Off-duty police officers banned from carrying firearms at New York State Fair

[Truebeliever]

“The bottom line here is that we have many, many police officers who obviously all have training and are very proficient in firearms."

I know of many many officers who flat out suck with a pistol. They aren't highly trained either. Some shoot pretty well, others are absolutely
terrible.

What they aren’t telling you , it’s not firearms proficiency that they worry about. It’s temperament. With police, they get someone who is usually been tested over years by situations where they didn’t use their gun. Most CCW can’t say the same to the same degree. And that LEOs have a minimum standard of proficiency. CCW is a mixed bag. A lot are great shooters, many aren’t.

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

What they aren’t telling you , it’s not firearms proficiency that they worry about. It’s temperament. With police, they get someone who is usually been tested over years by situations where they didn’t use their gun. Most CCW can’t say the same to the same degree. And that LEOs have a minimum standard of proficiency. CCW is a mixed bag. A lot are great shooters, many aren’t.

I dont buy that for a second.

We go through a year long process including interviews, references and background investigations. We have one of the strictest licensing processes in the country to be awarded the legal ability to carry a pistol. We have already proven we are trustworthy.

What's the difference if we carry at our local town carnival vs the state fair? Either way we're out in public every day without incident.

We can't only be trusted to use judgement sometimes but not always.

 

[Truebeliever]

It sounds like one of these particular individuals already walks around with shit in his pants. (I think he’s saying that’s how the bad guys “make” him.). How could more poo possibly help?

”To serve and protect.” Ok, we are all well aware that cops aren’t required to protect anyone from anything, and there’s AMPLE evidence that they do/will not, please tell us exactly WHO you serve? Don’t be shy.

And there is ample evidence to the contrary. Go look at the fact pattern of the cases these quotes many people cite. That famous “ no duty to protect “ case— the cops who were sued never saw or spoke to the plaintiff at all. Or the perpetrator who raped them. And the case where the father didn’t return his kids to the mother after visitation was supposed to be over — it crossed multiple jurisdictions and didn’t happen in front of them. Go read the fact pattern. That’s like saying cops can’t get sued because of qualified immunity. Cops are sued all the time .

As to bad guys being able to “ make” or identify off duty/retired/undercover cops, it’s a developed skill set. Drug addicts can find other drug addicts even when not high or giving obvious signs . It’s how people carry themselves.
It’s these insults that just prove my point more.

 

[VietnamEraVet]

What they aren’t telling you , it’s not firearms proficiency that they worry about. It’s temperament. With police, they get someone who is usually been tested over years by situations where they didn’t use their gun. Most CCW can’t say the same to the same degree. And that LEOs have a minimum standard of proficiency. CCW is a mixed bag. A lot are great shooters, many aren’t.

This comment made me laugh.

Most if not all CCW holders (at least of NY CCW permits) were investigated and only given our permits AFTER the authorities determined that we did in fact have the temperament to own and carry handguns! And who have also been trained in the laws regarding use of our firearms, and the responsibilities as well.

Secondly, re the "minimum standard of proficiency" argument, I am reminded of the Indiana Mall shooting "good guy" who took out the attacker with 8 out of 10 handgun fired rounds from 40 yards away in under 15 seconds.

Then, I am reminded of various police incidents where officers shot off a shitload of rounds and barely hit the broadside of a barn. I recall one in NYC where a few cops in a stairwell fired off something like 70 rounds and hit the perp maybe twice? And there are plenty of other similar incidents that have been reported.

Lastly, I note that CCW holders have been shown in multiyear studies of holders in both Texas and Florida have been shown to be approximately 7 times MORE LAW ABIDING than even police officers when it comes to committing crimes with firearms. Which then begs the question, - should we be letting in the CCW holders, and not the cops?

The thing which can be argued of course, is that when there are a lot of CCW holders carrying concealed somewhere, does that make lowlifes like the Indiana mall shooter think twice about shooting up a location? If the State Fair wants to screen people entering the fair, I'm OK with that. But then you should be letting in CCW holders who are carrying. Same as off duty cops.

 

[Truebeliever]

I dont buy that for a second.

We go through a year long process including interviews, references and background investigations. We have one of the strictest licensing processes in the country to be awarded the legal ability to carry a pistol. We have already proven we are trustworthy.

What's the difference if we carry at our local town carnival vs the state fair? Either way we're out in public every day without incident.

We can't only be trusted to use judgement sometimes but not always.

