TexasCHLforum.com

JALLEN wrote:In reviewing this thread, I don't see a claim by this officer that he is required to carry his weapon.

There is a question of TABC regs. Are LEOs bound by the liquor rules, blue, red etc?

What I am trying to figure out is what we are really dealing with.

Is HOB required to exclude weapons, even of LEOs?

If not, then it is just the policy of the business, to do or not, a whim.

By the same token, if this deputy isn't required to be armed at all times, then is he just chest thumping?

What is reality?



I'm very fond of reality when I get to see it. It's so....... real.

JALLEN wrote:

EEllis wrote:

JALLEN wrote:So do we conclude that this off duty SO deputy could lawfully carry in HOB, but for their private policies?

Yes without a doubt. The Deputy would be trespassing if they asked him to leave for not complying with their house rules but there would not be any violation for him being armed

That doesn't make any sense. He is exempt from a 30.06 sign which is notice that firearms are forbidden, but if he is told to leave, he is trespassing the same as you and me?

My San Diego cop buddies claimed they were required to carry at all times and in all places. Of course, there is no sign business in that socialist hellhole, probably because there are so few licensed carriers.

MONGOOSE wrote:http://m.policemag.com/article/2623/doe ... ply-to-you

JALLEN wrote:So do we conclude that this off duty SO deputy could lawfully carry in HOB, but for their private policies?

JALLEN wrote:

EEllis wrote:

JALLEN wrote:If officers are required to be armed, and they are exempt from the 3006, etc laws, which I am assuming they are but do not know, when would it not be possible to be armed?

Well while than can carry even in a posted church I know one officer that was the only place he wouldn't carry. That would be a place.you wouldn't worry about being disciplined for being unarmed. Other places like the gym, doctor, etc might be examples.

I'm not talking about places where he might avoid carrying. I'm asking about legal requirements.

Do you know if Texas state law forbidding carry in specified places applies to LEOs, or are they exempt? If a PD/SO requires its sworn officers to be armed at all times, can they legally do so? What about schools?

There is an apparently valid 30.06 sign at the gym I frequent. Well, "frequent" might be a bit of an overstatement, maybe "go to." Is a LEO obliged to observe that, or not?

JALLEN wrote:If officers are required to be armed, and they are exempt from the 3006, etc laws, which I am assuming they are but do not know, when would it not be possible to be armed?

Taypo wrote:

EEllis wrote:

JALLEN wrote:
One question about this remains unresolved. Are police officers in this city required to carry a firearm at all times, or is it personal choice? IIRC, the officer involved objected to HOB that it was a requirement.

So, the deal is that HOB can have its way, insist on its rights and do without police security free lancers, and maybe patronage of the officers like this fellow, or make some concession.

The business is in the city of Houston and the officer was a Harris County deputy. Both depts have a policy that their officers should be armed when possible and have a responsibility to act even off duty.

Ahhhh, there we go. Armed when possible doesn't sound like required to me...

JALLEN wrote:
One question about this remains unresolved. Are police officers in this city required to carry a firearm at all times, or is it personal choice? IIRC, the officer involved objected to HOB that it was a requirement.

So, the deal is that HOB can have its way, insist on its rights and do without police security free lancers, and maybe patronage of the officers like this fellow, or make some concession.

Goldspurs wrote:

EEllis wrote:

Goldspurs wrote:
Umm...did not realize disagreement was the same as insulting. Just to clarify It isn't about "if I can't then nobody can", at least for me. It's about creating special classes based off government employment, or any other reason. You have already accused me of wanting the officer to work at a strip club or liquor store, when I said nothing of the sort. Is this your way of beefing up your argument when you can't address mine?

Dude it isn't always about you! It was about answering a question someone else posed to me and trying to convey my thoughts to him. You were nowhere in those thoughts. I have addressed your statements I just don't agree with you. And no I didn't accuse you. I asked a question trying to make a point then you went into the "I said no such thing!" mode. But if you want to repeat your claim after every post I make go ahead. Just excuse me if I don't bother to reply.

Lol. Whatever you say BRO. Continue to backpedal all you want. It is up there for everyone to read. Also, I have learned my lesson on arguing with someone as wily a debater as you. Next time someone asks something about a strip club I shall admit defeat immediately.

Goldspurs wrote:
Umm...did not realize disagreement was the same as insulting. Just to clarify It isn't about "if I can't then nobody can", at least for me. It's about creating special classes based off government employment, or any other reason. You have already accused me of wanting the officer to work at a strip club or liquor store, when I said nothing of the sort. Is this your way of beefing up your argument when you can't address mine?

Texsquatch wrote:

EEllis wrote:

Texsquatch wrote:So the LEO is always on duty... Should be allowed and/or may be required to carry 24/7. Does that mean he never has a alcoholic beverage? Never gets rowdy at the club? He just stands guard, ever vigilant while the rest of his party enjoys the House of Blues?

