VICTORY IN PALMER!!!!

Maestro Pistolero · Aug 7, 2014

I've listened to the discussion back and forth here, and I have to say, I find the idea that re-training law enforcement would take a year incredulous. Law enforcement just needs to snap out of their skewed, antiquated view that a firearm automatically equals threat and criminal intent. It's a new day, ladies and gentlemen.

Just like officers and agencies would make whatever immediate adjustments necessary for any other suddenly emerging job requirement, I trust they will pull on their big-boy pants and start treating armed, law abiding, armed citizens with the long-overdue respect they deserve.

If they do not, it's not going to go well for them. Civil rights lawsuits based on settled law ignored by an agency will be VERY expensive. And the most egregious violations can result in criminal misconduct and personal liability not covered under any qualified immunity.

Just like LE's job is fully deserving of our respect, so is the armed citizen, because they are going to make as great a contribution to our long term liberty AND security as the entire law enforcement community combined.

Armed, law-abiding citizens are LE's natural ally, and it's about damn time certain LE recognized that and started treating its fellow citizens accordingly.

kcbrown · Aug 7, 2014

I'm sympathetic to the notion that LEOs may need some adjustment time, but one problem is this:

Would those same LEOs give the citizenry the same amount of adjustment time immediately after a new law or ordinance were passed?

My bet is that the answer is not just "no", but "hell, no".

If LEOs aren't wiling to cut the citizenry the slack that they are now asking the citizenry to cut for them, then why should the citizenry cut them that slack?

Why the double standard?

There's another problem, too: if LEOs are given time to adjust to the new standard by having the rights of the citizenry curtailed for that period of time, then while the training may be saying one thing, actual experience on the street will be reinforcing the old paradigm. That is so because during that transition period, the old paradigm will actually still be in play. What exactly will a police officer learn from the experience that every person he sees with a gun is a bad guy because the good guys remain forbidden to carry firearms in public? Won't he learn precisely what he's trying to forget?

At the end of the day, the question has to be this: is the citizenry as a whole safer by giving the police a substantial amount of time to adjust to the new state of affairs, all the while that same citizenry remains just as vulnerable to criminals and crazies as before? Or is it safer by arming itself against those threats and taking its chances with respect to cops that haven't yet figured out that a guy carrying a gun isn't automatically a bad guy?

My suspicion is that the answer to that is the latter. Otherwise, the contention is essentially that police officers who have not adjusted to the new rules are more dangerous to the citizenry than are the very criminals the citizenry will be arming itself to defend against. And that's a pretty damning statement when you get right down to it.

krucam · Aug 7, 2014

Any Chief and/or Sheriff in a no/may-issue regime can contact their peer in one of the 42 Shall-Issue states for a quick indoc on lawful carry interactions.

/thread-derail

Haides · Aug 7, 2014

kcbrown said:
I'm sympathetic to the notion that LEOs may need some adjustment time, but one problem is this:

Would those same LEOs give the citizenry the same amount of adjustment time immediately after a new law or ordinance were passed?

My bet is that the answer is not just "no", but "hell, no".

If LEOs aren't wiling to cut the citizenry the slack that they are now asking the citizenry to cut for them, then why should the citizenry cut them that slack?

Why the double standard?

There's another problem, too: if LEOs are given time to adjust to the new standard by having the rights of the citizenry curtailed for that period of time, then while the training may be saying one thing, actual experience on the street will be reinforcing the old paradigm. That is so because during that transition period, the old paradigm will actually still be in play. What exactly will a police officer learn from the experience that every person he sees with a gun is a bad guy because the good guys remain forbidden to carry firearms in public? Won't he learn precisely what he's trying to forget?

At the end of the day, the question has to be this: is the citizenry as a whole safer by giving the police a substantial amount of time to adjust to the new state of affairs, all the while that same citizenry remains just as vulnerable to criminals and crazies as before? Or is it safer by arming itself against those threats and taking its chances with respect to cops that haven't yet figured out that a guy carrying a gun isn't automatically a bad guy?