It’s not about being “ trustworthy that you won’t commit a crime or intentionally do something stupid. It’s a fear that someone will panic or overreact. They have the same fear with rookie cops too. They stopped most of the recruits from taking the gun home in the beginning. They used to let them have it immediately after range training, not so much now. They let rookie cops carry after graduation in part that they have been “ trained “ but more importantly been observed for six or more months .
And bring but in public isn’t the same as being put in stressful situations where quick decisions about levels of force have to be made daily and monitored/supervised by them .

And before you jump down my throat about it. I am explaining their mindset, not necessarily mine.

 

[Phazer]

And bring but in public isn’t the same as being put in stressful situations where quick decisions about levels of force have to be made daily and monitored/supervised by them .

And before you jump down my throat about it. I am explaining their mindset, not necessarily mine.

If someone, or their family, is being threatened with deadly force, I'd call that a "stressful situation." That is exactly when law-abiding Americans are supposed to be able to defend themselves. That is the only "mindset" that matters.

Police carry pistols to protect themselves. Police are too heavy to carry. So, I'd like to just carry the pistol.

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

It’s not about being “ trustworthy that you won’t commit a crime or intentionally do something stupid. It’s a fear that someone will panic or overreact. They have the same fear with rookie cops too. They stopped most of the recruits from taking the gun home in the beginning. They used to let them have it immediately after range training, not so much now. They let rookie cops carry after graduation in part that they have been “ trained “ but more importantly been observed for six or more months .
And bring but in public isn’t the same as being put in stressful situations where quick decisions about levels of force have to be made daily and monitored/supervised by them .

And before you jump down my throat about it. I am explaining their mindset, not necessarily mine.

I carry a gun.

I know that in doing so i will have it ony person if I ever find myself in a stressful situation.

The geographic location or venue where it occurs should be irrelevant.

What's the difference if people carry at the fair or a mall or movie theater?

 

[Truebeliever]

This comment made me laugh.

Most if not all CCW holders (at least of NY CCW permits) were investigated and only given our permits AFTER the authorities determined that we did in fact have the temperment to own and carry handguns!

Secondly, re the "minimum standard of proficiency" argument, I am reminded of the Indiana Mall shooting 'good guy who took out the attacker with 8 out of 10 handgun fired rounds from 40 yards away in under 15 seconds.

Then, I am reminded of various police incidents where officers shot off a shitload of rounds and barely hit the broadside of a barn. I recall one in NYC where a few cops in a stairwell fired off like 70 rounds and hit the perp like twice? And there are plenty of others that have been reported.

Lastly, I note that CCW holders have been shown in multiyear studies of holders in both Texas and Florida have been shown to be approximately 7 times MORE LAW ABIDING than even police officers when it comes to commiting crimes with firearms. Which then begs the question, - should we be letting in the CCW holders, and not the cops?

The thing which can be argued of course, is that when there are a lot of CCW holders carrying concealed somewhere, does that make lowlifes like the Indiana mall shooter think twice about shooting up a location? If the State Fair wants to screen people entering the fair, I'm OK with that. But then you should be letting in CCW holders who are carrying. Same as off duty cops.

Yes, the “ temperament “ under normal conditions. We are talking about temperament under highly stressful situations where force might have to be used. They don’t trust rookie cops who undergo a lot more background checks and tests than CCW carrier. As I explained in in another post. They don’t give there guns right away even after range training in a lot of academies until they are near graduation and have been under their observation for awhile . Even then , they aren’t “ trusted”.
Go look at NJ’s firearm policies. Level two seasonal cops can’t carry their firearms at all but NJ recognizes the social contract and allows former full time out of state LE retirees to carry provided they qualify twice a year.

As far as cops hitting their targets, most Non police reports of shits fired result in no one hit at all but a lot of shell casings and bullet holes in objects .

 

[Phazer]

And bring but in public isn’t the same as being put in stressful situations where quick decisions about levels of force have to be made daily and monitored/supervised by them .

In Uvalde, TX, the "protectors" were "monitored/supervised" into inaction.

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away....or may be hours...or maybe never.

 

[Truebeliever]

Incorrect, I have not advocated for having any of your rights removed. I simply have disdain for anyone who thinks its ok for certain law abiding citizens to exercise rights that other law abiding citizens are forbidden from exercising for fear legal trouble.

