Carrying guns against regulations?

[Jakabuto]

I'm a member of one of the 15 largest depts in the country, and those in charge have yet to approve the issuance or carry of patrol carbines, or even shotguns, for that matter, to members of patrol.

Years ago, before I came on, we had Rem 870s in the cars, but they were taken out after a tragic accident, and/or the appearance that they had in the eeyes of the public (go figure), and they were reserved only for supervisors who WANT to take them out on patrol, and for police officers in our "Special Patrol Bureau" (K9, Marine Bureau, Emergency Services aka SWAT, of course, etc).

It appears that our dept is HOPING and PRAYING that something like the LAPD bank robbery shootout, or Columbine-type situation, or something just as hairy doesn't happen, because they aren't arming us any better than before. My partner and I are just waiting for our jurisdiction to get HAMMERED by some type of attack so the dept can THEN react. It's amazing that a good police officer is one that is proactive, but most depts are reactive.

Anyway... Are there any other cops out there who are carrying extra firepower, who, technically, aren't "certified" as they are with their sidearms? Remember, 'I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6?' In the LAPD shootout, patrol cops had to "commandeer" carbines for gun shops. What about carrying a personally owned AR or shotgun or whatever, even if the jobs says "NO?"

[furetto7]

I don't want to rain on your parade but carrying guns not approved by your department honcho's or even worse ones they have specifically forbidden could cost you your job, your future in LE and possibly result in civil procedings if you were to use a proscribed weapon. Fortunently I work for a Sheriff who permits us to carry almost anything short of theatre nukes.

[Group 29]

There was actually a time when I did carry an extra unauthorized weapon. I was with an agency in the late 80's that only allowed revolvers despite our having been in several shootouts in which agents died after getting in shootouts with crooks with semi-auto pistols and rifles.

Most of us took to carrying what we referred to as our "gym bag guns", mostly high capacity 9mm's. For most of us, the plan was to never pull the thing until we had shot our six with the issue revolver. Most of us had decided that if things were not resolved at that point, getting fired or sued was probably not the number one concern any longer.

I actually think that it became so well know in management that large numbers of agents were doing this, that they approved semi-autos less than a year later.

I'm glad I'm not in that position today. That's a tough call to make. One of our firearms trainers made the comment in support of the "gym bag guns" that if it turned out to be a good shoot, it probably wouldn't matter what you shot the guy with, and if it was a bad shoot, it wasn't going to help any to point out that you were using the issued gun.

The point about the LAPD shoot out and commandeering the AR-15's is valid. If you could go up to any cop who was in the middle of a firefight and losing,you could probably offer him a rocket launcher and he would take it and use it.

[flatbadge]

I can't confirm nor deny if I carried my ar15 before. I am glad I now carry a dept issued one so I don't have to break a policy. Our policy does say you can be armed with any weapon during an emergency, so that could be a loop whole.

You should write up a good staff study filled with verifiable facts on the practicle aspects of a patrol rifle and or shot gun. We carry both.

Mike

[J.DIXON]

When,I first came on to my dept I had my issued G22 on my side and a Taurus 38spl on my ankle. I had my G27 mounted on my seat organizer as a car gun. I qualified with both as a BUG,but no one told me I had to choose between one or the other. OOOPS:D Anyway,we are also issued a Rem 870P with the standard 20 inch barrel and 4 round mag tube. Against policy I kept a bandoleer of 40 12ga shells in my warbag in the car. Needless to say,I was given a verbal warning about it and was told either take them out of my car or be fired.We are now in the process of getting M14's for supervisors and AR15's for patrolmen. Its better than just being stuck with 4 rounds of buckshot.

[Jakabuto]

Furetto,
While I do see your point on the lawsuit issue, wouldn't a bad shoot with your service weapon put you in the same hot water?

A point I bring up with fellow officers all the time is, 'A good shoot with a bad gun is always better than a bad shoot with a good gun.' Meaning... It doesn't matter what I wax a guy with, whether it's my service weapon or a brick or an AR15. If it's unjustified, I'm going to be in hot water. If it's justified, while on duty, I would imagine that the department would call the incident as such, and I wouldn't be "criminally" liable, but afterwards I might get into a jam "departmentally" and get hit with "carrying unauthorized equipment."

Of course one would hope that the brick is a "weapon of opportunity" that I picked up during a fight for my life, and not an item I carry around in my "gym bag." :D

Hey Flatbadge, any idea where I can get my hands on a good staff study? What's funny, is that our dept actually trains us in the use of the Rem 870, but only in case of a "riot" situation where if in a jam anyone could pick up one of the ancient 870s and the dept can say we're "trained" in case of a shooting. And on the other-hand, most cops hate shooting them because most aren't "gun-guys" so they find a way to "get injured during training" and get time off. What a bunch of pu$$ies. Since then, our dept has changed the policy to "qualify" with the 870 every two years (for about 15 mintues) to cut down on the "injured in the line..." claims, but what about the civil claims in case of a shoot that went bad?

