http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/02/19/minn-police-associations-sue-nfl-over-stadium-gun-ban/
Depending on who owns the stadium (public vs. private), I may fall on the side of the NFL. That is to say, I think that property owners have the right to deny entry to anyone with weapons. I’m also glad that off-duty LEO aren’t getting special treatment.
It’s a non-issue here in Texas. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/02/20/of-course-texas-lonestar-state-tells-nfl-their-gun-laws-dont-apply-here/
If the LEO win this suit, that is the first step to changing the policy for CCW holders bringing a firearm into the stadium. One step at a time.
Does anyone know if the Texas law applies to retired officers carrying under LEOSA?
I know some retired officers that I’d be very happy if they were armed, when going to games in Arlington or Houston.
How so?
I disagree completely. One thing about being a cop is that it isn’t a job you turn off when you take off the uniform and leave work. You spend your whole career training on how to deal with people acting outside what society will accept and then you should turn that off when you do go out after work? It doesn’t work that way and any good cop should be an asset to the public being armed; whether it’s at an NFL game, a movie theater or a mall… The latter two being scenes of some pretty horrific killings when the “gun free zone” signs somehow failed to stop bad guys with guns.
A person armed, whether a citizen or off duty LEO, would have made a huge difference in a lot of recent instances where killers went unopposed about their business and now we want to make NFL crowds open season too? Doesn’t sound like people are learning much from history.
If the NFL will not let off duty LEO carry concealed inside the stadium, then it will be that much tougher for the NFL to rationalize that civilian CCW should be acceptable. If the LEO win their case and the civilian sector gains LEO support for their postion, it will be easier to win.
An issue we have in our part of the U.S. is that many have the attitude “If I can’t do X, Y or Z, then I don’t think LEO should be able to do X, Y or Z.” The attitude is counterproductive and alienates some pro-CCW LEO. Dividing support for the issue is what the anti-2nd Amendment people want. We lose and they win.
Rome was not built in a day and we all have to stick together to pick apart the anti-2nd Amendment crowd one brick at a time.
If an off duty cop can carry his pistol in, I should be able to do the same. If I can’t, he shouldn’t.
This is exactly what I am talking about.
Roger, I was replying to rocsteady more or less. I agree with you and Sensei.
If it is a privately owned stadium then let them do what they want. I don’t care about football and don’t go to games either. If I were a gun owner and attended games I would simply vote with my pocketbook and stop going.
Considering that almost all stadiums are built with taxpayer money, I think that should qualify them as public property. These greedy owners keep going to city hall telling the council that even though the current venue is only 10 years old and still state-of-the-art, they want a new stadium with twice as many luxury boxes and club seats, a retractable roof, etc, and if they’re asked to contribute a penny, the city can kiss their beloved team goodbye. So, the city builds the new stadium whether the citizens agree or not. I think when I, the taxpayer, build your house, you don’t have any right to tell me that can’t exercise my rights inside it.
I agree. I am covered under the National Peace Officer Safety Act and the no CCW signs I see posted in some businesses do not apply to me. I still refuse to spend a dime at any business that has no CCW signs posted. No CCW = No Money.
I was tempted to take that position as well, but simply getting a government subsidy does not change property rights. For example, people who receive an earned income tax credit, Medicaid, Medicare, public housing, farm aid, or any other type of welfare entitlement from the tax payers do not lose their property rights. Don’t get me wrong, I disagree with almost all forms of subsidies, but I don’t think that we correct that injustice with an even greater one.
I have no desire to watch or be involved anything football. I see too many POS thugs being promoted as role models for children. That being said, I have never personally tried it, but I know guys who are actively sworn that have been rejected by the staff and not allowed in with a weapon. Rangers ballpark, they’re all for it. American Airlines is also great about it. The only dealings I have had with that stupid football stadium has been when the Superbowl was there, and that was purely work related.
Your view is that pointing out privilege is divisive, not lobbying for and acceping the privilege?
While some individual LEO believe in my Rights, Law Enforcement DOES NOT. Law Enforcment is vocally anti 2A and self defence except for some small towns and rural Sheriffs.
This becoming a reality is about as likely as a monkey flying out my butt. While individual officers can be strong supporters of the Constitution and the second, very few agencies and LEO organizations are so. Those organizations wont throw support behind expanding CHL permissions. Instead they will continue to lick the asses of the political leadership so long as they continue to have their little exemptions to the rules that is.
The most efficient way to insure that LEO organizations support CHL is to put them in the same category at every turn.
I’d like to know where you’re getting your numbers. I’ve been in LE for 8 years now and at all levels, the anti crowd is typically at the top. It’s the chiefs and sheriffs who are politicians that I’ve experienced being anti 2A.
Sure I’ve come across some at the operational level who don’t think private citizens need certain weapons. And often those of us who are pro CCL/2A can get them to better understand. Usually the quickest technique is to ask them about their spouses and kids. How can their wife/husband protect the kids while they are at work if non-LE can’t have guns? But most in my experience understand that more good guys with guns means more good guys with guns. Naturally this will vary by locale. Places that are rabidly anti (NY, NJ, MA, IL, CA, MD) will have a less friendly attitude because it’s the system they grew up in.
ETA: I decided last fall, based on the NFL’s stupid policy that I won’t attend games and won’t buy anymore of their merchandise. I doubt they’ll even notice but I feel better.
The only way to get them to pay attention IMO would be for agencies to stop providing security at events and force the NFL/owners to pay for private security. The problem is that the officers who work the games often make very good money as details or OT. If agency “A” told the NFL to piss off, agencies “B” and “C” would be lining up to take the gig.
I always come back around to not fully comprehending how individual states, let alone businesses, can decide which parts of the Constitution they will abide by and which parts they will ignore. I know the NFL has “juice” but not so much that they should be able to override the 2A.
What’s next? Telling me which team I can root for?
It’s as simple as property rights vs individual rights. And I tend to agree with the property owner having the right to limit what happens on his property. I should be able to decide who can or cannot bring a weapon into my home. Your 2A rights are not more important than my property rights.
Where it gets sticky is when private property is used as a business that is more open to the public than a residence. I think the NFL’s decision is stupid and will have the opposite of their declared desire for a safer experience. . But I also think they are within their rights to do so.