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

[Darth]

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.

Source: Trust me bro.

 

[Truebeliever]

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.

But have they panicked and shot someone? Mild mannered people have as well as hot heads. It’s more about will they overreact with the gun.

 

[Truebeliever]

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.

I don’t think you really know the Taylor law. They can dock individual officers pay at a 2 for 1 ratio in their favor and end automatic payroll deduction of dues ie cut the unions off from money. That's in addition to jail time for the leadership if they want to take it that far.
And who would arrest them you ask. Law enforcement is not just one big monothic . It has many different levels and departments. The DA has its own LE separate from other police. There are plenty of non police with peace officer powers to do it.

 

[Truebeliever]

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

They aren’t thinking gun vs gun. The classic stereotype is the nerd who gets a gun, then is picked on and overreacts by pulling out the gun. That’s why they put stupid restrictions on gun permits like the person can transport it to the range but it has to be unloaded in a locked container. They are more worried about the legal gun owner than the criminals.

 

[spat]

I don’t think you really know the Taylor law. They can dock individual officers pay at a 2 for 1 ratio in their favor and end automatic payroll deduction of dues ie cut the unions off from money. That's in addition to jail time for the leadership if they want to take it that far.
And who would arrest them you ask. Law enforcement is not just one big monothic . It has many different levels and departments. The DA has its own LE separate from other police. There are plenty of non police with peace officer powers to do it.

If 75% of LE publicly said "fuck you" to the new law, Taylor would be irrelevant.

 

[Edwardteach72]

 

[spat]

They aren’t thinking gun vs gun. The classic stereotype is the nerd who gets a gun, then is picked on and overreacts by pulling out the gun. That’s why they put stupid restrictions on gun permits like the person can transport it to the range but it has to be unloaded in a locked container. They are more worried about the legal gun owner than the criminals.

Stereotypes are irrelevant.

I would prefer the guy who will be held responsible for any errors he makes and knows it vs the guy who gets a blanket pass.

 

[Truebeliever]

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.

Private citizens who are convicted of a felony surrender a lot of their constitutional rights .
Secondly , the “ civilian “ comment . Legally, a police officer isn’t a civilian in many courtrooms and cases .
And from the dictionary :
“
2a: one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force”

Definition of CIVILIAN

a specialist in Roman or modern civil law; one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force; outsider… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[Truebeliever]

If 75% of LE publicly said "fuck you" to the new law, Taylor would be irrelevant.

Are you kidding? It’s why the Taylor was created and amended. The police strike of 1973

 

[Truebeliever]

View attachment 168968

And we can post a lot of pictures of private gun owners and soldiers doing stupid things too.
But don’t you feel safer that she can’t draw it-lol

 

[Saltwater60]

View attachment 168968

That’s how they identify the new woke cops.

 

[Edwardteach72]

But don’t you feel safer that she can’t draw it-lol

A little bit

 

[Tisto]

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.

There are literally thousands of videos showing the stellar temperment of LEO's all over youtube ! How wonderful they are as they're slamming people's heads into the pavement for no reason, and slamming people against their car because they had the nerve to tell the cop he was wrong. It's awesome to see them plant evidence and lie about the encounter. Threatening and intimidating people is fabulous to watch. Lying about what the law says simply because they don't want to admit they don't know what the law says is great entertainment. Hundreds of these videos end with the cop being fired and prosecuted for crimes against innocent civilians. Contempt of cop is a real thing. A huge number of cops, dare I say a vast majority ? have a God complex the size of Montana. That badge makes them believe they can do no wrong, they should be allowed to do whatever they desire without question, and that everyone NOT in blue should do every damn thing they say. BULLSHIT. They're no better than any other man, and many times aren't as good. I have absolutely no use for anyone that bought into and promotes the Thin Blue Line / Us vs Them garbage. If there wasn't a LONG history of abuse of power and violations of civil liberties, cops would not be hated. You brought this on yourselves, and now cry about how you're a target and nobody trusts you. Boo hoo.

 

[ICEMAN]

It really comes down to trusting ourselves. The intent of the constitution was to limit government ability to infringe on the people. Maybe there is some concern with how untrained citizens will react. I actually am for state funded training that would be free to the citizens ( besides for our taxes paying instructors). The training should be voluntary and provide additional use of force, responding to active shooters and interactions with law enforcement. Again this should not be mandatory. Maybe provide an incentive for anyone who takes this training ( tax credits).

