cashman966 wrote:Werz wrote:2ndamendment wrote:Police are on duty 24-7. This is how we were trained. But this was years ago since I'm no longer a LEO. I would assume it is how it is now.
I've heard similar statements before. Will the employing police agency accept full responsibility for an LEO's actions, all day, every day? No. Being "on call" - particularly for the purpose of carrying a firearm - is not the same as "on duty." It's a convenient excuse for cops to carry guns anywhere they want, and it's rare that anyone calls them on it, but it is not supported by prevailing law.
Maybe I am reading it wrong but wouldn't he be covered under this exemption
2923.122 Illegal conveyance or possession of deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance or of object indistinguishable from firearm in school safety zone.
(D)(1) This section does not apply to any of the following:
(b) Any person who is employed in this state, who is authorized to carry deadly weapons or dangerous ordnance, and who is subject to and in compliance with the requirements of section 109.801 of the Revised Code,(109.801 Annual firearms requalification program) unless the appointing authority of the person has expressly specified that the exemption provided in division (D)(1)(b) of this section does not apply to the person.
Seems it would apply unless his department bars off duty carry in schools.
I was only addressing the statement about "on duty 24-7." I was aware of the (D)(1)(b) exemption, but I have issues with that provision for several reasons - some of which I have expressed before - and I think that provision is intentionally opaque to the casual reader. Maybe this is a good opportunity to rant about that.
Note your paranthetical. You put it in there specifically because the statute does
not state or imply what "109.081" is or what it means. The casual reader won't know what it means. They
will understand (D)(1)(a), and it will likely make sense to them that an "on duty" officer should be allowed to carry into prohibited places. What they
will not realize is that (D)(1)(b) intentionally creates a "back door" to circumvent the "on duty" requirement and makes peace officers "special snowflakes" who can carry guns into prohibited places, even when off duty. Nevertheless, given the way it is stated, most readers don't realize that is what is being done, particularly since they need to refer to another statute to even determine what that subsection means.
My greater concern, which I have expressed before, is with that provision as set forth in R.C. 2923.121(B)(1)(b). CHL holders are prohibited from drinking
any alcohol when carrying a firearm on D-permit premises. I'm OK with the exemption under R.C. 2923.121(B)(1)(a) because any officer who is "on duty" had damn well better
not be drinking alcohol. However, the (B)(1)(b) provision creates a "back door" which allows peace officers to carry a gun into a bar and basically drink all they want, at least until they reach the level of clear intoxication as described under R.C. 2923.15, and even that is only a misdemeanor. I don't like them having that option.* And that is an option that CHL holders clearly do
not have, even though the a peace officer's right to carry a concealed firearm while "off duty" is supposed to be the "same right to carry a concealed handgun ... as a person who was issued a concealed handgun license[.]" R.C. 2923.126(E). Personally, I think the Ohio General Assembly needs to be confronted with the sneaky "109.081" exemption which applies regardless of whether a law enforcement officer is on duty or not, and some of the inequities in that provision, as well as some of the risks, need to be brought to their attention.
Bottom Line: Most people understand why "on duty" law enforcement officers have exemptions to carry firearms into prohibited places, and that is already specifically provided for in the statutes. The only reason for inserting the "(b)" provisions is to sneak in special off-duty privileges for peace officers without the general public recognizing that is what is being done.
*
I'm sure that some folks will insist that they should be allowed to drink at the bar and carry a gun anytime they want. I disagree. As far as I'm concerned, you knowingly waive your Second Amendment right when you start knowinly introducing alcohol into your body. They can scream "Shall not be infringed!" all they want, and I don't care. I've seen too many dead bodies caused by drunks with guns."An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."
-- Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon
"Remember that protecting our gun rights still boils down to keeping a majority in the electorate, and that our daily activities can have the impact of being ambassadors for the gun culture ..."
-- BobK
Open carry is a First Amendment exercise.
....