When finding out that offduty/retired leos are not going to be able to carry at a fair I will say that a part of me says "good", but only from the perspective that I hope it pisses off enough people to join our side of the fight to push back against tyranny.

As if I am not bitching about the every laws that I am immune to ? As if I didn’t send in my money to fight it just as you did ?

 

[Truebeliever]

from a "citizens" prospective LEO exemptions feels like a carrot politicians use to encourage law enforcement participation of enforcement of freedom robbing laws.

politicians- Hey guys we are going to make some restrictions on civil rights. but don't worry you're exempt
cops- well as long as it doesn't effect us I guess its ok



This has been an on going argument since before the SAFE Act stretching back to the old forum

It’s a misconception. Even liberals and most anti gun people understand a social contract that cops and retired cops get to be armed. In NJ where they do not let seasonal cops take their firearms home, they allow out of state firmer full time LE retirees to carry if they qualify twice a year. There is no real political advantage for them to have allowed that. They were lobbied about the social contract .

 

[Phazer]

It’s a misconception. Even liberals and most anti gun people understand a social contract that cops and retired cops get to be armed

I cannot seem to find that in the U.S. Constitution, nor in the writings of Locke, Hobbes, or Rousseau.

 

[Celt]

As if I am not bitching about the every laws that I am immune to ? As if I didn’t send in my money to fight it just as you did ?

I know the mindset of many on here, but I dont know yours very well. If youre saying you dont support "rules for thee but not for me" then thats all I wss looking for. I get that many people are jumping on you so you are in a defensive mode, but I imagine its because you have come across as if youre ok with the 2 tiered system.

It's two different things to take advantage of the fact that you're allowed to carry in many places that regular citizens can't and it's another to believe that that's a good thing for it to be that way.

 

[Truebeliever]

If someone, or their family, is being threatened with deadly force, I'd call that a "stressful situation." That is exactly when law-abiding Americans are supposed to be able to defend themselves. That is the only "mindset" that matters.

Police carry pistols to protect themselves. Police are too heavy to carry. So, I'd like to just carry the pistol.

I understand your feelings. And the politicans who make those decisions have security around them.
They have a belief that someone who is tested everyday to threats of force and doesn’t shoot is more trustworthy.

 

[Jsmegs77]

Others have said most I would have added to this discussion, but I’m gonna have to call bullshit on the whole temperament bit. I’ve known a lot of LE, and have current and past officers in my immediate family. With the exception of one retired gentleman, not a one of them is what I would call even tempered. Almost to a person, they are uptight, confrontational, escalate rapidly and are abysmal at talking a situation down, defaulting to going straight to use of force and badge instead.

I realize it’s possible I know a lot of assholes, but I postulate that it is current LE culture and conditioning creating this behavior pattern in people who didn’t originally have it, and fueling it in people who were already inclined that way.

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

I understand your feelings. And the politicans who make those decisions have security around them.
They have a belief that someone who is tested everyday to threats of force and doesn’t shoot is more trustworthy.

It also helps that those providing security are state employees who are being paid to perform that task and are not held to the same legal standards a private citizen would be accountable for.


I still am not understanding the logic of why you keep defaulting to "it's ok that off duty police can carry here but private citizens can't because the off duty police are trained for stress, never mind the fact that private citizens are allowed to carry elsewhere just not at the fair because it's different stress for some reason"?

If I put words in your mouth I apologize not trying to be disingenuous but I really don't understand this point you keep bringing up.

It's incongruous logic that citizens go through a lengthy formal pistol licensure process and earn the trust of the state, they are permitted to carry in many places (although sep1 allegedly it will change) and the state deems us of sound mind to carry deadly force on our person what difference does it make if we are carrying at the fair, the mall, the movies, a craft show? They are all large public crowds. They all have the same potential for becoming a stressful situation.

I don't hate on cops at all. But I do hate on the fact that many are perfectly ok with different rules and a dual class system where for some reason they have special privileges when they are not working that I can't have. And they are the ones who will enforce these idiotic laws and jam us up. If I tried to bring my unrestricted licence and legally owned pistol into the fair I would be arrested on the spot.

 

[Truebeliever]

I cannot seem to find that in the U.S. Constitution, nor in the writings of Locke, Hobbes, or Rousseau.

Just look at Hollywood and who and how the main character gets a gun if they aren’t an anti-hero. They are either an ex-cop of some type or they “ find “ the gun along the way.

