Personally Owned Weapons

[mongooseman]

My department allows investigators to carry approved personal weapons. We are issued .40 cal Glocks (surprise!) in all flavors. At this point I carry a G19 with Wilson Combat sights and a Crimson trace laser grip. These are the only modifications made to the weapon. The captain of crime scene carries a VP9, which I also carried until one of my kids liberated it.

Our Chief Deputy is making some noise about standardizing on the Glocks, especially considering the current media driven climate. Anyone have any real arguments or examples where different weapons caused problems, tactical or legal, for an agency?

[voodoo_man]

We are allowed to carry personally owned duty guns but they must have ny1 and oem trijicon sights. No other mods are allowed.

This is a product of lawyers and fear of litigation due to modification of firearms used in shoots.

Complete BS...

[LSP972]

Complete BS...


Not always. A sheriff's office near here is about to cut a check for a wrongful death suit judgment; and the check will have an extra zero on it because of a skimmer trigger on the Glock pistol in question.

If the FTU guys are doing their job, and the troops are adhering to procedural orders, then yes; such fears are unfounded.

But when Deputy Cletus, Trooper Bubba, or Officer Nimrod decide they know better than the brass… or when no restrictions are in place to start with… Trouble in River City is sure to follow, eventually.

.

[NorthernHeat]

We are issued Glock 17s but can carry pretty much anything we can qualify with.

No internal or trigger modifications unless done by the manufacturer (example Springfield Armory Custom Shop doing work on their 1911s).

Stippling and sight changes are good as well as added slide serrations (ATEI and the like) .

Our training dept is awesome about the fact of knowing that everybody prefers/ might shoot better with different guns and different grips/ sights etc.

There are guys that have shot low 70s with Glocks but then grab an M&P and shoot high 80s to 90.

Then again, we have about 6-7 different shooting classes available to take each year from our dept that vary from low light pistol to off duty/ plain clothes pistol to 3 day duty pistol and rifle classes (counts as a work days, dept ammo and dept provided steel targets at the dept range :cool:)

... so we like training.

Most of the time when I heard depts wanting to only allow one gun it is because of cost (many things factor into this cost), or they do not want to put in the time to great the general order to allow personally owned firearms..."because of liability"

[voodoo_man]

Not always. A sheriff's office near here is about to cut a check for a wrongful death suit judgment; and the check will have an extra zero on it because of a skimmer trigger on the Glock pistol in question.

If the FTU guys are doing their job, and the troops are adhering to procedural orders, then yes; such fears are unfounded.

But when Deputy Cletus, Trooper Bubba, or Officer Nimrod decide they know better than the brass… or when no restrictions are in place to start with… Trouble in River City is sure to follow, eventually.

.

Got a link and summary of facts? I am eager to see what legal decisions and or consequences there are for modifications on duty firearms.

[NorthernHeat]

One of the things with an aftermarket trigger I could see is " I didnt mean to shoot, but this XYZ aftermarket trigger went off when I didn't mean for it to".

If its a good shoot, its a good shoot. Regardless if it has a 3.5 pound trigger or a 12 pound trigger.

I could see a dept actually pushing against the heavier trigger because you could show qual scores that were lower with the heavier trigger, if that is the case. Therefore your dept is not consistently as accurate with your firearms with the 12lb triggers as your dept shooting quals showed to be with the 5.5lb.

Your dept could articulate that your dept needs to be as consistently accurate with its firearms as possible, and "fill in the blank" does that for us.

But heavy triggers are safer, per "admin".

[BehindBlueI's]

We have a fairly liberal policy for off duty and plain clothes on duty carry. Most of the guys still carry the issued Glock 22 or a Glock 27. A couple Sigs are the only exception now that I moved away from revolvers for duty carry and the LT is gone. All firearms are subject to an armorer's inspection and there are minimum trigger weights for DA and for SA, plus no SAO guns. Any modifications from factory must be done by the armorer or by the factory (ie, a Sig Custom Shop trigger job is good to go, Bubba McGee's Backyard Trigger Polishing Emporium is not.) It's been this way for many years with zero issues.

For awhile we were even providing our own carry ammo during the Great Ammo Shortage post-Newtown, if you carried anything other than the issued Glock.

[psalms144.1]

I am ADAMANTLY opposed to the "one size fits some" solution to issuing firearms, as, frankly, there's no single pistol I've ever seen that "fits" every need every officer/agent might have. I would much rather have an agent carry a personal weapon that he/she is comfortable, confident, and competent with, than an issued gun they don't trust, or can't shoot to save a life.

Having said all that, during my agency's response to an active shooter, we had at least one agent who had to beg loose rounds from his partners to reload his ISSUED P239 single-stack magazine after the initial shooting. There were an ENORMOUS number of "oh shit" moments that led to that very competent agent being in his gun fight with no spare magazine, but Murphy was kicking EVERYONE's ass that day. No one was injured or died due to the difference in issued weapons, but, when we decided afterwards that the agency needed a "tactical" element, the direction was that all members would use the issued P229R for all training and call outs. If the agent in question had carried a P229, his very generous partner could have just handed him a spare magazine. That agent, to this day, when talking about lessons learned, says "I will never carry a single stack pistol again, and I will never carry anything but what I'm issued."

