Should off duty cops be subject to the same gun laws as the rest of us?


PDA






Owen Sparks
October 9, 2007, 12:48 PM
After what happened in Wisconsin there is sure to be talk of stoping off duty police from from going about armed. Any thoughts on this?

OS

If you enjoyed reading about "Should off duty cops be subject to the same gun laws as the rest of us?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Heavy Metal Hero
October 9, 2007, 12:50 PM
Define the rest of us? Law abiding citizens? Felons? Anyone in general?

ClickClickD'oh
October 9, 2007, 12:50 PM
No, we shouldn't keep officers from carrying out of uniform.

And we shouldn't be stopping the general populace from going about armed either.

Geno
October 9, 2007, 12:52 PM
They're "off-duty" aren't they?! I have said since forever, every human being needs a break for both physical and emotional rest. To carry other than duty, all people should be held to the identical standards. That is a rather egalitarian view, is it not?!

Reyn
October 9, 2007, 12:53 PM
Are people in Wisconsin not allowed to carry? I dont think they should be unarmed because of this incidence any more than guns should be banned because of Columbine or the VT shooting.

ilbob
October 9, 2007, 12:54 PM
Should off duty cops be subject to the same gun laws as the rest of us?

why would this even be up for debate?

it is like asking "Should off duty cops be subject to the same tax laws as the rest of us"?

ozwyn
October 9, 2007, 12:54 PM
Off duty police should be subject to the same gun laws, and those laws should allow concealed carry in all 50 states.

the problem isn't that law enforcement has extra carry rights, it is that the carry rights of the masses has been infringed to give the illusiion of extra rights for LE. well, that's my twisted POV.

LAR-15
October 9, 2007, 12:55 PM
What is the point of this question?

Should cops hand in their guns once their shift is over?

Ala Dan
October 9, 2007, 12:57 PM
In respect, full time sworn police officers are NEVER off duty; as they are
subject to call 24/7. And, perhaps even while not on the offical government
clock so to speak; they may witness a FELONY going down in their presence,
and most [if not all] would respond if innocent lives were at risk~! :)

The Wisconsin shootings were a random act, with the shooter acting out
cuz of girlfriend problems. A reasonable person, LEO or not is simply going
to put those kind's of things behind them and move on with their lives;
most seeking a new partner for a relationship. I think the percentage of
PO's acting out with rage would be more like .01 of 1%. ;)

Tin Gizel
October 9, 2007, 12:57 PM
Exactly, if I can't do it, neither should an off duty cop. Truth is, there's a lot they can do off duty that I can't. The problem isn't the cop, it's the laws against us.

Rumble
October 9, 2007, 12:59 PM
Are people in Wisconsin not allowed to carry?

As far as I know, you cannot carry concealed in Wisconsin.

Reyn
October 9, 2007, 01:02 PM
As far as I know, you cannot carry concealed in Wisconsin

Open or none at all?

the naked prophet
October 9, 2007, 01:11 PM
Quote:
As far as I know, you cannot carry concealed in Wisconsin

Open or none at all?

I seem to recall that there is a law against both concealed and open carry, though when he vetoed the concealed carry permit law, the governor said "if you want to carry a pistol, carry it openly on your hip." I don't suppose the police would take it well if you said "the governor said it's okay."

As to the original question, nobody should have more rights than anybody else - occupation makes no difference. I think there should be a constitutional amendment to this effect, though writing it concisely would be very difficult. Nobody gets special treatment. If a cop wants to carry a gun off-duty (he/she'd be crazy not to - see the attempted assassination of the off-duty corrections officer) then that cop should be subject to the exact same restrictions as everyone else. My life is no less valuable than his, and I have no less moral compulsion to protect innocents.

jerkface11
October 9, 2007, 01:14 PM
The police should be subject to the same laws as the citizens on duty or not.

KelTecian
October 9, 2007, 01:15 PM
the term "Off Duty" doesnt mean they are no longer police officers. Most police officers are commissioned, They are police officers 24 hours a day and must act and respond that way. They are not considered "civilians" and therefore must abide by the laws and policies set forth by the fed, sate, and local governments regarding police men and women.

bsf
October 9, 2007, 01:17 PM
I think the Wisconsin crazy cop incident has absolutely no bearing on whether “cops be subject to the same gun laws as the rest of us”. I think good people should be allowed effective defense of themselves and those they deem worthy of protection, regardless of their occupation. The only valid reason I see for restricting LE carry off-duty is a political maneuver to tie the recognition of their rights to those of non-LE.

ronwill
October 9, 2007, 01:19 PM
Being an "off-duty" police officer is very similar to being "off-duty" military. Although your not working you are subject to recalls. Remember that the nationwide law enforcement carry law is only for certified officers. Not all are certified in the required fashion.

benEzra
October 9, 2007, 01:20 PM
Had this guy not been "allowed" to carry off duty (assuming someone who'd break a law against mass murder would be stopped by a law making it "more illegal" to do so), what's to stop him from doing the same thing while on duty instead?

Added on edit--he wasn't carrying at the time. He left the apartment to get guns from his car (patrol car?), then came back and shot everyone. It was premeditated.

Rumble
October 9, 2007, 01:23 PM
Okay, there is no concealed carry in WI (per www.handgunlaws.us), and open carry is legal, but not in a vehicle (that's per www.opencarry.org).

As for the point of the thread - I believe cops and non-cops should have the same firearm carry rights, but I don't want to impose restrictions to make a point. Instead, what should happen is non-LEO should have, as a matter of course, the same ability to carry firearms wherever and whenever that LEOs have.

cpileri
October 9, 2007, 01:42 PM
I know that "off-duty" Military Officers are subject to their local laws regarding CCW's.

Maybe the question should be rephrased to:

Should "off-duty" officers be afforded exemptions from local restrictions on carrying firearms that would otherwise apply to the citizenry?

C-

TexasRifleman
October 9, 2007, 01:45 PM
I guess the question is, do their arrest powers cease when they are off duty?

If so then yes I would want them subject to the same weapon restrictions as the "rest of us".

If you intend for a peace officers arrest powers to continue when off duty, and the states code REQUIRES action of said peace officer if they witness a crime etc (which many do) then you can hardly disarm him when off duty since there really is no such thing as "off duty".

This a pointless backwards argument. The argument should be that we all can carry 24/7 not that we should restrict those that already can. How does that help our cause?

ilbob
October 9, 2007, 01:55 PM
since there really is no such thing as "off duty".

do they get paid for 24 hours of work every day, 7 days a week?

what about when they are in vacation in another state?

Yosemite**Sam
October 9, 2007, 01:56 PM
There are thousands of cops who carry off duty every day. Off duty cops throughout the nation come to the aid of private citizens every day. Many must use their firearms to aid those private citizens. Look back at the mall shooting in Minnesota.

If you were to disarm all cops off duty throughout you would see two things happen. First a large number would continue to carry anyways and second those who didn't carry would refuse to get involved in off duty incidents.

I believe like the state of Texas everyone should have the right to carry.

dasmi
October 9, 2007, 01:58 PM
Should off duty cops be subject to the same gun laws as the rest of us?
Yes, 100% yes. If we can't carry, then they shouldn't be able to either.

TexasRifleman
October 9, 2007, 02:00 PM
do they get paid for 24 hours of work every day, 7 days a week?

Certainly not but many states have a "duty to act" provision in LEOs certification. You can't disarm someone that you have REQUIRED to act 24/7 that's my point. If you want to disarm them when off duty you have to remove their "duty to act" and then you have a whole other can of issues to deal with .

It's not a simple yes/no question.

ilbob
October 9, 2007, 02:03 PM
What is the point of this question?

Should cops hand in their guns once their shift is over?

apparently that is the question.

i am generally in favor of cops (and other LACs) carrying off duty, but the logic of why is not as simple as we have all been taught in the past. it is not as simple as "cop=gun" and "not cop = no gun".

no reason cops could not be issued a CC permit to carry for their own protection off-duty just like any other LAC. in fact, in some states thats the way it used to be done. and it is not all that long ago when police in america were not even armed with firearms. NYPD officers at one time were armed only with a billy.

I am not, BTW, suggesting we return to that situation.

Tully M. Pick
October 9, 2007, 02:06 PM
If you intend for a peace officers arrest powers to continue when off duty, and the states code REQUIRES action of said peace officer if they witness a crime etc (which many do) then you can hardly disarm him when off duty since there really is no such thing as "off duty".

I believe it has been thoroughly established in court that on-duty police officers have no requirement to assist anyone, let alone off-duty police officers. I can't find the ruling, does anyone remember exactly what it was?

The Amigo
October 9, 2007, 02:07 PM
Theres a strange odor here hmmm. Do I smell another cop bashing tread?:rolleyes: The way I see it the more good people with guns the better for me.

TexasRifleman
October 9, 2007, 02:10 PM
Here's a blurb from an opinion from the Texas Attorney General....


Peace officers also have a statutory duty “to preserve the peace within the officer’s
jurisdiction.” TEX. CODE GRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 2.13(a)-(b)(l), (4) (Vernon Supp. 2003). Whenever,
in the presence or within the view of a peace officer, “one person is about to commit an offense
against the person or property of another,” it is the officer’s duty to prevent it. Id. art. 6.06. “[A]
police officer’s ‘off-duty’ status is not a limitation upon the discharge of police authority in the presence of criminal activity.”

And from the referenced code:

A. As defined by §2.13, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the duties and powers of a peace officer are as follows:

It is the duty of every peace officer to preserve the peace within the officer’s jurisdiction. To effect this purpose, the officer will use all lawful means.


The officer will:
in every case authorized by the Code of Criminal Procedure, interfere without warrant to prevent or suppress crime;
execute all lawful process issued to the officer by any magistrate or court;
give notice to some magistrate of all offenses committed within the officer’s jurisdiction, where the officer has good reason to believe there has been a violation of the penal law; and
arrest offenders without warrant in every case where the officer is authorized by law, in order that they may be taken before the proper magistrate or court and be tried.


Doesn't say anything about on duty, just jurisdiction. Seems to indicate a "duty to act" at least in Texas and that's the way I've always been told it was here.

I'm sure the lawyer types can find argument but every Texas peace officer I personally know believes they have a duty to act if they witness a crime because I've asked them in conversations about this very thing.

I believe it has been thoroughly established in court that on-duty police officers have no requirement to assist anyone

The Supremes said that police are not LIABLE if they fail to protect an individual, I am not sure that's the same thing as saying they don't have a duty to act.

Yosemite**Sam
October 9, 2007, 02:16 PM
Tmpick, To respond to your post. Law enforcement has a general duty to assist. The Supreme Court has ruled that law enforcement has no duty to protect. The Supreme Courts ruling was based on the fact that law enforcement cannot be everywhere all the time.

cpttango30
October 9, 2007, 02:18 PM
disarming anyone is a bad idea. Should they have to get a CCW Yes I think they should. I have to go threw the hassle and I have a lot more time on the range than most of them.

I was lucky in the army m platoon Sargent knew I loved to shoot there for anytime they needed some one from our platoon to go shoot a bs range just to have people qualified on a certain weapon I got sent.

I have more qual badges than I was allowed to wear on my dress uniform.

Police are also at more risk then non-police officers at an given time. They are out there every day directly dealing with the bad guys you want to arm yourself against. So Officer Bill who happens to pull over BadGuy Fred and bust him for drugs then sends him to jail for a few years and then Badguy Fred gets out and goes looking for revenge, this could happen at any time day or night. Leave them alone there job is hard enough.

This was an isolated incident because this young kid could not take the blow his girl dealt him by breaking up with him. If he was that unstable it should have been caught earlier.

No_Warning
October 9, 2007, 02:19 PM
My feeling is that if the cop is "off-duty", he is still not your average joe civilian. They have taken an oath to protect the general public and should not be hindered in that.

MASTEROFMALICE
October 9, 2007, 02:21 PM
Time to drag out our very own accidents.

Laws only stop those not inclided to break them. If you passed a law forbidding cops to carry off duty this freak would have shot six people anyway.

Do any of you guys really think that he would murder six people and really care that the law said he couldn't carry off duty?

To answer the other group of people who think cops should be disarmed when they're done working, here's my response to you.

There is a difference between a cop and a CCW holder. A permit holder carries a firearm sometimes and maybe will help if a crime is committed nearby. He is under no obligation or EXPECTATION to do so. For a permit holder, the idea of stopping crime is, at best, a fleeting thought.

For a police officer (any remotely decent one anyway), the idea of stopping crime is with us all day every day. We are paid to do it and it is usually our full time job. I can't speak for the rest of the cops but I didn't exactly take this job for its astronomical salary. I'm sure I could earn more at a fast food joint and be the spittER instead of the spittEE.

Cops as a whole have a different mentality. We don't exactly like that we get killed here and there but we know it and accept it, more or less, as part of the job.

This idiot in the middle of no-man's-land can't be compared to most of the cops you guys know. He lived in a little hamlet with 2,000 people and most likely never saw anything more serious than a moonshine still. The actual cop mentality can't possibly sink in to someone as young as he was who never actually had to do cop work.

Do not compare him to us. It takes a lot more than a kid holding a badge to impress most cops. He betrayed the badge and the public trust and he'll be despised by cops as well as everyone else. It's the same as that little whining bitch Marine a few years ago that cried about not wanting to go to combat. It is well known that Marines tend to stick together, but don't think for an instant that those of us who served showed anything but contempt for him.

Do you want proof he'll never be viewed as a cop? In six months go to the Police Officer's Memorial in Washington DC and let me know if his name is etched there.

OldTXCop
October 9, 2007, 02:26 PM
That's funny, I wore a badge, and I can't believe this is even in question. The folks who are carrying on about the cops not being able to carry is ridiculous. Yes, cops in texas and most other states are required to act whether on or off duty. Consider this point: cops are in general "targets". You can't live concealing your profession for very long, it will become known. That puts officers and their families in a different situation than most. People will come after you and your family because you put their son, brother, etc... in prison, etc... Been there, know it for a fact.

The problem with the incident in question, was the state's negligence to do adequate testing of candidates, period.

BTW when in american history did cops not carry guns? Most cops in the eastern states used to carry there guns under their uniform coats to protect them from the weather. The appearance was they were only carrying a billy club. Please enlighten me.

arthurcw
October 9, 2007, 02:33 PM
No. They are cops. They have been given special privileges that DO NOT APPLY to the populace at large. This is not a 2nd Amendment augment. They have the privilege to detain a person they suspect of breaking the law. They have the privilege of depriving someone of their freedom in the case of sufficient probably cause. They are civilians but with special privileges grated by the state to carry out special duties assigned by the state. They must be given the tools, at all times, to assist them in those duties.

Yes, you and I should have the right to carry everywhere anytime. So should the cops. However, you and I should not have special privileges that are granted to cops on the use that weapon. A cop can take stronger actions to protect the lives of others with that weapon. They can pursue and shoot someone that is a threat to the general populace. We can’t. Once the threat has left us, we are done. God bless them for the work they do.

The twitch in Wisconsin would have been a twitch with or without a badge. The fact that he had one is unfortunate but has no bearing on what he did or what privileges and responsibilities cop should have. A twitch is a twitch no mater what he wears to work.

The ONLY part his being a cop plays is in showing that cops are not demi-gods that are given a special charism by God to function as perfect tools of the peace. They are human and humans screw up. Some screw up and get reamed out by the boss, get turned down for promotion, or breath a huge sigh of relief that no one saw or got hurt. Some screw up and make the front page.

If someone tries to make pro/anti gun or pro/anti cop fodder out of this, they are not worth your copper or your cast. Because dollars to donuts, they are after one, the other, or both.

Ed Gallop
October 9, 2007, 02:42 PM
Dumb question, obviously intended to flame. Everyone knows cops are only off "scheduled" duty, but are expected to do their duty all the time.

Cops are people, just like every other human, except their life is on the line 24 hours a day to protect the same society that targets them at the slightest hint of wrong doing.

Are they supposed to be perfect humans (oxymoron)? Not in the real world.

Their low paying jobs, extreme stress, and lack of respect and appreciation is not conducive for a cream of the crop to choose from. There is a selection process in most cities that reduce the chance of getting unstable cops but nothing will guarantee a perfect cop.

Sheriff's are normally elected and not screened for stability, neither are their deputies. Some, but very few police officers in comparison to the general public, snap and become dangerous. But when one does... Shame on all cops.

Early in the Iraq war, a soldier blew up a tent full of fellow soldiers with a grenade... Should they take grenades from all soldiers?

Like I said... Dumb question.

syh
October 9, 2007, 02:42 PM
First off, bellyaching about how tough it is for the general population to carry does not mean we should be spoiled brats about it and try to take the ability away from others.

Secondly, LEOs are exposed to a significantly elevated level of risk, because they arrest criminals on a regular basis. Those criminals are then released, and if they run into the man that put them into jail, the officer should be able to protect himself. While the average person runs a risk of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, they aren't on the "hit list" of a number of criminals.

Taking away the rights of others is no way to try and improve your own situation. It's just selfish and a childish stance to take.

Flame on.

Fletchette
October 9, 2007, 02:48 PM
Yes. That is the general idea of a Free Society - one class of citizens (not two or three with different rights).

I suspect if off-duty cops were subject to the same laws as us lowly civilians that the cops would suddenly start lobbying for concealed carry rights...

ilbob
October 9, 2007, 03:01 PM
BTW when in american history did cops not carry guns? Most cops in the eastern states used to carry there guns under their uniform coats to protect them from the weather. The appearance was they were only carrying a billy club. Please enlighten me.


http://www.nycpolicemuseum.org/html/faq.html#guns

Police Officers have been officially carrying firearms while on duty since 1887

In fact, the NYPD was not even formed until 1845. They had 8 cops then.

And forget about what you learned about the old west on TV and in the movies.

arthurcw
October 9, 2007, 03:04 PM
Yes. That is the general idea of a Free Society - one class of citizens (not two or three with different rights).

Sorry to argue but...

We are all the same class: Citizens. However, we have several citizens that we have, through our elected officials, given special privileges too to perform duties in the society that are reserved to the state. I am not a judge, therefore cannot sentence someone to hard time. I am not a warden so I can not incarcerate them in my attic. I am not a senator so I can't filibuster stupid bills on the forums. I am not a cop so I can't pull over a guy I suspect of DUI.

This is not a freeper nightmare like No-knocks or the Patriot Act. This is a Civi given extra latitude within the confines of the powers that we have granted to the state to protect himself and others. There is nothing wrong with that.

