The Law Enforcement Officer Thread

What are the gun laws there?

Not sure about the rest of the state, but NYC itself it's pretty much soup gun nazi time. "No! No gun for you!"

(Okay, exaggerated a bit. But only "a bit". )

Honestly, as law enforcers, aren't you happy that people around you don't carry guns, and that, in fact, as soon as someone pulls a gun, you're pretty sure they're a criminal?

Not really:

1) Bad guys are going to get guns no matter what. Make them hard to get and there is no incentive for them to stay in low caliber with basic hollow points that will stay in the body. There is a tendancy for criminals to go for more intense rounds or high powered weapons because if you're going to break the law, go big or go home.

2) The last thing any officer anywhere wants is to be in a situation where they have a perp pull a gun. That means not only have they lost control of a situation, someone will die. And no matter of training ever makes it 100% gaurenteed that the good guy will be left standing.

Then you agree with me;

1) The bad guys will always have guns*

2) If someone pulling a gun will result in an automatic death, aren't you happy that good guys don't have guns to pull, so you never have to kill them?

What is the official stance of the NYPD themselves on that situation? Are they in favour of changing the Status Quo, or are they happy with it as it is?

No, most people with carry permits take the responsibility extremely seriously. If it's about flat-out gun ownership, which is the issue I was talking about, not carry, then guns still won't be out in the open, they will be in peoples homes and not in the street, as carrying without a permit is illegal.

What happens if you're arrested at a protest, carrying a concealed gun, with a Concealed Carry permit?

If you've got a CCP and you are meeting the requirements of the law, and any other legal restrictions (for instance, in Colorado, a business can disallow the carrying of weapons on the premises, even with a CCP. If you carry into that establishment, even with a CCP, you're breaking the law.) then you're legal. You can probably expect some pointed questions about why you felt the need to carry a gun to a protest, though.

If you show that gun, though, you're no longer Concealed Carrying. You're either Open Carrying (which is different and is not covered by a CCP, nor allowed in many states that do allow concealed carry) or you're "brandishing", which is always illegal. Then you're in deep shit. Plus there will be pointed questions about why you felt the need to take a gun to a protest.

edited 26th Oct '12 10:12:21 AM by Madrugada

Not to derail the conversation, but I thought the whole point of that amendment was to protect citizens from tyranny? "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" Perhaps a citizen wants to protect themselves from unlawful violence (whether from other protesters, criminal opportunists, or, worst case scenario, the police themselves)? Also, I don't get the logic of allowing concealed carry but not open carry...

So, on the whole, normally, would police prefer that everyone have a gun at home, and that, if you have proven you could use it responsibly, you carry one on your person? I'm asking in terms both of convenience and security for the cops themselves, on one hand, and for that of the rest of the citizens. Ideally, they would be the same, but I'm sure there's some times where they might conflict, even in a virtuous state.

Being arrested while conceal carrying with a permit does not change the charges for better or worse, so long as you did not do anything threatening with the gun, and it's mandatory in some states to inform officers that you are carrying, and considered a professional courtesy to do so in all the others.

Let's put it this way, on average, a concealed carry user trends towards being a responsible, normal citizen. Thus it's usually a non-issue, because the type of interactions with the police that CCW holders tend to have are things like traffic stops where it doesn't really need to be brought up, and if it is, it is not a big deal.

Now anything that you could get arrested for, can make things a little hairy. It's just that CCW holders tend not to get arrested. It's just a trend I guess. CCW holders know that if they get arrested, they will most likely lose their carry permit, so they tend to behave themselves and act amicably towards the police, or at least orderly.

Now talking about being at protests and using a CCW carried weapon against the police is a whole other can of worms, where you're almost talking about terms for a civil war if it happens. But the result isn't any different than if a protestor without a permit stuck a gun in his waistband and used it against police forces, so the carry part isn't really a legitimate concern.

That internal opinion varies widely with cops though, based on their overall trust with the populace at large.

It's Domestics and substance abuse issues that are the most violent and unpredictable, and those are also situations where a carry permit is irrelevant. You have free reign for carrying a firearm while in your own home, openly or concealed, without a permit.

edited 26th Oct '12 10:39:58 AM by Barkey

Telling the cop you're carrying is the sane thing to do, too; the last thing you need is for a law enforcement officer to notice you're carrying a weapon when you should have told them. Especially if it looks to them like you might be going for it.