So, while I'm a BIG proponent of a generous personal weapons policy, I can see the other side of the coin. The rub is this - picking a SINGLE weapon that doesn't suck, and can be used most effectively by a wide variety of agents/officers. The GLOCK family of pistols seems to do this fairly well - G34/5 for "tactical," G17/22 for "duty," G19/23 for "plain clothes" and every gets a G26/7 BUG. Likewise the P320 makes even more sense, in that officers/agents can all have one platform, fed off one set of magazines (FS mags work in all the smaller sizes), and the grip modules can be adjusted to individual hand size.

BUT, to just say "everyone gets a G22, and make it work" is a poor idea, IMHO.

[Chuck Haggard]

Got a link and summary of facts? I am eager to see what legal decisions and or consequences there are for modifications on duty firearms.

That case is still being settled, and not everything is available in a handy Google search package. I know more than I am supposed to about that case, basically it's a Skimmer trigger, installed against department regs but work down by a department armorer, trigger tested at 1.85 pounds, and a fatal ND into a bystander during the course of an arrest. The trigger in this case is clearly something that is a factor in play.

Personally owned guns are not an issue, in any way. Fuckery can happen with department guns as well. The gun being personally woned has nothing to do with the issues one needs to stay on top of.

BTW, NYPD, LAPD, Chicago, the FBI, and numerous other large agencies have or have had a large personally owned weapons program. It's workable.

[deputyG23]

Our policy is that the issued G23 can be carried on duty only. No personal firearms on the clock at all. The current authorized personal off duty handgun is anything Glock makes.
Our firearms policy is being reviewed and I have submitted a draft policy that allows several manufacturers' striker fired, DAO, DAK, or LEM trigger equpped pistols for off duty. No traditional DA/SA or SAO pistols are listed.
.38 chambered S&W, Colt, or Ruger revolvers have been proposed for off duty as well, but I don't have high hopes of them being approved.

[voodoo_man]

That case is still being settled, and not everything is available in a handy Google search package. I know more than I am supposed to about that case, basically it's a Skimmer trigger, installed against department regs but work down by a department armorer, trigger tested at 1.85 pounds, and a fatal ND into a bystander during the course of an arrest. The trigger in this case is clearly something that is a factor in play.

Personally owned guns are not an issue, in any way. Fuckery can happen with department guns as well. The gun being personally woned has nothing to do with the issues one needs to stay on top of.

BTW, NYPD, LAPD, Chicago, the FBI, and numerous other large agencies have or have had a large personally owned weapons program. It's workable.

ND on a shit trigger? Who woulda thought...

I am all for people getting guns tht work best for them.

[LSP972]

Got a link and summary of facts? I am eager to see what legal decisions and or consequences there are for modifications on duty firearms.

This is the incident. Basically, it was a classic flex/reflex response; Phebus and another deputy were trying to control a grounded suspect (who was shirtless, sweaty, and… well, I'm sure you're familiar with that kind of citizen), when his homey ran up shouting and gesticulating. Phebus drew and warned him away; grounded suspect tried to make a break for it while retard homey refused to back off… fill in the blanks.

Would this have happened with a "standard" Glock trigger? Perhaps. But the thing is, plaintiff's attorneys are getting more and more knowledgeable, daily, about guns in general… and ANY modifications to stock factory specs paints a big bullseye on any incident.

Spare me any comments about this guy's background, etc. Its irrelevant here. He was not true-billed because it was quite evident to all witnesses; even the belligerent ones; that he did NOT intend to shoot the kid deliberately.

This became an equipment issue… and that was the point I was trying to make. Intentions count for NOTHING anymore; its all about perception.

http://www.wafb.com/story/19357477/i-team-could-deputys-past-have-foretold-the-future

.

[voodoo_man]

This is the incident. Basically, it was a classic flex/reflex response; Phebus and another deputy were trying to control a grounded suspect (who was shirtless, sweaty, and… well, I'm sure you're familiar with that kind of citizen), when his homey ran up shouting and gesticulating. Phebus drew and warned him away; grounded suspect tried to make a break for it while retard homey refused to back off… fill in the blanks.

Would this have happened with a "standard" Glock trigger? Perhaps. But the thing is, plaintiff's attorneys are getting more and more knowledgeable, daily, about guns in general… and ANY modifications to stock factory specs paints a big bullseye on any incident.

Spare me any comments about this guy's background, etc. Its irrelevant here. He was not true-billed because it was quite evident to all witnesses; even the belligerent ones; that he did NOT intend to shoot the kid deliberately.

This became an equipment issue… and that was the point I was trying to make. Intentions count for NOTHING anymore; its all about perception.

http://www.wafb.com/story/19357477/i-team-could-deputys-past-have-foretold-the-future

.


Looks like training is the major contributing factor followed closely by a good helping of doing stupid modifications to guns that don't need them.

[HCM]

We have a POW program - Fed Agency with 18,000 officers and agents so it is workable.

We have a list of approved POW's. All guns on the list are guns which were either prior agency issued guns or passed agency testing but did not win the contract.

All POWs must be armorer inspected. All semi autos must have steel night sights - there is some latitude as long as they have tritium both front and rear. An officer's primary and secondary guns must be the same trigger / action type. Other than sights, the only modifications allowed are items which are considered "factory". This generally includes aftermarket parts used on a factory offered model. For example, Hogue G-10 grips are OK on SIGs because SIG offers factory models with them. All mods or parts swaps, even grip changes must be done by an armorer or the factory.

Stippling is not allowed but Grip tape, including Talon grips are OK. Only factory mags and mag parts (base pads, extensions) are authorized.

We currently issue the P229R DAK 40. Testing is underway for transition to a striker fired 9mm TBD.

