TexasCHLforum.com

EEllis wrote:

JALLEN wrote:
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.

The business is in the city of Houston and the officer was a Harris County deputy. Both depts have a policy that their officers should be armed when possible and have a responsibility to act even off duty.

mojo84 wrote:

Taypo wrote:Here's a thought that just struck me. How many 30.07 signs are off duty cops going to walk by and then blacklist when they're asked to leave or cover up?

Not so sure that's a good question. I know quite a few cops personally and have/had several in my family. None of them do or will carry openly when off duty.

Goldspurs wrote:I don't have any issue with the government placing off limits any establishment that is knowingly violating the law. That is not the case in this situation. The private business was blacklisted due to LAWFUL behavior. How in the world can you think that is ethical?

Goldspurs wrote:

Got nothing but time this week. Sitting in a hospital on emergency leave until Saturday.

Ouch. Hope it all works out OK, brother.

Twin boys were born a month early, but they are good! Got me a couple of weeks out of the 'stan. Just sucks they are in the NICU because they were early so I can't hold them as much as I want to.

Goldspurs wrote:

Taypo wrote:

Goldspurs wrote:

EEllis wrote:

Texsquatch wrote:

EEllis wrote:

Texsquatch wrote:So the LEO is always on duty... Should be allowed and/or may be required to carry 24/7. Does that mean he never has a alcoholic beverage? Never gets rowdy at the club? He just stands guard, ever vigilant while the rest of his party enjoys the House of Blues?

Of course not. Is this a honest question or a rhetorical one? They should respond when able. Part of that would include being armed. If they are not able then they shouldn't respond.

I guess what I'm saying is its such a subjective issue. So let's say he was going to drink, so he leaves the guns at home. This is fine and responsible in my opinion and no one would ever complain about him or the house of blues. But that would throw the argument that he was disarmed while he was bound by his profession to be armed out the window and the world was less safe that night because of the house of blues.

Maybe the guy was not a drinker, or maybe he is OK to have a couple beers, or maybe he was the DD that night. But again, if you live by absolutes and say he should have been allowed to carry because of his job, then he either should have went home, or as I said he'd have to be real careful what he does and consumes that night and every other time he goes out regardless of the venue.

I don't say he should be allowed anything. I support a private business doing what they want. I think the fact that he is law enforcement should be part of that decision not that it should be the only factor. Honestly I only posted because I felt the conversation was more "anti" than anything else with a little "if I can't than no one should" mixed in. Look at my earlier posts I wasn't really saying that I cared just that I disagreed with people insulting this cop because he said he was unhappy with the decision that HOB made and dared to say something. He shouldn't be derided for that.

Umm...did not realize disagreement was the same as insulting. Just to clarify It isn't about "if I can't then nobody can", at least for me. It's about creating special classes based off government employment, or any other reason. You have already accused me of wanting the officer to work at a strip club or liquor store, when I said nothing of the sort. Is this your way of beefing up your argument when you can't address mine?

I see what you're trying to do and the points you're making but if you're expecting a reasonable debate with certain folks, you're gonna be here a while.

Got nothing but time this week. Sitting in a hospital on emergency leave until Saturday.

Goldspurs wrote:

EEllis wrote:

Texsquatch wrote:

EEllis wrote:

Texsquatch wrote:So the LEO is always on duty... Should be allowed and/or may be required to carry 24/7. Does that mean he never has a alcoholic beverage? Never gets rowdy at the club? He just stands guard, ever vigilant while the rest of his party enjoys the House of Blues?

Of course not. Is this a honest question or a rhetorical one? They should respond when able. Part of that would include being armed. If they are not able then they shouldn't respond.

I guess what I'm saying is its such a subjective issue. So let's say he was going to drink, so he leaves the guns at home. This is fine and responsible in my opinion and no one would ever complain about him or the house of blues. But that would throw the argument that he was disarmed while he was bound by his profession to be armed out the window and the world was less safe that night because of the house of blues.

Maybe the guy was not a drinker, or maybe he is OK to have a couple beers, or maybe he was the DD that night. But again, if you live by absolutes and say he should have been allowed to carry because of his job, then he either should have went home, or as I said he'd have to be real careful what he does and consumes that night and every other time he goes out regardless of the venue.

I don't say he should be allowed anything. I support a private business doing what they want. I think the fact that he is law enforcement should be part of that decision not that it should be the only factor. Honestly I only posted because I felt the conversation was more "anti" than anything else with a little "if I can't than no one should" mixed in. Look at my earlier posts I wasn't really saying that I cared just that I disagreed with people insulting this cop because he said he was unhappy with the decision that HOB made and dared to say something. He shouldn't be derided for that.

Umm...did not realize disagreement was the same as insulting. Just to clarify It isn't about "if I can't then nobody can", at least for me. It's about creating special classes based off government employment, or any other reason. You have already accused me of wanting the officer to work at a strip club or liquor store, when I said nothing of the sort. Is this your way of beefing up your argument when you can't address mine?

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.

Abraham wrote:If there was an active shooter in their establishment immediately endangering lives, think HOB might allow or even request armed LEO rescue of their employees/customers or insist they go in unarmed?

Were HOB to insist unarmed LEO's go up against armed criminals, I wonder what the LEO's response might be?

Think HOB anti-gun stance might promptly change, especially if Dan A happened to be there with his life in immediate danger or think they'd hew to their anti-gun policy, Dan A. would just have to take his chances...?

Remember that cliche: A conservative is a liberal who's been mugged.

Abraham wrote:Taypo,

You're unrighteous indignation is silly.

If you care to act like the grownup I know you to be, and your questions equally adult, I'll be happy to answer.

Until then, adieu...

MONGOOSE wrote:I don't believe the carrying of a weapon is the point. I think that anyone should be able to be armed (no license required).
My concern is that the LEO believes he should be treated differently because he is a LEO ( his boys in blue club). What's with this us and them mindset? LEOs aren't a special farernity. They have perpetuate one ( and we have allowed it). I grew up around LEOs, I wouldn't let some date my daughter , some are salt of the earth.....huuum......Sounds like the general population.