are cops generally pro or anti RKBA?

[PaulD]

Reading this thread is what inspired the question:

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=30330

This cop is obviously pro 2A. However, there are many CLO's in MA who are anti 2A. Are there any studies showing what cops think in general? Especially in MA, it would be really helpful to the cause if all cops were pro 2A. That's why I ask.

 

[pipmaster1971]

I only know 2 cops, and both of them are generally pro 2A. Both of them are from CT though.

 

[doobie]

I'm not sure if it would be a good thing or bad thing...but I know a lot of police departments utilize gun club ranges for their practice/certification/whatnot. It would be interesting to see gun clubs raise their fees for 'anti-CLEO towns', aka Boston could pay four times as much as Marlborough....

of course this probably couldn't work because their are too many gun clubs... and they wouldn't all stand behind each other.

 

[sig shooter]

i think its pretty much a mixed bag just like with everybody else

 

[pdm]

CLEO is more of a political position than an law enforcement one.

 

[drgrant]

One thing to keep in mind- Chiefs are a distinctly different entity/class,
(usually) from your typical officer on the street,
or on patrol. I wouldn't judge LEOs as an "entire class"
based on things like towns in MA having anti gun chiefs, etc.

I think evan9201 has it right... it really is a mixed bag. For every
anti gun cop, there's probably many who are indifferent, and another
that is pro gun/pro RKBA. It might even vary by department.

To some degree, even with chiefs it is obviously a mixed bag- and
this is why we have a lot of green towns and some red/yellow towns
in this state. Most of the green towns have CLEOs which are either
pro gun, or at "worse" indifferent about the issue. (some have likely
determined that issuing ALP/none is the path of least hassle/resistance/liability. )

-Mike

 

[tuna]

I'm not sure if it would be a good thing or bad thing...but I know a lot of police departments utilize gun club ranges for their practice/certification/whatnot. It would be interesting to see gun clubs raise their fees for 'anti-CLEO towns', aka Boston could pay four times as much as Marlborough....

of course this probably couldn't work because their are too many gun clubs... and they wouldn't all stand behind each other.

Wasn't / Isn't there a guy who owned a range in CA that used to allow Law Enforcement Agencies to use his range, and now refuses to allow LEOs to use his range or even join? I thought I heard about this right around the time of Barrett's "CA LEOs need not apply for firearms / service" letter.

 

[jkelly]

are cops generally pro or anti RKBA?---

If by cops you mean patrolman type LEOs, as opposed to the Chief LEOs, I’d guess they are anti-RNBA. I’d based that on knowing (or believing) most are not “Gun People” and are likely to view anyone with firearm as a possible threat. But some I know of seem to be pro-RKBA and a few are really good shooters.


Respectfully,

jkelly

 

[rscalzo]

I’d based that on knowing (or believing) most are not “Gun People” and are likely to view anyone with firearm as a possible threat

Obviously you haven't looked at any of the surveys done in LE related journals. As far as being a "gun person", that's your hobby, not theirs. They might not be a "car person" and yet they drive one for a good part of the day. It will kill you as quickly or quicker than a firearm. They also carry a baton or collapsible stick and yet they aren't martial arts experts. Too many pick out an item used in the everyday job and seem to think they must be an expert in the use. It would be nice but they taxpayers won't foot the bill for unlimited training. They are lucky to get the ammo needed for qualifications.

 

[vellnueve]

I think that police are probably split about the same as the general population. Chiefs as well.

 

[Supermoto]

Obviously you haven't looked at any of the surveys done in LE related journals. As far as being a "gun person", that's your hobby, not theirs. They might not be a "car person" and yet they drive one for a good part of the day. It will kill you as quickly or quicker than a firearm. They also carry a baton or collapsible stick and yet they aren't martial arts experts. Too many pick out an item used in the everyday job and seem to think they must be an expert in the use. It would be nice but they taxpayers won't foot the bill for unlimited training. They are lucky to get the ammo needed for qualifications.

Along with defense situations. The police use their firearms as tools of power. Comply with their demands or face grave danger. They do not use cars to gain compliance. therefore I expect LEO to experts with firearms, unfortunately most are far from that.

 

[vellnueve]

Actually, they do. Ever see a cop car ram a non-complaint vehicle?

 

[M1911]

AThey do not use cars to gain compliance.

Huh? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PIT_maneuver

 

[Supermoto]

A PIT maneuver is not compliance with the threat of deadly force. The PIT is used because it is low impact.
Which would you rather have done? PIT or a LEO shooting at you to stop your car, still think they are the same?

 

[drgrant]

A PIT maneuver is not compliance with the threat of deadly force. The PIT is used because it is low impact.
Which would you rather have done? PIT or a LEO shooting at you to stop your car, still think they are the same?

