"A photo shared on Facebook of police involved in a hostage training scenario at buildings that are scheduled to be demolished at Ida Yarbourgh Apartments in Albany March 21, 2013. Albany police said they're reviewing training procedures after complaints about the proximity of tear gas and the release of fake ammunition to apartments that are still occupied." (Text and photo courtesy timesunion.com)

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has climbed down on the SAFE Act’s uber-unconstitutional seven-round magazine limit. Hizzoner claims he didn’t know that no one makes seven-round ammunition magazines. Be that as it isn’t, read the fine print: the State wants to “suspend enforcement” of the seven-round mag cap, not eliminate the provision. Equally, Empire State residents who own a [newly-defined] “assault weapon” must still register their gun with the po-po within a year or . . . see above. No seriously. Don’t kid yourself; New York’s local and state SWAT teams are ready, willing and able to enforce the SAFE Act. If Albany residents didn’t know it before, they do now . . .

Police Chief Steven Krokoff says his department was “insensitive” when it conducted a training exercise that involved police firing blank ammunition and using flash grenades near occupied apartments at the Ida J. Yarbrough Homes . . .

Police said they went door-to-door before the training to notify residents, but many were caught off guard when the teams descended Thursday morning reportedly shooting fake bullets and throwing flash grenades and tear gas into the vacant building during the exercise.

“We wake up to the sound the next morning of literally small bombs,” said an Ida Yarbrough resident and state worker, who spoke only on condition she not be identified. “All you could hear was ‘pop, pop, pop’ of an assault rifle, police screaming ‘clear!’ I really thought I was in the middle of a war zone — and I have a four-year-old.”

The empty apartments used for the training are in front of a parking lot and steps away from two other buildings that are still filled with tenants.

The problem isn’t indiscretion, although God knows this was an impolite incursion into local residents’ lives. It’s the mere existence of these “troops.”

Teams of up-armored cops without any raison d’etre do what any organism or organization does: find one. This they’ve done with the “War on Drugs,” pursuing the flash bang lifestyle with no-knock drug busts.

With enthusiasm for the WOD winding down, with terrorists notable by their absence, the SAFE Act is a gift.

All this military-style police work increases the likelihood that someone in NY will pull the trigger on a SWAT raid (or ten) on private gun owners who refused to register their previously-legal “assault rifle.” Or bought or sold ammo without telling the state.

Why not? A year from now they’ll be criminals. Dangerous criminals. Ipso facto. Mark my words: one day the blood on that pavement won’t be fake. [h/t Nick]

Recommended For You

99 Responses to NY Cops Training for “The Collection”?

  1. Of course, the poor soul who tries to defend himself against a mistaken/unlawful raid will be painted as a lunatic by the media.

    • Exactly. The normal, law abiding father with his children in the house will fire upon the entry team not truly knowing what is going on. Then he’ll be killed, plus the dog and probably a kid or two by accident. And the media will paint him as the bad guy.

      Also I would like to point out:

      “Hizzoner claims he didn’t know that no one makes seven-round ammunition magazines.”

      Well Mr. Cuomo is full of sh*t. It is no coincidence that Kimber, who makes seven-round capable 1911’s, just HAPPENS to be in NY. There isn’t a doubt in my mind that a few calls were made to Kimber to ensure that they were happy prior to determining that number.

      Kimber is to New York what Ruger was the the Fed in 1994.

      • Hizzoner didn’t suspend enforcement because no one makes a seven-round magazine. He suspended it to complicate the legal proceedings. attempting to delay ripeness of the issues.

  2. “They’ve done so with no-knock drug busts. The SAFE Act is a gift.”

    With the prospect of the “War on (some) Drugs” teat drying up in the near future, they need another catch-all excuse for the continued degradation of the 4th amendment, the continued growth of police powers, and the virtually unlimited budget. It’ll be even worse now that every one of these “criminals” is, by default, considered armed and dangerous.

  3. Here we go again. Read the full, unedited for provocative headlines article at http://tinyurl.com/cstbmnq Here’s a quote that RF “overlooked”; “Police said they went door-to-door before the training to notify residents, but many were caught off guard when the teams descended Thursday morning…”

    If you actually look at the photo above you can see the blue & red training guns. Does the Albany Police Dept have a tactical team? Yes. Do they need to train? Yes. Are empty, scheduled to be demolished apartments good, realistic training environments? Yes.

    Just imaging the whining if it was announced that the APD tactical team wasn’t going to train in realistic ways any more. Some professions can’t win for losing, at least here…

    • Excuse me, but the founding fathers, almost to a man, strenuously opposed the concept of a “standing army” and thoroughly discussed and debated the pros and cons before deciding it should not be a part of our new nation.

