 |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
LAW ENFORCEMENT DOES NOT SUPPORT GUN CONTROL There is definitely an alarming trend in our country. Every day, from virtually every segment of society, it seems our Second Amendment rights are under attack. The attack runs the gamut from Domino’s Pizza, which fired a driver who successfully defended himself with a firearm, to the anti-gun American Bar Association, American Medical Association, judges, and politicians. Perhaps most disturbing, however, is the notion that law enforcement overwhelmingly favors gun control. Advocates of disarming the American public want you to believe that a disarmed society is a concept that is being totally driven by the law enforcement community. They want you to believe that a disarmed public is vital to the efforts to control crime and stop criminals. That is simply not true. Through our lobbying, education, and public relations efforts, the Law Enforcement Alliance of America is working to show the American public that the idea that the local cop on the beat is anti-gun is nothing more than a myth propagated by the media and anti-gun politicians. The belief that police encourage civilian disarmament is not only a lie, but is also extremely dangerous. It is dangerous because police are generally well respected by many segments of society and therefore carry an enormous amount of influence over public opinion. It is common that when you see a group of police officers speaking from a position of authority saying they support some cause, they garner almost universal support. For example, President Clinton went to an International Chiefs of Police function in Albuquerque, New Mexico in 1994, and stood there before an ocean of blue accepting accolades for being a great guy who saves law enforcement from gun toting crazies. People throughout the country, with the help of the media, took that to mean their local police office accepted Clinton’s gun control agenda. What we fail to recognize, however, is that it’s the leadership of national police organizations, not the front-line officer, who support gun control. The question then arises, of course, is how can so many cops be represented by a leadership that does not reflect their view? The answer is as old as Tammany Hall, and involves the usual components of corruption; politics, greed, and the quest for power. Over the years, as we have moved from peace officers to police officers, law enforcement has become more and more politicized. Police chiefs are appointed by the mayor as opposed to being elected, and held accountable by, the people. At the same time, mayors of most big cities face a virtual epidemic of violent crime. Instead of looking to the real causes of crime, these political leaders have bought the anti-gun line that it’s the firearms that cause the crime, not the people. Therefore, when they have to make appointments, such as the police chief, they generally appoint people who share their political views. This phenomena is exacerbated by the fact that local politicians like to receive money from the federal government in the form of grants. How much federal money would a big city mayor who encourages private firearms ownership receive from a federal government that gave us the Brady bill and the so-called “assault weapons” ban? Not much. And don’t think for a minute that just because we have a Republican congress it’s necessarily going to change any time soon. Large police organizations also find themselves on the receiving end of federal tax dollars. Anti-gun leaders representing hundreds of thousands of police officers are not always driven by ideology or the belief that gun control will make this country any safer. They are driven by the same forces of money and power that drive politicians. When the Clinton-Reno Justice Department needed a last minute push for the crime bill, they called on their law enforcement allies who were brought and paid for with your tax dollars. According to some sources, $4.4 million was given to these same anti-gun police organizations in the form of grants. Your tax dollars came to these groups through the Bureau of Justice Assistance and they went to the Police Executive Research Forum, IACP, National Sheriff’s Association, and the Police Foundation. Investors Business Daily and Law and Order Magazine, which is a publication for police officers and police leadership, both claim that the IACP received almost $650.000 in 1993. The money was ostensibly intended to provide extensive police training and technical assistance. This type of taxpayer funding of police groups that profess unwavering support of gun control has been going on for far too long. Anti-gun strategists learned a long time ago that law enforcement, if properly handled, could be a very potent legislative ally. Politicians used groups like the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the Police Foundation, for their successful push of the Brady Law and the crime bill. This array of big city chiefs and national police union leaders were present every time the cameras rolled, and were always ready for a photo-op. Consider how this works out in a real life situation. On the cover of our magazine [Editor's note: the magazine is called The Shield, its predecessor was The LEAA Advocate] is a photograph showing a group of uniformed police officers standing on the steps of the Capitol building, when Secretary of the Treasury Lloyd Benson was going in at the eleventh hour to try to help get the crime bill and the “assault weapons” ban passed. Probably the most disturbing part of this story is that many officers in the photo were being compelled to appear. This is what happened in Arlington, Virginia, which is where the police in the photo worked. At roll call, the officers were ‘encouraged’ by their superiors to participate in a ‘function.’ Concurrently, Police Memorial Day was just a few days away. The assumption was they were being asked to volunteer to do a service for fallen comrades. Whether they were led to believe that by their supervisors or they reached that conclusion on their own is still unclear. Many of them agreed to go downtown and stand on the Capital steps at time-and-a-half pay. However, a few of the officers began to feel uneasy. They tried to figure out what was really going on, but were stonewalled, put off, and otherwise delayed. Then at the very last minute, they found out exactly what was happening. Upon discovering it was an anti-gun effort, many of these same officers tried to back out. Some were told, “If you can find a replacement on short notice you can get out, but if you don’t show, we’re going to take disciplinary action against you.” The attitude of their superiors was so bad, that two lawsuits were filed over the Arlington County situation. First is a federal lawsuit that has been launched by one of the officers in the photograph, who charged he was used against his will to further a political goal not in the scope of his employment duties. The other is a lawsuit from a local county resident who has filed under the idea that the Virginia state code prohibits the use of state money to do this kind of political activity. What that means is that nobody in uniform and being paid by the public can go out and lobby for legislation. The chief, however, had a great response: “This wasn’t lobbying.” This story was recreated in Minnesota. When President Clinton went out there, he pulled in on-duty units from all over a metropolitan area to fill the risers behind him because they couldn’t get enough "volunteers" to stand with the President of the United States and support his legislative agenda. That very important piece of information never made the evening news. Events like these leave people with the strong impression that if they oppose a bill like the “assault weapons” ban, they are working against police officers. During the debate on gun ban, LEAA took on the law enforcement elite in an attempt to prove to the American people that police officers were not in lock step with Sarah Brady and Bill Clinton. A short time before the vote on the crime bill, LEAA did some polling of its own. We had heard, like most Americans heard, that every police group in the nation was supporting the so-called assault weapons ban, which we knew was not true. So we contacted as many police based organizations as we could across the country. By the time we were done about a week later, we had a coalition representing 100,000 cops street cops, parole officers, SWAT cops, probation and corrections officers, shift supervisors, and team leaders who came out publicly opposed to the crime bill. That’s 100,000 out of a total 600,000 officers in the entire country. The coalition included several state and local chapters of the FOP. The national FOP is against us, of course, but a lot of the state and local chapters were willing to step up, incur the wrath of the national organization and say, “Wrong, the position you’re espousing is not the one reflective of law enforcement.” The California Correctional Peace Officers Association, the largest corrections union in the nation with almost 25,000 members, came out against it. Several other state level organizations also opposed the bill, including the Massachusetts Police Union Legislative League, which represents 78 different subdivisions within the state, and the Oklahoma State Sheriff’s Association, to name but a few. This anti-crime bill coalition was put together in the last hours, but it just wasn’t enough to overcome the entrenched law enforcement politico-leaders. It did prove beyond doubt, however, that real law enforcement does not believe gun control is the answer to the crime problem. They recognize that the majority of the people out there who choose to own guns are their neighbors, friends, family members, shooting buddies, fishing buddies and work mates. This wide opposition to gun control by police officers is supported by many studies. According to the Police Marksman Association survey from September/October, November/December, 1994:
In the July/August 1991 edition of Law Enforcement Technology magazine, 25,000 of their subscribers were surveyed.
From the 1993 Southern States Police Association survey of over 10,000 members:
The April 1993 informal survey of a sampling of readers of Police magazine showed:
These surveys span five years and were conducted by a number of organizations with different backgrounds, leadership, and membership. All overwhelmingly say that rank and file cops do not object to the Second Amendment. They understand it, and they don’t want to strip you of your rights. It is worth nothing that some of these are “for profit” publications. These people are talking to police officers that are not spokespersons for national labor unions. They’re not involved in collective bargaining. These magazines are simply in the business to solicit input from, and reflect the feelings of, the law enforcement readers of their magazines. It is fitting to conclude a discussion about law enforcement with excerpts from some real live police officers. In April, 1995, LEAA brought to Washington, D.C., officers from across the country to testify before the Judiciary Crime Sub-Committee. The officers were there to tell Congress not to believe the propaganda that law enforcement was anti-gun. Included on the panels were patrol officers, homicide detectives, forensic firearms examiners, front line supervisors, sergeants, lieutenants, the police chief from Kennesaw, Georgia, and the president of a local police union, representing over 1,3000 members. Most of these officers came in uniform and they had prepared testimony ready to submit to the committee. This was going to be our best opportunity in years to really get the pro-gun law enforcement message out. And where was C-SPAN and all the major media? Outside the Capitol covering the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey elephants in front of the Capitol. The hearing wasn’t covered by The Washington Times, The Washington Post, or the major networks. Not a word. There was only one Associated Press story that even mentioned what transpired and they quoted Chuck Schumer. Following are some excerpts from testimony that you didn’t hear, testimony you may never hear. This is from Lieutenant Dennis Tueller:
Another LEAA officer who testified was Craig Roberts:
Most likely, you didn’t hear this on the evening news. The one time we had our opportunity to get our message out, a pro-second amendment law enforcement message, we were squelched. In spite of the media ignoring our position, however, LEAA’s message will get out. There are simply too many police officers who believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Our cause is by no means hopeless. Most people know that police officers are on the front lines, fighting lawless gangs and violent crime. Many people aren’t aware, however, that many police officers are also on the front lines of protecting our individual liberties. Ted Deeds serve as the Law Enforcement Alliance of America's Chief Operating Officer and is one of the organization's national spokespersons. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