Chicken-Farmer
October 9, 2007, 03:04 PM
This incident just goes to show that there are crazy people everywhere. Just because you choose one profession over another doesn't make you immune to being a psychopath. Society trusted him to protect us and he betrayed us!
Just like i should have the right the protect myself, off duty police officers should as well. Don't let one crazy idiot sway your choice. That is the classic anti argument, "see, we told you that gun ownership is bad, people can't be trusted with guns!"


Chicken-Farmer

Hoppy590
October 9, 2007, 03:05 PM
All police, on duty or off, should be subject to the same gun laws as the rest of us. if that means they are disarmed, or our rights are restored, atleast wed be all on the same level again

Owen Sparks
October 9, 2007, 03:15 PM
Fletchette said:
I suspect if off-duty cops were subject to the same laws as us lowly civilians that the cops would suddenly start lobbying for concealed carry rights...
________________________________________________________________

BINGO! That is the response I was looking for.

I am the original poster and I certainly think off duty police should have the right to be armed at all times. But I also think law abiding citizens should have the same right. Just like it says in the constitution. No group should be punished for the actions of one lone nut case.

_________________________________________________________________
Fletchette said:
I suspect if off-duty cops were subject to the same laws as us lowly civilians that the cops would suddenly start lobbying for concealed carry rights...the same right.
________________________________________________________________

Exactly. I wonder how that might change some attitudes.
In Europe, most police officers must turn in their weapons at the end of their shift. There are people who would like to see that here.

OS

ilbob
October 9, 2007, 03:44 PM
I suspect if off-duty cops were subject to the same laws as us lowly civilians that the cops would suddenly start lobbying for concealed carry rights.
I think gun owners in general have made a big mistake in making any connection at all between LE carry of firearms and non-LE RTKBA.

There is no right involved in LE carry of firearms. It is strictly part of the job. The fact that LE gets a nice perk is a seperate issue.

Jamie C.
October 9, 2007, 03:58 PM
I suspect if off-duty cops were subject to the same laws as us lowly civilians that the cops would suddenly start lobbying for concealed carry rights...the same right.

I don't know where people are getting the idea that off-duty cops aren't subject to the same laws as everybody else... maybe in other states it's true, but here in TN it's not.

Police aren't allowed to carry guns on school grounds unless they are in uniform and performing their duty. In other words, they have to be there on official business. Otherwise, they get to leave 'em in the car just like everybody else.

Off-duty police don't get to carry in places that serve alcohol.

And they don't get to carry in any of the other places that carry permit holders do. ( State parks, public rec areas, etc. )

So how are they not subject to the same laws?

As for requiring them to get a permit... they already spent 6 to 10 weeks of intensive training, and have to complete 40 hours of training a year to keep their "carry permit"... their commission card.
How'd you like to have that as a standard for keeping your carry permit.

Oh, and one other thing... most of the officers I worked with already had a Tn carry permit too. Most said they got it because they realized that they might not always be a cop.

Anyway, at least here in Tennessee, I don't see what anybody's got to fuss about. The laws apply to everybody.



J.C.

Sistema1927
October 9, 2007, 04:11 PM
Should off duty cops be subject to the same gun laws as the rest of us?

Yes, absolutely yes.

However, my idea of "the same gun laws as the rest of us" means that NONE of us should have our right to keep and bear arms infringed in any fashion whatsoever. All of us have the God given right to self-defense.

FilJos
October 9, 2007, 04:22 PM
I agree that general carry rights have been infringed and should be restored to the people. Concerning the topic of the thread though, I believe in MN all LEOs are never considered to be off-duty. They have a duty to act in certain situations. Also, you have to consider the dangers of the job. Sure, somebody is going to reply to this with something snarky like "It's all in a days work" or "my job is dangerous too" but have you ever actually had someone threaten your life and mean it? Ever have someone tell you that they will kill you when you get off work because they know when and where you exit the station and where you park your car? Ever have someone accost you in public while you are with your family and try to start a fight with you because you encountered them while doing your job the night before?

I'm glad that the mods here are promoting the high road now. I used to get pretty sick of the cop bashing, and I hope this thread doesn't degenerate into that.

Nitrogen
October 9, 2007, 04:23 PM
I think ON duty cops should be subject to the same rules as regular "citizens".

RKBABob
October 9, 2007, 04:24 PM
Absolutely! Of course cops should be subject to the laws, the SAME laws, ALL LAWS, that other citizens are!

Why wouldn't we want police and former police to be able to pass a simple background check every 5 years (in my state), and basic competency exams (in some states)? Could this actually do any harm?

...but cops make enemies every time they make an arrest... so do the citizens who call the police, the witness who testify in court, the judge at the trial, the members of the jury, the prosecuter, the defence attorney who lost the case, and the bailiff in the corner of the room. Don't these people have an equal right to protect themselves?



Also, 3 or 4 posters mentioned how little officers are paid:confused:. I really don't know how things are in your neck of the woods, but around here full time officers are paid quite well. Besides, I consider MYSELF underpaid and overworked... but I'm still subject to the same laws as everyone else. I'm sure I've p!55ed off a few people along the way, too.:neener:

RKBABob
October 9, 2007, 04:26 PM
Double post.... Sorry!

Gunnerpalace
October 9, 2007, 04:35 PM
No the should not Why? because they are cops. To protect and serve, not to protect and serve with permit, I wonder if the Mods will shut this down.

TexasRifleman
October 9, 2007, 04:41 PM
I wonder if the Mods will shut this down

They should, it's a pointless discussion with zero bearing on RKBA.

Does it really sound to anyone like a legitimate argument to say "Well if we cant carry then cops shouldn't either"?

You think the masses are going to agree with that?

You gotta fight it from the other angle, that we should be subject to the same gun laws as off duty cops, allowed to carry anywhere because our lives are worth as much as theirs and we are all citizens.

Stover954rr
October 9, 2007, 04:44 PM
NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!! Simply because in the same week that this incident happened, an OFF DUTY COP saved who knows how many lives by shooting a crazed guy with knifes in NYC.

Also once when I was chasing a shop lifter out of a store I worked at and tackled him to the ground, it was an OFF DUTY COP who helped me subdue him.

Cops are NEVER OFF DUTY

Fletchette
October 9, 2007, 05:50 PM
No the should not Why? because they are cops. To protect and serve, not to protect and serve with permit, I wonder if the Mods will shut this down.

I hope they do not, as I think we can keep this thread civil.

I was not “cop-bashing” when I said that I thought they would start lobbying to restore our rights if they couldn't carry off-duty; I fully understand and support our law enforcement officers to carry out their duty. I am not an anarchist.

That said, I also fully support the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms.

As far as police officers having a duty to protect and serve, so do non-police officers. They may not have taken an oath, but I certainly have a right and duty to protect myself and family. I even have the legal power to perform a citizen’s arrest – without being a police officer.

I do not support laws that have exceptions written in them (and there are many) for certain classes of citizens.

The problem with these laws are twofold. First, they violate all semblance of equal rights. Second, they tend to make the privileged classes sedate about the lives of the non-privileged classes. People who are able to carry on a regular basis tend to forget what it is like for those that can’t.

The only lawful exceptions to having everyone able to freely exercise their rights that I would support are the ones provided for in the Constitution:

1) Those in a court room cannot carry (even police, only the Bailiff can carry) as people’s rights are temporarily annulled in court.
2) Those actually in prison, convicted by a jury of their peers.

Note, even these people have their rights, they are simply having their rights lawfully repressed.

I am not for taking away an off-duty police officer’s right to carry, I am for restoring everyone’s right to do so.

TexasRifleman
October 9, 2007, 06:08 PM
I even have the legal power to perform a citizen’s arrest – without being a police officer.

Careful with that one, that's a thread all to itself and you may not like how it ends.

We did that one a while back, I will see if I can find the link........

Second, they tend to make the privileged classes sedate about the lives of the non-privileged classes

Where the argument fails is when it is pointed out that nearly ANYONE can decide to be a cop and move into this supposed "privileged class". That makes it much tougher. The response back to you is "well then you should be a cop so you can carry".

That's why tying these issues together is an argument going nowhere. One really has nothing to do with the other.

jackmead
October 9, 2007, 06:13 PM
In the U.S. there are no special classes, it's that "all men are created equal thing" that we we learned in school.

HonorsDaddy
October 9, 2007, 06:23 PM
Jackmead,

You mean to tell me that you believed that stuff too?

:D

BridgeWalker
October 9, 2007, 06:28 PM
I'm with the umpteen posters who have a hard time with whether cops should be able to carry all the time when all of us should be able to carry all the time.

Fletchette
October 9, 2007, 06:31 PM
Where the argument fails is when it is pointed out that nearly ANYONE can decide to be a cop and move into this supposed "privileged class". That makes it much tougher. The response back to you is "well then you should be a cop so you can carry".

My response back, "Well you should become a licensed reporter and then you can write what you want..."

willbrink
October 9, 2007, 06:37 PM
Yes. Some depts. require officers to be armed off duty. Some leave it as an option. It’s a simple risk to benefit ratio question: how many crimes are prevented or stopped by armed off duty LEO vs. how many are caused by off duty LEO’s? Answer that question and we have our answer, and just like citizens who are legal CCW, we know the answer to the question, and it favors armed off duty LEOs by a long shot.

TexasRifleman
October 9, 2007, 06:57 PM
y response back, "Well you should become a licensed reporter and then you can write what you want..."

I didn't say you were not right, just that you won't win the argument :)

ShooterMcGavin
October 9, 2007, 07:21 PM
Fletchette said:
I suspect if off-duty cops were subject to the same laws as us lowly civilians that the cops would suddenly start lobbying for concealed carry rights...
________________________________________________________________

BINGO! That is the response I was looking for.

I am the original poster and I certainly think off duty police should have the right to be armed at all times. But I also think law abiding citizens should have the same right.
I believe the direction of the question makes very little sense... It is quite wrong for a group of people (us), fighting for an action (RKBA or concealed carry), to even suggest restricting that right from a very deserving group, in order to promote recognition and support for our effort.

If the question had been asked in this manner: "Should citizens be allowed the same freedoms of firearms ownership and carry as afforded to our off-duty LEOs?" I would be more likely to respond with a YES. I said "more likely" because I am not familiar with all of the provisions of off-duty officers across the country.

One freedom that LEOs have here, that I am not allowed, is having lunch in a "bar" (any place that requires ID) or the bar section of a restaurant. I have to leave my group of friends (if they are not the type that I want to discuss a CCW with), or possibly alert them to my "weird" reason for changing everyone's lunch plans.

P.S. Thank you, to the many great Officers across this country!

Zundfolge
October 9, 2007, 07:25 PM
Should off duty cops be subject to the same gun laws as the rest of us?
ON Duty cops should be subject to the same gun laws as the rest of us too ... they don't become a different person when they're on the clock than they are off the clock.


No more of this "Some animals are more equal than others" bovine scat.

Fletchette
October 9, 2007, 07:29 PM
ShooterMcGavin said:
I believe the direction of the question makes very little sense... It is quite wrong for a group of people (us), fighting for an action (RKBA or concealed carry), to even suggest restricting that right from a very deserving group, in order to promote recognition and support for our effort.


I am not suggesting taking away anyone's rights, only to make sure that they are equal. From one of my previous posts:

I am not for taking away an off-duty police officer’s right to carry, I am for restoring everyone’s right to do so.

Mannlicher
October 9, 2007, 07:43 PM
Yep, a cop is a Citizen first, and a sworn officer second. They are absolutly no better, and no more likely to be safe or proficient with a gun than I am.

glockman19
October 9, 2007, 07:49 PM
Simple...YES.

Why a "Public Servant" has more rights than the citizenry that they serve is beyone me. Let's see. They have "No Obligation" to protect us, are paid by us for a false sense of security and have Privileges we don't but ultimately grant them. What's wrong with this picture?

antsi
October 9, 2007, 07:54 PM
----------quote----------
Anyway, at least here in Tennessee, I don't see what anybody's got to fuss about. The laws apply to everybody.
--------------------------

If WI (and IL, CA, NJ, etc.) were more like Tennessee, I don't think there would be any fuss at all.

The only reason this question even arises is because of the restriction of non-LEOs' RKBA in such states. Personally I think the question is backward. It isn't Why do LEO get RKBA that others don't? but rather, Why are non-LEO RKBA restricted?

EmGeeGeorge
October 9, 2007, 08:06 PM
Ummm this is a stupid thread, but I'll post anyhow...

Police generally are more restricted on their ability to use force, deadly force, that is than the rest of the general pop...

Don't use a one in a million event to try to push an anti-le agenda...

BTW Wisconsin is f'd up as far a PD hiring... NO PSYCH TESTING DONE ON A 20YR OLD DEPUTY??? I'm thinking a minimum age of 21 with maybe evn older being the samrt way to go... give'm time to f' up for real, as a person... when you hire a 25-40 yr old, they've been around long enough to have made mistakes tha'd excempt them form LE jobs.... If they are older and can pass a polygrapgh, psych test, and backgroun investigation, they're probably okay...

Also, I think eveyone should be able to CCW, so long as no felony or extensive misdemeanor history exists... or other possible disqualifers subject to case by case eval...

But only police and LE know what it's like to run into joe blow who just threatened to kill you the day before (and still managed to get bailed out) at the movies with your wife... several times a month...

Police do alot more than most are willing to give credit for...

WayneConrad
October 9, 2007, 08:11 PM
No man should be subject to different law than any other man. On duty or off. Cop or baker, president or beggar. Give no man privileges or immunities not enjoyed by all. Subject no man to laws not suffered by all.

Fletchette
October 9, 2007, 08:53 PM
antsi said:

----------quote----------
Anyway, at least here in Tennessee, I don't see what anybody's got to fuss about. The laws apply to everybody.
--------------------------

If WI (and IL, CA, NJ, etc.) were more like Tennessee, I don't think there would be any fuss at all.

The only reason this question even arises is because of the restriction of non-LEOs' RKBA in such states. Personally I think the question is backward. It isn't Why do LEO get RKBA that others don't? but rather, Why are non-LEO RKBA restricted?

Quite true. I would agree.

However, if a law (or more likely a court ruling) came down which explicitly stipulated that police officers are subject to the same laws as everyone else I do think that there would be a huge push by law enforcement to allow unrestriced concealed carry.

Which is what we all want here, the "bear" part of 'keep and bear arms' as well as the "keep" part. :)

qajaq59
October 9, 2007, 09:04 PM
Don't look now, but a lot of "honest, non-felon" types that are NOT LEOs also carry all the time, so why shouldn't LEOs carry?

Gunnerpalace
October 9, 2007, 09:04 PM
I have to speak again, you give the liberals an inch and they will take a mile, Keep they law they way it is for LEO carry you don't want us to end up like England or Australia with unarmed cops, go ahead and ask members of THR who are from there and they will tell you how bad it is.

U.S.SFC_RET
October 9, 2007, 09:18 PM
The thin blue line takes a hit once again. Underpaid and overworked. Overstressed although not in this case. It is that thin blue line thet protects and serves our communities. There is not a draft and it is all voluntary. They work the worst hours. Give these guys a break. They should carry whether you like it or not. You may not even value my opinion. Walk in their shoes for a year or two.

Officers'Wife
October 9, 2007, 09:47 PM
Hi US SPC,

It is that thin blue line thet protects and serves our communities. There is not a draft and it is all voluntary.

Yes it is all voluntary, they knew they would be underpaid and overworked going in. As well as the risks though if you check with the department of Labor those risks are relatively few compared to other occupations that pay less and have far fewer perks.

That said, sometime when you have a few moments go to Jasper County Indiana and get acquainted with some of their "special deputies." It will make you realize that some officers shouldn't be allowed an auto with an 8 cylinder engine much less a firearm of any sort.

Case in point a few years back an officer wanted some excitement in Rensselaer so he shot up his own car. Then claimed a local had done the deed. Had the local in question not have been pulled over two counties over it's quite possible he would have been convicted.

Now the ranting is over... The police are provided to protect society at large, not the individual. An officer given priveledge to protect himself and not the rest of the individuals in society is an insult to the idea of equality under the law.

Selena

Fletchette
October 9, 2007, 10:19 PM
U.S.SFC_RET said:

The thin blue line takes a hit once again. Underpaid and overworked. Overstressed although not in this case. It is that thin blue line thet protects and serves our communities. There is not a draft and it is all voluntary. They work the worst hours. Give these guys a break. They should carry whether you like it or not. You may not even value my opinion. Walk in their shoes for a year or two.

How is the "thin blue line" taking a hit when all we are asking is that we have the same rights that they do? I know people in the medical profession that work long hours, are under paid and do so for altruistic reasons. Should these people have more rights?

ilbob
October 9, 2007, 10:41 PM
Don't these people have an equal right to protect themselves?
There is no right involved as far as police carrying firearms. Police carry firearms as a result of their employment. Because that employment happens to be with the government, they are afforded a perk off duty others do not get, but never confuse this perk as a right.

In some respects it is like the employee discount some people get where they work. Is it unfair to those who do not work there that employees get a discount?

simon
October 9, 2007, 10:59 PM
IMO, A civilian is someone who is NOT in the Military. Following that reasoning, a cop is a civilian,period. The laws governing the rest of us should apply to cops as well, ie;NO off duty carry! (Until EVERYONE else can do it who is legally able)

Jamie C.
October 9, 2007, 11:39 PM
IMO, A civilian is someone who is NOT in the Military.

And I would've said a civilian is somebody not employed by a government...

However, the dictionary defines it as "a person who is not on active duty with a military, naval, police, or fire fighting organization", among other things.

Guess that shows what opinions are worth.


J.C.

asleepinTucson
October 9, 2007, 11:47 PM
I am a sworn officer and support the right to carry for all who have not been convicted of violent crime or have been found to be mentally incompetent.

Having said that, I carry off duty. I carry off duty not because I'm a special person superman looking to fight crime and corruption 24/7. I carry for the same reason Y'all carry. To protect myself and my family. I have many occassion to meet ex "clients" while off duty with my family in public places. Even though I can turn off the job when I'm off duty, the ex 'clients" don't and wont unless they realize that I am carrying. Their assumption that I carry 24/7 because I'm a cop is the deterrent that I count on to keep them away from me when they see me. Most of the time it works, sometimes it doesn't.

Something you probably don't realize is I hate carrying a gun off duty. This 54 year old cop has 33 years of toting a gun around and quite frankly my aching back and arthritic hips would much rather leave that gun at home, but I don't. I can't. Too many ex "clients" out there waiting to get even.

