Law Enforcement Officers Against NY Safe Act

[Glasgow Grin]

A friend in New York has asked me to help him get the word out that Police Officers are trying desperately to reverse the NYSafe act. They need help and support. Please visit the site, and if you use Facebook, please give them a like. I understand they are already confirming that Ted Nugent will be speaking at a planned rally in NY. Thanks for the support.

https://www.facebook.com/LawEnforcementAgainstNySafeAct?ref=ts&fref=ts

Web page: http://www.lawenforcementagainstnysafe.com/

 

[kingfisher]

I just went to the website and donated some money to show my support. I consider it a smart "investment."

I read this thread yesterday, Police Opinion on New Gun Laws, and not only do I think it's important to support the officers who are on our side, but I also believe that legislators are more likely to listen to our arguments when they are coming from a LEO.

What happened in NY could happen here, and we all need to stand strong together!

 

[not new guy]

If they were really against all they would have to do is contact one of the major networks and state their opposition. Why aren't they doing that?

 

[ochmude]

If they were really against all they would have to do is contact one of the major networks and state their opposition. Why aren't they doing that?

Like I said in another thread, I'd be fired.

 

[Glasgow Grin]

If they were really against all they would have to do is contact one of the major networks and state their opposition. Why aren't they doing that?

One of our local officers has, and it got minimal attention. Not even any comments made.
Letter: Oath of duty | The Recorder

- - - Updated - - -

What happened in NY could happen here, and we all need to stand strong together!

My thoughts exactly.

 

[PaulD]

Like I said in another thread, I'd be fired.

Not that I envy anyone who is a test case, but wouldn't there be 1st amendment consequences to that?

 

[ochmude]

Not that I envy anyone who is a test case, but wouldn't there be 1st amendment consequences to that?

I wouldn't be arrested for breaking a law. I'd be fired for violating agency policy. Directly quoting the text on the front of my credentials, I can utilize my sworn status to "exercise the authority and perform the duties provided by law and Department of Homeland Security regulations, including making arrests, conducting investigations, making seizures, bearing firearms, or serving any order, warrant, or other process." The badge and creds aren't my private property. I can't use them and the authority they carry to represent my private opinions as if they are those of the agency. No where on my credentials does it say I can use them in any non-official capacity, be it talking to the media, attempting to influence public policy, or getting a free coffee. I can go to the media as a private person, but I can make no mention of my employment and had better hope they don't figure it out on their own.

 

[Glasgow Grin]

I wouldn't be arrested for breaking a law. I'd be fired for violating agency policy. Directly quoting the text on the front of my credentials, I can utilize my sworn status to "exercise the authority and perform the duties provided by law and Department of Homeland Security regulations, including making arrests, conducting investigations, making seizures, bearing firearms, or serving any order, warrant, or other process." The badge and creds aren't my private property. I can't use them and the authority they carry to represent my private opinions as if they are those of the agency. No where on my credentials does it say I can use them in any non-official capacity, be it talking to the media, attempting to influence public policy, or getting a free coffee. I can go to the media as a private person, but I can make no mention of my employment and had better hope they don't figure it out on their own.

Not to bust your balls, but in MY opinion, standing up for the constitutional rights of myself as well as the people we were sworn to serve trumps losing my paycheck all day.

 

[PaulD]

I wouldn't be arrested for breaking a law. I'd be fired for violating agency policy. Directly quoting the text on the front of my credentials, I can utilize my sworn status to "exercise the authority and perform the duties provided by law and Department of Homeland Security regulations, including making arrests, conducting investigations, making seizures, bearing firearms, or serving any order, warrant, or other process." The badge and creds aren't my private property. I can't use them and the authority they carry to represent my private opinions as if they are those of the agency. No where on my credentials does it say I can use them in any non-official capacity, be it talking to the media, attempting to influence public policy, or getting a free coffee. I can go to the media as a private person, but I can make no mention of my employment and had better hope they don't figure it out on their own.

Fair enough and if you worked for a private employer, I'd see no problem with that.

However, you work for the government. As you say, if you stated your opinion on your own time and they figured out that you did (as you said), it's undue influence on your 1st amendment rights if they fire you. If you said that while wearing the uniform, I would also say you being fired would be ok. If you're on your own time and still influenced not to speak, that's bad.

