LEO Unions... Why don't they oppose Gun Control?

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by Tackleberry1, Feb 26, 2013.

  1. Tackleberry1

    Tackleberry1 New Member

    6,165
    0
    0
    Honest question and please, no Cop bashing.

    We've seen hundreds of County Sherrif's state that they will NOT enforce Federal Gun Bans with some going so far as to state that they would arrest and charge any other State or Federal Officers who attempted enforcement within their jurisdiction.

    We understand the difference between an elected LEO being able to speak his mind openly and "politically appointed" LEO's like City Chiefs and the Heads of State Police basically taking whatever position their Mayor or Governor dictate.

    My question, and one I believe merits discussion, is that IF the majority of Rank and File officers oppose gun control, and IF they fear speaking out against their Chief's, they WHY are they not using their Unions to speak on their behalf?

    Sure, most Unions are corrupt and only interested in policies that increase their "dues paying" membership... and if we all know that gun bans lead to more crime and more violence then it would make sence for Unions to deduce that a ban will eventually equal more officers as public safety budgets increase in response to the increased chaos.

    However... I can't imagine that those already in uniform would choose to embrace policies of a downward spiral into chaos and ultimately a total police state? Nor can I imagine that none of them see the inherent risk of policies that threaten to put them at odds with law abiding, or "formerly" law abiding citizens who would choose non compliance.

    We've all seen LEO Unions issue votes of NO confidence in Chiefs who failed to support them through either poor leadership or for political reasons.

    So... When we see an Ass Hat like the CA Chief who last week claimed that firearms have no legitimate defensive use I have to wonder why his officers, through their Union Rep's are not expressing their disagreement?

    Again, my objective with this dialogue is to help the cause by getting LEO Unions into the discussion by helping them understand that a conflict with gun owners does NOT serve their purpose, does NOT enhance public safety, but could certainly increase their officers exposure to risk on a daily basis.

    If GENERAL MOTORS announced a new product that greatly increased the risk of on the job injuries to UAW members, we know the UAW would be screaming to high heaven in a loud and public manner... So I simply don't understand why LEO Unions are not doing the same for their membership.

    Tack
     
  2. chloeshooter

    chloeshooter New Member

    2,565
    0
    0
    Unions love the left, the left loves unions
    The left loves gun grabbing
    Therefore, Unions, even Police unions, need to fall into line with the left on gun control in order to enjoy continued support from the left.

    Maybe its more complicated than that. I doubt it.
     

  3. Overkill0084

    Overkill0084 Active Member

    4,910
    2
    38
    That's pretty much it... play ball or lose your seat on the gravy train.
     
  4. 70cuda383

    70cuda383 New Member

    574
    0
    0
    That's what I always thought too.

    but...any reason why the police unions don't try to join the gravy train of the right? I know conservatives are anti-union, but maybe conservatives can be "pro-police union":confused:


    probably not.
     
  5. JimRau

    JimRau Well-Known Member Supporter

    5,028
    72
    48
    Being a LEO and being in a 'union' is a DIRECT conflict of interest because modern unions are nothing more than legalized organized crime!:(
     
  6. nitestalker

    nitestalker New Member

    6,489
    0
    0
    Most all of the police unions are members of the national AFL & CIO. This is the most left wing anti fire arm group in the world.:(
     
  7. shadecorp

    shadecorp Active Member Supporter

    1,461
    3
    38
    The Key Word
    "union"
    If I were to tell you my thoughts of my former union.
    the u.a.w.,
    I would be banned from the site.
     
  8. Tackleberry1

    Tackleberry1 New Member

    6,165
    0
    0
    I think many conservatives are for LEO's having unions. I think it would be very difficult to fill many LEO jobs if they the did not have a Union between themselves and some of our more liberal politicians who should not hesitate to fire a Cop for putting down a dangerous perp of the wrong "color".

    I just don't get why their not more vocal about the lack or merit and the dangers inherent is the current proposals?

    Perhaps I'm naive but I would think that any Union's membership would have access to anonymous suggestions and anonymous ballots regarding issues they saw as dangerous or posing unnecessary risk for no benefit?

    Tack
     
  9. danf_fl

    danf_fl Retired Supporter

    12,358
    26
    48
    Most local unions will not jump on a political bandwagon.
    Unions have issues in mind and are there to represent the member.
    The issues include employment, monies, treatment, safety, vacation, and more areas, but not political views.

    There is normally a division that deals with political areas that works by donations of members (no, dues do not support the political branch), and they will offer indorsements to candidates.

    Bottom line, a union will not get in government issues except in contracts with the US government. And then it is only about "fair" treatment of workers, not with political arguments.
     
  10. PanBaccha

    PanBaccha New Member

    3,054
    0
    0
    If push comes to shove they would probably be shooting their 2nd amendment rights.
     
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2013
  11. Tackleberry1

    Tackleberry1 New Member

    6,165
    0
    0
    Safety...

    That's my point. If were talking about the "outside" chance of a Feinstein Style Ban... Officer Safety could become a concern right quick.
    Tack
     
  12. nitestalker

    nitestalker New Member

    6,489
    0
    0
    The Unions are all lined up behind Obama supporting the new gun control bills. :(
     
  13. danf_fl

    danf_fl Retired Supporter

    12,358
    26
    48
    The Unions may endorse an individual and an individual's policies, but the members have the right to vote, not the union.

    The local I did belong to was predominantly Repulican voters.

    Why don't the LEO unions support their members views on the 2A? That is considered political and the unions represent their members to the NLRB and other items covered in their bargaining agreements.

    Why are there LEOs behind a president signing an antigun EO? Most were told to fall in formation.
     
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2013
  14. Tackleberry1

    Tackleberry1 New Member

    6,165
    0
    0
    That's too bad... taking a page from the Constitutional Sherrif's and standing up these proposals would go a long way toward seeing them defeated but I suppose greed trumps all and expecting any Union to act in any other way is just unrealistic.

    Tack
     
  15. danf_fl

    danf_fl Retired Supporter

    12,358
    26
    48
    Am I supporting the unions? No!
    But we have to remember that unions would not exist if not for the people.
    Most join the union for employment, and not the union political view.
     
  16. WNGMSTR

    WNGMSTR Troll Scout

    1,418
    0
    0
    I'm not convinced the majority of LEO would follow their union into the weeds, especially those in the smaller metros and rural areas.

    The large metro districts not so much confidence.

    The unions haven't done the bidding of the members for very long time but do still provide security via the greed factor all the while funneling dues into re-election campaigns.

    The unions are out of control and are stealing as much as they can from the sinking ship.