Oath-Breaking FOP Leadership Widens ‘Us vs. Them’ Divide with Opposition to Ohio Gun Bills

FOP leadership has President Donald Trump‘s ear. Shouldn’t Oath Keeper FOP members have theirs? [White House photo]

“Representatives Ron Hood (R-78) and Tom Brinkman (R-27) have introduced House Bill 201, a bill which seeks to have Ohio join the growing number of states which allow ‘constitutional’ carry, or lawful carry of a concealed firearm without a license,” Buckeye Firearms Association announced. “Similar bills have been proposed in Ohio in every General Assembly for more than a decade.”

It’s a pretty good bill, and I’m happy to see my representative is a co-sponsor. My main beef is the presumption that it “grants the person the same right to carry a concealed handgun in this state as a person who was issued a concealed handgun license.”

Rights that are granted are mere privileges that can be bestowed or withheld as rulers find expedient. It’s easy to see how lawmakers think that though, with so many gun owners and their advocacy groups having accepted the Faustian bargain of “permits.” Still, HB201 does present a major incremental gain even if some in power look at it as something they’re giving us.

So will it pass this time? If it doesn’t, Republicans will need to do some serious explaining on how a 65 to 34 House majority, a 33 to 10 Senate majority and an NRA “A”-rated governor could so totally let supporters down.

Opposition, of course, will be strong and loud, with the media acting as amplifier for voices giving the same dire (and long proven false) “blood in the streets” warnings. And one of the most influential (and strident) of those is “The Voice of Our Nation’s Law Enforcement Officers,” the Fraternal Order of Police.

“Michael Weinman, director of governmental affairs with the Fraternal Order of Police, said the organization opposes the legislation,” The Canton Repository reports.

“Weinman said firearms training, currently necessitated by the licensing process, should be required of concealed-carry holders,” the report elaborates. “The police union opposes the bill.

“We’re very leery of … what crimes you’d be allowed to carry with,” Weinman is quoted. “Does it open it up for people who assaulted police officers to be able to now carry?”

What a load that last bit of lying fear-mongering is. “Prohibited persons” won’t suddenly become “unprohibited,” and Weinman knows that. But he’s been picked as the flack to justify FOP leadership oath-breaking, of which this is but the latest example.

“The national president of the Grand Lodge Fraternal Order of Police, Dewey Stokes, introduced [President Bill] Clinton by strongly praising the president’s work on gun-control and anti-crime legislation,” United Press International reported back when the 1994 so-called “assault weapons” ban was being lauded. They also lobbied for “reauthorization” of the ban 10 years later, supporting the House effort by Republican quisling Tom Davis, and the Senate version pushed by Dianne Feinstein.

More recently, FOP National President Chuck Canterbury publicly urged the Senate to end private sales, increase ATF funding and enact more due process-denying “mental health” gun ownership disqualifiers, presenting all as “absolutely critical elements of addressing gun violence.”

And perhaps nothing displays the “Only Ones / us vs. them / we’ve got ours” mentality better than the naked hypocrisy of supporting nationwide carry for cops and retirees, but opposing it for “ordinary” citizens. FOP even wants special recognition status at NFL games, as if their main justification, “anger and, now that they must disarm, concern for their personal safety while attending football games,” does not apply to all gun owners who believe they have a right to keep and bear arms.

We hear that the rank and file by and large rejects “gun control,” yet the FOP leadership gets away with endorsing infringements with no repercussions. Supposedly group has “over 325,000 members in more than 2,100 lodges,” all having been “sworn officers,” leading to the obvious question:

Just what was it they swore to?

No doubt many current and retired law enforcement members of Oath Keepers are also FOP members. You are the logical “embedded assets” for reaching out to other FOP members and educating them on what that oath they took means and why it’s important for them to regard it as more than a ceremonial formality. The network is there for you. And the tools with which to accomplish that are right here at your fingertips on the Oath Keepers website.

Ultimately, your leadership is what it will take to change theirs.

—–

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.

About Author

David Codrea

David Codrea blogs at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance (WarOnGuns.com), and is a field editor/columnist for GUNS Magazine. Named “Journalist of the Year” in 2011 by the Second Amendment Foundation for his groundbreaking work on the “Fast and Furious” ATF “gunwalking” scandal, he is a frequent event speaker and guest on national radio and television programs.

Comments

  1. Rich7553 4 June, 2017, 12:54

    From the 2016 Republican platform.

