Off-Duty requirements

[bigiceman]

Read in another area of the forum about an officer who was required to carry his concealed weapon, while off-duty, in an holster with positive retention. This got me to thinking about the reasonableness or lawfulness of such a requirement. When I am not at work they don't get to tell me how to live my life. If I do somethinig illegal they can take exception, but otherwise what business of it is their's? I have not given them that authority over me, and I would not. If they want to say while you are off-duty you lose your issued firearm because you have not properly retained it, you would be disciplined, okay. But to make a requirement?

What do you think about this kind of restriction? What if your employer said you couldn't carry a firearm, not only at work, but off-duty as well. What if some of these gun-hating companies started telling their employees that a condition of employment was that they could own no firearms? I don't see much difference. It is an intrusion into my private life and my private rights. It is not any of their business.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[dukalmighty]

Once your off the clock a company cannot tell you how to live as long as you are not breaking any laws that could affect your employment,to try to tell you you cannot own something that is legal would be setting themselves up for a hefty lawsuit

[BikerRN]

Policies can and are made in regards to LEO's and off duty conduct, as well as what is authorized to be carried off duty.

If you don't like it, find an agency more to your liking or work from within to get the policy changed. The nice thing is, every ten years or so you get a new "politician" to assume the "directorship". That's when policies can get changed, depending on that director's mindset and life expiriences. Look at how LAPD came to approve the Glock.

Policies are like diapers, they are both designed to cover somebody's rear end. In the diaper's case, it covers the rear end of the crappee. In the case of policies it's all about covering the agency's rear end, not the individual.

Biker

[tinkerinWstuff]

Companies have tried to do exactly the same thing regarding smoking.

[mulle46]

As I remember making the post that I am required to have positive retention in any off-duty holsters as per my dept. guidelines, I think it was probably my post you are talking about. I agree with Biker. My only issue with the policy is that it makes it harder to find quality holsters for off-duty carry, as almost all makers don't have a thumbbreak or other positive retention option. We are also required to have at a minimum a .380 with 5 shots for off duty carry. As far as reasonable or lawful goes, LE agencies do have more control over LEO's off-duty conduct than a standard company would. What company swears in its employees? OMO

[mcp1810]

Sort of a follow on to Bikers post.
If the officer is carrying a department issued weapon off duty they have the right to tell you how it is to be secured at all times. It is their property. I have known departments that not only tell you what security level the holster has to be, they give you a list of approved models to choose from.
The officers can also carry a privately owned weapon ( from an approved list) that they qualify with at the same time as their duty weapon.
If the officer gets into a problem off duty and is found to not be using an approved weapon or holster (if the holster is somehow an issue i.e. lost their weapon) They may very well find that they are paying for their own lawyer.

[hogdaddy]

brothers agency manditory carry off duty at least BUG

[retsupt99]

Policies can and are made in regards to LEO's and off duty conduct, as well as what is authorized to be carried off duty.

If you don't like it, find an agency more to your liking or work from within to get the policy changed. The nice thing is, every ten years or so you get a new "politician" to assume the "directorship". That's when policies can get changed, depending on that director's mindset and life expiriences. Look at how LAPD came to approve the Glock.

Policies are like diapers, they are both designed to cover somebody's rear end. In the diaper's case, it covers the rear end of the crappee. In the case of policies it's all about covering the agency's rear end, not the individual.

Biker

And both are full of the same stuff...

[bigiceman]

As I remember making the post that I am required to have positive retention in any off-duty holsters as per my dept. guidelines, I think it was probably my post you are talking about. I agree with Biker. My only issue with the policy is that it makes it harder to find quality holsters for off-duty carry, as almost all makers don't have a thumbbreak or other positive retention option. We are also required to have at a minimum a .380 with 5 shots for off duty carry. As far as reasonable or lawful goes, LE agencies do have more control over LEO's off-duty conduct than a standard company would. What company swears in its employees? OMO

Yes it was your post I was referring to. I didn't see a need to specify who since it was a broad question. It just seems a little intrusive, swearing in or no. I was in the military and there is a lot more loss of control there of your whole life than anywhere else I know. I guess I would have to look up the swearing in oath. I also don't have any experience or knowledge of how far they back up other parts of your life to know if it is a good trade-off. Good discussion keep it up.

[Bark'n]

Kind of like fire departments who mandate no smoking on duty or off.

I know several of those!

Don't like the rules, find a new agency.

For the record... I think it sucks too when they get into off duty time.

[bigiceman]

Kind of like fire departments who mandate no smoking on duty or off.

I know several of those!

Don't like the rules, find a new agency.

For the record... I think it sucks too when they get into off duty time.

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.

[semperfi.45]

In NJ, a LEO's off-duty carry privileges are a perc and not a guaranteed right. We are allowed an exemption of the law that prohibits the carry of concealed firearms at the discretion of our employment and individual agencies have the right to dictate what calibers, guns, holsters and ammo that it applies to. Some agencies issue an off duty and require that only that handgun be carried. Mine is much more reasonable with the only exemption being .380 or better.

[mcp1810]

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.

They can get away with it because they usually pay something like 80% of their employees health insurance premiums. They have also been able to show a correlation between smoking and respiratory illnesses, heart disease, and disability claims filed by fire fighters and police officers.

[mulle46]

Yes it was your post I was referring to. I didn't see a need to specify who since it was a broad question. It just seems a little intrusive, swearing in or no. I was in the military and there is a lot more loss of control there of your whole life than anywhere else I know. I guess I would have to look up the swearing in oath. I also don't have any experience or knowledge of how far they back up other parts of your life to know if it is a good trade-off. Good discussion keep it up.

I served in the military also, and yes, the military had more control over my life than my LE agency. However, LE is quasi-military so some degree of control over off-duty actions, etc, is to be expected, at least in my opinion.

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.

[mslaughtertx]

The way it works here is you are allowed to carry under your depts authority. I know of two major cities here that restrict the rights of what officers can carry, unless they obtain their own CHL. It works here that if you want to carry where the CHL can't and claim your dept gives you a defense to carry, then you follow their rules and regs.