IANAL

 

[Infinite Jester]

I wouldn't be arrested for breaking a law. I'd be fired for violating agency policy. Directly quoting the text on the front of my credentials, I can utilize my sworn status to "exercise the authority and perform the duties provided by law and Department of Homeland Security regulations, including making arrests, conducting investigations, making seizures, bearing firearms, or serving any order, warrant, or other process." The badge and creds aren't my private property. I can't use them and the authority they carry to represent my private opinions as if they are those of the agency. No where on my credentials does it say I can use them in any non-official capacity, be it talking to the media, attempting to influence public policy, or getting a free coffee. I can go to the media as a private person, but I can make no mention of my employment and had better hope they don't figure it out on their own.

If I'm not mistaken, someone pointed out that there were LEOs in uniform standing behind Feinstein during her talk today. How is it that when its pro 2a, you could be fired, but when it helps the anti agenda it's a-ok?
I would respect them more if they said nothing, and kept their opinion till enforcement time came around.

Sent from my .gov tracking device

 

[ochmude]

Not to bust your balls, but in MY opinion, standing up for the constitutional rights of myself as well as the people we were sworn to serve trumps losing my paycheck all day.

I feel that I can do both. It's been said several times on this forum lately that LEO's are a powerful ally. Former LEO's....not so much. As a juror, you can't exercise your right to nullify an unjust law by getting yourself kicked out of the trial because you were so outspoken about how unjust you think the law is. You shut up, sit through the trial, and quietly do what needs to be done when it comes time for deliberations.

 

[ochmude]

If I'm not mistaken, someone pointed out that there were LEOs in uniform standing behind Feinstein during her talk today. How is it that when its pro 2a, you could be fired, but when it helps the anti agenda it's a-ok?
I would respect them more if they said nothing, and kept their opinion till enforcement time came around.

Sent from my .gov tracking device

Because they're representing the official position of the agency, not their private position. If one of the pro-2A sheriffs we've heard from lately wanted to hold a pro-2A event in his county, I guarantee none of his deputies would be reprimanded for attending in uniform, as it was in line with the official position of the agency.

 

[ochmude]

Fair enough and if you worked for a private employer, I'd see no problem with that.

However, you work for the government. As you say, if you stated your opinion on your own time and they figured out that you did (as you said), it's undue influence on your 1st amendment rights if they fire you. If you said that while wearing the uniform, I would also say you being fired would be ok. If you're on your own time and still influenced not to speak, that's bad.

IANAL

It's not a matter of on-duty time vs. off-duty time, though. It's about using the fact that I'm an LEO to add weight to my opinion when interacting with the media, on or off duty. If I call the Globe on my day off and say "Hey, I'm Agent so-and-so with the U.S. Border Patrol, and this is how I feel about the 2nd Amendment" that would be an unauthorized use of my official position. If I called the Globe on my day off and said "Hey, I'm Joe Citizen, and this is how I feel about the 2nd Amendment" that would be perfectly fine, but it would be meaningless because I'd be just some random dude.

 

[not new guy]

Like I said in another thread, I'd be fired.

Absolutely. My point is that this isn't the union or even the majority of NY cops saying it, just a facebook page with ~100 followers. If the majority of NY cops came out and criticized it the story would be national news-worthy and nobody would be getting fired for it. This seems like it's just a small group of guys who are pissed off.

 

[beaker]

All sounds good in theory. Are you prepared to give up your livelihood (forever) for the cause? Are you even in a position where you would have to make that kind of choice. I doubt it... Like it or not, this is a political situation. Currently serving military have the same issue.

Not to bust your balls, but in MY opinion, standing up for the constitutional rights of myself as well as the people we were sworn to serve trumps losing my paycheck all day.

 

[drgrant]

Not that I envy anyone who is a test case, but wouldn't there be 1st amendment consequences to that?

Sheriffs can do this because nobody can fire them. (They're elected). Usually in LE though nearly everyone serving is beholden to some dumbass policy controlled by someone else.


