Boycott House of Blues-Deputy disarmed

[Goldspurs]

Ok. So I misunderstood. Is it the policy of his department? If not then your point is moot. If it is then does that policy trump property right?

You are also failing to understand my point. He is only being called out by me because he is choosing to highlight his status as a police officer as someone deserving to be armed at all times. It sends the wrong message, in my opinion. I am active duty army. I spent some time deployed to Afghanistan as a scout, although now I work in the aviation field. You can imagine I am familiar with a few different weapon systems. Even in light of this I would never advocate that I should receive "special rights" due my occupation. If my chosen profession required certain conduct, which it does, then I would stay away from any business that would prohibit me from doing that.

It is the policy and no it does not trump property rights. Of course he, and no one else here, ever made that claim. Talking about moot points your, or anyones, ability with firearms would be pretty high on the list. It's not even really about "special rights" I think. I have been speaking to the denigration of the man for daring to be upset when you can find threads on this board where people are upset that they must disarm at HOB. He was being, albet gently, bashed for doing the exact same thing others here have done but since he's a cop people are getting a bit of nasty satisfaction that he gets treated like "they" do. Really? Mind you I don't necessarily think everyone needs to get all worked up over it either. I just think the insults about the deputy are over the top. "Special Snowflake" because he didn't want to disarm and thought the fact that he was a cop should be taken into consideration. But oh no! No one is even slightly anti cop here.

Don't believe I said anyone did make that claim, but I felt it deserved to be mentioned. Are these people, that you mention, upset at disarming in general or because they are (insert random occupation) and should be armed due to their profession? No? Then he is not being bashed for what "others have done". I do not believe he is being bashed at all, but if you think Speci*l Snowfla*e (edited for sensibilities) qualifies as bashing for an individual who complains about not receiving special treatment than please feel free to point out this injustice.

[Goldspurs]

I love how people keep mentioning the "special privileges" while leaving out the extra responsibilities that go along with it. There are long list of people who have stated definitively that their gun is for the protection of themselves and family only. That they are not cops or Batman and will not be involving themselves in anything they don't have to. Well that is not a stance many law enforcement in Texas can take.

I missed the clause in the Constitution that granted greater Second Amendment rights because someone has extra responsibilities. Also, I haven't seen anyone in this thread post that their weapon is only for themselves and their family. I personally don't feel that way. Again, if their job requires them to be armed at all times it is simply easy as avoiding places that don't allow them to be armed.

[Taypo]

I see. What you're saying is that this Officer, being a sworn Officer of the Harris County Sheriff's Department, has a legal and policy requirement to remain armed and act as a LEO while off duty.

So, what policy and legal requirements did he violate when he willingly disarmed for a concert?

Strawman much?

We're done here

[Goldspurs]

I really don't have much more to say on the subject. It is my OPINION that we all deserve the same ability to protect ourselves, and others. My current profession leaves me disarmed all day as I am not allowed to carry on any military installation. I don't particularly like this, but I chose this occupation and have to abide by its rules. Apparently this gentleman's department requires him to be armed at all times, according to some, although I question the legality of that. If that's what they require then avoid places that don't allow firearms. I am not about to get on my soapbox about how people in my profession "are being assassinated", even though it would be accurate, and demand that I receive more privileges than civilians.

[EEllis]

I love how people keep mentioning the "special privileges" while leaving out the extra responsibilities that go along with it. There are long list of people who have stated definitively that their gun is for the protection of themselves and family only. That they are not cops or Batman and will not be involving themselves in anything they don't have to. Well that is not a stance many law enforcement in Texas can take.

I missed the clause in the Constitution that granted greater Second Amendment rights because someone has extra responsibilities. Also, I haven't seen anyone in this thread post that their weapon is only for themselves and their family. I personally don't feel that way. Again, if their job requires them to be armed at all times it is simply easy as avoiding places that don't allow them to be armed.

Well I missed where anyone made that argument so I guess we're even. Surprisingly enough there have been other threads where people have posted comments. and of course we should make life harder and make all our public servants feel as unappreciated as possible. :/snarc

[Goldspurs]

I love how people keep mentioning the "special privileges" while leaving out the extra responsibilities that go along with it. There are long list of people who have stated definitively that their gun is for the protection of themselves and family only. That they are not cops or Batman and will not be involving themselves in anything they don't have to. Well that is not a stance many law enforcement in Texas can take.

I missed the clause in the Constitution that granted greater Second Amendment rights because someone has extra responsibilities. Also, I haven't seen anyone in this thread post that their weapon is only for themselves and their family. I personally don't feel that way. Again, if their job requires them to be armed at all times it is simply easy as avoiding places that don't allow them to be armed.

Well I missed where anyone made that argument so I guess we're even. Surprisingly enough there have been other threads where people have posted comments. and of course we should make life harder and make all our public servants feel as unappreciated as possible. :/snarc

Life harder/unappreciated = same rights as everyone

[SA_Steve]

I was in line to enter a weekend gun show in Atlanta, GA several years ago and the cop at the door turned away a GA county deputy sheriff (carrying concealed) for the same reason. I lived in Longview, TX in the early 80's when it was common for the city police to arrest any out of county sheriff deputies they caught in any business or restaurant there.

