Bill introduced to remove nearly all restrictions on Off-Duty LEO carry

[Fallguy]

As most of you probably know Off-Duty LEO's already have very few restrictions on where they can carry, but there are some.

T.C.A. 39-17-1350 (http://michie.lexisnexis.com/tennessee/lpext.dll/tncode/e501/ed40/eff5/f06d?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0#)(c)
The authority conferred by this section shall not extend to a law enforcement officer:

(1) Who carries a firearm onto school grounds or inside a school building during regular school hours unless the officer immediately informs the principal that the officer will be present on school grounds or inside the school building and in possession of a firearm. If the principal is unavailable, the notice may be given to an appropriate administrative staff person in the principal's office;

(2) Who is consuming beer or an alcoholic beverage or who is under the influence of beer, an alcoholic beverage, or a controlled substance;

(3) Who is not engaged in the actual discharge of official duties as a law enforcement officer while within the confines of an establishment where beer or alcoholic beverages are sold for consumption on-the-premises; or

(4) Who is not engaged in the actual discharge of official duties as a law enforcement officer while attending a judicial proceeding.

Sub-part (1) lets them carry on school grounds as long as the notify the principal (wonder how many actual notify?) and then only during "regular school hours" so don't have to notify during the ball game at night etc... Where as T.C.A. 39-17-1309 (http://michie.lexisnexis.com/tennessee/lpext.dll/tncode/e501/ed40/eff5/f020?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0#) prevents us.

Sub-part (2) is the same as it for us under SB0023/HB0702 (http://www.legislature.state.tn.us/bills/currentga/asp/webbillinfo/BillCompanionInfo.aspx?BillNumber=SB0023) & under T.C.A. 39-17-1321 (http://michie.lexisnexis.com/tennessee/lpext.dll/tncode/e501/ed40/eff5/f058?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0#) (On another issure it would seem to establish a difference between consuming alcohol and being under the influence)

Sub-part (3) is the same as for us (currently) under T.C.A. 39-17-1305 (http://michie.lexisnexis.com/tennessee/lpext.dll/tncode/e501/ed40/eff5/f00b?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0#)

Sub-part (4) is the same as for us under T.C.A. 39-17-1306 (http://michie.lexisnexis.com/tennessee/lpext.dll/tncode/e501/ed40/eff5/f010?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0#)

You may notice there is no sub-part addressing carry in goverment owned parks as for us (at least as some see it) under T.C.A. 39-17-1311 (http://michie.lexisnexis.com/tennessee/lpext.dll/tncode/e501/ed40/eff5/f02a?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0#) So it is 100% legal for them based on part (a) of 39-17-1350. Also they are not subject to posted signs under T.C.A. 39-17-1359 (http://michie.lexisnexis.com/tennessee/lpext.dll/tncode/e501/ed40/eff5/f09a?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0#) because of part (a) of 39-17-1350.


There has been a bill introduced SB3853/HB3622 (http://www.legislature.state.tn.us/bills/currentga/asp/webbillinfo/BillCompanionInfo.aspx?BillNumber=SB3853) that would remove ALL of these restrictions except for sub-part (2)

If we can trust off duty LEO's in all of these places why not people with a HCP?

[saintsfanbrian]

I am unsure about the laws in TN, but if a person is an Off-Duty police officer then for all intents and purposes they are a civilian. (at least as far as I am concerned)

I do not like the idea of easing this restriction:

(2) Who is consuming beer or an alcoholic beverage or who is under the influence of beer, an alcoholic beverage, or a controlled substance.

Just because they are a cop doesn't mean they can handle booze and guns. Would they get a DUI if they were caught off-duty drinking and driving (they should regardless of whether their buddy gives them a break.)

[Fallguy]

I am unsure about the laws in TN, but if a person is an Off-Duty police officer then for all intents and purposes they are a civilian. (at least as far as I am concerned)

Just click the link for T.C.A. 39-17-1350 (http://michie.lexisnexis.com/tennessee/lpext.dll/tncode/e501/ed40/eff5/f06d?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0#) As it is now off duty LEO's (and corrections officers for that matter) can carry 24/7 excpet as in parts (c)(1)-(4)

I do not like the idea of easing this restriction:

(2) Who is consuming beer or an alcoholic beverage or who is under the influence of beer, an alcoholic beverage, or a controlled substance.


SB3853/HB3622 (http://www.legislature.state.tn.us/bills/currentga/asp/webbillinfo/BillCompanionInfo.aspx?BillNumber=SB3853) leaves that restriction in place.

[mightymouse]

nevermind

[razorback2003]

HR218 eases the restriction the state places on off duty police, so i have heard. It also helps reserve police carry off duty without a license. Most states do allow off duty police, whether we like it or not, to carry anywhere they want. I have a good feeling police here have carried anywhere whether on or off duty and never had a problem. You never hear of police arresting other police on weapons charges.

[Fallguy]

I tend to believe you are right razorback.

I guess it is just wishful thinking on my part in the hopes that if the legislature sees a need to allow off duty LEO's more freedom to carry,:cop: the need to afford themselves even greater protection in an already substantionaly secure building by creating armed Special Sergeant-at-Arms (http://www.legislature.state.tn.us/bills/currentga/asp/WebBillInfo/BillCompanionInfo.aspx?billnumber=SB2696). That they just might consider giving the great citizens of the state of TN, that have proven themselves by obtaining a HCP, greater abilities to protect themselves.:usa:

:-\ :wall:

[cadillacdude1975]

my gun has the ability to inflict the same result as a police officers gun. probably a more accurate result truth be told. im sure the average HCP person shoots/disassembles/cleans/reassembles their weapon a hell of alot more than the police do.

off duty = civilian in my book, and civilians have to obey laws so the same set needs to be in effect for anyone who chooses to carry a handgun in TN, LEO or HCP. it should not matter.

[razorback2003]

There was a recent incident of a Shelby County deputy falling off a bar stool drunk while carrying his handgun. He wasn't popped with a weapons charge. I am not against police, but i know very well if i fell off a stool drunk with my handgun it would be an instant trip to jail for public intox, carry a weapon where alcohol is served, carrying a handgun while intoxicated, and i'm sure some crap charge like disorderly conduct.

I say if you are a LEO or have a license/permit, as long as you aren't intoxicated, i have no problem with you carrying anywhere you want. If you are legal to drive after drinking as long as not intoxicated, why are the state legislators pushing a law that forbids you to take a sip of beer at a restaurant/bar while carrying. They both go hand in hand regarding responsibility.

[SomeGuy]

HR218 applies to off-duty/retired cops, this law is about on-duty. Also, HR218 does NOT allow cops off duty
/retired to carry in places the state designates as off limits.

I am opposed to this, period. Cops should NEVER be allowed to carry firearms anywhere we are not. Why are their lives worth more than mine?

[The Rabbi]

I am unsure about the laws in TN, but if a person is an Off-Duty police officer then for all intents and purposes they are a civilian. (at least as far as I am concerned)



Argh, rant coming on.

If you aren't in the military, you are a civilian. Period. That includes cops. They are no different from the rest of us. They shouldn't have rights any different from the rest of us, especially "off duty."
There is a myth, perpetuated by LE, that they are somehow superior to us "civilians." The truth is often the opposite. Many permit holders are much better with their firearms than many LEOs. Many permit holders lead much more responsible lives than many LEOs.
I don't see any purpose in allowing LEOs to carry, especially off duty, in places that responsible permit holders cannot.

[dariks]

The typical response I've heard regarding why off duty LEO's need to carry is that they are never "off duty". They are always on call and expected to be able to "serve and protect" at any time. The other argument that I've heard used is that since they arrest bad guys, they need to be able to protect themselves if the bad guys come after them for revenge.


Sometimes I feel like a second class citizen in my own country. :mad:

[Marswolf]

I was about to make that point, Rabbi. But the distinction is actually that you are military, clergy or civilian going back to the Romans who, I think, first made the distinction.

My LE buddies who start talking about civilians get a quick comment that LEOs are civilians. The proper distinction is LE and the public.

And off duty, LEOs should have the same limitations as the rest of us.

[Bigiron]

Well said, Rabbi.

[DBTN]

The law is not necessary but it does bring the state law more in line with the provisions of HR218 and that, if nothing else, will eliminate some of the confusion associated with HR218.

