Shot in the Dark

Where Their Mouths Are

The Democrats nationwide are fond of trumpeting the factoid that “police chiefs’ organizations” and “police unions” roundly favor gun control.

Of course, police chiefs associations are dominated by top major-city cops, who pretty universally serve at the pleasure of liberal democrat machines.  And the Minnesota Police and Peace Officers’ Association is pretty closely tied with DFL-dominated unions, so their opinion is always an extension of the DFL party line on any issue.

When you get into law enforcement groups that depend on popular voting for their jobs – like the Sheriff’s Association in Minnesota, for example – things get a little less predictable.

But what if you polled actual street cops?

Second Amendment rights groups have long known, at least anecdotally, that actual policemen – as opposed to the uniformed politicians they report to in major cities and larger suburbs – roundly support the Second Amendment and the right, and competence, of the actual law-abiding citizen.

But now we know for real:

Among the findings of a survey by the industry website PoliceOne, which tallied responses from 15,000 verified active and retired law enforcement professionals, police overwhelmingly favor an armed citizenry and are skeptical of any greater restrictions placed on gun purchase, ownership or accessibility, editor Doug Wyllie said.

The survey found that 91.5 percent of respondents believe a federal ban on the manufacture or sale of semi-automatic weapons would have no effect or a negative effect on the reduction of violent crime.

There are bad apples on the street, of course.  But most cops know the simple truism that the likes of Representatives Paymar and Martens, Senator Lumberg Latz and Governor Messinger Dayton can’t quite retain; the law-abiding citizen, whether they’re carrying a revolver or an AK47, isn’t the problem.

Posted

in

,

by

Mitch Berg

Tags:

Comments

2 responses to “Where Their Mouths Are”

  1. Joe Avatar
    Joe

    “… pretty closely tied to DFL-dominated unions”?

    Upon becomming a member of Law Enforcement Labor Services (LELS), the primary police union in Minnesota, the member is simultaneously made a member of the Minnesota Police and Peace Officers’ Association (MPPOA).

    This is required, I believe, in order to receive benefit of group Legal Defense Fund, which is a crucial part of unionizing. If you insist on declining MPPOA membership, you lose much of the benefit of belonging to LELS. Not much of a choice. This relationship also makes membership for supervisors and administrators difficult.

    When the two organizations joined, it was quite distasteful to those who had previously renounced their MPPOA membership over the organization’s left-leaning political endorsements and in particular their anti-gun public stance – all of which which was done with little to no opportunity for individual member input.

    The need for union protection is understandable in certain career fields; teaching and law enforcement are two good examples. However, by protection I mean just that; legal support in potential criminal and civil situations which could bankrupt (or worse) even a completely innocent employee, career-destroying disciplinary actions, etc. I suppose any group could make the case that they are special in their need for union protection. However, certain fields carry the potential for devastating job-related repercussions that the employer might not find in their best interests to defend.

    Unfortunately, the focus of unionization has become far too compensation- oriented. That’s too bad. Fair union protection should be just that. I doubt if law enforcement salaries in Minnesota would be much different now without labor organization. Unfortunately, compensation disputes make no one look good in tough times.

    Law enforcement’s need for legislative representation is not a bad thing; the public and legislature should have a reputable source to turn to when related issues are in need of action, and peace officers should be allowed input into legislative issues affecting their profession and the public good.

    However, compensatory matters are best handled by the LELS, law enforcement policy, standards, and training issues are best dealt-with by the MN Police Officers’ Standards and Training Board.

    Legislative interaction should be handled by a group like the MPPOA, except as an independent entity which represents ALL sworn/ licensed peace officers regardless of position, not, as Mr. Berg put it, “closely tied to DFL-dominated (or GOP for that matter) unions” and virtually closed to higher ranks.

    Humble opinions …

  2. bosshoss429 Avatar
    bosshoss429

    I point out again the most definitive survey ever conducted from the criminals point on view. Conducted by David Rossi and James Wright 1982 and 1983, the findings are still valid. “57% of convicted felons fear an armed homeowner more than the police.” The last paragraph sums it up.

    http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgeff.html

    Oh, uh…just one more thing, Doggy. Rossi and Wright are LIBERALS!

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.