Why are some law-enforcement against the Second Amendment?

[Trigger Time]

If cops need money for training then they should have it. But don't try to squash your citizens rights for money. That's the worst kind of sellout.
If my sherriff isn't blocking my rights then I'm a whole lot more eager to make calls on their behalf to reps to give them money for their budget

 

[cbhausen]

I brought up the lost revenue in the CC thread and no, Frank_N_Stein, I was not referring to you.

Also, I think it was brotherbill3 in the CC thread who said there was a plan to replace that lost revenue.

 

[poptab]

Because it isn't.

10 amendment doesnt cover driving eh?

 

[cbhausen]

I've seen a metric crap-ton of arguments here, from treason to making someone's job easier to disrespect for the oath to disrespect for the people to disrespect for the Constitution itself.

IMHO, every one of those reasons has missed the mark.

The only person who surprises me by missing it is Leadeye, who has made the saying so ubiquitous as to be a sig line: Always follow the money.

Some percentage of the money from every LTCH goes to the agency that performs the background check for their training budget.

The agencies stand to stop bringing in money if Constitutional Carry passes and they no longer need to do those checks. How would you react if your boss wanted to make a change that would reduce your income, and asked your opinion?

Note that I don't agree with refusal to support, certainly not on those grounds, but I understand the likelihood that that is indeed the primary motivation behind the decision.

Oh... and treason is defined as making war against the United States or giving aid and comfort to her enemies. Only the very loosest reading of it would encompass the refusal to support Constitutional carry.

Considering that the penalty for that crime is death, I think the bar for it needs to be as highly set as possible.

Blessings,
Bill

"The only person who surprises me by missing it..." comes off a bit snobbish, imo...

See posts #625 and #629 here:

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...8-indiana-constitutional-carry-2017-a-16.html

 

[HubertGummer]

The only person who surprises me by missing it is Leadeye, who has made the saying so ubiquitous as to be a sig line: Always follow the money.

Some percentage of the money from every LTCH goes to the agency that performs the background check for their training budget.

The agencies stand to stop bringing in money if Constitutional Carry passes and they no longer need to do those checks. How would you react if your boss wanted to make a change that would reduce your income, and asked your opinion?


Blessings,
Bill

Very good point...I hadn't even considered the money brought in by the LTCH. I think you may be on to something.

 

[public servant]

I`m not going to bite....

Why not? The question you asked is just another can of worms. Do you really think the police are any different than any other cross-section of society?

 

[public servant]

INGO never disappoints.

Every once in a while I have to visit the politics forum to remember why I don't visit the politics forum.

 

[KG1]

 

[ATM]

I'm going to take the minority position here:




Discuss.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ls-man-who-ambushed-shot-arizona-officer.html

Did he actually serve prison time or did he just have a felony conviction? Either way I'm glad he stepped up.

 

[Bill of Rights]

None meant. Just was commenting good-naturedly on his frequent use of that phrase more than anything else. Sorry if you were offended.

Blessings,
Bill

"The only person who surprises me by missing it..." comes off a bit snobbish, imo...

See posts #625 and #629 here:

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...8-indiana-constitutional-carry-2017-a-16.html

 

[gunsisgood]

Any officer who is anti 2nd should be removed from the department immediately.
Law enforcement is not the place for the mentally challenged.

 

[femurphy77]

Every once in a while I have to visit the politics forum to remember why I don't visit the politics forum.

That's no ****!

 

[Woobie]

Did he actually serve prison time or did he just have a felony conviction? Either way I'm glad he stepped up.

Can't find the article, but yes he did. In most cases, prisoner come out as bad or worse than they went in. But I'm not opposed to restoration on a case by case basis, at least.

 

[cbhausen]

None meant. Just was commenting good-naturedly on his frequent use of that phrase more than anything else. Sorry if you were offended.

Blessings,
Bill

No worries. I'll admit this HB 1159 thing has me in a really bad mood though...

 

[Kirk Freeman]

[h=2]Why are some law-enforcement against the Second Amendment?[/h]

Um, the article cites two. 2 out of 650,000.

