Bill of Rights, Bloomberg Foundation, collective right, DOJ, IACP Police chiefs, Joyce Foundation, Laura and John Arnold Foundation, MacArthur Foundation, Michael Jordan, paramilitary organizations, second amendment, sheriffs, Target, unalienable rights
When I interviewed with the Chief of Police for my final police job, all was going well until the end when he asked my opinion on the Second Amendment. By that time in my police career, I knew quite a bit about people, and particularly police people, so the question sent up a red flag and I answered carefully:
Me: “The language is clear.”
Chief: “It’s a collective right.”
Me: “There is no such thing as a collective right, and ‘the people’ means the same thing—the rights of individuals—in the Second Amendment as it does in the 4th and 10th.”
From the look on his face I figured two things: (1) He didn’t expect me to know that much about the Constitution, and (2) I wasn’t getting that job.
He did hire me. He later had reason to regret that decision, but that’s an article for another time—maybe. For this article, let’s examine police psychology as it pertains to the Second Amendment. We begin with an article from The Truth About Guns, a forum for which I used to write:
The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) claims to be the world’s largest and most influential professional association for senior police executives, and like many of its members and major donors, it is devoutly anti-gun.
As you’ll see, this is no surprise.
An investigation by the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project revealed that the top IACP donors include billionaire Michael Bloomberg and other staunch anti-gun groups, and based upon an anti-gun propaganda piece the IACP recently published, Bloomberg and his ilk are getting their money’s worth.
Formed in 1893, the IACP claims to have 31,000 members in more than 165 countries. ‘The IACP is a recognized leader in global policing, committed to advancing safer communities through thoughtful, progressive police leadership,’ its website states.
There’s an important distinction to be made between elected county sheriffs and appointed chiefs of police who comprise the IACP. Sheriffs are answerable to the people. If a sheriff makes an unpopular decision, such as promoting an anti-gun agenda, the voters can remove them from office.
Chiefs of police, however, are only answerable to whoever appointed them to office, usually a city manager who serves at the pleasure of a city council. As a result, police chiefs tend to mirror the politics of their bosses. Large metropolitan cities that historically have been controlled by Democrat administrations appoint fellow Democrats as chiefs of police, and it is these anti-rights chiefs who dominate the IACP committees and senior leadership.
That’s an important distinction to keep in mind. The remainder of the article is a focus on so-called “ghost guns,” guns made from parts by individual citizens rather than by manufacturers. I’ll trust you can take the link to read those portions.
Follow the money
The IACP is a nonprofit 501c(3) with assets totaling more than $33 million. According to its most recent IRS Form 990, in 2019 the IACP received more than $16 million in grants and contributions. The document doesn’t specify the exact source of the funds – the actual grantors or contributors. However, all of the IACP’s major donors, which it lists on its website are either solely devoted to banning guns or have large anti-gun programs.
The number-one group the IACP credits with helping support its efforts is the Bloomberg Foundation – part of former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg’s vast anti-gun empire, which includes Everytown for Gun Safety, Demanding Moms and The Trace.
Also listed is the lesser-known Joyce Foundation, which operates its own “gun violence” prevention program. Its goals are to:
*Advance and implement federal, state, and local policies and practices that reduce easy accessibility of guns to those at risk of violence.
*Support policies to reduce easy accessibility of guns to those at risk of violence.
*Reduce the next generation’s exposure to gun violence through education on the risks of gun ownership.
*Litigate to defend evidence-based gun policies and challenge extreme gun rights policies and practices.
The Laura and John Arnold Foundation is another source of grant funding for the police chief group. The two left-wing billionaires have invested more than $20 million in anti-gun research seeking “the causes of and solutions to gun violence in America.”
The Chicago-based MacArthur Foundation, yet another major IACP donor, supports “direct services, police legitimacy, and gun policy—to create the conditions for violence prevention and reduction.”
Other IACP donors include the U.S. Departments of Justice, State and Transportation, in addition to the Target Corporation and NBA legend Michael Jordan.
