Concealed Carry by First Responders

[Craig_AR]

[Posting this in General discussion because the proposal has not even been drafted for submission in the legislature, yet.]

Recently in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, an ambulance crew came under attack by a gunman while responding to an emergency. One of the EMTs has a concealed carry license, and was armed on the job. He responded in kind, killing the attacker, and is credited with saving three lives. The event has prompted a member of the state legislature to plan on introducing bills to make it clear there is no state law forbidding legal carry by first responders.

The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette news article that prompts me to post this comment is
EMTs' gun-carry law on to-do list by Byron Tate

The bills have not yet been written, but according the article, Senator Garner plans several aspects.

1. Make it explicitly clear that no state law prohibits carry by properly licensed early responders when on the job.
2. The law would not override the authority of employing agencies to set their own policies regarding responders being armed.
3. Establish a training and licensing program for EMTs and paramedics that would give them the same carry authority as law enforcement officers.
   You can hear Senator Garner discuss his proposal with firearms instructor Ed Monk (Last Resort Firearms Training) on the Dave Elswick Podcast for 12/23/1920 beginning at about the 40 minute point:

Two open issues that must be addressed include dealing with the potential civil liability of EMS employer should an EMT or paramedic shoot someone on the job, and how to deal with hospitals and emergency rooms that have laws prohibiting guns on the hospital grounds. The latter is particularly important, because the law that created Enhanced Carry license for carry on college campuses explicitly makes the University of Arkansas Medical School campuses as no firearms areas even with that enhanced license.

Craig

 

[buck460XVR]

I don't know how the CWC laws in Arkansas are, but I question why a EMT/First Responder, for the most part would be any different than anyone else with a legal CWC permit. As for telling the employer what they can or can not do as far as guns on their premises.....I have my doubts.

 

[Ru4real]

Everyone serving the public has a right to defend themselves, which is a level above the duty to serve.

Cops
When they come under fire, they fire back. They are not serving the public directly in this instance, they are protecting themselves, rightly so. Can they carry in the hospital? How is their civil liability protected?

First Responders - Including doctors and nurses working in the hospital
Same exact situation as cops. Whatever it is that separates cops as “special” such as training, oath, etc needs to be applied to volunteers/workers who desire that “special” status as well.

Until it becomes common understanding, “laws” and “policy” will continue to obscure the rights of the two groups of people described above. And the current trend is heading the wrong way.

 

[Barry the Bear]

I remember Texas supported a law to allow firefighters and Emts/Paramedics to carry on duty as well, in the technical sense I would say just shut up about it. Concealed means concealed, I carry at medic school and work, this isnt a Mario game I don't have three lives, I can however always get another job

 

[Craig_AR]

I don't know how the CWC laws in Arkansas are, but I question why a EMT/First Responder, for the most part would be any different than anyone else with a legal CWC permit.

The current law makes it completely legal for any CHL EMT to carry, just as you suggest. The idea is to make that perfectly clear, so employing agencies cannot say it is against the law. The proposal is that new clarifying law would not tell employers they MUST allow it, leaving such policy up to eh employer.
As a side note Arkansas does have a law saying employers who forbid guns on premises cannot ban guns locked in vehicles in the parking lots.

 

[Speedo66]

I don't know how the CWC laws in Arkansas are, but I question why a EMT/First Responder, for the most part would be any different than anyone else with a legal CWC permit. As for telling the employer what they can or can not do as far as guns on their premises.....I have my doubts.

"The law would not override the authority of employing agencies to set their own policies regarding responders being armed."

I think you may have misread the first post, the proposed legistlation doesn't tell the employer what they can do.

As far as being different, most schools and medical facilities ban private citizens with guns, the first responders would need special permission to carry while on duty if they were to protect themselves during an emergency involving gunfire at such a place.

 

[mokin]

This looks interesting. To me, it appears that it will come down to people's belief regarding the police have a duty to protect you and how much liability an employer is willing to accept when it comes to employees being able to defend themselves. I hope I worded that clearly. This made me think of the training class I took to get my CHL. There were a few people in the class with me who were employed as home care providers. Evidently they had witnessed enough sketchy situations that they thought they should go about their business with with a sidearm.

 

[jmr40]

I'm not opposed to allowing 1st responders to carry, but it would be of limited usefulness here. If there is an emergency LE is almost always on the scene long before fire or EMT's.

 

[Craig_AR]

If there is an emergency LE is almost always on the scene long before fire or EMT's.

From the linked news article:
"The Pine Bluff shooting occurred early Thursday morning. A woman called 911, saying her knee was injured and she needed an ambulance. There was no mention in the call that her knee injury was the result of an altercation with her boyfriend. An ambulance, but no police unit, was dispatched. Had there been a hint that the case involved domestic violence, police would have been sent to the scene, officials have said."

Yup, almost always.

 

[.455_Hunter]

If there is an emergency LE is almost always on the scene long before fire or EMT's.

Listening to our county scanner, medical response often must "stage" pending first arrival of LE. They could easily be first on scene without coordination.

 

[buck460XVR]

"The law would not override the authority of employing agencies to set their own policies regarding responders being armed."

I think you may have misread the first post, the proposed legistlation doesn't tell the employer what they can do.

You are correct sir, I did misread it. I missed the word "not".

I am in complete support of EMTs/First Responders being able to carry with the same authority of LEOs. Part of the "Active Shooter/Violent Intruder" drills we have for the school district is "Stop the Bleed" training. As employees that are in the building during an active shooting, we need to know how to keep individuals shot, from bleeding out because EMTs/First Responders will not be allowed inside until the building is secured, and LEOs will step over the wounded to get to the perp. Most gunshot victims die of blood loss from their extremities or other areas of the body that are not mortal because the bleeding is not stopped. Major artery hit gives the victim maybe 4 minutes. The average time to secure a building is much more than that. Arming EMTs/First Responders and allowing them entry immediately would save lives.

 

[Stevel]

Don't need a law to say something is legal. They always seem to be used by opponents down the road.

 

[mokin]

Don't need a law to say something is legal. They always seem to be used by opponents down the road.

Outstanding point.

 

[Jim Watson]

Maybe station a cop at the fire station to ride along so the medic can concentrate on patching me up without having to look over his shoulder for my assailant.

 

[Craig_AR]

To continue the discussion, today the local Pine Bluff Commercial newspaper included an editorial on the event and followup,
EMT shootout leaves gun-carry questions
The commentary opens with,
"This is not an editorial in which we point to the answer we think is the right one, but it is one that encourages conversation. It is the case involving the tragedy of a shootout that left one man dead and two ambulance workers injured, leaving the question: Should EMTs carry handguns?"
and closes with,
"This is a complicated case because there are so many moving parts. But in some way, the path forward should include a more thorough conversation about how emergency workers across the state can be better protected than the crew that rolled up on a scene that came very close to being their last."
I'll let folks here read the full editorial.

Craig

 

[buck460XVR]

"This is not an editorial in which we point to the answer we think is the right one, but it is one that encourages conversation.

IMHO, that is exactly what the commentary did. I saw/read no implication in either direction, for or against. It seemed to be more of a question to get responses, than a statement.

 

[lemaymiami]

Mostly this thread is about one particular incident and the discussion about what if any laws should be proposed as a result. The moment that employers (and their legal advisors) consider this issue, regardless of what if any new laws are enacted - liability issues will have every employer of emergency personnel resisting any laws that are passed (or figuring ways around them...).

In my era in law enforcement (1973 to 1995) down here in paradise suburbia on the northern fringes of Miami it was well known that many EMTs and ambulance personnel were carrying a variety of weapons since they were in daily contact with folks that were not only armed but very likely had been involved in some kind of violence before anyone showed up on the scene. None of them had the slightest legal protection (and in that era the "armed citizen movement" had yet to make any progress here in Florida - that I know of..). Yes, our fire departments did their best to keep their personnel from showing up before the cops did - but on many occasions the little information we had at dispatch (for every facet of emergency service - police, fire, ambulance, Fire/Rescue) meant that you would never know what the problem was before arriving.... or if any of your personnel might find folks on the street with a language barrier (we needed every language under the sun in those times even when hiring was focused on hiring folks with a half dozen language capabilities... we were still playing catch up... ).

It's a very difficult issue and what I'd advocate is a simple law protecting someone working in emergency services from any employment consequences from carrying a weapon lawfully and defending themselves and others lawfully.... I imagine though (not without actual real life experience) that all the side issues for employers - particularly government agencies... will have a very hard time approving this - if they're asked...

 

[lightman]

Pine Bluff is my hometown although my family and I have been away from it for 30 years. It used to be a good place to live but its becoming more and more like a little Detroit. A lot of the industry has left along with the middle class people that worked at those places. The last time that I worked there at night there were several times that I heard gun fire in the area. It got where I turned down call-outs there.

If I worked there I would be carrying.

 

[JeffG]

During an office visit at the clinic that my GP doctor sees me, we were discussing firearms, and other stuff. I was thrilled when he revealed he carries a sidearm at work, and was armed while we were talking. At least he could save lives if there was an armed threat in the building.

 

[MedWheeler]

Speedo66 writes:

As far as being different, most schools and medical facilities ban private citizens with guns, the first responders would need special permission to carry while on duty if they were to protect themselves during an emergency involving gunfire at such a place.

At what point would they secure that "special permission"? When the gunfire breaks out?

 

[MedWheeler]

Florida administrative law prohibits firearms in EMS vehicles. Many places to which an EMS crew might respond are off-limits to firearms as well (prisons, schools, etc.) I see no change to that coming.

The state enacted a law recently (last year or in 2018; can't remember) permitting specially-certified paramedics attached to LE SWAT-type units to carry in the same manner as the officers. Of course, the media was all in an uproar over it, prompting the public to believe any EMS crew member might be carrying.

 

[FFGColorado]

My son works for the city of Denver in the 'Enforcement Division". Before COVID, he inspected and 'tested' places that sold tobacco products. Had a 'minor' with him who attempted the 'buy'..no phoney IDs, just to see if the sales person asked for an ID..went to some REALLY sketchy places in Denver...carried in his car(not a city car) but can't CCWP..he's trying to get that changed.

IMHO, with training, I think first responders(because they are often the 'first there') should be able to carry. Often people injured get worse or die because the ambulance crew is waiting for the area to be 'secured'.

 

[Kevin5098]

There should be no need for a law to clarify there is no law prohibiting carry by first first responders or any other act. In the absence of a law prohibiting an act, the act is (by definition) legal. This is a rabbit hole we don't want to go down. Our rights are not granted by the government, though they may be restricted in the interest of public safety.

 

[FFGColorado]

There should be no need for a law to clarify there is no law prohibiting carry by first first responders or any other act. In the absence of a law prohibiting an act, the act is (by definition) legal. This is a rabbit hole we don't want to go down. Our rights are not granted by the government, though they may be restricted in the interest of public safety.

Or if the ambulance service is not a government but private company also.

 

[FL-NC]

They are frequently responding to scenes of violent crime, and sometimes the shenanigans aren't over when they get there. Medical personnel who aren't combatants in the US mil carry sidearms for defensive purposes too. Mil hospitals in afg and iraq always have a few non-medical people hanging around toting M4's or M16's.