Boston Mayor Marty Walsh: The BPD Doesn’t Need to Carry Long Guns

Boston Mayor Marty Walsh (courtesy boston.com)

“Boston Mayor Marty Walsh says he disagrees with city police unions that officers need long guns,” boston.com reports, “and he was taken aback by the unions’ demands for new equipment.” Wait. What? I thought one of the main reasons Massachusetts instituted an “assault weapons” ban — and widened it via the Attorney General’s lightning-like fiat — was to make sure cops weren’t out-gunned. I guess Mr. Walsh didn’t get the civilian disarmament memo.

Not according to this . . .

Walsh said on Friday that “there’s absolutely no need” for officers to have long guns . . .

Leaders of community groups including the Boston NAACP say officers need to be safe, but they worry that having long military-style guns would harm community policing efforts and increase tensions.

Surely they mean that officers shouldn’t carry long guns, right? Right!

“There is absolutely no need for a long gun to be walked around the streets of Boston,” Walsh said on Friday. “But you need to have it available in the case of a sniper situation or hostage situation or something like that where they are effective.”

While I oppose police militarization, I reckon there are times and places where cops need to be carrying rifles, to protect themselves and the public. And if We the People have a right to keep and bear arms without regard to weapon type — which we do — don’t cops have that same right?

It’s a question of appropriate availability and guidelines for the rifles’ use. Besides, an officer or two carrying a slinged rifle/braced AR-style pistol isn’t the same as a SWAT team in full-on combat gear, is it?

comments

  1. avatar Ralph says:

    “[N]obody in the city [of Boston] needs a shotgun. Nobody needs a rifle.”

    Boston Police Chief Bill Evans (2014)

    To paraphrase the Bard, ’tis the sport to have the engineer’s petard shoved right up his bony @ss. FU, Bill.

    1. avatar Rick the Bear (now in NH!!) says:

      That’s the first thing that came to my mind as well.

    2. avatar Greg says:

      Apparently, whatever the ‘community’ wants, it gets. How about just disarming the officers altogether or having them contribute a portion of their salaries to BLM. Maybe that would placate the ‘community’ for awhile.

      1. avatar Blake says:

        I believe the underpinnings of our country revolve around giving the populace what it wants….

        Here’s a better idea, let’s get rid of police altogether.

      2. avatar Katy says:

        Not sure what you are trying to say, but if BPD came out expressing that all “civilian” taxpayers should contribute to BLM, I would find it only right and proper that BPD should as well.

        If they don’t think we need long arms, I don’t see why they would either – and I would challenge them to be the first, to set the example.

  2. avatar Mikele says:

    Ahhh more signs of unintelligent life in Massachusetts. As soon as my kids move out, the wife and I are moving to Vermont or Maine!

    1. avatar jwm says:

      Life doesn’t begin at conception or birth.

      It begins when the dog dies and the kids move out.

      1. avatar Matt Richardson says:

        I just burned myself spilling my coffee due to the hearty laugh your post earned.

        Well played

    2. avatar TruthTellers says:

      They’re not much better. Everyone else in Massachusetts is moving to the three northern New England states to escape the taxes when they retire or are close to retirement, but bring the same liberal communist BS with them.

      The Dems are like locasts, they infest one state until its breaking point and move to another. What takes their place are the third world garbage that dress women in curtains and behead their daughters to save their honor.

      America is essentially dead. Russia and China will be the superpowers going into the 22nd Century because they are populated by Russians and Chinese, not unpatriotic Hispanic or Arab garbage.

      1. avatar tdiinva (Now in Wisconsin) says:

        Neither Russia or China will be super powers in 50 years let alone 100 years both are headed for a demographic crash. In fact Russia will be a Muslim majority nation by then.

  3. avatar NorincoJay says:

    The police in MA should not have any firearm the populace is not allowed to own. So no AR’s or magazines over 10 rounds. If the people don’t need them neither do the police.

    1. avatar TroyBilt says:

      +1

    2. avatar Rusty Chains says:

      Yep! If your citizens don’t need it then neither do the cops!

