Minn. police associations sue NFL over stadium gun ban

[benEzra]

First of all, the NFL didn't ban the Daniel Defense commercial. I honestly believe it was a publicity stunt. No way could DD invest $6m for a 60 second commercial when their annual profit margin voters around $8m. Propaganda is propaganda, regardless if it comes from friend or foe.

I believe it was going to be run in a local market by a local station, not nationwide (much less $$$) and the local station supposedly denied the ad on the grounds that it would violate NFL policy for ads run during NFL games. Not sure if that's true or not, but it seems plausible.

 

[toiville2feathers]

So to get the facts straight on MN LEO's. They are sworn in officers, when not on duty, they are still required to perform there duties they have sworn to uphold. By taking away their gun you are placing them at a disadvantage. It's not a "if he can do it, I should be able to also.". The LEO is required to protect the citizens, the rest of us by ccw and law, can only protect ourselves and our own.

Next point, the Chief of Police in MPLS is a female, not a male.

And the Viking stadium is not owned by the NFL. It's owned by the Vikings organization and the MN Sports commission.

 

[NavyLCDR]

The LEO is required to protect the citizens, the rest of us by ccw and law, can only protect ourselves and our own.

Please post the statute that substantiates your claim.

Minnesota Statute 609.06 and .065:
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.06

609.06 AUTHORIZED USE OF FORCE.
Subdivision 1.When authorized.

Except as otherwise provided in subdivision 2, reasonable force may be used upon or toward the person of another without the other's consent when the following circumstances exist or the actor reasonably believes them to exist:
(3) when used by any person in resisting or aiding another to resist an offense against the person; or

(4) when used by any person in lawful possession of real or personal property, or by another assisting the person in lawful possession, in resisting a trespass upon or other unlawful interference with such property;

609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE.

The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I think it is a big stretch to say that the NFL is against LEO because they refuse to accommodate them more than Joe Civilian. Although I think that we have a huge problem overall with LEOs expecting and even demanding special treatment.

Says the guy who feels it necessary to profess in his sig line that he's not anti-cop?

I am also against special treatment for LEOs or any other group. If they aren't on duty, then they are just Joe Citizen as far as I am concerned.

The LEO is required to protect the citizens, the rest of us by ccw and law, can only protect ourselves and our own.

The courts have repeatedly upheld that the cops are not required to protect the citizens.

In my state, you are instructed by law that your permit does not give you the authority to intervene on behalf of someone you don't know.

Okay, what state is this and specifically, what law says this? Since you are a cop, do tell.

 

[steve4102]

Thanks Navy and OOSpy.
You cleared up a few misconceptions that I read.

MN Personal protection law does NOT say one can only protect Themselves or "Their Own".

The Supreme Court has ruled that Police officers have NO obligation to Protect. Maybe Warren v DC ?

One more, the New Football Stadium is not owned by the MN Vikings, They Rent it.

 

[NavyLCDR]

I have a question for these off-duty cops that say they are "on call" 24/7 to protect us and must carry their firearms.... I guess that means you can never be under the influence of alcohol, then, right?

One more, the New Football Stadium is not owned by the MN Vikings, They Rent it.

Steve4102, when I use the word "you" below, please know I am not meaning to address you specifically.

This is the way I see it:

The stadium was probably built, in part, with tax payers money. The government did so as a business venture - an invenstment - with the hopes of not only recovering the tax $$$ spent on it, but generating revenue in the future.

The way the government recoups the tax payer money is through exclusive use renting/leasing the facility. That means that a private corporation, such as the Vikings and/or the NFL pay rent to the government for the exclusive use of the stadium. While the private corporation is under their rental/lease agreement for the stadium - the stadium is NOT open to the public. The stadium is open to only those whom have an invitation from the corporation paying the rent to be there.