That all of its major donors are anti-gun can’t be a coincidence. Instead, it’s a pattern and practice of behavior, which are strong words in law enforcement circles.
It is certainly not a coincidence. The distinction I earlier mentioned is very real. County Sheriffs are directly elected officials, and as such, they tend to reflect the political view of their constituents. Even so, most of them are, at the least, not actively hostile to the Second Amendment, and most are active supporters. We should also keep in mind law enforcement officials who are Second Amendment hostile tend to have no less hostility to the other parts of the Bill of Rights, and tend to be willing to abridge fundamental individual liberties as a matter of policy rather than mere ignorance or malice.
And why not? If they’re willing to ignore one unalienable right, what would stop them, other than a greater likelihood of lawsuits, from violating them all? Such willingness to violate individual liberty is greater, as one might expect, in blue counties in blue states.
It is police chiefs, particularly those of major cities which are—coincidentally—D/S/C ruled, who are most anti-gun/liberty. There is no way anyone who does not buy fully into D/S/C—woke, social justice, LGBTQWERTY, anti-Second Amendment philosophy will ever be appointed police chief in such a place, and should they show the slightest fidelity to the Constitution rather than woke ideology, they’re gone. This is true partly because they’re appointed rather than elected. They owe their jobs entirely to their political masters, and in the finest Marxist tradition, it is their political reliability that matters most.
What of police chiefs in smaller communities? They will tend to be more like sheriffs, reflecting the dominant political philosophies of their communities. I’d like to say most are far more interested in fulfilling their oaths of office to the Constitution and rule of law than in political vendettas, and that has been my experience, but there is no way to be sure such a generalization is accurate.
The IACP, to which many chiefs belong, is certainly clear about it’s anti-liberty/gun priorities.
What of the rank and file, the girls and boys in blue and brown who patrol our streets? They, for the most part, support the Second Amendment. We know because studies have been done indicating support for that, and other individual liberties, from the high 80s to low 90 percentiles. They assume everyone they meet is armed. That doesn’t frighten them, by teaches them to be smart, alert and cautious, as any sane police officer should be. One can expect them to enforce the law, but not to be vindictive about it.
We must also keep in mind police officers are members of paramilitary organizations. They give, and take orders. Thus do we see officers allowing rioters to run riot. They would love nothing more than to arrest every rioter they could get their hands on, but if they want to pay their mortgages, they obey orders. In the last several years, we have seen a terrible trend: the men and women who want to be honorable officers in such agencies leave the profession entirely, or withdraw from proactive policing in the interest of self-preservation, and crime skyrockets. Some even obey the orders of anti-liberty/gun chiefs and Sheriffs, and oppressively and vindictively enforce gun laws.
There is one way to make anything approaching real money in law enforcement: get rank. The higher one goes in police supervision and administration, the farther one gets from the actual work of policing, from knowledge of human nature and from day to day reality. In every agency, there are ass kissers, officers who really don’t much care for actual police work. It’s dangerous, dirty and stressful. They’re the guys who will do whatever will get them promoted, and if that means doing political dirty work, persecuting politically non-favored citizens, they’re at the front of the line.
Many of these people wind up as police chiefs, and they dislike and distrust honest police officers. The feeling is mutual. None of this is good for the public.
What does this mean for Joe Normal American? Never assume the police are willing to uphold your unalienable rights. Most are; most do it every day. However, there are always enough who don’t to make wariness rational. Being rational means obeying the law, particularly those laws relating to carrying weapons. Don’t give the police any reason to have any interest in you and it’s likely you’ll never have any problem.
Being rational also means doing a little research, learning exactly what the political leanings of your local law enforcement administrators are. If you’re traveling, know the laws of every state through which you’re going to travel. It’s not hard, by the laws of a given state, to have a reasonable idea which states are liberty friendly and which are not. It’s wise to avoid anti-liberty states and cities, and it’s not at all hard to know which they are.
What the police do, or don’t or can’t do, and what they believe affects us all. And now you know what the IACP believes, who funds them, and which political path they follow and seek to impose on us all.