Sometimes one follows the other, though.

IMO, using a car as a weapon, constitutes deadly force
to some degree... Obviously things like PITing a car, (if
done properly, ) spike strips, etc, are "less deadly" but
still could result, indirectly, in the death of the perp.

And FWIW, a car can be a deadly weapon just the same as
a gun. People have probably been killed by LEOs that didn't
know how to drive, etc.

Reality dictates, though, that the training any LEO gets is going
to be directly proportional to how much money joe public wants to
spend on it, and how the PD is managed. Gun training is a
small part of a budget, more than likely.

-Mike

 

[Another_David]

The average LEO wouldn't know anything about the difficulties we face in Mass. So, I wouldn't expect them to be so sympathetic.

1. They don't get the stink-eye from the righteous chiefs when applying for LTC ALP.
2. They get big discounts when purchasing their equipment and are exempt from the asinine AG and Consumer protection rules.
3. They also don't seem to be disciplined like the rest of us when they make mistakes. In the past couple years in Mass alone there have been incidents where the officer has remained on the job and carrying: left a pistol in a Dunks bathroom, had a pistol stolen from their home while their teenage child hosted a party, shot a 'friend' in the stomach while drunk, and faced out-of-state charges for domestic battery.

It's a double standard. The average cop didn't create this and I don't hold it against them but I wouldn't expect them to know about our hardships.

 

[jkelly]

I’d based that on knowing (or believing) most are not “Gun People” and are likely to view anyone with firearm as a possible threat.---Me

Obviously you haven't looked at any of the surveys done in LE related journals. ---rascalzo

Well, no I haven’t.

As far as being a "gun person", that's your hobby, not theirs.---rascalzo

That was my point, LEOs (around here at least) are not likely to be “Gun People” and as such are less likely to view guns as favorably as “Gun People” might.

Now I based my

…not “Gun People” and are likely to view anyone with a firearm as a possible threat---Me

on having watched more then a few different PDs qualify over several years and after having talked to several PD armorers/trainers about their people. I have pretty much adopted their opinions, of their own people, as it concurred with what I have witnessed. I could be wrong but I’ve seen nothing to make me think so.

They might not be a "car person" and yet they drive one for a good part of the day. It will kill you as quickly or quicker than a firearm. They also carry a baton or collapsible stick and yet they aren't martial arts experts. Too many pick out an item used in the everyday job and seem to think they must be an expert in the use. It would be nice but they taxpayers won't foot the bill for unlimited training. They are lucky to get the ammo needed for qualifications.---rascalzo

That’s nice and all, but that has nothing to with what I said. The question was about LEOs and the RKBA not cars, not martial arts, not about whether LEOs should be “experts” at anything at all and it wasn’t about who should pay for a LEO’s firearms practice past what is minimally needed to qualify.


Respectfully,

jkelly

 

[FPrice]

I have known a lot more pro-gun cops than anti's. But most of them I have known have been through shooting groups which kinda of biases this figure. Currently I live in a very green town and quite a few of our force seem to hang out at the local gun shop. Along with some cops from other local communities, a few state police (current and retired), assorted court officers, and at least one retired BATFE agent.

 

[jkelly]

I have known a lot more pro-gun cops than anti's. But most of them I have known have been through shooting groups which kinda of biases this figure.---Fprice

Yeah, the odds are good that you won’t find a lot of antis at gun clubs.


Respectfully,

jkelly

 

[KMM696]

I would expect that LEO's attitudes toward RKBA would be generally in line with whatever area they came out of. I've met MA troopers from one of the big Red zone towns who've been appalled at how many legal guns are in the average hilltown they're now patrolling - numbers that our local LEOs would call unexceptional.

Exceptions everywhere, of course. Some LEO are shooters, some aren't, in every department. If someone high enough up in the department to have access to the checkbook is a shooter, you'll see more LEO shooters there, because it's encouraged/funded/enjoyed. Some of those LEO shooters were shooters before they got jobs, and know exactly what a MA LTC holder goes through.

There sometimes seems to be a belief that there are (or should be) some overarching guidelines or philosophy for LEO to follow when encountering legal RKBA, but there's not. The laws are there, but if an RKBA hostile LEO decides they don't like you carrying, and calls your CLEO to complain, you're looking at the very real possibility of suspension or non-renewal of your LTC. Which would suck.....and could prove to be expensive. So, you could carry within the law, and still get screwed for it. That sounds like the Massachusetts way.....

 

[Coyote33]

I'd say from talking to them, most are pretty open minded as far as residents/citizens owning and even carrying guns when it comes down to the basics. But, when it comes to putting on a "public face", they put on a totally different face.


