“Last year, they added the purse or bag (concealed carry), and we really didn’t speak out. We didn’t like it, but we didn’t speak out that much because if a weapon is in a bag or a purse it’s not as readily accessible, therefore it’s not as high of a threat to law enforcement, If it’s in a holster or sheath and if it’s carried concealed, that’s elevating the threat against law enforcement.” – Mississippi Police Chiefs Association Executive Director Ken Winter in Guns in church bill moves forward [via clarionledger.com]
Home Quote of the Day Blue Force Gear Quote of the Day: MS Cops Prefer Off-Body Carry
Uh ok not sure why what this guy thinks about off body carry matters.
Mississippi Police Chiefs Association Executive Director Ken Winter.
Because he is a member of The Official Thug Club.
Executive Director is the one paid guy for the Association, which supposedly is all about training, etc
“It is the mission of the Mississippi Association of Chiefs of Police to be a leader in promoting professionalism among all law enforcement officers of the State of Mississippi by encouraging quality education through proactive training and educational programs.”
In reality, this is likely another crony organization that kow-tows to urban mayors, and helps chiefs of police, who have to be political to keep their jobs. Unlike Sheriffs who are voted in by county residents, they have to suck up to the local politicians for budgets and top management can be fired without recourse to union protection at the street cop level.
All armed civilians are a threat to him. That says alot.
yeah, thats what stood out to me. He also knows that crooks and criminals have can have guns illegally, cause they are criminals. Yet a non-criminal with a gun is a threat to you and your crew? What sort of shady, no good stuff are ya up to then, power tripping much?
As a cop this guy should know the bad guys don’t follow the law. He should asume anyone can have a gun on them. So a law allowing law abiding citizens to carry more has no bearing on their safety. If anything it gives them unexpected back up, especially in rural areas.
This man’s line of thinking is increasing outdated and unpopular in MS.
I guess he doesn’t take that silly Constitution he swore to protect and defend seriously.
Also being one, we know that this guy is also another political hack, know nothing do-as-I-say…”leader”.
Flock the tyrant.
Like with the canned ‘snow’ stuff sold around Xmas time?
Yeah, that stuff is highly flammable, don’cha know.
That’s why I prefer non flammable pure white asbestos snow. http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/12/17/241D584200000578-2877643-Concerns_go_back_to_the_1940s_when_asbestos_based_fake_snow_with-a-26_1418829591369.jpg
That guy’s logic circuits in his brain are broken.
Indiana State Police have said similar things over the years. The Government and their pet thugs are not your friends. The Official Thug Club wants you disarmed as much as possible for THEIR safety.
True. Here in Illinois the anti-gun Chiefs of Police opposed citizen carry for 40 years.
When the U.S. Federal Appeals Court in Chicago struck down Illinois’ concealed weapons law in 2012, NRA lobbyist Todd Vandermyde fell all over himself to put Duty to Inform w/ criminal penalties in the “NRA backed” 2013 carry bill, because the Chiefs of Police wanted it.
The Illinois criminal code is from 1963. After FIFTY YEARS of no citizen carry, the NRA lobbyist sets up armed citizens for police state murder. This is what happens when Chris Cox & Chuck Cunningham at NRA-ILA pay sick rat traitors like Todd Vandermyde to backstab their own membership.
Not as much threat to law enforcement… And, obviously, “law enforcement” is the only thing that matters in the least. To this sort, anyway.
He hasn’t got a clue. In criminal hands, it wouldn’t matter. If they want to harm others, they will make the attempt no matter how they carry… or WHAT they carry. Hands qualify. Of course, most criminals won’t actually try to harm LEOs with bare hands, or very often otherwise, I suspect mostly because the cops are ARMED! Funny how that works.
On the other hand, (no pun intended), since most ordinary people don’t really want to hurt others, they won’t be hurting others, including cops, no matter how they carry… or What they carry.
So hard to understand why this simple logic escapes all of these prohibitionist gun grabbers who, evidently, don’t give a damn how many are harmed… as long as they are not “law enforcement.”
The obvious question is to this guy as to why he thinks the safety of LEO is the only consideration.
But in many ways the more important question is addressed to this reporterette, Kate Royals, and her masters, why she refuses to ask Mississippi Police Chiefs Association Executive Director Ken Winter exactly this, and to make this and his response known in the story.
We know the answer to both of these, indeed. But we have to understand our problem space; the media has much more relevance, because they shape and direct the public who in the end is how these tyrants rise to power, and it is the public who could take that power away.