      We have now and have had for many years a standing army, with some degree of protection from same via the Posse Comitatus laws. How is a increasingly militarized police force any different from a standing army in our midst, and who will protect us from their excesses?

      Haven’t the recent increased incidences of “SWATing” taught us what a dangerous situation we are creating/allowing?

      BTW, IMO, an increased presence of legally armed civilians, open or concealed, would go a long way to eliminating or preventing a great many scenarios where SWAT is utilized today. Please do not flame me on that. I am not a professional LEO nor fully versed in SWAT procedures or tactics, but isn’t it obvious that the presence of an armed citizen in a room full of otherwise helpless victims/hostages is a much bigger deterrent than a half dozen or so SWAT guys outside trying to find a way in?

      • Correct these Militarized popo’s are a standing and should be treated as a Violation of the Third Amendment when they comacallin.
        TRAITORS pure and simple and they know it, othewise why hide their faces.

  4. OK. We know what their plans are. Doesn’t mean we have to play the role they have established for us. If they start going door to door and the only doors they go to are people that previously bought newly designated “assault” weapons than we know they have been breaking the law and keeping permanent records of NICS checks. If they go to everybody’s door that will tell us something else. Regardless don’t let them find your guns and don’t put up a fight. Make them play their hand and make videos of any interaction you have with them. Get the ACLU app that lets you stream live video to the cloud. Don’t fight back. Once again don’t play the role they want us to play. There will be plenty of time to water the tree after they make their move.

    • Thanks for the tip on the ACLU app. It sounds great.
      I’ve heard enough of “If you’re not doing anything wrong, why don’t you co-operate?”

      Turn about is fair play.

      If the police are not doing anything wrong, they have nothing to hide.

    • It is not illegal for states to maintain permanent registration records. Only the Fed is so limited. California has maintained a register of handgun sales since the ’80s or ’90s, and a long gun registration (not retroactive, only new purchases) goes into efect 1/1/2014. NYC maintains a register of handguns as well. I am certain there are other states that do so–Illinois jumps to mind.

    • Don’t fight back right let us just all wait tiil it is the Law of the LAND and they own all of us.

      You die a Slave not me

  5. From Poster Newman on Yahoo:

    Dear Mayor Goofball, [Bloomberg]
    I find it funny that the same government that CANNOT control its borders, that CANNOT erase a 17 trillion dollar debt, that CANNOT reduce deficits in a deficit reduction bill, that CANNOT articulate a healthcare bill, that CANNOT track its own Fast and Furious guns to drug cartels, that CANNOT explain Benghazi, where its leaders readily admit that they DO NOT read legislation before voting on it, is going to keep me from ANYTHING

    • Most of the people here think there is only one problem with the Government and their attack on the 2A. You are thinking too much for this site.

      • You sound like a troll. You apparently don’t read comments here or you wouldn’t make such blanket statements. I, for one, have clearly stated dozens of times, how out of control the government is on all levels and at all levels. From the debt and budget fiasco to the war on some drugs to the attacks on the entire bill of rights, to the police state, I and many, many others have made our positions quite clear.

        • shawn is bitter towards the commenters on this site due to them pointing out his radical progressive idiocy. If we continue to ignore him maybe he will go back to his daily activity which consist cutting out pictures of obama and stuffing them in his tighty whities, or hanging out at the local xxx shop begging for dates.

      • Comments like this are just plain stupid. This is blog has the most diverse pro-2A readership I’ve encountered. We run the gamut from teachers, active duty + retired military, police officers, lawyers, doctors, bankers, mechanics, liberals, conservatives and NWO conspiracy theorists. If you can find a site which attracts that variety of opinion and perspective, please share it with us.

        I often find myself in disagreement with many readers on here, but that’s what the whole comments section is about, isn’t it? You can still respect someone’s point of view even while vehemently disagreeing with him.

        And the beauty of the Internet is, you’re free to start your own blog and tailor the material to attract readers who are of like-mind with you.

        I’ll hang around here because RF has created a site which can bring people from all backgrounds together in agreement about the 2A and hash out our differences regarding social issues, fiscal + foreign policies, economics and civil liberties.

      • Shawn, we post our comments about the Gov’s other foibles on relevant sites, such as the Volokh Conspiracy or, laugh, Jezebel. This is a site about guns. For everything else there’s the Daily Kos or Big Journalism. Did you think before you wrote? We aren’t deep enough for….you?

  6. It does seem that cops get absolutely NO slack around here any more, and although most of the time they deserve the razzing, at what point do we move forward? I don’t like cops any more than the rest of us, but if you were given a dangerous task (ignoring for the moment the enormous stupidity of this particular example), would you want to train-up a bit? I know I would… It doesn’t mean I like what they’re doing, but there’s alot of that going on these days. What I really dislike is in line with Derek’s statement, in that suddenly many law-abiding citizens have become armed, dangerous criminals. The stage is set for something awful to happen, either a offi-dier (officer/soldier) who’s too high-strung practicing that well-known lack of trigger discipline and letting one fly, or some poor sap thinking he’s being robbed and returning fire with disastrous consequences. The whole thing sucks.

