What kind of LEO percentage supports the 2A?

[DonD]

As a number of posters have said, it is my opinion that most police chiefs and sheriffs are first and foremost politicians when they get promoted/appointed/elected.

Any LEO organization that has a chief who is fully focused on effective law enforcement and backing up the troops is lucky indeed because I think they're in the minority. When you're appointed by the mayor as most police chiefs are, no suprise where their loyalties lie and it isn't with the patrol officer, it's with brown nosing the mayor. Don

 

[smitholdtimer]

Political Law Enforcement

Having read all the post here and appreciating them for their content, I wish to compliment each of you for the way this was conducted. Made much more informative with the lack of hostilities and your points were all made so that they could be understood, thank each of you for sharing. If there was only a way to rid Law Enforcement of Politics.

 

[safearm]

5Wire,
While it is named the "International Association of Chiefs of Police," the association has a decidedly North American persuasion. Of the 12 members of the governing board of the association, 11 are from US departments, and the International VP is the retired Chief Superintendent of the RCMP.
Most articles in the "Police Chief" magazine reference US police forces and activities. There are occassional articles on international crime and police management, however, every legal article that I have read since joining in 1995 has been about US cases.
I really don't believe that the international (non-US) membership has any influence on the association's position on US issues, i.e., 2nd Amendment or National Concealed Carry.

 

[5Wire]

Thanks, Safearm.

 

[cmort666]

I agree that the everyday street cop supports private ownership of firearms.

Some of them do, some of them don't.

I've recently seen people on Chicago newspaper websites claiming to be cops on both sides of the McDonald case.

And as with everything else, it depends upon how you word the question. Diane Feinstein supports firearms ownership, as long as the owners are her and her friends and they have absolute veto power over "them" (defined however they feel) having them.

I've seen cops support the "right" to have long guns but not handguns.

I've seen cops support the "right" to have handguns, but not CARRY them.

I've seen cops support the "right" to buy a gun ONLY from an FFL licensed dealer.

Obama says he "supports the 2nd Amendment". That doesn't make it so, much less not make it an attempt to mislead the public.

 

[cmort666]

That said, I do not support open carry...particularly in urban settings.

You don't need to support it.

If you're a serving LEO, you just need to OBEY the law (or lack of law) governing it.

I don't "support" Ohio's requirement to "promptly" notify an LEO when carrying and stopped for a "law enforcement purpose", nor do I "support" Ohio's ban on carry in liquor serving restaurants like Chipotle and TGI Friday's. I don't have to SUPPORT those laws, I just have to OBEY them.

 

[625 Shooter]

I will comment as a LEO albeit one now retired.

LEO's are sworn to uphold the Constitution, For most, it's part of their oath of office. Of course, the 2nd Amendment is part of the Constitution.

That said, I do not support open carry...particularly in urban settings. I am also of the belief that carry should be regulated. By regulated, I mean there should be background checks and regular qualifications/training if one wants to tote a gun on their person.

I have no problems whatsoever with "shall issue" rules/policies provided there is a level of review/training.

Be safe.

Thats interesting.

You said, "LEO's are sworn to uphold the Constitution, For most, it's part of their oath of office." "For most"?? Do you mean that not all LEOs take it seriously? Unfortunately, I think you're correct. And those LEOs that don't seriously support/defend should be weeded out!

How do reconcile the fact there are virtually no problems in open carry states?

Don't you think (as I believe) that IF there were significant problems in open carry states, the lefist media would be broadcasting it day and night?

I agree in small part - I do (personally) prefer concealed carry in some crowded places, but I also open carry quite frequently. One should use some common sense. But I'll stand with the open carry crowd.

I also disagree with your belief that "carry should be regulated." How does that reconcile with "...shall not be infringed"??

In open carry states, such as Nevada, open carry (by anyone not otherwise prohibited; ie, felons, etc) is completely lawful - no background check nor training required.

But let your shirt/jacket cover your firearm, and a CCW permit is required - which entails a background check and a mandatory training class with shooting quals.

Again, IF there were 'problems' ..... But there are virtually no problems.

And how do you reconcile Constitutional Carry laws of Vermont and Alaska (and now Arizona)?? What is wrong with Constitutional Carry? Vermont has had it since statehood in 1791. Alaska has had it since 2003. And now Arizona will have it commencing next month.

Have you EVER heard of problems in VT or AK? No, I didn't think so.

Are my fellow Nevadans - or citizens in any other state - somehow less trustworthy than the people in VT or AK (and AZ)?

