Reference check: Off duty LEO and NO GUNS signs

simmonsjoe · Dec 4, 2009

imported post

The officer exception is for RESTRICTIONS on where it is OK TO CARRY CONCEALED.
So he can carry at the post office, courthouse, school, etc.

And I kicked a uniformed richmond city police officer out of the pizza shop I worked at years ago. He was on his lunch break and came in to eat and I told him he wasn't welcome, and if he came in again I would charge him with trespass. Another officer with him grabbed his arm and said "Don't argue, we gotta go" (in a helping to keep his buddy out of legal trouble way, cause he was about to smart off) I informed him he was welcome to stay, and officers get a free slice. He came back in for a free slice, and asked why I banned his fellow officer from the store. I said "If I tell you, since your on duty you will be obligated to arrest him, do you still want to know?"
he thought for a few bites, then said thanks for the pizza and walked out.

johnfenter · Dec 5, 2009

imported post

Not entirely true. The exception for a local or state police officer to carry in a post office or on any federal property is limited to "official business". See 18USC930.

Code:

(d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to--
(1) the lawful performance of [b]official duties[/b] by an officer, 
agent, or employee of the United States, [b]a State, or a political 
subdivision thereof[/b], who is authorized by law to engage in or 
supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution 
of any violation of law;

If he's only going in on a break or off duty to check a PO Box, buy stamps, mail something, or other personal business, he's breaking the law.

KBCraig · Dec 6, 2009

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

IMHO - private property rights have been extended too far when they apply to venues where the public is otherwise invited. If by specific invitation, membership, or personal homel, then private property rights should prevail. Let the flames begin.

I think it's exactly the opposite: private property rights were destroyed the moment courts and legislative bodies declared it illegal to reject visitors or customers who fell into certain categories.

Any private property owner, whether the property is a private home or a mega-mall, should be free to issue a broad invitation to the public to come inside, but then stand at the door and say "...except for you, and you, and that one over there..."

And my response would be to take my business elsewhere. I'd rather eat a dive with Danbus than give my custom to someone who didn't like my friends because they're Black, or Jewish, or Hispanic, or gay, or of the distaff persuasion. Or armed, of course.

NovaCop · Dec 6, 2009

imported post

18.2-308 states that it does not apply to sworn law enforcement (besides a subsection addressing alcohol use). The section does not say that the officer has to be on duty, just sworn. "No firearm" signs do not apply to sworn LEO's in VA. The same question was addressed during our yearly law updates at my police department. LEO's are legally allowed to carry concealed in restaurants/bars with alcohol licenses as well.

Reading some of the previous posts, I believe some of the individuals posting up about VA laws are unaware of the federal firearms law- HR218 which gives sworn LEO the ability to carry throughout the United States and overrides a lot of previous state laws.

I know some people will disagree with the exemptions that give LEO's more freedom when carrying a concealed firearm. However, LEO's are subject to civil liability if they do not act in some situations, unlike that of regular citizens. Sworn LEO's undergo a lot of firearm training and must qualify twice a year with their duty weapon among.

Although "no firearm" signs do not apply directly to LEO's, that does not mean the property owner can't forbid an off duty LEO (not preforming duties of course) from remaining on his property after telling him to leave (trespassing). However, all most all private businesses and citizens encourage off duty police onto their property because it adds more security.

Just to comment.

peter nap · Dec 6, 2009

imported post

NovaCop10 wrote:

18.2-308 states that it does not apply to sworn law enforcement (besides a subsection addressing alcohol use). The section does not say that the officer has to be on duty, just sworn. "No firearm" signs do not apply to sworn LEO's in VA. The same question was addressed during our yearly law updates at my police department. LEO's are legally allowed to carry concealed in restaurants/bars with alcohol licenses as well.

Reading some of the previous posts, I believe some of the individuals posting up about VA laws are unaware of the federal firearms law- HR218 which gives sworn LEO the ability to carry throughout the United States and overrides a lot of previous state laws.