Your invitation is in the form of the ticket that you purchase. If an NFL football game was "open to the public" as some are claiming - then you would not need a ticket (your invitation) to enter. You would simply walk in. Since the NFL is paying the rent for exclusive use of the stadium, since it is a private event by invitation only, and since the NFL is not a government entity, they are not bound by state preemption and can legally ban firearms if they choose to.

When you buy the ticket, you agree to the terms and conditions of that ticket, one of which is no firearms. If you don't like that condition, then nobody is forcing you to buy the ticket. Nor do you have any "right" to attend an NFL football game.

So...you can try to convince the government that is collecting the rent to pay back taxpayer dollars that they have to include in their rental/lease agreement that the corporation must allow firearms as part of the rental agreement. This would probably cause many potential renters to find another facility and the government would lose money.

You can try to convince the private corporation that is paying the rent to allow firearms. But, it is a far stretch to attempt to get a court to order the private corporation to allow firearms.

You can try to convince your employer to allow you not to carry a firearm during the duration of the football game you wish to attend (and, I would guess you would also need special permission to have a beer or two, since you are "on-call" 24/7 and have the obligation to provide armed intervention if there is a commission of a crime, as some LEOs are claiming).

I just don't see this claim of "discrimination against LEOs" because the NFL is not treating you special, different than Joe Civilian Citizen. In fact, to me, it is showing equal treatment - just the opposite of discrimination.

 

[coyotehitman]

Says the guy who feels it necessary to profess in his sig line that he's not anti-cop?

He is part of a minority group of self indulgent pundits who chime in with their anti cop propaganda on nearly every post about LEO's. Pay him no attention.

 

[NavyLCDR]

He is part of a minority group of self indulgent pundits who chime in with their anti cop propaganda on nearly every post about LEO's. Pay him no attention.

For the simple reason that our minority group of self indulgent pundits don't see the need to treat LEOs as a special class of citizen due to their chosen career field?

Unfortunately, I see this thread getting locked before I ever get an answer to my question to the LEOs who insist they must carry their guns 24/7 if that means they also must never be under the influence of alcohol.

 

[Glocktogo]

I am also against special treatment for LEOs or any other group. If they aren't on duty, then they are just Joe Citizen as far as I am concerned.

Perhaps as far as you're concerned, but not necessarily in the eyes of the law depending on the jurisdiction. In many states, the enforcement authority of a commissioned LEO is not dependent on pay or duty status. Commissioned is commissioned and the authority is 24/7/365, which is the case in my state. Again and for the umpteenth time, what is this "special treatment" you speak of? "Special treatment" is not even at issue here. LEO's are not being refused "special treatment" by the NFL when instructed they may not carry their dept. authorized and mandated firearm on premisies. They are being DENIED a duty bound requirement of their commissioning agency, which is tantamount to denial of entry along with the general public. You wouldn't tell someone to violate the law and carry in a prohibited place would you? If not, then why would you tell an off duty LEO to violate dept. policy and go forth in public unarmed to attend an NFL game? Unless of course your answer is to tell off duty LEO's to simply not go, which is effectively what the NFL has done here.

The courts have repeatedly upheld that the cops are not required to protect the citizens.

The SCOTUS ruling on duty to protect does not require a law enforcement agency to eliminate any dept. regulations demanding a commissioned LEO to act when a felony is committe in their presence, nor does it void any agency requirement to carry off duty. Further, in most sheriff's deparments or offices, a deputy's commission is at the discretion of the sherriff and may be revoked without cause or explanation. In my office, the sheriff says "always carry off duty" and woe be unto the deputy who is caught incapable of intervening in a lethal force situation. Note that this does not demand a specific action other than to be prepared to do so. Each situation is judged on its own set of facts, not a general rule.

Okay, what state is this and specifically, what law says this? Since you are a cop, do tell.

