imported post
The major problem here, as I see it, is a matter of presumption and expectation. We as a society are allowing our LEAs and other government agencies to develop the expectation that anyone they deal with on a day to day basis will NOT be armed, so therefor, the logical presumption on the part of any LEO is that they need not worry about a firearm unless one is presented, and policy need not take into serious account the armed citizen variable.
This presumption creates a dangerous, false sense of security on an officers part that they need not consider a firearm unless seen or informed about it, so naturally, they are socked and unsure how to appropriately act/react about an individual who is carrying a firearm. Over-reaction than places the LAC at risk at the hands of the LEO.
The old adage begs to be stated here...."When all you do, all day long, is pound nails, everything starts to look like a nail."
There are few professions that this adage applies more aptly to than law enforcement.
This mindset however is quickly becoming a dangerous liability for LEAs in today's America, where more and more LAC are choosing to carry on a daily basis, and laws country wide are swinging from the cherry pick and potholed laws of places allowed, to the short list of places not.
LEAs need to sit up and take notice of these facts and start training our public servants to expect the LACs they interact with every day to be carrying. The days of the safe presumptuous equation, that gun equals criminal, are long over, and are becoming serious legal and public relations liabilities.
An LEO knowing for a fact that a given individual is carrying a gun may be safe knowledge, but going into every encounter with the expectation that everyone and anyone may be armed is a much safer practice.
When the predominant mindset swings from that of a reaction to the presence of a firearm, to that of assumption of the presence of a firearm, the policies and procedures will shift in both the LEOs, and the public's favor.