LEO L.C. Judas: Gun Ownership and Crime

 

A significant number of TTAG’s Armed Intelligentsia are law enforcement officers. Despite Vice President and Gun Control Task Force Führer Joe Biden’s recent suggestion that cops are ready to march in lockstep behind new gun control legislation, many aren’t. Reader L.C. Judas, for example, who penned this pro-pistol polemic on our behalf.

“I’m a gun owner. It isn’t a crime but it appears the mentality now is to treat it like one. Just this morning in fact, I was accosted by my mother. She demanded to know if I was trafficking weapons and wanted me to know that I “looked like Columbine” for a literal quote of what she actually said. The fact of the matter is I don’t deal arms and I don’t have any shootings planned. I own rifles with magazines, two in fact. THAT is the only reason I could imagine for the most annoying conversation I’ve ever had with the woman who brought me into this world . . .

The fact is that a lot of the anti-gun legislation supporters feel the same way. That someone with multiple guns is committing a criminal act by ownership or just a hair away from committing unthinkable acts. Hence, they are trying to criminalize ownership by guilting the country as a whole with their opinions because they feel they can decide what’s good for us.

The flaw in that logic is simple: no one has the right to tell anyone else what is good for them. Assault Weapon Ban legislation on the scale that they are talking about seeks to do the one thing laws cannot do: think for the people.

No matter what you ban and why you do it this will not change someone’s personal judgements, past, present or future. You cannot make a law that will change the way the people as a whole or individually will think.

Murder is already illegal in all fifty states and all US territories so no amount of additional legislation will change what happens in the future when madmen break the law in that respect. Murder charges do not deter them and making logistical hurdles is exponentially harder on the rest of the gun owning community as a whole than it is on the very few who make it their missions to harm others for no reason at all other than personal satisfaction.

The legislation is in response to a tragedy, one I cannot possibly understand as I’m not a parent and will not spout hollow sympathies and insult those victimized. It was perpetrated by a madman and I am hurt as a human, gun owner and law-enforcement officer and it boggles my mind; that’s all I can say regarding the bloodshed. Additional laws will not change what happened and the fact remains that the laws in the state of Connecticut kept Adam Lanza from getting weapons legally. He killed his mother and took them.

So now we are at an impasse. Does this mean his actions merit laws that will only punish the law-abiding citizenry who actually go through the legal channels to own firearms?

The fact remains that madmen who shoot people on a mass scale for their own very hard to understand reasons are vastly in the minority. Millions upon millions of gun owners have lived entire lives without firing a single shot in anger at any human being. Shall we punish them to ATTEMPT to punish FUTURE spree shooters and drag every gun owner currently living in the country of the United States of America into a political debate based around tragedies that, while utterly abhorrent, are less common than accidental deaths in pools and public waterways each year?

The last sentence above is not a hyperbole. In this past year 137 children drowned to death in the US.  No less bright and happy than any of the children who were shot. No more deserving of a premature end to destiny. Yet, that statistic doesn’t make the news and hover in the media like a gory medallion of what some people are capable of.

I will not be inane and place more statistics here but the fact remains this is a national tragedy and a crime. To that I say this:

Legislation against the sale and ownership of semi automatic weapons is not going to work. Those are already well-proliferated through the country and it isn’t the guns that are the main problem.

People with serious problems are what is causing this. People who need mental and emotional help and don’t get it in time and then take as many people as they can with them by picking the most defenseless places they can find and causing mass harm, killing innocents as quickly as possible. They are what is causing this, guns are one of many means that can be used.

Banning guns will not ban spree and mass murder nor will it curtail that impulse in the minds of those who wish to do so.

Crime is not legislated against when it rises. We fight it with ingenuity, willpower and police work. When cars started getting stolen, car alarms, The Club and unique car keys with chips inside them were invented and cops started finding patterns to catch thieves in the act, be them location, time of day or the type of car taken. We didn’t legislate against locksmith equipment, crowbars and screwdrivers or the ownership thereof to stop thieves. Doing so would not have helped.

