View Full Version : Where can't you carry off duty?
I went onto the Warner Bros lot today, and when security searched my trunk, they saw some of my duty equipment. They directed me to someone else who asked if I was law enforcement, then asked if I had my weapon in the car. I told them I did not, and they asked if they could search my car with a dog anyway.
It all seemed like a bit much to me, so I asked, what would you do if I did have my gun with me? She (the security guard) smiled and said "I would take it home and make it part of my permanent collection." I didn't smile back and asked, "Seriously, what would you do?" She said she'd have to call her Sergeant and he'd probably take my gun while I'm on the lot, or make me keep it in my car.
Not that I really need to have it on me on the lot, but it raised the question: Who can tell you that you can't carry your gun and when can they do it?
I'm talking about California here, but I'm interested to hear from people who know more about this.
CustomsCop
04-28-2004, 22:12
You can not generally carry in federal facilities and most theme parks.
I always ask this question:
How much insurance do you have and will they cover the lawsuit that I WILL file IF something happens and I am not allowed to protect myself and/or my family.
You can not generally carry in federal facilities and most theme parks.
What is sad is that it is actually fairly easy to get a weapon into many of the larger theme parks. So the only people that will be armed in the parks will be the parks personnel (if they are at all) and the bad guys.
One park in particular has a 'no weapon' policy and I had no problem carrying in every single time for four days without identifying myself (plus I would leave and come back multiple times throughout the day). I would get through security, turn to my wife and say, "And I'm in!"
This was two months after 9-11, hopefully they have improved their security. I doubt it.
TXStateCop
04-29-2004, 23:44
I can only speak for Texas, but off duty officers can pretty much anywhere they please. There may be some departmental regulations (and good sense) that prohibit from carrying while drinking in a bar or in other certain places like psych wards, etc.
A few years ago Astroworld Theme park tried to deny entry to off duty Houston PD officers who had their weapons resulting in a "pissing" match that the park lost. Astroworld was basically told by the District Attorney that they had no authority to deny an officer entry because Texas officers have status 24/7. I know that some Federal facilities are a little strange, essentially if they do not let local/state officers carry, then they will usually not let federal officers carry either, other than their own folks.
An interesting thing that I recall from CITP class, was the legal instructors making it very clear that we were not cops and only had LE authority while on the clock (not 24/7), but may be able to carry off duty if permitted by policy. Was a little different than the state.
UsualSuspect
04-29-2004, 23:52
CA -- How can Warner Bros. tell you that you are not allowed to carry if you are LEO and entitled by your dept policy (if that is the case), where is their authority to seize your weapon if you are on the lot. The rentacop sounded like a wisea$$. Typical Hollywood neurosis.
Kahuna5150
04-30-2004, 01:44
CA -- How can Warner Bros. tell you that you are not allowed to carry if you are LEO and entitled by your dept policy (if that is the case), where is their authority to seize your weapon if you are on the lot. The rentacop sounded like a wisea$$. Typical Hollywood neurosis.
Warner Bros has *NO* right to tell any police officer or any CCW holder that they cannot carry their weapon off-duty. Your right to carry is granted by statute (Penal Code). Warner Bros (and every other private company/business) *DO* have the right to limit access to their property based on their own rules regulations. So off-duty police officer or CCW holder wants to go onto the lot, but is told they must disarm themselves, they can simply refuse and walk away (off the property), but if you want to go on the lot or into the business and you refuse to disarm, they can simply deny you entry.
If you are on-duty as a police officer you can obviously go onto the lot (provided you have the right probable cause and/or the legal right to be there) armed regardless of what Warner Bros or any other business wants you to do. Once that right to be there ends (no longer a reason to be there) you can be asked to leave.
I know this is a hot topic with many people. It's just important to remember that you aren't being told you can't carry your gun, you're simply being told you come onto the private property they have control over if you do carry your gun. Again this is for *OFF-DUTY* only. I know others have said that they are technically on duty 24/7, however you would have to have lawful business to enter the business/lot against their wishes (and I can't think of any off-duty officer that would have that circumstance, since you're obviously now on-duty if getting involved in an onview or official capacity action).
As for being able to hold a business liable for you being injured when not able to carry your weapon on their property. Not sure how that would play out, but I'm guessing most courts would probably rule that an off-duty officer who was asked to disarm made a choice to continue onto the property without a gun and should have not gone had they felt it was so dangerous as to require they remain armed.
