The FOP Says, "It Is An Officer Safety Issue"

By Steven R. Nelson
People's Rights Organization

August 14, 2002

KeepAndBearArms.com -- On July 23 of this year, Lt. Steve Young, president of the National FOP [Fraternal Order of Police], past president of the Ohio FOP, and a lieutenant in the City of Marion, Ohio's police department, testified in Washington at a Senate hearing on S2480. Steve Young is strongly in favor of this legislation that would allow any active duty and many retired police officers to carry a concealed firearm anywhere in the nation.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is the principle author of the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (S2480). He says that the bill would "permit current and retired federal, state and local law enforcement officers to carry their firearms to be prepared to assist in dangerous situations." He also believes that, "Off-duty and retired officers should be permitted to carry their firearms across state and other jurisdictional lines, at no cost to taxpayers, in order better to serve and protect our communities." Restrictions on these officers exist because the bill "also preserves, however, any state law that permits restricting a concealed firearm on private property and preserves any state law that restricts the possession of a firearm on state or local government property." 

Mr. Young makes a number of points in support of Sen. Leahy's bill. Personally, I agree with many of those points and disagree with a few; overall I think he presents a very strong case. But . . . I detect a deep and abiding double standard in Mr. Young's testimony.

Truth is, I’m deeply disturbed by Mr. Young's numerous and troubling double standards. You see, Ohio is one of a handful of states that prohibits concealed carry. And the FOP has steadfastly obstructed efforts to pass a reasonable concealed carry law in the Buckeye State. 

Let me give you a few examples of these problems directly from his testimony. (Note: Text in quotation marks (" ") come directly from Steve Young's printed testimony taken from the National FOP's website, www.grandlodgefop.org. Text that is in all CAPS are my comments that I want to be identified as being directly in parallel with Mr. Young's quoted statements.)

First, Lt. Young maintains that, "this legislation has never been a 'firearms issue' - it is an officer safety issue." I completely agree. The problem is that Mr. Young and the Ohio FOP refuse to recognize that concealed carry HAS NEVER BEEN A FIREARMS ISSUE – IT IS A LAW-ABIDING CITIZEN SAFETY ISSUE. 

Mr. Young states, "Our nation's police officers are as much guardians of our security as they are our protectors from crime and violence. We allow our children to play in local parks because we know our streets are patrolled by the men and women of our local police department. We trust them to keep our homes and neighborhoods safe. They provide us with a sense of security in all aspects of our daily lives." 

While I whole-heartedly endorse the sentiment Mr. Young displays, the harsh reality is that the mythos of the police officer as the protector of our children at play in local parks has been thoroughly exposed as the exception rather than the rule with the recent rash of child abduction stories. I think that nearly every police officer would give almost anything to be there to protect a child from danger, yet truthfully they're there mostly to take a report of circumstances of the crime against the child and to try to catch the offender. 

I wish that Mr. Young and the Ohio FOP would recognize the truly protective effect that concealed carry offers to everyone. If only 3 percent of law-abiding Ohioans carried, we would substantially outnumber the sworn officers in this state and we would be unidentifiable as potential adversaries of the criminal. This protective effect has been recognized in the scientific studies conducted by John Lott and David Mustard, among others. 

Criminals never know who has the means and ability to resist their cowardly attacks, so they reduce the frequency of these attacks or try to make them in locations where concealed carry is not allowed. Would the criminal try to snatch the child from the park if there were adults present and the criminal knew that some of them might be armed? With concealed carry, our local Ohio parks would truly become safer places for our children at play. 

Mr. Young maintains that, "Law enforcement officers are a dedicated and trained body of men and women who, unlike other professionals, are rarely 'off-duty.' Their instincts, their desire to help and their fidelity to an oath to serve and protect their fellow citizens never retires and never goes off the clock."

I can't agree that law enforcement officers are the only professionals who are rarely off-duty and have the instinct and desire to help. Doctors, nurses, EMS medics, and firefighters are just a few of the other public-safety professionals that have the same instincts and desires and who are also rarely off-duty. Mr. Young's comments show that he thinks police are a breed apart and that they deserve special privileges. This troubles me.

