My discussion with an anti-gun cop. What are your thoughts?


I’m hoping this week’s post is more of a discussion than a typical article and really want you to read your thoughts on the situation.

Over the past 2 days I have 3 discussions with retired law enforcement officers… 1 is a shooting buddy and close friend who happens to be a retired San Diego county sheriff’s deputy, 1 is a retired Las Vegas PD officer and today at the dog park I had a spirited discussion about handguns with a retired NYPD officer that had a beautiful German Sheppard Dog puppy.

(Yes I know that sounds dumb, but I didn’t name the breed. I just know it Link to the AKC breed standard)

As a quick aside Bailey was mounted by a pitbull at one point and she wasn’t a fan. It is the 1st time I’ve seen her angry and… HOLY COW!!! The pitbull ran off of molest larger dogs that were less determined to stop him.

Anyway the retired officer was very anti-gun he said…

  • That if it were up to him he would get rid of all guns including those owned by police officers and militaries.
  • That there were other tools that could be used for protection… like a stun gun that he admitted he could take away from his 17 year old daughter and… that he had a German Sheppard Dog because they were naturally protective (Specifically he “would have no concerns leaving his windows open with his last dog because it would be unpleasant for the intruder”)
  • He was shocked at the guns he has seen carried in cars on the passenger seat… He was unaware that legally that was one of the 2 acceptable places to carry a gun for non-concealed carriers in NC, the other is the dash.
  • He was shocked that his guns did not have to have checks done to bring them into the state when he relocated.

Unrelated to his anti-gun beliefs he was also pro stop and frisk, unaware that Bloomberg was funding antigun groups, or that as a whole licensed concealed carry permit holders were more law abiding than mayors.

More concerning to me however was the conversation that led to him leaving the park.

He said “How dare you Monday morning quarterback the actions of a police officer doing the job?” And that “Not the other people in the park, (me), (him) or anyone else has the right to question them.”

I stopped him and asked…

“Police officers are fellow citizens, hired by us to protect us, why should we not have the ability to review their actions.”

He then objected to the notion that police officers were citizens.


He then asked me if I thought if even an off duty officer had more responsibility to protect people than the ordinary citizen?

I directed him to the Joseph Lozito case where NY courts said the police officers were under no duty to protect him as an individual… and that has been interpreted to mean that a police officer, even in uniform, is under no more responsibility to protect a citizen.

This is about the time that he left.

The guy was nice enough, his dog was well behaved, the discussion was not loud or aggressive and I enjoyed the debate. (admittedly I don’t think he did), he served for 6 months at ground zero before retiring and I think he would be pretty good neighbor but the thought of him as a police officer gives me the chills.

How would you feel about an officer, that while well intentioned.

  1. thought you should be disarmed
  2. was ok with stop and frisk with the minimum of articulable cause
  3. was ok with tazing a suspect climbing a fence while fleeing (we talked about that too)
  4. didn’t believe that police officers were citizens like the rest of us
  5. didn’t think you had any right to question their actions?

Let me know in the comments below.


  1. David W. says

    Yikes Man. I have never heard a cop say stuff like that, and I really hope I never do. That is seriously scary “jack booted thug” type stuff.

  2. says

    Typical of my interaction with LEO. Add one more component. Total bullies ( I volunteer 2 nights a week in the ER of a large public hospital). Significant percentage I interact with are nothing but thugs in uniform.

  3. says

    He sounds like he is totally the product of his environment. He grew up in an anti-gun, anti-freedom culture, and that was reinforced by years of government training. Then he spent his adult life either confronting thugs with guns, or confronting people he thought were thugs with guns. When he wasn’t confronting those people or preparing to confront those people, he spent his time in the company of others who grew up in the same culture he did, and received the same excellent training he did.

    On the contrary, my interactions with policemen here in the the south has been a lot more promising. For example, see my post

    This is, of course, why no one retires to the north.

  4. John Stein says

    I’m curious about his comments on “if it were up to him he would do away with all guns including those for police and military.”

