NFL pat-down (courtesy usatoday.com)

“Chicago police officers are trained to use firearms to save lives and defend law-abiding citizens,” Chicago Fraternal Order of Police Prez Mike Shield told chicago.cbs.local. “It is an insult that a state certified law-enforcement officer cannot carry his duty weapon at an NFL event.” Does that mean that the existing ban against concealed carry for the general public now in effect at all NFL games throughout the country is not an insult against law-abiding citizens who want to defend themselves? The news org also quotes “two veteran Chicago police officers” who disagree with the policy. “If you don’t have someone that could respond to a deadly-force incident that could cause more lives to be in jeopardy,” one officer said. Someone like . . . a citizen with a concealed carry permit (where such things are required)?  “You’re never just a spectator,” the other cop said. “Even when I’m off-duty, I’m supposed to get involved.” Maybe he should get involved with defending and extending gun rights for all Americans. Just sayin’.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

84 COMMENTS

  3. Soooo now they are upset! When it was the “other” civilians getting screwed, it’s OK. Now that the “special” civilians are being told no protection, they are up in arms (pun intended).

    • This is the reason I won’t go to any stadium or public event, since I’m not so much worried about the inside of the stadium as about where it’s placed. In Seattle they built the Stadiums in a crime-ridden area so when you come out at night all the street folks are waiting for you with no cops in sight. Fans are magnets for trouble especially when you have to walk several blocks by dark alley ways to get to your car.

  4. “…“If you don’t have someone that could respond to a deadly-force incident that could cause more lives to be in jeopardy,” one officer said. …”

    Like say if a bunch of motorcyclists dragged some guy out of his vehicle and started beating the shit out of him in front of his wife and kid? And looked like they were going to possibly kill him? You mean maybe a situation like that?

    FO.

      • There were undercover cops in the street biker gang to my knowledge. Watching the guy get beaten.

    • Like say if you and your friends are riding your motorcycles and a reckless driver rams one of your friends and tries to flee the scene?

      • If that’s what you took out of watching that video then YOU are the reason I carry. Outlaw bikers don’t own the road. Watch the tape and read the statements.

        • I leave safe distances between vehicles and don’t ram people. If you carry because you’re afraid of safe driving, then you might be one of the bad guys.

        • You guys are ridiculous. He didn’t hit a biker and run away – he was fleeing from a biker gang. The biker gang forced the car to a stop and tried to get inside his vehicle. I would have ran them over too. He fled and got stopped up by a traffic light giving the biker gang the opportunity to break his windshield and beat him in front of his family.

        • Before the video began he 1.) hit another biker, and 2.) drove over his legs and his ride to get away. Again, this was off-camera. The rider who was run over will not be able to walk again. You’re welcome.

        • JusBill BULL$HlT. Your claim is 100% FALSE. The biker who was run over was blocking the exit of the vehicle and enabling the violent attack on the family in the SUV.

          No biker was struck before the video.

          There are other videos now shoeing the exact same riders earlier that day riding on sidewalks and harassing people in cars on the road. The the core group of whom are MULIPLE assault arrestees for years and years,

      • Tot, did you actually watch the video? The SUV was straight in its lane. The biker pulled up, passed the SUV, got in front of it, turned his head and shoulders so he could watch the SUV, and rode the SUV’s front bumper to make it stop. That’s clearly a felony where I live, and it was charged as one in NYC, felony false imprisonment. Do that to me in my state (no, the bikers don’t do that here….) and your life will change.

        And yep, it’s a perfect example of why LEO’s should not have carry privileges in excess of those admitted for any law-abiding citizen upon the issuance of a CCW (LCF here) license administered on a shall-issue basis. They want the guns to protect themselves. What law-abiding citizen doesn’t? Six cops on the scene in NYC and they just f’g watched? But have to carry off-duty to save …who?

        Poor Chicago cops. They want to save people at the stadium? But Joe Citizen doesn’t want to protect his wife on their Sunday walk in the park? They just feel naked without a gun because they know what’s out there. Get used to it. Everyone else in Chicago has had to. There isn’t a pistol shooter in a stadium that four guys with fists can’t stop before the cop makes it five rows down and ten seats over. “Sorry, I couldn’t shoot. Might have hit a bystander.” Yep. Gotta have a gun. If the Chicago cops’ line makes sense to anyone but McGrath, the city schools are even worse than their reputation.

  5. They will in NO way see a direct parallel between this and civilian disarmament. Separate class, different rules for you and for me, above the law, etc.

    Learning moment: wasted.

