| |
Yes, police officers do follow orders. And you
damn well better hope that we continue to follow those orders! The alternative
is the petty dictatorships in South American that I read about in my youth, or
the cruel and inhuman atrocities of modern day African or Balkan chieftains that we
read about today. I am concerned that it has become a catch-phrase among firearms activists
to criticize law officers for enforcing current laws as "just following
orders". The complaint directed at the lack of concern for constitutional
issues. I wonder at the
wisdom of such rhetoric. Do they truly understand what they ask for when they
demand that individual police officers pick and choose which laws they will
enforce?
American law enforcement is quasi-military in
nature, with a very strict set of regulations governing individual activity, on
or off duty. Probably a more restrictive set of rules than those imposed on the
average citizen in their chosen profession. There are many reasons for the tight
regulations, but simply put, when you give a segment of your society the
responsibility of enforcing the law with defensive firearms and various other
weapons, you want to make sure they are controlled and know and follow the rules!
Police officers respect that responsibility.
There have been some well written, earnest
appeals to the law enforcement community, recently, by well meaning,
anonymous individuals that do deserve some respect. More often, however, there
has been the extremist rhetoric comparing law enforcement, in general, to
Hitler's Nazis. Internet discussion lists often include such inflammatory
rhetoric, leading to exaggerated claims of bravado and outright calls for assassination
of local police officers. It is this latter group of reckless individuals that concern me
the most. Do they really understand the issues? Is this how you want YOUR Second
Amendment activism represented?
When Chief Joe McNamara, HCI police poster boy,
took the initiative during the mid '80's to drive a wedge between law enforcement and gun owners, I
thought his rhetoric was so phony and ignorant that no one would believe him. As
a career police administrator and anti-gun advocate, he was very much aware of
the importance of law enforcement support for the private ownership of firearms.
His dilemma, I believe, was that cops were gun owners who shared an appreciation
for personal firearms that most gun owners understand. His "cop-killer bullet" and "plastic gun" issues were
examples of pure ignorance to anyone at all familiar with firearms, but truth,
facts, and accuracy were not on his agenda. He was creating a divisive issue for
purely political purposes. McNamara and HCI recognized that longtime affiliation
with law enforcement as the firearms owner's Achilles Heel. McNamara picked the
target, and some gun owners are now taking all the shots, seemingly determined
to drive the wedge even further. Are we shooting ourselves in the foot?
I personally believe that the extremist element
who casually compare the enforcement of a community's firearms laws to the Nazi
atrocities of WWII do a disservice to the Second Amendment efforts of us all.
The exaggerated rhetoric is more divisive than constructive, and opens the door
to easy criticism. We of "the choir" understand what is intended, but
the average citizen will only view the charges as the voice of a radical element
of "kooks". I hope we
can agree that the choir should be appealing to the citizens of our communities,
not alienating them. "Inclusive" is the word most often used by the
politicians of both parties during this pre-election period. There is a lesson
to be learned from the pros, and it is smart to include a proven friend of ours, gun owners themselves, the
police officer.
Yes, police officers do follow orders. You just
have to ask yourself who's orders the typical officer is following. Ideally, he
or she would be a student of The Constitution. But he is more apt to be a
middle-income family man, busting his butt with a second job to pay the
mortgage, car, and ski-boat or motorcycle bills, encouraging his kids in baseball
or soccer, and socializing with his wife and friends. Being typical, he probably
is mandated to live in the community of employment. As a result, he enrolls his
children in the local schools, attends the PTA meetings, meets weekly with
fellow parishioners at the local church, and has a family doctor in that
community. A police officer has more than the average contacts with judges and
attorneys, and, most important, his chain of command (administration and
supervision) includes the mayor, city
manager, city council, and chief of police.
-
We do know what
the National Education Association and teachers think about firearms rights.
They are actively working to influence the legislation restricting gun
rights through political activism. The NEA has a working plan to promote
"gun control" in the coming years. They are active in the community and they
vote!
-
Religious
organizations and leaders in every denomination, too numerous to list here,
are actively demonizing firearms and their owners at every opportunity.
Recently, here in Chicago, a priest sprinkled the entrance of a gun shop
with holy water as protesters held what they called an exorcism outside a
gun shop to symbolically drive the evils of gun sales out of their
communities. These religious leaders have a built in audience every week and
they encourage them to vote!
