NFL: Off-Duty Cops Can’t Carry in Stadiums

NFL security pat-down (courtesy dailymail.co.uk)

According to an internal Cleveland police memo unearthed by cleveland.com the NFL’s banning off-duty cops carrying in or around FirstEnergy Stadium. What’s more, “The rule, which police said took effect Sept. 11, applies to all NFL facilities and all off-duty federal, state and local law enforcement officers . . . An armed officer will only be allowed inside a league facility if they are working an NFL game or event in an official capacity.” Does that include responding to a crime or terrorist attack within or without the stadium? “Jeff Follmer, president of the Cleveland Police Patrolmen’s Association, said the policy is ‘disappointing.’ ‘We are police officers 24/7,’ Follmer said. ‘I don’t know why anyone would want to disarm a police officer.’” Or a law-abiding citizen. Come to think of it, I can think of a reason to disarm an off-duty Baltimore cop. Does this count? What about this? Just sayin’ . . . [h/t Dan]

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

95 Responses to NFL: Off-Duty Cops Can’t Carry in Stadiums

  1. avatarPeterC says:

    Eff’m! Let them play their stupid games with no police protection except what they pay for. Nobody there but dumb-ball fans, anyway.

    • avatarAndy says:

      The NFL is policy and pricing itself out of business. The game sucks and it’s slow. Now the hitting us being watered down too.

  2. avatarZachary Hunt says:

    Another Gun Free Zone. And we know what happens in Gun Free Zones e.g. Fort Hood, Navy Shipyard, etc. If a terrorist attack or mad man is at an NFL game I would want all the good guys that can have guns to have their guns. NFL is playing the politically correct thing these days.

    • avatarTotenglocke says:

      If a terrorist attack occurred at an NFL game, the average IQ in the country would go up significantly.

      • avatarSoccerchainsaw says:

        I shudder to think. If a terrorist attack occurred at an NFL game, I suspect a multitude of gun control laws would be easily and quickly passed. Of course what we really need is stadium control. High capacity stadiums should be outlawed. We really shouldn’t allow so many sitting ducks in one location. It attracts predators.

  3. avatarPig humper says:

    I have a hard time feeling bad for them or even getting worked up. As I have commented on a couple of cop blogs:

    Welcome to our world…

    You cops MAY have a majority that support carrying weapons for civies… BUT your unions, organizations, leadership do not say civi disarmament is wrong.

    Instead, through the last 20-30 years cops have been the FOCUS of banning guns, creating GFZs, banning magazines, etc, etc. All the while asking for carve outs not only for Off-Duty cops but also RETIRED cops. Why? so the unions would be silent on civilian disarming. Thats why.

    And if they think this is where it ends, they are wrong. They can cry on their badges, because except for a few sheriffs we have seen few ranking officers or officer organizations stand up for the second amendment.

    When they start worrying about OUR rights instead of their carve outs (and remember they always crave out RETIRED officers also even for magazine bans) I will start standing up for their rights.

  4. avatarGov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    I can’t speak on NFL games, but I went to an MLB came this summer and there was no attempt to prevent weapons being brought in except women had to open their purse and an (unarmed) attendant just glanced inside. I could have easily walked right in with a full sized pistol and a couple of extra mags. Didn’t see a single cop the whole time inside either.

  5. avatarDavid Hapney says:

    I don’t know about other states but in Texas the NFL does not have the authority to stop a licensed Peace Officer from carrying a gun whether on duty or not.

    • avatarthatoneguy says:

      Yup. Back home we, the tax payers, built Paul Brown Stadium for the Bengals to disappoint us in every year. If its built and ran with tax payer funds then its public property. If the NFL wants to lord over it then I’ll gladly take back all of my money squandered on that unnecessary stadium.

  6. avatarCliff H says:

    Sporting events such as football, soccer, hockey and baseball games, at all levels, but especially at NFL levels, are the absolute BEST soft targets for terrorist action either by IED or massed gunfire. If I were in the terrorism business this is what I would be planning. Hell, a single guy with a scoped rifle could create a panic that kills more than they could ever hope to shoot. Not to mention a bunch of guys jumping out of vans in the parking lot and firing RPGs over the stadium fences. Gun Free Zones suck. Corporate types who believe they will not be sued into oblivion by survivors of such an attack are idiots.

    My solution: Don’t go to unnecessarily hazardous soft target zones where oblivious people are doing stupid things they could have done a lot cheaper in the (relative) safety of their own homes. But then I am not a big fan of team sports and it would never occur to me to risk my life to go see a live game. YMMV.

    • avatarGregg says:

      It’s even easier than going into the stadium for a terrorist. Projectiles (bullets) obey the law of gravity and ballistics. What goes up must come down. A few terrorist sitting on a roof top or a room on the top floor of a nearby building with a suppressor on a long gun could lob bullets into a stadium and really cause panic without even being there. 3 terrorist positioned 120 degrees apart from each other outside the stadium and spraying bullets into the stadium at a pre planned angle of elevation and distance could do some real damage before people realized what was going on.

