Police CCW exemptions

[alloy]

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]

I'm thinking this might benefit more in L&CR.

Moving ...

[ZeSpectre]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

LEOs are authorized to carry nationwide by H.R. 218

[#18indycolts]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[#18indycolts]

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]

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 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]

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.