The Truth: Cops & Gun Control, Why They Oppose It
By Eunice Schofield, LEAA's Deputy Operations Director, October 2000

Have you ever noticed that the same pundits and politicians that dislike police (or rush to join the attack when officers are alleged to have done something wrong) are the same people who hate guns and oppose citizens protecting themselves with them? Does it surprise you to see police officers being falsely demonized by the media on a daily basis? Does it frighten you? Does it anger you? Do you see an all too familiar pattern to this issue and how guns and gun owners are treated in the media?

Police officers are steadily becoming a primary source of entertainment and rating-boosters for the media -- their actions scrutinized and taken out of context. Worse, rank-and-file police officers are being attacked (or at the very least, lack support) by their own supervisors and the general public and used as scapegoats by misguided, headline-seeking politicians and pundits.

LEAA Members assembled at Capitol Hill to educate both the media and legislators and rebut the misleading "assault weapon" disinformation campaign put forward as another excuse for gun control.

Plainly put, police officers have become victims of a society that continually seeks to foster an anti-law enforcement atmosphere. Isn’t it enough that our officers put their lives on the line everyday to battle the criminal element, preserving life and law and order?

A large segment of the citizenry quietly allows the tyranny of some in positions of power to have the upper hand over many aspects of our lives, namely our inalienable right to life, liberty and justice. Meanwhile, we as a society continue the descent into a world increasingly void of personal freedoms and individual choice and dominated by a handful of talking heads who twist the truth around so that no one can recognize it any more, often for political gain or notoriety.

Wait! This scenario seems all too familiar. Could it be that we’ve seen this happening elsewhere? Haven’t we seen the same thing from those who want to destroy the right to keep and bear arms, using the banner of “law enforcement” as justification or support to deny the honest citizens -- officer and civilian alike -- the means to protect themselves and their loved ones?

Cops Do Not Support Gun Control?
The question that begs to be answered is "do rank-and-file police really support gun control?" Time and again over the years the answer, taken directly from officer surveys, is "NO." Here’s just a sampling:

• A 1991 readership survey by Law Enforcement Technology magazine found 79 percent opposed to gun control.
   
• Police magazine polled its readers in 1993, and 85 percent said "no" to gun control.
   
• 90 percent opposition to gun control was registered by a membership poll of the Southern States Police Benevolent Association in 1993.
   
• The Police Marksman magazine saw 92 percent of its readers reject gun control in a 1995 questionnaire.
   
• In 1997, the Massachusetts Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors and Armorers Association surveyed that state's law enforcement officers on gun control issues. Nearly 97 percent opposed a so-called "assault weapons" ban. Opposition to the Brady law ran to 87 percent.
   
• A 1999 newspaper account describes police officers polled in Pennsylvania's Northampton and Lehigh counties, 63 percent opposed gun control laws as a means to reduce crime. More than 88 percent said outlawing private gun ownership would not reduce crime, while 87 percent said outlawing guns would not lead to a more "civilized society." And, 91 percent said restrictions on law-abiding gun owners would do nothing to keep guns out of criminals' hands.

But you don’t have to rely solely on the accuracy of surveys. We all know that people are sometimes skeptical of the usefulness of surveys, the presentation of survey questions, and there is always a slight margin of error to be considered. Here’s a simple litmus test every civilian can take:

We all know a cop -- he or she may be a family member, a friend, a neighbor, fellow member of a fraternal association or your church. Even if you don’t know an officer, the next time you happen to come into contact with one, ask him or her to give you three top answers to this simple question: "What do you think we should do to curb crime?" To be sure, more gun laws restricting the use of firearms by law-abiding citizens will not be one of the top answers, guaranteed.

Bill Clinton would have you believe otherwise. The election of the Clinton-Gore ticket helped cement the relationship between anti-gun groups and certain national law enforcement organizations.

Clinton-Gore rewarded the political newlyweds with Justice Department grants and grip-and-grin autographed copies of photos of the Commander-in-Chief posing for staged photo-ops with law enforcement.

The press, gun control advocacy groups and politicians consistently cloaked their latest gun control theme in symbols suggesting that law enforcement sanctions such measures. The fact of the matter is that few, if any, of the gun control schemes proposed during the pre-election frenzy to stir voter emotions emotions actually make life easier for law enforcement, or make our communities safer for anyone except criminals.

Cops, Gun Control And The Legal Repercussions
Most of us will agree that, for years now, there has been an anti-gun, anti-cop movement taking place in this country, which has grown considerably worse under the Clinton Administration. Oftentimes, the media is responsible for painting a biased, prejudiced picture when it comes to both firearms and police-related issues -- vilifying and blaming the object, rather than the person using the object, and/or reporting only part of the story.

