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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Police are in fact civilians. They are not a part of the U.S. military. Are not subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Period.

Having said that I agree with those that the issue is not whether LEO's should be allowed to carry 24/7..on duty or not. I believe the real issue is that there should not be laws prohibiting all law abiding citizens from doing the same...as perhaps some sort of fundamental consititutional right.
 
LOL this question is ridiculous. Cops are not normal citizens in this regard, their firearm is a tool of their trade and they are sworn to duty and also carry off-duty responsibilities that non-sworn citizens do not. It can be argued that they are subject to other increased risks. Consider the following scenario:

Officer A. arrests scumbag Z for B&E. Scumbag Z posts bail and is out in a few hours. The next day, Officer A. is out to dinner with his family. Scumbag Z recognizes him, and starts acting aggressively. You finish the story.

The fact of the matter is, LEO's are exposed to the worst people in society on a consistent basis, and they're almost certain to encounter people that they've arrested in the past when they're off duty. Most of these encounters end with no event. But some don't.

Now, THAT said, it's really not a fact of LEO's being subject to the same laws. It's more that non-sworn citizens are being stripped of their right to CCW, but putting that aside, I fully support LEO's to carry off duty even if we can't.
 
Screw it, let everyone carry everywhere with 8-12 hours of CCW training?
Or better yet, lets have anyone who wants to open carry everywhere with 0 training?

Sounds good to you?

Because if it does, go to some of these 3rd world countries I see on the news where everyone is carrying an AK-47. Including children.


I thought I was a right wing gun nut, but i guess i took a step left tonight.
 
restricting the rights of others is not something the THR community is about.

Granted the LEO privelages to carry anywhere at anytime are indeed not equal to the hoops CCW holders must jump through to carry in "permitted" places.

Taking away an officers right to carry off duty is no more right that taking away a civilians right to carry.

Just because someone doesnt have something, doesnt mean they should take it away from those who do. If you want something, work towards it. Dont take it away from others because its not fair.

I am a LEO and I will whole-heartedly support any effort for law abiding civilans to carry anywhere and everywhere. National CCW, carry on planes, carry in court, etc etc. If you prove to me that you are a law abiding citizen with only the interest in protecting himself and his family, then you have my support.

Dont take away my privelages simply because yours havent come to fruition yet. Im on your side here. Dont try to polarize the groups.
 
Y'know, it seems to me that if we actually followed the Second Amendment--"shall not be infringed," and all that--then it wouldn't matter if they were off duty, on duty, or suspended from duty. They could carry anything they bloody well wanted, and so could you.

So yes, I think off-duty--and on-duty--cops should be subject to the same laws as the rest of us.
 
Or better yet, lets have anyone who wants to open carry everywhere with 0 training?
And yet, Alaska and Vermont have remarkably low levels of violent crime.

For other states that allow open carry with no training, visit Arizona, New Hampshire, Ohio, and a whole host of others.
 
This is my last say on this post. After this I will not post, update, or look at any later posts.
I am a LEO. I carry everywhere I go, I even have my gun on when I am in my house. I went to Tennesse on vacation last month and I carried everywhere I went while I was up there. That being said, I fully support the right for every legal, non-felon, American citizen to be able conceal carry. I know that most of my brothers and sisters in LE feel the same way. We know that if some of the victems we come into contact with would have had a CCW, they would not have been victems. I leave you with this, before you bash LEO's for having extra rights, just remember that most of us are on your side too.
 
What's unconstitutional about it? Seems pretty harmless to me.

I'm not taking sides here, I just want to know.

under what article of the constitution is the federal government given the power to do this? since there is no such authority granted to the federal government, it is not constitutional.
 
Officer A. arrests scumbag Z for B&E. Scumbag Z posts bail and is out in a few hours. The next day, Officer A. is out to dinner with his family. Scumbag Z recognizes him, and starts acting aggressively.
How is this any different than:
Citizen A reports scumbag Z for a crime. Scumbag Z posts bail and is out in a few hours. The next day, Citizen A. is out to dinner with his family. Scumbag Z recognizes him, and starts acting aggressively.
 
lets have anyone who wants to open carry everywhere with 0 training
See Amendment 2
.
Because if it does, go to some of these 3rd world countries I see on the news where everyone is carrying an AK-47. Including children.
So guns are what make countries 3rd world? I just don't see the logic.
 
Powderman said:
Here is the crux of the matter:

That responsibility--no, that duty does not end when we are off shift.

We are REQUIRED--by law--to respond to these instances. Whether we are on duty or NOT.

And yet, I've seen at least one statement on this board by an LEO saying that he would not respond if off duty.
 
That officer probably would respond if he was capable of handling the situation.......which is the first question you ask yourself, am I capable of handling this situation.
 
I find it ironic that it is optional for police to respond if on duty (various court rulings on this) but somehow this translates to a requirement to respond while off duty.
 
I can chime in on the Mil officer side of things.

I am "on duty 24/7" and subject to UCMJ at all time, in addition to ALL civilian laws.

I have done counter-narcotic missions in the past that made many in my unit not too popular with the drug cartels.

