Question to LEOs re " War on Guns"

[labgrade]

Been putting off posting this thread because of its possibility to go flame-on in a real hurry. Still, I'd like to hear some opinions from LEOs & regular ol' folks. Let's do try to keep it civil.

The "no-knock" thread got tempers pretty flared & I'd like to keep away from that. But, it did bring up a point made that "if that's the law, I'll enforce it." Makes sense to me (re enforcing the law), to a point.

If the powers that be instigate registration would you arrest for (previous) good guys for not doing so.

Many LEOs in here who are clearly pro-gun and (may) have stances much more staunch than myself. If the confiscation starts, how would you react to clearly unconstitutional laws even though they are "the law of the land?"

 

[Alan B]

Adding to your comments Labgrade

For all you LEO's who say you won't enforce unconstitutional gun laws, are you willing to get executed for that stance. Remember in Germany in the 30s that the gestapo just shot the local police who refused to confiscate guns and did it themselves.

Just curious if this though had been considered?


[This message has been edited by Alan B (edited January 12, 2000).]

 

[James K]

A LEO is sworn to enforce the law. His/her own opinion won't matter. But, since local police might not be ardent enough, most gun control advocates want to disarm all but federal LE and the armed forces. The latter would be used in the roundups and executions that outfits like Citizens Against Guns advocate for even "suspected" gun owners, which would include non-federal LEOs.

While he's not that extreme, I recommend Robert Sherrill's "The Saturday Night Special" for the anti-gun view of police. According to the book (which has been called "the bible of gun control", police are "morally inferior", "queer about guns", "mentally unbalanced", "too quick on the trigger", "bullies", and "sullen and withdrawn". Also cowards, though he doesn't actually use that word.

Jim

 

[LawDog]

Execution for Official Misconduct?

Oooo-kay. Bit too much even for the sheeple to swallow.

My take on registration was the same as most of my buddies: If we have the time to investigate non-registered people after-- 1)patrolling 2)major crime investigation 3)patrolling 4)training 5)patrolling 6) serving civil papers 7)patrolling 8)working traffic, and last but not least: 9)patrolling--then we might get around to looking for non-compliant gun owners.

LawDog

 

[Brasso]

I don't think that it will come to that. As much as the media tries to make everyone believe that only kooks own guns, it's still just fantasy in their own diluted minds. I truly believe that with a few exceptions like Kalifornia, where everybody is brainwashed at birth to believe their lives are less important than their elected leaders, that that type of mentality is found only at 6 and 10pm. However, in answering your question, I would not arrest people for not registering guns. I haven't arrested anyone yet for carrying concealed w/o permit, and I don't inend to do so now. The problem is that most of the new police officers were educated in public schools, and hence believe that the 2nd Amendment doesn't really exist. Many police have a negative view of guns (as seen by their marksmanship skills) and probably would confiscate and arrest those of non-compliance. I just don't believe that there are enough police of that mentality yet at this time. We must make sure that the laws are never allowed to get to that point. The problem with police with that negative attitude is that once they get the badge, they forget that they were once ordinary citizens, and that one day they will be again. Many of them, although proponents of gun control, would not be caught without one off duty, and certainly would object to not being able to own one. They are just like the other liberals. They are either dillusional or they are hippocrites.

 

[SKN]

Hmmm..."executions", "round-ups", the disarming of all but federal LE and the military? Certainly there are many here that have a much different informational and experiential base than I do but, in this country, in this new millenium (I'm one of those who believe it started on 1 January), I don't see it. Naive? Uninformed? Ignorant? Blind? You're entitled to have your opinions and I mine.

As to enforcement policies I really think that common sense will prevail. That is, where it's the law at a local LE and judiciary level a 'failure to register' violation may be charged incidental to some other violation encountered in the course of an arrest contact or investigaion, and not used as the basis for some massive house to house search operation or single arrest statistic.

The basis for my opinion? CA LEOs who know of the state DOJ list of persons who are out of compliance with the original 'assault weapon' registration (of whom I was one when I lived in CA and worked as an LEO) tell me that they aren't going to go knocking on people's doors to ferret out those weapons. It's "not their beat". If they should come across one during the course of another investigation then it's coming in, perhaps with its' owner, and that will simply be a collateral charge to the original complaint.

Will there be the odd 'hard core' agent, detective, line officer or deputy, Chief or Sheriff? Maybe.

Having dealt with the CA judicial process in a 25 year LEO career, I don't believe a judge would sign off on a search warrant for the singular offense of 'failure to register' or 'out of compliance with registration law'. If the owner were in violation of another statute(s) then that charge might be added to the arrest warrant for the primary offense(s). Will there be the staunch, 'zero tolerance' prosecutor or judge? Perhaps.

