Give Me That Old Time Law and Order

The Cleveland Police Union asks that open carry be banned for the Republican National Convention. I can certainly understand why they would prefer this. I can certainly understand why they might just want to ban protests too. But the fact of the matter is that it’s just not constitutional under the laws of Ohio for the governor to do this. Fortunately, Kasich seems to know his limits.

Recall it was an armed march by the Black Panthers during Ronald’s Reagan’s stint as Governor of California that prompted the legislature to pass, and Governor Reagan to sign, the first ban on open carry in the Golden State.

Sometimes respecting constitutional rights makes the job of the police difficult. That said, if you’re planning to OC at the RNC, I’d keep it slung/holstered if I were you.

13 thoughts on “Give Me That Old Time Law and Order”

  1. It is easy for cops to see if a person is carrying a gun then he or she is a criminal. We have not worked hard these last 15 years to go back to that mindset. The Head of the Union also complained about prioritizing delegates lives over cops. Of course they are more important Why else have cops ?

  2. I am staying away, even had to change a Dr. appointment at the Cleveland clinic. Not because of the RNC but because the bussed in protesters might go full retard.

  3. The founders saw the dangers of making the job of the police easy.

    It applies directly to the 4th, 5th, and one could argue the 8th.

    Of course the 1st and 2nd can be a PITA for law enforcement.

    Sorry, it’s not an easy job.

  4. So men with firearms are a threat to his power? Good, now he understands the second amendment.

  5. I suspect that Kasich’s refusal to outlaw open carry at the RNC had less to do with constitutional considerations and more with a spiteful attempt to increase opportunities for disruption that would derail Trump’s candidacy. I expect that the New Black Panther Party, which has indicated its intent to come to Cleveland armed, will provoke confrontations with armed Trump supporters, and that the Democrat propagandists (aka “journalists”), who will of course just happen to be filming at the time, will then immediately put out the message “Come see the violence inherent in the system! Help, I’m being oppressed!” The truth will eventually come out, but the damage will have been done, because low information voters (ie, Hillary’s base) will just remember the original film. A picture is worth a thousand lies.

  6. ” I don’t care if it’s constitutional or not at this point,” Stephen Loomis, president of Cleveland Police Patrolmen’s Association, told CNN.”

    “They can fight about it after the RNC or they can lift it after the RNC, but I want him to absolutely outlaw open-carry in Cuyahoga County until this RNC is over.”.

    After all this a police spokesman saying “I don’t care what the rules are we are going to do what we want?

  7. This Union head also was upset that cops lives are not more important than those they protect.
    By definition if a person is there to protect they are putting the protected in a higher position of importance Duh !

    1. You have to understand the union rep’s mindset to understand how different it is from that of the general population.

      I explained last weekend to a very liberal in-law that police do not have a “duty to protect”. I told him what that meant, and the court case behind it. He was actually quite surprised. He thought that government agents were required protect him.

      I told him that they did, so long as they were wearing an Armed Forces uniform and under orders to do so. A military service member can be ordered (by way of force, if necessary) to die in the protection of nation and its people. If they fail to obey, they can even be executed.

      But not citizen police. Police not only have no such requirement, there is no moral or peer-pressure to risk themselves when they “go out there”. The first imperative every day is to “come home safe”. In that regard, we are the same.

      I have some really good law-enforcement friends, and they no longer use the word “civilian” when describing non-sworn citizens. Maybe it’s only around me, but at least they think about it now. The line between sworn and unsworn is a lot thinner than people realize.

Comments are closed.