The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Concealed Carry and fires
Maybe an odd question, but the other day I was looking at sub-compact pistols and revolvers for concealed carry (yes, I have the necessary training and permit), and the thought crossed my mind... do you think there could be potential problems with concealed carry and working a fire? In theory, your PPE should protect your firearm from thermal exposure just like it does you, but we don't live in that neat little town called Theory.
And the more I think about it, I'm thinking this question more affects the volunteers than full time FF's; a full-time knows when he's on duty, and even if he carries while off-duty, once he gets to the station (or leaves home for the station), he can remove his holster. But for a volunteer, you never know when you're going to get paged. Do you leave the gun on you, slip it out of the holster and leave in your (locked) vehicle, drop it in the station when you grab your gear....
These are the kinds of things I think about on long drives... the "what-ifs" of life.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on
-
So to hold a concealed carry licensee to a different safety standard than anyone else with equal responsibility such as a firefighter conducting extrication, ventilation, entry or other dangerous evolutions is in fact a double standard.
What double standard? Furthermore, what reasoning is there to be carrying a firearm in the course of firefighting duties?
Yes there ARE fire and ems agencies who quietly allow their folks to carry and dont make a big stink about it. You don't hear about it because its not a problem.
And yet reversely, there are many depts that have a no firearms policy where you don't hear about it because it is not a problem.
I would agree with INDIVIDUAL CHOICE in the matter, but never the oppression of rights.
Depends on the circumstances, the employer can still make their own policy as a condition of employment. Take Freedom of Speech, there are limitations on what someone can say in the course of their duties, even while off duty. We have seen numerous examples where a termination was upheld even after the 1st amendment was referred. Furthermore there are rules regulating freedom of speech in regards to politics and the course of one's duties, especially if acting as a FF, LEO, military, etc. One can't campaign while on public time etc. So in reality there are conditions of employment and rules to live by that really are not oppressing the rights as you say.
-
Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on
-
This discussion becomes tedious simply because each state has the right to determine who can carry, how they can carry and where they can carry. Last I knew, in Vermont a person had the right to carry but it had to be visible (yes visible, Vermont does (or did) not allow for concealed carry.)
My department clearly states that weapons are not allowed on FD property. And let's be clear, whether a fire house is municipal or private property, the 'owner' of said property has the RIGHT to allow, disallow or limit weapons on their property.
The *only* thing a property owner should have to do is, if they allow weapons on their property but not carried during working hours would be to allow the permittee to provide their OWN lock box. It should NOT be the responsibility of the employer to provide safe housing for a weapon. Frankly that's just absurd and intrusive, mandating employers provide gun lock ups. Doing that then places the responsibility of that weapon on the employer instead of on the permittee, where it rightfully belongs.
I have a CCW but I never carry. As for carrying while on the job, if you want to be armed while at work, become a cop. I can't imagine very many firefighters would agree to letting cops do our job (as part of theirs) so why don't we just let them do their job.
I'm not against gun ownership nor am I against lawfully carrying a gun, only that I suspect that paranoia is the more common driving motivation to carry. You know, when the military takeover occurs, or China invades us, or the economy collapses overnight, or race riots begin, you know, the usual, wishful thinking that drives so many to arm and build doomsday shelters.
Interestingly there are some similarities between this discussion and that of vollies having lights on their POVs. I think for the same reasons that vollies get killed or injured responding to/returning from calls suggest that a similar mayhem could occur with them carrying a gun. Not all, not even a lot, but it only takes a few, or one or two to use their weapon badly that is going to make all firefighters look like dangerous yahoos.
Finally, you might want to search FFN for discussions on whether or not felons should be firefighters. There's a whole thing about the trust factor. How many people are going to trust firefighters if they know, or suspect that they are coming into their homes (where children are) carrying loaded guns? People know that they can call the FD and basically get non-judgmental help (as opposed to the police who tend to be a more *suspicious* group), but how will they feel when they find out that their firefighters are armed? Will we still be *firemen* in their eyes or will be now just be an extension of the police department?
-
Permalink Reply by Eric Yunginger on
-
This discussion becomes tedious simply because each state has the right to determine who can carry, how they can carry and where they can carry.
