I was recently required to go to a class on the incident management system. The class was comprised of about 60% police supervisors and 40% fire supervisors. The class gave me an opportunity for some insight into the way that cops (especially the supervisors) view the world.
The class presented the supervisors with a few scenarios, and challenged those supervisors to set up a command structure that would adequately manage the situation. Since this was a class attended mostly by cops and was being taught by cops, the scenarios and the conversations were mostly cop-centric. It was a learning experience, but perhaps not in the way that was intended.
The first scenario was that a child services worker was doing a well being check on a home, after receiving a tip that one of the children in the home was being sexually molested by the father. When she arrived at the home, she found that the father was home alone with 3 children, ages 9 through 14, and he was intoxicated. The social worker told the father that she was removing the children from the home, because the only adult was intoxicated. The father refused, an argument ensued, and the social worker was asked to leave. Social worker attempts to take the youngest child with her, and is shot in the stomach by the father. Socail worker staggers outside and 911 is called.
The cops said that this is an active shooter situation, and their primary objective is to enter the home as soon as they have three officers present, and "take out the bad guy." I am betting that they were not talking about shooting the social worker.
After this first scenario, we took our first break. The topic of discussion during the break was how the "new NRA law" was stupid and creating problems for police. One of the cops said that they tried to work with the NRA, but that the "gun nuts" were being uncooperative and would not give an inch. Another used an example (paraphrasing, my memory isn't perfect)
"There is this guy who has been "Baker Acted" several times, and has even fired shots at police officers. We were at his house, and he has guns. Now normally, I would just take the guns, and he would never see them again. Thanks to this new law, this guy keeps the guns. Now I am forced to risk leaving the guns there and getting sued when he shoots someone, or taking the guns, and getting sued by the NRA."
Third cop says: "The odds of being sued by the NRA are low. I'm still going to take them."
There are a number of false assumptions there, but it seems to me that if a person has shot at cops, wouldn't he be convicted of at least one felony and thus be prohibited from firearm possession?
If he was found to be a danger to himself or others after being Baker Acted, wouldn't a court have found him incompetent, and wouldn't he then be prohibited from owning firearms?
Why does a cop think that he has the power to confiscate private property, simply because he thinks he is the "only one" that is trained and competent to handle firearms?