Can an off duty LEO carry a firearm on school property?

[Bunnykid68]

I drive a take home car, am I not suppose to carry when I pick my sone up from school? Food for thought.

Anyone with an LTCH can pick up their kid from school while carrying as long as they remain in their car while doing so, unless IC has changed.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Taylor, look at (4) the paragraph under your highlighted text and then look at B(vi) above it.

 

[GBuck]

How did this thread go from a real question out of curiosity to this? Oh, I forgot, some people only get issued half a brain.

 

[jsharmon7]

I hope they're not allowed to.

This is a strange comment coming from a member of a gun website. I would hope that anyone legally able to carry a firearm would be able to carry it anywhere. The "if I can't have one, nobody can" mentality does more harm than good.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

First of all, let me make it abundantly clear that I don't think there is ANYWHERE that a decent citizen shouldn't be able to carry a gun.

In addressing the legal question, people often hear the term "off-duty" officer, and I use that terminology myself.

However, the reality is that there is no such thing as an "off-duty" officer. If an individual is commissioned by any political subdivision to enforce laws, whether it be federal, state, county, township or city, that individual is sworn to perform his duty anytime it's called for.

IMHO, if a paragraph in a law says that an officer may go in a place armed in furtherance of his official duty, to me that means 24/7, because if something happens in that place requiring law enforcement attention the "off-duty" officer is required to act and must therefore be armed.

Let me repeat that I am simply addressing the legal question here. Before anyone blasts me for advocating an "elitist" attitude, let me refer you the first sentence of this post.

 

[Gabriel]

Again..........

I do like to keep things that way.

 

[Hemingway]

Just so I'm clear, are some of you contending that there is no difference between LEO's and non-LEO's? That anything an LEO is allowed to do, the general population should also be allowed to do? Carrying guns everywhere, enforcing laws, pulling over people, making arrests, etc?

Or do you just believe that everyone should be allowed to carry their guns wherever they want as LEO's do?

 

[dusterboy49]

[/B]

I didn't make the law and I have not commented on the changes. If it were my kids in the school I too would have different views if "something happened". I agree with your thoughts but once again I did not make the law. The children we have are our most important assets (period).

O.K., lets try to make a little sense here.
Would a normal LTCH 'er know how to handle an active shooter situation if it occurred while he/she was at a school.
Would he/she move to the sound of gunfire as a police officer would whether he was off duty or not?
Most police officers have undergone active shooter training and understand the ramifications.
I just don't see the issue that some people are expressing about an off duty LEO carrying at a school.

 

[lrahm]

O.K., lets try to make a little sense here.
Would a normal LTCH 'er know how to handle an active shooter situation if it occurred while he/she was at a school.
Would he/she move to the sound of gunfire as a police officer would whether he was off duty or not?
Most police officers have undergone active shooter training and understand the ramifications.
I just don't see the issue that some people are expressing about an off duty LEO carrying at a school.

I am not trying to minimize a person's ability but we (Indiana officers) have mandated training for this and without getting into a LOT of particulars. I don't know if a normal citizen has that ability. There are too many varibles that officers have trained for (multiple shooters, traps)

 

[Taylorz71]

I am sorry that I posted such a controversial topic. I know and trust many LEO's, as well as, armed citizens- I will take either is things go badly. I really just wanted to know what the Law says about this topic. I have looked on the internet and asked several people with no conclusive answers. I am going to ask the local police department here, and our Prosecutors office what their take is on it this week.

 

[Hogwylde]

First of all, let me make it abundantly clear that I don't think there is ANYWHERE that a decent citizen shouldn't be able to carry a gun.

In addressing the legal question, people often hear the term "off-duty" officer, and I use that terminology myself.

However, the reality is that there is no such thing as an "off-duty" officer. If an individual is commissioned by any political subdivision to enforce laws, whether it be federal, state, county, township or city, that individual is sworn to perform his duty anytime it's called for.

IMHO, if a paragraph in a law says that an officer may go in a place armed in furtherance of his official duty, to me that means 24/7, because if something happens in that place requiring law enforcement attention the "off-duty" officer is required to act and must therefore be armed.

Let me repeat that I am simply addressing the legal question here. Before anyone blasts me for advocating an "elitist" attitude, let me refer you the first sentence of this post.

Not true. Police are allowed "discretionary" power of enforcement. Which means they are not "required" or even have a duty to enforce the laws. Just look up all the court cases citing this very concept. NO law enforcement officer is REQUIRED to do anything. If LEO's were required to enforce the law, no one would ever get a warning for speeding or running a stop sign or anything.

Search for the Supreme Court case "Castle Rock v. Gonzales"

 

[Liberty Sanders]

Not true. Police are allowed "discretionary" power of enforcement. Which means they are not "required" or even have a duty to enforce the laws. Just look up all the court cases citing this very concept. NO law enforcement officer is REQUIRED to do anything. If LEO's were required to enforce the law, no one would ever get a warning for speeding or running a stop sign or anything.

