Should off duty cops be subject to the same gun laws as the rest of us?

[Gunnerpalace]

No the should not Why? because they are cops. To protect and serve, not to protect and serve with permit, I wonder if the Mods will shut this down.

 

[TexasRifleman]

I wonder if the Mods will shut this down

They should, it's a pointless discussion with zero bearing on RKBA.

Does it really sound to anyone like a legitimate argument to say "Well if we cant carry then cops shouldn't either"?

You think the masses are going to agree with that?

You gotta fight it from the other angle, that we should be subject to the same gun laws as off duty cops, allowed to carry anywhere because our lives are worth as much as theirs and we are all citizens.

 

[Stover954rr]

NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!! Simply because in the same week that this incident happened, an OFF DUTY COP saved who knows how many lives by shooting a crazed guy with knifes in NYC.

Also once when I was chasing a shop lifter out of a store I worked at and tackled him to the ground, it was an OFF DUTY COP who helped me subdue him.

Cops are NEVER OFF DUTY

 

[Fletchette]

No the should not Why? because they are cops. To protect and serve, not to protect and serve with permit, I wonder if the Mods will shut this down.

I hope they do not, as I think we can keep this thread civil.

I was not “cop-bashing” when I said that I thought they would start lobbying to restore our rights if they couldn't carry off-duty; I fully understand and support our law enforcement officers to carry out their duty. I am not an anarchist.

That said, I also fully support the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms.

As far as police officers having a duty to protect and serve, so do non-police officers. They may not have taken an oath, but I certainly have a right and duty to protect myself and family. I even have the legal power to perform a citizen’s arrest – without being a police officer.

I do not support laws that have exceptions written in them (and there are many) for certain classes of citizens.

The problem with these laws are twofold. First, they violate all semblance of equal rights. Second, they tend to make the privileged classes sedate about the lives of the non-privileged classes. People who are able to carry on a regular basis tend to forget what it is like for those that can’t.

The only lawful exceptions to having everyone able to freely exercise their rights that I would support are the ones provided for in the Constitution:

1) Those in a court room cannot carry (even police, only the Bailiff can carry) as people’s rights are temporarily annulled in court.
2) Those actually in prison, convicted by a jury of their peers.

Note, even these people have their rights, they are simply having their rights lawfully repressed.

I am not for taking away an off-duty police officer’s right to carry, I am for restoring everyone’s right to do so.

 

[TexasRifleman]

I even have the legal power to perform a citizen’s arrest – without being a police officer.

Careful with that one, that's a thread all to itself and you may not like how it ends.

We did that one a while back, I will see if I can find the link........

Second, they tend to make the privileged classes sedate about the lives of the non-privileged classes

Where the argument fails is when it is pointed out that nearly ANYONE can decide to be a cop and move into this supposed "privileged class". That makes it much tougher. The response back to you is "well then you should be a cop so you can carry".

That's why tying these issues together is an argument going nowhere. One really has nothing to do with the other.

 

[jackmead]

In the U.S. there are no special classes, it's that "all men are created equal thing" that we we learned in school.

 

[HonorsDaddy]

Jackmead,

You mean to tell me that you believed that stuff too?

 

[BridgeWalker]

I'm with the umpteen posters who have a hard time with whether cops should be able to carry all the time when all of us should be able to carry all the time.

 

[Fletchette]

Where the argument fails is when it is pointed out that nearly ANYONE can decide to be a cop and move into this supposed "privileged class". That makes it much tougher. The response back to you is "well then you should be a cop so you can carry".

My response back, "Well you should become a licensed reporter and then you can write what you want..."

 

[willbrink]

Yes. Some depts. require officers to be armed off duty. Some leave it as an option. It’s a simple risk to benefit ratio question: how many crimes are prevented or stopped by armed off duty LEO vs. how many are caused by off duty LEO’s? Answer that question and we have our answer, and just like citizens who are legal CCW, we know the answer to the question, and it favors armed off duty LEOs by a long shot.

 

[TexasRifleman]

y response back, "Well you should become a licensed reporter and then you can write what you want..."

I didn't say you were not right, just that you won't win the argument

 

[ShooterMcGavin]

Fletchette said:
I suspect if off-duty cops were subject to the same laws as us lowly civilians that the cops would suddenly start lobbying for concealed carry rights...
________________________________________________________________

BINGO! That is the response I was looking for.

I am the original poster and I certainly think off duty police should have the right to be armed at all times. But I also think law abiding citizens should have the same right.

I believe the direction of the question makes very little sense... It is quite wrong for a group of people (us), fighting for an action (RKBA or concealed carry), to even suggest restricting that right from a very deserving group, in order to promote recognition and support for our effort.

If the question had been asked in this manner: "Should citizens be allowed the same freedoms of firearms ownership and carry as afforded to our off-duty LEOs?" I would be more likely to respond with a YES. I said "more likely" because I am not familiar with all of the provisions of off-duty officers across the country.

One freedom that LEOs have here, that I am not allowed, is having lunch in a "bar" (any place that requires ID) or the bar section of a restaurant. I have to leave my group of friends (if they are not the type that I want to discuss a CCW with), or possibly alert them to my "weird" reason for changing everyone's lunch plans.

P.S. Thank you, to the many great Officers across this country!

 

[Zundfolge]

Should off duty cops be subject to the same gun laws as the rest of us?

ON Duty cops should be subject to the same gun laws as the rest of us too ... they don't become a different person when they're on the clock than they are off the clock.


No more of this "Some animals are more equal than others" bovine scat.