[jackdog]

Kudos Rabbi, could not have said it better myself.

[Scottech]

My LE friends and I have had this discussion before.

They consistently claim that they are bound by state laws to protect life and property when they observe any kind of criminal activity, whether on or off duty in your home state, when us normal citizens (including HCP holders) are not.

I would tend to agree with that.

[saintsfanbrian]

I would agree with that, but since they are bound by that, shouldn't they make sure that they ALWAYS have their faculties about them and do not partake in Alcoholic beverages?

I know plenty of cops that drink like fish while still carrying their badge and their gun. Do I really want them coming to my aid when they are a couple sheets to the wind?

[DBTN]

The proposed law would not allow LEO to carry while drinking or being intoxicated. It just allows them to carrying in places that serve alcohol.

[molonlabetn]

My LE friends and I have had this discussion before.

They consistently claim that they are bound by state laws to protect life and property when they observe any kind of criminal activity, whether on or off duty in your home state, when us normal citizens (including HCP holders) are not.

I would tend to agree with that.

If that is the case, then an LEO's career choice is an oath to never drink, on or off-duty... even on vacation. Because they never know when they will be called upon to fulfill their duty.

I would only agree with that if I knew that was possible. It's not. Any human, regardless of their level of responsibility on-the-job, needs some time every once in a while to set aside the burden of stress, and not be required to be responsible for everyone around them for a bit.

If LEOs were robots, this wouldn't be an issue... but like every other profession, they are recruited from the human race and are not immune to irresponsible behavior. So, I don't support any decision to differentiate trust between groups of people, based solely on profession.

[nsnate02]

Since the majority of folks here think HCP holders are super shots and better trained than "most" LE,:tinfoil: I think we need to be a little more objective. With the exception of Military personnel, I doubt many HCP holders have gone through 22 weeks of 8-5 physical, weapons, ect. training. You would be hard pressed to equate a guy who goes to the range regularly to a LE officer trained to respond in a real world setting. Just completely different types of shooting. Even some of the gun schools, like Yeager's (like him or not), are not the same.
Not to say LE are the end all be all, but to say "many" are less qualified than "many" HCP holder's is erroneous. IMO

Back to the original question, LE are expected to respond whether on duty or not. Whether they are on the clock or with their family they represent the "law". Should they be out getting drunk and acting a fool - absolutely not. In fact they sign a an oath as such. We expect them to act as LE if they are there and then say they are limited if not on the clock? That makes about as much sense as Hillary talking about Health care reform. I think there might be a little gun envy on this one.

Now if you want to talk character reality, that may be more appropriate and I would agree with you. I wish also ongoing (intensive) training was a reality for LE.

Rant over.:)

[Fallguy]

I admit to some degree there is no need of the law to change because off duty or on LEO's carry anywhere they want now and now other LEO is going to charge them....see Razorback's post.

Also I am not anit-LEO I have a brother that is an officer, so is his wife, I have worked as a Deputy and before that at the Sheiff's Dept for a long time...but I do feel the law is the law and should apply equally.

As of today the legislature has placed restrcitions on off duty LEO carry (whether it is observed by most or not) but they are considering removing all the restrictions (except consuming alcohol and under the influence). They are probably considering removing them for many of the same reasons as others have stated. Because on duty or off they may need to enforce the law, defend themselves etc...

All I am trying to say is......don't we deserve the same freedom to be able to defend ourselves as they have to defend themselves in any location at any time?

[molonlabetn]

It's actually a pretty smart move, since now most LEOs will support the removal of prohibition against carry into a resturaunt with an ABC... I think it is 100% just that off-duty LEOs are viewed the same under the law in this regard as the rest of the public.

Now, to get that restriction removed from all of us...

[Fallguy]

We have got a little focused on carry where alcohol is served for onsite consumption, I guess mainly because of the bill that might remove that for us. Just remember that's not the only of the few restrictions they have that is trying to be removed.

[nsnate02]

All I am trying to say is......don't we deserve the same freedom to be able to defend ourselves as they have to defend themselves in any location at any time?

100% agree. The LE bill would be unnecessary if the HCP bill was in force, but they are separate issues as is. Should non-LE have stricter restrictions...absolutely not. However, that's another fight. Interesting, how even LE can't get the 2nd amendment to apply as written.:mad: They are as close to a "militia" as we have in some respects.

[gunslinger]

I took the third option- First, I do think LE should carry wherever they want as long as they are not intoxicated (and by they, I mean me as well). AND so should non-LE with (or even without) permits.

[DaveTN]

1. Cops should be allowed to carry wherever they like. In the state I worked there was no such thing as “Off Duty” as far as Powers of arrest or firearms were concerned. However…. We were also required to act if we saw a crime that put a person in danger. Tough to do that if you aren’t armed.

2. Anyone carrying a firearm while intoxicated should be arrested; cop or not. A cop should be fired and a HCP holder should lose their permit for life.

3. Cops are different that civilians. They are the military of our homeland. They are the ones that are called to deal with the threat while everyone else is running the other direction. They protect the public and take armed opponents head on; many times giving their own lives to protect others. Many work in a war zone and are heroes the same as those in uniform that gives their lives defending us or others on foreign soil.

4. All citizens should be allowed to carry and protect their lives from street thugs. No permit or paying the state for the privilege should be required.

[canynracer]

well said Dave...

[et45]

I think he hit the nail on the head.

[canynracer]

he does that alot...not bad for a machinist ;)

[SomeGuy]

Poorly said Dave.

1. Cops should be allowed to carry wherever they like. In the state I worked there was no such thing as “Off Duty” as far as Powers of arrest or firearms were concerned. However…. We were also required to act if we saw a crime that put a person in danger. Tough to do that if you aren’t armed.
Only if ALL citizens are able to carry, without being hassled. Not able to carry with a permit, but able to carry with no hassling at all from government. If the state you worked in required that, fine. However, in exchange for 24/7 carry/being on-duty, I expect you NEVER got intoxicated, even at home before bed? Also, since you were on duty 24/7, I assume you never slept. If you ever drank, or slept, you did so on the job, and to do your job you had a gun handy, which means you were drunk with a gun, or asleep without securing your pistol. Cops should not (and in TN are not) be on duty 24/7. You guys should have on and off time. On the on time, you are cops. Off time, you have no special privs. You are joe blow citizen.

2. Anyone carrying a firearm while intoxicated should be arrested; cop or not. A cop should be fired and a HCP holder should lose their permit for life.
Are they endangering anyone? I have been hammered drunk and still smart enough to know I should keep my finger off the trigger when I put my gun in its place (which happened to be off my body, but still inside my home). Lose their HCP for life if you are a civ, but cops only lose their job. Why the double standard? Why strip a human right because someone got drunk, when nobody was injured?

3. Cops are different that civilians. They are the military of our homeland. They are the ones that are called to deal with the threat while everyone else is running the other direction. They protect the public and take armed opponents head on; many times giving their own lives to protect others. Many work in a war zone and are heroes the same as those in uniform that gives their lives defending us or others on foreign soil.
Bull. Cops are just like you and me, we bleed red blood, we need food to live, and oxygen is essential. Cops are NOT military. Police are supposed to keep the peace. It is the militarization of police that has so many people unhappy with LE.

4. All citizens should be allowed to carry and protect their lives from street thugs. No permit or paying the state for the privilege should be required.
I almost agree fully. Strike the allowed part, and make it "should be able to carry, without any infringements..." and I will agree. Owning and carrying a gun is NOT a privilege anymore than being whatever religion you are is a privilege allowed to you by the state.

[jackdog]

Well stated someguy. I agree 100% with your post.

[jackdog]

Since the majority of folks here think HCP holders are super shots and better trained than "most" LE,:tinfoil: I think we need to be a little more objective. With the exception of Military personnel, I doubt many HCP holders have gone through 22 weeks of 8-5 physical, weapons, ect. training. You would be hard pressed to equate a guy who goes to the range regularly to a LE officer trained to respond in a real world setting. Just completely different types of shooting. Even some of the gun schools, like Yeager's (like him or not), are not the same.
Not to say LE are the end all be all, but to say "many" are less qualified than "many" HCP holder's is erroneous. IMO

Back to the original question, LE are expected to respond whether on duty or not. Whether they are on the clock or with their family they represent the "law". Should they be out getting drunk and acting a fool - absolutely not. In fact they sign a an oath as such. We expect them to act as LE if they are there and then say they are limited if not on the clock? That makes about as much sense as Hillary talking about Health care reform. I think there might be a little gun envy on this one.

