Open carrying Police Chief in Uniform Told to Leave Gun Outside Ikea

[40-82]

So if this IKEA store is in the process of being robbed would it be fair play for an officer who happens to be on the street to ignore it because he knew he wasn't welcome in the store with his weapon? Of course the officer couldn't and wouldn't do that. But it is a thought. It does leave a bad taste when a law enforcement officer wouldn't be welcome in the store in normal times in a place open to the public, but yet would be expected to risk his life to protect those people.

 

[Officers'Wife]

So if this IKEA store is in the process of being robbed would it be fair play for an officer who happens to be on the street to ignore it because he knew he wasn't welcome in the store with his weapon? Of course the officer couldn't and wouldn't do that. But it is a thought. It does leave a bad taste when a law enforcement officer wouldn't be welcome in the store in normal times in a place open to the public, but yet would be expected to risk his life to protect those people.

So if an LEO isn't treated with deference and given a pass on store policy off duty he need not do his job on duty? Perhaps he should put his hat on a post in the village square and require all citizens to bow to it as well to determine who deserves his service.

 

[Sam1911]

It does leave a bad taste when a law enforcement officer wouldn't be welcome in the store in normal times in a place open to the public, but yet would be expected to risk his life to protect those people.

He absolutely WOULD be welcome in the store when not on official business -- under exactly the same terms as every other customer.

I don't LIKE those terms, and neither should he. But he should certainly have to abide by them.

 

[dbp]

If that is their stated store policy,,,
The LEO is bound by law to accept it.

Only if that is state law. In my state a store couldn't have asked an LEO to leave. It is written into the state gun laws that LEO are exempt to carry restrictions. It may be the law in MD -- don't know.

 

[buck460XVR]

He absolutely WOULD be welcome in the store when not on official business -- under exactly the same terms as every other customer.

I don't LIKE those terms, and neither should he. But he should certainly have to abide by them.

^^^Exactly. It always amazes me, how in these kind of threads, so many vehemently demand that others respect their rights to carry a firearm, but then have absolutely no respect for the rights of property/business owners to make store policy. So many times these threads remind of school kids when they are told they can't chew gum in school. The rights of Americans is not restricted to only the 2nd Amendment. Even if continuous whining is protected under the 1st Amendment......it still gets old.


Don't like the store's no gun policy...go elsewhere or respect their wishes, leave your gun in the car and stay alert and aware while there. Situational awareness is key even when you are carrying.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

It seems to me that discussion like this always involve two worlds:

1) The idealized world that some gun owners live in where all policies should be applied equally to everybody independent of any considerations

&

2) The real world, where it's often a good idea for a business to create policy exceptions for specific people with the intent to garner a specific advantage for the business.

Sure, in the THR ideal world, firearms policy should apply to all equally, police officer or not. In the real world, businesses actively tailor their policies to attract uniformed law enforcement, on duty or off, to their establishments because it generates a specific and tangible benefit to that business that can not be replicated by armed civilians.

I can guarantee you IKEA never intended to prevent uniformed police officers from entering their store. This was nothing more than a poorly trained or overzealous security guard overstepping his bounds.

Welcome to the real world THR.

 

[Sam1911]

I'd say the issue in this specific case is more that some would say the store should extend to the officer blanket exemption to the store policy because he's a "good guy."

He's a law officer and therefore he's proved his bona fides as the sort of person who should be allowed to carry that gun wherever he wants.

The problem with that line of thinking is that we ALL think of ourselves as "good guys" and a very great many of us have proved our bona fides as the sort of person who should be allowed to carry a gun wherever we go, many times over. Outside of the official business he must conduct under the terms of his employment, he is precisely the same citizen as I am or you are, or for that matter, is any other non-felon.

There is always a bit of a (usually) unspoken white elephant in the room when LEOs are discussed -- that assumption/assertion of "otherness," special class, authorized conduct, etc. The "surely that doesn't apply to ME?!?" look of disbelief when a store or venue denies a law officer entry with his sidearm. And it leads to the very distasteful insinuation that rules are for "OTHER people." (Similar to how one feels when one observes a police officer disregarding traffic laws.)

It is always best if EVERYONE is held to the same standard, unless acting in some official capacity which truly does require a different set of rules apply.

 

[Ed Ames]

Only if that is state law. In my state a store couldn't have asked an LEO to leave. It is written into the state gun laws that LEO are exempt to carry restrictions. It may be the law in MD -- don't know.

