Tennessee expands off-duty carry for LEOs

O

Oatka

New member
http://www.tennessean.com/sii/00/05/25/guns25.shtml

Gun bill eases limits on off-duty officers
By Duren Cheek / Staff Writer

Legislation lifting most restrictions on where off-duty police officers can carry weapons sailed through the House yesterday and was sent to the Senate.

The vote was 92-1, with only Rep. Henri Brooks, D-Memphis, chairwoman of the legislature's Black Caucus, voting against it.

The House adopted a "honky-tonk" amendment providing that an off-duty officer can carry a weapon into a bar but cannot drink while he is there.

Under the legislation, off-duty officers also could carry weapons during judicial proceedings, on school property, and at public parks and playgrounds.

The exceptions would be that an off-duty officer could not carry a weapon in violation of federal law, a court order or the written directive from his top superior.

Sponsoring Rep. Frank Buck, D-Dowelltown, said the legislation is needed because most law enforcement officers do not feel safe unless they are carrying a weapon.

"In the rural area, we have a problem with people who put people away, and a lot of officers feel very, very uncomfortable without that weapon," Buck said. "If they are going fishing, they carry the weapon because there are people out there who are after them."

Rep. Kim McMillan, D-Clarksville, offered the "honky-tonk" amendment.

"In those instances where (armed) off-duty law enforcement officers are in establishments that serve alcoholic beverages there will be zero tolerance for consumption of alcohol by that off-duty officer," McMillan said.

Rep. Edith Langster, D-Nashville, a former police officer, said she was afraid the amendment would put officers in jeopardy.

She said an off-duty officer taking his wife out to celebrate their wedding anniversary would be forced to leave his weapon in the car if they went to a restaurant and had a drink.

© Copyright 2000 The Tennessean
 
Now it they'll only do it for the rest of us. The most dangerous thing I do is go to dinner, where it's illegal for me to carry. Fortunately, there's an affirmative defense to carrying where you're not authorized that if the weapon is used in self-defense, the lack of authorization can't be used against you.
 
Buzz,

As a fellow tennessean, I would
appreciate it if you would elaborate on
your affirmative defense comment.

I understand the concept;what I'd like
is an elaboration on Tennessee law
specific to its application in the
situation you mentioned.

[This message has been edited by Sport (edited May 25, 2000).]
 
In my oppinion cops should not have any additional carry priviledges either on or off duty. It is brazen hypocracy for a public servant to have more rights than that of his master.
 
G50,
What you are not considering is an LEO has a great deal more training in handling confrontations with a gun then most CCW holders. We can raddle off how we practice more then this and that cop but overall, well practiced CCW holders are a minority. We still should have the right to carry everywhere, I agree.
The problem, that the article doesn't mention, is that most cops can't take a passive role when something bad happens. A CCW holder by law can't shoot unless his life or someone elses life is in danger. An LEO has the responsibility and usualy the desire to intervene before things get that bad. For him to make that sacrifice he should be allowed to carry everywhere. The next step is to get the same thing passed for us.

------------------
"It is easier to get out of jail then it is a morgue"
Live long and defend yourself!
John 3:16
 
In Reply to G50AE.

In most departments you are considered a LEO 24/7 as long as you are in the jurisdiction.In Alabama most county and city departments require an officer to be armed anytime anywhere(execpt when consuming alcohol) It's not a matter of a preiviledge it's really a pain to cary a siutable weapon and a couple of reloads everywhere you go.Plus when I was on the street I carried OC, a pair of cuffs, and a 16 in collapseable baton and my radio. Try having a nice evening out with all that crap around.
I feel the Vermont carry plan is the best way to go for a free citizenry.
 
Lee - I don't see how training is relevant to where people can carry.

However, I don't have a problem with police carrying in more places IF they are required to act as LEOs.

I do object to reciprocity bills for cops on vacation in other states where they don't
have to act as LEOs.

In another state, if I can't carry, they can't.

