Previous Post
Next Post

Pope Francis and friends (courtesy

“Off-duty cops who plan to see the pope during his tour of the Big Apple ​are being warned to leave their guns at home — or face being ​sent away and ​reprimanded by NYPD brass,” reports. “‘All members of the service who plan to attend a papal event while off-duty are hereby advised that firearms will not be permitted’ read a message sent to police officers on Wednesday.” Wouldn’t you know it? The po-po are p.o.ed. “How dare they disarm us!” cry the Only Ones ™. Check it out . . .

Despite ​heightened concerns about an assassination ​​attempt​ or act of terror​, off-duty cops will ultimately have to abide by the very same rules that civilians are asked to — a move that is not sitting well with members of the force.

“This is our city and we should be able to carry,” a police source said, describing the policy as “very offensive.”

“God forbid something happens,” he explained. “You’re going against the patrol guide which says you’re required to be armed at all times while in New York City. ​If​ something bad happens and you’re not armed, you’re not able to protect yourself, your family, friends and the public. You have the leader of the biggest religion in the world and the potential for violence is there. I’d like to be able to protect myself if something, God forbid, does happen.”

“I’m not sure that quote wasn’t made up,” a media source tells TTAG. But it’s wonderful to see the Post – the anti-gun New York Post! – publish an argument for armed self-defense. Not one argument. Two!

Another source added, “​I​​n cases like this, it’s always better to have your gun and not need it, than to not have your gun and need it. Obviously, in the case of the pope, we’re all worried about an assassination attempt.

​”​It would be better to have a professional NYPD cop with his sidearm because that adds another layer of security for the pope. We want to protect him in every shape or form. If a cop is walking to one of the vents and sees something and needs to engage with his weapon, you’re going to want that gun on you.”

Let me see if I’ve got this straight. If a law-abiding civilian (a group that includes police officers) carries a firearm he or she may be able to use it defend innocent life? A law-abiding civilian carrying a gun is a good thing? Who knew! Certainly not the Powers-That-Be in the City That Never Sleeps, bodyguarded burghers who created and enforce a de facto ban on concealed carry for anyone who isn’t politically connect or a law enforcement officer (LEO).

Sarcasm aside, the next bit makes my blood boil.

Ed Mullins, president of the Sergeants Benevolent Association, also blasted the no-gun protocol — calling it “insulting to all members of the NYPD.”

“This makes no sense,” he said. “The NYPD has stated the Papal Detail is a high-risk security event and then prohibits the very same members of the NYPD from carrying their department-issued firearms off duty while attending a papal event with their families. I guess someone forgot law enforcement members are being targeted and killed across the nation.”

I guess someone forgot that armed non-LEO civilians protect police officers – just like off-duty police officers could protect the Pope. Myopia and hypocrisy make perfect bedfellows. It just goes to show: if you’re not part of the solution you’re part of the problem. I’m looking at you NYPD blue.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Good. Those idiots have proven, time and time again, that they cause 5x as much collateral damage as just letting the perp go. It’s just like not allowing high speed chases in a densely populated area.

  2. It probably is a real quote. Note the use of the word “civilian” to describe the rest of us peons, as those cops are noble knights serving their liege lord. Tell that to the Marines.

    • I agree, that is what makes “my blood boil”. They have been twisting that vernacular for so long as to put “civilian” police, and every other LEA, on the same level with the armed forces so they can circumvent the law and providing LEOs with automatic weapons and other military equipment. You know the one banning ownership of new machine guns by “civilians”. My God St. Louis county MO is entertaining using fire fighters as patrol officers. Just what we need a hose jockey with an M4 select fire.

      • “You know the one banning ownership of new machine guns by ‘civilians’.”

        I’m sure you are referring to the ‘Hughes Amendment’ (aka ‘Machine Gun Ban’) to the ‘Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986’ here.

        FYI: under ‘MGB`86’ individual LEOs are also prohibited from possession and/or ownership of post-19 May 1986-manufactured selective-fire weapons or full-auto-only machine guns.

        I should know, as at the time I was an ATF-licensed Title II, Class 2 machinegun manufacturer specializing in remanufacturing semi-auto weapons like the ‘Model A’ Uzi Carbine into subguns and Colt AR-15s into select-fire arms; ‘targeted’ towards the individual LEO who couldn’t purchase them personally otherwise (real Uzi subguns were ‘foreign-manufactured’ and Colt had a policy of no ‘civilian’ sales of M16s).