There's always going to be the issue of whether one is "criminally," "civilly," or "departmentally" liable. But I would like to imagine that if I brought down a bank robber with my personally owned AR15 who was firing an automatic weapon at dozens of cops, that I would get he medal of honor on the front page of the newspaper, but then as a slap on the wrist, get it taken away in the basement of the precinct.:rolleyes:

[Invisiblecop]

I'm from New York and you are playing with fire! The concept of you judged by 12 than carried by 6 goes out the window when carrying ANY firearm not Departmentally approved!

I say this from experience. I've witnessed an Officer who decided to carry an "UNAUTHORIZED" firearm as a BUG. The Officer used this UNAUTHORIZED WEAPON AND UNAUTHORIZED AMMO when he shot and killed a suspect! He was SUSPENDED IMMEDIATELY! Mr. Smartass was later TERMINATED pending incarceration! He was hit with a ton of Departmental and criminal charges!

He shot the perp with a 10 mm semi-auto. The attorney representing the family of the deceased perp Had A Field Day! The Department WOULD NOT ASSIST NOR INDEMNIFY him because of the unauthorized weapon.

According to New York States' Municipal Police Training Council : "An Officer MUST be Departmentally Trained with the Departments' Authorized Firearms for On Duty and Off Duty use. The union wouldn't represent him because of the criminal charges.

It wasn't worth it in the end.

**The carbines you refer to in the L.A.P.D. incident were taken and given to the Officers because they had REVOLVERS and the perps were set up for WAR! This is when many Departments nationwide began the transitiong from Revolver to Semi-Automatics. Many Officers were being "out-gunned" with a Revolver.

Different States and Cities have ordinances governing the Law Enforcement Departments use of ammo and firearms -- long arms included. The more densely populated the more restrictions.**

[Jakabuto]

Invisiblecop,
You called this guy "Mr Smartass." Why was he up on criminal charges? Because he shot someone with an unauthorized gun? Incarceration for violation dept policy? If it was a bad shoot, then it was a bad shoot. The way you describe this incident with Mr Smartass, was that he was a problem child already, so the dept hung him out to dry. It wasn't worth it in the end? Did Mr Smartass even try using his issue gun? It sounds as if the shoot was just BAD. If Mr Smartass was in a shoot out and he NEEDED to go for a gun to save his life or that of another, and those people lived, THEN was it worth it? What happened in the long run?

Invisiblecop, I'm not NYPD, so correct me if I'm wrong but, I bet your job doesn't even allow you (or Mr Smartass) to carry a 10mm even off-duty besides as a BUG, thus he probably wasn't qualified, right? Did the job even know that he owned the 10mm? As a P.O. in NY, you're allowed to BUY anyhting you want, and walk out of a gun store with it, but it's up to the P.O. to tell the job. You're still restricted by the job of whether or not you can carry it. A long gun, such as an AR or 870, isn't even restricted to civilians, while handguns are. So, if a civilian sees dirt go down, why can't he go into his trunk, retrieve an AR, shoot someone JUSTIFIABLY, and then not be criminally liable?

In the LAPD bank shootout, I remember seeing the cops being outgunned while carrying their Beretta 92s, not revolvers. LAPD wasn't that long ago.

Also, I think that the quote of the policy that you mentioned might be incomplete. I think their definiton of "firearms," only includes handguns. If I justifiably shoot a guy in my house (off-duty) with my personally owned AR15 or 870 or Benelli, the dept doesn't have to have qualified me to use it.

"The perps were set up for war." I'm thinking about going for an AR only in case of war, not to carry along on car stops.

[Delta_V]

Actually, the North Hollywood shootout at the Bank of America happened in 1997. The officers were equipped with 9mm semi-autos and shotguns (with only buckshot). The reason the the ARs were taken from the gun shop (which, BTW, is now out of business) was because the suspects were wearing heavy body armor and not responding to shots from the officers' 9mm handguns or shotguns.

This was long after the transition to semi-autos, but the shootout (along with Columbine) is the main reason a lot of the departments in the country started issuing patrol carbines.

[Jakabuto]

I thought so, and that was exactly my point for starting this thread.
What if the job is not keeping up with the times?

[FedDC]

I know of a lot of depts that have bs policy like that. We aren't authorized BUGS. But as feds, we don't do much so it isn't a big deal now. Local guys that aren't given a BUG and aren't even given a rifle or slugs are in real danger. My family has specific instructions to file the biggest lawsuit immaginable if I die bc I didn't have a BUG. If I were a local guy, I would carry a well hidden BUG, despite regulations. Possibly in a vest holster for concealment. As to the long gun...maybe hide some slugs somewhere.