The odds of meeting a revengeful killer on vacation is very small.
 
Let me rephrase, if we cannot trust the average citizen to carry where ever and however he or she pleases, why should we trust the police to do so? Cops are not special people, they are ordinary citizens like everyone else.
 
Lee, what you are forgetting is that LEO's have ABSOLUTELY NO responsability to protect anyone. They may have the desire to do so, but there does not exist any law that states that they have to act to save your butt. If they decide to simply watch and wait, youre a gonner and have no recourse.

As for training, I'd much rather place my trust in the hands of any of the graduates of my CHL class than ANY on the LEO's I have seen practice at the ranges I frequent. If training was the issue, then why not just make sure that the trainin gyou offer to CHL classes was adequate. For that matter, if the training is not sufficient as is, then why allow CHL to begin with? I have never understood the restrictions on CHL at all. I'm OK to carry in a mall with hundreds of people especially kids, but not in a school, hospital,... WTF?

This whole dealsounds like a way to appease the LEO's so they dont feel like their lives are in danger while keeping the majority of Americans defenseless. I'm sure that at the union leaders are now busy making sure that the LEO's dont continue to swing in favor of RKBA. Many will easily be swayed with the your a$$ is covered so dont worry about anything else argument.

------------------
"Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes."
-R.A. Heinlein
 
A municipal police officer in Tennessee
showed me his police I.D. today.
Guess what...It states he can carry
anywhere-anytime...TCA code. Didn't
catch the number. Plus, his department
requires that officers be armed 24/7...

What's the purpose, then, of this legis-
lation?

[This message has been edited by Sport (edited May 26, 2000).]
 
I think all lawabiding citizens should be able to carry, but I don't think LEOs should be disarmed because a private citizen can't carry.

LEOs should be able to carry due to their jobs making them a target. I run into people all the time who are criminals that I have arrested. Some of these people would like to do me harm and I want to protect myself. If you were in this situation as an LEO wouldn't you want to protect yourself and/or your family?
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mrat:
I think all lawabiding citizens should be able to carry, but I don't think LEOs should be disarmed because a private citizen can't carry.

LEOs should be able to carry due to their jobs making them a target. I run into people all the time who are criminals that I have arrested. Some of these people would like to do me harm and I want to protect myself. If you were in this situation as an LEO wouldn't you want to protect yourself and/or your family?

[/quote]

I agree with you, I too want to protect myself. I am not an LEO, therefore I have zero means of legally doing so. None. Zip. Nada. Ziltch. Ohio law says I can carry "Where a prudent,,,yada,yada, yada" boils down to you have to carry large sums of cash, and have reciepts to prove you do it(deposit slips and such). Problem is, LEO's aren't the only ones that have bad folk out to get them. I agree, as an LEO you may have more, but it,,only,,,takes,,one. In my case, that "one" is very determined, and very patient. So far I've been good/lucky. But I get the feeling that's running out.

FWIW, I believe the above mentioned law is a great idea. Based on the number of BG's you LEO's encounter, you need every edge you can get.

[This message has been edited by RAE (edited May 28, 2000).]
 
Unlike a similar bill for judges, http://www.thefiringline.com:8080/forums/showthread.php?threadid=26513
I don't have any heartburn with this.

The way I look at it is, first we get the LEOs to have National Carry, then push for a similar bill for qualified citizens, using the LEOs as an example.

I say qualified citizens since I think a major hurdle would be the varying standards the states have. Vermont has none, as far as I know, some states you just fill out a form.

If a bill was proposed that said National CCW was OK for those states that had proficiency tests and classes on responsibilities and legalities, it would get SOME sponsors, and maybe eventual passage; whereas blanket one would not.

At this point, I'm leaving out the argument that we shouldn't be licensed at all, etc.

Ideas?

Then again, maybe this should be a seperate thread.


------------------
The New World Order has a Third Reich odor.

[This message has been edited by Oatka (edited May 28, 2000).]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top