Right now our options are:

SIG P229R, 226R, 239 40 caliber only. Depending on your branch you may have the option for DA/SA or DAK only.

HK USPC, P2000, P2000sk 40 caliber only - LEM only. Version (V1, V2, V4 etc) is not specified but it must be factory.

Glock 17, 19, 26, and 43. They are the only 9mm option at this time. The 5.5lb factory connector is the minimum. No aftermarket anything for triggers.

S&W J frame .38/.357 revolvers - only .38 ammo is authorized. Field armorers are not trained on revolvers

The J frame and G-43 are only approved for back up and off duty use.

Speculation is once our new 9mm issue weapon is selected and placed in service we will go to all 9mm to streamline logistics. Hopefully the guns which pass testing but don't win the contract will again be POW options.

[Sammy1]

Town very close to my City an Officer was charged criminally after an OIS. They made a big point of him carrying a 1911 in 45 acp, a larger cartridge than the issued one. He won the criminal case and got slammed in the civil suit. That PD no longer allows anything but issued firearms. Guess you'd be ok carrying a 9mm if your PD issues 40S&W but I'd stay away from adding none stock stuff to the firearm, just my two cents.

[voodoo_man]

Town very close to my City an Officer was charged criminally after an OIS. They made a big point of him carrying a 1911 in 45 acp, a larger cartridge than the issued one. He won the criminal case and got slammed in the civil suit. That PD no longer allows anything but issued firearms. Guess you'd be ok carrying a 9mm if your PD issues 40S&W but I'd stay away from adding none stock stuff to the firearm, just my two cents.

My PD allows personally owned 9mm, 40, and .45 pistols. You can even mix and match depending on assignments...

edit - just to add, we still have guys with .357's

[NorthernHeat]

Larger caliber- " You just wanted to hurt my client more"

Mag extension - " You just wanted to have more bullets to shoot at my client"

Aftermarket sights- " You just wanted to be able to aim better to shoot my client and kill him"

Magwell- " You just wanted to be able to reload faster because you just couldn't wait to shoot my client more"

And on and on and on

That shit gets old

[Coyotesfan97]

We allow personally owned weapons as long as they are on the approved list but they have to be DOA with exception of 1911s (Colt, Springfield, and Kimber). If you want to carry a 1911 you have to go through a two day 1911 class where you get to shoots lots of free 45ACP.

All POW have to be inspected before they can be carried on duty and they must be inspected annually.

[NorthernHeat]

If you want to carry a 1911 you have to go through a two day 1911 class where you get to shoots lots of free 45ACP.

Oh my god how unbearable lol :cool:

[Coyotesfan97]

Oh my god how unbearable lol :cool:

It was terrible I tell you. The horror...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BehindBlueI's]

We allow personally owned weapons as long as they are on the approved list but they have to be DOA with exception of 1911s (Colt, Springfield, and Kimber). If you want to carry a 1911 you have to go through a two day 1911 class where you get to shoots lots of free 45ACP.

All POW have to be inspected before they can be carried on duty and they must be inspected annually.

When we merged with the Sheriff's Department, they were allowed to carry 1911s. Some of them were issued them. Those guys were grandfathered in and we were supposed to be able to get a 4 hour class and be able to carry one. Then they de-grandfathered the former deputies pending the 4 hour class. It's been about 10 years and I'm still waiting on that 4 hour class.

[LSP972]

That shit gets old

Indeed.

But its real. An agency (and/or cops) ignore it at their peril.

.

[NorthernHeat]

Indeed.

But its real. An agency (and/or cops) ignore it at their peril.

.

Agreed

I guess sometimes though, I feel like it's just a fishing expedition to find something/ someone to blame.

[LSP552]

LSP always had a very generous personally owned policy. I hate the thought of an issue pistol where it's that or nothing. Reasonable restrictions on modifications need to be in place, but adding sights, grip tape or factory parts shouldn't be an issue. As Chuck said earlier, one size, and one gun type, doesn't necessarily fit everyone. I spent 30 years with LSP and the vast majority of that was carrying a personally owned duty gun.

[Erick Gelhaus]

From my limited perspective ... there are three courts that any event will play out in and both the officer & agency will have to deal with. They are: public opinion, criminal (investigation, state, & fed), and civil (fed or state). While Mullenix v. Luna (USSC, 2015) is real new and will be interpreted for quite some time, its wording about "being beyond debate" and events having to have specific on-point decisions will be telling in that venue.

Public opinion ... I'm guessing this dust cover and those with similar wording, slide plate covers with Punisher logos and similar phrases, or muzzles engraved with "SMILE - Wait For Flash!" will not do well here. In the aftermath of case previously discussed here, there were locals screaming about a picture of a bumper sticker, the officer's status as a veteran, and that he had written on issues of mind set in response to felonious assaults. Of the three, I'd guess this court is the hardest to prevail in these days.

Criminal ... it should not be an issue in the investigation unless there were problematic, inappropriate statements during the event in which case I could see it being combined with them & used against the officer or citizen. In the trial phase, a competent attorney could likely overcome this with a motion but it would add money and time to the fight.

Civil ... very much depends on the trial / magistrate judge and the attorney's ability to suppress it through motions based on case law and/or expert testimony. Facts in court outweighs attorney spewing in the media. I am not aware of any case that addresses this, however, as has been mentioned, case law does come from cases that settle.

