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.Originally Posted by Coyotesfan97
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.
Last edited by NorthernHeat; 03-18-2016 at 07:45 PM.
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.
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.
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.
"If I had a grandpa, he would look like Nyeti"
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
Last edited by JR1572; 03-19-2016 at 08:20 PM.
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.
.
I have known that Deputy since he started his LEO career. Before he was hired by TPSO he practiced at the LPSO range.
Not surprised. I'd gladly take a company G17 but you couldn't force a 22 on me.
Reply With Quote