PDA

View Full Version : Police CCW exemptions


alloy
May 21, 2009, 05:43 AM
How fast would CCW restrictions relax for the rest of us, if the police exemptions were done away with, meaning CCW in restaurants, schools, crossing state lines, etc. Why doesn't the NRA go after the police exemptions so that we all end up on the same page?

No interest in a police bashing thread, just curious why they are given leeway that regular citizens aren't, wondering if it is a point of contention, and how it came to be.

Bud Helms
May 21, 2009, 07:47 AM
I'm thinking this might benefit more in L&CR.

Moving ...

ZeSpectre
May 21, 2009, 07:51 AM
This is one of those things that leaves me conflicted.

On one hand I think everyone should have to at least "go through the motions" to help reduce the "hey I'm special and you're not" mentality.

On the other hand I hate wasting time and money on "makework" kind of stuff when "shall issue" is a foregone conclusion for LE officers.

The funny thing is that, on the books, many areas restrict police to exactly the same code and the general population, however "in real life practice" that's ignored with a "wink and a nod" because, well, it's the POLICE.

#18indycolts
May 21, 2009, 09:42 AM
because unlike the civilian population, the Police go thru a lot to be allowed to do what they do (extensive background search, a lot of departments use lie detector tests and psych exams, in depth interviews with the applicant and sometimes they even talk to neighbors to see what kind of person they are, written exams and so on) Those that pass are deemed fit to burden themselves with the job of protecting the public. If you want to argue against that, then would you be ok with those same tests in order to carry your weapon?

Glenn E. Meyer
May 21, 2009, 09:46 AM
That's an interesting take. Good point for thought. It's been one brought up in the campus carry arguments quite a bit and I'm afraid that the progun side doesn't always have a good answer.

Trying to limit police carry won't aid in getting general expanded privileges in my opinion.

armsmaster270
May 21, 2009, 11:08 AM
The point is how many felons does the average citizen put in jail that would like to get revenge on the officer or his family. How many times a day does the average citizen risk his life in the protection of others, and by the way I am in favor of Shall Issue convince your legislators.

#18Indycolts you forgot all those reapeated law classes and use of force classes.

ZeSpectre
May 21, 2009, 12:24 PM
The point is how many felons does the average citizen put in jail that would like to get revenge on the officer or his family. How many times a day does the average citizen risk his life in the protection of others

I don't think I agree with that. I think the point is that just because we (as a society) decided to "contract out" a certain kind of work (protection of the general population) to hired professionals doesn't mean we automatically gave up our own rights and responsibilities regarding that same kind of work. In short, if THEY have a right to carry, WE have a right to carry.

But I don't think restricting a cops right to carry is going to help us much.

maestro pistolero
May 21, 2009, 12:31 PM
Someone looked at that awhile ago. While it makes sense, and anything is possible, the rate at which cops are actually confronted, off duty, with former arrestees, once convicted, is microscopic. Sorry I don't have a reference for this, maybe some LE's could chime in.

If true, I think that fact could work slightly in our favor, vis a vi equal protection.

Nonetheless, I believe they have a right, as we do, to carry. But the average citizen is not significantly less likely to need to means to self defense than an off-duty/retired oficer, IMO.

Wagonman
May 21, 2009, 12:57 PM
LEOs are authorized to carry nationwide by H.R. 218

#18indycolts
May 21, 2009, 01:04 PM
we (as a society) decided to "contract out" a certain kind of work (protection of the general population) to hired professionals doesn't mean we automatically gave up our own rights and responsibilities regarding that same kind of work

I agree mostly but I don't see it as "giving up our rights and responsibilities regarding that same kind of work" (we're talking about carrying a gun) not doing actual police work (which is mainly dealing with BS) I support those in the public safety field, I back them 100% (as long as they're doing their job) and am happy to pay taxes to city departments to pay for those "contracted out" jobs. If my house caught on fire I surely wouldn't want Billy Jo Schmo running over with a bucket of water or if my life was in danger I'm not sure if I would be ok with Billy Jo Schmo wanting to do what cops do but has no idea of how do it other than pointing his 1911.

alloy
May 21, 2009, 04:14 PM
Trying to limit police carry won't aid in getting general expanded privileges in my opinion.

You don't suppose that if policemen off-duty(and retired), carried under roughly the same overall rules as the average permitted(or not) citizen...they would rightfully lobby to have the more idiosyncratic prohibitions...diminished somewhat?

Or would we just end up with another HR 218? I'm not speculating, to diminish any police rights, as much as questioning the oddball restrictions on the non-police.

Restaurants, libraries, parks, school property, church, handgun purchases, CCW across state lines, transport within a state, etc....individually they all seem somewhat debatable/reasonable, at least from discussion i read around here. Yet all rolled together, they become something else entirely.

FALPhil
May 21, 2009, 06:19 PM
because unlike the civilian population, the Police go thru a lot to be allowed to do what they do (extensive background search, a lot of departments use lie detector tests and psych exams, in depth interviews with the applicant and sometimes they even talk to neighbors to see what kind of person they are, written exams and so on) Those that pass are deemed fit to burden themselves with the job of protecting the public. If you want to argue against that, then would you be ok with those same tests in order to carry your weapon?
Maybe some departments go to that much trouble, but not nearly close to half do. There was an article in the news last year about a major metro department that did no background checks and there were three felons and two misdemeanor drug violators on the payroll. They were found out by a reporter.

Regardless, that all has absolutely nothing to do with the issue, if you consider "keep and bear arms" a right. Rights have no qualifications. They exist with or without the endorsement of governments. Or maybe I should say in spite of governments.

AZ Med18
May 21, 2009, 07:31 PM
As soon as the uniform comes off so should any responsibility and extra privileges.

I'm a medic and I cant carry my drug box around with me or any advanced life saving equipment. As soon as I am off duty I am a plain joe and cannot do advanced life support.

Should be the same way for officer of the law. Less stress for them I would think.

tblt44
May 21, 2009, 07:35 PM
I have accedentally carried in at least 2 places I shouldn't have and felt very uneasy about it.I just don't like to break any laws that could jeprodize any of my rights in the future.

oldcspsarge
May 21, 2009, 08:07 PM
Chill out. LEOSA , giving national recognition for carry by current & retired LEO's MAY just open the door to national recognition of State Issued CCW's...thats a good thing AND a bill to to so has been introduced in the Congress.

The CCW in National Parks bill ALSO helped move forward the issue !

Wagonman
May 21, 2009, 08:18 PM
I can't run names or radio for back up but, I can take police action off duty. You can't intubate or pace but you can perform BLS off duty.

ftd
May 22, 2009, 11:29 AM
I see the possibility of Alloys point, but I also think that it is more likely that LEs simpathetic to civilian carry are more important to the cause than trying to limit the LEs in order to somehow improve the lot civilians. I for one am grateful that LE's are not only allowed more leeway in regard to carry but are often REQUIRED to carry when "off duty". And besides, the more responsible legal gun toters out there, the safer I feel.

Glenn E. Meyer
May 22, 2009, 11:50 AM
Eggheads in power - when has that been the case? We need a laughing manically smiley.

Let's stay with reality here. The issue is police carry. There is the theoretical debate of whether police are different from nonpolice so should they be able to carry and what is their law enforcement responsibility off duty?

There is the issue that despite the theoretic, folks think the police are more competent than the civilian (NOT Me - I am a competitive ninja and cops can't shoot like me - blah, blah) and thus aren't afraid of them. Thus, nongun folks are more approving of off duty carry.

I have no trouble with police carrying off duty. I regard that as no threat to a push for more civilian carry abilities.

TLeo
May 22, 2009, 01:09 PM
The basic reason that police carry off duty is that they are still empowered to act officially when off duty and are expected and even required to take action if something serious arises in their presence that might require use of deadly force to stop that threat from being used against someone else (or even themselves). What would you rather they do.....stand there empty handed and yell "stop...or I'll yell stop again" while a criminal shoots or stabs a victim??? Geez....some of this stuff is riduculous and sounds a lot like just plain jealousy that "I can't do something so why should they"

David Armstrong
May 22, 2009, 01:12 PM
I think at least some of the people who advocate this approach think if cops were unable to protect themselves off duty they would be more likely to want to help the rest of us be able to do so, just so they could.

