What's up with LEO comments like "I'm a SWORN officer. You're not."

Got into a short discussion with law enforcement Saturday morning. I was waiting in line at a fast food joint and to law enforcement officers came in right behind me.

The discussion was very civil:

Me: "Good morning -- how are you today?"

Cops: "Just fine, thank you. And you?"

Me: "Enjoying the morning off."

Cops: "What do you do?"

Me: "Right now I'm back in school, finishing up more graduate work."

Cops: "I couldn't help but notice your firearm. What do you carry?"

Me: "It's a CZ-85B."

Cops: "You know, open carry might be legal, but you should seriously think about getting your concealed handgun permit."

Me: "Really? Why's that?"

Cops: "Well for one, you're making people nervous."

At this point, the other cop rolled his eyes, so I knew the view was only shared by the one who said it. I grinned at the other cop and continued.

Me: "Oh, come on... Seriously -- Who's nervous? Is it the patrons who are fleeing out the doors? It's not you, is it? Please tell me you're not nervous..."

Cop: (looking around, seeing the patrons calmly eating their lunch) "Openly carrying a firearm makes people nervous."

Me: "Ah.. Then why do you open carry?"

Cop: "We're sworn officers. It's our job."

Me: "No, I mean why do you open carry instead of carrying concealed? After all, if firearms make people nervous..."

Cop: "We don't make people nervous. We're sworn officers. It's when someone carries who no one knows. That's what makes people nervous."

Me: "I see. Well, I've been OCing for about five years now, nearly everywhere I go, and it very, very rarely has made anyone nervous. Only three to date, and I do keep my eyes peeled for the reactions of others."

Cop: "When somebody other than a sworn officer carries a firearm out in the open, it makes people nervous."

Me: "Well, first off, I am a sworn officer. Air Force. Second, I'm not carrying it out in the open. It's properly holstered, as it should be."

Cop: "That's not what I mean. You're not a sworn officer."

Me: "Sure I am. I swore an oath to 'support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic,' same as you."

Cop: "Ok, but you're not an officer."

Me: "Yes I am. By Presidential commission in 1989."

Cop: "But you're not a sworn officer, I mean you're not a law enforcement officer."

At this point, his buddy behind him is about to bust his gut out loud.

Me: "That's true. I am merely a private citizen exercising his Constitutional right to keep and bear arms in defense of life, limb, and property."

Cop: "You should get your concealed weapons permit."

Me: "I have my concealed weapons permit."

Cop: "Then why do you open carry?"

Me: "Same reason as you: Deterrence and rapid access."

Cop: "Yeah, but someone could take yours away from you."

Me: "I've had training in firearms retention, as well as close-quarters combat. And it's a retention holster."

Cop: "You know those can be defeated, right?"

Me: "Anything can be defeated. The key is to maintain situational awareness so that you're aware of any threats and deny them the opportunity to act. Speaking of which, it's my turn to order."

They sat at the table next to mine, and as the one cop headed to the restroom, the other, who was probably fifteen years older than the first, said, "Well-played. He's new. We'll be talking about this all day." I thanked him, then asked if he ever OC'd off-duty, and he said, "No, just concealed. Except when I'm hunting. Then I open carry."

Fun aside, what's with the "sworn officer" stuff? I've heard this on a couple of other occasions. Are there police officers who aren't sworn? Is it because they swear an oath to the State Constitution, as well?

In my education on life, I've learned there are three types of "sworn officers:" military, civil, and law enforcement. Military enlisted ranks also include both non-commissioned officers, as well as warrant officers (some services). Civil officers include anyone elected or appointed to public office at any level, from a council member of a 3,000-person town to all members of the federal government.

They're all "sworn officers."

Am I missing something here, or did the cop not realize the term "sworn officer" has larger applications than "sworn law enforcement officer?"

Don't know, years ago, in SC, the elected sheriff had to only be elected to be sheriff. Now, evey dude issued a state owned gat & badge must have gotten state sanction cop training and then swear an oath to become a good minion of the state. Not all cops take a oath to support and defend the US Constitution.

Sounds like you had a wee bit of fun.

I told a cop who pulled that get a CC permit, when we both happen to be getting coffee at the local QT, and then cover it up crap, in a nice way, to cover his, it made me nervous. He kinda lost interest in the conversation at that point. I know he thinks he is trying to provide sage advice, but he obviously was not going to consider my sage advice either.

Perhaps he was pointing out that the mere fact that he was leo in uniform calmed anyone's nervousness about an oced weapon. Personally, Im much more nervous of an leo than some random citizen openly armed. The citizen doesn't have qualified immunity.

OC for ME said:

Sounds like you had a wee bit of fun.