        When ‘MGB`86’ went into effect I lost the bulk of my customers and my business, as the only ‘people’ I could then sell newly manufactured MGs to was ‘police & military’. Ergo, I had to compete directly with Colt, IMI, etc.; to-wit: the manufacturers of ‘the real deal’ arms. 🙁

        And as to ‘hose jockeys’ with M4s, there are numerous departments that are operated as ‘Public Safety’, where each member is both certified and utilized as LEO and ‘fire suppression’. Once such example is the D/FW Airport DPS, bridging the Dallas/Tarrant County lines.

  3. My bet is the pope doesn’t want to catch a stray from one of these guys.

    It’s really funny these folks are bent out of shape about not being able to carry although it’s what the government at large has done to NYC. It’s also somewhat offensive to see these cops think that they should be/are above rules or regulations.

    • This.

      They didn’t want the Pope catching a stray (50) rounds from an off duty NYPD officer. The on duty officers were scary enough.

  4. The NYPD standard of accuracy is one in the perp and two in little old ladies for every two 17rd magazines, right?

    So as long as the pope isn’t old and wearing a dress…oh, nevermind.

    • Well said, Chip.

      It couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of folks. I wonder if it might generate a moment of thoughtful introspection among those who never before considered that they’d EVER be counted among the excluded class.

      Yeah, never mind; what was I thinking…

    • OK, so now how do we use this incident strategically?

      Isn’t it wise to point out to the LEOs that their employers – our governments – regard THEM – sworn-officers – with suspicion?

      Do governments have the backs of the LEOs? Do civilians have the backs of LEOs? The possible answers are:
      – Yes, Yes
      – Yes, No
      – No, Yes
      – No, No
      Baltimore suggests that the answer is No, No. Neither the municipal government (nor President) backs the BPD, nor do their own constituents, the law-abiding population.

      In an ideal world, the answer would be Yes, Yes; but we are far from this ideal.

      What would be in the best interests of defending the RKBA? For us to turn our backs on the LEOs so that all they think about is the pay and pensions to be dispensed by their employers? Or, for us to back LEOs who protect us and respect our rights and point out to them when their employers treat them as the pawns of royalty.

  5. Wow. So to the government of NY even the police are untrustworthy enough to be ‘permitted’ their rights.

    Honestly. Screw that city. I say all the cops should just walk away from their jobs at let the city eat itself. Serves them right.

  6. I read somewhere, I think it was at a website callef TTAG, the results of a national survey which showed that LEOs overwhelming supported your Second Amendment rights so I don’t why you attacking the police again.

    Just because Radley Balko says that the police are the like you doeesn’t make it so. I note that the officers point out the regulations require to carry at all times. Does NYC require that the few CHL permits holders carry at all timed? If the cops are just “civilians” than why can’t the city do that.

    Most if not all of you who buy into the cops are civilians meme don”t even know why that claim is made. Faux Libertarians make this claim because they don’t believe in the concept of public goods. Everything is a private transaction and there are no legitimate government functions. So of course the cops are just “covilians.”

    • I don’t know if I’m a faux libertarian, but that’s not the way I see it at all. To me, the distinction between civilian and military is that military missions often include the explicit goal to kill and destroy. Thus, their weapons are offensive tools. Not saying that’s wrong, unfortunately it’s often required and bless them for doing a dangerous and dirty job to defend our nation. But, for this reason, military should never be used against US citizens on US soil.

      Cops, on the other hand, are civilians. Their primary mission should always be to bring perps before a court it possible, and only use their weapons in direct defense of themselves and innocents. In this way, cops should be no different from any other civilian, and held to the same standards when they use deadly force.

      Of course, the reality is far different from the ideal outlined above.

    • @tdiinva: I think you missed the point. If the Police think they should be able to carry to protect themselves, their families and others then why shouldn’t the rest of us. I don’t agree with all of the comments on here either but I think the point of the article is well made. It is an attempt to show the hypocrisy of the Police thinking they are of a higher or privileged class and only those special people should be able to carry firearms to protect themselves, their loved ones and the Public. The irony of their position on this is amazing. Even more amazing is that they don’t seem to grasp that irony.

    • The role of the military is to destroy enemies of the state. The role of police is to protect and serve the people. When the two roles intersect, the enemies of the state invariably become the people.