But I have a deeper issue with Mr. Young's comments in this context. He says, "Their (police officers’) instincts, their desire and their fidelity to an oath to serve and protect their fellow citizens never retires and never goes off the clock." Is Mr. Young suggesting that police officers should be allowed to enforce the law outside of their own jurisdictions? Does an officer in the Marion, Ohio police department have a sufficient understanding of the law in Yuma, Arizona to enforce that law properly? I doubt it. 

If the officer does not have law enforcement authority outside their jurisdiction, then the only reason for allowing them to carry concealed firearms centers on an officer safety issue. I agree that police officers are safer if they are allowed to carry concealed firearms, I only wish that Mr. Young and the Ohio FOP would acknowledge that the same holds true for trained, law-abiding Ohio citizens.

In his testimony, Mr. Young expresses the gratitude that all Americans feel to those officers who volunteered their help on September 11. But he complains, "Yet off-duty and retired law enforcement officers were in legal jeopardy as a result of their volunteer efforts." due to the fact that New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania all restrict the right of out-of-state police officers to carry concealed firearms. 

In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, no officer needed to use their firearm. Certainly none of the off-duty, out-of-jurisdiction, many times out-of-state police officers who pitched in to help ever were put in a position to have to use a firearm. I suspect that Mr. Young would make the argument:

“... but how were they to know they wouldn't need their guns? They were in a potentially dangerous situation, shouldn't they be allowed to carry with them safety equipment with which they are trained?”

I would completely agree with that argument. 

Unfortunately, Mr. Young and the Ohio FOP refuse to understand that exactly the same argument applies to the law-abiding Ohioan who is prohibited from carrying a concealed firearm even though they may be in a potentially dangerous situation. An off-duty officer helping at the plane crash site in Pennsylvania certainly had less reason to believe they were in potential danger than the person delivering a pizza to a high-crime neighborhood in an Ohio city. Yet the pizza delivery person is likely in much greater real legal jeopardy than the hypothetical legal jeopardy complained about by Mr. Young. WHY SHOULDN’T PIZZA DELIVERY PEOPLE BE ALLOWED TO CARRY WITH THEM SAFETY EQUIPMENT WITH WHICH THEY ARE TRAINED?

Mr. Young testified that, "Among the many tools of a professional law enforcement officer are the badge and the gun. The badge symbolizes the officer's authority and, in worst-case scenarios, the gun enforces that authority. These tools are given to the officer in trust by the public to enforce the peace and fight crime. … In certain emergency circumstances, an officer's knowledge and training would be rendered virtually useless without a firearm, as would his ability to provide for his own self-defense or that of his family."

Mr. Young expressly acknowledges that the public provides the officer with the gun to enforce their authority "to enforce the peace and fight crime." But as earlier indicated, out-of-jurisdiction officers are not trained in local and state laws. I really doubt that Mr. Young would look kindly on an officer from Tulsa, Oklahoma who tried to enforce a city ordinance against parking near a fire hydrant in Marion, Ohio. I doubt it even more strongly if the officer tried to enforce that ordinance at the point of a gun.

Yet even more important in his statement is Mr. Young's belief that the officer's ability "to provide for his own self-defense or that of his family" . . . "would be rendered virtually useless without a firearm." Yet Mr. Young and the Ohio FOP refuse to recognize that A CITIZEN’S ABILITY TO PROVIDE FOR HIS OWN SELF-DEFENSE OR THAT OF HIS FAMILY WOULD BE RENDERED VIRTUALLY USELESS WITHOUT A FIREARM.

Gary Kleck in Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun published in Northwestern University School of Law, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol. 86, issue 1, 1995 notes that:

"Previous research has consistently indicated that victims who resist with a gun or other weapon are less likely than other victims to lose their property in robberies and in burglaries. Consistently, research also has indicated that victims who resist by using guns or other weapons are less likely to be injured compared to victims who do not resist or to those who resist without weapons. This is true whether the research relied on victim surveys or on police records, and whether the data analysis consisted of simple cross-tabulations or more complex multivariate analyses. These findings have been obtained with respect to robberies and to assaults." (References omitted)