    • Just because a law is on the books it doesn’t mean the cops have to enforce said law.

      “Just following orders” doesn’t cut it.

      • As far as I’m concerned, if it’s on the books, it’s enforced.
        I definitely agree that “just following orders” is no excuse
        but police officers should not be allowed to decide which
        laws they want to enforce. Those decisions were set up
        to be made by elected officials and ultimately the voting
        public. Of course there is nothing that says police cannot
        demonstrate restraint, resign or protest/condemn a law.
        But if you allow police officers to decide which laws to
        enforce, the legal system becomes based on the personal convictions of those enforcing the law, not the public.

        To often I’ve seen cops take the blunt of the anger (many
        times justifiably so) only to have the politicians, lawyers
        and judges involved skip away clean. Even this site seems
        to loose focus occasionally (not often RF et al are pretty
        good). Yes, NY cops are indeed gearing up for
        enforcement of the abomination that is the SAFE act.
        But other than Gov. Cuomo, how many of us know the
        legislators that voted for this. It is they that deserve
        everyone’s scrutiny and ire. They purposely and knowingly
        set this entire situation up. Without their votes, the SAFE
        act would have been DOA.

        • Part of the reason that peaceable veterans like myself have lost all respect for cops today is because they follow your advice, and refrain from using common sense and discretion when that used to be the norm for “Peace Officers” of old. I guess you would have advocated enforcing the fugitive slave laws too???

        • “Without their votes, the SAFE act would have been DOA.”

          P.S. WITHOUT ENFORCEMENT, the SAFE act WILL BE DOA! When cops figure this concept out they will be loved and respected by “peaceable” citizens again. As long as they continue to be ENFORCERS they will be despised.

        • When you carry out the unconstitutional edicts of the governing class you are just as guilty as they are. If you think that a law is one that should be blindly obeyed because it is on the books then you are a sociopath, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

          This is one of my biggest complaints about the whole “law abiding” meme so popular now. Following an edict by politicians doesn’t make a person good, moral or upstanding. It just means they follow the lead of people with low morals and poor character.

        • Every day when we wake up and go about our business each and every one of us decides as the day progresses which laws we will or will not obey in that moment. Have you ever gotten a speeding ticket? Have you ever been sure you were going to be pulled over only to have the cop pass you by?

          Similarly, every LEO when he goes on duty and goes about his business must prioritize his time and abilities. Even if the LEO knew every law that is on the books and is in his jurisdiction to enforce (unlikely), he would have to choose constantly which violations he observed were worthy of his attention and which were not.

          A cop would be quickly overwhelmed if he made ANY attempt to enforce every single law, therefore he must use discretion and unless someone is looking over his shoulder and DEMANDING that certain things may not be overlooked he may, and most certainly does, pick and choose what criminal behavior he will concern himself with.

        • Csmallo, that’s why I don’t say “law abiding” anymore since it changes over time and it really means blindly obedient. I use the term “peaceable” in lieu of “law abiding” now. In the 1850’s if one rounded up and returned slaves they would be “law abiding” since that was the law of the land at the time but you could hardly call that peaceable behavior.

        • police officers should not be allowed to decide which
          laws they want to enforce

          Do you mean the 4th Amendment? That’s one law they seem to manage to overlook every day.

        • No Ralph, he means cops don’t want to be held accountable for their actions. The job is much easier to do if morality is removed from the equation and cops can blindly follow orders and then blame their actions on bad laws and politicians. It’s a cop out, an excuse used by weak willed individuals who lack courage and a moral compass.

        • As I said cops do have the option of exercising restraint, resigning etc.. They can also have
          some discretion on how far to pursue enforcement but allowing cops to pick and choose which laws to enforce can be a two edged sword. How many here were screaming when David Gregory got a pass? That happened because the DCPD and the DA chose not to enforce the law. Where would you draw
          the line of acceptability? Are we willing to force LEOs
          to decide whether a law is or is not unconstitutional? They should always be aware of possible constitutional issues but how many of you are willing to let each individual LEO make that decision? One side of the issue that everyone is missing is what happens when a LEO make a decision you don’t agree with? For instance,
          how many LEOs in New York not only view the SAFE act as legal/constitutional but a good idea? What’s the plan for dealing with these officers?

