Over the last 4 years, I have read your blog almost every day! As a committed “prepper”, most of the advice found herein is good to excellent. Likewise the recent comment by a public safety officer regarding his concern that he not be lumped into a category of untrustworthy “guvmint” agents. My professional work as a physician and my recreational pursuit of shooting activities put me into contact with many, many local policemen, sheriff’s deputies and even Federal agents, e.g., FBI and ATF. In my opinion, based on conversations with these folks, most are good guys who are true patriots and on our side, at least here in south Georgia. This is especially true of local law enforcement officials. As part of my plan to espouse disaster preparedness as an important mainstream function of a mature adult, I try to associate with LE folks, including the Feds, as often as possible. Do I feel that they are taking notes and planning to hunt me down in the event of an overarching socioeconomic meltdown and the ensuing chaos? Absolutely not! When things go south, it would be most beneficial to have these folks on my side. And by presenting them with sane, sober and intelligent strategies for disaster preparation, I believe that they perceive our efforts as both socially wholesome and vital to public safety. - RangerDoc
I wanted to write concerning the letter: "Many Police and Firefighters are the Good Guys."
First I want to agree with the premise of the title of the letter. However, that is about where it ends. I am ex-military and ex-law enforcement myself. I have friends and family that are, or were, police, fire, EMS, and military. I have not yet been able to find a truly honest LEO who proclaims that they would not "confiscate" firearms, or refuse to enforce some draconian legislative measure when it comes to guns (similar to what this letter is presenting), who I did not ultimately prove were hypocritical in their claims.
We must first examine these new proclamations and "oaths" LEOs are making (publicly and privately), indicating that they will not personally abide by, nor enforce, any new anti-gun legislation, nor will they confiscate guns from citizens. Personally, if they hold true to this claim, they are to be commended, because they will be upholding Constitutional law. It is likely that any new anti-gun laws not adhered to by citizens will be considered felonies. Therefore, any law enforcement officer who knowingly allows a person to keep their "restricted" guns, is allowing a felon (possibly uncharged, yet to be convicted) to posses a firearm.
Now ask that same officer if they have ever taken a gun away from a convicted felon. If they answer is yes, then how are we to believe that this same officer will suddenly not seize weapons from new felons? Am I making a big leap here? Maybe. What if a less than honorable LEO does enforce new anti-gun laws, seizes weapons, makes arrests which result in convictions, and now those new felons (only felons because they refused to give up their "assault" weapons) are stopped by the self-proclaimed honorable LEO in possession of guns, what is he to do now?
I ask every active law enforcement official to answer these few simple questions before you start making such bold proclamations:
Why are you suddenly so willing to not enforce any new anti-gun legislation, but more than willing to enforce the previous draconian anti-gun legislation? Why are they not one in the same?
If you are willing to admit one anti-gun law to be unconstitutional (draconian, anti-American, or whatever you want to call it), then you must be willing to admit that all existing anti-gun laws are unconstitutional, right? If not, you are a hypocrite.
If any new anti-gun law requires that the public registers their "assault" weapons under NFA or GCA rules (old or revised), and you are unwilling to enforce these new measures, then are you also willing to not enforce any NFA or GCA gun laws? If not, you are a hypocrite.
Until the Gun Control Act (1968), convicted felons retained their God Given Natural Born Right to keep and bear arms. How exactly did felons change from October 21, 1968 to October 22, 1968 to somehow deserve to have their inalienable Rights stripped from them? Remember, it is this exact legislative removal of an inalienable Right that you have been willing enforce without question. Are you a hypocrite?
You have been hearing "anti law enforcement sentiment" because of the dichotomy of these new statements of intent versus LEOs verifiable past actions opposing these new claims of intent. If LEOs cannot reconcile these differences, how are they ever going to reconcile who's guns to take, and who's they do not? On the day that any new anti-gun legislation is signed by any president, there will be millions of instant (yet to be convicted) felons, and if you are prone to taking weapons from felons, you are going to hear far more than just some simple "anti law enforcement sentiment[s]," you are likely going to hear inbound gunfire. - S.M.