What kind of LEO percentage supports the 2A?
- Thread starter Gun
- Start date
5Wire
Member
I suppose YOU're also ignorant of the fact that most of the constitutional provisions are ignored or violated regarding minors on a regular basis. They are barely just starting to recognize that minors have a right to free speech.
Also in view of cases like Heller and McDonald, it's obvious that certain politicians totally believe the constitution doesn't apply to most of us either.
And the guy you quoted said nothing about 14 year olds, or maniacs or any other immature or unstable person.
Lew Archer
Member
Perhaps the larger question is how the concept of citizen self defense is viewed. One reason so many "street cops"...i.e., patrol officers and deputies...tend to be more "pro gun" is that they spend their days responding to crimes after they occur and witnessing, first hand, the impact of violent crime on victims.
Rarely to they encounter the would-be-victim who was able to repel a criminal assault. When they do, they applaud. They applaud because it's so refreshing to see the bad guy get the surprise of a lifetime.
Administrators are more detached from the patrol officer's reality.
The conventional/official advice from LE agencies to the public is "don't resist, don't fight back, don't arm yourself, rely on the police." It's a little misleading, since, legally speaking, the police have no affirmative duty to provide police protection.
Some friends of mine were victims of a car jacking in Los Angeles about 15 years ago. The patrol officers who responded spoke of the growing problem of violent crime in that neighborhood and recommended that my friends arm themselves and learn to shoot. Definitely not the "official" advice (be a good victim, don't resist) you'd expect to hear in Southern California. But those officers saw victims everyday and knew very well that the police can't protect them, and only respond after the damage is done.
The administrator/chief is more likely to subscribe to the less guns=less crime viewpoint, particularly in certain parts of the country. Plus, they view the armed citizen as a potential threat to their officers. Then, often, their political fortunes are tied to the prevailing view on the issue by the powers-that-be in their area...
So, if you're the Superintendant of Police in Chicago, it's in your political interest to take the "only the police should have guns view." Taking a pro-self defense, pro-2nd Amendment view would be political suicide and make no mistake, there is plenty of politics in LE, particularly at the upper levels.
And, if you subscribe to the "only the police should have guns" view, you really can't encourage people to violently resist criminal assault...so all you can recommend is that people be passive and compliant if attacked.
The sad byproduct of the "don't fight back" advice is this: by encouraging people to be passive victims, we empower and encourage criminals, who will, in turn, commit more violent crimes, and more innocent folks will become victims of those crimes.
Rarely to they encounter the would-be-victim who was able to repel a criminal assault. When they do, they applaud. They applaud because it's so refreshing to see the bad guy get the surprise of a lifetime.
Administrators are more detached from the patrol officer's reality.
The conventional/official advice from LE agencies to the public is "don't resist, don't fight back, don't arm yourself, rely on the police." It's a little misleading, since, legally speaking, the police have no affirmative duty to provide police protection.
Some friends of mine were victims of a car jacking in Los Angeles about 15 years ago. The patrol officers who responded spoke of the growing problem of violent crime in that neighborhood and recommended that my friends arm themselves and learn to shoot. Definitely not the "official" advice (be a good victim, don't resist) you'd expect to hear in Southern California. But those officers saw victims everyday and knew very well that the police can't protect them, and only respond after the damage is done.
The administrator/chief is more likely to subscribe to the less guns=less crime viewpoint, particularly in certain parts of the country. Plus, they view the armed citizen as a potential threat to their officers. Then, often, their political fortunes are tied to the prevailing view on the issue by the powers-that-be in their area...
So, if you're the Superintendant of Police in Chicago, it's in your political interest to take the "only the police should have guns view." Taking a pro-self defense, pro-2nd Amendment view would be political suicide and make no mistake, there is plenty of politics in LE, particularly at the upper levels.
And, if you subscribe to the "only the police should have guns" view, you really can't encourage people to violently resist criminal assault...so all you can recommend is that people be passive and compliant if attacked.
The sad byproduct of the "don't fight back" advice is this: by encouraging people to be passive victims, we empower and encourage criminals, who will, in turn, commit more violent crimes, and more innocent folks will become victims of those crimes.
