are cops generally pro or anti RKBA?

[rscalzo]

they can observe the situation to see if any laws are being broken.

So what you are saying is that open carry is legal in all situations? Forget about the fact that the state allows open carry. What you are saying is that anyone observed in a manner of carrying a firearm is not doing so in a legal manner? Are you forgetting that some do not have the legal right to possess a firearm. Should that fact be disregarded and the public assume that the individual has the legal right to possess that firearm?

The police are responding in the vast majority of incidents in response to a call about that individual. Do so in downtown Manchester and you will be interviewed with a corresponding check of your status. Until someone comes up with a validation sticker that can be visible to all, the response will pretty much be a fact of life in urban areas.

Once again, the original question was the thinking of the LE on the possession of firearms. Try basing the responses on fact, not supposition or contacts with a few.

 

[commandcaddy]

Are cops generally pro or anti RKBA's?

I agree with the post that the older law enforcement types are more apt to be pro-gun than the younger ones. I have been around a while and it's a shame to see the newer police officers "come aboard" and have no interest in firearms except to go to the range and qualify because of the overtime pay. I've seen them out in public in uniform without even carrying an off duty firearm. My own feeling is the pro-gun law enforcement types in the future will be fewer in numbers with each new generation.

commandcaddy

 

[Supermoto]

Are you forgetting that some do not have the legal right to possess a firearm. Should that fact be disregarded and the public assume that the individual has the legal right to possess that firearm?

So now people have to prove they are not committing crimes? Sir your papers please

 

[rscalzo]

Facts

Might as well back up my comments with facts......

Right to carry would disprove horror stories

By John R. Lott Jr.

Gov. Bob Holden finally vetoed the right-to-carry legislation last week, expressing fears about the risks the law poses for police and children.

With more than 70 percent of the Missouri House and Senate already voting for the bill, the expected veto override battle appears to be coming down to a single vote in the Senate.

Gun control advocates such as Holden are right to fear the right-to-carry bill's passage, but not for the reason that most people think. Despite panicked claims that innocent people will be killed and there will be shootouts in the streets, here is a prediction: A year after enactment Missouri's newspapers will report that all the horror stories about letting citizens carry concealed handguns were wrong. The real loser will be gun control advocates' credibility.

My prediction does not really involve going out on a limb. The bill allows trained, law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns for their protection, and Missouri's law will be the most restrictive right-to-carry law in the nation.

One needs only to look at the other 32 states with right-to-carry laws where we have had enough time to see what happens. A year after the law goes into effect, newspaper articles in state after state announce that the supposed fears never materialized. It is particularly hard to see why these worries are taken seriously in Missouri, four of whose neighbors have right-to-carry laws.

Michigan, the most recent state to have a right-to-carry law in effect for at least a year, adopted it in 2001. Last year newspapers such as the Detroit News regularly reported that: "Such self-defense has not yet resulted in any kind of wave of new gun violence among those with fresh...permits, several law enforcement officials throughout Metro Detroit agreed."

And consider the two largest states with right-to-carry laws, Florida and Texas. In the 15 years after Florida's concealed-carry law took effect in October 1987, about 800,000 licenses were issued. Only 143 of these (two-hundredths of 1 percent) were revoked because of firearms-related violations.

But even this statistic overstates the risks, as almost all of these cases apparently resulted from people accidentally carrying a gun into a restricted area, such as an airport. No one claims that these unintentional violations posed any harm. In general, permit-holders were model law-abiders. Even off-duty police officers in Florida were convicted of violent crimes at a higher rate than permit-holders.

The experience in Texas was similar. From 1996 through 1999, the first four years that Texas' concealed-handgun law was in effect, 215,000 people were licensed. Permit holders turned out to be law-abiding, with licensees convicted of a crime only 6 percent as often as other adult Texans.

Data for other states are also available and paint a similar picture. Thus, it is not surprising that no state with a right-to-carry law has repealed it.

One particular fear raised by Holden is that right-to-carry laws would actually make police officers' jobs more dangerous by making it more likely that they would be shot. Yet research has shown that the laws make police safer. Professor David Mustard at the University of Georgia found that right-to-carry laws reduced the rate that officers were killed by about 2 percent per year for each year that the laws were in effect. Several studies find that as law-abiding citizens are allowed to defend themselves, criminals are much less likely to carry guns. Fewer criminals carrying guns makes the jobs of police less dangerous.

While Missouri's police organizations are generally neutral, national surveys show the police support concealed handgun laws by a 3-1 majority. Many former strong opponents to right-to-carry laws across the country have changed their positions after the laws have been in effect for a couple of years.