This is actually the problem and a good part of the reason why I agree with IKEA and the people who complained. Maybe not with why they complained - I don't know them - but I think it is reasonable to complain about people who happen to be employed as LEOs (but aren't operating in an official capacity) living by different rules. It goes against the Equal Protection clause and basic common sense

I am tired of laws being written to restrict my rights, but give special interest groups (police unions in this case) a pass. You know full well that LEO exemptions, where they exist, were a back-room deal to buy support from the police unions, who would have opposed the restrictions if they applied uniformly.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

This is actually the problem and a good part of the reason why I agree with IKEA and the people who complained. Maybe not with why they complained - I don't know them - but I think it is reasonable to complain about people who happen to be employed as LEOs (but aren't operating in an official capacity) living by different rules. It goes against the Equal Protection clause and basic common sense

You think that business treating law enforcement officers different from non law enforcement officers violates the 14th Amendment?

How does that work?

And you think it violates common sense for a business to encourage the presence of uniformed law enforcement officers?

Seriously?

 

[Sam1911]

In the real world, businesses actively tailor their policies to attract uniformed law enforcement, on duty or off, to their establishments because it generates a specific and tangible benefit to that business that can not be replicated by armed civilians.

Oh sure. In the REAL world, officers sometimes get free coffee, a slice of pizza "on the house," "fixed" parking tickets, an instant pass from fellow officers for traffic violations*, a little something from the confiscated drug money, favors from the local working girls, and baksheesh to make sure problems are solved and certain people don't cause trouble.

That's the real world. We shouldn't expect stores or officers and chiefs to do the right thing. What a pain that would be.




(* A few years back I was convoying behind a co-worker who's brother is a local Sheriff's deputy. He kept leaning on the gas until I refused to try and keep up. On one straight but hilly stretch of 2-lane road he just stomped it and I watched him blast almost out of view, easily clearing 90 mph. In the distance, I saw a marked car screech through a U-turn and take off after him, lights blazing. By the time I caught up, the officer was pulling in behind him and I was worried my pal was going to jail. As the cruiser pulled in behind, the lights went off, there was a pause, and then he zoomed out and took off the way he'd come, leaving my buddy to drive back to the office without even a license check. When we got back to the shop, my pal laughed at me because at the time, I didn't know what his "thin blue line" bumper-sticker meant. )

 

[Madcap_Magician]

I don't understand what it is with the increase in threads like this, or why they immediately denigrate into "LEO is guilty until proven innocent" replies.

Some points:

Regardless of whether an officer is on or off duty, he or she may still have a statutory obligation to act in the event a crime is committed in his or her presence. To this end, officers may have a department policy that mandates that they carry both gun and credentials off duty, in which case there is an obvious conflict.

Second, you may disagree if you will about whether or not police should be exempt from a private company's carry policy but A. The Chief in question was not looking for a special carve-out, and the loss prevention officer was enforcing a nonexistent policy. Ikea's policy was that the no-weapons rule did not apply to law enforcement. The loss prevention guy did not know this, B. If Ikea wants to ban carry by anyone not wearing red spandex shorts and mismatched socks, that's still their prerogative.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

Oh sure. In the REAL world, officers sometimes get free coffee, a slice of pizza "on the house," "fixed" parking tickets, an instant pass from fellow officers for traffic violations*, a little something from the confiscated drug money, favors from the local working girls, and baksheesh to make sure problems are solved and certain people don't cause trouble.

You know, part of living inside a sounding board like THR is not being able to tell the difference between something such as a Uniformed LEO discount and breaking the law.

I didn't know what his "thin blue line" bumper-sticker meant.)

It means you are going to get a ticket around these parts. Along with the <insert agency name here> supporter stickers.

To get off you need the " 1* " sticker

just kidding.

Now, how about a story that expresses why businesses have an interest in attracting LEO presence without the assumption of corruption, wrong doing or legal violations. At a point in my life between being green and blue I found my self in a state of being less than fully physically capable, so I needed to get a job to hold me over to being in better shape. I ended up managing a Dominos Pizza in a part of town that well... we shut down half the delivery area at sunset... if that tells you anything. When I took over the store, it was being robbed on a regular basis. I started offering uniformed officers take out pizza at our employee rate. Didn't care if they were on duty, what agency they were from or how out of city they were. Robberies stopped almost overnight.

I'm sure someone at THR will have a problem with that. But that's the real world. Businesses know that a visible police presence reduces problems and if you can get that for free it's a good thing.

