TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

E.Marquez wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:It's also not going to work in Texas. Texas law prohibits them from barring armed peace officers. I don't like that law one bit, but it's the law.

Chas.

Tex. Penal Code §30.05 wrote:(i) This section does not apply if:

(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun or other weapon was forbidden; and

(2) the actor at the time of the offense was a peace officer, including a commissioned peace officer of a recognized state, or a special investigator under Article 2.122, Code of Criminal Procedure, regardless of whether the peace officer or special investigator was engaged in the actual discharge of an official duty while carrying the weapon.

Chas, might I ask what the issue is with that law and your dislike for it?

I assume it is either privet property owner rights deal.. or that it gives a LEO a protected privileged that should also be afforded a CHL'er...
But wanted to ask.

Thanks

Erik

Private property owners cannot bar an armed LEO from their property, even their home. It makes no difference if the LEO is there on official business, or is off-duty. That's absurd! (LEOs, please don't tell me you're never off-duty.)

Chas.

jmra wrote: It was my intention to speak in general terms not all inclusive terms. In rereading my statements perhaps I could have been more specific but I believe my intentions were clear in my responses that I was speaking to my encounters with LEO and their depts. It may not have been how you interpreted it but it is what I stated. In fact I stated several times that I was basing my statements on discussions I've had with LEO. So unless you think I'm claiming to have spoken with members of every dept in Texas (which I'm not) then I couldn't possibly be referring to every police dept.
I did do some checking of my own - just spoke with a long term veteran officer who has worked with several depts in the area over the years. He has never been required to carry off duty. He said he was aware of some depts that required it if you had a take home car but that was not the case with any of the depts in this area.
He suggested it was more common in depts with higher populations due to man power shortages. Regardless, he confirmed that it is not a requirement in this area and has not been for the years he has been on the force.

jmra wrote: Not worked up at all. How come you always accuse people of that every time they disagree with you? I'm sure there are some depts that require it, but based on the conversations I've had with local area LEO, it is far from standard policy across the state.
I also fully understand an officer being required to have his firearm available if he is on call.
I'd love to see a copy of a depts policy that requires them to be armed while they are tossing back booze. The person who is unfortunate enough to encounter an officer operating under those guidelines will never have to work another day in their life.

jmra wrote:

EEllis wrote:

jmra wrote:Ever seen an inebriated off duty cop? They are not required to carry off duty.

Hate to break it to you but some dept do require their officers to carry off duty. The phrasing usually, but not always, gives some out like "When "off duty", each member will carry or have in his/her immediate possession, his/her badge, department sidearm, or a pistol or revolver, as authorized by the Department, and the identification card. This rule shall not apply when members are engaged in sports and activities of such a nature as to make it impractical or when imbibing alcoholic beverages

Not sure why you "Hate to break to (me)" when you have actually proven my point. Unless you simply want to argue semantics, the policy you quoted is what I was saying. Not to mention the fact that the quoted policy probably hasn't been enforced in most departments in over twenty years.
I'll never forget the look on a local detectives face when I explained to him that it was legal for a CHL to carry in Church and that most of the non-LEOs having coffee with him before Church were armed. He simply couldn't understand why anyone would feel the need to carry in Church. He then polled the LEOs sitting at the table and 3 of the 4 were unarmed. I'll have to ask about their "policy" but I'm sure it's been long ignored.
Not to mention the fact that almost all the younger officers I know, when off duty are either engaged in one of the activities you mentioned or they are home asleep. I can most definitely assure you that if these officers are at any professional sporting event, they are consuming alcohol and are unarmed.
Simply put, if an officer doesn't want to carry off duty there is plenty of room in the policy stated above (even with departments that might enforce it) for the officer to go unarmed pretty much anytime he wants. So, no - in practical everyday application, they are not "required" to carry off duty.

jmra wrote: Sorry, don't buy the argument at all. My God given right to protect myself and my family trumps their "duty" everyday of the week and twice on Sunday.

jmra wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

Ameer wrote:They're off duty so it's basically the same logic as prohibiting CHL from carrying at professional sporting events.

Right, but they are cops.

An off duty cop shouldn't have any more rights than any other person licensed/authorized to carry a concealed firearm.

Ever seen an inebriated off duty cop? They are not required to carry off duty.