TexasCHLforum.com

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

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.

rotor wrote:I thought off duty cops had to carry. I guess I am wrong.

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.

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.

EEllis wrote:

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.

That is like saying an on duty cop shouldn't have anymore rights tho I think rights are the wrong verbiage. Officers don't have rights to their job they have duties that they are required to fulfill even when not working. If everyone has equal rights and duties then why have cops at all?

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."

em mine.

Some northern depts don't encourage, or even allow, off duty carry and train officers to be witnesses and if they do get involved not to use force but that is rare. Also consider in a rural area the only backup for an office in trouble for hours might well be off duty cops and that most Texas officers consider their duty requires them to able to act as a police officer at all times.

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:

rotor wrote:I thought off duty cops had to carry. I guess I am wrong.

Ever seen an inebriated off duty cop? 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:

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.