    “We salute the Republican Congress for defending the right to keep and bear arms by preventing the President from installing a new liberal majority on the Supreme Court. The confirmation to the Court of additional anti-gun justices would eviscerate the Second Amendment’s fundamental protections. Already, local officials in the nation’s capital and elsewhere are defying the Court’s decisions upholding an individual right to bear arms as affirmed by the Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald. We support firearm reciprocity legislation to recognize the right of law-abiding Americans to carry firearms to protect themselves and their families in all 50 states. We support constitutional carry statutes and salute the states that have passed them. We oppose ill-conceived laws that would restrict magazine capacity or ban the sale of the most popular and common modern rifle. We also oppose any effort to deprive individuals of their right to keep and bear arms without due process of law. We condemn frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers and the current Administration’s illegal harassment of firearm dealers. We oppose federal licensing or registration of law-abiding gun owners, registration of ammunition, and restoration of the ill-fated Clinton gun ban. We call for a thorough investigation — by a new Republican administration — of the deadly “Fast and Furious” operation perpetrated by Department of Justice officials who approved and allowed illegal sales of guns to known violent criminals.”

    Reply this comment
    • flybob 5 June, 2017, 10:34

      NO law regarding guns in ANY state is valid. The second amendment is clear and concise….that is NO other way to interpret it and no law that restricts or prohibits ANY arm that is valid. Once we concede that arms MAY be restricted we give them right to take away our God given Constitutionally protected rights away. There is not one single judge or elected official that is adhering to the oath THEY took to uphold and support the US Constitution and it is BECAUSE of us…..WE are the stewards of freedom, NOT the uber corrupt justice department and the lawyers that populate same. WE are causing our own demise…..all evil needs to gain a foothold is for good men to do nothing……the muslims and lawyers are about to change our lives forever and it will not be for the better…but it WILL be because us as good men did nothing….what a slap in the face of those who gave everything to provide the freedoms we are now giving away

      Reply this comment
      • Chip 6 June, 2017, 04:21

        GREAT comment…well said brother!

        Reply this comment
      • WGP 7 June, 2017, 18:05

        You are right. Good men are tolerant, thus the evil has it’s way while good men do nothing. It is called the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Lefts. Everything right is right because it is right. The right thing for us to do is stick to our rights, literally. As those who conform to the will of tyranny will do so whether we do or do not interfere. Tell a child not to put his finger in a candle flame and the child burns his finger. When the evil of the left has its’ way we sill in our time not interfere but stand for what is right. It is our duty to set an example of not obeying any unconstitutional law. LEO’s in particular enforce those unconstitutional laws; they should be at the forefront in upholding their oath, refusing to enforce what is contrary to our oath; however that is not the case because they too live under tyranny and their would be no law enforcement if such were the case. Oh but wait, not only are they plentiful, but all 100 % break their oath to the constitution.Their duty to the constitution is in direct conflict with their assigned duty to a pay check. A career in contradictions.The ones that are my friends.refer to it off hand as tolerating the powers above them. Then their is the unions…another topic of corruption.

        Reply this comment
    • globe 5 June, 2017, 10:55

      PLEASE MOUNT A PETITIOn HERE FOR ALL OF US TO SIGN ….https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/

      Reply this comment
  2. Chris Mallory 4 June, 2017, 13:24

    “Does it open it up for people who assaulted police officers to be able to now carry?”

    Why should a crime against a government employee be treated any differently than a crime against a citizen? If anything it should be more of a crime to harm a non government employee.

    Reply this comment
    • Green Giant 5 June, 2017, 10:59

      I am sure you get it. And we get you. You are one of those guys who is always imagining a way that will be bad. Not that it ever happens. Just got to come up with SOME reason why we should not pass any law giving us access to our CONSTITUTIONAL rights.
      Now get this. The RIGHTS of the MAJORITY verses any imaginary bad things that you can come up with. WE WIN. At least we should win.

      Reply this comment
      • Cal 5 June, 2017, 15:47

        “Just got to come up with SOME reason why we should not pass any law giving us access to our CONSTITUTIONAL rights.
        Now get this. The RIGHTS of the MAJORITY verses any imaginary bad things that you can come up with. WE WIN. At least we should win.”

        You’re wrong, let me show you why.

        Constitution of the United States of America, Second Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

        These words, “shall not be infringed” are telling every single person who bothers to read the US Constitution, a very short document, that those who serve within our governments have NO authority regarding the people and weapons (and every single person who is an American should be reading and studying it). But notice the words “being necessary to the security of a free State…”, this shows you that the people MUST always be armed and trained in order to keep our freedom, that it is a NECESSARY thing.