If the modifications, other than the one in question, are appropriate, practical, and well thought out claims against them should be easily quashed. Examples ... grip reductions; it is well known that the stock plastic Glock sights are poor performers so replacing them is easy to explain. Triggers were mentioned, it appears the skimmer would be an easy one to argue against; yet a NP3 coated OEM trigger group from Robar is little different from a cleaned up trigger on a 1911A1. (Some years back I was given a set of grip panels with the Paladin logo to commemorate an assignment, they went on a pistol in the safe not the one I carried at work.)

My office has allowed personally owned weapons for years, probably since its inception in 1850. During my time here, there have been numerous shootings with personally owned handguns and ARs (we allowed personally owned shotguns until we started issuing 14" guns). Even in so-called 'controversial' shootings, the ownership of the weapon or acceptable per policy modifications to it has never been an issue.

The biggest issue we've faced in regard to POWs has been getting them released from evidence or replaced in a reasonable time. This is such a problem that in one case, a decent, normal human ended up giving the copper a same make/model gun to replace his since the office did not.

[EM_]

Personally owned guns are not an issue, in any way. Fuckery can happen with department guns as well. The gun being personally woned has nothing to do with the issues one needs to stay on top of.

BTW, NYPD, LAPD, Chicago, the FBI, and numerous other large agencies have or have had a large personally owned weapons program. It's workable.

This is the part a lot of admin ignores when they make these calls. Last agency (over 300 guys) we allowed personal sidearms and M4's, with some strict guidelines and inspections by armorers.

[JR1572]

We can only carry certain brands of personally owned handguns off duty and as bugs while on duty. We can also carry a personally owned shotgun if it is one of the approved brands.

As far as duty handgun and carbine: you carry what is issued to you and do not change anything on it.

People in plain clothes had leeway to carry whatever they wanted while working as long as they were qualified with it, but that just recently changed.

JR1572

[LSP972]

I spent 30 years with LSP and the vast majority of that was carrying a personally owned duty gun.

Ditto. BTW, that "generous POW policy" is still in place… but very few folks are taking advantage of it these days. I spoke with the FTU guys the other day on this topic; they said that, once the choice of a G17 over a G22 was offered, many more people began carrying/qualifying with the company gun.

.

[JBP55]

Not always. A sheriff's office near here is about to cut a check for a wrongful death suit judgment; and the check will have an extra zero on it because of a skimmer trigger on the Glock pistol in question.

If the FTU guys are doing their job, and the troops are adhering to procedural orders, then yes; such fears are unfounded.

But when Deputy Cletus, Trooper Bubba, or Officer Nimrod decide they know better than the brass… or when no restrictions are in place to start with… Trouble in River City is sure to follow, eventually.

.

I have known that Deputy since he started his LEO career. Before he was hired by TPSO he practiced at the LPSO range.

[LSP552]

Ditto. BTW, that "generous POW policy" is still in place… but very few folks are taking advantage of it these days. I spoke with the FTU guys the other day on this topic; they said that, once the choice of a G17 over a G22 was offered, many more people began carrying/qualifying with the company gun.

.

Not surprised. I'd gladly take a company G17 but you couldn't force a 22 on me.

[Dagga Boy]

A few things. First...go back and really re-read what Angus McFee wrote. It is dead on.

For us personally owned weapons were something I always pushed for due to three reasons:

1: Care. Folks took far better care of guns they actually owned. Like night and day better. We just really had to stay on top of restricting modifications, because....cops, and I ll just leave it at that.
2. Confidence: Officers who carried a gun they selected and purchased tended to be far more confident with them. They also were unable to make as many excuses as far as inability to shoot was the guns fault. We did have cases with agency issue guns being the problem with being too big for several of our female officers, but for most the issue gun was at times a crutch of blame for sucking. Also, many did not trust the purchase process due to everyone knowing that many times agencies did not buy the best equipment and there were often favors, personalities, and prejudices involved.
3. Personally owned guns tended to have better service lives. Likely related to number 1, but also because they were not getting cycled through multiple people. I just read about a 1950's S&W 38/44 HD that had been carried by every single officer in an agency for about fifty years. It would be issued to take to the academy or to rookies until they could buy their own duty gun in a smaller agency. That is very cool, but also an anomaly based on a different time and place. The guns we had that went to multiple folks often had more parts breakage and were harder to track wear and use for the armorers.

[Hambo]

I agree with Nyeti's observations. The city provided no personal gear for police or fire prior to 1990. Everything came out of your insufficient uniform allowance. Changes in union contracts provided for an initial issue of gear. Firemen got turnout gear and cops got guns, leather, etc. There was still an approved duty list and a BUG/off duty list. The change to issued guns occurred as new officers were hired, but even these officers often bought their own guns after they got on the road. Issued guns were recycled and went back to the academy again and again. Problems surfaced. That brand of guns started getting bad rap in the department. New guys with well used issue guns had problems in the academy and heard from older guy that their guns sucked, and they believed it. They bought their own guns and back into the mix went the issue pistols. Meanwhile other pistols that saw little use came to be seen as more reliable. The eventual solution: we need a new issue pistol.

[LSP972]

I have known that Deputy since he started his LEO career. Before he was hired by TPSO he practiced at the LPSO range.

He started his "career", such as it was, long before he was a reserve at Dinky Springs PD.

.

[JR1572]

Not always. A sheriff's office near here is about to cut a check for a wrongful death suit judgment; and the check will have an extra zero on it because of a skimmer trigger on the Glock pistol in question.

Apparently the person who fired that shot is a now reserve deputy Marshall and is employed in " The Industry".

