Citizen
Founder's Club Member
This is a very good point.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Illinois Detectives Booted from Denny's for OC.
- Thread starter Superlite27
- Start date
This is a very good point.
LESGTINCT
Regular Member
A firearm is part of EVERY LEO's uniform. Without it they are out of uniform and not within policy.
carolina guy
Regular Member
This is not relevant. The discussion is if Denny's (or any other place) should be able to restrict the ability of the police to bring firearms on their premises, if so desired. You mentioned that the police and private citizens are different, and you keep harping on that...so be it. Just because the police officer is on the clock, but not actively working (lunch break) does not mean they need their sidearm, especially, plain clothes officers.
Oh well. Yes, police have more authority to do more things than private citizens. And? Doesn't change the original topic.
LESGTINCT
Regular Member
Originally Posted by carolina guy
Are they on patrol or responding to a call? If not, they are not in service and do not require the immediate use/access to their firearms. Just because their identify themselves as LEO, does not mean that a private citizen must surrender their property rights if it is not directly related to the enforcement of a law.
And no, there is no difference between LEO and private citizens when they are not ACTIVELY enforcing the law.
First part, not true. Like I said a firearm is part of the uniform, without it the LEO is not in uniform and is in violation of policy. Not to mention that there is probably a policy about disarming.
Are they on patrol or responding to a call? If not, they are not in service and do not require the immediate use/access to their firearms. Just because their identify themselves as LEO, does not mean that a private citizen must surrender their property rights if it is not directly related to the enforcement of a law.
And no, there is no difference between LEO and private citizens when they are not ACTIVELY enforcing the law.
First part, not true. Like I said a firearm is part of the uniform, without it the LEO is not in uniform and is in violation of policy. Not to mention that there is probably a policy about disarming.
carolina guy
Regular Member
No. It is part of the equipment they are issued, much like a car. The uniform is just for identification, nothing else. The authority does not derive from the firearm, and you should know better.
Again, citation, or drop this please.
carolina guy
Regular Member
Please stop now. You don't know, so you are guessing.
LESGTINCT
Regular Member
First part, yes, I agree. Second, disagree. It's part of uniform and yes they need it. Third part, yes.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
This is likely a losing line of argument, CG. We've got so many reports of cops being required to be armed while on duty, there's a good bet its nationwide with almost no exceptions.
The whole argument about cops putting their guns in the car is sorta tangential anyway. As is the counter-argument that they have to have their guns with them. Who cares if they do? If the restaurant said no guns except for uniformed cops, then that's the deal. The problem is the captain expecting Denny's to make an exception for them because they're cops. Don't let ConnCop draw you too far off the subject. It only serves his purpose to avoid the main issue.
Last edited:
LESGTINCT
Regular Member
I am not guessing, I have 20 years experience in LE, hardly call it a guess. I know Police Policy and Procedures, they are all the same. All have a uniform policy.
carolina guy
Regular Member
You do realize that there are a lot of LEO's that are not armed? Are they "out of uniform"? I guess I have to just give this a big (*SHRUG*) ... no citation, no proof, no reason to continue the discussion.
LESGTINCT
Regular Member
LESGTINCT
Regular Member
Really? Who?
carolina guy
Regular Member
Quite possible. Good point. I am betting, however, that despite his alleged "20 years experience" that there is a great deal he does not understand, and this parallels what has been seen by many people in a lot of locations. Just because they have been on the job for a long time, does not mean they understand the law, only what they can get away with while doing their job.
My argument is exactly that...if the police expect everyone to make an exception just because they are police, they need an attitude adjustment.
carolina guy
Regular Member
Quick google turned up some:
Prison officers
Probation officers
Fish and game wardens
Natural resources officers (park rangers and forest rangers)
Fire Marshals and deputy fire marshals
Immigration inspectors
Customs and Border Protection officers
District Attorney and Prosecuting Attorney investigators
United States Postal Service postal inspectors
U.S. Coast Guard Officers, Warrant Officers, and Petty Officers
Some are armed, some not, some are sometimes, some not...anyway...this is pointless...you conceded that Denny's is within their rights to request it, so I am happy.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
ROFL!! I agree!
The most hilarious point is his overlooking something. All his years in LE. He's stuck in a certain line of thinking and seems to have totally missed the obvious. By which I mean he's so busy thinking cops deserve special privileges, he's completely missed the obvious point:
Denny's shouldn't be denying anybody they don't have to the right to possess a firearm for self-defense. If the cops want to be butt hurt about something, that one is unassailable. "Hey! I'm a human being. I have the basic human right of self-defense. I'm one of the very few that state law allows to open carry! Can you please recognize my right to defend my life and the lives of others!"
But, nope. He's too busy arguing the special privilege side of things.
Last edited:
LESGTINCT
Regular Member
I know CT law and that's a fact. Illinois law not so much but they are all pretty similiar. I don't claim to know everything and enjoy learning knew things every day however I have learned nothing here. I don't expect special treatment.
LESGTINCT
Regular Member
I disagree, it's private property they have that right. You may not agree, too bad.
LESGTINCT
Regular Member
Quick google turned up some:
Prison officers
Probation officers
Fish and game wardens
Natural resources officers (park rangers and forest rangers)
Fire Marshals and deputy fire marshals
Immigration inspectors
Customs and Border Protection officers
District Attorney and Prosecuting Attorney investigators
United States Postal Service postal inspectors
U.S. Coast Guard Officers, Warrant Officers, and Petty Officers
Some are armed, some not, some are sometimes, some not...anyway...this is pointless...you conceded that Denny's is within their rights to request it, so I am happy.
If they are suppose to be armed and on duty and they are not they are out of uniform.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Strawman argument. I didn't say they didn't have that right. I said the human right argument is an unassailable reason for being miffed. Its their property right; and its yours and ours right to criticize it and offer counter-argument.
Nice try. Hopefully you did better with logic and differentiation during your 20 year career regarding RAS and probable cause.
Last edited:
LESGTINCT
Regular Member
And more insults.