Police CCW exemptions

A

alloy

New member
How fast would CCW restrictions relax for the rest of us, if the police exemptions were done away with, meaning CCW in restaurants, schools, crossing state lines, etc. Why doesn't the NRA go after the police exemptions so that we all end up on the same page?

No interest in a police bashing thread, just curious why they are given leeway that regular citizens aren't, wondering if it is a point of contention, and how it came to be.
 
This is one of those things that leaves me conflicted.

On one hand I think everyone should have to at least "go through the motions" to help reduce the "hey I'm special and you're not" mentality.

On the other hand I hate wasting time and money on "makework" kind of stuff when "shall issue" is a foregone conclusion for LE officers.

The funny thing is that, on the books, many areas restrict police to exactly the same code and the general population, however "in real life practice" that's ignored with a "wink and a nod" because, well, it's the POLICE.
 
because unlike the civilian population, the Police go thru a lot to be allowed to do what they do (extensive background search, a lot of departments use lie detector tests and psych exams, in depth interviews with the applicant and sometimes they even talk to neighbors to see what kind of person they are, written exams and so on) Those that pass are deemed fit to burden themselves with the job of protecting the public. If you want to argue against that, then would you be ok with those same tests in order to carry your weapon?
 
Last edited:
That's an interesting take. Good point for thought. It's been one brought up in the campus carry arguments quite a bit and I'm afraid that the progun side doesn't always have a good answer.

Trying to limit police carry won't aid in getting general expanded privileges in my opinion.
 
The point is how many felons does the average citizen put in jail that would like to get revenge on the officer or his family. How many times a day does the average citizen risk his life in the protection of others, and by the way I am in favor of Shall Issue convince your legislators.

#18Indycolts you forgot all those reapeated law classes and use of force classes.
 
The point is how many felons does the average citizen put in jail that would like to get revenge on the officer or his family. How many times a day does the average citizen risk his life in the protection of others
Click to expand...

I don't think I agree with that. I think the point is that just because we (as a society) decided to "contract out" a certain kind of work (protection of the general population) to hired professionals doesn't mean we automatically gave up our own rights and responsibilities regarding that same kind of work. In short, if THEY have a right to carry, WE have a right to carry.

But I don't think restricting a cops right to carry is going to help us much.
 
Last edited:
Someone looked at that awhile ago. While it makes sense, and anything is possible, the rate at which cops are actually confronted, off duty, with former arrestees, once convicted, is microscopic. Sorry I don't have a reference for this, maybe some LE's could chime in.

If true, I think that fact could work slightly in our favor, vis a vi equal protection.

Nonetheless, I believe they have a right, as we do, to carry. But the average citizen is not significantly less likely to need to means to self defense than an off-duty/retired oficer, IMO.
 
we (as a society) decided to "contract out" a certain kind of work (protection of the general population) to hired professionals doesn't mean we automatically gave up our own rights and responsibilities regarding that same kind of work
Click to expand...

I agree mostly but I don't see it as "giving up our rights and responsibilities regarding that same kind of work" (we're talking about carrying a gun) not doing actual police work (which is mainly dealing with BS) I support those in the public safety field, I back them 100% (as long as they're doing their job) and am happy to pay taxes to city departments to pay for those "contracted out" jobs. If my house caught on fire I surely wouldn't want Billy Jo Schmo running over with a bucket of water or if my life was in danger I'm not sure if I would be ok with Billy Jo Schmo wanting to do what cops do but has no idea of how do it other than pointing his 1911.
 
Trying to limit police carry won't aid in getting general expanded privileges in my opinion.
Click to expand...

You don't suppose that if policemen off-duty(and retired), carried under roughly the same overall rules as the average permitted(or not) citizen...they would rightfully lobby to have the more idiosyncratic prohibitions...diminished somewhat?

Or would we just end up with another HR 218? I'm not speculating, to diminish any police rights, as much as questioning the oddball restrictions on the non-police.

Restaurants, libraries, parks, school property, church, handgun purchases, CCW across state lines, transport within a state, etc....individually they all seem somewhat debatable/reasonable, at least from discussion i read around here. Yet all rolled together, they become something else entirely.
 
