# Kerry speaks for LEO's



## Tgace (Sep 11, 2004)

[font=verdana, arial, helvetica]Yesterday, 9/10, John Kerry in a speech in St. Louis is reported to have said, "Every law enforcement officer in America doesn't want us selling assault weapons in the streets of America."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/...4487581,00.html

Now I didnt personally hear the speech. But someone who did told me what he actually said was, "There is not a single police chief or law enforcement officer in this country who does not support the renewal of the assault weapons ban."[/font]



As an LEO, I can tell you that most of us (sans Chiefs/Commissioners etc. who are more politicians than cops) are against "gun" control and government lists of ownership. I am more for "people" control. A wise system of background checks, not inane laws about the cosmetics of a weapon.


----------



## KenpoTex (Sep 12, 2004)

That's total bull****!  I don't think I've ever met a LEO (except for they current county sheriff) who supported gun control, regardless of the type (AWB, "saturday night specials," concealed carry, etc.).


----------



## punisher73 (Sep 12, 2004)

The problem I have with the "Assault Weapon Ban" is most people who support it don't know guns and the argument I've heard from them is "People don't need machine guns", and then when it's explained to them that fully automatic weapons already were illegal for joe citizen to have, most of them wondered why they made such a  big deal of it then.

I also work in LEO, and the vast majority I know DOES NOT support gun control. We support stricter and more severe penalties when guns are used by felons or in the commission of a crime.


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 12, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> [font=verdana, arial, helvetica]Yesterday, 9/10, John Kerry in a speech in St. Louis is reported to have said, "Every law enforcement officer in America doesn't want us selling assault weapons in the streets of America."
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/...4487581,00.html
> 
> ...


Though I agree with you all that it was a mistake for Kerry to make that assumptive leap, particularly in such a public speech, put in context, I agree with his message.  He was, according to the link that Tom provided, talking about terrorism.  


> ``In the al-Qaida manual on terror, they were telling people to go out and buy assault weapons, to come to America and buy assault weapons,'' Kerry said.


 I believe he was referencing the need to disallow them that ability.  However, I may be wrong.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 12, 2004)

flatlander said:
			
		

> I believe he was referencing the need to disallow them that ability. However, I may be wrong.


That may be. But how do you do that without impacting on everybody?


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 12, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> That may be. But how do you do that without impacting on everybody?


Well, you probably can't.  It comes down to making them available, or not.  Tom, as you know, I'm Canadian.  We are MUCH more restricted here than there.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 12, 2004)

I keep forgetting that.....  I live so close to the border that you all seem more like neighbors than a whole different country.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Sep 12, 2004)

> We support stricter and more severe penalties when guns are used by felons or in the commission of a crime.


I'd go for that in a second.

I think this issue, like so many others, depends on the soundbite, or the title of the bill, versus the actual content.  Which is a shame.

And I agree with flatlander - I think it was stumping for dealing with terrorism.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 12, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> I'd go for that in a second.
> 
> I think this issue, like so many others, depends on the soundbite, or the title of the bill, versus the actual content. Which is a shame.
> 
> And I agree with flatlander - I think it was stumping for dealing with terrorism.


The "Assault Weapons Ban" was a joke. Feel good legislation at its finest. The weapons used on the street are 99% (my estimate) crap, small caliber pocket guns that the BG isnt going to cry about if he has to toss it in the gutter. You are right on target though. Punish the illegal use severely and surely.

As to terrorists buying guns. Isnt limiting our gun rights out of fear right on par with all the foot stamping about the Patriot Act?


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 12, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> As to terrorists buying guns. Isnt limiting our gun rights out of fear right on par with all the foot stamping about the Patriot Act?


Great point Tom.  Yes, I have to agree with that.  Interesting insight.  :asian:


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 13, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Isnt limiting our gun rights out of fear right on par with all the foot stamping about the Patriot Act?


Interesting thought. 
What books I read. What guns I own. 
Search my house without my knowledge. What guns I can own.
Suspension of Habeus Corpus. What guns I can purchase.
Secrecy in Government. What guns I can possess.

I'm not sure.


----------



## sifu nick (Sep 13, 2004)

As a Police Officer I don't like Kerry or any other candidate speaking on behalf of law enforcement as a whole. I say let the FOP or other larger Police unions speak on behalf of us. Kerry and Bush have no idea what Law Enforcement personnel really want. You know, the little things like better pay so we don't need part time jobs. Tougher enforcement of the laws already on the books through better and stricter prosecution. Better funding so that we won't be undermanned and under equipped like we always are. Little things like that.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 13, 2004)

This quote came from a CNN article:



> National police organizations such as the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers and the Fraternal Order of Police all support the renewal of the ban. President Bush has said he would sign such a bill if Congress passed it.