I can see that point; up until two years ago, under Iowa law, each individual county sheriff could set his/her own policies for issuing a permit to carry weapons - up to and including "I'm not going to issue a permit". It was a royal mess, because once issued the permit was valid statewide. I live in a county that has always issued permits, but work in a county that refused to. I could in theory carry to work, but the guy sitting next to me couldn't. 99 counties = 99 different standards statewide. Thankfully that was changed last year. Any time you start discussing weapons laws, you end up with the myriad of laws affecting answers. So maybe my initial question should have been rephrased, "If it is legal for you to carry on a day to day basis, and you do, what do you do with your firearm when you get a call"And let's be clear, whether a fire house is municipal or private property, the 'owner' of said property has the RIGHT to allow, disallow or limit weapons on their property.
Yes and no. Iowa, like at least a few other states that I know of, has what's known as a preemption clause. Any political subdivision of the state cannot pass an ordinance further restricting state weapons regulations. Meaning any city or county owned buildings could not be legally declared "weapons free zones". The "loophole" they found was passing a resolution establishing said zones. A person in violation of that resolution could be charged with trespassing ONLY if they were first asked to leave and refused - but no weapons charges can be filed against them. Things are a little different with terms of employment and such - the preemption applies mainly to the general public and less so to employees.Finally, you might want to search FFN for discussions on whether or not felons should be firefighters.
That's specifically in our bylaws, and has been for better than 50 years. Felony on your record = off the department. We've actually looked at making that stricter - and due to a recent incident that is just starting its way through the court system now, will very likely be making a change soon.
-
-
"If it is legal for you to carry on a day to day basis, and you do, what do you do with your firearm when you get a call"
Aside from many of the valid point that Jack has made, what reason is there TO carry, especially in a fire?
-
Permalink Reply by russell smithson on
-
intestin thought some would be smart and leave it their car or locker when they arrived to the station
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
This isn't about rights, it's about common sense.
Fire and EMS agencies that allow their personnel to go armed on duty DO have a problem. That problem is that they are putting an individual liability onto their agency, and by extension, the people that fund their agency. I'm betting that those that fund the agency have no idea that their firefighters and/or medic are going armed, or they'd implement a policy to stop it.
If you carry a weapon, your first responsibility is to maintain control of your weapon and to avoid carrying that weapon where its presence creates a hazard greater than the hazard present without the weapon. Carrying a firearm into a burning building creates that greater hazard. If carrying a loaded firearm into burning buildings was a good thing, it would be taught at every fire academy in the U.S. None of them teach it, which should tell us all something.
Ditto for EMS - there's no EMT or Paramedic certification class that includes firearms control, retention, or safety.
Carrying firearms when participating in firefighting or EMS activities is a distraction, at best.
Those jobs are dangerous enough without adding a distraction - a potentially lethal distraction at that.
I am a pro-2nd Amendment who advocates for responsible, Constitutional gun ownership if that's a personal choice. When you bring a gun to work at a FD or EMS agency, that doesn't fit my definition of "responsible", legal or not.
-
Permalink Reply by Blake Mayo on
-
In the 70's in NYC there was a lot of civil unrest and firefighters were a target for rioters and others. People trew brick at firefighters and trucks Firefighters were also being shot at. That was my point.
-
-
If you are in a wildland fire situation Some firefighters carry to disdatch mortally injured animals. This is more humane than letting them suffer. Secondly, snake can be a real hazord in wildland situations.
-
-
Blake, despite the past, the question was in regards as to a reason to carry NOW, today? Yes I understand the stories and read about the civil unrest of the 70s and so forth, but regardless, they pulled back many times then and that would be the approach today. Pull back, let the damn building burn if that is the case, no reason to get in some shootout on a fire scene. Yet times have changed and fortunately we don't see such civil unrest as before, so why carry for a fire?
-
-
OK, a wildland situation can make sense, but a wildland situation is not a structure fire. There are different tactics and approaches to mitigation.
-
-
Ask the congresswoman from Texas that left her handgun in her car when she had dinner with her dad in a restarunt and watch him get killed by someone else that had a gun. She still wishes that she had hers on her
-
-
The writer of the Question did not limit the debate to structure fires he said worn under ppe. I once assisted in teaching a group of deputy sheriffs from Nasau County, Long Island a hazmat course. They carry there guns everywhere. They learned the hard way at an iciden t that in some situations bullets can be compramised by corrsive situations. Hmmm, more food for thought.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
