Good news for those retired Military folks that are eligible and want to take advantage of the newly expanded list.

I'm a retired LEO. So far I haven't looked in to applying for LEOSA status. There are several reasons for this that are important to ME. They probably are not held by many of my brothers in blue. As with most decisions, each of us make them according to our desires and needs.

The first reason is practical. I chose to live in a state that has very strong CC laws for law abiding citizens. That's how it should be everywhere, but it's not. A GA weapons carry license is issued with no arbitrary testing by the government. If you are not a criminal, you get the ability to defend yourself in most places within the state. Most of the States I might visit also recognize our permits. Those that don't shouldn't be rewarded with my financial support.

The second reason is that I am a strong believer in the Constitution. Each of us deserves to be able to protect himself. I understand the reasoning that retirees have made enemies that could recognize us. I've had it happen as well (while still on the job). To think that I would travel across the country and run across one of those folks is "lottery winning" odds. Probably much lower than a private citizen being held up at random. It doesn't seem right that I am granted special status when we all should have the right to the 2nd Amendment.

Perhaps my thoughts would become more pragmatic if my circumstances change. Until then I will be a regular guy. That saves me from having to go through yet another 2 hour block of "use of force" class and paying $30 a year for qualifications.

A big YMMV to all the LEOs here. Having more people that can carry nationwide is a good thing! Wanting to take advantage of this is probably a wise decision. Sometimes I can be hardheaded.

I dealt with more murderers and assaultive people on a DAILY basis than most cops will ever see in a career. Think those hard core cons in a prison (even if it was a women's prison) care about what you do? or can do to them they are already serving life! There are only two in TDCJ - Mountain View that houses women's death row and Hobby Unit. I found all kinds of contraband on cell searches - you think writing a person up on disciplinary will not make enemies - most days I had 2 or 3 to write up. Get some of their priviledges taken away or God forbid bump them to another level of offender - and you make enemies fast. Having actually worn a badge in both roles (LEO/Security and CO) I can tell you prison is tougher than the street - shanks are common and I have found plenty - in G5 wings you wear a thrust vest even when it is 100F degrees out side and you are sweating like a pig.

Generally this is when assaults on CO's go up - the quickest way for a offender to get out of the heat in the prison wings - Assault a CO - gives you a quick ticket to AD Seg and it is air conditioned!!!!

I also worked in a county detention center so I dealt with men too and Marlin unit (but those are G1-G2 offenders)

I carry under TX LTC and do so everyday. And even if I was an active CO right now - I would still have to carry under the authority of my TX LTC

If LEOSA is about protecting the general population then it should include any 11 series or 18 series MOS and their equivalent in the Marines.

__________________
Retired Career Security Guard

And you would be wrong. Very wrong.

No contradiction. Retired LEOs have no more obligation to protect you than anyone else does. I can choose to protect you but am not obligated to do so.

I know my post was long but you need to carefully reread what I wrote. I said if they choose to get involved and that they were under no obligation to do so. Personally having been retired for 20 years and now 70 years old I would never get involved in any situation other than defending myself or my wife when no other option was open to me. But that wasn't always the case. Times change. Threats change. Your physical abilities change. Your attitude changes. I am always armed and LEOSA frees me from having to worry about reciprocity or local ordinances since federal laws trump all lower laws(at least in theory since some jurisdictions feel that they don't have to obey or honor federal laws). Then again nobody knows I am armed and I have never in 30+ years on the job and now 20 in retirement been stopped and patted down by a law enforcement officer.

How about more thoroughly vetted

__________________
Retired Career Security Guard

Active duty police officers have no legal obligation to protect the general public. That is well settled law.

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

Having been through LEO/CO background investigations - they did a criminal check/financial check and polygraph and may have interviewed some of my friends (although no one told me that happened) Basically what most people with a Secret security clearance in the military go through minus the polygraph.


get upgraded to a Top Secret or better there are 5-10 pages of information you have to fill out going back to you teens - all of information necessary for Secret clearance plus all the investigation by federal agents (AFOSI/FBI)

Remember any one with a Secret clearance and need to know has access to information that could cause Grave damage to national security - Top Secret information could cause Very Grave damage to national security and SBI/SCI is even a step above that - and the stuff Hilary is being investigated about is even higher than Compartmentized Information.

Every Aircrew member I knew had a TS clearance. As an Alert Controller I was responsible for the security and accountability of 51 Secret or Confidential publications on a daily basis.