What of organizations such as:

International Association of Cheifs of Police
International Brotherhood of Police Officers
Fraternal Order of Police
What are their positions on the expiration of the law?

http://www.theiacp.org/documents/index.cfm?fuseaction=document&document_id=604

*Urgent Action Needed to Extend Assault Weapons Ban*

Jennifer Boyter

On September 13, the federal ban on assault weapons, first passed in 1994, will expire unless Congress acts to reauthorize it. 
Please contact your Members of Congress to urge them to support legislation to reauthorize the ban on assault weapons. We must make every effort to ensure that our elected officials understand that failure to reauthorize the assault weapons ban is a significant step back for law enforcement and public safety.

* * * * * * * * * * *

http://www.ibpo.org/press.html#johnkerry

He supports the reauthorization of the assault weapons ban and as president, will bring prosecutors into high-crime neighborhoods in an effort to reduce crime in the areas that need it the most.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

http://www.grandlodgefop.org/legislation/support.html

*LEGISLATION SUPPORTED*
*by the Grand Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police*

[font=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]_*H.R. 3831 *(T. Davis, R-VA),_ the "Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act," would reauthorize the Federal ban on certain types of assault weapons for an additional ten years;[/font] ​ 
Gee ... Maybe Kerry's statement is not so far out of line after all.


----------



## Ronald R. Harbers (Sep 13, 2004)

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that we won't need it until they try to take it".

Thomas Jefferson:armed: :drinkbeer


----------



## OULobo (Sep 13, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Isnt limiting our gun rights out of fear right on par with all the foot stamping about the Patriot Act?



I for one see, the Pat. Act as the deciding factor for my vote in this election. I will vote against Bush for the sole reason that he instated it, enforces it, abuses and tries to expand it. I see the idea of gun rights limitation as associated and related to it, and as such I am also thourghly against gun rights limitation also. The problem is that to me the dismantling of the Pat. Act is primary and gun rights is secondary.


----------



## loki09789 (Sep 13, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> The "Assault Weapons Ban" was a joke. Feel good legislation at its finest. The weapons used on the street are 99% (my estimate) crap, small caliber pocket guns that the BG isnt going to cry about if he has to toss it in the gutter. You are right on target though. Punish the illegal use severely and surely.
> 
> As to terrorists buying guns. Isnt limiting our gun rights out of fear right on par with all the foot stamping about the Patriot Act?


It is the same 'issue' solution as any policy...enforcement, coordinated cooperation and support.

Enforcement means that when LEO snag someone on the street for illegal possesion or trafficking....it sticks.

Coordinated cooperation has to happen between the Attorneys/court system and the LEO's or you get cops on the street that are not motivated to make such arrests because it will only get thrown out or something else will happen to basically make cops look useless or inaffective because they hook 'em but the courts release 'em.

SUPPORT!  If it is such a concern, diverting money to support well staffed, well equipt and well trained officers to work at the first lines needs to happen.  Too often the loudest criers are the ones who don't want to see tax increases (though I agree it shouldn't be unproductive increases) that need to fund better productivity on the sharp end.  If you look at the LEO/Citizen ration for most departments it is near impossible to really push any enforcement incentive effectively.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Sep 13, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> And I agree with flatlander - I think it was stumping for dealing with terrorism.


 And as with most ties of terrorism to policy issues, it's annoying and frustrating.

 Terrorists don't need to go into gun shops in the United States to buy small arms -- they can buy fully automatic weapons of nearly any variety far cheaper, and get more potent stuff too.  Heck, we gave many of those groups weapons when they fought the Soviet Union.

 All the "assault weapons" ban does is limit the range of weapons law-abiding US citizens can buy.


----------



## Cryozombie (Sep 13, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> All the "assault weapons" ban does is limit the range of weapons law-abiding US citizens can buy.



Oh no... Dumber than that... it limits the "Cosmetic" features of the weapons law-abiding US citizens can buy... I THINK the only thing regarding the "Function" of the weapons in question is/was the capacity of the ammo magazines.

Lets face it... having the ban in place did nothing to stop me from purchasing an AK-47 with a 40 round pre-ban mag, but it sure made it illegal to put that druganov style stock on my .22 target rifle with that 10 round mag.

Go figure.

I cannot imagine that most LEO would want my Target rifle banned, but not my AK-47.