  7. avatarRalph says:

    Is anybody surprised that the National Felony League has gone full retard? A general manager could put together a pretty good team from the convicts that played football.

  8. avatarmdc says:

    No fear, they will go to game anyway. Like rest of sheep in the sports trance they idolize.

  9. avatarRoscoe says:

    Along with the clear tote bag policy, I think it is a prudent call by the NFL given the combination of often heavy attendance, alcohol consumption,and explosive poor judgement by some fans.

    • avatarCliff H says:

      “…a prudent call by the NFL given the combination of often heavy attendance, alcohol consumption, and explosive poor judgment by some fans.”

      Huh? Of course attendance is heavy – they spend BILLIONS marketing these things. People who go there drink in the parking lot tailgate parties (where they could still have their guns, by the way) and drink more when in the stands (where they are now defenseless). Explosive poor judgment is not restricted to professional sporting events or even any sporting events, nor is impaired judgment due to alcohol consumption. Fights and confrontations between rival fan groups are not unheard of, though they are much more universal and violent at soccer than at NFL.

      But your bottom line is that people who are not inclined to this sort of behavior (or impaired good judgment) should be helpless if confronted by thugs, hooligans or even just beligerent drunks while trapped in the stadium where even 911 could not hope to get them help?

      Here is the only valid argument: If it were known that any unknown, but potentially significant, number of fans in attendance were armed and prepared to defend themselves from ANY sort of attack, how many people, no matter how inebriated, would initiate an attack on a stranger? And even if they tried, how many of their less-inebriated companions would stand by and let it unfold?

      An armed sporting event is a polite sporting event.

      • avatarRoscoe says:

        Parking lot tailgate parties are much more troublesome because of anonymity and the ease of escaping the scene; but that is a different setting and issue.

        Think about it; a DGU in a crowded stadium against a raging drunk or other bad actor who can’t or won’t recognize the danger. Now what? I think backing off with lots of witnesses observing is the better strategy than deploying. Way too many wild card variables at play in a crowded stadium setting.

        Bottom line, it’s still the NFL’s call to make.

        BTW, I am in favor of LEO’s being authorized to carry anywhere they go when completely sober. But how do you control for that. I personally know of many instances where ODO’s were carrying and clearly NOT sober. Not usually in a crowded stadium, but it shouldn’t matter. Even I in my young and stupid years I was guilty of that poor judgement – exactly twice, with other officers, after shift, not in a crowd.

        Bottom line, you carry, you must be sober. Period!

        Again, IMO, a prudent call by the NFL.

        • avatarJus Bill says:

          Sober walking in – OK. Sober throughout the game – maybe, maybe not. I see your point.

          But I still feel the risk of harm (remember, that’s what everyone unconsciously evaluates all day every day) would be lessened if armed ODOs were allowed.

        • avatarT-DOG says:

          Three drunk off-duty Bellevue police officers enter the Seahawks game following an altercation with a Seattle officer directing traffic. The off-duty cops immediately start dropping F-bombs until a fan asks them to stop cursing in front of his 12-year-old son. More foul language and taunting follow until the man calls security. The two male and one female off-duty officer are escorted out, but not before the female allegedly tells the man to ‘”watch himself’ and not get pulled over in Bellevue.”

          Read more here: http://blog.thenewstribune.com/bluebyline/2012/09/21/cops-behaving-badly-the-bellevue-episode/#storylink=cpy

    • avatarJus Bill says:

      “..I think it is a prudent call by the NFL”
      Sure, they think they’re running an airline. They’re self-important idiots.

      Can you imagine the havoc a couple of M80s would cause? You’d be x-rayed as soon as they could get to the TSA warehouse.

      • avatarRoscoe says:

        Ever hear the phrase “What’re ya’ gonna do, shoot me?”

        I have; in uniform, before the advent of pepper spray, stun guns and widespread authorization to use mace.
        Then it’s on, or it’s at best a stalemate until back up is on scene, IF it’s one on one.

        Now picture that in civies without those non lethal tools on your belt, and no back up enroute. And a bunch of…witnesses who don’t know you from the boogeyman. You gonna rely on them to stick around to help even if you announce you’re a LEO? If luck is on you’re side.

        Low profile, my man!

        • avatarCliff H says:

          The problem, Roscoe, is not about ODO LEOs not being able to carry. There should be no carve-out. The majority of fans at a sporting event do not have the training (such as it is) that most LEOs have, nor the experience in how to deal with a belligerent. We, when unarmed, are entirely at the mercy of any thug, sober or not, who decides he wants to take us on, for whatever his reason. Since the security at these events is certainly not limited to firearms I suspect that Mace, Pepper spray, Tasers, etc. are also prohibited, which leaves most of us as pure helpless victims who must absorb whatever punishment is coming our way until some authority figure arrives to, hopefully, save our life. I fear you are too much invested in the idea that it is the sole job of law enforcement to come and save the day. I for one do not trust them to hurry on my account nor do I relish the idea of absorbing kicks and punches until they arrive.