So military vetting in some AFSC/MOS are just as rigorous as many street cops EVER get! Then you have PRP if you are working with sensitive assets - have a toothache and get wisdom teeth pulled and are put on narcotics -even Tylenol 3 you are riding a desk - you certainly will not be issued a weapon to do your job if you happen to be Security/Custody Agents. Until you are off the meds.

Rsanch111, not totally correct sir. Both of the departments I worked for were every clear about the above. We were NEVER off-duty, we were considered to be off-shift. We were required to maintain the ability to preform our lawful duties 24 - 7, on or off shift. I assume most if not all departments are like this.

Jim, ya always had a special ability to turn a phrase...................

That is a VERY high standard

I'm pretty sure you knew what I meant. To carry under LEOSA, it is my understanding that you have to qualify with the same course of fire your agency uses for current officers which in my state is fairly standard. As far as the vetting process to be a police officer in the first place, it varies from department to department but is generally a lot more than just a NICS check.

And just a word on CPL carriers. If you have the political juice, you can be legally blind and get a "general" permit that allowed you to carry in gun free zones. The CPL vetting process is much more "corrupt", in general, than the police vetting process. And add to that many years of learning how to make the right decision as opposed to the "correct" one. Any cop will tell you that if he shot as many people on the job that he was legally justified in shooting, he'd look on paper like Jesse James in the body count category before he retired. Meanwhile, you get on the gun boards and hear people talking about how they're justified in shooting someone because they were punched in the nose at the scene of a car crash. "Right" vs. "correct".

Also...as far as the "relative danger" angle. No, police work isn't as "dangerous" as coal mining, cab driving or convenience store clerking. But the workers in those other jobs do not have the duty to make the kind of on-the-spot decisions that the police do. They do not have to have everyone's rights in mind, they do not have to thing about evidence collection and preservation and legality and a hundred other things. Nor are they the ones who get called to sort out the problems of multiple generations of morons who can't solve their own problems because they were never taught how.

Barney Fife doesn't qualify, he was only on the force three years...

__________________
Halfway and one more step

Please post the local or state statute that says you are legally required to take action off-duty. Many departments have general orders that require officers to be in a condition to "perform their duties" while off-duty (which I guess means you are not allowed to drink....ever...), but I am not aware of any legal obligation to do so. Any officer who was fired or disciplined for not taking action against a crime in progress in 2016 would have a hell of a lawsuit. When I came on in the 80's we were required to carry off-duty AND to take action off-duty. Since then the courts have made it clear that officers can't be held to this standard. If you want cops to be on duty 24 hours per day, you have to pay them for 24 hours per day, or at least pay them for "on-call" status.

I guess for the same reason that an airline pilot has the "right" to fly a plane full of passengers and you don't? First there's the background investigation, then there's 25 years of experience that show a track record of sound decision-making ability, a higher standard of marksmanship, a requirement that the officer adhere to higher standards than non-police officers both in his professional AND personal life.....Even the President of the United States couldn't pass a typical background investigation to be a cop, but he could pass the CPL standards......

And standards.... In my ten or so years in the detective bureau, do you know how many road-rage situations we dealt with where a cop did something stupid with his gun? One. And he was prosecuted and lost his job because of it. Non cop CPL holders? Several each week. The level of prosecution by the county prosecutor was much less severe and as far as I know, none of them lost their jobs with a virtual guarantee that they would never get another job in that line of work as long as they lived. Standards.

Complete BS when it comes to doing stupid things with guns. I've seen it myself in person. Maybe it's a regional thing but there are LOTS of CPL holders who meet the minimum standards and do really dumb stuff with guns. And the numbers, even per capita vs. cops who met the minimum standard to be cops and then do stupid stuff with guns while carrying concealed....it's not even close.

So many people in these discussions seem to think that it's all about "them". It's not. It's about the lowest common denominator. And when you look at the standards for CPL carry and the standards to become a policeman and continue to be a policeman until you qualify as a "retired" policeman to carry under LEOSA....It should be clear. And in some circumstances (i forget what those circumstances are...) The "general" CPL holder has MORE "rights" than the concealed carrier who relies on LEOSA. In Michigan anyway.....

Also...Did you know that in MI, if you have a CPL, you can open carry in a bar???? Just a little trivia.

There are a lot of people who are not sworn LEOs who have screwed over hundreds, if not thousands of felons. Probation/parole officers/agents and correction officers are not covered by LEOSA. Neither are assistant district attorneys. Neither is the store owner who witnessed a group of young men rape and murder a young woman.