-
The American
Medical Association promotes anti-gun "research" that is published
for public consumption and recent reports indicate that more and more
doctors are including questions about firearms in the home on medical questionnaires.
They are active in community politics and they vote!
-
Attorneys? Judges?
Mayors? City Councils? Chiefs? Is there any question about their beliefs or
political influence? Is there any doubt that they vote and influence voters?
-
The media? The
evening news? The morning newspaper?
And there you have the
organized leaders of your community, the movers and shakers who influence the
community and the voters of the community. They give the orders that your
police are obligated to follow. The organized, voting, and seemingly tireless
anti-gun element is intent on eliminating firearms from our society. And
that's the way the process works. The most active and influential citizens vote for
the laws that the police enforce. Consider the alternative to "law and
order" as suggested by some who believe that individual police officers
should decide what laws to prosecute, and which to ignore. Let's take a
hypothetical police agency in Liberal Southern California, led by a politically
correct city council and police chief chosen for his politics rather than his
ability to lead. Frustration among the ranks as a result of rampant crime and a
revolving door criminal justice system leads a hypothetical gang unit to enforce
the laws as they see fit. The DA's office, judges, and parole and probation
departments have done nothing to quell the violence and drug trade, so the
hypothetical gang unit takes the law in their own hands. They mete out justice
as they see fit. I
did mention that this is a hypothetical example, didn't I? Did anyone see the
movie, "Magnum Force"? Perhaps we should be
careful what we ask for? It
is easy to criticize those who bear the burden of great expectations, and the
larger the figure or enviable the task, the more exaggerated the criticism. I
often think of the unfair treatment of the true winners and heroes of our
society. Marines and jocks are probably the most maligned , and yet the envy of
everyone who would be a warrior or sports hero. We've all heard the jokes, but
no one can deny that a Marine or sports figure is the epitome of what our society
considers a winner. Does anyone share my wonder that blind allegiance is the key
to their success? Talk about following orders! Anyone with military or sports
experience understands the importance of following orders. You don't win a war by voting on
which hill to take, or toss a coin in the huddle to decide on a play. True
winners depend on following orders.
And yet, in such a
target-rich environment of anti-gun teachers, lawyers, doctors, and reporters,
so many frustrated gun owners can only muster up the courage to berate police
officers and even recommend assassinating them when they go about their duties!
I am afraid for our Second Amendment "team" when such exaggerated
and destructive rhetoric is bantered about so casually. It should not become the
norm. Have we lost this battle for individual rights so badly that truth and
pride are no longer a factor? You, the citizens, rightly demand the controls on
your law enforcement officers. You, the citizen, by act or omission, are
responsible for the leadership who make the laws and issue the orders to your
police. The police officer understands this. Do you?
I appreciate and share the need to appeal to law enforcement for assurance
that individual rights are high on their list of priorities. Like the majority
who choose a law enforcement career, I'm proud of my profession. I followed orders for nearly 30 years and have no
regrets. I did not always agree with my superiors or the movers and shakers of
my community. I spoke out against them in public. I wrote letters to the editor,
and debated lawyers, doctors, teachers, and reporters on the radio, on TV, and
on the rubber chicken circuit. I lobbied my fellow officers and joined in to
help with political campaigns. A cop doesn't make
the law, but that doesn't prevent me from doing everything I can to influence
those who do make the laws.
I am registered to vote and will vote my conscience, regardless of party
affiliation. And I am not alone in my profession. I can honestly say that the
majority of line officers I have known are pro-rights and pro-gun. They are a
conservative lot. They can be a worthwhile ally in the fight to restore firearms
rights! I invite you to join us and view evidence of pro-gun law enforcement
at The Second Amendment Police Department (in cyberspace), see articles and
opinions at www.2ampd.net.
You are encouraged to do whatever possible to influence the police, and every
other profession in your community, to vote for the laws you deem fair and
responsible. I hope you will agree that a reasoned, factual, and certainly
passionate approach is the way to attract fellow citizens to our cause.
And who do you think is more inclusive in their
appeal to that police officer in your community, the doctors, lawyers, and
teachers, or some kook on the Internet raging about killing cops?
|
|