Oklahoma. Relevant statutes are O.S. §21-733.; O.S. §21-1279. & O.S. §21-1289.16. Additional instruction, legal precedent and general exemptions are further described in the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act curriculum and training, of which I do not have a copy on hand. In context, it does not prohibit a person from coming to the defense of an unknown person in apparent fear of death or great bodily harm, but any harm or wrongful use of force is not granted immunity under O.S. §21-1290 when doing so(lawful use of force under 21-1290 is grounds for immunity from civil suit). When I wrote "In my state, you are instructed by law that your permit does not give you the authority to intervene on behalf of someone you don't know. If you do so, it is at your own legal peril.", that's EXACTLY what I meant.

Does this satisfy your request?

Again, I'm not saying the NFL cannot have this policy, but that it's complete hypocrisy to have it and pretend they're not putting a commissioned LEO in a tough spot as a result. You either violate agency edicts or you don't have the same opportunity to attend a game.

Let me put it in another context: "You are required by your employer to carry a cell phone on your person at all times and be available for recall to work at any given moment. The NFL has just banned cell phones in their stadiums. You now have a choice, either risk losing your job because you failed to carry your cell phone, or stop going to NFL games."

Now let that sink in and tell me how it makes you feel? Are you happy with the NFL's decision or not? For us, we're not happy about it. You're acting like we don't have a right to be unhappy. That's all I'm saying.

 

[coyotehitman]

For the simple reason that our minority group of self indulgent pundits don't see the need to treat LEOs as a special class of citizen due to their chosen career field?

No, primarily because you do not want them treated as a special class of citizen UNLESS it is somehow detrimental to them or in some way punishes them.

Unfortunately, I see this thread getting locked before I ever get an answer to my question to the LEOs who insist they must carry their guns 24/7 if that means they also must never be under the influence of alcohol.

I deem the question ignorant and not worthy of response.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Perhaps as far as you're concerned, but not necessarily in the eyes of the law depending on the jurisdiction. In many states, the enforcement authority of a commissioned LEO is not dependent on pay or duty status. Commissioned is commissioned and the authority is 24/7/365, which is the case in my state. Again and for the umpteenth time, what is this "special treatment" you speak of? "Special treatment" is not even at issue here. LEO's are not being refused "special treatment" by the NFL when instructed they may not carry their dept. authorized and mandated firearm on premisies. They are being DENIED a duty bound requirement of their commissioning agency, which is tantamount to denial of entry along with the general public. You wouldn't tell someone to violate the law and carry in a prohibited place would you? If not, then why would you tell an off duty LEO to violate dept. policy and go forth in public unarmed to attend an NFL game? Unless of course your answer is to tell off duty LEO's to simply not go, which is effectively what the NFL has done here.


Does this satisfy your request?

Again, I'm not saying the NFL cannot have this policy, but that it's complete hypocrisy to have it and pretend they're not putting a commissioned LEO in a tough spot as a result. You either violate agency edicts or you don't have the same opportunity to attend a game.

Let me put it in another context: "You are required by your employer to carry a cell phone on your person at all times and be available for recall to work at any given moment. The NFL has just banned cell phones in their stadiums. You now have a choice, either risk losing your job because you failed to carry your cell phone, or stop going to NFL games."

Specifically to you, Glocktogo, do these "legal requirements" that you have placed upon you to be commissioned and have authority 24/7, which "requires" you to carry your gun also mean that you cannot consume alcohol because of these "duties"?

 

[Glocktogo]

I have a question for these off-duty cops that say they are "on call" 24/7 to protect us and must carry their firearms.... I guess that means you can never be under the influence of alcohol, then, right?

Honestly? Pretty much. I can't tell you the last time I consumed alcohol in a public setting. Can I do so in my own home? Absolutely. I'm not subect to special callout, just general callout in the event of a major event. If called in such an instance, I am duty bound to report that I'm not fit for duty and why. I would then be subject to reporting for duty when fit. My justification is sound and unless it became a pattern, not subject to disciplinary action.

