I believe that being a police officer is not one of the protected categories under civil rights laws....
That law appears to allow them to be armed, but I believe it would be unconstitutional if the law allows them to trespass on private property when told to leave.
My biggest beef with civil rights laws is that there are "protected categories" rather than requiring equal treatment of everyone, period.
If a business owner cannot legally refuse service to a black man, a Catholic, a homosexual, a republican, or a disabled person, if a store selling "east coast collegiate style clothing" can't require employees to dress in that clothing if doing so violates their religious beliefs, if bakers and photographers can be required to provide services in support of conduct that violates their conscience, then why should a business owner be allowed to refuse to service to someone who happens to be in lawful, possession of a firearm? Or even a person who happens to be a cop?
If the only way a business owner knows two men are homosexual is that they chose to hold hands in his store he would not get away with refusing service because they were holding hands. He'd get dinged for refusing service to homosexuals. Ditto if a business owner refused service to someone wearing a crucifix, a headscarf, or a yarmulke. He is going to have some explaining to do about religious discrimination.
So why is it ok to refuse service to someone in lawful possession of a firearm? Are we gun owners really ok being told to sit at the back of the bus?
What is someone's tag line around here contends? Either we are all equal are we are not. Get rid of the civil rights "protected categories" and treat everyone equally.
(Which is not to say I don't take a little perverse pleasure seeing cops treated equally poorly as legally armed LACs. But treating Jews as badly as blacks or Catholics isn't quite the equality civil rights laws are supposed to yield.)
Charles