It just ain't gonna happen. Cops help keep the politicians in power and part of the deal is based on the special privileges cops get.
Two quick points here. First, lots of cops have worked very hard to help the rest of you be able to carry. Yes, there are anti-CCW cops jsut like there are anti-CCW citizens in general, but there are also a lot of cops that strongly support CCW. Second, I'm not sure where you get this idea that cops have special privileges. In most areas cops have LESS freedom in using their firearm than do non-LEOs. To carry under HR 218/LEOSA I have to qualify every year. I can only carry a gun that I have qualified with. My restrictions on using the gun are not only the state laws, but also department policy. I could go on, but I think you get the point. These "special privileges" aren't that special, and most folks would throw a fit if it were suggested they have to follow them.

Wagonman
May 22, 2009, 01:25 PM
There is the theoretical debate of whether police are different from nonpolice so should they be able to carry and what is their law enforcement responsibility off duty?


I am not aware of any agency that doesn't require some kind of off-duty responsibility. To paraphrase Stan Lee "with great responsibility comes great power".

Police are not "different" than other citizens. We just have different a duty to act.

This should not turn in to either/or discussion. Off-duty carry by POs has very little to do with CCW by civilians.

I fully support CCW. However, if you do carry on a given day it's nobody's concern but yours. If I don't carry off-duty and Murphy decides to visit not only does it affect me it affects those civilians I am unable to assist. To say nothing of the sanctions that would be applied at my agency and in the media.

blume357
May 23, 2009, 06:30 AM
with that said, the reason they can is because they work for the government.

#18indycolts
May 23, 2009, 07:52 AM
As soon as the uniform comes off so should any responsibility and extra privileges.


As soon as I am off duty I am a plain joe and cannot do advanced life support.


AZ MED- but you still have the duty to act. If someone had a massive MI, went unresponsive then pulseless into arrest, would you not perform CPR? By your above responses you'd just keep on walking? Off duty and you drive upon a wreck, you can still hold c-spine and provide an adequate airway if needed. On and off duty public safety persons have that duty to act, if they don't then they shouldn't be working in that field.

gc70
May 23, 2009, 08:49 AM
because unlike the civilian population, the Police go thru a lot to be allowed to do what they do (extensive background search, a lot of departments use lie detector tests and psych exams, in depth interviews with the applicant and sometimes they even talk to neighbors to see what kind of person they are, written exams and so on) Those that pass are deemed fit to burden themselves with the job of protecting the public. If you want to argue against that, then would you be ok with those same tests in order to carry your weapon?

Excellent points about qualification, if they were consistently required. However, police exemptions are based on job description (statutory powers of arrest) and apply equally to officers, whether they are Barney Fife or a member of LAPD SWAT. I would have absolutely no objection to qualification-oriented exemptions appled to both law enforcement officers and civilians.

My beef is with the politically-motivated police administrators and their representative organizations who champion police exemptions. Those organizations lend unwarranted credibility to efforts to restrict gun rights, claiming they "speak for the police" when they do not. They only tolerate police exemptions to ensure that the real rank-and-file police have little reason to speak out loudly or in great numbers against "civilian" restrictions. The exemptions do not address valid special needs of police officers as much as they are a means to keep police from resisting the gun control agenda.

Police exemptions are a reflection of the success of the divide-and-conquer strategy of gun control proponents. But privleges granted can also be taken away. Some of the police administrator organizations, like the International Association of Chiefs of Police, are openly anti-gun and do not even try to placate rank-and-file officers. The current IACP legislative agenda (http://www.theiacp.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=gzyWEwHGbEo%3d&tabid=87) includes support for banning amor piercing ammunition, reinstating the AWB, limiting civilian sales of body armor, reinstating purchase waiting periods, closing the "gunshow loophole" and requiring all gun sales go through FFLs, and requiring microstamping ammunition. IACP also opposes The Police Officers' Bill of Rights and LEOSA.

Hkmp5sd
May 23, 2009, 01:39 PM
Back when the LEOs were trying to get their national right to carry law passed, they were up close and personal with the CCW crowd. This was supposed to be a first step in a national reciprocity law. Once we proved that LEOs needed to carry while on vacation, they were going to help us prove we needed to carry on vacation. The LEOs needed the money and politcal help of the CCWs. Once their law was passed, it seems the entire "deal" was over.



One could make the argument that LEOs are more trained in physical self-defense and non-lethal self-defense and are therefore less in need of carrying a firearm while off-duty than the average untrained citizen.

And we will not get into the issue of off-duty LEOs being shot by accident by uniformed cops (a problem even with on-duty non-uniform cops and undercover cops), nor the issue of an off-duty LEO using the firearm in a non-LEO manner while out on the town, causing the issuing agency liability for his actions.

I think everyone, LEO or citizen, should be able to carry everywhere they desire. It is funny to listen to my brother (a deputy sheriff) complain when he is disarmed at the county courthouse even while in uniform. All I can say is welcome to my world.

Kmar40
May 23, 2009, 02:16 PM
"Off-duty" and "on-duty" don't appear in our regs and policies. My creds don't say "authorized to carry firearms, make arrests, execute warrants, conduct investigations...." (etc) but only while "on duty". Our status and duties don't change in the slightest because I don't happen to be getting paid for that hour.

There is a good deal of anti-LE sentiment on this board. It's pretty easy to tell the wannabe badge-holders, usually the ones asking about where to get their CCW badge. I write it off to being guys who failed the psych evals or the types who would prefer to move to Montana, declare themselves to be a sovereign country, and then would be judge and police chief. They want the badges and perceived power so badly. Power freaks are everywhere. Even if they had managed to pass the psych testing, they'd be real unhappy to learn that real law enforcement still involves many, many levels of supervisors, prosecutors, and politicos reviewing your work.

Hkmp5sd
May 23, 2009, 04:48 PM
There is a good deal of anti-LE sentiment on this board. It's pretty easy to tell the wannabe badge-holders,

Not everyone that likes firearms wants to be a cop. My brother is one and the pay sucks, the hours suck, the complaints and lawsuits by people he arrests sucks....


I prefer having money and weekends off.

gc70
May 23, 2009, 05:18 PM
The advocates of gun control do not view members of law enforcement as inherently entitled to the special privilege of access to lethal weapons. They do not believe in the use of lethal weapons except in the most extreme circumstances and would gladly disarm most law enforcement officers along with average citizens. If law enforcement is tough today, think about doing the job with a baton, a taser, and a radio with which to call for special armed support when it is really needed.

The more differential treatment law enforcement receives today, the greater the jeopardy in the future. If law enforcement does not stand with the average citizens facing gun control today, don't expect the support of average citizens when gun control is aimed at law enforcement tomorrow.

Al Norris
May 23, 2009, 10:00 PM
If your post has disappeared (or been edited) from this thread, it's because I made a determination that it was either general bashing of the police or it was a response to such a post - which would make no sense when the actual offending post disappeared.

alloy
May 24, 2009, 05:41 AM
If law enforcement does not stand with the average citizens facing gun control today, don't expect the support of average citizens when gun control is aimed at law enforcement tomorrow.

I had noticed the Fraternal Order of Police were in agreement with the Park Rangers' emotional appeal regarding CCW in the national park system. Kind of irrational, and the next time i got the state donation call, i had to bring it up, so i would agree.
It's a shame some can't talk about it without getting emotional, but still...i can't see the reason why an officers off-duty duty supercedes a citizens rights. Especially if the supreme court has ruled that protection isn't a government employees obligation even when on duty.

Wagonman
May 25, 2009, 01:59 AM
I had noticed the Fraternal Order of Police were in agreement with the Park Rangers' emotional appeal regarding CCW in the national park system. Kind of irrational, and the next time i got the state donation call, i had to bring it up,

FOP is as bad as that Police Chiefs much more leftist than the average Cop.

I would advise against donating to the FOP, there are a lot of real Police Charities out there, although, I of course appreciate the thought. Donating to the FOP is kinda like donating to the Teamsters or SEIU which I would advise against also.
I would assume the LEAA is active in the CCW fight although I am too tired to research it 2 am and all.

I also want to Proffer a salute to all of the veterans on the board in honor of Memorial Day, Thank you for your service.

Bartholomew Roberts
May 25, 2009, 08:23 AM
Why doesn't the NRA go after the police exemptions so that we all end up on the same page?

From a political standpoint, one of the major efforts of the Brady Campaign has been to divide a wedge among gun owners. Hunters vs. Shooters. Black rifle vs. Skeet. Cops and Military vs. Average guy.

Asking the NRA to "go after" exemptions that already exist in the law for the good reasons already elaborated in this thread (better training, better screening, and often a legal duty to act), would be a great way to further widen that divide in my opinion.

Look at the whole mess over "cop-killer" bullets - it is an excellent example of a stupid law that accomplished little; but was a great propaganda success for Brady. Without the Internet, all you had to rely on was major media reporting (and we all know how accurate and unbiased that is) - and the Bradys were able to make the NRA's attempts to modify the law into something rational into a "Hey cops! The NRA wants felons to be able to shoot through your vest!"