Now if I became involved in a LE situation off duty in public and were found to be carrying while under the influence, I would be terminated immediately. If found in the same situation and not carrying, I might be subject to personnel or disciplinary action, particularly if found to be failing to maintain the moral and ethical requirements set forth in dept. policy. When cops say "never off duty", it's not a lie. I can get in trouble off duty just as easily as on. Do you have the same level of jeopardy in your carrer field?

Now lets get real. I have been out in a group setting wth other officers & deputies. The ones I choose to associate with outside of work carry religiously. However, we will on occasion imbibe. How? Simple, we have "designated gun toters". Just like designated drivers are recommended, the same goes for our oath of office. If something happens that requires intervention, the non-drinking ones handle it while the others observe and serve as witnesses. Is that how all cops act? Absolutely not, just the responsible ones.

As for your absurd notion of "open to the public", the inside of a stadium is certainly "public". Don't think so? Get falling down drunk and cause a scene. See if you're not hauled off for "public" intoxication. I don't care how much you paid for your ticket or what agreement you made in order to enter, the charge will stick.

As for this notion of "special treatement", I dispensed with that in the previous post.

 

[Glocktogo]

Specifically to you, Glocktogo, do these "legal requirements" that you have placed upon you to be commissioned and have authority 24/7, which "requires" you to carry your gun also mean that you cannot consume alcohol because of these "duties"?

I don't have a "requirement" to be commissioned, I choose to do so. However, upon acceptance of that commission and oath of office, I AM bound to uphold that oath. Now I realize that we have a whole slew of people in this country that take oaths of office on a whim, with no intentions of abiding by such oaths. I'm not one of those and if you think I am, I'd take offense to that generalization sir!

Now I recognize that I'm not giving you any ammunition to support your crusade. You can rest assured that I'm just all broke up over that!

 

[NavyLCDR]

When cops say "never off duty", it's not a lie. I can get in trouble off duty just as easily as on. Do you have the same level of jeopardy in your carrer field?

As an active duty military officer, I certainly do have the same level of jeopard in my career field.

My point with asking the alcohol question was that if LEO are going to claim the "NEED" to be armed during a football game, then I would expect that "NEED" to be armed to extend to any recreational activity they would choose to engage in - which would also include not partaking in the consumption of alcohol.

In regards to the intoxicated in public charge you mentioned. I have no argument you would not be charged with intoxication in public because there is a large number of the public invited by way of the purchase of their tickets. Let me address this - if you say the football game is a public event then try not leaving the stadium when the NFL tells you that you must leave and see how long you last before you are forcibly removed from the stadium by law enforcement, probably in handcuffs.

I don't have a "requirement" to be commissioned, I choose to do so. However, upon acceptance of that commission and oath of office, I AM bound to uphold that oath. Now I realize that we have a whole slew of people in this country that take oaths of office on a whim, with no intentions of abiding by such oaths. I'm not one of those and if you think I am, I'd take offense to that generalization sir!

Now I recognize that I'm not giving you any ammunition to support your crusade. You can rest assured that I'm just all broke up over that!

I did not realize that asking you if the same requirements of your duties regarding firearms also applied to alcohol consumption was in any way generalizing that you did not take your oath seriously. It was a question, not an accusation.

 

[Glocktogo]

As an active duty military officer, I certainly do have the same level of jeopard in my career field.

You can be stripped of your commission for failure to uphold your oath of office correct? You could lose it for inappropriate acts while not "on duty", correct? Then why in the world woud you think it to be any different for LEO's?

My point with asking the alcohol question was that if LEO are going to claim the "NEED" to be armed during a football game, then I would expect that "NEED" to be armed to extend to any recreational activity they would choose to engage in - which would also include not partaking in the consumption of alcohol.

Asked and answered, apparently in a way you did not expect by your response?

In regards to the intoxicated in public charge you mentioned. I have no argument you would not be charged with intoxication in public because there is a large number of the public invited by way of the purchase of their tickets. Let me address this - if you say the football game is a public event then try not leaving the stadium when the NFL tells you that you must leave and see how long you last before you are forcibly removed from the stadium by law enforcement, probably in handcuffs.

