TexasCHLforum.com

coltm4223 wrote:I had a life changing experience that put alot of things into perspective. I have been a Federal LEO for 17yrs when one of my fellow agents was raided at home by ATF, IG, FBI, and Local LEO for selling sensative and stolen govt. equipment on the internet and NFA viloations. During the investigation I was wrongly accused of participating, put on admin leave for over a year and fired(removed from govt service). The day I was put on admin leave they walked me to my car and took my credentials. If it wasn't for the fact that I continued to renew my CT pistol permit I would have been screwed for about 4 months(current wait in Texas). I was blessed that Texas had just begun to honor CT licenses. 2yrs later I was exonerated by a Federal Judge and the agency was ordered to reinstate me with full pay and benefits. It was a long hard road but I'm back and trying to build back my rep. This whole incident re-enforced my opinion that all LEOs should take advantage of the CCW laws and support the program, God forbid one day it happens to you. Just as a note the Judge put all the blame of this gross injustice on a misguided a Lead Inspector General Investigator(he still has his job).

Knock - knock - we're from the federal government and we're here to help.

Good for you and I'm glad that you got your job back. Too bad you can't sue the IG that messed up your life.

Just curious, is there a rationale behind Sigs only? I mean, I like Sigs and all, but there is something to be said for the simplicity, reliability and ruggedness of the venerable Glock.

Long story short - we tested Berettas, Sigs and Glocks when we transitioned from revolvers to SA. Beretta didn't fair well at all and we had a few problems with a couple of G17s. Bottom line is that when our armorers asked Glock to replace a couple of defective weapons they refused - said there was nothing wrong with them (this was sight unseen - just their rep on the phone from Smyrna). Our evaluators said fine, no problem - we're going with Sig.

Glock went nuts when they saw an order for 3,000+ firearms going down the toilet and said wait a second. There must have been a misunderstanding. We'll be glad to replace those defective weapons. Too late, you had your chance - hello Sig. Any officers that had purchased their own Glock during this test was allowed to keep it and carry it as their duty weapon. That's why some of our officers (very few remaining - maybe 50?) are allowed to carry Glocks as their primary duty weapon. Since Glock was an approved weapon (just not issued) for our department all other officers were allowed to carry them as back up or off-duty weapons.

Whatever weapon an officer carries (whether primary or secondary) our department's armorers are required to service and maintain it at no charge to that officer. It doesn't matter whether it's a department issued weapon or you've purchased your own. Not only do they have to be certified as armorers by that manufacturer, they must also carry a supply of parts that might be needed. A few years back they came to a realization that it would be much easier to only have Sig certified armorers and carry only Sig parts in stock. That's how were getting to the point where one day there won't be any Glock or Beretta certified officers on the department anymore so they only have to focus on Sigs. They keep tightening up the rules and excluding more and more officers from having access to Glocks and Birettas. I believe that once all of the officers are gone who are currently allowed to carry a Glock as a primary weapon, the department will say that no one can carry one in any capacity anymore.

For example, Dallas PD only allows officers to carry a Sig brand 9mm or .357Sig pistol on or off duty

Not entirely true - it depends upon what year you hired onto the department.

...for example Dallas PD, don't allow officers to qualify with the weapon of their choice for off duty carry. Officers are required to carry an approved Sig 9mm or Sig .357 only (with exceptions for the few officers grandfathered in to carry previously approved Glock and Beretta weapons).

Same as above. While I can only carry a Sig on duty I can carry a Glock or Beretta as a back up or off-duty weapon. Again, it depends upon your hire date.

It's a crazy rule but one we have to live by. It doesn't make any sense that I must carry a Sig on my duty belt while at the same time carrying a Glock in another holster as a backup weapon - only in Dallas. The department realized how stupid it was but instead of fixing it they banned officers hired after a certain date from being able to carry anything but Sigs.

So they can buy guns without going through the BATF paperwork.

Still have to do all the paperwork just no background check.

Keith B and KBCraig pretty well sum it up too.