IMPD gun rule under fire

[92FS]

Owners must give fingerprints to get guns back from IMPD | IndyStar.com | The Indianapolis Star

An Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department rule that makes it harder to reclaim a seized gun than to buy one is drawing criticism from gun-rights advocates and has spawned at least one lawsuit.

 

[AFA1CY]

Dang, beat me by 6 minutes!

 

[Bigum1969]

Big Brother, here we go again.

This is just another excuse to crap away our rights. This seems to be the pendulum we reside on today.

On one side you have us, the citizens of this country. On the other side you have those who feel we need to be controlled and permanently breast-fed for our own good -- for the greater good of society.

Sadly, the institutions that are here to protect us are not only failing us, but are taking a leadership role in tearing apart the blanket of individual freedom and liberty.

 

[Stove]

That is just not right.

 

[gglass]

One more case of a rule or law that treats good citizens as criminals.

 

[Stove]

Where's the aclu when you need them!

 

[Hoosier8]

Reading the replies to the article, it amazes me how many people see no problem with this.

 

[AFA1CY]

Reading the replies to the article, it amazes me how many people see no problem with this.

Because guns are evil and gun owners are kooks just like our spokesman, Don.

 

[fullauto 45]

In 2008, IMPD seized more than 3,000 weapons. Of those, 766 were returned to owners and 2,281 were sent to be destroyed by the Marion County Sheriff's Department.

Or taken home by persons from the departments.

 

[Hammer]

The IPD stole his guns, then destroyed them. And they are treating us like criminals? wow.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Reading the replies to the article, it amazes me how many people see no problem with this.

Me too. They don't see a problem because they've been conditioned to think that governement has rights and that we, the people, are here to serve our government masters. The truth is, of course, the reverse, but there is the old "Big Lie" theory in play: Tell a lie often enough and it will become the truth (at least in the minds of the people who keep hearing it)

They don't have a problem with it because it's "only" a fingerprint and because some think that we have to be printed to purchase a firearm (those of us who purchase from FFL dealers, that is)

We'll see what their response is to my post. I'm betting it's more liberal nonsense about, rather than them moving to a country with strict "gun control", we are the ones who should move to Afghanistan. Sad to say, in some ways they're correct that people there are more free than people here.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[IndyBeerman]

Because guns are evil and gun owners are kooks just like our spokesman, Don.

Yes you are right, their are those people who have the belief that guns are evil, right up until the point that their life has been saved by a officer or a law abiding citizen with a gun.

I used to have a neighbor years ago that would go off on a tangent and spill his guts about the evils of owning guns. After about a year of this I just started using one of those mini blast airhorns to shut him up. About the 4th time I did this he asked me why, why do you do this? I simply replied that I was going to ignore his 1st amendment right to free speech until he recognized my right to keep and bear arms.

Seen a bewildered look on his face for a second and then walked over and shook my hand. Told me he never seen our rights from that point of view. From that moment one I had one of the best neighbors a person could have living next door, don't live their anymore but I still go by and visit just to let him know I think if him.

 

[Bigum1969]

Yes you are right, their are those people who have the belief that guns are evil, right up until the point that their life has been saved by a officer or a law abiding citizen with a gun.

I used to have a neighbor years ago that would go off on a tangent and spill his guts about the evils of owning guns. After about a year of this I just started using one of those mini blast airhorns to shut him up. About the 4th time I did this he asked me why, why do you do this? I simply replied that I was going to ignore his 1st amendment right to free speech until he recognized my right to keep and bear arms.

Seen a bewildered look on his face for a second and then walked over and shook my hand. Told me he never seen our rights from that point of view. From that moment one I had one of the best neighbors a person could have living next door, don't live their anymore but I still go by and visit just to let him know I think if him.

Great idea with the mini blast airhorn.

I've got a few folks I might try that on!

 

[AFA1CY]

OK, what part if the Indiana Code does IMPD not understand?

IC 35-47-3-2
Application of section to firearms not required to be registered in National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record; return of firearms to rightful owners; disposal procedure
Sec. 2. (a) This section applies only to firearms which are not required to be registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record.
(b) Firearms shall be returned to the rightful owner at once following final disposition of the cause if a return has not already occurred under the terms of IC 35-33-5. If the rightful ownership is not known the law enforcement agency holding the firearm shall make a reasonable attempt to ascertain the rightful ownership and cause the return of the firearm. However, nothing in this chapter shall be construed as requiring the return of firearms to rightful owners who have been convicted for the misuse of firearms. In such cases, the court may provide for the return of the firearm in question or order that the firearm be at once delivered:
(1) except as provided in subdivision (2), to the sheriff's department of the county in which the offense occurred; or
(2) to the city or town police force that confiscated the firearm, if:
(A) a member of the city or town police force confiscated the firearm; and
(B) the city or town has a population of more than two thousand five hundred (2,500) and less than two hundred fifty thousand (250,000).