Personally, I don't see how reducing the number of qualified, legitimate citizens who can carry a firearm is going to help us with the broader goal of expanding that right. Ignorance breeds in a vaccuum of knowledge and having fewer people (especially authority figures respected by the public) who understand that carrying a concealed firearm isn't rocket science is not going to help us in the long run.

Slugthrower
June 2, 2009, 05:16 PM
"First, I'll say I support LEO's right to carry anywhere.....

with that said, the reason they can is because they work for the government."

So by the very same token. We as citizens, whom the government works for, are lessers than the civil servants we call police? Therefore they are given privledges based upon their employer? In Virginia the police can carry switch blade knives, expanding batons, or any other weapon that is illegal for any citizen. Many do buy switch blades. Personally, I like those type of knives and some other types that would be great additions to my concealed handgun permit, alas I cannot. I find it odd that a civil servant has more rights than the one to whom the servant serves. What is one to do? It seems in this modern age we the public are nothing more than cattle to be milked by the people who we employ and it is done through laws. Oh well, I suppose it is just deserts for us. Not really a big deal in the grand scheme of things.

One thing I can say is that if it wasn't for good citzens with firearms a criminal would have gotten away with being an accomplice to an attempted killing of a cop yesterday in my town. The so called more able police were a mile away searching for the guy. Lucky for the police a man that I have subcontracted for found the criminal in a drainage ditch directly behind his house by way of his alerted Beagle. Seems that the police are not the only people that can do a fine job stopping crimes. This thing of the police being able to do thier duty better than Joe Schmo is entertaining in the least. Makes no matter, the bad guy got what he derserved and it is a good day for the citizen here in VA.

Priviledge of particular people based on their profession is common and always will be. Though many of the reasons that they are so are not always very good ones, nor are they based on much experience or logic for the most part. Life is a comedy, keep smiling. ;)

Slugthrower
June 2, 2009, 05:23 PM
And then there was a double tap...

ilbob
June 2, 2009, 05:40 PM
We as citizens, whom the government works for, are lessers than the civil servants we call police?
The powers that be are not going to change the law in this respect. I would elaborate on some of the reasons I think this is the case but it was this point in the thread that got me ten points for "cop bashing" the other day, and while I am not real sure what good "points" are, I am pretty sure I don't want any more.

Lets just say that some things are the way they are, and there is not much you can do about it.

Look at it this way. McDonald's employees get discounts on cheeseburgers as a perk of employement there. Cops get their own set of perks for being cops. Its not about fair, or legal, or constitutional, or even whether it is a good idea. Its about the way things actually are.

Conn. Trooper
June 2, 2009, 07:03 PM
I can't personally own any single firearm or part of a firearm that every other person in the state can own, legally. The state (or town-whoever) can own anything they want and then issue it to me. But, I can not own anything "special" because I'm a cop.

The only exception is automatic knives, I can have one and citizens can not.

Hkmp5sd
June 2, 2009, 07:22 PM
But, I can not own anything "special" because I'm a cop.


But you can go on vacation and take your handgun anywhere in the country because you are a cop, even after you retire, and I can't.

EnoughGUN
June 2, 2009, 07:24 PM
When LEOs are off duty they should be held to the same ... well everything that other people are. Because your job affords you certain powers does not mean you have more rights then the average citizen when off duty. That being said I should not be an issue because ALL citizens should have the right to carry as police officers do. I take small offence to the suggestion that somehow LEOs are considered better people and therefore deserve the right to carry when and where I cannot. Again that being said NO way in hades you could pay me what LOEs make to take the insane risks they take on the job.

Look at it like this. The diff is not the right or ability to be armed for ALL citizens but that while on duty LEOs have the powers afforded to them as police. Being a LEO is not about carrying a gun it is about the other things you do and a gun is just a tool that while on duty they have a greater freedom with.

Conn. Trooper
June 2, 2009, 08:47 PM
Yup, I can carry my gun anywhere even after retired. But, I also have a duty to act when others do not (off duty-not retired). I also have to qualify to the same standards as active cops as often as they do, with each gun I carry off duty or retired. Its a lot of BS to go through to carry your gun out of state and off duty, etc.

Without getting into a "I know this cop and he is the worst shot ever and doesn't take care of his weapons and wow all cops are crappy shots" debate, cops are trained more than the average bear. I know there are some people out there that outshoot a SWAT team and train more than cops, however your average bear does not. Thats a big plus when allowing cops to carry from sea to shining sea. My fiance' just took the NRA safety class to get her pistol permit. She came home from the class and said "Wow, I didn't learn a thing. That class was a joke. I can't believe there are people carrying guns with just that class. All they talked about was how the cops are coming to take your guns away." No joke.

David Armstrong
June 3, 2009, 09:51 AM
When LEOs are off duty they should be held to the same ... well everything that other people are. Because your job affords you certain powers does not mean you have more rights then the average citizen when off duty.
Most LEOs actually have fewer rights, in practice, than the average citizen does. And in many jurisdictions they also have additional responsibilites that non-LE do not have when they are in that off-duty role.

kraigwy
June 3, 2009, 10:24 AM
So much crying and cop bashing, Sounds like 5 year olds, JOHNNY HAS ONE, HOW COME I CANT HAVE ONE.


I think I'll start a topic crying about private CCWers get special priviliges I dont.

In this state, those with CCW permits dont have to have a back ground check prior to buying a gun. I carry under HR 218 so I have to undergo the back ground check each time I buy a firearm. Base on the logic of this topic, I should start whinning until everyone has to go through the Back Ground Check. How silly would that be.

Don't ever say that street cops support this or that because the FOP or IAACPs support something. They are not the same.

There was a poll on Officer.com a while back stating 80% of STREET cops support the right of individuals to carry concealed. (I just tried to find the poll but couldnt. It was from a while back).

Anyway its not the Brady group dividing us, We are doing the dividing with this petty crap.

Based on the number of gun owners out there we should own this country, I've read there are more gun owners then voters in the last election. But we can't do anything because of all the bickering among ourselves. We deserve what we get.

ilbob
June 3, 2009, 12:31 PM
Anyway its not the Brady group dividing us, We are doing the dividing with this petty crap.

Based on the number of gun owners out there we should own this country, I've read there are more gun owners then voters in the last election. But we can't do anything because of all the bickering among ourselves. We deserve what we get.
Gun owners are not herd animals, by and large.

Wagonman
June 3, 2009, 01:15 PM
Gun owners are not herd animals, by and large.


I would tend to disagree. The whole "sporting use" tactic the anti's use. That tends to take the "sportsman" out of the debate.

"yeah take those scary handguns of the street but leave my hunting rifle alone"

BuckHammer
June 3, 2009, 02:47 PM
I just got a great idea! How about instead of bashing cops and trying to bring them down to our level by taking away their ability to carry nationwide, we lift ourselves to their level by calling congressmen and senators to try to gain that ability for ourselves? Even if we fail to get the ability, at least somebody actually does have that privilege. We in no way benefit from removing police ability to carry nationwide.

Imagine that we're all in a vast pit, where the bottom is slavery and the top is freedom. Instead of focusing all of our energy on dragging everyone back down in the pit when they start climbing, we should work together to try to get everyone out of the pit. Maybe that analogy didn't make any sense, but maybe it did. You guys can see what I mean by now.

By the way, we can still vacation in states that will reciprocate our permits.

johnbt
June 3, 2009, 02:59 PM
"As soon as the uniform comes off so should any responsibility and extra privileges. "

I disagree. We ask them to do a lot of our dirty work and go face to face with the bad guys on a daily basis and you want them to have to walk around unarmed, even after they're retired? What kind of poorly thought out logic brought you to that conclusion?

John

ilbob
June 3, 2009, 03:07 PM
We in no way benefit from removing police ability to carry nationwide.
We always benefit when grossly unconstitutional laws are rescinded.

Hkmp5sd
June 3, 2009, 04:10 PM
<Decided not to say that, not very polite and argumentative>

BuckHammer
June 3, 2009, 04:17 PM
We always benefit when grossly unconstitutional laws are rescinded.
I agree. State [and Federal] restrictions on carrying firearms are grossly unconstitutional. If I had it my way, everyone would be exempt from these laws, because they wouldn't exist. That is not reality, however. For now, I'll settle for police being exempt. Baby steps may be the best way to tackle this problem. With more and more loosening of laws, and people not seeing huge consequences, besides maybe a declining crime rate, they may soon be open to more freedom.

