“Shall Issue” Poll Follow Up
Frank Borelli
Editor-in-Chief
Officer.com
Gun control is the topic. As I continue to discover, many assumptions are made about how law enforcement officers feel in this regard. The most common assumption I’ve experienced is this: cops don’t like for citizens to have guns. That is a FALSE assumption (as we’re about to see) that needs to be corrected.
Last week Officer.com ran a poll to find out how law enforcement professionals actually do feel regarding “Right To Carry” laws. My intent in posting the poll was to see if officers really didn’t like citizens having guns - to the extent that could be determined by such a simple tool. The question was and results are:
Is your state a “shall issue” state or open carry state?
Yes, and it doesn’t bother me a bit. 341 votes / 49%
Yes, and it concerns me some. 101 votes / 14%
No, and I’m happy about it. 53 votes / 7%
No, but I wish it was. 121 votes / 17%
No it’s not. 68 votes / 9%
Let me chime in here real quick on my own situation. I live in Maryland which is NOT a Shall Issue state. People CAN get gun permits but they are strictly controlled and the state’s leadership acts in a manner that displays an anti-gun bias. I’ve been around guns all of my adult life as a circumstance of my profession and view them as the valuable tools they can be.
As to those answers. Numbering the potential responses 1 through 5, top to bottom, numbers 1 and 4 are obviously pro-gun or, at the minimum, not anti-gun. Number 3 is anti-gun. Number 2 CAN be anti-gun, but it can also be just officers who are concerned about the potential officer safety aspects related to Shall Issue situations. Number 5 is a neutral answer; no opinion expressed.
Even if we use #2 and #3 as “anti-gun” the total votes is 154 or 21%. That’s about one-fifth of the total votes.
The votes for #1 alone is almost half who obviously have no issues with “Shall Issue” circumstances and situations. When we add on the 121 votes for #4 we see the “pro gun” outlook jump up to 66% or two-thirds of those who voted.
Total votes cast in the week that the poll was up = 684. That’s not a HUGE number but considering our polls normally get between 500-1000 votes, it’s near in our average range for response.
So, looking at the numbers; using a sample of ten officers - two of the ten would be against Shall Issue laws or at least concerned about situations created by same where officer safety is concerned. Six in ten are clearly in favor of Shall Issue laws.
If you consider #3 the only true “anti-Shall Issue” or “anti-gun” response, that would be one officer out of ten. Less actually… seven out of a hundred.
What do you think?
I missed the poll due to my honeymoon, amd I’m sure that the statement I’m about to make is to be found many times over, but does anyone really think that a person willing to take the class and be on a list is likely to hose things up for himself and everyone else? Any bravado aside, how many cops really want to shoot someone? Our sidearms, and those of the average citizen are like fire extinguishers. You have them around just in case, but you hope like hell they’re never really needed. Last I heard, England and Australia both have seen very high rates of gun crimes since disarming the general populace. England has also banned swords (since people were keeping them in their homes in lieu of guns), and was considering a ban on large kitchen knives, as well as having banned those cute tactical folders most of us like. Wonder when we’ll talk about removing teeth around age 3, or removing hands and forearms to avoid having to ban rocks and sticks…look around your living room or kitchen, and I’ll bet you can find multiple objects you could do someone in with, if so inclined.
Frank, while your sample size was pretty good, I think it is unlikely your sample population is an accurate representation of the policing universe. Your sample population was not randomly selected but rather came from one group; users of this website. I would suggest that it is likely this website caters to a more conservative crowd and your results would therefore be skewed in the pro-gun direction. Therefore, I question the validity of the results.
I tend to agree with Simon about the testing group, having done such testing in the real world. As a Law Enforcement professional for many years myself, I would, generally speaking, have no problem with correctly trained citizens being properly armed. I works well in Isreal to train its citizens and allowed them to possess weapons. Just a thought….
The fire extinguisher analogy is a near perfect one. Unfortunately, as we all know, FE’s are occasionally used to used to bludgeon instead of extinguish. Doesn’t mean good people still shouldn’t have them. I agree with Simon & Bill that the poll results, while encouraging, probably overstate the level of support we citizens have from the cops on this issue. Though NOT dramatically so.