Last edited:
usma1369 I live in New Mexico an open carry state and we have no problems with open carry here from 1 end of the state to the other. So also don't go saying open carry is bad.You are entitled to your "opiunion" but don't state it as fact.I to am a retired PO.
5Wire
Member
Lew, I'm curious about how you can make that statement when two posts above yours is a copy of a nationwide survey of chiefs of police and sheriffs showing exactly the opposite of your claim. That is to say, 94% of administrator/chiefs favor citizens being able to purchase firearms for self defense.
How do you support your claim?
Lew Archer
Member
Thanks for your question, 5Wire. I found it thought provoking.
To begin with, I did not make any blanket statements about administrators or chiefs. I merely said that they were "more likely" to subscribe to the "less guns=less crimes" view in "certain regions of the country". I hope you will accept that my statement was intended as a qualified one---and not intended as a broad, all inclusive statement about administrators and chiefs across the country.
But, now to your question: Does the survey support my statement or not? Briefly put, I don't think the survey addresses my statement one way or the other.
Allow me to explain:
The survey respondants were not asked whether they believed less guns=less crime. Nor were they asked whether more guns=less crime. Nor were the responses divided by region, or in any other manner.
So, that 94% figure doesn't tell me how the respondants view the relationship between private firearm ownership and crime rates, since that question wasn't asked. The 94% figure does indicate strong support for the individual's right to armed self defense, which is good news and I'm glad to hear it. I appreciate your directing my attention to it. It is a useful statistic to know.
However, this thread began with a discussion of whether LE supported the 2nd Amendment. Many, including myself, opined that support for the 2nd Amendment tended to be greater among street cops, rather than chiefs and administrators, particularly in certain parts of the country.
So, if I may, let's ask whether the survey tells us whether LE chiefs/administrators support the 2nd Amendment, and, if so, to what extent...
I don't think the survey addresses the respondants' views of the 2nd Amendment in a meaningful way. Again, allow me to explain my opinion:
The survey does not directly ask the respondants whether they support the 2nd Amendment, which, we all know relates to the individual's right to keep and bear arms.
True, 94% of respondants supported the individual being able to purchase a firearm for self defense. That does go to "keeping", at least.
But what type of firearm--handgun, shotgun, rifle? The survey doesn't ask.
What restrictions, if any, should be imposed on the firearm (magazine capacity, caliber, action type, etc.)? The survey doesn't ask.
How many firearms may an individual own? How should they be maintained/stored? The survey doesn't ask.
How may the firearm be employed for self defense? In the home? In public? The survey doesn't ask. The 94% figure supports, at least, "keeping"...but what about the "bearing" aspect of the 2nd Amendment? The survey doesn't ask. Since the Heller case equated "bearing" with carrying...let's look at the respondants' view of carry (right to bear arms) issues:
Do the respondants support open carry? The survey doesn't ask that question.
With regard to concealed carry, do the respondants favor "Consitutional carry" (as recently enacted in AZ); "shall issue" permit systems; or "may issue" permit systems? The survey doesn't ask.
Beyond self defense, how do the respondants view the 2nd Amendment? Do they see it as a safe guard against tyranny, or as a form of national security, or both? I have no idea...the survey doesn't ask.
In other words, the kinds of questions that would really get at the nature and extent of the respondants' support for the 2nd Amendment were not asked.
After all, it was not a survey about the 2nd Amendment, but about a variety of topics, including firearms.
98% of the respondants support retired LEOs carrying firearms (BTW, who are the 2% that don't?). So, why do the 98% support retired LEOs being armed? Is that support based on the 2nd Amendment, or is it based on a belief that retired LEOs have a unique need to be armed? The survey doesn't ask that question, so we don't know.
48% of the respondants believe national concealed carry permits would reduce crime. A little less than half. That's a pretty interesting statistic and worth remembering. It would be interesting whether that number goes up or down in future surveys.
However, what does that 48% figure mean? Clearly, slightly more than half don't see national civilian CCW permits as an effective crime reduction strategy. Do those folks feel national permits would increase crime? Do some feel national permits should be issued, regardless of the impact on crime? Neither question was asked, so who knows. Could that response indicate that 52% might believe less guns=less crime? Maybe, maybe not. Your guess would be as good as mine or anyone else's.
