Do you pack heat?

[CAO]

No way. Absolutely no :censored::censored::censored::censored:ing way. One of the medics I ride with is a 15 year old veteran at our police department and has been with our EMS department for 10 years. He will arrive on shift with his police car but he leaves all his stuff in the cop car. He is not allowed to carry a gun on him or make any arrests when he's working as a medic.
This is what I've been told by him. Prove me wrong.

15 years old? I've gotta admit, that's a little young to carry for me

But why shouldn't he be allowed to carry concealed? He's obviously (hopefully...) trained to use it. Concealed nobody would even know unless it was needed. If it's not known, a potentially violent patient can't go for it.

Not making an arrest I can see, but it seems a little silly for a veteran of the police force to not be allowed to carry. As others have said, it's more likely policy than law, and he chooses to follow that policy in order to work.

But how are we supposed to prove wrong the hearsay from an unidentified source?

 

[clibb]

15 years old? I've gotta admit, that's a little young to carry for me

But why shouldn't he be allowed to carry concealed? He's obviously (hopefully...) trained to use it. Concealed nobody would even know unless it was needed. If it's not known, a potentially violent patient can't go for it.

Not making an arrest I can see, but it seems a little silly for a veteran of the police force to not be allowed to carry. As others have said, it's more likely policy than law, and he chooses to follow that policy in order to work.

But how are we supposed to prove wrong the hearsay from an unidentified source?

Funny thing is that he carries the gun all the time when he's off duty, but while in Paramedic uniform he doesn't carry it.

 

[ffemt8978]

Funny thing is that he carries the gun all the time when he's off duty, but while in Paramedic uniform he doesn't carry it.

That's his choice then...but it in no way establishes the standard for people across the country. As a matter of fact, HR-218 "Law Enforcement Officer's Safety Act" pretty much allows officers to carry wherever they want, whenever they want (with some exceptions and subject to certain criteria).

 

[Akulahawk]

That's his choice then...but it in no way establishes the standard for people across the country. As a matter of fact, HR-218 "Law Enforcement Officer's Safety Act" pretty much allows officers to carry wherever they want, whenever they want (with some exceptions and subject to certain criteria).

That's the spirit of the LEOSA, but my soon to get CCW will actually allow me to carry more places than a non-CA LEO can while carrying on the LEOSA. I can walk on the grounds and in the buildings of my daughter's school and I commit no crime. Someone carrying on the LEOSA is NOT exempt from the state's Gun Free School Zone Act. Nor the Federal GFSZA. The LEOSA was not written to provide those exemptions. Think about what that could mean.

 

[JPINFV]

^
Since you mentioned it, I wouldn't be too scared over the Federal GFSZA. It's already been ruled unconstitutional once in US v Lopez, so Congress added a boilerplate about affecting interstate commerce. For the Feds to have a valid case (note, validity doesn't always matter in court cases), they have to prove that the person carrying the fire arm somehow affected interstate commerce.


Edit: I'd personally like to know how the Federal LEOSA is constitutional. Of course the constitution has never gotten in the way of the Federal Government.

 

[JJR512]

No way. Absolutely no :censored::censored::censored::censored:ing way. One of the medics I ride with is a 15 year old veteran at our police department and has been with our EMS department for 10 years. He will arrive on shift with his police car but he leaves all his stuff in the cop car. He is not allowed to carry a gun on him or make any arrests when he's working as a medic.
This is what I've been told by him. Prove me wrong.

I can't prove you wrong. You've told me that one LEO/paramedic whom you personally know has told you that he's not allowed to carry his gun with him when he's working as a medic, so he therefore leaves it in his police car. What does that prove? It proves absolutely nothing in regard to what I wrote and you quoted. Nothing at all.

Your story can be true and correct in your jurisdiction. It might not be true in the jurisdiction where the incident I related allegedly took place. How can you know? I didn't mention what jurisdiction that happened in, so you can't. It's quite possible that not all jurisdictions have laws or policies that prohibit LEOs from carrying their issued weapons with them when working as EMS personnel, did you think of that? Did it also not occur to you that even if there was such a law or policy, that the LEO/medic in my story could have been violating it? Did you think of that?

So don't quote me and tell me that because of one guy you know where you're from that there's "No way, absolutely no ****ing way" that what I wrote could be true or could happen.

 

[ffemt8978]

Another possibility is that the officer that clibb is referring to does carry concealed while on duty as a paramedic and just chose not to confide this in clibb for whatever reason.

 

[FrostbiteMedic]

I'm from the Chattanooga area, but not quite.

Grew up in the 58 hwy area myself....now live between pikeville and Spring City...we might know each other lol.....anyways, hit me up with a pm lol....

 

[Akulahawk]

^
Since you mentioned it, I wouldn't be too scared over the Federal GFSZA. It's already been ruled unconstitutional once in US v Lopez, so Congress added a boilerplate about affecting interstate commerce. For the Feds to have a valid case (note, validity doesn't always matter in court cases), they have to prove that the person carrying the fire arm somehow affected interstate commerce.


Edit: I'd personally like to know how the Federal LEOSA is constitutional. Of course the constitution has never gotten in the way of the Federal Government.