    Hopefully he realizes that this is just pure fantasy. I, for one, would to remove lima beans from the face of the earth…..but that is just my wishful imagination.

    Overall, his comments and mindset makes him just another sad elitist little man.

  5. Matt says

    Cops are people, people are a widely varied group. I hope he is an outlier but I think that he is a typical big city cop.

  6. David Scull says

    People who believe rules (laws) are for other people are VERY dangerous when given even a little power.
    Judge Dread here…”I AM DE LAW!!!”

  7. Joe H says

    The former officer said that he would ban guns for EVERYONE. Then he said he could not believe he did not have to have checks done on HIS guns when he relocated. Sounds kind of hypocritical to me. Sounds like the “I trust me, but no one else to be responsible” argument that a lot of the Anti ‘s have. He is welcome to his views, I just don’t happen to agree with him.

  8. Delos Craft says

    As they say, “it takes all kinds…” and the retired LEO you spoke with sounds like the ‘woefully uninformed’ kind. Glad he has retired !

  9. Maluka says

    Clearly he is a progressive liberal (anti American Communist) who believes that everyone must be disarmed but himself. The same thinking is what controls the politicians in Louisiana, New York and many other states., “Rules for you but not me” is the liberal mind set. . Remember liberalism is a mental illness.

  10. Crotalus says

    If he believes that he is not a fellow citizen, then he is an enemy, operating under color of law. His other beliefs confirm that.

  11. says

    I do agree. Cops are not citizens. They are civilians and work for the Citizens. Citizens have every to judge, supervise, and critique government employees, especially cops.

  12. dan says

    Give anyone a hat and uniform..and they think they are ..above everyone else….and you must OBEY whatever they say… in political scribble….ie. laws and regulations…the uniformed enforcers do not ‘protect and serve’ any citizens…they ‘protect and serve’ the people that hired them…as in politicians and top brass… away with all LEO’s and re establish the State Militia’s..for protection and service to the citizens of the states….imho

  13. dthur1003 says

    I wonder top what extent, LEO’s, military and politicians, just techie the WORDS when swearing the oath to protect the Constitution but never really take it to heart ? They just said it to get their job but it means virtually nothing to them !!! I’m not talking about everyone, but guess like this retired cup sure seems to fit the bill !!!

  14. says

    This is the typical mentality of NYPD members, and the general mentality of NYC residents. This is why you can’t reason with staunch liberal progressives. They have no common sense, they can’t think for themselves, and they’ve grown up immersed in an entirely independent bubble of reality. This is also why I’m happy living in SC, where most law enforcement officers are more than happy that people carry.

  15. says

    What’s really scary is that he is retired, which means that he had at least 20 years to act according to those beliefs, with a badge, gun and color of authority.

  16. Ardent says

    Just, wow! There are so many directions one could go but I’ll choose this;
    He’s dishonest, unserious, poorly educated and completely unsuitable for police work. He swore an oath to uphold the constitution without first understanding what he was swearing to, thus he’s both dishonest and unserious since he cannot honestly agree to uphold that which he doesn’t understand and he’s willing to swear oaths without considering what they mean. He’s poorly educated since one shouldn’t be able to make it out of middle school without a passing understanding of the Bill of Rights which includes the 2nd and 4th amendments. He’s unsuited to police work since he fails to understand that the police exist to serve the people rather than dominate them and seemingly doesn’t understand that the oath he took was about protecting the rights of the people, not usurping them.
    Whatever else he may be, he shouldn’t be retired, it sounds like he should be investigated and possibly imprisoned. Anyone want to give odds that he hasn’t, as BHirsh suggests, violated many peoples rights under color of law?
    This person is frightening and despicable.

  17. David From Alabama says

    As a police officer, this person’s beliefs disgust me. We the People includes everyone, especially those we entrust to uphold law and order.

  18. Mike says

    Most cops aren’t like this. In particular, most NYPD officers I’ve met were able to resist or throw off the brainwashing.

  19. Tom West says

    I sit and smile, as a gun owning citizen living in a north eastern state who is a police officer, reading the responses that don’t hesitate to generalize a specific group of people based on the interaction with one person.

