Quote:
|
There's a stronger argument for off-duty carry inside an NFL stadium if the off-duty officer is within his or her jurisdiction. They still have arrest powers, etc. even if off-duty.
|
How many states have a version of the
WASHINGTON MUTUAL AID PEACE OFFICERS POWERS ACT That seems to imply any Washington State local police officer has arrest powers anywhere in the state:
Quote:
|
In response to an emergency involving an immediate threat to human life or property;
|
meaning any time an off-duty officer WOULD take action, no matter where they're from, they have jurisdiction in states with something similar to this on the books. While mutual aid agreements I've seen in a quick search require a semi-formal request, and approval from the requested agency, this appears to cover those emergency situations where such a request isn't prudent because of a time factor.
This is probably at least part of how the city of Bellevue was able to discipline one officer for not arresting another officer for driving under the influence on a Seattle street in the news story I linked above.
While I think ClydeFrog is right the officers have a valid point, I'm not sure they have a valid dispute. Either it's a private property when the NFL is a tenant(or Rarely owner) and they can set the firearms policy, or it's public property and the State Legislature sets the policy in accordance with whatever "sensitive location" prohibitions will pass muster. Even LEOSA didn't extend to allowing retired and off-duty officers the ability to carry in sensitive places.
As has been reported in numerous locations some Texas law I haven't been able to find yet allows/requires off duty officers to carry while attending (At least) Dallas Cowboy games armed with no mention of Houston's stadium either way. Without such a law distinguishing them, I don't understand how a challenge based on their LEO status is any more or less applicable than a basic 2A challenge to public property (Assuming the stadium is actually public property) and no state law banning or allowing the banning of firearms from the property.
Can anyone explain what the actual grounds they're challenging on is?