-Mike

 

[NEVER SURRENDER]

Like I said in another thread, I'd be fired.

Screw that let them fire you then sue for violating your first amendment and sue them for doing your job i.e. KEEPING YOUR SWORN OATH.

 

[ochmude]

Screw that let them fire you then sue for violating your first amendment and sue them for doing your job i.e. KEEPING YOUR SWORN OATH.

Holy crap, people. Some of you really don't understand what the Bill of Rights is about. Freedom of speech doesn't mean immunity from all consequences. My job isn't to talk to media, nor was that mentioned in any of the eight oaths that I've sworn since October of 2001. This is starting to remind me of the times when someone's post gets deleted and they bitch that the mods are infringing on their 1A rights. The 1A isn't about "neener neener neener, I can say whatever I want and no one can do anything about it." NEVER SURRENDER, can you even tell me what the 1A says, exactly? It says "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." Well, Congress didn't. An employer created an internal policy. The policy was reviewed by lawyers at the highest levels of government as well as by the union (of which I am not a member, I might add, as I'm against unions), and it was found to be completely within the bounds of legality and constitutionality.

 

[kingfisher]

My point is that this isn't the union or even the majority of NY cops saying it, just a facebook page with ~100 followers. If the majority of NY cops came out and criticized it the story would be national news-worthy and nobody would be getting fired for it. This seems like it's just a small group of guys who are pissed off.

This is from their mission statement:

...to Gather Law Enforcement Officers across the Nation to stand up and Unite to serve and protect the United States Constitution against any persons or entity that threatens to infringe upon who it was originally drafted to protect!

It may be a "small group of guys who are pissed off" right now. That's how many great movements got started, and eventually it could be a "majority of NY cops" or even "Law Enforcement Officers across the Nation."

I'm happy to be someone who's helping make this group stronger rather than someone criticizing stand-up guys who are doing the right thing.

 

[Glasgow Grin]

All sounds good in theory. Are you prepared to give up your livelihood (forever) for the cause? Are you even in a position where you would have to make that kind of choice. I doubt it... Like it or not, this is a political situation. Currently serving military have the same issue.

You doubt it? LOL! Excellent guess work Sherlock. I am in such a position, and I have made my feelings on these unconstituional laws well known to my department, my chief, and my community.If I lose my job, then so be it. I will one day die with my principles intact. Others may wish to die the wealthiest guy in the cemetary. A paycheck vs. defending constitutional rights? This is a no brainer for me. I swore to uphold the constitution, not uphold my ability to make bank. In times such as these, every man needs to do some soul searching, and decide if he's a man of principle, or a slave in need of a check. I know where I stand.

 

[not new guy]

This is from their mission statement:



It may be a "small group of guys who are pissed off" right now. That's how many great movements got started, and eventually it could be a "majority of NY cops" or even "Law Enforcement Officers across the Nation."

I'm happy to be someone who's helping make this group stronger rather than someone criticizing stand-up guys who are doing the right thing.

Hey, I support them, I'm just noting that they have a long way to go before their voice will even be heard. Hopefully they get there.

 

[Glasgow Grin]

This group was only formed about 6 days ago. They are quickly taking off. The key is getting the word out. If more Police Officers are made aware that speaking out will put them in the company of brothers of like mind, then they will be more comfortable in doing so. As we've seen even in this thread, some are more afraid of losing their jobs. We all need a paycheck, but we need to let them know that if we stand together, we will be heard.

 

[mark056]

Screw that let them fire you then sue for violating your first amendment and sue them for doing your job i.e. KEEPING YOUR SWORN OATH.

Yeah, that's right... be unemployed for months or even years, and then fund a costly legal campaign to get your job back...what planet do you live on? The REALITY is that most simply do not have the resources to do this. Methinks another case of little men talking behind big screens. Oh it is so easy in the virtual world...

 

[beaker]

Good on you! Please post the links to the public displays of how you feel as a LEO of which department. I am assuming LEO because you have a chief.