JR1572

[LSP972]

No doubt working for that "industry giant" we know so well?;)

.

[JR1572]

No doubt working for that "industry giant" we know so well?;)

.

I'll pm you.

JR1572

[Sammy1]

A few things. First...go back and really re-read what Angus McFee wrote. It is dead on.

For us personally owned weapons were something I always pushed for due to three reasons:

1: Care. Folks took far better care of guns they actually owned. Like night and day better. We just really had to stay on top of restricting modifications, because....cops, and I ll just leave it at that.
2. Confidence: Officers who carried a gun they selected and purchased tended to be far more confident with them. They also were unable to make as many excuses as far as inability to shoot was the guns fault. We did have cases with agency issue guns being the problem with being too big for several of our female officers, but for most the issue gun was at times a crutch of blame for sucking. Also, many did not trust the purchase process due to everyone knowing that many times agencies did not buy the best equipment and there were often favors, personalities, and prejudices involved.
3. Personally owned guns tended to have better service lives. Likely related to number 1, but also because they were not getting cycled through multiple people. I just read about a 1950's S&W 38/44 HD that had been carried by every single officer in an agency for about fifty years. It would be issued to take to the academy or to rookies until they could buy their own duty gun in a smaller agency. That is very cool, but also an anomaly based on a different time and place. The guns we had that went to multiple folks often had more parts breakage and were harder to track wear and use for the armorers.

Couple of things. POW you would have to have an armorer for every brand and type issued. For instance if you allowed Sig P series, P320, Glock, S&W M&P, Beretta 92 and FNS you're talking about having an armorer being certified in six different armorer courses every two to three years which equals big cost in training and tuition fees. Second is logistics for parts. Say your at the interval to replace rsa and mag springs, there would be allot of ordering depending on how many different handguns you have. The armorer issue came up when we went through accreditation, our off duty gun policy allowed several different types of handguns but we didn't have certified armorers for all those brands to do the required bi annual weapon check for function and wear. As we know if someone who isn't an armorer works or "tinkers" with a firearm than the warranty is void and you're open the agency up to litigation from the union and outside sources such as defense attorneys and even prosecutors.

The other thing is in my State there is a 32 year retirement system. We issue a handgun to someone at the Academy or reserve level and they have that firearm until we issue another one (12-20 yrs) or they retire. We don't have firearms rotating through several different people. If someone retires than that firearm will be re issued but at that point it gets a complete go through by the armorer and is in pretty good shape.

[GRV]

I'm very much in the "keep it stock" camp, but I'm curious about the following regarding court, especially in LEO situations:

Glock OEM "-" connector in:
1) Otherwise stock G17, both Gen3 and Gen4 separately (different pull weight I think) (or G22)
2) As already present in stock G34 (or G35)

Anyone have any data to share on that? This also assumes stock trigger spring, not NY1.

[Dagga Boy]

Couple of things. POW you would have to have an armorer for every brand and type issued. For instance if you allowed Sig P series, P320, Glock, S&W M&P, Beretta 92 and FNS you're talking about having an armorer being certified in six different armorer courses every two to three years which equals big cost in training and tuition fees. Second is logistics for parts. Say your at the interval to replace rsa and mag springs, there would be allot of ordering depending on how many different handguns you have. The armorer issue came up when we went through accreditation, our off duty gun policy allowed several different types of handguns but we didn't have certified armorers for all those brands to do the required bi annual weapon check for function and wear. As we know if someone who isn't an armorer works or "tinkers" with a firearm than the warranty is void and you're open the agency up to litigation from the union and outside sources such as defense attorneys and even prosecutors.

The other thing is in my State there is a 32 year retirement system. We issue a handgun to someone at the Academy or reserve level and they have that firearm until we issue another one (12-20 yrs) or they retire. We don't have firearms rotating through several different people. If someone retires than that firearm will be re issued but at that point it gets a complete go through by the armorer and is in pretty good shape.

I went to our Chief with a list of 6 brands of handguns in three calibers. He gave me 3 in two calibers (always ask for more than you want). We had SIG (previously had armorers as it was department issued), HK (also armorers due to SWAT use) and Glock...no brainer on armorers stuff. The key was all the guns in the systems. For example, the SIG P-225, Glock 19 and HK USP 9mm Compact solved a ton of problems with small statured officers. Most of our folks carried .45's, so the 9mm option really was a help. If you stick to "systems" with some variety, it helps on the armoring stuff.

[HCM]

T
I'm very much in the "keep it stock" camp, but I'm curious about the following regarding court, especially in LEO situations:

Glock OEM "-" connector in:
1) Otherwise stock G17, both Gen3 and Gen4 separately (different pull weight I think) (or G22)
2) As already present in stock G34 (or G35)

Anyone have any data to share on that? This also assumes stock trigger spring, not NY1.

In their Factory Armorer class glock recommends against the minus connector for LE use. Blue label G34/35 come with the standard connector unless it is an agency purchase and the agency specifically requests the minus connector in writing on agency letterhead.

There was an accidental shooting at the end of a pursuit in Tomball Texas a few years back. The officer had replaced the stock connector in his Glock 21 with a minus connector. He didn't make any crazy modifications and was not criminally charged. However, during the civil suit the fact that he had swapped the connector and that Glock does not recommend the minus connector for law-enforcement duty use was an issue. If you do a Google search, Mas Ayoob did a write up on this case for American handgun or magazine.