 

[Sam1911]

Regardless of whether an officer is on or off duty, he or she may still have a statutory obligation to act in the event a crime is committed in his or her presence. To this end, officers may have a department policy that mandates that they carry both gun and credentials off duty, in which case there is an obvious conflict.

It really only seems like a conflict. The officer is still not required to enter the store, unless his official business requires that. He is absolutely free to not patronize that establishment, thus neither violating his department's policy, nor the store's rules.

Second, you may disagree if you will about whether or not police should be exempt from a private company's carry policy but A. The Chief in question was not looking for a special carve-out...

Ahhh, no, he wanted to ensure that the carve-out he expected was actually in place. And it was, just like he thought it should be.

If Ikea wants to ban carry by anyone not wearing red spandex shorts and mismatched socks, that's still their prerogative.

Yes, and that would include uniformed officers not present on official business.

Shopping for your daughter's apartment furniture is not official police business.

 

[Sam1911]

I'm sure someone at THR will have a problem with that. But that's the real world. Businesses know that a visible police presence reduces problems and if you can get that for free it's a good thing.

Oh, surely not illegal. Of course, persuading cops to come and hang out at your place instead of all the other places they might frequent certainly does improve your odds of not getting robbed. I wonder, how much should the competing pizza joint offer them to come hang out in THEIR store instead? Which of you wants that protection most? C'mon, every benefit costs somebody something. You need protection! How much are you willing to bid them up? A free soda for their benevolent oversight, to go with their discount? "Officer appreciation" day?

Persuading officers to come to your store by giving them monetary benefits (e.g. a literal discount) is still corruption, if only just a "little white" corruption. And it is acceptable because it benefits you. If you got robbed while three cops sat eating free (oh, discounted) pizza in the shop across the street, well, you should have provided a bit more incentive for them to be your shield.

But you're right, as I said, that's how the world works. Give a little to get a little.

 

[Ed Ames]

You think that business treating law enforcement officers different from non law enforcement officers violates the 14th Amendment?

How does that work?

And you think it violates common sense for a business to encourage the presence of uniformed law enforcement officers?

Seriously?

I think laws (of the sort I was replying to dbp's post about, I.E. laws exempting off duty or retired LEOs from carry restrictions) which treat one citizen, operating in a private capacity (not on official business of the state), differently than another citizen doing exactly the same thing, are the sort of thing the 14th was written to prevent.

I think giving a class of people special rights based on their employment, or former employment, violates common sense. E.g. carry reciprocity for retired LEOs but not everyone.

Do you honestly disagree?

Regardless of whether an officer is on or off duty, he or she may still have a statutory obligation to act in the event a crime is committed in his or her presence.

According to the courts, LEOs have NO duty to protect, ever. That means no duty to respond to a crime beyond reporting.

 

[HankR]

I can guarantee you IKEA never intended to prevent uniformed police officers from entering their store. This was nothing more than a poorly trained or overzealous security guard overstepping his bounds.

IKEA has since confirmed that this is indeed the case.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

Which of you wants that protection most? C'mon, every benefit costs somebody something. You need protection! How much are you willing to bid them up?

The assumption being that on duty police were being taken from their regular duties and therefore leaving the city bereft of their protection? If that were the case, that sounds like a problem endemic to the department in that it can't manage to keep it's officers from taking unapproved break periods. Not the store manger.


As for the perceived problem that I'm depopulating the cities police presence by sneakily luring them to my store... Are police not allowed to take lunch and dinner breaks now? The assumption is that they have to go somewhere, and they are still free to chose where they eat. Right? Is it not the job of a business to attract customers? Is it corruption to attract customers that also have a secondary benefit to the business, or is it just good business sense? Unless there is some policy regulating where police officers are allowed to eat, it seems like everything is pretty above the board there.

Are off duty police now required to order all food delivered to their house instead of going to pick it up least they deprive their living rooms the benefit of their protection? Seems like quite a ludicrous suggestion.

I fail to see how a business actively working to attract customers, without violating any rules, is corruption. I don't see how this is any different than the thousands of other specials I ran as a manger to try to entice other customer groups.

If it is so that businesses that entice LEO presence are some how harming other businesses or the population, I suggest you file against IHOP immediately as they seem to hoard police.

A free soda for their benevolent oversight, to go with their discount? "Officer appreciation" day?

Nothing was ever given away for free or beyond company standard discount guidelines... at least not to the police.