 

[4sarge]

OK, what part if the Indiana Code does IMPD not understand?

IC 35-47-3-2
Application of section to firearms not required to be registered in National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record; return of firearms to rightful owners; disposal procedure
Sec. 2. (a) This section applies only to firearms which are not required to be registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record.
(b) Firearms shall be returned to the rightful owner at once following final disposition of the cause if a return has not already occurred under the terms of IC 35-33-5. If the rightful ownership is not known the law enforcement agency holding the firearm shall make a reasonable attempt to ascertain the rightful ownership and cause the return of the firearm. However, nothing in this chapter shall be construed as requiring the return of firearms to rightful owners who have been convicted for the misuse of firearms. In such cases, the court may provide for the return of the firearm in question or order that the firearm be at once delivered:
(1) except as provided in subdivision (2), to the sheriff's department of the county in which the offense occurred; or
(2) to the city or town police force that confiscated the firearm, if:
(A) a member of the city or town police force confiscated the firearm; and
(B) the city or town has a population of more than two thousand five hundred (2,500) and less than two hundred fifty thousand (250,000).

The Administration of IMPD is arrogant and feel that they are above the law and like most larger police agencies are attempting to deprive US Citizens of their firearms. The IACP has a mandated goal of abolishing gun ownership in the United States. The waiting time is absurd and should not be tolerated by law abiding citizens. Hopefully, this lawsuit will force IMPD to obey the law as they rightfully should.

 

[scububbs]

Don't think that just because they are the police that they know and understand the law. This is probably the brainchild of some mid-level employee and was implemented without seeking any advise from the City's legal department. They also may know someone will have to bear the expense of a lawsuit to get it stopped, and who has the money to do that by themselves?

 

[AFA1CY]

I disagree, I am very sure they consulted with the Corporation Counsel before establishing this policy.

 

[4sarge]

I disagree, I am very sure they consulted with the Corporation Counsel before establishing this policy.

Exactly, this policy was long thought out by them and the long artificial wait isn't by chance either. The Mayor could put an end to it if he wanted.

Gun Amnesty Scandal as Canadian Police Find 30 Guns in Cop's Home

Calgary Sun (Alberta)

29 October 2006

A raid by Calgary police on the property of a fellow officer at the centre of a gun amnesty scandal has led to the seizure of dozens of firearms. The search warrant was executed Friday after police top brass launched an internal investigation into allegations a city cop has been buying firearms from residents wanting to give them up in the gun amnesty. Police public affairs manager Robert Palmer confirmed yesterday the... ( gunpolicy.org
Read More: Calgary Sun (Alberta)
United Kingdom

'Gun Crazy' Welsh Pensioner Locked Up for Keeping 61 Illegal Firearms

Wales on Sunday

29 October 2006

A pensioner who held an illegal arsenal of more than 100 guns at his home has been jailed for five years. Retired rail worker William Charles Hughes, 66, had earlier admitted two charges of selling illegal firearms and 13 of possessing illegal guns. Police found 111 weapons while the Army had to dispose of a deactivated grenade at his home in Gwersyllt, Wrexham. His barrister told Caernarfon Crown Court "the world... ( gunpolicy.org )

Read More: Wales on Sunday​

United Nations, World

UN Vote Paves Way for Global Gun Trade Treaty: 164 Voted 'Yes,' USA 'No'

Guardian (UK)

28 October 2006

An overwhelming UN vote paving the way to an arms trade treaty controlling the growing international trade in conventional weapons was welcomed enthusiastically yesterday by Britain, human rights groups and aid organisations. The UN general assembly's first committee, responsible for disarmament and international security, voted by 139 votes to one on Thursday in favour of the move. The British government has been at the... ( gunpolicy.org )

Read More: Guardian (UK)​

home > issues > > IACP Recommendations​

Summary of Recommendations​

Taking a Stand: Reducing Gun Violence in Our Communities: Report and Recommendations from the International Association of Chiefs of Police Great Lakes Summit on Gun Violence (2007)​

