Why Did Cops Stop Covering Up Their Guns?
By David Beito • Tuesday August 26, 2008 8:54 AM PDT • 18 Comments
The first photo is of the El Paso police from 1917 in front of their paddy wagon and the second is a modern SWAT Team.
As the first photo shows, it was once standard practice for police officers to wear long jackets to cover up their guns, apparently lest they offend civilians. The cop of the beat in just about any Hollywood movie in the 1930s dressed similarly. Apparently, this was a vestige of an anti-militarist tradition. Now, of course, the police seem to proudly brandish their guns in public at every opportunity.
Does anyone know any of research on when and why the shift from the old tradition of covering up guns? Who pushed the change and who, if anyone, opposed it?
Tags: Law 
As a soldier, I know why the military wears their pistol (if carried) over their jacket instead of under: Quick access. As the police have become more confrontational, I would guess the same applies there. It also is a visible reminder to the civilian population of who has the power in EVERY exchange between a cop and a civilian.
Sad, really, that the civilian population has given up their authority over the police.
Grendel | Aug 26, 2008 | Reply
Careful with that use of that term “brandishing.” It is generally illegal to brandish a weapon unless you reasonably perceive an imminent threat, and I hope/assume the same laws apply to police.
I think the better question is when, why, and how have police retained greater rights to keep and bear arms than do law-abiding citizens? In many states open-carry of firearms is legal for anyone not prohibited from owning them, which means that (in principle) citizens and police have the same rights to bear arms. That is as it should be.
However, especially in cities we find citizens forbidden from carrying and even owning certain arms whilst police are upgraded to paramilitary forces allowed to keep and bear — and yes, even carelessly brandish — arms that the federal government has banned citizens from acquiring (e.g., new full-autos).
Federalist | Aug 26, 2008 | Reply
I agree with Grendel above. Quick access.
I would add that with a larger number of implements (e.g., tasers, flashlights, cuffs) and flak jackets underneath their shirts, carrying weapons on the outside is a necessity.
As for Federalist’s comment, I live in a “concealed carry” state. I know that in some places concealed weapons are forbidden, to which I imply “fine, I will wear it in plain view.”
I would imagine that carrying a visible weapon adds to the deterrence effect, yet another reason why police may carry on the outside.
Dr Liberty | Aug 26, 2008 | Reply
I can tell you why it all changed in three words.
War On Drugs.
kyle N | Aug 26, 2008 | Reply
Peace and love – from Hungary.
http://blogozin.com
dixipix | Aug 27, 2008 | Reply
I wish had the sources here on my sabbatical out-of-state but the rise of the widespread SWAT-style police teams was a response to the urban and campus violence of the 1960s. The feds provided the money for “crime control” to local departments for SWAT teams and training. That’s my best recollection.
Great question — we need a lot more on police history, BTW.
Jonathan Bean | Aug 27, 2008 | Reply
One starting point for research on this subject would be the Cato Institute’s paper on the rise of paramilitary police activity in the U.S.
Federalist | Aug 28, 2008 | Reply
Perhaps the rise of the SWAT team was a way for the authorities to get around posse commitatus law.
daddysteve | Aug 28, 2008 | Reply
i am a criminology student that’s why somehow i understand the sentiments of police officers. when it comes on showing their gun, i think the police has no intention to brag what they have. the presence of a police in a community has an effect this is the so-called psychology of omni-presence where in the criminals will be afraid to do something wrong and the law abiding citizens will feel safe.
anonymous | Aug 28, 2008 | Reply
i am a police officer in training and i can add credence to the deterrence statement made earlier. The gun is worn on the outside not only for better access but as a visible deterrent for criminal, but through out my training it has been stressed that we need to be community based police officers, so in effect if your not doing anything wrong their is no reason to be worried about the gun, we are only allowed to pull it if there is a treat to our life, or anothers.
junkdog8 | Dec 3, 2008 | Reply
Hello fellow Americans, Daddysteve is correct the S.W.A.T. is a loophole used to bypass the “Bill of Right”. Ask youself who would want to usurp the rights of the American people? The answer is the enemy of the people of course. The “Peace Officer” has become an enforcement agent for a corrupt system that is intent on destroying the “Bill of Rights”. http://www.newswithviews.com/Evensen/greg135.htm
Edward "The Great" | Dec 21, 2008 | Reply
Certainly a lot of ground has been lost on the War on Drugs, but even before that was the Sullivan Act, passed in NY, 1911:
“January 27, 1905 New York Times Editorial -
[The proposed gun control] measure would prove corrective and salutary in a city filled with immigrants and evil communications, floating from the shores of Italy and Austria-Hungary. New York police reports frequently testify to the fact that the Italian and other south Continental gentry here are acquainted with the pocket pistol, and while drunk or merrymaking will use it quite as handily as the stiletto, and with more deadly effect. It is hoped that this treacherous and distinctly outlandish mode of settling disputes may not spread to corrupt the native good manners of the community.”
After that, it was California’s turn to outlaw open carry: “Back in 1967, California’s legislature debated a bill that would prohibit open carry of firearms. The reason for this was very simple: members of the Black Panthers, a radical political party of the time with a number of ex-cons in the leadership, were carrying guns in the streets of Oakland and a few other cities. They claimed that they needed these guns to protect themselves. The police claimed that the Black Panthers were ambushing them, and needed a law banning open carry in cities.”