    3. avatar Blake says:

      EXACTLY my first thought on the matter. I find his opinion ridiculous, but at least he’s consistent.

      I’m personally against any ban on weapons, but it’s refreshing to see a politician apply the same logic they do to citizens to police (who last I checked are citizens as well).

    4. avatar TruthTellers says:

      Channeling my inner LGBT/Millenial/Socialist/Progressive from Harvard here…

      If we really look deep into the 2nd Amendment, then the police shouldn’t have anything other than a muzzleloader with a single barrel, because if the Founders could never have conceived of something like an AR-15 or other autoloader, then they could never have thought of the possibility of a gun with more than one barrel.

      I would say the Police in Massachusetts and thus the entire US should have anything more than a Brown Bess with a safety and a 20 lb trigger pull.

      EDIT: Oh, and before they even shoot the musket at a suspect, they have to say in 158 different languages, including Klingon, “Stop now or I am going to fire! I am going to count to three and if you do not stop I will shoot!”

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        “Stop now or I am going to fire! I am going to count to three and if you do not stop I will shoot!”

        Then, in the interest of fairness, they must then say:

        “This time, I really mean it!”

        1. avatar John in AK says:

          It would be far more reasonable for the officer to be required to carry his Brown Befs or Charleville in an unloaded condition, or at least with the pan empty and frizzen raised (that’s the thing in the back that goes up) to show that the firelock is indeed ‘safe’ to all and sundry to prevent undue alarm in the populace. If he should come acrofs a malefactor that needs be confronted with deadly force, he should be required to pen a polite letter of admonition to warn said malefactor that his nefarious actions are indeed reprehenfible, unseemly, ungentlemanly, and may indeed require a violent responfe should they be continued. He must then await the delivery of said missive via post, whether by mail rider or regular mail coach. He should await in its turn either a written responfe from said malefactor apologizing for his actions and begging forgivenefs, or clear and unmistakable oral, verbal, or visible indication from the malefactor at hand that his letter was or was not accepted as intended. Should the officer not receive the proper affirmation, negation, nor e’en no response at all, he must send another, stronger letter to the malefactor with firmer language and a more demanding tone, if in fact said malefactor is still behaving maleficently.
          Only after this second missive has been duly received and its admonition decried in an ungentlemanly fashion may the officer go through the full 18 steps of loading and presenting his firelock at the malefactor, with the 19th step (discharge) only to be contemplated should the malefactor still be somewhere in the vicinity and still behaving in a manner commensurate with being fired upon under the Common Law.

    5. avatar tdiinva (Now in Wisconsin) says:

      And the police should only be allowed to use deadly force under the same rules as everybody else. They should not be able to initiate the use of gorce. Once the threat ends they should be required to break off the engagement. No pursuit should be allowed once the threat ends either.

  4. avatar Bob says:

    I bet he’d have a different opinion if he were out patrolling on the Boston streets.

  5. avatar pieslapper says:

    What were they carrying when they were kicking in doors after the bombing?

    1. avatar Rick the Bear (now in NH!!) says:

      Teddy bears, coloring books, and videos of puppies playing.

      1. avatar TXDuallyDog says:

        and singing Kumbaya

  6. avatar strych9 says:

    Generally speaking I’m not against police having a “patrol rifle” in their vehicle or even carrying one slung in certain situations. If you need a rifle you need it now, not 15 minutes from now when one can show up with a “special” officer.

    On the other hand, if the subjects of the Commonwealth can’t legally have one then the cops shouldn’t have them either, and really, if you believe in gun control the police don’t need them because they’ll never come across a situation where a handgun doesn’t make the playing field nice and level. Right? Isn’t the point of banning something to make sure that no one ever has access to it?

    1. avatar Peter Charles says:

      How about a patrol car mount holding a Ruger .44 magnum rifle? I’d sure feel better on patrol with one in my car. ready at a moment’s notice.

  7. avatar Goon100 says:

    Makers of firearms should not sell to the government of any state what the populace can not have. So in a 10 round mag state no manufacturer should sell any state or local agency a 30 round mag. That should also go for firearms. If it’s banned for the people it’s banned for the government.

