Friend was denied LEO job because of too many guns...

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think there is more to this than the number of guns and a CCW permit. Particulaly the CCW permit, he would be LEO and come under HR318 law, the worst they would say is resign the permit and don't get another one. The number of guns I also consider BS unless the PD keeps track of every officer I seriously doubt the number of guns has anything to do with it. I suspect he just didn't make the cut for some reason maybe for something out of his control even but is providing an excuse. Too many guns and CCW just doesn't fit.
 
Rabid Rabbit said:
I think there is more to this than the number of guns and a CCW permit. Particulaly the CCW permit, he would be LEO and come under HR318 law, the worst they would say is resign the permit and don't get another one. The number of guns I also consider BS unless the PD keeps track of every officer I seriously doubt the number of guns has anything to do with it. I suspect he just didn't make the cut for some reason maybe for something out of his control even but is providing an excuse. Too many guns and CCW just doesn't fit.

Yeah, that's my first guess.


Jeff White said:
I've worked for three different departments over the years and no one was ever concerned about how many guns I owned.

I will say that if he presented himself in the interviews as being fixated or enamored with gun and shooting, he probably didn't pass. No one wants to hire a real life "Tackleberry". Even if he didn't leave that exact impression, profiency with and an interest in weapons scares administrative types almost as much as it scares the antis. Maybe more, because they see liability.

There are plenty of police departments out there. He should apply somewhere else and don't reveal anything more about his aptitude with firearms then what they ask him about.

I agree with you, particularly in the part that I bolded from your post.

I have heard guys from outside of my department complain that my department didn't like gun-owning applicants, and that simply isn't true. I know a LOT of guys on my job (including command staff, FTO's, academy staff, etc) who own gun collections that are far more extensive than mine.

I believe I was asked during one of the interviews if I have ever owned or fired a gun. I responded "Yes, I grew up hunting, and did some competitive shooting in college". The BI's response was "oh, good". I was also asked if I had a CCW permit, which I didn't at that time. Given the extent of police background interviews, neither of those questions seemed out of line... After all, I was also asked about my credit, my finances, my friends, my family, my hobbies, etc. I was required to sign a release for my credit records, was put through very extensive physicals, psychologicals, a polygraph, and physical ability test. Plus, probably 100 people that I knew were contacted by the background investigators, and I hadn't talked to some of these folks in 10 years! I had to provide EVERY address that I had every lived at, and contact information for EVERY job I ever had (in fact, they even gave me a hard time because there was no way to contact the owner of the company from one job I briefly had during college... The owner was my direct supervisor, and had died!!! There was no more company!).

Like any other job, remember that it is an INTERVIEW process. You need to honestly present yourself, but also sell yourself to the interviewer... Highlight your good points, and try to turn things that might be considered "bad" points into good things (like: "yes, I do have a CCW permit. I got it a few years ago when I first had a family, because I feel that I have a duty to protect them and keep them safe"... rather than: "yeah, I've got a permit. It's my right!")

Just remember, police departments worry an awful lot about liability, for obvious reasons. If someone sounds like they are too into guns, or action, or partied too much as a teenager, or hates the government, the department might take a pass on that applicant... and folks often do get turned down for odd reasons, or even no reason (except, maybe, that a better applicant was available). Large departments get thousands of applicants for maybe 50 open positions, while even small departments might get hundreds of applicants for 1 or 2 positions.

I was turned down at one department before I got my job, and they didn't really have any reason for me, other than "there were other more qualified applicants". At that time I had no LE experience, and it appeared that there were around 500 people competing for 6-8 spots (and I'll bet at least 6 to 8 people in that group were lateral officers from other departments).

So, tell your friend to keep his head up, and keep applying! It is always a lengthy process, and sometimes takes a while to find the right department.

If nothing else, send him to CO. Our departments out here don't seem to be anti-gun. All the same, I suspect there could be more to it than that!
 
I work out at a gym with a young cop that says he doesn't carry off duty. He believes it is way too much hassle carrying a gun off duty. I asked him why he felt that way, and he doesn't feel like he would ever need it. :scrutiny:

Also, he complained about how big the guns are. And I told him about Keltec,,, he had no idea.

I think he may come around eventually.
 
Last edited:
I work out at a gym with a young cop that says he doesn't carry off duty.

As a kid, I remember a police friend of my parents explaining that he was never "off duty" - his department expected him to be armed 24/7. They had a different than "on duty" or "off duty", but he was expected/required to get involved any time he witnessed a crime, and was therefore expected to carry 24/7.