    • “Most if not all of you who buy into the cops are civilians meme don”t even know why that claim is made”. I by into that because that is the law. In a military context, Chapter 18 of Title 10 United States Code refers to law enforcement officers as civilians. You either fall under the Uniform Code of Military justice or you are a civilian. Cops think a gun, a badge, and a costume make the law not apply to them. The law is meant for the peasant civilians.

  7. Well, police are civilians like the rest of us. We can hang together or we shall surely hang separately.

  8. Some politicians are bi polar and suffer from multiple personalities.
    Why do the people and LE put up with that crap in that city?

  9. I don’t believe those quotes are real, because they are unbelievable. Still, the question remains why such an order was issued in the first place, I don’t recall such restrictions for anyone else, tho I’m sure it would be welcomed by POTUS when he’s in town.

    I assume, then, it was a condition of the old guy with the funny hat. Which is certainly his right. I would comply so enthusiastically that when he got off the plane, he would find his Fiat waiting for him, and nothing and no one else, except the probably adoring crowds. He would love it, the city would save much needed money, the cops could have a day off, and the demonstrations of peace and love could be heralded around the world. I see no problem with that, what’s the worst that could happen? Shoot, he’s surrounded by Cardinals, if any trouble started the group of them could pray it away in record time, right?

  10. The decison makers in the NYPD care nothing for “constitutional rights” they care about command and control. They look at the police gunfire in the aftermath of the Boston bombing, research on “bunch shootings” by police officers, the LAPD and soil their depends. Off duty officers are not under the direct control of their supervisors and clearly are not trusted by their superiors.

  11. I fail to see what the big deal is about this guy,to me he’s just another preacher that happens to wear a dress and a funny hat.

    • Thought I was the only one. Really confused as to why this is such a big deal and why all the tax dollars need to be spent on protection.

  12. >You’re going against the patrol guide which says you’re required to be armed at all times while in New York City.
    Sounds like a good policy for anyone, in any city.

  13. From what I have read it is generally anyone but the suspect that is hit by NYPD gunfire.

    If true do you really want off armed duty NYPD around the Pope any more than you want on duty NYPD
    around the Pope given their hit anyone but the target to target being hit ratio?

    • I was under the impression it’s the host nation that’s responsible for security. So on a federal level it would be the Secret Service and on the local it would be the Mayor’s office and/or NYPD brass.

      It’s said John Paul II despite being shot didn’t want all that security, it was a case of no nation wanting to be the ones that dropped the ball and be the place where the other famous guy in a dress (not RuPaul) got wasted thus certain measures are always taken or no visit is allowed. I’d imagine this guy who likes to mingle and roam about is in the same boat if true.

  14. If NYC government says civilians have to be disarmed (why I don’t know) then all civilians should have to be, (why, yes cops are civilians no matter how much tacti-cool gear you buy them, then fail to train them with) off duty cops included.

    The NYPD is so large that if the shooting starts one cop isn’t guaranteed to be able to recognize another out of uniform. So using the usual logic of mass shootings and why colleges etc. should be gun free, it’s easier for the cops on duty to ID and take down a bad guy if the bad guys gun is the only one (yea right) in the crowd.

    Not sure what the issue is anyway the guy has heaven booked so what’s the problem if he gets shot? Is it that bullets are real and his God isn… never mind that’s another argument all together.

  15. This wouldn’t be a problem if the NYPD simply hired more Muslim cops. They have no interest in seeing the Pope.

  16. I surely hope no one tries to harm the Pope, but the liberal mayor and police chief are not helping at all by making their officers leave their weapons at home. This tells them and everyone else they do not trust their own. NYC needs a real mayor and police chief; the current ones are useless.

  17. Poor special babies-join the club. They don’t trust you? Neither do we-but be glad you won’t be stopped and frisked…elite hypocrisy beyond the pale…

  18. I’ve got a crisp $100 bill that says the powers that be are using some x-ray/3d body screeners en masse and dont want any false positives. Yes, my tinfoil hat is firmly in place today, thanks for asking.

  19. Welcome to our world.
    I like the quote about it being ” our city” and I guess the non cops just hang around and pay for everything.

    Maybe being naked will help them see how it feels to be defenseless.

    We can’t all be chuck Norris

  20. Isn’t it NYC that the LEO shot 84 rounds and only one hit, maybe the chief is afraid of the LRO “accidentally” killing the Pope. I wonder how it feels to have the shoe on the other foot? The only gun control law there should be is that criminals can’t have any firearms. Thanks for your vote, pass the word.

Comments are closed.