If the world at large is full of people who want to cause harm, trying to disarm them won’t take away their ability to harm. The usage of whatever is available up to and including bombs and poison gases or simple arson is historically just as much a mortal threat to large groups of people as flying bullets from a semi-automatic firearm.

Crimes of violence are not stopped with laws, they are stopped by disabling or apprehending the offenders before the victim count starts or escalates. Laws are to PUNISH those offenders caught in the act not to use as a tool to control the population as a whole.

Adding more ordinances to the purchase, ownership and sale of weapons deemed “too dangerous” or magazines above an arbitrary “high capacity” benchmark would not have made a single difference to any of the spree shooters in the past but they will make a huge and unneeded difference with the legitimate shooting society of this country.

You cannot put the many law-abiding and peaceful through hurdles designed to deter violent criminals based on the actions of such a small margin.  This in effect means you are willing to treat all gun owners like soon to be mass murderers. That is not right in any context because it is not true.

Even if it were conscionable to place the additional rules in place to effect the entire law-abiding public, the measures of control still may not even encompass the criminals it is aimed at when it is all said and done.

The amount of the dangerously deranged proportionally is smaller than the margin of error encountered when taking a poll or tabulating the masses. Assuming a margin of error of two percent you will still be well over the less than one percent of criminal gun owners who bought weapons legally and thusly logistically you will not be able to confirm making a mathematical difference because it could simply fall into the margin of error.

No, that does not bring anyone back to life or justify what has happened in any of the mass murders but the fact remains the amount of legitimate gun owners versus the amount of spree shooters is infinitesimal. Making a law to attend to only the most deranged when they are set on breaking the laws and beyond reason anyway is inane and redundant in the most literal fashion while exceedingly inconvenient to the other innocent millions who own guns who haven’t done anything to anyone.

comments

  1. avatar jwm says:

    It always surprises me at the number of cops that frequent this site on a regular basis when they are frequently met with open hostility here. At this time in our history we need to work together as never before and not fracture off into splinter groups.

    And the first comments I see about “jack boots” or “boot licker” will simply serve to make my point.

    In this fight we’re going to need all. Regardless of age, gender, race, relegion or chosen career fields.

    1. avatar matt says:

      It is because they are all ready gun grabers contrary to what they like to portray themselves as. Ask any LEO here if they’ve ever seized guns from a felon, or from someone else prohibited by law from owning one? I think it would be reasonable to assume they all have. They did so simply because it was illegal, and if the laws were expanded in the future, they would uphold those as well. They are Law Enforcement Officers, not Laws Which I Think Are Reasonable Enforcement Officers. They are the iron fist of the politicians, nothing more, nothing less.

      1. avatar jwm says:

        matt. I don’t know why I bother replying to you. I guess you’ll just pile on a bunch of wiki references to “prove” your point.

        But if it comes to picking the side of the LEO’s or someone that’s so obviously mentally unbalanced as yourself I’ll go with the LEO’s every time. Some are good, some are bad. But you shouldn’t be trusted with a rubber band gun.

        1. avatar matt says:

          I see, so because i’m critical of LEOs I should not be entrusted to own firearms. I would like everyone else here to take notice of jwm’s opinion, and how easily a gun owner could consent to someone elses guns being grabbed, for no other reason than they don’t agree with a persons political views, and so long as their guns arent the ones being grabbed.

        2. avatar matt says:

          In this fight we’re going to need all. Regardless of age, gender, race, relegion or chosen career fields.

          But the political views of those who are critical of LEOs are fair game?

        3. avatar jwm says:

          It’s got nothing to do with you being critical of LEO’s matt. You’ve posted enough information about yourself and your unbalanced hatreds on ttag for me to conclude that you are in need of mental health care. As for any of ttag’s readers that compare my comments to your comments I don’t see my rep being damaged by the outcome.

          And no. I’m not a gun grabber. But I’ve been around enough to know that there are some people in this world that shouldn’t be around guns.

