Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Licensed armed private security guards private detectives of duty carry

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Oh and by the way, I think all responsible non-criminals of majority age should be allowed to be armed whenever they deem it appropriate, including non-LE persons.

    Comment


    • #17
      That will never ever ever happen. Not in Dailey land. We are all sheep in dailey land. well not all, but most.
      “One person can make a difference and every person should try.” JFKsigpic

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Monty Ealerman View Post
        The one-hour restriction is typically construed as normative and approximate. For example, if an armed security guard gets a flat tire and is a half hour late to work, he's not thereby guilty of a firearms violation.

        As for private detectives, they don't necessarily have specific hours, and therefore can be on the job at any time, naturally including when they're working as bodyguards. "I was driving around thinking about the case." "I had a feeling something might be less than entirely safe for my client right now, so I was checking some things." "Don't worry, now that you've stopped and questioned me, I'll definitely be billing my client for this time, so yeah, I was at work." The practical effect of this is that PDs can carry all the time.
        My boss used to tell us, "If something happens where you're going to take longer than 1 hour, just lock the gun up in a box and throw it in the trunk." What he said makes sense. Why take any chance on something like that?

        Why try to take advantage of and abuse a loophole when you know very well that it's wrong?

        Sooner or later, the DPR will get more and more complaints about this and eventually put it in clear writing that being a "supervisor" or a PD isn't a 24/7 conceal carry thing.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Illinois Edmond View Post
          My boss used to tell us, "If something happens where you're going to take longer than 1 hour, just lock the gun up in a box and throw it in the trunk." What he said makes sense. Why take any chance on something like that?

          Why try to take advantage of and abuse a loophole when you know very well that it's wrong?

          Sooner or later, the DPR will get more and more complaints about this and eventually put it in clear writing that being a "supervisor" or a PD isn't a 24/7 conceal carry thing.
          I agree about using transport condition as a practical response to the 1 hour limit. To be legally in transport condition, the weapon has to be in a separate compartment from the ammunition. You can't just put the loaded gun in a box and put the box in the trunk. You have to completely unload the weapon and separately store the ammunition. You don't have to unload the magazines if you keep them separate from the weapon.

          I don't consider the PD thing a loophole. It's consistent with legislative intent. I don't think it's wrong for a properly licensed PD to carry whenever he deems it appropriate. Why should he do it? You can't see why a PD should carry a firearm if he thinks it's appropriate? I'm sure you recognize the nature of his position. It really is often an around-the-clock job, just as the police job is.

          If a PD is on a bodyguard detail, when can he be certain he might not need his weapon? The hit man can enter his room and kill him so he won't be available to protect his charge on the next day's outing. He has to maintain round-the-clock preparedness, and his bearing of his weapon is reasonable.

          I don't think handgun-bearing should be limited to POs and PDs, because it's clearly a Second Amendment violation to create such a limitation.

          As for IDPR getting complaints, the City of Chicago complained in court about a PD bearing a firearm, and was firmly told by the court that it cannot regulate what the state has superseded it in regulating, so that if the gun bearing was OK per the statutes of state legislature and per the regulations promulgated by the IDPR, the fact that city wants to prohibit it does not matter. Such a prohibition is itself prohibited by the state.

          Comment

          MR300x250 Tablet

          Collapse

          What's Going On

          Collapse

          There are currently 13039 users online. 491 members and 12548 guests.

          Most users ever online was 19,482 at 12:44 PM on 09-29-2011.

          Welcome Ad

          Collapse
          Working...
          X