0
   

Police Unions and Guns

 
 
gollum
 
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2016 01:49 pm
Do most individual police officers and/or the unions that represent them support increased civilian gun ownership in order to reduce violent crime?

Or do they oppose increased civilian gun ownership in order to reduce violent crime?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 0 • Views: 2,551 • Replies: 27
No top replies

 
giujohn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Aug, 2016 09:54 am
@gollum,
Big difference between police unions and the individual police officer... Police unions are generally liberal Democratic aligned organizations and parrot liberally biased ideology... as for the individual police officer ( not counting Chiefs of police and high-ranking officers who at that point are now basically politicians) that's why union membership Has Fallen as many individual police officers believe in the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms
gollum
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Aug, 2016 11:12 am
@giujohn,
glujohn-

Thank you.

I was aware that many unions, particularly public employee unions are generally liberal Democratic aligned organizations and parrot liberally biased ideology.

I think this is because the public employee unions make contributions to the campaign fund of the individual persons (e.g., councilpersons, mayor) who decide on the terms of the employment contract (i.e., wage, pension, and benefits increases) with the city. Liberal Democrats tend to favor larger government.

I thought police unions were partly different. Their members carry guns and I thought did not want members of the public to have guns.
giujohn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Aug, 2016 11:26 am
@gollum,
You are correct regarding the contract negotiations. As for the view of individual police officer and peoples rights when we establish the police officer we do not take away his citizenship.
0 Replies
 
gollum
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Aug, 2016 12:00 pm
@giujohn,
glujohn-

As far as individual police officers believing in the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms, you may be right.

Do you have any empirical data to back it up?
giujohn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Aug, 2016 12:01 pm
@gollum,
No... anecdotal from over 20 years as a cop
0 Replies
 
gollum
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Aug, 2016 12:04 pm
@giujohn,
glujohn-

I am aware that union membership (i.e., percentage of the U.S. workforce) that are union members has fallen.

However, I thought public employee unions were the one exception. I believe they have substantially increased.
giujohn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Aug, 2016 12:11 pm
@gollum,
I now work for the feds... Not in law enforcement... And you wouldn't know it by my union... Membership is definitely off.
giujohn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Aug, 2016 12:35 pm
@giujohn,
I have actually canceled my Union dues because of their contributions to campaigns like Hillary Clinton... I actually pay about $10 less a month for an insurance policy that covers up to a million dollars liability for lawsuit and a quarter of a million dollars for lawyers fees in case I'm fired... So I find this service a little bit more individually tailored to my needs then having to deal with the local president of the Union who a lot of times is too damn busy or doesn't have the knowledge needed to assist me. I can consult with a lawyer at this company for free.
gollum
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Aug, 2016 12:55 pm
@giujohn,
glujohn-

As to cancelling your union dues, I think it depends what State you are in. In some States (e.g., New York) the public employee is required to pay an "agency fee" to the union in an amount equal to the dues of a union member. The non-member can file a request to the union for a refund of the portion of dues that supported political type activities.

I thought that generally a very small percentage of public employees are ever fired. Especially, if you exclude the firings that occur during the probationary period.

I'm not sure what "company" you are referring to. Most police officers work for municipalities and now you work for the federal government.
giujohn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Aug, 2016 08:15 pm
@gollum,
gollum wrote:

glujohn-

As to cancelling your union dues, I think it depends what State you are in. In some States (e.g., New York) the public employee is required to pay an "agency fee" to the union in an amount equal to the dues of a union member. The non-member can file a request to the union for a refund of the portion of dues that supported political type activities.

I thought that generally a very small percentage of public employees are ever fired. Especially, if you exclude the firings that occur during the probationary period.


I'm not sure what "company" you are referring to. Most police officers work for municipalities and now you work for the federal government.


That's incorrect, I live in New York state. New York state is a right-to-work state where you are not required to join the union or pay dues.

It's a common misconception that government employees can't be fired... while there is a protracted procedure through the merit service protection board it does on occasion happen. I am protecting myself because I'm a federal whistleblower. By the way the name of the company is FEDS... Federal Employee Defense Service.
gollum
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Aug, 2016 11:01 am
@giujohn,
glujohn-

That is very interesting. I'm going to try to read more about it. At first glance, it appears FEDS is a private company in business to underwrite and offer insurance policies to government employees.