        4. avatar matt says:

          So using the FBI’s crime statistics which feature racial break downs makes me mentally unstable? Or if you’re referring to something else, how about you provide me with a quote, so I can offer a specific rebuttal.

          I would also like you to take note that i’ve be a strong proponent of arming blacks, even though RF loves to delete those posts.

          But I’ve been around enough to know that there are some people in this world that shouldn’t be around guns.

          Thats funny, because it is what exactly what the gun grabbers say.

        5. avatar jwm says:

          Well, matt. We’ll just have to agree to disagree about your mental stability. Although you did volunteer the info that you had been court ordered onto meds as a young man. I’m sure the judge was wrong about that.

          I wasn’t thinking about you using FBI stats. It was your repeated claims of being a “proud racist” that was one major warning sign.

          And your lack of empathy and callous disregard about the fate of children is also a major warning.

          Well, it’s just my opinion. If anybody would like to join in and offer support for you they can feel free, after all it’s a public forum. Anybody at all?

        6. avatar matt says:

          It was your repeated claims of being a “proud racist” that was one major warning sign.
          Then what illness do I have according to the DSM?

          And your lack of empathy and callous disregard about the fate of children is also a major warning.
          Then you must want to grab guns to ensure tragedies like Sandy Hook and Columbine do not continue to repeat themselves.

        7. avatar jwm says:

          You’re the one talking about grabbing guns, matt. All I said was that you couldn’t be trusted with a gun, or words to that effect.

          Now you’re spinning in circles trying to prove me wrong. Well, it’s been fun. I’m done now.

        8. avatar matt says:

          jwm, of course you’ll never lay your hands on my guns, you’ll leave that task to the LEOs.

        9. avatar Accur81 says:

          There have been more than a few times that I’ve agreed with Jwm, and I’ll admit that Matt’s mental state has given me cause for concern.

          LEOs take gun from irresponsible people prior to a custodial arrest. It isn’t because we are anti gun – it’s because jails don’t – shockingly – allow you to take guns inside jail. I have never supported the right of a violent felon to have a firearm, and if you commit a DUI or have significant warrants, your hardware is not allowed in jail. Anyone who gets arrested will be separated from all weapons, knives, jewelry, and even their shoestrings and toothbrushes.

        10. avatar matt says:

          LEOs grab guns from people in many more circumstances than you listed including subjects of restraining orders. In California they issue restraining orders if someone is “seriously annoyed or harassed.” And they “can order the restrained person to… Not have a gun.”

          http://www.courts.ca.gov/1044.htm

          So if someone is annoying, their guns will be grabbed by California LEOs like Accur81. But hey, I must be mentally ill if I find that outrageous.

        11. avatar PavePusher says:

          Self-deleted due to my own stupidity. Oops.

      2. avatar din says:

        matt, you retarded peckerwood, why on earth would a police officer leave a felon or other restricted person in possession of a firearm? they’re not allowed to have them for a reason, not just because someone didn’t like them. that isn’t close to the definition of a gun-grabber, you myopic freak.

        1. avatar AK says:

          matt’s point is, that if magazines or ar-15’s were illegal, then the police would be operating under the same premise. police are the enforcement, and once its made illegal to own certain things, it then becomes their duty to enforce that law.

          “why on earth would a police officer leave a felon or other restricted person in possession of an [AR15]? they’re not allowed to have them for a reason, [because they were banned]”

        2. avatar matt says:

          why on earth would a police officer leave a felon or other restricted person in possession of a firearm? they’re not allowed to have them for a reason,

          Just as the grabbers believe that private citizens should not be allowed to own firearms for a reason.

    2. avatar LC Judas says:

      All I can say is that, cop or not, we’re citizens of this country not shocktroopers. Every cop may not feel the way I do but don’t be surprised that we’re human, too. In this fight we’re the same and need to stick together.