[Sammy1]

Thats a good idea. I met an instructor from overseas and he hand fitted a weapon to every officer (they issued classic line sigs.) You would go up to him and he would grab your hand and determine what gun you got. He told me that you can shoot a gun that's too small for you but not a gun that's too big for your hand.

I wouldn't mind going to all the armorer classes but the Chief would never go for it. I know some of the bigger agencies it's no big deal as they have full time armorers and instructors and that's all they do it work and go to school.

[Erick Gelhaus]

Couple of things. POW you would have to have an armorer for every brand and type issued. For instance if you allowed Sig P series, P320, Glock, S&W M&P, Beretta 92 and FNS you're talking about having an armorer being certified in six different armorer courses every two to three years which equals big cost in training and tuition fees. Second is logistics for parts. Say your at the interval to replace rsa and mag springs, there would be allot of ordering depending on how many different handguns you have. The armorer issue came up when we went through accreditation, our off duty gun policy allowed several different types of handguns but we didn't have certified armorers for all those brands to do the required bi annual weapon check for function and wear. As we know if someone who isn't an armorer works or "tinkers" with a firearm than the warranty is void and you're open the agency up to litigation from the union and outside sources such as defense attorneys and even prosecutors.

I'll argue that no you don't. The way we covered this is that if you choose to carry something other than the issue pistol you, the end user, is responsible for maintaining and supporting it. That includes spare parts as well as holsters and mag pouches. Our armorers will do safety inspections and function tests on anything our people carry and we haven't had any issues there. However, much beyond changing sights and recoil spring assemblies, the owners' are taking the guns outside for repair.

We hosted or the office sent me through Glock (lots), H&K USP, S&W M&P, and Colt 1911.

Through our personally owned patrol rifle program, we end up seeing a number of different manfs. All of our armorers have been through Colt or SAW for their training and no issues with working on other manfs' weapons.

[pablo]

When we went to CALEA one of the first things that happened regarding firearms policy was that a department armorer had to be available to armor any approved firearm with factory authorized parts.

What the department gives, the department can take. Over the years we've done a great job screwing over officers with issued duty guns. Our transition from DASA folded slide P226s and P228s to DAK P226Rs was a complete charlie foxtrot. Instead of phasing in new guns with new hires, we did 100% turnover. The new guns had a lot of problems, turns out a lot of the testing had been rigged to keep Sig. A lot of guys lost perfectly good duty guns. Trading in the old guns was part of the turnover and so there was no going back. Our original patrol rifles were Colt 6520s, same thing, those were replaced by RRA rifles, just because. Those had POS two stage triggers that eventually went south, instead of having officers take their rifles to the range and having the trigger replaced, that would cost overtime money, officer showed up at the range on their assigned qualification day, turned in their old rifle and got issued one with a single stage trigger and 20 rounds to zero. Those rifles that were turned in were fixed and the process was repeated at the next day's qualification.

[Sammy1]

I'll argue that no you don't. The way we covered this is that if you choose to carry something other than the issue pistol you, the end user, is responsible for maintaining and supporting it. That includes spare parts as well as holsters and mag pouches. Our armorers will do safety inspections and function tests on anything our people carry and we haven't had any issues there. However, much beyond changing sights and recoil spring assemblies, the owners' are taking the guns outside for repair.

We hosted or the office sent me through Glock (lots), H&K USP, S&W M&P, and Colt 1911.

Through our personally owned patrol rifle program, we end up seeing a number of different manfs. All of our armorers have been through Colt or SAW for their training and no issues with working on other manfs' weapons.

We went through accreditation review about five years ago and our off duty policy caused a stink because we allowed firearms that our armorers were not certified to check and service. We went a couple of years with no off duty guns being allowed until our policy caught up and met standards. As far as making individual officers responsible then why check any weapons, issued or otherwise. I don't agree with everything but there is a point to it. The reason for having an armorer is sticking to manufacturer standards is so we don't have bubba with a hammer and punch making his own decisions about how a gun should operate. Come on, if your LEO then you know what the "guys" can and will do to a firearm because they read about it or watched someone on U Tube. A Sig pistol was returned to Sig Sauer from a West Coast Agency because it wouldn't group. The barrel had no rifling left. The Officer used a power drill jerry rigged with a cleaning brush to clean his barrel.

[jnc36rcpd]

We just went through re-accreditation and had no issues over authorized off-duty/back-up pistols. That may be because our general order is pretty generic and just defines the authorized calibers and characteristics of authorized firearms or perhaps the assessors just didn't pay attention. While it took some time, we did finally send an officer to Glock armorer school. Glocks are probably the single most common OD/BU gun in my department. While I know it is the officer's responsibility to maintain his or her personal weapons, it just made sense to have a Glock armorer.

[Chuck Haggard]

My old agency was CALEA accredited, and we allowed personal duty guns, BUGs, rifles, shotguns, and off-duty guns. We had zero issues with going through recert on their inspections.

[Dagga Boy]

When we went to CALEA one of the first things that happened regarding firearms policy was that a department armorer had to be available to armor any approved firearm with factory authorized parts.

What the department gives, the department can take. Over the years we've done a great job screwing over officers with issued duty guns. Our transition from DASA folded slide P226s and P228s to DAK P226Rs was a complete charlie foxtrot. Instead of phasing in new guns with new hires, we did 100% turnover. The new guns had a lot of problems, turns out a lot of the testing had been rigged to keep Sig. A lot of guys lost perfectly good duty guns. Trading in the old guns was part of the turnover and so there was no going back. Our original patrol rifles were Colt 6520s, same thing, those were replaced by RRA rifles, just because. Those had POS two stage triggers that eventually went south, instead of having officers take their rifles to the range and having the trigger replaced, that would cost overtime money, officer showed up at the range on their assigned qualification day, turned in their old rifle and got issued one with a single stage trigger and 20 rounds to zero. Those rifles that were turned in were fixed and the process was repeated at the next day's qualification.