        First is that the type of government USA has is NO a “democracy”, it is a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC; so the “The RIGHTS of the MAJORITY” mean nothing.. I’ll explain that now.

        The US Constitution and each state’s Constitution basically are our governments as they define what they are, and both are our highest laws, with the US Constitution being the supreme LAW of this land. The US Constitution is a compact between the states, and the supreme contract of all who serve within our governments – state and federal. The people who serve within are not “the” government; instead they are placed there to carry out duties that are found in writing within the Constitutions – US and state. Those people who want to serve within our governments are ALLOWED to use the authority/power that comes with the government that they serve in – state or federal, found within the branch of that government or within a NAMED Office within a branch. Those people do not have any power/authority at all on their own, EXCEPT that which they are allowed to use as long as they keep the contract – doing the duties as assigned, taking and KEEPING the constitutionally required Oath, that authority comes from the branch or named office within a branch.

        Dr. Edwin Vieira says it well here where he shows that those who serve within our government has LIMITS and “forbiddens” (my word) placed upon what they may do: “What are the defining characteristics of a limited government? They are its disabilities; what it does not have legal authority to do. Look at the First Amendment… What does it do? It guarantees freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion. But how does it do that? I quote: “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press” etcetera. “Congress shall make no law;” that’s a statement of an absence of power. That’s a statement of a disability.”

        Nowhere within the US Constitution, supreme Law of our land, is found any authority over the people and weapons – use of, how they carry them, how many they have what type – except that the people are constitutionally REQUIRED to be armed and TRAINED in such manner as to be able to repel an invasion of any type that might occur. There are specific duties that the people (as the Militia of the several states) must perform; and there are duties that both the state and federal governments have to the Militias.

        If you read the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, you will see that is what the Bill of Rights makes clear – that those who serve within our government at any level, within any branch do NOT have authority over those things. Rarely, certain things those who serve within our government are allowed to do ONLY if specific circumstances are met, and the response they take MUST be done ONLY IN THE MANNER PUT DOWN IN WRITING for them to follow (and never forget).

        Preamble to the Bill of Rights: Congress Of The United States begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
        THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.”

        George Washington: “It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government…, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.” (“Sentiments on a Peace Establishment”, letter to Alexander Hamilton; “The Writings of George Washington”)

        Richard Henry Lee: “Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.” (1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights)

        Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822): “For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution.”

        Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846): ” `The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right.”

        Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859): “The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the “high powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.’ A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.”

        Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878): “To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm … is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.”

        “Representatives Ron Hood (R-78) and Tom Brinkman (R-27) have introduced House Bill 201, a bill which seeks to have Ohio join the growing number of states which allow ‘constitutional’ carry, or lawful carry of a concealed firearm without a license,”

        I really am sick of those that serve within our government using wording that makes it seem like the people should be grateful for every crumb they try to take control over rather then be apologetic, groveling about breaking not only the contract that they serve under, but their Oath; such as this “…which allow ‘constitutional’ carry,…” found in the above sentence. They allow us nothing, it is NOT delegated to them so they have no authority, this was retained (kept) by the people to make their own decisions regarding weapons. Though if they refuse to train as is required of them, they are then to pay a fine.

        Thomas Cooley: “The right is general… The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for that purpose”.

        William Rawle, descriibing the scope of the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms: “The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.” (His work was adopted as a constitutional law textbook at West Point and other institutions, and he was United States Attorney for Pennsylvania)

        Tench Coxe: “Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” (Delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1787)

        Reply this comment
    • Green Giant 5 June, 2017, 11:03

      You seem to trust LEOs totally. I don’t suppose you have ever heard of an LEO who filed charges of assault when no such thing happened. Or the ones who filed charges of resisting, or loitering? How about the ones who arrested a man for having a gun. WHEN IT WAS NOT ILLEGAL to have a gun.
      Face it. The actions of SOME LEOs are making it very difficult to just blindly get behind them.

      Reply this comment
      • Cal 5 June, 2017, 15:51

        I am assuming – and yes, I do know what that assumption may make me – that you are referring to this

        “Why should a crime against a government employee be treated any differently than a crime against a citizen? If anything it should be more of a crime to harm a non government employee.”

        He is merely pointing out that those who serve within our governments, be they a LEO or Senator are to be EQUALLY guilty or innocent under the laws, that they are bound by the same laws the people are. That “professional courtesy”, and it matters not what group of governmental that is often doled out to anther in government is not LAWFUL here in the USA.