Badge or no badge, all of us have targets on our backs. ...myself included.

I understand your argument, and that's why so many support a National Concealed Carry law as Mas Ayoob does. But I don't equate an assistant district attorney (who a defendant probably wouldn't know if they bit him) with the police officer that chased down, confronted, arrested and testified against that same felonious defendant, sending him to prison for decades, in terms of 'threat of retaliation'.

A person can also make the argument that every citizen of this nation has a 'target on their back' simply by virtue of the fact they have money, own things or, at the right moment, becomes a convenient tool to be used by a criminal. It's really not a relevant rebuttal as to why LEOSA was born and what it was designed for... allowing as many good cops as possible to carry with them for self protection and possible threat intervention in a nation grappling with terrorism in the wake of a horrific attack.

While true that a policeman is not legally required to act if 'The Big Ugly' happens as he travels, I'll take a different approach. If a career cop watches while a person is assaulted and/or injured and does nothing, hiding behind that legal argument of 'no intervention required'...well, that's pretty disgusting. They went into this line of work to protect, not be a bystander. Personally, I don't care if the law does give a cop cover to not act; it's moral cowardice to allow another human to be harmed when you had the possible means and training to intervene.

But, legal requirements of acting aside, if a career policeman is thrust into such a situation (by choice or not), he would seeming be a much better candidate to respond in an armed manner - granted this is a presumption based upon the fact that he's spent a career and therefore a third of his life dealing with violent, difficult scenarios.

An assistant DA who never made an arrest? A criminal witness? Probably won't respond like a career street cop. And correctional folks, while I'm grateful they do a thankless job, they don't carry a gun 8+ hours a day for 25+ years being drilled on what to do with it if need be. I can still see why they would want such protection, but the fact is that LEOSA passed after 9/11 because it *could* pass since it was targeted for police officers.

Like any political idea, there has to be a desire and active will to get it passed. After the twin towers fell, letting police all over the country carry was easy to sell. Frankly, Bush might've gotten national concealed carry bill through, too. Don't know. Wish he had tried.

But as much as folks might want to carry nationwide, don't be tempted to turn to a sour grapes "Cops can, why can't I? It's my right" argument to get national carry for yourself. It comes across as attacking a good thing in lieu of your not having what you want. One thing doesn't have to be wrong for another to be right.

I'm happy to have LEOSA. I'm also happy to have widespread CHL laws, too. I'd be happy to see a national CCW law passed, as long as a reasonable training and background checks went along with it. I don't think LEOSA was passed to spit in the eye of Ordinary Joes, nor is it an "Elites Only Club". It's just what is it; allowing as many good cops as possible to carry with them for self protection and possible threat intervention in a nation dealing with terrorism in the wake of a horrific attack. Only a sparse few cops I know are against folks carrying concealed, as history and stats suggest a well armed citizenry seems to have a chilling effect on personal criminal attacks.

Instead of picking apart a good thing that got passed, spend that energy getting another good thing passed. Get behind the National CCW movement by stirring up and lighting a fire under the rear-ends of the same politicos that passed LEOSA (but who I'm convinced would've been happy to kill it if not for the post-9/11 feelings in this nation). I don't doubt in today's political convection oven of anger towards DC, either a Cruz or Trump presidency could easily get such a bill passed.

I agree with and support making it easier for people to carry and/or allowing more people to carry. Just like what the gun grabbers do, winning small victories no matter the size, gun supporters should take any victory they can get. I just have a beef with the "cops have more enemies than anybody else" comment.

As I mentioned above, there are dozens of other professions that screw over felons on a daily basis. I'm not going to divulge my profession on a public online forum, but I can tell you I screw over at least 50 people per month. My work puts people in jail and causes them to have major financial repercussions due to their actions as well. Now factor in the area I work in is a very dangerous area of the city that has at least one homicide every other day and multiple reported shootings every day. As you can imagine, there are a lot of criminals and their families who hate me.

No joke there. I'm just a locksmith and I piss off people all the time. I've been threatened more times than I can remember.

And I drive a rolling billboard (company van) with our company name on it. Parked in my driveway. So I have to be careful.

__________________
Life Is A Gift. Defend it!

LOL! Ok, you've piqued my interest to say the least! I won't ask, but whatever it is you do, stay safe good sir!

He's one of those??!! Oh no!

I believe everyone is missing the point. Congress is overstepping the limited rights granted it under the enumerated powers. I have no problem with each state granting LEO's the right to carry concealed in their state.