Let's contrast the 48% (who think national civilian carry permits would reduce crime) vs. the 98% (who support retired LEOs carrying firearms). Does that mean there is far greater support for retired LEO carry than for private citizen carry? Perhaps.
Now, take a look at the section in the survey on terrorism/homeland security. Respondants were asked various questions about their disaster plans.
Specifically, they were asked whether such plans addressed "private ownership" of firearms. 90% of the respondants said yes. Well, what does that mean? Beats me...the survey results do not indicate the nature of those plans. Depending on what those plans entail, they could be an indicator of how the 2nd Amendment is perceived. But, without such detail, no useful conclusions can be drawn.
At least the survey shows strong support for the individual's right to purchase an unspecified type of firearm for self defense. That goes to support for the right to keep some type of arms for self defense. And I'm glad of that.
However, the parameters of such firearm keeping are not addressed by the survey, and so that particular response is of somewhat limited value in terms of revealing the scope of the respondants' view of the 2nd Amendment.
My original statement comes from having lived most of my life on the East and West Coasts, particularly in New York City and Los Angeles. My perception is that chiefs of police in those regions tend to be gun control oriented rather than gun rights oriented. Usually, this orientation seemed to be driven by a view that less guns=less crime.
Fair enough?
Last edited:
5Wire
Member
Well, I guess we see the words differently, Lew. The position elicited by question 13 is clearly supportive of the 2nd Amendment. And not to be too argumentative about it, your original post contained the statement, "The administrator/chief is more likely to subscribe to the less guns=less crime viewpoint, particularly in certain parts of the country." That is a blanket statement. Even more likely (than administrators/chiefs) are particular areas you're familiar with adds to your base statement, it doesn't qualify it.
There's far more evidence in the Survey to support the 2nd Amendment than to oppose it and just because the questions aren't really specific doesn't change that: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
In NH, concealed carry permits require three citizens to attest to the suitability of your character for a permit in a Shall Issue state. Two of mine were police officers. I have never met a police officer who wasn't in favor of the Second Amendment. On the other hand, the current chief where I live would fall into the infringement camp. So it goes.
Thanks for your response.
There's far more evidence in the Survey to support the 2nd Amendment than to oppose it and just because the questions aren't really specific doesn't change that: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
In NH, concealed carry permits require three citizens to attest to the suitability of your character for a permit in a Shall Issue state. Two of mine were police officers. I have never met a police officer who wasn't in favor of the Second Amendment. On the other hand, the current chief where I live would fall into the infringement camp. So it goes.
Thanks for your response.
Lew Archer
Member
Hi, 5Wire. Like you, in my experience, most LEOs I've encountered are indeed supportive of the 2nd Amendment. Thanks for taking the time to read my lengthy response to your post.
safearm
US Veteran
As a retired member of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, which is THE internationally recognized professional organization of police administrators, I am a bit suspect of a survey form from the "National Association of Chiefs of Police," especially with a website address which comes back to the American Police Hall of Fame. There are many organizations that CLAIM to speak for law enforcement and there are enough that you can find one with a position to match almost any political agenda.
5Wire
Member
Safearm, with all due respect to IACOP, the Second Amendment is not an international issue but IACOP's general stance, from what I've seen, does not support it. Given that "20,000 members among 89 countries" could hardly represent all 12,766 U.S. police departments (Bureau of Justice datum, 2004). Do you have equivalent data or surveys to show IACOP breakdown by nation? To be fair, I can find no information on the chief/sheriff population contributing to NACOP, either.
As far as the link goes, blame me. I didn't select the home page.
As far as the link goes, blame me. I didn't select the home page.
safearm
US Veteran
5Wire,
No blame involved; I looked up the website myself. I also looked at the "application requirements" to be a member of the NACOP. Basically, it's an application and a check and you're a member; no verification. They also allow individuals from private security organizations to be members. In contrast, IACP requires a current member to sponsor the application of a new member. The current and prospective member must be a command officer in a government (municipal, tribal, state, federal, military) law enforcement agency. Those that don't meet those requirements, either by rank or agency of employment, may be associate members, and have no vote in the association.