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 13, 2004)

Ahhhhhh, you should probably just be locked up anyway. :rofl:


----------



## Tgace (Sep 13, 2004)

flatlander said:
			
		

> Ahhhhhh, you should probably just be locked up anyway. :rofl:


We just take that as a given and move on from there.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 13, 2004)

Kerry Hits Bush Over Lapse of Assault Weapons Ban

By Patricia Wilson 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrat John Kerry (news - web sites) rebuked President Bush (news - web sites) on Monday for letting a ban on assault weapons expire and said his Republican rival paid for tax cuts by taking police off the streets and slashing anti-drug programs. 


Kerry, who will face Bush in the Nov. 2 election, said the president had chosen "his powerful and well-connected friends" in a secret deal with the gun lobby over the police officers and families he promised to protect. 


"Ten years ago today, with the leadership of police officers all over the country, we passed a tough crime bill to protect America," the Massachusetts senator told supporters at the Thurgood Marshall Center. 


"We made sure, in a tough fight, that criminals couldn't get their hands on military assault weapons, and we put 100,000 cops into our nation's communities where they could make an impact and stop crimes," he said. 


Under a 10-year prohibition enacted in 1994 which expired on Monday, certain powerful military-style assault weapons were outlawed, as were high-capacity ammunition magazines holding more than 10 rounds. 


Kerry, who said he was a lifelong hunter and has portrayed himself as an avid outdoorsman to appeal to more conservative voters, pledged to uphold the Constitution's Second Amendment allowing Americans to bear arms. 


But he criticized Bush for proposing cuts to the Community Oriented Policing Services, or COPS, program that Kerry helped pass 10 years ago. It provides grants to state and local agencies to hire police officers. Bush proposed cutting it from $482 million to $97 million next year. 


"When his powerful and well-connected friends asked for a massive tax cut, he said 'sure' and he's paid for it by gutting the COPS program, slashing gang prevention and cutting enforcement programs that keep drugs like meth off the streets," Kerry said. 


"So, tomorrow for the first time in 10 years when a killer walks into a gun shop, when a terrorist goes to a gun show somewhere in America, when they want to purchase an AK-47 or some other military assault weapon, they're going to hear one word: 'sure."' 


WHITE HOUSE CALLS CHARGE "FALSE ATTACK" 


White House spokesman Scott McClellan called the charge "another false attack from Senator Kerry." 


"The best way to deter violence committed with guns is to vigorously prosecute crimes that are committed with guns," McClellan said, adding that Bush had wanted to see the safeguard remain in place but the U.S. Congress wouldn't take it up. Bush did not, however, press for its renewal. 


Supporters of the ban in Congress, who included most Democrats and some moderate Republicans, vowed to fight to restore the ban. But that is doubtful unless there are major changes this election since they cannot get a floor vote on the issue this year. 


Kerry unveiled his own $5 billion, 10-year plan to fight crime, appearing with gun control activist Sarah Brady, whose husband, Jim Brady, was shot in the 1981 assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan (news - web sites). 


Kerry said he would restore the assault weapons ban, fully fund COPS, increase scrutiny of purchases at gun shows and hire 5,000 new prosecutors. 


The ban's expiration was a victory for the powerful National Rifle Association gun lobby, which had made it a top priority. Some lawmakers were afraid to cross the NRA weeks before congressional elections. 


Many political analysts believe the gun control issue contributed to the defeat of Democrat Al Gore (news - web sites) in 2000, especially his losses in closely fought states in the Midwest and South. But opinion polls show a majority of Americans favor renewing the ban on assault weapons.


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 13, 2004)

So for those of you who are LEO and supporting the incumbent, how do you feel about this, taken from Tom's article?



> But he criticized Bush for proposing cuts to the Community Oriented Policing Services, or COPS, program that Kerry helped pass 10 years ago. It provides grants to state and local agencies to hire police officers. Bush proposed cutting it from $482 million to $97 million next year.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 13, 2004)

Federal Grants are always "dangerous" to be hired under. The gvt. funds a position and when the $$ runs out, or is cut, either the local gvt. picks up the bill or cops hit the street. Unless you are lucky enough to have an old timer retire and then the dept. wont have to hire to fill his spot.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 13, 2004)

Are so-called "Assault Weapons"
a Threat to Police Officers?

By David B. Kopel

[Originally printed in the Sept./Oct. 1997 of The Law Enforcemen Trainer, the official publication of the American Society for Law Enforcement Training.]

Handgun Control, Inc., would have you believe so, and an article in the Jan-Feb issue of this magazine repeated some of their claims nearly verbatim. But it aint necessarily so.

Here are the facts: 

In November 1995, Handgun Control, Inc. put out a "study" titled "Cops Under Fire." The study claims that 13% of police officers killed from January 1994 through September 1995 were shot with "assault weapons." HCI also wrote that in 23% of the homicides, the perpetrators gun could use a magazine holding more than ten rounds. 

But these statistics appear to have been doctored. Using the FBIs annual report, Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted, I found several incidents in 1994 (the 1995 edition of the report hasnt been produced yet) for which the HCI data was inaccurate: the wrong model gun was listed, and the real gun was not banned by the 1994 federal "assault weapon" law; the gun was taken from a police officer; or the murder was perpetrated by a police officer against another officer. 

The logical implication of HCIs counting crimes by police or crimes with guns taken from police is that police officers should not be allowed to own guns with magazines of more than 10 rounds.

For the cases involving a gun which could hold a magazine of more than 10 rounds, HCI did not specify whether the perpetrators gun actually did have such a magazine. Nor did HCI specify how many shots were actually fired. Of the 13 incidents for 1994, the FBI report specifies that more than 10 shots were fired in only once incident.

In truth, so-called "assault weapons" account for a small percentage of police homicides. From 1975 through 1992, there were 1,534 police officers feloniously murdered in the United States. Over these, 16slightly over 1 percentwere killed with "assault weapons.".

California was the state of origin for the "assault weapon" hoax. In the spring of 1989, the gun prohibition lobbies convinced the state legislature to enact an "assault weapon" prohibition by claiming that police officers were being mowed down right and left by "assault weapons" in that state. But according to a study published in the Journal of California Law Enforcement in 1991, "It is interesting to note, in the current hysteria over semi-automatic and military look-alike weapons, that the most common weapon used to murder police officers was that of the .38 Special and the .357 Magnum revolver." The Journal found that calibers for military-style shoulder weapons accounted for eight percent of officer fatalities. (Of course not every fatality involving a such a caliber necessarily involved an "assault weapon.")

Looking at the broader picture of all gun use in crime, it becomes clear that "assault weapons" are a minor part of the problem. Police gun seizure data from around the nation finds that "assault weapons" account for less than 2% of guns seized by the police; more typically, they account for less than 1%. (Data from 24 major jurisdictions are provided in chapter 4 of my book Guns: Who Should Have Them?)

According the gun prohibition lobbies, Los Angeles is the "assault weapon" capital of the world, where scores of drive-by shootings every year perpetrated with these evil guns. But a study in the New England Journal of Medicine investigated the 583 drive-by shootings in Los Angeles in 1991 in which a person under the age of eighteen was shot at. "Use of an assault weapon was documented in one incident." (H. Range Hutson, Deirdre Anglin, and Michael J. Pratts, "Adolescents and Children Injured or Killed in Drive-By Shootings in Los Angeles," New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 330 [1994], p. 326.)

Los Angeles County Sheriffs Deputy Dwight Van Horn is the firearms examiner for South-Central L.A., the most gang-ridden spot in the United States. "I deal with firearms-identification experts at departments all over the country," he says, "and I can tell you that the claim that AK-47s or something called an assault weaponwhich is simply a fabricated political and media term meant to vilify firearms that look like military arms but actually means whatever someone wants it to meanis widely used by criminals, isnt true and never has been true." 

The most recent research about "assault weapon" use in crimes against civilians and the police is a March 1997 report from the Urban Institute, under contract from the U.S. Department of Justice. The study looked at data from January 1992 through May 1996. There were 276 officer homicides, of which 20 (seven percent) were verified to have involved an "assault weapon." In the first half of 1996, there were no "assault weapon" homicides, a fact which some would interpret to suggest that the "assault weapon" ban is working.

On the other hand, there were also no "assault weapon" homicides of police in 1992, a year when there was no federal ban in place.

Indeed, almost half (9 of 20) of the "assault weapon" shootings occurred in 1994. In that year, the ban went into effect in September, but President Clinton and gun prohibition lobby were generating "assault weapon" publicity throughout the year.

We know that television shows such as Miami Vice pique interest in particular exotic models of firearms. Is it possibility that all the publicity that President Clinton, Attorney General Reno, and others gave to "assault weapons" in 1994making wild claims about what great "cop-killer" weapons they weremay have attracted the interest of some potential cop killers?

The Urban Institute report concluded, "In sum, police officers are rarely murdered with assault weapons." The study noted that "assault weapons" were more likely to be used in murders of police officers than in other murders, but not have sufficient information to conclude why this was so. ("Cop-killer" publicity is certainly one possibility.)

The study said that it was possible, but not proven, that the Clinton gun ban might affect the proportion of "assault weapons" used in police homicides. The study did not attempt to investigate whether any possible shift from "assault weapons" to other guns had resulted in fewer law enforcement deaths.