On a personal level I think it's crazy for any business to refuse a LEO access because they are armed. Never fails to amaze me.
Kahuna
Here in Colorado, private businesses can deny you entry if you are armed and off-duty. Heard a few stories from co-workers who were denied entrance to Broncos games because they were carrying off-duty. If it’s a private business and they have metal detectors up front, I usually just leave it in the car just because I don’t want to go through the hassle of someone telling me I can’t carry onto their establishment. State law also prohibits anyone with a CCW from entering elementary, middle, and high schools.
Well, I know you cant carry into the Federal Courthouse in Wichita Ks.
Even in uniform.
No guns, knives, pepper spray, cell phones or pagers.
Security wise, these guys have their act together.
Class act all the way around.
Well, I know you cant carry into the Federal Courthouse in Wichita Ks.
Even in uniform.
No guns, knives, pepper spray, cell phones or pagers.
Security wise, these guys have their act together.
Class act all the way around.
So did the many other court houses where the bad guys somehow managed to sneak a weapon through security...
If it is the case some judge in his "ultimate" wisdom has decided no officers are to carry in a courthouse... then those security guards better have their act together.
Because the judges have disarmed the individuals who carry and protect the public 95% everywhere else outside the courthouse. ;)
Kegan30317
05-17-2004, 19:15
Like someone said above, it is private property, and they can limit access & make the rules. You can choose to spend your money elsewhere. If you were on duty, then it is a different story.
Speaking of stories.... *-:) I went to a house in an affluent section of the county one night to serve a civil paper. Knocked on the door, husband opened and I stepped inside. The wife says to me "we have a gun-free house, you will have to leave that outside" pointing to the Glock. Well, I suggested that they step outside to be served. Oh well. No telling about some people.
UsualSuspect
05-17-2004, 19:58
"we have a gun-free house, you will have to leave that outside"
Uh huh. :o
I would have said "not at this moment you don't" :D
I'd like to see her tell that to a home invader. :rolleyes:
Kegan30317
05-17-2004, 21:46
Perhaps a sign outside that proudly says:
There are no gun's in this house
Now, wouldn't you sleep soundly knowing the world has been informed you are unarmed at this very moment.
In DC, you need to have to be on police business or creds that say you can carry in any state off duty.
We can technically lock up a officer, lets say from NJ with no authority to be in D.C. armed, but NEVER do.
We just check their weapon or tell them to bring it back to there hotel.
We do not allow off duty officers to carry in the US Capitol even if they are authorized to carry off duty in DC for obvious reasons. They will need to check their weapon in our detail unless escorted by a uniformed officer.
If they are on official police business and have a reason to be at the Capitol armed, they will be issued a pass. However, a uniformed officer or agent will stay with them at all times.
If you go to any museum, they will just have you sign a check in log so they know you are there.
The White House will have off duty officers check there weapon from what I am told.
Not to hijack the thread, but...
Cell phones: So many places are telling folks to turn off their cell phones or leave them in a car. My doctor's office in particular. The other day, the nurse told me to leave my cell phone before going back to see the doctor. I told her I needed it for work and tried to let it go at that. She said, "NO" and basically that she didn't care and made some snide comment about how everyone thinks they are important. I calmly keep walking and stepped through the door to the private area out of sight from the waiting room. I very calmly and sternly told her I was a Federal Agent, and I would not under any circumstances leave my phone in my car, or turn it off. None of this set well with her.
I know cell phones can and do sometimes interfere with medical equipment. Myself and another agent were posted at an ICU to watch a suspect that was "in custody". Every shift has one, and this Broom Hilda saw us using our cell phones and stormed into the room and told us to turn them off and "NOW!!". The other agent was a senior agent, and calmly explained that although the cell phones may represent a small hazard, the likelihood that soemone looking for the 95 pellets of cocaine our girl had swallowed and now were now property of the US Government, might take a dim view of the circumstances and decide to pay her a visit to see what she may or may not have said to us. AND any such folks may be carrying guns and not cell phones. And that we were there to make sure our suspect didn't escape, but also to make sure that nothing BAD happened to her.
Later, the same nurse tried to argue with us over whether or not the paitent's mother could visit. We said, "no", the nurse said "we had no right to prevent the mother from visiting the daughter". She just didn't get it--that sister was IN CUSTODY aka UNDER ARREST aka A PRISONER.
UsualSuspect
05-23-2004, 18:26
MacLeod -- Sounds like these people were on a bit of a power trip. So much for cooperating with LE. Sheesh. Thats just asinine to tell a LEO that they cannot have their cell phone, when it holds such a vital communication purpose. What is the big deal! People can be pretty obtuse at times. ;)
Renegade
05-23-2004, 18:46
I can only speak for Texas, but off duty officers can pretty much anywhere they please. There may be some departmental regulations (and good sense) that prohibit from carrying while drinking in a bar or in other certain places like psych wards, etc.
A few years ago Astroworld Theme park tried to deny entry to off duty Houston PD officers who had their weapons resulting in a "pissing" match that the park lost. Astroworld was basically told by the District Attorney that they had no authority to deny an officer entry because Texas officers have status 24/7. I know that some Federal facilities are a little strange, essentially if they do not let local/state officers carry, then they will usually not let federal officers carry either, other than their own folks.
DA is confused. In Texas, any property owner can deny anyone entry to their property under PC 30.05. No reason is required (just call local police and tell responding officer "I do not want this person on my property", he either leaves or gets arrested). Obviously if someone (LEO, FIRE, EMT), is there for lawful performance of duties, that is an exception. But other than that, it is their way or the highway. Texas Peace Officers privilege to carry extends to not being prosecuted under PC 46.02 & PC46.03, not right to carry anywhere they please.
Six Flags Arlington went on a gun-ban craze (including LEOs), a few years back, and despite all the whining, there was nothing LEOs could do. Until they decided to not work *ANY* details for the park, No security, No traffic, No extra patrols, Caught a Shoplifter? Maybe we will come out next week, etc. The park relented, but it is still LEO only carry and they have metal detectors, not that would stop a determined person.
Midtncop
05-23-2004, 19:14
...Broom Hilda saw us using our cell phones and stormed into the room and told us to turn them off and "NOW!!".
...Later, the same nurse tried to argue with us over whether or not the paitent's mother could visit.
I have also had this happen.
In my experience, the underlying theme in all these situations are people who are overtly or covertly anti law-enforcement. This includes judges, theme park managers, hospital administrators, nurses, doctors...etc. They see their chance to try to assert authority over a LEO and they try to take their best shot. The unfortunate situation is the rookie who does not quite know what to do when it happens and the anti LEO person gets away with it without getting an education.
Oh well, we can't win them all.
TXStateCop
05-24-2004, 02:19
DA is confused. In Texas, any property owner can deny anyone entry to their property under PC 30.05. No reason is required (just call local police and tell responding officer "I do not want this person on my property", he either leaves or gets arrested). Obviously if someone (LEO, FIRE, EMT), is there for lawful performance of duties, that is an exception. But other than that, it is their way or the highway. Texas Peace Officers privilege to carry extends to not being prosecuted under PC 46.02 & PC46.03, not right to carry anywhere they please.
I understand exactly what you are saying. Criminal Trespass under 30.05 and its applicability to Peace Officers has been an interesting subject because it does not specifically address peace officers in the statute. I know for the past several sessions they have attempted to include peace officers in the lawful performance of their duties to the exception/defense to prosecution list for CT.
In the past, the Harris County DA's Office will not accept charges against someone for CT unless there was some reason (at least some reason). I was told, case law existed essentially causing places that are open to the public to have some reason to exclude someone from their property. Now I have not researched those cases so I cannot tell for certain the parameters or facts in those cases. I will have to do some research on what was the legal rationale that the DA's office gave essentially telling Astroworld they could not exclude officers from their property simply because the had their weapon with them.
Now here is something to ponder. An on-duty officer goes into McDonalds to get lunch and is told by the manager that they had to leave and gave no reason. The officer refuses to leave and wants his burger. The manager calls the station and a supervisor comes by. Now the supervisor is answering a call for service (performance of duties), however the officer getting lunch is not there in the lawful performance of his duties, not that 30.05 has an exception for peace officers. With no other legal reason to be there under some sort of inspection or administrative function, the officer has violated 30.05 and would be subject to arrest. Now, I think that this would be an extreme situation, however, this could apply to many different stores or other estabishments.
I know that when I was with TABC, especially after the CHL's came on line, permitees would try to deny us entry because of the statutes prohibiting firearms on licensed premises and they were told that they could deny entry to anyone they wanted if they had a gun. I was told once that I could conduct the inspection, but I had to leave my pistol in my car. I had to explain to the person that the gun and I were a package deal and if we are not "allowed" to accompany one another, then that would constitute inspection refusal.
