TexasCHLforum.com

In reviewing this thread, I don't see a claim by this officer that he is required to carry his weapon.

There is a question of TABC regs. Are LEOs bound by the liquor rules, blue, red etc?

What I am trying to figure out is what we are really dealing with.

Is HOB required to exclude weapons, even of LEOs?

If not, then it is just the policy of the business, to do or not, a whim.

By the same token, if this deputy isn't required to be armed at all times, then is he just chest thumping?

What is reality?

I'm very fond of reality when I get to see it. It's so....... real.

EEllis wrote:

JALLEN wrote:So do we conclude that this off duty SO deputy could lawfully carry in HOB, but for their private policies?

Yes without a doubt. The Deputy would be trespassing if they asked him to leave for not complying with their house rules but there would not be any violation for him being armed

That doesn't make any sense. He is exempt from a 30.06 sign which is notice that firearms are forbidden, but if he is told to leave, he is trespassing the same as you and me?

My San Diego cop buddies claimed they were required to carry at all times and in all places. Of course, there is no sign business in that socialist hellhole, probably because there are so few licensed carriers.

So do we conclude that this off duty SO deputy could lawfully carry in HOB, but for their private policies?

EEllis wrote:

JALLEN wrote:If officers are required to be armed, and they are exempt from the 3006, etc laws, which I am assuming they are but do not know, when would it not be possible to be armed?

Well while than can carry even in a posted church I know one officer that was the only place he wouldn't carry. That would be a place.you wouldn't worry about being disciplined for being unarmed. Other places like the gym, doctor, etc might be examples.

I'm not talking about places where he might avoid carrying. I'm asking about legal requirements.

Do you know if Texas state law forbidding carry in specified places applies to LEOs, or are they exempt? If a PD/SO requires its sworn officers to be armed at all times, can they legally do so? What about schools?

There is an apparently valid 30.06 sign at the gym I frequent. Well, "frequent" might be a bit of an overstatement, maybe "go to." Is a LEO obliged to observe that, or not?

If officers are required to be armed, and they are exempt from the 3006, etc laws, which I am assuming they are but do not know, when would it not be possible to be armed?

talltex wrote:

JALLEN wrote:
Apparently the police are required to follow orders not to work at this bar. It has nothing to do with the UCMJ.

My reference to the UCMJ was because your original statement: "I don't see any reason why the government, at any level, can't control the conduct of its employees, within reasonable limits, especially with a plausible reason for doing so." The military CAN do all that and more because of the UCMJ. You can't "quit your job" with them because you don't like it. You will do as you are told...when you are told...and how you are told. That's the deal you agreed to. However, the government at "any level" covers an enormous number of different types of employment whose employees are not subject to that type of control. The police department, according to Nightmare 69, told it's officers they couldn't work at HOB until the union got things worked out. THAT was what my original comment was in reference to...a "union" telling a taxpayer funded government agency what it's employees can or cannot do. That sounds to me like the officers complained to their union that they weren't allowed to carry off duty in HOB and the union is using it's leverage with the Chief to try and pressure HOB into changing it's policy.

I wasn't a Judge Advocate, but after 19 years in the Navy Reserve, 14 of those as a commissioned officer, and 40 years as a lawyer, I think I have a decent understanding of the requirements and limitations of the UCMJ. Of course, my experience with off limits lists was confined to San Diego, and that was nearly 50 years ago.

The reason this came up was after I compared police blacklisting to Navy placing businesses off limits. It is analogous, if not precisely exactly the same. I don't see any reason why the government cannot enforce regulations involving employee behavior standards, especially where it is a matter of requiring police officers be armed at all times, not some trivial foolishness like haircuts, or wearing ugly ties, etc. We don't want to careen down any slippery slopes.

One question about this remains unresolved. Are police officers in this city required to carry a firearm at all times, or is it personal choice? IIRC, the officer involved objected to HOB that it was a requirement.