Now if you want to talk character reality, that may be more appropriate and I would agree with you. I wish also ongoing (intensive) training was a reality for LE.

I don't think that I can agree with your post. FBI statistics Show that Bad guys and LEO shooting records are not that far apart percentage wise.

I know quite a few LEO's that don't practice their shooting skills. They may go through some rigorous training, But if you don't practice you don't stay at the same level.

[towerclimber37]

i have to weigh in with jackdog and Someguy on this one.
Cops don't run the other way.they don't run INTO danger either.. look back at the videos..the walk slowly..and sometimes they hang out and wait.
Military on the other hand..DO run to the fight.
to equate a law enforcement officer with a soldier..well. I can't see it.
LEO's go through an 8 week training course. soldiers practice every day of the year that they're not in the field, on leave or dealing with garrison duties.
on average they expend quite a bit more in practice than Law enforcement officers..those LEO's that are ex combat arms types..will agree that unless the department pays for the training ammo, they simply dont get paid enough to practice as much as they did in the military.

I also agree that the militarization of the police is leading to oppression. why? because they're not peace officers anymore.. they are REQUIRED to take someone to jail if they see anything that looks like a crime being committed. this leads to abuse of power...
how about that LEO last year that roughed up the CCW citizen in the wal mart?
his excuse?? "it wasn't legal to open carry in the Ohio".. yes it was! his other excuse "I thought it was concealed carry only here".
total horse puckey.
bottom line? a law enforcement officer is a guy with a badge and a gun, and powers to arrest people, given by the state and the citizens. he's fallible just like the rest of us. he has wants and needs just like the rest of us. he also gets paid very little to do a danged hard job where he could be seriously hurt if he's not careful. that tends to make folks like him edgy and uncompromising.
if I see a LEO in trouble, I feel its my job to ensure he either gets help or I help him directly if that is what he wants. we're all a part of the same community..
on the other hand, I will comply with an officer of the law, up to and until my life is in danger. after that, I figure I'm responsible for my own safety. no that doesn't mean I'm going to go postal if I see him with his hand on his pistol, or even if he draws his pistol. he's just like me..I don't know the guy, and this is his job! it takes guts to do what cops do for a living! I'm pretty sure he just doesn't want anything to happen to him while he does his job. he's also fallible.
instead of giving them all that power, and all that responsibility..how about you relax the power and responsibility, take some of it for yourself and let him be human once in awhile.
we're all on the same team here folks...lets not go giving away our rights and responsibilities because s/he has a pretty uniform.

[nsnate02]

LEO's go through an 8 week training course. soldiers practice every day of the year that they're not in the field, on leave or dealing with garrison duties.

That would be 22 weeks and LE to military comparisons are apples and oranges - I wouldn't malign either.

The anti-police sentiment here, no matter how subtle, is a little unnerving. BTW saying you support cops then rant about abuse of power, arrogance, lack of qualification, character, ect. is the same thing that was done to our Vietnam vets. Many of the sentiments against police response come from the fact that Police now days have to respond, or not respond, thinking lawsuit or criminal charges. Much like our military they are put into impossible situations then expected to be perfect. When they aren't perfect
we cry crucify and then this kinda garbage starts.

As far as police officer opinions go, I've heard a lot of arrogant arm chair opinions from folks who I suspect have never even gone trough a portion of the hiring process.

Being in the process myself, I have found a great deal more respect for Police officers and their training.

Rant over. Thanks for the vent.

[nsnate02]

instead of giving them all that power, and all that responsibility..how about you relax the power and responsibility, take some of it for yourself and let him be human once in awhile.
we're all on the same team here folks...lets not go giving away our rights and responsibilities because s/he has a pretty uniform.

I gotta agree with this one. More citizen responsibility would greatly ease a lot of the situation. Police ourselves and police work would be a lot more effective.

[2HOW]

LEOs should be able to carry anywhere, PERIOD.

[Fallguy]

LEOs should be able to carry anywhere, PERIOD.

Why?.

[TN.Frank]

Argh, rant coming on.

If you aren't in the military, you are a civilian. Period. That includes cops. They are no different from the rest of us. They shouldn't have rights any different from the rest of us, especially "off duty."
There is a myth, perpetuated by LE, that they are somehow superior to us "civilians." The truth is often the opposite. Many permit holders are much better with their firearms than many LEOs. Many permit holders lead much more responsible lives than many LEOs.
I don't see any purpose in allowing LEOs to carry, especially off duty, in places that responsible permit holders cannot.

WHAT THE RABBI SAID X2. :D

[saintsfanbrian]

2HOW - We should all be able to carry anywhere, PERIOD and that is the point. There should not be a double standard because some one took an oath to uphold and defend the law.

I took an oath to defend the country when I joined the military. Just because my tour of service has ended doesn't mean that my oath quit. I don't go to Iraq because I have other commitments here, but if the enemies of our country bring the battle here, I will do everything within my power to stop them. That is my duty and is the duty of all citizens of this country.

As for LE being Civilian - Well, I think the disaster in New Orleans a few years ago was proof positive that they are. Many walked off of the job where as the national guard etc were walking in to it.

[molonlabetn]

The only problem is the differentiation between the right of a law-enforcement officer to carry a firearm, and the right of any citizen to carry a firearm... The reality is that the officer is required to carry the firearm, but that does not justify restrictions upon those who are not required by their profession to carry them. No individual has any more 'right' to do so... if anything, the issued equipment of law-enforcement is at the mercy of those who fund it, not the other way around.

Cops are not different than civilians. They ARE civilians, with a voluntary paid job of upholding the laws of their locality, state and country. They have no greater justification for self-protection, and they have no greater responsibility towards fellow citizens (so says the SCOTUS, Warren vs. D.C.)... but they do have greater accountability towards the law and judiciary, which is what they are paid for. They are most certainly not anything like a military, no more than the military is a police force... though there is some overlap of their duties in extreme situations.

Proficiency with firearms is a touchy subject, when comparing LEO vs. private citizen... There are examples of failure, inadequacy, and excellence among both. It would probably be fair to say that the top 10% of private citizens would collectively out-number, and out-shoot the top 90% of LEOs. But, there simply isn't enough data on the average gun-owner to make any general claims, across the board. But, I've never heard of a private citizen expending anything approaching 3 magazines to down one perp... though most LEO shootings which are publicized have a very high round-count per BG. I don't think that's a coincidence.

[DaveTN]

Why?.
Because they have been charged with a task that you either do not want or can’t do. I mean do disrespect by that but cops are cops…. all day long. You have the luxury of standing by and watching when you see chit going down and making the decision of whether you have the desire or the ability to stop the threat. I’m a former cop from Illinois, I don’t know the requirements of Tennessee cops, but we were required to act when we saw a citizen that was in danger. The good news is that I know very few Officers where that requirement would even be a consideration; they will act because it is their duty.

I would guess that Tennessee Police Officers have the same desire to do their duty as most cops everywhere. To bad the state won’t allow citizens to carry but also want to tie the hands of off duty cops.

For those of you that have you panties in a bunch because cops have privileges that you don’t have; get over it. This is not an “us vs. them” situation. Most cops I know would love to see you be legally armed.

If you are looking for someone to blame then lay this right at the feet of those responsible; your state legislators. As cops we didn’t get to make laws in my state and were rarely even ask our opinions on them. I’m pretty sure the same holds true here.

As I said before Tennessee has no more regard for the 2nd amendment than Illinois, New York or California.
96% of the population of Tennessee would be jailed if they were caught carrying a concealed handgun off their property. A right???? That would be laughable if it wasn’t such a serious matter.

We don’t even have enough support for firearms issues in this country for it to be an issue in an election; and some of you now want to turn it into a pizzing match between Cops and HCP holders? That’s stupid at face value.

I have two honorable discharges and served my country as a Police Officer. I served in the military during wartime; although I was not in combat. I have been in combat as a Police Officer on the streets of my own country. I am proud of my service.

