Police lobbyists fiercely resist virtually every effort to roll back gun control. Why is that?
As with most things relating to policing in modern America, it comes back to the “war on drugs.”
For instance, the Missouri Sheriffs’ Association aggressively lobbied to gut the Second Amendment Preservation Act recently passed in Missouri. The MSA claimed that banning them from enforcing current federal gun control – and anything new from the Biden administration – would stop them from “catching criminals.” This is a typical law enforcement scare tactic. In reality, these law enforcement lobby groups are primarily concerned with preserving their “federal partnerships” along with all of the federal grant money, asset forfeiture money, and power that go along with them.
Almost all of these “partnerships” revolve around the federal “war on drugs,” which, by the way, is unconstitutional. If you doubt this, ask yourself why it required a constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol nationally. Why is marijuana any different?
The federal government has used the drug war to effectively create a national police force operating under euphemisms such as “joint task forces” and “state/federal partnerships.” It incentives state and local cops using lots of money, including grant and forfeiture dollars, to work with federal law enforcement. The bottom line is your local cops work for the feds every single day. They like it that way. And they aren’t about to risk those partnerships so you can keep your AR-15. I see the evidence every single day as I watch these cop lobbies oppose every effort to stop enforcement of federal gun control and dumb Republicans bowing to the pressure.
After decades of fighting the fed’s war on drugs, local cops have internalized this federal policing priority.
Cop lobbies sometimes even oppose “constitutional carry” because it interferes with their drug war.
Missouri passed “constitutional carry” in 2017, making it legal to carry a concealed handgun without a permit legal in the state. During an interview former St. Louis prosecutor turned Democrat state senator Steven Roberts complained that permitless carry made it harder for cops to prosecute drug cases. Before permitless carry, police could arrest people for carrying a firearm without a permit and get a search warrant. That would often lead to the discovery of “contraband.” That’s cop-talk for weed or other drugs.
“We’d have officers bring in cases that normally before this constitutional carry law passed I could issue. But once it went into effect I’d no longer be able to issue this type of case. … I wouldn’t be able to issue it because it was an unlawful search and seizure.”
Don’t miss what Roberts is telling you. He thinks you should have to get a government permission slip to carry a firearm so cops can catch some kid with weed.
Republicans may think that Roberts just opposes permitless carry because he’s a Democrat. But we’ve seen Republicans bow to police lobbies and water down bills to protect the right to keep and bear arms. Appeasing their cop buddies is more important than the Second Amendment.
West Virginia lawmakers caved to police lobbyists and gutted a bill that would have ended state and local enforcement of current or future federal gun control measures that don’t have concurrent measures in state la, turning it into a fake gun sanctuary bill.
Charleston Police Chief James “Tyke” Hunt warned that the bill as originally introduced would effectively defund the police by cutting off federal money – and would make coordination with federal authorities, such as the federal BATFE, impossible. He said that without funding from and coordination with the ATF, his county’s drug problems would grow.
“If this bill passes and these funds go away, the Metro Drug Unit will not exist,” Hunt said, adding, “We will soon have a bigger drug problem in Kanawha County.”
Constitutionally, a Metro Drug Unit funded by the feds shouldn’t exist, any more than federal gun control should exist. But a lot of cops are perfectly happy with both. The Constitution isn’t a priority here.
Here’s the takeaway, pretty much everything cops say really means war on drugs. They say “catching dangerous criminals,” they mean war on drugs. They say “officer safety,” they mean war on drugs. When they say they support or oppose this or that policy because of this or that reason, they mean war on drugs.
Bottom line – you can’t simultaneously support the war on drugs and the Constitution. They are diametrically opposed.