[quote]ST. PAUL, Minn. — Minnesota's largest police group and police union are suing the NFL and the Vikings, claiming the league's new ban on off-duty cops carrying their guns to games is illegal.
The Minnesota law that allows businesses to bar weapons specifically exempts "active licensed" peace officers, and state law trumps NFL rules, the lawsuit says.
But the National Football League disagrees, saying the law doesn't apply to it. Although an NFL spokesman declined to comment on the suit, when police officials complained about the policy last fall, the league's security chief said a ticket to a game is a license that teams can revoke at will — and being an armed off-duty cop is reason enough.
The NFL said that between on-duty officers assigned to games and rent-a-cops, there are enough guns inside NFL stadiums, and the league worries about "blue-on-blue" shootings.
[B]The lawsuit was filed Tuesday in Hennepin County District Court by the Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association and the Police Officers Federation of Minneapolis. The latter is the bargaining unit that has 900 members.[/B]
Defendants are the NFL, the Vikings and the regents of the University of Minnesota. The Vikings will play the next two seasons at the U's TCF Bank Stadium while their new arena is built on the site of the Metrodome.
Vikings officials did not immediately return a call for comment. Chuck Tombarge, director of public relations for the U, said the school's general counsel had not yet seen the suit and therefore could not address it.
[B]Dennis Flaherty, executive director of the statewide peace officers association, said the group sued because "the Vikings cannot be allowed to, in essence, thumb their nose at Minnesota law."
"The NFL or a private entity has no authority to supersede state law," said Flaherty, whose group represents 8,500 peace officers.[/B]
At issue is a subdivision of Minnesota's statute governing where people can carry guns if they have a permit. It allows business owners to ban guns in their premises if they post signs or orally tell people guns are prohibited.[/quote]
[url]http://www.policeone.com/blue-on-blue/articles/6880603-Minn-police-sue-NFL-over-off-duty-gun-ban/[/url]
It's a fair argument; considering how easily off-duty cops can keep their weapon on their person.
It's a football game with armed security personel everywhere around you; why do you need your firearm if there's already enough protection?
[QUOTE=Kite_shugo;43974440]It's a fair argument; considering how easily off-duty cops can keep their weapon on their person.
It's a football game with armed security personel everywhere around you; why do you need your firearm if there's already enough protection?[/QUOTE]
Not to mention Minnesota allows businesses to post signs prohibiting concealed carry, should off-duty cops get special privileges?
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;43974618]Not to mention Minnesota allows businesses to post signs prohibiting concealed carry, should off-duty cops get special privileges?[/QUOTE]
Heck no. Either everyone is allowed to carry, or no one is allowed to carry. No special privileges for off-duty cops.
I don't know how it is in other states but ive dated a cop and he said hes required to carry his gun at all times.
I love how the NFL claims to be exempt from state law.
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;43977017]I love how the NFL claims to be exempt from state law.[/QUOTE]
The state law exempts "active licensed peace officers", however arguably when the police officer is not on duty, he or she is at that time not being a police officer. Therefore, does not warrant the exemption.
The NFL isn't exempt from state law, but off duty officers should not be above the law.
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;43977017]I love how the NFL claims to be exempt from state law.[/QUOTE]
The NFL manages to be exempt from a lot of things. Like taxes. And the Sherman Anti-Trust act
[QUOTE=Antdawg;43977115]The state law exempts "active licensed peace officers", however arguably when the police officer is not on duty, he or she is at that time not being a police officer. Therefore, does not warrant the exemption.
The NFL isn't exempt from state law, but off duty officers should not be above the law.[/QUOTE]
They aren't above the law. The law clearly stipulates that they have to carry, even when off-duty. That's a requirement, and deviation from that requirement is grounds for removal from the force.