Cops get shot at. They are understandably just a little jumpy about the prospect.

edited 26th Oct '12 10:39:29 AM by Morven

I think I'm beginning to get it now.

Overall, what big cities have the best police departments, in terms of behavior, due process, etc? And how does that correlate with criminality?

Actually Handle, I am in complete disagreement with you. I firmly believ cops should have guns because if anyone is getting killed, I rather it be the dumbass who pulled a gun on an officer. You pull a gun on a cop you deserve to die. That simple.

In my dad's 25+ year career when he was on patrol he only had to pull his gun a few times. He never fired as a patrolman. Now when he was on SWAT, that's different. My dad carried both a shotgun and sometimes the submachine gun depending on his place in line. In SWAT as on patrol it was not uncommon for my dad to have 3-5 handguns on him at anytime.

My dad was very good at getting people to calm down for the most part. Or at least surrender. But I also knew that bullet proof vest he wore or the full body armor from SWAT wasn't for nothing. I was glad my dad had access to his guns so if anyone was stupid enough to shoot at him, that he had at least a fair chance of fighting back.

I am a bit worried about the tendency these days for smaller and smaller police departments to get SWAT teams and then look for excuses to use them (& thus justify their existence). Also, the use of them for less serious issues, such as serving warrants where there is not enough cause to believe that the suspect will resist with deadly force. The more police go in with that assumption, the more likely it is that someone gets hurt.

I don't remember ever saying the opposite of that, so please make sure you read what I say before saying that you disagree. I think even the law enforcers here would object to the notion that you "deserve" to die, though. It's not a matter of retribution, but one of necessary precaution and deterrence, if the police are to perform their functions at all.

As for your dad, sure, being a SWAT operative entails at least that level of preparedness. I fail to see how this is relevant to the discussion, though.

My dad was on Little Rock SWAT, but they would go anywhere in the county if needed. Such as assisting the Sherrif's Office with meth labs. It makes sense.

However I see your concern mirrored in Conway SWAT. They have broken the 3 year patrol rule several times. There isn't a real need for them at all. Little Rock SWAT doubled as the bomb squad. Conway has their own robot, as well as other frivilous, expensive things.

But then again, Conway as a whole isn't known for it's honor.

edited 26th Oct '12 11:25:54 AM by Gabrael

Meth labs, I'd totally support using SWAT on; that's a dangerous situation, and I know well how meth makes people. It's things like sending SWAT to do a 5am no-knock raid on a suspected small-time pot dealer who lives in a family with little kids, just out of fear he'll flush the pot. That's incurring big-time risk for a small-time crime and a very low level danger to the cops. Not many pot dealers are going to shoot at the police.

Worse when the only reason to suspect is a tip from an informant who's only an informant to skate from his own dealing bust; those tips are not reliable in the least.

And every time armed men in black bust into a house at 5am unannounced, there's a chance that someone, sleepy and confused, will honestly think the cops are criminals and pull out a gun for self-defense, and get killed, and maybe shoot a cop by mistake.

Heh, I always laugh at the contrast with LAPD. LA doesn't use it's SWAT for anything small time, they figure their officers are well trained enough to where things that other places would call SWAT for, 4-5 LAPD patrolmen go in instead.

Occasionally that doesn't strike true, but more often than not LA just makes use of its patrolmen.

edited 26th Oct '12 11:59:10 AM by Barkey

like this?

Meth labs needed SWAT mainly because of their explosives training. We also used them as advisers with homemade stills too. People around here are stupid. Hell, my area popularized the shake and bake method.

Yeah, basically that kinda thing. Small-time pot busts

Hmm. For who has the best police department? That is a good question.

The Met, HKPD, or NYPD realistically.

Though there's so many factors to measure as to render any comparison meaningless.

In regards to behaviour and treatment I would knock NYPD off that list. I forgot to include the behaviour and attitude qualifiers the original question had. Size and funding isn't everything.

HKPD?!

And is The Met the London Metropolitan Police? Don't they... emphatically not use guns*

edited 27th Oct '12 2:41:22 AM by TheHandle

How does that disqualify them, though? Simply different countries have different standards, and different crime patterns.