[Jakabuto]

We're allowed to carry BUGs, as long as we've qualified with them (any 9mm less than 15 rds or any .38), so that isn't the issue. The problem is that we aren't ISSUED any or AUTHORIZED to carry any long guns. So, the issue, is, in this day and age, whether or not to carry unauthorized long guns (ie AR's and/shotguns).

[FedDC]

As much as I have ignored this advice myself, I'd say move to a better department.

[Sleuth]

FedDC, I disagree - don't move, work for change. I too was a Fed., started when we carried .38's, then .357's. I worked at becoming a range officer/firearms instructor. Then, I did a lot of research, and built a case for changing to semi-autos. One day, I got THE CALL: Would I submit my proposal for the ideal firearms policy? You Bet!
About 6 months later (which is warp factor 9 in the Federal Gov), we were authorized semi-autos (and single action semis [1911's] if we bought our own! Yahoo!!

Later we became 'retroactivly incompetent' and had to carry issued DA/SA autos.

[Jakabuto]

Fed DC,
There's no way that I'll change depts. We're the highest paid cops in the galaxy. (Of course that won't get me any sympathy.) So, I'd rather try to change the dept's policy of long gun carry. In fact, the range staff is in favor of this.

I wish the job would say, "If you want to buy it, and qualify with it, you can carry it." I'm not looking to "out-carry" our SWAT guys. I'm not looking to carry anything more than what they have, like a Barrett .50 sniper rifle, just ARs and shotguns. Not even MP5s (although it would be nice :D) Our armorers know these guns, and our range staff can qualify us, so...

In the trunk of our police cars, we have shovels, axes, crow bars, life rings (floatation devices). And I can't remember using most of these things. But we have them, and I'm glad we do. Just in case. In 8 years, I've never used my mace (go figure...I have the gift of gab, and a sick right hook. :cool:) But I'm glad I have it. Just in case. I've never shot my gun outside of the range. But I'm glad I have it, and you know why. In this day and age, why not give us the edge FIRST, before something hairy happens.

My wife has instructions that if I get killed because my Crown Vic explodes, despite all the documentation that exists about their faulty gas tank locations and problems, to sue the b@lls off of the dept and Ford. If it was possible to properly arm us, and they don't, and something happens, in which an AR or shotgun may have made a difference, she's going to have the same instructions. I don't know about suing Ford, though. ;)

So... any other ideas about carrying "unauthorized weapons"?

[Delta_V]

Originally posted by Jakabuto
So... any other ideas about carrying "unauthorized weapons"?

Try getting a lot of officers together and going to your PBA with the issue. Provide examples of how officers have used such weapons in the past and how the weapons have resolved certain situations quickly and with minimal loss of life. It also might not hurt to get some people to write letters to the editor in the local newspapers. I know that equipping the police with more firepower is usually not something that the media wants to push, but it might be worth a try. Being in a state in the Northeast (probably the most anti-gun climate in the country), you're going to have a tough time convincing people that you're right.

[Sleuth]

When you go to the media, make sure you:
1. have presented a written request, with all possible documentation, to the Chief. Reference other agencies, active shooter problems, potential terror targets in your area, etc. Break down costs of guns, ammo, training, etc. Show the alternative (i.e the SO from Columbine, the LAPD shootout with the bank robbers). Make it as bulletproof as possible. Give him/her time to reply.
2. Have a copy of the presentation to show the reporter.
3. Use the "T" word, as in counter-Terrorism, a lot.
4. Are ready to fade the heat from the Chief.

Do everything on paper - it never goes away, and provides a written record of what was said. Also, be ready to make your presentation to the Mayor/City Council, with witnesses (like the Firearms Staff).

[John from Maryland]

I have heard of some officers who frequently go to the rifle range before or after work. This would explain the presence of AR-15's in the trunks of their takehome cruisers. In the event of an active shooter situation, no one is likely to questions the presence of those weapons.

I also recall reading of a recent Florida incident in which a deputy realized he was out of effective range with his Glock. He utilized a pistol-calibre carbine to take down a cop-shooter. While he was commended for his heroism and skill at arms, he also took a letter for using an unauthorized weapon (frankly, I'd frame the reprimand).

The problem with the "going to the range after work" approach is that the shoulder-mounted weapon will need to be left in the trunk until an actual shooting. Unless shots are being fired as you roll in, you'll probably never have the rifle when you need it.

All this said, I'd approach the PBA and the command staff on this issue. In this day and age, I'd emphasize terrorism and look toward an urban rifle rather than a shotgun. After all, you're next door to the City where Atlas and Hercules teams routinely deploy. Unless your ESU is doing that, Long Island is ripe for a takeover by Osama bin Laden (OK, I know it's really not, but you need to sex up your proposal).

Good luck and be safe.