Hadley is the political appointed chief of police of Kalamazoo, Michigan. Kalamazoo, Michigan: Home of Bobby Hopewell. Home of the state rep that wanted to ban McDonald's french fries.

Michigan, the a major center of corporate statism/fascism. Riots which lead to a police state and you expect . . . . _________? What exactly?

The other guy is former ATFE who was raised in a culture of control which leads to bigger agency budgets, nest feathering and empire building.

I know INGO likes easy answers, but looking behind the scenes answers your questions.

 

[gregr]

I've seen a metric crap-ton of arguments here, from treason to making someone's job easier to disrespect for the oath to disrespect for the people to disrespect for the Constitution itself.

IMHO, every one of those reasons has missed the mark.

The only person who surprises me by missing it is Leadeye, who has made the saying so ubiquitous as to be a sig line: Always follow the money.

Some percentage of the money from every LTCH goes to the agency that performs the background check for their training budget.

The agencies stand to stop bringing in money if Constitutional Carry passes and they no longer need to do those checks. How would you react if your boss wanted to make a change that would reduce your income, and asked your opinion?

Note that I don't agree with refusal to support, certainly not on those grounds, but I understand the likelihood that that is indeed the primary motivation behind the decision.

Oh... and treason is defined as making war against the United States or giving aid and comfort to her enemies. Only the very loosest reading of it would encompass the refusal to support Constitutional carry.

Considering that the penalty for that crime is death, I think the bar for it needs to be as highly set as possible.

Blessings,
Bill

And my opinion is that, no reason, including potential lost wages, is rationale for undermining the U.S. Constitution, and it is unacceptable for a citizen to have to pay a fee and have government permission to exercise the Second Amendment.

 

[gregr]

Um, the article cites two. 2 out of 650,000.

Hadley is the political appointed chief of police of Kalamazoo, Michigan. Kalamazoo, Michigan: Home of Bobby Hopewell. Home of the state rep that wanted to ban McDonald's french fries.

Michigan, the a major center of corporate statism/fascism. Riots which lead to a police state and you expect . . . . _________? What exactly?

The other guy is former ATFE who was raised in a culture of control which leads to bigger agency budgets, nest feathering and empire building.

I know INGO likes easy answers, but looking behind the scenes answers your questions.

There certainly are more than just the 2 mentioned in the piece, nevertheless, even were it only 2, that is still some law-enforcement against the Second Amendment. I asked the question rather rhetorically, but then thought it was a point worthy of discussion. And because law-enforcement have such power over the lives of citizens, it bears a much closer scrutiny than just ordinary citizens who disagree with, or are fearful of the Second Amendment. As expected, there are those here who feel we shouldn`t even question their motives, they are law-enforcement after all... but just as with our elected employees, they`re accountable to us, not us to them. I don`t need, nor want their permission, or blessing, to exercise my Second Amendment rights,and bristle at the notion that they`re owed either.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Can't find the article, but yes he did. In most cases, prisoner come out as bad or worse than they went in. But I'm not opposed to restoration on a case by case basis, at least.

I can agree with that.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

There certainly are more than just the 2 mentioned in the piece, nevertheless, even were it only 2, that is still some law-enforcement against the Second Amendment. I asked the question rather rhetorically, but then thought it was a point worthy of discussion. And because law-enforcement have such power over the lives of citizens, it bears a much closer scrutiny than just ordinary citizens who disagree with, or are fearful of the Second Amendment. As expected, there are those here who feel we shouldn`t even question their motives, they are law-enforcement after all... but just as with our elected employees, they`re accountable to us, not us to them. I don`t need, nor want their permission, or blessing, to exercise my Second Amendment rights,and bristle at the notion that they`re owed either.

No, none of the law enforcement here said anything about questioning our motives. If you can provide where one of the INGO cops did, please do so. If you can tell me exactly what my motives are, please do so. You don't know anything about me or how I operate, so don't take the liberty of assuming that I agree with any anti-2A sentiment expressed by any other cop in this country. Before you go running off at the mouth (or keyboard) about how bad you feel the INGO cops are, perhaps you should do a little research on how we really are. You aren't doing yourself any favors by making blanket assumptions and statements about us just because we're cops.