(IL) Chicago Cops Get Gun Locks

Oatka

New member
http://www.apbnews.com/cjprofessionals/behindthebadge/2000/06/28/gunlocks0628_01.html?s=nav_bn_homepage

Chicago Cops Get Gun Locks
Superintendent Orders 13,500 for His Troops

June 28, 2000

By James Gordon Meek

CHICAGO (APBnews.com) -- Police Superintendent Terry Hillard believes officers should lead by example, especially when it comes to firearms safety.

That is why Hillard has ordered the department's 13,500 sworn officers to accept gun locks, which he hopes they will use to secure their service weapons at home, a spokesman said.

Officials cited the danger of children accessing firearms stored in homes, which often leads to accidental shootings and fatalities nationwide.

Spokesman Pat Camden said Chicago has not had a particular problem with accidental residential shootings, but "what the department is doing is asking its officers, when you're not working, secure your duty weapons, and we're encouraging them to secure their other weapons as well to prevent accidents."

The department spent about $60,000 for the Master-brand gun locks, he said.

Like old-style bike locks

Camden said some reports have mistakenly identified them as trigger locks, but they are actually steel cables with nylon coating. They cable can be strung though the magazine well or barrel of a semiautomatic handgun and up through the ejection port to block the slide from moving or the weapon from being loaded.

The cables, which resemble old-style bicycle locks, are secured using a small key lock.

Now retired from the force, Camden said that in 29 years as a Chicago policeman he never locked his service revolver up, but he highly recommends that today's officers make it a habit, especially if they have children.

"You can't be too careful when little ones are in the house, or even bigger ones, the teenagers," he said.

An inspirational plan

Camden said Hillard hopes the initiative will inspire the public to lock up their guns, too.

Handguns were outlawed in Chicago in 1992, but many Chicagoans own hunting rifles and shotguns, and those who owned handguns before the law took effect are grandfathered.

Chicago police officers are required to purchase their own service weapons. Most choose to buy .38-caliber or 9 mm semiautomatics with high-capacity magazines.

Fraternal Order of Police and National Rifle Association representatives said the organizations took no issue with the gun lock distribution plan.

James Gordon Meek is an APBnews.com editor (james.meek@apbnews.com).

©Copyright 2000 APB Online, Inc.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oatka:
...., which he hopes they will use to secure their service weapons at home....
[/quote]


HOPES!? Make 'em mandatory, just like the gov't wants to do with us, and I'll be happy. THEN and only then will they be setting an example. What's good for the goose...
 
Hey ... just don't let 'em take their service weapons home! Our police aren't allowed to .. they sign 'em in and out when they come on duty and off duty.

If it saves just one life ....

B
 
Futo,
Supporting this stuff for LEOs does not in any way help the RKBA. Do you think that this being mandatory for LEOs is going to help? No flame intended but lets stop acting like children.
 
mrat, you're correct, and we see your point, but ... we're also tired of being treated as second class relative to LEO's. Most LEO's on this forum don't support the absurd limitations put on honest citizens versus LEO's, but some LEO's (especially the d**n police chiefs) do.

So, why do the LEO's choose semi-auto's with 'high-capacity magazines'? I've had plenty of LEO's and anti's tell me that '10 rounds is certainly enough'. I'm so confused. ;)

This is a $60K public relations stunt, pure and simple. But, hey ... it's only money, and besides, it's not even Hillard's money.

Regards from AZ
 
Its probably not all that rare, either. Our department issued us trigger locks along with our sidearms. Most departments do.

Its no PR stunt, its plain and simple economics. Doling out locks is cheaper than being sued if a gun happens to (by itself, of course) kill some child. The city can say 'hey, we gave him a lock for it, he just didn't use it...' They're covered.

Why is this news? Some nincompoop of a reporter needed a story...

Mike

------------------
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." -Robert Heinlein
 
My department issued a trigger lock like the one in the article with my duty weapon. It went promptly in the spare parts box of gun items, still in the bag. I have a safe that it is secured in when not needed. I am not sure that the issuing supervisor knows why they were issued. Waste of department's money, IMO.
 