My own experience over the course of 16 years and several encounters with LE has ranged from mild over-reaction to vocal enthusiasm for armed citizens. I believe the sweep of history is on our side here. Absent a decree by a dictator (knock on wood) permissive CCW is a genie that would be tough to put back in the bottle. As the MSM continues to lose its monopoly on what we see and hear, pro-CCW anecdotes will, with increasing frequency, clear the iron curtain and become part of polite conversation.
In the great golden state getting a CCW is like finding chicken teeth. If you do a survey you will find that most CCW’s are issued to white, affluent males. Very few are issued to women and minorities. Even thought the original law in effect when I was an Officer (over 20 years ago) mandated depts to issue CCW’s if the applicant passed the background check and he/she were to be issued a CCW. But they given to political friends or buddies of the Sheriff, Chief, Mayor etc. Times of carry, reasons for, insurance liability policies were all hurdles put in place by the Sheriff or Chief even the the law did not require them and held the issuing agency free from liability is the weapon was misused.
LAPD under Gates did not even provide applications (as proscribed by law) and was getting ready to lose a major lawsuit brought by applicants. As part of the settlement, LAPD had to go back 20 YEARS and ask applicants if they still wanted a CCW. This lawsuit and not the Rodney King riots cost Gates his job. Only after a small town Chief in (Sacramento Co.) began issuing CCW permits following the original state law, was the law changed. The Chief also lost his job because of the negative publicity he brought to the small town.
We never question if a person should have the Right to his/her freedom of speech or religion or the press or to be free from unreasonable searches…….but the minute firearms are discussed, people seem to have to decide if they want to allow other felloe citizens to exercise THAT Right. It’s a constitutional right to be able to bear arms……just remember, “When it’s a life or death situation & seconds count…….the police are only minutes away.” That says it all right there……The Second Amendment to the Constitution should be our “carry permit”.
Personally, I feel that open carry would be more apt to deter crime. In my state of Colorado which is open carry, I am given no other choice but to carry exposed. Not that we do not have conceal carry. There are some very unsavory characters in the fast food stores such as 7/11 and open carry causes them to give concern for their potential thoughts. Of course, just because they look unsavory, doesn’t mean that they are so! If a civilian is not allowed to carry either open or concealed, a qualified civilian that is, neither should a retired police officer or military be allowed to do so.
That is my thought.
As far I as I can remember, everytime a citizen reports to police that another citizen has been spotted open-carrying, police had always been anti-gun in their treatment of the person carrying a weapon. That is true as far as Virginia, the state where I live, is concerned. I understand that police have to investigate the reports. Sadly, the police go further than that even when the citizen was minding his business and walking peacefully on his own. There is a big difference in answering a survey and responding to a report of a citizen peacefully open-carrying. That is when ones true colors manifests itself.
I live in a shall issue state and think it is great. Going with the earlier note that out response time can vary from a few minutes to well over an hour, it is the citizens right/responsibility to defend. Anyone that believes we need to “outlaw” guns is ignorant.
Frank , I as a person who has the right to carry on a ccw hope that I never have to use the weapon that I carry ! How ever in the area that I live things have gotten to the point that a lack of response time could mean you or your love ones lifr not to mention possibly one of our beloved policeman . I believe even if you ran the poll outside this sight as others have mentioned , your sesults would be much hugher not lower or average . I think most officers do a outstanding job , but when the thugs get brave enough to shoot and kill or even wound a officer muchless even pull a gun they would have no thought for the common person . This has happened too many times in my area ! Thanks to the right to carry most have second thoughts to pull some stupid sh## . Thank you and other officers for their commentment to all !
Frank, I live and work in a shall issue state and have had very few problems with any CCW license holders, so few in 18 years that I can count them on one hand. I have policed in mainly rural areas of the state (Alabama).
I’ve never understood how any journalist or attorney could somehow believe that the 2nd Amendment isn’t referring to the same group of ‘the people’ as the 1st, 4th, 10th and others - we, the people, who are citizens of our states and therefore citizens of the U.S.