Off-Duty requirements - Page 2

Off-Duty requirements

This is a discussion on Off-Duty requirements within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by mulle46 SemperFi, after HR 218, I don't think off-duty carry is a perk anymore in NJ. It is allowed under federal law ...

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 32

Thread: Off-Duty requirements

  1. #16
    VIP Member Array semperfi.45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Over here now!
    Posts
    3,617
    Quote Originally Posted by mulle46 View Post
    SemperFi, after HR 218, I don't think off-duty carry is a perk anymore in NJ. It is allowed under federal law for LEO's to carry off-duty. The individual agency or governing body might be able to make some restrictions on it, but not allowing any off-duty carry? I don't think that would stand up to any challenge under HR 218. OMO.
    I don't know of any that would not allow it, but the fact is that they can. They can also be as restrictive as they wish. Remember that you carry a gun under the color of the agency, if you were not employed by them you would not be allowed to carry unless you had a concealed carry permit.
    Training means learning the rules. Experience means learning the exceptions.


  2. #17
    Moderator
    Array Bark'n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    West Central Missouri
    Posts
    9,917
    Quote Originally Posted by bigiceman View Post
    Are there actually people out there who will put up with this kind of invasive bull? It really is not any of their business what you do off-duty as long as it is not illegal. Why would any employer think they had the ability to do this? I find this especially true with government agencies like the fire department.
    Well as far as No Smoking goes with fire departments... they pay your health care benefits, they have physical fitness standards and if they choose they want non smokers they have that right. I remember when one fire dept. initiated that policy... Some of the old timers bucked the system and were disgruntled and filed grievances, etc... But the union couldn't stop it and since all new hires are all non smokers when they come on the job, they really don't see a problem with it. That particular department has since gotten rid of all old smokers who didn't quit through attrition and retirement.
    -Bark'n
    Semper Fi


    "The gun is the great equalizer... For it is the gun, that allows the meek to repel the monsters; Whom are bigger, stronger and without conscience, prey on those who without one, would surely perish."

  3. #18
    Member Array bigiceman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas
    Posts
    491
    Quote Originally Posted by Bark'n View Post
    Well as far as No Smoking goes with fire departments... they pay your health care benefits, they have physical fitness standards and if they choose they want non smokers they have that right. I remember when one fire dept. initiated that policy... Some of the old timers bucked the system and were disgruntled and filed grievances, etc... But the union couldn't stop it and since all new hires are all non smokers when they come on the job, they really don't see a problem with it. That particular department has since gotten rid of all old smokers who didn't quit through attrition and retirement.
    So what would be different if they said that we will not hire anyone that owns a firearm? I don't smoke. I don't like being around smokers. I do defend the rights of all, not just the ones that pertain to me. If their claim that insurance claims and health risks really is justified in your minds then firearms are next. They are an inherant risk and statistically they can be shown to be dangerous and cause more health care expenses. Don't be so quick to take something away from someone else just because it doesn't effect you. It is none of their business.
    But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself...
    "Baa."
    LTC(RET) Dave Grossman

    Revolutionary War Veterans Association Shooter Qualification: Cook

  4. #19
    VIP Member Array dukalmighty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    15,179
    When I was an LEO we could carry off duty it wasn't mandatory and the only restriction it had to be at least 9mm and smaller than 44 magnum,there wer no holster limitations but back in those days almost everything had a thumb snap over the hammer.The only thing I've ever seen companys able to have some control over after work is substance abuse due to the fact there is no reasonable amount that can decide if your impaired or not and can affect you at work even tho you used at home,and the courts have upheld random drug testing
    "Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country,"
    --Mayor Marion Barry, Washington , DC .

  5. #20
    Member Array AgentX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    476
    Quote Originally Posted by mulle46 View Post

    SemperFi, after HR 218, I don't think off-duty carry is a perk anymore in NJ. It is allowed under federal law for LEO's to carry off-duty. The individual agency or governing body might be able to make some restrictions on it, but not allowing any off-duty carry? I don't think that would stand up to any challenge under HR 218. OMO.
    HR 218 does not prevent agencies from setting policy. This means they can say you can't carry your duty gun off-duty, or you need a certain kind of holster or whatever. [Ed: But you may be able to carry solely under HR 218 with your own gun if your employer doesn't prohibit it...minding, however, the caveat below re: the vague parts of HR 218. ]

    They can also set a policy saying you won't carry ANY gun off-duty. You couldn't be charged with a crime for carrying under HR 218, but they could discipline/fire you if they discovered you in violation of policy.