Also, no matter how vocal gun control advocates might become I cannot forsee a day where they are able to influence a federal agency or judiciary to the extent that mass arrests, searches or seizures would be authorized or tolerated. The use of American military to enforce contravention of a Constitutional right? Nope, 'cause "We The People" would not permit it.

My opinions, I'm entitled.

 

[Oleg Volk]

I, for one, wouldn't underestimate ability of arrogant officials to sign off on something that would lead to a civil war simply because the idea of consequences never occured to them...

 

[Alan B]

Jim Keenan
I agree with your assessment, as some of the anti gun groups like the British model of LEOs not being armed, but they will not be after LOE weapons until they get every thing else first. After all if guns are outlawed then crooks wont have them right
As far as the door to door confiscation they will "interrogate" candidates for the "Special" Federal LEO and Military groups to accomplish this. (They are training these people now in Bosnia and Kosovo) IMHO they are scared that if they sent the average LOE or Military type out to do it that the unit would fight amongst themselves (those who support the constitution against those who don’t) or go over to the other side weapons and all. Now for the $60,000 question is, will they trust these “Special” people with ammunition? They seem to at Waco.


[This message has been edited by Alan B (edited January 12, 2000).]

 

[Futo Inu]

Brasso, you kick big-time butt!! May all LEOs follow your lead. Thank you.

 

[Oatka]

SKN -- I agree with your scenario. I envision that ANY traffic stop will bring up a "Failure To Register" and catch the unregistered gun owners that way.

Add on a monetary penalty that starts from the date of registration (like calculating IRS penalties) and you have something close to asset forefeiture after a few years.

If "collateral to the original complaint" is in effect, then those who haven't registered will spend the rest of their lives looking over their shoulder, afraid of the least little infraction. A great way to live.

"Well, yes, judge, it's just a littering ticket, but collateral to that we have ...".
No bloodshed, riots, etc., Just pick 'em off one by one. They're in no hurry. Twenty years pass and every one not living in the boonies is disarmed without a hassle.

------------------
Nevada alt C.A.N.
The New World Order has a Third Reich odor.

 

[SKN]

Questions and not criticisms:

Brasso:

Our LE working environments (I retired last year) could not have been that different were they? In a mid-size CA city in the metro SF Bay Area, carrying concealed in public without a permit was an automatic misdemeanor arrest with confiscation of the firearm when I was working. If it was unloaded I had the discretion to cite release on scene and did, but if it were loaded we booked 'em though they could be cite released after processing. Reason: one less firearm on the street that could be used in a violent crime and we had more than our share of that. BTW, I once saw a similar post by an LEO with the same personal policy who was feeling bad because his supervisor had directed that a subject the LEO had stopped and found to be in violation, be arrested. My reaction was 'get over it'.

AlanB: What people are being trained in Bosnia or Kosovo for 'Special' Federal LEO and military units charged with confiscations? Last year I was screened and interviewed for, but turned down, a position in Kosovo and I know guys who have served in both places and neither they or I were ever 'interrogated' for candidacy for such units.

Oatka:

I would have to ask DMV and DOJ personnel how cost effective, manageable and practical it would be to cross reference their automated files. I know other states do this but I doubt that they have the number of vehicles and legit gun purchasers/owners that CA has. Where I worked when I left a 'guns registered to' check required a separate inquiry process and was not one that was SOP in a traffic stop or ped stop for that matter, even in a high crime or drug 'hot spot' area. The volume of telecomm traffic just made it more trouble than it was worth in a typical field stop.

[This message has been edited by SKN (edited January 13, 2000).]

 

[jeffelkins]

No disrespect to the LEOs on this board, but I think the 'drug war' and militarization of our police forces has come to a point where on average the LEOs are no longer our
'friends'. They are more of a standing army, the great fear of the founding fathers.

The vast majority of people will 'obey the rules' to keep a needed job and paycheck. Case in point, how many of you with CCW carry to work if the employee handbook forbids it? Most LEOs will enforce whatever laws are passed...unless we're in a state of general civil insurrection.

"The volume of telecomm traffic just made it more trouble than it was worth in a typical field stop."

That's nothing but a bandwidth issue. It's not science fiction to predict that high-speed access will be in the patrol car or on your belt in the near future.

"If "collateral to the original complaint" is in effect, then those who haven't registered will spend the rest of their lives looking over their shoulder, afraid of the least little infraction. A great way to live."

Exactly. And should general confiscation of all firearms come about,those of us who hold back unregistered weapons will be doomed to inprisionment by the state if we ever dare to use them in legitimate self-defense.
Remember Bernie Goetz?

 

[John/az2]

SKN,

You said: <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Reason: one less firearm on the street that could be used in a violent crime and we had more than our share of that.
[/quote]

Isn't this the way the anti's think? "One less gun on the street..." You may be disarming and charging someone for simply exercising their right to self-protection and ignoring unconstitutional laws, when you had no obligation to protect that individual even after disarming them. How very nice of you...