​

KEEPING COMMUNITIES SAFE​

Increase public awareness​

1. IACP should develop research-based campaigns to educate policy makers and the public regarding the causes, costs, risks, and effects of gun violence and strategies for preventing it.​

2. LE agencies and their partners should work to identify and implement effective education and prevention programs focused on youth at risk for gun violence.​

3. LE agencies and their partners should work to develop and implement education campaigns targeted at gun owners.​

Engage community support in reducing gun violence​

4. LE leaders should devote resources and personnel to establishing and sustaining partnerships with community leaders to combat gun violence.​

5. Congress should restore funding for Community Oriented Policing Service (COPS) to strengthen community/policing partnerships for combating gun violence.​

Reduce easy access to guns​

6. IACP should develop a best practices protocol for voluntary gun surrender programs.​

7. Law enforcement executives should develop and implement policies to ensure the secure storage of guns temporarily in the department's possession. Procedures including a criminal background check for returning firearms and for third party transfers should also be implemented.​

8. LE agencies should mandate destruction of all firearms that come into their possession once any law enforcement use for them is completed.​

9. Congress, as well as state, local, and tribal governments, should enact laws requiring that all gun sales and transfers proceed through an FFL, thus ensuring that a mandatory background check will be conducted on the transferee.​

10. State and/or local governments should license all gun dealers.​

11. State and local governments should regulate and/or limit the sale of multiple handguns as a measure to reduce gun trafficking.​

12. State and local governments should mandate that a ballistic fingerprint be recorded for every gun sold.​

Protect children and youth from gun violence​

13. State, local, and tribal governments should mandate that every gun sold comes with a local or security device that meets minimum safety standards to help protect against accidental discharge and misuse.​

14. State, local, and tribal governments should mandate safe storage of guns, provide voluntary off-site storage facilities, and prosecute those who fail to comply with safe storage laws.​

Remove guns from domestic violence situations​

15. All states should have laws that reinforce the federal laws prohibiting domestic violence misdemeanants and the subjects of domestic violence protection orders from purchasing or possessing firearms. The state laws should mandate that law enforcement remove all firearms and ammunition when responding to domestic violence incidents and when serving a domestic violence protective order. These important state and federal laws should be vigorously enforced by judges and law enforcement.​

Prohibit gun possession by at-risk individuals​

16. Federal, state, local, and tribal governments should enact laws prohibiting persons with misdemeanor convictions involving violence, qualifying mental health adjudications and commitments, or a history of domestic violence and/or drug abuse from purchasing, possessing, and transporting any guns or ammunitions. These laws should be consistently and vigorously enforced.​

17. Law enforcement executives should create policies and protocols on the appropriate removal and seizure of firearms from prohibited persons and ensure that necessary training is provided.​

Focus on suicide prevention​

18. The CDC should work with law enforcement executives to standardize investigations into all violent deaths, including suicide, to improve the quality and comprehensiveness of National Violent Death Reporting System data.​

19. The philanthropic and public sectors should support the development, distribution, and evaluation of curricula for healthcare providers, law enforcement, and mental health providers regarding their role in reducing suicidal individuals' access to firearms.​

20. The IACP should develop a set of recommended best practices for preventing suicide by law enforcement officers.​

PREVENTING AND SOLVING GUN CRIME​

Stopping the flow of illegal guns​

21. Congress should restore funding for the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program for state, local, and tribal agencies to investigate and prosecute cases of gun trafficking and gun violence.​

22. The federal government should increase funding to ATF for personnel and technical assistance to combat gun violence.​

23. Law enforcement agencies should increase investments in technologies and strategies that facilitate intelligence-led investigations.​

24. Congress should repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the sharing of gun trace data.​

25. State and local governments should mandate the reporting of lost and stolen firearms, and federal law in this area should be tightened.​

Increase resources for information sharing between jurisdictions​

26. Congress should fully fund the National Violent Death Reporting System, and it should be implemented in all 50 states.​

27. Congress should fund the National Integrated Ballistic Information Network (NIBIN) and law enforcement agencies should use it consistently, it should also be funded to become integrated nation-wide.​

28. Law enforcement leaders should provide, and public and private funding should support, training for law enforcement agencies to use the necessary tools to investigate, share information about, and prosecute incidents of gun violence and illegal gun trafficking.​

29. State, local, and tribal agencies should forge partnerships with federal law enforcement, the U.S. Attorney’s Office, researchers, and other relevant organizations and individuals to investigate and prosecute incidents of gun violence and patterns of illegal gun trafficking.​