  2. avatar Ralph says:

    The whole country has gone absolutely mad, spurred on by disgusting politicians and a media that should be ashamed — but they have no shame. I lived through the divisiveness of Vietnam, and this is far, far worse.

    The political pigs and their media lackeys have almost succeeded in doing what they always wanted to do — control us through lies, distortions and fear. We’ll see what the Chicago backroom politician in the White house wants to do about it. I think I already know, but now we’ll see whether this nation just elected a President or a demagogue in chief.

    1. avatar g says:

      The country is mad with grief, just like it was mad with grief after 9/11. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail, and this column is proof that legal gun owners have allies in the LEO community, just like I consider myself an ally in the education / school community.

      We need to keep stating our case with all the calmness and rationality we can muster until this fog of blind madness ends…

    2. avatar LC Judas says:

      I would have asked if the political climate was ever any worse than this but you’ve aptly answered that question, as I’m not of the age to have seen as much. Hopefully this isn’t as bad or going to turn out as horribly as it appears. But…all we can do is wait.

  3. avatar Gregolas says:

    Thank you, officer, for your great contribution to the discussion. Your contribution,like your service, are most appreciated.

    1. avatar LC Judas says:

      You’re welcome. Spread the word and write your congressmen. This is about as dire a time as any, doesn’t matter the profession, for the freedom we hold dear to be put on trial.

  4. avatar Amagi says:

    Right on! Thank you so much for contributing this post.

    I live in the North East (I am from Brooklyn, grew up in New Jersey and I currently live in Philadelphia).

    A vast majority of the sentiment I encounter on a daily basis is accurately characterized by the contents of this post. It is very nice and refreshing to find something like this and read it and identify because it gets very exhausting constantly being attacked.

    A family friend recently said she was “disappointed” in me because of my gun ownership.

    1. avatar Lolinski says:

      You got off easy, my family calls me a psycho(and idiot) and potencial spree killer for WANTING to own a gun(semi auto 22lr) despite the fact that I am well respected(despite my age) in the sports shooting community. And the law says that here in Norway you can buy a 22lr or a shotgun at age of 14 if you have parents approval(I even earned the money myself). So yeah you got of easy.

      1. avatar LC Judas says:

        I feel for you. It’s ridiculous but…not much can be done about the sentiments people hold towards firearms. Changing how they feel about the owners of them is the best we can hope for and that looks pretty bleak too for the moment…

  5. avatar DJ says:

    Great commentary. Unfortunately, emotion rather than reason will rule the day regarding this issue.

    In 2014 we need to, as a group, vote against anyone who votes for any restriction on the 2nd Amendment as a result of this tragedy. Regardless of their political affiliation. And we need to ensure they understand why we are voting that way. The politicians who replace them need to know they have the length of their terms to restore the status quo ante or we repeat.

    There are enough of us who both own firearms and believe in the Constitution as written to put a serious hurt on these guys during the next election. We need to let them know that before Congress considers this issue, and remind them at the polls if we don’t like the result.

    1. avatar LC Judas says:

      Very aptly stated. It’s the best we can do and maybe we can turn things around if it somehow gets through that way. It’s a worst case scenario to be sure but there are economical reprecussions of banning so many firearms in a country defined and created by the ownership of them. Gunsmiths, shops, ranges and sporting goods stores will go under, a lot of them will. There’s a lot more at stake than just the rights of the civilian…

  6. avatar Lance says:

    Very good post we need more cops like you!!!

  7. avatar CA_Chris says:

    This is a witch hunt. Most liberals see themselves as being intellectually and morally superior than people of past centuries, and the best tactic that I have found for getting through their walls is to show them that they are behaving like the ignorant hordes they despise.

    1. avatar LC Judas says:

      That requires a lot of patience. I’ve been doing all I can and hopefully you can, too. As the assault for now seems unending to the strength of our character or judgement…

  8. avatar guzzimike says:

    Well written piece, thanks. Another bit of promising news is that it looks like most of the “top cops” in the Kendall County, IL are accepting of a future possibility for concealed carry in IL:

    http://www.ledgersentinel.com/article.asp?a=10858

  9. avatar matt says:

    The flaw in that logic is simple: no one has the right to tell anyone else what is good for them.