          As I also stated, how many direct their hate toward LEOs instead of Judges, lawyers or politicians? I testified against an serial arsonist a year ago. The man was arrested and charged properly. He was also convicted of 4 class A felonies. He is currently walking free after only 8 months because some judge decided he wasn’t a danger since no one had been killed (yet). The judge decided he wasn’t going to enforce the law regarding minimum sentencing. Guess whose office got hate mail about how they weren’t doing their job (hint it wasn’t the judge’s).

          The constitution has mechanisms built into it to provide for leniency and interpretation. Judges can use the “spirit” of the law as a guide. Juries also supplement this. By allowing/forcing LEOs to decide which laws they have to enforce, we are sidestepping our responsibility
          as the electorate to ensure that laws are fairly
          applied. When we don’t like a law, we work to either
          remove it or amend it. By many of the arguments here the NRA, NYSRPA, and others are wasting time filing suits against the SAFE act. Why not devote resources to encourage LEOs to not enforce it?

        • Chuck,I must strongly disagree with you. There are plenty of bad laws passed, and individual police should have the brains to decide if something should be enforced. Imho, any officer who violates the 2nd ammendment should go to jail for it. The constitution is written in language any third grader can understand. its only intelectuals and liars err lawyers who cannot comprehend it.

        • But again the voter is the one ultimately
          responsible for those “bad laws”. When
          the low-info crowd elects liars and self-
          serving bureaucrats that’s the result.
          By forcing an LEO to choose which laws
          are to be enforced, you run the risk of
          making them completely autonomous.
          Unfortunately, even a “bad law” can be
          legal. The problem arises in the definition
          of a “bad” law. Everybody has a different
          opinion but we are left with only two
          options: trust the public to correct “bad”
          laws or submit to our “betters”. By allowing
          LEOs to decide which laws to enforce you’re
          giving them the moral and intellectual right
          to decide what is good for you. This is
          precisely why many politicians pull the
          crap they do, because a majority of voters
          reelect them instead of running them out.
          They may make “bad” laws, and we may
          protest but when they’re reelected we’re
          saying “we can’t govern ourselves, you
          were right all along”.

          There are mechanisms in the constitution
          to deal with “bad laws”. They are currently
          being used to fight the SAFE act. If a
          governmental office makes a law the people
          do not agree with they seek to change it.
          Instead of making LEOs decide on a case
          by case basis, we seek injunctions to prevent
          the law from being enforced. If we don’t
          like the outcome, we seek another injunction
          and appeal. At no point in the process of
          forming or removing a law should LEOs
          have to become involved.

          It is not for LEOs to decide what laws to
          enforce. But it is our responsibility as citizens
          to ensure that “bad” laws are either killed
          or removed quickly. Demanding that LEOs
          decide for themselves will only widen the gap
          between the electorate and those that
          perceive themselves as our “protectors”.

        • I definitely agree that “just following orders” is no excuse
          but police officers should not be allowed to decide which
          laws they want to enforce.

          Well make up your mind. Do you want them to be unthinking thugs or do you want them to use their brains and decide to ignore unjust orders?

    • #1. Its a voluntary job. Don’t like the dangerous job description? Don’t like the crappy hours? Don’t like the low pay? Quit and get one you do like.

      #2. Unlike most other civilian jobs (civilian jobs includes LE jobs), this job allows you to use deadly force against citizens. With great power comes great responsibility. The onus should be on the LEO to do everything in his power to prevent killing an innocent citizen. Screw that up and kill an innocent citizen, I want the LEO to be nailed to the wall by the reproductive systems. If they don’t like this, see #1.

      #3 When you are delegated the power to kill someone, you should not be cut any slack. Don’t like it? See #1.

    • Consider the possibility: its meant to go bad. That outcome would most likely suit a whole lot of people. To me that’s the only thing that makes sense. How can anyone be doing what they’re doing (rushing to violate the civil rights of millions of Americans) and saying what they’re saying ( confiscate privately owned guns) and not see it going terribly bad in all sorts of ways. They have to be doing it on purpose.

      Hey Mr. government agents, hasn’t this crossed anybody’s mind? Are you all witting accomplices in the coming 2nd American civil war? Someone has to pull the plug on this before it goes too far!

    • “…if you were given a dangerous task (ignoring for the moment the enormous stupidity of this particular example), would you want to train-up a bit?”

      As to this point, I should like to point out that NOBODY is drafted into the police force at any level. It is 100% volunteer. Therefore, nobody is “given a dangerous task”, it is a job they took on willingly and willingly pursue daily. If they disagree with the task at hand they are under no constraints not to turn in their badge and walk away.

      • And if the vast majority of cops walked away that would send a huge message to the government mandarins that business as usual couldn’t continue and things would have to change. Unfortunately with 90% retirement (100% in some places) after 30 years and other perks and pay that the rest of the people with only high school diplomas don’t get there is ZERO incentive to walk away…just the way the government mandarins like it. An infantryman does 20 years and is broken at the end and he gets 50% (75% @ 30). A cop does 30 years and never even hears a shot fired in anger in most places and gets 90%. Yeah, there is no incentive to walk away whatsoever.