Your response is confusing, are you saying they wouldn't be susceptible to arrest for public intox, or they would? As for the second part, you're reinforcing my position, not yours.

I did not realize that asking you if the same requirements of your duties regarding firearms also applied to alcohol consumption was in any way generalizing that you did not take your oath seriously. It was a question, not an accusation.

Whether intended or not, the "tone" of your posts may readily be construed as a challenge. If that's not your intent, you might either want to state so or back off the rhetoric a little bit. Simply adding a sig line saying that you're allegedly "not anti cop", isn't cutting it.

My comments in blue. By the way, I have a pocket copy of the Constitution (generously provided by LaRue Tactical) sitting right on my desk. I think you're preaching to the choir here!

 

[Old Dog]

As an aside (that's pertinent to the topic), we have been told that only ON-duty law enforcement may carry into our local pro stadiums in Seattle. No lawsuits yet (that I have heard of) but a lot of guys have their panties a-twist about this.

Off-topic, while I am a sports fan, it's hard to reconcile paying the exorbitant fees required to actually attend in person an NFL or MLB game these days ... I'd rather sit at home in front of my big-screen TV, where I can have a firearm handy and still consume alcohol if I so desire.

I find myself pretty much in agreement with Mr. glocktogo as well.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Oklahoma. Relevant statutes are O.S. §21-733.; O.S. §21-1279. & O.S. §21-1289.16. Additional instruction, legal precedent and general exemptions are further described in the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act curriculum and training, of which I do not have a copy on hand. In context, it does not prohibit a person from coming to the defense of an unknown person in apparent fear of death or great bodily harm, but any harm or wrongful use of force is not granted immunity under O.S. §21-1290 when doing so(lawful use of force under 21-1290 is grounds for immunity from civil suit). When I wrote "In my state, you are instructed by law that your permit does not give you the authority to intervene on behalf of someone you don't know. If you do so, it is at your own legal peril.", that's EXACTLY what I meant.

Wow, that is EXACTLY NOT what you said, was it? You indicated that by law, citizens cannot protect anyone other than themselves and their own.

I don't know if any state where the ccw permit gives you any authority to intervene with anybody.

 

[itsa pain]

Says the guy who feels it necessary to profess in his sig line that he's not anti-cop?

I happen to be very pro-Constitution also. I believe in property rights, but also believe in self-determination. I'd prefer that anyone not consuming alcohol be allowed to CCW there as well.

That said, you focused on the part of my post that interested or concerned you and ignored the rest. Some departments MANDATE that their LEOs carry off duty. If your agency says carry off duty and the NFL says "not in my house", that means they DON'T want off duty LEO's in their stadiums.

As a LEO, I also have an OBLIGATION to intercede if a significant threat to life or limb presents itself. Without the requisite tools, I cannot do that effectively. As a CCW permit holde, you have a right to self-defense and defense of others, but no obligation to intercede on behalf of others you do not know. In my state, you are instructed by law that your permit does not give you the authority to intervene on behalf of someone you don't know. If you do so, it is at your own legal peril.

So my statement stands on its own merits. It is disingenuous of the NFL to state they don't NEED off duty LEO's armed in their stadiums "because they are safe without it", then turn around and DENY off duty LEO's the option to do so. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other and they're just trying to put a positive spin on a negative action. Sorry, but I'm not buying it.

They have a right to deny it, but they don't have a right to put their own spin on it and expect us to agree with them or their decision. I have a right too, it's called BOYCOTTING the NFL!

You can whitewash it all you want LCDR is right about the stats and you know it. This is another case of police thinking they are gods above the unwashed masses of peons who exist only to fund police multi million dollar pensions. If the police were so pro 2nd they would have sued so everyone could carry

 

[itsa pain]

He is part of a minority group of self indulgent pundits who chime in with their anti cop propaganda on nearly every post about LEO's. Pay him no attention.