Search for the Supreme Court case "Castle Rock v. Gonzales"

Hog, where minor issues are concerned I would agree with you.

My law enforcement experience was in Ohio. My oath of office not only required me to uphold the constitutions of the US and of Ohio, but to enforce the laws of the State of Ohio and the City of Cincinnati. The reason that officers are able to exercise discretion in minor cases is simply that it is a traditional practice to which no one objects.

I can absolutely assure you that at least in Ohio, an off-duty officer who stands by and does NOTHING in the face of a life-threatening crime in progress, assuming that he is in a position to take some action, is guilty of the crime of Dereliction of Duty and he can be prosecuted for that crime.

In addition, the Cincinnati PD is an old line department that still lists cowardice as a violation of our policies and procedures and such an officer would be charged departmentally as well.

All other considerations aside, the purpose of having off-duty LEOs being able to go armed into venues where other citizens cannot (repeating: I do not agree with this) is that a LEO may find himself in a position where he MUST act or at a minimum is EXPECTED to act whereas an ordinary taxpayer need not do so.

This is why many PDs make it MANDATORY for their officers to go armed while "off-duty."

Castle Rock vs. Gonzales is a case that addresses the ability of a party to sue a PD for damages. It has nothing to do with the ability of a prosecutor to charge a cowardly officer for deliberate failure to do his duty.

 

[serpicostraight]

i have an uncle that used to be a cop in alabama and when he would come up here to visit he refused to carry his badge when we went out drinking. he said when he was off duty it meant off duty. im not sure how he would have reacted if a violent felony occured. luckily it never did.

 

[Jack Burton]

Just so I'm clear, are some of you contending that there is no difference between LEO's and non-LEO's? That anything an LEO is allowed to do, the general population should also be allowed to do? Carrying guns everywhere, enforcing laws, pulling over people, making arrests, etc?

Or do you just believe that everyone should be allowed to carry their guns wherever they want as LEO's do?

Hem... from where do the police obtain their powers?

From the general population. We have made a contratual society agreement that we would allow certain designated people the powers to enforce the law and keep peace... but those powers must first be existent within the greater community before we can delegate them out to others. Part of that agreement is that we refrain from exercising those powers as a general rule, and allow the delegatees to do so in our name.

But it doesn't change the fact that we are the original possessers of those powers in the first place -- and if necessary, can exercise them when needed.

If some dispute this then the question is simple... from where do the police derive their powers. If you say "the law" then from where does "the law" originate... and what gives "the law" its legitimacy other than the consent of the governed?

 

[Jdirt]

What this law means for me is that I can't carry because I must go into the school & sign out my child. To carry my day would go something like this:

Take child to school
Return home, retrieve gun
Go about my day
Return home, drop off gun
Pick up child from school
Return home, retrieve gun
Go about my day

We should at least be able to leave said gun secured in vehicle long enough to pick up a student. The only thing different about this for a LEO is what they do when they go about their day. I don't think that an LEO shouldn't be able to carry, but I don't buy any of the stuff about a LEO being safer with a firearm. This isn't a slam on anyone but a truck driver isn't necessarily a safer driver, or a bank teller better with money.

 

[Jack Burton]

O.K., lets try to make a little sense here.
Would a normal LTCH 'er know how to handle an active shooter situation if it occurred while he/she was at a school.
Would he/she move to the sound of gunfire as a police officer would whether he was off duty or not?
Most police officers have undergone active shooter training and understand the ramifications.
I just don't see the issue that some people are expressing about an off duty LEO carrying at a school.

I wasn't aware the perfection was a requirement for a citizen to carry.


But is not the issue or question. The question is if LEOS are a greater class of citizen than regular people?

 

[hpclayto]

HR218. LEO's can almost carry anywhere ( notice I said almost).....Assuming they're authorized to off duty carry by their department.

 

[Jack Burton]

I am sorry that I posted such a controversial topic. I know and trust many LEO's, as well as, armed citizens- I will take either is things go badly. I really just wanted to know what the Law says about this topic. I have looked on the internet and asked several people with no conclusive answers. I am going to ask the local police department here, and our Prosecutors office what their take is on it this week.

Taylor... you never quite know where a topic will go until after it is posted.

I'd bet we get controversy over someone posting about something as bland and boring as rice cakes.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Just so I'm clear, are some of you contending that there is no difference between LEO's and non-LEO's? That anything an LEO is allowed to do, the general population should also be allowed to do? Carrying guns everywhere, enforcing laws, pulling over people, making arrests, etc?

Or do you just believe that everyone should be allowed to carry their guns wherever they want as LEO's do?