 

[Truebeliever]

There are literally thousands of videos showing the stellar temperment of LEO's all over youtube ! How wonderful they are as they're slamming people's heads into the pavement for no reason, and slamming people against their car because they had the nerve to tell the cop he was wrong. It's awesome to see them plant evidence and lie about the encounter. Threatening and intimidating people is fabulous to watch. Lying about what the law says simply because they don't want to admit they don't know what the law says is great entertainment. Hundreds of these videos end with the cop being fired and prosecuted for crimes against innocent civilians. Contempt of cop is a real thing. A huge number of cops, dare I say a vast majority ? have a God complex the size of Montana. That badge makes them believe they can do no wrong, they should be allowed to do whatever they desire without question, and that everyone NOT in blue should do every damn thing they say. BULLSHIT. They're no better than any other man, and many times aren't as good. I have absolutely no use for anyone that bought into and promotes the Thin Blue Line / Us vs Them garbage. If there wasn't a LONG history of abuse of power and violations of civil liberties, cops would not be hated. You brought this on yourselves, and now cry about how you're a target and nobody trusts you. Boo hoo.

The question is, when it went physical, did they shoot for no reason . And of course, you can find examples of it. But look at the numbers of incidents to shots fired. It is still extremely rare for a police officer to fire their weapon other than in training for their entire career.
This doesn’t mean that there aren’t CCW who get into physical situations often like a bouncer but that person is rare. They feel that the experienced police officer has been tested by experience.

 

[Truebeliever]

There are literally thousands of videos showing the stellar temperment of LEO's all over youtube ! How wonderful they are as they're slamming people's heads into the pavement for no reason, and slamming people against their car because they had the nerve to tell the cop he was wrong. It's awesome to see them plant evidence and lie about the encounter. Threatening and intimidating people is fabulous to watch. Lying about what the law says simply because they don't want to admit they don't know what the law says is great entertainment. Hundreds of these videos end with the cop being fired and prosecuted for crimes against innocent civilians. Contempt of cop is a real thing. A huge number of cops, dare I say a vast majority ? have a God complex the size of Montana. That badge makes them believe they can do no wrong, they should be allowed to do whatever they desire without question, and that everyone NOT in blue should do every damn thing they say. BULLSHIT. They're no better than any other man, and many times aren't as good. I have absolutely no use for anyone that bought into and promotes the Thin Blue Line / Us vs Them garbage. If there wasn't a LONG history of abuse of power and violations of civil liberties, cops would not be hated. You brought this on yourselves, and now cry about how you're a target and nobody trusts you. Boo hoo.

The contempt of cop thing has more to it than you understand. The cop often has to control the situation, solve it and move on. He is often under time pressures that the general public doesn’t know or understand.

 

[spat]

Are you kidding? It’s why the Taylor was created and amended. The police strike of 1973

You need to get it through your head.

Without the cooperation of cops laws mean nothing.

 

[Phazer]

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.

No clue what this has to do with anything. Who cares how Hollywood portrays anything?

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

I read the article you referenced. It is full of Leftist dogma. For example:

In Michigan, a gang with assault weapons drove the state senators to abandon the capitol. Turns out, in uniform or out, white men with guns can pose a real problem for old-fashioned representative government. In attitudes and political loyalties, a scary number of the people professing to defend the government look more like the problem than the solution.​

If government representatives are afraid of law-abiding citizens exercising their second amendment rights, then perhaps those elected officials should be afraid because of something that they have done against the interests of their electorate.

​

When the gun-toting protesters openly walked into the Michigan statehouse and the Senate vacated the chamber in face of future threats, egalitarian representative government surrendered to the rule of the strong. Threatening death and brandishing death, both in the form of firearms and the often unmasked contagion, the demonstrators proved how potent was the threat of anarchy and how fragile the contract that had contained it for so long. When the police establish their own killology-driven order, the democratically elected government similarly loses its monopoly on force, and mayors sit by, wringing their hands while the unelected police take over the role of the state.​

The author of this article takes the wrong message from armed protests by law-abiding citizens. Clearly, this author is fine with the "democratically elected government" having the ability to exert unopposed force on citizens, if said government sees fit. In accordance with the United States' founding doctrine of "checks and balances," the people are always supposed to be a check on the government.