And people like you chime in with your anti civilian mantra. As far as police drinking after duty or even on duty they always get away with DWI and brag about it. In NYC a few years ago to off duty police killed a woman crossing a street left the scene got caught and were not tested for 7 hours until the effects of the alcohol wore off.

 

[Glocktogo]

Wow, that is EXACTLY NOT what you said, was it? You indicated that by law, citizens cannot protect anyone other than themselves and their own.

I don't know if any state where the ccw permit gives you any authority to intervene with anybody.

How can restating exactly what I said VERBATIM be "EXACTLY NOT" what I said? it would be exceedingly presumptuous of you to think you had an inside track on the legislative intent in my state, when you haven't examined the corresponding documents and personal statements of those involved thoroughly. I have since 1995. Let me explain.

The Oklahoma legislature wanted to enact concealed carry. The author of the original bill knew it faced significant opposition from the "there will be blood in the streets crowd". One of their concerns was that citizens would take it upon themselves to intervene in the public squabbles of people they had zero connection to. Their arguments were that you couldn’t know which combatant was the aggressor for sure, or that one of the combatants wasn’t an undercover officer trying to effect an arrest. In order to counter this argument, they wanted to make sure that people didn’t get the wrong idea about the new law. It was specifically intended for SELF-DEFENSE and defense of those in your immediate circle.

At the time this bill was passed into law, we didn’t have Castle Doctrine, Stand Your Ground, Open Carry or any other enumerated protections other than a claim of basic self-defense. If you’re not the one in fear of death or great bodily harm, nor do you know the person whom you believe to be in fear of death or great bodily harm, the potential to act wrongly is increased. That’s just basic common sense. Not only do we now have these laws, but the SDA itself has been revised and updated in positive ways on several occasions.

So, the SDA law does not legally prohibit you from using your lawfully carried firearm to defend someone unknown to you, but neither does it authorize you to, nor will it offer a legal defense in the event you act wrongfully (i.e. good Samaritan).

You apparently assumed that “prohibited” and “authorized” were interchangeable. I never implied that the law prohibited it, you inferred it. I flatly stated that the law didn’t authorize it, restated the exact same thing and reconfirm it now. It does authorize you to use lethal force for your own defense, or the defense of a loved one being attacked with potentially lethal force, and provides specifically enumerated protections if you do. In legal matters, each word has a narrow and specific meaning.

I’m leaving open the possibility that you're disappointed I came back with the detailed technical information you weren't expecting to get, because it doesn’t fit your own bias. If not, perhaps you need to slow down and read it more carefully next time.

 

[NavyLCDR]

You can be stripped of your commission for failure to uphold your oath of office correct? You could lose it for inappropriate acts while not "on duty", correct? Then why in the world woud you think it to be any different for LEO's?

I never stated that it would be any different for LEO. BREAK

My point with asking the alcohol question was that if LEO are going to claim the "NEED" to be armed during a football game, then I would expect that "NEED" to be armed to extend to any recreational activity they would choose to engage in - which would also include not partaking in the consumption of alcohol.

Asked and answered, apparently in a way you did not expect by your response?

How do you construe that clarifying the reason I asked my question, and explaining how my question ties in with the subject at hand in any way indicates that I got a response I did not expect? Other posters were claiming my question was irrelevent, I was merely expressing the relevency of my question. BREAK

In regards to the intoxicated in public charge you mentioned. I have no argument you would not be charged with intoxication in public because there is a large number of the public invited by way of the purchase of their tickets. Let me address this - if you say the football game is a public event then try not leaving the stadium when the NFL tells you that you must leave and see how long you last before you are forcibly removed from the stadium by law enforcement, probably in handcuffs.

Your response is confusing, are you saying they wouldn't be susceptible to arrest for public intox, or they would? As for the second part, you're reinforcing my position, not yours.

