9 SHARES Tweet

“Gabby Giffords’ gun-control group gets new law enforcement allies,” USA Today reports.* “[She] and her husband, retired astronaut Mark Kelly, have some new allies in their fight to end gun violence. And all of them are armed.”

That would make them classic examples of “Only Ones.” The category gets its name from hapless DEA agent Lee Paige, who told a group of school kids he was “the only one … professional enough” to carry a gun, and then proceeded to, well, here, watch it for yourself if you haven’t already seen it….

[ot-video type=”youtube” url=”https://youtu.be/h-ZZ6pynGLM”]

I routinely feature such accounts on my blog, The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance, with this explanation noted in the sidebar:

The purpose of this feature has never been to bash cops. The only reason I do this is to amass a credible body of evidence to present when those who would deny our right to keep and bear arms use the argument that only government enforcers are professional and trained enough to do so safely and responsibly. And it’s also used to illustrate when those of official status, rank or privilege, both in law enforcement and in some other government position, get special breaks not available to we commoners, particularly (but not exclusively) when they’re involved in gun-related incidents.

But back to Mark and Gabby and their Americans for Responsible Solutions group. They’ve already recruited some high-level military oath-breakers, and politically ambitious/career über alles LEOS have also always been a perfect fit for the gun-grabbers. Their “advisory committee” is made up of 20 LEOs who have no problem infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms in spite of their oaths. Naturally, they present their infringements under the banner of “Law Enforcement Coalition for Common Sense.” And predictably, they’ll be relying on emotion-ginning propaganda optics, such as laying a wreath at the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial.

Here’s what they say they’re after – for now:

[The] coalition … will help them oppose gun legislation pending in Congress, including a bill that would lift restrictions on firearm silencers and another that would require states to accept concealed carry permits from other states, even from states with weaker requirements.

Advocating for such nonsense are Kalamazoo Chief Public Safety Officer Jeffrey Hadley, and former ATF agent and coalition “leader” Dave Chipman.

Hadley complains it’s easier to get a driver’s license than a concealed carry permit, and “doesn’t understand why an everyday American needs a silencer, which he said could make it harder for officers trying to locate where shots are being fired.” First of all, his understanding and approval of either aren’t required. And if any of Kalamazoo’s myriad crime problems are caused by out-of-state CCW holders or suppressor owners, you’d think Hadley would be cluing us in.

As for Chipman, it’s interesting to note he says it’s “risky … to talk truth to power.” Whistleblowers exposing the Bureau’s Operation Fast and Furious “gunwalking” criminal enterprise found that out firsthand. It’s telling to see him use “progressive” terminology in characterizing the coalition as a “safe space” and also to note, in addition to being a Bloomberg/Everytown “advisor,” he was a mucky-muck with ShotSpotter (making him not exactly a disinterested party to weigh in on suppressors).

What’s also curious to consider is how the “safe spaces” don’t always extend to cops who believe the Second Amendment applies to all, and who face real risks if they stand up as Oath Keepers and declare they will not obey orders to disarm the American people. That includes making such sentiments known while off duty or on social media.

And it’s especially “risky” with groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center including Oath Keepers in its “Hate Watch” category and the New Jersey Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness smearing Oath Keepers as “militia extremists” (thankfully that has been removed from their 2017 report).

So here are my questions to those of you who are LEOs and Oath Keepers: Understanding that there are appropriate workplace conduct rules that all must abide by, what additional precautions must you take in recruiting fellow officers to learn about what Oath Keepers stands for and why? Is it something you feel you need to keep a low profile on, and watch what you say in all circumstances? Can you relate any examples of discouragement, suppression or retaliation you believe were over-reaching and threatening?

And what do you do when you encounter one of these “True Believer” oath-breakers, like Gabby Coalition members? Do you think your advocacy is as beneficial to your career opportunities as theirs?

Please share your experiences in comments, taking care to maintain anonymity if that’s important. And if it’s all good where you are, share that too, so the rest of us can benefit from what you’re doing and how you’re doing it.

—–

* The headline was changed. Note the inadvertant honesty in the url, calling them an “anti-gun group.”

—–

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please consider making a donation to support our work. You can donate HERE.