Glenn White, president of the Dallas Police Association, provides a typical response: "I lobbied against the law in 1993 and 1995 because I thought it would lead to wholesale armed conflict. That hasn't happened....I think it's worked out well, and that says good things about the citizens who have permits. I'm a convert."

When he vetoed the right-to-carry bill, Holden also claimed that right-to-carry laws would increase accidental shootings, but there is not one academic study that finds that to be true. For violent crime, refereed academic studies range from showing that right-to-carry laws at worst have little or no benefit to most research finding large reductions that increase as more permits are issued.

A year after the right-to-carry law is enacted, Missourians will wonder what all the fuss was about. Those declaring that Missourians' safety is endangered will lose credibility once people see that it is criminals and not law-abiding citizens who have the most to fear from Missourians' being able to defend themselves.


However, what I don't necessarily support is the issuance of a carry permit without a qualification course or mandated re-qualifications in some manner. Too many do not have any idea what the legal ramifications are nor do they keep up with current case law on the subject. I've seen way too many carrying a handgun at my club that don't have a clue what is involved. Some have been smart enough and willing to pay to enroll in training courses in some locations. If the costs are kept within reason, no reason to not have some sort of performance standard.

 

[vellnueve]

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?

If someone calls it in, they pretty much have to respond to the call.

 

[Will Brink]

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.

I know a fair number of LEO, and to a man, they are pro 2A. I have yet to meet one that was not, but I am sure they exist.

 

[MaverickNH]

I'd point out that a number of major LEO/Chiefs organizations filed on DC's side with Brady & Violence Policy Center, Reno and MA's AG.

As individuals supporting RKBA, some do, some don't and some don't care, as said above. As a matter of policy, the balance tips toward anti.

 

[codenamepaul]

Might as well back up my comments with facts......

However, what I don't necessarily support is the issuance of a carry permit without a qualification course or mandated re-qualifications in some manner. Too many do not have any idea what the legal ramifications are nor do they keep up with current case law on the subject. I've seen way too many carrying a handgun at my club that don't have a clue what is involved. Some have been smart enough and willing to pay to enroll in training courses in some locations. If the costs are kept within reason, no reason to not have some sort of performance standard.

I assume your comments in italics ?

See my next post.

 

[rscalzo]

I'd point out that a number of major LEO/Chiefs organizations.....

Chief's and their organizations are political in nature and don't reflect in the least the feelings of the rank and file and never will. Anyone in the business is aware of that fact. They simply echo whatever the politicians want them to support or oppose.

As a matter of policy, the balance tips toward anti.

To make that statement flies in the face of the national surveys involving thousands in the field that have been taken and documented.

 

[codenamepaul]

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

You are either pro 2A or you are not. Sorta like pregnant, either you is or you isn't. If you support anything but the right to keep and bear arms, sans conditions, you are not pro 2A. That makes you near as much an anti as Sarah Brady-difference is, you're packin.

 

[PaulD]

Chief's and their organizations are political in nature and don't reflect in the least the feelings of the rank and file and never will. Anyone in the business is aware of that fact. They simply echo whatever the politicians want them to support or oppose.


To make that statement flies in the face of the national surveys involving thousands in the field that have been taken and documented.

From this thread, it seems that most regular LEO's are pro 2A but CLEO's generally aren't. So, do they sell their soul to get the big office?

 

[M1911]

From this thread, it seems that most regular LEO's are pro 2A but CLEO's generally aren't. So, do they sell their soul to get the big office?

I'm not sure that the first statement is true. Most of the folks here are gunnies. The LEOs that we run into are, not surprisingly, also gunnies. But those LEOs are not representative of all LEOs.

On several occasions I've had a chance to chat with LEO firearms instructors. One was on the force of a very large eastern MA city. Another was on the force of one of the largest cities in NH. And the third worked for one of the largest sheriff's departments in SoCal. All were excellent shots and all three were pro 2nd amendment. And all three told me that maybe 10% of their fellow officers were gunnies. That would lead me to expect that quite a large percentage of those officers are anti-gun as well.

Police officers are recruited from the populace at large. Most of the populace in MA are anti-gun. So I suspect that is also true for many of the officers.

As for the chief's, that is a hugely political position, particularly in large departments.

 

[rscalzo]

Why would you relate the fact that firearm's aren't an strong interest for someone would make them against that activity. The two have no relation at all. Based on that logic, anything one has no overriding interest in would be against. Makes no sense. I was an administrator of along with the head of firearm's for what would be one of the larger departments in NJ and by NH standards one of the two two or three in size. The ten percent figure would be fairly accurate. The other ninety percent didn't care either way.