And, <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>BTW, I once saw a similar post by an LEO with the same personal policy who was feeling bad because his supervisor had directed that a subject the LEO had stopped and found to be in violation, be arrested. My reaction was 'get over it'.[/quote]

I don't blame him for feeling badly about it, as he was in violation of his oath (and I understand that most departments have in their oath of office) to uphold the Constitution. I suppose the weak excuse of "Well, I don't make the laws, I just enforce them." could have been used as it is so often. Now that is compromise at it's finest.

LEO's are placed in the most awkward position. "Uphold the Constitution. Enforce the law." And when there are so many laws contrary to the Constitution that a LEO is supposed to enforce... Well, I guess that is where character comes into play.

I so sincerely hope I have mis-understood your post, but as I understand it now, your position is rather left-leaning and compromising. And I rather hope that impression is incorrect.

------------------
John/az

"The middle of the road between the extremes of good and evil, is evil. When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!

 

[Rob Pincus]

I think that Oatka is right on the money with the concept of traffic stops leading to questions about registration. The Criminal Patrol mentality dictates that everyone you come into contact with (traffic stops, walking into a quick-mart, etc...) is a potential criminal and its up to YOU to figure it out. If the Computer Files are cross referrenced and the Dispatcher tells an LEO that the person is on a list, then the average LEO is going to ask about it.

Everyone knows how I feel about guns, would it bother any of you that I always ask about guns when dispatch tells me that a driver has a valid CCW ?? I hope not, I usually just ask them where their weapon is and if they will place it on the dash. I think that is reasonable. I usually end up having a friendly "gun-shop" type discussion with them about their guns, my guns or even TFL....

The main problem I have with "enforcing" gun laws in my day-to-day business comes from the Lautenberg Law. In VA and in TN (both states I've worked in...) we have "no descretion" on domestic assault incidents. If there is ANY indication of physical contact (bruise, scratch, scrap, sucking chest wound, whatever) we HAVE to make an arrest. That arrest will quite often lead to a conviction, albeit a misdemeanor one. Here's the trick though, the Lautenberg Law dictates that anyone with ANY conviction of domestic assault, including misdemeanor, cannot have access to a firearm, just like a convicted felon.
"Sorry, Bubba, you got drunk, you grabbed your wife by the arm and left a mark, no more hunting for you, EVER...."

don't get me wrong, I think guys who beat and abuse women are scum and shouldn't be trusted with oxygen in their lungs, let alone firearms, but not eveyone arrested in todays climate for "domestic assault" is like the dude in "Sleeping with the Enemy". Some of them are relatively harmless guys who make a mistake, one that they will get a 60 day suspended sentence and some counseling sessions for.. and, oh yeah, No More 2nd Amendment Rights for the Rest of Their Lives....

That is how "they" are getting the average LEO to take away people's gun rights.. how many LEOs are going to say "Hell, No, I'm not arresting that guy for hitting his wife/girlfriend/daughter/son/mom!" ???

(BTW, many District Attorneys are more likely to charge "domestic violence" now-a-days when a parent hits a kid as long as their is no sexual abuse.. "child Abuse" is used more for things like neglect and sexual issues, at least IME.....)



------------------
-Essayons

 

[Brasso]

SKN, my attitude towards firearms is a little different. First of all, I don't live in california, I live in Alabama. Can you say "black and white" as far as our outlooks on guns? Secondly, I truly believe that the Constitution protects the God given right to self-defense, i.e. the 2nd Amend. The right to self defense is so inalienable and basic, that it makes the other rights in the Constitution look like party favors. What I tend to see is people travelling with their families who have a gun in the car. Or people who have been out on the farm or hunting and have a pistol with them, but no permit. I also see many people who just have one because they want to. I have not yet seen anyone with a gun that I suspected was up to no good. By no good I mean selling crack out on the corner with a "nine" down his pants. If I ran across something like that, I would probably do something about it. Most of the time, if I arrested someone without a permit, I would only be harrassing honest citizens. That does nothing to support the spirit of the Constitution or further public relations. Actually, I'm more concerned with knifes than guns. I believe that they present a far greater threat to me. Especially at the close quarters we tend to engage the bad guys at. When we start denying people their most basic of rights, then we are truly the enemy, not their friends.

Would you work and live in the same areas that you patrolled, without a gun?

I live in a fairly safe area, and I don't leave home without one. I did the same thing before I got into LE, and hopefully I will be able to do it after I'm out or retired, and I can't blame anyone else who does the same thing.

It is our job to uphold the law, but we do exercise discretion. If it comes to the point that I am forced to arrest everyone I see for any infraction, then I guess that it will be time to quit.