I added an edit in red.

mskdgunman
June 3, 2009, 04:40 PM
As an LEO in Polk County Florida, I know what your brother means. Polk is about the only County in FL that I know of where LEO's give up their weapons at court to be protected by Wackenhut security guards armed with .38 revolvers. Silly rule enacted by a chief judge which has been in place for my 18 years as a cop here. Just remember that if things go bad while you're in court, the wackenhut guys will and Bailiff's will protect you:D

I'm all in favor of concealed permits for whoever qualifies for them. Heck, I wish there were more of them out there but for the people who say "make us equal with the cops" I have to agree with the poster who said if you want to take the background, polygraph, drug test, psych screening, neighborhood canvas and provide a list of references, then carry on.

Luckily, Florida is pretty good about issuing permits so we have it better then most states. Also, I have a CCP for the simple reason that if I want to buy a handgun, I don't have to wait three days. Even as a cop, walking in with a weapon on my side, without a CCP I have to wait three days...kinda stupid if you ask me but the loophole has never been addressed

Hkmp5sd
June 3, 2009, 05:03 PM
Also, I have a CCP for the simple reason that if I want to buy a handgun, I don't have to wait three days. Even as a cop, walking in with a weapon on my side, without a CCP I have to wait three days...kinda stupid if you ask me but the loophole has never been addressed

At least we got you out of the background check. :) Couldn't close all of the loopholes. Back in the 80's when the "Shall Issue" bill was working its way through the legislature, they came up with all kinds of restrictions. Fortunately, many didn't make it into law. They even have a provision which bans the carrying of a machinegun with a CCW. I always wonder who thought that one up. Did they really think someone would walk around with a machinegun under their shirt?

Dex Sinister
June 3, 2009, 07:52 PM
There is a good deal of anti-LE sentiment on this board. It's pretty easy to tell the wannabe badge-holders, usually the ones asking about where to get their CCW badge. I write it off to being guys who failed the psych evals or the types who would prefer to move to Montana, declare themselves to be a sovereign country, and then would be judge and police chief. They want the badges and perceived power so badly. Power freaks are everywhere. Even if they had managed to pass the psych testing, they'd be real unhappy to learn that real law enforcement still involves many, many levels of supervisors, prosecutors, and politicos reviewing your work.

Well, I guess you can see it that way if you want to. The premise is also understandable from from a purely practical basis: Non-LEO CCW'ers want a lack of stupid restrictions on carrying, and LEO's want a lack of stupid restrictions on carrying. But treating the two populations differently allows the anti-gun crowd to accomplish two things:

disallowing non_LEO carry in varied and strange ways, and
not bringing forth the considerable political clout of the police to serve the same agenda as non-LEO carry.


All your anger at alleged "anti-LEO sentiment" here aside, there is nothing terribly sinister about noticing that police in general are seen as having considerable political clout -- and often appear to care more, and try harder, to protect their own carry privileges than the CCW rights non-LEO's. So there's noting terribly sinister about speculating that deliberately aiming to put "ya'll" in the same boat with "us'ns" might be an effective way to make sure that everyone possessed more carry rights.

Or said another way, if the distinction was erased, then anti-gunners would find it more difficult restricting everyone's rights, if doing so also restricted the carry privileges of police at the same time.

alloy
June 3, 2009, 08:37 PM
disallowing non_LEO carry in varied and strange ways, and

not bringing forth the considerable political clout of the police to serve the same agenda as non-LEO carry.


Bingo.:) Obviously...i couldn't state it that clearly myself. If the two groups were on the same page, maybe some of the stated animosity...would diminish thru argueing a common cause, instead of argueing as if each side has some kind of ulterior motive. Just a thought...it's only 2a after all.

44 AMP
June 3, 2009, 09:11 PM
Not very fast.

As someone once said "pointing to the mud on someone else's fins does not improve your own swimming."

Cops (of all stripes) "enjoy" certain priveleges not enjoyed by the general public. The also "enjoy" some responsibilities not shared by the general public. Whining to get some of that reduced or eliminated in the hope of getting more for us is the wrong way to go about it.

Those people who are in positions of power, and oppose anyone (including police) having/carrying a gun when not "on duty" would be delighted with such an approach. And I reckon the police (and a number of the rest of us) would be upset.

I do believe any attempt to proceed with this argument will only result in a net loss for the firearms community, the police, and ultimately, the general population as well.

Consider that, in those areas which for bid ordinary citizens concealed carry, but allow it for off duty police, that there are at least some good people out there who are armed!

There is merit to the idea that they are no different from the rest of us, except for their job (and the training that goes with it), but the argument should be "we should have what they have", and not "they shouldn't have it, because we don't". Thats just plain wrong headed. Sorry.

Wagonman
June 4, 2009, 01:31 AM
We in no way benefit from removing police ability to carry nationwide.

We always benefit when grossly unconstitutional laws are rescinded.


Are you saying HR 218 is unconstitutional?

Al Norris
June 4, 2009, 09:48 AM
We always benefit when grossly unconstitutional laws are rescinded.Are you saying HR 218 is unconstitutional?
I can't say for ilbob, but in my opinion, yes.

Can anyone name from what derived authority the Federal Government can interfere in the domestic police powers of the individual States?

I was against H.R.218 for the very same reasons I am against the Feds legislating national reciprocity. There is no Constitutional authority.

I am, at the least, consistent with my views of Commerce Clause abuse.

Wagonman
June 4, 2009, 10:36 AM
I was against H.R.218 for the very same reasons I am against the Feds legislating national reciprocity. There is no Constitutional authority.



Isn't more freedom a good thing?

David Armstrong
June 4, 2009, 12:42 PM
Freedom is a good thing, but that has nothing to do with the constitutionality of various laws. Having said that, however, it is a legal maxim that all laws are considered to meet constitutional muster unless and until declared otherwise by the judiciary. Thus HR 218 is constitutional at this time.

tube_ee
June 4, 2009, 01:06 PM
You job does not make you special.

It's your job. In return for doing it, you get a paycheck, and whatever other benefits you. either singly or collectively, depending on whether you're represented by a union or you're own your own, have managed to negotiate from your employer.

And nothing else.

When you're not at work, you're not a cop. When I'm not at work, I'm not an engineer.

Your job does not make you special.

It's just that simple.

--Shannon

kraigwy
June 4, 2009, 01:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wagonman
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilbob
We always benefit when grossly unconstitutional laws are rescinded.

Are you saying HR 218 is unconstitutional?

I can't say for ilbob, but in my opinion, yes.

Can anyone name from what derived authority the Federal Government can interfere in the domestic police powers of the individual States?

I was against H.R.218 for the very same reasons I am against the Feds legislating national reciprocity. There is no Constitutional authority.

I am, at the least, consistent with my views of Commerce Clause abuse.
__________________
Al Norris

Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Jugiter vigilo, æternus suspicious.

I'm no lawyer, but looking at past acts you are wrong in this matter.

First: The States determine that LE can carry (most require it). Now the feds have, with HR 218 have decided to reconize the states right to determine that LE Officers (active and retired) can carry via the commerice clause (granted a catch all prase) much like one state's driver's license is reconized in other states.

Second: the Feds, right or wrong do have some control of Local & State LE agencies via federal funding. Along the same lines as the DWI/DUI laws (legal limits, etc).

You talk of special rights for LE but neglect to mention added burdens placed on LE & retirees. An example, In Wyoming there is no requirement for any qualification courses to obtain a CC permit. Yes you can attend one, but you can get a CC pemit in Wyoming by presenting your DD214, or attending a hunting safety class. (There is no shooting requirements for Hunter Safety in Wyoming). So in theory you can get a CC permit without ever having fired a gun. And that pemit can be renued every 5 years, again without demistrating you can shoot or have ever shot. WHEREAS, Under HR 218 to carry you are required to qualify yearly on your departments qualification course. Retirees have to qualify on their Depts or if they moved, the coursed used by the new location's LE standards. This sometimes is difficult because few departments will allow no members to qualify for liability purposes.

I'm a bit differant, I have my own range and the Local LE officers use it to qualify when the weather prohibits them from getting to their range and I provide free training to LE officers. So I get my yearly qualification taken care of. Now, based on your reasoning, others who carry under HR218 have a complaint because I get special treatment regardinng the yearly qualification required by HR 218.

There are differant standards for carrying under HR 218 but it goes both ways.

I'm all for a national CC law as I believe our founding fathers intended when they came up with the second ammendment. Until that happens I will not begrudge anyone who can carry legally. Thats like saying no one should carry because there are still states that prohibit CC permits.

This whole conversation is childish, borders on cop bashing. If you think HR218 is unconstitutional by all means file suite, thats your right, however I doubt you'll get very far, for a suite to be sucessful you have to show you are injured in some way. I dont see how HR 218 makes non - LE officers an injured party. But GO FOR IT.

Wagonman
June 4, 2009, 02:41 PM
Tubee, tell you what, tell my department I don't have to take police action 24/7 regardless of my duty status and I will agree with you. Until such time please do not opine when you are mistaken in your assertion.

This Police bashing is getting tiresome.

Hkmp5sd
June 4, 2009, 03:11 PM
As someone once said "pointing to the mud on someone else's fins does not improve your own swimming."


That someone was Dries Gloton in Battlefield Earth by L. Ron Hubbard.

tube_ee
June 4, 2009, 04:26 PM
Tubee, tell you what, tell my department I don't have to take police action 24/7 regardless of my duty status and I will agree with you. Until such time please do not opine when you are mistaken in your assertion.

This Police bashing is getting tiresome.

It's just a job. It's a dangerous job, and one with crappy working hours, but it's just a job. You're fairly well paid for doing it, and you can quit at any time. But even if it were the most dangerous job out there (it isn't), and even if you were under contract not to quit (you aren't), it still would not give you any more rights and privileges than any other citizen. (I'd use the word "civilian", since cops are civilians, but I wouldn't extend special rights to members of the military either... and I was one.)

It's not "police bashing" to hold to a principle of the equality of all citizens before the law, or to assert that one's choice of employment shouldn't grant any special status.

You guys to a tough job, and one that needs done. But that does not make you special, nor entitle you to the free exercise of basic rights that are denied to your fellow citizens.

I fail to see how there is any aspect of "cop-bashing", which is all too often defined as "any position which is opposed by, or tends to diminish the superior status of, the police," in any of what is being said. If people were saying that police officers were less to be trusted with concealed weapons than the rest of us, and that they should be restricted in their rights based on their freely-chosen profession, , that would be cop bashing, and would be deservedly called out as such, by me and many others. But the reverse statement, that all citizens, regardless of their freely-chosen profession, are entitled to the same rights and the same protections of those rights, is by no means bashing anyone.

You are not special. I am not special. We are all equal before the law.

--Shannon

Glenn E. Meyer
June 4, 2009, 04:35 PM
If the officer is mandated to respond when off duty - do we agree that carrying is not an exemption?

So, Wagonman was talking to that specific aspect.

Do we want officers who are not on the official clock to be specifically instructed to take no action as an officer when not on the clock, even if not mandate to do such. So they would have no arrest powers if not on the clock?

Again - we should try to expand civilian rights rather than go the other way.

LaBulldog
June 4, 2009, 04:50 PM
How fast would CCW restrictions relax for the rest of us, if the police exemptions were done away with, meaning CCW in restaurants, schools, crossing state lines, etc. Why doesn't the NRA go after the police exemptions so that we all end up on the same page?

Where I'm from, police are police 24 hours a day. They have the duty and responsibility anywhere in their jurisdiction. Therefore they carry anywhere with few exceptions.

You're fairly well paid for doing it,

You are kidding right?

ilbob
June 4, 2009, 05:05 PM
I was against H.R.218 for the very same reasons I am against the Feds legislating national reciprocity. There is no Constitutional authority.

Isn't more freedom a good thing?
HR218 did not increase freedom by one iota. It extended a privilege that a few people have based solely on their status as government employees.

it would be like the feds decreeing that some subset of government employees could vote in every state, regardless of the law in that state.

Do we want officers who are not on the official clock to be specifically instructed to take no action as an officer when not on the clock, even if not mandate to do such. So they would have no arrest powers if not on the clock? My answer is yes. The number of off duty arrests is miniscule anyway.

If it was me, they would leave their badge at the station house when they go off duty, and would pick it back up when they go back on duty, just like their radio, and squad car. I do realize this might have some logistical issues that make it impractical.

Glenn E. Meyer
June 4, 2009, 05:08 PM
Average is 45K - with some places down to 20K and big cities up to 70K.

What's fairly well paid mean? I don't think these are exhorbant salaries compared to real winners who are the captains of our industries which are failing?

45K to deal with bad people isn't that much money.

Hkmp5sd
June 4, 2009, 05:15 PM
$45k for a 20-24 yr old high school grad ain't bad either.

Unfortunately, even the high end isn't enough to tempt me. I don't think I'd make a good cop.

ilbob
June 4, 2009, 05:28 PM
$45k for a 20-24 yr old high school grad ain't bad either.
I don't know if that is a good average, but around here its pretty typical. But I don't know that mere HS is typical anymore. most rpefer at least a 2 year degree or military experience.

I don't think I'd make a good cop.Like any other job, you have to want to do it to be any good at it.

Hkmp5sd
June 4, 2009, 05:30 PM
most rpefer at least a 2 year degree or military experience.


Around here, they will take you straight out of high school at 18. If you are female or a minority, they will actively recruit you. A few weeks at the local community college "police academy" course and you are good to go.

Wagonman
June 4, 2009, 10:59 PM
My answer is yes. The number of off duty arrests is miniscule anyway.

So is the NEED for carrying a gun. You sure are opining like someone who is anti RKBA.

If it was me, they would leave their badge at the station house when they go off duty, and would pick it back up when they go back on duty, just like their radio, and squad car. I do realize this might have some logistical issues that make it impractical.


Yeah, that's the ticket, why have off-duty Cops out there de facto patrolling for free. Sounds suspiciously like the concept of having an armory at the station and pass the gun to the next shift another idea of the antis

Conn. Trooper
June 5, 2009, 05:18 AM
I would love to be "off duty" and ignore any issue I came across "off duty". However, I am required (not suggested, not allowed if I want, required) to carry my gun, badge and ID at all times. I am also required to act if I should see something "off duty", state stautes specifically spell out that we are never "off duty" unless out of the state. Failing to act can get you fired.

Your job can grant some "special" privileges that others do not enjoy. Such as when I worked at a garage I used the wrecker for free if my car broke down. My brother drove a pool water tanker and got a free tank of pool water every summer, when he worked for the Thruway he got a free EZ Pass for his car. If cops get to carry a gun places where other peolple are not allowed to, so be it. As we speak, somewhere, somehow, someone is doing something that I can't do and someone, somewhere, is doing something you can't either.

ilbob- I guess you are an expert and can explain in detail the numbers of off duty arrests that occur around the country. Please enlighten the rest of us how many off duty arrests have been made by state and city? What is the exact number that makes it miniscule? I could quote you the numbers in my state, because I know them, but I don't have a clue about the rest of the country. Maybe a slightly less sweeping statement about off duty arrests is in order. You sound like a spoiled child " They do something I can't do, waaahhh!" Great, and rich people can buy a brand new car and my truck is 8 years old, get over it.

#18indycolts
June 5, 2009, 08:06 AM
When you're not at work, you're not a cop. When I'm not at work, I'm not an engineer.

Your job does not make you special.


It has nothing to do with being "special". Public safety workers take an oath to protect the public, either on or off duty. Some may not follow it, but a lot of us do. I'm a paramedic, and lets say I'm off duty and your mom or dad is having a heart attack or worse...you'd be ok with me turning my head and walking the other way? Your job and our jobs aren't the same. Cops are the same, off duty they can still do their job if someone needs their help. Please don't compare apples to oranges on this.

David Armstrong
June 5, 2009, 10:23 AM
When you're not at work, you're not a cop. When I'm not at work, I'm not an engineer.
Your job does not make you special.
It's just that simple.

No, it is not that simple. As a general rule, when the LEO is not at work he is still under the control and authority of his agency, and still has an obligation to perform his job under certain circumstances. Many states still mandate that a LEO is considered to be on duty 24/7, as do many agency SOPs. The job doesn't make you special, but the job itself is special in the requirements it has and the duties it imposes on the person who takes the job.

Wagonman
June 5, 2009, 11:36 AM
When you're not at work, you're not a cop. When I'm not at work, I'm not an engineer.


So you forget everything you know about engineering when you leave work.

Cops have "special" rights that correspond to our "special" responsibilities.

Frankly, most of our "special" powers or rights are no ones business---kinda like your CCW is only your concern.

kraigwy
June 5, 2009, 11:54 AM
Sounds like Ibob flunked the "hello test" once too often.

RedneckFur
June 5, 2009, 03:06 PM
While I dont really like the idea of officers being able to CCW places that I cant, I can certainly understand why they're allowed to. Especially if their department or city has a policy that claims that they are always on duty, even after hours. Its my hope that all officers who do this keep on top of their training and qualifications.

Its the same for firefighters and EMT's. If my fire pager goes off, even when I'm at home after my shift, I am still required to respond within a fairly short time limit. Failing to do so could get me reprimanded or even cause me to loose my job. I get to drive a type-6 brush truck home after work, and some might see this as a perk, but its because somtimes I'm called out after hours.

In cases like that I see the carrying a badge and gun 24/7 not so much as an extra right, but more like an added responsibility.

David Armstrong
June 5, 2009, 03:12 PM
In cases like that I see the carrying a badge and gun 24/7 not so much as an extra right, but more like an added responsibility.
That pretty much sums it up. We get the "right" because we have the added responsibility.

ilbob
June 5, 2009, 03:33 PM
Sounds like Ibob flunked the "hello test" once too often.

hello test?

tube_ee
June 5, 2009, 04:01 PM
and required to perform the functions of your job at all times, then you should be paid 24/7/365.

The dude at Mickey D's isn't required to make me a hamburger if I'm hungry. Cops should not be required to be cops when they're off the clock.

Working is a very, very simple business arrangement. I'm trading you my time for your money. If I ain't getting paid, you ain't getting any work. If I showed up at work one morning and the building was on fire, I'd clock in before I put out the fire. And if my company refused to pay for any overtime not previously authorized by management, then let that sucker burn. I'm not getting paid, so it isn't my problem.

The flip side is also true. The fact that your employers are screwing you out of free work shouldn't grant you any rights or privileges that your fellow citizens, all equal before the law, don't get.

And if you try to pull me over on a Saturday morning when you're not at work, I won't be stopping for you. Because you stop being a cop the instant they stop paying you to be one. Anything else is you choosing to donate free labor to the city, county, or state... which isn't my, or anyone else's, problem.

Get a better deal. Don't ask for more rights.

You are not special. You have a job. Be glad. Lots of people don't.

--Shannon

OuTcAsT
June 5, 2009, 04:19 PM
If you are required to be on duty at all times,
and required to perform the functions of your job at all times, then you should be paid 24/7/365.

The dude at Mickey D's isn't required to make me a hamburger if I'm hungry. Cops should not be required to be cops when they're off the clock.

Working is a very, very simple business arrangement. I'm trading you my time for your money. If I ain't getting paid, you ain't getting any work.

Shannon has a good point, Brings a question to mind, Under what law or authority are you LEO required to be on-duty at all times ? is this some sort of State law, or is it a condition of employment ?

If it is a Statutory requirement, please elaborate, if it is merely a condition of employment then you are definitely accepting a raw deal.

#18indycolts
June 5, 2009, 04:54 PM
And if you try to pull me over on a Saturday morning when you're not at work, I won't be stopping for you. Because you stop being a cop the instant they stop paying you to be one. Anything else is you choosing to donate free labor to the city, county, or state... which isn't my, or anyone else's, problem.


Wow! I can't begin to dissect this paragraph. You have no idea what you're talking about. Sorry, not flaming you but just making an obvious point. Public Safety employees have a DUTY TO ACT, plain and simple and that so called duty to act is an OATH that you take when you are being sworn in. So your comment about if you try to pull me over on a Saturday morning when you're not at work, I won't be stopping for you.
please try to explain your theory to the officer and see what happens. :rolleyes:

to further try and make you understand...I'm a firefighter and a paramedic (different from a cop yes but the reasoning is exactly the same) and I'm driving "off duty" and witness a car crash, guess what? I'm pulling over and helping that person because on average there's a 5,6,7,8 minute response time for "on duty" personnel to get there. And those minutes CAN mean life or death, trust me I've seen it. Cops are the same way. Answer this question for me: You're getting held up and the only person around is an off duty cop in his take home car, you'd be ok with him not helping? I already know your answer.

RedneckFur
June 5, 2009, 05:53 PM
If it is a Statutory requirement, please elaborate, if it is merely a condition of employment then you are definitely accepting a raw deal.


I cant speak for LEOs, but as a Forest Ranger, I swore an oath to the state to control wildfires and protect the resources of my state. There was no mention of overtime, or working off the clock. I simply swore to do it.

Pbearperry
June 5, 2009, 06:02 PM
The NRA has fought for gun rights for over 100 years.Why would it now fight to take anyones right away?

Kmar40
June 5, 2009, 06:47 PM
And if you try to pull me over on a Saturday morning when you're not at work, I won't be stopping for you. Because you stop being a cop the instant they stop paying you to be one. Anything else is you choosing to donate free labor to the city, county, or state... which isn't my, or anyone else's, problem.Tell it to the judge.

OuTcAsT
June 5, 2009, 07:10 PM
An interesting article was found here; "http://www.wisegeek.com/does-an-off-duty-police-officer-have-authority.htm"

here are several different schools of thought where the powers of an off-duty police officer is concerned. A duly licensed law enforcement officer generally has the authority to enforce the law 24 hours a day, seven days a week, but only after establishing his or her identity as a police officer. The designation "off-duty" only means the officer is not working a regular shift for the police department, not living as a private citizen with no authority whatsoever. An off-duty police officer can be employed as a private security guard and still have the power to arrest offenders or in many circumstances carry a concealed weapon.

This does not mean, however, that an off-duty police officer can use his or her authority for personal reasons. When not in uniform, a police officer has the same limited rights as any other citizen when it comes to personal responsibility and behavior. For example, an off-duty police officer attending a private party cannot pull a gun on a fellow guest or force an intoxicated party-goer to stop drinking. He or she can place a person under citizen's arrest until an on-duty police officer arrives, but many police departments discourage off-duty police officers from actively participating in such an arrest unless the situation is life-threatening.

An off-duty police officer may have proper identification and legal authority to arrest an offender, but he or she is also not considered to be on the clock, meaning there could be serious liability or insurance issues if he or she is injured during an off-duty incident or other damage occurs. This is why many off-duty police officers tend to avoid getting directly involved in minor incidents unless the offense is clearly egregious. An off-duty police officer may contact an on-duty police officer to report a minor traffic accident, but only use his or her authority to pull over an erratic driver creating a clear traffic hazard.

Some people believe that an off-duty police officer not in uniform and driving an unmarked car cannot legally issue a citation, but that is not always the case. Different police departments have different policies concerning the authority of off-duty officers, but in many places an off-duty police officer does have the legal right to detain an offender until an on-duty officer arrives to finish the process. The key factor in such an action is proper identification, however. An off-duty police officer who instigates a fight or commits an illegal act has no more rights or legal protections than any other private citizen.

So it would appear from all I can find on the subject, that an officer does have "authority" to act in some jurisdictions, but his duty to act is the same "moral" responsibility that each of us has as a citizen.

I'm a firefighter and a paramedic (different from a cop yes but the reasoning is exactly the same) and I'm driving "off duty" and witness a car crash, guess what? I'm pulling over and helping that person because on average there's a 5,6,7,8 minute response time for "on duty" personnel to get there. And those minutes CAN mean life or death, trust me I've seen it.

While I fully agree with this, it is somewhat different. (unless your state law says differently) You have a moral duty to act but generally not a legal one. In fact, until the "good Samaritan" protections went into effect it was hard to get anyone to act. This is the reason the "GoodSam" laws were established, to help promote more folks to render aid.

Also interesting was the forums on Officer.com Most LE there are decidedly "Off Duty" on their days off.

But if there is a Legal duty to act (off shift) by a LEO please site a statute, I would really like to read it.

#18indycolts
June 5, 2009, 07:57 PM
Also interesting was the forums on Officer.com Most LE there are decidedly "Off Duty" on their days off.



then they better be driving their pov's and not their take home cars.

Al Norris
June 5, 2009, 08:12 PM
Does anyone besides me think we are arguing in circles?

OuTcAsT
June 5, 2009, 08:28 PM
Does anyone besides me think we are arguing in circles?

I am not interested in "arguing" anything, but I would be very interested in the Legal aspects of a Police officers' Duty to act. If it is a requirement from a legal standpoint then I would think it would justify the need for said officer to be armed at all times. If the obligation stems from a moral "oath" standpoint (the common obligation I believe we all have) then it would seem less a factor, and certainly even zero factor outside his/her jurisdiction.

I do not advocate that an officers exemption should be limited, but I would like to know where the "duty" originates. Maybe if some understood the impetus, there might be less to argue...IMHO.

Wagonman
June 5, 2009, 09:23 PM
As soon as I take police action I am back on duty at overtime rate. Last month when there was a man with gun call I handled off duty I was immediately on duty.


We aren't talking in circles. The police bashers who don't understand the concept of duty keep coming up with more and more ways to not understand that duty does not punch a time clock.

gc70
June 5, 2009, 09:25 PM
Does anyone besides me think we are arguing in circles?

Regardless of direction, there seems to be more argument than discussion of the OT.

kraigwy
June 5, 2009, 09:44 PM
If the obligation stems from a moral "oath" standpoint (the common obligation I believe we all have) then it would seem less a factor, and certainly even zero factor outside his/her jurisdiction.

Sorry, my Oath means more to me then any law or regulation. My oath said to PROTECT AND DEFEND, etc, there is nothing in my oath that has a time clock.

Neighter my Oath as an officer of the UNITED STATES MILITARY or my oath as a Law Enforcement Officer with the Anchorage Police Department

I may violate a law or regulation, but I will never violate my oath of office.

OuTcAsT
June 5, 2009, 11:46 PM
As soon as I take police action I am back on duty at overtime rate.

Now, that makes sense.

If you are in your jurisdiction, and are being compensated, then you are "Working" And I see nothing wrong with that.

I think the confusion, and some of the angst comes from the fact that you are allowed to carry "outside" your jurisdiction.
Granted, if you are transporting or picking up a prisoner, guarding an official, etc. then it would be logical for you to be accommodated.

not understand that duty does not punch a time clock.

And you have cleared that up, at least for me. When you are in your area, and excrement happens, you go on the clock, and do your job, no problem.

Sorry, my Oath means more to me then any law or regulation. My oath said to PROTECT AND DEFEND, etc, there is nothing in my oath that has a time clock.

As well it should, and you have cleared up the question I asked, Thanks.

Neighter my Oath as an officer of the UNITED STATES MILITARY ...

I may violate a law or regulation, but I will never violate my oath of office.

On this we agree.

But what purpose does it serve for you to carry outside your jurisdiction? (other than the reason anyone else would)

If you are a sworn officer in Chicago, and travel to Miami, are you gonna be allowed to act with legal authority? Maybe This is where I'm missing something, does this nationwide "reciprocity" also extend to your authority?

The police bashers

C'mon, can we not go there for one discussion?

I have asked relevant questions, and have pointed to no motes, nor cast any stones. Sometimes, if we can get past the rhetoric, knowledge can lead to understanding.

Chill. ;)

OuTcAsT
June 5, 2009, 11:55 PM
Regardless of direction, there seems to be more argument than discussion of the OT

I believe we are discussing the issues that "surround" the OT

I came into the game late, and the discussion thus far has not addressed the "reasoning" behind the original question.

Perhaps if we were a bit clearer on just why things are the way they are, it would be a bit more logical than it appears.

gc70
June 6, 2009, 12:19 AM
Perhaps if we were a bit clearer on just why things are the way they are, it would be a bit more logical than it appears.

Excellent response, providing a positive direction to the dialogue.

209
June 6, 2009, 12:51 AM
If you are required to be on duty at all times,
and required to perform the functions of your job at all times, then you should be paid 24/7/365.



Trust me, if I was to become involved in something when I was "off-duty", I'm back on the clock. I start getting paid.



The fact that your employers are screwing you out of free work shouldn't grant you any rights or privileges that your fellow citizens, all equal before the law, don't get.

And if you try to pull me over on a Saturday morning when you're not at work, I won't be stopping for you. Because you stop being a cop the instant they stop paying you to be one. Anything else is you choosing to donate free labor to the city, county, or state... which isn't my, or anyone else's, problem.



Unlike us municipal officers, CSP has addressed the "free work" issue. Troopers get a take-home car they can use as I use my POV. In return, they have to stop and render assistance even if they are technically "off duty". So they get a perk for that added responsibility. I'm not sure if the perk actually balances out to be enough money for the additional requirements, but I'm sure Conn Trooper can tell us that.

But I would advise you don't come to CT and try refusing to stop for a trooper on that Saturday morning. :rolleyes:

Me, you don't have to worry about. I don't get a take-home car and I'm not conducting a traffic stop in my Hyundai. :p

Back on track with the thread- technically I don't have any exemption from any state law in CT that pertains to legal carry in a banned environment when off-duty. For instance, I can't go waltzing into a grammer school with my handgun. And as Conn Trooper pointed out, I can't decide to go buy an AR-15 that has the wrong number of dreaded evil features on it that are banned in CT just because I'm a cop. I have to follow the same laws.

LEOSA does allow me to carry in other states which is indeed a great perk. I'm grateful to have it. But I am also of the mind that the patchwork system in place sucks for any law abiding citizen who wishes to have the means of self-defense. LEOSA barely passed in Congress and it was a long hard battle to get it through. Kind of similar to the battles we are currently involved in on gun rights. Any law that streamlines the issue is a step in the right direction.

OuTcAsT
June 6, 2009, 11:45 AM
Any law that streamlines the issue is a step in the right direction.

This is a great point !

LEOSA does allow me to carry in other states which is indeed a great perk. I'm grateful to have it. But I am also of the mind that the patchwork system in place sucks for any law abiding citizen who wishes to have the means of self-defense. LEOSA barely passed in Congress and it was a long hard battle to get it through. Kind of similar to the battles we are currently involved in on gun rights.

And it occurs to me that if we can get to the heart of why this legislation got passed, and can apply this same reasoning, we might find an in-road for ourselves.

Michael Anthony
June 6, 2009, 02:47 PM
Outcast, the article you quoted is just plain false (at least in my state). The statute authorizing law enforcement officers to engage in law enforcement activity does not require uniforms or punching a time clock. If it did, it would really screw a salaried, plain-clothes cop who sets his own schedule.

You can think that the ticket you get or the arrest made is null and void, but that does not make it so. Once he or she identifies themselves as a law enforcement officer, that's it. You can resist or flee if you want to, and you might get found not guilty of that particular charge if he was wearing daisy dukes and clown make-up. The original charge will stand though.

Your point about traveling outside of jurisdiction is a very valid one. You and I agree though, this is a right that all law-abiding citizens should have. Instead of working to take it away from one subgroup, private citizens should work to get it themselves.

Conn. Trooper
June 6, 2009, 02:56 PM
The take home car is a giant pain. Its a good thing for the state and the people living and working and passing through, but its a real pain for the Troopers. I have stopped for and been involved in more things off duty than I can remember. It doesn't balance out in the end, we do take a beating stopping for things while using the car. Our patrol area is so large ( I work in the sticks) that off duty cops are your closest back up the majority of the time. The CSP has the numbers ( I can't recall them right now) of how many times off duty Troopers have gotten involved in things. We have to drag the figures out every time the state attempts to take the off duty use of the car away and every time we end up keeping the car because we do so much off duty.

I have to check now because I thought we were exempt from that carrying in restricted places reg by statute. I believe we can carry on school grounds, etc. Maybe its just us and DEP because we are never off duty, now I'm not sure.

I would support a national concealed carry law, it would make everything uniform across the US. I see no reason the states can't work out an acceptable level of training (I do think the vast majority of gun owners need more training to carry handguns, just my opinion from going to public ranges and watching people shoot), and licensing to allow a person to carry anywhere in the US. I think there would be some strong resistance from certain states (NJ and Cali. come to mind).

kraigwy
June 6, 2009, 03:05 PM
I have to check now because I thought we were exempt from that carrying in restricted places reg by statute. I believe we can carry on school grounds, etc. Maybe its just us and DEP because we are never off duty, now I'm not sure.

Re-Read HR 218, it does exempt you from restricted places (excluding federal court buildings and such) but for carrying on school grounds , bars (you cant be drunk) etc.

Check out the Sturgis Case where they tried the nail a Washington cop for having a gun in a bar and shooting the Hells Angle Dude. The Judge through out the case because of HR 218 and the off duty, out of state officer wasn't drunk.

Conn. Trooper
June 6, 2009, 03:17 PM
Ok, that makes sense.I never cared about a bar or alcohol and guns because I don't drink, but I have carried on a college campus off duty.

gc70
June 6, 2009, 04:05 PM
And it occurs to me that if we can get to the heart of why this legislation got passed, and can apply this same reasoning, we might find an in-road for ourselves.

The record of the debate in the House of Representatives before LEOSA's passage is in the June 23, 2004 issue of the Congressional Record between pages H4811 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2004_record&page=H4811&position=all) and H4818 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2004_record&page=H4818&position=all).