You doubt it? LOL! Excellent guess work Sherlock. I am in such a position, and I have made my feelings on these unconstituional laws well known to my department, my chief, and my community.If I lose my job, then so be it. I will one day die with my principles intact. Others may wish to die the wealthiest guy in the cemetary. A paycheck vs. defending constitutional rights? This is a no brainer for me. I swore to uphold the constitution, not uphold my ability to make bank. In times such as these, every man needs to do some soul searching, and decide if he's a man of principle, or a slave in need of a check. I know where I stand.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[NEVER SURRENDER]

Holy crap, people. Some of you really don't understand what the Bill of Rights is about. Freedom of speech doesn't mean immunity from all consequences. My job isn't to talk to media, nor was that mentioned in any of the eight oaths that I've sworn since October of 2001. This is starting to remind me of the times when someone's post gets deleted and they bitch that the mods are infringing on their 1A rights. The 1A isn't about "neener neener neener, I can say whatever I want and no one can do anything about it." NEVER SURRENDER, can you even tell me what the 1A says, exactly? It says "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." Well, Congress didn't. An employer created an internal policy. The policy was reviewed by lawyers at the highest levels of government as well as by the union (of which I am not a member, I might add, as I'm against unions), and it was found to be completely within the bounds of legality and constitutionality.

§ 201-d. Discrimination against the engagement in certain activities. 1. Definitions. As used in this section: a. "Political activities" shall mean (i) running for public office, (ii) campaigning for a candidate for public office, or (iii) participating in fund-raising activities for the benefit of a candidate, political party or political advocacy group;Would you not be protected under this in some way in New York?? I am in no way advocating going on a one man crusade but uniting with fellow leo's and acting as a group. If people start losing their jobs over this i am confident that myself and others will be donating to the orgs defending these people. Good on you for your position but we need a voice as loud as the machines bum lickers.

 

[NEVER SURRENDER]

Yeah, that's right... be unemployed for months or even years, and then fund a costly legal campaign to get your job back...what planet do you live on? The REALITY is that most simply do not have the resources to do this. Methinks another case of little men talking behind big screens. Oh it is so easy in the virtual world...

Whoa now a little harsh?? I am not saying he should get on a soapbox and say F you all. I was just speaking a frame of mind, unite with others en mass and speak out. If repercussions come because of this than fight it. I am not calling him out and do not hide behind screens. Lets not divide and unite. W hen the time comes and it will there will be fallout and the pro gun orgs i am sure will represent and i for one will donate.

 

[ochmude]

§ 201-d. Discrimination against the engagement in certain activities. 1. Definitions. As used in this section: a. "Political activities" shall mean (i) running for public office, (ii) campaigning for a candidate for public office, or (iii) participating in fund-raising activities for the benefit of a candidate, political party or political advocacy group;Would you not be protected under this in some way in New York?? I am in no way advocating going on a one man crusade but uniting with fellow leo's and acting as a group. If people start losing their jobs over this i am confident that myself and others will be donating to the orgs defending these people. Good on you for your position but we need a voice as loud as the machines bum lickers.

No, not even a little bit. I'm subject to the Hatch Act.

 

[josephmrtn]

Not to bust your balls, but in MY opinion, standing up for the constitutional rights of myself as well as the people we were sworn to serve trumps losing my paycheck all day.

TOTALY AGREE!!!!!!!!!!

 

[weekendracer]

No, not even a little bit. I'm subject to the Hatch Act.

The only way we can speak publicly is to get permission from our Chief, probably from the DC Chief. Our boss is appointed by the current president, how well do you think that would go over?

As for standing up at the risk of my job, fine I get fired. They replace me with someone who does not care about what is right vs wrong. So tell me, what did anyone gain? Nothing.

It is also policy that speaking to media is forbidden unless a PIO. So you break policy, you are screwed, there is no defense. It's not a 1A argument, but a policy one. Same as I can't run down to Boston and sack up a bus full of illegals. Why? My assigned area is specified, I leave my assigned area, I. am. screwed. One bus of illegals go home, so do I, problem is not resolved. All I can hope for is a change in the political climate where I can go back to work.

Edit: There are currently something like 40k applicants in the pool. So getting rid of one agent is no big deal, probably would make some people happy getting rid of some guys with faded uniforms.

 

[SOUTHBOSTONUSMC]

Dead on Marine ! Well said Ochmude