I know some people will disagree with the exemptions that give LEO's more freedom when carrying a concealed firearm. However, LEO's are subject to civil liability if they do not act in some situations, unlike that of regular citizens. Sworn LEO's undergo a lot of firearm training and must qualify twice a year with their duty weapon among.

Although "no firearm" signs do not apply directly to LEO's, that does not mean the property owner can't forbid an off duty LEO (not preforming duties of course) from remaining on his property after telling him to leave (trespassing). However, all most all private businesses and citizens encourage off duty police onto their property because it adds more security.

Just to comment.

Novacop, you're not seeing the forest because of the trees in the way. Sure a cop can carry and go in bars, etc.

But he CAN'T do so against the owners wishes. Classic example,

Off duty cop goes into Saslaws bar and grill and sees a "No Guns" sign. He says to himself, "I'm a LEO, this doesn't apply to me"

He goes in, sits down and orders a doughnut sub (That's sick humor

)...

The sub comes and Leo takes his jacket off. Saslaw sees the gun, snatches the plate with the sub and says "The sign says NO Guns" You're Outta here!"

Like it or not, he's outta there. If he doesn't go, Saslaw calls the cops. Worst case, he's in another venue and they write a summons. Best case, he leaves and gets an ass chewing the next shift.

BTW, welcome to the site unless you're really Nitrovic.

NovaCop · Dec 6, 2009

imported post

Thanks for the welcome, and no I'm not nitro- just someone who finds this board interesting and have been following it lately.

Yes, you are absolutely correct that a business owner or private property owner can tell anyone (besides LEO's involved in their duties, emergency crews, etc) to leave their property. In fact, if anyone carries a weapon into a mall etc. past a sign posted "no firearms" they aren't breaking any law. The only law they would be breaking is if they remain on the property after being told to leave. My point was just that legally speaking, officers can conceal carry in places where the law forbids citizens (restaurants and bars w/an ABC permit for example).

darthmord · Dec 7, 2009

imported post

NovaCop10 wrote:

Thanks for the welcome, and no I'm not nitro- just someone who finds this board interesting and have been following it lately.

Yes, you are absolutely correct that a business owner or private property owner can tell anyone (besides LEO's involved in their duties, emergency crews, etc) to leave their property. In fact, if anyone carries a weapon into a mall etc. past a sign posted "no firearms" they aren't breaking any law. The only law they would be breaking is if they remain on the property after being told to leave. My point was just that legally speaking, officers can conceal carry in places where the law forbids citizens (restaurants and bars w/an ABC permit for example).

Keep in mind that some places appear to have ruled such that signs *ARE* official notice and violating said notice would be trespassing. Thankfully, such nonsense has not come to VA.

simmonsjoe · Dec 7, 2009

imported post

darthmord wrote:

NovaCop10 wrote:

Thanks for the welcome, and no I'm not nitro- just someone who finds this board interesting and have been following it lately.

Yes, you are absolutely correct that a business owner or private property owner can tell anyone (besides LEO's involved in their duties, emergency crews, etc) to leave their property. In fact, if anyone carries a weapon into a mall etc. past a sign posted "no firearms" they aren't breaking any law. The only law they would be breaking is if they remain on the property after being told to leave. My point was just that legally speaking, officers can conceal carry in places where the law forbids citizens (restaurants and bars w/an ABC permit for example).

Click to expand...

Keep in mind that some places appear to have ruled such that signs *ARE* official notice and violating said notice would be trespassing. Thankfully, such nonsense has not come to VA.