With all due respect to your right to keep and bear arms, you all choose to carry in case you will ever need to protect yourselves or your families. The off duty officer carries because it is not a matter of if but a matter of when. If the bad guys thought we were restricted in our ability to protect ourselves at the end of the shift, they would be alot more aggresive in their revenge. Although I don't think I am better than you, I sincerely believe I am at greater risk than the average gun carrying citizen. You may think our off duty carry is a privelege, Most cops see it as a burden.

Just my 2 cents, I'll go back to lurking in the background and enjoying the rest of your posts quietly.

Bill St. Clair
October 10, 2007, 12:06 AM
Zundfolge said:
ON Duty cops should be subject to the same gun laws as the rest of us too ... they don't become a different person when they're on the clock than they are off the clock.

Bravo!

Of course the number of laws that restrict which guns we all can carry and where and when we can carry them should be exactly zero. "Shall not be infringed," means exactly that.

jmr40
October 10, 2007, 12:14 AM
I think a better way to state the question is "Should ordinary citizens not be allowed the same rights given to law enforcement officers." I have always felt that I should be able to own anything a law enforcement officer could own and since I went to the trouble to obtain a carry permit I should be allowed to carry my gun anywhere a police officer could carry his gun.

Steve in PA
October 10, 2007, 01:07 AM
"I really don't know how things are in your neck of the woods, but around here full time officers are paid quite well."

As a LEO in NEPA, I'd like to find out what you consider "paid quite well".

RKBABob
October 10, 2007, 02:09 AM
As a LEO in NEPA, I'd like to find out what you consider "paid quite well".

Salary info from Philadelphia police recruitment website:
The current yearly salary for a Police Officer Recruit in the Police Academy is $38,481 ($1,474.37 bi-weekly). After graduating the academy as a Police Officer, you receive a pay increase to $41,151 ($1,576.67 bi-weekly). There are scheduled increases in pay to the present maximum of $53,444 a year

Allentown, Pa police salaries, from the city HR website:
STARTING SALARY: $40,014 PER YEAR (BASE + HOLIDAY)

I consider that being paid well. Those figures are a bit above most of the private sector jobs in this area (although I'll admit don't know what private sector jobs would be comparable).

Aguila Blanca
October 10, 2007, 02:29 AM
Define "off duty." In my state, police officers are sworn officers 24/7 and are (I believe) required to carry at all times. They do not stop being police officers at the end of the shift.

Fletchette
October 10, 2007, 02:39 AM
ilbob said:
There is no right involved as far as police carrying firearms. Police carry firearms as a result of their employment. Because that employment happens to be with the government, they are afforded a perk off duty others do not get, but never confuse this perk as a right.

In some respects it is like the employee discount some people get where they work. Is it unfair to those who do not work there that employees get a discount?

I am sorry but I do not consider the Second Amendment a "perk" for the few...:barf:

rrruuunnn
October 10, 2007, 02:55 AM
i don't think cops have the leisurey of forgeting their oath to protect the public while their off duty.

the only reason i'm on this site is because i own 9 restaurants. we have a robbery every year and i almost got mugged. my employees are happy that i have my CHL. even though, they have never seen my gun. i should let them see it. because most robberys are an inside job. otherwise, i'd own no guns.

rrruuunnn
October 10, 2007, 02:57 AM
cops have to be more observant than civilians. they have to sit in restaurants with view of all entrances.

karz10
October 10, 2007, 03:22 AM
Hmmm, since the OP brought up the Wisconsin tragedy, I do wonder about the whole age thing, since this kid was 20 yo, and most states, and AFAIK it's a federal thing right, where you can't own, or possess a handgun until 21?

I'm sure a lot of young bucks would say they are responsible and can handle it at 20 just as well as 21, and some would say you can join the military and have guns at 18 etc.

I'm just pointing out there are some mixed messages here. As for the military, yes you can join as do as they say, and they do have some restrictions on what you carry and where, when off duty, no matter the age, but I can't help but think some of the military's restrictions on when and where you can have firearms on base for example may stem from their concern for the predominently younger recruits running around, don't you think?

For me, a law enforcement officer interacting w/ the public here in the US on a day-to-day could be considered a different role w/ different concerns than a military personnel w/ typically more of a restricted environment, only sent into do a job involving force when necessary.

I'm not saying that I know what's right or wrong, or implying this is a black-and-white / crystal clear issue, I'm just saying it makes me think. I wonder how old you have to be in WI, or most locals, to join the local PD or Sheriff's office and legally be allowed to carry in public? I guess I always assumed it would be 21 to have a gun toting job, but I guess not.

So with that said, that I do have questions about when you get to be a cop toting a gun out there, I would have to say that I then question the ability of any other citizen being able to get a handgun legally, and/or carry it. Like if they can do it at 20, why can't we? But on either count, I think some thought should go into the age and other procedure requirements for younger folks to carry.

Generally, I'm of the opinion that LEOs should obviously be able to carry off duty, as they're never really off duty, at least we don't want them to be, since we rely on them to protect and serve if they see a need.

However, I believe legal adult citizens should also be allowed to carry in just as many places, at any time as well, to at least protect ourselves, if we're not happening to be standing next to an LEO when the SHTF. Like in NC or SC, you can't carry to pick up your kid at school, or go to a restaurant w/ your family if the establishment happens to sell alcohol for consumption on premises.

Just this past week, a disgruntled employee came back to a restaurant nearby in Charlotte, and gunned down two former co-workers/bosses, after recently losing his job. He pointed the gun at other customers, but as far as I know, noone else was hit. Fortunatlely, a nearby Sheriff leading a funeral procession was flagged down by someone in a neighboring business, and other 1st responders were also quick on the scene, and the guy was taken into custody before anyone else was hurt. But I'm sure you can imagine, this could have been far worse. It irritates me that a law abiding citizen w/ a legal permit could not carry there legally, since they served beer, but any nut job can surely walk in planning to commit murder, since we all know the sign doesn't stop a criminal.

http://www.charlotte.com/local/story/307673.html There's the link to one of the stories about the incident.

I don't know, I think if I was an owner or manager of any business dealing w/ the public and sketchy employees, especially after having to have one of said employees escorted out by police when he was fired, I would likely carry to work. In NC, the owner or permission of the owner, will let a legal CWP holder carry on premises, despite the alcohol sales, but not the customers.

My condolences to the families of the victims of both of these tragedies. To the OP, I believe people should have rights similar to LEOs, and have less restrictions, LEOs certainly should have right to carry off duty, but I do wonder about the qualification process and age requirements to become an LEO, not saying I have a definite opinion on that one yet, but just thinking out loud...

Karz

Rexster
October 10, 2007, 06:19 AM
I don't know where some of these posts are coming from; my agency's rules PREVENT me from carrying what I want. When I retire I will have MORE freedom in what I carry.

ilbob
October 10, 2007, 08:55 AM
I am sorry but I do not consider the Second Amendment a "perk" for the few
You obviously did not read my post. The 2A has zero to do with this particular perk. You need to stop thinking that LE carry of firearms has anything even remotely to do with the 2A or any kind of right, because there is no connection. LE carries firearms solely because of their employment. Their employment status gives them an extra perk, but it is not a right.

When a cop talks about his "right to carry" as an off duty cop, he is misuing the English language. He is not talking about a right, but a perk, not much different than the employee discount WalMart extends to its employees.

ilbob
October 10, 2007, 08:59 AM
but around here full time officers are paid quite well
There seems to be no shortage of qualified applicants signing up for cop jobs around here. That would seem to indicate the pay and benefits are adequate. Keep in mind that most cops can retire after 20 years with a really decent, cost of living adjusted pension, backed not by a rickety pension plan but the full armed might of the state. Further, virtually all public employee benefit plans are far superior to private sector plans.

ilbob
October 10, 2007, 09:02 AM
I don't know where some of these posts are coming from; my agency's rules PREVENT me from carrying what I want. When I retire I will have MORE freedom in what I carry.
But in the meantime your agency will take the heat if you shoot someone off duty. It does not seem unreasonable for them to have an interest in what you are carrying off duty.

crankshop1000
October 10, 2007, 09:18 AM
They are subject to the same gun laws as we are.We are not LEO's and don't qualify for their parts of the gun laws.A crime is a crime and it doesn't matter who commits it.Cops are subject to the same human traits as everybody else.Their specific training and hopefully the pre employment screening process weeds out the likely problems. Unfortunately no one can piss you off like a woman when she is trying and this cop cracked and crumbled.Things didn't need to go the way they did, but it's water under the bridge now.

1911 guy
October 10, 2007, 09:19 AM
Police officers should definately be subject to the same regulations and limitations as everyone else. You're a cop and dont like it? Do like the rest of us and start lobbying your local and state government to change the laws.

Yosemite**Sam
October 10, 2007, 11:19 AM
ilbob
"Keep in mind that most cops can retire after 20 years with a really decent, cost of living adjusted pension, backed not by a rickety pension plan but the full armed might of the state."


You're kidding right... What basis do you have for making this statement? Sounds like someone is throwing out blanket statements with no foundation.

halvey
October 10, 2007, 11:36 AM
Yes. We should never have different classes.

LiquidTension
October 10, 2007, 11:46 AM
In SC, retirement for law enforcement is after 25 years instead of 28 for all other state employees. The state does put more into the retirement plan than the officers do which is good since most LEOs here are underpaid.

whited
October 10, 2007, 12:20 PM
The police should be subject to the same laws as the citizens on duty or not.

Your feelings may differ, but after all the rhetoric, this post from the first page shines through.

Riss
October 10, 2007, 12:30 PM
Well as with many jobs, some police officers cannot just let go and leave work at work. I for one always carry. If I leave the house I'm armed. I would rather carry every single day and never need to unholster and draw down on someone than to need a gun to protect myself or someone else and not have one with me.

Jamie C.
October 10, 2007, 12:48 PM
The thing that keeps getting me is all these people that are mistaking "privilege" for "requirement of the job".

Too many times I've been driving down the road in my personal vehicle, and got a call on the cell phone saying "Officer needs assistance at ______ address", or heard a call on the police radio ( Yes, 99% of the officers here have a police band radio in their POV, paid for with their own money. ) requesting any officer in the area to assist with a call.

In those situations, it won't do to have to go by the house or the station and pick up a weapon. And you're certainly not much good without one, if things have gotten bad enough for dispatch to make such a call.

Granted, this kind of thing probably happens more often in a small town like mine than a large city, but I'm sure it happens even there.



J.C.

Rexster
October 10, 2007, 01:17 PM
Until very recently, my agency required that I be armed 24/7 while within the area in which I have police powers, which is slightly different than jurisdiction, and there are different levels of jurisdiction. My agency and my state LE standards require that I am always subject to duty, armed or not; if an emergency occurs in my presence, I am instantly "on duty," which is different than being on the clock, and I can lose my peace officer license, or even be prosecuted and sued, for failure to act. I cannot be considered on duty if I am intoxicated, and if you read between the lines, it seems quite apparent that if intoxication keeps me from being able to do my duty, I can be punished, sued or prosecuted. Enough of the intoxication part, I am almost a total non-drinker, anyway. So, being armed, in my case, is not just a nice perk. It is a privilege that falls just short of being a requirement, and there are times it is a burden. Some of my agency's restrictions are a true burden. If I want to hunt with a long-barreled revolver, and I happen upon an emergency, I had better set aside that revolver and deploy a short-barreled DA revolver or an autoloader, because my agency sets a barrel length limit on revolvers. (We must shoot an annual qual course with any weapon carried for LE purposes.) There used to be a "weapon of opportunity" exception, but that seems to have gone away. Well, anyway, CHL holders may not be able to carry some places where I can, but a CHL holder can make a graceful exit when things go bad, where I cannot. A Texas CHL holder can defend himself or another with any handgun he chooses, whereas I must use only weapons authorized ahead of time. Well, I could write a book, but this is getting long.

Rexster
October 10, 2007, 01:33 PM
Pensions are getting off-topic, but since it was mentioned, my pension is totally local. As for pay, I am paid pretty well for a police officer, but there are no Christmas bonuses, and no employer matching of 401k contributions. I must buy my own weapons and many other items of equipment, which is common in this region; the Taser is an issued item, however. I don't know if local donut shops give us free donuts. ;) I have not been inside a donut shop while in uniform in years.

javacodeman
October 10, 2007, 01:55 PM
The Wisconsin shootings were a random act, with the shooter acting out cuz of girlfriend problems.

I have to disagree with this statement. I've just read Gavin de Becker's book, "The Gift of Fear" (http://www.amazon.com/Gift-Fear-Gavin-Becker/dp/0440226198/ref=pd_bbs_2/104-4600073-5405540?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192033204&sr=8-2). While I wouldn't say that he is a strong gun rights proponent, he establishes events that happen prior to violent acts. While these events may not be observable (especially if you do not know the person), they do in fact happen in an orderly fashion. He calls them PINs or Pre-Incident Indicators. If you've listened or read, there were no psychological evaluations, and I'd bet that little else was done to reasonably evaulate his mental stability. I'm sure that more information will come out stating that he was controling of his girlfriend, talked about violence, etc., etc. People close to him will say (probably not on national media) that they had a bad feeling about him or something similiar.

ilbob
October 10, 2007, 02:20 PM
"Keep in mind that most cops can retire after 20 years with a really decent, cost of living adjusted pension, backed not by a rickety pension plan but the full armed might of the state."


You're kidding right... What basis do you have for making this statement? Sounds like someone is throwing out blanket statements with no foundation.

No doubt the retirement thing is a little different from area to area.

ilbob
October 10, 2007, 02:25 PM
Pensions are getting off-topic, but since it was mentioned, my pension is totally local. As for pay, I am paid pretty well for a police officer, but there are no Christmas bonuses, and no employer matching of 401k contributions. I must buy my own weapons and many other items of equipment, which is common in this region; the Taser is an issued item, however. I don't know if local donut shops give us free donuts. I have not been inside a donut shop while in uniform in years.
Your pension is guaranteed by some unit of government. if they need money to pay it, they will raise taxes and send out armed employees to enforce the tax.

I have to buy my own weapons too. :)

And my own donuts.

No Christmas bonus here either.

There are not that many donut shops around here. The cops used to congregate at one in Loves Park, but it closed a number of years ago. I think the health department shut it down. Now I see them sometimes at a local gas station that has a few tables inside. Cops work wierd hours and there are limited places to grab a cup of coffee at 3:00 am. Donut shops used to be open at all hours, so it is natural cops would go there.

Scorpiusdeus
October 10, 2007, 03:53 PM
They're "off-duty" aren't they?! I have said since forever, every human being needs a break for both physical and emotional rest. To carry other than duty, all people should be held to the identical standards. That is a rather egalitarian view, is it not?!

For an officer here in CA that would mean unarmed. Step into a mens room at a local club and see three Crips you've previously arrested and then tell me about your egalitarian view.

APC,inc
October 10, 2007, 05:37 PM
I am struggling with this post. The police officer had some sort of breakdown and it resulted in violence. This could and does happen to people in every walk of life, in fact I bet if the suspect was not a police officer it wouldn't have been national news.

What gun laws are you talking about? In most states you are able to get a permit. You have to fill out an application, have fingerprints taken, take a one day class and have your background checked.

Police Officers have to fill out an application 20 times the size, get fingerprinted, have extensive background checks done, and have many hours of firearms training.

ilbob
October 10, 2007, 05:40 PM
For an officer here in CA that would mean unarmed. Step into a mens room at a local club and see three Crips you've previously arrested and then tell me about your egalitarian view.

How is that any different from the witness at their trial stepping into the same men's room?

ilbob
October 10, 2007, 05:46 PM
in fact I bet if the suspect was not a police officer it wouldn't have been national news.

You can bet your bottom dollar that if a non-cop had murdered 6 people with an AR15 it would be big time news everywhere.

Euclidean
October 10, 2007, 05:56 PM
The answer is of course yes, for the reason that an official's life is worth exactly the same as mine. If my life's not valuable enough to be protected as well as possible (within the realm of practicality of course) at all times, theirs isn't either.

No member of any military bureau or civilian law enforcement agency should ever have access to a weapon which I cannot buy off the open market at a non inflated (as in by taxes or legal restrictions which make the gun incredibly valuable) retail price, nor should they enjoy any right associated with them that a non violent law abiding person doesn't have.

In fact, a non law enforcement employed civilian should actually have greater flexibility in how, where, and when he chooses to arm himself as he is not curtailed by military orders or department regulations.

If the cop carries all the time, then I should too. If a cop can carry in a certain area, I should too. If the cop can carry open or concealed, then I should be able to as well.

On the flipside if I can't carry in a certain state, no officer should be allowed to, in uniform or not, because obviously if guns are illegal there then they won't need one for the same reason I don't.:rolleyes:

Now, as for me, I favor cops and everyone else who wants to carrying whatever, whenever, wherever so long as the rules are the same for everybody.

RPCVYemen
October 10, 2007, 05:58 PM
Until very recently, my agency required that I be armed 24/7 while within the area in which I have police powers, which is slightly different than jurisdiction, and there are different levels of jurisdiction. My agency and my state LE standards require that I am always subject to duty, armed or not; if an emergency occurs in my presence, I am instantly "on duty," which is different than being on the clock,...

This matches what I was heard 30 years ago in Greensboro, NC. It was a funny situation - it was at Guilford College in 1974, and I can't imagine a more liberal environment. Small pretty good little Quaker college with lots of hippies - or "freaks" as we like to call ourselves in those days. :)

At any rate, there was a program called something like LEAP (Law Enforcement Assistance Program?), which was federal money. Guilford jumped on the opportunity and had developed a pretty strong Criminal Justice program. That meant that the sociology classes were often a mix of hippies and LEOs. A friend asked an administrator about guns on a Quaker (pacifist) campus. He was told that the officers were on duty 24/7, even when they were only on the clock 40 hours a week.

Mike

legaleagle_45
October 10, 2007, 06:03 PM
>Should off duty cops be subject to the same gun laws as the rest of us?

Absolutely... I am opposed to further restrictions on off duty cops. They should have the same right as we do.:)

Ragnar Danneskjold
October 10, 2007, 06:52 PM
I've heard time and again on this very website about how if a CCWer were to witness a crime in a gas station or whatnot, they would not act in anyway other than to save their own life or the life of their family. These people routinely say "it's not my job" or even "that's why we have cops". And they're right. They are just a private citizens. They don't have any responsibility to help. Maybe a few would feel a moral obligation, but most would not look down on a CCWer of he just acted to preserve himself, and didn't confront a robber.

