Police carry guns.
Police carry guns off duty and can carry openly in most state off duty.
In my state, Florida, police carry guns openly on or off duty.
The law says, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Police, off duty, have the RIGHT to protect themselves. They have the right to carry. They have the right to defend themselves.
The Supreme Court said that basic rights like the 2nd, are fundamental. That would imply that Strict scrutiny applies, and that standards is this... "the law is unconstitutional unless it is "narrowly tailored" to serve a "compelling" government interest. In addition, there cannot be a "less restrictive" alternative available to achieve that compelling interest."
You could argue that allowing police to carry arms while disarming citizens is a narrowly tailored law, but that would fly in the face of the Heller/McDonald decisions because the same argument would apply within the home - and was rejected, not on point but strongly implied by the decisions. My reading in McDonald would imply near enough to on point to make little difference. Plus it was one of the founders greatest fears that the government would be better armed and have a standing army over civilians... both of which are visualized in the police departments and National Guard.
So, I would ask, if there are any legal eagles in the group, do you think a lawsuit based on equal protection of the laws - on a police officer being allowed to arm himself openly while citizens cannot - violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution?
Police carry guns off duty and can carry openly in most state off duty.
In my state, Florida, police carry guns openly on or off duty.
The law says, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Police, off duty, have the RIGHT to protect themselves. They have the right to carry. They have the right to defend themselves.
The Supreme Court said that basic rights like the 2nd, are fundamental. That would imply that Strict scrutiny applies, and that standards is this... "the law is unconstitutional unless it is "narrowly tailored" to serve a "compelling" government interest. In addition, there cannot be a "less restrictive" alternative available to achieve that compelling interest."
You could argue that allowing police to carry arms while disarming citizens is a narrowly tailored law, but that would fly in the face of the Heller/McDonald decisions because the same argument would apply within the home - and was rejected, not on point but strongly implied by the decisions. My reading in McDonald would imply near enough to on point to make little difference. Plus it was one of the founders greatest fears that the government would be better armed and have a standing army over civilians... both of which are visualized in the police departments and National Guard.
So, I would ask, if there are any legal eagles in the group, do you think a lawsuit based on equal protection of the laws - on a police officer being allowed to arm himself openly while citizens cannot - violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution?