Once again, that I backed up with facts.

As for the chief's, that is a hugely political position, particularly in large departments.

Not hugely, totally political.

 

[MaverickNH]

Chief's and their organizations are political in nature and don't reflect in the least the feelings of the rank and file and never will. Anyone in the business is aware of that fact. They simply echo whatever the politicians want them to support or oppose.


To make that statement flies in the face of the national surveys involving thousands in the field that have been taken and documented.

I guess it all depends on whether you want to know how the LEOs who might pull you over feel about RKBA, or how the LEOs who might influence legislation state their official position on RKBA. Both are valid interests.

 

[rscalzo]

LEOs who might influence legislation state their official position on RkBA

One of the only "official" surveys on the topic was conducted a few months back in a LE journal that I receive. The tilt was greatly toward their approval of firearm's ownership and the right of competent citizens to carry if legally permitted to do so.

Don't confuse the IACP's opinion on the topic because they will run a close parallel to the state's politic leadership. To do otherwise puts their position at risk in some states.

The attitudes would probably differ in the location asked. To be quite honest, it is a subject that rarely if ever is discussed in depth. There are way too many topics that grab the interest in mass meetings in LE circles. Ownership of firearms just isn't at the top of that list.

 

[jkelly]

The tilt was greatly toward their approval of firearm's ownership and the right of competent citizens to carry if legally permitted to do so.---

One of the problems I have with polls conducted by non-professionals is that you are likely to get irrelevant information to what you really wanted to know. An example COULD be the poll you are characterizing as pro-RKBA when it has qualifiers such as “competent” and “legally permitted” without defining what they mean.

I think one could even argue that the term “legally permitted” is anti-RKBA in of itself. (I'm not a laywer and I'm not that smart)

Other examples could be who was polled, how they were polled, who responded and what the poll questions were.


Respectfully,

jkell

 

[rscalzo]

The poll was a simple on line poll open only to subscribers which are all LE professionals. One simple question. No agenda. Simply the monthly poll. Many here seem to dismiss the several polls on the subject, even the one recently posted by the NRA. Do they have an agenda?

Why would you expect that particular group to say that they would approve of non-legal carry of a firearm?

 

[M1911]

The poll was a simple on line poll open only to subscribers which are all LE professionals. One simple question. No agenda. Simply the monthly poll. Many here seem to dismiss the several polls on the subject, even the one recently posted by the NRA. Do they have an agenda?

Why would you expect that particular group to say that they would approve of non-legal carry of a firearm?

Agenda? I don't have an agenda. I'm completely unaware of the poll, not being LE and not being a subscriber to LE magazines. I'd love to read about it if you could point me towards a link.

 

[jkelly]

The poll was a simple on line poll open only to subscribers which are all LE professionals. One simple question. No agenda. Simply the monthly poll.---rscalzo

Polling is truly a Science and the construction the questions are very important to the validly of the returned information.

You said there is no agenda and I believe that, but the biases and subject knowledge of the person asking the question are likely to be present in the question, even if it is done unintentionally.

So who formulated the question is a filter, as is who was asked the question. In this case it is only those subscribers to the forum, who although all were LE professionals, may not be representative of LE professional’s opinions as a whole (it could be though).

The data is again filtered because only those interested enough in the subject are likely to respond, which can skew the results. Who answered could also have been filtered because some might have seen being asked the question as intrusive or believe answering the question could bring possible repercussions.

Many here seem to dismiss the several polls on the subject, even the one recently posted by the NRA. Do they have an agenda?---rscalzo

As a life member of the NRA (and GOAL) I can assure you that the NRA does have an agenda but I didn’t read the NRA poll thread so I can’t respond.

Why would you expect that particular group to say that they would approve of non-legal carry of a firearm?---rscalzo

I wouldn’t expect that at all. But here’s the twist, and a bias if that phrase was used in the original question.

The RKBA is about our Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights. Some view the Bill of Rights not as a paper granting us those 10 Rights but rather an enumeration of our God given (or maybe our naturally occurring) Rights.

If one were to believe that to be true, then to subjugate those rights to Law, as to have “legally permitted” them, would be anti-RKBA as well as anti-Bill of Rights in general.

No I wouldn’t want to even attempt to argue the above statement.
And no, I know nothing of Polling or of Law past what I think I understand to be true. An expert in either would ripe my views to threads.