    1. avatar Blake says:

      +1

      I’d personally prefer the government put its money where it’s anti-gun mouth is though. You want ours? Give yours up first, show me how committed you really are to a gun-free society. I won’t give you mine, but I’d at least admire the conviction.

  8. avatar MouseGun says:

    Can we just make with the secession thing already? Split the country into three or four smaller countries, give the leftists the east and west coasts, and let all of us “bitter clingers” have the Heartland and Gulf. That way these whiners can starve themselves to death in their failed Utopias, and we can hold onto our guns and religion, live how we want to without some soccer mom turned politician telling how we’re doing it wrong and need her for….something not made clear, and grow most of the former United States food (and, of coarse, not share it with the nanny staters).

    1. avatar gs650g says:

      The USSR predicted this would happen back in the 1960s. Not at the time, but eventually the USA would split into 4 different regions.

    2. avatar ATTAGReader says:

      Not only to not share the food. But the water, oil, natural gas, coal, iron, wood, military bases and forces, and for the environmentally inclined, not share the switchgrass, kudzu, and huge expanses of potential solar power in the southern states. The Coastal City-States of America could figure out how to survive only on financial services, the entertainment industry, non-stop third world immigration, and welfare. (I.T.,pharma, defense, and other high tech industries would move to equally tech friendly locations e.g. Austin, Raleigh, Indianapolis, and leave the high cost of living and high taxes behind.) Prediction — the heartland/Gulf/SE USA would have to put up the fence along the CCSA border long before it would be needed on the Mexican border. Because the reconstituted USA would get rid of welfare, require English language skills or training, and send back all that refuse to participate. They will have no desire to return.

    3. avatar bcb says:

      They already tried to do that more or less. It was called the confederate states of America. The rest of the country panicked, threw a fit, burned it down, and killed nearly a million people doing it.

  9. avatar Pantera Vazquez says:

    It appears the Boston mayor feels the same about cops as the state AG feels about the people of the state. Being the Boston police commissioner agrees with them, the law abiding folks of Massachusetts are up the proverbial sh!t creek without a paddle. But go ahead and “Make it yours” as it is “The Spirit of America”.

  10. avatar AR says:

    If the gun laws are so strict in Mass/Bahstahn, why do cops there need anything beyond a blackjack and nightstick?

  11. avatar FormerWaterWalker says:

    That’s cool with me…everyone will be “safer” LOL.

  12. avatar Mikial says:

    So . . . what is it that makes Liberals so completely out of touch with the reality of the world they, and the rest of us live in? Is it simply that they have an agenda to ensure that the criminals and terrorists that vote for them have the upper hand in order to facilitate the destruction of America, or are they just that stupid?

    Anyone with even a modicum of common sense can understand that a terrorist or criminal with a rifle will outclass an officer with a pistol.

    Oh wait, I get it now. They have an ‘assault’ rifle ban in place so that means the bad guys won’t have rifles. Of course, how stupid of me not to remember that! Well, no problem then, just pass a law that criminals and terrorists are sure to follow, and while you’re at it ensure every place has a “No Gun Zone” sign in place. There, problem solved.

  13. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    I’m OK with police being issued AR-15s, for carry in their vehicles. You never know when you’ll get a call that requires them.

    As for routinely carrying them slung over their shoulders on foot patrol? No. I don’t want to live under martial law or even the appearance of martial law.

    Now, if there’s a specific event occurring, like a highly volatile, planned protest, then obviously deploy the long guns, just in case. But cops sitting down for a sandwich at lunch, with scary black rifles (and yes, to the general public, they are scary) by their side ? No.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      As a denizen of this dumpster state, I’ll tell you that a bunch of fat Boston Irish cops sitting down for a sandwich even without black rifles is as scary as fvck.

      They are very unpleasant b@st@rds.

    2. avatar Ted Unlis says:

      Jonathan I can tell you exactly how many LE agencies in the U.S. carry rifles slung over their shoulder when answering routine calls for service or while on a meal break at the sandwich shop; ZERO.