LenS hit the nail on the head in these 2 posts:

http://northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=12083&highlight=mcopa
(starting at post 19 or so)

and
http://northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=12772&highlight=mcopa
(starting at post number 38 or so)

 

[rscalzo]

A PIT maneuver is not compliance with the threat of deadly force

That maneuver is considered deadly force and is handled as such by pretty much every AG's office.

If you want to know what some groups opinion might be, you might want to check some of the polls taken in LE publications and not talk to one or two about the subject.

And FWIW, a car can be a deadly weapon just the same as
a gun. People have probably been killed by LEOs that didn't
know how to drive, etc.

Most get in over their head in high speed driving. Some are killed as they are out in weather that no one in their right mind would drive in. Some are killed out on the highway when struck by vehicles driven by those with less then stellar driving skills or drunk or high. Motor vehicle has claimed as many as firearms and other weapons.

 

[abiffmaster]

It could be viewed from two camps.

Most men(real men that is) love guns and the sound they make. Real men also like hitting a target down the range.

Even the antis who say they don't love guns love hitting targets (bowling, darts, pool, basketball, golf etc.)

With that said most officers(who are real men) go into law enforcement because they like catching bad guys and they like guns, the uniform, the baton, and everything else that goes with the job.

Some of them though they love guns may not like the fact that the citizens have as much or more firepower than they do.

My 2 cents.

 

[Supermoto]

That maneuver is considered deadly force and is handled as such by pretty much every AG's office.

If you want to know what some groups opinion might be, you might want to check some of the polls taken in LE publications and not talk to one or two about the subject.

1st It doesn't matter what the AG thinks, it is what the Aggressor think. A shod foot is a deadly weapon, you don't hear the police say "Stop or I'll kick you'' because there is less preceived threat from a shoe then a gun. the power comes from being able to make good on the threat

2nd It does not matter what the individual LEO believes. the fact is the Police are agents of the state, the state is Anti, therefore the Police can only be anti, to some degree or another. LEO's carry out the state orders not their personal beliefs.

 

[JonJ]

1st It doesn't matter what the AG thinks, it is what the Aggressor think. A shod foot is a deadly weapon, you don't hear the police say "Stop or I'll kick you'' because there is less preceived threat from a shoe then a gun. the power comes from being able to make good on the threat

2nd It does not matter what the individual LEO believes. the fact is the Police are agents of the state, the state is Anti, therefore the Police can only be anti, to some degree or another. LEO's carry out the state orders not their personal beliefs.

The people are the state. The police carry out the orders of the people. The people have elected representatives to make the laws that the police enforce.

 

[rscalzo]

1st It doesn't matter what the AG thinks

Totally wrong...The pitman maneuver is considered deadly force mandating the Use of Force documents to be filed as well as the mandated reasoning for using such a maneuver. No one just does it because they like to "watch the car spin" unless they want a very rapid end to their career. Not all that different from the requirements to pursue a mv.

It does not matter what the individual LEO believes. the fact is the Police are agents of the state, the state is Anti, therefore the Police can only be anti, to some degree or another.

One of the dumber comments I've heard in a while.

 

[Supermoto]

Totally wrong...The pitman maneuver is considered deadly force mandating the Use of Force documents to be filed as well as the mandated reasoning for using such a maneuver. No one just does it because they like to "watch the car spin" unless they want a very rapid end to their career. Not all that different from the requirements to pursue a mv.

You are not following, I am talking about compliance, not whether the PIT is deadly force. You will get more compliance from a gun than a car, one of the reason the police carry guns is to gain compliance.

It does not matter what the individual LEO believes. the fact is the Police are agents of the state, the state is Anti, therefore the Police can only be anti, to some degree or another.

One of the dumber comments I've heard in a while.

Really, when have the police acted in a pro-gun manner? Are you saying that if I walked around and Open carried, I would not get stopped by a Pro-gun cop

 

[jay1]

I work with alot of paid details from law enforcement, generally the younger Police officers are the one that think we should be sheeple. the older ones are all for the 2nd

 

[rscalzo]

Really, when have the police acted in a pro-gun manner? Are you saying that if I walked around and Open carried, I would not get stopped by a Pro-gun cop

You can bet your life on that. In most urban areas someone would be on the phone in minutes to report a "man with a gun". Bit I guess that you feel that the call should be disregarded. Based on my experience, walking around with a open firearm just makes you a target.

 

[Supermoto]

You can bet your life on that. In most urban areas someone would be on the phone in minutes to report a "man with a gun". Bit I guess that you feel that the call should be disregarded. Based on my experience, walking around with a open firearm just makes you a target.

But open carry is not illegal. The Police are harassing someone only because they are carrying a gun. Sound Anti-gun to me. I have no problem with the Police responding to call, they can observe the situation to see if any laws are being broken. Only when they see a crime about to be commit should they act.

Who does open carry make you a target to, the police or the criminal?