Any federal LEO (FBI, DEA, ICE, BOP, Parks Service, Postal Inspectors, Treasury/Secret Service, etc., etc.)... all are LEOs, but not "peace officers" under Texas law, and thus don't get the "peace officer" rate on the CHL.
Bureau of Prisons personnel number at least 3,000 in Texas, but even though we're "qualified law enforcement officers", we're not police (nor do we pretend to be).
Kevin
Search found 3 matches
Return to “I am not a Law Enforcement basher...”
- Sat Dec 03, 2005 4:33 pm
- Forum: General Gun, Shooting & Equipment Discussion
- Topic: I am not a Law Enforcement basher...
- Replies: 21
- Views: 3347
- Sat Dec 03, 2005 1:20 am
- Forum: General Gun, Shooting & Equipment Discussion
- Topic: I am not a Law Enforcement basher...
- Replies: 21
- Views: 3347
I'm a LEO, but I'm not a TCLEOSE-certified Texas "peace officer". There is a difference, yanno... and there are thousands of us in Texas.Chris wrote:dude, it's $25 and a letter from the chief. i know you can squeeze that out.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.)
Kevin
- Thu Dec 01, 2005 1:43 am
- Forum: General Gun, Shooting & Equipment Discussion
- Topic: I am not a Law Enforcement basher...
- Replies: 21
- Views: 3347
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.)
The news article cited is about "on duty always", not "armed always". here's the distinction: if I'm on duty, I'm obliged to respond to a crime in my presence. If I'm "armed, but off duty", I have no such (legal) obligation; I'm merely a citizen.
As I understand it, very few departments today consider their officers to be on duty 24/7. For one thing, labor laws have changed, and 24/7 status is pretty expensive for rank-and-file officers. For another, there are liability concerns, such as shown in this story.
As far as agencies restricting off-duty carry, they're free to do so... but it's a workplace issue, not a legal issue. Under LEOSA, all qualified LEOs may carry off-duty, out of jurisdiction and out of state, without legal repercussions. They might get fired, but they can't be prosecuted for violating state or local laws against carrying concealed handguns.
Kevin
I am a LEO, without a CHL (I should get one, but between procrastination and budget, it just hasn't come to the forefront.)
The news article cited is about "on duty always", not "armed always". here's the distinction: if I'm on duty, I'm obliged to respond to a crime in my presence. If I'm "armed, but off duty", I have no such (legal) obligation; I'm merely a citizen.
As I understand it, very few departments today consider their officers to be on duty 24/7. For one thing, labor laws have changed, and 24/7 status is pretty expensive for rank-and-file officers. For another, there are liability concerns, such as shown in this story.
As far as agencies restricting off-duty carry, they're free to do so... but it's a workplace issue, not a legal issue. Under LEOSA, all qualified LEOs may carry off-duty, out of jurisdiction and out of state, without legal repercussions. They might get fired, but they can't be prosecuted for violating state or local laws against carrying concealed handguns.
Kevin