Wyoming is a very law abiding state. The last time I checked the most current statistics, 2012, there were a combined total of 14 murders and homicides. It is highly unlikely that a visiting LEO would have a need to use his handgun for any purpose other than target shooting, plinking or hunting.
Regarding the shooting skills of LEO's, the NYPD fired 83 shots at an armed criminal before hitting him in the leg with the 84th shot. Contrast that shooting against the action of the Texas deputy sheriff who used his handgun to kill two terrorist armed with rifles. I would feel far more comfortable with the Texas deputy sheriff carrying in Wyoming than I would with the NYPD

JB.

Laws are about the "lowest common denominator". It's not about "that" texas deputy" or about "that" NYPD cop. It's about anyone who can meet the qualifications as determined by law. And the "minimum standard" is ALWAYS very minimum. Just pray to God that when the bullets start to fly, it's one of the "Outliers" firing and not the lowest common denominator.......

I didn't say anything about doing stupid things with guns (I am the only one in this room professional enough......) I said that you as a cop are more likely to be a criminal than me as a permit holder.

In Colorado I can open carry in a bar without a permit (presuming the proprietor allows it)

__________________
Retired Career Security Guard

If you're going to throw up ridiculous statements like that, back it up. Where is your data?

There's people who really believe in the Constitution(specifically the 2A) and then there's gun owners who believe in qualification for rights.

__________________
Sure you did

When open carry laws, or lack thereof are tightened up and when CPLs become harder to get, and they likely will, it will not be because of the cops. It will be because of the people with ZERO common sense who do things like carry rifles and carbines at port arms, dressed in all black, down the middle of the street right after bar closing time, just DARING the cops to "violate my rights".

How come Federal Agents get to carry on airliners while they're off-duty? Should anyone who can pass a NICS check be allowed to carry on board a commercial air liner? Seriously?

As far as CPL holders being "less likely than cops to be criminals", that's just not true. Don't believe me? Ask one of your cop buddies to drive by a 1%er biker club on Up Day, run the plates of the guys wearing outlaw colors and tell you how many of those scumbags have CPL's. Or do a FOIA at ANY major police department and get the number of CPL's that have been revoked or sent to the government body that administers CPL's for a revocation hearing. THEN do another FOIA for documents that show how many CPL holders have been ticketed for unlawful carry but who have been able to retain their permits. Let us know what you find out.

Did those guys carrying long arms keep the Texas legislature from passing open carry? Let us know what you find out.
Do "scumbags" that have never been convicted of a felony qualify for the second Amendement? Let us know what you find out. And more importantly, do rulings by the Supreme Court, and the rule of law matter to you? Let us know what you find out.
The law is written, not by policemen, but by Congress.

__________________
Halfway and one more step

Here's what he linked to. But we all know that law enforcement officers aren't career criminals (other than very rarely). I, too have doubts about about the basis for the stats. But statistics can be anything.....

CPRC in Fox News: Police are extremely Law-abiding, but concealed handgun permit holders are even more so - Crime Prevention Research CenterCrime Prevention Research Center

Comparing conviction rates between police and concealed carry permit holders - Crime Prevention Research CenterCrime Prevention Research Center

__________________
Halfway and one more step

Yeah, stats. Mark Twain's third type of lie.

I wasn't calling the fellow out for saying that cops don't get arrested/convicted, I was making the point that to say that a permit holder was "far less likely" to be commit a crime than a policeman was ridiculous. I believe both stats would be low (as I think is the case for most any professional position of a reasonable high profile nature; doctor, lawyer, firefighter, EMS, pastor, etc.).

The 'data' I asked him to produce was that which would demonstrate that a simple CHL license suddenly made a normal human angelic and that so rarely commits a crime they should be put in for sainthood. Horse squeeze.

Fact is, at least in conservative Texas (and all the other lesser southern states ) I believe courts and LEO's are probably more lenient to CHL holders for the reason they're mostly pro-gun and don't want the image of gun owners to get damaged, they don't want to add fuel to the anti-gun fire.

Cops, however, in today's environment have it much different. We've all seen stories the last year of some officers who acted completely appropriately but got indicted so as to make political points with certain voting demographics, they offered up a lamb for slaughter to appease the pitchfork and torch crowd. So the reporting stats on 'criminal cops' might be artificially higher . I don't think there is any real way to determine clearly or specifically what the 'criminal' rate is in either the police profession (maybe because some cops are experienced enough to not get caught, with their knowledge of how the system works) or in handgun permit holder groups (largely conservatives that live in gun friendly, conservative areas).

