Defensive Carry banner

Should LEOS Carry Second Gun on Duty?

2K views 24 replies 12 participants last post by  HotGuns 
#1 ·
I think so. A lot of depts will not permit it. Saw a story of a LEO who, after a chase with a BG, the BG got the officer's gun but did not know how to use it and pulled the trigger several times to no avail. LEO still on the ground pulls out his second weapon and shoots BG before he figures out how the service weapon works. Great result. Good thing LEO was allowed to carry a second gun.
Some depts prohibit it, some allow it, some make it mandatory.
What do the LEOS here think, and others?
I know that the reason for being against it sometimes is that it would be a good "throw down" weapon, but that seems secondary to officer safety, to me. But that is just me.
 
#4 ·
Correction: I don't think any dept makes it mandatory, on duty.
 
#10 ·
There you go, Devil Dog! (as Sojourner would say, and does say)
 
#11 ·
With the way the war currently is I'd carry a sidearm with my 16 if they let me too, but right now I just have to stick with the rifle and a good knife.

I wonder what the reasoning behind not allowing a second weapon is? Probably some sort of liabity insurance thing.
 
#12 ·
Depts are afraid of a throw down weapon
 
#14 ·
Well, I have heard for sure that a lot of depts are afraid of that and that is why it is prohibited, but I don't know that that is the only reason.
Does anyone know of another reason why depts would prohibit the carrying of a second weapon by police officers?
 
#17 ·
Does anyone know of another reason why depts would prohibit the carrying of a second weapon by police officers?
The main reason is not the "throw down" factor, but its just one more gun to worry about during a wrestling match.
Also, some unions wont allow their officers to carry equipment not owned by the city/county/state or whatever. That would be a huge expense to provide another weapon to all the officers.
 
#16 ·
In each pocket.
 
#18 ·
Is the throw down at all a factor in some depts?
 
#20 ·
No, those days are gone. Its incrediably easy to spot a "throw down"

Another reason it is the way it is, because if it were public or common knowledge, it would defeat the purpose somewhat.
 
#19 ·
personaly i agree with the lance on this. if your i a profession where your required to hae a firearm you should carry a backup incase your primary goes down.
 
#21 ·
Just nice to have a .38 in case you lose your service weapon one way or the other, and then have nothing at all. I myself would like to have the little .38 in a pocket somewhere just in case. You never know.
 
#22 ·
Yeah bobcat, I'd carry the extra 3 pounds of weight on top of everything else for something useful like a sidearm, especially in more urban areas, like you can find in Iraq. But I digress, I am getting this thread off topic, that is for another thread.

For the LEOS, is there any sort of pattern that the depts. that generally have more lenient choices on what can be carried as a primary, more often allow carry of a secondary.

My thinking is that if the primary is standard issue without any options, then it would seem more logical that the dept. wasn't the most "gun-wise", and therefor not see the need for secondaries.
 
#23 ·
I think most depts tell you what you will carry, right Sixto? Just for uniformity. All Boston Police are now Glock .40s where they used to be Glock 9s
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top