BUT, put an off duty cop is his place, and you can bet he would feel a very strong obligation to do something. Both inside, because the same thing that made him want to be a cop would make him want to help. As well as pressure from his contract, perhaps requiring him to act in the "24-7" role, which MANY departments have their officers do. And also pressure from the rest of us and the media.

"Robber shoots 7-11 clerk. Off duty cop hides behind shelves to save his own life".

That headline would go over real well.

Face the facts, if you hid while a robbery took place to save yourself, no one would think twice about it. If an off-duty cop did it, the community would skin him alive. And you know it.

Give off duty cops the tools to do what they would feel obligated to do. Even if you wouldn't feel that same obligation.

Bill St. Clair
October 10, 2007, 07:02 PM
Actually, taurusowner, there's another reason that non-cops aren't as eager to defend somebody other than themselves and their loved ones. If a cop shoots a perp committing a violent crime, he fills out paperwork, maybe, if somebody doubts the necessity of the shooting, gets put on administrative leave for a while, and goes about his life. If a non-cop does the same thing, he gets arrested for homicide, has to make bail, possibly after being in jail for a day or two, and goes to trial if the Grand Jury decides to indict him. In the meantime, at least the gun he used on the perp is taken from him, meaning that he may have no way to defend himself until found non-guilty. That's a lot of risk to take to save the life of somebody you don't know.

808_guy
October 10, 2007, 08:14 PM
You guys keep missing the point. In most states, police officers are on-duty and required to act 24/7. Not to single you out, taurusowner, but I'm going to use your thread as an example.

"Robber shoots 7-11 clerk. Off duty cop hides behind shelves to save his own life".

Most likely, this off duty police officer would be criminally charged and maybe even lose his badge.
A civilian in this situation would have no action taken against them- they have done nothing wrong by not acting.

Police officers have additional rights and privileges that private citizens do not. We as society chose to have certain people in positions of authority over the general public so as to ensure the safety of all. Get over it.

You want to be a cop, and have all those "perks"? Apply at your local station! For all this talk about a "ruling elite", this is the first upper class I've heard of that is open to everybody who wants to apply. Go apply!
Fill out the 30-or-so page packground packets, where they ask you for every detail of your entire life. Go through the physical tests, the medical exams, the interviews, the psychological testing, where you'll fill out a 1200 question test and then be interviewed about it afterwards. Then a polygraph to make sure you're not a liar. Keep in mind that this all takes about a year or so to complete.
Then, to the academy, where you'll be physically and mentally tested every moment of every long, long day. Most of them are live-in, so say bye bye to your wife and kids for a while. Supposing you make it through the academy, yay, you get your badge and you're now a cop and you get your new perk of carrying a gun so that you can respond to crimes in your off time.

On second thought, getting a CCL is a little easier, isn't it?

Master Blaster
October 10, 2007, 08:17 PM
YES on Duty or OFF Duty.

Ragnar Danneskjold
October 10, 2007, 08:50 PM
You're right Bill. That's another great reason. But it still proves the point. Cops are more motivated for one reason or another to act against a crime the witness off duty than non-cops.

ArmedBear
October 10, 2007, 09:21 PM
In an ideal world, off-duty cops should be subject to the same laws as all of us.

Brawling, speeding, DUI .08, you know, the recreational weekend crimes, should be prosecuted the same, whether the perpetrator is an off-duty cop or not.

Now maybe that's how it works where you live; maybe off-duty cops are even held to a higher standard. But that ain't how it works everywhere.

CCW is way down the list of issues, in some places...

Blackfork
October 10, 2007, 09:24 PM
I'm a citizen. I'm on duty 24/7/360.

alligator94
October 10, 2007, 09:44 PM
I believe that everyone legally able to own a gun, should be able to carry it almost anywhere. (Except for prisons, secure facilities or things of that nature.) That said I think it is a great thing for LEO's to carry offduty. Since they are never really off duty, and in some cases have a legal obligation to get involved that I do not. Yes, occasionally a few bad apples will become LEO's, but they have to go through a much more thorough background check than any CHL applicant that I know of.

Erik
October 10, 2007, 10:10 PM
"Should off duty cops be subject to the same gun laws as the rest of us?"

No.

In some areas citizens have it easier.

In some harder.

I agree both should be equal.

NeoSpud
October 10, 2007, 10:11 PM
Should cops be subject to the same gun laws as the rest of us?

Of course they should. And we should be able to carry under the same guidelines that they do off duty. Really, it isn't that they should have the same laws apply to them as they do to us, but that their carry "benefits" should apply to us as well.

As long as we're talking about shoulds, why shouldn't I be able to carry anywhere that a cop should? Why should he be treated differently? There's no reason that I should be restricted from protecting myself any more that he should. Maybe I'm wrong; Maybe I should get my head checked. I just believe that the Second Amendment should protect my ability to bear arms, that the government should respect that right, and that I should do my best to represent that RIGHT, just as every law abiding citizen SHOULD!

:p

CannibalCrowley
October 10, 2007, 10:18 PM
For an officer here in CA that would mean unarmed. Step into a mens room at a local club and see three Crips you've previously arrested and then tell me about your egalitarian view.

Good, that would be a motivating factor in getting LEOs behind right to carry laws.

karz10
October 10, 2007, 10:24 PM
Blackfork


I'm a citizen. I'm on duty 24/7/360.

So what's the deal, you take five days off a year, or what? You're out of the country for 5 days or something?

Karz

opd743
October 10, 2007, 11:38 PM
If a cop shoots a perp committing a violent crime, he fills out paperwork, maybe, if somebody doubts the necessity of the shooting, gets put on administrative leave for a while, and goes about his life. If a non-cop does the same thing, he gets arrested for homicide, has to make bail, possibly after being in jail for a day or two, and goes to trial if the Grand Jury decides to indict him. In the meantime, at least the gun he used on the perp is taken from him, meaning that he may have no way to defend himself until found non-guilty.

Bill, first of all, I have to do paperwork everytime I unlock a freakin car. If I ever had to shoot someone I would have my gun taken by my Supervisor and turned over to the ABI, after which I would spend about twelve hours being interviewed by my own department and the ABI. I would then fill out about a three page I/O report(incident/offense), about a three page use of force report, plus a who knows how long statement report to turn in to the ABI. I say "about" on the pages because it comes down to what you can remember and articulate about the shooting, it might take 1 it might take 10. I would then be put on administrative leave until I faced a Grand Jury to see if I was justified in pulling the trigger. This could be six weeks to three months away.

Do you think we just go out and gun people down during our everyday job? You need to get your facts in line before you post something people read.

As for the original question, in a way yes and in a way no. I personally carry everywhere I go when not at work. It is in my SOP to uphold the laws of AL both on duty and off. Even though it is not required, I also get my CCP updated every year. I think that LEO's should be allowed to carry off duty if they so choose. At the same time, I feel that anyone with the ability should be able to get a CCP and carry anywhere they so choose. I strongly believe in this. If every legal citizen carried, it would make my job a lot easier:)

Reyn
October 11, 2007, 04:39 AM
Every shooting involving officers here has always gone to the grandjury.They were also given days off. Ive also transported a citizen to investigations right after a shooting where he killed his neighbor in the yard. He was not charged and let go.It was no billed too.

I believe LEOs are scrutinized more in a shooting because people quest why officers didnt use the tazer,bean bags or employ other less lethal techniques as opposed to lethal force.

Soybomb
October 11, 2007, 04:54 AM
After what happened in Wisconsin there is sure to be talk of stoping off duty police from from going about armed. Any thoughts on this?
During the same weekend an off duty police officer in New York shot a crazy man who was running down the street stabbing people. The principle of both being subject to the same laws is great, I won't argue that. For practical purposes though I want to get more people carrying concealed guns. Spending my time trying to take that right away from other good guys is just a waste when I could be using that time to fight to increase carry privileges for everyone.

Glockman17366
October 11, 2007, 05:24 AM
Any law...any law...that's passed should have no exemptions for government (Federal, State or Local) or government employees...

Obviously, in the Wisconsin incident, the perp would have been charged with multiple crimes if he had survived.

However, in any gun laws that exempt the state police or feds (such as the Assault Rifle Bans)...well, you know where I'm going there.

rc109a
October 11, 2007, 08:46 AM
The question on whether or not a law enforcement officer (LE) should carry off duty needs to be looked at differently by every state. Most departments define their conduct in their policy and procedure manual. I know our state that deputies are full time officers and are never really considered off duty. They are obligated to act if we see the comission of a crime that would normally constitue a full arrest. With that in mind you have to carry your firearm when ever your off duty (exceptions are noted such as drinking, events that a firearm would be considered unsafe like playing sports, and others). Now with that being said in our society if something happens and an off duty LE does not act then what is the first thing that happens afterwards? You sue them for not doing their duty. It is like living in a fish bowl. Everyone seems to know who you are even when you in plain clothes. They see you with your family and kids. I don't know how many times I was approached and addressed as Deputy when I was "off duty" with my children around. Some of these guys I was awaiting trials for man slaughter or serious drug related crimes. That is a scary though with your little 2 year old daughter under your arm. LE deal with some of the worst people in society and put their lives on the line for pennies a day. The least we can do is let them protect themselves when they are with their family. If your not an LE then you can protect yourselves as well by following the appropriate rules and regulations. By the way LE's are not exempt from the laws. These laws address law enforcement officers when you read them. They are never "exempt". They to have laws that follow and must be obeyed. You can only lead by example and from the front, never by following in the rear and complaining about it!

RKBABob
October 11, 2007, 10:08 AM
LE deal with some of the worst people in society and put their lives on the line for pennies a day.

WOW! Your job sucks! Just pennies a day, eh?



Actually, I gotta say thank you to all the LEO's out there... you ARE appreciated... and nobody here would think of taking away your tools-of-the-job.







But enough with the attitude about pay!:barf: I am also underpaid, work way too many hours, and deal with bottom-of-the-barrel folks, but you don't hear me complaining about it for the whole internet to read. Oops... I guess I just did!

Scorpiusdeus
October 11, 2007, 02:44 PM
How is that any different from the witness at their trial stepping into the same men's room?

Hmm, what are the odds? How many trials do you testify in vs how many criminals and officer arrests in say a given month.

I'm not saying that we ALL shouldn't be armed, I'm addressing the current situation as it is here in CA today, which is abysmal.

RKBABob
October 11, 2007, 03:04 PM
How many trials do you testify in

Maybe 2 a year. Workers comp fraud cases. People could get pretty angry when they lose the $$$ they were hoping to get by faking an injury.

It made me a little nervous when a private investigator followed Mr. Sleazy Fake-Injury to a store that sells only fishing gear, camping supplies, and guns. He doesn't fish or camp:eek:

I see your point. Cops have a lot more exposure the the lowest elements of society, and I don't think I would want to be in that situation.



A SIDE NOTE: I noticed that quite a few police officers in this city live 45 minutes away, out in the boonies. I never gave it much thought... but I wonder if they're distancing themselves from the physical location of their work to 1.) Avoid bumping into the guy they arrested last Tuesday, and
2.) to avoid getting called in on their days off.

theocguy85
October 11, 2007, 04:01 PM
Why should an officer of the law, who is trusted with weapons for 8 or 10 or 12 hours in a day, be deprived of those weapons when he clocks out? Two points here: Number one: LEOs may be called upon at any time to act in the capacity of a LEO; that is, just because they are "off duty" does not mean they can ignore a situation they would act in if they were "on duty." Number two: LEOs are far more likely to face violent attack or other threat than most members of society as they are the public face that the criminal element sees. LEOs should never be deprived of their means of self defense. (Not that any of us should.)

Yosemite**Sam
October 11, 2007, 04:22 PM
For you belly achers that want carry rights equal to police officers; Why don't you do something about it?

Start lobbying for your gun rights. Go through a police academy. Become a regular or reserve officer. It's easy to see by some of the attitudes here some of you have tried to join the force and have been turned down. Don't be Haters. It's easy to sit in your chair and complain. How much have you done to lobby for your rights?

Bill St. Clair
October 11, 2007, 04:24 PM
Anything you have to lobby for or get training for isn't a right. It's a privelege. It can be given and taken away at the whim of a legislator or bureaucrat. We have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms, without infringements of any kind. We don't need any kind of legislation. We merely need to CLAIM our rights, and be willing to back up that claim with whatever force is necessary.

ilbob
October 11, 2007, 04:28 PM
For you belly achers that want carry rights equal to police officers; Why don't you do something about it?

Start lobbying for your gun rights. Go through a police academy. Become a regular or reserve officer. It's easy to see by some of the attitudes here some of you have tried to join the force and have been turned down. Don't be Haters. It's easy to sit in your chair and complain. How much have you done to lobby for your rights?
typical elitist sentiment. you can only have rights if you are part of our little group.

in case you have not figured it out, being a cop is not a right, nor is anything cops do that is associated with being a cop a right.

MinnMooney
October 11, 2007, 04:37 PM
Off-duty LEOs need to have their weapons on them at ALL times. I can't carry in schools, jails (OR jail premises) or anywhere that someone decides to put up a sign prohibiting the carrying of weapons. Off-duty LEOs need to carry in those places, also. Can you imagine what would be said if there was a deliberate, timed set of killings like Columbine and an off-duty LEO was there visiting but didn't have his weapon due to having to abide by the same rules as the general populace? There'd be hell to pay by the law enforcement community.

Jamie C.
October 11, 2007, 04:49 PM
Can you imagine what would be said if there was a deliberate, timed set of killings like Columbine and an off-duty LEO was there visiting but didn't have his weapon due to having to abide by the same rules as the general populace?

If that were to happen here in TN, I'd imagine there would shortly be a change in the laws which would allow all L.E.O.s to carry on school grounds whether they were on the clock or not.

I doubt very seriously if there would be any changes to the laws regarding permit holders, however.

Now, I realize that sucks, but that's just the way the public and legislative mind seems to work.



J.C.

ilbob
October 11, 2007, 05:19 PM
Can you imagine what would be said if there was a deliberate, timed set of killings like Columbine and an off-duty LEO was there visiting but didn't have his weapon due to having to abide by the same rules as the general populace?

A few years ago at a minor league base ball game in Rockford, off duty cop (Park District IIRC) sees abother cop in some kind of altercation with a patron. Off duty cop leaves stadium to go to car and get badge and gun. By the time he gets back, on duty cop has been body slammed to ground and is seriously injured.

Not sure what that proves in any case. Off duty cop not allowed to carry while drinking, so leaves badge and gun in car. Moral of story maybe either off duty cop not drink at baseball game, or change rules to allow cops to drink and carry. Or maybe moral of story is stuff happens, and nothing you can do to prevent every bad thing that might happen.

Fletchette
October 11, 2007, 11:38 PM
Can you imagine what would be said if there was a deliberate, timed set of killings like Columbine and an off-duty LEO was there visiting but didn't have his weapon due to having to abide by the same rules as the general populace?

Can you imagine what would be said if there was a deliberate, timed set of killings like Columbine and an [citizen] was there visiting but [had] his weapon due to having to abide by the same rules as the [police]?

WayneConrad
October 11, 2007, 11:41 PM
For you belly achers...
Name calling?

Start lobbying for your gun rights.That's a common refrain among law officers, and generally a good idea. Tell you what, though. When LEO organizations stop lobbying for some men to be subject to different law than other men, I'll be more impressed with law officers expressing that sentiment. Don't like me blaming LEOs for what their professional organizations do on their behalf? Then LEOs should pressure the organizations representing them to do the right thing. Until then, don't claim that LEOs want all men to have the same laws. As a group, they want, and lobby for, separate laws for themselves while lobbying against laws restoring the rights of the common man.

Go through a police academy.
Gotta join your club to exercise my rights?

How much have you done to lobby for your rights?
If I haven't done much to lobby for my rights, does that make the active suppression of those rights alright?

It's a popular sentiment that those who don't lobby/vote/contribute/whatever have no right to complain. That's nonsense. Where does this rule come from, and who benefits from it? Not those whose rights are being suppressed.

Ragnar Danneskjold
October 12, 2007, 12:07 AM
And it seems to be popular sentiment on this thread that if you can't have something, no one should. Why can't you people just be glad there are more good guys out there armed more often? How about not tearing them down, and instead work to bring yourself up. But no, that would involve real work. More than most armchair commandos are willing to put in.

Fletchette
October 12, 2007, 12:57 AM
And it seems to be popular sentiment on this thread that if you can't have something, no one should. Why can't you people just be glad there are more good guys out there armed more often? How about not tearing them down, and instead work to bring yourself up. But no, that would involve real work. More than most armchair commandos are willing to put in.

Hmm. Could it be a desire for equal rights? nah...

As for "the good guys": It is a sweeping generality to say that they are "good guys".

Some police officers are good, some are bad. They are people. People tend to become drunk with power when they have exclusive power to do something. That is why the Founders bent over backward to say, over and over again, that everyone should have equal rights, including the police. They do not deserve to have any more rights than any other people.

WayneConrad
October 12, 2007, 03:25 AM
How about not tearing them down, and instead work to bring yourself up.
We do. Guess who fights us? This post (http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=3383551#post3383551) is a summary of the LEO opposition that civil rights activists in Arizona saw to just one bill that would extend to citizens a right to carry currently only enjoyed by LEO. This is not an isolated incident in this Arizona, nor is it unique to this state.

Powderman
October 12, 2007, 07:26 AM
Well, this thread simply demonstrates what I have observed about this forum: A lot of the members of this board either hate us totally, or are so scared that they give knee jerk reactions, same as the anti-gunners.

To address the salient points:

1. We, as cops, are subject to exactly the same laws as the rest of the citizens of our Nation, and our specific jurisdictions. I live in Washington State. I can own the same firearms that everyone else can. According to the RCW, I can NOT own fully automatic firearms--same as anyone else in Washington State.

The weapons that we have at the station that are full auto are Department owned. Now, I admit, that we, as LEO CAN buy full auto--however, it has to be purchased under Department letterhead. If we ever leave the Department, WE CANNOT TAKE IT WITH US. It MUST be surrendered, with or without compensation.

2. There are some people who are actually whining--"you knew the risks of the job, so do it and shut up or quit".

Folks, we KNOW what the hazards of the job are. And we stay in it. Why? Because we are a group of men and women who put the safety and welfare of the public before our own.

As another poster mentioned, there have been plenty of threads where some of the posters from this very thread have said that they would NOT assist if a violent crime occurred in their presence. Hey, it's your right and your privilege. Just remember that while you are running AWAY from trouble, I'm running TOWARD it.

