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
-
WP,
Perhaps the "vigilante" aspect was not the best word choice. The issue was in regards to his reply to Jack and about police who may only shoot their service once a year during qualifying etc and how he knows of people who are better at shooting etc. Then further going on to say that he could see the chiropractor (state rep) better prepared. This after Jack made a good reference to the police officers killed in the coffee shop. The point being is that one really doesn't know how someone is going to react.
So I was going off of that aspect and then see the reply about some people being better shooters than police etc. Sure that maybe, but then again police are also trained in conflict resolution, etc as opposed to just shooting it out with someone. I used the term as a blanket reference to those who advocate guns as though they will solve all the crime issues etc. Sure looking back, perhaps a poor word choice, but the point is that one really can't speak for the reactions of others, even if they were armed. Then again, do we really want ordinary people getting in shootouts etc because they can't wait for police etc? That was more to what I was referring, perhaps not vigilante, maybe moreso overzealous.
-
Permalink Reply by Blake Mayo on
-
Ok John thank you for explaining what you meant. No over all I do not believe that we should carry but there are times as I have previously stated. Also what about our fire investigators and Fire Marshals. They deal with criminal element often. I knew a few code officer that were shot and killed on the job. When we go to methlabs they really want to kill us in a lot of cases. Where there are illegal stills in this country same thing.
Now let me remind all if us that if we are working a fire and something happens like stated earlier what would be wrong with aiming the deck gun at a guy that come out shooting. Or using a handling with a automatic nozzle set for 100 -150 psi and dialed to straight stream. It still a gun of a type is it not?
I have worked with officers that have talked a armed citizen down before. I have also been on a University campus when there have been bomb and gun incidents. These take a long time to clear and EVERYONE is on edge believe me. So my points have been to help open everyone's eyes this is not a cut and dry situation. When you sit down in the classroom to talk about today's world and leadership training. Nor if you a sitting around the firehouse and talking about the what ifs. Please remember that if you can dream up a situation one of our huge family have been in a similar situation. I do appreciate that you didn't know where I was coming from. I have been apart of our family for a long time and have served in a few different states and places. I know that you are good at what you do. Just try to take in all that you see and learn while you are on the job.
-
-
I concure brother and it is a valid point. Again there are few cut and dry situations. A decorated war vet in my area had an intruder break into his home the old veteran pick up his gun and solved the situation. He live in the country an average police response is about 20 minutes. He has not used his gun in that way since he left the military which had been a very long time
-
-
RESPONDERS LIVES are most important and RESPONDERS are not obligated to die at the hands of a voilent attacker when and if the crime scene COMES TO YOU...
Yes, and there are also many more situations that can be more threatening to the lives and safety of responders. Furthermore, police are armed for a reason and for many situations where one may believe they are in danger should be calling for police assistance as well, not taking matters in their own hands. Again, that goes back to your lawsuit issue about prevention.
EMTs and Firefighters are often attacked (assaulted and in some cases shot) on duty! This is not new, and its more common than many realize and not all these incidents make it to national reporting for statistical gathering.
Then how is it you can dessiminate such statements as fact if the statistical data backing that up is lacking? Yes, we have heard of incidents in the past affecting fire and EMS, but in the broad picture are typically isolated cases. You are making this appear as it is more widespread, yet admit the statistical data lacks.
I am ALL for ones rights, and ALL for exercising all the rights we have responsibly and with proper care. I am NOT for ANY responder being injured or killed in an increasingly violent society especially if "policy" tells them they cannot possess the means to defend themselves in an attack where they could suffer serious injury or death.
All rights? or just gun rights? Because I did ask you in regards to the 1st Amendment and the limitations of what can be said or when in regards to employees. Furthermore, you are talking in regards to policy and seemingly advocating such is useless and talking about defending oneself. However, part of training should be to recognize an unsafe situation and to make the scene safe before going in. Wouldn't recognizing and staying OUT of a dangerous situation be something to better encourage or at least acknowledge as opposed to carrying on the job. Seems to me you are speaking more from a cop aspect than a firefighter/EMT.
And GOOD LUCK getting VOLUNTEERS who are licensees when you try to restrict their rights to carry while they give of their own time responding to calls. Thats the greatest percentage of fire and ems responders as well - VOLUNTEERS...
And again, the reason a volunteer would need to carry a firearm in a fire is?.........Besides, let's say they are carrying, what would you do if you encountered a situation where you need the gun. Most would have a firearm in a holster correct? So I guess take off your bulky firefighting gloves, because it would be tough to access the gun that way. Loosen up your SCBA straps, open up your turnout coat, pants, etc reach in for your firearm.......then what?
