Other State More propaganda: Police pushback doesn’t stop conservative gun law rollback

[FourTeeFive]

Police pushback doesn't stop conservative gun law rollback

The latest push to loosen gun laws in many states has put police officers at odds with Republican lawmakers who usually trumpet their support for law enforcement.

apnews.com

Read More

 

[RVTECH]

Ok so someone correct me if I am wrong but reading this part suggests to ME LEOs are 'at odds' with republican lawmakers because they (LEOs) do NOT necessarily agree with 'loosening gun laws' , and interpret this as a less than supportive to Law Enforcement ?

The latest push to loosen gun laws in states across the U.S. has put police officers at odds with Republican lawmakers who usually trumpet support for law enforcement.

So are they (LEOs) inferring they would prefer Repubs to support (or maintain) more stringent gun laws?

 

[ma96782]

I can see that some LEOs may have a problem with proposed legislation of this sort.

From a FREEDOM loving person's view.....they may see the public mostly as just good people walking around.

However.....being that Police are frequently dealing with the "fringes". If not, the down n' dirty dregs and/or perhaps hopeless cases (in their view). Maybe some of them have become jaded/changed by their own personal experiences from working. Not to mention that in most cases the policy of the Dept is whatever the Chief says it will be.

The Dept (the Officers in it) doesn't always have a 100% unified view of basic politics either.

Note: This Chief of Police says he wants more "GOOD AMERICANS WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE" to carry. BUT he is also anti "assault weapon".

The Devil is always in the details. How does one attempt to/intend to achieve a particular goal?

Aloha, Mark

 

[Nosferatu]

They only report the "dozens" of officers who opposed it. I didn't read a word about the numbers of officers that supported, or were even impartial to it.

 

[Xaevian]

They only report the "dozens" of officers who opposed it. I didn't read a word about the numbers of officers that supported, or were even impartial to it.

I think many of them resigned in disgust.

 

[ma96782]

I once worked for a Chief of Police that wanted to ban "Assault Pistols" and he openly campaigned to pass the law.

Yup....he used taxpayer money and resources to further his political goal of banning "assault pistols". He said it was a SAFETY issue, important to the citizens of Hawaii.

Yeah.....even though I told him personally why I opposed it. Rrrright.....I must have been dreaming, thinking that he would listen to me.

Well anyway, he won. Yeah.....the Hawaii Legislature went along with his views and passed the law.

Is he Un-American/a traitor to the Constitution? What about the legislators? Why was taxpayers money used to restrict FREEDOM?

Aloha, Mark

PS.....Hawaii's "Assault Pistol" definition. Read HRS-134 for the details.

"Assault pistol" means a semiautomatic pistol that accepts a detachable magazine and has two or more of the following characteristics:

(1) An ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;

(2) A threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward hand grip, or silencer;

(3) A shroud that is attached to or partially or completely encircles the barrel and permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the second hand without being burned;

(4) A manufactured weight of fifty ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded;

(5) A centerfire pistol with an overall length of twelve inches or more; or

(6) It is a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm;

but does not include a firearm with a barrel sixteen or more inches in length, an antique pistol as defined in this section, or a curio or relic as those terms are used in 18 United States Code section 921(a)(13) or 27 Code of Federal Regulations section 478.11.

And.....

(a) The manufacture, possession, sale, barter, trade, gift, transfer, or acquisition of any of the following is prohibited: assault pistols, except as provided by section 134-4(e); automatic firearms; rifles with barrel lengths less than sixteen inches; shotguns with barrel lengths less than eighteen inches; cannons; mufflers, silencers, or devices for deadening or muffling the sound of discharged firearms; hand grenades, dynamite, blasting caps, bombs, or bombshells, or other explosives; or any type of ammunition or any projectile component thereof coated with teflon or any other similar coating designed primarily to enhance its capability to penetrate metal or pierce protective armor; and any type of ammunition or any projectile component thereof designed or intended to explode or segment upon impact with its target.

