In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
A snapshot of Gun-Rights Opinions from My Agency
n/a
Member Posts: 168,427 ✭
Kind of a long story, but I feel like sharing..........
I worked late last night. Before I left, one of our lieutenants came to my office to ask some questions about a new bill being proposed in the state house, which the agency-head had sent to he and I for review and comment.
The bill related to 'Law Enforcement's' ability to access private financial records. The 'hue and cry' was on in full force from the LEO crowd, because the bill has multiple safeguards in it for the citizenry, making it more difficult for 'L.E.' to access these records. It was being circulated through the agency heads by a "LEO" lobbying organization, looking for support in opposing it.
Long story short, the lieutenant took the L.E. position and I had drafted one of my 'patented' long diatribes to the boss, on how the bill fit nicely into the concept of Amendment IV and how the restrictions were a good thing for individual liberty and a step in restricting predatory government.
This led into a walking-out-the-door discussion of constitutional issues and gun-control. We made it to the parking lot and saw a group of the guys there, so we stopped to talk to them.
It was me, the lieutenant, one sergeant, one corporal, one deputy and one detective.
The conversation on gun-issues continued with the lieutenant being on the "it is good for society" to restrict guns, reality supersedes the Constitution and all that type bullschit. The sergeant was obviously clueless and failed to take a position. Me, the detective, the corporal and the deputy were all rock solid on ZERO restrictions.
As expected the lieutenant said that if a law were passed to ban/confiscate firearms, we were bound to enforce it, since it would be duly and properly passed by the legislature. The clueless sergeant tended to agree. The remainder of us said that enforcement, or obedience to such, was simply not happening and the Constitution trumped any such legislation passed.
As we were beating the lieutenant about the head and shoulders with constitutional issues, one of the new executive staff walked out. I told him he should join the discussion, it was about gun issues. He jumped right in and flatly stated that Amendment II was the rule book and he takes the position that all citizens could and should be armed, even with full autos, if they desired...no restrictions.
1 anti
1 fence-sitter/clueless bonehead
5 no restrictions
A small cross-section of those of us in policing.
Stuff like this makes me see a glimmer of hope that some will stand up as things progress into the 'new america' and its ever more oppressive tactics.
I worked late last night. Before I left, one of our lieutenants came to my office to ask some questions about a new bill being proposed in the state house, which the agency-head had sent to he and I for review and comment.
The bill related to 'Law Enforcement's' ability to access private financial records. The 'hue and cry' was on in full force from the LEO crowd, because the bill has multiple safeguards in it for the citizenry, making it more difficult for 'L.E.' to access these records. It was being circulated through the agency heads by a "LEO" lobbying organization, looking for support in opposing it.
Long story short, the lieutenant took the L.E. position and I had drafted one of my 'patented' long diatribes to the boss, on how the bill fit nicely into the concept of Amendment IV and how the restrictions were a good thing for individual liberty and a step in restricting predatory government.
This led into a walking-out-the-door discussion of constitutional issues and gun-control. We made it to the parking lot and saw a group of the guys there, so we stopped to talk to them.
It was me, the lieutenant, one sergeant, one corporal, one deputy and one detective.
The conversation on gun-issues continued with the lieutenant being on the "it is good for society" to restrict guns, reality supersedes the Constitution and all that type bullschit. The sergeant was obviously clueless and failed to take a position. Me, the detective, the corporal and the deputy were all rock solid on ZERO restrictions.
As expected the lieutenant said that if a law were passed to ban/confiscate firearms, we were bound to enforce it, since it would be duly and properly passed by the legislature. The clueless sergeant tended to agree. The remainder of us said that enforcement, or obedience to such, was simply not happening and the Constitution trumped any such legislation passed.
As we were beating the lieutenant about the head and shoulders with constitutional issues, one of the new executive staff walked out. I told him he should join the discussion, it was about gun issues. He jumped right in and flatly stated that Amendment II was the rule book and he takes the position that all citizens could and should be armed, even with full autos, if they desired...no restrictions.
1 anti
1 fence-sitter/clueless bonehead
5 no restrictions
A small cross-section of those of us in policing.