Click to expand...

Aye. :lol:

I told a cop who pulled that get a CC permit, when we both happen to be getting coffee at the local QT, and then cover it up crap, in a nice way, to cover his, it made me nervous. He kinda lost interest in the conversation at that point. I know he thinks he is trying to provide sage advice, but he obviously was not going to consider my sage advice either.

Click to expand...

Good for you! The next time I'm the receiving end of that suggestion, I might counter with, "If it's such good advice, then why don't all law enforcement officers and members of the military carry concealed?"

It's a common misconception among professionals of any flavor that they're the sole owners of the knowledge they possess, that the general public at large doesn't know crap about their job. It's this same overconfidence, if not arrogance, which leads some LEOs to believe their street experience trumps the department's general orders, or for that matter, the Constitution.

We open carry for a variety of good reasons. If the evidence ever actually showed I'd have a distinct advantage by concealing, I would. It doesn't, so I don't. There are a few venues where I do choose to conceal. When, where, and why I choose to do so, however, is my business, not theirs. Put simply, when a law-abiding citizen is engaged in a lawful activity, that activity is not within the cop's jurisdiction. Cops are prohibited by law from pulling over motorists who are following all the rules and whose car isn't on fire.

While it's certainly within their purview to suggest a citizen do something, it's very bad form to recommend OCers to "cover it up."

We're not idiots.

georg jetson said:

Perhaps he was pointing out that the mere fact that he was leo in uniform calmed anyone's nervousness about an oced weapon. Personally, Im much more nervous of an leo than some random citizen openly armed. The citizen doesn't have qualified immunity.

Click to expand...

While a uniform certainly aids the perception of legitimacy, I keep seeing factoids like this floating around the Internet:



Are cops really 6 times more deadly to innocent civilians than lawfully-armed citizens?

You: 'So you're a sworn officer, huh?

Him: 'Yes'

You: 'So what did you swear to?'

Him: '(blah, blah)...defend the Constitution'

You: 'Isn't the 2A part of the Constitution...?'

Good story; nice job.

"Sworn officers" receive standardized training and swear an oath so that, theoretically, they can be held accountable for exercising the power and authority conferred on them. (And before dmb and the rest of the soverign citizens chime in, it's society as a whole, not each individual member who does the conferring, so just don't go there dmb and soverign citizens.)

It always amuses me to see/hear/read about cops who get all discombobulated about folks who are open carrying when it is (or should be) a well-known fact that criminals and other BGs do not OC. Seems, based on the documentation of that circumstance, that cops ought to be getting hinkey whenever they see someone who is not OCing as the odds are higher that the non-OCer is a criminal with evil intent than any OCer.

"Respeck my author-it-tay" rather than my powers of reasoning.

stay safe.

Who are the soveriegn citizens?

"Society as a whole"? What does that nebulous term even mean?

since9 said:

Got into a short discussion with law enforcement Saturday morning. I was waiting in line at a fast food joint and to law enforcement officers came in right behind me.

The discussion was very civil:

...

Click to expand...

Nice done.

since9 said:

Fun aside, what's with the "sworn officer" stuff? I've heard this on a couple of other occasions. Are there police officers who aren't sworn?

Click to expand...

I'm sure this varies a bit State-to-State, but as best I understand it, "sworn peace officers" are those who are trained and certified as LEOs, have arrest powers, and are authorized to carry a gun. Yes, they "swear an oath" to something or another. But really it is shorthand and embellishment for "certified LEO".

They stand in contrast to other employees of the police department who may wear a uniform, but do not exercise arrest powers and do not carry guns such as dispatchers, parking enforcement (ie meter maids), etc, as well as various volunteers who might work closely with the police such as search and rescue, reserve officers (probably allowed to carry guns and make arrests in some areas, but in others may act as just a second body in the car), and so on.

For example, the Wiki entry on the NYC police department contains this description of the size of the force:

"In June 2004, there were about 40,000 sworn officers plus several thousand support staff; ... The NYPD's current authorized uniformed strength is 34,450. There are also approximately 4,500 Auxiliary Police Officers, 5,000 School Safety Agents, 2,300 Traffic Enforcement Agents, and 370 Traffic Enforcement Supervisors currently employed by the department."

And it is funny how quickly any group assumes its conduct is the norm while castigating that of others. I had a college professor who was an immigrant from Great Britain. As we discussed guns one day he related to me what a huge shock it was to come to the US (and to Utah) and see a policeman with a gun on his hip. In his words, "I thought, my goodness, he could shoot me her and now." For a man raised in a nation where most officers were armed only with a whistle and night stick (he probably immigrated in the 1980s or before), the visible presence of a handgun on an officer's hip was rather stratling. In like fashion, I've known those who travel overseas for the first time and relate how it is a little strange to see police officers (or probably military acting as police) routinely carrying carbines or other long guns, rather than just handguns.