          Yes, there are risks to nearby innocents in the event that a DGU should be necessary. But my argument was that the DGU would be much less likely to become necessary if everyone knew that they had long odds of facing down a gun rather than just some poor unarmed schmuck who wasted his time and money coming to a live game. Not to mention the potential interference by other armed citizens sitting nearby who were annoyed with the BG for interrupting the game.

          The whole point of the RKBA is to ensure that each person has the ability to defend him/herself against tyranny, either of the government or of individuals or groups. The chance in any crowded arena is that some innocent may be collateral damage. That being the case I believe that the venue should be REQUIRED to post a very large sign at each entrance that patrons enter at their own risk, give up any right to sue in the event of injury due to personal attacks, and that no firearms of any sort are allowed inside other than authorized security forces on duty. That way each and every patron can decide for himself before entering if he thinks the risk is worth it and once inside he has no legal recourse if (when) things go south. I will mourn the carnage and the damage it will do to our liberties, I will not shed a tear over the individuals who with informed consent chose to leave their individual liberties in the parking lot, or at home. JMHO.

        • avatarRoscoe says:

          Cliff H, thanks for taking the time to address the issues.

          I think you and I actually agree more than not.

          I concur it is hardly the “sole job of law enforcement” to come to the rescue; it’s more likely the law will arrive after the dust has settled to pick up the pieces and decide who to charge for making the mess in the first place. The phrase “when seconds count…” is too often true, and one must remain vigilant to avoid an incident and resourceful in side stepping potential danger where possible. Too often the type-A personalities simply cannot gracefully back away; they respond defensively or offensively and then things escalate. If you carry, you should be acutely aware that it’s low profile all the way.

          I have no problem at all with concealed carry by competent individuals, LEO or non LEO, who are smart enough, sober and understand the responsibilities and limitations of that basic right. I too believe an armed society is a polite society, but not simply because people are or could be armed.

          Places that enable carry tend to be populated with people who are polite and considerate in the first place, looking out for others and helping out when there is need. They tend to lean conservative on thought and actions.

          Contrast that with places where carry options are at best limited, if not severely restricted to where it is effectively nonexistent. Those mostly liberal democrat urban population centers are characterized by a dense community of people who are often inconsiderate or rude, overly competitive, are out for themselves and often care less about others, partly a result of the crowded environment, partly a result of lower morals.

          So it’s not quite as simple as an armed society is a polite society; that goes hand in hand with the lay of the land and the values of the population.

  10. avatarraincrow says:

    I don’t live in one of the Free Kill Zone States and the police of these states should be made to turn in their firearms when off duty.When they go out on the town with their family unarmed and helpless the way they vote would change.

  11. avatarRoss says:

    Rugby’s where it’s at folks, come on over.

  12. avatarBob7 says:

    It may be hard for some to believe, but most rank-and-file police officers are on your side. Here is one clear reason: If police officers do not keep their LE job until retirement, they lose their right to carry without a concealed weapons permit. I know, there are a lot of exceptions, like in the upper ranks of big city police departments, but generally, LEOs are with you even if they are forbidden to tell you. This ban with the NFL is a product of the anti-2nd amendment insanity. Starbucks did the same thing, for their “not welcome” statement did not give an exception to former LEOs, reserve LEOs, and retired LEOs. The gun community ought to step forward in support of these LEOs right to carry, because their struggle in this issue is not too different.

    • avatarDave says:

      Funny, I keep hearing that. But are you so naive to believe that if ordered a cop would chose to uphold your 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th amendment rights vs. uphold an order from a superior. Get a clue, cops are not our friends. They may not be our enemies, but they’re not our friends.

      And given the litany of murder by cop, I say good to keep them unarmed when innocent citizens are present.

    • avatarPig humper says:

      “The gun community ought to step forward in support of these LEOs right to carry, because their struggle in this issue is not too different.”

      When the law enforcement unions and organizations start stepping forward for law abiding citizens then I will step forward for them. Until then we are just creating another class of citizen with rights to have regular magazines, “assault” weapons and carry in all 50 states even when they retire to some other state, including places like California, NY, Maryland, etc.

      No thanks.

      • avatarJus Bill says:

        Nobody with any other options retires to Maryland unless they have family duties or they enjoy being subjects of a governor who could think up a way to tax rain in the gulag.

        • avatarCliff H says:

          Interestingly enough, I worked the last three years in Pacific, Washington where they did, in fact, find a way to tax the rain. If you own a business with a parking area the run-off from any storm goes into a special storm drain. Each month the city of Pacific charges you on your water/Sewer/Storm bill a set amount based on the square footage of your parking area. Yes, they can and will find a way to tax anything, given enough leeway.