If "assault weapon" bans did work, it is unlikely that police or the public would be safer. The federal "assault weapon" law does not define "assault weapons" based on rate of fire, velocity, bullet weight, or any other measure of lethality. Rather the ban is based on cosmetic features, such as whether the gun has a bayonet lug, or whether the a rifles pistol grip protrudes "conspicuously."

If criminals were bayoneting police officers, banning bayonet-capable guns might have some impact. But an aesthetic exercise like the federal "assault weapon" ban is unlikely to make a real difference on the streets. 

More fundamentally, the fact that some criminals use a particular type of gun against the police is no justification for banning the possession of that gun by law-abiding citizens. In contrast to "assault weapons," handguns really are used in many attacks against police. But the misuse of handguns by criminals is no reason to disarm the 99% of handgun owners who are law-abidingany more than the occasional misuse of guns by criminal police officers is a reason to disarm law-abiding police.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 13, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> This quote came from a CNN article:
> 
> What of organizations such as:
> 
> ...




*[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][size=+3]The Cop Revolt Against Gun Control[/size][/font]* 

*[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][size=+1]By Richard Poe[/size][/font]* *[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][size=+1]October 23, 2003[/size][/font]* 

*AN ALL-OUT REVOLT* against gun control may be brewing among rank-and-file police officers. 



In my last column, "*Gray Davis Cop-Killing Gun Law*," I revealed that anti-gun zealots such as Sarah Brady and Ted Kennedy have found a new enemy: cops. No longer content to disarm ordinary citizens, gun prohibitionists now want to strip off-duty and retired police of the right to keep and bear arms. 

Reader reaction to my column was mixed. Virtually every correspondent favored gun rights, but many expressed disdain for the rights of police. 

"Maybe when their CCW [Concealed Carry Weapon] rights are stripped away they will look more favorably on ALL of us being allowed to carry," *grumped one reader* on the FreeRepublic.com message board. "Police officers should not get special rights." 

"Hear Hear! Screw the cops let them see how it feels!" *responded another*. 

"_ find it hard to feel too sorry for the cops," opined a third reader by e-mail. "Let them taste some of what we supposedly free Americans have been dealing with. If I can't carry across state lines or into a government building, why the hell should a cop be able to?" 

The resentment these readers express is understandable. Police spokesmen often publicly applaud gun crackdowns. But police brass in big cities are not free to speak their minds. They get their marching orders from City Hall. If they want to keep their jobs, they must toe the party line. Often that means pretending to support gun control, when in fact they oppose it. 

During a 1990 crime wave in New York City, an ex-cop named Stephen DAndrilli suggested on a TV talk show that the city issue one million permits to carry handguns. Host Dick Oliver asked then-New York Governor Mario Cuomo to respond. Cuomo snapped, "Why dont you ask the cops what they think of everybody packing guns?" 

Oliver replied that a Mr. Byrne, then head of the Police Benevolent Association, had said of DAndrillis plan, "Its a good idea." 

"Well, somebody better talk to Mr. Byrne, straighten him out," said the governor. 

Many high-ranking police have been "straightened out" behind the scenes just as Governor Cuomo prescribed. 

"The Clinton Administration was particularly successful at enlisting police support for gun control," notes the Web site of the *Law Enforcement Alliance of America (LEAA)* a national anti-crime organization of law enforcement professionals, crime victims and concerned citizens, based in Falls Church, VA. 

"[The Clinton White House] funneled millions of your tax dollars in political payoffs, disguised as `research into the pockets of national law enforcement organizations," *states an online article published by the LEAA*. "In one year during the Clinton Administration, the Police Executive Research Forum, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Sheriffs Association and the Police Foundation collectively hauled in $4.4 million in Justice Department grants. [P]olice groups that scurried to do Clinton's bidding happen to be the same ones that were awarded the lucrative federal grants." 

The same LEAA article notes that many police officers were literally ordered to support the Brady Bill and the *1994 "Assault Weapons" Ban*. "In some outrageous cases, police officers who actually opposed the legislation were forced by their superiors to appear in staged photographs as if they were solidly behind gun control!" *charges the LEAA*. 

Despite all the payoffs and political arm-twisting, when the National Association of Chiefs of Police conducted a mail survey of 15,000 sheriffs and police chiefs in 1996, 93 percent said they approved of law-abiding citizens arming themselves for self-defense. 

More and more pro-gun cops are working at the grassroots level in support of citizen gun rights. 

Shortly after the 9-11 attacks, Sheriff John Raichl of Clatsop County, Oregon proposed recruiting armed citizens to guard docks, bridges, reservoirs, power stations, gas lines and other potential terrorist targets. Governor John Kitzhaber *shot down Raichls plan*. 