My concern with surveys from organizations that purport to represent law enforcement is the credibility of the organization and data. Having been a member of national and state law enforcement organizations throughout my career, I readily accept information from the Fraternal Order of Police (and their state associations) and IACP; both are organizations that verify membership. Unfortunately, I don't see that same level of credibility with NACOP.
No blame involved; I looked up the website myself. I also looked at the "application requirements" to be a member of the NACOP. Basically, it's an application and a check and you're a member; no verification. They also allow individuals from private security organizations to be members. In contrast, IACP requires a current member to sponsor the application of a new member. The current and prospective member must be a command officer in a government (municipal, tribal, state, federal, military) law enforcement agency. Those that don't meet those requirements, either by rank or agency of employment, may be associate members, and have no vote in the association.
My concern with surveys from organizations that purport to represent law enforcement is the credibility of the organization and data. Having been a member of national and state law enforcement organizations throughout my career, I readily accept information from the Fraternal Order of Police (and their state associations) and IACP; both are organizations that verify membership. Unfortunately, I don't see that same level of credibility with NACOP.
5Wire
Member
Interesting observation. I'd like to see some reliable data from some credible organization. As it is, we do seem to have SCOTUS on the right side of the issue and in NH and some other states some specific anti-confiscation legislation.
jtpur
Member
I think most cops and at least most that I know favor the 2nd amendment. There may be disagreements about carry, concealed, open etc.....but for the most part I dont know many street cops opposed to guns...Chiefs and brass tend to be politicians and tend to try to curry favor with the anti gun people. The IACP is just that..."International" and for my way of thinking no US Chief should be a member. I have personal experience with former chief who was the President....nuff said...I can attest to the fact that cops cant be every place and anyone has a right to defend themselves and their families. As far as training.....who trained Patrick Henry, Paul Revere, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams?
Lew Archer
Member
Hello again, 5Wire. I looked again at that original statement of mine, quoted by you (above). After reviewing your comments, I see your point and stand corrected: I did make a blanket statement, one which may not be fair or accurate. So, after reflection, I offer an amended version of that statement, as follows:
Some police chiefs/sheriffs, in certain regions of the country, such as major urban areas like New York City, Washington D.C., Chicago and Los Angeles, are more likely to subscribe to a gun control view than a gun rights view.
This amended statement more accurately describes my observations from living/working in those very regions/cities. I have narrowed the focus of my statement and tried to avoid unfair or inaccurate generalization.
I think you might agree that my amended statement is not entirely inconsistant with the results of the survey you cited.
All that aside, we who care about individual gun rights, and how LE perceives them, should be encouraged by any survey results where 94% of the surveyed officials support the individual's to purchase firearms for sport or defense.
Well, I'm sure I've rattled on enough on the subject...again, for anyone who's had the time or patience to wade through my long posts, thanks.
5Wire
Member
Thanks for the follow up and clarification, Lew, I appreciate your effort.
I guess where I'm at now is the credibility issue raised by safearm and the absence of reliable information on the attitude of American chiefs of police by way of the two organizations mentioned in the posts.
I do feel encouraged by state and national legislation and court decisions acknowledging and affirming the 2nd Amendment.
I guess where I'm at now is the credibility issue raised by safearm and the absence of reliable information on the attitude of American chiefs of police by way of the two organizations mentioned in the posts.
I do feel encouraged by state and national legislation and court decisions acknowledging and affirming the 2nd Amendment.
Lew Archer
Member
I am cautiously optimistic myself. Interesting times.
safearm
US Veteran
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.
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.
5Wire
Member
Thanks, safearm, I assume that that opinion represents the collective expression of the membership comprised of 89 countries—but it could be merely the position of the Organizations leadership.
I do object to the IACOP having international influence on an American issue, not that American Chiefs might hold a different one but at least it would be American. I also object on the basis that "shall not be infringed" means what it says and interpreting the Constitution isn't the responsibility of law enforcement at any level.
I do object to the IACOP having international influence on an American issue, not that American Chiefs might hold a different one but at least it would be American. I also object on the basis that "shall not be infringed" means what it says and interpreting the Constitution isn't the responsibility of law enforcement at any level.
Similar threads