      • avatarRLC2 says:

        Google OathKeepers. I agree with Bob7. Most rank and file are pro 2A and sympathetic, but have to be professional and keep quiet on politics in general, and I am sure this hot button in particular. Management above LT is salaried, not protected by union rules, I believe, in most depts, and to get to CAPT or Chief, you need to be a politician according to the community that has hired you. And if I were in their shoes I wouldn’t get out in front on this issue, unless I was an elected official- thats why you see MANY SHERIFFS who will, because they are, but few metro Chiefs, who have to kowtow to the City Council and Mayor…

        But, I defer to the real LEOs here who have actual experience- what say you?

        • avatarSteveInCO says:

          There should be a constitutional amendment that any chief law enforcement position (at any level of government) is elected.

          It seems to have a salutary effect not just on departmental overt stances on guns, but their general level of politeness and willingness not to be complete asses over minor mala prohibita issues.

          Picture it, city cops as friendly to lawful carry as sheriff’s deputies are–and here in this state the sheriffs don’t just say they support the 2A they *sue* when d***weed legislators try to mess with it.

        • avatarTilefloor says:

          As a rank and file LEO, and one with 6 years of military experience, I think that the geographic area has much to do with how your average beat cop thinks of firearms. I work for a department in the South, and I can honestly say that the majority of my department respects the 2A. If I stop a car and the driver tells me he has a handgun, I don’t disarm him, as he has just as much of a right to carry that firearm as I do. Some of my colleagues hired from the northern states ( not to stereotype, it’s just a trend I have noticed ) freak out whenever they encounter a citizen with a gun as they had no experience being around guns prior to joining the department.
          Are there terrible human beings who somehow gained employment as police officers who abuse rights, authority, and firepower? Absolutely. But I read far too often in forums, especially on CNN, that ALL cops are testosterone ridden thugs who only want to harm the citizens they are sworn to protect. I can honestly say the majority of officers I work with are good people who have the needs of the community at heart, but there are a few bad eggs I would like to see leave.

  13. avatarOut_Fang_Thief says:

    I’m guessing that the insurance company underwriting the event, and or stadium, made the owners an offer they couldn’t refuse. We’ll underwrite a liability policy if you’re, 1) selling beer, or 2) allowing off-duty cops and CCW holders to be armed,…but not both. Pick one. You make the call!

    Ya, it’s your basic “Duh?” moment. $$$$

    • avatarCliff H says:

      I don’t go to these sort of events, but I know that tickets to stadium and other public events often contain a very small print legal disclaimer on the back that you are agreeing to simply by attending. Is it possible that by entering the stadium(s) the patrons are voluntarily giving up their right to sue in the event of some altercation or terrorist attack? That would explain the insurance companies and lawyers position on this as otherwise they would be wide-open for massive lawsuits in such events.

  14. avatarBlue says:

    I am an off duty college professor if I attend an NFL game and I can’t carry either. Tough horse excrement coppers. Maybe you guys will think about this crap next time.

    • avatarDave says:

      Priceless!!!!!

    • avatarNYC2AZ says:

      The nice thing about the batsh*t craziness of the anti’s is they can’t keep their crazy goal of total disarmament a secret. This, plus the story about the Uniformed Cop being asked not to wear his gun in AZ, plus several other instances may wake up some police officers. Then again, I’m still waiting for the Fudd’s to come around after the ‘police-style shotgun’ langauge, so denial is a strong force to overcome.

    • avatarJohn Fritz says:

      … Maybe you guys will think about this crap next time. …

      I wouldn’t hold my breath for that, you might turn… well, you know. ;)

  15. avatarDanny says:

    Here in Miami for the Dolphins game they always have quite a few cops around, with at least one at every gate with jacket and rifle and sometimes even a dog. Also even if someone tried to bring in a weapon they’d most likely find it at the bag check since for years they have gotten very through. Since 9/11 they inspected every bag. After Boston they make you empty out your pockets and you can only use clear plastic bags instead of backpacks ans such. TBH the place I feel the least safe is at the gate with the most security, because that is where it gets really congested. If, god forbid, someone was in the crowd with a grenade or a bomb he could take a lot of people out because the security wouldn’t have ever gotten a chance to see if he was armed or not.

    • avatarCliff H says:

      How many officers at each gate? How far from a limo/taxi stand or a bus drop-off? How many are watching the stadium loading docks?

      NFL Gun Free Zone = how difficult is it for a group of armed men to surprise and take down security at an entrance and wreak havoc on the unarmed and panicked crowd inside before any hope of effective help or rescue could arrive? And if the police are planning out any scenario in which the attackers expect to leave the stadium alive then they are WAY behind the times and living in a fantasy world that is going to get a LOT of people killed.

      The truly amazing thing to me is that such an attack has not yet happened in America. It is only a matter of time.