Also recent a recent case in VA says just being told you can't carry doesn't count if their is no evidence it didn't come from the OWNER or other party enumerated in 18.2-308

user · Dec 9, 2009

imported post

It's not a violation of the concealed carry law, but it is trespassing. In fact, that rule applies whether the cop is on-duty or off, unless he's not only on duty but actively engaged in official business (i.e., investigating a crime, serving a warrant, etc.). Good luck getting a magistrate to issue a warrant for the misdemeanor trespass, though. I have to chuckle at that idea.

simmonsjoe · Dec 9, 2009

imported post

user wrote:

It's not a violation of the concealed carry law, but it is trespassing. In fact, that rule applies whether the cop is on-duty or off, unless he's not only on duty but actively engaged in official business (i.e., investigating a crime, serving a warrant, etc.). Good luck getting a magistrate to issue a warrant for the misdemeanor trespass, though. I have to chuckle at that idea.

hmm. Doesn't aa property owner have the right to EJECT someone for tresspass?? THAT would be something to see in court!! Arrested for assaulting an officer, defense is you were lawfully ejecting him from the premise, even though he was on duty and in uniform because he had no business there.

user · Dec 9, 2009

imported post

Correct. A property owner doesn't have the right to defend his property interests with deadly force, but does have the right to use such force as may be reasonably necessary to eject the trespasser who refuses to leave peacefully.

I suppose it's obvious that the property owner is entitled to use deadly force if he reasonably believes himself to be faced with a threat of imminent serious bodily injury by the trespasser on the basis of objective facts. So if one forcibly grabs the trespasser by the arm to escort him firmly but gently to the edge of the property, and the trespasser reacts violently, that changes the scenario from defense of property to self-defense. And it doesn't matter who the trespasser is, if he doesn't have a warrant, subpoena, civil complaint, summons, etc.

peter nap · Dec 9, 2009

imported post

user wrote:

Correct. A property owner doesn't have the right to defend his property interests with deadly force, but does have the right to use such force as may be reasonably necessary to eject the trespasser who refuses to leave peacefully.

I suppose it's obvious that the property owner is entitled to use deadly force if he reasonably believes himself to be faced with a threat of imminent serious bodily injury by the trespasser on the basis of objective facts. So if one forcibly grabs the trespasser by the arm to escort him firmly but gently to the edge of the property, and the trespasser reacts violently, that changes the scenario from defense of property to self-defense. And it doesn't matter who the trespasser is, if he doesn't have a warrant, subpoena, civil complaint, summons, etc.

I'd like to see you convince a jury full of soccer mom's of that:lol:.

darthmord · Dec 11, 2009

imported post

simmonsjoe wrote:

user wrote:

It's not a violation of the concealed carry law, but it is trespassing. In fact, that rule applies whether the cop is on-duty or off, unless he's not only on duty but actively engaged in official business (i.e., investigating a crime, serving a warrant, etc.). Good luck getting a magistrate to issue a warrant for the misdemeanor trespass, though. I have to chuckle at that idea.

Click to expand...

hmm. Doesn't aa property owner have the right to EJECT someone for tresspass?? THAT would be something to see in court!! Arrested for assaulting an officer, defense is you were lawfully ejecting him from the premise, even though he was on duty and in uniform because he had no business there.

Well, if he has no official business reason for being on your property, he's not acting in his official capacity, thus he loses the benefit of some of his normal job protections.

Certainly would be something to see in action.

simmonsjoe · Dec 11, 2009

imported post

peter nap wrote:

NovaCop10 wrote:

18.2-308 states that it does not apply to sworn law enforcement (besides a subsection addressing alcohol use). The section does not say that the officer has to be on duty, just sworn. "No firearm" signs do not apply to sworn LEO's in VA. The same question was addressed during our yearly law updates at my police department. LEO's are legally allowed to carry concealed in restaurants/bars with alcohol licenses as well.

Reading some of the previous posts, I believe some of the individuals posting up about VA laws are unaware of the federal firearms law- HR218 which gives sworn LEO the ability to carry throughout the United States and overrides a lot of previous state laws.

I know some people will disagree with the exemptions that give LEO's more freedom when carrying a concealed firearm. However, LEO's are subject to civil liability if they do not act in some situations, unlike that of regular citizens. Sworn LEO's undergo a lot of firearm training and must qualify twice a year with their duty weapon among.

Although "no firearm" signs do not apply directly to LEO's, that does not mean the property owner can't forbid an off duty LEO (not preforming duties of course) from remaining on his property after telling him to leave (trespassing). However, all most all private businesses and citizens encourage off duty police onto their property because it adds more security.

Just to comment.

Click to expand...

Novacop, you're not seeing the forest because of the trees in the way. Sure a cop can carry and go in bars, etc.

But he CAN'T do so against the owners wishes. Classic example,

Off duty cop goes into Saslaws bar and grill and sees a "No Guns" sign. He says to himself, "I'm a LEO, this doesn't apply to me"

He goes in, sits down and orders a doughnut sub (That's sick humor)...

The sub comes and Leo takes his jacket off. Saslaw sees the gun, snatches the plate with the sub and says "The sign says NO Guns" You're Outta here!"

Like it or not, he's outta there. If he doesn't go, Saslaw calls the cops. Worst case, he's in another venue and they write a summons. Best case, he leaves and gets an ass chewing the next shift.

BTW, welcome to the site unless you're really Nitrovic.

Does anyone know if someone has been charged with trespass simply for ignoring GFZ stickers / postings if they left when asked to? I haven't. At first I thought this exemptions for cops to private property was just another stupid overlapping redundant law written by stupid incompetent people.:banghead: Then I realized something.:idea:

I think NovaCop overlooked an important point (no offense). Because, Isn't this, in practice, the same as a non-cop carrying on private property that is posted? I think the law serves to insulate private property owners from any claims of discrimination by allowing only some people to carry on their property. Some juries, especially in non-criminal court, may find that allowing an armed white guy and refusing an armed black guy is discrimination, arguing that since the white guy was off-duty, his officer status isn't relevant.

Although I think everyone should be able to carry everywhere, I respect a property owners rights and If they want to allow Off-Duty cops to carry only, I don't think they should be at legal risk to do so.

:quirky I still think legislators are stupid and doubt they did this intentionally.

simmonsjoe · Dec 11, 2009

imported post

NovaCop10 wrote:

18.2-308 states that it does not apply to sworn law enforcement (besides a subsection addressing alcohol use). The section does not say that the officer has to be on duty, just sworn. "No firearm" signs do not apply to sworn LEO's in VA. The same question was addressed during our yearly law updates at my police department. LEO's are legally allowed to carry concealed in restaurants/bars with alcohol licenses as well.

Reading some of the previous posts, I believe some of the individuals posting up about VA laws are unaware of the federal firearms law- HR218 which gives sworn LEO the ability to carry throughout the United States and overrides a lot of previous state laws.

I know some people will disagree with the exemptions that give LEO's more freedom when carrying a concealed firearm. However, LEO's are subject to civil liability if they do not act in some situations, unlike that of regular citizens. Sworn LEO's undergo a lot of firearm training and must qualify twice a year with their duty weapon among.

Although "no firearm" signs do not apply directly to LEO's, that does not mean the property owner can't forbid an off duty LEO (not preforming duties of course) from remaining on his property after telling him to leave (trespassing). However, all most all private businesses and citizens encourage off duty police onto their property because it adds more security.

Just to comment.

Can you expound on this for me? I know that off-duty paramedics are not required to help anyone any more than the general public is in most places. I know that the Supreme court has ruled the police only have a duty to protect the public in general, and not any individual person. I'm surprised to learn that sworn LEO's who are off duty are still open for liability in a situation. How much liability is it and how much does it extend off duty?

ProShooter · Dec 11, 2009

imported post

simmonsjoe wrote:

I'm surprised to learn that sworn LEO's who are off duty are still open for liability in a situation. How much liability is it and how much does it extend off duty?

Liability aside, if you are "off duty" and witness a crime and do not take action, your butt will be on the carpet come Monday morning to explain why. The unwritten rule is that you are always on duty.

Here's a flipside to think about...

Joe the mechanic gets a DUI on Friday. He goes back to work on Monday.

Joe the cop gets a DUI on Friday. He goes back to work to clean out his locker on Monday.

Think THAT doesn't happen?

I've seen deputies (off duty) get in trouble (suspended)for flipping someone off at a gas pump. I've seen deputies (off duty) get into a road rage thing and a citizen calls the Sheriff and complains, and the deputy gets suspended.

Every cop will tell you that they are never "really" off duty. You can't express political opinion. You can't curse. You can't do anything wrong, if you want to keep your job.

simmonsjoe · Dec 11, 2009

imported post

How do officers lobby to address problems they see hindering the duty of their office?
How do they address political tides, and the balance of Positivism vs Natural Law?? (i.e. Oathkeepers) From what I understand, the political influence is greater on police than sheriffs, due to the separation of sheriffs power from other political forces. I am concerned that in order to serve your neighbors you must limit some of your own liberties.

ProShooter · Dec 11, 2009

imported post

simmonsjoe wrote:

How do officers lobby to address problems they see hindering the duty of their office? In Virginia, they don't. The FOP is a fraternal group and does not have the bargaining/political power like the PBAthat our northern brothers have. Va. is a right to work state and you work "at the pleasure of the Sheriff". Shoes not shiny enough? You're gone, and you can't do squat about it.

How do they address political tides...You keep your mouth shut and stay under the radar.

From what I understand, the political influence is greater on police than sheriffs, due to the separation of sheriffs power from other political forces. The political influence on a Sheriff and the influence of a Sheriff are very great in Va. A Sheriff is a constitutional officer and is elected by the people. Once in office, they are very powerful. They have very strong political allies and they are a difficult entity to topple. Police departments actually are allowed to exist by decision of a Sheriff. He is the Chief LEO for all jurisdictions in Va.

paramedic70002 · Dec 12, 2009

imported post

ProShooter wrote:

Joe the cop gets a DUI on Friday. He goes back to work to clean out his locker on Monday.

EMTs and firefighters have no legal duty to act when off duty (and do not carry IVs and drugs!) but can certainly find themselves unemployed for a host of criminal issues occurring off duty, just like LEOs.

And remember that whole "Good Samaritan" thing? Courts have ruled that law is valid even for paid professionals, since they aren't demanding payment on the spot for a specific act. But there's a loophole. Every one of those laws has an out for gross negligence. So lets say you get a sue happy patient. What do they do? File a suit alleging gross negligence. It basically makes the law a 'feel good' piece of legislation with no teeth. Even if you prove you were not grossly negligent, you're still out lawyer fees, time, aggravation, etc.

2a4all · Dec 12, 2009

imported post

ProShooter wrote:

simmonsjoe wrote:

How do officers lobby to address problems they see hindering the duty of their office? In Virginia, they don't. The FOP is a fraternal group and does not have the bargaining/political power like the PBAthat our northern brothers have. Va. is a right to work state and you work "at the pleasure of the Sheriff". Shoes not shiny enough? You're gone, and you can't do squat about it.

Click to expand...

How do they address political tides...You keep your mouth shut and stay under the radar.

Click to expand...

From what I understand, the political influence is greater on police than sheriffs, due to the separation of sheriffs power from other political forces. The political influence on a Sheriff and the influence of a Sheriff are very great in Va. A Sheriff is a constitutional officer and is elected by the people. Once in office, they are very powerful. They have very strong political allies and they are a difficult entity to topple. Police departments actually are allowed to exist by decision of a Sheriff. He is the Chief LEO for all jurisdictions in Va.

Click to expand...

I asked Sheriff Diggs about this at the Fudruckers OCDO. (Basicaly, I asked him where his money came from.) He said that his salary is paid by the State, but his operating budget and capital expenses are split between the jurisdiction (York County) and the State. When he first took office, the split was about 50/50 (State v County), but that has changed over time, with the State kicking less and less. He is concerned that when the ratio of County/State $$ is sufficiently high, the County will increase their efforts to control how LE is done in the County. Generally, a jusrisdiction does this by installing a police department, with the Chief answering to the local gov't. Then, Sheriff Diggs' functions would be limited to Jail and Courthouse functions. He never said anything about the County needing his consent, but if they are funding his department, money talks, BS walks....

Reference check: Off duty LEO and NO GUNS signs

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

New member

Accomplished Advocate

New member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member