Those who serve in the Military or as Police Officers do not need to earn my respect; I give it willingly. They have to earn my disrespect.

Fallguy… my comments are not directed at you; you just posed the question.

Nsnate02… Good luck in the selection process. You are right the cop hating gets old. But try to remember that it comes from the minority; not the majority.

[Fallguy]

I understand what you are saying Dave.

First I guess I meant "Why?" Off-duty LEO as opposed to everyone. We seem to agree on that.

Also I am NOT anti-LEO I have worked as a deputy and currently have two family members that are LEOs.

I too agree, that it should not be LEO vs. HCP holders. That is is the legislators that need to be educated in this matter.

My over all object of this was more to try to get the general public and the legislator to see that if they feel the need to remove the restrcitions of LEO's that the same needs to be done for HCP holders.

[canynracer]

Because they have been charged with a task that you either do not want or can’t do. I mean do disrespect by that but cops are cops…. all day long. You have the luxury of standing by and watching when you see chit going down and making the decision of whether you have the desire or the ability to stop the threat. I’m a former cop from Illinois, I don’t know the requirements of Tennessee cops, but we were required to act when we saw a citizen that was in danger. The good news is that I know very few Officers where that requirement would even be a consideration; they will act because it is their duty.

I would guess that Tennessee Police Officers have the same desire to do their duty as most cops everywhere. To bad the state won’t allow citizens to carry but also want to tie the hands of off duty cops.

For those of you that have you panties in a bunch because cops have privileges that you don’t have; get over it. This is not an “us vs. them” situation. Most cops I know would love to see you be legally armed.

If you are looking for someone to blame then lay this right at the feet of those responsible; your state legislators. As cops we didn’t get to make laws in my state and were rarely even ask our opinions on them. I’m pretty sure the same holds true here.

As I said before Tennessee has no more regard for the 2nd amendment than Illinois, New York or California.
96% of the population of Tennessee would be jailed if they were caught carrying a concealed handgun off their property. A right???? That would be laughable if it wasn’t such a serious matter.

We don’t even have enough support for firearms issues in this country for it to be an issue in an election; and some of you now want to turn it into a pizzing match between Cops and HCP holders? That’s stupid at face value.

I have two honorable discharges and served my country as a Police Officer. I served in the military during wartime; although I was not in combat. I have been in combat as a Police Officer on the streets of my own country. I am proud of my service.

Those who serve in the Military or as Police Officers do not need to earn my respect; I give it willingly. They have to earn my disrespect.

Fallguy… my comments are not directed at you; you just posed the question.

Nsnate02… Good luck in the selection process. You are right the cop hating gets old. But try to remember that it comes from the minority; not the majority.

well said Dave.

[DaveTN]

First I guess I meant "Why?" Off-duty LEO as opposed to everyone. We seem to agree on that.
NO PERMIT REQUIRED… that’s how I feel. HCP is a joke. :D

Also I am NOT anti-LEO I have worked as a deputy and currently have two family members that are LEOs.
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y111/TourGlide/Web%20Stuff/thumbsup.gif I knew that.

I too agree, that it should not be LEO vs. HCP holders. That is is the legislators that need to be educated in this matter.

My over all object of this was more to try to get the general public and the legislator to see that if they feel the need to remove the restrcitions of LEO's that the same needs to be done for HCP holders.
Absolutely. We want the cops support on other issues.

When the National Law Enforcement Safety Act passed my first thoughts were “What about the rest of us?” And I still feel that way, but then I thought this might be the first steps towards a Federal carry permit.

[towerclimber37]

For those of you that have you panties in a bunch because cops have privileges that you don’t have; get over it. This is not an “us vs. them” situation. Most cops I know would love to see you be legally armed.

I think you said this wrong.... it should say "because cops have more RESPONSIBILITY than I have.
thats what it boils down to. I don't begrudge a law officer any of his "privileges"..he needs every tool he can get to keep the bad guys from doing harm to others.


If you are looking for someone to blame then lay this right at the feet of those responsible; your state legislators. As cops we didn’t get to make laws in my state and were rarely even ask our opinions on them. I’m pretty sure the same holds true here.
This,I agree with.
As I said before Tennessee has no more regard for the 2nd amendment than Illinois, New York or California. This I don't agree with.
96% of the population of Tennessee would be jailed if they were caught carrying a concealed handgun off their property. A right???? That would be laughable if it wasn’t such a serious matter. This I don't agree with. Once again because we live in a community with others and because we as a society must account for ourselves...I believe that a CCW is a good idea.
The fee could be smaller..but hey..thats just my opinion.


We don’t even have enough support for firearms issues in this country for it to be an issue in an election; and some of you now want to turn it into a pizzing match between Cops and HCP holders? That’s stupid at face value.
This I also agree with.

I have two honorable discharges and served my country as a Police Officer. I served in the military during wartime; although I was not in combat. I have been in combat as a Police Officer on the streets of my own country. I am proud of my service.

Those who serve in the Military or as Police Officers do not need to earn my respect; I give it willingly. They have to earn my disrespect.

Fallguy… my comments are not directed at you; you just posed the question.

Nsnate02… Good luck in the selection process. You are right the cop hating gets old. But try to remember that it comes from the minority; not the majority.

[SomeGuy]

In case you guys forgot, cop groups have come out AGAINST removing restrictions on HCP.

Cops will NOT support us if we support them. Supporting this bill is supporting the creation of special classes. I am against such a system. Cops should have FEWER privs than they do as is, although technically, most of the privs cops have are self-granted.

I refer you here: http://www.tfaonline.org/memberforum/viewtopic.php?t=1345&start=15

Pay particular attention to the post made by John Harris on Mon Feb 04, 2008 3:50 pm

[towerclimber37]

Someguy, make no mistake, I will vote AGAINST this bill!

because cops have it rough ON the job doesn't mean I want them to have it rough OFF the job. I also don't believe in giving someone special privileges.
I also think that Law enforcement officers will get kindness if they give kindness. I'm a pissed off cops' worst nightmare..I WILL not allow him or her to bully me. I will maintain my rights, even if it leads to incarceration..he might get the first laugh, but I guarantee that I will get the last laugh in the courts.

[Mugster]

Because they have been charged with a task that you either do not want or can’t do. I mean do disrespect by that but cops are cops…. all day long. You have the luxury of standing by and watching when you see chit going down and making the decision of whether you have the desire or the ability to stop the threat. I’m a former cop from Illinois, I don’t know the requirements of Tennessee cops, but we were required to act when we saw a citizen that was in danger. The good news is that I know very few Officers where that requirement would even be a consideration; they will act because it is their duty.

I would guess that Tennessee Police Officers have the same desire to do their duty as most cops everywhere. To bad the state won’t allow citizens to carry but also want to tie the hands of off duty cops.

For those of you that have you panties in a bunch because cops have privileges that you don’t have; get over it. This is not an “us vs. them” situation. Most cops I know would love to see you be legally armed.

If you are looking for someone to blame then lay this right at the feet of those responsible; your state legislators. As cops we didn’t get to make laws in my state and were rarely even ask our opinions on them. I’m pretty sure the same holds true here.

As I said before Tennessee has no more regard for the 2nd amendment than Illinois, New York or California.
96% of the population of Tennessee would be jailed if they were caught carrying a concealed handgun off their property. A right???? That would be laughable if it wasn’t such a serious matter.

We don’t even have enough support for firearms issues in this country for it to be an issue in an election; and some of you now want to turn it into a pizzing match between Cops and HCP holders? That’s stupid at face value.

I have two honorable discharges and served my country as a Police Officer. I served in the military during wartime; although I was not in combat. I have been in combat as a Police Officer on the streets of my own country. I am proud of my service.

Those who serve in the Military or as Police Officers do not need to earn my respect; I give it willingly. They have to earn my disrespect.

Fallguy… my comments are not directed at you; you just posed the question.

Nsnate02… Good luck in the selection process. You are right the cop hating gets old. But try to remember that it comes from the minority; not the majority.

I don't see anyone handing out prison terms for all the police desertion that took place during hurricane katrina. What was it? 50-60% desertion something like? Where is this "requirement to act"? How come they are still walking around and not in jail or branded cowards?

