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

[dmancornell]

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.

Of course Boston had zero impact. The media went full Stockholm Syndrome and praised the police as their saviors, and the entire city chanted their silly mantra "Boston Strong" even as they cower on their curbs while police rampage through their homes sans warrants.

As for IKEA, no doubt their policy of giving LEO exceptions to its weapons rules is prompted by a long campaign of pro-government activism and propaganda to exempt government employees from rules, including the passage of laws in some states forcing businesses to give government employees special privileges. And when an employee makes an honest mistake and tries to apply the rules equally to all customers, the pro-LEO/govt crowd flips out and demands satisfaction.

As far as I'm concerned the public perception gap is simply the result of propaganda used by the privileged few to reinforce the unequal status quo. There are thousands of videos of horrific police abuse online and I have yet to hear of a single case of an open carry demonstration turning violent.

 

[Ed Ames]

The laws contribute to the attitudes...

Seriously?

Absolutely. If you pass, or support, or support those who pass, laws that are obviously giving benefits to special interests while infringing on everyone else, you create systematic injustice.

To quote one of the greatest Americans:
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe."

Taking away my rights, but carving out exemptions for special interests, is exactly that sort of denial of justice/ conspiracy to oppress.

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?

And you accuse me of thread drift? Your questions are utterly irrelevant. Whether I say it is 0.001%, or 0.1%, doesn't matter to the subject at hand.

Neither of us know the motivation of the people who complained. Nor do we know the story behind this employee's actions...and they don't matter to the conversation.

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.

Which matters to this discussion how, exactly? Stay on topic.

 

[Old Dog]

This thread seems to have degenerated from discussing the total weirdness of the original incident to numerous members chirping their belief that, "This is a great thing; law enforcement should have to obey every single law that we do."

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

As always, someone decides to mention only a court decision with which he agrees.

As far as that goes, that court rendered a decision contrary to the oath that most of us have sworn.

"... where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, ..."

Wow. Because some cops can carry some places citizens cannot? You liken this to oppression, robbery and degradation?

 

[Ed Ames]

This thread seems to have degenerated from discussing the total weirdness of the original incident to numerous members chirping their belief that, "This is a great thing; law enforcement should have to obey every single law that we do."

As always, someone decides to mention only a court decision with which he agrees.

You think I agree with that court decision? How could you possibly reach that conclusion? But the fact remains, it is the law of the land.

Wow. Because some cops can carry some places citizens cannot? You liken this to oppression, robbery and degradation?

It isn't where a cop can carry, per se. It is the unequal treatment under law. In this context mostly related to magazine capacity and other issues (even simple stuff like carrying a one-hand knife), not carry. If you don't see special interest carve outs in law as injustice....you haven't thought about the subject. If you don't see one person facing felony charges for doing what another citizen can do with impunity as oppression, well you are probably part of the special interests that benefit.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

As for IKEA, no doubt their policy of giving LEO exceptions to its weapons rules is prompted by a long campaign of pro-government activism and propaganda to exempt government employees from rules, including the passage of laws in some states forcing businesses to give government employees special privileges. And when an employee makes an honest mistake and tries to apply the rules equally to all customers, the pro-LEO/govt crowd flips out and demands satisfaction.

Wow.... just... wow.

Absolutely. If you pass, or support, or support those who pass, laws that are obviously giving benefits to special interests while infringing on everyone else, you create systematic injustice.

How does LEOSA infringe upon you? Please explain in detail.

And you accuse me of thread drift?

You blame laws like LEOSA for.. well, whatever IKEA is supposed to have done that they didn't actually do... and you can't even show that IKEA has ever heard of LEOSA, much less used it in consideration when forming their firearms policy which weren't actually responsible for the actions of a poorly trained or overzealous security guard who wasn't actually enforcing IKEAs policy at all.

... see the problem?

So please, explain in detail how it is that you think LEOSA had anything to do with this incident.