  7. People, if you do not like it…move. I am sure that there is someone who is like minded out in the west who would be willing to take you in and help you out until you get back on your feet.

    • Shawn, That’s not going to solve the problem. I suppose we could all retreat to the most gun friendly state in the Union and make our stand there. But rest assured if we retreat the battle will just follow us. If we lose in NY the enemy will only be emboldened.

  8. Last night’s Dateline had a story on one of the FBI’s top 10 most wanted. The perp bought a .45 Glock a few days before committing his crime, and once the FBI had the suspect’s name, they instantly found out when and where he bought that gun. Whether that’s a state-specific system, or if the data is kept indefinitely, I have no idea. But it’s naive to think that anything other than a personal transfer will stay out of Big Brother’s computer systems.

  9. I admit it. I want to believe that our government is benevolent. I do. It would make my life easier. But alas, I have yet to see anything in recent history that points to the government being on my side. In anything. Not with my money, my rights, my children’s future….nothing.

    So.

    I find it disturbing that local cops are being trained in such a fashion. I have no beef with the police. I live in a small town, and I appreciate having both the police and a fire department standing by. I am not the guy who thinks all law enforcement is full of evil and corrupted men and women on the take.

    Yet…well…when I read stuff like this it does give me pause to wonder. Not wonder if the local law enforcement folks are corrupted, no. But wonder if they will not inadvertently be manipulated into making a move against common citizens.

    Speaking of which, I realized today I simply do not trust The Department of Homeland Security. It took a while, but I am starting to really see a bad moon a risin’.
    http://wr2a.wordpress.com/2013/03/25/department-of-homeland-security-nope-i-dont-trust-em/

    Long Live the Republic, indeed.

    • How can any government be benevolent when they claim to protect property rights and yet the very first thing they do is rob you at the point of a gun? (it doesn’t change anything by calling it taxation)

      • And that is the very heart of the matter Bob. The founders did not include a tax on labor because to tax a man’s labor is to enslave him. They understood this concept and we had no income tax for 130 years as a result. Today government has turned this concept on its head and it now says that you aren’t patriotic if you don’t pay taxes. Orwellian doublespeak it is.

    • I want to believe that our government is benevolent.

      Donald, I want to believe in unicorns. And I think I’m being more realistic than you are.

      • Bob, Redleg, Ralph,

        Let me rephrase it so it is easier to catch:
        I wish I could believe that our government was benevolent. I wish I could breathe easier, not worrying about the goings-on of this administration and how they are destroying our Nation piece by piece. I would like to believe the best about our government. But since about 2007, I have come to realize our government, (technically not “our government” since I am pretty sure none of us voted for the current Dear Leader), is not about proper governance according to our Constitution, but is instead about setting up an elitist statist utopia.

        Please do not fault me for wishing to be able to smile, boys. I wish I could. But I cannot. I wish Obama and DC were not showing themselves to be reckless and dangerous to us as Americans. But they are. Yet, *deep breath*, I still wish I could believe in a government that actually governs.

        • Donald, I understand and agree with your points completely with only one caveat. I came to realize “…our government…is not about proper governance according to our Constitution…” in 2003. I would like to claim that I woke up in 1993 under Clinton but I still trusted government implicitly back then and so I wrote him off as an anomaly.

        • Redleg,

          This is good to know. I woke up in 2007 or so. But even now, as I dig deeper, I see things that were going on within the government that I was simply ignorant about. And these things have a “D” and an “R” attached to them. It took the campaign and election of Pres. Obama for me to wake up. Now it seems I am making up for lost time. Yikes.

      • And I want to marry a Rich young quite Beautiful Woman who actually cares for Me and sticks around through thick and thin.

  10. I am a retired LEO, and certainly concerned about the over-militarization of police. I oppose it completely.
    That having been said, comments like Lance’s are not only stupid, but destructive to the purpose of Pro-2A folks here. Knock it off.

  11. Couldn’t the Rambo wannabes find a more remote place to play SEAL Team 6 member?

    Someday, future honest and brave, historians will look back on this era saying the people at one time had a chance to keep their liberties and the historical documents that were later burned up in piles with the banned books.

  12. Heres something I find fascinating.

    Decades ago there were no SWAT teams. Yet, people like Jim Cirillo were able to keep the streets safe with Ithaca 12 gauges and .38 special revolvers. There was no Patriot Act, indefinite detention, or no knock warrants.

    Now we have a secondary army in America which doesn’t answer to the DoD. At the rate Obama is gutting the military, our police may end up being a better equipped army then the genuine article.