 

[Fletchette]

ShooterMcGavin said:

I believe the direction of the question makes very little sense... It is quite wrong for a group of people (us), fighting for an action (RKBA or concealed carry), to even suggest restricting that right from a very deserving group, in order to promote recognition and support for our effort.

I am not suggesting taking away anyone's rights, only to make sure that they are equal. From one of my previous posts:

I am not for taking away an off-duty police officer’s right to carry, I am for restoring everyone’s right to do so.

 

[Mannlicher]

Yep, a cop is a Citizen first, and a sworn officer second. They are absolutly no better, and no more likely to be safe or proficient with a gun than I am.

 

[glockman19]

Simple...YES.

Why a "Public Servant" has more rights than the citizenry that they serve is beyone me. Let's see. They have "No Obligation" to protect us, are paid by us for a false sense of security and have Privileges we don't but ultimately grant them. What's wrong with this picture?

 

[antsi]

----------quote----------
Anyway, at least here in Tennessee, I don't see what anybody's got to fuss about. The laws apply to everybody.
--------------------------

If WI (and IL, CA, NJ, etc.) were more like Tennessee, I don't think there would be any fuss at all.

The only reason this question even arises is because of the restriction of non-LEOs' RKBA in such states. Personally I think the question is backward. It isn't Why do LEO get RKBA that others don't? but rather, Why are non-LEO RKBA restricted?

 

[EmGeeGeorge]

Ummm this is a stupid thread, but I'll post anyhow...

Police generally are more restricted on their ability to use force, deadly force, that is than the rest of the general pop...

Don't use a one in a million event to try to push an anti-le agenda...

BTW Wisconsin is f'd up as far a PD hiring... NO PSYCH TESTING DONE ON A 20YR OLD DEPUTY??? I'm thinking a minimum age of 21 with maybe evn older being the samrt way to go... give'm time to f' up for real, as a person... when you hire a 25-40 yr old, they've been around long enough to have made mistakes tha'd excempt them form LE jobs.... If they are older and can pass a polygrapgh, psych test, and backgroun investigation, they're probably okay...

Also, I think eveyone should be able to CCW, so long as no felony or extensive misdemeanor history exists... or other possible disqualifers subject to case by case eval...

But only police and LE know what it's like to run into joe blow who just threatened to kill you the day before (and still managed to get bailed out) at the movies with your wife... several times a month...

Police do alot more than most are willing to give credit for...

 

[WayneConrad]

No man should be subject to different law than any other man. On duty or off. Cop or baker, president or beggar. Give no man privileges or immunities not enjoyed by all. Subject no man to laws not suffered by all.

 

[Fletchette]

antsi said:

----------quote----------
Anyway, at least here in Tennessee, I don't see what anybody's got to fuss about. The laws apply to everybody.
--------------------------

If WI (and IL, CA, NJ, etc.) were more like Tennessee, I don't think there would be any fuss at all.

The only reason this question even arises is because of the restriction of non-LEOs' RKBA in such states. Personally I think the question is backward. It isn't Why do LEO get RKBA that others don't? but rather, Why are non-LEO RKBA restricted?

Quite true. I would agree.

However, if a law (or more likely a court ruling) came down which explicitly stipulated that police officers are subject to the same laws as everyone else I do think that there would be a huge push by law enforcement to allow unrestriced concealed carry.

Which is what we all want here, the "bear" part of 'keep and bear arms' as well as the "keep" part.

 

[qajaq59]

Don't look now, but a lot of "honest, non-felon" types that are NOT LEOs also carry all the time, so why shouldn't LEOs carry?

 

[Gunnerpalace]

I have to speak again, you give the liberals an inch and they will take a mile, Keep they law they way it is for LEO carry you don't want us to end up like England or Australia with unarmed cops, go ahead and ask members of THR who are from there and they will tell you how bad it is.

 

[U.S.SFC_RET]

The thin blue line takes a hit once again. Underpaid and overworked. Overstressed although not in this case. It is that thin blue line thet protects and serves our communities. There is not a draft and it is all voluntary. They work the worst hours. Give these guys a break. They should carry whether you like it or not. You may not even value my opinion. Walk in their shoes for a year or two.

 

[Officers'Wife]

Hi US SPC,

It is that thin blue line thet protects and serves our communities. There is not a draft and it is all voluntary.

Yes it is all voluntary, they knew they would be underpaid and overworked going in. As well as the risks though if you check with the department of Labor those risks are relatively few compared to other occupations that pay less and have far fewer perks.

That said, sometime when you have a few moments go to Jasper County Indiana and get acquainted with some of their "special deputies." It will make you realize that some officers shouldn't be allowed an auto with an 8 cylinder engine much less a firearm of any sort.

Case in point a few years back an officer wanted some excitement in Rensselaer so he shot up his own car. Then claimed a local had done the deed. Had the local in question not have been pulled over two counties over it's quite possible he would have been convicted.

Now the ranting is over... The police are provided to protect society at large, not the individual. An officer given priveledge to protect himself and not the rest of the individuals in society is an insult to the idea of equality under the law.

Selena

 

[Fletchette]

U.S.SFC_RET said:

The thin blue line takes a hit once again. Underpaid and overworked. Overstressed although not in this case. It is that thin blue line thet protects and serves our communities. There is not a draft and it is all voluntary. They work the worst hours. Give these guys a break. They should carry whether you like it or not. You may not even value my opinion. Walk in their shoes for a year or two.

How is the "thin blue line" taking a hit when all we are asking is that we have the same rights that they do? I know people in the medical profession that work long hours, are under paid and do so for altruistic reasons. Should these people have more rights?