Atlanta Braves, Cops & Guns

B

BarryLee

New member
The Atlanta Braves have implemented a new policy prohibiting off duty law enforcement officers from bring firearms into the stadium. This policy does not apply to officers who have direct jurisdiction over the stadium such as federal, state and Atlanta city officers.

Now, my understanding of Georgia law is that a person with a permit can legally carry to a Braves game, but if asked to leave must do so. I assume this would be the same situation with LEOs.

So, is this an issue as far as the Law enforcement Officers Safety Act is concerned? I thought LEOSA allowed off duty LEOs to carry, so can the Braves legally prohibit it? Since the only penalty is being forced to leave the property does that make it ok?

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/braves-change-carry-policy-duty-officers/nfb7B/
 
Last edited:
The LEOSA generally trumps state laws, but it does not trump private property rights of owners (and tenants). The Atlanta Braves are no different from Joe's Diner ... if the Braves don't want off-duty cops to carry guns in their stadium, or of Joe doesn't want off-duty cops to carry guns in his diner, that trumps the LEOSA.
 
The Denver Nuggets stadium has everyone go thru a metal detector. I dont even hassle with it. In the stampede to get in, having to call a supervisor and go thru the hassle of getting cleared just doesnt make sense to me. The gun stays locked in the safe in the hotel room
 
Are there not agencies which require off duty officers to carry, even if outside their jurisdiction? I'm not saying that trumps the private property owner rights but it sure places them in a predicament.

Stupid policy. Another reason to not to follow the Braves.
 
I’m not sure how much risk there is, but I always worry about LEOs, prison guards, court personnel etc. running into someone that might seek revenge against them. I assume that’s why LEOSA was originally implemented and for the life of me I can’t see why allowing them to carry would be an issue.

I assume all officers would have credentials identifying them as LEOs, but maybe the Braves don’t want to sort through what’s legitimate and what might not be.
 
As for Turner Stadium being private property, he may have his name on it, but I guarantee public funds were involved in building it.

KyJim said:
Stupid policy. Another reason to not to follow the Braves
Click to expand...

^^^ This.
 
"I guarantee public funds were involved in building it."

Turner Stadium is owned jointly by Atlanta and Fulton County.

However, it is leased to the Atlanta Braves, who run day to day operations at the field. Being the lease holder gives them a lot of leeway in things like this, just as you have a lot of leeway in what you say can and can't be brought into your leased apartment.

In a couple of years the Braves are going to end the lease for a stadium that they are going to build and own outright.
 
BarryLee said:
The Atlanta Braves have implemented a new policy prohibiting off duty law enforcement officers from bring firearms into the stadium. This policy does not apply to officers who have direct jurisdiction over the stadium such as federal, state and Atlanta city officers...

...So, is this an issue as far as the Law enforcement Officers Safety Act is concerned? I thought LEOSA allowed off duty LEOs to carry, so can the Braves legally prohibit it? Since the only penalty is being forced to leave the property does that make it ok?
Click to expand...

BarryLee,

As has already been mentioned a property owner, or controlling person of said property may prohibit carry there or ask someone to leave if discovered. The issue I have isn't just tied to this ball park, but to similar issues on both sides of the isle that really do no good, besides for certain peoples ego's.

The policy you mention which doesn't apply to federal, state, and Atlanta officers would ban, say a Maryland trooper, or a small town officer from Podunk as well. But the rub of the feds and who does or doesn't have federal jurisdiction. So, how do you define which federal agencies have jurisdiction there? Unless assigned to that ball game by detail, or specifically known to work that area, how are they going to not allow one fed, but allow another? If they are going by the debate of not knowing who is/isn't able to carry from local/state elsewhere, then how could they figure it out with the feds? They cant. Is this a case of where a fed from a less known agency is turned down, but works in Atlanta, but a fed assigned to Tacoma Washington and with the FBI is allowed in when he is on vacation? Sounds like a huge mess to me, and more liability then I care to be involved with.

KyJim said:
Are there not agencies which require off duty officers to carry, even if outside their jurisdiction? I'm not saying that trumps the private property owner rights but it sure places them in a predicament.
Click to expand...

There may be some, but its typically been required to carry off-duty in/around their own jurisdiction. May be some required to carry off duty everywhere though. Would be nice to find out. This kind of reminds me of the issue in Texas at a ball field there and the issues involved there.

BarryLee said:
I assume all officers would have credentials identifying them as LEOs, but maybe the Braves don’t want to sort through what’s legitimate and what might not be.
Click to expand...

BarryLee...Ummm...Well...You have done it now! You hit one of the 2 main issues with LEOSA. If you read through the LEOSA Act and Amendment there is no requirement that an ID be issued, if it is verifiable, and the reasons that it can or can not be issued., or a punishment for not doing that. Just because an officer has 30 years, good standing, never a problem (beyond basic authority, and time served for retiree's), doesn't mean he can get the required ID. Someone that has been a problem, but is legally able to posses a firearm, but meets the basic requirements, can be buddy buddy with his/her Chief, and get the required ID. One state passed a law, and I know that some in my state, including myself, are trying to get a similar law passed here.