Police officers enjoy personal and organizational immunity from tort for failure to enforce the law. I cite this, but most states are very similar. Upheld by the supreme court in a number of cases. Good read:

http://members.tripod.com/~mdean/immunity.html

I see no reason, none whatsoever, that off duty police should have any more right to carry a handgun or any other weapon than a citizen, and that is what this bill implies.

I would support this bill if an amendment were added for all citizens...but supporting a bill that places police into a special rights category is bad mojo, imo. Sounds like a privileged class of people being created to me. We don't need that.

[towerclimber37]

thats a dang good point!
hey dave, you can be proud all ya want, but it looks like you're mislead where the law is concerned.

and I'm beginning to see and learn new things about the laws where police officers are concerned...and changing my mind a bit more..
Dave, if your hubris and remarks about my "panties" being in a twist are any indication of the general thinking of all law enforcement officers..then perhaps we need to do some weeding of the garden, so to speak.
Law officers are first and foremost PUBLIC SERVANTS.
you may not be required to defend me, but I'll be damned if you'll run over me either...not when part of my taxes are going to pay your salary.

[canynracer]

This is not about LEOs having to "Defend" the public, they are sworn to uphold the law, even off duty...do not mistake that for defending the public. If a place is being robbed, that is against the law, in upholding the law, the officer will take steps to "defend" the public, but they are not, they are removing the threat to the public as they uphold the law.

In the thread about carrying in a resturaunt, there are arguments made that not being able to carry is also given to LEOs, and some made that point when they emailed their reps, I know I did.. LEOs are public servants they are paid by the citizens to uphold the law. They took the job knowing the threats, and the dangers. As a law abiding citizen I will do everything in my power to allow them to do their job without me making their day even harder.

Most LEOs do the job cause they love it, there are "bad apples" in every position, everywhere, including the military, and corporate offices, so lets not make this out to be all of Law Enforcement being bad and on power trips, or thinking they are above the law.

These are men and women that uphold the laws, and try everyday to make it home to their families. In doing this, they make enemies, dont think that if the arrested a BG, that guy does not know EXACTLY what that officer looks like. My point is that they have a greater NEED to protect themselves IMO, and if they can carry in a place that I cannot, at least I have will have the peace of mind that there is someone on my side there to eliminate the immediate threat.

I would like to add that I agree that we should all have the same rights....

[db99wj]

Here is something I thought about.

LEO goes out to dinner, where alcohol is served. He and his wife are having a nice conversation, his kids are actually getting along and eating their Mac and cheese. Guy walks in, see's LEO over at the table across the room. This guy just got out jail for "insert favorite crime", and is somewhat pissed off because he missed the superbowl. Anyway, he sees the cop and realizes that HE is the one that arrested him, HE is the one that took him downtown, HE is the one that put him in jail and caused him to miss the superbowl. Sidebar: Well when he got out, he went home, showered, got dressed, got his illegally owned handgun that was hiding out back and was not found. Ok, back to the present time, he is pissed, he sees the cop and confronts the cop. With today's laws, the cop is helpless. Can't have a handgun in a resturant that serves. So this cop, that is off duty, is at the mercy of this thug without a way to defend himself.

It would seem to me, that a LEO has a little higher chance of "running into trouble" than the average citizen.

This is why I brought this up, a few years ago, went out to eat with a friend of mine, we were at a resturant that serves, He works for a large sherrif's department in Tennessee, not here in Memphis by the way. He has an issued firearm, he is in the area that processess folks as they are brought in and put in the pokey. He does some counseling during that process. We were sitting there and this big guy comes up and stops... My friend had one of those "Oh shi..." looks on his face. The guy says, hey, I know you, you booked me last week when I got arrested......My firend says, yea, I remember you, you doing alright or something like that. The guys says, yea, just got out, I appreciate you being nice to me when I came through..... My friend said, no problem, he went on about his business. My friend was a little rattled by it, he said that turned out a lot better than I thought!

IMO this all comes down to the same problem here in the state of TN. The law that says we can't carry in these resturants is stupid, whether we are individual citizens or off duty LEO's we should all have the same rights. What the issue seems to be here is that their is a seperate bill just for LEO's. Is it fair, maybe not, but it still comes down to the stupid laws that we have to follow as permit holders.

[molonlabetn]

...It would seem to me, that a LEO has a little higher chance of "running into trouble" than the average citizen.
..

I don't doubt that retaliatory actions occur... but in reality, most victims of crime are not off-duty police officers, and many victimizations occur in places where possession of a firearm is illegal for private citizens.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If it is undesirable for an off-duty police officer to be unable to defend themselves in a restaurant, it is equally undesirable for any person to be defenseless. It is not a question of who's life is worth more, or who is more likely to be victimized. And besides that, from the point of view of self-protection being a right... need is irrelevant.

It is simply impossible to defend the creation of a class of people, based on profession, who are more worthy of being equipped to prevent their own demise. Greater need should provoke heavier armament, not the exclusion of arms from others.

[db99wj]

I don't doubt that retaliatory actions occur... but in reality, most victims of crime are not off-duty police officers, and many victimizations occur in places where possession of a firearm is illegal for private citizens.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If it is undesirable for an off-duty police officer to be unable to defend themselves in a restaurant, it is equally undesirable for any person to be defenseless. It is not a question of who's life is worth more, or who is more likely to be victimized. And besides that, from the point of view of self-protection being a right... need is irrelevant.

It is simply impossible to defend the creation of a class of people, based on profession, who are more worthy of being equipped to prevent their own demise. Greater need should provoke heavier armament, not the exclusion of arms from others.

Agreed and I would think that what happened to my friend and me, was an isolated event. Just something I was thinking, this thread got me thinking about that event.

[TN.Frank]

So how would Mr.Badguy know that the guy was an LEO? I'm sure he'd not be in uniform off duty so he'd look like anyone else, wouldn't he? I personally think that the only gun law that should be on the books is the one that says everyone should have a gun if they want one.
I've sat around the house and had a few beers with my gun right next to me. Never did anything drunk that I wouldn't do sober, that's just the way I am. Guess I'm more in control then most people are,LOL. It's like Hypnosis, you won't do anything under hypnosis that you'd not do in your regular waking state.
I don't see a problem with being able to carry in a place that serves alcohol be it a eating place or a bar. If everyone carried and you got out of line you'd only do it once, LOL. An armed society if a polite society. It's just that simple.

[db99wj]

So how would Mr.Badguy know that the guy was an LEO? I'm sure he'd not be in uniform off duty so he'd look like anyone else, wouldn't he? I personally think that the only gun law that should be on the books is the one that says everyone should have a gun if they want one.
I've sat around the house and had a few beers with my gun right next to me. Never did anything drunk that I wouldn't do sober, that's just the way I am. Guess I'm more in control then most people are,LOL. It's like Hypnosis, you won't do anything under hypnosis that you'd not do in your regular waking state.
I don't see a problem with being able to carry in a place that serves alcohol be it a eating place or a bar. If everyone carried and you got out of line you'd only do it once, LOL. An armed society if a polite society. It's just that simple.

Some people remember who they meet, even if for a short period of time. :confused: In the situation that I was in with my friend, my friend had booked him the week before, processed him through the system and the guy recognized him.

I agree with the rest of your post. Let me say it again, I think off duty LEO should be able to and we, as citizens should be able to..period. The stupid law is hindering both groups and the laws need to be changed.

[canynracer]

BGs remember who vrought them down...I have witnessed it twice, my buddy worked vice, he has brought down many a drug dealer, they remember, and yes, he has had three confrontations with people he has arrested since I have known him (1.5yrs)

out of the three, one ended in my buddy slammming said BG to the ground just to send him back to jail, (in front of Lowes) and two were VERY heated verbal assaults that no child should be around...lol...but none-the-less, if he didnt maintain his composure, those could have gotten out of hand VERY quickly. Luckily we didnt have our kids with us, the sad thing is, BOTH times the BGs DID have their kids, and still barraded my buddy with the verbal stuff...both of these times, we were leaving resturaunts, so neither one of us were armed...course, I continued to walk to the car as he attempted to diffuse the situation


needless to say, I think everyone here can agree that all of us should be able to carry in resturaunts or where alcohol is served for onsite consumption...as long as we are not drinking.