Personally, I do not care how the police train or with what they train. I only care that they protect and defend the rule of law and the U.S. Constitution above the dogmatic dictates proffered by their political taskmasters.

A check on inappropriate force, by any level of government, is always the sovereign people of America. They are not meant to be subjects. They should not be cowed by misguided authorities. And, above all, the people should expect that their elected political servants will uphold the rule of law and the equality of all citizens under the law. As soon as our leaders cease to do so, they should be replaced. That concept is enshrined in our founding document, The Declaration of Independence.

 

[Truebeliever]

You need to get it through your head.

Without the cooperation of cops laws mean nothing.

And you have to understand, LE is not one monolithic thing. There are not just different departments but different philosophies as well. LE is intentionally kept separate

No clue what this has to do with anything. Who cares how Hollywood portrays anything?



I read the article you referenced. It is full of Leftist dogma. For example:

In Michigan, a gang with assault weapons drove the state senators to abandon the capitol. Turns out, in uniform or out, white men with guns can pose a real problem for old-fashioned representative government. In attitudes and political loyalties, a scary number of the people professing to defend the government look more like the problem than the solution.​

If government representatives are afraid of law-abiding citizens exercising their second amendment rights, then perhaps those elected officials should be afraid because of something that they have done against the interests of their electorate.

​

When the gun-toting protesters openly walked into the Michigan statehouse and the Senate vacated the chamber in face of future threats, egalitarian representative government surrendered to the rule of the strong. Threatening death and brandishing death, both in the form of firearms and the often unmasked contagion, the demonstrators proved how potent was the threat of anarchy and how fragile the contract that had contained it for so long. When the police establish their own killology-driven order, the democratically elected government similarly loses its monopoly on force, and mayors sit by, wringing their hands while the unelected police take over the role of the state.​

The author of this article takes the wrong message from armed protests by law-abiding citizens. Clearly, this author is fine with the "democratically elected government" having the ability to exert unopposed force on citizens, if said government sees fit. In accordance with the United States' founding doctrine of "checks and balances," the people are always supposed to be a check on the government.

Personally, I do not care how the police train or with what they train. I only care that they protect and defend the rule of law and the U.S. Constitution above the dogmatic dictates proffered by their political taskmasters.

A check on inappropriate force, by any level of government, is always the sovereign people of America. They are not meant to be subjects. They should not be cowed by misguided authorities. And, above all, the people should expect that their elected political servants will uphold the rule of law and the equality of all citizens under the law. As soon as our leaders cease to do so, they should be replaced. That concept is enshrined in our founding document, The Declaration of Independence.

i posted it to show how they think- the other side. Did you read how the vast majority of cops believe in private gun ownership and that they are complaining about it. Or the hissy fit they had just having a police officer wear his uniform when he met the president.
The Hollywood thing was an example of that social contract and how, even in liberal minds, former police are given the okay to carry as an example of that social contract .

 

[spat]

And you have to understand, LE is not one monolithic thing. There are not just different departments but different philosophies as well. LE is intentionally kept separate

That is my point.

You collectively have the power.

You will not exercise it.

Just like American voters have the power to pull the giant flush lever on DC, but we won't.

 

[Truebeliever]

That is my point.

You collectively have the power.

You will not exercise it.

Just like American voters have the power to pull the giant flush lever on DC, but we won't.

That’s like saying all the doctors can come together and violate the law . Unlike doctors, assistant district attorneys have peace officer powers , the tax agents for NYS have peace officer power , probation officers corrections , parole etc etc. They are different jobs with similarities.

Your expectations aren’t realistic , Not even close.

 

[Acer-m14]

The concept of "equal under the law" and "special need for LEOs" are inextricably mingled. Both should not exist at the same time. Either all law-abiding American citizens are equal...or they are not. There is no middle ground.

found the Answer ..

"The second paragraph of the United States Declaration of Independence starts as follows: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

special classes of people are against the law ..

 

[Truebeliever]

found the Answer ..

"The second paragraph of the United States Declaration of Independence starts as follows: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

special classes of people are against the law ..

Created equal but don’t remain equal. That’s just the hard reality

 

[Acer-m14]

I think that applies to LEO too ..

 

[spat]

found the Answer ..