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;43977186]They aren't above the law. The law clearly stipulates that they have to carry, even when off-duty. That's a requirement, and deviation from that requirement is grounds for removal from the force.[/QUOTE]
The problem is that if their are off-duty officers in a venue where any form of carry is not allowed by anyone, yet those off-duty officers are allowed to, then if something were to happen where the on-duty officers and security had to deal with a potential threat, their would be civilians (off-duties) at that venue that would be carrying guns themselves and may also respond to that threat. However, to the security already there, the first thing they'll think by seeing a civilian carrying a gun in a venue where civilians can't carry guns is that that person is up to no good and may take that off-duty cop down before he or she can explain that he or she is an off-duty cop.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;43974641]Heck no. Either everyone is allowed to carry, or no one is allowed to carry. No special privileges for off-duty cops.[/QUOTE]
I'd be more at peace knowing that a trained officer has a firearm, and not Bob the gun-toting hick, who may have had a few too many.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;43977319]The problem is that if their are off-duty officers in a venue where any form of carry is not allowed by anyone, yet those off-duty officers are allowed to, then if something were to happen where the on-duty officers and security had to deal with a potential threat, their would be civilians (off-duties) at that venue that would be carrying guns themselves and may also respond to that threat. However, to the security already there, the first thing they'll think by seeing a civilian carrying a gun in a venue where civilians can't carry guns is that that person is up to no good and may take that off-duty cop down before he or she can explain that he or she is an off-duty cop.[/QUOTE]
So have the officers check in with event security beforehand. Heck, if the security team feels like it and the cops are up for it, they could be integrated into the security plan. Give them seats at strategic points around the stadium, radio access, all that fun stuff.
They could even give them a discount for cooperation.
[QUOTE=Bradyns;43977470]I'd be more at peace knowing that a trained officer has a firearm, and not Bob the gun-toting hick, who may have had a few too many.[/QUOTE]
Well, that comment is just full of assumptions.
"Bob the gun-toting hick" can probably out-shoot an average police officer, even if he's had a few too many. Hell, me and my friends can probably out-shoot an average police officer while drunk, because while that officer is cruising around or doing his regular duties, me and my buddies probably go through ~400 rounds of 9mm in a month just target shooting. Does the officer have better situational tactics? Sure. But to claim that a trained officer is superior to someone who puts in more time in shooting and target practice when it comes to firearms handling is a very ignorant thing to imply.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;43977115]The state law exempts "active licensed peace officers", however arguably when the police officer is not on duty, he or she is at that time not being a police officer. Therefore, does not warrant the exemption.
The NFL isn't exempt from state law, but off duty officers should not be above the law.[/QUOTE]
"Active licensed peace officers" means they are currently licensed by the state and actively employed by an agency. A police officer is never off duty. Just out of uniform.
[QUOTE=Bradyns;43977470]I'd be more at peace knowing that a trained officer has a firearm, and not Bob the gun-toting hick, who may have had a few too many.[/QUOTE]
Yes because off duty police officers are trained robots incapable of committing human error... Considering many cops are trigger happy enough to shoot you for carrying a blaze orange Reese's cup package, I think I'd feel safer with gun toting Bob who probably knows that the media and legal system would royally fuck him over into a fate worse than death for shooting anyone; regardless of how threatening the situation is.