The best summary of reasons for LEOSA start on page H4816 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2004_record&page=H4816&position=all):

The benefits of the legislation are twofold — officer safety and improved public safety. Many jurisdictions do not allow off-duty officers to carry concealed weapons. Due to the unique responsibilities and dangers that come with law enforcement, off-duty officers are at a greater risk than most Americans. It is not uncommon for off-duty officers to run into people they have arrested or helped to incarcerate. There have been documented instances where felons have sought retribution against officers who helped to put them in jail or prison. It is only right that the men and women who put their lives on the line everyday when they go to work be afforded the right to protect their families and themselves while they are off duty.

These concerns apply not only to off-duty officers, but to retired officers as well. A criminal who is seeking retribution does not care that the officer who put them away is retired. It is a disservice to those men and women who risked their lives to perform a public service to be deprived of the right to defend themselves and their families simply because they retired.

Legal issues are also posed when neighboring jurisdictions have different regulations for carrying concealed weapons. An off-duty officer is faced with a problem when he is traveling state to state or even city to city. In a circumstance where his/her home jurisdiction requires off-duty officers to carry, but he is traveling to a jurisdiction where the law prohibits carrying concealed weapons, the officer is forced to choose which law to break. Does he leave his gun at home and break the law in his home jurisdiction, or take it with him and break the law when he enters the next jurisdiction?

Aside from the issues of self-defense and jurisdictional conflicts, H.R. 218 provides additional officers to prevent crime, without the cost. There are countless stories of retired and off-duty officers who have prevented crime and protected everyday citizens because they were allowed to carry concealed weapons. In this time of heightened security, it seems only logical that additional means to prevent crime and even terrorism be implemented. Off-duty and retired law enforcement officers have the training to recognize suspicious activity and prevent crime. When qualified off-duty and retired police officers are allowed to carry, more law enforcement officers are put on the street at zero cost to taxpayers.

The best summary of reasons against LEOSA start on page H4815 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2004_record&page=H4815&position=all):

In Federalist Paper number 45, James Madison, in explaining the division of power between the States and the Federal Government envisioned, stated, ‘‘The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.’’

This legislation takes away the ability of the 50 States to govern their internal order. Just look at the title of the bill: ‘‘To amend title 18, United States Code, to exempt qualified current and former law enforcement officers from State laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons.’’ In exercising its authority to keep internal order, the State has traditionally controlled who, within its borders, may carry concealed weapons and when law enforcement officers may carry firearms.

This legislation undermines the power of the individual states and frustrates the principles of Federalism. As long as they do not infringe on the rights granted under the second amendment to the Constitution, laws regulating the carrying of concealed firearms should remain within the jurisdiction of the State government where they can be more effectively monitored and enforced.

Al Norris
June 6, 2009, 04:51 PM
The best summary of reasons against LEOSA start on page H4815:
And that is my objection to LEOSA and National Reciprocity via a federal law.

What some of you folks keep forgetting is that recognition of State issued DL's is that the States made compacts to observe them. The feds not only had no authority (they still don't), but were never involved with this.

Nor should the feds be involved in concealed carry. It is purely a State powers issue.

And yes, I know full well that an enacted law is valid until the Court says otherwise. That doesn't mean I'm wrong. Merely that no court has actually adjudicated the LEOSA as a constitutional issue.

Frankly, anyone who says LEOSA is good law, or that National reciprocity would be good, is merely agreeing to the feds to increased power.

OuTcAsT
June 6, 2009, 06:07 PM
anyone who says LEOSA is good law, or that National reciprocity would be good, is merely agreeing to the feds to increased power.

I can agree with the constitutional objection, it would seem to fly in the face of State powers. But, much like the proverbial knocked-up girlfriend, we cannot "unscrew" this situation. So, do we attack the nationwide reciprocity (for citizens) issue from a State level only ? Or use this abuse of Fed power to our benefit ? Seems we could use the same arguments as outlined above should apply to everyone, LE or not, for most of the same reasons.

An interesting conundrum. :confused:

OuTcAsT
June 6, 2009, 06:25 PM
You can think that the ticket you get or the arrest made is null and void, but that does not make it so. Once he or she identifies themselves as a law enforcement officer, that's it. You can resist or flee if you want to, and you might get found not guilty of that particular charge if he was wearing daisy dukes and clown make-up. The original charge will stand though.



:confused: I never thought anything to the contrary, perhaps you have confused statements made by others ?

You and I agree though, this is a right that all law-abiding citizens should have.

We do, indeed.

Instead of working to take it away from one subgroup, private citizens should work to get it themselves.

I agree, and I think that we might possibly be able to use the fact that LE has it to help strengthen our own cause.

I am however, a bit dubious of doing so on a Federal level for the reasons Al pointed out.

BTW gc70, thanks for the links, good reading material.

gc70
June 6, 2009, 10:29 PM
So, do we attack the nationwide reciprocity (for citizens) issue from a State level only? Or use this abuse of Fed power to our benefit?

The LEOSA approach is not viable for citizens. LEOSA takes individuals having other current/prior authority to carry weapons and expands that authority while providing an exemption from state CCW laws. The set of circumstances necessary for the LEOSA approach simply can't be duplicated for citizens (e.g. can't exempt them from CCW laws when their authority to carry is derived from CCW laws).

The other approach for citizens - national reciprocity - would be based on a probably unconstitutional federal licensing scheme that would open a nearly unimaginable array of legal issues involving state licensing powers.

Seems we could use the same arguments as outlined above should apply to everyone, LE or not, for most of the same reasons.

At first blush, improving officer and community protection seem like concepts that could be applied to civilians. However, the naysayers would undoubtedly say that citizens are not nearly as needful of increased personal protection, nor as capable of contributing to community protection, as LEOs. Even the arguments for LEOs are pretty thin if closely examined.

Michael Anthony
June 7, 2009, 12:12 AM
I never thought anything to the contrary, perhaps you have confused statements made by others ?

That was a response to the article you quoted.

I am however, a bit dubious of doing so on a Federal level for the reasons Al pointed out.


Some might say to accept the federal government stomping all over state laws to "grant" us a right we want so badly would be hypocritical. It would be so tempting though... I think everyone would be drinking that kool-aid.

OuTcAsT
June 7, 2009, 11:26 AM
It would be so tempting though... I think everyone would be drinking that kool-aid.

A few days ago, I likely would have jumped in line like everyone else, but I am not so sure now.

The reason for my reluctance ? ;

And yes, I know full well that an enacted law is valid until the Court says otherwise. That doesn't mean I'm wrong. Merely that no court has actually adjudicated the LEOSA as a constitutional issue.



This is an excellent point, and, while I would not advocate this If the LEOSA were ever challenged on constitutional grounds, with the flimsy foundation it is on, it could likely be rescinded by the courts. If nationwide reciprocity were instituted on a State level, and then a compact agreed upon at State levels, the FedGov, and courts could not easily touch it. Besides, kool-aid makes my scotch taste funny. ;)

ilbob
June 7, 2009, 08:07 PM
If the LEOSA were ever challenged on constitutional grounds, with the flimsy foundation it is on, it could likely be rescinded by the courts.
One would think so, just on its face, but courts have bent over back wards for 200 years, and especially the last 50 years to accommodate police.

Al Norris
June 7, 2009, 08:15 PM
I can agree with the constitutional objection, it would seem to fly in the face of State powers. But, much like the proverbial knocked-up girlfriend, we cannot "unscrew" this situation.
There's always a "but," isn't there?

See Brown v. Board of Education, for one example of that "unscrew." There are others.
This is an excellent point, and, while I would not advocate this If the LEOSA were ever challenged on constitutional grounds, with the flimsy foundation it is on, it could likely be rescinded by the courts.
No politician is really going to press this point.

If it ever is put under a judicial microscope, it will come from a police chief or sheriff who is already in a jurisdiction that has no concealed permits and simply wants to take back control of his own officers.

You will note that there was no congressional finding that subverting State and Local laws, was linked to any congressional authority. It merely added to section 921 of Title 18 USC.

Tennessee Gentleman
June 7, 2009, 09:04 PM
Frankly, anyone who says LEOSA is good law, or that National reciprocity would be good, is merely agreeing to the feds to increased power.

Agree, and further that whatever the Fed bringeth they can taketh away.

So, do we attack the nationwide reciprocity (for citizens) issue from a State level only ?

Yes! I think that is the way to go and then it will be nigh impossible politically for the Feds to take it away.

Or use this abuse of Fed power to our benefit ?
And what would keep that same abuse from taking it away on a whim?

Keep it by state, keep it safer. Takes longer but works better IMO.

Wagonman
June 8, 2009, 11:49 AM
Keep it by state, keep it safer. Takes longer but works better IMO.

Perfect federalism arguement. I salute you