But I think you might find this article interesting after I did an internet search for the social contract I speak of but interesting to hear the other side.

Star Tribune

Your source for Minnesota news today. Read articles, view photos or watch videos about news in Minneapolis, St. Paul, Duluth, St. Cloud, Rochester, and beyond.

m.startribune.com

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

I have no problem with just playing by the rules of the game.

If you're given a "privilege" that others can't enjoy to use and take advantage of. That's all well in good.

My frustration is trying to rationalize and support why it's ok and a good system to have separate classes of citizens in this country where LEO are put up on a pedestal even in their private lives when not working or wearing a uniform they should have to live under the same rules.

 

[Truebeliever]

It also helps that those providing security are state employees who are being paid to perform that task and are not held to the same legal standards a private citizen would be accountable for.


I still am not understanding the logic of why you keep defaulting to "it's ok that off duty police can carry here but private citizens can't because the off duty police are trained for stress, never mind the fact that private citizens are allowed to carry elsewhere just not at the fair because it's different stress for some reason"?

If I put words in your mouth I apologize not trying to be disingenuous but I really don't understand this point you keep bringing up.

It's incongruous logic that citizens go through a lengthy formal pistol licensure process and earn the trust of the state, they are permitted to carry in many places (although sep1 allegedly it will change) and the state deems us of sound mind to carry deadly force on our person what difference does it make if we are carrying at the fair, the mall, the movies, a craft show? They are all large public crowds. They all have the same potential for becoming a stressful situation.

I don't hate on cops at all. But I do hate on the fact that many are perfectly ok with different rules and a dual class system where for some reason they have special privileges when they are not working that I can't have. And they are the ones who will enforce these idiotic laws and jam us up. If I tried to bring my unrestricted licence and legally owned pistol into the fair I would be arrested on the spot.

I was attempting explaining their logic so it might be a little hard to follow. They feel the police officer is less likely to overreact to a threat because they face actual threats everyday without firing a shot.
Both CCW and the general public doesn’t understand the screening process a lot of departments in NYS take. The general public doesn’t understand the background checks for CCW either but the police screening is more intensive than CCW. From having to take psychological tests then meet with a psychologist to interpret the results of those tests . To not just getting the paperwork and background on yourself for the investigator but the background information for your family members too— and not just those who live with you. In the past, they had to get 5 candidates for every open position because only 1 out of 5 would pass the police screening process. It’s one of the reasons they talk about lowering standards to fill an academy class.

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

I was attempting explaining their logic so it might be a little hard to follow. They feel the police officer is less likely to overreact to a threat because they face actual threats everyday without firing a shot.
Both CCW and the general public doesn’t understand the screening process a lot of departments in NYS take. The general public doesn’t understand the background checks for CCW either but the police screening is more intensive than CCW. From having to take psychological tests then meet with a psychologist to interpret the results of those tests . To not just getting the paperwork and background on yourself for the investigator but the background information for your family members too— and not just those who live with you. In the past, they had to get 5 candidates for every open position because only 1 out of 5 would pass the police screening process. It’s one of the reasons they talk about lowering standards to fill an academy class.

I known a person or 2 who failed the psych portion of the qualification. I understand police go through a thorough hiring and screening process. (Although the process in those instances was probably justified they were a little off in the first place)


Fair enough, I may have misunderstood your posting. I thought that you were agreeing with and advocating for their positions and not merely trying to explain "this is their thought process guys, even though I disagree with it this is how they think".

No one here will fault you for taking advantage of the rules you are given for your own benefit. But I'm sure you can understand our frustrations at the tiered system and different rule for thee.

 

[Truebeliever]

I known a person or 2 who failed the psych portion of the qualification. I understand police go through a thorough hiring and screening process. (Although the process in those instances was probably justified they were a little off in the first place)


Fair enough, I may have misunderstood your posting. I thought that you were agreeing with and advocating for their positions and not merely trying to explain "this is their thought process guys, even though I disagree with it this is how they think".

No one here will fault you for taking advantage of the rules you are given for your own benefit. But I'm sure you can understand our frustrations at the tiered system and different rule for thee.

I definitely understand the frustration. And as I told my fellow cops, today they come for their rights, tomorrow it will be ours.

 

[Vapor]

Holy shit, no offense to the cops on this board, but have you ever shot with some?


I have.


Some couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with a belt fed.


Also, just like regular people, they are a mixed bag.


This ain't no special protected, better than you, class of bullshit.