The media is the larger enemy to liberty here.
Mr. 308 – you have identified and articulated the problem perfectly!
Unfortunately cops tend to see the world in terms of who they might have to arrest.
When you’ve got a hammer you look for nails, when you’ve got a gun and a badge you look for people to arrest. It’s what you do.
Though I do appreciate law enforcement and have had the pleasure of working with and coordinating with many agencies doing escorts in appreciation for our veterans….if only police are armed then that becomes a major problem for citizens.
Screw you citizen…it’s about LEO safety…yes were armed but for you, law abider we’ll make lawful self protection difficult.
Never interview officials after 5pm. They are prob drunk.
Criminals won’t care about concealed carry laws, so no change to “Leo safety” so this leads me to believe that he fears the law abiding on what we might do. Because we have the capability to fight, that makes him nervous. If the police follow the law, and don’t go all jack boot thug, the POTG will respect their authority. But if they dont..well, well burn that bridge when we cross it.
While I’m certain that many people go into law enforcement with the goal of serving their community and making it a better, safer place to live, it would seem that more and more often the political leadership has turned their agencies and their attitudes into that of a hostile occupying force.
Perhaps this is the result of the ever-increasing number of mala prohibidum (Did I get that right?) laws that these political organizations insist on passing that increasingly put them and their law enforcement officers at loggerheads with the community rather than as partners in their safety?
If it’s not readily accessible, it’s not a threat to anyone except yourself.
How many cops have been shot in Mississippi churches anyway? Must be a lot if they’re that concerned about who a church let’s carry and how because of ‘officer safety’.
My mother and grandmothers used to go to church every sunday. Soon as services ended they cruised the roads looking for a cop to do a drive by on.
Isn’t that what all the church folk do in your neck of the woods?
We usually got get drunk after church. Silly Irish Catholics.
…….yes AFTER church. Never before…..never. Ever.
When I was a kid, after Sunday service, we would always go to Shoney’s.
You don’t a gun to bring someone down, when you have a metal fork and a metal plate.
It’s not the church carry part of the bill he’s addressing (besides, it’s already legal for MS enhanced permit holders to carry in churches): it’s the part that expands the legalization of off-body concealed carry to on-body concealed carry, i.e., not requiring a permit for concealed carry in-state, period. But he’s still talking about feeling threatened by law-abiding citizens who go about abiding the law. And that is patently ridiculous.
I’m just glad gun laws in MS are edging towards constitutional carry. The incremental manner in which our legislature has been pursuing it has really helped defang a lot of the anti-freedom shills by invalidating their cries of “wild west” and “blood in the streets” with not only other states’ records but our own in the process. While permitless CC is a big deal, having the off-body stipulation pass last year (clearly directed at women for purse carry) was a smooth and logical way to preface it.
Why are they worried about felons getting permission to carry? Aren’t felons already federally prohibited?
Why are they worried about felons carrying? Because they are felons, and criminals, and the very people LEOs have frequent interactions with, so they KNOW they will most likely be armed and the laws be damned.
The question is not why they are worried about armed felons, but why they are worried about the rest of us.
And the bottom line is that even an armed ex-felon (arrested, convicted, served their sentence) is not a danger to anyone, even a LEO, unless they are in the process of committing another crime. They have the same natural right to personal defense as anyone else right up until that moment. The only logical difference from a law enforcement perspective is that they MAY have more propensity, on an individual level, to commit more crimes. This does not give the government the authority in advance to infringe on their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. It does give LEOs the right to be extra vigilent when confronting such individuals.
First, with the statistics I have read about attacks on the faithful, and with the Democrat Party making religious persecution one of their tactics for silencing opposition, I would not set foot in or around a church without carrying. Next, living in Arizona, it seems so intrusive and tyrannical to hear how police in other states are involved in the decision making process for how law abiding citizens should carry. If the technique is safe, it is none of their business.
Please define “safe,” and why that should be any consideration for the “rulers” to determine who should carry, or how. “Safe,” for whom? 🙂
I would consider “safe” as having the gun in a proper holster (one it won’t easily fall out of under normal activity) and ones that greatly reduces the chance of accidental discharge by covering the entire trigger guard.
In other words, use just about any commercially available holster on the market. Tucking a loaded gun in your pocket and going about your day is foolish and dangerous. Same goes for stuffing it in your purse/bag. Doing so puts yourself and those around you at risk in the even of a discharge.
