TexasCHLforum.com

KBCraig wrote:Back to the original topic...

I am a LEO, without a CHL (I should get one, but between procrastination and budget, it just hasn't come to the forefront.)

dude, it's $25 and a letter from the chief. i know you can squeeze that out.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I have to admit I haven’t been following this issue very closely. However, as I understand, the bogus concern is that off duty LEO’s are at risk of being shot by mistake if/when they intervene to stop a crime. Even accepting this premise, which I do not, then there is no reason to prohibit off duty carrying. Just do away with the “always on duty� doctrine. Then LEO’s can carry off duty for self-defense, but not by obliged to intervene to stop a crime, thus removing the risk of being shot by mistake by an on-duty LEO.

Make no mistake about it; if LEO’s are disarmed while off-duty, then CHL statutes will be targeted shortly thereafter! I can hear the argument now, “If COPS can’t carry off-duty because it’s too dangerous, then mere citizens certainly shouldn’t carry guns.�

Chas.

the agencies i've worked for had no policy requiring you to be armed at all times, although i know of some that do. you are considered on-duty 24/7, but the 'neglect of duty' only applies in your jurisdiction of commissioning. as a rule, i never live where i work anyway.

most departments around DFW have unwritten policies that you are to be a good witness, not a hero. unless we're talking life and death, there's no reason to be a cowboy.

at the agency i worked at before, an ON DUTY detective was shot by another officer. so does that also mean we should eliminate plain clothes officers?

dws1117 wrote:

only austin police officers are charged criminally for policy violations.

I am gonna show my ignorance, but how is violating a company policy, even if the company is a police agancy, a criminal offense?

that's what i'd like to know. in 2003, officer scott glasgow was charged with homicide. in the grand jury indictment, they failed to qualify the elements of the offense, only citing department policy violations. scott's career as a patrol officer has been screwed over by the liberals there. they were holding candle light vigils for a known car thief and doper who was in a stolen car. they were crying that the police weren't protecting them. i guess shooting a known doper and car theif who tried to drive off with a police officer in his window isn't protection? he was working the rat hole area without backup when the shooting went down.

granted scott's tactics weren't the wisest of moves, but nothing he did was criminally wrong. if you want details, PM me.

rgoldy wrote:Some discussion in Houston now that HPD officers would not be permitted to carry off duty. Sounds like a stupid change of policy to me, but they did not ask me. Would this mean that HPD officers would need to obtain a CHL? It would seem so. Going through the process might give some of them an appreciation for those civilians who have done so.

and i wonder how many would actually abide by that policy. police are exempt from the law of carrying a weapon. if the department makes a policy that you can't carry off-duty, well, you can always find a new job if you were terminated for a policy violation such as that. majority of agencies would find that rather trivial. my old chief would have preferred that officer be disqualified from carrying off-duty, but that was never made a policy. wouldn't want to be the reason for a mass exodus i guess.

only austin police officers are charged criminally for policy violations.

my problem was my chief intentionally procrastinated in getting me my letter. by law, the chief cannot refuse to provide the letter, but there is no means of enforcement should they refuse. seriously, what the hell good is a law that's not enforceable?

i don't work there anymore so all is good now. one officer i worked with there owned over 350 firearms. :D

stevie_d_64 wrote: Now don't get me wrong I think Law Enforcement should be able to carry on or off duty, and to do so on their active credentials, or a CCW permit if required or encouraged to get one...

i am a commissioned deputy sheriff and a Texas CCW permit holder. at my last department, the superiors felt that citizens did not need firearms. it took 4 months for several of us to get the chief to sign off so we could get our CCW permits. the brass felt it was an attempt to circumvent the ability to carry in the event of a suspension. the chief almost went out and picketed when the CCW permit law passed.

the street level guys were at the opposite end of this spectrum. several of us worked to get CCW permits and others already had them prior to hiring. not that they would have done us any good, but for $25 and a letter, why not? most street level officers firmly believe that people should carry weapons, with a few exceptions to the crazies.

having a gun is like having insurance. you really hope you never have to use it, but just in case, it's nice to have that peace of mind. as well, regular joes using common sense tend to handle situations better when they know they are armed and prepared to confront a situation. people feel and appear more confident and criminals prey on the weak.