Mr. Young and the Ohio FOP continually denigrate the idea that civilians (as they call citizens) might need a gun to protect themselves. The normal reply when asked what is one supposed to do in a robbery attempt is to just give the criminal what they want. Don't fight back, your life is worth more than the $50 in your pocket. While I completely agree my life is worth more than $50, Dr. Kleck's article shows that his research, and that of many other impartial researchers, has demonstrated that fighting back with a gun is the best way to escape from such a situation unharmed. Also, when asked by women what they are supposed to do in the face of a rape, the police frequently look away and mumble something about using your own judgement. Will Mr. Young and the Ohio FOP ever acknowledge that civilians (including women) have the right to defend their lives and the lives of their families, just as do off-duty or out-of-jurisdiction police officers?

Mr. Young expressly acknowledges the importance of being armed for the safety of the officer and his family. Yet the importance of being armed for the citizen likely is higher than for the officer. The officer likely is in reasonably decent shape (many police departments require some physical fitness test on a periodic basis) and has certainly had unarmed combat training as part of his police instruction. The average citizen undoubtedly has less ability to resist forceful criminal attack than does the average officer. Yet Mr. Young and the Ohio FOP want to recognize the right to be armed for self-protection as one that belongs to the police officer, and keep it from the citizen.

Mr. Young testified that 54 police officers have been killed in the last ten years while off-duty under various circumstances that indicate they may have been killed because they were police. He then asks, "If they had been armed, would they have lived? This is an impossible question to answer … But one thing is certain; even one life saved demonstrates the need for this legislation."

Is the life of a citizen less important than that of a police officer? If the passage of concealed carry would save the life of just one citizen, should Mr. Young and the Ohio FOP support it? Unfortunately, due to their continued obstructionism of concealed carry legislation in Ohio, I have concluded that Mr. Young and the Ohio FOP do believe that an officer's life is worth more than a citizen's life. 

This attitude persists despite the assertion by Mr. Young and the Ohio FOP that police officers are here to protect us. If so, should they not be willing to let us protect ourselves with the only type of tools that have proven to be useful in the face of deadly criminal attack? Their answer is no, civilians can't be trusted to carry concealed in Ohio.

Here in Ohio, the FOP claims they have no objections “to the concept of concealed carry.” But when asked about the passage of legislation that would establish the legal authority of law-abiding adults to carry concealed firearms, the requirements the Ohio FOP would place on obtaining a permit in some ways are greater than those required to become a police officer. Also, the level of training demanded by the FOP is essentially equivalent to that of a sworn law enforcement officer. 

Mr. Young cites a case where an off-duty officer was able to successfully intervene to stop a serious crime in progress because he was armed. The off-duty officer was in a sports bar when three gunmen entered to rob the place and started shooting. This officer drew a .25-caliber gun and charged the criminals, killing one and causing the others to flee. He was seriously wounded and selected as "Police Officer of the Year" by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) and PARADE magazine. 

Unfortunately, Mr. Young and the Ohio FOP want to leave us civilians in the hands of fate. This officer was able to stop this serious crime (1) because he was armed and (2) because he was there. We are to trust to luck that the next time we go to a sports bar there will be an armed police officer there to protect us should some group of criminals decide to rob the place. We have to rely on luck because Mr. Young and the Ohio FOP refuse to allow us to carry the tools we need to defend ourselves.

Mr. Young complains that the IACP objects to the legislation for four reasons.

First, the IACP objects to the Federal Government overriding State laws. Mr. Young answers that states and localities issue firearms after the officer passes the training and qualifying requirements. The Federal Government should use its full faith and credit power to make these credentials good in other states, even though those states may have different training and qualifying requirements. He compares this to the issuance of driver's licenses where one's drivers license in one's home state is good anywhere in the United States even though traffic laws may vary from state to state.

I wonder if Mr. Young and the Ohio FOP understand the direct correlation of this argument with the one made for concealed carry. If he actually believes this argument, then Mr. Young and the Ohio FOP should support Federal legislation making it legal for anyone to carry in any state if they have a carry license. I wonder if Mr. Young and the Ohio FOP would find it acceptable for those citizens of Michigan, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Indiana to visit Ohio carrying concealed firearms while the citizens of Ohio had no such legal ability. Actually, I'm pretty certain I know the answer to this question. 