Dealing with Gun Crime Incidents​

30. Every law enforcement agency should use E-Trace, ensure that officers know how to properly recover and process crime guns and make sure that officers trace all firearms recovered.​

31. Law enforcement agencies should make sure that officers know how to debrief individuals involved in incidents of gun violence or arrested in possession of a gun.​

KEEPING POLICE OFFICERS SAFE ​

Reduce the availability and lethality of firearms to criminals​

32. Congress should enact legislation to allow federal health and safety oversight of the firearms industry.​

33. Congress should enact an effective ban on military-style assault weapons.​

34. Congress should enact an effective ban on .50 caliber sniper rifles.​

35. Congress should enact an effective ban on armor-piercing handgun ammunition.​

Provide officers with the most advanced firearm protective technologies and information​

36. Local law enforcement agencies, policy makers and the federal government should increase investments in protective technologies that improve officer safety.​

Train officers to be experts in handling guns and situations involving guns ​

37. State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies should establish agency standards for law enforcement officer firearm certification.​

38. Local law enforcement agencies should continue to enhance and promote training in less lethal tactics and officer safety for all officers.​

Provide access to mental health support and training​

39. Local law enforcement agencies should require training for officers to reduce stress and post-incident trauma.​

Recommendations compiled by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, 2-8-2008.​

 

[Pull Trigger Goes Bang]

From elsewhere here on INGO, a discussion of someone who ran up against this awful policy:

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...n_then_what_do_police_check-9.html#post247862

...and the long version of their story on another forum:

Hoosier Hunting: Disarmed! -and need some help...


If an item is being held by the police, dosen't one of these need to be true:

a) It's evidence in a specific crime (could be a crime where the details are uncertain, like someone is missing, suspected murdered, but still a specific crime); or
b) There is a specific law or court order that allows them to hold the item (in which case they can cite the Indiana Code, the US Code, or the cause number); or
c) There is a real controversy as to who owns the item (not just "We require everybody to prove line-of-title back to the factory."); or
d) It is contraband, either in the hands of the person seeking release (e.g., vicodin to someone who had no prescription) or to everybody (e.g., heroin)


If they're refusing to release an item to its owner, no matter what the item is, then unless it falls into one of the categories above, how is that not theft by the police department?

 

[4sarge]

I’m going to describe a group that recently demanded enactment of a sweeping federal gun control agenda.
Let’s see if you can guess who it is.
The group has 22,000 members in more than 100 countries. Membership categories include “city managers, highway safety specialists, psychologists, attorneys, coroners and management analysts,” among others. The group has offices in Europe and the Caribbean, and the group’s website describes its governing board in your choice of English, Spanish, Portuguese and French.

Why does a new report from the International Association of Chiefs of Police read like every gun-ban strategy we’ve heard for the last 10 years? To find out, all one has to do is follow the money.​