[TN.Frank]

Ok, I understand in that situation where he's seen you before in uniform. I thought that you guys were trying to say that you had "LEO" tattooed to your forehead or something or that the bad guy was able to just tell you were an LEO but now I see what you're getting at. In that case, law or no law, I'd carry and worry about the courts,ect. at a later date. Better to be judged by 12 then carried by 6.

[db99wj]

Ok, I understand in that situation where he's seen you before in uniform. I thought that you guys were trying to say that you had "LEO" tattooed to your forehead or something or that the bad guy was able to just tell you were an LEO but now I see what you're getting at. In that case, law or no law, I'd carry and worry about the courts,ect. at a later date. Better to be judged by 12 then carried by 6.

:up:

Also, I could see where a LEO would run into this more in a small town..I dunno, I wonder how often it occurs.

[canynracer]

Ok, I understand in that situation where he's seen you before in uniform. I thought that you guys were trying to say that you had "LEO" tattooed to your forehead or something or that the bad guy was able to just tell you were an LEO but now I see what you're getting at. In that case, law or no law, I'd carry and worry about the courts,ect. at a later date. Better to be judged by 12 then carried by 6.

no worries...:koolaid:

and +1 on the last part!!!

[Marswolf]

Getting back on topic, This isn't a bill to let everyone carry, even if it should be. So let's look at whether there is something good or bad in the limited actions this law would provide.

The more I think about it, if I end up in a place and someone attacks me, I would like some folks there who have the means to help me. I don't care why they have the weapons, whether they are cops, or maybe friends or vigilantes.

While I agree that we should all be allowed to pack in restaurants and schools, I can't see a reason to require that if some people can't do so that no one can do so.

[canynracer]

agreed

[Fallguy]

As it stands today NO one, off-duty LEO, HCP holder, not even on-duty LEO unless s/he is in there within the scope of official duties. The only person that can be legally armed is the owner or an employee with the owner's authority.

So LEO's have the same choice we do. If the want to stay legally armed, simply don't go to Logan's, O'Charlies etc.... or other off-limits places.

I think this bill is more to allow off-duty LEO's the ability to go armed to defend themselves in more places as opposed to "up hold the law". Without going into the "duty to act" part. I agree by the very nature of their job they can create enimies, many that obvisouly wouldn't care to break the law to exact some type of revenge. But who is to say I don't have enimies, if not directly the BG in general that could enter any place I happen to be.

All I'm saying is that IMO simply being a LEO doesn't make you more trust worthy than I to be around alcohol, in a school, in a park etc.... while armed. If the powers in Nashville feel it should change for them, then it should change for all.

[Ruprect]

HR 218

To amend title 18, United States Code, to EXEMPT qualified current and former law enforcement officers from STATE LAWS PROHIBITING the carrying of concealed handguns.

NOTWITHSTANDING any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification...

This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that`

`(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or

`(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.

To my understanding HR 218 grants LEOs the ability to carry anywhere except private property(if you don't want them too off duty) and state property.
TCA 39-17-50 allows officers to carry in state parks and buildings, not courts though. LEOs can also carry in schools with the principle's permission.

I agree that EVERYONE(minus the obvious exceptions: criminals and the mentally unstable come to mind) should be allowed to carry ANYWHERE.

I WHOLEHEARTEDLY SUPPORT training requirments and background checks. We have all seen the widgets on the internet with guns, do you really want that guy standing behind you in line?

NO ONE should be allowed to carry while drinking, I don't care who you are.

LEOs ARE civillians. On paper any citizen in TN has the same powers of arrest as an LEO. The only thing that seperates LEOs and NON LEOs is LEOs act on behalf of the state. Because they are part of the state they are not a malitia, the malitia NEEDS to be seperate from the state.

YES many officers gun tactics scare me, but they have received extensive legal and practical training.

Nashville Metro PD academy has an entire Law block dedicated to Use of Force and over 40 hours of firearms training. Officers are required to qualify with their firearms twice a year. The minimum timeline for a new officer hire is about 5 months full of background checks and psyc. exames and tests.

Sorry for the long post and my less than $.02

[canynracer]

... I agree by the very nature of their job they can create enimies, many that obvisouly wouldn't care to break the law to exact some type of revenge. But who is to say I don't have enimies, if not directly the BG in general that could enter any place I happen to be...

I think the chances for a LEO to run into an enemy is alot more common...they make enemies 80% of the time they are clocked in..LOL...some make them more than others, most make them when they issue a speeding ticket...the job by nature creates enemies....(now, how that person reacts to the fact that THEY are at fault to even get the LEOs attention, is their problem, but by them not seeing that, they make it the issuing officers problem, and yes, some get mad and move on in life hating cops...some accept responsibility and pay the fine, but some take it to the next level)

unless of course, you walk around deliberatley getting into peoples business and create a bunch of enemies...but you seem like a nice guy, :D so I dont think you would have as many people "gunnin" for you as you did while you were a LEO...;)


overall, about the bill, I dont think just because I cant carry, means LEOS cant...I would MUCH rather have an off duty LEO disarm a robber than me...I would rather focus on making sure my family is safe, and out of harms way.

If it means this bill allows them and not me, so be it...we just contnue to lobby for more rights, like carry in a resturaunt that serves alcohol.

I would much rather have an off duty LEO eating near me armed, than both of us sitting there with our forks in our hands.

[SomeGuy]

My point is that they have a greater NEED to protect themselves



Nice to know you think a cop has a life more valuable than mine, and that you consider enforcing all the laws also more important than my life.

Getting back on topic, This isn't a bill to let everyone carry, even if it should be. So let's look at whether there is something good or bad in the limited actions this law would provide.

I say bad. First, it creates classes. Classes are always bad, as it furthers the us vs them, plus it makes it easier for them to shaft us AGAIN. Secondly, cops are never around when you need them as is, what makes you think that if something bad happens, an off-duty cop will magically appear?

[Marswolf]

I would much rather have an off duty LEO eating near me armed, than both of us sitting there with our forks in our hands.

Precisely.

[canynracer]

Nice to know you think a cop has a life more valuable than mine, and that you consider enforcing all the laws also more important than my life.

not what I sad, you took one part of a paragraph, I said they make more enemies in their line of work....therefore have a greater need.

I also never said that enforcing the laws are more important, I said that is what they do.

I say bad. First, it creates classes. Classes are always bad, as it furthers the us vs them, plus it makes it easier for them to shaft us AGAIN.
We disagree on this as well, whether you like to admit it or not, the classes you speak against already exist, we call the police when we are in trouble, or when you think you need police intervention. We hold LEOs on a different scale, just like we hold Firemen. They are the folks that will go into situations that others will not. For LEOs those situations are the ones that create enemies.

sorry, but I have no idea what you mean by "shafting us":confused:

Secondly, cops are never around when you need them as is, what makes you think that if something bad happens, an off-duty cop will magically appear?
LOL...I am not even sure how to respond to this, cause every time I have called the cops, they show up. If it comes to me having to defend myself, that is why I carry, but I bet you money, that after the fact, they will show up. IMHO, blanket statements like this scare me.

and I dont think they will magically appear, but they might be sitting next to you while you eat, the whole argument about "if they can I can or NOBODY can" seems strange to me. IMO, any shifting in the laws that ease up any part of being able to carry is a step in the right direction.

I just think we should focus energy on getting more privelages as HCP holders than stopping LEOs ability to carry while off duty. In other words, We got bigger fish to fry....
:D

[Mugster]

We give out welfare and medicaid based on need. That is socialism. Creating classes of people and satisfying their basic needs (the good of the few) over the good of the many.

A cop needs that gun for protection more than I do? Sounds like socialistic gun policy. Can't stand it. Send that crap and the people that believe it to california and blow the fault. Lets get rid of it.

[canynracer]

LOL... I think you took it way out of proportion....As far as "need" I was merely pointing out what I have seen first hand. But anyway.

I am from CA...and now I live here...thanks.

this has nothing to do with a class...

it is about the "I cant do it so nobody can" attitude. Would the bill be ok if the tables were reversed? meaning, would you stand this firm if the bill was for HCP holders to carry wherever but off duty LEOs cannot? I doubt it.

[Mugster]

It has everything to do with a class of people. You're legislating rights to a subset of the population and denying the majority the same privilege. Thats just wrong on a lot of different levels.