    • Well, that’s the plan. After all, the U.S. military can’t be used for action on U.S. soil. A massive federal police force which is ‘just as strong as’ the U.S. military can act on U.S. soil.

      That makes the U.S. military a liability to the statist trying to subjugate his own people, doesn’t it? Gotta use domestic LEOs to shoot your civilians to maintain the illusion of playing by the rules.

      • Well I can tell you the vast majority of veterans and soldiers that I know who were in combat arms and didn’t sit at a desk no longer support the police in their current status as REGIME ENFORCERS. We are now seeing the very things done by totalitarian regimes being perpetrated against our own people here today and it makes us sick. We didn’t risk our lives to enable the same behavior at home which we fought against overseas.

    • You think Cirillo or anyone of that era gave a rat’s ass about anybody’s civil rights? By comparison you’re living in the golden age of civil rights today.

      That “secondary army” answers to your mayor or town council. Don’t like it? Get enough voters together to elect a new mayor on a “no SWAT team” platform. The problem is political, and upstream from your average street cop.

      • Upstater, of course that’s what every cop says who doesn’t want to be held accountable for his/her actions. I get sick of always hearing “don’t blame me, blame the politicians, I’m just doing my job.” Well guess what, cops own everything they do and the Nuremberg defense ist kaput. The people are waking up to the cognitive dissonance and that’s why you see more and more commentators like me everywhere these days. Here’s the bottom line…IF YOU ENFORCE IT YOU OWN IT!!! If you don’t like being called out on it by the rest of us then don’t do it. You don’t get to set morality aside because some politician gave you sanction to operate under the color of his law. Your actions are either moral or immoral, PERIOD!

        • But this time the Nuremberg OUTCOME Applies to POLs, Cops and most importantly NewsLiars.

  13. I cross the northern border frequently and note that often, the Canadian gun-control experience of the nineties and 2000’s closely parallels what we are going through in The U.S. Lots of anecdotal info confirms this. For example, back in 2006, when Liberal Paul Martin said that he would be banning handguns if he won the election, Canadian LEOs and BATFE officers were undergoing joint training exercises on how to breach dwellings and confiscate firearms.

  14. No, your attitude shows you for government tool that you are Shawn.

    It SHOULD be illegal for states to maintain gun records. Only big government state worshiping totalitarians and cops (sorry for my redundancy) agree with gun registration.

    The fact that gun registration may be legal in some states is irrelevant. Fugitive slave laws used to be legal at one time to.

    I guess you would have supported them also because well, “the law is the law and you MUST obey the law”, right?

    Lemming.

  15. There are lots of good comments on this thread. Personally, I’m an LEO concerned about the militarization of the police force. I see both sides – the militarization of the police is a disturbing trend, but it sure is nice to have a Kevlar helmet when rocks and bottle are flying towards you (the last big ‘Ol Lakers championship celebration comes to mind, as well as some others).

    My belief in the second Amendment has changed over the years. I’ve seen the historical basis and empirical facts whereby an armed citizenry is a good thing. My corners mirror Longpurple above: namely the inability of our government to manage its own debt, secure its borders, and the desire growing within the Feds to arm themselves and monitor its own citizens. Not to mention POTUS and VPOTUS are incompetent leaders and have shown their true anti-2A virtues.

    My comments have slowed down some because I’ve been calling and emailing senators quite a bit lately. I’m definitely grateful to TTAG, FPC, NRA etc. in the fight for freedom. And now I’ve got to go and hit the road.

    • Accur81, when you are standing in the breach defending the people from real violent criminals I want you to have everything you need to do so and I completely support you 100% in this endeavor. I would even stand shoulder to shoulder with you or render aid if needed. What I have a problem with is when “mala in se” is not the standard for law any longer but instead it is “mala probita” and today I am “law abiding” citizen but tomorrow I am a criminal at the stroke of a pen. We all understand that politicians make laws and they make lots of bad, immoral, unjust, unconstitutional laws. Yes, they need to be held accountable and removed from office but cops also need to do their part as well in ignoring these bad laws as much as possible. The federal fugitive slave laws were tossed through lack of enforcement, jury nullification, and state laws making them illegal. Cops are vital in this process.

    • I hasten to say that I can’t take credit for the post concerning the general incompetence of our Government. As I wrote in the first line “From a Poster Newman on Yahoo”
      He invited readers to cut and paste his comment, and I took him up on it.
      I take no credit for writing it.

  16. For NY residents, and probably others, it’s just about time for some peaceful civil disobedience. Suggestion: lock up your guns at home and leave them there along with knives, baseball bats, and anything else that might be misconstrued as being a weapon. Pack up the mini vans with snacks and soft drinks, drive toward the city along the major roadways, and then PARK your vehicles, shutting down your engines. Take out your bottle of shoe polish and scrawl across your windshields in big, bold letters, “I support the Second Amendment.” Don’t say a single word to reporters.

