Police CCW exemptions

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?
Click to expand...

I am not aware of any agency that doesn't require some kind of off-duty responsibility. To paraphrase Stan Lee "with great responsibility comes great power".

Police are not "different" than other citizens. We just have different a duty to act.

This should not turn in to either/or discussion. Off-duty carry by POs has very little to do with CCW by civilians.

I fully support CCW. However, if you do carry on a given day it's nobody's concern but yours. If I don't carry off-duty and Murphy decides to visit not only does it affect me it affects those civilians I am unable to assist. To say nothing of the sanctions that would be applied at my agency and in the media.
 
First, I'll say I support LEO's right to carry anywhere.....

with that said, the reason they can is because they work for the government.
 
As soon as the uniform comes off so should any responsibility and extra privileges.
Click to expand...

As soon as I am off duty I am a plain joe and cannot do advanced life support.
Click to expand...

AZ MED- but you still have the duty to act. If someone had a massive MI, went unresponsive then pulseless into arrest, would you not perform CPR? By your above responses you'd just keep on walking? Off duty and you drive upon a wreck, you can still hold c-spine and provide an adequate airway if needed. On and off duty public safety persons have that duty to act, if they don't then they shouldn't be working in that field.
 
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...

Excellent points about qualification, if they were consistently required. However, police exemptions are based on job description (statutory powers of arrest) and apply equally to officers, whether they are Barney Fife or a member of LAPD SWAT. I would have absolutely no objection to qualification-oriented exemptions appled to both law enforcement officers and civilians.

My beef is with the politically-motivated police administrators and their representative organizations who champion police exemptions. Those organizations lend unwarranted credibility to efforts to restrict gun rights, claiming they "speak for the police" when they do not. They only tolerate police exemptions to ensure that the real rank-and-file police have little reason to speak out loudly or in great numbers against "civilian" restrictions. The exemptions do not address valid special needs of police officers as much as they are a means to keep police from resisting the gun control agenda.

Police exemptions are a reflection of the success of the divide-and-conquer strategy of gun control proponents. But privleges granted can also be taken away. Some of the police administrator organizations, like the International Association of Chiefs of Police, are openly anti-gun and do not even try to placate rank-and-file officers. The current IACP legislative agenda includes support for banning amor piercing ammunition, reinstating the AWB, limiting civilian sales of body armor, reinstating purchase waiting periods, closing the "gunshow loophole" and requiring all gun sales go through FFLs, and requiring microstamping ammunition. IACP also opposes The Police Officers' Bill of Rights and LEOSA.
 
Back when the LEOs were trying to get their national right to carry law passed, they were up close and personal with the CCW crowd. This was supposed to be a first step in a national reciprocity law. Once we proved that LEOs needed to carry while on vacation, they were going to help us prove we needed to carry on vacation. The LEOs needed the money and politcal help of the CCWs. Once their law was passed, it seems the entire "deal" was over.



One could make the argument that LEOs are more trained in physical self-defense and non-lethal self-defense and are therefore less in need of carrying a firearm while off-duty than the average untrained citizen.

And we will not get into the issue of off-duty LEOs being shot by accident by uniformed cops (a problem even with on-duty non-uniform cops and undercover cops), nor the issue of an off-duty LEO using the firearm in a non-LEO manner while out on the town, causing the issuing agency liability for his actions.

I think everyone, LEO or citizen, should be able to carry everywhere they desire. It is funny to listen to my brother (a deputy sheriff) complain when he is disarmed at the county courthouse even while in uniform. All I can say is welcome to my world.
 
Last edited:
"Off-duty" and "on-duty" don't appear in our regs and policies. My creds don't say "authorized to carry firearms, make arrests, execute warrants, conduct investigations...." (etc) but only while "on duty". Our status and duties don't change in the slightest because I don't happen to be getting paid for that hour.

