Why should LE be exempt? Or, expressed another way: Why should citizens be prohibited?
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2007
- Messages
- 6,100
- Reaction score
- 1,565
I kind of have a hard time getting worked up about it when some citizens that are more equal than other citizens get the same treatment we get.
I could be wrong, but if I am reading the laws correctly, a land owner can prohibit anyone from carrying on his property except a police officer with a warrant. Few land owners are interested in preventing off duty police officers from carrying, but that doesn't mean it can't be done. It would not be a crime unless the person refused to leave when asked to. I can refuse admittance to my property to anyone unless there is a law specifically saying i can't refuse admittance. If it is a place open to the public i can't discriminate on race or creed or whatever but i sure can on firearms. If it is my home and a police officer wants to come in, i can say, sure, leave your gun in your car. He might not be willing to do it, but that's tough.
That'd be fine if Wannamacher owned the QT Pavillion. Fairgrounds are specifically designated as OK to CCW in the SDA.
LE is exempt because their authority to carry comes from a different set of laws. They can carry in places and situations that CCW holders cannot. I agree that citizen CCW's should not be prohibited either.
I can't see how a "rule" would override state and federal laws. If there is an officer sitting at the table checking guns in and telling another officer "you don't have the "authority" to carry in here", he is WRONG. They have the same authority that he does because it comes from the same laws.
Is an officer who knowingly violates the law acting within the scope of employment?
well, where does an officer get the authority to enter a private residence against the owner's wishes? If he has a warrant, or hears a crime in progress, yes, but if he knocks on the door and asks to come in, i am certainly allowed to set conditions on his entry.
Interesting. I think "certainly" does not apply to the conditions referenced. Seems that would simply be a refusal. That would also likely arouse the all ominous "suspicion detector" of the officer.
Keep in mind that the law does not always help you in the heat of an altercation, only later. 
A private residence, and a publicly accesible, privately owned facitlity are not one and the same.
Similar threads