It's a strange world out there.

[talltex]

And you are not getting the point on the SCOTUS decisions. It isn't that there can't be a legal requirements to act. It's that there isn't a constitutional requirement for that action that would allow someone to sue and recover money. There can be legal, and policy requirements for officers to act as well as oaths they take on becoming sworn officers.

The rulings by the SCOTUS are definitive and clear. You are correct that it is based on Constitutional law because those are the only cases that the SCOTUS deals with...issues of Constitutional law. In my OPINION, If the Court has ruled that you cannot file suit nor receive damages for an LEO's failure to act to protect or defend you, then there is no LEGAL requirement. There are certainly local and state policy requirements, but the SCOTUS specifically states that even if the State has such a requirement (which Texas does in its CCP), that their ruling supersedes any such legal requirement unless it is a State official that is causing the harm.

[TEXASG7]

Stop worrying about offending people and say what you mean and mean what you say. In what world will someone not be offended regardless of what you say? LEO are no more special than the teachers who educate our kids, the trucker who supply food to our stores, or the crossing guard who safely guide a child to the other side of the street.There are no special class of people. I for one don't care who, what or when anyone feels offended. stay inside away from the rest of the world if you cant take being offended or never expect to be offended.

"Thin skin people should stay inside or risk infection from the outside world."

oops.... there it is!

[EEllis]

I don't have a problem with him being upset about the policy. I would be too just as I am when I am required to disarm or not enter. I also think the business has the right to have that policy even though I think it is misguided and foolish. People have the right to be upset and disagree without additional laws or rules being made or changed. The guy is viewing the situation from his perspective, the business owner from his and we are from ours. Apparently, he didn't like the policy but weighed the idea of going unarmed with messing up the evening for his wife and friends. He decided to not mess up the evening but that doesn't mean he can't dislike it and speak up.

I tried to post something about the flap about the NFL banning off duty cops from carrying. Don't know if it was deleted or just didn't post. It was not intended as cop bashing. It was used as an example of a group standing up for themselves publicly. The cops put up a stink and the NFL aquiesced. It wasn't a boycott that accomplished this, it was making the case publicly and then common sense prevailed. If can't fault the cops for standing up for themselves.

Nothing says we all have to agree with everything. We all have our own perspectives from which we view things.

I agree. I personally don't care if others are concerned or find this meaningless. I just object to being insulting because a cop is involved. I get that it wouldn't be everyones issue, heck it not mine, but there is something unseemly about being derogatory specifically because a police officer is involved.

[mojo84]

I think the same comments would have been made if it was a DA, ADA, judge or anyone else that claimed special priveleges or rights due to their job or position. I think the criticism just hit a little to close to home for some.

[EEllis]

And you are not getting the point on the SCOTUS decisions. It isn't that there can't be a legal requirements to act. It's that there isn't a constitutional requirement for that action that would allow someone to sue and recover money. There can be legal, and policy requirements for officers to act as well as oaths they take on becoming sworn officers.

The rulings by the SCOTUS are definitive and clear. You are correct that it is based on Constitutional law because those are the only cases that the SCOTUS deals with...issues of Constitutional law. In my OPINION, If the Court has ruled that you cannot file suit nor receive damages for an LEO's failure to act to protect or defend you, then there is no LEGAL requirement. There are certainly local and state policy requirements, but the SCOTUS specifically states that even if the State has such a requirement (which Texas does in its CCP), that their ruling supersedes any such legal requirement unless it is a State official that is causing the harm.

Well this is getting off track but the fact that there is no constitutional protection does not in any way prevent anyone from passing a law providing such protection. Those rulings don't supersede, they just say there is no unwritten constitutional protection.

[philip964]

http://www.westernjournalism.com/shocki ... it=1810609

It spreads.

Could we consider this a "whites only" type of policy. After all it is a right in the constitution.

[mojo84]

http://www.westernjournalism.com/shocki ... it=1810609

It spreads.

Could we consider this a "whites only" type of policy. After all it is a right in the constitution.

I can't watch the video that was embedded as it says the account connected to the video has been terminated.

I don't understand your "whites only type of policy" comment.

[OldCurlyWolf]

I was in line to enter a weekend gun show in Atlanta, GA several years ago and the cop at the door turned away a GA county deputy sheriff (carrying concealed) for the same reason. I lived in Longview, TX in the early 80's when it was common for the city police to arrest any out of county sheriff deputies they caught in any business or restaurant there.

It's a strange world out there.

I wonder how many of the City PD got charged with illegal arrest?

Everyone that did what you described should have been so charged, tried and convicted. Stripped of their badge, job and any retirement accumulated. INCLUDING the chief if he sanctioned it.

A commissioned, certified peace officer is certified to carry any where in the state, subject to very few restrictions.