      • avatarOODAloop says:

        Exactly. While the crowds might get checked, none of the staff that show 2 hours early are. Join a temp agency that staffs football games (pro or college) and you’re GTG. They’ll expect you to wear a yellow, red or blue coat (for easy ID from folks that need assistance) and you’ve got instant cover. Not only that, but as a temp, you’ll have an access pass that gets you right in front of the crowds, or looking down on them from behind. No one will question your ability to be there and you’ve got a whole stadium of easy pickings. That or food service, and you’ll be seen carrying large boxes (full of what?) and have an “all access” pass. Large events like that can be awfully scary when you start to think about these sorts of things.

    • avatarJus Bill says:

      “If, god forbid, someone was in the crowd with a grenade or a bomb he could take a lot of people out because the security wouldn’t have ever gotten a chance to see if he was armed or not.”

      Danny, you are a student of history. That’s exactly what happened at the Olympics in Georgia (the state, not the country) several decades ago.

      And Cliff, I think a LOT of fingers are crossed. I think all they could do is drive their Bearcats around and eventually chopper out the casualties (because of the MASSIVE traffic jam that would ensue).

  16. avatarArdent says:

    I care why? Oh yeah, cause we’re all likely less safe and certainly less free. The POTG should avoid the NFL like Nancy Pelosi with a ‘reasonable compromise’. Until such feel the pain there will never be a reckoning.

  17. avatarjwm says:

    Wouldn’t go to a crowded stadium if you paid me. Wouldn’t even if I could pack my gun and you paid me. A friend offered me a job in stadium security at the Oakland Coliseum. Gave her a rousing”meh.”

  18. avatarKMc says:

    “Jeff Follmer, president of the Cleveland Police Patrolmen’s Association, said the policy is ‘disappointing.’ ‘We are police officers 24/7,’ Follmer said.
    Really, Jeff? Do your fellow New York City undercover cops feel the same?
    Didn’t think so.

    • avatarCliff H says:

      And what exactly is the point of the “We are police 24/7″ argument? The rest of us are Americans 24/7. We have the right by birth that is enshrined in the Second Amendment and in theory guaranteed against infringement by any government authority. Does a private business venue have the right to tell a patron not to bring a firearm? Absolutely, but it must be well publicized and well understood so that every single person who decides to attend KNOWS the risk they are taking. Otherwise the creation of such Gun Free Zones is IMO a criminal act.

      LEOs may or may not have more training than the average Joe, but they are still civilians. They may have more experience dealing with aggressive persons or tense situations. This does not mean that they should have any more rights in public than any other citizen.

    • avatarSteveInCO says:

      I sympathize with the man, actually. I believe he should enjoy all the rights that I get to enjoy.

      Oh, wait….

  19. avatarBig Daddy says:

    Off duty cops are not exactly a god send. Just look to the weekend biker incident in NYC

  20. avatarHasdrubal says:

    I have to say, I find this both ridiculous and fair. Not sure I’ve ever seen anything that checks both those boxes at the same time before. Here in WA, the stadium is being as accommodating as they can, providing a secure area with gun lockers. If I were to go to a game (which I wouldn’t because fair doesn’t trump ridiculous), the on duty guys would escort me to the lockers and watch me secure my sidearm.

    The unfortunate thing for me is that the stadium also runs the convention center next door, and that’s where the car and motorcycle shows are. I like sports cars and bikes more than football, but looks like I won’t be going there either.

    There is some debate around here about whether the NFL can enforce this policy against state law, which says they can’t do it in a publicly owned facility (stadium was paid for with tax dollars), but so far nobody has cared enough to mount a legal challenge. And as much as I would like to see it hashed out in court, any resources used would be better directed to a case that benefits more Americans than those who carry a badge.

    At the end of the day, bringing a gun to the game should be open to anyone, provided they don’t get stupid drunk. Just like everywhere else.

    • avatarCliff H says:

      Hasdrubal,

      I did a little research and found the following on http://www.wa.gov:

      RCW 9.41.300
      Weapons prohibited in certain places — Local laws and ordinances — Exceptions — Penalty.

      (1) It is unlawful for any person to enter the following places when he or she knowingly possesses or knowingly has under his or her control a weapon:
      [...]
      For purposes of this subsection (1)(b), “weapon” means any firearm, explosive as defined in RCW 70.74.010, or any weapon of the kind usually known as slung shot, sand club, or metal knuckles, or any knife, dagger, dirk, or other similar weapon that is capable of causing death or bodily injury and is commonly used with the intent to cause death or bodily injury.

      (b) Restricting the possession of firearms in any stadium or convention center, operated by a city, town, county, or other municipality, except that such restrictions shall not apply to:

      (i) Any pistol in the possession of a person licensed under RCW 9.41.070 or exempt from the licensing requirement by RCW 9.41.060;[...]