There is a good deal of anti-LE sentiment on this board. It's pretty easy to tell the wannabe badge-holders, usually the ones asking about where to get their CCW badge. I write it off to being guys who failed the psych evals or the types who would prefer to move to Montana, declare themselves to be a sovereign country, and then would be judge and police chief. They want the badges and perceived power so badly. Power freaks are everywhere. Even if they had managed to pass the psych testing, they'd be real unhappy to learn that real law enforcement still involves many, many levels of supervisors, prosecutors, and politicos reviewing your work.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There is a good deal of anti-LE sentiment on this board. It's pretty easy to tell the wannabe badge-holders,
Click to expand...

Not everyone that likes firearms wants to be a cop. My brother is one and the pay sucks, the hours suck, the complaints and lawsuits by people he arrests sucks....


I prefer having money and weekends off.
 
The advocates of gun control do not view members of law enforcement as inherently entitled to the special privilege of access to lethal weapons. They do not believe in the use of lethal weapons except in the most extreme circumstances and would gladly disarm most law enforcement officers along with average citizens. If law enforcement is tough today, think about doing the job with a baton, a taser, and a radio with which to call for special armed support when it is really needed.

The more differential treatment law enforcement receives today, the greater the jeopardy in the future. If law enforcement does not stand with the average citizens facing gun control today, don't expect the support of average citizens when gun control is aimed at law enforcement tomorrow.
 
Last edited:
If your post has disappeared (or been edited) from this thread, it's because I made a determination that it was either general bashing of the police or it was a response to such a post - which would make no sense when the actual offending post disappeared.
 
If law enforcement does not stand with the average citizens facing gun control today, don't expect the support of average citizens when gun control is aimed at law enforcement tomorrow.
Click to expand...

I had noticed the Fraternal Order of Police were in agreement with the Park Rangers' emotional appeal regarding CCW in the national park system. Kind of irrational, and the next time i got the state donation call, i had to bring it up, so i would agree.
It's a shame some can't talk about it without getting emotional, but still...i can't see the reason why an officers off-duty duty supercedes a citizens rights. Especially if the supreme court has ruled that protection isn't a government employees obligation even when on duty.
 
I had noticed the Fraternal Order of Police were in agreement with the Park Rangers' emotional appeal regarding CCW in the national park system. Kind of irrational, and the next time i got the state donation call, i had to bring it up,
Click to expand...

FOP is as bad as that Police Chiefs much more leftist than the average Cop.

I would advise against donating to the FOP, there are a lot of real Police Charities out there, although, I of course appreciate the thought. Donating to the FOP is kinda like donating to the Teamsters or SEIU which I would advise against also.
I would assume the LEAA is active in the CCW fight although I am too tired to research it 2 am and all.

I also want to Proffer a salute to all of the veterans on the board in honor of Memorial Day, Thank you for your service.
 
Why doesn't the NRA go after the police exemptions so that we all end up on the same page?
Click to expand...

From a political standpoint, one of the major efforts of the Brady Campaign has been to divide a wedge among gun owners. Hunters vs. Shooters. Black rifle vs. Skeet. Cops and Military vs. Average guy.

Asking the NRA to "go after" exemptions that already exist in the law for the good reasons already elaborated in this thread (better training, better screening, and often a legal duty to act), would be a great way to further widen that divide in my opinion.

Look at the whole mess over "cop-killer" bullets - it is an excellent example of a stupid law that accomplished little; but was a great propaganda success for Brady. Without the Internet, all you had to rely on was major media reporting (and we all know how accurate and unbiased that is) - and the Bradys were able to make the NRA's attempts to modify the law into something rational into a "Hey cops! The NRA wants felons to be able to shoot through your vest!"

Personally, I don't see how reducing the number of qualified, legitimate citizens who can carry a firearm is going to help us with the broader goal of expanding that right. Ignorance breeds in a vaccuum of knowledge and having fewer people (especially authority figures respected by the public) who understand that carrying a concealed firearm isn't rocket science is not going to help us in the long run.
 
"First, I'll say I support LEO's right to carry anywhere.....

with that said, the reason they can is because they work for the government."

