A policy is a policy and should be equally applied
Food for thought:
There may be some question, in the wake of McDonald V. Chicago, as to whether or not LEO can even comment or attempt to "influence" firearms rights now.
42 U.S.C. § 14141
§ 14141. Cause of action
(a) Unlawful conduct
It shall be unlawful for any governmental authority, or any agent thereof, or any person acting on behalf of a governmental authority, to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers or by officials or employees of any governmental agency with responsibility for the administration of juvenile justice or the incarceration of juveniles that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
(b) Civil action by Attorney General
Whenever the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that a violation of paragraph (1) has occurred, the Attorney General, for or in the name of the United States, may in a civil action obtain appropriate equitable and declaratory relief to eliminate the pattern or practice.
In February, when the state patrol "reacted" to protias, many on here said "once the business stated 'NO GUNS' LEO should have left as well."
The GFSZA specifically states an exception for "official capacity" officers only, so even LEO acknowledges there are limitations on their privilege and that they CANNOT carry in school zones when off duty without authorization.
A private business puts up a sign that says "no firearms," that sign should be honored by EVERYBODY! "No firearms" is totally clear to me, they don't want any firearms at all, NONE! If the sign/policy has an exception for LEO, then the private business has granted LEO an additional privilege, if the sign has no exception, then LEO is TAKING a privilege they are NOT ENTITLED TO.
Every time someone on here has a LEO encounter, and they give ID, many here chastise them about how that is NOT required, and should NOT be provided. To do so, gives LEO a PRIVILEGE they are not entitled to. The argument is always, "keep giving them ID, and pretty soon they will always expect it, making it harder for the fella who refuses (within his right)." Likewise, continue to allow LEO to violate private property rights, and pretty soon there won't be private property where LEO is concerned.
If the sing/policy is "NO FIREARMS," and there isn't a LEO exception, then the policy also applies to LEO. Pointing this out to both LEO and the business is appropriate, it just needs to be done respectfully and tactfully.
Q: So your policy is no firearms at all, right?
A: Yes.
Q: You realize that a stringent policy like that applies to the police as well?
A: No, hadn't thought of that.
Q: On duty officers, in uniform, that would be OK?
A: Yes.
Q: Off duty or retired, not in uniform, carrying concealed. No way to tell they are police. Would that be OK?
A: Hadn't thought of that either, I guess so...
These ARE the questions we should be asking and the issues we should be pointing out. We do it in a RESPECTFUL manner, but point them out none-the-less.
A blanket BAN, "NO Firearms" can have unintended consequences for the business, LEO, and every other patron of the business. We need LEO thinking about this BEFORE they "recommend signage." We need businesses thinking about this BEFORE they place signage.
I don't believe pointing out that a "NO FIREARMS" policy, without a LEO exception, also applying to LEO is inappropriate and as I pointed out above, it may be unlawful for LEO to even suggest signage. Shouldn't LEO say "consult an attorney" instead of trying to provide LEGAL advice that discourages the free exercise of a state and federal constitutional right?
Done with the
personal soap box now....