3. Yes, we carry at all times. I carry a Colt, a pair of handcuffs, two magazines of RA45T, and my shield and commission card. I also have a CCW permit issued by the State of Washington.

Non-LEO can carry if they wish--it costs about 60 bucks, and takes a couple of weeks.

If you live in a State that does not recognize your right to carry, then I submit the same argument that you give when we mention the inherent danger of our jobs--if you don't like it, MOVE. Quit whining about how unfair your State is. Get out, or be quiet and take it.

4. Whoever says that we don't have to account for ourselves if we use deadly force is on crack. Get real. Go ask your local prosecutor what happens to a cop who has to shoot.

Sometimes, I get the urge to just ask to be unregistered from this board because of the outright HATE I see toward my chosen avocation. Oh, well. You go ahead and hate, vilify me and my efforts, and those of my brother and sister officers. Call us names if you wish, and hold big protests if you feel like it. Call us unfair, and call us JBT's.

Just remember this--when you get tired and go home to be with your family, or get off and enjoy yourself, one of the people you hate so much--possibly me, if you live in Northeast Tacoma--will be out and about, making sure that you CAN enjoy yourselves--and ready in an instant to pledge our health, our futures and our lives to ensure it.

If you can stomach it--and I know that some of you CAN'T--remember this: I have a wife that I miss when I'm on duty, too. I have a home that I want to go to, as well.

So, if you can bring yourself to stoop so low, next time you see a patrol car, just force yourself to maybe--just maybe--look beyond that Crown Vic, the uniform and the badge--and see your fellow man or woman, who is just doing what they do best--protecting YOU.

Y'all have a good night.

Yosemite**Sam
October 12, 2007, 10:57 AM
Great Post Powderman !!!

TexasRifleman
October 12, 2007, 11:02 AM
Powderman makes a good post, for him personally, but in the large picture we see Law Enforcement, either directly by officers or through their unions or professional groups, come out against non-LEO concealed carry more than they come out in favor of it. Certainly it varies state by state but overall that is how it plays out.

While probably not the best reaction, it's understandable to want to deny someone something that they want to deny you, in the vein of that whole "do unto others" thing.

The problem with that is it doesn't really do any good for either side.

RPCVYemen
October 12, 2007, 11:07 AM
So, if you can bring yourself to stoop so low, next time you see a patrol car, just force yourself to maybe--just maybe--look beyond that Crown Vic, the uniform and the badge--and see your fellow man or woman, who is just doing what they do best--protecting YOU.

Hear, hear. I am thankful for the job you and other LEOs do. It looks like a hard complex job to me.

I do not understand the antipathy I hear on THR against police officers. I cannot figure out where it's coming from. I uncharitably think it must be coming from a folks that tried to get on the force, but failed the psych tests - but I am sure that's not fair. Well, sorta sure. :)

I think there must be a lot of folks who think that being a police officer means running around with your Uzi shooting bad guys all day - and that's the job they want, and get get. My guess is that most folks think that "police officer" means "plays with guns all day" don't get very far in the application process!

Rest assured. I am very grateful for the job that you do, and I thing most of us on THR feel that way.

Mike

RPCVYemen
October 12, 2007, 11:12 AM
Just remember that while you are running AWAY from trouble, I'm running TOWARD it.

There is a description in a detective novel by Linda Fairstein set in New York City that describes 9/11 - with the image of people in suits running away from the burning towers, and people in uniforms running towards the burning towers. That's always stuck in my head.

We are grateful.

Mike

Jamie C.
October 12, 2007, 11:44 AM
Guess who fights us?

A bunch of political organizations that no more represent the thoughts and opinions of the average patrol officer than the average senator or congressman does yours or mine.

I don't know if you're aware of this or not, Mr. Conrad, but the further you go up the chain of command of any L.E. department, the more it gets to be about politics and power, and the less it is about Law Enforcement.

And I know for a fact that various Sheriff's and Chiefs of Police Associations says many things that most working cops just shake their heads over and absolutely do not agree with.

So don't make the mistake of lumping all cops in with their bosses, who most likely won't even allow the average patrol officer to even speak an opinion that isn't "Department Policy".



J.C.

WayneConrad
October 12, 2007, 01:06 PM
A bunch of political organizations that no more represent the thoughts and opinions of the average patrol officer than the average senator or congressman does yours or mine.
The Associated Highway Patrolmen of Arizona, as one example, is not an organization of politicians. Its members are the patrolmen. If the patrolmen do not support the organizations's fight against the rights of the people, why do the patrolmen belong to the organization? Or why do they not exert the immense power that a body of members have and get the organization to do what they desire?

I know that not all LEOs support what their organizations do on their behalf. But the repeated lobbying that these organizations do does make one wonder if they don't have the support of at least a significant fraction of their members.

Step up to the plate, gentlemen. Your organizations are acting to suppress liberty. Fix them.

KelTecian
October 12, 2007, 01:26 PM
After reading this entire thread I am just stunned...

As an LEO, I go to work, do my job to the letter, and follow and enforce all laws.

While doing my job, I make a lot of people angery and I am threatened on a weekly basis.

I need to carry my weapon off duty and with more freedom then most because of this. I am a walking target, I can't stop a a stoplight without looking around to see if I know or have angered anyone parked around me. I have a family as well. They could become a target and they did nothing but associate with me and my profession. This is why I carry off duty and with more freedom then most CCWs. I love CCW laws and 99.9% of the people I run into with CCWs are great folks. I have a hard time beliving they don't want me to carry "off duty" the way I do and will. Thats just crazy.

ilbob
October 12, 2007, 01:37 PM
I love CCW laws and 99.9% of the people I run into with CCWs are great folks. I have a hard time beliving they don't want me to carry "off duty" the way I do and will. Thats just crazy.
I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting taking away cops' traditional privilege of off duty carry.

But it is hard to fathom why the life of Joe cop is worth so much more than the life of Joe not cop that Joe cop would be extended the privilege of self defense while Joe not cop is prohibited from taking one of the most effective means of self defense.

There are a lot of reasons why this privilege has been extended. Most of those who feel the need to defend the privilege use the extra danger argument, or the 24/7 argument. Neither argument is especially compelling. The extra danger argument could certainly be dealt with by the same means by which CC permits are issued to, for example, citizens in LA (or Illinois) who can demonstrate extraordinary danger. The second argument can be dealt with by changing the arcane practice of the 24/7 LEO so it is no longer a problem.

MinnMooney
October 12, 2007, 01:45 PM
But it is hard to fathom why the life of Joe cop is worth so much more than the life of Joe not cop that Joe cop would be extended the privilege of self defense while Joe not cop is prohibited from taking one of the most effective means of self defense.


Huh?! Off-duty police NEED to have their weapons ON them at all times because the mass population expects them to never be totally off-duty.
As I said in a previous addition to this thread, off-duty LEOs need to be able to carry 100% of the time including into bldgs with their little "Guns not allowed in these premises" signs, churches, schools..... everywhere.
The public trusts their very lives to these guys so not being able to carry everywhere doesn't make sense.

K9 PO
October 12, 2007, 01:55 PM
I sifted through a few pages of this thread and I'm happy this is a civilized and adult discussion. For the record, I'm an active LEO in NYC and I'm sure a lot of us know that you fall into 2 categories if you are armed 24/7 in this city. You're either an on duty or retired police/correction/federal officer.

I wish gun laws in NYC were not so restrictive for the average citizen and I believe a properly trained and legally hell even illegally armed civilian a la Bernard Goetz is a hell of an effective deterrent against the common criminal. That being said, a criminal will carry a gun whether or not he or she is authorized to do so. Hence, that is the purpose of a criminal. By restricting the rights of ALL Police to not carry off duty you are de-balling the police and turning sheepdogs into sheep.
One can make the argument that police are granted special privileges under the law but please remember we only ENFORCE the law. We do not make it. The same people who makes the laws that govern our ability to carry our weapons unrestricted are also the same one that make the laws PROHIBITING civilians right to bear arms or RESTRICTING the manner in which weapons are allowed.

On a broader note, this is one ****** that was cleary emotionally disturbed and did not act under color of authority when he slayed those innocent high school kids. He could have very well been a doctor, teacher, or plumber who acquired a firearm.

Its apples and oranges when comparing a civilains right to carry a weapon to that of a sworn law enforcement officer. If a bad guy happened upon a civilian it is a chance encounter MOST of the time. If a cop happens upon a bad guy, it is EVERYDAY.

Realistically, I have put hundreds of people through the criminal justice system and these hundreds of people have hundreds of friends. There is a greater likelihood that either me or my family will be targeted for a criminal act by these individuals in addition to the millions of criminals out there.

Without getting into specifics, I was targeted for a violent criminal act by a family member of a perp I had locked up because this family member thought I was making it personl rather than business. Here is a man that knew what I did for a living, knew I was armed and still attempted to do me harm. How many of you advocating for the revocation of off duty police carry can say you have been in that situation?

Powderman
October 12, 2007, 01:57 PM
I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting taking away cops' traditional privilege of off duty carry.

But it is hard to fathom why the life of Joe cop is worth so much more than the life of Joe not cop that Joe cop would be extended the privilege of self defense while Joe not cop is prohibited from taking one of the most effective means of self defense.

There are a lot of reasons why this privilege has been extended. Most of those who feel the need to defend the privilege use the extra danger argument, or the 24/7 argument. Neither argument is especially compelling. The extra danger argument could certainly be dealt with by the same means by which CC permits are issued to, for example, citizens in LA (or Illinois) who can demonstrate extraordinary danger. The second argument can be dealt with by changing the arcane practice of the 24/7 LEO so it is no longer a problem.

WOW!

What a post! Ilbob, please be aware that I am not attacking YOU--but I have serious questions about your statement here.

First (and I speak from the point of view of a native Chicagoan), since when did Illinois issue CCW permits? Your post says that they are available. To the best of my knowledge, the State of Illinois stopped issuing those permits about the time Jane Byrne was Mayor. This was back in the early seventies, by the way.

And the PRIVILEGE of carrying 24/7 if need be? Dude, wake up and smell the coffee! Have you ever heard the terms malfeasance and misfeasance?

It's what happens when I, while in a capacity of a sworn LEO, either (a) screw up something willfully, or even worse, (b) fail to take appropriate action when a criminal act is committed in my presence, or fail to respond appropriately to a reported criminal act.

Please tell me where YOU--or any other non-LEO--can go to JAIL, lose your job and NEVER work in your profession AGAIN, for not putting yourself at risk!

Ilbob, with respect, I can say that it is evident to me--based on a preponderance of your posts in this thread--that you absolutely hate cops. I don't know why--but I will say that if you are looking at departmental practices from the City of Chicago or any of its environs, you are taking in a wrong example.

There are good cops there, don't get me wrong--but they are overshadowed by the actions of "The Machine"--the Daley political juggernaut where "Hizzoner"--or his scions--have ruled the Chicago fiat with an iron fist since before I was born. The only two Mayors that did not carry the name Daley--since before I was born, in 1959--were Jane Byrne and Harold Washington. Byrne lasted one term--and Washington, a former Alderman from the South Side--didn't even last six MONTHS--he died "of natural causes" while in office. :scrutiny::rolleyes:

So, I submit that if you have a problem with Illinois--even though it is a beautiful State, and one that I miss terribly, believe it or not--then move out! Illinois is the Midwest's California, but much worse, and Chicago, not Springfield is the capitol. Blagojevitch is a puppet and pawn of the Daley Machine, and will continue to be. It is NOT going to get any better, trust me.

Ilbob, if you're ever out West, drop me a line. We'll meet up for coffee, maybe dinner (the prime rib out here is outstanding, and the salmon is to die for--you haven't lived until you have blackened Northwest salmon, done RIGHT!!!!:D), and I'll introduce you to some REAL cops--regular joes and janes who pay bills, worry about the kids at school, wrestle with the car repairs, the home maintenance and remembering to take the trash out--and who strap it on and KEEP it strapped on, taking on the load so that you folks can live safely and sleep soundly at night. Consider this an open invitation, just drop a line if you have the chance. :)

And with regard to the idiot in Wisconsin, rest assured--as I mentioned before, no one HATES bad cops more than good cops. Given the opportunity, if I had been in a position to prevent it, I would have dropped that scum faster than a freight elevator.

Remember the shooting of seven people in the City of Seattle a while ago? A guy went into a rave at a private house with a shotgun and some handguns, and killed a bunch of people. He had just shot another victim outside when the first Seattle officer arrived.

The Seattle officer did not wait for backup, or hesitate--he immediately knelt IN FRONT OF THE VICTIM, BETWEEN THE VICTIM AND THE SHOOTER, who was armed at that time with the pump action shotgun.

The shooter killed himself on the spot. But the point I'm making is that the officer placed himself in line to take a bullet in an effort to save life.

That's what we do, folks. That's our job.

ilbob
October 12, 2007, 02:23 PM
Ilbob, with respect, I can say that it is evident to me--based on a preponderance of your posts in this thread--that you absolutely hate cops. I don't know why--but I will say that if you are looking at departmental practices from the City of Chicago or any of its environs, you are taking in a wrong example.
There is a substantial difference between questioning a bad policy/legislative decision, or LE misconduct, and hating cops.

I don't hold the cess pool of Chicago against anyone else, and in fact I have a fair amount of sympathy for most of the cops in Chicago. They are trapped in a terrible system, and it is not surprising that some of them have turned to the dark side.

My point about issuance of a CC permit just like in LA or Illinois was along the lines of making the point that even if extraordinary danger was the reason for allowing carry, it would not be available to ordinary citizens, so that would tend to make it a none issue, as far as LE carry.

Jamie C.
October 12, 2007, 03:39 PM
The Associated Highway Patrolmen of Arizona, as one example, is not an organization of politicians. Its members are the patrolmen.

Man, why do you think these organizations exist? What do you think their purpose is, and what do you think they do? And as far as "Patrolmen", what do you figure the ranks are of the members that sit on whatever board or voting/decision-making body the organization has? You figure they're "line" officers, or maybe administration-grade folks like captains, lieutenants and such? And as far as "not political" or "not politicians", you've already stated they're involved with blocking the legislation you want passed. Seems to me that anybody who works or deals in politics is indeed a politician, no matter what else he/she may do.

If the patrolmen do not support the organization's fight against the rights of the people, why do the patrolmen belong to the organization?

Do you figure the NRA's position is the same as most of it's member's on all of the issues it addresses? If not, why be a member? Could it be because it's members agree with a majority of it's positions, and recognize that even for it's flaws, it's the best they've got?

The fact is, no matter what organization is lobbying Arizona's legislature, it's up to the people of Arizona to elect folks that'll pass the laws they want, not what some group of cops, gun-grabbers, or anybody else try to get them to.


The bottom line is that if you don't have the laws you want in place, then you need to be electing people that'll put 'em there.


Anyway, that's about as far as it's safe to go with a discussion of politics here, so I'm gonna quit while I'm ahead.



J.C.

ilbob
October 12, 2007, 04:16 PM
Man, why do you think these organizations exist?
They are labor unions, or at least serve most of the same functions as labor unions do.

My guess is that not even 10% of the population cares much one way or the other about CC for average citizens. Why should more than 10% of cops feel any different? They are just average people too, and are inclined to care about the things the rest of us care about, in probably close to the same proportions.

Its not a labor issue though. Why would their labor union want to get involved unless there is some benefit to be gained? At present, in many states, there is benefit to be gained by opposing the rights of everyday citizens in favor of the power of government, so it is not all that surprising that such an organization might well favor the power of government.

Soybomb
October 12, 2007, 05:10 PM
As an LEO, I go to work, do my job to the letter, and follow and enforce all laws.

While doing my job, I make a lot of people angery and I am threatened on a weekly basis.

I need to carry my weapon off duty and with more freedom then most because of this. I am a walking target, I can't stop a a stoplight without looking around to see if I know or have angered anyone parked around me. I have a family as well. They could become a target and they did nothing but associate with me and my profession. This is why I carry off duty and with more freedom then most CCWs. I love CCW laws and 99.9% of the people I run into with CCWs are great folks. I have a hard time beliving they don't want me to carry "off duty" the way I do and will. Thats just crazy.
You've chosen a job that brings some additional risks to yourself and you do have the right to defend yourself, just as everyone does. Why do you feel like you deserve more freedom than I do though? Being a leo isn't the only dangerous job, some people carry money, valuables, have to go into high crime areas at night, repo cars, etc. I don't want to take away your right to carry at all, I think the more armed good guys out there, the better. I do have a major issue with you thinking you deserve more rights than me because of your occupation.

v35
October 12, 2007, 05:27 PM
I'm surprised no one has brought up the LEOSA. Doesn't that override any local or state law and make most of this conversation moot?

ilbob
October 12, 2007, 05:38 PM
I'm surprised no one has brought up the LEOSA. Doesn't that override any local or state law and make most of this conversation moot?
a blatantly unconstitutional law?

RKBABob
October 12, 2007, 06:25 PM
Darned picture disappeared on me!...

OK... Just imagine there's a picture of a bunch of hooligans beating a dead horse here.

LiquidTension
October 12, 2007, 07:05 PM
How long is the average CWP class? 8-12 hours? How long is the average LEO training? Mine was about 450 hours, I know many states are a LOT longer than that.

Those of you that don't "buy" that cops are in more danger than Average Joe - would you be willing to go through the same amount of training that LEOs go through to be able to have the same carry abilities?

TexasRifleman
October 12, 2007, 07:07 PM
How long is the average LEO training? Mine was about 450 hours, I know many states are a LOT longer than that.

Ahh apple to oranges comparisons, I love them!

How many of your 450 hours were specifically related to the carrying of firearms and the laws surrounding their use?

v35
October 12, 2007, 07:18 PM
a blatantly unconstitutional law?
What's unconstitutional about it? Seems pretty harmless to me.

I'm not taking sides here, I just want to know.

Powderman
October 12, 2007, 07:52 PM
How many of your 450 hours were specifically related to the carrying of firearms and the laws surrounding their use?


In my case, about 100 hours worth, and that was just firearms and range time. Lots more for the criminal law aspect of it.

You know, I guess that I'm done with this thread. There is no way to make some of you see how petty and childish you sound. It's more like hearing babies throw tantrums.

We carry firearms--not only for personal protection, but because it is an aspect of our job. We also carry the responsibility that goes along with it, and the up and down side as well.

I still believe firmly that some of you hate anything related to law enforcement, for reasons only you know about.

I ask this in closing--that those of you who are wailing about us remember this thread well--especially the next time you're tempted to dial 911, or criticize a cop for not responding.