Either way, I'm just saying it's ridiculous to try to put a halo around someone and create the fiction that having a CHL (or being a cop) makes a person a better, more civil and trustworthy human than anyone else. Every group recruits from the same fallen, flawed, sin filled human race; most likely the same number of turds that exist in any given group is the same percentage as exists in any other group.

So no, "far less likely" is just silly....

As a long, long time Law Enforcement Officer said to me a couple years ago at the show in Tulsa "Any grandmother will tell you if you ask her about a man that went into law enforcement: "Well, we always knew he was going to go one way or the other." "
I'm grateful to the ones who chose to serve and protect. I work with cops in Mexico, Federal, State, local....and....let's just say it's different.

__________________
Halfway and one more step

I don't know where your from that you have such a low opinion of citizens and specifically of CCW holders. Your experiences certainly do not apply to the State of Missouri.

And, as a matter of fact, I do believe I should be allowed to carry concealed on an airplane. Why not? By definition, I am a law-abiding citizen.

I, too, will now go feed the cat.

__________________
James L. "Jim" Rhiner

Why limit this to retired service members who were in law enforcement while in the service? They should amend the law to allow all members of the "militia"* to carry under this act.

*I refer here not to the "National Guard," but to the militia contemplated by the 2nd Amendment.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People."
— Tench Coxe, 1788.

Yes, LEOSA is a good thing - I support it - having worn a badge in multiple roles with different departments (but did not retire) I understand some of the cops reasoning - "I earned it"

Much like veterans get pissed by Stolen Valor or the VA - We earned it too. I am also one of those too.

I believe that national reciprosity is necessary - I have been vetted as much as most police officers - but I do not have the right to carry in any state that does not honor a Texas LTC.

And based on what limited time I have been on this board there are many others too. I see lots of posts by present or retired LEO's that are also retired military.

What pisses me off in these threads is that some of the LEO's have a holier than thou attitude about their training, their experience, and what they went through to be a cop - guess what? Their are plenty of us that have done the same - I look at LEOSA as a retired military ID card lots of guys served in the military but few retired. Just like medical, commissary and BX priviledges for retired ID cards holders. And LEOSA is a priviledge retired LEO's have.

Minor point; the behavior you mention above is illegal in Washington under RCW 9.41.270, and people have been convicted for violations of that RCW. Nevertheless the courts have determined that responsible open carry is lawful, and thus not grounds for a Terry stop. What you describe is not open carry in WA any more than muggers concealing handguns represents lawful concealed carry.

Be careful not to paint with too broad a brush.

I fully support LEOSA mainly because I firmly believe that retired LEO and retired military (and others) should be able to carry arms. That is their right and unfortunately without LEOSA in a lot of areas they wouldn't be able to exercise that right.

I fully support our LEO and military. I don't want any of their privileges taken away.

But I understand the frustration of those of us who are not covered by LEOSA. If you truly believe in the RKBA which I think most on this forum do, then you cannot also believe that some (no matter how well deserving they may be) earn that right while others who have done no wrong do not. A "Right" subjected to others arbitrary approvals is no longer a Right at all. Let me state it a different way, a "Right" subjected to others arbitrary denial is no longer a Right at all. It then becomes a privilege rather than a Right.

How come the one Right that its protection explicitly states "shall not be infringed" is the one that IMHO some people feel its okay to deprive us from. I read earlier someone saying this isn't a "Rights" issue. Well that's bogus. It is. I'm not saying that some instances someone covered under LEOSA might not be more likely to need protection, or maybe they could contribute to some situations more than others. That's not the point when it comes to natural born "Rights".

What would you say if ONLY those covered by LEOSA can exercise their 1st Amendment Right?

Or 4th Amendment Right?

Or 5th Amendment Right?

I support the LEOSA because I support LEO and military, and it IS their Right. It IS our Right too. And there lies the problem. We need to get and keep OUR 2nd Amendment Right. Going back and forth with arguments that equate to "I'm more deserving than you" and/or "I deserve it as much as you" whatever the reason will not get us anywhere in the long run.

__________________
Caper

The statement below is not totally accurate. LEO's have no obligation to protect a specific individual.

Be safe.