Nor do we know the story behind this employee's actions...and they don't matter to the conversation.

The employees actions would seem extremely pertinent to the conversation since he was apparently not acting in line with IKEAs policy, and the misunderstanding here in this thread that he was acting in line with IKEAs policy has lead to some quite hilarious statements given a proper understanding of the actual policy.

Which matters to this discussion how, exactly? Stay on topic.

Have I been reading the wrong thread, or is this thread not chock full of posts saying that the same rules should apply to police and the average OC person, without taking into consideration one single bit that the two things are not the same and don't have the same impact on the general public?

 

[astra600]

I think the loss prevention officer is ready for the armed robber now. If he can get the police chief to leave, he's good to go with anyone.

 

[dmancornell]

Wow.... just... wow.

It's sad when honest language warrants this reaction. When regular folks try to change the law to allow open carry, it's activism. When government employees use the law to obtain open carry privileges denied to the citizenry, it's... well, I don't even know what that is. Public safety, or something.

Let's face it, the IKEA employee is guilty of contempt of cop, nothing more.

 

[Midwest]

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.

There WAS national outrage when the cops CONFISCATED firearms in New Orleans right after Katrina. In fact many states passed laws against that ever happening again.
.

 

[Sam1911]

Ok, to try and smother the budding flames here, it seems we're discussing several different things and tripping over the differences between parallel conversations.

1) The IKEA employee wasn't following store policy. Understood. Store policy is that law enforcement -- at least in uniform -- are to be accorded a pass on the "no weapons" rule. That isn't a matter of law, and IKEA would be within their power to make whichever policy they wanted pertaining to weapons carried by LEOs or non-LEOs. It may be awkward and distasteful to peer too closely at the social conventions that say a state employee can ignore store policy while he shops for his daughter's apartment furniture, just because he happens to wear a uniform and badge for work. Or it may be just fine, because the store gets tangible benefits from treating LEOs as if they're on official business at all times.

2) LEOSA is a completely separate issue, not at all in play in the story linked above. It certainly does create a special class of citizen (by granting broad powers for LEOs to ignore the law in states which would otherwise have no reason to grant them any special privileges simply based on their credentials from some other state) and while that may be a bad thing, or a very bad thing, (or even a GOOD thing I guess) depending on your perspective, it really isn't the subject at hand here.

 

[Kleanbore]

....IKEA would be within their power to make whichever policy they wanted pertaining to weapons carried by LEOs or non-LEOs.

I tend to doubt that, as it applies to LEOs. Can anyone substantiate it?

 

[Ed Ames]

How does LEOSA infringe upon you? Please explain in detail.

Two obvious ways.

1) By giving specific concessions to a single special interest (police unions), politicians were able to buy off a minority group and allow to stand restrictions on the majority. Absent that specific concession, a uniform law of reciprocity would have been passed to the benefit of all.

2) By creating a legal distinction based on former occupation, the law directly attacks social cohesion. It creates a have/have-not gap which did not exist before and does not need to exist. Such laws, individually, damage society. When taken together they damage the foundation of our government system: trust that the system is fair.

Viewed in context, alongside carve-outs in magazine capacity laws, NFA and state AWB laws, etc they also directly endanger LEOs and former LEOs by actively encouraging the general public to view police as enemies who do not follow the normal laws. Police should not want this.

All of that harms me.

You blame laws like LEOSA for.. well, whatever IKEA is supposed to have done that they didn't actually do... ...

... see the problem?

You don't understand? That's the problem I see. I don't say that these laws directly caused IKEA to do, or not do, anything. I say the laws influence society. That giving LEOs special rights cause people to dislike LEOs,and taking away rights for the general population redefines normative behavior.

E.g. If everyone could carry equally, and LEOs were carrying under the same authority anyone else could, IKEA would not consider carrying a gun deviant behavior which should be banned, and the employee would have considered guns normal, and this whole thing would not have happened.