    Keep the highway shoulders clear of vehicles for emergency access (and for the kids to play catch and soccer). Begin your 24-hour respite. Enjoy conversation with fellow Second Amendment supporters, read a good book, enjoy your MP3 playlist, change the oil in your cars, make love with your significant other (if you have well-tinted windows). And if you’re not in jail at the end of the 24 hours, start up your engines and drive home.

    Be prepared to accept the consequences for this peaceful act of civil disobedience: possible arrest (depending on how many decide to man-up and participate), a monetary fine, a day or so in jail, your cars impounded, at worst the loss of your driver’s licenses and your job.

    We hear plenty of BIG TALK about fighting the confiscation and “prying from cold dead hands” and all of that shit, but if American supporters of the Second Amendment can’t even face a legal charge or two and a possible loss of income, who is going to believe that they will risk their lives and the lives of their loved ones to defend their right to keep and bear arms? Nobody.

    But if something like this 24-hour peaceful, quiet, family-friendly protest were to occur–and the accompanying financial shockwave to the city–then these patriots would send a very clear message to those who need to hear it: Second Amendment supporters are willing to sacrifice to defend their rights. Second Amendment supporters can organize themselves when threatened. Second Amendment supporters can set aside unrelated political differences for common cause. Second Amendment supporters can show courage without guns, are nonviolent by choice and nature, and very serious about defending their liberty.

    • Here is the little problem with your idea, while you may leave your weapons home, the mere fact that you got arrested will likely cause the loss of your permit. Then you can sit at home and wait for the NYPD kick-in crew to do their thing and take your gear. Kind of self-defeating if you think about it

      • To both of you guys, exactly what would you be “arrested” for, so long as you don’t drive your vehicle with the “shoe polish” on the windshield (and then it’s a traffic ticket).

        I don’t think things are so bad (yet) that you can’t say you “support the Second Amendment”.

      • PV, I think you described that problem very well: little. As in insignificant within the larger picture.

        I don’t support the Second Amendment for MY guns. I’m not going to bury guns in my yard. I’m not particularly worried about my 30-30. I care about the RIGHT, not the object. I can live without a gun. No problem at all. I lived six years in Latin America without a gun. There’s lots of other fun things to do.

        What I’m talking about is standing up for a special American freedom which separates us from people in most of the world.

        I live in Tennessee. The legislature here sure as hell isn’t going to pull a Bloomberg. But if I thought there were 500 New York gun-rights supporters with the stones to engage in peaceful civil disobedience, I’d drive the 10 hours or so to join them.

        But you have illustrated what I have come to believe of most pro-gun folks: all bark and no bite. It’s all about threatening to do ‘this and that’ after the government does ‘this and that.’ It’s quite a different matter when it comes to actually going out and doing something.

        I don’t have much interest in some post-apocalyptic showdown with a tyrannical government. One reason is that I love my country, and I don’t enjoy the vision of it being torn apart. Nor would I participate in any violent resistance after sweeping gun control because, by that time, we would have gotten what we deserve–well deserved since we failed to act when we could.

        There are a lot of snide comments about “liberals” on this forum, but the liberals don’t seem to be near as chickenshit as a lot of conservative gun owners.

        Where is the Second Amendment equivalent of the environmentalists sleeping in trees of old-growth forests to prevent timbering, or the public burning of draft cards, or college sit-ins against CIA recruitment on campus, or the civil rights marchers who faced police assault during the march to Montgomery?

        No matter what you think of these acts of civil disobedience or their causes, those (mostly) liberals displayed courage that I have not seen in the pro-Second Amendment camp. Instead, I read ad nauseam idle threats of violence, which are then used against us by gun control advocates who love to paint us as fearful, paranoid lunatics.

        Environmentalism, the anti-draft movement, civil rights – these were political winners because of the people who put it on the line. I don’t think anyone can call gun rights a clear political winner, not by a long shot, and I don’t know how long we can rely on lawyers and lobbyists at the NRA to do our work for us.

        • An important point you seem to miss is that gun rights are civil rights! You have bought into a very subtle false narrative by differentiating between the civil rights struggles of the 60’s and what is going on now with our gun rights.

          You say you’d be happy giving up your guns to prove the point that we let it happen to ourselves. The definition of tyranny is when the majority tramples on the rights of the minority and the government sanctions it. That’s why we have the second amendment. In case that happens. Sure we can give up the 2A and work to get it back but do you really think those that took it will give it back if we don’t have any guns?