I lived for a time in the Commonwealth of Virginia, where Open Carry was still permitted. While I worked as a PI, I was training my replacement, who was fresh out of the VA hwy Patrol. His attitude was that he didn’t care what the law said, he swore he’d still ‘put someone down’ (draw on them, and humiliate them by making them lie spread-eagle, etc...)
Ironically enough, it was he who was put down by an FBI team, investigating his ‘suspicious vehicle’ in an area where kids had been kidnapped.
Sam Houston | Dec 29, 2008 | Reply
I think that it’s part of the overall return of popular militarism. After September 11, it became commonplace to see armed American soldiers in Penn Station (New York).
That’s also when military personnel started wearing their combat uniforms to the office, as if somehow it was beneath them to wear service dress when there was a war going on thousands of miles away. (Lost on this generation of soldiers are subtleties like the fact that Gen. MacArthur wore his service dress even to the front lines.)
Today, soldiers wear their combat uniforms on commercial airlines (once forbidden) and around town for lunch (once discouraged). Against that backdrop, it’s hardly surprising that police are allowed to appear more tactical in their dress and armament.
Jamie | Jan 23, 2009 | Reply
The Nazi Gestao Swat team cops these days are ALL [COWARDS]!!! They would rather bust down the door of some unemployed joe who lost his job to [outsourcing] and is selling a little weed to feed his family, and put machine guns to everyones head in the middle of the night, then STEAL [HIS] cash and vehicles to meet their payrolls, instead of going after the BIG DOGS, the ones who will shoot back to kill. Why? because they are scared of the big dogs. They’d rather shoot unarmed women in Florida in the back, legs, and face, with rubber bullets, then clap, laugh, and applaude about it, as if it was the funniest thing on earth. These cowardly (Terrorists) dressed in black military combat equipment with their faces hidden wouldn’t dream of comitting such a violent crime like that when 10,000 people in the streets start shooting real bullets at THEM. Todays cops need to grow some balls, and go after, and flirt with death with REAL criminals (ones who WILL shoot to kill), NOT unarmed women. Not all cops are Nazi robots. There are a few good, decent, and honest everyday joes out there who knows what’s right and wrong, and respect people, To those people, I salute. To the others, well you can take it for what it’s worth.
Mr. E | Feb 17, 2009 | Reply
Strike the word “drugs.”
Insert the word(s) “citizen”, “freedom”, or that unspoken primary target . . . “CONSTITUTION.”
8guageLaw | Mar 13, 2009 | Reply
First of all, I would like to say that a couple of you have the right idea of why officers wear their weapons on the outside...quick access and more importantly as a deterrant...an officer is not out to be a monster, he is the person that when any type of help is needed, you can feel comfortable in walking up to and asking for assistance. Although, many of us (i hope), are good, law-abiding citizens, there are those few who like to live their lives by committing crimes...the Officer is there to make sure that those few bad citizens don’t harm the good ones. I really hope that everyone can come to an agreement on that. Now, as far as the uniform change, like anything else, with time comes progress in technology..if you look at the swat picture (recent), yes, they do look “mean” but they’re only wearing equipment that is necessary for them to perform their task and keep them alive (cuz yes, bad guys also have guns and they like to shoot at cops). As a retired officer, I would like to believe that everyone is still supporting their local law enforcement...they do the job that everyone criticizes but few people will do. -ps. mr. e...if you want the cops to go after the “big dogs” who sell more weed (like you do obviously), stop selling it and the police will have time to arrest them instead of you!
john | Sep 9, 2010 | Reply
Another caption might be “From A Republic of Citizens to an Empire of Civilians (or Subjects)”
Or: “What Ever Happened to Officer Friendly?”
Or: “Our (maybe not so) New Storm Troopers”
Or: “Just in case there is any confusion about who is in charge around here”
Not to romanticize or sentimentalize cops of yesteryear. Everyone knows they could be and often were brutal (the job is psychologically and spiritually brutalizing), but they still looked like a civilian police force, not an army of occupation with laptops whose idea of PR is conscious, and permanent intimidation of the general public, a la LAPD.
The interesting thing is that quite a few TEA Partiers share this fear.
What they don’t share is the bona fide police POV that this is necessary in a country whose citizenry can arm itself to the teeth with automatic assault rifles in order to cloak their anger at the world with the belief that they are one with Patrick Henry and Paul Revere, etc.
The Center is not Holding.
lhhr | Apr 30, 2011 | Reply
I was just looking at the laws in states where private citizens are forbidden from possessing certain things – stun guns, Tasers, pepper spray, etc. – while the police are allowed. This is a blatant violation of the 2nd Amendment, as its intention was to balance the power between government and people. Back in the ’60s, the police discovered beating hippies and other peaceful citizens was a lot easier and safer than confronting actual criminals. Ever since then, more and more cowardly and power-hungry people have sought the police jobs. Many or most of them are merely uncaught criminals, themselves. It’s common knowledge that a vast portion of police will beat someone’s skull in and throw them in jail over a bag of marijuana, then go home and smoke a joint. To serve and protect? Maybe their own self-indulgent interests.
John | Feb 6, 2012 | Reply