Stuff like this makes me see a glimmer of hope that some will stand up as things progress into the 'new america' and its ever more oppressive tactics.
Comments
Waking up and reading this...Captain, you, Sir, have made my day !!
please post this to general...or allow me to. I think the general population needs to see this..for a whole varity of reasons.
Oh....my...Lord !!!
Waking up and reading this...Captain, you, Sir, have made my day !!
please post this to general...or allow me to. I think the general population needs to see this..for a whole varity of reasons.
Feel free. I am off to work and off-line until later.[;)]
Thanks!
God bless ya Capt., and those other 4 who understand the Constitution. Now push the LT down and kick mud into his face.
There sarge. I fixed it for you.[:D] Actually, he felt like he got kicked in the nuts after he got beat about the head and shoulders with constitutional and individual liberty arguments.
I suspect he'll keep his pie-hole shut about such, from now on. It was pretty brutal, brutal, but funny as hell. Red face, a few sputters, a couple of but..but..buts.. and a damn-it or so and she was all over but the tail draggin and the strategic withdrawal.[:)]
quote:Originally posted by sarge_3ad
God bless ya Capt., and those other 4 who understand the Constitution. Now push the LT down and kick mud into his face.
There sarge. I fixed it for you.[:D] Actually, he felt like he got kicked in the nuts after he got beat about the head and shoulders with constitutional and individual liberty arguments.
I suspect he'll keep his pie-hole shut about such, from now on. It was pretty brutal, brutal, but funny as hell. Red face, a few sputters, a couple of but..but..buts.. and a damn-it or so and she was all over but the tail draggin and the strategic withdrawal.[:)]
[:D]
Maybe the sargeant should of had his apathetic nuts stomped on too. I hope he learned something from watching the LT get the full bore.
I must admit I like your post.
Thank you tr
In fact, after reading your account of that conversation, I apologize for having wrongly accused you.
Accepted and again, thank you.
GOOD JOB LT!!!
Lance
That is good to hear. It's actually very surprising. Do you work for a small department or a large city department?
Sheriff's Office with approximately 800 employees, sworn, detention and civilian.
BUT where does the TOP guy stand on this. That is problem I had. I had two (gutless) DC's who were very pro gun but would not speak out because it would be political suicide. And the Chief and the Capt. in charge of professional standards (for you non cop types that is Internal Affairs) who would give lip service to the pro gun groups but were anti-gun. When we had any 'unofficial' talks, like the one describe, I would have almost unanimous support for the RTKAB's, but if the Chief or IA were around, they (all but me) would not say a word, like puppies with their tail between their legs.
The proof is in the putting. I hope you nor I have to stand up to the AH's when the Obama AH's pass the registration and confiscation laws, which are coming![V]
Kind of a long story, but I feel like sharing..........
I worked late last night. Before I left, one of our lieutenants came to my office to ask some questions about a new bill being proposed in the state house, which the agency-head had sent to he and I for review and comment.
The bill related to 'Law Enforcement's' ability to access private financial records. The 'hue and cry' was on in full force from the LEO crowd, because the bill has multiple safeguards in it for the citizenry, making it more difficult for 'L.E.' to access these records. It was being circulated through the agency heads by a "LEO" lobbying organization, looking for support in opposing it.
Long story short, the lieutenant took the L.E. position and I had drafted one of my 'patented' long diatribes to the boss, on how the bill fit nicely into the concept of Amendment IV and how the restrictions were a good thing for individual liberty and a step in restricting predatory government.
This led into a walking-out-the-door discussion of constitutional issues and gun-control. We made it to the parking lot and saw a group of the guys there, so we stopped to talk to them.
It was me, the lieutenant, one sergeant, one corporal, one deputy and one detective.
The conversation on gun-issues continued with the lieutenant being on the "it is good for society" to restrict guns, reality supersedes the Constitution and all that type bullschit. The sergeant was obviously clueless and failed to take a position. Me, the detective, the corporal and the deputy were all rock solid on ZERO restrictions.
As expected the lieutenant said that if a law were passed to ban/confiscate firearms, we were bound to enforce it, since it would be duly and properly passed by the legislature. The clueless sergeant tended to agree. The remainder of us said that enforcement, or obedience to such, was simply not happening and the Constitution trumped any such legislation passed.
As we were beating the lieutenant about the head and shoulders with constitutional issues, one of the new executive staff walked out. I told him he should join the discussion, it was about gun issues. He jumped right in and flatly stated that Amendment II was the rule book and he takes the position that all citizens could and should be armed, even with full autos, if they desired...no restrictions.
1 anti
1 fence-sitter/clueless bonehead
5 no restrictions
A small cross-section of those of us in policing.
Stuff like this makes me see a glimmer of hope that some will stand up as things progress into the 'new america' and its ever more oppressive tactics.
I hope this attitude holds after it evolves from an off-hand parking lot discussion to when the chips are down, and the LEO's involved need to choose between upholding the Constitution and keeping their jobs.
Where does your boss stand on this issue??
What is the 'official' policy of the department????
He said that one question that really threw them was "If ordered by your commander to fire on American citizens would you follow that order?"
----
After that his unit seemed to get some pretty rough assignments...
I don't buy this, not calling you or your brother a liar, but I don't buy this. Not impossible, just think it's improbable, especially the second part.
Kind of a long story, but I feel like sharing..........
I worked late last night. Before I left, one of our lieutenants came to my office to ask some questions about a new bill being proposed in the state house, which the agency-head had sent to he and I for review and comment.
The bill related to 'Law Enforcement's' ability to access private financial records. The 'hue and cry' was on in full force from the LEO crowd, because the bill has multiple safeguards in it for the citizenry, making it more difficult for 'L.E.' to access these records. It was being circulated through the agency heads by a "LEO" lobbying organization, looking for support in opposing it.
Long story short, the lieutenant took the L.E. position and I had drafted one of my 'patented' long diatribes to the boss, on how the bill fit nicely into the concept of Amendment IV and how the restrictions were a good thing for individual liberty and a step in restricting predatory government.
This led into a walking-out-the-door discussion of constitutional issues and gun-control. We made it to the parking lot and saw a group of the guys there, so we stopped to talk to them.
It was me, the lieutenant, one sergeant, one corporal, one deputy and one detective.
The conversation on gun-issues continued with the lieutenant being on the "it is good for society" to restrict guns, reality supersedes the Constitution and all that type bullschit. The sergeant was obviously clueless and failed to take a position. Me, the detective, the corporal and the deputy were all rock solid on ZERO restrictions.
As expected the lieutenant said that if a law were passed to ban/confiscate firearms, we were bound to enforce it, since it would be duly and properly passed by the legislature. The clueless sergeant tended to agree. The remainder of us said that enforcement, or obedience to such, was simply not happening and the Constitution trumped any such legislation passed.
As we were beating the lieutenant about the head and shoulders with constitutional issues, one of the new executive staff walked out. I told him he should join the discussion, it was about gun issues. He jumped right in and flatly stated that Amendment II was the rule book and he takes the position that all citizens could and should be armed, even with full autos, if they desired...no restrictions.
1 anti
1 fence-sitter/clueless bonehead
5 no restrictions
A small cross-section of those of us in policing.
Stuff like this makes me see a glimmer of hope that some will stand up as things progress into the 'new america' and its ever more oppressive tactics.
Stuff like this is cause to hope that you are right lt, especially toward helping folks get off the fence on the right side. Thanks.
Regardless of how things progress, as long as there are such good men out there, we all have hope for success in restoring the Republic.
Jeff,
Where does your boss stand on this issue??
What is the 'official' policy of the department????
Do you have an answer, or would you rather not say????
Ask the ones who think we should take them....do they think they can go in and take weapons from armed people with resolve not to give them up?
Not sure what LT's chief says, but mine has already said that he will NOT be sending officers on suicide missions to steal items from otherwise law abiding citizens. The only officer we have is a die hard democrap no matter what, and a lot of us believe he is still in the closet anyway.
Ask the ones who think we should take them....do they think they can go in and take weapons from armed people with resolve not to give them up?
when they come to take them they will be backed by a group in black that will surpass the number of brownshirts of history