That said, the government cannot legislate away stupidity.
Im no threat to any LEO. So how I carry my weapon should be of no concern to any cop.
If it is. They should find another job.
Most cops have bought into the “thin blue line” mentality. It’s them vs. The world and if you don’t have a shield in your pocket, you aren’t really a good guy. I am not bashing cops just stating the facts.
A large number of NRA members are cop wanna-bes. In addition to lacking the I.Q. necessary to actually read the garbage bills NRA puts up, they secretly wish they could shoot down a few blacks and get away with it the way cops do.
That’s why the inbred hicks from southern Illinois let NRA lobbyist Todd Vandermyde sell out Otis McDonald by putting Duty to Inform in the “NRA backed” 2013 carry bill. Duty to Inform is for blacks in Chicago, not good old boy racist hicks like Rep. Brandon Phelps in Harrisburg. He lives 30 miles from Kentucky. NRA promotes police state murder as a matter of policy. NRA and the police unions are both on the same side.
I have exactly the opposite point of view. Concealed Carry folks are some of the safest, most law abiding folks there are. Off body carry, on the other hand, is dangerous – someone else could possibly get access to the firearm, it might fall out of a purse, etc. When I see someone with a holster on their hip, or notice a concealed weapon “printing”, I feel SAFER around them. Maybe it’s because I’m not a LEO?
My weapon is not a threat to LE because I choose not to use it that way. I care more about whether my weapon is a threat to an attacker.
How sure are you that your criminal attacker won’t have a badge?
Ken Winter is not at all sure, in fact he’s quite worried about the possibility that you might have to defend yourself from a LEO, and REALLY worried that you might be successful.
Anybody who would threaten an officer, a potential capital offense, isn’t going to care about whether it’s illegal to carry concealed in a holster. When police leaders get up and make these patently foolish remarks, it only reinforces the impression of their incompetence and/or disingenuousness..
The idiot, even if grieving, mother chiming in with “This opens the opportunities for individuals, as I said, that are mentally incompetent or convicted felons to be able to carry their guns concealed but still carry them” is routine stupidity, too. Opens the door………please…..as though felons are concerned about the law, as though the mentally incompetent even understand the law. Opens the door………..lady, there’s either no door or it’s already been kicked in. All your agitating does is hinder good people trying to protect themselves. How dare you?
I have no idea what he’s talking about. In the hands of a wanted felon, yeah, I guess I’d rather his gun be in a bag than in his pocket when he’s about to be arrested. But in most cases that isn’t what is happening. What if you stop a woman for a traffic violation and ask her for her license? Now she’s rummaging around in her purse and she could just as easily pull a gun from there as anywhere else. It’s just not something I would think about as being “better.”
A police officer who wants a state monopoly on firearms? Zulu foxtrot, y’all. Zulu Foxtrot.
Duh, guys. It’s much easier to harass and takedown a law abiding citizen then it is to go after a criminal. A criminal might shoot back. No worries when it’s just Average Joe/Jane Six Pack.
After reading the article, I’m a little confused. I though MS was supposed to be a “gun friendly” state…
If I’m reading this right, in Mississippi, letting people carry concealed in a place of worship is a big hairy deal with a lot of hand-wringing and public moralizing. What?!? I thought everyone in the South had a special gun just for carrying to church! Something dainty and elegant, perhaps a matte chrome .32 with a laser… Not that I’d know anything about that. Ahem.
And I recently heard that it’s a felony to carry on a city bus in Missouri. Huh.
Compare this with Colorado where I live now. We have that accursed magazine capacity limit with no rights of resale or inheritance. The universal background check rules are confusing. Our governor, state legislature, news media, and the city-county that dominates state politics are all rabidly anti-gun.
But… The concealed weapon permit was shall-issue. The paperwork was less onerous than it was back in another “gun friendly” state. My permit was issued quite speedily. As long as I’m not visiting a public K-12 school, federal property, or anywhere with permanent metal detectors, and as long as my blood alcohol content is zero, it’s never anybody else’s business whether I’m armed or not. There is no exception carved out for churches, bars, or liquor stores. None at all. Sure a property owner might not like it. But if a no-guns sign somehow slipped past me, the worst they can do is make me leave. Alrighty then, goodbye, I’ll take my money and my immortal soul somewhere else.
Could be that “pro-gun” and “anti-gun” state distinctions are somewhat messier than we’ve been led to believe.