TexasCHLforum.com

EEllis wrote:

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.

I don't know why it gets you so worked up but you are incorrect. There are dept where if you are found without your gun you get days off. Some say on you some say available but if you bump into your LT and don't have a gun then yes you will get days off. Some depts expect and require cops to be armed when drinking. That the ones you know don't belong to such depts really doesn't mean that much.

Some depts expect and require cops to be armed when drinking.

EEllis wrote:

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.

I don't know why it gets you so worked up but you are incorrect. There are dept where if you are found without your gun you get days off. Some say on you some say available but if you bump into your LT and don't have a gun then yes you will get days off. Some depts expect and require cops to be armed when drinking. That the ones you know don't belong to such depts really doesn't mean that much.

texanjoker wrote:Here we go again with the comparison . Carrying a gun "off duty" isn't a right. It comes with the job of a LEO. There are many agencies that require their leo's to carry off duty. One also needs to be carrying when they are on call as you must respond directly to the call out. Most agencies also state one cannot carry while intoxicated.

Here is the reality check that some won't like. LEO's face threats that a CHL holder doesn't face. CHL holders don't get assaulted, murdered, or verbally accosted while off duty by some person(s) because of an on duty enforcement action taken by the LEO. Have this happen ifo your family and let me know how it feels. I left an entire state to get away from some of that.

LEO's and CHL's face the same normal risks that something "may" happen, ie the normal assault, robbery, murder, ect as we all go about our daily life hence the reason for a CHL and off duty carry. The NFL should allow any legally authorized person to carry. (chl/leo/)

It is a sad day the NFL did this. The leo's in the areas of the stadiums need to quit signing up for the overtime and see how the NFL likes not having enough LEO's to staff their games as those are generally overtime assignments

texanjoker wrote:Here we go again with the comparison . Carrying a gun "off duty" isn't a right. It comes with the job of a LEO. There are many agencies that require their leo's to carry off duty. One also needs to be carrying when they are on call as you must respond directly to the call out. Most agencies also state one cannot carry while intoxicated.

Here is the reality check that some won't like. LEO's face threats that a CHL holder doesn't face. CHL holders don't get assaulted, murdered, or verbally accosted while off duty by some person(s) because of an on duty enforcement action taken by the LEO. Have this happen ifo your family and let me know how it feels. I left an entire state to get away from some of that.

LEO's and CHL's face the same normal risks that something "may" happen, ie the normal assault, robbery, murder, ect as we all go about our daily life hence the reason for a CHL and off duty carry. The NFL should allow any legally authorized person to carry. (chl/leo/)

It is a sad day the NFL did this. The leo's in the areas of the stadiums need to quit signing up for the overtime and see how the NFL likes not having enough LEO's to staff their games as those are generally overtime assignments

texanjoker wrote:Here we go again with the comparison . Carrying a gun "off duty" isn't a right. It comes with the job of a LEO. There are many agencies that require their leo's to carry off duty. One also needs to be carrying when they are on call as you must respond directly to the call out. Most agencies also state one cannot carry while intoxicated.

Here is the reality check that some won't like. LEO's face threats that a CHL holder doesn't face. CHL holders don't get assaulted, murdered, or verbally accosted while off duty by some person(s) because of an on duty enforcement action taken by the LEO. Have this happen ifo your family and let me know how it feels. I left an entire state to get away from some of that.

LEO's and CHL's face the same normal risks that something "may" happen, ie the normal assault, robbery, murder, ect as we all go about our daily life hence the reason for a CHL and off duty carry. The NFL should allow any legally authorized person to carry. (chl/leo/)

It is a sad day the NFL did this. The leo's in the areas of the stadiums need to quit signing up for the overtime and see how the NFL likes not having enough LEO's to staff their games as those are generally overtime assignments

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.

mojo84 wrote:I'm just thinking of the potential liability the department would subject themselves to if they required off duty cops to carry their weapons while drinking and they had to use their weapon.

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.

EEllis wrote:

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.

Well one of the reasons I tell people they are wrong so much is I actually check before I state things. That's right I had an idea but then got online and checked to make sure. What did I find? That there is no shortage of depts. that require off duty carry up to and including some of them giving no pass for drinking. Then you say "So, no - in practical everyday application, they are not "required" to carry off duty." When that's wrong what should I say? You go on to talk about the ones you know. That's fine but you don't limit your statements to them or even officers in Texas you made your statements about all police. And quite frankly, all dancing aside, you were wrong. Now if you said alot, manny, heck even most I wouldn't of found it such an issue but it really does bug me when people state things as facts that just are not true.

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.

Abraham wrote:The firearm rule was implemented after the league examined its best practices and decided the policy would enhance the gameday experience, an NFL spokesman said.

"Best practices?"

Huh?

Double speak, totally meaningless.

..."decided the policy would enhance the gameday experience"

Enhance?

How? - More meaningless doublespeak.

Is the NFL perhaps listening to some newly minted liberal lawyer?