I find it ironic that I was asked (very nicely, mind you) by a moderator to remove my signature concerning cop-bashing because it was considered inflammatory--yet this kind of stuff is posted all the time. I'm sure the mod who addressed it was simply trying to maintain a civil board. Apparently, it hasn't worked.

Respectfully,

Your friendly tail-light chaser/road nazi/JBT/totalitarian

Powderman:evil:

Soybomb
October 12, 2007, 08:18 PM
Powderman you seem like a good guy and I'm with you for most of your statements.

How long is the average CWP class? 8-12 hours? How long is the average LEO training? Mine was about 450 hours, I know many states are a LOT longer than that.

Those of you that don't "buy" that cops are in more danger than Average Joe - would you be willing to go through the same amount of training that LEOs go through to be able to have the same carry abilities?
That is where I think the resentment comes in. To me it seems like you're trying to say "i'm the only one qualified enough in this room..." and that it should justify you having more carry rights. I love leo's who are proponents of ccw, but it seems like you support different classes of rights. That is where my problem is and I suspect many others.

By the way there are several states that require either no permits to carry or no classes as part of the permit process. If training is relevalnt to concealed carry safety I would appreciate being shown some statistics showing those states have more ccw problems. One is well advised to see out quality private training to use their concealed weapon effectively, but required classes seem to have no impact on safety to the rest of the public.

TexasRifleman
October 12, 2007, 08:23 PM
Soybomb has hit the nail on the head here.

Powderman, see my posts earlier, we get what you do, we like what you do, we respect what you do.

Bottom line though is there are those in your work that are opposite of that, and they exercise great control over some of us.

Today I've been posting in a thread about a Sheriff in California who lied to the NRA to get an A rating to get elected, then as soon as he was in office went about a systematic plan to stop all CCW in his county.

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=308601

You can understand the frustration when we hear "it's our job" but then your peers use that position to create "haves" and "have nots".

It's not personal, it's not cop bashing, it's anti gun/anti constitutional rights bigot bashing. If they happen to be wearing a badge when they do that then more's the shame on them.

seeker_two
October 12, 2007, 08:25 PM
Should "off-duty" officers be afforded exemptions from local restrictions on carrying firearms that would otherwise apply to the citizenry?

Nope. Off-duty police officers should be allowed to carry concealed just like any other citizen of these United States.....

....as defined by President Clinton/Guiliani. :uhoh:

KelTecian
October 12, 2007, 08:43 PM
You've chosen a job that brings some additional risks to yourself and you do have the right to defend yourself, just as everyone does. Why do you feel like you deserve more freedom than I do though? Being a leo isn't the only dangerous job, some people carry money, valuables, have to go into high crime areas at night, repo cars, etc. I don't want to take away your right to carry at all, I think the more armed good guys out there, the better. I do have a major issue with you thinking you deserve more rights than me because of your occupation.



Ok...then call the white house and tell the president and let them know you need a group of highly trained secret service agents with pistols, shotguns, and sniper rifles to escort you to McDonalds for a cheeseburger. Because, as you say, a persons job does not afford them more rights then another persons. But a persons job does affect their ability or inability to protect themselves to an extent. I can't employ a Navy Seal platoon to escort me around everywhere. People wouldnt stand for it, including the law enforcement and government agenties I work for and with everyday.

Its not that I think I deserve more rights then you, I definitely do not. I do however get a "pass" to do certain things that help me do my job better, safer, and with less mess. And guess what else, If I make a mistake I also get a "pass", because of my profession, that a normal everyday citizen would not. My job is not super hard, but hard enough...and if you did it, I bet you would agree that LEOs need that "pass", whether because of the training(600+ hrs) or the expierience(only 3 years).

I am on your side and I agree with most of what you say. I just want to give you a glimpse of what I think. Thanks for your time.

yesit'sloaded
October 12, 2007, 08:59 PM
I need to carry my weapon off duty and with more freedom then most because of this
Nope, sorry. That statement should be "I need to carry my weapon off duty and with the same freedom that all citizens of this country have to keep and bear arms" more freedom then most Yep, good old case of some are equal, but some are more equal than others. That kind of attitude is elitist and wrong. Why don't you push for all of us and we will push with you.

Powderman
October 12, 2007, 09:32 PM
Soybomb and others, what I'm simply trying to say is this: What you and others perceive as a perk is really NOT a perk. Let me try to explain--I hope it works...

We, as law enforcement officers, go through a lot of training, a lot of scrutiny (except in some places, it seems--hello, Wisconsin?!:what:) and after jumping through a HUGE number of hoops, we get to carry a nice shiny badge, wear kewl uniforms and drive in fast cars. Somewhere along the way, we pay the piper for it--we have to go into conditions that would make someone vomit, literally; in some cases confront and control dangerous animals, and in other cases we have to physically interject ourselves into situations where death is a very real possibility.

In some cases, killing force has been applied--there is a victim and a suspect. We have to be able to step in front of that deadly force, and stop it--or quite literally die trying.

Here is the crux of the matter:

That responsibility--no, that duty does not end when we are off shift.

We are REQUIRED--by law--to respond to these instances. Whether we are on duty or NOT.

Translated: At ANY time, in ANY location, we have to be prepared to exercise law enforcement jurisdiction, and be able to administer or apply force that is necessary to effect lawful arrest. This includes DEADLY force.

Does it STILL sound like a perk?

If I'm out for a movie or dinner with the wife, and I see a violent act occur, I MUST respond.

In other words, it's not all fun and games, sportsfans. Please let that sink in. It is NOT A PERK--it is a requirement of our profession.

yesit'sloaded
October 12, 2007, 09:39 PM
I understand that it is a fact that most of you guys are never off the clock and I admire and respect you for it. I just don't think that your right to carry is any greater than ours. It is equal. I don't want to restrict your right to carry, I want to see ours broadened. The feeling that your job entitles you to extra rights over any other citizen just seems bogus to me. I agree you may have a better reason to carry, but not a greater right.

Harley Quinn
October 12, 2007, 10:25 PM
I understand that it is a fact that most of you guys are never off the clock and I admire and respect you for it. I just don't think that your right to carry is any greater than ours. It is equal. I don't want to restrict your right to carry, I want to see ours broadened. The feeling that your job entitles you to extra rights over any other citizen just seems bogus to me. I agree you may have a better reason to carry, but not a greater right.


I can understand the thinking you are on the track of.

I'll mention training, if the training is similar and then the upkeep of training. I believe it would be ok.

To deminish police and their ability to carry, many departments are limiting I have heard.
Then the officers are not able to respond or assist if needed. They are put at a risk and that is not correct either.

The minute folks stop looking over their shoulder for the person who pays attention in civilian clothes, the crime rate will increase for sure. :what:

rde
October 12, 2007, 10:57 PM
Police are in fact civilians. They are not a part of the U.S. military. Are not subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Period.

Having said that I agree with those that the issue is not whether LEO's should be allowed to carry 24/7..on duty or not. I believe the real issue is that there should not be laws prohibiting all law abiding citizens from doing the same...as perhaps some sort of fundamental consititutional right.

Badkharma
October 13, 2007, 12:15 AM
LOL this question is ridiculous. Cops are not normal citizens in this regard, their firearm is a tool of their trade and they are sworn to duty and also carry off-duty responsibilities that non-sworn citizens do not. It can be argued that they are subject to other increased risks. Consider the following scenario:

Officer A. arrests scumbag Z for B&E. Scumbag Z posts bail and is out in a few hours. The next day, Officer A. is out to dinner with his family. Scumbag Z recognizes him, and starts acting aggressively. You finish the story.

The fact of the matter is, LEO's are exposed to the worst people in society on a consistent basis, and they're almost certain to encounter people that they've arrested in the past when they're off duty. Most of these encounters end with no event. But some don't.

Now, THAT said, it's really not a fact of LEO's being subject to the same laws. It's more that non-sworn citizens are being stripped of their right to CCW, but putting that aside, I fully support LEO's to carry off duty even if we can't.

KelTecian
October 13, 2007, 12:48 AM
Screw it, let everyone carry everywhere with 8-12 hours of CCW training?
Or better yet, lets have anyone who wants to open carry everywhere with 0 training?

Sounds good to you?

Because if it does, go to some of these 3rd world countries I see on the news where everyone is carrying an AK-47. Including children.


I thought I was a right wing gun nut, but i guess i took a step left tonight.

DontBurnMyFlag
October 13, 2007, 12:54 AM
restricting the rights of others is not something the THR community is about.

Granted the LEO privelages to carry anywhere at anytime are indeed not equal to the hoops CCW holders must jump through to carry in "permitted" places.

Taking away an officers right to carry off duty is no more right that taking away a civilians right to carry.

Just because someone doesnt have something, doesnt mean they should take it away from those who do. If you want something, work towards it. Dont take it away from others because its not fair.

I am a LEO and I will whole-heartedly support any effort for law abiding civilans to carry anywhere and everywhere. National CCW, carry on planes, carry in court, etc etc. If you prove to me that you are a law abiding citizen with only the interest in protecting himself and his family, then you have my support.

Dont take away my privelages simply because yours havent come to fruition yet. Im on your side here. Dont try to polarize the groups.

Flyboy
October 13, 2007, 01:15 AM
Y'know, it seems to me that if we actually followed the Second Amendment--"shall not be infringed," and all that--then it wouldn't matter if they were off duty, on duty, or suspended from duty. They could carry anything they bloody well wanted, and so could you.

So yes, I think off-duty--and on-duty--cops should be subject to the same laws as the rest of us.

Flyboy
October 13, 2007, 01:16 AM
Or better yet, lets have anyone who wants to open carry everywhere with 0 training?
And yet, Alaska and Vermont have remarkably low levels of violent crime.

For other states that allow open carry with no training, visit Arizona, New Hampshire, Ohio, and a whole host of others.

opd743
October 13, 2007, 04:27 AM
This is my last say on this post. After this I will not post, update, or look at any later posts.
I am a LEO. I carry everywhere I go, I even have my gun on when I am in my house. I went to Tennesse on vacation last month and I carried everywhere I went while I was up there. That being said, I fully support the right for every legal, non-felon, American citizen to be able conceal carry. I know that most of my brothers and sisters in LE feel the same way. We know that if some of the victems we come into contact with would have had a CCW, they would not have been victems. I leave you with this, before you bash LEO's for having extra rights, just remember that most of us are on your side too.

ilbob
October 13, 2007, 03:47 PM
What's unconstitutional about it? Seems pretty harmless to me.

I'm not taking sides here, I just want to know.

under what article of the constitution is the federal government given the power to do this? since there is no such authority granted to the federal government, it is not constitutional.

ilbob
October 13, 2007, 03:52 PM
Officer A. arrests scumbag Z for B&E. Scumbag Z posts bail and is out in a few hours. The next day, Officer A. is out to dinner with his family. Scumbag Z recognizes him, and starts acting aggressively.
How is this any different than:
Citizen A reports scumbag Z for a crime. Scumbag Z posts bail and is out in a few hours. The next day, Citizen A. is out to dinner with his family. Scumbag Z recognizes him, and starts acting aggressively.

yesit'sloaded
October 13, 2007, 05:47 PM
lets have anyone who wants to open carry everywhere with 0 training
See Amendment 2
.
Because if it does, go to some of these 3rd world countries I see on the news where everyone is carrying an AK-47. Including children.

So guns are what make countries 3rd world? I just don't see the logic.

CannibalCrowley
October 13, 2007, 06:49 PM
Here is the crux of the matter:

That responsibility--no, that duty does not end when we are off shift.

We are REQUIRED--by law--to respond to these instances. Whether we are on duty or NOT.

And yet, I've seen at least one statement on this board by an LEO saying that he would not respond if off duty.

Steve in PA
October 13, 2007, 09:25 PM
That officer probably would respond if he was capable of handling the situation.......which is the first question you ask yourself, am I capable of handling this situation.

ilbob
October 14, 2007, 01:24 PM
I find it ironic that it is optional for police to respond if on duty (various court rulings on this) but somehow this translates to a requirement to respond while off duty.

thumper723
October 14, 2007, 02:24 PM
I can chime in on the Mil officer side of things.

I am "on duty 24/7" and subject to UCMJ at all time, in addition to ALL civilian laws.

I have done counter-narcotic missions in the past that made many in my unit not too popular with the drug cartels.

I live NEAR the border. I cannot CCW due to living on a base. And even if I could, I am still subject to all the restrictions that normal civilians have.

Why should cops have it any better than us, if we are both on duty 24/7? We should be no different than civilians if we are not actively executing our office.

KelTecian
October 14, 2007, 02:44 PM
The title of this thread is:


"Should off duty cops be subject to the same gun laws as the rest of us?"


You guys should be trying to get the same carry rights as the police, NOT trying to get the police to have the same carry rights as you...


Correct?


all you pro gun anti 4th ammendent restriction folks...Stop bitching and moaning about police should have the same carry rights as me...and start bitching and moaning about you NOT having the same rights to carry as police.


You guys want more responsible people out there with guns right? why not more armed off duty police? You talk about people restricting your RIGHT TO CARRY, but you're trying to restrict the Law enforcement community with the title of this post.

Badkharma
October 14, 2007, 03:28 PM
How is this any different than:
Citizen A reports scumbag Z for a crime. Scumbag Z posts bail and is out in a few hours. The next day, Citizen A. is out to dinner with his family. Scumbag Z recognizes him, and starts acting aggressively.

It's not. Your situation is completely valid. However, you failed to see my point. My point is that citizens in general do not report scumbags for crimes on a daily basis like LEO's do. Thus LEO's have a greater chance that this situation happens. Like I said, I'm not against citizens carrying, I'm all for it. Heck I want to carry; I'm a citizen (I'm not a LEO).

But the focus needs to be getting rights back to the citizens, not bringing LEO's down to the citizen level; which this thread title seems to imply.

yesit'sloaded
October 14, 2007, 03:29 PM
I'll go along with that. Bad thread title. The point is still valid, but from the direction that we need less restrictions on our right to carry, not that LEOs need more.

sholling
October 14, 2007, 03:33 PM
I think that everyone with a clean record should be subject to the same laws. That includes peace officers, retired peace officers, and judges.

KelTecian
October 14, 2007, 03:34 PM
If I took a pole of how many times the LEOs on this forum have pointed a gun or even shot a bad guy vs. how many times the CCWers have done the same legally. You would see that the experience level is tilted big time toward LEOs.

I think Expierence is the biggest difference to why or why not as far as gun laws pertaining to LEO vs CCW.

Not to say that their arent CCWers with as much or more expierence/ tactical skills, or that a lot of LEOs arent turds. But just to get that out there as something to think about.

Archie
October 14, 2007, 03:48 PM
... is to determine the suitability of the licensee. In the instant case, a concealed weapon license is granted following an investigation of the applicant's ability to control a firearm and the applicant's moral and ethical suitability to be intrusted with deadly force.

(Well, at least in theory. In California, it's a determination of who has contributed to the Sheriff's election fund - but I'm trying to be idealistic here.)

Supposedly in the case of a law enforcement officer, this investigation has been done as part of the suitability for being such an officer. Obviously, it's not perfect.

Other than the licensing - which has in fact been done already - lawmen are subject to the same laws as everyone else. I cannot shoot out the streetlight if it bothers me, I can't shoot the dog across the street because it never stops barking, I can't wave it at drivers who cut me off in traffic and so on. (Well, maybe in New York City, but like the Joker said in Batman, "Decent people shouldn't live in Gotham City".)

The original question presumes I am exempt from certain laws. I'm not. I'm licensed to carry as part of my job. From what other laws does anyone think I may be exempt?

Having said all that, I think all concealed weapons laws - and most other laws regarding simple ownership or possession of firearms by citizens of good standing - should be repealed en toto. Criminals don't have standards to carry, why should honest people?

ilbob
October 15, 2007, 10:36 AM
You guys should be trying to get the same carry rights as the police, NOT trying to get the police to have the same carry rights as you.
I think we should stop using the word "right" to describe police off duty carry of firearms. It is not, nor has it ever been a right. Putting it in its best light, it is an employment perk.

jcoiii
October 15, 2007, 12:55 PM
sorry, ilbob, carrying a firearm is a right, LEO or not, on duty or off. A previous poster had it right, let's get CCW up to LEO-off duty status, not the other way around.

KelTecian
October 15, 2007, 02:15 PM
and dont hate the LEOs for it, we didnt make it this way.

Bill St. Clair
October 15, 2007, 03:31 PM
and dont hate the LEOs for it, we didnt make it this way.

That you didn't, but you're happy to enforce it. If cops would follow their oaths to support and defend the Constitution, instead of enforcing obviously unconstitutional so-called "laws," you'd be a lot more likely to be my friends. As it is, you're the face and hands and guns of the police state. Not my friends.

ilbob
October 15, 2007, 03:48 PM
That you didn't, but you're happy to enforce it. If cops would follow their oaths to support and defend the Constitution, instead of enforcing obviously unconstitutional so-called "laws," you'd be a lot more likely to be my friends. As it is, you're the face and hands and guns of the police state. Not my friends.
Sad but true.

OTOH, someone has to enforce the laws, or you would have complete chaos.

I do not know that there is a good solution to the problems we face getting our lost freedoms back.

I am pretty sure that cops are a side issue in this. They are the ones out front who are enforcing these laws, but they did not enact them, nor did they rule in ways clearly counter to what the constitution actually says.

Judges are not the problem either. They are trying to keep a legal system together that is bursting at the seams, and you can't just rule against what higher courts have previously determined, or you would have more chaos.

The answer seems to be found in the political system, and the politicians who run it. Change them, and you can fix a lot of things very quickly. But, you may not like what you get. A lot of us like big chunks of the welfare state, and the welfare state can only exist if we accept clearly unconstitutional laws.

Even things like student loans, and government guaranteed mortgages that are a staple of middle class life would need to go. Some would accept that, realizing that the net affect is in the individuals favor, but a lot wouldn't. And those people vote in droves.

jcoiii
October 15, 2007, 05:02 PM
Where's the hammer hitting a nail emoticon? I think you nailed it ilbob.

Jeff White
October 15, 2007, 05:08 PM
Bill St. Clair said;
If cops would follow their oaths to support and defend the Constitution, instead of enforcing obviously unconstitutional so-called "laws," you'd be a lot more likely to be my friends. As it is, you're the face and hands and guns of the police state. Not my friends.

A peace officers commission is not an appointment to the US Supreme Court. The police don't decide what laws are constitutional. The courts do. When a law is passed, it is constitutional until a court says that it isn't.