*Kennesaw, Georgia* and *Virgin, Utah* passed laws requiring every household to own at least one gun. "Hundreds of towns and cities are passing or considering similar ordinances," *claims VirginUtah.com*, a Web site which promotes the towns unusual gun laws. 

Meanwhile, Sarah Brady and Ted Kennedy continue antagonizing police by *opposing Senate bill 253*  a law that would permit active and retired cops to carry concealed weapons anywhere in the USA, without restriction. Gun-ban activists have made a fatal error by targeting police. They have laid the groundwork for a grassroots alliance of gun owners and lawmen  a coalition that could well tip the scales in favor of our beleaguered Second Amendment. 

_


----------



## Cryozombie (Sep 13, 2004)

flatlander said:
			
		

> Ahhhhhh, you should probably just be locked up anyway. :rofl:



Shhhhhh.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 13, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> *The Cop Revolt Against Gun Control*
> 
> *By Richard Poe* *October 23, 2003*
> 
> *AN ALL-OUT REVOLT* against gun control may be brewing among rank-and-file police officers.


I'm not quite sure what you want me to draw from this article. You quoted my earlier posting, and then this article. It really says very little about the Assault Weapons ban, and nothing about it's expiration. Nor does it say anything about Senator Kerry. 

It seems to me that, if you are in Law Enforcement, and three major Law Enforcement organizations support an extention of the 'assualt weapons ban', that perhaps you should be appealing to your leadership groups, rather than me. 

That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.


----------



## MisterMike (Sep 13, 2004)

Somehow I doubt those "major law enforcement associations" took a vote from their members.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 13, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Somehow I doubt those "major law enforcement associations" took a vote from their members.


Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. They are leadership organizations, how do they get to be leaders, self-appointed power?


----------



## Cryozombie (Sep 13, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. They are leadership organizations, how do they get to be leaders, self-appointed power?



I believe, that leaders in LE, are promoted by their superiors, not voted into place by their Peers.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 13, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I'm not quite sure what you want me to draw from this article. You quoted my earlier posting, and then this article. It really says very little about the Assault Weapons ban, and nothing about it's expiration. Nor does it say anything about Senator Kerry.
> 
> It seems to me that, if you are in Law Enforcement, and three major Law Enforcement organizations support an extention of the 'assualt weapons ban', that perhaps you should be appealing to your leadership groups, rather than me.
> 
> That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.


I got the impression that you were saying the "rank and file" LEO's (through your listed organizations) were for the ban.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 13, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> I got the impression that you were saying the "rank and file" LEO's (through your listed organizations) were for the ban.


What I was saying was that when Senator Kerry makes the statement that Law Enforcment Officers are in favor of the Assault Weapons Ban it could be because several important organizations, theoretically composed of those Law Enforcement Officers, are in favor of the ban.

If the 'rank and file' do not support the 'official position' of the leadership, I think we as a society have a lot more to worry about than an Assault Weapons Ban. 

That would seem to me that our Law Enforcement Organizations are functioning like a totalitarian state. 
* * * * * * * 
*Totalitarian state 
*This is a country with only one political party. 
People are forced to do what the government tells them and may also be prevented from leaving the country. 

* * * * * * 

Incidentally, here is the exact text of the September 10 speech
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0910a.html


> Four years ago, George Bush said hed stand with and protect Americas police officers by extending the assault weapons ban  which keeps the most dangerous assault weapons off our streets.   The same weapons that Americas police officers want off our streets, not just to fight ordinary crime but to take on terrorists.  In fact, an al Qaeda training manual recovered in Afghanistan included a chapter urging terrorists to get assault weapons in the United States.  Why is George Bush making the job of the terrorists easier and making the job for Americas police officers harder?
> Heres the answer: the NRA put the squeeze on George Bush and theyre spending tens of millions of dollars to support his campaign.  So now, the president is saying with a wink and a smile that hell extend the assault weapons ban if Congress sends it to him. And Congress says theyll send it to him if he asks for it.
> 
> But time is running out. The assault weapons ban will expire on Monday.
> ...


----------



## Tgace (Sep 13, 2004)

> If the 'rank and file' do not support the 'official position' of the leadership, I think we as a society have a lot more to worry about than an Assault Weapons Ban.


Large Police organizations are "political" bodies. Ran by people who are closer to politicians than cops and susceptible the the same pressures and influences. Not much different from any others. I havent heard my Union (or Chief) make a comment on this either way. Is an LEO not agreeing with the "official position" dangerous? Does disagreeing with the President make you UnAmerican?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 14, 2004)

In response to your question, it would seem that the answer of George Bush, Dick Cheney, and many others is, "Hell, yes it does. Support our wars or leave."