[QUOTE=Bradyns;43977470]I'd be more at peace knowing that a trained officer has a firearm, and not Bob the gun-toting hick, who may have had a few too many.[/QUOTE]
And what prevents the cop from getting drunk? Nothing, that's what.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;43974618]Not to mention Minnesota allows businesses to post signs prohibiting concealed carry, should off-duty cops get special privileges?[/QUOTE][QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;43974641]Heck no. Either everyone is allowed to carry, or no one is allowed to carry. No special privileges for off-duty cops.[/QUOTE]Actually, they are exempt and should be because Minnesota law is quite similar to other states on this issue.[QUOTE=Mudbone;43974766]I don't know how it is in other states but ive dated a cop and he said hes required to carry his gun at all times.[/QUOTE]This is how they're similar, a law enforcement officer must have their weapon and identification on their person, and when faced with,[QUOTE=Antdawg;43977319]The problem is that if their are off-duty officers in a venue where any form of carry is not allowed by anyone, yet those off-duty officers are allowed to, then if something were to happen where the on-duty officers and security had to deal with a potential threat, their would be civilians (off-duties) at that venue that would be carrying guns themselves and may also respond to that threat. However, to the security already there, the first thing they'll think by seeing a civilian carrying a gun in a venue where civilians can't carry guns is that that person is up to no good and may take that off-duty cop down before he or she can explain that he or she is an off-duty cop.[/QUOTE]this situation, the law and procedure also stipulates that the officer [b]must identify themselves as an officer of the law.[/b]
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;43974641]Heck no. Either everyone is allowed to carry, or no one is allowed to carry. No special privileges for off-duty cops.[/QUOTE]
I think they should, just cause their off duty doesn't mean they wont be needed to do their job in some situations.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;43974641]Heck no. Either everyone is allowed to carry, or no one is allowed to carry. No special privileges for off-duty cops.[/QUOTE]
Are you stupid? You know how many cops have to respond to crimes off duty because it is their obligations.
Lets also not forget people tend to try and ambush and kill cops. So yeah, carrying is pretty much a necessity once you become a cop. It isn't like a criminal is gonna say "oh well shit, dickface is off duty I'll wait to get his ass when he goes back to work."
[QUOTE=Bradyns;43977470]I'd be more at peace knowing that a trained officer has a firearm, and not Bob the gun-toting hick, who may have had a few too many.[/QUOTE]
I've had a similar type discussion with people in real life and one thing always fascinates me- people's faith in this mythical 'training' cops supposedly get.
For instance, last year there was a rogue cop going crazy in this area, Christopher Dorner, and police were searching for him. The police eventually shot up a truck with two women inside, because they thought the two women were him. These are trained cops I'm talking about.
Training means they received instruction on how to operate their weapon, it doesn't mean they have some +1 to not fucking up skill that civilians don't have. A drunk armed off duty cop at a football game would present the same threat to public safety that a drunk armed civilian would present. Maybe more of a threat since cops know they can do pretty much anything they want and not be held accounable for it.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;43977115]The state law exempts "active licensed peace officers", however arguably when the police officer is not on duty, he or she is at that time not being a police officer. Therefore, does not warrant the exemption.
The NFL isn't exempt from state law, but off duty officers should not be above the law.[/QUOTE]
Police officers are off duty, but they never stop being cops. They aren't above the law, carrying off duty is part of the job. In many areas, they are obligated as terms of their employment to carry while off duty.
[QUOTE=Zambies!;43977182]The NFL manages to be exempt from a lot of things. Like taxes. And the Sherman Anti-Trust act[/QUOTE]
They're a non-profit...
At seahawk games up here there are armed off duty cops but for some reason they cover there face and badge number. Not the badge just the number. :/
Breaking: NFL Preparing to Secede from Union - claim that all professional football stadiums are sovereign land of the NFL.
I completely understand why the officers would want to carry a firearm at all times, but being able to keep out armed spectators is pretty important. If the NFL chooses to keep the officers out of games, then there is nothing else to be said. If the officer wants to see the game he needs to leave his gun at home. It's that simple. It's like I refuse to allow an off-duty officer into my home because he carries a firearm. I have the right to deny him entrance.
[QUOTE=Chernobyl426;44003998]I completely understand why the officers would want to carry a firearm at all times, but being able to keep out armed spectators is pretty important. If the NFL chooses to keep the officers out of games, then there is nothing else to be said. If the officer wants to see the game he needs to leave his gun at home. It's that simple. It's like I refuse to allow an off-duty officer into my home because he carries a firearm. I have the right to deny him entrance.[/QUOTE]You have that right because it's your private property, it's your goddamn home, but the NFL does not have that right. They're a commercial entity and not special in any way, if they want to keep off-duty police officers out of their no-gun hugbox zone, then they should push for the law to be changed. Ignoring the law, no matter how big your organization or how special you think you are, is [i]breaking[/i] the law.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