So by the very same token. We as citizens, whom the government works for, are lessers than the civil servants we call police? Therefore they are given privledges based upon their employer? In Virginia the police can carry switch blade knives, expanding batons, or any other weapon that is illegal for any citizen. Many do buy switch blades. Personally, I like those type of knives and some other types that would be great additions to my concealed handgun permit, alas I cannot. I find it odd that a civil servant has more rights than the one to whom the servant serves. What is one to do? It seems in this modern age we the public are nothing more than cattle to be milked by the people who we employ and it is done through laws. Oh well, I suppose it is just deserts for us. Not really a big deal in the grand scheme of things.

One thing I can say is that if it wasn't for good citzens with firearms a criminal would have gotten away with being an accomplice to an attempted killing of a cop yesterday in my town. The so called more able police were a mile away searching for the guy. Lucky for the police a man that I have subcontracted for found the criminal in a drainage ditch directly behind his house by way of his alerted Beagle. Seems that the police are not the only people that can do a fine job stopping crimes. This thing of the police being able to do thier duty better than Joe Schmo is entertaining in the least. Makes no matter, the bad guy got what he derserved and it is a good day for the citizen here in VA.

Priviledge of particular people based on their profession is common and always will be. Though many of the reasons that they are so are not always very good ones, nor are they based on much experience or logic for the most part. Life is a comedy, keep smiling. ;)
 
We as citizens, whom the government works for, are lessers than the civil servants we call police?
Click to expand...
The powers that be are not going to change the law in this respect. I would elaborate on some of the reasons I think this is the case but it was this point in the thread that got me ten points for "cop bashing" the other day, and while I am not real sure what good "points" are, I am pretty sure I don't want any more.

Lets just say that some things are the way they are, and there is not much you can do about it.

Look at it this way. McDonald's employees get discounts on cheeseburgers as a perk of employement there. Cops get their own set of perks for being cops. Its not about fair, or legal, or constitutional, or even whether it is a good idea. Its about the way things actually are.
 
I can't personally own any single firearm or part of a firearm that every other person in the state can own, legally. The state (or town-whoever) can own anything they want and then issue it to me. But, I can not own anything "special" because I'm a cop.

The only exception is automatic knives, I can have one and citizens can not.
 
But, I can not own anything "special" because I'm a cop.
Click to expand...

But you can go on vacation and take your handgun anywhere in the country because you are a cop, even after you retire, and I can't.
 
carry

When LEOs are off duty they should be held to the same ... well everything that other people are. Because your job affords you certain powers does not mean you have more rights then the average citizen when off duty. That being said I should not be an issue because ALL citizens should have the right to carry as police officers do. I take small offence to the suggestion that somehow LEOs are considered better people and therefore deserve the right to carry when and where I cannot. Again that being said NO way in hades you could pay me what LOEs make to take the insane risks they take on the job.

Look at it like this. The diff is not the right or ability to be armed for ALL citizens but that while on duty LEOs have the powers afforded to them as police. Being a LEO is not about carrying a gun it is about the other things you do and a gun is just a tool that while on duty they have a greater freedom with.
 
Yup, I can carry my gun anywhere even after retired. But, I also have a duty to act when others do not (off duty-not retired). I also have to qualify to the same standards as active cops as often as they do, with each gun I carry off duty or retired. Its a lot of BS to go through to carry your gun out of state and off duty, etc.

Without getting into a "I know this cop and he is the worst shot ever and doesn't take care of his weapons and wow all cops are crappy shots" debate, cops are trained more than the average bear. I know there are some people out there that outshoot a SWAT team and train more than cops, however your average bear does not. Thats a big plus when allowing cops to carry from sea to shining sea. My fiance' just took the NRA safety class to get her pistol permit. She came home from the class and said "Wow, I didn't learn a thing. That class was a joke. I can't believe there are people carrying guns with just that class. All they talked about was how the cops are coming to take your guns away." No joke.
 
When LEOs are off duty they should be held to the same ... well everything that other people are. Because your job affords you certain powers does not mean you have more rights then the average citizen when off duty.
Click to expand...
Most LEOs actually have fewer rights, in practice, than the average citizen does. And in many jurisdictions they also have additional responsibilites that non-LE do not have when they are in that off-duty role.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top