TexasCHLforum.com

I have a dumb question, but why do many LEOs also have a CHL? Doesn't being a commissioned LEO give you the right, if not the obligation to carry off-duty? It's just something I dodn't really understand. TIA!

So they can buy guns without going through the BATF paperwork.

bdickens wrote:So they can buy guns without going through the BATF paperwork.

Plus, if they get suspended for disciplinary reasons they lose LEOSA's carry protection until they're reinstated. With a CHL, they can continue carrying.

And many LEO's got their CHL's prior to the LEOSA act so they could carry in other states if they went on vacation. It can also be a way to show why they have a gun on them if they get discovered and don't want to disclose they are a LEO.

See you learn something new every day. That answers my questions! Makes perfect sense.

So they can buy guns without going through the BATF paperwork.

Still have to do all the paperwork just no background check.

Keith B and KBCraig pretty well sum it up too.

So you can carry whatever gun you choose (not just department approved weapons) without feaer of an IAD investigation if you have to use the weapon. Some departments are very particular about which guns you can carry. For example, Dallas PD only allows officers to carry a Sig brand 9mm or .357Sig pistol on or off duty.

Keith B wrote:And many LEO's got their CHL's prior to the LEOSA act so they could carry in other states if they went on vacation. It can also be a way to show why they have a gun on them if they get discovered and don't want to disclose they are a LEO.

If I'm not mistaken didn't George Bush sign a law that allowed us LEOs from the US to carry anywhere in the union?

Odin wrote:So you can carry whatever gun you choose (not just department approved weapons) without feaer of an IAD investigation if you have to use the weapon. Some departments are very particular about which guns you can carry. For example, Dallas PD only allows officers to carry a Sig brand 9mm or .357Sig pistol on or off duty.

Actually even with the CHL the department policy would still be enforced over the officer. Many departments also have rules that say you can carry almost anything you want off duty but they have a qualification course for that weapon. It's usually a little different than the regular qual.

RHZig wrote:

Keith B wrote:And many LEO's got their CHL's prior to the LEOSA act so they could carry in other states if they went on vacation. It can also be a way to show why they have a gun on them if they get discovered and don't want to disclose they are a LEO.

If I'm not mistaken didn't George Bush sign a law that allowed us LEOs from the US to carry anywhere in the union?

That's right he did. Keith was referencing that when he talked about the LEOSA act.

gregthehand wrote:

Odin wrote:So you can carry whatever gun you choose (not just department approved weapons) without feaer of an IAD investigation if you have to use the weapon. Some departments are very particular about which guns you can carry. For example, Dallas PD only allows officers to carry a Sig brand 9mm or .357Sig pistol on or off duty.

Actually even with the CHL the department policy would still be enforced over the officer. Many departments also have rules that say you can carry almost anything you want off duty but they have a qualification course for that weapon. It's usually a little different than the regular qual.

The department can't enforce policy regarding off duty carry weapons if the officer was lawfully carrying off duty under his CHL and not representing himself as an officer of said department.

The only possible exception to this that I can think of might be if the department had a policy that required officers to be armed at all times while off duty with an approved weapon. But if the officer is not required to be armed while off duty then he could carry under his CHL and follow the same rules that all other CHL holders follow.

This is no different than the patrol officer being required to drive a police car while working patrol - the department can't forbid the officer from driving his personal vehicle while off duty, even if the department provides a take home car to the officer, as long as the officer has a drivers license and the vehicle is inspected, registered and insured.

Some departments, for example Dallas PD, don't allow officers to qualify with the weapon of their choice for off duty carry. Officers are required to carry an approved Sig 9mm or Sig .357 only (with exceptions for the few officers grandfathered in to carry previously approved Glock and Beretta weapons).

gregthehand wrote:

RHZig wrote:

Keith B wrote:And many LEO's got their CHL's prior to the LEOSA act so they could carry in other states if they went on vacation. It can also be a way to show why they have a gun on them if they get discovered and don't want to disclose they are a LEO.

If I'm not mistaken didn't George Bush sign a law that allowed us LEOs from the US to carry anywhere in the union?

That's right he did. Keith was referencing that when he talked about the LEOSA act.

Yes, and I was redundant in what I posted (LEOSA act = Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act act.) I also meant to make that a link. Here is the info http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enforc ... Safety_Act" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't know how widespread this feeling is among LEOs, but I've had a number of LEO friends tell me they got a CHL to show their support of the CHL law and/or to encourage friends and family to do so. This is a unique opportunity for those officers to have a positive impact fellow officers who may be opposed to CHL. It's one thing to say "I think it's a good idea," but I believe it carries more weight when an officer can add "and I have one myself."

Chas.

I'd never want to rely on strictly my CHL though. I like to walk past PC30.06 signs and smile.

For example, Dallas PD only allows officers to carry a Sig brand 9mm or .357Sig pistol on or off duty

Not entirely true - it depends upon what year you hired onto the department.

...for example Dallas PD, don't allow officers to qualify with the weapon of their choice for off duty carry. Officers are required to carry an approved Sig 9mm or Sig .357 only (with exceptions for the few officers grandfathered in to carry previously approved Glock and Beretta weapons).

Same as above. While I can only carry a Sig on duty I can carry a Glock or Beretta as a back up or off-duty weapon. Again, it depends upon your hire date.

It's a crazy rule but one we have to live by. It doesn't make any sense that I must carry a Sig on my duty belt while at the same time carrying a Glock in another holster as a backup weapon - only in Dallas. The department realized how stupid it was but instead of fixing it they banned officers hired after a certain date from being able to carry anything but Sigs.

CHL/LEO wrote: It's a crazy rule but one we have to live by. It doesn't make any sense that I must carry a Sig on my duty belt while at the same time carrying a Glock in another holster as a backup weapon - only in Dallas. The department realized how stupid it was but instead of fixing it they banned officers hired after a certain date from being able to carry anything but Sigs.

Just curious, is there a rationale behind Sigs only? I mean, I like Sigs and all, but there is something to be said for the simplicity, reliability and ruggedness of the venerable Glock.