Government Officers Can't Carry Back-Ups

[rc135]

I was just speaking with a federal officer about his issued sidearm (I prefer not to name his agency), and asked him what sort of back-up gun he prefers to carry. He stated that he would get fired if he carried a BUG! I didn't ask if he, or any of his fellow officers carried one, despite this rule, but was flabbergasted that federal officers (at least those in his agency), who are required (for good reason) to be armed, are simultaneoulsly barred from protecting themselves in the event of a mechanical problem with their primary firearm, or if it is taken from them, etc. Any comments on this? Thanks.


"Rules are made for people who aren't willing to make up their own." -- Chuck Yeager

"Fill yer hands, ya sons o' bitches." -- The Duke, in "True Grit"

 

[mossberg]

They should have back-ups, even if they aren't supplied.

 

[Hypnogator]

Back in the day, my agency required you to carry only a gov't issued firearm, one each S&W Model 10, with 12 rds of gov't issue .38 spl ammo. Nobody's panties got in a wad if you happened to have an ammo wallet with an extra 18 from the range in your briefcase "just in case."

Oh, yeah. NAA Mini-revolver = Special Agent's Last Resort!

 

[TexasSkyhawk]

Sounds odd.

I worked for a Justice Department agency and they encouraged all field/street agents to carry a backup gun. So did most of the Treasury agents I knew and worked with. They wouldn't buy the gun for you, but if you purchased a backup gun, they would furnish you with all the ammunition you needed.

Only caveat was that it had to be double-action and you had to qualify with it.

Maybe the series of candy-ass AGs and Direcotrs of late have finally gotten their way. Would make sense since most of them didn't know their buttocks from a barrel.

Jeff

 

[mekender]

yeah that sounds pretty odd... some armed agents i could see... you gotta fill in the blanks for us man, dot leave us hanging... i mean a postal inspector is an armed investigator... so is an officer that serves federal summons... there are federal enforcement positions that wouldn't require the agent to be heavily armed... even within the FBI, ATF they have unarmed positions...

 

[WC145]

You'd be surpised how many agencies - federal, state, local, whatever - have policies against back up weapons. Personally, I think it's back-asswards thinking but it is pretty common nonetheless. Of course plenty of the people that work for these agancies cary BUGs on the sly but they're not going to share that info because of the potential consequences.

My dept doesn't issue back up weapons but we are encouraged to carry one of our own and expected to carry off-duty as well.

 

[JColdIron]

I think a BUG is a good idea. I wonder what the thinking is when denying them?

Could it be to prevent having a throw down weapon in a bad shoot? Not that should happen to properly trained agents

 

[spwenger]

Federal Agencies Vary

Federal agencies run the gamut from those that prohibit backups to those that encourage them.

Historically, agencies, whether federal or otherwise, that prohibit backups have done so for concerns that officers might carry unregistered "throw-down" guns that could be planted on suspects who proved to be unarmed after they had been shot. The simple answer to that concern is to require that the officer register each firearm carried with the department armorer and that he periodically shoot an appropriate proficiency course (aka "qualification") with each such handgun. Officers found to be carrying unregistered firearms are then subject to disciplinary action.

While I am unaware of any local agencies doing it, I am under the impression that a few state-police agencies issue backups to their officers.

 

[GRB]

My federal agency allows a secondary handgun.

 

[Ala Dan]

I know of several federal agents in various departments who carry back-up
weapons that I have sold 'em~!

 

[chipperi]

We have a buddy that is an FBI analyst officed at the Pentagon and he is allowed to carry a backup.

 

[akodo]

I think Jcoldiron is correct. Often such policies were in put in place to avoid LEs carrying a small junk gun that could be planted in a bad shoot.

Obviously, some departments were smart enough to say 'okay you can carry a backup, but you have to register the serial number with us first'

Then of course some moron carries something really really dumb as a backup (say a single shot stevens 410 cut down and stuck in a cowboy boot, or some guy gets a 44 magnum after seeing dirty harry, etc)

now what?

The smart agencies will come up with a list of acceptable backups, apoint someone to do approvals on a case-by-case basis, or set up a series of features the backup must have. Of course, these three above options take time and resources pushing paper. Somewhere along the way someone who is in middle management and not on the street is going to say 'Screw this, we'll just go back to not allowing backups!'

 

[Eric F]

Hum so whats the issue? So what if a dept says no back up gun. If the employee does not like it they can find a diffrent job. I know for a fact lateral transfers in the Fed Gov are not all that hard to do I have transfered twice and looking for a third soon. Some jobs do not warent a backup. The biggest thing I notice in this thread is the term "agent" and "officer" For the most part an "Agent" is usually not a uniformed cop and to me would indicate perhaps looser carry rules. An "officer" is more or less a regular cop. It depends on their roll too. The the patrol cops on base here have permission for a bug the office cops do not.

 

[MAKster]

Most departments that bar officers from carrying back up handguns do so because of the potential for these guns being used to frame someone who was killed by the officer in an unjustified shooting.

 

[Ultrachimp]

Historically, agencies, whether federal or otherwise, that prohibit backups have done so for concerns that officers might carry unregistered "throw-down" guns that could be planted on suspects who proved to be unarmed after they had been shot. The simple answer to that concern is to require that the officer register each firearm carried with the department armorer and that he periodically shoot an appropriate proficiency course (aka "qualification") with each such handgun. Officers found to be carrying unregistered firearms are then subject to disciplinary action.

Sounds like the best solution. It doesn't make sense so underarm officers, but it's bad if they have weapons they can plant.

 

[HOME DEPOT GEORGE]

Thats as bad as saying that gun control is responsible for less crime. If a cop is dishonest enough to plant a gun hes going to carry it no matter what the rules are.