(c) The manufacture, possession, sale, barter, trade, gift, transfer, or acquisition of detachable ammunition magazines with a capacity in excess of ten rounds which are designed for or capable of use with a pistol is prohibited. This subsection shall not apply to magazines originally designed to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition which have been modified to accept no more than ten rounds and which are not capable of being readily restored to a capacity of more than ten rounds.

Rrrrright.....
The AR15 magazine could be used in a Bushmaster pistol.

BUT.....no one has ever been prosecuted (not that I know of anyway) under that provision. And as a result .....some internet gun parts/dealers/stores refuse to sell a magazine w/ an over 10 rd capacity to a Hawaii resident. Rrrrrright, because the law is there.

 

[po18guy]

Police pushback doesn't stop conservative gun law rollback

The latest push to loosen gun laws in many states has put police officers at odds with Republican lawmakers who usually trumpet their support for law enforcement.

apnews.com

Associated Progressives? They wish they were CNN. Note that it is the pandemic and not the billions of dollars ain damage and the numerous injuries and deaths from progressive-sponsored rioting and looting, topped by the Biden gun grab.

 

[RVTECH]

Is he Un-American/a traitor to the Constitution? What about the legislators?

Sounds more like he was inexperienced with guns, probably anti leaning and leftist and most likely a 'patsy'' for the legislators.

 

[ma96782]

Sounds more like he was inexperienced with guns, probably anti leaning and leftist and most likely a 'patsy'' for the legislators.

Nah.....I used to think that it was because he was a Dem. And wanted a higher position within Hawaii's Dem. Machine. He even ran for political office once he got out.

He actually was (R.I.P.).....a really nice guy.

Aloha, Mark

PS....yeah....now that I think about it....perhaps also a "patsy" (cover) for the Dems.

 

[Knute]

"Police" from the title, or "dozens"of LEO don't like it sounds like an exaggeration of implied consensus.

If their police union or the state Sheriff's association makes a statement it may be one thing, but if it was that city's LEO "leadership" making comments (political?) about legislation, well that dog don't hunt.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Reading up history....

NFA1934 passed with the full support of police (especially Chicago, and the Revenuers)

GCA1968 passed, with overwhelming support of police, especially those who disliked the Black Panthers

FOPA1986 didn't have as much police support.

AWB passed with police support.


In each and every State that has passed gun control laws, they had the support of police, be it State or local, and in some cases, sheriffs.

 

[FourTeeFive]

I do understand there are anti-gun LEOs, but I think (hope) they tend to be the minority. When I lived in MA carry permits were at the discretion of your local LEO. Where I lived the Police Chief was a "for me and not for thee" type who was very snarky when I applied for (and eventually got) my carry permit. Yet in the next town over, literally three miles away, the Police Chief was a lifetime NRA member and would sign off on select-fire paperwork. Crazy to think carry permits were given out based on the personal opinion of the local LEO.

 

[CamoDeafie]

I do understand there are anti-gun LEOs, but I think (hope) they tend to be the minority. When I lived in MA carry permits were at the discretion of your local LEO. Where I lived the Police Chief was a "for me and not for thee" type who was very snarky when I applied for (and eventually got) my carry permit. Yet in the next town over, literally three miles away, the Police Chief was a lifetime NRA member and would sign off on select-fire paperwork. Crazy to think carry permits were given out based on the personal opinion of the local LEO.

You know... the NRA, at least significant people in the NRA leadership at the time were all for GCA1968... it might be generational. But I've met far too many LEOs who are of the opinion that the fewer concealed carry permits, the better....

 

[Jonnyuma]

Reading up history....

NFA1934 passed with the full support of police (especially Chicago, and the Revenuers)

GCA1968 passed, with overwhelming support of police, especially those who disliked the Black Panthers

FOPA1986 didn't have as much police support.

AWB passed with police support.


In each and every State that has passed gun control laws, they had the support of police, be it State or local, and in some cases, sheriffs.

Police support, or the support of their unions?
When you say Fraternal Order of Police, many (maybe most) people don't put that together as just another labor union. There are others; Police Benevolent Society has a nice ring to it, but they are just a union and we all know where labor unions butter their bread. They are also largely independent and don't fall under the SEIU or AFL/CIO umbrella.
The various associations of chiefs of police (state, national, international) are pretty much lobbyists and a clearinghouse for job postings. Like the unions, the leadership decide the direction with regards to what's best for the organization and don't necessarily reflect the views and wishes of the membership. They might, but at the top, its largely inconsequential what the membership thinks.