    Then why is this person a LEO? The sole purpose of a LEO is to coerce people in to behaving as politicians dictate. Which is far worse than simply opining what is good for them. LEOs enable the gun grabbers. Without LEOs the grabbers would not feel safe, and would quickly be converted on to the side of gun owners.

    And I would like to ask the author of this article, how many guns have you grabbed from American citizens for no other reason than they violated a law?

    1. avatar LC Judas says:

      This person is a LEO to protect and serve. To keep people from being victimized not be a tool of victimization. You don’t make laws to oppress the general population. They are created to allow for consequences for crimes regarding the criminal population. Politicians are getting it wrong with this AWB schtick, that I give you, but cops aren’t born or picking the career path to be tools regardless of what you may think. Believe it or not most of us give having principles and thoughts of our own a try.

      I would love to answer your question but it wouldn’t matter if I said zero or countless, as your opinion of my actions doesn’t affect how I do my job or the people I serve though either answer would give you more ammunition for what appear to be mostly cyclical and punitive comments. For the vastly opinionated like yourself all I can say is that I’m glad you can speak your mind, even if half of what you say makes no sense to me.

  10. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    So here is the $20,000 question — how many law enforcement officers will enforce magazine capacity restrictions or a semi-automatic firearms ban against citizens who have no criminal record and are committing no crimes (other than the “crimes” of having a magazine with “too much” capacity or a semi-automatic firearm)? I truly want an honest answer.

    1. avatar matt says:

      I would think it would be safe to assume it would be the same number of those who would enforce NFA restrictions “against citizens who have no criminal record and are committing no crimes”, which would be the vast majority of LEOs.

  11. avatar Texas Deputy says:

    I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to obey all lawful orders.

    Confiscating otherwise legally owned firearms is NOT defending the Constitution OR a lawful order.

    I will surrender my badge before I confiscate an otherwise lawfully owned firearm.

    1. avatar matt says:

      Confiscating otherwise legally owned firearms is NOT defending the Constitution OR a lawful order.

      There you go with those qualifiers. The objective of gun grabbers is to make privately owned firearms illegal. Why is it ok to confiscate one from someone who is a felon or has a restraining order, contrary to 2A and the supremacy clause in the constitution?

      1. avatar din says:

        I dunno, why did your mom make you retarded?

        1. avatar AK says:

          din, enough with the personal attacks.

          the point is, that if something becomes illegal, its the responsibility of law enforcement to enforce that law,

    2. avatar rosignol says:

      …and if the politicians change the law so that what was previously legal is now banned?

      Are you still going to turn in your badge, or are you going to carry out your orders until the Supreme Court rules on the lawsuit?

      1. avatar LC Judas says:

        There are two separate clauses in the Constitution that prohibit laws passed “ex facto” and for things that are deemed retroactive, they are usually on a case by case basis but generally prohibited. While I’m not a politician I do not see the Supreme Court ruling that weapons owned by millions of Americans are going to be ruled illegal retroactively and demanded by the government.

        Aside from the blatant trampling of freedoms and rights involved in that above statement the amount of manpower required to confiscate millions of guns from unwilling Americans would be astronomical and the action of storming up door to door asking for you to hand over semi automatic rifles with 100 round magazines would encourage them to be emptied back through that same door. I may be a cop but I am no fool; many citizens would fight for the guns they bought with their hard-earned money and I for one wouldn’t be a part of seizure of weapons of otherwise law-abiding civilians. Also, I severely doubt the logistics of that sort of ban or the confication operation have been totally overlooked by the politicians pushing the AWB.

