DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Growing number of police chiefs, sheriffs join call to arms

Well, these guys seem to get it.

Fox

It's Florida Sheriff Grady Judd's duty to protect the citizens of Polk County -- but he figures it's their job, too.

One of a growing number of rural and big-city law enforcement officials who openly encourages responsible gun ownership, Judd believes guns allow citizens to defend themselves when police cannot.
“If you are foolish enough to break into someone’s home, you can expect to be shot in Polk County,” Judd said in a statement after a homeowner shot a would-be home invader earlier this month. “It’s more important to have a gun in your hand than a cop on the phone."
Such full-throated embrace of the Second Amendment as a crime-fighting tool isn't confined to red states like Florida.

“I want as many law-abiding citizens to arm themselves in this county as we can get."

- Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke
One California police chief is backing teachers in his district packing heat. Detroit Police Chief James Craig has been a leader in urging his community to arm itself. A Maryland sheriff is working with the state’s general assembly to try to make it easier for citizens to obtain handgun permits.

In the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence’s most recent ranking of states with the strongest gun laws, California (1), Maryland (4) and Michigan (15) ranked near the top of the pack.

Some gun rights advocates say terror attacks at home and abroad have contributed to a change in attitudes about gun ownership among community members and authorities, even in locales historically hostile towards the Second Amendment.

“That has helped play into it, and there’s no doubt the active shooter scenario has, too,” said Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation. “You’re seeing people say, ‘How do you respond?’”

Garvin County Sheriff Larry Rhodes announced his office would waive all sheriff’s fees ties to getting a gun license. (Oklahoma Sheriffs’ Association)
The answer varies based on where you live, and how your law enforcement leaders are selected.

Police chiefs are typically appointed by mayors, and their politics tend to line up with whoever chose them. Sheriffs, in contrast, are voted into office and in some cases espouse values of a constituency that is growing ever-more pro-gun.

“Historically, sheriffs have been very pro-gun rights,” Gottlieb told FoxNews.com. “But they’ve stepped out of the box and they’re now publicly making it known that firearms are good for self-defense.”

In Oklahoma, Garvin County Sheriff Larry Rhodes and Creek County Sheriff John Davis have each recently reduced costs associated with getting a gun license. Davis is also keeping administrative offices open longer on weekends to allow more people to apply.

“As a result of the ever-increasing violence being committed upon the American citizen and the current state of our country, I encourage each citizen of Creek County who is legally able to fully utilize their Second Amendment right ‘to keep and bear arms,’ as legally prescribed by the Oklahoma Defense Act,” Davis said in a statement.

Rhodes said his plan made simple fiscal sense.

Marion County Sheriff Chris Blair, who has said, “If you are certified to carry a gun, I would like to encourage you to do so.” (Marion County Sheriff’s Office)
“The benefits of people getting their license, carrying lawfully, certainly outweigh the money I would lose,” he told KFOR.

In Florida, several sheriffs are playing the role of pitchman for an armed populace.

Brevard County Sheriff Wayne Ivey has told citizens they must be “that first line of defense,” according to Florida Today. Marion County Sheriff Chris Blair told the Tampa Tribune, “If you are certified to carry a gun, I would like to encourage you to do so.”

In Wisconsin, Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke is one of the more visible pro-gun faces.

“I want as many law-abiding citizens to arm themselves in this county as we can get so that I have the partner that I need to beat back this sort of violence,” Clarke said during an interview on “Hannity” last week.

The attitude of sheriffs like Clarke and Judd is, at least in-part, a response to the attitudes of the people they serve.

“There’s no doubt at this point it’s consumer-driven to a large extent,” Gottlieb said. “Because they’re elected, they have to make their constituents happy. We’ve seen a record number of firearms sold. And people come in to get permits to carry, and you want to be customer-service friendly, and you want to make it easier – or you might not get re-elected.”

