We’ve seen no end of public officials opining on the importance of limiting the Second Amendment rights of Americans in the aftermath of spree shootings in Parkland, Florida and Santa Fe, Texas. But in this case, the public official in question is Houston Chief of Police Art Acevedo, an appointee who’s gone out of his way to make his anti-gun agenda known. A quick search of his history on gun rights — or, more accurately, his desire to see them restricted — takes you back to his time as the Austin Police Chief.
I remember vividly when he first talked about restricting people’s guns right and thinking to myself, why would someone in his position make those comments? Why would someone whose job is to uphold the law feel it’s in his job description to advocate for the infringement of the civil liberties of those who live in his town?
I heard his comments then and I’m hearing more of the same now. A leopard really can’t change his anti-gun spots. In this case, the pattern of those spots shows that the Chief doesn’t believe that the citizenry is responsible enough to own, let alone carry firearms. Rhetoric such as his says to the majority we need the government, and in this case the Chief, to step in and help us manage our lives.
Just Be Professional
As a civil servant who’s in charge of public safety, I don’t need to be lectured on his personal views of my civil rights. There’s a fine line between being professional and pushing your own personal agenda.
And if you are going to speak out as Chief Acevedo has, at least have the decency to be transparent about your motives. When you do so at the helm of a big city police department, it implies you have the support and permission of the department to speak on their behalf.
Calling a Spade a Spade
Since the Santa Fe shooting Chief Acevedo’s message has taken on an even sharper tone. Are there gun owners who are negligent? Of course. But should the shortcomings of the few outweigh the rights of the many? No. That’s something we can never allow.
Like I was saying, blah, blah, blah. Stop misrepresenting &/or lying about my views. Your action is leading to harassment by your minions. You may just make testing the limits of your dishonesty & cyber bullying worthwhile in Court. Many top-notch firms would do so pro-bono. pic.twitter.com/KirUT42u5P
— Chief Art Acevedo (@ArtAcevedo) May 23, 2018
NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch asked Acevedo to appear on her show to have a conversation on the subject. The anti-gun side always claims they want to have a civilized conversation about “gun violence.”
Besides, it’s important that they be given an opportunity to be honest in public, to go on record. Let the public know exactly what they think and would like to happen if they got their way…then vote accordingly.
Lastly, I will not respond any further to you on any platform outside of a legal process. Be on notice that we will be watching and will do our talking in a court of Law if the need arises. Good day. https://t.co/xGKhMfaDqq
— Chief Art Acevedo (@ArtAcevedo) May 23, 2018
But after Acevedo refused to appear, the back and forth between them on Twitter devolved into Acevedo threatening Loesch with legal action and promising to have her watched. Quite an example.
It’s Not About the Guns
The bottom line is Chief Acevedo has no business using his department’s good name to further his own personal political agenda, let alone to threaten those who question his views. When he wears a uniform, stands in front of cameras wearing the uniform and pontificates, it’s implied that he’s speaking on behalf of the department he represents.
Let’s be clear, laws against almost everything the recent spree shooters did already exist. Enacting more of them — something that would only affect law-abiding gun owners — would not have prevented these horrific acts. Not even revoking an entire nation’s civil liberties would have prevented them. But that’s not really what’s important to Chief Acevedo. For him, it’s not about the guns. It’s about control.
Until we’re ready to have a serious conversation about how to make schools more secure and students safer, I see Chief Acevedo’s pronouncements for what they are…advocacy for gun confiscation. We need real leaders who are willing to talk about real issues such as social decay, mental health and the failures of our public schools. Somehow I don’t expect to hear the Chief address any of those topics.
Jeff Gonzales is a former US. Navy SEAL and preeminent weapons and tactics instructor. He brings his Naval Special Warfare mindset, operational success and lessons learned unapologetically to the world at large. Currently he is the Director of Training at The Range at Austin. Learn more about his passion and what he does at therangeuastin.com.
Spelling check needed ☺
Any real gun news out there?
Better yet, some gun reviews, or accessories I can’t live without?
Enough with the hollow reporting. Hater’s gonna hate. Let’s move on.
Go read TFB if you don’t want any politics with your 2A. Line jumper.
Good call. I’m oughta here. Gun lovers follow me. Gun lover wannabe, stay put.
You may call yourself a gun lover, but you seem to be a gun lover with his head in the sand. If all were to have your attitude, there might soon be no guns for you to love.
Fudd, fudd, fuddy fuddy, fudd, fudd!!
As an Austin resident, I sure am glad Art Assholediva is Houston’s problem now. I can’t even begin to imagine the grandstanding he would have done for the TV cameras if he were still the police chief here during the recent bombing spree.
I did enjoy sending him a copy of my C&R license application, though, as required by the ATF, with a cover letter explaining that I hoped my having “weapons of war” delivered to my home via UPS wouldn’t give him the vapors.
Acevedo seems to enjoy the young women on his arms (in the photo)
Most Leftist Communista do, e.g. Harvey Weinstein, Mao Tze Dong and Fidel Castro. It comes with the control they have over you once you are disarmed.