Now the firefighters... I was a hotbed of corruption there.

I think laws...

Thread drift. We are talking about a single corporation, IKEA, and a security guard who overstepped his bounds.

Funny... you wouldn't think THR would be more aggrieved by a security guard improperly disarming someone than a uniformed police officer wearing his sidearm...

 

[loose noose]

My question is why bother shopping at such places of business?

 

[buck460XVR]

I can guarantee you IKEA never intended to prevent uniformed police officers from entering their store. This was nothing more than a poorly trained or overzealous security guard overstepping his bounds.

IKEA has since confirmed that this is indeed the case.

This was stated in link provided in the OP. Still folks have got their undies all in a bundle. Similar to the officer in question who felt the need to go on Facebook and make an issue. Even tho the security guard was incorrect in his interpretation, he did not overstep any bounds by asking the officer to leave the gun in the car. He was only enforcing store policy as he understood it. If his interpretation was incorrect, odds are it was because he was informed incorrectly, not that he was being a jerk or was on a power trip. Seems if folks would have kept a cool head till they knew all the facts(including the officer in question) this would have never made the news or this forum.

 

[Sam1911]

I suggest you file against IHOP immediately as they seem to hoard police.

Oh, heavens! You shouldn't worry, it isn't prosecutable. Just giving a little to get a little. As you and I've both said, simply how the world works.

 

[Ed Ames]

Thread drift. We are talking about a single corporation, IKEA, and a security guard who overstepped his bounds.

Several posters have brought up those laws as relevant to the actions of that corporation. Their posts were not drifting, and my post addressing theirs was not drifting.

The laws contribute to the attitudes, and frankly the best attitude for a pro-2A person to have today is that nobody gets special treatment. If I can't possess a newly manufactured machine gun, or open carry in an IKEA, or possess a newly manufactured 30 round magazine, or a .50 caliber rifle, then police officers, and military personnel, or retirees, or judges, in the same jurisdiction shouldn't be able to either. Get rid of the special interest carve-outs in the laws and we can go back to discussing corporate policies or misinformed employees. Until then, customers should complain and companies should ask LEOs to disarm or leave, as activism.

 

[FROGO207]

Pro, con, whatever you decide for the outcome, my take is never to bother shop there or with that chain as I would be unwelcome per corporate policy as usually attired. They have enough soccer moms to keep them in profits without my meager purchases.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

Several posters have brought up those laws as relevant to the actions of that corporation.

Do you also join them in believing these laws are relevant to IKEAs internal policies?

Do you honeslty believe that IKEA took LEOSA into consideration while drafting their firearms policy, or even knows what LEOSA is?

Or, do you think it's more likely that IKEA, like almost every business everywhere, recognizes that having a free LEO presence is a good thing?

The laws contribute to the attitudes...

Seriously?

Get rid of the special interest carve-outs in the laws and we can go back to discussing corporate policies or misinformed employees.

What percentage of businesses do you think take LEOSA into consideration while generating their firearms policies? If the answer is more than 0.1%, you are kidding yourself.

You think poorly trained security guards making up their own interpretations of corporate policy happen because NFA has a LEA exemption?

Lol, ok then.

Until then, customers should complain and companies should ask LEOs to disarm or leave, as activism.

...And... Back in the real world. No. Not going to happen. See IKEAs apology. Remember, actual real world businesses have an interest in having free law enforcement presence. They don't care about your 2A activism. See Target, Chipotle, Starbucks et al.

The real world, it's not THR. Businesses want guns on cops in uniform, not on shabby, slovenly, unshaven 2A demonstrators handing out black helicopter fliers and waving the Gadsden flag.

How about we do some real world "until then" discussion?

Do something to change the public perception that Open Carry folks are all this idiot:

Until then, businesses will keep letting in armed cops while telling armed civilians to shove off.

 

[dmancornell]

^

How about "we" do something about bad PR from open-carry folks when cops do something about guys like this:



No doubt IKEA should let that guy in so he can sweep all the customers.. for their safety, of course.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

How about "we" do something about bad PR from open-carry folks when cops do something about guys like this:

Funny thing about being a member of a echo chamber... I know there was plenty of talk and outrage about the police behavior in Boston and how they pretty much tossed the Constitution out for a few days... but, how about the national outrage? Where are the investigations, terminations and trials for the police run amok?

*crickets*

Boston had about zero impact on the public perception of police. I don't think any business anywhere decided to change their policy on armed LEO on their premises because of Boston.