The number of concealed handgun permits soared from 4.6 million in 2007 to 12.8 million in 2015, according to the Crime Prevention Research Center. Those numbers match an evolution in the general public’s attitude toward guns. Just 35 percent of respondents in an August 2000 Gallup poll said they felt safer with a gun in the house. That rose to 42 percent in 2004, 47 percent in 2006 and 63 percent in 2014.

“There is momentum in the country for expanding the right to carry,” New York University Law Professor James Jacobs told FoxNews.com. “But the people who are leading the charge on gun control, they say momentum is changing in their direction. There seems to be a real disconnect here in terms of peoples’ perceptions of what the trends are.”

That uncertainty of the public’s attitude could be the reason for the mixed messages emanating from some police chiefs in big cities.

Washington D.C. Chief of Police Cathy Lanier made a seemingly pro-Second Amendment statement when she was interviewed by “60 Minutes” in November on the topic of what citizens can do during mass shootings.

“If you’re in a position to try and take the gunman down, to take the gunman out, it’s the best option for saving lives before police can get there,” she said.

Still, at the time of the interview Lanier had approved just 48 concealed carry licenses during a year’s span and had rejected about 80 percent of all applicants.

But Fordham law professor Nicholas Johnson views Lanier’s changing rhetoric as potentially significant.

“This is a policy question that has lots of other players involved,” Johnson told FoxNews.com. “You would suspect that what police chiefs say has to some degree been vetted by their political superiors.

"I don’t think this is a signal of an immediate sea change among big city politicos," Johnson added, "but I think it’s promising in terms of the recognition of the realities people are now coming to terms with.”
Fox

Well kick some poo and call it TRUE! We got us a rootin' tootin' gun country!

Neanderthals... with guns.

Well at least those 'neanderthals' will be the ones on your side if someone like the Bonnie & Clyde Jazeera couple come into your Christmas party.

Or much more likely another gun nut American with mental health problems.

Did you miss this part?



I have guns. I don't go around shooting people. I have them for sport and to protect my house.

The gun haters want us honest citizens to give-up our guns while knowing that the criminals will ALWAYS find ways to get guns.

Not a chance!

well ,i had guns too.

i'm not a gun hater. but the fact of the matter is there are too many idiot gun owners for people to just ignore the issue.

I agree w/that part, but I ain't giving up my guns!

Do you seriously think that anyone that wants to protect and use their right to keep and bear arms are neanderthals...that there are no intelligent people on that side of the fence?

My experience has been that those gun owners who become trained, obey the law and defend the right to bear arms are the individuals I would choose to have assist me if protection was necessary.

These are some of the most intelligent and respectful people I know.

Having recently become a gun owner and currently becoming trained, I can say that there are some cool folks out there who "cling to their guns and religion".

I choose them any day! Who cares if another considers them "neanderthal"? Not me.

Sorry man but even the idiots have the right to own them till well they dont have that right....I havent saw one thing suggested by the anti's that would stop gun violence.

Ignore the issues is right...no further comment needed there is there

i never said give up your guns.

parents who don't lock up their weapons in the house, and end up having the kid purposefully or accidentally shooting themselves or someone else shouldn't be allowed to own guns.

waving your rights in a crowded airport with your rifle? you shouldn't be able to have them.

getting drunk and pissed off, then start waving your gun around and firing rounds in the air to the point the cops have to come out there, you shouldn't be allowed to have them.

mistaking your kid for an intruder because you didn't identify the target first, you shouldn't be allowed to have them.

firing off round at an intruder, but you don't hit said intruder but a round hits some little girl across the street or your own family in the house, shouldn't be able to have them.


as i said before, i don't have a problem with guns, but i'm not for irresponsible gun ownership.

you guys talking about root problems? he's a root problem you guys fail to acknowledge:

mentally, there's a percentage of gun owners who buy guns because it makes them feel powerful and strong. they feel weak and helpless without it. the power of holding somebody's life in their hands because they own a gun is something some people crave.

power.

so like i said plenty of times in different threads, i don't have a problem with guns. but i'm not for irresponsible gun owners.

That reminds me of a Simpsons episode years ago:

Homer: "I'll take this gun"

Gun dealer: "OK. After the 5 day waiting period, it's yours"

Homer: "But I'm mad NOW!"

yep. and that happens, not as often as other stuff but that kinda thing does happen.

go buy a gun and shoot your ex wife or girlfriend. go "postal" at work cause you just got fired.

i don't even know how to crack down on that, to be honest.

and thats why i say "everybody is a law-abiding citizen, until all of a sudden they aren't".

everybody keeps screaming "law-abiding!!! law abiding".

well your law abiding buddies are screwing up it for you. they followed the law up until they purchased the gun, then decided they wanted to excercise that new found power they just purchased.

This might sound crazy, but how about we punish those that break the law instead of everyone else that is not breaking the law?

No. I'm actually in favor of gun ownership. I also think some common sense restrictions should apply. However, I think anyone in a position of authority who encourages gun ownership to shoot bad guys is a TWIT! NUTCASE! IMBECILE! And anyone who listens to that rhetoric and approves is most likely a non-thinking Neanderthal.

Guns should be legal to own and that should NEVER change. I do support bans on automatic weapons and assault rifles, but even think that these should be held in publicly accessible weapon stores that are under the control of state national guard.

I think common everyday people should have the right to purchase hand guns, shot guns and "hunting" rifles. I think there should be a thorough background check prior to all purchases and it should include checks for mental issues.

I also think there should be very stiff penalties for getting caught with stolen guns, non-registered guns or throwaways.

If we are at a party together and terrorists come in shooting, I will use you as a shield while I return fire and save myself.

Why would you invite terrorists to your party?

Come on now. 40 only hangs out with "white China" as he so said during the summer. Don't be ridiculous, cfrs.

I agree with stringent background checks that include a mental health checkup. I agree with mandatory annual training sessions on gun handling and gun safety. I agree with mandatory gun locks in houses with children(much like a car seat for driving).

I don't agree with automatic rifle or assault rifle bans because the founders of our country clearly intended and meant for our civilians to own military grade weapons. In fact back then private citizens often had better weapons than the military issued ones.

With the UN hell bent on taking US citizen's gun rights away I want all of america well armed so we can tell them to shove it.

State Milita groups tend to be some of the most poorly trained throughout history.

Sorry dude.....not.


You don't have a weapon? If not, you will soon enough.

State Militia's fought the British and bought this great Nation for you to throw away on Socialists.

I still wanna know how you guys who want to take our guns away really believe that REAL CRIMINALS won't be able to get guns if honest citizens can't get them legally? And then I wanna know how this country will be safer as a result of taking guns away from honest folks while the criminals still have guns?

You guys are freaking clueless!

The criminals will get their guns from the Federal Government when they run their next "Fast and Clueless" campaign.

not?

tell the board , Peen, who's been responsible for the most mass shootings in this country since...forever, even recently.

Foreigners? or our own Americans?

this isn't the 1700's.

Well, Diehard brought up an excellent point in another post that people didn't answer for some reason.

if you guys are so responsible, why are their so many criminals with guns already?

what measures have responsible gun owners done to make sure guns don't end up in the hands of criminals?

That is a dumb ass argument. It isn't my job to make sure criminals don't have guns.

I still want your big mouth to answer how is this country safer by taking guns away from honest citizens? And........do you really freaking believe that criminals won't be able to get guns if new gun laws are passed?

It amazes me how clueless you guys are.

you're putting words in my mouth and calling it fact.

it's not a dumb argument, it's an argument you clearly didn't answer though.

how many times am i going to say i'm not for irresponsible gun ownership?

i've owned guns. i don't have a problem with the 2nd amendment. i have a problem with irresponsible gun ownership, and i've said over and over the criteria i would start taking peoples rights to own weapons.

everybody is a law abiding citizen....until they aren't.

We gun owners have allowed our Government to make laws restricting guns from the hands of criminals.
Problem is that our Government is run by Democrats who will not enforce those laws on the criminals who tend to vote Democrat.

this problem goes way beyond republican/democrat.

last i checked, murders still happen regardless of the party in charge.

stop spinning and deflecting.

I asked the question first, in case your pot-infested mind can't recall it. I will try it again:

Do you really believe that criminals won't be able to get guns if the gun laws are changed so that honest citizens can't get guns? And, if you agree that is the case...............what happens to us honest citizens then?

Answer the freaking questions!

And I wanna add this, Swish. I don't have a ton of guns. I have a shotgun, a 30-06, a 22, and a 45 caliber pistol. I also own several knives.

That's it.

I am not a gun enthusiast, but no one is coming in and taking mine w/out a fight. Not sure why you don't get that.

yes. i do.

Australia is he perfect example. they took all the guns. surprise surprise, the homicide/suicide rate dropped.


look, even european countries even now and then have a gun violence issue. but it's happens so seldom that in Germany when somebody gets shot, no matter which state it happened in, it makes national German news.

you're basically implying that if we can't stop 100% of gun violence, then we shouldn't bother restricting guns.

which is a logical fallacy, because you take precaution in almost everything you do in life, eve though there's no guarantee that you won't die.

preventive measures. you can't guarantee that somebody won't break into your house, but you lock your doors anyway.

you can't guarantee you won't get into a car wreck, but you make sure your tires have enough tread and follow the driving regulations to lower your chances.

i answered the question. you just don't like the response.


again, i'm for the 2nd amendment, but when you guys start arguing not to take any preventive measures is absurd.

i owned guns.

i don't care what you owned, it has no bearing on my opinion.

Okay, I can go with that. The problem is, that's not enforceable until AFTER something happens.

Airports are already illegal to carry in, aren't they? Well, I was under that impression, anyway. Even if not illegal, the act of waving your gun around will get you arrested - in an airport, OR on the street where open carry is legal.


Agreed. Problem is, you can't just assume someone is going to do that. In other words, it's hardly preventable.

Again, that's only after the fact. If it happens, generally it's a felony, and consequently the guns would be removed from the home. But like I said, that can only happen after an incident occurs.

Agreed,for the most part. Again, that is not preventable the first time. Also, anytime a shot is fired, the shooter is held responsible. Unless it's a drive by shooting and the shooter can't be found. See, firing and missing your target but hitting an innocent person, or home, or vehicle is already illegal and the shooter will be charged.


I'm not for irresponsible gun ownership either. I don't think anyone is. But really, none of the concerns you have are preventable for a first time offense.[/quote]

you guys talking about root problems? he's a root problem you guys fail to acknowledge:

mentally, there's a percentage of gun owners who buy guns because it makes them feel powerful and strong. they feel weak and helpless without it. the power of holding somebody's life in their hands because they own a gun is something some people crave. [/quote]

Yes. What is the limit to "mental reasons for not owning a gun"? Can John's guns be taken because his wife is taking mood altering drug? Is xanax cause?

What if the husband suffers from depression but has it under control with prescribed med's? Should the wife lose her gun/s?

What if Joe's wife suffers from ptsd due to a rape? What if she's getting mental counseling to help her? Is that reason for guns to be removed from a home?

http://wgntv.com/2015/06/04/georgia-man-legally-carries-ar-15-rifle-into-airport/

i dunno why that's even legal. in the airport.

as far as disqualifying factors, thats where the discuss becomes fun. thats where years of data, studies, etc can help determine that.

if you're taking anti-depressants, you should be monitored, but allowed.

however, if your mental health landed you into being admitted into a pysch ward, then no.

but those are my basic opinions on the matter. we can dwell deep.

but atleast you are willing to have the discussion, instead of going "well since we have to determine all this, we might as well do nothing about it".

i hate the cop out arguments. thanks for dialoging bro.

Again, maybe I'm ignorant, but I am under the impression that if you are forced - FORCED - into an in patient treatment facility due to your mental health (by a court, a judge, or by medical professionals) then you aren't allowed to have a gun. Just my understanding of the laws.



My main concern is I don't see how any of the laws are or will stop the bad guys any more effectively than what we currently have. Deeper background checks? Okay I guess.