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

Owen Sparks · Apr 21, 2011

I asked this question here four years ago and it got a huge response. Enough time has passed that I think it is time to ask again.

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

Off duty military certainly are.

I have a friend who is a guard at a nuclear submarine base and his job all day every day is to carry a loaded, full-auto M-16 with a grenade launcher. Yet while he is home on leave he is forbidden anything except the civilian semi-auto AR-15 version that the rest of us use.

Some might say that cops are especially trained in the use of firearms and are more competent in their use than civilian. That might be true on average, yet we have some regulars on this forum that are competitive shooters who fire more rounds in a month than the average cop will in his career.

Others may say that the police know more about the law and when deadly force is justified. That may also be true on average, but we also have some professional lawyers who frequent this forum who know a whole lot more about the law than the typical police recruit can learn in a few short weeks at the academy.

What say you?

JoeMal · Apr 21, 2011

When a cop is off-duty, he's just that; off-duty. A civilian. Is that right? If so, I think the question answers itself

migkillertwo · Apr 21, 2011

Owen Sparks said:
I asked this question here four years ago and it got a huge response. Enough time has passed that I think it is time to ask again.

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

Off duty military certainly are.

I have a friend who is a guard at a nuclear submarine base and his job all day every day is to carry a loaded, full-auto M-16 with a grenade launcher. Yet while he is home on leave he is forbidden anything except the civilian semi-auto AR-15 version that the rest of us use.

Some might say that cops are especially trained in the use of firearms and are more competent in their use than civilian. That might be true on average, yet we have some regulars on this forum that are competitive shooters who fire more rounds in a month than the average cop will in his career.

Others may say that the police know more about the law and when deadly force is justified. That may also be true on average, but we also have some professional lawyers who frequent this forum who know a whole lot more about the law than the typical police recruit can learn in a few short weeks at the academy.

What say you?

Regarding carry laws, I dont think they should be subject to the same laws simply because they would never be subject to the same laws while in uniform. States give cops guns because they trust their judgement and marksmanship, they don't lose those skills when they take off the uniform.

Regarding NFA items, absolutely they should. More important than competency with firearms is trustworthiness with such firearms. Who's to say that military servicemen wouldn't sell whatever items they can own to less-than-legal gents?

Regarding competition shooters and lawyers, those are still a small minority and we shouldn't be making laws trying to account for extraordinary instances.

Claude Clay · Apr 21, 2011

off duty sounds different than 'home from work'

but , yes, same rules. and our elected officials need to fly by the same rules as the rest of us also. but i would argue an exception for Doctors. but now we have a situation of being a little bit pregnant. sigh...

mljdeckard · Apr 21, 2011

It depends on the department. Some cops are always on-call, and must be armed whenever they leave the house. If THEY encounter a crime while off-duty, they would have different rules for engagement and pursuit than the rest of us would.

Off-duty military are equally bound by the policies of their commander as much as civilian law. A commander can forbid a soldier from doing just about anything while they are on or off post, and if they REALLY want to push it, the commander can yank their off post privileges completely. (My policy is, DON'T ASK. If a commander never knew you WANTED to carry a gun while you were off-duty, it wouldn't occur to him to forbid it. Until a monkey drops the ball and ruins it for everyone.)

I also agree that just because someone is a cop, that in no way makes them likely to be a better shot than a civilian. I do not think that the average cop knows more about the laws regarding carry than civilians do.

Erik · Apr 21, 2011

No.

Should "the rest of us" have more freedoms regarding firearms laws? Yes.

mustang_steve · Apr 21, 2011

I think it should go a step further, LEO should not be allowed to exceed the liberties given to the common people of their state in regards to firearm laws.

Now that they are on even ground, they'd be more supportive of restoration of the people's rights, as it would restore their own. It's hard to give a hoot about others when they're already enjoying the fruits of it instead of living the problem as well.

I find the idea that certain groups of people have greater 2nd amendment rights than others to be unacceptable, and provided the typical police lobbyist's responses to any attempt to improve on the citizenry's rights...I have very little trust for any non-patrolling officer.