    And HR 218 is new legislation with no test cases and some serious vague issues-- for example, it does say you need to be qualified with a firearm in order to carry, but doesn't specify whether it needs to be the same firearm you carry off-duty. (The vagueness could actually aid you in court if you find yourself there, but do you want to be the guy whose case sets the precedent?)

    In any case, your department/agency isn't obligated to pony up any help if you run into trouble under HR 218 and end up shooting someone. Best I can tell, it gives you the ability to carry like a civilian CCW...not for enforcement of the law, but for personal defense and that of others, and you're on your own if with your own lawyer and personal savings to try and defend yourself.

  6. #21
    VIP Member Array semperfi.45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Over here now!
    Posts
    3,617
    The looming threat of internal discipline is one the LEO perks I enjoy most [sic].

    I agree with you that I would not want to be a HR218 test case.
    Training means learning the rules. Experience means learning the exceptions.

  7. #22
    Senior Member Array mulle46's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    1,164
    Quote Originally Posted by AgentX View Post
    HR 218 does not prevent agencies from setting policy. This means they can say you can't carry your duty gun off-duty, or you need a certain kind of holster or whatever. [Ed: But you may be able to carry solely under HR 218 with your own gun if your employer doesn't prohibit it...minding, however, the caveat below re: the vague parts of HR 218. ]

    They can also set a policy saying you won't carry ANY gun off-duty. You couldn't be charged with a crime for carrying under HR 218, but they could discipline/fire you if they discovered you in violation of policy.

    And HR 218 is new legislation with no test cases and some serious vague issues-- for example, it does say you need to be qualified with a firearm in order to carry, but doesn't specify whether it needs to be the same firearm you carry off-duty. (The vagueness could actually aid you in court if you find yourself there, but do you want to be the guy whose case sets the precedent?)

    In any case, your department/agency isn't obligated to pony up any help if you run into trouble under HR 218 and end up shooting someone. Best I can tell, it gives you the ability to carry like a civilian CCW...not for enforcement of the law, but for personal defense and that of others, and you're on your own if with your own lawyer and personal savings to try and defend yourself.
    I wouldn't want to be a test case either. There has been restrictions enacted after HR 218 by the county. We aren't allowed to carry our duty weapon out of NJ,nor any off-duty weapon that we have qualified with under county instructors. They're looking at liability issues. If the above bold were to happen, I would be looking for a new agency.
    You gain strength, courage, and confidence by every experience in which you really stop to look fear in the face. You are able to say to yourself, "I have lived through this horror. I can take the next thing that comes along." . . . You must do the thing you think you cannot do. Eleanor Roosevelt

  8. #23
    VIP Member Array semperfi.45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Over here now!
    Posts
    3,617
    We have no restrictions on HR218 carry. Duty weapons and off duties (qualified of course) are allowed for HR218 carry.
    Training means learning the rules. Experience means learning the exceptions.

  9. #24
    Member Array SGTMOE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Somewhere NC
    Posts
    123

    Off duty carry

    What if you have a CCL.....you should be to carry what ever you want in (holster) what ever you want.....That's how it is for us......

  10. #25
    Member Array chiboxer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    midwest
    Posts
    397
    My department (back in the 70's) used to require that you carried off-duty. As a matter of fact it was a rule violation if you were NOT carrying. That has relaxed to optional carry as long as it is a double action weapon. My department also has this rather archaic rule that we can never be intoxicated. That means off-duty, on vacation, sitting in your house. If you are over the .08 limit, you are violating rules. It is a stupid rule, and one most probably having its origins in the mandatory off-duty carry.
    Si vis pacem, parabellum

  11. #26
    Ex Member Array BikerRN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    State of Discombobulation
    Posts
    5,253
    In any case, your department/agency isn't obligated to pony up any help if you run into trouble under HR 218 and end up shooting someone. Best I can tell, it gives you the ability to carry like a civilian CCW...not for enforcement of the law, but for personal defense and that of others, and you're on your own if with your own lawyer and personal savings to try and defend yourself.
    As it was explained to me: "Any actions taken while carrying under LEOSA off duty will be considered as taken by a civilian and you are on your own and not acting under the scope of your employment. You can carry, but we will not authorize it or come to your defense if you are involved in a situation."

    I carry off duty, but I'm not playing junior G-Man. LEOSA, what most of you call HR 218, is designed to allow LEO's to carry for personal protection of them and their families off duty. Basically it's a 50 State CCW Permit.