      I have paraphrased to omit portions of the law not pertinent here. Are you sure that they can restrict firearms there? Or is it only the big convention center over I-5 that is covered by this exemption and not the one adjacent to the stadium?

      • avatarHasdrubal says:

        I think this is a case of the law says they cannot restrict but they are doing it anyway, and Seattle is too liberal to be upset about it. The mayor there was trying to ban guns in city parks and got shot down, and now he’s on the non-binding “private business owners post no guns allowed signs” thing downtown.

        Smaller departments like mine tell their employees that the NFL is using the facility and operating the event where the policy applies, that we aren’t in charge of either Seattle or the NFL, and therefore they are not giving us any blessing to violate the corporate policy. Which doesn’t mean I would be fired for raising a legal stink about it, but it also means I don’t care enough to take the entire burden on myself in a bastion of liberalism for a sport I don’t like enough to pay the ticket price.

        To be honest, I don’t care enough to look up the case law, if there is any. And I’m not sure there is, because there is no law being applied by the NFL here. Think it would have to be a civil rights lawsuit, but that’s really beyond my knowledge base. I have not heard any information that the City of Seattle has passed any law or code to support the NFL. Don’t take that as me not caring, just feeling that we all have bigger fights to win first.

  21. avatarBlue says:

    The NFL has gotten on to the gun ban kick because they made instant millionaires out of too many thugs. This is in part the backlash from certain commentators shooting their mouths off last year.

  22. avatarJohn says:

    Can they legally do all that? A buddy of mine is a Fed and he can even carry on planes even if he’s on vacation.

  23. avatarSteve says:

    Oh darn, no more special rules for non-special people.

  24. avatarCameron S. says:

    It’s pretty simple: Don’t go somewhere where your right to carry is infringed.

    Furthermore, there should be no difference between where a cop can carry and where anyone else can. National reciprocity, I’m looking at you.

    • avatarSteve says:

      I quit supporting professional cry-babies that happen to be ok at sports years ago. Kind of stop caring when someone complains millions of dollars to play a game is not enough…

      • avatarJus Bill says:

        I quit caring decades ago. When someone makes more for one game than I will in my lifetime, I say FOAD.

  25. avatarMatt in FL says:

    My concern for them is precisely zero, unless there’s a way to have a number lower than zero, in which case it’s that.

  26. avatarAccur81 says:

    I’ll just make the blanket statement that I strongly disagree with most of the comments here for several reasons. First, the no-gun policy effectively makes NFL stadiums Gun Free Zones, which commensurately increases their attractiveness for a mass shooter and / or terrorist. Second, I see a new trend in the civilian disarmament agenda – to *allow* only on-duty LEOs to carry. This idea further perpetuates that only government agents – and only when officially on the clock – are allowed to carry a firearm. I disagree with any arrangement where responsible people are not allowed to carry firearms. If anything, non-LEOs are more responsible with firearms than LEOs.

    While the rest of you are getting your schadenfreude against LEOs, the civilian disarmament agenda notches up yet another victory. Bash LEOs for their mistakes, and deservedly so, but when y’all celebrate the addition of major Gun Free Zones, you don’t have my support.

    And for those wondering, I absolutely support the right of responsible (essentially non-violent felons and US citizens) to carry firearms. I support rights in other states, help civilians get CC permits, help with AR and other purchases, introduce people to hunting and shooting, call and write congressmen, joined NRA, FPC, etc. I could do more, but I do have a life to live and a family to support, and I definitely do more than most. I’ve also protected people, taken enforcement action and stopped crimes in progress while carrying off duty. I personally know of other LEOs who have done the same, so I’d prefer not to be lumped in with LAPD, NYPD, Chicago PD, etc. I’m also supporting a very pro-gun union rep, and will run to be a union rep myself if he is promoted to a district rep.

    I am seriously debating boycotting NFL stadiums due to this policy, but if you all want to be happy about it, that’s your choice.

    • avatarRLC2 says:

      I thank you, for your service, in all sincerity.
      I know a few LEOs, and MIL, active and ret and MANY more are like you,
      than otherwise.

      Just my two cents.

    • avatarSteveInCO says:

      I am NOT happy about the policy.

      But you know what? Whether or not off duty cops are exempted, it’s a GFZ. It’s a GFZ if *I* do not get to carry and I couldn’t give a fvck less if you can.

      Who died and made you the ruling class?

      I’ll be a little more supportive of the rights of off duty/retired LEOs when I start seeing their unions and bosses support mine. In the meantime, I take the stance that you should never be allowed an exemption from an infringement on my rights.

    • avatarPig humper says:

      Where are your cop organizations when the NFL banned carry from all of us?
      Where are the cop organizations when mag bans are put in place?

      I’ll tell you where. They are out looking for their carve out. Not only for on-duty officers but also off-duty officers and RETIRED officers. They want the crave out for the 60 year old guy that retired 10 or so years ago and moved to florida! They want his nation wide carry, no mag capacity limits, and of course the ability for him to carry even where regular civies cant!

