Tuesday, July 09, 2013

What Massad Ayoob, and the Rest of the Law Imposement Community, Doesn't Say

In his recent piece published at Backwoods Home, Massad Ayoob makes his case that the Law Imposement community really doesn't oppose the Citizens' right to keep (meaning hold, possess, maintain) and bear (meaning carry) arms.

He says a lot in his piece, but not what he should have said if he wanted to genuinely back up his claim.

What he said was, "...I was at the annual conference of the above-mentioned ILEETA, attended by more than 700 police trainers from around the nation and the world. I was one of many attending a panel discussion on Active Shooter Response when something interesting happened.... Partway through the discussion, a panel member looked down at a text message on his smart phone, and raised his hand to interrupt. He announced that he had just received a message that the Universal Background Check bill had failed to pass in the United States Senate. And, spontaneously, the packed classroom of police instructors burst into applause."

What he should have said was,"...the Universal Background Check bill, which would not have exempted Law Imposement Officers, had failed to pass in the United States Senate. And, spontaneously, the packed classroom of police instructors burst into applause." I cannot help but wonder, that if the bill would have specifically exempted that group of citizens, there would have been anything more than a yawn.

What he said was, "By contrast, the anti-gun groups were notable by their absence. No surprise; they had nothing to offer real, working cops, and probably knew that streetwise police officers would see through them, anyway."

What he should have said was, "No surprise; they had already made their case to real, working cops, and probably knew that streetwise police officers would agree with them, anyway."

What he said was, "Shouldn't the cops have responded with an anguished chorus of "Boo"? No. Because these were the real cops, the trainers of the next generation of real street cops, and they knew the reality.

Here is where I again ask the question: Where the fuck are they?  Where are all these "good guy" cops we keep hearing about? Why aren't they, individually and through their professional organizations, making the most noise of all? Hundreds of thousands of "Law Imposement Professionals" could rival the voice of the NRA, but they don't. There is eerie silence when it comes time for all those "good guys" in Law Imposement to stand up and support the rights of we mere mortal "civilians". There should be hundreds of cops speaking before State legislatures in every State, every time an anti-gun bill is being debated. There are rarely any at all.

There should be NO VIDEOS like this one, and this one, and this one, and this one... and on it goes. There are hundreds.

The average Cop would never do such a thing, right? Never! He supports every free man's RIGHT to possess and carry arms, right? Well, maybe, as long as a person is properly trained and licensed... Right?

How about this, Must I have a License to draw breath? I have a Natural right to breathe, correct? Need I ask a cops permission first? Must I demonstrate a "need" before I exercise the right? Will I be made to stop breathing every time a cop approaches and decides to feel bad because I am exercising my Natural Right without his permission?

What Mas said was, "A record 86,000-plus NRA members attended. Among the throngs inside the convention center were many law enforcement officers, some in uniform. They chatted pleasantly with the armed citizens and firearms industry people in the aisles."

What he didn't say was that in Texas it has been illegal to open carry a sidearm since the Reconstruction era. Each armed citizen those cops conversed with had a Texas CHL, a license, in his pocket. Each citizen had submitted to finger printing and mug shots and a State approved indoctrination in order to carry a Permission Slip around in his pocket, thus minimizing his chances of being harassed by all those "good guys" in the Law Imposement profession. Do Law Imposement professionals feel at ease in a room full of armed citizens, generally no, They don't like the idea at all, but at least they all had State Photo I.D. Permission Slips with them.

I have worked many gun shows were local cops and sheriff's deputies come in as patrons (free of charge usually). Every time I have attempted to engage them in conversation about comparative preferences in weaponry, the cops get anxious and flustered and seem to want to move on  right away. They don't like the idea that a mere civilian knows more about firearms and shooting than they do, and that the mere mortal civilian is likely more proficient than they are with their own personal weaponry.

What Mas said was, "The media and anti-gun politicians constantly tell the public that cops want more "gun control" and even gun bans."

What he didn't address was why they aren't the loudest people in each community opposing more "gun control". The truth is, they remain silent because their pay check is more important than their supposed principles. Their Boss's opinion of them is more valuable than the Natural, God given, Rights of the citizens they serve.

What Mas said was, "You'll hear the same from high profile police chiefs who, despite the usual rule that police officers can't take political positions while speaking as members of the law enforcement agency, will flank the President or some other politician who makes an anti-gun speech. Why does that happen?"

I will tell you why. It is because they are in this game for Control. Gun Control is People Control. It is Population Control. It is the perfect useful tool in the grand mechanism of control which is Stateism. The Chiefs of Police believe in, and use, each and every mechanism of control at their disposal. As with all bullies and control freaks, Control is its own reward.

What Mas said was, "Sheriffs are a different matter. The high sheriff of the county is an elected official, and "serves at the pleasure" of ... the voters. This is probably why you see relatively more sheriffs than police chiefs or commissioners standing up for gun owners' civil rights and refusing to be sock puppets for anti-gun politicians."

This is a true statement, This is why it is critical for people to know fully where their Sheriff stands in regard to Natural Rights. One must look beyond his public statements and see his actions. His actions will tell the tale. Sometimes a Sheriff will release a letter saying he will "never support the illegal seizure of Citizens' weapons ", but not that he would oppose such seizure under any circumstances.

What Mas said was, "The Police Benevolent Association representing New York State Police Troopers took public exception to the law." in reference to the New York SAFE Act. According to reporter Teri Weaver, "...The union representing New York State Police say they believe the state's stricter gun laws could put law enforcement officers at risk."

Not that they give half a Damn about the Natural Rights, nor the safety of the citizens they supposedly serve. Wouldn't that be the primary concern of all those "good guys" we keep hearing about?

Again according to Teri Weaver, ""In an email release on Monday, the New York State Troopers PBA said its 6,000-member group "holds widely shared concerns" about the NY Safe Act. Nonetheless, the union takes exception to some state lawmakers accusing the troopers of failing to enforce the law."

Why, hell yes they are enforcing the law! They will enforce this law against the citizens they supposedly serve, until they are told not to by those who pay them. People have already been prosecuted under it. They say the PBA "holds widely shared concerns"? How about contempt? How about deeply rooted and righteous anger? How about indignation? How about saying, "Hell no! I ain't doing it!"?

Again according to reporter Weaver, the PBA says, "We urge the citizens of New York state to remember that troopers are simply tasked with the lawful mandate to enforce the laws of the state, regardless of their personal opinion of such laws."

How about this Boys and Girls in Law Imposement, if a statute passes the legislature and it obviously and blatantly violates the Natural Rights of the citizens you supposedly serve, and violates your Oath of Office, announce boldly and with vigor, that you will NOT enforce it! Disavow it!

Police Departments and Sheriff's Offices all over New York blatantly announced they would be violating the NY SAFE Act, while imposing the same law in the public. Originally, there was NO exception in the SAFE Act for Law Imposement Officers. Governor Cuomo recently signed laws which now exempt them. Can you say hypocrite? Can you say Liar? Can you say Oath Breaker? They are now above the law with which you must comply. But by golly, they support your rights, because they are such "good guys"!

What Mas said was, "A lot of the general public has missed the fact that many of these laws impact police."

No! Say it ain't so! You mean the police sometimes suffer the unintended consequences of the laws they are told to impose on the rest of humanity? I mean, shouldn't there be a blanket exception?

Again, Mas,  "A great many law enforcement agencies (Florida Highway Patrol comes to mind) can't afford to buy AR15s for every officer, so they authorize their armed personnel to buy their own and take them on duty after appropriate training and qualification. An "assault weapon ban" written to allow these guns to be purchased only by law enforcement agencies takes that option off the table, and police in that situation won't have access to patrol rifles with which to protect the public and themselves."

Don't worry, they can always get a grant from the Department of Homeland Security! Then they will be free to impose this kind of prohibition on the rest of humanity!

But wait! Mas continues, " If the law is written to exempt currently sworn individual police officers, that means that as soon as the officer retires and gives up his sworn authority, he's either a criminal if he keeps it, or has to give his personal property over to the police department."

Mas, you mean to tell me, that when a cop retires he is no longer a Super Citizen, but a mere mortal civilian again? And he has to suffer under the same restrictions and limitations of his Natural Rights that the rest of humanity does? This just isn't fair! You can't go around treating superior beings like mere mortals!

Mas continues, "In 2004, then-President George W. Bush signed into law HR 218, the Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act. As LEOSA stands now, any sworn (or honorably retired and currently handgun-qualified) police officer can carry a personal handgun nationwide when "on their own time." "

You mean it created a Federally recognized class of Super Citizens who have privileges the rest of humanity doesn't. That's kinda cool IF you happen to have a Magic Shield in your pocket!

And then, "However, they are required to conform to the laws that would govern a private citizen licensed to carry in the given jurisdiction."

No! Say it ain't so!

Then, "This means that if Coloradans can't have more than a 15-round magazine ... if Californians can't have more than 10-rounders ... and if New Yorkers with permits are allowed no more than seven cartridges in a magazine ... then that applies to visiting out-of-state cops as well.""

It just can't be!Super Citizens should be allowed to be armed in any way they please when traveling about the country, unlike mere mortal civilians.

Mas finishes with, "The bottom line is, when you hear someone say "The police want to ban these guns/magazines/transfers between law-abiding private citizens" ... don't believe it."

Correction, believe it until you hear them shouting from the rooftops, announcing hey will not enforce such Un-Constitutional laws on their neighbors.Until you see and hear that, don't delude yourself.

"Anyone who actually works with the cops on the street knows that the great majority of them want to enforce existing laws on genuine criminals, not criminalize the law-abiding citizens they've sworn an oath to protect and serve."

If that was true, there would be no such thing as this and this and this and this and this and this.

If the "good guys" were the vast majority, the above would be as rare as hens teeth. They are not.

No comments: