FREE e-Newsletter
Important News - Hot Topics
Get them Now!

Tactical Pants - Galls
A popular choice for public safety professionals, the Galls Tactical Pants are...

Top News

Law Enforcement Divided On Assault Weapons Ban

January 31, 2013  | 

Photo via Sen. Feinstein's website.
Photo via Sen. Feinstein's website.

Several law enforcement groups and leaders of mostly urban agencies have endorsed U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein's Assault Weapons Ban of 2013, and have claimed that regulation of these firearms will enhance public and officer safety.

The bill has created a rift in American law enforcement with many urban chiefs supporting it and many more rural sheriffs opposing it. POLICE Magazine readers have been mostly opposed to such a measure.

Nearly 80% of respondents to a fall survey opposed restrictions on assault weapon ownership, and 21% agreed that tighter controls would enhance public safety.

On her website, Sen. Feinstein lists 13 public safety groups and individuals as endorsers of her bill that seeks to ban 157 specific semi-automatic firearms and magazines accepting more than 10 rounds. The bill takes aim at "military-style assault weapons" such as AR-15s.

Not surprisingly, the International Association of Chiefs of Police supports the bill. The group has historically backed gun control measures, according to a statement on the IACP website.

"Our membership was, and remains, a leading proponent of universal background checks for gun purchases, the ban on military style assault weapons, high capacity magazines, and ensuring that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) has both a permanent director and sufficient resources to enforce our nation's gun laws," according to the statement.

The assault weapons ban has also been endorsed by the Women in Federal Law Enforcement as an officer-safety measure, Catherine Sanz, the group's president, told POLICE Magazine.

"When you compare the assault weapon and its ammunition to the law enforcement officer's standard issue weapon and body armor, the law enforcement officer is at a severe disadvantage," said Sanz.

Patrol officers asked to engage a school shooter, for example, may be outgunned, Sanz said.

"While officers now train for some of these scenarios, they don't train to the same level as special response groups," Sanz added. "If the shooter is wearing body armor it becomes even more lethal as the shooter not only has the more lethal firepower, the law enforcement officer's weapon may not be able to stop the shooter."

On her website, Sen. Feinstein lists nine law enforcement groups that support the assault weapons ban, including the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement AdministratorsMajor Cities Chiefs Association, National Association of Women Law Enforcement ExecutivesPolice Executive Research Forum, and Police Foundation. Additionally, Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck, Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca, and San Diego Police Chief Bill Lansdowne have endorsed it. New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said the ban is "a move in the right direction" during an appearance on CBS' "Face the Nation" on Sunday.

"The sheriff supports it because he doesn't think that recreational hunters need a 50-round clip and AK-47 to shoot pheasant," Sheriff Baca's spokesman, Steve Whitmore, told POLICE Magazine. "He supports the assault weapons ban because he doesn't think those kind of weapons have any place in our modern society."

More than 90 sheriffs mostly in rural and urban counties sent a letter to President Obama opposing the ban and other gun-control measures and said they would not enforce unconstitutional gun control.

When Sen. Feinstein announced she had introduced the bill at a Jan. 24 press conference, several officers stood on risers behind her showing their support for the legislation.

The senator's office declined to identify the officers at the press conference, but Press Secretary Tom Mentzer said they represented six agencies including the Baltimore Police Department, Baltimore County Police Department, California State University Police Department, Metropolitan (D.C.) Police Department, Montgomery County (Md.) Police Department, and Prince George's County (Md.) Police Department.

By Paul Clinton


Video: Democrats Introduce Assault Weapons Ban

Comments (81)

Displaying 1 - 81 of 81

Rick Hochmann @ 1/31/2013 4:53 PM

I have been a peace officer since the 1970's, from NYC to Louisiana to finally Texas. Twenty years total. To me, anything that becomes a weapon to assault me is "an assault weapon". Ice pick, screwdriver, chain, metal pipe, broken glass bottles and lets not forget, automobiles.
Many rural officers respect Second Amendment Rights while urban officers do not. Just remember city Cops, you won't always be law enforcement and may want or need a semi-auto rifle for protection and will not be allowed to own one.
This is just politics anyway. The last "Ban" did NOTHING to reduce gun crime!!!
Ogre Sgt.,TX

Fil Waters @ 1/31/2013 4:58 PM

These groups are just another bunch of politicians wearing badges. We in law enforcement take an oath to defend the Constitution, not support ways to usurp it...oh, and Feinstein is an idiot.

Frank @ 1/31/2013 5:01 PM

Think LEO's! Your are sworn to up hold the Constitution of the United States not take it apart like the spineless politicians some of you elected. Do you recall the day you were sworn in?? It's not about AR15's. Its about Freedom, our freedom. Lets enforce the laws for a change and see who really is the culprit. The liberal judges, courts and no funds or time to prosecute according to the Obama Administration. If the State courts put an effort into enforcing gun laws years ago we would all be much better off today.

[email protected] @ 1/31/2013 5:04 PM

What a great group of polititicans calling themselves cops. All desk ridding sheep. Lets just impeach the whole lot of them from obumer on down. Fil, you said it. That Oath means a hell of alot to me and the folks I served with. Blues, stay safe.

Lt. Robert Tester @ 1/31/2013 5:07 PM

I agree with Rick Hochmann on this one. He has hit the nail on the head. I too have been assaulted with many different weapons and I don't hear any of these politicians pushing to ban tire irons or two by fours. Let's stand strong fellows for what will keep us safe on and off duty. NO BAN!!!

Frank @ 1/31/2013 5:11 PM

Have you noticed that every dam shooting even in some Jerkwater town, USA is now making the front page of the certain newspapers, National and Local news stations. Chicago television station of all cities is now spotlighting a mother who lost several family members to shootings. Chicago the city that would not allowed their citizen to have a license to carry. The city where Obama came from, I guess gun control didn't work there either except for the illegal guns on the streets.

ET @ 1/31/2013 5:14 PM

No big surprise here. It always seems to be the big city urban police department brass and those same organizations that would support this type of legislation. Yet ironically it's in these big urban cities where violent crime is the most rampant in the country. Look at Chicago, Los Angeles and Washington DC. These are cities which exhibit some of the most restrictive gun control laws, yet violent crime has not diminished because of them. No gun control scheme has ever stopped gang members from brandishing their AK-47s and Uzis at us (full automatic, mind you, which have already been banned to the general public, but that's another story).

Gun control advocates claim that officers would be "at a disadvantage" when faced with a shooter toting body armor and an assault rifle. No doubt. But when was the last time a responsible, law-abiding owner of "military-style" firearms shot up an elementary school, movie theater or liquor store? What makes these big urban police chiefs think that criminals will give up their machine guns, AKs, Mac-10s and other illegal weapons simply because of a few new laws have been passed that (supposedly) further restrict them from possessing/carrying them? It's ridiculous.

"Gun control" legislation as we know it does nothing to reduce violent crime or prevent shootings like in Newtown, CT or Columbine. It simply ties the hands of the law abiding citizens we are sworn to protect. REAL gun control should be about keeping guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them in the first place--the mentally ill and violent criminals like drug dealers, rapists, wife-beaters, bank robbers and gang members, etc. Let's clamp down on our borders, our ports and crack down on weapons smuggling and trafficking. Let's impose stiffer penalties on criminals who violate these laws, instead of penalizing law-abiding citizens who wish to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.

MarcK @ 1/31/2013 5:16 PM

The last "ban" increased gun violence. How about making sure bad guys go to jail and mental midgets get proper care? Most Chiefs are just politicians swinging with public favor to keep their jobs. They don't give a crap about what is right only what they think will keep them employed. Most stopped "upholding" the law and defending the constitution when they became administrators. These guys and politicians all live in a fantasy world and have no idea what goes on in the real world. Idiots.......

Rob @ 1/31/2013 5:17 PM

I realize that Lee Baca is a respected sheriff in S. California and may be a good one, but when he doesn't. Know the difference between a clip and a magazine, then I figure he's not much of a gun guy in the first place. Sen. Feinstein's inclusion of a clause to grandfather active and retired LE will only increase animosity toward cops if her legislation goes thru. When I was in Army basic in 1981, an M16 was just called a rifle, and I never heard a Nam vet referring to it as a assault rifle. Im not sure when the term got applied, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was invented by the left for polical purposes and stuck because it sounded cool (yeah, I know about the WWII German rifle).

MarcK @ 1/31/2013 5:19 PM

OH, and my apologies to the few good "brass" that exist as a dying breed. Political correctness and appeasing people has become the easy way out. Notice how VERY few admin will ever tell a citizen they are wrong when they complain on us. And Frank....Yep....take a look at Chitcago. They shoot people like an olympic sport and guns are banned, like in DC, NY and other places. Hmmm, oh yeah, because they know innocents can't defend themselves and have to wait the 5 to 10 minutes (on a good day) that we can get there to write the report for the victim. Makes me sick

greg @ 1/31/2013 5:33 PM

I remember Biden saying on youtube recently to a young man,that a shotgun was more deadly in home than an aw.He said it was harder to hit someone with an aw.He went on to say the % of deaths from an aw was very low.He said more people were killed with a Glock way more than an aw.I enjoy target shooting.I've loved shooting for a long time.Biden has me confused,lol.They are trying to ban aws,and he has mentioned 2 other firearms more deadly,than the aw according to him.Either he is using some reverse psychology,or he isn't helping himself.

Pete @ 1/31/2013 5:33 PM

If California, New York and D.C. want to ban these weapons, let them do their own states. Leave the rest of us out of it. They should focus more on enforcing the existing laws.

I can only imagine what a "50 round clip" would look like. How would you use that to load a 20-30 round magazine?

Tschako @ 1/31/2013 5:37 PM

The Law Enforcement community is not that divided. Sure the brass windbags who have to answer to the liberal polititians will cowtow and claim they support, but having spent most of my LE time in Los Angeles, I've met VERY few line officers who support this stupid ban.
Oh,by the way "Rob": Mr. Baca is not that respected.

B-Mo @ 1/31/2013 5:46 PM

The cops on the street that I know don't support this ridiculous bill that if passed will not make a dent on violent crime. Administrators and their organizations play to politics and not reality. The Southern States PBA does not take the position for gun control because they represent the real cops in the beat!

Robocop @ 1/31/2013 5:50 PM

I do not believe that LEOs are really all that divided on this issue. While it is true that many Chiefs are in agreement with Feinstein these Chief's are appointed to their position by the City who re mostly made up of liberals. They HAVE to support the gun ban publicly or they will lose their job. I am retired LEO and 95% of the Offices I know of are in support of reasonable use of the 2nd Amendment and the idea of the "Shall issue" laws. We have absolutely no problem with a citizen who is not mentally ill, or a "convicted" Felon or "convicted" of Domestic Abuse having a firearm. We do want those who elect to carry to learn how to shoot accurately.

Ktyhawk @ 1/31/2013 5:52 PM

How many Federal, State and local firearm laws are already on the books? Thousands of laws have been passed to regulate, ban, tax, etc firearms. So with so many laws already on the books, how can there still be gun violence? Simple answer is there are still human beings. Humans carry out evil acts with firearms. The guns themselves are simple tools. No tool can act on its own yet politicians feel the need to place more and more restrictions on them. How about taking a whack at the root problem here; the failed mental health system in this country. Do something to fix that and I bet you will find that the existing thousands of firearm laws will be all that are needed.

Until then Sen. Feinstein, stop trying to criminalize law abiding American citizens with your unnecessary new regulations and laws. Looks more like you are wanting to control the law abiding rather than inhibit the evil among us.

Chalk me up to one more LEO who wants nothing to do with additional laws.

Chuck @ 1/31/2013 5:53 PM

There comes a point in time where you have to put a stop to the bull$hit. that time has come (actually it has passed), these piece of crap politicians (monarchs, sychophants, self important idiots) have to be sent packing. it is time to stand up and stop re-electing the same freaking unAmerican traitors to the people and constitution, they get elected over and over simply because until someone is directly affected, they don't act or react. well guess what folks, is is now directly affecting / effecting all of us. politicians forcing their rule and dominance upon the common folk (serfs). isn't this exactly the reason our founding fathers left england, they were fed up with being lorded over and dominated by the dukes and dutchesses (congress and senate), they were tired of the king (president) forcing them to submit to their will. the time has come to stop letting the professional politicians bastardize our constitution. hold those that do evil and prey upon society accountable, punish the criminals, stop holding the law abiding sitizen hostage and stop sbusing those of us that do not violate the law. I have no problem with background checks, I have no problem making it harder for those that do not need to ever hold a firearm to never get hold of one, what I don't agree with is the fact that because some sycophant, thinks that because they don't like something they can impose their will upon me simply because.........

DEADMAN @ 1/31/2013 6:00 PM

I've known some politically correct chiefs that didn't even want their officers to go armed,they catered to the mayor,council persons,all useless politicians.All of the police organizations mentioned are politically inspired,motivated,it should be against the law to use the name police in the same titles these miscreants label themselves.They strike me as attaining their position by have no street creds,kissing ass on the way up the ladder,seriously subscribing to the Peter Principle,they can still do damage.One chief i know,spends alot of the depart money on expensive look good uniforms but he can't keep officers because he micro manages,doesn't pay them enough and comes up with some pretty outlandish rules,while he doesn't obey his own.He spends money on shooting,but not interaction with other department and no training that will actually keep you alive.He 's playing politics in his community ,looking for a secure job after he retires,he is very anal,alot of chiefs are but not all.

Diane @ 1/31/2013 6:02 PM

I am a law enforcement officer and have been for 32 years. The bans on weapons do not work. They will also not work this time. Your law abiding citizens will be the ones who suffer. This country is going in a scary direction which for some reason our media does not question. Please people, stop drinking the koolaid!

Chuck @ 1/31/2013 6:10 PM

Funny how the higher up the food chain you go, the more you want those under you to be unarmed. Also funny how the higher up you go, the more power you obtain, the less you care about the Constitution, upholding your oath and how much less you care about what those doing the actual work really want or don't want.

Chuck Haggard @ 1/31/2013 6:13 PM

Sheriff Baca needs to read the Constitution sometime, and the recent Heller decision and come to grips with the fact that the 2nd ammendment has NOTHING to do with hunting.

He also needs to fire his spokesman for the "50 round clip" comment. Anyone who uses clip when they mean magazine is automatically an idiot in my book.

Bob Syeruncle @ 1/31/2013 6:16 PM

I know retired Chiefs who were told what to support and could not agree with it. Note I said "retired" Chiefs. Standing up to political manipulation cost them their careers. Luckily they verse vested and old enough.

I pity the Chiefs with kids in school or with health problems who have years to go before vesting.

Dave S. @ 1/31/2013 6:25 PM

What was readily apparent to anyone looking at the presidential election results on a large map of the US, was that the strongest support came the large urban areas of New York, Chicago, Miami, Atlanta, and most of California, where we have the heaviest concentration of entitlement and welfare programs. It seems they wanted to keep the entitlements flowing and can now be counted on to go along with whatever agenda the golden goose prefers.
Now that Obama has been re-elected his number one priority is to solidify his power and force a socialist agenda on the entire country. But first he must get rid of those pesky guns. Throughout history, all socialist leaders have first disarmed the populace, in order to proceed unfettered in controlling every aspect of their daily lives. No armed resistance means the government can do pretty much anything they want. That’s why our founding fathers wrote the 2nd amendment into the bill of rights; to protect us from tyrants wearing the cloak of government. They said nothing about hunting or sporting being the only reasons to keep and bear arms. No mention of how many lead balls or pounds of gunpowder one could possess. No limits at all. None were necessary.
Americans are unique, in that we have constitutional rights that cannot be changed by mere politicians. We have an inalienable right to self- defense from all enemies foreign and domestic. We have the right to fight back and survive when confronted by people who wish us harm. New laws will not stop someone who is determined, by virtue of the fact they are criminals, from taking what they want from a defenseless individual, including their lives. No guns were used by the criminals who perpetrated 9/11, and murdered almost 3,000 Americans.

njmotorcop @ 1/31/2013 6:26 PM

"When you compare the assault weapon and its ammunition to the law enforcement officer's standard issue weapon and body armor, the law enforcement officer is at a severe disadvantage," said Sanz."

So she's all for banning anything more powerful than our sidearms???? I smell a political hack here!

TM109 @ 1/31/2013 6:26 PM

It's possible they agree with the ban but it's also very likely they are standing up there because the Lib mayors they work for told the to. I a lot of places Chiefs are appointed by Mayor, City Mgr, Council. Most Sheriffs are elected by the people..Most street guys will tell you these proposed bans are crap because criminals do what they do. Good guys with guns don't scare me. I don't think there is a "divide" in the LE community about this. At least not in my area.

Dave S. @ 1/31/2013 6:27 PM

Part 2
murdered almost 3,000 Americans.
The strong will always prey on the weak regardless of laws. Guns however, are the great equalizer. This is how someone who is frail and 80 years old, or a petite young woman, can defend themselves from a much younger, stronger attacker, and survive.
Our own government is trying to kill the 2nd amendment through a series of small seemingly inconsequential actions. First they want to place limits on who can own guns and what type of guns are permitted. Of course they rationalize this by saying it’s for the greater good, so everyone can be “safe”. Should a law abiding citizen object to this, they are quickly demonized as being some kind bloodthirsty nut. But the real bloodthirsty nuts are the criminals the government refuses to keep locked up, or the mentally disturbed they fail to institutionalize, which would actually make it safer for all of us. We wouldn’t want to infringe their rights to murder other Americans.

Should new laws be passed limiting gun ownership and requiring registration of all guns, then surrendering them is just around the corner. After all that is the end game. No resistance. We become subjects.
Read the history books. Find out what happens to subjects. It’s not pretty.
Stand up for America and don’t be fooled by those who want to take your freedoms away. Urge those in power to enforce the over 2,000 gun laws we already have; that will make us safer and keep our right of self- defense intact.

Marshall @5M_AG @ 1/31/2013 6:27 PM

The gun control issue is the first "nudge" as the Progressives speak of as "the method" to slowly force change; they start with a certain rifle, a certain number of rounds in a magazine, and then add more restrictions, year by year. My career experience is first military trained and then LE, followed by graduate school and currently in Behavioral Profiling_ my conclusion is obvious: the mentally ill commit massacres, governments that restrict citizen gun ownership destroy freedoms and leave law abiding citizens helpless ( e.g. history of Stallin, Mao, dictators of Syria, Libya and current day Mexico. Please check the July, 2012 addition in the US ARMY Manual on procedures for civil unrest with door to door searches for anyone's guns, including off duty LEO. ( FBI, NSA, CIA and DEA are excluded). During the past 4 years, prosecution for falsifying info on gun permits and of crimes committed with illegal guns have been 40% less. Many return to their crimes. It must be politically correct to excuse criminals who would assault LE with impunity? When I graduated from the Academy, few criminals dared to fire upon an officer doing a traffic stop. Now it seems as almost a daily event in our country.
Revisit the UN Arms proposition that mimics the printed 1962 US State Department proposal for Total World Disarmament that includes citizens right to bear arms. They allude to the methods for civilian disarmament; the first US effort to assist the Progressive agenda of George Soros's crafted One World order, one world currency and one world control by self-chosen UN leaders.

njmotorcop @ 1/31/2013 6:29 PM

Why is it that Comrade Feinstein's 9 LE groups are almost exclusivley populated by LE personnel who are hand picked by mostly left wing politicians?

njmotorcop @ 1/31/2013 6:32 PM

"Biden has me confused,lol.They are trying to ban aws,and he has mentioned 2 other firearms more deadly,than the aw according to him."

Its not Biden's fault. Its always hard to keep your story straight when you lie so frequently.

Kevin @ 1/31/2013 6:36 PM

Here is a crazy thought, just enforce the laws already on the books. There is no need to create any new GUN CONTROL laws....

JR Parker @ 1/31/2013 6:40 PM

Common Sense: On "Gun Control"

It is possible for well-meaning, conscientious, individuals to believe that the horrific events at Newtown, Connecticut in some way justify the banning or registration of semi-automatic firearms which bear a resemblance in appearance to military assault rifles (There is no such classification as "assault weapons.") and/or "high capacity" magazines. This is because they are either uninformed, misled or both.

I read the proposed legislation and while the media focus is on the evil "black rifle". What it says it ANY semi auto firearm that has a detachable magazine and a single military feature such as a pistol grip will be baned. This means that any semi-auto pistol with a detachable magazine would now become an "assault weapon" and having an "assault magazine" would make each and every one of you in LEO land a felon if you did not register your firearm. You could not sell trade or give them to a family member. When you pass, they are forfeit to the govt for destructions.

When I enlisted in the Military in 1975 as an MP I took an oath. When I started my carrier as a LEO I took an oath, and have taken that oath nearly every two years since then as we were sworn in by the new sheriff. I will support and defend. This is a bill of right not a bill of needs or wishes. I remember my oath aside from all the rest of the bs out there. Where I live if I called 911 it may be 2 to 45 minuets for help to arrive. I'm not giving up my self defense tool. I do not fear law-abiding citizens with firearms and the rest of the LEO's I know do not either. This is not about safety as we all know it is about an political agenda to dis-arm law abiding American citizens. We should all be worried about living in a country where only the government has guns… Now that is scary..

Herbert @ 1/31/2013 6:58 PM

I'm active law-enforcement, And I can assure you actual officer's are not devided on this issue. No one I work with suppports any of this legislation. As a matter of fact most of my co-workers feel as I do that the firearms "bans" already in effect such as the National Firearms act ban on any post 1986 select-fire weapon is unconstitutional, and should be repealed with of course heavy regulation and licensing necessary.

Those L/E organizations supporting this are no more then political figure heads, and top brass trying to jockey for their next federal gig.

johnny @ 1/31/2013 7:01 PM

Comrade Fienstein, Biden, Cuomo, & the Obamination administration should try cutting the bull and talk about the REAL source of these mass killings...violent movies / video games, and the most important - mental health & the prescription drugs that most if not all of the shooters were on. They're just blaming the guns so the globalists can disarm the people so their is no resistance as they push forword to unleash their one world bank & one world government. Wake up sheeple.

Lleonard Mather @ 1/31/2013 7:20 PM

Most people do NOT know the difference between an assault rifle and a semi-automatic "look alike" except for select fire. So long as a gun is designed to be "scary" (full auto select) while remaining a semi automatic, the disntinction is without a difference to the uninformed. The current barrage of copy cats, loonies and fools with access to weapons has successfully ensnared Police Departments and placed them in the untenable position of conveying knowledge to the uninformed. While doing that difficult task, they would come off as unfeeling and against what the uninformed FEEL that they know and are RIGHT about. It is almost akin to reasoning with a drunk. Their minds are made up. They are against "evil perpetrated with a gun," and logic or reasoning is destined to failure--according to these uninformed, well-meaning, decent citizens. It is a huge Chess Game with the Police Departments sucked into the Sargasso Sea.

Capt. Crunch @ 1/31/2013 7:23 PM

Maybe I'am, behind times but if Susan, Charlie ,Sam, Gena, Travis and others have an assault weapon in their home how is that going to protect our kids in school?

Jim @ 1/31/2013 7:37 PM

Just like the 1994 Clinton AWB, when it was put to a vote during the National (FOP) Fraternal Order of Police convention in Louisville, KY, so the NFOP could say they endorsed the ban.
The vote was barely over 50% with mostly larger agencies and urban agencies voting for the ban. Rural & smaller agencies voted against.

PAPAcop @ 1/31/2013 7:50 PM

I have been an Officer since 1982. I learned one important fact "WHEN SECONDS COUNT THE POLICE ARE ONLY MINUTES AWAY" There is no law anywhere, including the Constitution that guarantees the citizens protection from criminal by the Police. We are here to report and investigate and attempt to bring the perpetrators to justice.

Tom Ret @ 1/31/2013 8:04 PM

It will be the street officer, not the chief or even the sheriff, who determines if these laws, if enacted, are enforced or not. I predict that
a vast majority will not enforce something they believe is contrary to their 2nd amendment freedom no matter how the politicians spin it.

COL Herbert J Smith @ 1/31/2013 8:10 PM

No one seems to remember WHY our Founding Father's had the 2nd Amendment put into our Constitution. They were concerned about government tyranny; not criminal home invasion. It is mybelief we still need to protect ourselves from our government, should they become oppressive. This is why a National Registry Back Ground Check is a threat. Such a program lets the federal government know the owners of every weapon ("gun") in the United States. Guess what Russia, Germany (China?) did prior to confiscating every weapon in their country prior to demonstrating their power; resulting in total control of the country. History repeats itself. Those that do not know history, will pay (the same) price again. God Bless America. Watch the DVD, AGENDA, for more information.

DaveSam5525G @ 1/31/2013 8:46 PM

The locations say allot also urban vs rural - but even today urban may be in for a long wait - I would rather stand a chance and waiting then have OMI come pick me up not looking for trouble but if it happens to come my way I will defend myself...There used to be a time in schools where if somebody fought you first you could defend yourself...Now you will get suspended in most cases...It's seems today some want to win the popularity contest more than doing what's's also easier to blame and item then it is to blame the persons misuse...that's where the true focus needs to be!

Ron @ 1/31/2013 8:49 PM

I am a little confused if aw bans are to protect our children then it is a fact that they do not work the Clinton aw ban was in effect and did stop or prevent Columbine from happening also apparently Feinstein forgot the oath she took to protect and defend the Constitution the same one ALL LEO's take I remember mine from both the Military and when joining the force 27 years ago come on wake up people.

Doc @ 1/31/2013 9:50 PM

They also want to Tax guns and ammo out of reach, thats why they want certain guns to be listed as NFA, so they can make us pay $200.00 each, in order to keep them.
"Gun Free Zones" have Failed, just as gun control has Failed, but they want more.
We need to have our patrol rifles, so we can deal with criminals with armor and that also have rifles. Cocaine is not legal, but it is still all over the streets, making it illegal, will Not make it go away.
We need REGISTRATION of ALL Violent Criminals, and we can put that info on D/L & I.D. Cards, just like sex offenders are listed.
We also Need TERM LIMITS for the SENATE & CONGRESS, the longer they stay in office, the more Contempt that have towards the public.

Violent Criminals always seem to get a free pass, I have been injured and the charge got dismissed or reduced to almost nothing in each case, because of lazy Assistant D.A.'s and that is more than one office. We need a break, and the Violent Criminals need to Pay for Once!

Cpen @ 1/31/2013 10:37 PM

Has everyone in congress forgotten what the 2nd Amendment actually says, or did they ever bother to read it? It says NOTHING about owning firearms to go hunting, or to protect yourself from a bad guy at the supermarket.

The 2nd Amendment grants the right to keep and bear arms as a well regulated milita aimed to PROTECT the PEOPLE from a government who wanted to DISARM it's people.

Baning certain firearms will be just as effective as baning Marijuana and Coccain...ummm yeah. All they're really going to accomplish is taking firearms out of the responsible, law abiding citizens, all the while ignoring the fact that those who are bent on breaking laws could care less about what the law now states. This is simply my opinion, but I feel that firearms should be allowed in MORE places, not less. Imagine if someone had a concealed pistol in the Colorado theater, or if a teacher had one in Conn...those terrible tragedies probably would have had a different outcome, or at least a less deadly one. There are enough people out here that are willing to abide by the law, and who would be willing to step up and help out when needed...and honestly would that not make the rest of our jobs that much easier?

Morning Eagle @ 1/31/2013 10:40 PM

Very well said Dave S. and many others here that have already expressed my opinions. I will only add that this "news" confirms what I have long believed: In order to be appointed to a "high level police administration" (read - political) position one must first undergo a frontal lobotomy to remove all vestiges of common sense. How this witch could have been elected so many times in spite of her many anti-American viewpoints and digusting hypocrisy is beyond my poor vocabulary to express.

John @ 2/1/2013 12:02 AM

Anyone who is so chickenshit that they fear law abiding citizens being armed, should probably avoid security and law enforcement occupations. Maybe these individuals would be better suited filling tampon dispensers in restrooms.

Also, I'm tried of these brainless, socialist douche bags talking about 30, 50 & even 100 round magazines, when they want to ban all detachable magazines that would hold over 10 rounds. Of course, this capacity restriction would affect most pistols. I'm opposed to all new firearm bans/restrictions, but wouldn't the anti gunners come across as being more reasonable if they tried to restrict magazines that held more than 20 rounds.

Morning Eagle @ 2/1/2013 12:05 AM

WE ARE NOT ALONE: Go here and read this open letter opposing obama/feinstein attempted power grab by banning semi-auto firearms, etc., signed by 1100 Green Berets (active and retired, all ranks) and released to the media but of course it is getting little attention. It is well worth a few minutes to read. It is also posted on
Supreme Court Justice Story writes concerning the Second Amendment:
„The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

Fed Up Citizen @ 2/1/2013 12:52 AM

Those so called LEO's supporting a ban have forgotten their oath of office to support and defend the Constitution from all ememies both forgien and domestic. They are probably the same ones that confiscated guns from citizens during Katrina when the infrastructure failed.

416 Rigby @ 2/1/2013 1:00 AM

This article was almost a waste of space. Liberal groups and politicians want control.... the rest of us want freedom. I fear NOTHING from law abiding citizens. A dirtbag with a knife, bat or handgun is another matter. Chalk me up as one cop who thinks gun control is worse than useless; it just disarms honest people and does absolutely nothing to deter a criminal.

Ken Kraus @ 2/1/2013 4:43 AM

NOT ONE...and I DO MEAN NOT ONE... sworn officer in my department will take part in confiscating, or infringing upon any legal firearms from law abiding citizens that are authorized to own or possess such......we are ALL talking about it here and have taken an unofficial vote amongst ourselves.... 127-0.....
You think the administration in Washington is power happy and dictorial NOW....??? Just wait until it "unarms" the American citizenry..!! You won't have a need for voting places.....

tacsgt. @ 2/1/2013 5:14 AM

For those liberal thinking officers that would support a weapons ban, remember, you're only one rip away from being a civilian yourself. then what do you do?

Rob @ 2/1/2013 5:23 AM

The professional LE association I belong to announced they were not taking a position cause half the membership was pro and half was against the ban. I'm a little concerned that they are on the fence, but they don't represent street level cops. There are a couple of guys in my shop who seem to be in favor of restrictions toward civilians and registration for all, and ironically both are scrambling to find black rifles. LE and and the salt if the earth people need to stop using the term assault rifle or assault weapon. That was a Nazi term coined for a military rifle by a tyrant who wanted to strike fear in the hearts of the opposition. It didn't work. I listened to a gun store owner explaining to a Fox reporter the difference between an assault rifle and an assault weapon; the assault weapon was a semi automatic copy of the assault rifle. That's nit any more accurate that Biden's definitions. They are simply rifles, shotguns, revolvers, pistols, etc.

Joe @ 2/1/2013 5:46 AM

Typical of the pinheads in Washington (and in many of the state capitals). Let's pass more laws that the criminal element won't obey and that we won't enforce anyway. We'll just make it far more difficult for those who obey the law to exercise their rights as already determined by SCUS. Can anyone point to one of the numerous shootings reported by the lame stream media over the past several weeks that was accomplished by a legal gun owner? I can't find one, despite the fact that every shooting - regardless of where it occurred - has been given front page coverage. And since when has a 19 year old gang banger in Chicago or LA been considered a "child"? The "police organizations" that Feinstein quotes are made up of desk jockey admin types appointed by progressive administrations. Most of these clowns have never strapped up to go to work and their biggest risk of a job related injury is the blisters on their a*s from sitting at a desk all day. Lots of experience here, for sure. Oh - and let's not infringe on 'privacy rights' by going after the anti-social mental types we see every day - the ACLU might get on our case.

Charlie @ 2/1/2013 6:03 AM

I agree with a lot of you guys, most big city Chiefs are nothing more than politicians in a unifrom. They aren't real cops, they are admin wienies, and they have lost touch with what happens on the street. In almost 25 years of doing this job, I can count on ONE HAND the number of times I have taken any type of long gun off a criminal, much less an "assault rifle". The ones with handguns, and there have been a bunch of them, usually either stole it or bought it off the street from someone who stole it. I think the answer it so build more prisons. The construction jobs will help put people back to work, and then we will need people to staff them. Put these morons in prison and don't look back. Get caught with a gun when you shouldn't have one? Pull ten years... Now, I think THAT would Take a Bite Out of Crime...

Dan @ 2/1/2013 6:03 AM

Assault Weapon. Assault tool. Assault with hands. Regardless, assault is already a crime.

steve @ 2/1/2013 6:14 AM

We have a 50 man agency with 1 assault rifle. Like many departments , if any of the officers personally own an ar-15 type .223 rifle may carry it on patrol. This enhances and saves money to the public. If this ban includes police as in NY, I guess the public would be in a greater danger. Personally, there's no need for a ban just greater enforcement of the laws already on the books and mental health help.

Jon Huggins @ 2/1/2013 6:37 AM

I have served for 30 years, 15 as a chief of police and believe any officer as well as frienkenstein and her cohorts who supports this ban should be charged with perjury for lying under oath when they swore to uphold the constitution.

Trigger @ 2/1/2013 6:38 AM

We do have the right to express our thoughts and opinions. Now with that being said we also have the right to protect and defend. I do not understand the thought process on banning these firearms. Does a semi-automatic 30-06 that looks like a hunting rifle kill any less than an AR15 that looks like a military rifle. Does having 15 shot magazines kill any less than knowing how to combat load multiple 10 shot magazines or carring multiple weapons to the crime scene. Sure firearms are weapons of opportunity (whatever that means??), but what about a 20 pound propane tank, homemade explosives, etc. .
What troubles me is that these individuals are not looking at the root of the problem. Sure you can put a bandaid on an amputation to make it look pretty but does it really work?

Dan J @ 2/1/2013 7:06 AM

According to Biden, "we" (whoever he considers "we" to be) just don't have the time or manpower to enforce current laws. Makes perfect sense, passing some more then, doesn't it? The politicians aren't interested in going after people who violate current law. The agenda is bigger--whether it's a control measure or just knee-jerk b.s. to keep their lucrative jobs by looking like they're actually doing something about something. Either way, I hope there will be constitutional challenges in court when they pass that crap.

Jim B. @ 2/1/2013 7:42 AM

I just want to correct something that JR Parker said. JR, the proposed ban, as written, would not apply to your "typical" semi-auto pistol. The ban states that any semi-auto RIFLE with a detachable magazine and one at least one military feature (pistol grip, folding stock, etc) would be banned. It states that any semi-auto PISTOL that has a detachable magazine and at least one military feature like a SECOND pistol grip, would be banned. I'm assuming they are aiming for the tec-9 style pistols.
I don't point this out because I support the ban (I don't!) I just think we do ourselves a dis-service when we mis-characterize or distort the facts.

Mike @ 2/1/2013 7:51 AM

The "International Association of Chiefs of Police" needs to be renamed "The Cabal of Cowards Who Don't Want To Lose Their Safe, Indoor, Cushy, Jobs." I was an LEO for over twenty three years and In that time I only saw one Chief who got off of his ass and worked the streets. As for the other organizations supporting the stupidity proffered by Feinstein, they'd better take some serious polls of their membership before they start supporting a cause that their members don't approve of.

viperphi @ 2/1/2013 8:18 AM

Ridiculous article. Law enforcement isn't divided on the issue. The overwhelming majority of line officers think this whole attack on the 2A is horse puckey. We swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. The only one's divided on this issue are the brass (ie politicians) wondering if this can somehow advance their careers.

James @ 2/1/2013 8:25 AM

Viperphi is right, it's the upper echelon of the largest cities & counties that are for these bans. They are actually a minority of law enforcement as most cops police communities of well under 100,000 people.

Mickey @ 2/1/2013 10:08 AM

Sen. Feinstein has no problem grandstanding before the media on banning assault type weapons but where was she during the Federal Gov'ts "Fast and Furious" where they were allowing assault weapons to be sold to criminals and the likes under the auspices of tracking them to Mexico. Some were tracked OK like the one that was used to kill a federal agent . Who knows how many made their way back into the US? Feinstein's a hypocrite who likes to champion her own causes which purely for the votes?

Bob Hollister @ 2/1/2013 11:32 AM

A few years ago the Presiding Judge in our rural county disarmed the Adult Probation Officers. I retired shortly after that. Ironically, I at least had my CCW and could carry when I was off-duty, just not on duty. Fortunately, no one was seriously injured during that time and the State finally stepped in and the department was rearmed. There are still folks out there that don't like me much due to their time back in jail/prison as a result of their shenanigans. I don't go many places without my weapon.

Wade Parham @ 2/1/2013 1:03 PM

The "Law enforcement" named in this article as supporters of the increased gun control measures aren't cops and I think you'd be hard pressed to find any of their membership who have made an arrest in the past ten years. IACP, Major City chielf, Police Executive Research? Please. Like I said, not real cops.

In any event, cops shouldn't forget that they are ALSO CIVILIANS. If assault weapons and hi-cap mags are banned for citizens to own, they should also be prohibited for civilian law enforcement. You'll see the gun-ban cops singing another tune then.

Bucky Farris @ 2/1/2013 2:14 PM

I have been a cop for over 34 years. From street cop to chief. The 2nd amendment is the most important amendment there is. If it is taken away...what right will the government take next? You'll be defenseless to stop them! I will not go against the Constitution for obama or any of his political friends. Those associations they quote as supporters are not true cops in my opinion just more political figures. Street cops know the score. I'm 2nd amendment all the way! No bans accepted here. Stand up for your rights! Contact your senators and congressmen and stress your views. NO COMPROMISES!

Robert Bingham @ 2/1/2013 2:17 PM

Just a couple of comments:
1. No assault rifle was used at Sandy hook,
2. Feinstein, a US Senator, lied on Meet the Press last Sunday when she stated that by putting a collapsible stock on an AR with make it shoot full auto,
3. She also stated that most Police Officer killed by firearms are killed by assault rifles. According to the FBI's 2011 stats, 53 were killed by handguns and '7' by rifles, no distinction on type.
The news medias don't have a problem with distorting their facts, flat out lieing or 'editing' news clips to push their leftist agenda.
The entire shooting community needs to get together. Write letters, join shooting clubs and policing our own are a couple of ways to protect our rights and sports. We all need to stop being part of the 'silent majority' and get active politically. If our founding fathers had sat back on their haunches, we'd still be having tea and crumpets.

Charles Doan @ 2/1/2013 4:03 PM

The IACP is a bunch of political hacks. They go anyway the wind blows. The majority of metropolitan police chiefs are politicans in their own right, that is how they got their positions in the first place.

Sheriff Ron Bruce @ 2/1/2013 4:18 PM

I have written every legislative rep I have, both at state and federal level. I stated I was 100% against any additional firearms legislation that in any manner conflicted with existing laws. Our prosecutors rarely prosecute what is on the books now. New legislation will solve absolutely nothing and will make none of us or our children one bit safer. Crooks are crooks and they will continue to break our laws, including new ones. That's what they do best.

We have to stand up and fight this process. I've been a police officer for 35 years and have always taken this position.
Sheriff Ron Bruce

RetiredDep @ 2/1/2013 8:32 PM

Dianne Frankenstein is out of her head. We need criminal control. Not more laws and bans that only hurt the law abiding good citizens. Our gov't is gaining too much control over us. It's supposed to be of the people, by the people and for the people. They are our employees, we're not their subjects. Lest some people forget what happened in Nazi Germany and other countries? Take the weapons, take the citizenship then their rights. She needs to retire along with her cronies or better yet, be fired by the people. Gun bans are not going to solve anything. Putting miscreant murderers, rapists and child molestors to death will.

Ima Leprechaun @ 2/1/2013 10:22 PM

Opinions are like Butt Holes everybody has one. I read most of these comments and while they claim to support the Constitution they have never actually read the Consitution of the United States of America. The 2nd Amedment is short and easy and uses little words which is why many on here cannot understand it, but the 2nd states: "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." Seems pretty clear by the fourth word this refers to what we now call the National Guard and not to individual personal rights, as a matter of fact it never mentions personal rights to bear arms. The people if you bother to look up its meaning is: a nation, community, ethnic group, or nationality. "People" does not constitute any individual in any circumstance. In this instance, the "people" are the state militia. The 2nd Amedment is so easy to understand even a fifth grader understands it but apparently cops that take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution have never actually read the constitution.

I say Tax the heck out of ammunition since it is never mentioned in the constitution in any form. $5 tax per bullet works for me because the police and the military are exempt from taxation. I was issued my ammo by my small agency department that too can be done everwhere. No one politician has put forth anything to bar police or the military from any firearms or ammunition. The rest can just go shut up and quit killing innocent people. That shooting earlier this week in Arizona, until that man pulled the trigger he was carrying a legal handgun with legal ammunition and he had never violated a law in his life until he pulled that trigger but Arizona insists taht every man woman and child carry a gun well, its not working.

john @ 2/2/2013 5:39 PM

Robert Bingham is 100%correct. At Sandy Hook, Lanza used 4 HANDGUNS to do his miserable and cowardly deed. The politicians know this, the lying sack of s*** police chiefs know this, and the media knows this. Feinstein's bill and all the other anti-gun legislation were already written and waiting for the right moment to be introduced. That moment was Sandy Hook. We need to stand as one group to save our rights and stop sliding down this slippery slope. By the way, Feinstien carries a gun with her everywhere she goes. It is OK for her, but not for the peasants that pay her salary. It is time to push for term limits and take out the trash in Washington D.C.

Greg @ 2/2/2013 7:00 PM

I find it funny that I always hear how the idiots proposing a ban say "we have talked to law enforcement and they support us" well all I can say is this...yes folks the bull shit flag is on the field. I for one have never ever ever in 27 years of being a cop been asked what I think about the bans. Well here is what I think. You idiots need to stop making more stupid laws to screw citizens over! We have more than enough laws on the books, it is just sad that they are not enforced. We play the game "lets make a deal" . Well it has come time for that crap to stop. I am sick and friggen tired of doing my job, making the arrest to watch it get plead to lesser charges because others do not want to do their jobs. The thought of rehabilitating criminals is done. Kill a cop, sucks to be you, and I do not want to hear the bleeding hearts protesting the death penalty...If ya want them to live so friggen pay for them and we will move them to your home with your family....But when the rape or kill your family SHUT YOUR MOUTH!

Tm109 @ 2/3/2013 12:47 AM

To the no name on the rant... You may want to check the constitution, history and Ct decisions. Your arguements are tired and wrong. "people" means people everywhere else in the constitution, but according to you not in the 2A? And yes I'm sure the founding fathers meant the gov. Run national guard, that didn't exist till about 100 years after the constitution was written. The "militia", when the Constitution was written was , businessmen, farmers, average citizens..I.e "the people". To those that use "the founding fathers could never have envisioned these evil semi autos", using that logic we should all have to exercise our freedom of speech using ye ole quil and ink because I bet they did't envision the internet, cell phones, facebook etc either. The supreme CT has ruled 2A is indeed referring to the individual. Cops understand nuts and criminals don't car about the law. The proposed ban only applys to those that aren't the problem.

Tm109 @ 2/3/2013 12:53 AM

... And the gun bans in places like CA, NY, CT. Etc are doing a great job.

D J @ 2/3/2013 5:13 AM


Mark @ 2/4/2013 8:27 AM

How many of these urban police chiefs work in cities that have mayors that belong to Bloomberg’s "mayors against guns" organization and are afraid to voice their real opinion in fear of being fired

lamann483 @ 2/4/2013 5:25 PM

As a L.E.manager in a So. CA law enforcement organization, I'm glad to see that most of you recognize most of these Chiefs and Sheriffs for what they are, politicians. They don't speak for the rank and file.

Steve @ 2/5/2013 9:56 PM

Stand strong on this brothers. I fear if the gun controls are passed a very large part of the population will turn on the police. Good hearted law abiding people will view you as enemies along with the criminals you already face on a daily basis. You will be the ones on the front line, and will suffer the worst of consequences as greater numbers of citizens revolt. I do not want that to happen. Do all you can locally to show that you stand with citizen's constitutional rights. Our local deputies are placing a #2 sticker on their cars as a small show of support for the public rights in the 2nd Amendment. It cant hurt. But it can show that you support them in this fight, and maybe keep some of them from seeing police as enemies.

Gary B. @ 2/7/2013 2:19 AM

I don't think that 20% for the ban and 80% against qualifies as "divided". Most of us, even though we are retired, do not want a gun ban. BTW, that idiot Feinstein's legislation exempts retired officers from the weapons ban, so it is not an issue for us retired or serving guys. The problem that I have here is that, by supporting the bill, we are not allowing others the means to defend themselves from a criminal or someone who also has a high powered rifle with a crap load of ammo! Why deprive others the right when we would not deprive ourselves of the right? Just sayin'.

Billy @ 2/7/2013 6:22 PM

Here is the fallacy of an "assault rifle" ban. Last week in South Texas, US Border Patrol makes a vehicle stop; in the vehicle are found 10 AK-47 "assault rifles" obviously bound for Mexico. The weapons are seized, but the vehicle and occupants released. WTF? If there was enough PC to make the stop, to seize the guns, why wasn't the vehicle impounded and why didn't anybody go to jail? I'm pretty sure the answer to that is the US Attorney declined prosecution. I was in USBP and I've seen it over and over again. So what good are "assault rifle" bans if suspects are located, illegal weapons found, arrests made, but then nobody does any time? My point exactly, what do we need more laws and bans for when the laws we have aren't being enforced and criminals are not being put behind bars???

Join the Discussion

POLICE Magazine does not tolerate comments that include profanity, personal attacks or antisocial behavior (such as "spamming" or "trolling"). This and other inappropriate content or material will be removed. We reserve the right to block any user who violates this, including removing all content posted by that user.

Other Recent News

Phoenix Approves Plan to Spend Up to $750,000 on Firearms for PD
The Phoenix City Council voted unanimously to spend up to $750,000 on Glock firearms and...
Walther Issues Safety Recall for PPS M2 Pistols
Walther Arms Inc. has recently discovered a potential safety issue with certain PPS M2...

Police Magazine