But there are other factors contributing to this trend, such as misguided and opportunistic politicians seeking political gain combined with just plain ignorance of the facts. One of the worst consequences of this pattern of misrepresentation is that it has created an ever-widening gap between rank-and-file officers and the public. Sadly, many in the public willingly buy into both misrepresentations: Cops are against civilians having guns for self-defense; and most cops are engaged in improper actions like brutality, racism and even criminal conduct.

The atmosphere created by these lies and distortions affects all law-abiding citizens, including ­ and arguably to a greater extent ­ police officers. Shockwaves of unfairness and prejudicism are being felt by law enforcement throughout the nation and this impacts, not only the performance of their duties, but their personal lives, their safety and their livelihood. Public confidence is damaged on multiple levels and the truth is sacrificed in the clamor for more gun control.

Gun Control Hurts Police In Many Ways
The avalanche of anti-gun legislation proposed or passed recently is meaningless other than serving as an appeasement to the public and as political propaganda. Often, new laws are considered only in the aftermath of a tragedy and end up causing chaos, unnecessary repercussions and doing more harm than good. And although we rarely think of cops being negatively affected by such measures, officers are often caught up in the same sticky web of legal mumbo-jumbo as law-abiding citizens.

One example is the Lautenberg "domestic violence" law. One of the basic tenets of our legal system has been the prohibition of any law that retroactively punishes those who have paid their debt to society for a past infraction. Another is that the penalty for a misdemeanor should not be greater than that of a felony.

Nevertheless, New Jersey's U.S. Sen. Frank Lautenberg used the issue of domestic violence as the vehicle to deny gun rights to individuals, including law enforcement, for even the most minor offenses buried deep in their past.

These days, the fear of losing their livelihood is something police officers must live with whether it’s due to negative public perception fed by the media or by laws and policies that do nothing to help an officer accomplish his job.

Consider, for instance, how the various Right-to-Carry laws and Technical Restraining Orders (TRO’s) affect the well-being and continued employment of a law enforcement officer.

Who among any sector of the public (and law enforcement is no different), doesn't know at least one story of a vengeful spouse, ex-spouse, or even an out-of-control teen or pre-teen child who "got even" by leveling the charge of "spouse" or "child abuse" against someone. And, once the charge of "abuse" is made, clearing one's reputation is almost impossible. Hotly contested divorces frequently result in issuing “routine” restraining orders; both of these scenarios pose potential loss of gun ownership rights.

TROs (sometimes called protective orders) create a unique threat for law enforcement officers. TROs are often issued during a divorce dispute and, since law enforcement experiences a high incidence of divorce cops face being issued a TRO, which in turn would disable them from carrying their service firearm. In such case, a police officer faces the very real possibility of losing his or her job.

And then let’s take this a step farther. Right-to-Carry laws differ from state to state and are often confusing and vague. That’s part of the reason why LEAA considers H.R. 218 (the Community Protection Act) so critically important for the clarification of a lot of ambiguities and for allowing police officers greater latitude in doing their jobs, as well as protecting themselves from vengeful criminals. H.R. 218 would also put over one million qualified, trained individuals on our streets to help counter the criminal element. Unfortunately, as we stand now, a police officer who, for instance, unknowingly violates a Right-to-Carry law, faces the possibility of spending time in jail as well as the loss of his job (see page 26 of this issue of Shield for an update on H.R. 218).

The same gun-haters who oppose allowing a shop clerk, a retired pharmacist or a single mom from the inner city to carry a gun to protect themselves and their families are the exact same people who oppose officers doing the same when they are off-duty or retired.

For a police officer, these types of legal dilemmas, often resulting from “bad” legislation, are even more devastating because of the potential loss of their career and livelihood. The average law-abiding citizen may lose his or her right to possess a firearm, pay a fine or spend time in jail, losing the most effective tool for self-protection. But a cop must live with the added fear of losing his or her job as well.

More On Cops And Gun Control
The Smith & Wesson debacle is another example. Here, we have the president of the United States promising preferential treatment to a gun manufacturing company in exchange for that company caving in to the Clinton Administration’s anti-gun attitude. In March, S&W agreed to sweeping so-called “reforms” of their business practices to help them avoid hefty lawsuits -- including those expected to come from the fed’s Housing and Urban Development (HUD). A chief argument by Clinton’s cronies was that these initiatives would help fight crime -- as if the legitimate manufacture and sale of guns caused crime!

In repayment for this loyalty, the government would force, cajole or coerce departments and federal agencies to buy their service firearms from Smith & Wesson.

Then came the next issue from the Clinton’s Administration: expanding upon the, as of yet, undeveloped smart-gun technology -- in the name of protecting the police. And who are the guinea pigs? You guessed it, our men and women in blue. The federal government is spending millions of taxpayers’ dollars to drive the so-called smart-gun idea. (Of course, the manufacturers who receive vast amounts of this money will be the same ones that are supporting the Clinton/Gore administration’s positions.)