And please don't say, "But I live in a state with cities with a lot of crime." That simply does not wash. What does the population or crime rate have to do with anything? Restrictive firearms laws do NOT prevent crime (look at New York, Chicago, Washington DC, etc, etc, etc. And England, etc also.) Of course VT, AK (and now AZ) have large cities (and crime) too.

I do not mean to sound "harsh." But I do vehemently disagree with your beliefs.

Thank you for your LEO service. I appreciate your comments - and as I am also sworn to defend our great Constitution (U. S. Navy, 20 years active duty, 10 years of combined active reserve, inactive reserve, and fleet reserve), I'll also stand to defend your (and everyone's) 1st Amendment rights.

 

[625 Shooter]

Oh, so you're one of the people who think a 14 year old should be able to exercise his/her Constitutional Rights and carry a pistol. I see...

He did NOT say that at all.

Just like the right to vote, the privilege of driving on public highways, etc, youth is a separate subject.

Having said that, however, what is wrong with a youth carrying a pistol in certain situations IF he/she has parental permission and guidance??

 

[625 Shooter]

Some of them do, some of them don't.

I've recently seen people on Chicago newspaper websites claiming to be cops on both sides of the McDonald case.

And as with everything else, it depends upon how you word the question. Diane Feinstein supports firearms ownership, as long as the owners are her and her friends and they have absolute veto power over "them" (defined however they feel) having them.

I've seen cops support the "right" to have long guns but not handguns.

I've seen cops support the "right" to have handguns, but not CARRY them.

I've seen cops support the "right" to buy a gun ONLY from an FFL licensed dealer.

Obama says he "supports the 2nd Amendment". That doesn't make it so, much less not make it an attempt to mislead the public.

Well said.

While I believe the majority of rank/file LEOs do support the right to keep/bear arms, the vast majority of upper echelon LEOs apparently do not; and too many LEOs like to pick and choose.

And those that pick and choose (like "own but not carry", etc) really alarm me.

This is NOT like drivers licenses (which is a privilege). This is about a natural right, guaranteed by the Constitution.

 

[cmort666]

Well said.

While I believe the majority of rank/file LEOs do support the right to keep/bear arms, the vast majority of upper echelon LEOs apparently do not; and too many LEOs like to pick and choose.

I prefer not to make a blanket statement about the OPINIONS of STRANGERS, regarding such a POLITICALLY complex issue.

I'm sure that Dick Daley would say that the cops are on his side.
I've seen a lot of people say that "most" cops are on "our" side, meaning ownership, shall issue carry, etc.

I think they'd both be wrong.

I don't agree with ANYTHING else that he says, but I agree pretty much 100% with what the owner of the SecondCityCop blog says about the 2nd Amendment and firearms owners' rights.

At the same time, the Lima, Ohio PD is strapped to a speeding rocket sled hurtling towards a 1983 Federal civil rights lawsuit for recently harassing an open carrier with whom they'd PREVIOUSLY settled out of court for EXACTLY the same thing. That wasn't the chief or the deputy chief. It was the officer on the street who made TWO epic fails in a row, with the SAME person.

Opinions are frequently unpredictable, or at least highly difficult to predict.

 

[The Big D]

You don't need to support it.

If you're a serving LEO, you just need to OBEY the law (or lack of law) governing it.

I don't "support" Ohio's requirement to "promptly" notify an LEO when carrying and stopped for a "law enforcement purpose", nor do I "support" Ohio's ban on carry in liquor serving restaurants like Chipotle and TGI Friday's. I don't have to SUPPORT those laws, I just have to OBEY them.

For the record, I wasn't speaking of LAWS governing open carry. If that was not obvious, your mistake/misconception.

Also, for the record, I do NOT like open carry...never will.

It must be noted that LEO's (obviously) don't legislate law; they enforce it. Failure to do so can/will result in serious consequences...including "Misprision of Felony."

All said, I choose not to live in any jurisdiction that allows the populace to meander about whilst rocking a gun on their belt...or "worse." (e.g. the knucklehead who showed up at a political rally with a long gun and pistol.)

Whilst serving as a LEO, agency rules, local laws, and common sense precluded sworn officers from open carry unless in uniform. That made sense to me then; still does.

Given that some in this very Forum have offered they would do NOTHING to help another citizen in need, I fail to fathom why they carry at all. We live in a society, after all.


Be safe.

 

[jlw]

Let me interject this:

The officer applicant pool comes from the general public. Is the general public more or less educated on the Constitution than it seemingly used to be?

 

[cmort666]

It must be noted that LEO's (obviously) don't legislate law; they enforce it.