Is it a new United Nations disarmament agency? No, the group is the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), headquartered in the nation’s capital. And the story behind the report is a shadowy web of huge donations, made by an activist foundation in the Midwest, leading straight to puppet strings that control the agenda of gun ban groups, the IACP and even New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg.
The IACP report, called “Taking a Stand: Reducing Gun Violence in Our Communities,” is nothing more than a rubber stamp, bought and paid for, of the pre-existing agenda for gun ban groups. It is a blueprint the enemies of freedom plan to pursue after the 2008 elections--if they win total control of the White House and Congress.
What compelled the IACP to issue this sweeping report? Follow the money. A note on the cover proudly declares that the report was issued “with support from the Joyce Foundation.”
That’s a familiar name to longtime readers. The Joyce Foundation has pumped tens of millions of dollars into the coffers of gun ban groups over the years. The Violence Policy Center (VPC), an unashamed promoter of a total ban on handguns, collected more than $1 million of Joyce money just in 2005 and 2006. In 2000, the Joyce Foundation paid a VPC advisor and former Handgun Control, Inc. board member to edit a “Second Amendment Symposium” issue of the Chicago-Kent Law Review. That slim volume contains nearly half the anti-individual rights articles ever published on the Second Amendment.
The IACP newsletter proudly notes that the Joyce Foundation has “made more than $30 million in grants to groups seeking public health solutions that offer the promise of reducing gun deaths and injuries in America.”
This year, the Joyce Foundation invested heavily in IACP. They paid IACP over $500,000 to host “The Great Lakes States Summit on Gun Violence,” and then to issue the report from the conference. That comes out to nearly $11,000 per page, but the Joyce Foundation got what it paid for--no surprise given the report’s thank you to Joyce Foundation Communications Director Mary O’Connell for “her editing, writing and consistent work to produce this report.”
Of course, she had a lot of help. The list of “Report Contributors” includes Kristen Rand and Tom Diaz of the VPC, as well as David Mitchell, a former staff member of Handgun Control, Inc. The list of “Summit Advisors” is even more swollen with luminaries of the gun ban faction, including the heads of three anti-gun groups that operate at the state and local level--all of which also receive direct funding from Joyce.
The list also includes Fred Grebauer, who happens to be the top gun control advisor to none other than New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg. Joyce has been generous with Bloomberg as well, paying out $175,000 to the “Mayor’s Fund to Advance New York City,” a contribution intended to help “organize a coalition of mayors from around the country to promote national, state and local policies, litigation and law enforcement strategies aimed at reducing the flow of illegal guns into cities.” So now we know who’s paying the tab for Bloomberg’s obsessive gun control campaign as well.
Now that we’ve identified the Joyce Foundation as the wizard behind the curtain, what’s at the end of its yellow brick road? Most of the report’s recommendations are old, tired and shopworn. There’s the standard rhetoric urging Congress to “enact an effective ban on military-style assault weapons.” There’s a call for banning “.50 caliber sniper rifles,” and a demand to ban “armor-piercing” ammunition. The report suggests that Congress should regulate gun shows out of existence, and--of course--there’s a tip of the hat to Bloomberg’s obsessions, in the recommendation to repeal the privacy protections of the Tiahrt Amendment. Nothing new, there.
But the report goes much further, and reveals some of the more bizarre long-term goals of the Joyce anti-gun axis. One section contains suggestions to “Reduce the availability and lethality of firearms to criminals.” Are they suggesting that guns should be less lethal when used against criminals? No. Poor grammar aside, they are actually suggesting that Congress should “enact legislation to allow federal health and safety oversight of the firearms industry.” We know where that will lead; the Joyce-funded VPC has long advocated federal “health and safety” regulation that includes “pre-market approval power” over “firearm products that might pose a threat to public safety,” and total bans on guns that “present an unreasonable risk of injury and death.” In VPC’s world, that means handguns--for starters.
If any gun manufacturers or stores managed to survive the onslaught of such “safety” regulations, the report wants to subject them to a whole new layer of bureaucracy and red tape by demanding that “state and/or local governments should license all gun dealers.” Countless local governments have long abused zoning ordinances to shut down gun shops in places where they don’t want them, but under this proposal, discrimination against gun retailers would be a simple and routine matter of just denying a license.
IACP didn’t forget the customer, either. The report wants states to limit handgun purchases to guarantee that “certain precautions, including the notification of state and local law enforcement agencies, are in place.” Notification of what? That someone is legally buying a handgun? Stop the presses!
And the report wants law enforcement to get to know your firearms as well, demanding that “state and local governments should mandate that a ballistic fingerprint is recorded for every gun sold.” Of course, “ballistic fingerprint” is just a high-tech term for gun registration. But this recommendation goes well beyond even the gun ban groups, who have limited their demands for ballistic registration to apply only to new handguns. I wonder what IACP plans to do with a couple-million envelopes full of spent lead shot from all the 12-gauge shotguns sold every year. Are you starting to get the feeling that the authors of the report wouldn’t know a 12-gauge shotgun if they found one in a labeled box? The report only notes that this mandate “could enhance public safety and curtail gun violence.” We have to wonder if IACP bigwigs envy their overseas colleagues who have no obstacles like the Second Amendment in their way.