This is a interesting thread and I'll throw out one more difference between LEOSA carry and state CCW carry. LEOSA requires annual QUALIFICATION with your firearms. While most states differ in their police qualification course they all have one and to qualify under LEOSA you must qualify annually and carry a card to certify same. How many states require a police style course with annual qualification as part of the state ccw requirements?? I don't qualify for LEOSA(although I meet all the other standards) for just that reason. My florida ccw is good for about eight years and requires no annual qualification including upon renewal. Active duty LEO's obviously qualify with their departments, get the ammo for free and often times get overtime pay for going to the range to qualify. As a retiree I would have to buy my own ammo,, go to a range on my own time, find a instructor(who usually charges for this service, and probably pay for range time. All for a card that is only good for one year??? Yet over a million other Floridians can carry concealed without doing any of the above. And Florida has reciprocity with all the states I regularly travel in or visit. For me, LEOSA isn't worth the time and trouble even though for 30 years I was a NRA and State of Ohio certified police firearms instructor who trained thousands of LEO's how to shoot. I am sure I am not alone in my feelings. Cops, active or retired, are not treated special. They have to do things for LEOSA qualification that I doubt any other state requires for their ccw qualifications But then again, maybe I am wrong.

Your department policy aside, there is no legal, statutory obligation for a police officer to intervene. If you were fired or disciplined for not intervening as dictated by your policy, you would prevail on the adverse personnel action suit . . .

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

Splitting hairs. Man with gun in mall shooting at the public. An officer is not legally required to intervene. . .

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

Sour grapes?

Too bad TX COs aren't peace officers like in CA. My wife and sisters are all active or retired CA COs and carry under LEOSA.

At least in prison, cons don't have guns, you know where they are 24 hrs a day, they're locked up most of the time, you don't need a search warrant to search them or their house and when you need assistance you have 50 guards already on scene - not all cons are violent. Both jobs are definitely tough, but if you've never worked the street your opioion isn't very meaningful.

Nonetheless, I thank you for your service.

Wow. I presume you live in a jurisdiction absent professional law enforcement if you believe this.

This right should be extended to everyone. And to discriminate against military occupations that are not "Military Police" is absolute ****. I was an infantry marine and we were well trained in situational awareness, conducted numerous vehicle check points, searches, etc. The right to defend yourself across the nation should be extended to every individual, and if a training standard is set to obtain this permit it should be a matter of pass/fail regardless of one's background in law enforcement or any career.

Sour Grapes? Not really


I actually have worked the streets in two major metropolian areas in WA. Felony stops, search warrants, drug busts, foot and vehicle pursuits, shootings and murders - I have seen, been involved in and/or responded to all of them.

50 CO's I wish! Most times we had 25-30 CO's on shift Two CO's per building plus one in the picket - One in each tower, 1 or 2 in Medical/Ad Seg a Lt one or two Sgts, one on Mobile Patrol . Those days when we had more it made us happy. We would actually get breaks and a lunch - can't tell you how many times I didn't get but a few minutes to eat and then sometimes they were Johnnies (bag lunch prepared by the prison)

The only ones that are locked down are Ad Seg and G5 offenders our unit housed G1-G5 offenders - G1/2 lived in a dorm atmosphere and could come and go in their wings as much as they wanted and you were right in the middle of them delivering mail, passes and appts, some of those were convicted murderers! Even G4's were in the day room sometimes a bunch. - I have found razors and other contraband in their wings but not often mostly we find those in the common areas that no one will claim.

If **** happens it is you and perhaps one other boss in the middle of 50 or more offenders, you have your feet/hands and COP (OC spray) to defend yourselves. Until A responders get their after running up to a 1/4 mile, and that is 3-5 additional CO's not 50! And the minutes you are fighting you are all by yourself - if the other boss happens to be in the same wing there will be two of you.

The picket boss will not leave the picket, and probably will not open the door for you or the other boss to get in or out until the Response team is there. They actually have found guns in units (very rare) but shanks are common and will kill you just as dead as any gun. And if you happen to get in a scuffle on Tier 2 and are unfortunate enough to go over, under or through the rail - it is a 10-15 ft drop straight down to a concrete floor. The walkway on Tier 2 is about 3-5 ft wide.

Field Force CO's carry guns every shift they work. Transport officers too.

Not sour grapes - TDCJ CO's are state trained - County and other Detention Officers are TCLEOSE certified and licensed. TDCJ is the 1st or 2nd largest prison system in the US.

None of those certifications allow a CO to carry a gun off duty - if you do it must be under the authority of your TX LTC.

Wow. Elitist much?

__________________
Retired Career Security Guard

Some cops, not all, but some make the mistake of thinking that no other profession sees the horrible things that people do to each other. They couldn't be more wrong.

__________________
Life Is A Gift. Defend it!