  12. avatar James says:

    Outstanding article! Thanks for sharing….unfortunately, we are at a turning point. I am finding myself hoping for the best and expecting the worst with upcoming debates and potential prohibition. Unfortunately, extreme Liberalism is gripping our Nation. I am not running out to buy ARs by the truckload….but the uneducated and Libs may have some gun regulation victories in the near future. I hope I’m wrong.

    1. avatar LC Judas says:

      They’ll only win if we let them. We have to band together, write the letters and show our support for articles like this. Spread the word, get the gun owners who aren’t online in action with something. If enough of us speak, coherently, we can turn the tide. It is possible but we have to make the effort.

  13. avatar macgearailt says:

    LEO L.C.JUDAS, thank you for your words.In my conversations with my fellow cops there is universal agreement that Newtown was unavoidable baring any intervention in Lanza’s life,another AWB will be as ineffectual as the first one and we prefer more arms citizens not fewer.
    With regard to how LEOs are treated here,with the exception of Mike in Italy I enjoy and appreciate what folks have to say.I was a veteran before I was a cop and I remember my oath,To defend and support the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic .That’s all of it.Be safe

    1. avatar LC Judas says:

      Thank you, sir.

  14. avatar Joseph says:

    As a long time law enforcement officer, I can assure all contributors to this site that I will NEVER participate in any attempt to disarm the American public…like the oath says…”to protect and defend the Constitution against ALL enemies foreign and DOMESTIC.”

    My son served in the Army in Iraq. He and I had this discussion a couple of years ago. He said that the soldiers he had spoken to about it would never follow orders to disarm or engage their fellow Americans.
    No F**king way.

    1. avatar matt says:

      The military has disarmed the American people numerous times in the past, such as during the Harlan County War.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlan_County_War

      1. avatar In Memphis says:

        Matt, Im pretty sure Joseph didnt say that it has never happened. Im also pretty sure he didnt say ALL police officers and soldiers would go against orders to disarm the USA.

        1. avatar matt says:

          Perhaps not all of them will, but the Oath Keepers only have 10,000 members, and many of them are veterans/retired LEOs. Even if were to assume all of them were active duty, it would make up less than 1% of LEOs/service members.

          LEOs disarm Americans on a daily basis, and the vast majority of service members who would do the same. Just look at what happened during Katrina, and think of what would happen if there was an actual resistance movement who was willing to defend their 2A rights with violence.

    2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Joseph … I am very glad to hear your position. I hope you are in the majority and not the minority.

    3. avatar Jake says:

      Thank you for your assertion, but remember it only bears weight if you are willing to step in and stop others that inevitably will obey an unconstitutional order. If you let the blue line stand, then it will be action by inaction, support for the grabbers. Hoping all of you that say you would lawfully turn down such orders would not stand by while others abide by them, but it has been my experience that no matter how good an “official” is in some ways, the blue line always trumps all. Serpico and some others are notable exceptions, hopefully more will make themselves known if/when confiscation starts. But realize we have no way of knowing if this is the case, so some wariness is to be expected and understood.

  15. avatar Brian says:

    Ding ding ding, we have a winner. Well said.

  16. avatar Tim McNabb says:

    I for one welcome the opportunity to lick the jackboots of any and all law enforcement officers, just to annoy the shit out of matt.

  17. avatar Agitator says:

    TL:DR

    Heil, Law Enforcement! Heil!

  18. avatar Mark says:

    The sheep and the wolves are both afraid of the sheepdog and they’re trying to legislate the sheepdog’s fangs away.

  19. avatar Rob G says:

    Thank you, Officer Judas, for your very well-written and insightful article and for your service!

    1. avatar LC Judas says:

      You’re welcome. I want you all to know that there are more officers like me but without spreading the word it won’t matter if we let this legislation pass. It takes more than what I have to say; we ALL have to speak out.

      1. avatar Rob G says:

        Copy that!

  20. avatar MOG says:

    Who is paying gun control lobbyists? I know the NRA is backed by members’ dues, but who is backing congress members against gun ownership? Perhaps they are acting out of their convictions, although, I don’t think nearly enough of them have been convicted yet.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email