      You are reaping what you have sown here. You thought that if you got your carves out all would be well, little did you know that those that wish to ban guns want to ban them from everyone. And here it comes.

      Maybe instead of telling the gun community we should get BEHIND you and YOUR needs. Maybe you should get with US and help ALL OF US as a community.

      Sorry. You read enough cop blogs, forums and articles and you see there are a few that believe in the 2A. But the VAST MAJORITY also believe in their own carve outs and believe they are special when it comes to carrying. They talk about how they lock people up and later those people might be looking to harm them… Ok. Then why a carve out for retired officers even if they move out of state? why a carve out for 50 state nation CCW even for a guy who has been retired 10 years!

      Get behind the regular community, get your organization backing all gun rights, and we’ll back yours.

      Chicago is a great example. Lots of Chicago cops support the 2A. But the leadership doesnt. In all the CCW hearing and law making the ONLY cops you saw were the ones from the top talking about much the Cops dont want CCW for civies and how much more training cops get. The Chicago FOP union stayed quiet on the matter. Why? because they said it didn’t effect their members, their members were exempted….

      You reap what you F***ING sow.

      • avatarAccur81 says:

        I am behind you – I’m behind all responsible gun owners. I thought that was clear, but I guess it didn’t get through.

        I am not my police union, but I’m trying to be a union rep, so guns and gun rights *will* be on the table. I’ve risked my job by being pro-gun in an anti-gun state, so don’t talk to me like I haven’t done anything. Still, a whole lot of people like you who wrap up all police as anti-gunners. Thanks for nothing.

        • avatarSteveInCO says:

          My issue isn’t with you specifically, it’s with your unions and your bosses. The *average* city cop doesn’t give a damn because HE has his carve out. (Sheriff’s deputies and the sheriffs themselves are much better about this.)

          When I see more behave like you, my attitude will change. Until then, sorry, I won’t support your carve out. Not even if it’s you in person arguing for it. Accurate81, you shouldn’t get to exercise *any* right off duty that I do not get, even if you personally are pro-gun. That’s not hostility to you, that’s hostility to a special interest you happen to fall into.

  27. avatarConrad says:

    Cleveland…

    … for those interested, google “Coventry Street Fair riot” and see what happens when the people disarm themselves… and a flash mob decides to gather and have some fun…

    … I’ve noticed there’s pretty much a police officer hanging around any hip commercial area. I’ve even seen a PO behind the reception desk at a restaurant… my wife asked him for a table for two… *facepalm*

  28. avatarPat says:

    If the citizen cant carry, then neither can the off duty cop (citizen). No special rights for piggy, Then they wont be sticking their snouts into fellow non cop citizens rights (like many did after the school shootings, trying to push gun grabbing laws that they thought would not apply to them).

    • avatarHannibal says:

      Big internet words, there.

      • avatarPat says:

        Specify. If a cop thinks he should have the right to carry while off duty while at the same time believes or tries to make it so a non cop cannot……he is a dirty pig. I have over a million dollars cash and numerous firearms, so I can do for or to a cop (or pig) what a cop can do for or to me. Neither big nor small. Just equal.

        • avatarHasdrubal says:

          Not sure if you understand what’s going on with this particular story- it’s the NFL making this policy, not any police department or other governmental agency.

          Also not sure you understand that police departments don’t write legislation, as that is usually reserved for the legislature, city council, or some other similar and non-uniformed group. You may be confused by the appointment of weak-willed yes men as Chiefs of Police in various strongly liberal cities. These people are either looking for a political future themselves, or they are bound by fear of firing if they don’t parrot the will of the mayor.

          Does that stink and make police look bad? Of course it does. But unless you can point out a law written and enacted by police officers regarding anything at all, much less a confiscatory gun scheme, I think you may have the wrong idea here. Just look at the NY Sheriffs trying to take a stand against the travesty of a bill they have going there. Didn’t some CO Sheriffs do the same?

          It’s almost as though some people (and not pointing a finger specifically at you here) believe there’s only “the police,” as though we were living in Germany with the Polizei. Other countries, “the police” actually are a single organization for the whole country. But even then, I can’t think of one where they write the laws.

          And just to be clear, I think everyone should be able to carry pretty much everywhere UCMJ doesn’t apply. Those places, everyone bound by UCMJ should be able to carry.

        • avatarPat says:

          My response was, and is, directed towards those officers who believe, zealously enforce, or promote gun grabbing while at the same time believing that they are immune to the same standard as the average citizen. If the average citizen is excluded from carrying at a game, then so should the off duty officers be prohibited from same (though I agree with you that ALL should carry). I feel that the police should come down hard against the treasonous bastards they work for who push anti-gun (freedom) laws, rather than enforce (some with enthusiasm) these evil schemes. Clearly, there are good cops out there who do a hard job, and my contempt is directed at the bad ones (bad apples in positions of power can really make a barrel stink).

