LEO carry

I typed a good long response. There was an error. I'm not retyping it.

 

Perhaps it has to do with the reason why LEO carry versus the reason why civilians carry: LEO carry to protect themselves as they uphold the law, therefore are protecting the law, whereas civilians carry to protect themselves, period.

Does that make sense?

 

All I can offer is level of training and trust. Here in Ohio to get your CCW you must take 10 hrs course work, 2 range equaling 12 hours. You must pass a background check for wants warrants and prohibited prior offenses.

For LEOs they must go through, combined, over 100 hours of range and course work. Their background checks are fifty times as extensive. And their licensing and covered under their department if they act off duty in good faith.

Also our Revised Code prohibits certain areas. If a CCW holder wants those areas expanded in which he/she can conceal they can simply participate in the process. Petition, contribute to lobbies, and express those other rights that make our country great.

 

Because LE officers don't stop being LE officers just because they're off duty.

 

I would imagine, using my same theory as above, that the same would apply on- or off-duty, a cop is still a cop, a Federal Agent is still a Federal Agent.

But they are not without limits.

Police cannot casually carry onboard commercial flights without prior arrangements, neither can civilians, whereas Federal Agents can, on or off duty.

 

"All I can offer is level of training and trust..."

This ^^^... The LEO is trusted while on duty, and is thereby trusted off duty.

Not that they can or should be trusted more than a law-abiding citizen...

it's just the thinking behind the decision.

 

In theory. Officers are more responsible with firearms than CCW holders. I am not saying they are or are not.

In practice, LEOs have bad guys locked up. There are people that want to do harm to LEOs. These people do not choose not to cause harm to LEOs simply because they're off duty.

I agree with you jimmy. I think GWCL holders should be able to carry into schools (universities for students, other schools for faculty/staff), churches, and even bars (so long as they are not drinking).

I wish I could CC at school (university) in the event of an active shooter or a simple BG on campus (parking lot, buildings late at night).

I don't go to church anymore but believe that church members should be able to practice their right to bear arms with their right to religious freedom.

At bars and places that serve alcohol. There are nights when I go out with my girlfriend and friends, or her friends sorority or otherwise. Often times I don't drink when we're out and she will. I drive. When we drink at home, I often drink and she won't. We take turns/use the buddy system. So when out, I would like to have the ability to defend ourselves, say for example downtown. Just because we go to a bar shouldn't stop that.

So, I'm with you and I see the other side also.

 

Innnnnnnncorrrect. No member of any form of law enforcement, on or off duty, is required by law to get involved in any situation, period. A cop can see you getting raped and walk away. The supreme cort holds no officer to any duty to serve or protect anybody.

That is cold hard fact.

 

Then they should just compeletly take off "to serve and to protect" from cops cars lol.

 

Easy gentlemen...fight with facts, not with emotions !

Thank you...

 

I'm not going to fight or play the whos badge is bigger game.

:clears throat:

Sooo who needs to know their facts? I suggest you do some research, because as a fellow officer of the law you should understand what your rights and duties are. The supreme court established that no police officer has a duty to protect or serve anyone in Castle Rock v. Gonzales. In that case the supreme court found the police had no requirement to enforce a personal protection order, and that began the ball rolling on what police do and do not have to get involved in.

In 1981 in Warren v. District of Columbia the supreme court ruled

""...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981)"

Seriously, as an officer how can you not be aware of these cases? I don't know what academy you went through, but mine was pretty clear. These cases are not only well established, but are upheld on a daily basis.

At the very least before you attack me (also on the assumption that you are something I am not, an incorrect assumption) perhaps you should inform yourself. I realize that these facts may come as a shock, but it is better to be incorrect and learn than to argue from a place of ignorance and not take in new information.