I completely agree, my wife and I were so glad when he became Houston’s problem. A$$avado always was about getting himself in front of the camera. We always thought he had a reverse midas touch, everything he touched turned to fertilizer. The new interim chief, while not perfect is a real cop, who seems to make good choices.
I miss the days when a public official who publicly stated their prejudices against whatever group of Americans got their dander up would be loudly and almost universally excoriated by polite society.
Bigots need to eat too – I get that – but to put one in any position of authority never ends well.
Threatening Dana is a “problem”…tar & feather is a “solution”.
“Anti-Gun”! Or the “Perception of Guilt by Association”?
He is also against people using cannabis products even if they are legal.
So, the police chief is against guns and cannabis. Not something the Republicans and Democrats would like. How is he still the chief of police? Oh, right. Because is appointed by elected officials rather than elected like a sheriff. He doesn’t have to follow the Constitution, he just has to follow orders.
CZ, exactly right. Most, not all, police chiefs spout whatever their boss tells them to. I love living under the jurisdiction of a sheriff. As a matter of fact, during the obummer years, here in Utah, every sheriff in the state except liberal Salt Lake County, signed a letter to (I think Holder) saying they would not enforce any further federal firearms laws. That’s the huge difference between appointed chiefs and elected sheriffs.
Art Avocado is a typical Third World cop. Sooner or later, he’ll be caught with his hand in the till, because that’s what these little tin gods do.
There’s no difference between Avocado and Lee Baca, except that Baca got what was coming to him. Unfortunately, former San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi didn’t get any prison time — but I still have hope.
Mirikami was just one of an unbroken line of SF Chiefs (and Sheriffs) who were antigun, as reflective of the policy of their left wing City Council. SF has been anti-gun since the 1920s. I don’t think the city has issued a single CCW to a civilian since DiFi.
I’d wager there’s been a few well to do citizens who knew which palms to grease.
Such as Senator Feinstein when she was only a city council woman back in the 1970’s.
They don’t need to issue permits and they don’t need pesky laws….. its like Airstrip 1. There are no laws, just people who are in the right and people who are in the wrong. If you are in the right, then you can carry a gun (DiFi), beat your wife bloody (Mirkirmi), smuggle illegal firearms (Lee), sell cocaine (Newsom), have sex with minors (Newsom), insider trade (DiFi), mass murder/political assassination (White), Racketeering (all of them), etc…… laws were written to keep us plebs in order.
Well known fact about Newsom: slept with his best friend’s wife after that person was his campaign manager for many years. He is the ultimate Jody.
What a silly opinion piece. A leader sets the agenda for the department he or she heads; the department does not set the agenda for the boss. Acevedo does not need the consent or support of his department to set his own personal agenda. The ONLY assent he needs is that of the authority that appointed him, meaning the City Council. And as is true with the majority of political appointments, the City Council appoints the person most aligned with their agenda. Any appointee who bucks that board ends up fired.
So what do you typically see in the vast majority of big city police departments? Chiefs who oppose the exercise of second amendment rights by residents of the cities. (There are exceptions of course, such a Detroit.) This is true in Chicago, NY, every city in NJ, Los Angeles and San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, Austin, Houston, Atlanta, Cleveland, Cincinnati, and yada yada yada. How many times have we heard these guys proclaim with absolute conviction that more guns means more gun violence, and that the only way to reduce gun violence is to ban guns and/or restrict the rights of citizens to bear arms?
Only elected sheriffs can set their own agenda, as dictated by the voters who elect them.
I see, so he’s “just following orders” Gee, where have I heard that before ?
The boss sets the agenda. The city council is the boss. The Chief sets the policy for his department subject to the policy of the Council.
None of which absolves him of responsibilty. Referencing a chain of command does not absolve an employee/soldier/police chief of culpability.
Agendas are set by politicians when they pass laws. Both police chiefs and sheriffs are put into their positions for the sole purpose of enforcing those laws. There is very little leeway for personal agendas. They can for instance create a new task force to investigate a recent rash of a certain type of crime. But they don’t have the authority to pick and choose which laws will be enforced and which will not in their jurisdictions.
Sheriffs (at least in most locations including Iowa) are elected. Chief du Police are appointed/hired political functionaries.
NRA annual convention is scheduled for Houston Spring 2021. Perhaps move it up to July 2018.
Is suspect every Convention Center in Houston is Booked-Up with Scheduled Events for June 2018 through 2022. I doubt that the City of Houston is going to displace one Scheduled Event just so the NRA can Speaks It’s Mind about the Local Sheriff. If Houston were to that, it would Disrupt Every Scheduled Event from July 2018 through 2022. And that means Loss of Revenue for the City of Houston.
Agendas are set by politicians to pander to those who they think will vote for them. For Art, it’s to ingratiate himself to those that will keep him in power.
When did Houston become a cresspool of the Left?