  7. I think its a bad idea to disarm the public or LEOs. I’m not a fan of Gun Free Zones. The last thing we need is for some psycho A-hole (and psycho A-holes are attracted to GFZ’s) to attack a football stadium. The NFL has already gone anti-gun, I bet some of them are just waiting for an incident so they can gloat about how progressive they are for their anti-gun sentiments. i don’t consider the creation of any new class of GFZ to be a good thing.

  9. Hey Po-po, here’s your sign: you’re civilians, too, and the day’s not too far off when they’ll make you leave your weapons in a locker or armory before you go home.

    Boy, you’ll NEVER see it comin’, either.

    Also, NFL ticket-holders, as soon as you get used to those gloved searches, they’ll drop the cavity searches on ya. Thanks for standing up against tyranny, ya stupid bitches.

    • Is that guy hiding the tube of vaseline in the hand that we can’t see?

      He’s almost got the shocker going…

  10. “First they came for the communists,
    and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.

    Then they came for the socialists,
    and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a socialist.

    Then they came for the trade unionists,
    and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

    Then they came for me,
    and there was no one left to speak for me.”

  11. Let me get this straight. Off duty officers need to be armed at football games because there are not enough armed officers present to provide adequate security? Or is it that on-duty officers are incompetent, but off-duty officers are the ninja warriors? How is it that off duty out of uniform officers won’t get capped by their own when they pull out a firearm? I’m confused.

  12. Screw them. They are civilians like the rest of us. Their service piece(s) should be secured at the station when they are off duty. That should be the law for these anti-gun agencies. They shouldn’t be able to carry off duty anywhere the rest of us can’t.

  13. If the NFL really enforces this “no guns” policy, the teams are going to be playing five per side.

  14. Football. Who cares? NFL has long since lost all credibility and honor, and I don’t watch it let alone go to a game. Michael Vic anyone? Some role models.

  15. Poor po po they were all smiles and laughs when they take guns from normal folk and veterans but now they need guns off duty to protect themselves cause the on duty guys can’t protect em boo frickety hoo mother fvckers cry me a river build a bridge and get over it welcome to the real world princess.

  16. You said it all Robert. The really sad thing is that I’d bet neither of the officers quoted would see your point.

  17. You are all assuming that the two cops don’t support a citizen’s right to carry. How do you know that.

      • You are generally a logical guy. All you have in one sentence out of context on a topic that is about them and not about the general public. I think you can see the flaw in your reasoning. You do not have enough information to know if are against citizen armed self defense. The attitude that I see is just like a gun grabber looking at a private citizen talking about armed self defense and saying he is a gun nut.

  18. I feel just as insulted by the fact that they wouldn’t allow military to carry either. After all well trained is well trained. The only way to change this is to stop voting in these people. Or recall them.

    • jirdesteva,

      The critical error that almost everyone makes — over and over again — is assuming that politicians:
      (a) have our best interests at heart,
      (b) were honestly misguided when they voted for disarmament, and
      (c) deserve our respect anyway.

      Time and time again, after armed citizens educate politicians, the politicians vote for disarmament anyway. You must understand, it isn’t about training or even safety. It is all about power and putting citizens in their proper place … under the foot of the Almighty State.

      In one sense it is good that we universally want to see the good in politicians and be forgiving. That means we are decent people. In another sense it is bad that we keep letting the politicians who seek to disarm us off the hook.

    • Yep, you can be shot at and shoot at others deployed over there – but here in the US you can’t carry – noooo.

  19. It’s probably for the best. After all, studies and exercises have shown that when uniformed officers arrive at scenes where non-uniformed officers are present and holding weapons, the uniformed officers wind up shooting the non-uniformed officers, even when the non-uniformed officers have badges showing. If they let off duty cops carry, it’d probably lead to a bunch of fratracide. If there’s a problem, the off duty cops can do like the rest of us do and just contact a stadium security officer, or they can call 911. I’m sure they’ll be fine.

  20. “You’re never just a spectator,” the other cop said. “Even when I’m off-duty, I’m supposed to get involved.”

    Huh. Interesting. One of the anti-firearms freedom crowd’s big argument points against civilian concealed carry is that, should such an armed civilian respond to an active shooter, he or she only puts himself at risk and exacerbates the situation. Not being a cop (or identifiable as one if off duty), other concealed carriers and responding police wouldn’t know these are also good guys and might shoot them.

    So why does that disarmament justification go out the window all of a sudden when the disarmament expands to cover off duty cops? Where’s Mayors Against Other People’s Guns? Where’s MILF’s Demand Action? Why so quiet now? Curious, that.

    • “You’re never just a spectator,” the other cop said. “Even when I’m off-duty, I’m supposed to get involved.”