  29. avatarHannibal says:

    It’s unfortunate that such silly policies are adopted. I’d like to say that police should all stop buying tickets and express their disgust to management, but the reality is probably that, in those places where such rules have no force of law, LEOs are probably just carrying guns in concealed, as there are woefully lax security policies at such “gun-free zones.”

  30. avatarDoug says:

    I am totally ok with this policy. Why should an off-duty cop have a privilege that a legal concealed permit holder can’t have. Ban off-duty nationwide concealed carry for law enforcement and politicians, make them abide by the same laws that the ordinary citizen has to abide to.

  31. avataruncommon_sense says:

    This demonstrates the level of hysteria coming from civilian disarmament proponents. It was only a matter of time before the gun grabbers started targeting off-duty and retired police. I hope that is a serious tactical mistake and finally pushes police agencies to vocally support our side.

    And if you want a glimpse into the future, the gun grabbers will eventually require off-duty law enforcement officers to be unarmed. They will drive to their office/station where they will only get their sidearm to wear while on-duty. When they finish their shift, they will once again store their sidearm at the office/station and go home unarmed. And there will be no special considerations for retired officers.

  32. avatarMichael says:

    All I have to say is, good – good to see that the “Only Ones” the so-called “professionals” now have to suffer the same fate as the rest of the citizens. That the costume and tin badge no-longer protects them from the lunacy know as the gun free zone.

  33. avatarPapaBear says:

    Cops 24/7? Even during motorcycle rallies where your members are actively assaulting a man?

  34. avatarI'm confused says:

    There will be NOTHING done to the motorcycle cops. Bloomberg and his idiot chief will bury it, oh wait, we cannot discuss it as it is a personnel matter.

    They did a great job of helping the guy in the car, just like those two transit cops recently found to be hiding in the motor mans Cab (behind a locked door) who watched as a guy got stabbed to death. A court said they were not responsible for protecting the stabbing victim. . . . Real heroes, tough s**t for the off duty cops! they would be useless anyway.
    NOTICE that we haven’t seen any report about the Newton, Conn shooting? I do not want to see the photos of dead people, seen enough BUT how about a very specific timeline of events. Might be embarrassing to the cops, ie. hey guys, I hear shooting coming from the school, we better set up a perimeter and call in SWAT, should take only45 minutes, ala Columbine. you will never see a timeline report.

  35. avatarRockOnHellChild says:

    Good for the goose, good for the gander

  36. avatarniceguns says:

    All this terrorist talk, the only terrorists are in Washington.

  37. avatarcyrano says:

    NFL patdowns are a joke.

  38. avatarMountain Bunny says:

    Why should an off-duty police officer be able to exercise rights (the right to carry, the right to self defense) that I am forbidden to exercise in the same place?

    Why is the off-duty police officer somehow better or more deserving than I am?

    The argument that “Well, they’re trained, and therefore more responsible” plays directly into the hands of the anti-gun, “Only cops should have guns”, crowd.

    I’m a responsible gun owner, and if I can’t carry, they shouldn’t either. Maybe this’ll make police think about whether or not they want to be gun grabbers.

  39. avatarDenis Hughes says:

    stupid,stupid,stupid……..why not send a firefighter to a fire without turnouts or a fire truck! same kind of thing! stupid!!!! a cop is a cop 24/7 if a crime is committed its their job to enforce the law! whether on duty or off duty!!! period!!! most of the sheriff’s deputies I know carry handcuffs and a handgun! whether there on duty or off duty!
    my nephew who is a sacramento county sheriff deputy is always prepared to enforce the law. with deadly force if needed! its his job that he must do! He a is sworn deputy and he must uphold the law and protect the public, whether he is at a NFL game, NASCAR………..

    • avatarMountain Bunny says:

      Why do you believe that an off-duty police officer is superior to the rest of us?

      You said, “my nephew who is a sacramento county sheriff deputy is always prepared to enforce the law. with deadly force if needed!”

      That’s great, but what about the rest of us? Why should any law-abiding person be forced to take a break from being able to defend themselves?

      If he’s off-duty, why should he be allowed to defend himself where the rest of us can’t?

      I’d argue that we should all be prepared to protect ourselves, but we aren’t legally allowed to in many places. Additionally, in many, many jurisdictions, the police support “gun free zones”, making it even harder for the law-abiding to protect themselves.

      Exactly how is his life worth more than anyone else’s? I’ll answer this one for you: it isn’t.

      An officer doesn’t magically get rights that the rest of us don’t get just because he wears a uniform on the job. He’s not automatically braver. He’s not automatically smarter. He’s not automatically a better shot, or a better judge of situations than anyone else. We don’t have two tiers of rights for police and non-police.

      If the general, law-abiding public can’t legally defend themselves, off-duty police shouldn’t be able to, either. If they don’t like it, let them fight for everyone to be able to protect themselves.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.