My suspicion is that the answer to that is the latter. Otherwise, the contention is essentially that police officers who have not adjusted to the new rules are more dangerous to the citizenry than are the very criminals the citizenry will be arming itself to defend against. And that's a pretty damning statement when you get right down to it.

This is probably the best argument against so far.

StantonCree · Aug 7, 2014

kcbrown said:
I'm sympathetic to the notion that LEOs may need some adjustment time, but one problem is this:

Would those same LEOs give the citizenry the same amount of adjustment time immediately after a new law or ordinance were passed?

My bet is that the answer is not just "no", but "hell, no".

If LEOs aren't wiling to cut the citizenry the slack that they are now asking the citizenry to cut for them, then why should the citizenry cut them that slack?

Why the double standard?

There's another problem, too: if LEOs are given time to adjust to the new standard by having the rights of the citizenry curtailed for that period of time, then while the training may be saying one thing, actual experience on the street will be reinforcing the old paradigm. That is so because during that transition period, the old paradigm will actually still be in play. What exactly will a police officer learn from the experience that every person he sees with a gun is a bad guy because the good guys remain forbidden to carry firearms in public? Won't he learn precisely what he's trying to forget?

At the end of the day, the question has to be this: is the citizenry as a whole safer by giving the police a substantial amount of time to adjust to the new state of affairs, all the while that same citizenry remains just as vulnerable to criminals and crazies as before? Or is it safer by arming itself against those threats and taking its chances with respect to cops that haven't yet figured out that a guy carrying a gun isn't automatically a bad guy?

My suspicion is that the answer to that is the latter. Otherwise, the contention is essentially that police officers who have not adjusted to the new rules are more dangerous to the citizenry than are the very criminals the citizenry will be arming itself to defend against. And that's a pretty damning statement when you get right down to it.

The email from the chief advised us to take a lax stance on it for a bit because some citizens may not be aware the stay was in place, so in theory she's trying......with that said, I still stand by what I've been saying.

redeemed.man · Aug 7, 2014

Maestro Pistolero said:
I've listened to the discussion back and forth here, and I have to say, I find the idea that re-training law enforcement would take a year incredulous. Law enforcement just needs to snap out of their skewed, antiquated view that a firearm automatically equals threat and criminal intent. It's a new day, ladies and gentlemen.

Just like officers and agencies would make whatever immediate adjustments necessary for any other suddenly emerging job requirement, I trust they will pull on their big-boy pants and start treating armed, law abiding, armed citizens with the long-overdue respect they deserve.

If they do not, it's not going to go well for them. Civil rights lawsuits based on settled law ignored by an agency will be VERY expensive. And the most egregious violations can result in criminal misconduct and personal liability not covered under any qualified immunity.

Just like LE's job is fully deserving of our respect, so is the armed citizen, because they are going to make as great a contribution to our long term liberty AND security as the entire law enforcement community combined.

Armed, law-abiding citizens are LE's natural ally, and it's about damn time certain LE recognized that and started treating its fellow citizens accordingly.

kcbrown said:
I'm sympathetic to the notion that LEOs may need some adjustment time, but one problem is this:

Would those same LEOs give the citizenry the same amount of adjustment time immediately after a new law or ordinance were passed?

My bet is that the answer is not just "no", but "hell, no".

If LEOs aren't wiling to cut the citizenry the slack that they are now asking the citizenry to cut for them, then why should the citizenry cut them that slack?

Why the double standard?

There's another problem, too: if LEOs are given time to adjust to the new standard by having the rights of the citizenry curtailed for that period of time, then while the training may be saying one thing, actual experience on the street will be reinforcing the old paradigm. That is so because during that transition period, the old paradigm will actually still be in play. What exactly will a police officer learn from the experience that every person he sees with a gun is a bad guy because the good guys remain forbidden to carry firearms in public? Won't he learn precisely what he's trying to forget?