I live NEAR the border. I cannot CCW due to living on a base. And even if I could, I am still subject to all the restrictions that normal civilians have.

Why should cops have it any better than us, if we are both on duty 24/7? We should be no different than civilians if we are not actively executing our office.
 
The title of this thread is:


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


You guys should be trying to get the same carry rights as the police, NOT trying to get the police to have the same carry rights as you...


Correct?


all you pro gun anti 4th ammendent restriction folks...Stop bitching and moaning about police should have the same carry rights as me...and start bitching and moaning about you NOT having the same rights to carry as police.


You guys want more responsible people out there with guns right? why not more armed off duty police? You talk about people restricting your RIGHT TO CARRY, but you're trying to restrict the Law enforcement community with the title of this post.
 
How is this any different than:
Citizen A reports scumbag Z for a crime. Scumbag Z posts bail and is out in a few hours. The next day, Citizen A. is out to dinner with his family. Scumbag Z recognizes him, and starts acting aggressively.

It's not. Your situation is completely valid. However, you failed to see my point. My point is that citizens in general do not report scumbags for crimes on a daily basis like LEO's do. Thus LEO's have a greater chance that this situation happens. Like I said, I'm not against citizens carrying, I'm all for it. Heck I want to carry; I'm a citizen (I'm not a LEO).

But the focus needs to be getting rights back to the citizens, not bringing LEO's down to the citizen level; which this thread title seems to imply.
 
I'll go along with that. Bad thread title. The point is still valid, but from the direction that we need less restrictions on our right to carry, not that LEOs need more.
 
I think that everyone with a clean record should be subject to the same laws. That includes peace officers, retired peace officers, and judges.
 
If I took a pole of how many times the LEOs on this forum have pointed a gun or even shot a bad guy vs. how many times the CCWers have done the same legally. You would see that the experience level is tilted big time toward LEOs.

I think Expierence is the biggest difference to why or why not as far as gun laws pertaining to LEO vs CCW.

Not to say that their arent CCWers with as much or more expierence/ tactical skills, or that a lot of LEOs arent turds. But just to get that out there as something to think about.
 
The presumed purpose of a weapon 'license'...

... is to determine the suitability of the licensee. In the instant case, a concealed weapon license is granted following an investigation of the applicant's ability to control a firearm and the applicant's moral and ethical suitability to be intrusted with deadly force.

(Well, at least in theory. In California, it's a determination of who has contributed to the Sheriff's election fund - but I'm trying to be idealistic here.)

Supposedly in the case of a law enforcement officer, this investigation has been done as part of the suitability for being such an officer. Obviously, it's not perfect.

Other than the licensing - which has in fact been done already - lawmen are subject to the same laws as everyone else. I cannot shoot out the streetlight if it bothers me, I can't shoot the dog across the street because it never stops barking, I can't wave it at drivers who cut me off in traffic and so on. (Well, maybe in New York City, but like the Joker said in Batman, "Decent people shouldn't live in Gotham City".)

The original question presumes I am exempt from certain laws. I'm not. I'm licensed to carry as part of my job. From what other laws does anyone think I may be exempt?

Having said all that, I think all concealed weapons laws - and most other laws regarding simple ownership or possession of firearms by citizens of good standing - should be repealed en toto. Criminals don't have standards to carry, why should honest people?
 
You guys should be trying to get the same carry rights as the police, NOT trying to get the police to have the same carry rights as you.
I think we should stop using the word "right" to describe police off duty carry of firearms. It is not, nor has it ever been a right. Putting it in its best light, it is an employment perk.
 
sorry, ilbob, carrying a firearm is a right, LEO or not, on duty or off. A previous poster had it right, let's get CCW up to LEO-off duty status, not the other way around.
 
and dont hate the LEOs for it, we didnt make it this way.

That you didn't, but you're happy to enforce it. If cops would follow their oaths to support and defend the Constitution, instead of enforcing obviously unconstitutional so-called "laws," you'd be a lot more likely to be my friends. As it is, you're the face and hands and guns of the police state. Not my friends.
 
That you didn't, but you're happy to enforce it. If cops would follow their oaths to support and defend the Constitution, instead of enforcing obviously unconstitutional so-called "laws," you'd be a lot more likely to be my friends. As it is, you're the face and hands and guns of the police state. Not my friends.
Sad but true.

OTOH, someone has to enforce the laws, or you would have complete chaos.

I do not know that there is a good solution to the problems we face getting our lost freedoms back.

I am pretty sure that cops are a side issue in this. They are the ones out front who are enforcing these laws, but they did not enact them, nor did they rule in ways clearly counter to what the constitution actually says.

Judges are not the problem either. They are trying to keep a legal system together that is bursting at the seams, and you can't just rule against what higher courts have previously determined, or you would have more chaos.

The answer seems to be found in the political system, and the politicians who run it. Change them, and you can fix a lot of things very quickly. But, you may not like what you get. A lot of us like big chunks of the welfare state, and the welfare state can only exist if we accept clearly unconstitutional laws.

Even things like student loans, and government guaranteed mortgages that are a staple of middle class life would need to go. Some would accept that, realizing that the net affect is in the individuals favor, but a lot wouldn't. And those people vote in droves.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.