 

[bbbass]

So are they (LEOs) inferring they would prefer Repubs to support (or maintain) more stringent gun laws?

Not to mention that in most cases the policy of the Dept is whatever the Chief says it will be.

Sounds more like he was inexperienced with guns, probably anti leaning and leftist and most likely a 'patsy'' for the legislators.

"Police" from the title, or "dozens"of LEO don't like it sounds like an exaggeration of implied consensus.

If their police union or the state Sheriff's association makes a statement it may be one thing, but if it was that city's LEO "leadership" making comments (political?) about legislation, well that dog don't hunt.

^^^THIS^^^


I didn't read the article, but like others, I wonder if there is a distinction between the cops on the street and police "leadership"... both Chiefs and Union leaders.

I'm not willing to assume that the article speaks for all LEOs. Because the cop/deputy on the beat that I have been associated with here where I live, is very pro gun generally. They even shoot with me at IDPA matches. One of the SD club leaders is a retired deputy.

However, the Chiefs that I have met, although very familiar with handguns, have uniformly/all been "For me and not for thee" types that are very much against citizens owning handguns and ARs.

So I have to wonder if the article speaks for ALL the LEOs there.

 

[RVTECH]

I do understand there are anti-gun LEOs, but I think (hope) they tend to be the minority.

We all no doubt would like to believe this to be the case but I have my doubts.

Having known a fair amount of LEOs (some family) I have found its difficult to get a clear 'reading' on exactly how a lot of them think.

My experience has been with many they say one thing, but mean another, express a pro gun opinion in one 'sense' and then contradict it in another. Some will express very 'pro-gun' positions - but with a 'for me' slant. It's almost as though they have been 'trained' to maintain an 'unclear' or 'uncommitted' position when discussion it with non-LEOs.

It would be interesting to 'poll' a large # of LEOs on this however the poll questions would need to be well thought out and with some very specific criteria as I believe it would be very difficult to get a 'straight' answer out of the majority of them.

 

[FourTeeFive]

We all no doubt would like to believe this to be the case but I have my doubts.

Having known a fair amount of LEOs (some family) I have found its difficult to get a clear 'reading' on exactly how a lot of them think.

Similar experiences here. Oddly enough, I think "firearm enthusiast" LEOs are the minority. Most appear less interested in their firearm than the average electrician is about the pliers they carry. Just a tool, and that's all they know. Don't get me wrong, I've met a few LEOs at the range and elsewhere (including here) that are enthusiasts, but I think the vast majority of them just see guns as a tool they use and that others can use against them. So while they may support a citizen's right to own guns, I think a lot of them aren't thrilled we have them, know how to use them, and carry them. Of course that can also be a regional thing too. A NYC beat cop is likely to be a bit more prejudiced against gun owners than a rural Texas Sheriff.

 

[RVTECH]

Oddly enough, I think "firearm enthusiast" LEOs are the minority.

I suspect some were no doubt 'firearm enthusiasts' prior to entering in to LE but later maybe began to develop some 'convoluted' opinions about their support of certain aspects of 'civilian' gun ownership.

This part makes sense and could have a bearing on it as it was something they never considered before:

but I think the vast majority of them just see guns as a tool they use and that others can use against them.

Another aspect could be to what degree one was a 'firearm enthusiast' before entering LE. If he/she were say just a hunter, trapshooter etc. and never really delved into shooting handguns or much else this could also influence their opinions as well.

 

[nwslopoke]

Associated Press. Delivering propaganda since 1941. They say, loose gun laws are a danger to police officers. Would that mean restrictive gun laws are a danger to the public?

The 2A is about the individual's rights to bear arms. The police are agents of the government so the people rights should outweigh the government's safety. Keeping bad people in jail would be a good way of police safety.

Anyone taking an oath to hold a position needs to be held accountable. We know what is included in those oaths and how the bosses love to ignore inconvenient aspects of them.