|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
April 18, 2014, 11:12 AM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 3,944
|
Atlanta Braves, Cops & Guns
The Atlanta Braves have implemented a new policy prohibiting off duty law enforcement officers from bring firearms into the stadium. This policy does not apply to officers who have direct jurisdiction over the stadium such as federal, state and Atlanta city officers.
Now, my understanding of Georgia law is that a person with a permit can legally carry to a Braves game, but if asked to leave must do so. I assume this would be the same situation with LEOs. So, is this an issue as far as the Law enforcement Officers Safety Act is concerned? I thought LEOSA allowed off duty LEOs to carry, so can the Braves legally prohibit it? Since the only penalty is being forced to leave the property does that make it ok? http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local...fficers/nfb7B/
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman Last edited by BarryLee; April 18, 2014 at 11:28 AM. |
April 18, 2014, 11:30 AM | #2 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
|
The LEOSA generally trumps state laws, but it does not trump private property rights of owners (and tenants). The Atlanta Braves are no different from Joe's Diner ... if the Braves don't want off-duty cops to carry guns in their stadium, or of Joe doesn't want off-duty cops to carry guns in his diner, that trumps the LEOSA.
|
April 18, 2014, 11:43 AM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 4, 2013
Location: Western slope of Colorado
Posts: 3,678
|
The Denver Nuggets stadium has everyone go thru a metal detector. I dont even hassle with it. In the stampede to get in, having to call a supervisor and go thru the hassle of getting cleared just doesnt make sense to me. The gun stays locked in the safe in the hotel room
|
April 18, 2014, 12:02 PM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,137
|
Are there not agencies which require off duty officers to carry, even if outside their jurisdiction? I'm not saying that trumps the private property owner rights but it sure places them in a predicament.
Stupid policy. Another reason to not to follow the Braves. |
April 18, 2014, 12:35 PM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 3,944
|
I’m not sure how much risk there is, but I always worry about LEOs, prison guards, court personnel etc. running into someone that might seek revenge against them. I assume that’s why LEOSA was originally implemented and for the life of me I can’t see why allowing them to carry would be an issue.
I assume all officers would have credentials identifying them as LEOs, but maybe the Braves don’t want to sort through what’s legitimate and what might not be.
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman |
April 18, 2014, 01:21 PM | #6 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 30, 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 635
|
As for Turner Stadium being private property, he may have his name on it, but I guarantee public funds were involved in building it.
Quote:
__________________
SAF, ACLDN, IDPA, handgunlaw.us My AmazonSmile benefits SAF I'd rather be carried by 6 than caged by 12. 2020: It's pronounced twenty twenty. |
|
April 18, 2014, 01:32 PM | #7 |
Staff
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 41,374
|
"I guarantee public funds were involved in building it."
Turner Stadium is owned jointly by Atlanta and Fulton County. However, it is leased to the Atlanta Braves, who run day to day operations at the field. Being the lease holder gives them a lot of leeway in things like this, just as you have a lot of leeway in what you say can and can't be brought into your leased apartment. In a couple of years the Braves are going to end the lease for a stadium that they are going to build and own outright.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower. |
April 18, 2014, 03:19 PM | #8 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: February 10, 2010
Posts: 720
|
Quote:
As has already been mentioned a property owner, or controlling person of said property may prohibit carry there or ask someone to leave if discovered. The issue I have isn't just tied to this ball park, but to similar issues on both sides of the isle that really do no good, besides for certain peoples ego's. The policy you mention which doesn't apply to federal, state, and Atlanta officers would ban, say a Maryland trooper, or a small town officer from Podunk as well. But the rub of the feds and who does or doesn't have federal jurisdiction. So, how do you define which federal agencies have jurisdiction there? Unless assigned to that ball game by detail, or specifically known to work that area, how are they going to not allow one fed, but allow another? If they are going by the debate of not knowing who is/isn't able to carry from local/state elsewhere, then how could they figure it out with the feds? They cant. Is this a case of where a fed from a less known agency is turned down, but works in Atlanta, but a fed assigned to Tacoma Washington and with the FBI is allowed in when he is on vacation? Sounds like a huge mess to me, and more liability then I care to be involved with. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
So, there is that major problem with LEOSA. It is effectively and in a major way, may issue, not shall issue Also, there is no requirement in every state that an active officer be issued an ID that meets LEOSA. I know my state does not that I have found. Long story short, LEOSA has a lot of problems and needs some corrective action at the state or fed level, or needs to be replaced by a better law to avoid some of these issues. Last edited by Fishing_Cabin; April 18, 2014 at 03:46 PM. |
||||
April 18, 2014, 03:56 PM | #9 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
|
Quote:
|
|
April 18, 2014, 05:00 PM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,949
|
Does Georgia have Preemptive firearms laws in place?
If so, can a publicly owned building tenant override State Law? |
April 18, 2014, 07:52 PM | #11 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
||
April 18, 2014, 10:53 PM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 23, 2009
Posts: 3,963
|
They probably can ban the off-duty guns in a leased public stadium, but it still stinks as a policy.
Hit them in their pocketbook, don't attend their games or purchase sports paraphernalia. Send them a note, and another to the city, telling them that. |
April 18, 2014, 11:07 PM | #13 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,137
|
Quote:
|
|
April 19, 2014, 12:40 AM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 7, 2013
Location: Callaway, MN
Posts: 361
|
Fellas, we have the same problem up here in Minnesota! The Vikings foot ball stadium is being built with public money and private money. While the stadium is under construction for the next few seasons they will be using the University of Minnesota football stadium. Definitely public owned.
No guns are allowed, ccw holders and including off duty LEO, except those that are security personel on the stadium payroll. This is not a city, county, or state rule. It is being handed down specifically from the NFL orginization. In this state LEO take an oath to protect the public when off duty and are required to carry. And armed or not they will protect the public. They do not have any metal detectors and the only bags allowed in will be clear plastic bags. It appears that major league sports are going to trump all rules of government including the second amendment. What a bunch of BS.
__________________
If you have time to do it twice, then you have time to do it once right and put your name on it |
April 19, 2014, 12:54 AM | #15 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
|
Quote:
|
|
April 19, 2014, 03:38 AM | #16 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,949
|
I do believe their are many LEO that are required to carry off duty. I doubt this "rule" applies when traveling out of State.
The NFL tried to ban firearm from off duty LEO in Texas as well. The State told the NFL to pound sand. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014...nt-apply-here/ |
April 19, 2014, 10:37 AM | #17 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: February 10, 2010
Posts: 720
|
Quote:
|
||
April 19, 2014, 10:39 AM | #18 |
Member
Join Date: June 3, 2013
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 98
|
I always laugh at the 'off-duty' LEO statement... Whether on shift or not, they can still arrest you. Besides, I dare someone to try and differentiate at a checkpoint between UC, plain clothes, and 'off-duty'...
All my friends and relatives who carry a badge freely tell me that they aren't ever truely off duty... |
April 19, 2014, 12:01 PM | #19 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
|
Quote:
In my state, I think any regular police officer who is POST certified has arrest power in all municipalities within the state. I ***THINK***. Police officers sworn in my state do NOT have arrest power in any other state. In other states, jurisdiction is limited to the specific municipality or county that the officer serves, and anywhere outside of that specific jurisdiction he/she cannot arrest you (other than as a citizen's arrest). |
|
April 19, 2014, 10:14 PM | #20 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Concord, CA
Posts: 193
|
Each of Major League Baseball, National Football League and National Hockey League are implementing similar 'no weapons' rules throughout their team venues.
Why a majority of owners was persuaded to vote for such things I cannot understand, beyond a general 'oh, those things do not belong at our games' attitude. I might generally agree with that sentiment - but it's travel to and from, and walking through the parking lots where some exposure to danger seems likely.
__________________
|
April 20, 2014, 03:58 PM | #21 |
Member
Join Date: June 3, 2013
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 98
|
That is true Aquila, and I would take it to one who tried, however what about locals?
|
April 20, 2014, 06:41 PM | #22 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,137
|
Quote:
|
|
May 9, 2014, 06:13 PM | #23 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 3,944
|
Oops, looks like the braves are re-thinking their policy change and once again allowing off-duty officers to carry. Braves spokesperson Beth Marshall said, “…They don't feel as safe without it. We weren't aware of that feeling that they all had but we heard it.” Seriously?
Anyway, I’ve been waiting for this policy change since the initial announcement I’ve heard a lot of LEOs were pretty upset. http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/story/25...#axzz31GL53HKh
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman |
May 12, 2014, 07:55 AM | #24 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 5, 2011
Posts: 801
|
My opinion of LE fighting for the right to carry concealed off-duty anywhere in their state should be tied to the equal right of the citizens to do the same. If a cop believes the average citizen should call 911 instead of employ a legal concealed weapon when facing deadly force, the cop, local politician, judge, prosecutor, etc.. should have to do the same.
If 911 is good enough for one, it should be good enough for all. |
May 12, 2014, 11:30 AM | #25 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
|
Quote:
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|