If you know of any relevent case law I would be interested in reading it, as the way 30.05 is written, absent any case law clarifying the statute, it could be a potential issue for officers.
Chaser199
05-25-2004, 08:05
I know that when I was with TABC, especially after the CHL's came on line, permitees would try to deny us entry because of the statutes prohibiting firearms on licensed premises and they were told that they could deny entry to anyone they wanted if they had a gun. I was told once that I could conduct the inspection, but I had to leave my pistol in my car. I had to explain to the person that the gun and I were a package deal and if we are not "allowed" to accompany one another, then that would constitute inspection refusal.
I worked for TABC in a prior life (a number of years ago). Once a bouncer tried to keep me and my partner from entering a club to do an inspection because we were armed. He also wanted us to pay the cover charge. It was only by the grace of the manager, who kissed our a$$, that the bouncer wasn't bounced into the Harris County Jail.
;)
Well the scenario of an officer in a McD for lunch and being asked to leave is possible, but unrealistic. Although, yes, heshe would not be there in an official capacity, they are Patrol Officers and in the course of their duties they do have right and access to private establishments that offer a access to the general public. Now, the officer would have a hard time trying to force his/her hand to eat at an establishment that is not accessible to the general public, ie..snack bar at golf or country club.
TXStateCop
05-25-2004, 15:51
Mac, that was exactly my point. Given our state statutes, the scenario is legally possible, but the reality of it occurring is probably nil. I also agree with the right to access areas that are open to the general public, but our Criminal Trespass statute essentially gives the owner the right to withdraw that access and remaining after notice was given is a violation.
Another situation that can come up would be going to an attorney's office who is a suspect in your case (no pc for arrest at this time). You want to talk to them and are in the waiting area of their office. The attorney comes out, see who you are declines to talk to you and tells you to leave. You decide that you really don't want to leave and try to engage the attorney in more conversation. The attorney decides to call the police and have you removed/arrested. The fact that you remained on the premises after given notice to leave makes it a violation of our state law.
Absent any case law or other statures that give authority to stay on the premises, looks like a violation of our state statute no matter if they were local, state or federal officers wanting to talk to the attorney.
Renegade made some very good points regarding our state statutes, that may need to be researched further regardless of the on or off duty status of the officer. I still stand by my original statement that officers can carry pretty much off duty where they want, however, Renegade did make very valid points about our criminal trespass statute and that it may affect the ability to access certain areas.
Isn't the law a fascinating creature....only one thing can change in a scenario and it goes from being no offense to an offense.
Renegade
05-25-2004, 17:15
While Texas gives property owners wide discretion as to who may be on their property ( a good thing IMO), other than the AstroWorld/Six Flags nonsense, I am unaware of any property owner trying to use it to deny LEO carry. In fact, most do not even try to stop CHL carry. It is a rare day when I see a PC 30.06 sign.
On the other hand, Texas also gives Peace Officers blanket immunity from prosecution from UCW under PC 46.15. A Texas Peace officer cannot even be charged if he carries in the secure area of an airport, even if off-duty.
On the other hand, Texas also gives Peace Officers blanket immunity from prosecution from UCW under PC 46.15. A Texas Peace officer cannot even be charged if he carries in the secure area of an airport, even if off-duty.
Which is great until the AUSA decides to charge it as a Federal crime...
Renegade
05-25-2004, 20:47
Which is great until the AUSA decides to charge it as a Federal crime...
I would hope all Texas Peace officers would recognize the Federal laws regarding secure areas of airports, not put their brother LEOs in an awkward position, and thus not try to get a gun into the secure area of an airport, without the proper paperwork.
BigLew72
05-26-2004, 06:57
Which is great until the AUSA decides to charge it as a Federal crime...
Excellent point. Jerry Oliver, former police chief of Detroit found out about airport gun laws when he accidentally had a revolver in his carry-on. There was an investigation (had to be one) and he resigned.
Really there shouldn't have been an issue, the media really took off with it. His peace officer status was out of Virginia, he never re-upped it in MI, so the press made a big deal about it. But, the bottom line is that a police chief lost his job.
- BigLew :cool:
I would hope all Texas Peace officers would recognize the Federal laws regarding secure areas of airports, not put their brother LEOs in an awkward position, and thus not try to get a gun into the secure area of an airport, without the proper paperwork.
