TexasCHLforum.com

EEllis wrote:

JALLEN wrote: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.

He is by regs supposed to be armed but while depts can and do discipline officer at time it just isn't reasonable to be armed 100%. 10 to 1 there is terminology like when possible, every effort, or something like that but I don't have access to their regs so......

The state of Texas doesn't recognize peace officers as being "off duty" for the purposes of limitation on carry. If the can carry on duty they can carry off. So yes it is just a house rule but they can boot you for dress code or bringing in food so yes they can boot off duty cops.

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.

EEllis wrote:

Taypo wrote:

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.

Ahhhh, there we go. Armed when possible doesn't sound like required to me...

It's not like I'm quoting, or even pretending to do so, so trying to parse the language I used really doesn't work. My understanding is that both departments require officers to be ared but realize that isn't always possible. If something does go down when you are unarmed you better have a better excuse than that you just didn't feel like it or you should expect disciplinary action.

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.

JALLEN wrote:

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.

JALLEN wrote:

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.

EEllis wrote:

Goldspurs wrote:

EEllis wrote:

Goldspurs wrote:
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?

Dude it isn't always about you! It was about answering a question someone else posed to me and trying to convey my thoughts to him. You were nowhere in those thoughts. I have addressed your statements I just don't agree with you. And no I didn't accuse you. I asked a question trying to make a point then you went into the "I said no such thing!" mode. But if you want to repeat your claim after every post I make go ahead. Just excuse me if I don't bother to reply.

Lol. Whatever you say BRO. Continue to backpedal all you want. It is up there for everyone to read. Also, I have learned my lesson on arguing with someone as wily a debater as you. Next time someone asks something about a strip club I shall admit defeat immediately.

Not the slightest backpedal.

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

Ouch. Hope it all works out OK, brother.

EEllis wrote:

Goldspurs wrote:
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?

Dude it isn't always about you! It was about answering a question someone else posed to me and trying to convey my thoughts to him. You were nowhere in those thoughts. I have addressed your statements I just don't agree with you. And no I didn't accuse you. I asked a question trying to make a point then you went into the "I said no such thing!" mode. But if you want to repeat your claim after every post I make go ahead. Just excuse me if I don't bother to reply.

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.

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.

EEllis wrote:

Goldspurs wrote:

EEllis wrote:

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.

They have always done it for any number of reasons. Sure you might not be able to hire cops as security but you are not prevented from hiring security as security. Never struck me as a big deal

Good job totally avoiding the issue of a government agency black balling a private business for legal conduct.

Again I don't think most people have an issue with a police Dept setting limits where off duty officers can work. I'm not avoiding it I just don't view it as an issue here. It seems reasonable to me as long as they attend to their police jobs I am not getting worked up about them refusing to work as security off duty.

JALLEN wrote:

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.

EEllis wrote:

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.

They have always done it for any number of reasons. Sure you might not be able to hire cops as security but you are not prevented from hiring security as security. Never struck me as a big deal

MONGOOSE wrote:Well, I must apologize. I did confuse the posters. As far as confrontioal....grow up. There is no special club ( except imaginary by limmings like you. As far as deciding where you work....I own a construction company. If you work for me, I tell you to square a footing.....you say no.....I fire you. When you choose to work for someone you take orders. you don't decide what you do. As I said, I don't blame h if his first priority is his family.