Immoral Chiefs of Police - Arizona Preemption HB2095

[Jeff Thomas]

Yesterday I heard testimony at an Arizona Senate hearing regarding our preemption bill, HB 2095. Various Chiefs and Assistant Chiefs of Police were there to testify against the bill. No rank and file LEO's were there.

One Assistant Chief, from Tucson, was selected to testify on their behalf. It was pitiful. He claimed that Tucson had to be able to post their parks 'no firearms allowed' in order to stop crime. He had to admit this would not stop crime. He had to admit they could not protect everyone. He had to admit that existing laws allow them to bust most gangbangers illegally carrying weapons. He was intellectually humiliated by some members of the committee. And, I saw him as the emodiment of a dangerous evil in our nation.

Overstated? I don't really think so. I see the anti-self defense movement as comprised of various factions:
1. Ignorant, emotional do-gooders - people who honestly believe the foolishness they spout. Good people at heart, they either cannot think logically, or choose not to do so because of how they 'feel'. Fact will not dissuade them.
2. Cynics who make their living off of the anti-self defense movement - employed activists, lobbyists and politicians who literally gain economic benefit from prosecuting this struggle.
3. Government bureaucrats who cooperate with the cynics - these folks, especially the Chiefs of Police, deserve little or no respect, IMHO. I feel this way because they know they cannot and do not protect their employers / citizens from harm. They read the reports, and perhaps at an earlier point in their careers, they saw the crime scenes. They may support some of this foolishness with an understandable concern for their officers. But, their disengenuous testimony about protecting citizens really turns my stomach. These people are lying from what I see, and they do so at our peril. To be frank, while it may protect or enhance their jobs, I see this behavior as being not far removed from WWII prison camp guards that were simply 'doing their job'. I see these Chiefs as absolutely immoral b*****ds.

[Now, please, let's not turn this into a 'nobody likes LEO's' thread. I see the Chiefs as entirely different animals on this subject - most LEO's, from what I've seen, more readily admit the truth.]


BTW, the bill successfully passed out of committee, 7 ayes, 2 nays. And, I gained a new respect for a number of our Senators. They handled themselves well, with the exception of a dim bulb from Tucson ...

 

[bruels]

Very often to rise to management level in law enforcement one must leave a certain amount of integrity and testes behind.

 

[LawDog]

Chiefs of Police are the main reason why I only work for County Sheriffs.

A C-o-P relies on the Mayor, and City Elders/Council/Fathers/etc., for his job. If the Mayor, et al., decide that the C-o-P isn't toeing their line, they can fire him--usually without needing a valid reason.

And (in my experience), the Mayor or City Council/whatever, can and do, order tht some officer get fired. Again, the C-o-P can either fire the officer who comes to the attention of the City, or he can get another job and his replacement will fire the officer.

If a Mayor (say of Baltimore) decides that guns are the Source Of All Evil, the Chief of Police of Baltimore can either follow the Mayor's lead, or find another job.

The C-o-P has to keep the Mayor and City Council happy.

A County sheriff must keep the people of his County happy.

And therein lies a world of difference.

In my experience, nobody tells a Sheriff what to do, how to enforce the law, or what officers to keep or fire.

I wouldn't work for a City PD for all the gold in the Orient.

But I'm just biased.

LawDog

 

[Erik]

True - but a Sherrif answering to a liberal constituancy can be a hassle.

 

[bruels]

A sheriff does what is necessary to get elected. To do so he accumulates a bunch of "friends" who think they are entitled to special treatment because they call the sheriff by his first name. In my opinion, some of the local sheriff's friends are no better than the scum I sent to prison.

 

[Robert Foote]

Interesting. Chiefs of police are almost invariably one of the most political creatures alive. Between making a conscious choice to clamber to the 'top' and the consequent gulf between that world and the world of the street cop, it would be a rare chief indeed who kept his feet on the ground. When they appear in full uniform with pounds of gold braid, eagles, and scrambled eggs they are posturing for their masters. They will generally do as they are told for fear of losing their positions, and that is what controls all their actions. Edward Abbey once characterized them as 'proud, tough, sensitive flunkies'. Most are just that.

------------------

 

[Jeff Thomas]

Well, I spoke with our own Chief this afternoon - turns out he was there yesterday.

He's a bit more honest than the Tucson bozo we heard yesterday. And, neither one of us was impressed with that guy.

He had three points of concern:
1. The AZ preemption law appears to make it impossible to apply zoning laws to firearms businesses - I told him the intent was not to exempt firearms businesses from zoning laws that impact other businesses, but to avoid discrimination against firearms businesses. I also pointed out to him the sensitivity on this issue because of overreaching zoning attempts in other jurisdictions that would prevent citizens from having ammunition, firearms, etc. This point we can probably get past.
2. Guns in municipal buildings - his concern here is having someone bring a firearm openly into their town council chambers, especially in the context of a vigorous political debate. More concerned about the intimidation factor than anything else - e.g. bringing a shotgun in, and leaning it against the wall, etc. This one's a bit tougher in my mind - interested in your opinions. I understand his concern. However, (1) I don't think this is a common problem, (2) allowing concealed carry would seem to mitigate this a bit, and (3) [here's where I may get flamed ...] would it be an option to allow a ban in such a circumstance, as long as there were armed guards, checking of firearms and metal detectors? I find it absolutely indefensible that any government or private company would attempt to disarm honest people without providing very effective and armed security in such a situation. I was not effective in arguing this point with him.
3. Public events - like concerts, and especially where alcohol and drugs are being consumed. Well, we already have a statute in Arizona allowing promoters of such events to prohibit weapons, but they must check the weapons at the door and otherwise take resonsibility for securing the event. The Chief and I can't agree on this one. He feels the requirements on the promoter are too great, but I feel they are reasonable.

At least he did not try to snow me with BS like they can usually / mostly get there in time to save people's lives, etc. That is the part that really frys me.

I will grant this - unfortunately, LEO's, and Chiefs, see nearly all of the bad consequences from firearms ... rather like health care workers. However, they probably see a small percentage of positive uses. It has to color their judgement.

After talking to this Chief I have to temper my words a bit. But, not too much. I still see too many of them cooperating with the anti-self defense movement.

I did point out to him the recent example of Citibank, and noted that it is that kind of foolishness that has stiffened the resolve of pro-RKBA forces.

Interested in your perspectives ...


[This message has been edited by Jeff Thomas (edited February 22, 2000).]

 

[jeffelkins]

Florida has statewide preemption and thank god for it. Most of the carry restrictions are reasonable (arguable from a libertarian standpoint)...courthouse, LE stations, sporting events,bars.

I totally agree re: sheriffs vs CoP. Typically, you don't find an Anti as an elected sheriff...at least here in the south