Respectfully,

jkelly

 

[rscalzo]

So what you are saying is that polls posted here is absolutely worthless for the most part based on the target audience.

This can be true I agree. NH was probably the best example of this in the past primary.

However, the start of this thread asked a question. In only one instance was any form of data submitted. What I find unusual is that it backs up the right you are all striving for and yet you still reject it.

 

[jkelly]

So what you are saying is that polls posted here is absolutely worthless for the most part based on the target audience.---rscalzo

No, what I’m saying that a “Poll” needs to be both conducted scientifically and evaluated correctly to have value past local interest. Most polls taken on NES are worthless scientifically (to include any information I’ve added to them) but are valued among ourselves for informational purposes. They should not be considered as reflecting the gun shooting society as a whole.

The poll you referenced as reflecting the views of the LE community actually only reflects the views of a subgroup, of a subgroup of the LE community at best. To extrapolate that result as being representative of the total LE community would be incorrect.

What I’m saying is the methodology of your poll appears to exclude it from being representative of the total LE community. And, here’s the twist, that’s true even if your Poll’s result was later seen to be in 100% agreement with the entire LE community.

In a sense, Polls are not like a test where only getting the answer correct matters. It’s more like in an engineering test where you have to show your work. If your work is wrong (or missing) and the answer is correct then the answer is actually wrong (partial credit maybe given-thank God).

However, the start of this thread asked a question. In only one instance was any form of data submitted. What I find unusual is that it backs up the right you are all striving for and yet you still reject it.---rscalzo

Yes this thread is based on opinion and your unscientific poll. Your Poll may or may not back up the Right we strive for. What I mean is that even though the Poll seems to be “for allowing” the people to have firearms, the “legally permitted” qualifier may be anti-RKBA.

Some Antis say they believe in the 2nd Amendment but qualify that in private as allowing only certain groups to have firearms, often only police and the military.

Now, I based my opinion on opinions of others “in the know” and what I’ve seen and heard. But scientifically my opinion is actually just more junk and based on a too small data sample (if you could call it “data”) to represent anything other then my biased beliefs. But for some reason that’s my opinion.

Now my personal belief is that LEOs are more anti then pro RKBA, but I’m glad to know that on a LEO only forum, that a subgroup of those subscribed doesn’t think civilian use of firearms should be banned.

My above opinions are based on my limited knowlege and should be questioned as to it's actual value.


Respectfully,

jkelly

 

[rscalzo]

As I was thinking about this today, I came to the following conclusion. In all honesty, the vast majority of LE don't give the topic much thought at all. It doesn't affect us so it isn't a topic that gets much play. I've been to many large conventions, both fraternal organizations and vendor oriented and it never comes up. Beyond the recent LEOSA, the topic just isn't a hot one with the profession.

As far as getting a valid poll, I don't see that happening anytime soon outside of the LE publications. Anything posted on the INTERNET can easily be tainted. The only site that has stringent access requirements is the LEO.gov site. I haven't logged on in quite some time so maybe they did already pose that question.

So in short, my response to the original question would have to be most would answer "don't know or don't care".

I found this and as stated earlier, it isn't scientific nor is it populated totally by LE. But as far as a survey, this is probably all you will find.

http://forums.officer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73431&highlight=civilian+firearm

 

[drgrant]

Yes this thread is based on opinion and your unscientific poll. Your Poll may or may not back up the Right we strive for. What I mean is that even though the Poll seems to be “for allowing” the people to have firearms, the “legally permitted” qualifier may be anti-RKBA.

You make a good point here- One immediate factor that comes to mind is that, the answers one gets will depend on how the question and the context in which it is stated.... If the question is generic, the answers may not be what you're looking for... eg, the whole definition of "Legally permitted to do so" changes from state to state. In VT, "legally permitted to do so" means your an adult that can breathe; in other states, "legally permitted to do so" Typically means various infringements upon ones RKBA- in NH it might be a "low impact" thing where you pay $20 and wait a week or so to get a permit from the local PD. On the other hand, in a place like MA you have a considerably worse infringement- you pay $100 for the right to even own a gun, and you may or may not get the ability to lawfully carry it after the permit is stamped out- strictly speaking, a person with an A H+T permit, is not "legally permitted to do so". I guess my point is, that a "yes" or "no" answer without being further qualified on some of these surveys might not result in obtaining a poll result that correctly portrays a given LEO's true feelings about RKBA. Oddly enough, a poorly set up survey might even "under" represent some LEO's feelings about the issue.

-Mike

 

[jkelly]

I think polling is tough and polling a complex issue is even tougher.

Respectfully,

jkelly