At the end of the day, the question has to be this: is the citizenry as a whole safer by giving the police a substantial amount of time to adjust to the new state of affairs, all the while that same citizenry remains just as vulnerable to criminals and crazies as before? Or is it safer by arming itself against those threats and taking its chances with respect to cops that haven't yet figured out that a guy carrying a gun isn't automatically a bad guy?

My suspicion is that the answer to that is the latter. Otherwise, the contention is essentially that police officers who have not adjusted to the new rules are more dangerous to the citizenry than are the very criminals the citizenry will be arming itself to defend against. And that's a pretty damning statement when you get right down to it.

krucam said:
Any Chief and/or Sheriff in a no/may-issue regime can contact their peer in one of the 42 Shall-Issue states for a quick indoc on lawful carry interactions.

/thread-derail

Haides said:
This is probably the best argument against so far.

mpdc4511 said:
The email from the chief advised us to take a lax stance on it for a bit because some citizens may not be aware the stay was in place, so in theory she's trying......with that said, I still stand by what I've been saying.

- I understand your concern but it has proven to largely be a non-issue in the countless jurisdictions that have gone from no/may issue to shall issue over the past 20 or so years. So however real your concerns are time and time again these concerns have proven to be false. We have LOTS of recent history to prove it.

ryan_j · Aug 7, 2014

Maestro Pistolero said:
I've listened to the discussion back and forth here, and I have to say, I find the idea that re-training law enforcement would take a year incredulous. Law enforcement just needs to snap out of their skewed, antiquated view that a firearm automatically equals threat and criminal intent. It's a new day, ladies and gentlemen.

Just like officers and agencies would make whatever immediate adjustments necessary for any other suddenly emerging job requirement, I trust they will pull on their big-boy pants and start treating armed, law abiding, armed citizens with the long-overdue respect they deserve.

If they do not, it's not going to go well for them. Civil rights lawsuits based on settled law ignored by an agency will be VERY expensive. And the most egregious violations can result in criminal misconduct and personal liability not covered under any qualified immunity.

Just like LE's job is fully deserving of our respect, so is the armed citizen, because they are going to make as great a contribution to our long term liberty AND security as the entire law enforcement community combined.

Armed, law-abiding citizens are LE's natural ally, and it's about damn time certain LE recognized that and started treating its fellow citizens accordingly.

Absolutely, 100% this.

Mr H · Aug 7, 2014

boundlessdyad said:
- I understand your concern but it has proven to largely be a non-issue in the countless jurisdictions that have gone from no/may issue to shall issue over the past 20 or so years. So however real your concerns are time and time again these concerns have proven to be false. We have LOTS of recent history to prove it.

Until the rest of us become expert in the internal dynamics of MPD, I'm quite OK with trusting mpdc4511 in his cautious view.

Maybe it won't take a year (and I believe that was a worst-case timeframe guesstimate), and maybe it'll go smoothly...

But I'd rather everyone get it right and be safe, than have some jackwagon get sideways with a cop because "his right dammit" didn't mesh with MPD's processes.

ToneGrail · Aug 7, 2014

JohnnyE said:
I guess everything from southern France through much of Turkey should be turned back to the Italians (as proxy for the Romans). Or maybe find the closest living ancestors of Neanderthals and turn all of Europe over to them. How far back should we go? Ooh, I have an idea, let's give ourselves back to Britain!

While we're at it we might as well roll back all the Islamic conquests of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa. The world would be a better place.

swinokur · Aug 7, 2014

The Ottoman's called. They want their empire back as well.

redeemed.man · Aug 7, 2014

Mr H said:
Until the rest of us become expert in the internal dynamics of MPD, I'm quite OK with trusting mpdc4511 in his cautious view.

Maybe it won't take a year (and I believe that was a worst-case timeframe guesstimate), and maybe it'll go smoothly...

But I'd rather everyone get it right and be safe, than have some jackwagon get sideways with a cop because "his right dammit" didn't mesh with MPD's processes.

