search
top

Swiss Cops Pull Support for Guns at Home

Looks like doctors and police are lining up to ban military-issue guns in the home. The government, at this point, doesn’t want to do it. How long is that going to last? Police are a tough groups to lose, even more so than Doctors.

It’s worth noting that any time we’ve had the FOP come out against us, we’ve generally lost. Rightly or wrongly, politicians don’t want to stand on the opposite side of rank and file officers. Why? Because most people who are active in their local communities know their local cops, and all politics is local. In the comments a few days ago, we had some folks that were unhappy with Constitutional Carry in Arizona and Alaska, because it allows for officers to disarm people during a stop. My guess is this was in there to buy the silence of law enforcement. We need to keep the police on our side, and maintain the unspoken relationship. If we lose cops, we lose. This probably does not bode well for the Swiss militia system.

17 Responses to “Swiss Cops Pull Support for Guns at Home”

  1. FatWhiteMan says:

    “Rightly or wrongly, politicians don’t want to stand on the opposite side of rank and file officers.”

    Since when does the FOP stand for the views of rank and file, especially where guns are concerned? Usually these types of organizations ignore what street cops think when pushing their political garbage.

  2. Hank Archer says:

    Speaking of cops – another good reason to keep them on your side is so that they won’t shoot you while you’re watering your lawn!
    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/12/man-killed-by-long-beach-police-was-holding-a-water-nozzle.html

  3. Matthew Carberry says:

    FWM,

    Perception is reality.

    Whether or not the FOP -really- represents the rank and file is almost irrelevent. They are big and they have money.

    When people and politicians hear that the Fraternal Order of Police oppose a pro-gun bill, right or wrong that immediately means that the bill is “dangerous to cops”.

    Blame an electorate that can’t be bothered to do independent research and a press that for the most part doesn’t do more than print press releases they happen to agree with.

    From Guncite:

    While the largest rank-and-file police organization, the FOP supports “assault weapon” control (at least for controls less severe than New Jersey’s), the second-largest rank-and-file organization, the American Federation of Police, opposes such controls. Unfortunately, neither organization has polled its membership on the subject. (FOP head Stokes has been repeatedly asked to conduct a poll, and has refused.)

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

  4. SEBASTIAN says, “if we lose cops, we lose.” I disagree. Cops are just another pressure group. No better, no worse. Our Second Amendment rights are what matter, not what pressure group supports them. Lets not have the tail wag the dog.

    See my book They Came for our Guns, They Came for our Freedom. http://www.williamlafferty.com.

  5. Sebastian says:

    We’re just another pressure group too. Just in my own area I can think of several votes we’d lose if the FOP stood on the other side of us on something like, say, an assault weapons ban.

    Like I said, doesn’t mean it’s right, but it’s reality.

  6. Sterling Archer says:

    Since when did the police become lawmakers? Who gives a damn what the FOP thinks? Cops are just another special interest group.

    They should have no say in the passing of laws. Their opinions are irrelevant.

  7. Sebastian says:

    Since when did we become lawmakers? Everyone is a special interest, including us. Maybe politicians shouldn’t listen to the FOP. Maybe they shouldn’t listen to cops, but they do.

  8. Alpheus says:

    Switzerland is on the verge of losing their right to keep and bear arms as a part of the militia? How the heck can this be justified as needed to lower crime?

    If the police getting behind this isn’t enough to get it passed, it will only be because the people of Switzerland are determined to preserve their militia system. Hopefully they won’t cave!

  9. Sebastian writes “It’s worth noting that any time we’ve had the FOP come out against us, we’ve generally lost. Rightly or wrongly, politicians don’t want to stand on the opposite side of rank and file officers. Why? Because most people who are active in their local communities know their local cops, and all politics is local.”

    One time we didnt lose when the FOP was against us was the Heller case, probably the most significant pro-gun decision in our lifetimes.

    As long as people worry about politics instead of the law, they will run around hiding from their shadows or from the FOP instead of boldly asserting their rights. Politicians concentrate on pressure groups like the FOP because they think such groups are untouchable. It’s up to people like us to wise them up.

  10. Sebastian says:

    The National FOP did not take a position on Heller, and some lodges signed on to a brief supporting us, along with a number of other law enforcement organizations. So we had law enforcement support headed into Heller.

  11. In my view, if you’re not for us, you’re against us. That the national FOP did not take a position speaks volumes for who they are and what they support. The Maryland lodge supported Heller. What happened to their parent organization?

    But in any case, the main point is that relying on one pressure group or another instead of ourselves and our clearly granted Constitutional rights is a mistake.

  12. Sebastian says:

    So are the National Corn Growers Association against us because they didn’t decide to spend a crap load of money in lawyers to write briefs on behalf of Heller?

    Your rights depend on what politicians and men in robes say. There’s no way around this fact, and those people listen to pressure groups.

  13. The FOP, unlike most other organizations, cloaks itself in the mantle of supreme wisdom on crime, law enforcement, gun rights, and related matters. Their silence on Heller is significant. That the Girl Scouts didn’t offer support doesn’t bother me.

    You’re right. Our rights depend on what politicians and judges say. But you didn’t go far enough. Who those politicians and judges are depend on what we say. We sell ourselves short. Deferring to a politician is like groveling to a mugger.

  14. Sebastian says:

    Well, I don’t disagree about trying to get rid of anti-gun politicians and replace them with pro-gun politicians, but there are limits to our electoral power. If I can avoid having to risk struggling for a legislators seat by throwing the FOP a bone to buy their support on as strong a pro-gun measure as permitless concealed carry, provided it’s a token concession, I’ll take that deal. I’ll also be willing to do an awful lot to keep them from entering this debate against us, provided the ball can be kept in motion forwards while the police organizations are silent.

  15. Ian Argent says:

    You can play Wall in two ways. First, you can throw yourself at it and hope you have more force than it has strength. Or you can nibble away at the foundation and bricks, one by one. The second is longer, harder, and more sure.

  16. btr says:

    This bill would also ban the Swiss from buying automatic weapons and even pump action firearms.

  17. Andrew says:

    Well, here in Tulsa, OK, we lost the cops a long time ago, or should I say, they lost us.

    30+ convictions tossed because of police corruption. Justice Department moving in to try to clear out the chaos.

    I respect the police. They have a tough job. But when they start planting evidence, corrupting investigations, etc., and get caught at it, they deserve to lose our respect.

    In Tulsa, I have no respect for the cops. That is why I spend as little time there as possible, and carry all the time.

top