I believe GEICO (Government Employees Insurance Company) started in a parallel way.

I am surprised by your statement that "New York is a right-to-work state where you are not required to join the union or pay dues."

I was an employee of a New York State. A union named Public Employees Federation was recognized as the sole representative of all the employees in my job title. Each such employee could decide whether to join PEF or not join PEF. If he/she joined, union dues were deducted from his/her pay. If he/she did not join, agency fees were deducted from his/her pay in an amount equal to union dues. Almost 100% joined the union but I did not. Once a year there was a designated period when agency-fee payers could request that PEF issue a refund to that employee of the percentage of his agency fees paid that were used for political or similar purposes.

I have appended as Exhibit 1 a list of the right-to-work States per wikipedia.com . You will note New York is not included

Exhibit 1
U.S. states with right-to-work laws
Right-to-work states shown in turquoise.

The following states (26) are right-to-work states:

Alabama (adopted 1953)
Arizona (Constitution, State Constitution Article 25 approved 1946)[43] (adopted 1944)
Arkansas (Constitution, 1947, Amendment 34)
Florida (Constitution, 1944, revised 1968, Article 1, Section 6)[44][45]
Georgia (adopted 1947)
Idaho (adopted 1985)
Indiana[3] (State law, 2012)
Iowa (adopted 1947)
Kansas (Constitution, 1958, Article 15, Section 12)
Louisiana (adopted 1976)
Michigan (State law, 2012)[2]
Mississippi (Constitution, adopted 1954)
Nebraska (Constitution and statute, adopted 1946)
Nevada (adopted 1951)
North Carolina (adopted 1947)
North Dakota (adopted 1947)
Oklahoma (Constitution, adopted 2001)
South Carolina[46] (adopted 1954)
South Dakota (adopted 1946)
Tennessee (adopted 1947)
Texas[47] (adopted 1947)
Utah (adopted 1955)
Virginia (adopted 1947)
West Virginia (adopted 2016)
Wisconsin (adopted 2015)
Wyoming (adopted 1963)
giujohn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Aug, 2016 11:28 am
@gollum,
Oops... I stand corrected apparently it only applies to me as a federal employee working within the state of New York... Sorry for the confusion.
giujohn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Aug, 2016 03:04 pm
@giujohn,
As a matter of fact because our union is the exclusive bargaining unit they are required to represent me even if I don't pay dues!
gollum
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Aug, 2016 07:11 pm
@giujohn,
glujohn-

Thank you.

So, those of your fellow employees at FEDS who join the union pay union dues.

Those of your fellow employees at FEDS who do not join the union don't pay union dues.

Yet all the employees receive the primary benefit of representation by a union: higher wages and benefits.

So, why do the union members join since they would get the primary benefit anyway?

About what percentage of covered employees join the union?
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Aug, 2016 09:37 pm
@gollum,
In answer to your question, just about all police organizations and police chiefs support gun control. You can find a few exceptions. As for the misleading answers posted above, the Fraternal Order of Police routinely endorses Republicans, including 2000, 2004 and 2008. In 2012 they did not endorse (because Romney supported a bill stripping collective bargaining for police.)
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Aug, 2016 09:40 pm
For what it's worth, in a violent or potentially violent situation, the officer almost always prefers to be the only person with a firearm. They absolutely do not want Mr. Good Citizen to pull out a gun and try to 'help'.
giujohn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Aug, 2016 04:33 am
@roger,
The question wasn't if the police officer wants the citizen to pull out his gun and assist him. However...

https://www.policeone.com/

Topics Gun Legislation & Law Enforcement

The PoliceOne Firearms Corner
with Ron Avery
Police Gun Control Survey: Are legally-armed citizens the best solution to gun violence?
When it comes to reducing gun violence in America, nobody else in the country has anything close to the experience-based perspective from which cops can speak.

PoliceOne has scored a major scoop in police journalism by conducting a survey of more than 15,000 law enforcers regarding their thoughts on gun control in America.

These men and women — most of whom actually work the street — have a front row seat to see gun violence in America. They put their lives at risk when they do their jobs, actually coming face-to-face with violent encounters involving firearms.



And when it comes to finding ways to reduce gun violence and large scale shootings, most cops say a federal ban on so-called “assault weapons” isn’t the answer.

