I am not a Law Enforcement basher...

[stevie_d_64]

Far from it...If anything I am "critical" of certain statements and policies that certain Law Enforcement agencies of other (non-civilian-carry friendly) states and municipalities present to the public through a anti-gun media...

With that disclaimer re-affirmed...Most L.E. guys and gals here know my feelings already in this regard...

I post this for general consumption...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051127/ap_ ... d_off_duty

Now there are a few things in this article that bother me, but the one I will clip is this one...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

David Klinger, a professor of criminology at the University of Missouri-St. Louis, formerly worked as a Los Angeles police officer and said he usually carried a gun off duty. If police officers are properly trained, officers should have the option of carrying a gun for their own protection, he said.

"I don't want to be driving through the ghetto without a gun," he said. "What if some knucklehead I arrested spots me?"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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...

What gets me about that statement is a basic core belief I have in that we ALL have that problem that this "David Klinger" has...

We do not know when or where it may or may not happen, when we must choose to defend ourselves with the use of a firearm...Its kinda one of those simple "mindsets" that we should develop with training and talking shop with friends at the range or forums such as this...

Why this apparently needs to be a struggle with the upper eschelon of Law Enforcement to work aggressively to remove such an "option" for its off-duty personnel bothers me to a great degree...

But the solution to this "agenda" certainly would be for the Law Enforcement community (should be) to get their civilian CCW licences in their prospective states if they are available...

And if they are not, then they should aggressively lobby for the passage of this law to take up the slack for EVERYONE who chooses and desires to do so...

So when at first I saw this story as a negative to our friends who serve and protect...I see this as an opportunity to expand a civilian carry agenda in areas where we might not gain much ground due to situations like this...

Just my opinion...

[dws1117]

I see this as an opportunity to expand a civilian carry agenda in areas where we might not gain much ground due to situations like this...

While I agree with most of your evaluation of the article, the above stood out. I wish that I had your optimism but look at the locations discussed in the story, New York City, Los Angeles, Rhode Island, and Florida. With the exception of Florida, which we all know is gun friendly, If these people are even disarming the police unless they are wearing certain clothing, then average joe citizen doesn't stand a chance. Civilian carry in these areas of the country is presently far reaching at best. I don't see much hope of changing in the near future, but I've become increacingly pesamistic.

[Chris]

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.

[stevie_d_64]

Just a thought about how it should go if this becomes a trend...

[stevie_d_64]

Was the sign-off by the boss to be able to get the CHL, or to mainly get the L.E.O. discount???

I would hate to think you guys need permission from someone to get the license...

I'm ok with the discount thing, albiet I wish I could get a discount... Self-Defense is expensive these days...

[Kalrog]

I don't have a problem with the LEO price - but I do have a problem with the regular civilian price. I mean, what does the state do that requires that much money per applicant? Sounds like the process might be a tad inefficient... either that or it is a profit center and I don't like either option.

[stevie_d_64]

I don't have a problem with the LEO price - but I do have a problem with the regular civilian price. I mean, what the heck does the state do that requires that much money per applicant? Sounds like the process might be a tad inefficient... either that or it is a profit center and I don't like either option.

I balance out the price over the time of the license...Its $70 to me now...And will be for a long time...

I'd even pay a $140 for 10 years, just to keep from worrying about it for that long...

For what its worth, and what they actually do in that office...I'm not sure they are actually generating "that" much revenue for the state...

[rgoldy]

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.

[Chris]

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

[dws1117]

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?

[Chris]

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.

[gigag04]

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.

I read the reports released on this. It seemed like a good shoot in a crappy situation - nuff of that on this topic though.

That does suck....

[KBCraig]

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

[stevie_d_64]

Back to the original topic...

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.

Kevin

Thats an interesting situation to be in...

I thought that being a "commissioned" law enforcement officer in a particular "state" you were charged with enforcement of the law 24/7 regardless if you were on shift or not...

You're not going to stand by and be restricted as I am, non-LEO, if you see a felony in progress...You are trained in the enforcement of the law, as I am not...So your "intervention" is more along the lines that even though you have not been dispatched to a situation, you are charged/contracted/commisioned in the enforcement of the law, and to serve and protect the community and state...

If I stretched it a bit in the paragraph above, that of course, is just my take on it...I'm far from needing to dictate anything remotely resembling policy...

Law Enforcement is a calling...Just like serving in the armed forces, in a fire department, being a doctor, teacher etc etc...

Once someone turns it into a "job" then it becomes something you put on and off like a coat...You stop caring, and it doesn't remain a passion in your life...

If the intent of limiting L.E.O.'s (by management) from being a deterent or
at the very least an unknown factor in a criminals mind that if they choose to break the law, there may or may not be someone there to be a risk to them...

Then its all over...

[Charles L. Cotton]

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.