No disrespect intended but that is BS. Some jackass CCWer will be a jackass CCWer a year from now. The internal dynamics of MPD don't matter anymore for CCW than they do for any other law. As law enforcement officers an immediate respect for the rule and order of law is required. They don't get a year to train on any other law. Quite frankly I am shocked so many on this board are willing to give up another year so easily. If the courts say immediate, it is immediate. What will MPD do then, ignore the court? Clearly they won't as they didn't ignore the court a few weeks ago. They made sh1t happen. That is the way it should be and must be. If the DC council says we have passed a law and it turns out to be decent they won't delay enactment for a year either. I have worked in the criminal justice system and when a law changes it takes effect and you deal with it, like it or not. The reality is there may be a few bad apples on either side but there always will be. 10 years from now there will be some dipsh1t elitist with a badge that messes up because he thinks only cops should carry. 10 years from there will also be some dipsh1t CCWer who shoots himself in his own leg or forgets his gun in a restroom. Should the 2A be suspended until everyone is perfect? It will never happen. I must say I am quite surprised at the need for a debate here on MDS of all places.

Mr H · Aug 7, 2014

We simply see it differently.

That's OK.

StantonCree · Aug 7, 2014

boundlessdyad said:
No disrespect intended but that is BS. Some jackass CCWer will be a jackass CCWer a year from now. The internal dynamics of MPD don't matter anymore for CCW than they do for any other law. As law enforcement officers an immediate respect for the rule and order of law is required. They don't get a year to train on any other law. Quite frankly I am shocked so many on this board are willing to give up another year so easily. If the courts say immediate, it is immediate. What will MPD do then, ignore the court? Clearly they won't as they didn't ignore the court a few weeks ago. They made sh1t happen. That is the way it should be and must be. If the DC council says we have passed a law and it turns out to be decent they won't delay enactment for a year either. I have worked in the criminal justice system and when a law changes it takes effect and you deal with it, like it or not. The reality is there may be a few bad apples on either side but there always will be. 10 years from now there will be some dipsh1t elitist with a badge that messes up because he thinks only cops should carry. 10 years from there will also be some dipsh1t CCWer who shoots himself in his own leg or forgets his gun in a restroom. Should the 2A be suspended until everyone is perfect? It will never happen. I must say I am quite surprised at the need for a debate here on MDS of all places.

In respect to the weed law that's insanely different and we didn't get the tools to enforce anything but public consumption not to mention the roll out has been an epic failure from the LEO side. The only thing it's accomplished is slightly racist so I won't get into it.

Also I respect your opinion and as I've said if the courts say it, I can't disagree. I just know my co workers and a lot are going to need training on how to deal with honest citizens with guns.

redeemed.man · Aug 7, 2014

mpdc4511 said:
In respect to the weed law that's insanely different and we didn't get the tools to enforce anything but public consumption not to mention the roll out has been an epic failure from the LEO side. The only thing it's accomplished is slightly racist so I won't get into it.

Also I respect your opinion and as I've said if the courts say it, I can't disagree. I just know my co workers and a lot are going to need training on how to deal with honest citizens with guns.

When dealing with Public Safety agencies sh1t always rolls down hill. Some law, administrative rule, or procedure changes; often with very little thought and it always falls to the guys dealing with the public and/or criminals to implement. In most cases administrators have their head so far up their @sses they have no idea what to do or how to do it. I don't care for Chief Lanier for the most part but I must say I respect how she handled the courts recent decision and accepted lawful carry even if only for a few days.

Even Fire & Rescue guys get sh1t like procedural changes rammed down their throat with little if any forethought. Often these decisions are made by people so far out of touch with current realities that they should be disqualified from making policy yet it happens anyway. The guys down the line always make it happen (lemonade out of lemons if you will). I have confidence that had the stay been denied things would have gone fine for 99.9% of the encounters with law abiding CCWers. There will always be dipsh1ts on both sides, unfortunately it is unavoidable.

mistaforty · Aug 7, 2014

Maestro Pistolero said:
....
Armed, law-abiding citizens are LE's natural ally, ....