That is how our system works. What you and I think is constitutional doesn't matter. The courts are the sole arbiters of what is and isn't constitutional.

What would be the sense of having a constitution at all if all 300 million plus citizens can decide what is and isn't constitutional?

Jeff

Bill St. Clair
October 15, 2007, 05:36 PM
I disagree, Jeff White. If you swear an oath to support and defend the constitution, it is your duty to determine whether your every action is in line with that oath. That determination is for you to make, personally. It has nothing to with the courts.

One man's opinion.

Every juror has the same decision to make. Am I to allow this so-called "law" to destroy the life of the living, breathing, human in front of me. If I think he did wrong, without a reasonable doubt, and deserves the punishment that the judge is likely to mete out, I'll vote to convict. Otherwise, I'll nullify the law and vote to acquit.

As a police officer you have the opportunity to vote to acquit every day by looking the other way at some by-the-books transgressions of the so-called "law". You can act from your humanity instead of goose-stepping over good people. I request that you do so. One wrongly imprisoned man is one too many. No matter what the "law" says.

Euclidean
October 15, 2007, 06:01 PM
That is how our system works. What you and I think is constitutional doesn't matter. The courts are the sole arbiters of what is and isn't constitutional.

Actually, I do beg to differ. Let's say there's a federal law that wearing a "Don't Vote for Hilldog" T shirt is a crime punishable by life imprisonment with no jury trial that passes Congress and is signed by W.

I wear such a T shirt in protest and get tossed in the clink. One year later, SCOTUS hears another case just like mine and says no way we're upholding that law, it's unconstituitional, that law is no good.

By your logic I'm up skit creek because the law wasn't unconstituitional until they said it was. When I was convicted it was on the books, so I'm obviously going to stay in prison the rest of my life even though SCOTUS struck the law down. But we both know that's not how it would go down.

A law that's declared unconstituitional is made completely null and void. Any decisions or convictions based on such law are immediately negated just like it never existed; it was never a valid law to begin with. After it's declared unconstituitional, those who did not comply with the law when it was a law cannot be punished for their actions during that time either. Therefore, once again, the law was never valid to begin with and should not have been enforced by anyone. No one should have obeyed it either.

I do not envy law enforcement. What a horrible position to be in. On the one hand, one knows in his heart of hearts that something like arresting people who carry handguns without a permit is wrong. On the other hand, if he doesn't do it, he might very well wind up losing his job or worse, which could unfairly punish his family for instance.

But the fact remains that if there were enough men of conscience in the right positions, they could affect change. No one in Texas is arrested for carrying wire cutters even though that law is still on the books. Why? Because LE professionals know it's a stupid law and they refuse to enforce it.

Of course the trick is to make that kind of refusal to enforce universal. It's very tempting to enforce laws selectively when the perp is an unsympathetic party. So in the real world, it's a tough battle to fight as officers of conscience must work over time to persuade their colleagues of new practices and procedures. I'd wager there are men of conscience deeply rooted in the LE community who try to affect what change they can, and we just don't see it because we're on the outside looking in.

Powderman
October 15, 2007, 06:05 PM
That you didn't, but you're happy to enforce it. If cops would follow their oaths to support and defend the Constitution, instead of enforcing obviously unconstitutional so-called "laws," you'd be a lot more likely to be my friends. As it is, you're the face and hands and guns of the police state. Not my friends.
__________________


As a police officer you have the opportunity to vote to acquit every day by looking the other way at some by-the-books transgressions of the so-called "law". You can act from your humanity instead of goose-stepping over good people. I request that you do so. One wrongly imprisoned man is one too many. No matter what the "law" says.
__________________


And yet once again, I am quite literally astounded at the attitudes and mental mindset of some of the posters here. Almost speechless, as a matter of fact.

Let's see, where to start?

To address both of you, yes, we swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. The WHOLE Constitution. Especially that pesky Twelfth Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


This has been long known as the "elastic" clause. This allows the States to enact the statutes and/or laws that they believe are necessary.

Some of you seem to forget that we, as police officers, do NOT judge, nor do we interpret the law. We determine if a crime has been committed, will be committed, or is in progress. We then determine if probable cause (covered by the Fourth Amendment) exists, and if so, we detain and place under arrest the person suspected of breaking the law.

That's all we do. We are not judges; we deliver the person to the Court, who is the trier of fact. The Court examines the evidence, appoints a jury if necessary, and determines guilt or innocence.

So, let's say that we "look the other way" when some crimes are committed. Criminal offenses are generally categorized in two groups: mala in se and mala prohibitum. Mala prohibitum laws are laws enacted by local and State jurisdictions to "keep order" within the jurisdiction.

Mala in se laws are those which are bad in and of themselves--murder, robbery, rape, kidnap--you get the picture.

So, let's say that I "decide" not to enforce mala prohibitum laws.

Where do I begin and where do I stop?

Well, let's say that this week, I stop a convicted felon who just happens to be armed. Do I arrest them, or not?

Perhaps, I run across some fine upstanding young gentlemen who just happen to be selling illegal pharmaceuticals. Oh, well, that's just a silly law, isn't it? People have the right to take what they want, don't they?

Well, here's another twist...let's say that the person buying the drugs just happens to be your son. Or, your daughter.

Perhaps your wife or husband. Is it so harmless then?

Or, maybe we should not lock up that sex offender. After all, he just went to bed with a 14 year old, and it's a natural urge, right? Basic human function. What right do I have to regulate human function? So, a slap on the back, and he's on his way.

Well, let's say that this guy moves into YOUR neighborhood, and goes to bed with YOUR daughter. No problems, right?

This is called the "slippery slope". Crack the door, and the floodgates open.

I don't make the laws, I simply enforce them, within the boundaries delineated by the Constitution and the jurisdictions I patrol.

You don't like the law? Utilize the three Constitutional processes--the petition, referendum and the recall. Don't just sit behind your keyboard and complain, do something about it.

Until then, if you break the law in my jurisdiction, and I catch you, chances are you'll be arrested, or maybe issued a citation. I am not the trier of fact, and I don't decide who is guilty or innocent. I enforce the law.

-__________________________________________________

To the well-intentioned mod who asked that I delete my signature line--still think that I was being inflammatory?

Fletchette
October 15, 2007, 06:47 PM
Very pertinent to this thread:


http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel073002.asp

July 30, 2002 9:00 a.m.
Day-Dream Believers
What if the government had to obey gun-control laws?
By Dave Kopel & Robert Racansky



CLA law school professor Eugene Volokh has asked his weblog readers to "imagine that you had the superpower to add one amendment to the U.S. Constitution...What would it be?"

Here's one proposal: the Goose and Gander Amendment. Since it works as a supplement to the Second Amendment, we'll make it Amendment Two-and-a-Half:




1. No government agency, nor employee of any government agency, shall be allowed to possess firearms prohibited to the citizens of the state, county, or municipality in which they serve.

2. No government agency, nor any employee of any government agency, shall be exempt from laws and regulations regarding the possession or use of firearms which affect the citizens of the state, county, or municipality in which they serve.

3. All exemptions inconsistent with sections 1 and 2 shall be void beginning on the 30th day after the ratification of this amendment.

4. Nothing in this amendment shall be construed to exempt agencies and employees of the federal government from federal, state, or local laws and regulations related to firearms.

5. Nothing in this amendment shall apply to the Department of Defense or states' National Guards.


This amendment does not in any way restrict existing powers of the federal, state, and local governments to pass gun-control laws. Rather, the gun laws would be strengthened by being of more general applicability. Removing government exemption would provide an incentive for politicians and regulators to pass only those gun-control laws which are truly reasonable.

Suppose that a state wants to outlaw so-called "junk guns" (inexpensive handguns used by poor people for self-defense). The prohibitionists make sanctimonious claims about merely wanting guns to be safe and reliable. Yet their proposed bans always contain an exemption allowing policemen to possess and carry such guns — as though the police should have unsafe and unreliable firearms. And in fact, "junk guns" are quite popular with many police officers, who carry them as back-up guns, often on an ankle holster because the guns are compact and lightweight. Under the Goose and Gander Amendment, the prohibitionist legislators must explain to the police why guns that they like to carry for police work may no longer be carried — because legislators, after all, understand gun design and function much better than do police officers.

Alternatively, the legislators could admit that the reliability issue is a sham, and that the real goal is to deprive poor people of the only guns they can afford. This goal is so important, the legislators could argue, that it is worthwhile to deprive police officers of their backup guns — since the officers will still be able to carry their expensive primary guns.

Besides wanting to outlaw guns that are too small (inexpensive handguns), gun prohibitionists also want to outlaw guns that are too big — such as 50-caliber target rifles and so-called "assault weapons." (Unlike Goldilocks, the prohibitionists are unable to find any gun which is "just right.")

Under the Goose and Gander Amendment, cities will still be able to ban "assault weapons." Politicians will still be able to claim that the guns have no legitimate purpose, and are not suitable for target shooting (even though many of the banned guns are the primary firearms for rifle competition) or for hunting (even though some of the banned guns are particularly designed for game hunting, such as the Valmet Hunter) or for lawful self-defense (for which almost all the guns are quite effective). While enacting "assault weapon" bans, politicians can continue to assert that only mass murderers and drug dealers would want to own such guns, which are supposedly only good for spray-firing at crowds of innocent people.

Very well, then. We certainly don't want the police to spray-fire at crowds of innocent people. Nor do we want guns that are uniquely attractive to psychopaths to be available to police, since the possibility of owning such a gun might induce a clever psychopath to join the police force for purposes of obtaining extra weaponry.

While it is very, very rare for ordinary people or for law-enforcement officers to use an "assault weapon" in a crime, it is not unheard of. For example, in December 1992, an off-duty Bureau of Indian Affairs police officer opened fire and shot 50 rounds into a bar in Bemidjii, Minnesota. He used the Colt AR-15 semiautomatic rifle he had been issued by the government, as well as his own 9mm. handgun.

On September 13, 2004, the federal "assault weapon" ban will sunset. Advocates of renewing the law would certainly, we hope, propose removing the loophole contained in 18 U.S. Code section 922(v)(4), which allows unlimited use and possession of "assault weapons" by law-enforcement officers, "whether on or off duty" — and even allows possession and use by retired law-enforcement officers. If the claims of the gun-prohibition groups are to be believed, we certainly should not allow this loophole to continue to exist; after all, these groups assure us that the guns have no good purpose, that the mere presence of such an awful-looking gun can incite an otherwise law-abiding person to commit a mass murder, and that no amount of background checks or training can ensure that a person is safe enough to own an "assault weapon."

Will the gun-prohibition groups work to close the "assault weapon" loophole? Or will they cynically fight to protect the loophole which, by their own reasoning, is morally indefensible?

Opponents of the Goose and Gander Amendment will point out that police officers are better trained than ordinary citizens. While this may be true, there are plenty of citizens who have voluntarily taken defensive firearms training that is far more extensive than what many police officers have received. Besides, allowing highly trained people to own guns whose only purpose is (allegedly) to murder a lot of people quickly would be especially dangerous.

In any case, the Goose and Gander Amendment would still allow governments to impose training for gun owners, or for people who want to possess certain types of firearms. The amendment would simply require that everyone who passes whatever tests and/or background checks the government mandates be treated equally.

The Goose and Gander Amendment would, of course, apply to more than just gun bans. If a state wants to impose a three-day wait to buy a handgun, then the police officers in that state would be required to wait three days before taking possession of a handgun, which is what happens to ordinary citizens. For example, in Illinois a gun owner must obtain a Firearms Owner Identification Card (FOID), which takes 30 days. Yet every time she buys an additional handgun, she still has to wait three days.

It's hard to see the public safety benefit of imposing a "cooling off" period on someone who already owns guns, but if this cooling off period is good for the general public, it would also make sense for government employees. Domestic-violence groups frequently point out that a very large number of police officers are domestic abusers — which is precisely the kind of crime that cooling off periods are supposed to reduce.

While many people think that police officers are the only government employees who carry guns, many other agencies also have armed agents, including the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Forestry Service the Internal Revenue Service, agricultural inspectors, and many, many others. Under the Goose and Gander Amendment, these employees would still be allowed to carry firearms while on duty — so long as they complied with state law.

In a few states, concealed weapons are entirely illegal — because the legislature has determined that no matter what kind of background check and training one has, there is too great a risk that people carrying guns will shoot each other in traffic jams.

It would be difficult to argue that, simply by virtue of a person's employment by the U.S. Forestry Service or the Department of Agriculture, he is immune to the surges of homicidal emotions that, we are told, strike anyone at any time.

Finally, the Goose and Gander Amendment is progressive, because it ensures that gun laws will sensibly keep up with changing social needs. Gun prohibition lobbies have recently begun to push for outlawing the sale of all handguns except for high-tech "personalized guns" that meet standards to be set by a bureaucratic commission. Although guns incorporating palm-print readers or similar technology are still in the unreliable prototype stage, the proposals would outlaw all existing handguns within a few years.

Amazingly, these prohibition proposals also contain a government-employee exemption — even though the original reason the federal government began subsidizing personalized gun research was to protect police officers whose guns were snatched by a criminal. (About one-twelfth of police officers who are fatally shot are killed with their own gun.)

Yet the proponents of outlawing all current handguns and forcing citizens to buy only new-fangled gadgets quite accurately recognize that if the proposal were to apply to the police, the police lobbies would quash the proposal instantly. Police officers are not going to stand for being forced to rely on guns that won't work if the battery wears out, or if the palm-print reader has trouble recognizing a dirt-covered hand. 99 percent reliability isn't good enough for a gun that you are using against a violent criminal attacker.

Yet the gun-prohibition lobbies are ready to force everyone except government employees to use firearms of questionable reliability — because they consider defensive gun use by non-government employees to be immoral.

That antigun politicians and the lobbyists who support them are so willing to exempt the government from the gun laws suggests that many gun-control laws have less to do with protecting public safety than with disarming the citizenry and exalting the government. The policy reflects a philosophy that sovereignty belongs to the government rather than to the people — which is just the opposite of what the Constitution says.

— Dave Kopel and Robert Racansky both write from the Independence Institute.

ilbob
October 15, 2007, 06:58 PM
To address both of you, yes, we swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. The WHOLE Constitution. Especially that pesky Twelfth Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
I think it might well be the tenth amendment.

Mr. Powderman. There are a huge number of perfectly valid laws that are still in place in the US that have never been repealed, and never ruled unconstitutional, yet are never enforced either. Do you plan to start enforcing them as well?

Bill St. Clair
October 15, 2007, 09:45 PM
Powderman said:
You don't like the law? Utilize the three Constitutional processes--the petition, referendum and the recall. Don't just sit behind your keyboard and complain, do something about it.

I prefer to think of our options as three boxes: the soap box, the ballot box, and the cartridge box. I consider that the first two boxes have failed. It's only a matter of time before the third box comes into play. Wish it weren't so. He said, from atop his soap box.

It used to be that the law built a steel wall around actions that were universally thought to be repugnant: hurting people or stealing their property. The law was designed to keep us outside those dark places. I applaud such law, and those who help enforce it. Nowadays, the law builds the same steel wall around the small area of activity that is universally approved. It is used to keep us inside. I have zero respect for that "law". I do not recognize its authority to exist, and I do not recognize your authority to enforce it.

And it really isn't an issue of Constitutionality. It's an issue of humanity. It is inhuman to drag a man away and put him in a cage because he's carrying effective tools for defending himself and his family from predators. No matter how many people voted for it. Likewise for smoking an herb. All I ask is that peace officers help us to preserve the peace, instead of being the very predators from whom we need to defend ourselves.

But I've wandered way off topic. Or have I? As L. Neil Smith said (http://www.lneilsmith.org/whyguns.html) (scroll down):

Make no mistake: all politicians—even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership—hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician—or political philosophy—can be put.

If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash—for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything—without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you.

If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.

What his attitude—toward your ownership and use of weapons—conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?

If he doesn't want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it?

If he makes excuses about obeying a law he's sworn to uphold and defend—the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights—do you want to entrust him with anything?

If he ignores you, sneers at you, complains about you, or defames you, if he calls you names only he thinks are evil -- like "Constitutionalist" -- when you insist that he account for himself, hasn't he betrayed his oath, isn't he unfit to hold office, and doesn't he really belong in jail?

I think that answers the question pretty well. Yes, off duty cops should be subject to the same gun laws as the rest of us. None.

Soybomb
October 15, 2007, 10:53 PM
If I took a pole of how many times the LEOs on this forum have pointed a gun or even shot a bad guy vs. how many times the CCWers have done the same legally. You would see that the experience level is tilted big time toward LEOs.

I think Expierence is the biggest difference to why or why not as far as gun laws pertaining to LEO vs CCW.

Not to say that their arent CCWers with as much or more expierence/ tactical skills, or that a lot of LEOs arent turds. But just to get that out there as something to think about.
Once again, like I said earlier, you're using the "I'm the only one experienced enough in this room" argument. There are several states that require either no permits to carry or no classes as part of the permit process. If training is relevalnt to concealed carry safety I would appreciate being shown some statistics showing those states have more ccw problems. One is well advised to see out quality private training to use their concealed weapon effectively, but required classes seem to have no impact on safety to the rest of the public. If you have actual proof to the contrary I would certainly look it over.

That responsibility--no, that duty does not end when we are off shift.
Is that the only reason you carry off duty? Wouldn't you also say you carry to protect yourself and your family from people that you might have angered during your work days? Don't non-leo's have that same problem? Is your duty to react and protect the general public any different than a parent's duty to react and protect their family, legally recognized obligation aside of course? I don't think anyone thinks its a huge perk, and leo's do need to carry off duty for additional reasons as well, but they also carry off duty for some of the same reasons others need to as well.

I disagree, Jeff White. If you swear an oath to support and defend the constitution, it is your duty to determine whether your every action is in line with that oath. That determination is for you to make, personally. It has nothing to with the courts.
I'm not sure you'd always like the outcome of this though. It sounds great when the officer in question reads the constitution the same way as you do. Will you be as happy with the outcome when that leo decides that the court's view of that amendment is wrong and it really doesn't grant you the freedom to do what you do? He's just following the constitution, not the courts.

CannibalCrowley
October 15, 2007, 11:39 PM
and dont hate the LEOs for it, we didnt make it this way.

So LEOs didn't lobby for an LEO only nationwide concealed carry law? LEOs didn't try to gain support from non-LEOs by saying that they would in turn support a nationwide non-LEO right to carry law?

Powderman
October 16, 2007, 12:23 AM
Is that the only reason you carry off duty? Wouldn't you also say you carry to protect yourself and your family from people that you might have angered during your work days? Don't non-leo's have that same problem? Is your duty to react and protect the general public any different than a parent's duty to react and protect their family, legally recognized obligation aside of course? I don't think anyone thinks its a huge perk, and leo's do need to carry off duty for additional reasons as well, but they also carry off duty for some of the same reasons others need to as well.



You are correct, of course.

However, please note the bolded text above from your post.

Some people on this board seem to think so.

Bill, in answer to your post re: three boxes, I'd like to know this:

Why do so many people here seem to think that armed resistance is the only solution? Why do so many people here think that taking up arms against our Government is acceptable, at this point?

Why do you state a willingness to revolt, and to start armed insurrection?

I'm sorry, but I look upon claims like this as somewhat specious. Lots of folks here say that they will resist the Government, and state that they are willing to take arms against the Government. It is my experience that those who do so are frequently full of hot air.

There are also those who state that they will NOT help their fellow man in time of danger, instead opting to run away and call 911. Some of these people also give the "from my cold dead hands!!!" speech on these forums.

This thread was started because some insane jerk who happened to squeak through the cracks in the State of Wisconsin took a gun and killed people out of rage. It has turned into a whine fest against all police officers--as usual. Here's my final word on the subject: If you want to carry a gun like a cop, then go out and find employment AS a cop. Wear the stuff that comes along with it on your duty belt--you have the same right to a bad back that the rest of us do.

Rest assured that I love to encounter people who like to preach the Constitution to me, after I pull them over for having no plates on the car; tell me that they enjoy sovereign rights when they come back as a convicted felon and I find a firearm in the vehicle, and tell me how they are going to own everything I have as I place them under arrest. So go ahead, tell me how to do my job on the side of the road. Everyone else is an expert on the law, why not you too?

And with that, I AM done with this thread. Really, truly and positively. This has turned into a waste of bandwidth.

packnrat
October 16, 2007, 01:06 AM
YES!

KelTecian
October 16, 2007, 08:59 AM
I also concur...G'bye thread.

Bill St. Clair
October 16, 2007, 09:41 AM
In my excitement, I forgot one of the boxes.

There are four boxes. The soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.

Unfortunately, the jury box has been destroyed as well. Instead of every judge telling every jury that it is their right and duty to judge the alleged law as well as the alleged law-breaker, that a single juror has the power to veto the entire legal system, and rightfully so, judges now tell jurors that they must follow the judge's orders and are to consider only the facts presented in the trial. Any hint by a prospective juror that he knows of the age-old concept of jury nullification, and that juror will be disqualified. To my mind, nullification is the ONLY reason for a jury; it allows the people to keep the king in check.

ilbob
October 16, 2007, 10:42 AM
Why do so many people here seem to think that armed resistance is the only solution? Why do so many people here think that taking up arms against our Government is acceptable, at this point?
I don't know if they are serious or not. The congressional elections of 1994 proved you can change things if you want to, but if you allow the congress critters to lose focus, they end up screwing you over.

I think a lot of people fully expect Obama or Hillary to win the next election and start a gun roundup.

For those who think it can't happen, think again.

Schumer and Pelosi would ram through legislation claiming some kind of national emergency requires nationalizing local and state law enforcement. They would claim this is constitutional because state and local police use equipment that passed through interstate commerce. I think it is about a 50/50 chance the courts would accept this, based on very similar previous rulings regarding the interstate commerce clause.

If you don't turn in your guns within 90 days, you are a felon. In any case, the court challenges will take more than the 90 days you have to turn in your guns so you are screwed.

My guess is maybe 5% of state and local LE resign or otherwise resist the decree. The rest vote with their paycheck and start the roundups.

This very realistic possibility is why we must win in the courts and in the realm of politics. Just holding on doesn't cut it.

LiquidTension
October 16, 2007, 11:27 AM
How many of your 450 hours were specifically related to the carrying of firearms and the laws surrounding their use?

One solid week of range time, one solid week of scenarios, plus criminal law - and yes, we spent some time specifically dealing with CWPs. So it's not an apples to oranges comparison.

You misunderstood what I was asking. I wasn't saying that due to my training I'm the only one that should be able to carry 24/7 wherever I want - I don't believe that. I was asking if you were willing to sacrifice the same amount of time in order to have the same carry abilities. We'll cut it down to just range time and scenarios - two weeks. Would it be worth it to you to go to two weeks of training to be able to carry in places that you currently cannot? I'm not trying to be a smartass, it's a legitimate question.

Even only counting training that specifically deals with carrying guns, legal aspects related to guns, and scenarios involving potential use of guns, LEOs have significantly more training that the average CWP holder. It seems like most people want the same carry abilities as LEOs without having to do the work - and I'm being "classist"? Please :rolleyes:

Now let me restate what I said before that was apparently ignored in order to foment arguments and name-calling - I have no problem with law abiding citizens carrying wherever they want (except jails and courthouses).

I had a CWP for 5 years before I went into law enforcement - still have it, actually. It was a pain to disarm before going into various prohibited places - schools, restaurants, etc. There's no reason that as a CWP holder I should have had to disarm. What makes me competent to carry a gun in the parking lot of Outback but not in the restaurant?

LEOs have to work to have the carry abilities they have. CWP holders want the same abilities without the effort. Should there be any work required? Of course not! However, as long as the laws are the way they are, asking to have the same abilities makes non-LEOs the "privileged class." Don't you see the irony in that?

The short answer to the thread title is "yes" - but only if the law allows all law abiding citizens to have the same carry rights as police. Which sort of makes it a moot point :scrutiny:

ilbob
October 16, 2007, 12:09 PM
I was asking if you were willing to sacrifice the same amount of time in order to have the same carry abilities. We'll cut it down to just range time and scenarios - two weeks.
Where do I sign up for this class so I can carry on the same basis as LE?

The fact is that this is a straw man type of argument, since neither the training nor some kind of LE type CC is available to us mere commoners.

Besides, there is no evidence that training requirements change anything as far as civilian CC goes. Most states have minimal or no training requirements for civilian CC and there is absolutely no indication that this has been a problem.

That does not mean that appropriate training is not a good idea. But, there is no government requirement that you take a journalism class before you can write for a newspaper, or take religious training before praying.

LiquidTension
October 16, 2007, 01:08 PM
That's not what I was saying. I was merely curious if people would be willing to go through weeks of training to carry the same way LEOs do. I wasn't suggesting that it should be law. Like I said, there shouldn't be any type of requirement outside of the standard CWP training.

Harley Quinn
October 16, 2007, 03:02 PM
Before this goes away any further I'd like to say if you all want it that bad (CCW) just remember the other side of the coin (responsiblity).
:what:

Autolycus
October 18, 2007, 02:41 AM
Simply put... they should be subject to the same laws as all of us.

Zoogster
October 18, 2007, 03:38 AM
Every juror has the same decision to make. Am I to allow this so-called "law" to destroy the life of the living, breathing, human in front of me. If I think he did wrong, without a reasonable doubt, and deserves the punishment that the judge is likely to mete out, I'll vote to convict. Otherwise, I'll nullify the law and vote to acquit.

I was on a jury awhile back and the jury was specificly asked at the start if they would agree to follow the laws of the state regardless of personal opinions etc etc and base thier decision soley on the law of the state of CA. In fact it is a question given individualy to every single potential jury member under oath in the box as part of jury selection. It was even a little more specific, and you are reminded you are under oath.

So deciding to nullify the law you feel is unjust, but not getting kicked off the jury during the selection process is an impossibility unless you lie. If you lie to accomplish that then technicaly you are guilty of contempt of court.
So the jury selection process is stacked to not allow people to decide whether a law is right or wrong, but whether the person did the action or not. Deciding on whether you feel a person should be punished for that action has been removed from your options unless you are deceptive in the selection process. So you must LIE IN COURT to be able to do that at least under the selection process I was witness to. So anyone that feels that way and does not lie during selection will not be deciding on the person's fate.

Harley Quinn
October 18, 2007, 04:14 AM
Every juror has the same decision to make. Am I to allow this so-called "law" to destroy the life of the living, breathing, human in front of me. If I think he did wrong, without a reasonable doubt, and deserves the punishment that the judge is likely to mete out, I'll vote to convict. Otherwise, I'll nullify the law and vote to acquit.

Again the statement of responsibility.

If you are going to be the person who hangs the jury, you have better have a good reason for it. The rules of jurisprudence are very strick and making a statement at a forum is easy, being on the jury with 11 other folks and making your self the judge is when later it all goes astray.

I know a person who weighed her own personal thoughts around and hung a jury and has had nothing but torment ever since. Said something about not understanding at the time :what: Sure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisprudence

Phil DeGraves
October 18, 2007, 02:10 PM
Being a "good Nazi" just because your boss told you to do it is not an excuse. I've run police training where gun confiscation is the issue. About half of the trainees will do as they are told, and the other half will not if they don't believe they have the legal justification to do it. (it was a Hurricane Katrina scenario.)

Harley Quinn
October 18, 2007, 02:56 PM
Being a "good Nazi" just because your boss told you to do it is not an excuse. I've run police training where gun confiscation is the issue. About half of the trainees will do as they are told, and the other half will not if they don't believe they have the legal justification to do it. (it was a Hurricane Katrina scenario.)

To bad we need to digress into this type of thinking, when on a jury you have to weigh the evidence that is presented and not what you think might be the case. The fact that the person had seven priors is not allowed sometimes, (because each case is supposed to be weighed on its own merits).

The reason for the blind lady is to off set what you are mentioning. And yes if someone feels that in their mind it was not proven. They have that right...

But they must be able to prove it and not because they just don't have the fortitude to convict or let go. It is based on the issues brought forth in that particular case.

Not to be confused with what happened in NO with what might be going on here or in the state of Germany during the time of the "nazi''.

Here is something for you to read:

http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id9.html

HQ

Noxx
October 18, 2007, 02:59 PM
Or better yet, lets have anyone who wants to open carry everywhere with 0 training?

Amen.

Fletchette
October 18, 2007, 03:06 PM
Noxx said:

Quote:
Or better yet, lets have anyone who wants to open carry everywhere with 0 training?

Amen.

Forgive me, but this sounds suspiciously like you think one needs to be "trained" and "approved" by the trainer before being able to excercise an inalienable right. Did I miss something?

Harley Quinn
October 18, 2007, 03:37 PM
Forgive me, but this sounds suspiciously like you think one needs to be "trained" and "approved" by the trainer before being able to excercise an inalienable right. Did I miss something?

Hmmm,
Lets see the bill of rights is a written set of rules or rights or laws set down by the forefathers of this nation.

So where do we get inalienable from?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inalienable_rights

This could go to the supreme court:what:

:D

Ithaca37
October 18, 2007, 05:32 PM
Hmmm,
Lets see the bill of rights is a written set of rules or rights or laws set down by the forefathers of this nation.

Wrong. The bill of rights list those rights (among others which are not listed) which the people did not surrender to the government when it was created. The constitution is a social contract between the states and people and the federal government and each state constitution is a social contract between the people of that state and its respective government. The governments powers are only those which the people grant to it. The government can not take anything from the people, the people can only surrender it. If you have read any of Thomas Paine's or John Locke's works you would understand this.

Your rights are only able to be stripped from you either because you willfully surrender them or through resistance, you lose your life.

Having said that, how can one claim authority to enforce rules when the rules which they profess to hold so dear (the law) does not apply to them? Cops are people, lets not deify them. They should be subject to the same damn rules as the rest of us. When the police are above the law (as they currently are in many place and situations) you get a police state and the Gestapo.

Noxx
October 18, 2007, 06:06 PM
Forgive me, but this sounds suspiciously like you think one needs to be "trained" and "approved" by the trainer before being able to excercise an inalienable right. Did I miss something?

That was the intent of the poster that I quoted, I was being facetious and taking it completely literally, because of course imo one should be allowed to carry without any nanny supervision.

Yosemite**Sam
October 19, 2007, 07:49 PM
Wow, Fletchete and Noxx

How would you two feel if cops had no firearms training ?

Personally, I will say again that I support the right to carry. However, I believe that all persons carrying firearms concealed or otherwise should be trained.

Being a full time firearms instructor for a law enforcement agency I have seen numerous firearms safety violations by both inexperienced and experienced officers. However given a preference I would rather be around those who are experienced gun handlers.

Fletchette
October 19, 2007, 09:38 PM
Wow, Fletchete and Noxx

How would you two feel if cops had no firearms training ?

I'll answer your question metaphorically What if I had said:

"How would you two feel if had no [thought] training ?

Personally, I will say again that I support the right to [freedom of speech]. However, I believe that all persons [writing webpages] or otherwise [speaking] should be trained.

Being a full time [thought] instructor for a law enforcement agency I have seen numerous [thought] violations by both inexperienced and experienced [subjects]. However given a preference I would rather be around those who are [trained to think correctly]."

A right is a right is a right...

Police officers can and should be trained to handle a firearm because they [B]choose to become a police officer. If they do not want the training then they can simply find another job.

A citizen should not have to undergo training to excercise their rights. It is their responsibility to excercise their rights properly. If they abuse their rights, then and only then should they be cited with a crime.

Having mandatory training opens the possibility that those doing the training will not grant the license for whatever reason. It is for this reason that rights do not, and should not, require a license from anybody.

Yosemite**Sam
October 20, 2007, 01:19 AM
Fletchete said

A right is a right is a right...

Again with that type of logic, a dope smoking, mentally challenged, ex-felon should have the right to carry concealed, right.

After all it's only the law that prevents this person from carrying concealed. It's their right to carry. Who are they to create a law that prevents a dope smoking, mentally challenged, ex-felon from carrying a concealed firearm.

You and I will have to agree to disagree on the training issue. But I'm sure that you didn't have a 9mm semi-auto pistol pointed at your chest today by an inexperienced shooter. I was fortunate to have not been shot today.

Fletchette
October 20, 2007, 01:42 AM
Again with that type of logic, a dope smoking, mentally challenged, ex-felon should have the right to carry concealed, right.

That type of logic is called "consistency".

I do not believe someone who smokes dope should lose their rights (as a matter of fact, I do not think it should be anyone else's business what one does with their own body, but drug legalization is another topic)

I also believe that ex-felons should also be able to exercise their rights, provided they have served their time. Outlawing a right, in this case firearms ownership, from those who have committed crimes and released into society simply creates a caste system: there are now "classes" of people in society with different rights. That is NOT what this country is supposed to be about.

To be blunt, if a criminal, after serving their sentence, is still too much of a threat to society that we cannot trust them with a firearm we should not release them into society. Make prison terms longer, administer the death penalty, but do not infringe on individual rights.

Lastly, those who are mentally challenged, (and I am referring to those adjudicated mentally incompetent, not merely eccentric people who decide to live life differently) are akin to children. We as a society acknowledge that they lack the capability to handle the responsibility of those rights and so we, as a society, must take that responsibility.

What does that mean? It means that the guardian of a mentally challenged person assumes the responsibility of that individual. The mentally challenged individual cannot be held responsible if they misuse a firearm, but the guardian can.

sweetkicker
October 20, 2007, 01:42 AM
OK lets make this simple and to the point.
Out of my cold dead hands.
we are losing focus as a general populace if we take a crime of one person against another and make it in to a "gun" crime.
I say guns are good tools. I also say as a father it is your duty to protect my family if you saw a wrong doing as I would protect yours.
you see how simple it is, and no one dose it.
where is the cowboy code when you need it!!!

Harley Quinn
October 20, 2007, 09:45 AM
where is the cowboy code when you need it!!!

That is one group that has been lacking ever since they started moving cows around the country and naming them cowboys.

You must not have seen the movie about the men in the red sash and being a member of a gang and nothing but hoodlums. You want them to have the right to carry on like they did in the old west:what:

:p

edwards
October 25, 2007, 08:39 PM
I would much rather be in a convinience store robbery situation with a cop WITH a gun as a cop WITHOUT a gun -

GRB
October 25, 2007, 08:54 PM
The police should be subject to the same laws as the citizens on duty or not. Do you really mean that, that would be great. I guess though you do not realize that police are restricted from doing things legally that you as a private citizen can do, and that the police are prevented from do those things to protect the rights of private citizens. I make the distinction between private citizens and police because police are civil servants, and because they are while on duty, in the executive branch of whichever government that gives them authority - so they are public officials. Public officials are barred from doing many things you can do, that is unless they have some sort of court order. Think about that before you make broad wishes about subjecting them to the same laws as everyone else.

All the best,
Glenn B

devilc
October 26, 2007, 12:38 AM
Soldiers cannot carry off-duty.
If ALL of us are going to be disarmed, then:
Cops should have to play by the same ****ty rules.
I mean, we're safer with less guns, right?



Right??

polekitty
October 26, 2007, 01:29 AM
Hey, he's not "off duty"---he's just "off the clock."

Gunnerpalace
October 26, 2007, 01:36 AM
Don't give the anti's ideas, Australia and England already have that and there are people that I know here in the US who would love to have an unarmed police force. You are going to encourage them if they read this.

Grizzly Adams
October 26, 2007, 12:03 PM
Agreed, a cop isn't "off-duty" he's just "off the clock", jsut like the military (been there - done that); always on call, always expected to respond anytime he sees any wrong doing or emergency.

Buel

Phil DeGraves
October 26, 2007, 12:29 PM
"How would you two feel if cops had no firearms training?"

Perhaps you guys should examine what actually passes for LE firearms training these days. Personally, I'd rather have cowboy shooter friends back me up than 85% of the police that I know.

Yes. They should have to abide by the same laws as everybody else. And those laws, as it applies to carrying firearms should be minimal. (No Felons).
Of course, making a law against something has never stopped a criminal from doing anything, but it does allow us to arrest him & charge him afterward.

MountainPeak
October 26, 2007, 02:46 PM
I'm saddened to see so many feel there should be special classes of citizenship, and such a willingness, to give others right of approval for personal defense.

Yosemite**Sam
October 26, 2007, 08:04 PM
Perhaps you guys should examine what actually passes for LE firearms training these days. Personally, I'd rather have cowboy shooter friends back me up than 85% of the police that I know.

Personally, I'd rather depend upon my own skills with my lead dispenser.

Your statement is consistent with many professions, there are many jobs with highly trained individuals and average skill employees. Cops have a job where they are required to be skilled in many areas. I do agree with your observations that many officers are not highly skilled with their firearms. However my observations are subjective.

If you enjoyed reading about "Should off duty cops be subject to the same gun laws as the rest of us?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!