      He’s one of the good ones. I’d like him to tell that to the cops in the NYC and NYCMTA that have “no court-approved duty to protect a citizen.” Or the numerous schmucks on YouTube whose sworn duty is to go home safe at night.

  21. The same pukestains who would deny me my fundamental right to carry are butthurt by the NFL treating them the way they treat me?

    You can kiss my hairy @$$, fvckheads.

  22. Has anyone noted that in the previous 14 days America’s Law Enforcement Professionals, dedicated to preserving law and order under the US Constitution have “suddenly” become dedicated to enforcing Obama’s edicts?

  23. 1) Chicago can suck it

    2) Don’t go to NFL games, watch the games, or help support some billionaires exploiting millionaires. Watch college ball instead and let the nfl figure out its business model

    • LOL…exploiting millionaires? Watch college? You mean the ones where the colleges make millions and the athletes get a $30k scholarship?

      Exploiting isn’t really happening if the next best option is making $30k a year…

  24. Dirty pigs have a God complex. It is the average citizen who should be allowed to carry at a stadium, while the cops should be prohibited. They are not better, or even equal to the average citizen.

  25. off duty cops have a duty to get involved? just like the off duty cops that got involved to stop the biker beat down on the suv driver in NYC ? oh thats right, they didn’t get involved to stop it. they were involved doing it.

  28. I was told once BY A POLICE OFFICER that they qualify once a year…and most officers never shoot more than that. That means that the average reader on this board has more firearms experience than the average police officer. Yet police, due to their career choice, magically have super powers when it comes to firearms that allows them to carry anywhere…areas that we, better trained individuals, can not…

    Like the state trooper in NH who opened fire on an unarmed woman in a car and of the 12 rounds he fired, hit her four times.

    Like the NY Cops who fired at an armed suspect and shot 7 innocent civilians in the process.

    Now don’t get me wrong, a lot of cops have military backgrounds and are great with firearms…I’m certain a good many are on these boards… But for someone like myself who can not carry everywhere and is more trained than the average officer, I’m insulted.

    I find it ironic that the tables have turned…now the cops know what it is like.

    Chicago is effectively admitting that firearms training makes it OK for you to carry anywhere….so why don’t returning vets have the right to carry and to use high capacity mags? Heck, they’re trained on full autos…yet once they leave the service they can’t own one…why? Because it’s dangerous???

    The problem we have are these rules and laws about guns are made by people who know NOTHING about firearms…they make up rules thinking they are helping when they’re making a mockery of themselves…the problem is the average American is too stupid to know any better.

    You don’t have politicians dictating FDA policies, you have doctors at the FDA do it. You have specialists who know what they are talking about dictate rules. It makes sense.

    Yet with firearms, the politicians are somehow enlightened enough about the “thing that goes up” to make laws about it.

    I have no sympathy for these cops. If something happens and a cop is unarmed and can’t protect himself, his family, or others…now they’ll know how the rest of us feel.

  29. Well, some Officers are VERY pro 2nd amendment for everyone minus violent felons. it’s a damn shame on how some officers see themselves as a “ruler” over people instead of servants, defenders, interpreters and enforcers of the law, when needed, (as how we should see ourselves). Now, as for the NFL and their rules. All they are doing is creating shooting galleries for the cowards who want to harm others for whatever demented reason they have in their feeble minds. In this day and age, I think its downright foolish for one not to carry a weapon (gun) on their person. For all who say eff the police, just remember there are still good cops out there who will run to your aid even in the midst of you cursing us.

    • I agree there are a lot of good cops out there, I just wish they had the balls to speak up more often. If you see a bad cop, get his a$$ kicked out, screw the thin blue line or whatever you want to call it. Why would a good cop want to be associated with trash. At some point seeing it and doing nothing about it makes you just as bad in my eyes.

      Yes there are good cops out there, now why dont you get together and do some good.

      • Hey Mike, I’m doing my best, my man. Fortunately with the precinct I work in we have a lot of line officers who are very pro gun (for all citizens minus violent felons) and have in many cases educated the rookies not to have a knee jerk reaction when they discover a person has a gun on their person. It can be a slow process to have them understand that there is no “us vs. them” and that the US Constitution is a precious gift our Framers gave us. Because as many of you have stated in these replies, throughout the shift and at the end of our shift, the police are just as much citizens as everyone else. I get it. and many others do as well.

        You guys and gals be safe out there. Keep your wits and a cool head. And don’t forget to keep your powder dry.

  30. “Even when I’m off-duty, I’m supposed to get involved.” Maybe he should get involved with defending and extending gun rights for all Americans. Just sayin’.

    Just needed re-quoting.

