Police survey on gun laws

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by JWagner, Apr 9, 2013.

  1. JWagner

    JWagner New Member

    598
    0
    0
  2. philjam

    philjam New Member

    10
    0
    0
    Police took an oath to defend the Constitution.
     

  3. locutus

    locutus Well-Known Member Supporter

    16,384
    231
    63
    No surprises there. :)
     
  4. Warrior1256

    Warrior1256 New Member

    614
    0
    0
    I'm not suprised. I know quite a few cops and most of them a pro-gun as well as pro concealed carry. Hurray for our courageous men and women in blue!
     
  5. JimRau

    JimRau Well-Known Member Supporter

    5,028
    72
    48
    This survey supports what I have been saying for years. There was even more support in years past, but still most cops support an armed public. I would guess most of the lack of support comes from urban and union officers!:)
     
  6. RJMercer

    RJMercer New Member

    519
    0
    0
    The ones that get all the press are the FOP, Association of Police Chiefs, and other liberal LEO groups that generally call the NE home.
    Most LEO's I know in the real world want to see armed civilians around them.
     
  7. nitestalker

    nitestalker New Member

    6,489
    0
    0
    The working police officer knows once the citizens are disarmed they are next. Most police organizations both Federal, State and local labor under more ridiculous rules than the average civilian gun owner.
     
  8. Doc3402

    Doc3402 New Member

    2,823
    0
    0
    If I remember correctly, the Florida oath is to "protect uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States and of Florida;" Simple, right? Well, there's a catch. the very next sentence of a police officer's oath reads

    "I will faithfully perform my duties, enforcing the law fairly with all due courtesy, discretion, and compassion;"

    This presents a real dilemma for a sworn officer in our state. In order to uphold both the US and Florida constitutions he has to be derelict in his duties to enforce the law. He freely took an oath with all good intention, but in order to perform his first duty he has to be selective about the second.

    When I got into law enforcement I thought I was entering a black and white world. If it's the law, I would enforce it. It didn't take long for me to realize there are so many subtle shades of gray involved that I didn't belong in this calling. I was young, I was inexperienced, and I was too compassionate for my own good. I frequently found myself doing things I had a moral problem with because the law said I had to do them. I lasted two years.

    I was very fortunate to witness something on a wreck call one night that redirected my public service to EMS where shades of gray not only worked, but were encouraged. I went from 'this is the law... enforce it' to 'this is what the book says... do what works' and I loved it.

    As things stand today, I would never consider wasting the two years I spent as a LEO. We are getting to the point where it is impossible for a LEO to live up to his/her oath, and if you are going to ask me to swear an oath it needs to be something I firmly believe I can accomplish. With all the contradictions involved at the federal, state. and local levels I couldn't take that oath in good faith.
     
  9. j4454

    j4454 New Member

    154
    0
    0
    Nice links! The only ones who will be surprised by this are the closet LE haters on here.
     
  10. locutus

    locutus Well-Known Member Supporter

    16,384
    231
    63

    And there are a lot of them.:(
     
  11. mountainman13

    mountainman13 New Member

    11,488
    0
    0
    I've spoken with a few who are for disarmament. They tend to believe they will get to keep their guns, therefore they don't give a sh!t what happens to yours. Luckily they are the ignorant minority like the cops in ny. Lmfao
     
  12. JimRau

    JimRau Well-Known Member Supporter

    5,028
    72
    48
    Doc, I have taken this oath several times. Common sense when reading the oath would dictate the Constitution is the 'base line' for ALL LAWS, thus it would be the test for ALL statutory law, but few LEO's have the guts to stand up and be counted when there is conflict between the two as we have now in ALL jurisdictions in this nation!!! :( 95 to 99% of ALL firearms statutes on the books today, from city to federal jurisdiction, are in violation of the 2nd Amendment. But it don't end there. ALL prosecutor's and judges who prosecute or uphold these laws are in violation of their oath!! Not to mention the legislators who pass these laws!:mad:
     
  13. Doc3402

    Doc3402 New Member

    2,823
    0
    0
    I agree with you, but to me, as the oath is written, it it's not that clear about the Constitution being the baseline. Is it the baseline in reality? It is in my mind. Even with all the perversions passed down over the years, the Constitution as written is the basis for our country's law.

    The problem comes in when the state has passed law under the 10th amendment that doesn't agree with what I think the Constitution is telling me. Because of that I cannot in good faith swear to that oath in it's entirety because of all the contradictions on the books today. Yeah, I may be nitpicking, but my word means a heck of a lot to me.
     
  14. JimRau

    JimRau Well-Known Member Supporter

    5,028
    72
    48
    The 10th amendment does not give the states the authority to violate anyone's individual civil rights! Any person who uses this as an excuse to not uphold the Bill of Rights is lying to themselves! And the last time I looked the 2nd amendment is part of the Bill of Rights!:confused:
     
  15. TekGreg

    TekGreg Lifetime Supporting Member Lifetime Supporter

    2,000
    0
    0
    It's interesting what trained law enforcement professionals that have to deal with street violence every day think. This should be stickied just to make sure everyone sees it and can use it as ammo for arguments with friends and family. :)
     
  16. Doc3402

    Doc3402 New Member

    2,823
    0
    0
    The last time I looked, so is the 10th. That would be the part of the Bill of Rights granting the states the right to address issues not specifically addressed in other portions of the Constitution.

    Yes, I know. I can hear it now. What part of shall not be infringed don't I get? What part don't you get? Shall not be infringed means every single person in this country would be able to bear arms. That would include mental patients, convicted felons, and even death row inmates.

    Every single police officer in this country violates the 2nd amendment every time they pat down and disarm a person. Every single police station in this country that I am aware of violates my 2nd amendment rights be being a no gun zone. Every single courthouse in this state, and probably the country violates my 2nd amendment right by forcing me to disarm before entering. These are the people who swore to uphold, support, and defend the Constitution, and they totally ignore parts of it on a regular basis.

    Yup. I'll bet you're confused. If you truly are a police officer you routinely ignore the very same amendment you so fiercely support in your on-line persona. In a black and white world that would make you a hypocrite, but this is just one of the many shades of gray I was talking about in my other post.
     
  17. JimRau

    JimRau Well-Known Member Supporter

    5,028
    72
    48
    I am not like you and the others who talk the talk but are afraid to walk the walk. In 1994 our chief put out a 'private' (internal) memo stating we were to enforce all 'gun laws' with zero tolerance and make a physical arrest of all violators and confiscate all firearms we came in contact with and then met with local RTKABA's advocates and claimed to support them.
    1. I refused (openly) to do this. Many cops simply just looked the other way in defiance of his orders.
    2. I released his memo to the press.
    3. I went to the state senate hearing and testified for the shall issue CCW laws and voiced my opposition to all the restrictive laws already on the books.
    This started a witch hunt which lasted for about 2 years and nearly cost me my job and pension. If that makes me a hypocrite, so be it!!!:p
     
  18. JimRau

    JimRau Well-Known Member Supporter

    5,028
    72
    48
    The problem is you NEVER see the lame stream media broadcast or print the TRUTH!:mad:
    They are controlled by the progressives.:(
     
  19. Tackleberry1

    Tackleberry1 New Member

    6,165
    0
    0
    Jim

    That makes you an HONORABLE LEO.

    Much Respect.

    Tack