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