Actually, they reference the firearm, not the person for the interstate commerce. Same language they use for the LEOSA. The weapon has to have moved in or affect in some manner, interstate commerce. Chances are pretty good that a firearm (or it's parts) have moved through interstate commerce either while it's being built or being shipped to your dealer. If the Federal GFSZA is unconstitutional because of the interstate commerce clause, then the LEOSA is also unconstitutional on the same grounds, precisely because of the same boilerplate language used.

 

[JPINFV]

Wow, I misread it a while back when I first learned that congress did a second end run around the constitution. The sad part is that the circuit appeals courts are actually upholding it. If the fact that an object at one point moved across state lines means that anything that goes into producing it or is produced from it can be regulated, even if that object doesn't, then there really is no limit to the power of the federal government. I bet the framers are rolling in their graves right now.

Additionally, it is going to be interesting to see if it stands up to McDonald/Heller since the 1000 ft constitution free zone around primary and secondary schools is a de facto prohibition in populated areas.

 

[Akulahawk]

The GFSZA for both Federal and State have exemptions for transporting firearms through them and exempt private property. In other words, as long as my yard is fenced off from the public, I can carry a rifle or pistol in my yard, even if it's right across the street from a school. And you're right. The Interstate Commerce Clause wasn't intended to allow Congress that much power. In any event, since the 2nd Amendment has been stated to be a Fundamental Right, laws that restrict that right are potentially subject to review under strict scrutiny. The 1000 foot zone that the GFSZA creates an infringement upon someone's 2A right. A couple of lawyers and SME people that I am familiar with are of the opinion that the "zone" of the GFSZA is unconstitutional. Prohibiting firearms upon the actual grounds of the school would continue to be constitutional. Because of some legal strategy, don't expect a challenge to this for a couple years. Other portions of the 2A have to be secured first. (Low hanging fruit)

 

[JPINFV]

The problem with the GFSZA is that it shuts down unlicensed carry (both open and concealed). Of course the question is, how does the constitution view unlicensed carry, especially in states with strick or 'may issue' licensing requirments, even though no other constitutional explicit right requires a permit (except maybe the right to assemble, however that's essentially a 'shall issue' march permit following Skokie)?

 

[ffemt8978]

Okay, this thread has gone walkabout enough and we need to get it back on topic please.

 

[Akulahawk]

The problem with the GFSZA is that it shuts down unlicensed carry (both open and concealed). O

JP: That's precisely the constitutional problem. The right to travel and the right to bear arms for the purpose of self-defense "in case of confrontation" is what makes the 1000' zone unconstitutional.

Okay, this thread has gone walkabout enough and we need to get it back on topic please.

Agreed.

While I will shortly (within 60 days) be receiving my CCW, I will not be actually carrying at work without my employer's blessing. Many of the policies I work under have an effect of law upon me even if other people can carry within my work area with a CCW. Where I work is covered under PC 171b. In fact, it's a fire-able offense, though I couldn't be charged with a crime. That and I have armed persons at my disposal that can be at my side in less than 3 minutes and that I have other tools that I can deliver lethal force with... minimize my need to carry while I'm actually at work. Elsewhere though... h34r:

 

[BLSBoy]

i keep my glock 22 in a holster shirt at all times. Ive been on shooting scenes where we begin to treat a victim and receive fire from opposing gang members trying to finish the pt off. i applied for my CC next day

Challenge flag has been thrown.
You list as in Jersey, which is next to impossible to get.

 

[EMSLaw]

I'm curious do you work in Trenton?

So I am curious as to where you work where it is so dangerous that not only do you carry, but your coworkers and corrections officers don't have a problem with you having a loaded firearm with you on the ambulance.

Trenton, Camden, parts of Newark and Jersey City...

Trenton has municipal Fire-based EMS, though. And the rest are all hospital-based, AFAIK. Not sure any of those places would let you carry a firearm.

Like BLSBoy, I might have to call shenanigans on this one, but I'm always willing to be convinced.

 

[firecoins]

I know people at Jersey City Medical Center and UMDNJ. I;ll ask to see if they are allowed to carry.<_<

 

[DrParasite]

Trenton, Camden, parts of Newark and Jersey City...

Trenton has municipal Fire-based EMS, though. And the rest are all hospital-based, AFAIK. Not sure any of those places would let you carry a firearm.

Like BLSBoy, I might have to call shenanigans on this one, but I'm always willing to be convinced.

The question was asked of Bullet, not you EMSLaw, the reason being he said he does carry, and removes his weapon when he goes to the state penn, and no one (corrections officers or his partner) every has a problem with it.

I can answer with almost near certainty for UMDNJ (Newark and Camden): they do not let their EMT's carry, even if they are sworn members of law enforcement. In fact, I think there is even a rule saying if you are a cop and you need to carry at all times, then you can't work there. The only exception is the paramedic FBI guys, but they technically aren't UMDNJ employees even when on the ambulance.

I'm pretty sure Trenton won't either (and I hear they aren't really fire-based, still EMS based but grossly mismanaged, and since they were without funding, had to sell their building and moved into the firehouses), and I am guessing Jersey City is the same way.

That isn't saying that people DON'T carry, hidden somewhere out of the way in case they get caught in a a use it or die scenario, but they are definitely in the minority. And they never remove said weapons, so no one knows they actually have a firearm on them.

 

[TransportJockey]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who kinda did a 'huh?' on someone in NJ having a CCW. From what I've always heard, getting on in NYS or NJ is even harder than getting one in SoCal

 

[Harvey]

id like to see more open carry. cant believe Texas dosent have it