Second, the IACP objects that other officers who mistake them for armed assailants might kill out-of-jurisdiction officers. Mr. Young responds that he understands that tragedies will happen, but you can't legislate against tragedies and that officers are in far more danger from armed assailants than from their fellow officers.

I've heard this argument made by police in Ohio opposed to concealed carry. They claim that officers would be unable to recognize the good guys if they were allowed to carry guns. Just like Mr. Young and the police officers he represents, I'm willing to take my chances. It really does me no good for the police to be able to identify me as the good guy because I'm the one on the ground bleeding from a gunshot wound while the bad guy is the one running from the scene with the gun in his hand. I'd rather be able to defend myself first, then count on being able to react correctly and not give the police any provocation to shoot me when they arrive. 

Third, the IACP believes that this legislation would do little to improve the safety of our communities. Mr. Young responds, "I submit that, especially since last September, we have dispensed with that argument."

Well, we really haven't. As indicated several times earlier, if the out-of-jurisdiction police are not there to enforce laws, then their concealed firearms are only good for their own self-defense and the defense of their families. I believe that police should be able to defend themselves and their families, I just wish that Mr. Young and the Ohio FOP believed that I should be allowed to defend myself and my family.

Fourth, the IACP objects that the officer's department could be held liable for the acts of the officer with a gun outside his jurisdiction. Mr. Young responds that such an officer is liable for his own actions and not his department. He also maintains that, "there is no reason to think that, as the IACP intimates, that the nation will suddenly be overrun by out-of-control vacation cops drawing guns on jaywalkers. It is irresponsible to portray officers that way." 

Again, I completely agree with Mr. Young. It is irresponsible to portray officers as out-of-control vacation cops drawing their guns on jaywalkers. What is troubling is that this does not stop Mr. Young and the Ohio FOP from irresponsibly portraying legal concealed carry license holders as out-of-control vigilantes turning every fender bender into another shootout at the OK Corral. Florida has kept excellent records since the state changed its law in 1987 to a shall-issue system. Those records are available on the Florida Secretary of State's website (http://licgweb.dos.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html). The records show that since October 1, 1987 up through June 30, 2002, Florida has issued 810,878 concealed carry licenses and revoked 153 of them because the license holder committed a crime with a firearm. This is a rate of 0.019% or about 1 out of every 5,300 license holders. The portrayal of concealed carry license holders as anything other than especially upstanding citizens is outrageous.

Mr. Young replies to those who champion states rights that "it is the variety of State laws that make Federal legislation necessary. The bewildering patchwork of concealed carry laws in the States and other jurisdictions often results in a paradox for law enforcement officers - local, State, and Federal - and can put them in legal jeopardy." 

Again, I find myself in agreement with Mr. Young. I now invite him and representatives of the Ohio FOP to testify in the Ohio House of Representatives in favor of HB 303, which is a state pre-emption bill concerning firearms laws. Mr. Young's statement is nearly a word-for-word quote of what many Ohio activists have long been saying about the confusion of every single city and village in Ohio making its own gun related laws. Worse case -- before your next trip to the range, you don't need to contact AAA to find out about road construction, but you should contact your attorney to find out if some village along your route has prohibited the transport of guns or ammunition within its jurisdiction.

Before the Senate committee, Mr. Young concludes his testimony by saying, "Perhaps the strongest endorsement I can give you for this legislation is that thousands of violent criminals will hate to see it pass."

I close by saying that PERHAPS THE STRONGEST ENDORSEMENT I CAN GIVE YOU FOR PASSAGE OF CONCEALED CARRY LEGISLATION IN OHIO IS THAT THOUSANDS OF VIOLENT CRIMINALS WILL HATE TO SEE IT PASS.

Steve Nelson is vice-chairman of People’s Rights Organization (PRO), Ohio’s largest and most aggressive grassroots group in the fields of Education, Legislation and Litigation. PRO has not polled its members on this legislation, but many of the organization’s officers dislike Sen. Leahy’s bill for its attempt to place police rights above those of the citizenry. See PRO at www.peoplesrights.org and www.pro-training.info.