ColoradoFOP link below said:
This bill guarantees current practice and the rights extended to retired law enforcement officers under federal law (LEOSA). This bill mandates that agencies cannot stop issuing photographic ID’s to officers who leave in good standing with ten or more years qualifying law enforcement experience provided the officer meets the standards set forth in LEOSA.

Furthermore if an agency denies this issuance of identification the agency shall issue a letter to the officer specifying the legal reasons for denial. If the officer is denied for reasons other than the disqualifiers under LEOSA that exposes the agency to potential litigation to enforce the rights extended to the officer under federal law.
Click to expand...

http://www.coloradofop.org/index.cfm?zone=/unionactive/view_article.cfm&homeID=276917

So, there is that major problem with LEOSA. It is effectively and in a major way, may issue, not shall issue Also, there is no requirement in every state that an active officer be issued an ID that meets LEOSA. I know my state does not that I have found. Long story short, LEOSA has a lot of problems and needs some corrective action at the state or fed level, or needs to be replaced by a better law to avoid some of these issues.
 
Last edited:
KyJim said:
Are there not agencies which require off duty officers to carry, even if outside their jurisdiction? I'm not saying that trumps the private property owner rights but it sure places them in a predicament.
Click to expand...
How can any agency require its officers to do anything (other than be good, upstanding citizens) when outside their jurisdiction?
 
In a couple of years the Braves are going to end the lease for a stadium that they are going to build and own outright.
Click to expand...
Yep, and as with the current stadium, it's in a high-crime area. That's one of several reasons I don't attend.

Does Georgia have Preemptive firearms laws in place?
If so, can a publicly owned building tenant override State Law?
Click to expand...
They do, but a private party leasing or renting a space can apply their own policies as they see fit. The prohibition isn't coming from the state government.
 
They probably can ban the off-duty guns in a leased public stadium, but it still stinks as a policy.

Hit them in their pocketbook, don't attend their games or purchase sports paraphernalia. Send them a note, and another to the city, telling them that.
 
How can any agency require its officers to do anything (other than be good, upstanding citizens) when outside their jurisdiction?
Click to expand...
Why not? If it is a condition of employment, it is a condition of employment. Unless there are certain civil rights issues (or union issues), an employer can pretty much condition employment on anything they want in most states. It's called employment at will.
 
Fellas, we have the same problem up here in Minnesota! The Vikings foot ball stadium is being built with public money and private money. While the stadium is under construction for the next few seasons they will be using the University of Minnesota football stadium. Definitely public owned.
No guns are allowed, ccw holders and including off duty LEO, except those that are security personel on the stadium payroll. This is not a city, county, or state rule. It is being handed down specifically from the NFL orginization. In this state LEO take an oath to protect the public when off duty and are required to carry. And armed or not they will protect the public. They do not have any metal detectors and the only bags allowed in will be clear plastic bags.
It appears that major league sports are going to trump all rules of government including the second amendment.
What a bunch of BS.
 
Why not? If it is a condition of employment, it is a condition of employment. Unless there are certain civil rights issues (or union issues), an employer can pretty much condition employment on anything they want in most states. It's called employment at will.
Click to expand...
So according to you, a police department in Wyoming can require its officers to carry even when off-duty. Suppose an officer goes to New Jersey or New York and the law there doesn't allow Officer Wyoming to carry?
 
KyJim said:
How can any agency require its officers to do anything (other than be good, upstanding citizens) when outside their jurisdiction?
Click to expand...

Why not? If it is a condition of employment, it is a condition of employment. Unless there are certain civil rights issues (or union issues), an employer can pretty much condition employment on anything they want in most states. It's called employment at will.
Click to expand...

KyJim and Aguila, Some departments restrict or ban carrying under a concealed carry permit, citing the reason that an officer may be recalled and if they carry a firearm, it must be department approved and be in qualification with said firearm. Even with LEOSA, an officer still needs compliant photo ID, which as mentioned earlier varies a lot from department to department. So while I don't know of any agency that requires officers to be armed during all of their off duty time, others are heavily restricted on what, when, where, they can carry, if they are allowed.
 
I always laugh at the 'off-duty' LEO statement... Whether on shift or not, they can still arrest you. Besides, I dare someone to try and differentiate at a checkpoint between UC, plain clothes, and 'off-duty'...

All my friends and relatives who carry a badge freely tell me that they aren't ever truely off duty...
 
ThesNazud said:
I always laugh at the 'off-duty' LEO statement... Whether on shift or not, they can still arrest you.
Click to expand...
Not outside of their jurisdiction -- which happens to be exactly the situation posed in the opening post.

In my state, I think any regular police officer who is POST certified has arrest power in all municipalities within the state. I ***THINK***.

Police officers sworn in my state do NOT have arrest power in any other state. In other states, jurisdiction is limited to the specific municipality or county that the officer serves, and anywhere outside of that specific jurisdiction he/she cannot arrest you (other than as a citizen's arrest).
 
Each of Major League Baseball, National Football League and National Hockey League are implementing similar 'no weapons' rules throughout their team venues.

Why a majority of owners was persuaded to vote for such things I cannot understand, beyond a general 'oh, those things do not belong at our games' attitude. I might generally agree with that sentiment - but it's travel to and from, and walking through the parking lots where some exposure to danger seems likely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top