So, the deal is that HOB can have its way, insist on its rights and do without police security free lancers, and maybe patronage of the officers like this fellow, or make some concession.

I made a steady, and occasionally opulent, living for many years because someone insisted on what they perceived as their rights.

talltex wrote:The military is a totally different situation from any civilian governmental agency. In the military you are REQUIRED to follow orders...whatever they may be...or potentially face legal charges that can result in imprisonment for failure to obey a direct order from a commanding officer with authority over you. They can tell you if and when you can leave the base and for how long. The Military Code of Justice does not apply to the civilian population. That's just part of the job description when you sign up. No where in the civilian world can an employer dictate to you what you can or cannot do on your own time as long as it is not directly related to your job. For instance, do you really think that the Texas DOT should be able to tell the guy repairing potholes what he can do next weekend? I know that's an exaggeration of what you mean, but when you say they should be able to control conduct...within reasonable limits...with some plausible justification...well, that is a really slippery slope. The government has expanded it's control over the civilian population at an alarmingly increasing rate over the last 15 years and it's always presented as being both reasonable and plausible, and necessary to protect us.

Apparently the police are required to follow orders not to work at this bar. It has nothing to do with the UCMJ.

There are a great many slippery slopes out there. Are you sure this really is one?

Cops have a lot of restrictions on them that affect off duty activities, as I understand it. The cops I was friends with in San Diego were never completely "off duty" as they explained it. They were required to be always armed and carry badges. If a breach of the peace occurred in their presence, they were expected to involve themselves to stop it. The Sheriff seemed to be of a rather more strict view, that his deputies were not mere employees but his assistants, clothed with his authority akin to agency, for whose conduct he was answerable directly. This may be part of the slippery slope of militarizing the police force.

Goldspurs wrote: A taxpayer funded organization has no place blacklisting a private business for practicing their rights.

The Navy puts businesses on the off limits list in San Diego from time to time, and Tijuana was off limits to Navy personnel at various times.

Let's keep it in perspective. First, I never condoned the military blacklist. Second, that blacklist exist because illegal activities usually take place at the establishments on the list. The Navy isn't trying to force these businesses to allow service members to carry firearms.

This is your statement I was responding to.

I don't know what your condoning it or not has to do with anything.

While it may be true that businesses on the blacklist may have illegal activities taking place, many are lawful businesses that the Navy may not approve of. The Navy doesn't allow members to carry firearms, although some obtain permits for off duty carry. The Navy isn't trying to force the business to do anything. It just doesn't allow its members to go there.

Your statement had to do with "a taxpayer funded organization (Navy) having no place blacklisting a business for practicing their rights."

I don't see why the government, at any level, can't control the conduct of its employees within reasonable limits, especially if there is some plausible justification for so doing.

Goldspurs wrote:

EEllis wrote:

Goldspurs wrote:

nightmare69 wrote:No LEOs can work there anymore per department policy. They have been put on the restricted list. The union is working on negotiations with HOBs but it looks like a dead end.

Wow. I never though I would side with a business that prohibits weapons, but the fact that government employees are strong arming them leaves me no choice. This is why people don't trust government officials. A taxpayer funded organization has no place blacklisting a private business for practicing their rights.

So you want to make police work liquor stores and topless bars? I am sure they have a long list of different places they can't work for any number of reasons but to you the refusal to work someplace off duty is strong arming?

Nope. It's strong arming because he claimed the actual police department (you know, a government entity) blacklisted them due the business practicing their rights. Let's put the shoe on the other foot. Would you be ok with the police department blacklisting your hypothetical business because you choose to allow firearms? If police acting as private citizens want to boycott then go for it. It's the tax payer funded organization that has no place doing so.

Also, please don't put words in my mouth about my wanting police officers to work at certain locations. That is a pathetic argument.

The Navy puts businesses on the off limits list in San Diego from time to time, and Tijuana was off limits to Navy personnel at various times.