Of course not. Is this a honest question or a rhetorical one? They should respond when able. Part of that would include being armed. If they are not able then they shouldn't respond.

I guess what I'm saying is its such a subjective issue. So let's say he was going to drink, so he leaves the guns at home. This is fine and responsible in my opinion and no one would ever complain about him or the house of blues. But that would throw the argument that he was disarmed while he was bound by his profession to be armed out the window and the world was less safe that night because of the house of blues.

Maybe the guy was not a drinker, or maybe he is OK to have a couple beers, or maybe he was the DD that night. But again, if you live by absolutes and say he should have been allowed to carry because of his job, then he either should have went home, or as I said he'd have to be real careful what he does and consumes that night and every other time he goes out regardless of the venue.

Goldspurs wrote:

EEllis wrote:

Goldspurs wrote:

EEllis wrote:

Goldspurs wrote:

nightmare69 wrote:No LEOs can work there anymore per department policy. They have been put on the restricted list. The union is working on negotiations with HOBs but it looks like a dead end.

Wow. I never though I would side with a business that prohibits weapons, but the fact that government employees are strong arming them leaves me no choice. This is why people don't trust government officials. A taxpayer funded organization has no place blacklisting a private business for practicing their rights.

So you want to make police work liquor stores and topless bars? I am sure they have a long list of different places they can't work for any number of reasons but to you the refusal to work someplace off duty is strong arming?

Nope. It's strong arming because he claimed the actual police department (you know, a government entity) blacklisted them due the business practicing their rights. Let's put the shoe on the other foot. Would you be ok with the police department blacklisting your hypothetical business because you choose to allow firearms? If police acting as private citizens want to boycott then go for it. It's the tax payer funded organization that has no place doing so.

Also, please don't put words in my mouth about my wanting police officers to work at certain locations. That is a pathetic argument.

They have always done it for any number of reasons. Sure you might not be able to hire cops as security but you are not prevented from hiring security as security. Never struck me as a big deal

Good job totally avoiding the issue of a government agency black balling a private business for legal conduct.

Goldspurs wrote:

EEllis wrote:

Goldspurs wrote:

nightmare69 wrote:No LEOs can work there anymore per department policy. They have been put on the restricted list. The union is working on negotiations with HOBs but it looks like a dead end.

Wow. I never though I would side with a business that prohibits weapons, but the fact that government employees are strong arming them leaves me no choice. This is why people don't trust government officials. A taxpayer funded organization has no place blacklisting a private business for practicing their rights.

So you want to make police work liquor stores and topless bars? I am sure they have a long list of different places they can't work for any number of reasons but to you the refusal to work someplace off duty is strong arming?

Nope. It's strong arming because he claimed the actual police department (you know, a government entity) blacklisted them due the business practicing their rights. Let's put the shoe on the other foot. Would you be ok with the police department blacklisting your hypothetical business because you choose to allow firearms? If police acting as private citizens want to boycott then go for it. It's the tax payer funded organization that has no place doing so.

Also, please don't put words in my mouth about my wanting police officers to work at certain locations. That is a pathetic argument.

talltex wrote:

EEllis wrote:

Goldspurs wrote:

nightmare69 wrote:No LEOs can work there anymore per department policy. They have been put on the restricted list. The union is working on negotiations with HOBs but it looks like a dead end.

Wow. I never though I would side with a business that prohibits weapons, but the fact that government employees are strong arming them leaves me no choice. This is why people don't trust government officials. A taxpayer funded organization has no place blacklisting a private business for practicing their rights.

So you want to make police work liquor stores and topless bars? I am sure they have a long list of different places they can't work for any number of reasons but to you the refusal to work someplace off duty is strong arming?

NO ONE on here said anything about "making them work" anywhere...this discussion has been about an off duty LEO wanting to be able to carry his weapon in a particular business that doesn't allow it. NO department "makes" it's officers work anywhere off duty...the officers consider working security off duty as a big perk and a lot of them choose to do so. That wasn't the case in this instance. The officer was just going out with his family and friends to a bar...not working there. Goldspurs' comments were made in reference to Nightmare 69's statement that the Police department put HOB on a "restricted list" that off duty officers couldn't work security there until "the union" works out an agreement with them. When any union representing a certain class or group gets a public taxpayer funded government agency to blacklist any business, I think that qualifies as "strong arm tactics" to most people.

MONGOOSE wrote:Well, I must apologize. I did confuse the posters. As far as confrontioal....grow up. There is no special club ( except imaginary by limmings like you. As far as deciding where you work....I own a construction company. If you work for me, I tell you to square a footing.....you say no.....I fire you. When you choose to work for someone you take orders. you don't decide what you do. As I said, I don't blame h if his first priority is his family.