More than 91 percent of respondents say it would either have no effect or a negative effect in reducing violent crime.  This is an overwhelming response by those whose job it is to actually deal with this issue on the front lines.

Instead, it is interesting to note that armed citizens show up frequently as a deciding factor in reducing the carnage from a mass murder situation; proactive choices dominate over gun and magazine restrictions and bans.

More than 91 percent of respondents support the concealed carry of firearms by civilians who have not been convicted of a felony and/or not been deemed psychologically/medically incapable.

A full 86 percent feel that casualties would have been reduced or avoided in recent tragedies like Newtown and Aurora if a legally-armed citizen was present (casualties reduced: 80 percent; avoided altogether: 60 percent).

For those who chose the option of casualties being avoided altogether, I took this to mean the deterrent effect of a show of force prior to an event would stop a potential predator from carrying out his murderous intent in the first place.

What checks the sociopath from completing his act is fear. Fear of the unknown or known gun carrier who is going to punch his ticket to hell right then and right there. This has an immediate effect on reducing violent criminal activity.

Cops on the street know the value of officer presence and being ready to go. Criminals see it too, and stay in check. I know from my own street experience how being in shape, being well prepared along with a sharp uniform appearance kept things from escalating time and time again.

More than 81 percent of respondents were in favor of arming teachers and school administrators if they were properly trained and vetted or at least proficient.

Yet, with a few notable exceptions, most teachers and school officials are opposed to this measure. Overcoming this kind of resistance will be a major roadblock to making our schools safer.

In addition, the survey asked, “On a scale of one to five — one being low and five being high — how important do you think legally-armed citizens are to reducing crime rates overall?”

Three quarters of you (75 percent) answered either four or five, with more than 50 percent answering five.

What would help most in preventing large scale shootings in public? The most popular answer among respondents – at 29 percent – was “more permissive concealed carry policies for civilians,” while 20 percent choose “more-aggressive institutionalization for mentally ill persons.”

More armed guards/paid security personnel (16 percent) and improved background screening to determine mental wellness of gun purchasers (14 percent) were the other two preventative measures most selected in the poll. 

Clearly we have a majority of our gun carrying, member officers who feel that armed citizens are an asset in reducing violent crime and not a liability. This will be refreshing news for armed citizens who wonder about police attitudes in general on concealed carry.

From all ranks, from Sheriffs and Chiefs on down, the vast majority (95 percent) say a federal ban on the manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds would not reduce violent crime.  

This is in sharp contrast to my own home state of Colorado, where the Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police stood in support of the magazine ban and other restrictions while many Sheriffs bluntly said in the press that they would not enforce any bans on magazines or so called assault weapons.

I will allow myself one personal observation. If you want to disarm yourself, that is your choice. The following quote is a favorite of mine and something to keep in mind when you make that choice.

“Sheep don’t tell wolves what’s for dinner.
giujohn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Aug, 2016 04:40 am
@gollum,
In my situation I can tell you that the percentage of individuals who are represented by the Union who actually pay dues is extremely low. I don't have the exact numbers but I get this from the local union president. The primary reason for not joining is because the employees feel that the union is ineffective. That seems to mirror the attitude generally in the United States that unions have lost their clout.
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Aug, 2016 09:48 am
@giujohn,
[quote="giujohn]
... I live in New York state. New York state is a right-to-work state where you are not required to join the union or pay dues.
[/quote]

I know of at least one major University in the State of NY, that requires all faculty to choice the union, that will represent all Professors. If you decide not to join the union after you're hired to teach/research, you will be terminated.

You must join the union and pay union dues.

Smart idea...this specific University has an excellent pension plan for their faculty members.
 

Related Topics

Guns And The Laws That Govern Them - Discussion by RexRed
NRA: Arm the Blind! - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Thoughts on gun control..? - Discussion by komr98
The Gun Fight in Washington. Your opinons? - Question by Lustig Andrei
Gun control... - Question by Cyracuz
Does gun control help? - Discussion by Fatal Freedoms
Why Every Woman Should Carry a Gun - Discussion by cjhsa
Congress Acts to Defend Gun Rights - Discussion by oralloy
Texas follows NY Newspaper's lead - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Police Unions and Guns
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/19/2019 at 05:58:19