 

[WC145]

Not allowing BUG's over concerns that cops will use them as "throw down" guns in case of a bad shoot?! Puuulease, we're talking about the real, current world here people, not NY city, Chicago, LA, or wherever back in the bad old days. The reasons behind a dept not allowing BUG's, whether personally owned or dept issued are rooted in cost and liability. If a dept chooses to issue a secondary weapon to all of it's officers they've just doubled the cost of arming said officers, plus the added expenses of training and qualifying with those extra weapons, not to mention holsters, mag pouches, spare mags, etc, etc, etc. If they allow personally owned weapons the worry is accountability and liability for guns, ammo, equipment, accessories, etc. That is why those depts that do allow officers to provide their own BUG/off-duty gun often have an approved list of calibers, weapons, and ammunition, and require the officer's to qualify with those weapons. When they do the guns are generally inspected by a range master and the model, caliber, serial number, and sometimes even ammo lot numbers are recorded and kept on record.
Certainly there are guys (and gals) out there carrying BUG's that their depts are unaware of because it makes good sense and they'd rather face disciplinary action than be killed due to policy. But, the idea that there is still an appreciable number of cops/agents/deputies/whatever are carrying a spare roscoe with serial number filed off as a "back up" so they can frame some poor sap that was unjustly shot is ridiculous and smacks of paranoia.

 

[worthirt_99]

I know that us customs and the border patrol don't and can't carry BUGs. Then again, they have enough people standing around them armed that they wouldn't really have to worry about it.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I didn't ask if he, or any of his fellow officers carried one, despite this rule, but was flabbergasted that federal officers (at least those in his agency), who are required (for good reason) to be armed, are simultaneoulsly barred from protecting themselves in the event of a mechanical problem with their primary firearm, or if it is taken from them, etc. Any comments on this? Thanks.

I think you misunderstood. It isn't that officers in that agency aren't allowed to protect themselves in the case of a mechanical failure of their primary firearm. They are. They simply don't have the agency option of carrying a BUG.

 

[Firethorn]

But, the idea that there is still an appreciable number of cops/agents/deputies/whatever are carrying a spare roscoe with serial number filed off as a "back up" so they can frame some poor sap that was unjustly shot is ridiculous and smacks of paranoia.

Or that they'd use the thing as a 'BUG', especially if the serials are filed off(illegal).

As for the liability concerns, my response to that would be to ask: Name a time that a officer/department has been sued due to the usage of a BUG, whether issued or personally obtained? Heck, where the choice of the firearm and ammunition could be questioned?

I mean, BUGS are generally much smaller and only to be used in emergencies where their primary weapon is lost or non-functional.

We're talking about a backup. As long as the officer hasn't done something extremely stupid like tried to create mercury-filled hollowpoints, you have to realize that the concessions for making a BUG small enough for regular carry mean compromises.

I think you also have more need for personalization - a 200 pound male officer will likely carry a different BUG than a 120 pound female officer.

An NAA Mini-revolver, or even a derringer can be a life saver in the right circumstances. Still, I don't expect most officers to be able to qualify on the standard range course with it. If they can - then it's likely the regular course is too easy. I don't necessarily think that BUG should be able to make a 30 yard shot most of the time - but I think that a primary carry weapon should.

 

[ilbob]

Most departments that bar officers from carrying back up handguns do so because of the potential for these guns being used to frame someone who was killed by the officer in an unjustified shooting.

Cops that carry throw down guns are not going to care much about the rules in the first place.

I don't think the practice of carrying throw down guns is as pervasive as it once was, and even then it was probably only common in certain departments (Chicago and NYC being notorious for the practice).

I suspect someone at the agency in question decided that no BUG was a good idea, and ordered it so. Might have had a bad experience like a guy carrying a BUG into a detention cell or something.

 

[Pevey]

I know that us customs and the border patrol don't and can't carry BUGs. Then again, they have enough people standing around them armed that they wouldn't really have to worry about it.

My back up is in the rack about ten feet away. Gotta qual yearly with slug and XX.

 

[worthirt_99]

Wow, you are the first one I've heard of then. Lived next to and was friends with a bunch of those agents. None of them had one, at least not on them.

 

[GRB]

Most departments that bar officers from carrying back up handguns do so because of the potential for these guns being used to frame someone who was killed by the officer in an unjustified shooting.

Surely you jest; but if you are not joking, can you refer me to the data from whence you gleaned this information. I would be interesting reading.

us customs and the border patrol don't and can't carry BUGs

U.S. Customs does not exist, it was done away with after 9/11, so that Customs and Immigration could combine under the Department of Homeland Security. Prior to the formation of DHS: Customs Special Agents were permitted to carry a secondary weapon, however I believe that Inspectors were not allowed to do so.

Since Customs Inspectors have been combined with Immigration Inspectors and Agriculture Inspectors under the agency of Customs and Border Protection they are now called CBP Officers. The rules may well be the same for them regarding back up guns as it was prior to the formation of CBP under DHS.

As for former Customs Special Agents, they were combined with Immigration & Naturalization Service Agents, and FPS Investigators under Immigration and Customs Enforcement, another part of DHS. Yes they can still carry a secondary or back-up weapon.

As for the Border Patrol, my guess is they are lucky to be able to carry a weapon at all. When I was in the Border Patrol we carried under implied authority as there was no federal statutory law that gave us authority to carry firearms. That was long ago and they may finally have a law on the books giving them such authority, but it would not surprise me to learn they still can not carry a back-up handgun.

Of course most of the officers can and often do arm themselves with a secondary gun (not a back-up handgun) in the form of a shotgun or rifle or sub-gun if the situation calls for it).

All the best,
Glenn B

 

[GunTech]

My wife is a Federal LEO. She has an issue SIG P228 and a P239 backup, also issue.