Police CCW exemptions

[RedneckFur]

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]

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]

Sounds like Ibob flunked the "hello test" once too often.

hello test?

[tube_ee]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

The NRA has fought for gun rights for over 100 years.Why would it now fight to take anyones right away?

[Kmar40]

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]

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]

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]

Does anyone besides me think we are arguing in circles?

[OuTcAsT]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.