        Reply this comment
  3. Curly 4 June, 2017, 13:56

    I often wonder about the folks who think the Oath is a formality. At a trial, do they think the oath to tell the whole truth is just a formality? What about other procedures and duties surrounding evidence? Would such persons infringe upon our other human rights because they believe they are “more equal” than the rest? This goes to community trust of L.E.Os. It would be helpful to both our police and to the rest of our communities for us to start to repair the trust the increasingly militarized police forces have squandered. The “Us vs. Them” attitude is harmful, not helpful.

    Reply this comment
  4. Flybob 5 June, 2017, 10:27

    I just don’t get it. Everyone wants to fight with each states new bills or laws and NO one is going after the real root cause!!! Does the second amendment mention needing training to exercise “the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms”? WHERE does it say “except in ohio” or ANYWHERE in the USA??? WHERE does it say you need a special license to carry concealed??? WHERE does it limit the size of knives OR allow the government to place ANY restrictions on the US Constitution??? WE ARE OATH KEEPERS!!! We took oath to SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE US CONSTITUTION, NOT to battle each state separately that is violating the US Constitution. This is EXACTLY why I hate the NRA!!! They claim to make strides in getting small gun restrictions reduced or about writing an amicus brief….translation, they’ve done NOTHING to make sure the government adheres to the US CONSTITUTION!!! If we don’t stop putting a bandaid well below the wound and expecting the wound to stop bleeding we WILL LOSE ALL OF OUR RIGHTS!!! It is already happening. Judges all around the country are RULING that free speech is not without restriction…..REALLY???? It is just a matter of time until we pay ZERO attention to the document that MADE us free….and we become slaves of our own government….in SPITE of the document that protects the same rights. And guess what my fellow oath keepers….it will be our FAULT!!! WE DID IT BY DOING NOTHING!!! So much for the home of the brave……America is dying right in front of us

    Reply this comment
    • Green Giant 5 June, 2017, 11:08

      The FOP and other bureaucrats actually believe WE are the enemy. It comes from being isolated from society by the natural (for those who DO break the laws) tendency to want to stay away from LEOs at all times.
      Want to go head to head with an out of control LEO is likes abusing his authority? God help us. At one time, when we were a Christian society, the natural inclination was of respect, BOTH WAYS. Not the case any longer.

      Reply this comment
  5. Green Giant 5 June, 2017, 10:54

    FOP is just like bureaucrats, dictators, socialists and communists. They desire control They don’t believe in the Constitution and they are sure that MOST people can’t be trusted.
    So make a note of who they are and what cities they work in. You will find that most are from liberal, SANCTUARY cities where it is dangerous to NOT be armed.
    Logic: They want us to be just like those serfs in England. Unable to defend ourselves.

    Reply this comment
  6. maglev 5 June, 2017, 10:57

    Please OATH KEEPERS, mount a Petition on the WH platform to do so
    100, 000 signatures guarantees that he will personally answer back the petitioners.
    I believe this is an entirely underused facility that the Trump WH has put out there for us to get feed in. Snooze, we lose. https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/

    Reply this comment
  7. StingraySFO 5 June, 2017, 12:05

    There remains four words within the 2nd amendment that have been upheld as the mandatory definition in all cases of law before the bench, those being…..”SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”. The controlling word in particular is….”SHALL”. It doesn’t say or mean anything less, and has made the difference in every court, from small claims through and including the SCOTUS, whether for civil or criminal cases whenever the question is proposed as to ascertain intent of any claim or defense.
    That liberal judges, as well as liberal LEO’s ‘feel’ it is NOT controlling only justifies the conception that their minds are wired differently than the majority of moral, law abiding, respectful citizens. ‘Shall’ does not mean may, might, could, maybe, except, or, nor anything other than what it actually says. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED means exactly what it says, nothing else!

    Reply this comment
  8. wrad 5 June, 2017, 12:48

    I’ve had several career police officers say that loosening up the carry laws means lower crime rates, and less need for cops. It’s not about their safety as a primary objection.

    Reply this comment
  9. TERRIANDA 5 June, 2017, 20:18

    since i was married to a cop and a national treasurer for the FOP I can say this . FOP IS JUST ANOTHER POLITICAL ORGANIZATION , THATS ALL IT IS .IT REALLY ISNT ABOUT POLICE OFFICERS ITS ABOUT A POLITICAL AGENDA , THATS WHY HALF OF THE POLICE DONT EVEN WANT TO BELONG TO IT .

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Your e-mail address will not be published.
Required fields are marked*