Last edited:
because unlike the civilian population, the Police go thru a lot to be allowed to do what they do (extensive background search, a lot of departments use lie detector tests and psych exams, in depth interviews with the applicant and sometimes they even talk to neighbors to see what kind of person they are, written exams and so on) Those that pass are deemed fit to burden themselves with the job of protecting the public. If you want to argue against that, then would you be ok with those same tests in order to carry your weapon?
Click to expand...
Maybe some departments go to that much trouble, but not nearly close to half do. There was an article in the news last year about a major metro department that did no background checks and there were three felons and two misdemeanor drug violators on the payroll. They were found out by a reporter.

Regardless, that all has absolutely nothing to do with the issue, if you consider "keep and bear arms" a right. Rights have no qualifications. They exist with or without the endorsement of governments. Or maybe I should say in spite of governments.
 
As soon as the uniform comes off so should any responsibility and extra privileges.

I'm a medic and I cant carry my drug box around with me or any advanced life saving equipment. As soon as I am off duty I am a plain joe and cannot do advanced life support.

Should be the same way for officer of the law. Less stress for them I would think.
 
I have accedentally carried in at least 2 places I shouldn't have and felt very uneasy about it.I just don't like to break any laws that could jeprodize any of my rights in the future.
 
Chill out. LEOSA , giving national recognition for carry by current & retired LEO's MAY just open the door to national recognition of State Issued CCW's...thats a good thing AND a bill to to so has been introduced in the Congress.

The CCW in National Parks bill ALSO helped move forward the issue !
 
I can't run names or radio for back up but, I can take police action off duty. You can't intubate or pace but you can perform BLS off duty.
 
Thankful for reponsibilities handled by LEs

I see the possibility of Alloys point, but I also think that it is more likely that LEs simpathetic to civilian carry are more important to the cause than trying to limit the LEs in order to somehow improve the lot civilians. I for one am grateful that LE's are not only allowed more leeway in regard to carry but are often REQUIRED to carry when "off duty". And besides, the more responsible legal gun toters out there, the safer I feel.
 
Eggheads in power - when has that been the case? We need a laughing manically smiley.

Let's stay with reality here. The issue is police carry. There is the theoretical debate of whether police are different from nonpolice so should they be able to carry and what is their law enforcement responsibility off duty?

There is the issue that despite the theoretic, folks think the police are more competent than the civilian (NOT Me - I am a competitive ninja and cops can't shoot like me - blah, blah) and thus aren't afraid of them. Thus, nongun folks are more approving of off duty carry.

I have no trouble with police carrying off duty. I regard that as no threat to a push for more civilian carry abilities.
 
The basic reason that police carry off duty is that they are still empowered to act officially when off duty and are expected and even required to take action if something serious arises in their presence that might require use of deadly force to stop that threat from being used against someone else (or even themselves). What would you rather they do.....stand there empty handed and yell "stop...or I'll yell stop again" while a criminal shoots or stabs a victim??? Geez....some of this stuff is riduculous and sounds a lot like just plain jealousy that "I can't do something so why should they"
 
I think at least some of the people who advocate this approach think if cops were unable to protect themselves off duty they would be more likely to want to help the rest of us be able to do so, just so they could.

It just ain't gonna happen. Cops help keep the politicians in power and part of the deal is based on the special privileges cops get.
Click to expand...
Two quick points here. First, lots of cops have worked very hard to help the rest of you be able to carry. Yes, there are anti-CCW cops jsut like there are anti-CCW citizens in general, but there are also a lot of cops that strongly support CCW. Second, I'm not sure where you get this idea that cops have special privileges. In most areas cops have LESS freedom in using their firearm than do non-LEOs. To carry under HR 218/LEOSA I have to qualify every year. I can only carry a gun that I have qualified with. My restrictions on using the gun are not only the state laws, but also department policy. I could go on, but I think you get the point. These "special privileges" aren't that special, and most folks would throw a fit if it were suggested they have to follow them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top