    Most of the people posting these responses would be frothing mad if someone were to generalize a gun owner based on the actions of one random jackass gun owner who may happen to live in the same general area….

    Sad irony.

    This particular EX-officer doesn’t sound very intelligent, but neither does anyone who makes such generalized statements, right?


  20. says

    This gentleman seems genuinely confused about what it exactly is that he believes. His points about wanting everyone disarmed, but then not considering police officers regular citizens are pretty contradictory. He also seems very confused about concealed carry laws. If he (or anyone else needing the info) happens to come across this page, here’s a link to help them out:

  21. says

    This gentleman seems genuinely confused about what it is exactly that he believes. Noting that he thinks everyone should be disarmed but then stating that police officers are above the law is contradictory. It’s also amazing to me that he is so under informed about concealed/non-concealed carry law. If he or anyone else needs a starting point for information on that topic, a good link is here:

  22. nksmfamjp says

    He’s a dandy. Understand that police spend their whole careers trying to get situations under control. I’m guessing his mental illness, ego or personality caused him to feel out of control the entire time.

    The statements while political in nature are best worked through with a therapist than a gun blogger. Hope he is seeing one. Likely it is not lack of education, but lack of understanding that he was using his power position, COP, as medication for a mental disorder.

    I would guess you could interview most dictators and get similar answers.

    He ought to be on the short list for who is about to snap.

  23. says


    You and I have had some “spirited” discussions, and can agree or disagree on firearms related topics, but this is appalling. I am an NRA Life Member, and possessed a CCW prior to starting my law enforcement career. As a nearly 20-year active duty cop I’m very disappointed by this conversation! Sadly, knowing that he was from NYPD, I’m not all that surprised by his demeanor or comments … except one.

    I’ve known several NYPD officers over my career and I’ve NEVER heard one say that cops should be disarmed. Actually, most were OK with civilian ownership of firearms with varying levels of restrictions. Several were not in favor of CCW unfortunately. There is definitely a different mindset of how to enforce the law in the northeast USA! Really its pretty interesting considering that part of the country tends to be more liberal leaning, yet their pattern of policing is much more authoritarian.

    To this NYPD officer:

    1. “Get rid of all guns” – I think dementia is starting to set in! Guns aren’t going away because they are the most effective means at self defense (even for governments) or necessary use of force in deadly encounters.

    2. “Dogs and stun guns” – Dogs are good, but can be shot, stabbed, or beaten to death leaving you back to confronting your attacker. Stun guns are super close range weapons with only moderate effectiveness even when deployed appropriately – some perps are highly effected by them, some not so much. This guy is living on Fantasy Island.

    3. Confusion on open carry and “checking in” firearms – I gotta give a little leeway here considering he’s coming from one of the most regulated areas of the country where open carry is unheard of, and gun registration is reality.

    4. “Cops are not citizens” – again, dementia! This is a northeast, and big city law enforcement mindset where some believe they are above the citizenry – dangerous and scary actually. NYPD has this flawed belief a lot, but so do nearly every State Police/Highway Patrol agency.

    5. “Can’t question cops” – Well… I disagree that citizens cannot question police actions (you are our bosses and you absolutely can question how/why we do things. However, I do somewhat agree that in the moment, if an officer is ordering you to do something, than you should comply.

    Once you have complied with the requests there may be an opportunity to question, but that does not come when being given a lawful order – check you local laws, but this is pretty universal (laws made by civilian representatives, I might add). Even if the officer never answers (unprofessional), if something was done legally wrong by police, there is a civil remedy in the Courts. Many citizens oppose this, but the premise is to maintain order. Because there are severe civil liberty penalties if officers over step their bounds, the law and courts side with the concept that the officers will act lawfully and citizens should comply first.

    We’ve all seen the chaotic scenes where people are yelling at cops, asking repeated questions, and then refusing to comply – that’s chaos.

    Comply, don’t resist, and try to get answers when the dust has settled – even if you have to go to a supervisor later.
    If the officers were wrong – cash your check.

Speak Your Mind