Wait, rigging testing to get what a few people want.....say it isn't so. This is exactly why I like POW's for a confidence builder. Most folks know that politics can come into play when agencies are selecting firearms. I like individual officers to be a little vested into the procurement of their own duty weapon. It forces them to be interested in their tools.

[GRV]

T

In their Factory Armorer class glock recommends against the minus connector for LE use. Blue label G34/35 come with the standard connector unless it is an agency purchase and the agency specifically requests the minus connector in writing on agency letterhead.

There was an accidental shooting at the end of a pursuit in Tomball Texas a few years back. The officer had replaced the stock connector in his Glock 21 with a minus connector. He didn't make any crazy modifications and was not criminally charged. However, during the civil suit the fact that he had swapped the connector and that Glock does not recommend the minus connector for law-enforcement duty use was an issue. If you do a Google search, Mas Ayoob did a write up on this case for American handgun or magazine.

Yea, I took the armorer's class and remember those facts, I was just wondering how much data there was on this actually banging people up.

Thanks for the info!

In particular, I imagine there are some SWAT teams out there that run G17s or G34s with "-" connectors, under agency approval, and I was wondering if that has ever tripped any of those groups up in court.

[Sammy1]

Hearing from the others above I wonder if the assessor that gigged us on off duty guns was just pressing his personnel beliefs, not a standard. Good information thank you.

[LSP972]

I'll argue that no you don't. The way we covered this is that if you choose to carry something other than the issue pistol you, the end user, is responsible for maintaining and supporting it. That includes spare parts as well as holsters and mag pouches. .

That's the way LSP handles it. You can qualify with, and use, a pretty good variety of service pistols; but if it goes tango uniform, or is seized for evidence, etc., the replacement monkey is on YOUR back. Each trooper is issued a company gun and is expected to maintain quals with it, for just such an occasion.

.

[TC215]

We went through accreditation review about five years ago and our off duty policy caused a stink because we allowed firearms that our armorers were not certified to check and service. We went a couple of years with no off duty guns being allowed until our policy caught up and met standards. As far as making individual officers responsible then why check any weapons, issued or otherwise. I don't agree with everything but there is a point to it. The reason for having an armorer is sticking to manufacturer standards is so we don't have bubba with a hammer and punch making his own decisions about how a gun should operate. Come on, if your LEO then you know what the "guys" can and will do to a firearm because they read about it or watched someone on U Tube. A Sig pistol was returned to Sig Sauer from a West Coast Agency because it wouldn't group. The barrel had no rifling left. The Officer used a power drill jerry rigged with a cleaning brush to clean his barrel.

We've been accreditted through CALEA for 20+ years and have had no such issues. Our policy is similar to what jnc36rcpd described.

[Erick Gelhaus]

Come on, if your LEO then you know what the "guys" can and will do to a firearm because ...

My apologies. Was just passing on how my office's policy addresses your concern - based a 25 years of experience in an agency with a "few" personally owned weapons.

[breakingtime91]

You police officers are worst then the army and marine infantry arguing... god help u

[BehindBlueI's]

You police officers are worst then the army and marine infantry arguing... god help u

You don't argue with Marines. You just pretend to throw the ball and then leave when they go to look for it.

[LSP972]

You don't argue with Marines. You just pretend to throw the ball and then leave when they go to look for it.

ROTFLMAO!

.

[Lon]

We just had our on site for our re-accreditation with CALEA (we do the extra special Gold Standard accred). No issues with our POW policy which allows a variety of BUG/OD and does not require armorers for them. They must be approved by the range staff (as the Chief's "designee"), but that's it. Policy says the officer is required to handle any maintenance issues that arise.

I know at least some of the assessors read the stuff, because I ended up in a huge debate over our UoF policy with one of them during our last on site.

[SCSU74]

My department allows investigators to carry approved personal weapons. We are issued .40 cal Glocks (surprise!) in all flavors. At this point I carry a G19 with Wilson Combat sights and a Crimson trace laser grip. These are the only modifications made to the weapon. The captain of crime scene carries a VP9, which I also carried until one of my kids liberated it.

Our Chief Deputy is making some noise about standardizing on the Glocks, especially considering the current media driven climate. Anyone have any real arguments or examples where different weapons caused problems, tactical or legal, for an agency?

My first department had approx 2,000 sworn and we were allowed to carry personal pistol, shotgun and rifle. 0 issues. Could mod them basically any way we wanted as long as we didn't mess with trigger and range staff looked it over before carrying. The approved list for each was pretty extensive, I really liked the options we had.

Current department is around 850 and are allowed personal pistols, but shotgun and rifle are issued by agency. We can change sights and stipple frame, but that's about it pistol wise. We're limited to Glock or Sig.

[breakingtime91]

You don't argue with Marines. You just pretend to throw the ball and then leave when they go to look for it.

That gave me a really could laugh

[K.O.A.M.]

We allow personally owned weapons with some limited exceptions. Our gatekeeping function is that they must be approved by the armorer. Anything other than stock out of the box gets his go-over treatment. He will check all triggers for factory specifications. Outside of factory specifications on pull weight, no approval. All personally owned rifles must be AR's or have been on the books before 2010.