      A minority of LE agencies actually permit their officers to have a rifle secured but immediately accessible in the patol vehicle (usually in a locked rack), but most agencies that “issue” rifles either require the weapon to be secured in the trunk or a locked equipment box of a patrol vehicle (or worse locked up back at the station) denying their officers the immediate access that might make a difference when a call or task that might seem routine turns into a officer with pistol vs assailant with rifle deadly encounter.

      The number of dead and wounded LE officers in Dallas and Baton Rouge might have been less if immediate access had facilitated LE rifle return fire in a matter of seconds instead of minutes.

      The first 4 officers killed in Dallas all were hit and fell in the first 20 to 30 seconds of the ambush. The reason none of the first seven officers killed and wounded in Dallas at the “peaceful” BLM protest had a rifle slung on their shoulder was because the DPD administration did not allow it for fear of offending or making the police haters feel threatened.

  14. avatar Ranger Rick says:

    Seems to me tgat Mayor Walsh is very popular and in touch with his “constituents”, so let’s follow his wisdom. I wonder if someone told him that revolvers are “safer” would he mandate the BPD only issue them?

    1. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

      As a New Englander, I would ! I support Police that uphold the US Constitution / Bill of Rights, that DON’T support Civilian Disarmament. You won’t find very much pro2@ support in Massachusetts. Nor in Boston, or on the BPD. I think going back to 6-shot revolvers is a great idea. It would provide proper markmanship training , accountability per shot, and bring back traditional style LE. It would be good to lose the “Sandinsta style police Commando attitude ” that comes with being paramilitarized .

  15. avatar Arizona Free says:

    Cops do not want to carry a long gun on duty. It would put them at a big disadvantage. A perp could grab the rifle and drag the cop down or push them against a wall during which time the cop is just holding on for dear life. In tight quarters a handgun is much more effective and easier to control.

  16. avatar Chris Mallory says:

    While they are working, cops do not have rights. They have delegated privileges that the citizens can remove from them. If they want full expression of their rights, they are free to quit and find honest work that does not involve living off the sweat of my brow. It is well past time to disarm cops. Citizens should be armed, not government employees.

    1. avatar Kevin in CO says:

      Delegated authority, not “privilege.” Otherwise agree.

  17. avatar Wiregrass says:

    It’s not really a matter of cop’s rights. I have a right to carry a firearm but it is not permitted by my employer. My rights allow me to quit and go work somewhere else where it is permitted. I don’t like that option but until the right to carry enjoys the same protections as something like being gay, that’s the deal. If the police department doesn’t permit rifles, they are free to quit and find other work.

  18. avatar RandallOfLegend says:

    Have the police only carry tasers/pepper spray/night sticks. Make them call for “Armed Police” like the rest of the disarmed population in MA/NY, etc.

    1. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

      Yes, I agree! As New Englander I know. Massachusetts is just a borderline “Authoritarian State. ” No longer the bastion of freedom it once was…I support Police that uphold the US Constitution-Bill of Rights, and don’t partake in civilian Disarmament! Like in this state!

  19. avatar JohnF says:

    I wonder what the BPD attrition rate is. I remember when St. Louis PD leadership was at a low point, and firearms was one of the issues, officers were quitting in droves, getting all the opening in suburban communities nearby, going out for many miles. And SLPD leadership never got anywhere near as bad as that over the BPD.

  20. avatar D. in OR says:

    Do it like the german police, carry MP5’s…

  21. avatar Tom says:

    You can’t fix stupid

  22. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    “It’s a question of appropriate availability and guidelines for the rifles’ use. Besides, an officer or two carrying a slinged rifle/braced AR-style pistol isn’t the same as a SWAT team in full-on combat gear, is it?”

    Oh, could we have some judgment and discretion, please? That’s really all this requires.

    Walking around the neighborhood you patrol, all peace officer-like, being part of the life and community you are delegated to protect … well, moving in cover formations, carrying a long-barrel equalizer at port arms is probably less than ideal. It communicates a particular understanding of “us vs. them” and a particular intention.

    Once the BG starts, oh, I don’t know, shooting up a nightclub for fun and the voices in his head, Bobby-friendly with his nightstick would be a lesser choice, if tooled-up urban assaulters are available.

    Don’t looking like an occupying army, or some thug’s enforcers unless you are about applying force, whatever it takes, right then, to make a point. (Stopping some whack-job spewing bullets at gay dancers – hey, there’s no accounting for taste, really – is time to enforce first, and look friendly second.)

    Really, why is this hard?

    1. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

      That’s why New England has regional SWAT teams. So the city police Commando stuff is moot. Proper chain of command– LEO C.O.’s, and judges…..

  23. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

    As a New Englander, to answer your question if “Massachusetts police- government agents, have the right to Keep and bear arms as well as the general public “…I’ll say ; “NO!” In Massachusetts, The MA residents/lawful US citizens , 2nd amendment constitutional rights are under the full control of the state/local police departments. *(With an arbitrary and capricious licensing system of safety course schemes, application process, Local PD licensing officer interviews- for permits- without the presents of an attorney, draconian restrictions, multiple police permissions ,constitutional waivers, suitability clauses, long permit waits —if you succeed in getting ither an FID / for low-capacity longarms, or an LTC / pistol- higher suitability clauses, police chief interviews, and restrictions -for sporting purposes only, or self-defense with a “real reason. ” Note: Any one of these permits is required is Purchase, posess, own, and to carry. Including ammo, etc…)* So, yeah. After that lengthy explanation. No. You don’t find very many Law Enforcement officers standing up for Pro2@ in Massachusetts. If LEO’S stood up with their fellow Massachusetts residents for Pro2@ civil rights. Then I’d say, yeah sure . I’ll support them their our guardians right…Well , no…I see political paramilitarized police Commandos. Depending on your township, or city. Also , depends on the “aggressiveness of the LEO’S. ” Especially, Massachusetts state. Known for occasional ruthless behavior. I can’t count the times of some kind of police corruption in this state. The Medford police detective who threatened to shoot a lost motorist in the head because he made a wrong turn on unfamiliar streets…All captured on a car dash cam. Or the young local LEO who caused the local police /State police to declare “shelter in place orders upon a township. *(Which in New England is like the local LE declaring martial law. With “house to house ” sweeps. )* The young LEO’s SUV cruiser was shoot full of holes, crashed into a tree, and on fire. This P/O claimed he was attacked by NRA-TYPE Domestic terrorists in a pickup truck. And of course , most of the local/state police went on a ramapage. Looking for anyone who fit the description. And even searching compliant residents houses without search warrants. Looking for said MA domestic terrorists /shooters. A local high school also received bomb threats during this time. To make a long story short. Fortunately, there was still someone who had the brains to a least investigate the incident. And it was determined that the young P/O triggered all this had some kind of mental illness. He phoned in the bomb threats to the school, crashed his own cruiser, then used his own duty Glock to shoot up his SUV, set it on fire, and caused the Amber alert :for so called domestic terrorists. Endangering the lives of the general public. So , yeah. This just a tiny faction from this state. The list goes on …So no… No sympathy…For those that don’t up old the US Constitutional-Bill of Rights. Just saying.

  24. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

    Dear Grammar Nazis: Please pardon the paragraph structure of the previous comment. Not so Smartphone, and bandwidth issues. Hopefully the point is brought across.

  25. avatar Kevin in CO says:

    ” Besides, an officer or two carrying a slinged rifle/braced AR-style pistol isn’t the same as a SWAT team in full-on combat gear, is it?”

    I don’t want militarized police on the streets of my town. Neither did the Founders. Keep the shotty in the front seat and the AR in the trunk.

  26. avatar Ross Tuttle says:

    Goggle “North Hollywood Shoot Out” and you’ll understand why they need to have them!

  27. avatar nfl 17 says:

    I enjoy reading through your site. Thanks a ton!
    nfl 17 https://vriendenplek.nl/blogs/post/583

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