The employees actions would seem extremely pertinent to the conversation since he was apparently not acting in line with IKEAs policy, ...

Do you think people will ignore you changing my word "motivation" to "action" in order to make that non sequitur seem like an argument against what I said?

Have I been reading the wrong thread, or is this thread not chock full of posts saying that the same rules should apply to police and the average OC person, without taking into consideration one single bit that the two things are not the same and don't have the same impact on the general public?

I don't know what you have been reading. Your responses seem to be more about insulting people and changing subjects than anything else.

 

[Sam1911]

I tend to doubt that, as it applies to LEOs. Can anyone substantiate it?

I should clarify that.

I don't mean to say that IKEA could deny a police officer entry to the store on official business (though, I suppose without a warrant maybe...really unlikely to come up, though).

I do believe they'd be perfectly within their rights to say that "No Weapons" means NO weapons, and basically cite trespassing if an officer demanded to enter while armed, against their wishes, without official business that grants him the State's sanction to enter and perform. ***

You're pursuing a suspect or serving a warrant? The State permits you to enter wherever, while armed, to do that.

You're shopping for your kid's apartment furniture? Please leave your guns outside or shop elsewhere.

I don't see, really, ANY retail establishments doing such a thing, but I believe they'd be within their rights to do so.





*** -- I believe we've seen instances of that at events like major league ball fields, amusement parks, and similar, where officers were dismayed to find that they did not have the authority to carry a weapon into the facility while "off duty" or otherwise not acting in official capacity. Being in or out of uniform seems to have a significant effect on that, understandably, though many LEOs do not wear an identifiable uniform while on duty, so that seems a moot point.

 

[Sam1911]

Viewed in context, alongside carve-outs in magazine capacity laws, NFA and state AWB laws, etc

There are no carve-outs for law enforcement officers or even military personnel in the NFA. If a cop or soldier wants to own a machine gun or silencer or SBR, they have to follow the same process as you or I do.

Items owned by their employer and issued for official uses are not property of the officer or soldier, and are not (broadly speaking) his/hers to do with as they please.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

All of that harms me.

Spare us the Soap Opera. You could have just admitted that LEOSA does not infringe upon you in any way.

I don't say that these laws directly caused IKEA to do, or not do, anything.

Thank you for admitting that LEOSA has nothing to do with this incident. Go find another thread to rant about LEOSA in.

E.g. If everyone could carry equally, and LEOs were carrying under the same authority anyone else could, IKEA would not consider carrying a gun deviant behavior which should be banned, and the employee would have considered guns normal, and this whole thing would not have happened.

Police officers and the average person were treated differently for firearms carry long before LEOSA. Your contention in not only unsupported in any way by facts, but contradicted by the vast majority of history. There is absolutely no suggestion, other than yours, that if police and common person were equally entitled to carry a firearm, that private businesses would suddenly allow anyone and everyone to carry on their premises.

Do you think people will ignore you changing my word "motivation" to "action" in order to make that non sequitur seem like an argument against what I said?

So, that's the new game. Simply deflect and acuse me of a falsehood. Unfortunately for you, people can see your original quote and it's plainly obvious to everyone that I didn't change anything in it.

Your original post: "Nor do we know the story behind this employee's actions...and they don't matter to the conversation. " Post #52

My quote of your post: "Originally Posted by Ed Ames
Nor do we know the story behind this employee's actions...and they don't matter to the conversation" Post #55

Apologize.

 

[Onward Allusion]

I'm not a fanboy of LE by any measure, but holy crap, some of you guys have a warped sense of "what is good for the goose...".

With the exception of some top brass, cops are sworn officers. This means they are always on duty, like it or not. This would be especially true of a chief of police. Should an on-duty cop not carry?

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

** -- I believe we've seen instances of that at events like major league ball fields, amusement parks, and similar, where officers were dismayed to find that they did not have the authority to carry a weapon into the facility while "off duty" or otherwise not acting in official capacity.