If they picked better represenatives, maybe that would be different. So far in the past month, numerous counties here in Florida made a veiled threat of violence against open carriers if the OC law goes into effect, then another revealed the names of a few questionable individuals who had a CWL (illegal in how it was done, as they did not commit any crimes to void their carry license)...that particular lobbyist wasn't even registered in accordance with state law.

Sorry if I ruffled any feathers, but it's not hard to see that the higher ranks of these organizations are often NOT 2nd amendment friendly.

mljdeckard · Apr 21, 2011

At the same time, I have never met a cop whose boss would give them a letter on letterhead to give them any permission to own anything over and above regular citizens. I have known many who asked and got turned down. Departments don't like to extend that kind of responsibility to weapons that the department doesn't own.

youngda9 · Apr 21, 2011

Off the clock, join the flock.

surjimmy · Apr 21, 2011

In Oklahoma a Police Officer is a Police Officer 24/7. We just had an officer badly injured while "off duty" breaking up a fight at a local dinner/pub.

Ole Coot · Apr 21, 2011

In a word, NO. Don't know any LEOs that are really off duty. I never knew any that would walk away from a crime except maybe traffic violations or happy drunks.

jdh · Apr 21, 2011

In this state an officer has a duty to respond to any felony committed in his presence on or off the clock, in his jurisdiction or not.

ForumSurfer · Apr 21, 2011

In this state an officer has a duty to respond to any felony committed in his presence on or off the clock, in his jurisdiction or not.

This. Our officers have a sworn duty no matter if they are on the clock or not.

Now if they are retired and no longer a sworn officer...then they should be subject to the same laws as the rest of us. Retired police officers have my respect, but they shouldn't receive special treatment regarding carrying and owning firearms. Their training is over and their sworn duty is no longer in effect.

dmancornell · Apr 21, 2011

mustang_steve said:
I think it should go a step further, LEO should not be allowed to exceed the liberties given to the common people of their state in regards to firearm laws.

...

I find the idea that certain groups of people have greater 2nd amendment rights than others to be unacceptable, and provided the typical police lobbyist's responses to any attempt to improve on the citizenry's rights...I have very little trust for any non-patrolling officer.

Amen. No special privileges for government employees.

JohnBT · Apr 21, 2011

A nuke plant guard doesn't lock people up. Your typical vet doesn't lock people up and make enemies in town.

Cops can and do see the ex-cons they put away everyday whether they are on duty or off duty.

I can't believe some of the knee-jerk answers in this thread. Think folks. I guess it's easy to see who knows police work.

John

JohnBT · Apr 21, 2011

"Retired police officers have my respect"

It certainly doesn't sound like it to me. You aren't concerned for their safety after the job they for years for all of us. And that's sad.

John

edited to add: Can you tell this thread and some of the responses really pisses me off? Good. What a thankless bunch of whiners.

surjimmy · Apr 21, 2011

No special treatment, but they shouldn't have to go to a CC class to carry concealed or do a background check. This only applies to Retired Officers in good standing.

NavyLCDR · Apr 21, 2011

Police officers should have no special firearms carriage abilities than Joe Schmoe citizen.

But the problem is not the extra freedoms that police officers have.

The problem is the infringement upon the rights of Joe Schmoe citizen.

I'm sorry, but the 2nd Amendment applies absolutely equally to Joe Schmoe citizen as it does to Officer Smith and there should be no exception made for Officer Smith, on or off duty.

dmancornell · Apr 21, 2011

JohnBT said:
edited to add: Can you tell this thread and some of the responses really pisses me off? Good. What a thankless bunch of whiners.

Thanks for what? Taking our money and treating us like second-class citizens? :barf:

Watch this video and tell me why cops should be better armed than everyone else: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVf-iintxio

One-Time · Apr 21, 2011

I'd go one step further, all state agencies, municipalities, counties, parish's, etc should have to abide by the exact same laws as any other citizen of that state.

If you cant have AR-15s, and mags w/ more than 10 rounds, neither can any agency...thatd end a LOT of BS laws right there, if a cops needs it w/ their radios, backup etc, then so do we with no backup or help

jackpinesavages · Apr 21, 2011

I asked this question here four years ago and it got a huge response. Enough time has passed that I think it is time to ask again.

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

Off duty military certainly are.

I have a friend who is a guard at a nuclear submarine base and his job all day every day is to carry a loaded, full-auto M-16 with a grenade launcher. Yet while he is home on leave he is forbidden anything except the civilian semi-auto AR-15 version that the rest of us use.

Some might say that cops are especially trained in the use of firearms and are more competent in their use than civilian. That might be true on average, yet we have some regulars on this forum that are competitive shooters who fire more rounds in a month than the average cop will in his career.

Others may say that the police know more about the law and when deadly force is justified. That may also be true on average, but we also have some professional lawyers who frequent this forum who know a whole lot more about the law than the typical police recruit can learn in a few short weeks at the academy.

What say you?

I say; you need at least 60 college credits with a C average or better to even make the interview for an LE academy here. Then the academy is 13 weeks long, and is loaded with firearms and use of force training. You are being condescending as far as L.E. education is concerned, in my state.

Comparing members of the military vs. competitive shooters vs. lawyers vs. L.E.O.s ? There is a distinct lack of reasonable comparison, to be any sort of a debate that is linear, in any fashion of being drunk or sober.

I say that your question(s) and point(s) are a thinly veiled disdain for L.E.O.s, overall an honorable field of men and women willing to make the same ultimate sacrifice as any soldier.

ForumSurfer · Apr 21, 2011

It certainly doesn't sound like it to me. You aren't concerned for their safety after the job they for years for all of us. And that's sad.

Yes I am. Let them apply for the same right to carry as I am forced to. If they live in a state where ccw isn't allowed (or even a city where you can't carry out of your home), then that government obviously feels that you live in a safe area. Why should one particular group of people get to protect themselves and their family by default when average Joe can't? Are you that much more of an elite group that you deserve the right to self defense more than me after your oath is dissolved? I have several friends that are LEO's and I will (and do) tell them the same thing.

I fully understand that as an retired officer you may be recognized by someone with a chip on their shoulder. But once you are no longer under oath, you are a citizen. Is your life worth more than mine so much that you should get the right to carry even if I can't?

You aren't concerned for their safety after the job they for years for all of us.

I never said that. If it is legal to carry, then let them protect themselves. If it isn't legal to carry as a citizen wherever the retired LEO may be, then why does the LEO get preferential treatment. As a retired LEO does s/he have more rights to self defense than I? Surely if the local government feels the average citizen doesn't need a weapon because serving LEO's provide a safe environment, then why should a retired LEO need one? If there are people out there that are dangerous enough to warrant you carrying a handgun to defend you and yours, then I should be able to do the same if we are both citizens. If you extended free reign to non-sworn persons, then by that same logic we should extend the same courtesy to off-duty and retired military. They put their lives on the line for us, too.

You accuse me of a lack of respect but I completely disagree. I say you're drawing a fine line between deserved privileges and elitism.

offroader1006 · Apr 21, 2011

everyone should be treated equally just as our forefathers intended.

LEO's are not superhuman and should not have more rights than anyone else. They can make a mistake with a gun just like everyone else.

tickfarm · Apr 21, 2011

Off duty officers are still police officers and have the duty to enforce the laws of their jurisdictions and do run into people they have arrested. A private citizen has no such obligation and as a rule have not had to have anyone arrested.

As far as retired officers carrying they may not be as good with their weapons as some of the citizens, but they have been through a lot more to get the right to carry. In my state no psychological exam or polygraph is required for a citizen to carry concealed. Both of these are required by most police agencies in the state to be hired as an officer.

M-Cameron · Apr 21, 2011

for get off duty......i think ON DUTY police and military should be subject to what ever gun laws are on the books in that state.

if you dont want to have to rely on a 10 round duty pistol.....dont limit the mag size to 10 rounds........

you dont want to go on patrol with a hunting rifle......do away with Assault weapon bans

you want a nice new .50BMG for the swat team.......make .50s avaliable for purchase.

there is no samurai class in this country......

.....thats just my take anyway.....

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

member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

member

Member

Member

member

Member

Member

Member

member

Similar threads