It works out pretty well. We are a Sig agency, and it allows those who would carry something else while not in uniform to do so. The flaw in the policy is eventually we will get an armorer who is an idiot and will either approve nothing or everything. I don't plan on switching anything out anytime soon.

[Chuck Whitlock]

Our policy is that the issued G23 can be carried on duty only. No personal firearms on the clock at all. The current authorized personal off duty handgun is anything Glock makes.

With the advent of the G42 and G43, that is actually pretty workable. It could be a lot worse.


I hate the thought of an issue pistol where it's that or nothing. Reasonable restrictions on modifications need to be in place, but adding sights, grip tape or factory parts shouldn't be an issue. As Chuck said earlier, one size, and one gun type, doesn't necessarily fit everyone.

US BIA policy was G22 or G23 in uniform. G27 was authorized BUG. Issued G22/23 was carried on duty, POW G23 off duty, and POW G27 as BUG either way.




If the modifications, other than the one in question, are appropriate, practical, and well thought out claims against them should be easily quashed. Examples ... grip reductions; it is well known that the stock plastic Glock sights are poor performers so replacing them is easy to explain. Triggers were mentioned, it appears the skimmer would be an easy one to argue against; yet a NP3 coated OEM trigger group from Robar is little different from a cleaned up trigger on a 1911A1. (Some years back I was given a set of grip panels with the Paladin logo to commemorate an assignment, they went on a pistol in the safe not the one I carried at work.)

As a certified Glock armorer at that agency, and with the Chief's knowledge, MY issued sidearm had a "-" connector and NY-1 trigger spring, to match my POW's. This is a factory authorized configuration, using OEM parts. Funny enough, I couldn't get the "-" connectors from Glock, but paid the inflated price at Glockmeister or Glockparts.





I'm very much in the "keep it stock" camp, but I'm curious about the following regarding court, especially in LEO situations:

Glock OEM "-" connector in:
1) Otherwise stock G17, both Gen3 and Gen4 separately (different pull weight I think) (or G22)
2) As already present in stock G34 (or G35)

Anyone have any data to share on that? This also assumes stock trigger spring, not NY1.


T

In their Factory Armorer class glock recommends against the minus connector for LE use. Blue label G34/35 come with the standard connector unless it is an agency purchase and the agency specifically requests the minus connector in writing on agency letterhead.

There was an accidental shooting at the end of a pursuit in Tomball Texas a few years back. The officer had replaced the stock connector in his Glock 21 with a minus connector. He didn't make any crazy modifications and was not criminally charged. However, during the civil suit the fact that he had swapped the connector and that Glock does not recommend the minus connector for law-enforcement duty use was an issue. If you do a Google search, Mas Ayoob did a write up on this case for American handgun or magazine.

Glock regards the "-" connector with standard spring as "competition only".

[EM_]

because I ended up in a huge debate over our UoF policy with one of them during our last on site.

That's worse than reading the YouTube comments....I feel for you.

And all CALEA really says is that you have to address things with a policy, they don't mandate what the policy says. The CALEA argument is either an ignorant administration, or an admin who is hiding behind the accreditation. CALEA is a huge waste of money, but it's great for Chiefly types to get expenses paid vacations to other cities to 'inspect' them.

But if you watch the "Why CALEA" video, it can apparently protect you from all lawsuits and hurricanes. So there's that.

[11B10]

That gave me a really could laugh

How did I miss this ^^^? L.....O......L!

[HCM]

T

In their Factory Armorer class glock recommends against the minus connector for LE use. Blue label G34/35 come with the standard connector unless it is an agency purchase and the agency specifically requests the minus connector in writing on agency letterhead.

There was an accidental shooting at the end of a pursuit in Tomball Texas a few years back. The officer had replaced the stock connector in his Glock 21 with a minus connector. He didn't make any crazy modifications and was not criminally charged. However, during the civil suit the fact that he had swapped the connector and that Glock does not recommend the minus connector for law-enforcement duty use was an issue. If you do a Google search, Mas Ayoob did a write up on this case for American handgun or magazine.

More correctly termed an ND. For reference, the Mas Ayoob article is here: http://americanhandgunner.com/unintended-shot-the-santibanes-incident/

[MRW]

And what is important or unimportant according to CALEA is dependent on who your evaluators are. Two different evaluators can interpret their own requirements different ways.

[KeeFus]

Re CALEA...it sucks balls. IMO, its a huge waste of money. Allegedly its why we arent allowed to carry personally owned weapons on-duty...even though our policy states we can with approval from the Chief. Ive tried that and was denied.

[deputyG23]

Re CALEA...it sucks balls. IMO, its a huge waste of money. Allegedly its why we arent allowed to carry personally owned weapons on-duty...even though our policy states we can with approval from the Chief. Ive tried that and was denied.
ACA (American Correctional Association) is who we are accredited with. Same issue with no personal weapons on duty. The agency FA instructors are meeting early next month to discuss our firearms policy. Personally owned BUGS will be brought up. I am thinking that our court and civil enforcement folks would be exempt...

[jnc36rcpd]

CALEA is an excuse frequently used by police administrators who dislike a proposal or don't want to do the work to craft a well-written policy. I will give our FOP credit for purchasing a copy of the CALEA standards to prevent any hijinks. In fairness to our administration, they actually seem to understand the CALEA guidelines and don't pull that type of crap.