Local departments have established successful methods of determining which guns are best for their officers to carry to protect themselves and the public they serve. Another Washington D.C.-driven, one-size-fits-all answer is not what police need.

These are just the most recent threats of increased federal interference of how local departments are run; only this one will result in officers’ blood being shed if they are denied the best equipment or forced to use untested technology, like the “smart-gun.”

What matters is the perception that we’re safe, that something is being done to ensure our well-being. Nevermind the facts, nevermind the truth as long as we can soothe ourselves with false notions of security -- no matter how many innocent lives it costs.

More Hidden Related Issues
Yet one more example of how the police are being coerced into situations that put their lives and the lives of citizens at peril: There is an increasing trend in this country these days toward prohibiting the resale of firearms by police departments. Why? Because these guns are committing crimes, taking lives. Forget the fact that an actual person is pulling the trigger. Insane? Yes, but its happening. One mother (whose son was charged with murder and sentenced to three years in jail) was quoted in the Washington Post in November 1999, as saying that she was saddened that it was a police officer’s gun that had taken a life. Not saddened, mind you, that her own flesh and blood, the child she had given birth to, nurtured, raised, taught right from wrong, had done this awful thing.

The answer they suggest: Police departments should stop reselling their old guns. Now many police departments are putting an end to the resale of their used firearms, with the hope that this change will guarantee that criminals will be left without a weapon. Baloney! First, most bad guys do not get their guns from legal sales - and used police guns are almost always sold through federally licensed and regulated dealers, so this will have no impact on bad guys getting guns. And, second, if they don’t have a gun, they will find another alternative ­ a fist, a knife, a rope, a rock -- the possibilities are endless.

These ill conceived measures only seem to choke the flow of much-needed additional funds coming into a police department, funds used to purchase top-of-the-line equipment and gear to facilitate an officer’s tasks at hand, improve safety on the job and ultimately, save lives.

Chief Connor of the Ferguson Township, Penn, summed it up pretty well (in an article appearing in USA Today, October 1999) when he said: “The abuse of firearmsÉ will not be addressed by eliminating or prohibiting the items, but by a return to traditional values, morals and standards, and that means punishing the abuser.”

Here are some other examples from the almost endless list of what out-of-touch politicians think will curb crime: issuing and then requiring officers to use locks on their guns while off duty; having officers lock up their guns at the end of the shift at the department; and the really stupid idea of taking guns away from officers completely (after all, if it’s good enough for fill-in-the-blank foreign country, it ought to be good enough for us).

Several federal agencies and local departments have already issued such locks to officers. And there has been serious discussion of encouraging (and then requiring) officers to secure guns when going off-duty (and of course there is already well-organized and vocal opposition to H.R. 218 which would legalize off-duty carry for all qualified current and retired officers).

And finally there are people who actually are suggesting that we disarm cops entirely. The argument goes something like this: The less guns on America’s streets -- even in the hands of good guys -- equals a safer world. This is exactly the same argument made by those who oppose state-level Right-to-Carry.

The fact remains that when politicians try to peddle a new gun control scheme, they play the law enforcement endorsement card. When a power-hungry political type claims his or her newest gun control measure will increase officer or the public’s safety, the first response the public sees is from a carefully scripted and controlled representative of law enforcement. Like the little doggie figurine in the back of a car -- nodding his or her head in affirmation of the idea, no matter how stupid it is, how unlikely it is to increase public safety or how much it will hurt rank-and-file cops -- the public is convinced cops need or want this change.

The Buck Starts Here
As if all of this isn’t bad enough, let’s not forget the incredible cost of police manpower and taxpayer dollars that enforcement of all these gun control laws requires.

A recently defeated bill in California (where most dumb legislative ideas originate and then spread from), A.B. 273 would have required local departments to process all handgun safety license applications. This would have included administering the tests, reviewing the applications, and submitting the applications for license, all within 48 hours of receipt. So much for cops being out on the street apprehending criminals; instead they’ve got paperwork to do. Most cops would prefer chasing bad guys -- exactly what we would prefer they be doing.

Personal Examples
Being a "gun owner" is no different, even for cops. The prejudicial atmosphere against those who choose to own firearms (whether it is for self-protection, hobby or sport) pervades all sectors of our society and all aspects of our lives.

Take the case of one town police officer Rhode Island. He innocently sought to increase his homeowners insurance with the Amica Insurance Company to cover his personal firearm collection. The insurance agent notified him that his policy was under review and that he might be dropped due to his "high risk" status. The officer in question spent nearly a decade in the military, another decade in law enforcement, and is one of his department's firearms instructors. Yet, because he owns firearms he's now deemed "sinister." Remember, the customer in question is not a felon -- he's a cop.

Then there is the case of the 24-year veteran with a North Carolina department. The officer rose through the ranks and has held the rank of “uniform patrol sergeant” for 11 years. When North Carolina passed its Right-to-Carry law, the sergeant decided to help his fellow officers and members of the public by ensuring that they had sound, safe and inexpensive firearms training to qualify for the permit. He complied with all state requirements to open his side business. However, the “firearms phobia” spread by the anti-gun political hysteria put him at loggerheads with his department's chief who actually forbade him from offering the firearms training to his fellow officers at no cost! For teaching the firearms safety class, the sergeant was suspended without pay for two weeks before Christmas. The retributive nature of firearm probes in high office extends to punishing not only the "guilty" party but also his or her family. The officer was also placed on a 12-month probation, a legal status that leaves an officer in professional limbo. While on "probation" an officer cannot receive a pay raise, be eligible for promotion, or, in this case, work any off-duty jobs whatsoever.

[Incidentally, it should be noted that the police chief worked an "outside" job as a tax consultant while on duty. That's another trait seemingly common to anti-gun ideologues: hypocrisy.]

Cops Under Scrutiny
Hypocrisy is nowhere more evident than in the pseudo-love, real hatred most gun control advocates have for law enforcement. They get all warm and fuzzy around news reporters and television cameras when claiming law enforcement supports stricter gun laws. Yet, when allegations fly from the most suspect of sources about "police brutality," take a look at where the cops' newest "gun control" pals line up. In the case of the Clinton-Gore Administration, they are most often at the forefront of persecuting officers at the first bogus cry of "brutality."

Look at how our nation’s First Lady and senatorial candidate, Hillary Clinton, comported herself when unfounded allegations of police misconduct surfaced after the tragic police shooting that resulted in the death of Amadou Diallo in New York City. Hillary Clinton -- a lawyer no less -- publicly denounced the officers in question as “murderers” before any evidence or facts had been judged by the jury. Is this how we choose to treat our men and women of law enforcement? Convicted cop-killers get more respect than that. Look at Mumia Abu-Jamal: After killing Philadelphia officer Daniel Faulkner, he has been repeatedly asked to address groups of graduating college students as the keynote speaker -- from death row.

It’s evident that Clinton-Gore doesn't like or trust cops. Certainly they smile for the cameras talking in manly tones about their support for law enforcement. But, let one of their targeted voter groups yell the phoniest of charges at a police department and the full weight of the Justice Department descends like an invading army on the city or township. What happened in Columbus, Ohio, is a perfect example of an Administration that detests cops, where a staged federal takeover of a local department took place (for more details, see story in the Winter/Spring 2000 issue of Shield).

Some might argue that with the resources and wealth of the federal government, a local police department should welcome a "helping hand" from Uncle Sam. But, take a look at the reality. Under federal guidelines, an officer is presumed guilty until proved otherwise. Tangle with bad guys (with fists, a baton, or a service firearm) to quell a threat to life five times in a calendar year and the feds open a dossier on the officer, complete with fingerprints and background checks.

The End Of An Era?
The present reality in this country is that our police officers have become pawns for those with a political agenda, the media and, by extension, the public is losing the trust and respect in law enforcement in an alarming rate. Our communities can become safer only through the joint efforts of law enforcement and law-abiding citizens.

Mutual trust and respect is crucial in successfully accomplishing this feat. But police officers are hindered in every way possible from doing what they want to do, what the public expects them to do and what our tax dollars pay them to do. Unfortunately for all of us, it appears that the media and our own government have made it a primary goal to fuel the fires of dissention between law enforcement and the citizens they have pledged to protect.

We continually demand that law enforcement successfully do what they’re sworn to do: Protect the public and enforce the law. Yet, the necessary tools and options critical to the success of accomplishing such a task, is removed. Police officers don’t even get the opportunity to give their valuable input when it comes to creating new legislation or meaningful policies. More often than not, policies are guided by politics, the media, political correctness and ignorance.

In such an atmosphere, police officers are left powerless to protect the public; powerless to achieve their responsibilities and, other than when they are misrepresented, left out of the public policy debate and the political process.

Once our police force is rendered powerless and guns have been effectively eliminated from use by the law-abiding citizens, what do you suppose is the next course of action? We, as a people, have learned nothing if we allow history to repeat itself. We’ll have no one to blame for the erasure of the freedom we once valued.

And the struggles and valiant efforts of our forefathers ­ as well as the thousands of officers who lost their lives in the line of duty ­ will have all been in vain.

Society’s apathy and silent acquiescence of this anti-police phenomenon is baffling, to say the least. But make no mistake about it: we, all of us, will eventually pay a hefty price if we don’t put a stop to it. The same concept applies to those who blindly accept gun control disguised as a crime-fighting solution.