Lol I read that AALLL wrong. Glad I double checked it

kcbrown · Aug 7, 2014

mpdc4511 said:
Also I respect your opinion and as I've said if the courts say it, I can't disagree. I just know my co workers and a lot are going to need training on how to deal with honest citizens with guns.

I don't doubt you at all on this, which is why I'm quite sympathetic to your point of view.

Nevertheless, if the citizenry will be in greater danger by continuing to go unarmed against the criminal element than it will be by going armed (and dealing with the occasional LEO who doesn't yet understand that not all gun-carrying citizens are criminals), then it follows that, even though you're right about training, the citizenry should be able to start carrying immediately, i.e. there should be no stay put into place.

I don't see how you can argue against that logic, frankly, but I'm willing to hear any arguments against it, since the whole point of rational discourse is to arrive at the most correct conclusions.

StantonCree · Aug 7, 2014

kcbrown said:
I don't doubt you at all on this, which is why I'm quite sympathetic to your point of view.

Nevertheless, if the citizenry will be in greater danger by continuing to go unarmed against the criminal element than it will be by going armed (and dealing with the occasional LEO who doesn't yet understand that not all gun-carrying citizens are criminals), then it follows that, even though you're right about training, the citizenry should be able to start carrying immediately, i.e. there should be no stay put into place.

I don't see how you can argue against that logic, frankly, but I'm willing to hear any arguments against it, since the whole point of rational discourse is to arrive at the most correct conclusions.

Again bro, I can't disagree with these arguments. I can't say that I am 100% right and you all are wrong in either A) your legality or B) your rationale.

As stated I'm not worried about cops killing a bunch of citizens or vice versa. It's about the roll out, the attitude towards firearms/community, and the interactions. I would prefer training because I know how we are trained towards firearms and it isn't, "Hey sir nice 1911!!" (Here come the broken record get over it crowd). I've also stated that I want this to be a super positive roll out and thats the main reason for my training comments.

I want members of my agency to see that not all gun toters are bad (although I' publicly state half of this forum IMHO is way to moronic to carry let alone own guns) and that 90% of them are just people that want to protect themselves (your argument above doesn't count because we are sort of in agreeance but going different directions with our reasoning).

BTW after reading it what I wrote let me clarify that I don't mean "doesn't count" in a manner as stupid or anything I'm saying my reasonings are from a differnt perspective of the actual roll-out and police/citizen interactions

Inigoes · Aug 7, 2014

mpdc4511 said:
I want this to be a super positive roll out

We all can agree to that.

The constraints will be the usual: time and money.

ryan_j · Aug 7, 2014

mpdc4511 said:
I want members of my agency to see that not all gun toters are bad (although I' publicly state half of this forum IMHO is way to moronic to carry let alone own guns)

Whoa dude. That was way uncalled for.

Stop the damn "us vs them" mentality already.

PO2012 · Aug 7, 2014

mpdc4511 said:
I just know my co workers and a lot are going to need training on how to deal with honest citizens with guns.

The answer to this conundrum is simple: treat them like any other honest citizen. There is absolutely no reason why routine encounters with armed members of the public should present a problem for the Officer on the street. If you don't have a reasonable articulable suspicion that criminal activity is a foot or probable cause to arrest then either attempt to engage the individual in a consensual encounter or resume patrol and keep it moving. Any Police agency training its personnel in accordance with established standards should not have this much difficulty adapting to something that 95% of America adapted to years, or even decades, ago. If making this type of transition is exceedingly difficult for the agency then the agency has serious internal defects that no one year period of re-training can address.

I can tell you from experience that once Officers start getting fired or indicted for doing things the old fashioned way the culture of the agency comes into line with the new reality quick, fast and in a hurry. I've seen it first hand.

VICTORY IN PALMER!!!!

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Active Member

Super Genius

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Watch your beer

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Banana'd

MSI, NRA, & SAF Member

In a State of Bliss

Ultimate Member

Banana'd

Watch your beer

Ultimate Member

Member

Super Genius

Watch your beer

Head'n for the hills

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics