City bans all retired officers from carrying; It's time to make police chiefs stand for election

By Gerard Valentino

West Covina, CA has banned legal concealed carry by retired law-enforcement officers within city limits. The City Council was aided in their decision to disarm law-enforcement officers by one of their own – current Chief of Police Frank Willis.

Angry retired officers are astonished a fellow officer would actively campaign to take away their right to self defense. They argue that law-enforcement officers have an increased risk of being attacked by people they have worked to put in jail and can act as a possible first line of defense.

Now a small number of law enforcement officers are feeling the same level of frustration that law abiding citizens have dealt with as police administrators lobby to take a way the right to use a concealed firearms for self-defense.

There can be no doubt that few rank and file police officers have a problem with honest people carrying guns. Usually it is only their administration who takes ridiculous anti-gun stances when the evidence clearly shows legal concealed carry license holders are not a treat to the police.

Under the circumstances and with the fiasco in West Covina as further proof, police administrations are doing the bidding of anti-gun politicians. In Ohio, it isn’t a surprise that most Sheriffs are pro-concealed carry since they are elected and have to answer directly to the people. Contrast that with the head of the Ohio State Highway Patrol, one of the most anti-gun organizations in the country, or the Columbus Chief of Police who also vilifies guns at every chance.

Digging a little deeper, however, shows that the police administrators are simply acting in their own best interest by acting on the bias of the political leadership.

If, tomorrow, all heads of police departments were directly elected, the anti-gun slant that dominates the organizations would change instantly. Standing in front of citizens who can vote them out of office and putting forth the message that police officers or administrators should have more rights than an average person would be political suicide.

As political appointees, however, the heads of most police organizations are free to hold such a view without worrying about offending the citizens they are sworn to protect. In many cities such a view is the only way to get ahead in the political jungle that makes up the hierarchy of most police administrations. There is no chance a pro-gun Chief would ever be acceptable to Columbus, Ohio’s notorious anti-gun Mayor Michael Coleman or the anti-gun gang that makes up the Columbus City Council.

West Covina Chief Willis is another prime example of a political appointee doing the bidding of his superiors. His actions are also likely to make him a villain among the rank and file who make up the vast majority of police officers and who do their job with distinction.

Concealed Carry advocates have always tried to place a limit on extending the rights of police officers when the same rights are not afforded to all citizens. Not because of a lack of respect for the officers, but because our country is founded upon the premise that all people are afforded equal protection under the laws. Hearing retired law enforcement officers claim to be equated to sex offenders by being disarmed “for public safety” has a familiar ring. Ohio concealed carry activists equate having their personal information available to reporters as being equal to sex offenders. West Covina Council Member Shelley Sanderson was surprised at the outrage over the city’s decision. She uses the old tired refrain that the law is necessary for “public safety.”

Now that a police administrator has crossed the line and openly campaigned to disarm his brethren, pro-gun advocates can yet again point out what we always knew. Once anti-gunners get a foothold they will drive to ban all guns in all instances.

Willis did try to mitigate his involvement by claiming he would rather not have the ordinance disarm retired law enforcement officers. His objections were of little consequences since his actions helped the ban pass.

If the police community in West Covina thinks their union will step in to help they will likely be disappointed. Just as police administrators are not made to defend their decisions to the people, the heads of police unions are free to act without responsibility as well. Most are also rabidly anti-gun and the street officer is still forced to pay dues to an organization that doesn’t represent their views.

Over the years as anti-gun city administrations fell victim to the anti-gun con it makes sense that police administrators would as well. Even rank and file officers in some rabidly anti-gun cities like Chicago, Washington D.C. and Boston are forced to kneel at the anti-gun altar. Those rank and file officers are the exception, however, as most police officers believe law-abiding people have the right to carry a gun for self-defense.

There is no easy answer for changing the anti-gun culture prevalent among the heads of large police agencies. The best way to do so is to force the Chiefs to stand for election just like every other decision maker in city government.

It would also allow the rank and file officer to have more control over their leadership since they clearly have the same right to vote as everyone else.

Gerard Valentino is the Buckeye Firearms Association Central Ohio Chair, writes for the ValentinoChronicle.com and teaches the Ohio Concealed Carry class through Center Mass LTD.