And why wouldn't I get upset that someone has a privledge in the law I do not have? I wish I had immunity to tort for failure to do my job like the police have.

If we're going to impose a tax to carry a gun, then i think off duty police should be required to pay the same thing I do. And take the same cheesy HCP class. So yeah, now you are on a level playing field. I would support a bill that forced police to take an HCP class to carry off duty with the same ferver that I deny this one.

I disagree with the entire HCP philosophy though. I think the 2nd amendment gives all citizens the right to carry a weapon. For no particular reason. No need required.

I'm not upset, my posts probably come across that way because I was trained to write that way. I'm not very politically correct, I'm afraid. When i get upset, you'll know it, lol. My general political stance is apathy. Nothing I can do seemingly will make anything any better, so i generally choose to do nothing. Occasionally post in a forum. Sic.

[nsnate02]

It has everything to do with a class of people. You're legislating rights to a subset of the population and denying the majority the same privilege. Thats just wrong on a lot of different levels.

And why wouldn't I get upset that someone has a privledge in the law I do not have? I wish I had immunity to tort for failure to do my job like the police have.

If we're going to impose a tax to carry a gun, then i think off duty police should be required to pay the same thing I do. And take the same cheesy HCP class. So yeah, now you are on a level playing field. I would support a bill that forced police to take an HCP class to carry off duty with the same ferver that I deny this one.

I disagree with the entire HCP philosophy though. I think the 2nd amendment gives all citizens the right to carry a weapon. For no particular reason. No need required.

I think that is covered in a 22 week course called the Academy. I would say if someone takes a 22 week (9 to 5) course in weapons and self defense training, not to mention a crammed year of law school in those same 22 weeks, then they do qualify a little higher than the average joe. But that's not the issue, gun rights expansion is a good thing, whether it is by segment or not.

BTW - you obviously don't understand basic fundamentals of socialist propaganda - one of the first is class envy, with an aimed result in no classes. Democracy and capitalism use class (equality is in voting) as a tension balance.

[Mugster]

I think that is covered in a 22 week course called the Academy. I would say if someone takes a 22 week (9 to 5) course in weapons and self defense training, not to mention a crammed year of law school in those same 22 weeks, then they do qualify a little higher than the average joe. But that's not the issue, gun rights expansion is a good thing, whether it is by segment or not.

BTW - you obviously don't understand basic fundamentals of socialist propaganda - one of the first is class envy, with an aimed result in no classes. Democracy and capitalism use class (equality is in voting) as a tension balance.

Skill has nothing to do with anything, its not part of this discussion. I was trained for upwards of 2 years in the finer points of survival in rougher schools than a police officer will face. 9 to 5...hahaha how bout 24/7/365?. Once again, this has no bearing on anything. A person that cannot physically lift a handgun should have the same rights under the law as I do.

And your right, that is socialist propaganda. Thats another term for BS. I'd like to believe that someone can jump class in our society through hard work. Maybe that's naive.

So I forward the motion that mugster, because he holds a valid AMA motorcyle racing license and runs senior C in offroad races, and has a NEED to practice, be allowed to run 150 mph at night on saturday around the "nashville beltway". And all the rest of you can't do it except other licence holders. And we're going to write it into law. And in the long run we'll all benefit from a relaxation of the speed laws. IE, maybe they'll come to their senses and allow 75 on the freeways for all the mom's and pop's in minivans.


That is what you guys are telling me in terms of letting someone do something I cannot with a firearm. And you are telling me you are going to write it into law. I vote no.

[SomeGuy]

canyon,

The shaft I referred to was HR218. Many gun owners supported it, with the logic that it would 1) be a stepping stone, and 2) cops would in turn support us (I even had one look me in the eyes, and tell me that was the case. It has not happened). Special pivs for cops will in no way benefit our rights.

Also, police Academy is not god school. They do NOT cram any year of law school in there, any more than I cram a semester of nursing school into a CPR class. As for the Academy having such great firearms instruction, could you explain why police have to fire 100 shots in an incident? Perhaps back in California you guys revere your government workers, but around here we see them as people. And no group of people deserves more rights than another. If I cannot do it, they cannot do it.

[DaveTN]

Special pivs for cops will in no way benefit our rights.
What rights are you referring to?

Also, police Academy is not god school. They do NOT cram any year of law school in there, any more than I cram a semester of nursing school into a CPR class.
You are obviously clueless about training. Cops have more criminal law training than an Attorney gets in law school. The only Attorneys that have more criminal law training than a cop are those that specialize in criminal law after they get out of law school.
Where are you getting your information about LEO training?

As for the Academy having such great firearms instruction, could you explain why police have to fire 100 shots in an incident?

You start posting stories where it took cops 100 rounds to take someone down and I’ll start posting stories about nurses that killed or molested a patient. You will be done while I will still be filling pages. Does that mean that most nurses are bumbling idiots or criminals?

And no group of people deserves more rights than another. If I cannot do it, they cannot do it.

If you are a nurse I can understand your concern about classes of people. You work in a situation where Doctors are a superior class and you are never going to be in it unless you become a Doctor. I’m sure that some of them remind you of that.

But this is not about classes of people. There were things that Paramedics could do to ease the pain of accident victims that I could not do as a cop. I could only hold their hand and listen to their screams until the Paramedics arrived. Why? Because they are licensed to do those things. There are things that Doctors can do that you can’t because they are licensed to do those things. A Police Officer holds a certification by the state the same as you.

Comparing a HCP class to Academy training would be like someone that has had a basic first aid class saying they were as qualified as you to work in an ER.

[Fallguy]

Hmmmmm....

I think some of us are going to have to agree to disagree.. :usa:

[canynracer]

canyon,

The shaft I referred to was HR218. Many gun owners supported it, with the logic that it would 1) be a stepping stone, and 2) cops would in turn support us (I even had one look me in the eyes, and tell me that was the case. It has not happened). Special pivs for cops will in no way benefit our rights.


OK, I still dont know what it is, I looked up that number and found a Resolution to commend the Newport rescue squad for saving lives...I dont have any problem with that one (I dont think that is the one you referred to....I hope...LOL)http://www.legislature.state.tn.us/bills/currentga/BILL/HR0218.pdf

anyway, I think I am going to go with FallGuy, we are going to have to agree to disagree...We made our points and neither side is going to budge...I just dont see the logic in voting against something just because you cant do it too...I am almost positive that if you chose to be a LEO, you would not be looking at it this way.


I think as HCP holders we have to focus our attention on changing the laws that truley affect US. Like lobbying for more of the privelages that we should have. I do not think that your lives will be affected to the negative, just because an off duty LEO is allowed to carry a handgun in a gun free zone.

I for one, would much rather have ANYONE (LEO, MarsWolf, or National Guard) in that resturaunt/bar/wherever armed and ready to confront a BG that is breaking the law, not because I think they are a "special" class of citizen, but because I believe that BGs should be confronted, even in a "gun free zone" that you or I cannot go in legally armed. but once again, these are my opinions.

:D

[cadillacdude1975]

http://leaa.org/

how and in what way does this apply in Tennessee?

www.leaa.org (http://www.leaa.org)

[Fallguy]

Persoanlly the way I read it LEO's are still subject to each states laws as far as Open or Concealled carry and off-limits places, this just allows them the ability to carry in ever state in general.

http://www.leaa.org/218/218text.html

H.R.218: The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004
(Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)

One Hundred Eighth Congress of the United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, the twentieth day of January, two thousand and four

An Act
To amend title 18, United States Code, to exempt qualified current and former law enforcement officers from State laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed handguns.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004'.

SEC. 2. EXEMPTION OF QUALIFIED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS FROM STATE LAWS PROHIBITING THE CARRYING OF CONCEALED FIREARMS.
(a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926A the following:

`Sec. 926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law enforcement officers`(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).

`(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that--

`(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or

`(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.

`(c) As used in this section, the term `qualified law enforcement officer' means an employee of a governmental agency who--

`(1) is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and has statutory powers of arrest;

`(2) is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm;

`(3) is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the agency;

`(4) meets standards, if any, established by the agency which require the employee to regularly qualify in the use of a firearm;

`(5) is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance; and

`(6) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm.