So I guess if the dept has a policy or SOG that they don't want firefighters to be carrying a firearm while responding on calls, or acting in the capacity of a FF, that having your gun is more important than being a volunteer right? I would say that is quite shallow in the way of thinking then. Heck I know of many departments that have gone smoke free, yet how many FFs were lost because they could no longer have a smoke on a call , in the apparatus, or station?
If the "right" of the person is there, why do you need a policy regarding that right???
Again, which right? I'll wait for a comment in regards to the First Amendment and Free Speech. If you are talking about concealed carry, then the vast majority of the country does not recognize such a right and as such it is a privelage. Further, if an employer makes a policy regarding such rights then they become conditions of employment, why shouldn't that be respected?
recognize that responsible licensees are usually a little more safe than the average person when it comes to firearms too by golly
Responsible licensees being safe isn't the issue, nor is the advocation of more laws SOP/G etc. There is more to the bigger picture than advocation of carrying guns here. I could care less about the vast majority of people who have guns and have concealed carry, what gets old is the clouding of what really is the rights being advocated, also why would there be a reason for a FF to be packing while in a fire?
I'm all for people having and owning guns as well as the safe use and training of them. I could care less about a legal licensee carrying and so forth. I'm not looking to advocate more laws or restrictions, but there needs to be some recognition on the parameters out there. Having a no firearms policy is by no means an infringement of those rights. Also a gun is not the only way to defend and perhaps should be an absolute last resort. Yes I would be for training etc as you advocate (the NRA would disagree with you) but it is imperative to be able to recognize a situation where they should be asking for police etc to make a scene safe.
-
-
Good morning John. I like the way you are now thinking. Personally I have not had my firearm on me when I was on a call. To answer your questin about having a need to use a firearm while fighting a fire, as I said a nozzle with the correct pressure at the tip can go a long way in controlling a situation. And let's face it we are pretty good at aiming our nozzles.
You are also correct that we should be good at doing size up. Or as the cops say assessing the situation. You talk about volunteers, there is a big problem currently with methlabs being set up in both smaller towns and in the middle of no where. They can be a disaster waiting to happen if the firefighter walk into this situation blindly. This is where reading the situation better can be a lifesaver for all on the foreground.
As we have both said you can not predict every situation. But it is more food for thought. Thank you for your points of view. I really do not want to have a firearm on one of my brother's or sisters on a routine basis. I do have friends on the job that regualary wear a bullet proof vest when they go to medic calls. To me that is a situation the scares the crap out of me and I would want a cop with me on every call in that kind of situation.
-
Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on
-
There has been a lot of discussion on the right to carry but nothing on the consequences of carrying and, equally important, the inherent responsibility of carrying. This site gives an interesting perspective on the responsibility of carrying and I strongly urge anyone who carries (or are contemplating it) to read it.
From the link, #5. DON'T LET YOUR EMOTIONS GET THE BEST OF YOU.
"You just lost the right to flip off the motorist who just cut you off in traffic. You have to ignore the scumbag who just "wolf-whistled" at your wife/girlfriend. If someone wants to pick a fight with you, you lost the right to respond in any way other than a kind, friendly manner while walking away. As an armed person you must be more likely and willing to avoid trouble that an unarmed person would be. You have the legal and moral obligation of de-escalating any situation that you are presented with unless you are faced by someone displaying all three of the "attack potential" elements. Carrying a loaded firearm among your fellow citizens is an awesome responsibility that is not to be taken lightly."
Now go back and read it again, and then one more time. You should print it out and place it wherever you leave your weapon when you go to bed. You also might want to keep a photo of your wife/husband/gf/bf/children along with it, so you have a metric by which to measure necessity. You can't un-shoot a gun.
-
Permalink Reply by FETC on
-
Department's that allow firefighters or EMT's to conceal carry are taking on liability for which they are not prepared for. Especially without training, documentation, policies for how they are to act and respond in certain cases. PD has high risk training, for such. Shooting is a last resort. Then you have each state having different laws pretaining to use of lethal force. Now when you are responding to assist at an incident, (duty to act, FIre or EMS) drawing a gun for you or your crews protection may be right for your personal (being in that moment) but not in the long run. Does the department, town or state have your back? Look how well it is going for the guy in Florida. Stay your ground. etc. Lethal force is a last resort, some states only allow it when protecting your homestead, others have it on the street, etc. But what I am trying to say is if you draw on a person there is reprocussions not only for you but the Fire Chief, the town or city you work for, etc. It is easier to say, we will leave the guns, scene safety, and securing out of control people to the PD, that their job description while I sit in an ambulance down the street. Yes even if it takes 20 minutes....
The argument for fire marshalls, prevention, inspections, etc. and meth labs, unless you are a deputized Fire and PD, there is no reason to be taking down a meth lab without Police, FIre, and Hazmat on scene. That goes for active fire or post fire investigations.