"The second paragraph of the United States Declaration of Independence starts as follows: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

special classes of people are against the law ..

Don't forget this gem too

" the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states."

And a lot of the powers and privileges we are discussing getting awful close to being the forbidden titles of nobility too.

 

[Celt]

@Truebeliever , are you purposely avoiding my responses to you? Again, you are debating many in this thread so its probably easy to lose track.


Simply put, do you support the laws that grant off duty/retired LEOs the ability to carry where/when other citizens cannot?

Separately, if I were a retired LEO and was able to carry in places other citizens couldnt I would exercise and enjoy that to the fullest, while supporting and fighting for all law abiding citizens to have the same ability.

Thats the center of the debate here.

 

[Celt]

Private citizens who are convicted of a felony surrender a lot of their constitutional rights .
Secondly , the “ civilian “ comment . Legally, a police officer isn’t a civilian in many courtrooms and cases .
And from the dictionary :
“
2a: one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force”

Definition of CIVILIAN

a specialist in Roman or modern civil law; one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force; outsider… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Now this is a different debate. Are police subject to UCMJ? Of course not, so they are civilians. And please dont use merriam webster, they change dedinitions to suit the agenda. Below is just an example.

male​

adjective
Save Word

Definition of male​

b: having a gender identity that is the opposite of female

 

[Phazer]

@Truebeliever

Simply put, do you support the laws that grant off duty/retired LEOs the ability to carry where/when other citizens cannot?

THAT is the ENTIRE issue.

We need law enforcement officers that understand and defend the U. S. Constitution. If LEOs are not on the side of the people, then they stand against the people. If the latter is the case then the hard Left Progressives are correct.

 

[Mr. terzmo]

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

Well..they get a bite of the $hit pie. I'm retired AF with a secret security clearance but now can't have access to the flightline. I don't accept the idea that when a cop retires, they have "privileges" the ordinary law abiding citizen does not have. I have no issue with cops. My issue is exception..privilege..and "professional courtesy"

 

[Truebeliever]

@Truebeliever , are you purposely avoiding my responses to you? Again, you are debating many in this thread so its probably easy to lose track.


Simply put, do you support the laws that grant off duty/retired LEOs the ability to carry where/when other citizens cannot?

Separately, if I were a retired LEO and was able to carry in places other citizens couldnt I would exercise and enjoy that to the fullest, while supporting and fighting for all law abiding citizens to have the same ability.

Thats the center of the debate here.

Thank you for understanding that you got lost in the fray.
Your debate question is a little too open for a simple answer. An off duty should be able to carry in the same places as on duty even if it means myself as a retired guy can not. From a practical standpoint, how could the public tell if they are on or off duty . Then just, it doesn’t make sense that 5 minutes ago, that guy could carry there and will be able to again in 16 hours.
Look how stupid the new law is with security guards. Technically if the security guard shows up to work one minute early, they might be committing a felony.

Note, that I did separate off duty from retired.
Without the exception in the new law I couldn’t visit where I used to work and would have to move out of state. Retired cops would be forced to move and take our pensions with us. But even before the new law there are places I can’t carry anymore like a school. Do I like it? No. Do I think it’s stupid, yes. But it would be different if I was just off duty.

NJ let’s it retired officers carry with the same ability as on duty officers but they must qualify to the same standards as active cops twice a year. New York doesn’t give that option.

The magazine option? We get to keep the “ high” capacity magazines that we used while active ( 12 twelve months anyway ). That was a exception pushed by the unions and an “ excuse” was used to get it. Officers were trained by the government to use those magazines and ingrained into muscle memory. The same way retired guys run toward gun shots. The legislature was told that because it was put into officer’s muscle memory that retired officers would behave as if they had a full magazine and might get killed if they didn’t fix it. That might be true in some cases. So I am happy to be able to use that limited exception but I am against that limitation for the general public. But that excuse won’t work for people who have been limited to 10 round magazines since 1994( yes, I know the exceptions but we are talking about what is going on in their minds)
As far as LEOSA, I enjoy using it but I’m for national reciprocity as well.

Are there places I think retired guys should be allowed to carry where regular permit holders can’t ? Yes, but it’s more like I would like to visit where I used to work. It’s not open to the public in certain areas but that’s more to do with very specific areas. Maybe allow carry with an invitation sort of thing.
Does that clear up my position.