outdated because we aren't fighting indians now. This is one of the reasons their is so much ditrust of the police which is to bad because their are many good cops out their.

Saturday I was driving back from a gunshow and drove by a roadblock where all drivers were being checked for proof of insurance. I told the officer I had a revolver in the comaprtment where I keep the insurance document. He took possession of the gun for about thirty seconds while I took the insurance ticket out and showed it to him, then he put the gun back after I'd returned the paperwork and let me go, saying he appreciated being told about the gun. He was OK with me having the gun; I was OK with him holding it for the little time involved.
Police have no way to know who you are, and sometimes wind up stopping people who are sociopaths and wind up in dire straits or atleast surviving a nearly fatal encounter. IMHO, paying it straightforward with a LEO is simply common courtesy.
Adrenaline rush works fine in football.
NOT with guns!