Should off duty police be subject to the same gun laws as non-LE people?
Just like off duty soldiers are?
Should off duty police be subject to the same gun laws as non-LE people?
Just like off duty soldiers are?
Last edited by Tom_Jones; 04-13-2019 at 01:36 PM. Reason: changed "commoners" to "non-LE people" as it was needlessly inflammatory
Actually I think .MIL Officers and SNCOs should be issued a side arm and allowed to carry it 24/7 in the U.S.
Every state I am aware of has exceptions for military members to possess and carry firearms if authorized on their orders. The reason you don’t see it outside Special Mission Units is most commanders don’t trust their troops. I can see not trusting a 19 year old E-3 but if you can’t trust your career senior leaders you have bigger problems.
Last edited by HCM; 04-13-2019 at 01:43 PM.
Much depends on how the employing agency defines an officer's off-duty responsibility. There is no uniform / across the board answer nor is there likely to be one given how many separate police, sheriff, state, local and federal agencies there are across the country.Originally Posted by Tactical Black Belt
When I worked in NYC as a fed, NYPD strongly advised agents not to get involved in a matter unless there was imminent danger of grave bodily injury or loss of life.
In South FL we worked with the locals so frequently that it wasn't uncommon to provide an assist when off-duty.
There's nothing civil about this war.
Off duty LE personnel are already subject to the same gun laws as everyone else. If we commit a crime with (or without) a firearm, we are subject to the same, and often in some cases greater (think 'abuse of office'), penalties than those who are not LE.
Last edited by the Schwartz; 04-13-2019 at 02:04 PM.
''Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity.'' ―Albert Einstein
Full disclosure per the Pistol-Forum CoC: I am the author of Quantitative Ammunition Selection.
I'd like to see that, too.
If our military personnel are good enough to protect us from foreign threats, they are good enough for those threats domestic, too.
''Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity.'' ―Albert Einstein
Full disclosure per the Pistol-Forum CoC: I am the author of Quantitative Ammunition Selection.
Some of us can commit a crime just by having our pistol in our car. Cops are generally immune to laws that prohibit bearing arms.
This is a poor comparison. Many LEOs are subject to being called in 24/7, even when "off-duty". (Unless impaired or otherwise unable to respond.)
IMHO, this is only setting up an "us vs. them" argument. If you want to advocate for the right of citizens to carry under various circumstances and conditions you should do so. Using LEOs as the basis for the argument is flawed imho.
There's nothing civil about this war.
Well, that's a 2A issue that must be resolved by the states. It could be ''solved'' by Constitutional Carry, which hopefully we'll see sooner rather than later.
That's part and parcel of the job. Are you suggesting that LE go unarmed in the execution of their duties?
''Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity.'' ―Albert Einstein
Full disclosure per the Pistol-Forum CoC: I am the author of Quantitative Ammunition Selection.
No.
Because of the nature of their work, they will encounter people that they've arrested and sent to prison. Some of those people will try to kill those officers, so the officers should be armed at all times without exception, even after retirement.
Fuck places like NY and MA that try to prohibit that.
Okie John
“The reliability of the 30-06 on most of the world’s non-dangerous game is so well established as to be beyond intelligent dispute.” Finn Aagaard
"Don't fuck with it" seems to prevent the vast majority of reported issues." BehindBlueI's
What about citizens who might have been witnesses that testified against these people? Should they also be armed at all times in case the criminal that they helped put away attempts to exact revenge?
Reply With Quote