That's what the LAW says.

Unfortunately, too often that's not how it works. The Lima, Ohio PD has for the SECOND time, unlawfully harassed an open carrier. The first time he settled out of court with them for additional training for their officers. Either that training never took place, or the officers in question simply decided that state law doesn't apply to them. These things are happening all over the country. I highly doubt that there will be "training" this time. There's going to be money extracted, from Lima and from the officers who put themselves above the law.

As I said, nobody, officer or citizen has to like the law. They'd BETTER obey it.

 

[The Big D]

As I said, nobody, officer or citizen has to like the law. They'd BETTER obey it.

Now that IS something we agree upon.

Be safe.

 

[HCD]

Today, I doubt 10% of the police officers I bump into here in Indiana think the public has any business with a handgun, much less the right to carry one in public for self-defense. As the years have gone by, I think that percentage has steadily decreased. The younger generation seems particularly militant about that. I hope this is just a local phenomenon.

Based on that, I am not too inclined to vote for LEOs running for public office, but I do try to look at each candidate individually. We just saw a retired chief who was/is gun-unfriendly take a thorough shellacking in a primary race for sheriff. He was trying to be "careful" about his position. Didn't work. The good voters had had enough of his nonsense - on a variety of issues.

Sir: if you devided your state into quarters NW-NE-SW-SE what quarter would it be in (the primary). I'm up in the air on my next general election Rep. vs. Dem. re: Sheriffs Office. If it's not in my neck of the woods I'll just ignor the answer if it is in my area I'll do further research. Here we had a State Trooper running for his parties nomination but he didn't get on.
HCD

 

[FTG-05]

5Wire,
This is IACP's opinion on National Concealed Carry:

"Sen. John Thune (R-SD) recently introduced S. 845, Respecting States’ Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009. S. 845 would allow an individual to carry concealed firearms when visiting another state as long as the individual was entitled to carry concealed firearms pursuant to the laws of his or her home state.

The IACP is strongly opposed to this legislation. It is the IACP’s belief that states and localities should have the right to determine who is eligible to carry firearms in their communities. It is essential that state and local governments maintain the ability to legislate concealed carry laws that best fit the needs of their communities."

As a member of IACP, I agree with this position; it should be left to the states and localities to determine who in their jurisdiction is authorized to carry concealed weapons. You might disagree with me, but that's my position and of the organization.

I can't find anything on the IACP web-site that addresses the 2nd Amendment as a whole.

Well, that at least explains why you don't think the IACP supports gun control: You don't even recognize gun control when it comes out of your own mouth.

 

[DeadManWalking]

I will comment as a LEO albeit one now retired.

LEO's are sworn to uphold the Constitution, For most, it's part of their oath of office. Of course, the 2nd Amendment is part of the Constitution.

That said, I do not support open carry...particularly in urban settings. I am also of the belief that carry should be regulated. By regulated, I mean there should be background checks and regular qualifications/training if one wants to tote a gun on their person.

I have no problems whatsoever with "shall issue" rules/policies provided there is a level of review/training.

Be safe.

Sorry Big D, I do not agree. You say "LEO's are sworn to uphold the Constitution" but after reading the 2nd Amendment and the rest of the Constitution that you swore to uphold I can find nothing that says anything about these restrictions, no theses INFRINGEMENTS, you suggest. But we are all allowed our opinions and what is sad is that most LEO's feel like you.
Thomas Jefferson said it best and notice he said nothing about qualification or training or any of the other legal mumbo jumbo that seems to come out of the mouths of the ruling class.

'The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.'
Thomas Jefferson

If I've offended you and or anyone else please accept my deepest sympathies.

 

[luangtom]

My personal observation has been that most LEO's support the 2A for legitimate citizens. However, groups like the IACP are mostly made up of political appointees and their attitudes toward the 2A generally reflect those of the mayor or commission that appointed them to their position. It may not be their personal opinion, but it is the opinion that keeps them in their respective positions.

Luckily, I worked for a pro-2A sheriff and was later appointed to a Police Commission by a pro-gun mayor and city council.

 

[DeadManWalking]

Cops Warn Republicans Anti-Union Stance Has Consequences

You want to know where the leo's stand on the 2nd? With the unions, of course.

Firefighters, Cops Warn Republicans Anti-Union Stance Has Consequences

 

[bubbiesdad]

Oh, so you're one of the people who think a 14 year old should be able to exercise his/her Constitutional Rights and carry a pistol. I see...

Oh, so you're one of those people who when they say they support the Second Amendment, they really mean for themselves, but not for the majority of America. I see........