Me too, although it's kind of shocking the number of people who "forget" they have weapons on them when they go through screening at airports.
Have two friends, both SA's and both tell me the same thing......they are told that they will be armed at all times, they are never in a off duty status and are to have their fire arm with them 24/7....this is regardless of location/state/private property etc....because they are close friends and I dont expect they would throw me some bs but reading some of the posts here I am starting to wonder....is what they say valid?
Carmine,
I don't know of any agency that mandates 24/7 carry, although many authorize it. Many agencies had mandated carry policies in the past, but those have gone away because it is impractical and probably unwise to force people to carry guns off-duty when they do not want to. That doesn't mean that no agency currently requires agents to carry off-duty, but I am not aware of any agency that has that policy in place, except in certain situations (while serving as the duty agent, during heightened threat conditions, etc.), and even then it is only required that you be able to access the weapon quick enough to respond to call-outs, not that carry it at all times.
Chaser199
05-26-2004, 14:34
That doesn't mean that no agency currently requires agents to carry off-duty, but I am not aware of any agency that has that policy in place, except in certain situations (while serving as the duty agent, during heightened threat conditions, etc.), and even then it is only required that you be able to access the weapon quick enough to respond to call-outs, not that carry it at all times.
While I am a fed with 24/7 carry authority, I only consistently carry 24/7 when I'm duty agent. Since my agency prohibits us from keeping our government weapons in left parked vehicles, my choices would be to attempt to argue my case or simply leave. In an airport, it's no problem, I go in or I call a TSA supervisor or the airport police. But I can't see having to argue with a theme park security guard over my carrying my weapon. Sometimes, everyone involved needs to use common sense.
Renegade
05-26-2004, 16:15
Anyone who carries 24/7 leads a very boring life.
Anyone who carries 24/7 leads a very boring life.
Or perhaps is dedicated and takes their job seriously.
:D
(24/7 - implying carrying whenever you are out of your home.)
TXStateCop
05-28-2004, 19:13
Have two friends, both SA's and both tell me the same thing......they are told that they will be armed at all times, they are never in a off duty status and are to have their fire arm with them 24/7....this is regardless of location/state/private property etc....because they are close friends and I dont expect they would throw me some bs but reading some of the posts here I am starting to wonder....is what they say valid?
Maybe some of the fed officers here can comment more on this, but I remember in CITP, we were very clearly told by FLETC legal staff, that we would only be considered on duty when on the clock. We were also told that the employing agency would determine if off duty carry was authorized. In a nutshell, anything you did off duty such as arrest someone, was as a private citizen. True, some states give peace officer status to feds, however, they told us that the fed system did not like fed officers exercising any state status and agencies actively were discouraging it. The way the FLETC legal staff put it to us, off duty, the fed badge and creds were essentially the equivilant to a nationwide CCW permit. They were pretty forward about that and told us to remember that were not cops any more and the 24/7 on-duty did not exist. I am no longer with the fed system, so I never got to test that info with my agency, but they were pretty adament about it at FLETC. Another thing that I got out of that lecture was not to count on the fed government to back up very much if at all on anything you did off duty.
It is very important that as a Federal Agent, you have a clear understanding and NOT an assumption on what your agency considers "scope of employment" and what your actions should be in off-duty situation.
If you act within the scope of employment, the agency internal affairs folks will give you a pass (if all things are legal). If you are considered outside the scope of employment, the agency will abandon your defense and leave you to the dogs.
Unless you have a CLEAR UNDERSTANDING of your agency's policies on scope of employment, I strongly suggest that as a federal agent, you leave your weapon at home. It is NOT a blanket "fed" policy and each agency deals with this differently. DM
Signal9TN
05-29-2004, 10:57
At The Agency I work for we just got a brand new Policy Manual that states that we are considered "On Duty" 24/7. We are expected to respond to emergancy situations that we witness that fall within the scope of our duties (we are all sworn but some members are not certfied LEO's) and take the appropriate response depending on the circumstances.
I carry pretty much all the time unless I am drinking. I have two main reasons for carrying...
(1) I know the rsponse time if I call 911 for help...it will all be over by the time help gets there.
(2) I may not remember all the guys I put in jail but they will always remember me. (I am an Investigator in our Domestic Violnece and Sexual Assault Unit...we tend to really piss off the bad guys we arrest!)
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.