I did some research. The "intoxicated in public" issue is a moot point because there is no state law or Minneappolis code specifically for "intoxicated in public". The state statute is MN 609.72, Disorderly Conduct, and begins with, "609.72 DISORDERLY CONDUCT.
Subdivision 1.Crime.Whoever does any of the following in a public or private place"

The Minneappolis city code is "385.90. Disorderly conduct.

No person, in any public or private place" BREAK


I did not realize that asking you if the same requirements of your duties regarding firearms also applied to alcohol consumption was in any way generalizing that you did not take your oath seriously. It was a question, not an accusation.

Whether intended or not, the "tone" of your posts may readily be construed as a challenge. If that's not your intent, you might either want to state so or back off the rhetoric a little bit. Simply adding a sig line saying that you're allegedly "not anti cop", isn't cutting it.

My comments certainly are challenging. I am challenging why off-duty police officers have any more "right" to attend a football game than Joe Civilian does. I am challenging why off-duty police officers have any more "right" to carry a firearm where the private corporation who is putting on a sporting event NOT open to the public, but is only open to TICKET HOLDERS who agreed to the terms and conditions of the issuance of that ticket when they bought them has banned firearms at the event. I am challenging why it is discrimination against off-duty police officers to impose the exact same rules and restrictions upon them as are imposed on Joe Civilian. That does not make me anti-cop. That only means that I don't treat police officers special because of their chosen career. BREAK

By the way, I have a pocket copy of the Constitution (generously provided by LaRue Tactical) sitting right on my desk. I think you're preaching to the choir here!

Cool. Then you should be able to show me, and everyone else, where LEO's are more entitled to 2nd Amendment rights than Joe Civilians are, NO?

 

[cerberus65]

an off duty cop should be no different than you and me

Off duty cops aren't magically protected from angry people they have arrested once they're out of uniform. Hence, 24/7 carry.

That said, I'm a big proponent of everyone being allowed to carry 24/7.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Off duty cops aren't magically protected from angry people they have arrested once they're out of uniform. Hence, 24/7 carry.

This post is not directed at you, personally, cerberus65, just questions in general spawned by your post...

Are there any statistics to show how many off-duty police officers have been attacked by previously arrested criminals?

And, if we are going to use "increased danger" as a justification, than what about the residents of Washington DC? The average resident of Washington DC is statistically many times more likely to be the victim of a violent crime than I am in Washington State. Actually, they are probably more likely to be the victim of a violent crime than any LEO in Washington state. So, wouldn't that be the same argument that the residents of Washington DC should be afforded more privilige to carry firearms than I am?

 

[Glocktogo]

I never stated that it would be any different for LEO. BREAK

My point with asking the alcohol question was that if LEO are going to claim the "NEED" to be armed during a football game, then I would expect that "NEED" to be armed to extend to any recreational activity they would choose to engage in - which would also include not partaking in the consumption of alcohol.

Asked and answered.

How do you construe that clarifying the reason I asked my question, and explaining how my question ties in with the subject at hand in any way indicates that I got a response I did not expect? Other posters were claiming my question was irrelevent, I was merely expressing the relevency of my question. BREAK

Answered: "Whether intended or not, the "tone" of your posts may readily be construed as a challenge. If that's not your intent, you might either want to state so or back off the rhetoric a little bit. Simply adding a sig line saying that you're allegedly "not anti cop", isn't cutting it."

I did some research. The "intoxicated in public" issue is a moot point because there is no state law or Minneappolis code specifically for "intoxicated in public". The state statute is MN 609.72, Disorderly Conduct, and begins with, "609.72 DISORDERLY CONDUCT.
Subdivision 1.Crime.Whoever does any of the following in a public or private place"

The Minneappolis city code is "385.90. Disorderly conduct.

No person, in any public or private place" BREAK

Red Herring argument. Substitute MN 609.72, Disorderly Conduct and it can still be applied in the stadium, correct? It’s a black and white question, so please respond with a “Yes” or a “No”.

