The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old April 18, 2014, 11:12 AM   #1
BarryLee
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.
BarryLee is offline  
Old April 18, 2014, 11:30 AM   #2
Aguila Blanca
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.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old April 18, 2014, 11:43 AM   #3
Sharkbite
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
Sharkbite is offline  
Old April 18, 2014, 12:02 PM   #4
KyJim
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.
KyJim is offline  
Old April 18, 2014, 12:35 PM   #5
BarryLee
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
BarryLee is offline  
Old April 18, 2014, 01:21 PM   #6
motorhead0922
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:
Originally Posted by KyJim
Stupid policy. Another reason to not to follow the Braves
^^^ This.
__________________
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.
motorhead0922 is offline  
Old April 18, 2014, 01:32 PM   #7
Mike Irwin
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.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old April 18, 2014, 03:19 PM   #8
Fishing_Cabin
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 10, 2010
Posts: 720
Quote:
Originally Posted by BarryLee
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...

...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?
BarryLee,

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:
Originally Posted by KyJim
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.
There may be some, but its typically been required to carry off-duty in/around their own jurisdiction. May be some required to carry off duty everywhere though. Would be nice to find out. This kind of reminds me of the issue in Texas at a ball field there and the issues involved there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BarryLee
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.
BarryLee...Ummm...Well...You have done it now! You hit one of the 2 main issues with LEOSA. If you read through the LEOSA Act and Amendment there is no requirement that an ID be issued, if it is verifiable, and the reasons that it can or can not be issued., or a punishment for not doing that. Just because an officer has 30 years, good standing, never a problem (beyond basic authority, and time served for retiree's), doesn't mean he can get the required ID. Someone that has been a problem, but is legally able to posses a firearm, but meets the basic requirements, can be buddy buddy with his/her Chief, and get the required ID. One state passed a law, and I know that some in my state, including myself, are trying to get a similar law passed here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ColoradoFOP link below
This bill guarantees current practice and the rights extended to retired law enforcement officers under federal law (LEOSA). This bill mandates that agencies cannot stop issuing photographic ID’s to officers who leave in good standing with ten or more years qualifying law enforcement experience provided the officer meets the standards set forth in LEOSA.

Furthermore if an agency denies this issuance of identification the agency shall issue a letter to the officer specifying the legal reasons for denial. If the officer is denied for reasons other than the disqualifiers under LEOSA that exposes the agency to potential litigation to enforce the rights extended to the officer under federal law.
http://www.coloradofop.org/index.cfm...&homeID=276917

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.
Fishing_Cabin is offline  
Old April 18, 2014, 03:56 PM   #9
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
Quote:
Originally Posted by KyJim
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.
How can any agency require its officers to do anything (other than be good, upstanding citizens) when outside their jurisdiction?
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old April 18, 2014, 05:00 PM   #10
steve4102
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?
steve4102 is offline  
Old April 18, 2014, 07:52 PM   #11
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
Quote:
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.
Yep, and as with the current stadium, it's in a high-crime area. That's one of several reasons I don't attend.

Quote:
Does Georgia have Preemptive firearms laws in place?
If so, can a publicly owned building tenant override State Law?
They do, but a private party leasing or renting a space can apply their own policies as they see fit. The prohibition isn't coming from the state government.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old April 18, 2014, 10:53 PM   #12
kilimanjaro
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.
kilimanjaro is offline  
Old April 18, 2014, 11:07 PM   #13
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,137
Quote:
How can any agency require its officers to do anything (other than be good, upstanding citizens) when outside their jurisdiction?
Why not? If it is a condition of employment, it is a condition of employment. Unless there are certain civil rights issues (or union issues), an employer can pretty much condition employment on anything they want in most states. It's called employment at will.
KyJim is offline  
Old April 19, 2014, 12:40 AM   #14
Lucas McCain
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
Lucas McCain is offline  
Old April 19, 2014, 12:54 AM   #15
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
Quote:
Why not? If it is a condition of employment, it is a condition of employment. Unless there are certain civil rights issues (or union issues), an employer can pretty much condition employment on anything they want in most states. It's called employment at will.
So according to you, a police department in Wyoming can require its officers to carry even when off-duty. Suppose an officer goes to New Jersey or New York and the law there doesn't allow Officer Wyoming to carry?
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old April 19, 2014, 03:38 AM   #16
steve4102
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/
steve4102 is offline  
Old April 19, 2014, 10:37 AM   #17
Fishing_Cabin
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 10, 2010
Posts: 720
Quote:
Originally Posted by KyJim
Quote:
How can any agency require its officers to do anything (other than be good, upstanding citizens) when outside their jurisdiction?
Why not? If it is a condition of employment, it is a condition of employment. Unless there are certain civil rights issues (or union issues), an employer can pretty much condition employment on anything they want in most states. It's called employment at will.
KyJim and Aguila, Some departments restrict or ban carrying under a concealed carry permit, citing the reason that an officer may be recalled and if they carry a firearm, it must be department approved and be in qualification with said firearm. Even with LEOSA, an officer still needs compliant photo ID, which as mentioned earlier varies a lot from department to department. So while I don't know of any agency that requires officers to be armed during all of their off duty time, others are heavily restricted on what, when, where, they can carry, if they are allowed.
Fishing_Cabin is offline  
Old April 19, 2014, 10:39 AM   #18
ThesNazud
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...
ThesNazud is offline  
Old April 19, 2014, 12:01 PM   #19
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThesNazud
I always laugh at the 'off-duty' LEO statement... Whether on shift or not, they can still arrest you.
Not outside of their jurisdiction -- which happens to be exactly the situation posed in the opening post.

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).
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old April 19, 2014, 10:14 PM   #20
Librarian
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.
__________________
See the CALGUNS FOUNDATION Wiki for discussion of California firearms law.

The FAQ page is here.
Librarian is offline  
Old April 20, 2014, 03:58 PM   #21
ThesNazud
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?
ThesNazud is offline  
Old April 20, 2014, 06:41 PM   #22
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,137
Quote:
So according to you, a police department in Wyoming can require its officers to carry even when off-duty. Suppose an officer goes to New Jersey or New York and the law there doesn't allow Officer Wyoming to carry?
Well, no. I was referring to different venues within the same state, primarily. I seem to recall being told about a requirement to carry off-duty many years ago but I could be wrong. Times also change. I have a brother and a couple of other relatives who used to be cops at one time. Next time I talk to one, I'll try to remember to ask about it.
KyJim is offline  
Old May 9, 2014, 06:13 PM   #23
BarryLee
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
BarryLee is offline  
Old May 12, 2014, 07:55 AM   #24
Carry_24/7
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.
Carry_24/7 is offline  
Old May 12, 2014, 11:30 AM   #25
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carry 24/7
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.
I agree with you. So the LEOs "don't feel as safe without it"? Guess what, Beth Marshall: I don't feel as safe without it, either.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.11657 seconds with 10 queries