I guess maybe things have changed.

Mike
 
off duty LEO incidents; weapons...

I'm not a sworn US LEO and need to re-apply to get my CC license where I live/work. I do carry weapons on my armed jobs and 75-80% of the time I will put my .38spl in a case in my vehicle for protection. :rolleyes:

I'd like to add these points about US LEOs who do not carry/carry small handguns off duty...

I think it would be a big mistake to not carry at least a J-frame .38spl revolver or sub-compact 9mm/.357sig/.40/.45acp with at least one spare mag while off duty.

In recent years an off duty LEO in a small town/"nice" area faced a spree shooter in a mall. The young cop had a 1911a1 .45 but no spare mags! :uhoh:
Another veteran LEO faced a group of armed robbers armed only with a .25acp. He was wounded several times but was able to face down the criminals. The LEO worked in a major US city in the southwest and now carrys a full size pistol and 2 spare mags, all the time, ;).
Crimes and serious incidents can take place nearly anywhere. To say; "oh, I'll be okay" or "I'm off duty." is a cop out. As a sworn LEO you are required to protect and serve the public. To be armed and able to defend yourself/someone else should be considered a part of your sworn duties.
RS
 
I would be concerned about running into a criminal that maybe got out of jail that I had arrested at some point.

I would not want to be disarmed against someone that had a vendetta...
 
As a kid, I remember a police friend of my parents explaining that he was never "off duty" - his department expected him to be armed 24/7. They had a different than "on duty" or "off duty", but he was expected/required to get involved any time he witnessed a crime, and was therefore expected to carry 24/7.

I guess maybe things have changed.
My department did not require 24/7 carry because that would imply the deputy was on duty 24/7. There were issues of workman's compensation insurance, vicarious liability, etc.

The department's policy was off duty carry was permitted, nothing more.

Pilgrim
 
I am a recruiter for the L.A County Sheriff's Dept. I am going call a friend right now and find out if a ccw is a liability that they would disqualify for. The amount of guns you own wouldn't matter. I know guys who have been hired who have plenty of guns.

And not to discount your friend or call him a liar count, but we find that 99% of the time someone says they were disqualified for a particular reason is because they don't want to tell their friends the real reason they were disqualified or because they are embarrased as to the reason they were disqualified. Some examples are sex with animals, or other lewd acts they will never admit too. drugs also. There is more to this story than your getting count.

Most times friends don't get the whole/real story.

Just talked to my friend who is a background investigator. If the applicant is pretty squared away, neither of those reasons would be a disqualification.

As to your statement quite, I don't know about LAPD. The Sheriff's Dept. is not anti gun, we are anti criminal with a gun.
 
LASD is about as anti gun as they come... I know they are just so bizzy issuing all those CCW, they don't have time to fight crime...
 
Ah, I see tab you must have first hand knowledge. Just curious, do you know why it's almost impossible to get a CCW in Los Angeles County?

The Sheriff of our county is the one who has the final say so. Just because he's incredibly strict on who get's a ccw and who doesn't, does not make the department anti gun.
 
They did him a favor! There are alot of LEO jobs better than working in that jungle. The rookies would probably get the worst duty for a few years anyway. Around my home town, most of the cops buy and trade guns like crazy! There are cities around this country that are begging for quality recruits. Tell him to keep trying, get some experience and training under his belt, and opportunities will be plentiful. The only down side is he might not have the job he wants for a while.
 
Ah, I see tab you must have first hand knowledge. Just curious, do you know why it's almost impossible to get a CCW in Los Angeles County?

The Sheriff of our county is the one who has the final say so. Just because he's incredibly strict on who get's a ccw and who doesn't, does not make the department anti gun.
when the boss is anti gun, it means the entire dept is anti gun( even if they are not) since he is the guy that gets to make the rules.
 
RPCVYemen said:
As a kid, I remember a police friend of my parents explaining that he was never "off duty" - his department expected him to be armed 24/7. They had a different than "on duty" or "off duty", but he was expected/required to get involved any time he witnessed a crime, and was therefore expected to carry 24/7.

I guess maybe things have changed.

Mike

They haven't. My department requires us to always be armed, and states in policy that:

"Officers shall carry their badge and I.D card and be armed at all times..."

and, elsewhere in policy:

"Officers are held to be always on-duty, although periodically relieved from the routine performance of it... and the fact that they may be technically off-duty shall not relieve them from the responsibility of taking proper police action in any matter coming to their attention"


Does that mean everyone I know on the job carries their weapon as required? No, it does not. Do I carry my weapon only because it is policy? No, I do not.