I did not realize that asking you if the same requirements of your duties regarding firearms also applied to alcohol consumption was in any way generalizing that you did not take your oath seriously. It was a question, not an accusation.

So what’s your point?

My comments certainly are challenging. I am challenging why off-duty police officers have any more "right" to attend a football game than Joe Civilian does. I am challenging why off-duty police officers have any more "right" to carry a firearm where the private corporation who is putting on a sporting event NOT open to the public, but is only open to TICKET HOLDERS who agreed to the terms and conditions of the issuance of that ticket when they bought them has banned firearms at the event. I am challenging why it is discrimination against off-duty police officers to impose the exact same rules and restrictions upon them as are imposed on Joe Civilian. That does not make me anti-cop. That only means that I don't treat police officers special because of their chosen career. BREAK

Thanks for confirming your bias. Now, I challenge you to show where I EVER said they have any more “right” to attend or carry at an NFL stadium. Go ahead, I’ll wait............................... Can’t show us? Well of course not, because I never said it! Now that we’ve dispensed with your presumption there, I’d like for you to spend a little time answering questions I’ve posed. I’ve answered every question you’ve put to me, but you’ve ignored several of mine. I think I’ve been more than patient with you attacking my position, so now it’s only fair for you to defend yours. Specifically:

Explain how the NFL telling off duty officers that they don’t “need” to carry off duty in their stadiums is not an issue, when they know for a fact that some officers “need” to carry off duty at all times because their department requires them to?

Explain how a “need” to carry in accordance with department policy equates to a “special right”?

If you were an avid NFL gameday fan and your employer mandated as a condition of employment that you carry a cell phone at all times, would it upset you if the NFL said you could no longer have said cell phone in the stadium? <goes to establish whether LEO’s have a “right” to be upset about this policy change>

Would you tell someone to violate the law and carry in a prohibited place?

Would you tell a LEO to violate department policy in reference to off duty carry?

If the answer to both previous questions is “No”, then please explain how this NFL policy does not put a LEO required to carry by department policy in a quandary?

With acknowledgement that you’ve spent time researching Minnesota law, is it applicable at every stadium owned or leased by the NFL? <Goes to establish that we’re discussing more than a single stadium>

Have I or have I not stated in this thread that I agree, anyone carrying in accordance with the applicable laws should be able to carry at an NFL stadium JUST LIKE LEO’s?

Cool. Then you should be able to show me, and everyone else, where LEO's are more entitled to 2nd Amendment rights than Joe Civilians are, NO?

Certainly. Amendment 8675309 states: "In order to ensure the public order, law enforcement officers shall have “more entitlement” to 2nd Amendment rights than “Joe Civilians."

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: Are you serious at all? What a ridiculous question!!! I have NEVER stated that LEO's are more entitled to 2nd Amendment rights and neither has anyone else who disagrees with this NFL policy. You're like a broken record stuck on the wrong song! Is it a dumb policy to not allow lawful CCW by citizens? Yes, but it's their right. Is it a dumb policy to not allow CCW by LEO's in accordance with department policy and the law? YES!!! But that is also their right! They are simply not allowed to expect ANYONE to agree with either decision! Sheesh!!!

I anxiously await your thoughtful response.

 

[Glocktogo]

Are there any statistics to show how many off-duty police officers have been attacked by previously arrested criminals?

And, if we are going to use "increased danger" as a justification, than what about the residents of Washington DC? The average resident of Washington DC is statistically many times more likely to be the victim of a violent crime than I am in Washington State. Actually, they are probably more likely to be the victim of a violent crime than any LEO in Washington state. So, wouldn't that be the same argument that the residents of Washington DC should be afforded more privilige to carry firearms than I am?

Not cerberus65, but...

1. Yes, feel free to look them up.

2. No.

2.5. Irrelevant.

3. No.