 

[SKN]

_Not_ argumentative:

So then, the issue is discretion/common sense on the part of the LEO. I don't see an arrest for unlicensed concealed carry in public as having a single solution approach. To wit,

Field contact #1: Joe Working Guy, travels through/works in a high crime area so he carries unlicensed, gets stopped (please, let's not make _this_ the issue for the purpose of this example), discovered in violation.

Field contact #2: Peter the street corner crack dealer (again, please don't make drug use the issue), works in a high crime area/'drug hot spot' so he carries unlicensed, gets stopped, discovered in violation.

Possibilities: let each go their separate ways since they have a 2nd amendment right: consitutionally equal treatment outside of the applicable statutes; arrest each for the violation: equal treatment under the law but contravenes the 2nd; arrest one but release the other and either feel bad or not, and if this 'discriminatory' conduct is ever alleged or discovered face possible disciplinary investigation.

In my career I ran across one Joe but countless Peters/Peter Wannabees/Peters on parole or probation/Peters with a similar occupational inclination. I treated them all equally under the law. Since a reg violation or an 'out of compliance' is an act of omission and not commission I maintain that 'common sense' will be the course of the vast majority of LEOs and their agencies.

John/az2:
You're absolutely correct, LEOs are placed in an awkward position but I don't consider my position to be 'left leaning' or compromising, it's just based on my direct experience. In fact, a factor in moving to Oregon after retiring was the latitude of the firearms laws and, coincidentlly CA DOJ sent the 'sorry, you are out of compliance' letter for my tardiness in registering my "assault weapons" to my former agency. I'm very happy in Oregon where, though I could, I don't feel the need to carry concealed; but, if I were still in CA and subject to that letter, what would I do? Comply or go about post retirement living looking over my shoulder? Whatever _choice_ I make and I'm entitled, just like many other decisions in daily life, I'll have to live with the ramifications.

Brasso: You're right, when I was working I carried everywhere, all day, every day but this had more to do with my self imposed obligation to take LE action, where necessary, whether on or off duty.


[This message has been edited by SKN (edited January 13, 2000).]

 

[Jeff Thomas]

Rob, very nice to see you on the board today. I know you've already considered this, but your policy about having them put their sidearm on the dash made me wince a little. I hope rookie LEO's will remember that BG's may carry backup's as well. Hate for them to assume they know where the gun is ...

It does bother me that we have given our LEO's so many laws to work with that a bad apple can easily put Joe Sixpack away at his / her discretion. Discretion doesn't bother me, per se - it's just a fact of human behavior. It's the current range of that discretion that I find troubling.

Rob, see you in Vegas.

 

[Jeff White]

Here in Illinois we already have defacto registration, the requirement for a Fire Arm Owners ID Card.

I have come across seemingly decent law abiding citizens who were in possesion of firearms (shotgun in the truck during hunting season etc,) and "forgotten" to check to see if they had a FOID card.

Then again I have dealt with those "other" types, who I always checked to see if they had a FOID card.

I guess it's inconsistant but that's the way I look at it. Our TCs have to run FOIDs seperately and in the small rural department I work for it's not standard procedure to check everyone you encounter with a gun to see if they have a valid FOID card. Hunting is very popular here and in the Fall and Winter, it's not unusual to find shotguns etc. in most vehicles. Most of us on my department just sort of assume that people who aren't causing some kind of trouble are in compliance with the law.

The Conservation Police Officers on the other hand check everyone.

Jeff

 

[Rob Pincus]

Jeff,

Rest Assured, most rookie LEOs (if they went to the academy that I did, anyway) seem to think that ANYONE with ANY gun is a good reason to draw down, seek cover and call for help.. they are not likely to be lazy about officer safety issues.

My practice of "please put the weapon on the dash" is usually handled with a "keep your right hand onthe steering wheel and slowly... etc..etc..." Honestly, most of the time, people have their guns in their glove box, under their seat, or in some type of bag (purse, fanny pack, briefcase, etc..) The reason for the dash when they are carrying, for me, is that if I have to get them out of their car for any reason, I want the weapon off them.. yes they can have another, but I am much more worried about the guys without the CCWs who might have a gun, than I am the CCW holder who might have a back-up (and I always ask anyway...).

If the gun is not on their person, I will explain that they should:
1. Keep their hands where I can see them , preferably on the steering wheel.
2. Not reach towards the container or place where the weapon is.
I explain that any move towards the weapon or container would be perceived by me as a serious threat.

Call me At Harrah's when you get to Vegas.

 

[John/az2]

SKN,

I suppose the choice for many people considering carrying in civil disobedience would be for which particular party they would want to be on the look-out for, the criminal or the cop.

I personally believe that many would rather encounter the cop (hoping for some discretionary enforcement) than the criminal (who doesn't care)... but that is just my personal belief.

------------------
John/az

"The middle of the road between the extremes of good and evil, is evil. When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!

[This message has been edited by John/az2 (edited January 14, 2000).]