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 14, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Is an LEO not agreeing with the "official position" dangerous? Does disagreeing with the President make you UnAmerican?


If it is a single law enforcement officer who does not agree with a policy, then I do not believe it is dangerous.

However, it seems that throughout this thread, many seem to be indicating that it is only the 'Top Brass' who are in favor on the continuation of the Assault Weapons Ban. If the majority of Law Enforcement Officers are against the ban which is officially supported by the leadership, I do believe that starts to begin being dangerous.

Theoretically, the President is elected by a majority of the citizenry, present case excepted, and if his policies are not with the majority of the people, we can take action to change the President.


----------



## MisterMike (Sep 14, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> If it is a single law enforcement officer who does not agree with a policy, then I do not believe it is dangerous.
> 
> However, it seems that throughout this thread, many seem to be indicating that it is only the 'Top Brass' who are in favor on the continuation of the Assault Weapons Ban. If the majority of Law Enforcement Officers are against the ban which is officially supported by the leadership, I do believe that starts to begin being dangerous.
> 
> Theoretically, the President is elected by a majority of the citizenry, present case excepted, and if his policies are not with the majority of the people, we can take action to change the President.



And if the 'Top Brass' are pro-choice and the officers do not, is that dangerous too?

What is exactly dangerous? Do you foresee a national  police department coup?


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 14, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> And if the 'Top Brass' are pro-choice and the officers do not, is that dangerous too?


 I guess it would depend on what what the 'American Nursing Assocaition' has to say about the 'Assault Weapons Ban'.
Of course, since the ANA is not really a credible source about law enforcement, considering what International Associate of Chiefs of Police think concerning a woman's reproductive rights is similiarly *in*credible.



			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> What is exactly dangerous? Do you foresee a national police department coup?


What exactly is dangerous is that perhaps the 'rank and file' might feel that their leadership is so misguided, and that they and the colleagues are so much more enlightend, *and empowered*, that they begin to act in contrary to legal obligations.

A coup would not bother me, as it would, by definition take place within the organization.

I would worry more about activities taking place among the citizenry. We have seen on this message board other discussion about 'selective enforcement'. Why should I not worry when those representing the community speak as this:



			
				punisher73 said:
			
		

> I also work in LEO, and the *vast majority* I know DOES NOT support gun control.





			
				kenpotex said:
			
		

> I don't think I've ever met a LEO (except for they current county sheriff) who supported gun control





			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> As an LEO, I can tell you that most of us (sans Chiefs/Commissioners etc. who are more politicians than cops) are against "gun" control


Mike


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 14, 2004)

The differences in opinion between those 'officially representing' the associations in the form of union leadership or what have you are an unsurprising manifestation of the differences in the relationships of the collective groups to actual law enforcement.  The members themselves, as the ones who apply the law daily, will have a more 'real world' and practical approach to how they form their opinion on this topic.  The 'leadership' is now, as always, expressing their views from a political position.  They are political people, doing political jobs.

Is it terribly surprising that the ones chosen to represent these organizations don't actually reflect the will of the people they represent?  We need not look any further than our own top down 'democracies' to see that the paradigm of grassroots representation has been long forgotten.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 14, 2004)

So, what you are saying is:

"I don't want to be a member of any club that would have me as a member."

When it comes to Law Enforcment, that just doesn't sound reassuring.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 14, 2004)

Do all the soldiers in Iraq support the Presidents decisions?

Are you going to accuse them of not doing their duty anyways?


I dont enforce the Law because a Chief/Union/Politician tells me too. I enforce the Law because its my duty and I swore an oath to.

I find your implication that we would do otherwise offensive.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 14, 2004)

Sorry, but it is NOT automatically more, "real world and practical," to be on the proverbial street, though I agree that this is my prejudice too. Nor, given the context here, is it more, "real world and practical," to oppose a sane set of gun control laws--though a saner set would simply ban all handguns, and all guns easily convertible to automatic fire.

After all, any sane LEO will tell you that if you want a gun for home defense, nothing beats a 12-gauge.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 14, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Do all the soldiers in Iraq support the Presidents decisions?
> 
> Are you going to accuse them of not doing their duty anyways?
> 
> ...


Please feel free to take offense.

While I understand that in your discussions on this board, you are not acting in your role as Law Enforcement Officer, however, I was always taught that Uniformed Officers of the Law are to be looked to for safety, security, and authority. The comments that I quoted above do nothing to reinforce those beliefs, and do quite a bit to counter those beliefs.

I have never looked at Law Enforcement Officers as 'The Enemy', the comments brought forth in this thread make that point of view more understandable to me. 