I'll speak for myself and what I understand the group consensus to be. Anyone who differs may certainly speak up to that effect and I encourage them to do so.

It's not so much that anything LEOs can do, non-LEOs should also, it's more that LEOs are not any better or worse than anyone else solely on the basis of a badge on their shirt (or in their wallet, on their belt, etc.) As such, it's more that if I'm at the school with my kid and some Columbine-wannabe decides to come in, I shouldn't be forcibly made helpless to deal with the little bastard or placed in a position of having to improvise to do so, nor should any other peaceable person. One point I've seen made before but not as yet in this thread is that if the SOB knows that he will face armed resistance and likely die before he accomplishes his goal, how likely is it that he's going to attack a school unless he's just full-goose-bozo and at that point, nothing at all is going to stop him but a cell.... or a coffin.

The premise that goes along with that thought is that I don't have to have a computer with the blueprints of every school in town, I don't have to have been through them day and night, and I don't have to be trained in "active shooter" scenario response. Would I run toward the gunfire? If I'm in a position to deal with it, you bet your bippy I would. Laws that criminalize preparedness only serve to prevent that preparedness. The Columbine-wannabe has already planned to kill as many as he can, maybe in an effort to add his name to the list of other rectal orifices who've done similar acts. (I don't, as a matter of practice, name them. I'd rather they faded into anonymity.)

Can I effect an arrest? Yes. Can I enforce the law? To an extent, yes. Can I carry wherever the hell I want? Not within the law, no, and that's what's wrong. Let's face it, the LEO carries a gun to protect himself. That's not to say that any who honor their oath won't go out of their way to defend others, but when the primary reason for any action taken that infringes on others' rights is "officer safety"... who's looking out for "non-officer safety"? When the stated goal is "I just want to go home safely after every shift", which I hasten to add is a laudable goal, it makes me wonder what that officer would do if placed in a situation where he could save one life: His own or a citizen's, which would he choose? In theory, it should be the citizen's; as Liberty Sanders pointed out, on his PD in Cincinnati, an officer displaying cowardice would be charged by his department. The result of those charges was not detailed, but I cannot imagine it would be pleasant.

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying that a cop should leave his affairs in order and his will on his kitchen table whenever he goes to work. I certainly am not calling cowardice on anyone. What I'm saying is that when a cop isn't there and the law has made a safe working environment for a determined killer who doesn't give a tinker's d**n about the little

symbol on the door, he doesn't give a tinker's d**n about the rest of us, either.

A person who carries a firearm lawfully and peaceably is in effect saying "I'm responsible and prepared to deal with any threat that comes my way. I won't burden anyone else with doing so. The law merely prevents those good, lawful, peaceable people from being able to do that (because they are lawful people.) Should I be able to do anything a cop does? Actually, I should be able to do more. The law at present doesn't recognize that reality, because too many people just want Big Nanny Government to protect them and feed them and clothe them and wipe their widdle bottoms. No thanks. I prefer self-reliance. I'm happy to have backup offer to help me, but I don't want to have to either run or cower in fear because my government decided to criminalize self-reliance and personal responsibility.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Hemingway]

Hem... from where do the police obtain their powers?

From the general population. We have made a contratual society agreement that we would allow certain designated people the powers to enforce the law and keep peace... but those powers must first be existent within the greater community before we can delegate them out to others. Part of that agreement is that we refrain from exercising those powers as a general rule, and allow the delegatees to do so in our name.

But it doesn't change the fact that we are the original possessers of those powers in the first place -- and if necessary, can exercise them when needed.

If some dispute this then the question is simple... from where do the police derive their powers. If you say "the law" then from where does "the law" originate... and what gives "the law" its legitimacy other than the consent of the governed?

I agree with you from a philosophical point. Ultimately, the police (and all government) get their powers from us. But, it seems to me that some of the posters are saying that a non-trained, but licensed to carry individual is the same as a well-trained, experienced LEO. I disagree with that.

I don't think different people have different rights, but we have certainly identified particular people to have (supposedly) the ability to give a higher standard of care. If somebody takes my kid hostage at school, do I care whether Billy Bob HillJack and his brand new gold-plated Desert Eagle takes the kill shot or a State Police SWAT officer who was a former USMC Scout Sniper?

It's the same with any other profession. No one sits here and argues that they are just as capable of performing brain surgery as the docs at the hospital just because they went out and bought all of the equipment.

I've been to public ranges. Frankly, I'd rather some of them never carry their weapons for all of our safety but the 2nd Ammd. doesn't have an IQ or even a common sense requirement.

My whole point is that we entrust certain people to handle certain situations for a reason, that's all. If none of them are around, we have to be able to take care of ourselves. But, we mustn't think that everyone can do it as well as every other person. No one has more rights than others, but it is clear some have more abilities.