  32. This is the same Mike Shields that when CCW laws were in hot debate in the IL assembly would not raise the issue of civilian CCW to the FOP members… He let the Chief of the CPD speak for all the street cops and say things like “we want to know every gun we find is illegal” or his infamous thing on Shooting CCW holders.

    But of course Mikey Shields also said “Chicago Police Officers already have that right”… speaking about the right to carry a weapon. Therefore they wouldn’t have street cops (the majority of which support the 2A) speak or put out a press release supporting CCW… NOPE. they already had it.

    Well now Mike gets a little taste of how civis feel every day.

  34. Well, well, well. Now this brings the debate to police officers. Perhaps it is time they start honing their conversational skills so they can join our fight. Speaking of, I debated a civilian disarmament advocate at length the other day. The advocate marched out all the standard fallacies which I dismantled with actual facts. Of course the truth did not matter to him/her. I came to realize that an hour of debate was pretty much pointless. I also came to realize that all they are trying to do is quite literally shout down our right to defend ourselves. In order to avoid pointless debates in the future, I have settled on a fairly simple disarmament analogy. It may not be politically correct but I think it is necessary to get at least some people to see the point.

    In a nutshell, civilian disarmament proponents:
    (1) claim to have a “right” that they want to exercise
    (2) demand that armed citizens yield to their “right”
    (3) tell us we should accept it because it is good for them
    (4) tell us we should accept it because it is good us

    So let us apply the same exact argument to another situation. Imagine a man approaching a random woman. The man:
    (1) states that he has a “right” to have sex
    (2) demands the woman yield to his “right”
    (3) tells the woman to accept it because it is “good” for her
    (4) tells the woman to accept it because it is good for him
    (And how is it “good” for her you might be wondering? Sex increases blood flow to the body, raises heart rate for improved cardiac health, releases beneficial hormones, tones muscles, improves feelings of well being and self-worth, relieves stress, etc.)

    No one can argue that improving blood flow, cardiac health, increasing beneficial hormones, toning muscles, improving feelings of self, and relieving stress are huge health benefits to all citizens, both men and women alike. And yet no one in their right mind would demand that the random woman must therefore yield to the man’s “right” and submit to sex with him.

    And yet this is exactly what civilian disarmament proponents are telling us. They:
    (1) tell us they have a “right” to feel safe
    (2) demand that we give up our firearms to satisfy their “right” to feel safe
    (3) tell us to accept it claiming it will increase their safety
    (4) tell us to accept it claiming it will increase our own safety
    Even if those claims were true, it doesn’t change the fact that civilian disarmament advocates and the State are violating our lives just as a man who rapes a women violates her life — regardless of any claims about how it is “good” for one person or another.

  35. Poor Chi Cop-Wads, go crawl into your pig-blankets and rub yourselves with butter and syrup to ease the pain and commiserate about when you could do anything you wanted. How the mighty have fallen…

  37. Yet NFL coaches have armed state police escorts on the field at all times. (Like they’re a target of interest?) Screw the National Felon League. Boycott them. The NFL is only interested in the $1 billion in assets it protects as a non-profit organization. (Yeah, they don’t pay taxes!) Complain to Commissioner Goodell, he’s making something like $29.5 million a year. Move along people, nothing to see here.

  38. As a general rule, prudence dictates that one avoid large crowds of ignorant people whenever possible.
    Given that all attendees to NFL-sponsored events have — knowingly or not — disregarded the aforementioned general rule — seems only reasonable that the owners and operators of games based on controlled violence would establish and rigorously enforce a ‘No Guns Allowed’ policy.

    For those aware of the obvious hazards and perils involved but still willing to take known risks devoid of the potential benefit offered by having on one’s person a viable tool for defense:-
    consideration might be given to acquiring and wearing bullet-resistant sporting attire and / or also keeping and bearing a Kevlar-reinforced stadium seat.
    Gw

    • That’s my policy as well. I am highly suspicious around crowds. I’ve seen stampeding people before, been very close to getting sucked into the morass of panicing morons, and it’s an ugly thing.

      For me now, being in or near large crowds is an exhausting experience. You just can’t maintain the situational awareness necessary to be on top of the situation without real effort. Over a period of hours, it wears you down. It certainly means you can’t enjoy a sporting event or concert.

  39. My sister in law is at Treasury. She has never made an arrest here entire career and yet she as a FED LEO goes jogging in Maryland with her concealed carry. The ONLY thing she uses her firearm is her own self defense. Her service weapon has cobwebs on it and is in a locker 24/7365

    She is really nice and I do like her, but she is oblivious to the fact that she is essentially above everyone else. She doesn’t use her weapon to protect anyone but herself.

Comments are closed.