Jeff,
I think there is a misconception about all these new gunlaws not applying to LEOs. LEOs cannot go down to a gun store and buy hicap mags or an AR15 for themselves. If I want a hicap mag I am only authorized by law to get it for my duty gun, if I get an "assault weapon" it is for duty use. I must get a letter signed by my chief saying it is for duty use. If I quit the department the next day I am required to turn it in. Basically what I would be doing is supplementing the department's budget with my money.

I do understand the frustation with these crazy laws, we are all frustated. Please don't direct the frustation at LEOs, we are all in this madness together. Also keep in mind the chiefs are politicians, most of them are no longer cops.

[This message has been edited by mrat (edited June 30, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by mrat (edited June 30, 2000).]
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mrat:
I must get a letter signed by my chief saying it is for duty use.[/quote]

So what you are saying is that you are not phohibited from using these features? (The point is, I am.)

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>... cheifs are politicians...[/quote]

This doesn't change anything. They are still incharge of policy.


------------------

~USP

"[Even if there would be] few tears shed if and when the Second Amendment is held to guarantee nothing more than the state National Guard, this would simply show that the Founders were right when they feared that some future generation might wish to abandon liberties that they considered essential, and so sought to protect those liberties in a Bill of Rights. We may tolerate the abridgement of property rights and the elimination of a right to bear arms; but we should not pretend that these are not reductions of rights." -- Justice Scalia 1998

[This message has been edited by USP45 (edited June 30, 2000).]
 
mrat:
You do not neccesarily need to surrender the weapon upon retirement. There is a provision in the crime bill for any restricted weapon and hi caps to be retired to the officer upon retirement; they cannot be passed on upon the officers death.
There may be more restrictive state law at your location however.
 
USP45,

Yes I am prohibited from using these features unless it is for work. My point is I can't just buy this stuff because I am an LEO. For example I have a USP 40. We are not authorized to carry these. I cannot go down and buy hicaps for it. I can only get hicaps for what I carry on duty.

I understand what you are saying, do you understand the point I am making?



[This message has been edited by mrat (edited July 01, 2000).]
 
mrat, I hear you and understand. I try to avoid painting LEO's with the same 'brush' I use for the despised Police Chiefs ... I recognize the difference. As a matter of fact, many of my 'mentors' here at TFL have been, and are LEO's - I have greatly appreciated their counsel, and their service. And, many of my instructors have been LEO's as well ... a lot of fine men who have given me a great foundation in firearms training.

But, I will say I'd feel much more alliance with LEO's if the FOP was more clearly supportive of the civilian RKBA. As it is, they seem to usually be quite comfortable with increasing the chasm between LEO's and the public, versus recognizing our RKBA. I often see them supporting the actions of Clinton et al.

Work on the FOP. They damage our relationship, IMHO.

Regards from AZ
 
Jeff,
I am not a member of the FOP but I know about them and other LEO organizations like PORAC in Cali. The problem is they are political and usually do not speak for the members. I believe organizations like FOP make behind the scene deals with the politicans.
 
And to think....some of my tax dollars from last year paid for those before I moved out of that terrible state.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mrat:
I can only get hicaps for what I carry on duty.[/quote]

I cannot get these, period.

Double Standard

Your point is that off duty, you are no better able to obtain and use these than I. Conceeded.

I may be a little thick, but if you decided to carry your 'duty' piece off duty, would you have to use 'civilian' hardware (low-cap mags... etc.)?

Back to your initial point:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Supporting this stuff [mandatory trigger locks] for LEOs does not in any way help the RKBA. Do you think that this being mandatory for LEOs is going to help? [/quote]

Yes, it will. When the police admit that these features are bogus, and that mandatory polocies injure, then we'll be a step closer to winning. However, the police will never publicly admit it, when they are not forced to abide by it, when they are not handicapped as we are.

When the LEA's are exempt from nearly all gun laws (as they are in Massachusetts), then we are nearly helpless in fighting these laws, as we have little, if any, encouraged support in LE. ("It doesn't affect me, I don't care.")

------------------

~USP

"[Even if there would be] few tears shed if and when the Second Amendment is held to guarantee nothing more than the state National Guard, this would simply show that the Founders were right when they feared that some future generation might wish to abandon liberties that they considered essential, and so sought to protect those liberties in a Bill of Rights. We may tolerate the abridgement of property rights and the elimination of a right to bear arms; but we should not pretend that these are not reductions of rights." -- Justice Scalia 1998
 
Back
Top