Off-duty cops still want to carry at Vikings games.

[photogpat]

Just so we're all clear on the reference to cops being the only ones "professional enough" to handle a firearm...

https://youtu.be/9ABCiPJRCyA

[mrp]

as long as they are charged to any degree with maintaining the public safety

It seems like a self-inflicted obligation which could easily be remedied by law enforcement not charging themselves with maintaining public safety when off-duty. It is the union that's fighting for this legislation, so unless someone can demonstrate that they've done everything they can to negotiate contracts and pass legislation which would allow off-duty cops to avoid off-duty obligations, I'm not buying their story.

>Also many agencies have policies that state unless consuming alcohol, off duty officers MUST carry their badge, ID and weapon at all times.

If they can discharge themselves of this obligation by simply buying a beer, they ought to be able to do it without buying a beer.

[Hmac]

Just so we're all clear on the reference to cops being the only ones "professional enough" to handle a firearm...

https://youtu.be/9ABCiPJRCyA

Yes. Your average cop will be more capable of safely and effectively handling a firearm than your average CCW holder IMHO.

[MJY65]

Yes. Your average cop will be more capable of safely and effectively handling a firearm than your average CCW holder IMHO.

I think that's accurate. The CCW holders that are actively participating on forums like this are probably the exception.

[Hmac]

as long as they are charged to any degree with maintaining the public safety

It seems like a self-inflicted obligation which could easily be remedied by law enforcement not charging themselves with maintaining public safety when off-duty. It is the union that's fighting for this legislation, so unless someone can demonstrate that they've done everything they can to negotiate contracts and pass legislation which would allow off-duty cops to avoid off-duty obligations, I'm not buying their story.

>Also many agencies have policies that state unless consuming alcohol, off duty officers MUST carry their badge, ID and weapon at all times.

If they can discharge themselves of this obligation by simply buying a beer, they ought to be able to do it without buying a beer.

Self-inflicted or whatever...it's the reality.

I think most cops have a level of public service at heart and there's no question in my mind that it's also a level of public expectation that that be true.

[Ghost]

Just so we're all clear on the reference to cops being the only ones "professional enough" to handle a firearm...

https://youtu.be/9ABCiPJRCyA

Yes. Your average cop will be more capable of safely and effectively handling a firearm than your average CCW holder IMHO.

I'm not convinced that's true. I have cops in my family and they are far less gun minded than the carry permit holders I know.

I'd like to see stats as there are millions of permit holders in the US and I don't hear of accidents that often.

[goalie]

All animals are equal, some are just more equal than others......

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[photogpat]

All animals are equal, some are just more equal than others......

We shouldn't be doing special rules for special people.

[Hmac]

All animals are equal, some are just more equal than others......

We shouldn't be doing special rules for special people.

You're right. I mean...take Medicine, for example. Anybody ought to be allowed to practice medicine. Training and experience are way overblown.

[LumberZach]

All animals are equal, some are just more equal than others......

We shouldn't be doing special rules for special people.

You're right. I mean...take Medicine, for example. Anybody ought to be allowed to practice medicine. Training and experience are way overblown.

Take self defense for example, only people legally required to shoot once per year should be allowed to defend themselves in public places. The general public is way too irresponsible to be trusted with firearms.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ex-LT]

Now that we've taken the strawman arguments/hyperbole to the extreme on both sides of the issue, can we resume a reasonable discussion?

[Hmac]

Take self defense for example, only people legally required to shoot once per year should be allowed to defend themselves in public places. The general public is way too irresponsible to be trusted with firearms.

Bah. Every police department I know of has a designated firearms trainer and a designated training program. At the shooting courses I attend (at least one per year), cops always make up the majority of the class even though there are way more permit holders than cops in Minnesota (200,000 vs 10,500). Even so, I'd buy your argument if you could convince me that ANY significant percentage of those 200,000 permit holders takes any firearms training of any kind, even once a year.

[LumberZach]

Take self defense for example, only people legally required to shoot once per year should be allowed to defend themselves in public places. The general public is way too irresponsible to be trusted with firearms.

Bah. Every police department I know of has a designated firearms trainer and a designated training program. At the shooting courses I attend (at least one per year), cops always make up the majority of the class even though there are way more permit holders than cops in Minnesota (200,000 vs 10,500). Even so, I'd buy your argument if you could convince me that ANY significant percentage of those 200,000 permit holders takes any firearms training of any kind, even once a year.

You keep coming back to this training argument, but I do not accept that. The fact is this: it is a public place just like any other. Permit holders are not causing problems in any other public place despite your lack of training argument. Carry should be allowed just like any other public place.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mrp]

Now that we've taken the strawman arguments/hyperbole to the extreme on both sides of the issue, can we resume a reasonable discussion?

'
Sure. Let's see if I can bring back some brotherly love with this:

The article originally said:

>As part of that law, privately-owned establishments were empowered to keep guns out by posting a sign indicating they banned guns on the premises. That includes places like malls, restaurants and sports stadiums.

I wrote the author, pointing him to the statute and the landlord provision and he said he'd fix it. He came up with:

>As part of that law, privately-owned establishments were empowered to keep guns out by posting a sign indicating they banned guns on the premises. That includes places like malls, restaurants and sports stadiums. Technically, malls bind their tenants on the gun issue, but some like the Mall of America tells visitors firearms are banned.

Does anyone know where he's getting the "malls bind their tenants" line from, and what he means by it? I assume it's not as simple as having a "no guns" term in the lease since that would pretty clearly violate the landlord provision:

(e) A landlord may not restrict the lawful carry or possession of firearms by tenants or their guests.

[crbutler]

If training is all that matters, do we want levels of permits?

If you get more effective training than the average cop, should you be allowed more access? If I can pass the Air Marshal qualifier, I should be allowed to carry on an airliner?

I have met many a LEO who I would trust doing a live fire exercise towards me, but I have met some who should not be allowed on the street with a billy club, let alone a gun. Most cops are not as good of a technical shots as most competition shooters but let's face it, having a means of lethal self defense requires more than technical skill... it requires good judgement and exercising it. I also assume that by being a current LEO your department has some liability coverage for you...

Personally, I thought that the NFL lost all rights to this when they demanded public money for a stadium. Yes, that is not how it is, but it's how it should be.