    Biker

  12. #27
    VIP Member
    Array 64zebra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Panhandle of Texas
    Posts
    6,452
    our agency highly recommends off-duty carry
    weapon must be of approved mfg and use factory loaded ammo of high quality

    as for agencies mandating off-duty carry, IMO they shouldn't have to mandate....a LEO is a LEO 24x7x365....you just don't get paid for it all the time

    in Texas, a Peace officer is required by law to intervene in certain situations, on or off-duty, so I'd choose to be armed

    I can't think of any reason why a LEO wouldn't want to be armed while out and about with his/her family, etc
    LEO/CHL
    Certified Glock Armorer

    "I got a touch of hangover bureaucrat, don't push me"
    --G.W. McClintock

    Independence is declared; it must be maintained. Sam Houston-3/2/1836
    If loose gun laws are good for criminals why do criminals support gun control?

  13. #28
    Senior Member Array mulle46's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    1,164
    +1 64Zebra.
    You gain strength, courage, and confidence by every experience in which you really stop to look fear in the face. You are able to say to yourself, "I have lived through this horror. I can take the next thing that comes along." . . . You must do the thing you think you cannot do. Eleanor Roosevelt

  14. #29
    Moderator
    Array Bark'n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    West Central Missouri
    Posts
    9,917
    Quote Originally Posted by bigiceman View Post
    So what would be different if they said that we will not hire anyone that owns a firearm? I don't smoke. I don't like being around smokers. I do defend the rights of all, not just the ones that pertain to me. If their claim that insurance claims and health risks really is justified in your minds then firearms are next. They are an inherant risk and statistically they can be shown to be dangerous and cause more health care expenses. Don't be so quick to take something away from someone else just because it doesn't effect you. It is none of their business.
    I'm not saying I agree with those policies or even like them.... And for the record I don't work at those places and wouldn't work at a place with those restrictive rules.
    -Bark'n
    Semper Fi


    "The gun is the great equalizer... For it is the gun, that allows the meek to repel the monsters; Whom are bigger, stronger and without conscience, prey on those who without one, would surely perish."

  15. #30
    VIP Member
    Array 64zebra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Panhandle of Texas
    Posts
    6,452
    Quote:
    In any case, your department/agency isn't obligated to pony up any help if you run into trouble under HR 218 and end up shooting someone. Best I can tell, it gives you the ability to carry like a civilian CCW...not for enforcement of the law, but for personal defense and that of others, and you're on your own if with your own lawyer and personal savings to try and defend yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by BikerRN View Post
    As it was explained to me: "Any actions taken while carrying under LEOSA off duty will be considered as taken by a civilian and you are on your own and not acting under the scope of your employment. You can carry, but we will not authorize it or come to your defense if you are involved in a situation."

    I carry off duty, but I'm not playing junior G-Man. LEOSA, what most of you call HR 218, is designed to allow LEO's to carry for personal protection of them and their families off duty. Basically it's a 50 State CCW Permit.

    Biker
    I'm glad I don't live where y'all do, here if an officer gets in trouble everyone will help him, even off-duty, I guess its all about individual agencies/jurisdictions
    LEO/CHL
    Certified Glock Armorer

    "I got a touch of hangover bureaucrat, don't push me"
    --G.W. McClintock

    Independence is declared; it must be maintained. Sam Houston-3/2/1836
    If loose gun laws are good for criminals why do criminals support gun control?

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. FFL Requirements in Virginia?
    By LeChuck in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: May 11th, 2014, 03:58 AM
  2. Off-duty LEO and reporting requirements
    By jfnixon in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: February 22nd, 2011, 06:12 PM
  3. Training requirements
    By mrjam2jab in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: May 6th, 2010, 06:10 PM
  4. Oklahoma CC course requirements
    By Thomas McAlv in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: March 26th, 2009, 01:16 AM
  5. Qualification requirements
    By zx9rt1 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: September 25th, 2006, 12:28 PM

Search tags for this page

are ft worth, tx police officrs required to carry their firearms off duty
,
carry off-duty requirement
,
carrying under hr218
,
does hr218 requirements specify if a holster is mandatory
,
homeland security off duty officer carry weapon
,
hr 218 military police
,
nj attorney general guidelines off duty calibers
,
off duty militarysecurity
,
off duty requirement
,
requirements for duty holster
,

rules for homeland securtity off duty

,
security duty weapon only five shots
Click on a term to search for related topics.