They should be given every normal right though, as all of us should have.

 

[Phazer]

I definitely understand the frustration. And as I told my fellow cops, today they come for their rights, tomorrow it will be ours.

So, you admit that their is indeed unequal distribution of rights?

THAT concept is un-American.

 

[Saltwater60]

What they aren’t telling you , it’s not firearms proficiency that they worry about. It’s temperament. With police, they get someone who is usually been tested over years by situations where they didn’t use their gun. Most CCW can’t say the same to the same degree. And that LEOs have a minimum standard of proficiency. CCW is a mixed bag. A lot are great shooters, many aren’t.

Really? How many excessive force complaints do you have against you since you were 18? Me I’ve got none. I’m sure a lot of them were bullshit in your defense, but I’m certain you took things a bit too far here and there and I’m not locking on you because if I’m in that situation I just walk away, but it’s your job to handle that situation.

 

[tc556guy]

I kept telling my friends who fall under that infamous LEOSA act, they better by on high alert as the rest of us law abiding citizens... folks they are taking it all away.

State bans off-duty police officers from carrying guns at New York State Fair

Update: New York State will now allow off-duty police officers to carry weapons at the Fair. Click here for more details. NEW YORK STATE FAIRGROUNDS (WSYR-TV) — Off-duty police officers will …

www.localsyr.com

UPDATE: State amends policy, allowing off-duty cops to carry guns at New York State Fair | Fingerlakes1.com

UPDATE: State amends policy, allowing off-duty cops to carry guns at New York State Fair News

www.fingerlakes1.com

I wasnt planning on going anyways...but I always went armed in past years. It's Syracuse, after all.

 

[US RIFLE M1A]

No private citizen should ever be denied, under any circumstances, the right to carry any weapon that a police officer can carry off duty.

No private citizen should ever be denied, under any circumstances, the right to own any weapon that a police officer can either privately own or be assigned for duty use.

Anything less than complete parity is unconstitutional. The only exception is that an ON DUTY police officer may need to carry a long gun under circumstances a private citizen cannot.

No private citizen should ever be denied the right to own any weapon that a soldier can carry as his basic load-out in a domestic setting such as the National Guard.

Under no circumstances should a private citizen ever be referred to as 'civilian' to distinguish them from police officers. Anyone who can quit their job and never come back once their shift is over is a civilian. Period.

 

[spat]

No, we don’t . Collectively, it would be called a job action. Then the Taylor law goes into effect.
Not just that. Do you think all police have the same opinion on this? Not all gun owners in New York have the same opinion on the SAFE act either.

Who's going to enforce that taylor law ?

Bottom line is no law is worth the paper it's printed on if the cops refuse to enforce it.

And you are correct, many cops would not support such an action. That is not the same thing as saying they do not have the power.

In fact that is the opposite. That is saying exactly what I am saying. You do have the power, you refuse to use it.

 

[spat]

It’s not about being “ trustworthy that you won’t commit a crime or intentionally do something stupid. It’s a fear that someone will panic or overreact. They have the same fear with rookie cops too. They stopped most of the recruits from taking the gun home in the beginning. They used to let them have it immediately after range training, not so much now. They let rookie cops carry after graduation in part that they have been “ trained “ but more importantly been observed for six or more months .
And bring but in public isn’t the same as being put in stressful situations where quick decisions about levels of force have to be made daily and monitored/supervised by them .

And before you jump down my throat about it. I am explaining their mindset, not necessarily mine.

If someone is going to be firing around me in a stressful situation I'd *prefer* it was the CCW who knows he's responsible for every round that leaves his gun, and not a cop with immunity for whatever collateral damage he inflicts.

Who would you rather have, Elisjsha Dicken or these bozos ?

And the fact that the Denver PD response was to circle the wagons around these guys makes things much much worse.

"We want answers": Denver police didn't tell two wounded bystanders that officers were the ones who shot them

Three Denver police officers fired seven rounds at a man in LoDo, injuring six bystanders in front of Larimer Beer Hall.

coloradosun.com

 

[US RIFLE M1A]

"And the elected government must have a meaningful monopoly on the use of force."

That is the only tidbit I gathered from that word-salad article written about the Michigan protest and I do not agree with it. Why is it that lefties prefer being controlled by force?

 

[Darth]

Cops tend to have a track record of dealing with issues without using the firearm.

Yet shoot far more dogs than mailmen that encounter them more frequently.