[jimmyalbrecht]

This is a question that I have always had: why is that police officers have more gun rights than a typical citizen even when not on duty. Most states require CCW permit holders to go through a gun safety/training course, and some fo them are quite intensive. My opinion on the matter is this: if a police officer (a normal citizen with a different job) is able to carry in a church and government buildings (illegal for a CCW permit holder in GA) why am I not allowed to? Despite the fact that I have my CCW permit?

Maybe someone can shed a light on this for me.

 

[c1328chase]

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

 

[jimmyalbrecht]

Hahaha internet fail

 

[Happysniper1]

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?

 

[jimmyalbrecht]

What about when officers are not on duty? Why are they allowed to carry places that I am not?

 

[AuxSix]

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.

 

[triggerhappy]

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

 

[Happysniper1]

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.

 

[jimmyalbrecht]

I guess it is just a personal opinion that myself being a citizen and an officer of the law being a citizen, we should have the same rights. I don't think the government or any law enforcement agency should have powers or rights that we don't have. When this runs rampant, you get cases like the TSA molesting people in the name of "national security". I just personally believe that if an officer can carry in a government building or church in GA, I should be able to as well. There are no police officers patrolling our church, and the fact that it is a church does not prevent crime from happening there, because I have had a few scary experiences up there at night (I work there).

 

[jimmyalbrecht]

Let me also say that I have the utmost respect for Law Enforcement Officers, and I am not dissing them at all. My uncle is a detective in our police department. I am just curious is all

 

[SHOOTER13]

"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.

 

[jimmyalbrecht]

"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.

Ok thanks, That's the root of my issue I guess is that I don't think they should be trusted more than a law-abiding citizen. There are corrupt police officers and bad police officers just like there are corrupt and bad citizens. Then there are great police officers and great citizens.

 

[c1328chase]

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.

 

[LT2108]

LEO is never "off duty" there is an oath given that you will serve and protect the citizens of the community you serve. If a CCW holder notices a "felony" in progress they have no duty to react or get involved, however LEO are required by sworn oath to act

 

[nukinfuts29]

LEO is never "off duty" there is an oath given that you will serve and protect the citizens of the community you serve. If a CCW holder notices a "felony" in progress they have no duty to react or get involved, however LEO are required by sworn oath to act

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.

 

[iGlock]

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.

 

[LT2108]

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.

Know your facts, I am a LEO officer sir, and no LEO officer can just turn his back to a felony being committed,

FACT sir!!!!

 

[LT2108]

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.

Want to come with another "ignorant" statement !

 

[SHOOTER13]

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

Thank you...

 

[nukinfuts29]

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.