  17. It might be a good idea train on getting your ass shot off! You know this is all going to end badly, there are quite a few people out there who know how to put up fight without actually being in the house when these village idiots start kicking-in doors.

    I have no sympathy for the (SS) Police Force that backs this Communist Campaign! They should have the balls to stand up to the trampling of Second Amendment rights, as many Sheriffs throughout our Nation have already done. To carry this out is a disgrace! I would move from that state without hesitation, it is obvious that it is under Communist control.

  18. Why the hell would anyone live in New York? I suggest anyone with a gun leave New York and let the liberals all get mugged, raped and killed by the criminals. They are asking for that to happen anyway…

    • Probably for the same reason I live in Kalifornia, due to family and work. I have no chance of moving for various reasons for at least another 3 years. I would love to move tomorrow but I’m stuck here. I’d have gone years ago if I didn’t have unfettered access and a key to an old family friend’s ranch to shoot whenever I want to. As far as the gun laws go, as a free man I ignore them. Some day I’ll probably pay for it if I get caught (which is why I differentiate between “law abiding” and “peaceable”) but I would never harm anyone except in self-defense which makes me “peaceable” but not “law abiding.” In this state my two decades of service in Army combat arms (to include a security clearance for the duration) means nothing and the vast majority of cops here would happily throw me in a cell for carrying without their permission or for having the wrong size magazine.

      • P.S. Just wondering, how many of you cops commenting here would give me a pass if you saw that I had the wrong size mags or the wrong style of firearm (for this state) or if you noticed I happened to be carrying concealed? My criminal record is as white as snow, with nary a speeding ticket…but I bet most here would throw me in jail, DESPITE all of their supportive RKBA commentary on this site.

        If you can’t unequivocally say you’d give me a pass you are an enemy of 2A despite all of your commentary to the contrary. Ponder on that a bit because my personal circumstances are where the rubber meets the road in this battle and tomorrow you could be reading about me on this site for living freely despite the unconstitutional and immoral laws on the book in this state.

        In a just society no victim = no crime. To enforce anything to the contrary regardless of all of the BS laws on the books says something about you as a person.

        • My prayer go out to you brother in arms, we all need to make our voice heard to all law enforcement and current and former military… current and former military will most likely side with the second amendment, Cops on the other hand for the most part are a bunch of stool pigeons with badges, former patrol boys who told the teacher on everyone. we will see how long it takes for them to eventually give up the fight when the REAL PATRIOTS COME OUT TO PLAY…

  19. For all of the cops and their supporters on this site who are confused, who don’t want them to have to decide what to enforce (even if it is unjust) and who are saying how subjective this concept is so it won’t work, well let me spell it out for you:

    NO VICTIM = NO CRIME. It’s a very simple concept and even those who are a bit slow should be able to grasp it. If I am not wearing my seat belt there is no victim, get it?

    NO VICTIM = NO CRIME

    And to reiterate again for you, the bottom line is…IF YOU ENFORCE IT YOU OWN IT!!!

  20. If people aren’t alarmed by the daily militarization of our police forces, they aren’t paying attention. This shouldn’t be happening in a free society. I am truly ashamed of my government. When all the guns are taken away, gang violence and drug violence will still be there. Neither of those problems have yet to be licked. The new enemy is inanimate.

    • No the New ENEMY IS THE SAME OLD ENEMY , Inanimate they aint.

      COMMUNISM! And they still follow the same plans, confiscate then Terminate.
      Ask those poor Polish Officers.

      • Slight off topic but….The government and even the Obama administration are many things, but please don’t throw around the C (Communism) word so much. They are NOT Communist. They are a lot closer to fascist. (BTW, the same goes for the term Socialist…Social Security and Medicare are socialist, but I don’t see many people out to eliminate those programs, least of all the millions are are currently benefiting from them…and don’t give me the old “I paid for that routine”. Those numbers don’t add up I am afraid.) The administration, like many before it, is in bed with large corporations and other large financial interests. In order to continue to get elected and re-elected, they must lick the boots of those with money since money is what it takes to run a national campaign that needs tons of media time. You would think that both left and right would recognize this problem and push for serious campaign finance reform, but as with many issues, across-the-isle cooperation still eludes us.

  21. Well bloodyspartan me thinks you’ve been playing a little too much COD.

    In the first place one against many is never a good idea no matter how righteous your cause.

    In the second place meeting your adversary on his terms is never the best strategy.

    But hey if your whole goal is suicide by police put your best battle belt on and go for it. Maybe they’ll write a song about you.

    If this goes where most everybody thinks its going somebody has to die first and it might as well be you.

  22. Seriously…what’s with all the camo these Cops/SWATs are always wearing?

    If they want to act tough, go fight in a war with actual enemies that shoot back at you and then you’ll want to blend into your surroundings.

Leave a Reply

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