At a federal level, this is mostly done. Before executing a search warrant, feds usually pull criminal background and check gun registries. Then look at the reason for a search warrant (drugs, guns, terrorism, etc.).
In theory, they combine those things to decide whether to just knock on the door and walk in or bring SWAT along.
This happens different between agencies and what parts of the country.
But, codifying these guidelines / rules into a law probably wouldn't hurt. Sometimes it is hard to capture the nuances of the situation into a formal law though.
Also, remember that like 10-100's of these things are probably executed daily, peacefully, without any conflict or issues. You only hear about it when they go wrong (or some asshole fed is in a bad mood or something I guess).
Well, if they're going to arrest someone, they'd have a belief that they're a criminal. If there's evidence that they have a gun (e.g. entry in the gun registry under their name), then they'd have to consider it an attempt to apprehend a presumed-armed, suspected criminal.
I don't see why a registered gun would be a point in their favor. They probably registered their car, paid their taxes, and stopped at red lights too.
I honestly don't think that being rude and/or hurting feelings (or scarring a baby) really enters into law enforcement of this type (also see my other comment).
You're moving the goal-posts. I don't think that being rude or hurting feelings should cross their mind.
Bringing a gun escalates things immediately. If I was in that home and I was carrying a gun, and if a handful of people abruptly came in with assault rifles, I'm liable to react very differently because it's such an affront to what feels reasonable. I think it's more reasonable to think that this is a terrorist attack and to react accordingly, rather than the reality of people acting as an agent of the government bringing deadly force in droves because someone grabbed a file from a public FTP server.
If I had seen 5 men in suits and shades peacefully walk in without any kind of weapon, I'm not going to think anything of it. They're putting themselves at risk. It makes no sense.
And the honest answer as to, "why?" is that the people who kick in doors are complete meatheads who think that morality and legality strictly align. They think if someone has broken the law, they deserve anything that is coming. They don't care about anyone's safety, they care about taking baddies.
It wasn't long ago that an officer serving a warrant for a non violent offense threw a grenade into a baby's crib (yes, the baby was inside).
Now I'm not sure where their training draws the line on infant collateral damage:
Don't shoot in rooms with babies?
Shoot around the babies?
But imagine if the rule was: Don't upset the children. (silly I realize, but thats how what-ifs are played). It seems like decisions would be made resulting in fewer grenades landing in bassinets.