Texas Stadium... or whatever Jerry Jones is calling it this week.

 

[Sam1911]

Go find another thread to rant about LEOSA in.

[Ahem... how about we not be too willing to direct other members' posting habits? If there's a problem, hit the Report Post button. Probably best if we don't all play traffic cop. Thanks!]

Carry on, carry on...

 

[Ed Ames]

Spare us the Soap Opera. You could have just admitted that LEOSA does not infringe upon you in any way.

Why would I "admit" something I disagree with? If a group is treated differently under the law for the same act, that inequality is a harm against me.

So, that's the new game. Simply deflect and acuse me of a falsehood. Unfortunately for you, people can see your original quote and it's plainly obvious to everyone that I didn't change anything in it.

If you wish to see it that way.

Apologize.

Actually, I will. I mixed up what I said about the people reporting the gun and the employee action. No malice was intended, but if you were harmed I am sorry.

That doesn't mean your points are right.

 

[Sam1911]

Should an on-duty cop not carry?

OF COURSE he should! Everyone who cares to take responsibility for his/her safety should!

And should be allowed to.

Like I said before, I don't think the Chief there should be happy with a No Guns policy (if that had actually been the policy) at all. But he should follow it, just like any other law abiding citizen, unless his duties at the time require him to act under his official sanction to enter in violation of it.

 

[deadin]

That giving LEOs special rights cause people to dislike LEOs,and taking away rights for the general population redefines normative behavior.

How do you feel about "special rights" granted our active duty and retired military members?

 

[Kleanbore]

Chief there should follow it [a no gun policy], just like any other law abiding citizen, unless his duties at the time require him to act under his official sanction to enter in violation of it.

Okay.

He is on duty all the time in his jurisdiction, even after his shift ends and before it starts.

His duties extend beyond directing traffic, issuing citations, searching and seizing under the authority of a warrant, pursuing a suspect, and responding to calls. His duties include patrol--keeping an eye out for dangerous situations or unlawful behavior, peace disturbance, and so on-- and I think the "beat" would include not only the boulevard and the city park but any portion of any enclosed structure that is open to the public. He would not be expected to do any of those things unarmed.

From a practical standpoint, he also enters private property to eat lunch, to purchase incidentals, and so on, in uniform. Should he do so with an empty holster? Do we regard him as a private citizen who would call 911 in the event of a robbery?

Entering a non-public portion of a building would be something else again.

These things probably vary by jurisdiction.

 

[Panzerschwein]

Off duty, the officer should be expected to have the same rights and abilities as the "peasants".

 

[dmancornell]

Okay.

He is on duty all the time in his jurisdiction, even after his shift ends and before it starts.

No he is not.

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/l...Told-to-Leave-Gun-Outside-Ikea-266105531.html

Goldberg was in uniform because he had worked that morning at the city's July 4 parade, and would be back on duty that night for fireworks.

In between, he stopped at Ikea to shop for furniture for his daughter's new apartment. And that's when a loss-prevention officer at the store approached him.

 

[Ed Ames]

How do you feel about "special rights" granted our active duty and retired military members?

I think they are damaging to society.

To be specific... I am talking about carve-outs to general prohibitions here in the US granted to them while not acting in an official capacity. E.g. the fact that an army cook can buy a one-hand knife in places a McDonald's cook cannot. That carve-out is there because one-handed knives have legitimate use and an outright ban would have caused "special" users to actively oppose the law - something they should have done. They were bought off though.

 

[Sam1911]

These things probably vary by jurisdiction.

Probably do, and on top of that, I really don't know. I don't think it has come up all that often in society, because most folks just don't challenge cops. And that's fine. 99% of the time, they're very stand-up folks. I don't want them disarmed.


I also don't want ME disarmed. Good for the goose and gander, as others said, but to the betterment of BOTH.