The most chilling recommendation is positively Orwellian, calling for “law enforcement agencies and their partners to develop and implement education campaigns targeted at gun owners.” What do they plan to “educate” us about? They cite bogus research that, they say, has “demonstrated that gun owners are disproportionately at risk for gun injuries and gun suicide” and “effectively disputes the argument that gun ownership deters crime.”
So the goal is to convince us to dispose of our firearms, which explains why another report recommendation calls for the implementation of “gun surrender programs.” Once the guns have been surrendered, the report demands that “law enforcement agencies should mandate destruction of all firearms that come into their possession.” This suggestion sounds like it came from a U.N. disarmament agency after all.
There’s more, but you get the idea. Don’t be personally offended, though, at the group’s attitude. After all, they don’t trust rank-and-file law enforcement with firearms, either. The IACP fought against the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, legislation to authorize law enforcement officers to carry firearms outside of their jurisdiction. Congress passed the bill anyway, giving the group what they said was “a lot of heartburn.”
That was then, and this is now. There’s a load of heartburn for gun owners in the IACP report, and the anti-gun axis is already planning to move forward. No matter how many times we close our eyes and click our shoes together, the new offensive from the Joyce Foundation and its puppet groups is not going away. As gun owners, we must be vigilant--and prepare for a long, tough election year to prevent these groups’ political allies from gaining power in Washington.
That axis--in addition to creating a new call for confiscatory bans on a wide range of individually owned, now-legal firearms--also demands mandatory gun destruction on a massive scale.
But don’t take my word for it. Believe what they say.
It’s all spelled out in a new gun control manifesto called Taking A Stand. This Joyce-funded IACP report was largely written by the likes of Tom Diaz and Kristen Rand of the Violence Policy Center (VPC) and David Mitchell, the newly appointed head of the Department of Safety and Homeland Security in my own state of Delaware. As NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox points out in his in-depth special report, Mitchell’s gun-ban credentials include a stint as a major player “for law enforcement” at the Brady Campaign.
Among the IACP/VPC/Brady Campaign/Joyce Foundation recommendations is this anti-gun, anti-freedom directive:
“Law enforcement agencies should mandate destruction of all firearms that come into their possession once any law enforcement use for them is completed.
“Law enforcement is in the unique position of acquiring tens of thousands of firearms a year either through confiscation, recovery or surrender. These weapons should be destroyed … .”
Recovered? That clearly includes stolen guns. They want to destroy my property simply because it was stolen from me?
But seizure and confiscation of guns from individual citizens would also be covered by the IACP’s section making improper storage of firearms in the home a serious crime.
Key among their “recommendations” is this: “State, local and tribal governments should mandate safe storage of guns, provide voluntary off-site storage facilities and prosecute those who fail to comply with safe storage laws.”
You can presume--no, you can bet on it--that prosecution under the IACP/Joyce Foundation vision of “safe storage” would include individuals having their firearms forfeited. And of course, once in the custody of police, those guns would fall under IACP’s rule to “mandate destruction of all firearms that come into their (police) possession.” And how would they know how the guns were stored, anyway? Surprise inspections and no-knock searches?
The IACP claims, “Safe gun storage should be a societal and legal imperative. Firearm owners should secure their firearms to help deter misuse and theft by using devices like safes, trigger locks and monitored alarm systems. Elected officials should mandate safe storage of guns and impose criminal penalties when individuals fail to comply … .”
We all agree that no one wants a child to inadvertently gain access to a firearm, and we act responsibly to make sure that doesn’t happen. But this goes way too far.
The second part of their recommendation is something that was tried in Great Britain, which was a prelude to confiscation of every registered handgun owned by a licensed citizen.
IACP says, “State and local jurisdictions should develop voluntary off-site gun storage facilities to help gun owners reduce the risks to their families.” (Would you trust the IACP or the Violence Policy Center with the key?)
In England, the initial in-home safe storage requirements included no-knock police searches. When home storage was not good enough--and it never was for the freedom-fearing gun ban politicians--handguns were banished from homes, and the “voluntary” government-approved, off-site gun storage facilities became mandatory. Thus, once they had all the legal, privately owned handguns under government control, collecting and destroying those guns was a simple matter of using the key to the locker.
All of this--every word, every concept, every “recommendation” of this $500,000 IACP report--would, in practice, drive a wedge between peaceable citizens and their police departments, and more importantly, their police officers.
Americans support their law enforcement officers because they know that they can trust them. But IACP, in its partnership with the worst of the gun-ban crowd, is telling police departments to betray that trust and to turn on their citizens--as a matter of policy.
I am proud of my years of service as a police officer. But I have to tell you, what IACP is attempting to do is very bad for American law enforcement. IACP is trying to divide America’s law enforcement officers from the very people they serve. But they forget that America’s cops represent all of the people, and know that they must have the trust of the people to do their jobs. After all, at the end of the day, America’s law officers are just a part of the rest of society.
What IACP is saying is that they don’t trust law-abiding citizens. It mirrors the paranoid political philosophy that drives the Violence Policy Center, the Brady Campaign and Mayor Bloomberg’s cadre of power-hungry, big-city politicians.
They don’t trust ordinary law-abiding citizens. To put it simply, they don’t trust you.
I ask a rhetorical question. If someone doesn’t trust you as a matter of course, should you trust them?