`(d) The identification required by this subsection is the photographic identification issued by the governmental agency for which the individual is employed as a law enforcement officer.

`(e) As used in this section, the term `firearm' does not include--

`(1) any machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the National Firearms Act);

`(2) any firearm silencer (as defined in section 921 of this title); and

`(3) any destructive device (as defined in section 921 of this title).'.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926A the following:
`926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law enforcement officers.'.

SEC. 3. EXEMPTION OF QUALIFIED RETIRED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS FROM STATE LAWS PROHIBITING THE CARRYING OF CONCEALED FIREARMS.
(a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is further amended by inserting after section 926B the following:

`Sec. 926C. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified retired law enforcement officers`(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified retired law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).

`(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that--

`(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or

`(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.

`(c) As used in this section, the term `qualified retired law enforcement officer' means an individual who--

`(1) retired in good standing from service with a public agency as a law enforcement officer, other than for reasons of mental instability;

`(2) before such retirement, was authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and had statutory powers of arrest;

`(3)(A) before such retirement, was regularly employed as a law enforcement officer for an aggregate of 15 years or more; or

`(B) retired from service with such agency, after completing any applicable probationary period of such service, due to a service-connected disability, as determined by such agency;

`(4) has a nonforfeitable right to benefits under the retirement plan of the agency;

`(5) during the most recent 12-month period, has met, at the expense of the individual, the State's standards for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry firearms;

`(6) is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance; and

`(7) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm.

`(d) The identification required by this subsection is--

`(1) a photographic identification issued by the agency from which the individual retired from service as a law enforcement officer that indicates that the individual has, not less recently than one year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the agency to meet the standards established by the agency for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm; or

`(2)(A) a photographic identification issued by the agency from which the individual retired from service as a law enforcement officer; and

`(B) a certification issued by the State in which the individual resides that indicates that the individual has, not less recently than one year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the State to meet the standards established by the State for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm.

`(e) As used in this section, the term `firearm' does not include--

`(1) any machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the National Firearms Act);

`(2) any firearm silencer (as defined in section 921 of this title); and

`(3) a destructive device (as defined in section 921 of this title).'.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for such chapter is further amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926B the following:
`926C. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified retired law enforcement officers.'

[The Rabbi]

canyon,

The shaft I referred to was HR218. Many gun owners supported it, with the logic that it would 1) be a stepping stone, and 2) cops would in turn support us (I even had one look me in the eyes, and tell me that was the case. It has not happened). Special pivs for cops will in no way benefit our rights.

Also, police Academy is not god school. They do NOT cram any year of law school in there, any more than I cram a semester of nursing school into a CPR class. As for the Academy having such great firearms instruction, could you explain why police have to fire 100 shots in an incident? Perhaps back in California you guys revere your government workers, but around here we see them as people. And no group of people deserves more rights than another. If I cannot do it, they cannot do it.
Yup.
The myth of the supercop is just that. Awarding them more privileges than private citizens have only increases that sense of entitlement and leads to more abuse and more distance between police (who are public servants) and the public (who are the ultimate employers).
Comparing academy training, any academy, to law school betrays a lack of knowledge of one or the other. They arent comparable in any way.
But a basic principle is that the right to carry is just that, a right. It is not a "right as long as you have passed the requirements" or a "right as long as you have certain employment status." It is a right of the citizens.

[saintsfanbrian]

I know we have discussed this before, but how many law enforcement officers are not cited for speeding, reckless driving, DUI etc simply because they wear the uniform and carry the badge?

How many LEO are given a pass at Dunken Donuts or the local shop and rob because they wear the badge?

This is the class society. We have it in America whether you like it or not.

Politicians/Celebrities/Sports figures get away with many more "crimes" than the average Joe does.

Police are next.

I don't like it one bit and I do what I can to change it. I think the next time I go to a restaurant where alcohol is served for consumption on premises and see a police officer sitting there eating their dinner in uniform with their cruiser out front I will find the nearest pay phone and "drop a dime" on them to the local precinct. I would imagine that it would stop the behavior sooner or later......

[nsnate02]

Comparing academy training, any academy, to law school betrays a lack of knowledge of one or the other. They arent comparable in any way.
But a basic principle is that the right to carry is just that, a right. It is not a "right as long as you have passed the requirements" or a "right as long as you have certain employment status." It is a right of the citizens.

Have you been to law school or a police academy as a student or even an observer? Seems a lot of "Knowledge" is thrown around here, as well as BS.;)

[The Rabbi]

Have you been to law school or a police academy as a student or even an observer? Seems a lot of "Knowledge" is thrown around here, as well as BS.;)
Actually yes.
law school and police academy training aren't comparable in any way. One isn't better than the other. They have different goals.
And the LE's I have seen online generally have little knowledge of trial procedure and principles. Maybe they went to the wrong academy or were out that day, I don't know.

[DBTN]

Some food for thought:

H.R. 218 exempts officers from state restrictions except for those with regard to state/government property.

I am not sure where the police academy/law school discussion is coming from but for what it's worth, a Metro Nashville officer will receive in the academy a better understanding of criminal law and how it applies to them than a first year law student will receive in law school. I have been through both and there is a different emphasis.

[Ruprect]

Some food for thought:

H.R. 218 exempts officers from state restrictions except for those with regard to state/government property.

THANK YOU!

Private property also.

I would also venture to say that the vast majority of police officers, especially in TN support citizens' right to carry. Every time I hear of an "officer" talking about how they support extreme gun control its some police administrator who would really rather that their own officers didn't carry guns on duty.

[canynracer]

ummm ok cadillac, you keep posting that...

thanks :)

[Marswolf]

ummm ok cadillac, you keep posting that...

thanks :)

I think all we have been doing is repeating the same basic posts in different words for some time. :snore:

[Fallguy]

I think all we have been doing is repeating the same basic posts in different words for some time. :snore:

Yep....since I started the thread....can I vote to go ahead and lock it?

[canynracer]

here here....(I second)

[jackdog]

I guess for me it is real simple all the LEO.o orgs. in the state know when to call and ask for money, But i'm still waiting for these same groups to go to the state house and demand carry laws for honest citizens as well as themselves. If and until that happens, well Leo's and their organized groups are just paying lip service to the HCP folks.

[Boomhower]

Politicians/Celebrities/Sports figures get away with many more "crimes" than the average Joe does.

Police are next.
I guess as the old saying goes Brian, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em......Wonder who I need to call to go ahead and join the Knoxville PD. I'd like to become a motorcycle cop, so I can wear those cute little outfits. :D

[SomeGuy]

Comparing a HCP class to Academy training would be like someone that has had a basic first aid class saying they were as qualified as you to work in an ER.

Dave, nobody has a right to work in an ER. Every American has the RKBA. You need to try a different strawman.

[saintsfanbrian]

I guess as the old saying goes Brian, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em......Wonder who I need to call to go ahead and join the Knoxville PD. I'd like to become a motorcycle cop, so I can wear those cute little outfits. :D

Actually, if it weren't for the two small children and the really big house note, I would join them.

[Fallguy]

Actually, if it weren't for the two small children and the really big house note, I would join them.

That would be a long commute from Memphis to Knoxville, wouldn't it? :D

[towerclimber37]

Dave, nobody has a right to work in an ER. Every American has the RKBA. You need to try a different strawman.

I can't believe he said that...

:rolleyes:

Dave, I guess you're one of those folks that believe that the majority of our citizens are "untrained hillbillies".

Say, you're from Illinois originally, aren't you?
kinda like that Cop that roughed up the fella in wally world because his pistol wasn't concealed?
:popcorn:

[canynracer]

I can't believe he said that...

:rolleyes: Agreed...







I also cant believe this thread is still going...LMAO

[DaveTN]

I can't believe he said that...

:rolleyes:

Dave, I guess you're one of those folks that believe that the majority of our citizens are "untrained hillbillies".

Say, you're from Illinois originally, aren't you?
kinda like that Cop that roughed up the fella in wally world because his pistol wasn't concealed?
:popcorn:
Man… WTF did that come from?
As I have said many times I believe that all citizens should have a right to carry; no permit required.

But because you and I are different sides of the LEO issue; you are going to take a cheap azz shot at me?

I didn’t show disrespect for where anyone came from or call anyone a hillbilly.