I carry my weapon off-duty because I couldn't live with knowing that I could have stopped something bad if only I was prepared, and for some reason wasn't (an active shooter, for example).

Some guys are more over the top than others. Lets face it, my time is my time. I carry a weapon, and one magazine. I don't carry cuffs, flashlight, pepper spray, etc, off-duty (but, I know folks who do). If I am getting involved in something off-duty, it better be important!
 
When the boss is anti gun, it means the entire dept is anti gun( even if they are not) since he is the guy that gets to make the rules
That's kind of like saying when the president is anti (insert whatever) then the whole country is anti. Sorry tab, your statement holds zero water.
 
there is a diffrence between the pres and a sheriff.

true or false, a officer not fallowing policy is subject to disciplinary action?

So if the head of a dept makes the policy they could do things like: not returning guns after they are wrongfully seized or say do a full on enforcement of all firearm laws... etc etc.

the rank and file can be what ever they want, they still have to fallow orders.
 
there is a diffrence between the pres and a sheriff.

true or false, a officer not fallowing policy is subject to disciplinary action?

So if the head of a dept makes the policy they could do things like: not returning guns after they are wrongfully seized or say do a full on enforcement of all firearm laws... etc etc.

the rank and file can be what ever they want, they still have to fallow orders.

when the boss is anti gun, it means the entire dept is anti gun( even if they are not) since he is the guy that gets to make the rules.

The positions are different yes, but the principle your are applying is the same, because your boss believes something doesn't not make it doctrine for everyone to believe the same. Anti gun is not a policy.

Yes we are subject to discipline if we don't follow orders, but once again, anti gun is not a policy. If a gun is wrongfully seized then that is a mistake on the officer. But none of what you said holds your statement up about our department being anti gun. Policy cannot circumvent laws.

Just like the military, if you belive an order to be in violation of the law or a morally wrong order, you have a right to refuse it.

If my sergeant told me to illegally seize a gun, or anything else for that matter, you can be sure I am going to tell him to go pound sand. We are not mindless order following robots. I am enjoying this debate:)
 
Ah, I see tab you must have first hand knowledge. Just curious, do you know why it's almost impossible to get a CCW in Los Angeles County?

The Sheriff of our county is the one who has the final say so. Just because he's incredibly strict on who get's a ccw and who doesn't, does not make the department anti gun.
why is it? what is the criteria?
 
I've heard a few reasons triny, I am not going to ask the man himself. But I heard he was a little lenient in his CCW permission and got burned a couple times with people getting in trouble with the weapons permit, re: bad judgement with their weapon. So he decided to become strict to the point of saying no to pretty much everybody.

This is what I heard, but as with anything, I don't know for sure.
 
they do it all the time.

I am not going to get into a debate about the morality and judgement of other officers. The discussion was about the whole department being anti-gun. You've strayed more from that to behavior of cops on the job, and failed to prove your anti gun point. And The small points you made were pretty weak.
 
I've heard a few reasons triny, I am not going to ask the man himself. But I heard he was a little lenient in his CCW permission and got burned a couple times with people getting in trouble with the weapons permit, re: bad judgement with their weapon. So he decided to become strict to the point of saying no to pretty much everybody.

This is what I heard, but as with anything, I don't know for sure.
there is a video on You tube of him explaining his policy on CCWs

basicly its LEO, retired LEO, DOJ employess, Retired federal LEO and people that are vics of violent crimes and are still in danger of thier lives.

So lets see, vics that are still in danager and LEO/retired LEO... sounds like a fair policy... of corse hollywood "celbs" get one since they are in danger...
 
In 1991,back when I lived in AL,I was DQ'd for the JeffCoSD because I "failed" the polygraph.:mad:The next day,a lieutenant deputy calls me and asks me if I would accept a badge from them.I said why would you offer me that when you DQ'd me on the polygraph yesterday?:scrutiny:He was silent for a few seconds and mentioned something about polygraphs not being totally accurate.:rolleyes:An old football knee finally DQ'd me on the physical check.Just as well,because now it sometimes slips out of joint when I'm walking and "trips" me.Not a good thing in a possible foot pursuit:D.

Fast forward to 2008.Interestingly enough,most Indiana LEAs cut off applicants at around age 35.Yet the State Police CMV(DOT Cops) has no age cutoff but seldom has openings compared to the other agencies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top