Charles

sudden valley gunner said:

Who are the soveriegn citizens?

Click to expand...

I don't know, but they get all excited about gold fringe on the flag.

"Society as a whole"? What does that nebulous term even mean?

Click to expand...

Oh, come on now! You and me and everybody else who pretty much agrees to not break the laws (at least not the "big" ones). And the crooks and politicians, too.



stay safe.

Some people are just nervous around police officers. I think I would have said "Ya know, I have heard people say they are nervous around cops, you should be in civilian clothes to calm their fears."

Actually a police officer is not sworn until a member of the public swears at them.

I was sworn many times...

Cop: "We don't make people nervous. We're sworn officers. It's when someone carries who no one knows. That's what makes people nervous."

Click to expand...

Nawwww.... buncha wannabee's armed with automatic weapons and itchy trigger fingers doesn't make me the least bit nervous..

skidmark said:

I don't know, but they get all excited about gold fringe on the flag.

Click to expand...

Well it seemed like you were pointing fingers at certain posters without being specific.

Oh, come on now! You and me and everybody else who pretty much agrees to not break the laws (at least not the "big" ones). And the crooks and politicians, too.

View attachment 12314

stay safe.

Click to expand...

Really? because society is made up of individuals all of us even those who break laws. This term is used wrong often by the supporters of the state and its system of positive law over natural law. Using it in a nebulous way as this is an attempt to paint those of society who do not agree with your ideology as not part of society.



It seemed to me though you were trying to preempt discussion by excluding those who might disagree with your premise. Also seems to be a preemptive strike against the logic that if society is made up of individuals how can society at large possess powers the individuals do not?

Fallschirmjäger said:

Nawwww.... buncha wannabee's armed with automatic weapons and itchy trigger fingers doesn't make me the least bit nervous..

Click to expand...

They all have holo sights like old folks use. They are easy targets...

A friend of mine was a commissioned officer, four years navy pilot and four years air force pilot.
He ended up in somewhat the same kind of conversation.

He informed the police officer that his commission authorized him to carry nuclear weapons and he wanted to know if the police officer had that authority.
The conversation abruptly ended.

sudden valley gunner said:

... the supporters of the state and its system of positive law over natural law.

Click to expand...

Natural law huh? Is that kind of like Britain's "unwritten Constitution?"

I believe there is such a thing as Natural Law. But, until they are formally written down and agreed upon, "laws" and "rights" and most everything else are just far too easy to alter over time, forget, or chuck out the window when hard cases are presented. Look at the battle we've had to retain and regain our RKBA even with the very straightforward language of the 2nd amendment and comparable clauses in many State constitutions. No wonder our cousins across the pond were unable to retain their RKBA.

Charles

sudden valley gunner said:

Well it seemed like you were pointing fingers at certain posters without being specific.

....

Click to expand...

Fingers? Up until now I've only been accused of pointing one. But for the record, the pointee swore that he had never been more scared in his life.

stay safe.

skidmark said:

Fingers? Up until now I've only been accused of pointing one. But for the record, the pointee swore that he had never been more scared in his life.

stay safe.

Click to expand...

LOL.....I see what you did there...

utbagpiper said:

Natural law huh? Is that kind of like Britain's "unwritten Constitution?"

I believe there is such a thing as Natural Law. But, until they are formally written down and agreed upon, "laws" and "rights" and most everything else are just far too easy to alter over time, forget, or chuck out the window when hard cases are presented. Look at the battle we've had to retain and regain our RKBA even with the very straightforward language of the 2nd amendment and comparable clauses in many State constitutions. No wonder our cousins across the pond were unable to retain their RKBA.

Charles

Click to expand...

True law and rights are not altered regardless of being written or not.

One reason for the revolution was the Brits in the Americas felt their constitutional rights were not being upheld. Seems like writing them down was no real protection either, especially since the chain of the consitutions seemed not to bind those whom it was intended to bind. That poor 9th amendment were it recognizes our rights are not limited.

sudden valley gunner said:

True law and rights are not altered regardless of being written or not.

One reason for the revolution was the Brits in the Americas felt their constitutional rights were not being upheld. Seems like writing them down was no real protection either, especially since the chain of the consitutions seemed not to bind those whom it was intended to bind. That poor 9th amendment were it recognizes our rights are not limited.

Click to expand...

It's probably time you stepped up to the podium and explained to us just exactly what we should be doing about all this.

stay safe.