If you are worried about being shot while working at a meth lab fire, your concealed carry under your gear is useless, you will be dead in turnout gear. I have been to two and many mary jane farms, and in my experiences the first hint or authority (police/fire/ems) they are gone. Nobody wants to be arrested and placed in jail.
I will be honest, waiting for PD is not a big deal and we do it all the time. Even if it is a simple assault, we wait for PD to clear the scene. Carrying a gun to move in quicker is not the answer.
And like I said, I carry one off duty at times.... not all the time.
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
What Bill said...
In addition, there is very little worse news for a FD or EMS agency than "Firefighter shoots citizen" or "Paramedic misses attacker, shoots child"...or any of several other bad outcomes that are entirely plausible.
Also, when I hear someone advocating mixing firefighting and firearms, then morphing the argument to body armor, it tells me that person doesn't really understand the difference between passive personal protection like body armor (or turnout gear" and an offensive weapon like a gun. You did a nice job of explaining that difference, brother.
-
-
Ben the Question Raised was exactly that. wehter or not to carry while on the job... I was not morphine the argumen to Body armor it was a statement of fact. We except body armor as part of the job in some places and I also know some brothers and sisters that have bought their own because the company would not. My exact point is if the people that we serve didn't have weapons then we would not heed armor. However, I'm not that naieve brother. BTW,
in Buffalo NY A cop Had to shoot and killed a Grandmother of a 4 y.o. last night after the grandmother killed her grandchild. The officer clearly state to the perp to put the weapon down several time before he shot he. The perp gave the officer no other choice.
-
-
Blake,
Much of my last response was to Rick. Although I'm glad to see that you can see where I'm coming from and given the subsequent responses down the page, that others agree. Rick admits to being a sheriff deputy, firearms instructor, and then volunteer FF. What I get from his posts here is that he is thinking moreso in the realm of police officer as opposed to firefighter.
As I initially pointed out to the OP, such a topic can create a shitstorm and we have seen that....although I admit to being a significant part of that. The basis being isn't to argue against concealed carry or gun rights, but moreso to the fact that there are limitations when it comes to the job and also a significant gray area which seemingly wasn't accounted for. For example, Rick made an issue about lawsuits and liability for an employer (and moreso dept) in prevention by disallowing one to carry while on the job. I asked Rick and he has not answered the question because realistically, having FFs or EMTs getting in a shootout and some bystanders gets hurt, the reprecussions and lawsuits to a dept will tend to outweigh any feigned prevention aspect.
So again, this issue about FFs carrying really does delve beyond the aspect of just basic rights, because there really is more involved. My intention for doing so is to give other readers who don't comment something to think further on.......especially if their dept has a no firearm clause and now one thinks they should be able to carry by what Rick mentions.
Finally, as mentioned below, much of the concealed carry aspect for a FF should be looked upon beyond the "defense" aspect that Rick advocates. For the most part a fire or EMS response entails the aspect of ensuring the scene is safe, if it is not, pull back and wait until it is. If this means that the place burns etc, then so be it. Meth labs are a real threat and again if coming upon such a scene it helps to think rationally. Not too long ago an EMS crew from my station responded for a person with burns and the people were acting suspicious on scene. The crew treated the patient and played dumb about their concerns for a potential meth lab, and when away from the scene contacted the authorities.
Such actions make a difference one by maintaning pt care and secondly expressing concerns after the fact. Whereas if continuing to propose that FFs and EMTs carry in a defense for themselves.....how would such a similar situation be compounded or worsened? One packing may think they have to defend themselves in such a situation. Then what? Pull a gun, what do you think the outcome may be?
Basically the mindset of a FF tends to differ from that of a cop in such situations. I understand Rick is passionate about his duties and part time duties as well as firearms and gun rights, but in this thread I think he is thinking too much like a cop and not enough as a FF. The situations FFs face tend to be different than what LE faces and there is no reason to advocate that FFs do LEs job, even if it is basic defense.
-
-
Good morning John, I didn't know that you where talking to Rick I also didn't know that he is a police officer as well. You both are correct that if there was a ff involved shooting there would be a lot of mess to clean up. However, in many state ff may have peace office status according to statutes. There for eledgible for proper training in the use of a firearm.
I will come back to my point that to use a hose stream for ff defense can and will go a long way to disarm a situation. I ask us to think about this... Why are we called out at volatile mass gatherings and request to use our deck Gus? It not just to get the crowds wet but to disarm them as well. It is a very effective tool in large mass situations such as riots.
I've enjoyed most of the discussion here on this topic and it is import to have such discussions at times.
-
Permalink Reply by Patti Walz on
-
I have seen some remove then and some leave them on. I personally would say if you carry lock it in your personal rig before stepping into the station. Safety first not just for your self but for others around you.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