I don’t think I’d object to someone in his position stating that on a personal level he’d prefer stricter laws, but on a professional level he’ll enforce the laws the politicians have seen fit to pass. But when it comes to full blown advocacy, especially when that advocacy is in direct defiance of the law as with sanctuary cities, this proves that the chief is unfit for duty and needs to be removed. I understand that the democrats who have been driving America’s cities into the abyss for nearly a century will never act in the interest of their constituents, but he is still unfit for duty.
When the lawless are placed in charge of enforcing the law you have tyranny.
The chief does not decide whether the city will be a sanctuary city, the politicians do. And if he starts enforcing laws contrary to his bosses’ whims, he will be out looking for a job faster than you can spit.
And, if what you say is true, he chooses to keep his job by following an agenda instead of a SWORN DUTY, shows he shouldn’t have the fucking job in the first place. Who gives a shit who sets an agenda?
Very well written article. Best I have read since the coup.
Chief Acevedo is a petty tyrant,nothing more nothing less.
In the 1960’s and 1970’s, they call those people banana dictators cause they control banana republics.
So a police official threatened someone on social media? Seems ive heard this somewhere before, but with a different outcome.
Being appointed police chief means you will follow the agenda of the ones who appointed you, chiefs are always subject to those whims. Sheriffs are voted in, but in metro areas, it seems they are political also.
This seems to be somewhat normal in metro departments. They have an “us against them” attitude, only fellow LEOs should be armed. This goes right along with the militarization of the police, which are just Gestapo like tactics.
I feel that outside of SWAT(who should be seperate units, maybe a state police group), LEOS should be restricted to any weapons and training that any ordinary citizen can have legally. If it is illegal to open carry, it should also be for them. Why should we create laws to empower any individual over our fellow citizens?
agree and i would love to see how that would play out here in australia. no guns, no tazers, no battons, no pepper spray….. the cops would change their tune right quick on people being able to carry the tools needed for self defense. here they have Remington R4 rifles in some areas (though they dont carry them for normal duty) as well as .40 S&W pistols though not sure of the make off the top of my head, batton and tazers as well as their cuffs which we also are not allowed…. so not even hand cuffs…. oh would they be pissed
Please stop calling them “spree”. Words do have meaning.
People all across the nation knew what AssholeDiva was before Houston hired him.
The thing to do would have been to inform the council that one of their candidates had demonstrated animosity towards constitutionally guaranteed civil rights, and then vote them out of office if they hired him anyway.
Good luck with that. Big cities have liberal majorities that elect liberal politicians, and the politicians appoint liberals to head up the various departments. These big city politicians are convinced that their crime problem is too many guns, and they hire chiefs who agree that limiting the rights of people to have guns is a good idea. Ain’t never gonna change until the liberal voter decides to reject the degradation of theiur rights by the ruling elite.
Any police officer who advocates restricting the 2nd amendment without first announcing his intention of disarming his/her entire department is being hypocritical.
Any police officer who advocates disarming his/her entire department needs to find another line of work.
“You support lawlessness and law-breaking.”
This isn’t just calling a spade a spade, it’s a pot calling a kettle black.
A libtard demonrat will do/say anything, they wipe themselves on the us constitution as they please.
Public Officials should not be able to advocate their political opinions while working. Yes, they are individuals and allowed to their opinion and to act on it. But there is a conflict of interest when, for example, police push against reform of drug laws, since they receive large amounts of money to enforce the current drug laws. If this Police Chief thinks gun control is the right thing to do, he is entitled to his opinion (even if it is wrong). But if he is going to advocate for this position, he should take off his uniform and do so as an off-duty citizen.
Art was appointed by the Mayor, Sylvester Turner, himself a gun grabbing ex-lawyer Democrat (strike 1!). Art was Chief of Police in the extremely Blue city of Austin (Strike 2!). The city of Houston (excluding the metro area) contains about 2.3m people and is ‘minority-majority’, hence the continued re-election of honest, upstanding politicians such as Sheila Jackson-Lee (strike 3!).
Because of this, our friend Art will face no consequences for publicly threatening Dana L via Twitter. As previous posters have said, he loves to get in front of the cameras so the recent shooting at the Houston area school was a heaven-sent opportunity for him.
Acevedo is a civil liberties terrorist.
A modest proposal…
How about we make spouting off on “policy” a firing offense for appointed officials, paralleling the restrictions on military personnel? I wanna hear how we’re dong on the policies n priorities others have set. Taking away their vote as long as they’re in administrative office is a bit much, but I could probably be convinced otherwise.
Funny I’ve never tweeted to/about Houston Commissar Fart Beaneredo but I’m “blocked” from even viewing his $hitter page, no doubt this tyrant is using one of Shannon [email protected] “ban” lists.
I wonder if Beaneredo’s heard about the recent Federal Court ruling on being a “public servant/official” and denying Americans their 1st Amendment rights? That’s reminds me I have got to call downlow HIV/AIDS bloat Anti-2nd Amendment Sen. Cory Booger’s office, he’s “blocked” me on both $hitter and ZuckerBoig’s Fascistbook.
This anti gun public official was appointed by who, why, and where are they coming from?