Michael Atkinson


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 14, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Sorry, but it is NOT automatically more, "real world and practical," to be on the proverbial street, though I agree that this is my prejudice too. Nor, given the context here, is it more, "real world and practical," to oppose a sane set of gun control laws--though a saner set would simply ban all handguns, and all guns easily convertible to automatic fire.
> 
> After all, any sane LEO will tell you that if you want a gun for home defense, nothing beats a 12-gauge.


Do you feel it's predjudicial thinking? I didn't mean to imply that street officers should automatically suggest anything, rather, that their opinions will be based on their daily dealings with firearms, as well as the application of the assault weapons law, whereas the organizational leaders would be making strategic statements based on other motives. Generally speaking. Of course, there will be no absolutes.

ETA - and yes, a 12 gauge would likely suffice, if my wife would let me keep one in the house.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 15, 2004)

flatlander said:
			
		

> ETA - and yes, a 12 gauge would likely suffice, if my wife would let me keep one in the house.


Good woman you got there ... I suggest you keep her


----------



## loki09789 (Sep 15, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Please feel free to take offense.
> 
> While I understand that in your discussions on this board, you are not acting in your role as Law Enforcement Officer, however, I was always taught that Uniformed Officers of the Law are to be looked to for safety, security, and authority. The comments that I quoted above do nothing to reinforce those beliefs, and do quite a bit to counter those beliefs.
> 
> ...


First, people in America should have the freedom to an individual opinion and the right to express it, why should LEO (who generally think in terms of 'professional fraternity' but act in departmental and personal professional loyalty) be expected to subject themselves to a "hive mind" about gun control?

We have a thread about differing opinions about Tazers, legal/procedural soundness of LEO's in action where brother officers, former officers and civilians all express individual opinions.

How many times has anyone here done 'their job' even when, personally, they may have a different take on the issue?

I think the 'offense' that is being expressed is that your statements could be interpretted to mean that ALL officers will either rise up against the 'state' or that they will not do their appointed job because they don't agree with the laws/policies they are expected to enforce.

I don't agree with all the school policies/philosophies or standards that I have to use and assess myself and students by, but I do it.  Why? Because I am a professional (as I was as an MP as well and as LEO are in general) and even though I don't 'like' or 'agree' with something, I can 'understand' what function it serves for the greater good.

THAT has always been my point about some of the dissent/"UnAmerican" comments that I have made.  Are we working to improve the greater good or just complaining and bashing someone/something we don't like personally?

I would say that the original point of the thread was the idea that Kerry or anyone can speak for ALL LEO or ALL of any profession or group of any kind with any authority.  He can't because there is no NATIONAL POLICE committee or a universal charter.  We have departments and precincts and such.  Pockets of people that are from the diverse communities that they serve.  That would be like saying that all Californians are representative of the national trend or that opinions expressed by a poll taken of people walking on Wall Street represent the opinions of ALL New York City ... isn't true.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 15, 2004)

Very nice Paul....Funny how LEO's "doing their job" by enforcing "protest zones" is a whole other matter isnt it?


----------



## MisterMike (Sep 15, 2004)

You mean you can't have it both ways?  :uhyeah:


----------



## Tgace (Sep 15, 2004)

Bingo!!!

Suprise! LEO's have political opinions. Never implied that they wouldnt do their duty regardless of them. Its called professionalism.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Sep 15, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> THAT has always been my point about some of the dissent/"UnAmerican" comments that I have made.  Are we working to improve the greater good or just complaining and bashing someone/something we don't like personally?



Some people like to argue.  However, just because some immature people will argue for the sake of argument does not mean that all dissent is "UnAmerican", or that it is not an attempt to improve the greater good.  

In fact, a lack of dissent helps contribute to many evils.  Any study of history will provide many examples to back this up.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 21, 2004)

I know this thread is probably dead, but I found this interesting discussion about the AWB on a LEO forum. Interesting opinions if you are interested. It is a jump to another forum though...if you dont like doing that be forewarned. 

http://www.policemag.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=300

Heres a good one too..

http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerry200410172106.asp



> *FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE ASK KERRY TO STOP MISREPRESENTING THEIR SUPPORT*
> 
> Note this release from the Fraternal Order of Police:
> 
> ...


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 21, 2004)

Hey, it's the darndest thing. I just did a quick Internet search, and, a) Mr. Canterbury has a number of hits in which he brags about getting the Bush admin to midify its recent sweeping overtime changes to benefit police officers, and b) Mr Canterbury is front-page on the Bush/Cheney website!!
Well, dog my cats. Fortunately, I feel sure that Mr. Canterbury would IN NO WAY play political games, or color his remarks to win something for his constituents.


----------

