Should medics be allowed to carry?

[Joniki]

I started this thread and I have read the replies with interest.

I own a home which is private property. Am I within my rights to tell a LEO to leave his weapon in his vehicle if he comes here to do a VIN check?

Am I not afforded the same rights as a LEO in regard to carrying a weapon?

 

[actaeon277]

I started this thread and I have read the replies with interest.

I own a home which is private property. Am I within my rights to tell a LEO to leave his weapon in his vehicle if he comes here to do a VIN check?

Am I not afforded the same rights as a LEO in regard to carrying a weapon?

An officer is not carrying it into your house because it is his "right".
He is carrying it because it is his duty.
(If he is on duty)


If he is off duty, than you can ask the officer to leave it in the car.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I have a buddy back home in Chicago who is an EMT. When you are the only one on scene you don't know what is going to happen. I believe all first responders should be given that option.

"Units enroute, stage and do not make scene until cleared by law enforcement."

 

[Bill of Rights]

I don`t feel the argument that no one forces one to work for company "A", who just happens to restrict a right holds water. No company ought to be able to demand one to rescind a right simply to be employed.

Any company may restrict as they see fit, within the law. And any and EVERY citizen may vote with their feet and either change their minds or close their doors.

 

[Joniki]

An officer is not carrying it into your house because it is his "right".
He is carrying it because it is his duty.
(If he is on duty).

If he is off duty, than you can ask the officer to leave it in the car.

Is this officer carrying into my home to protect me or himself? I can certainly protect myself while in my home.

It is also my "duty" to protect myself while I am out and about.

 

[Mgderf]

I know a few cops that shouldn't be allowed to carry.
I say they have a right until they do something to lose their rights.

It is still, for now, a constitutionally guaranteed right for all American citizens, until they lose that right.
Paramedics are American citizens too, well I assume most are.

This should not even be a question worth entertaining.
The simple fact that the question has been raised is proof that we need to be ever vigilant to preserve what rights we still have, and to re-acquire the currently unlawfully infringed rights.

 

[rhino]

An officer is not carrying it into your house because it is his "right".
He is carrying it because it is his duty.
(If he is on duty)


If he is off duty, than you can ask the officer to leave it in the car.

I recognize that's the way it is, but that's not the way it should be. Every individual regardless of occupation should have the same rights until they prove otherwise.

 

[actaeon277]

I recognize that's the way it is, but that's not the way it should be. Every individual regardless of occupation should have the same rights until they prove otherwise.

In your house, I do not have the freedom of speech. If I start cursing profusely, you ask me to stop, and I don't, you can ask me to leave. I do not have the right of freedom of speech in your house.

 

[rhino]

In your house, I do not have the freedom of speech. If I start cursing profusely, you ask me to stop, and I don't, you can ask me to leave. I do not have the right of freedom of speech in your house.

Of course.

That's not what I was talking about. I meant, as an example, that someone should not be able to trump your rules in your house because they work for the state when someone who is not employed by the state cannot.

 

[SMiller]

No one is going to bring up the medic/fire fighter that was shot on duty/on scene this week?

 

[Tanfodude]

In your house, I do not have the freedom of speech. If I start cursing profusely, you ask me to stop, and I don't, you can ask me to leave. I do not have the right of freedom of speech in your house.

You still don't lose that right though. You're just being asked to leave. You don't lose that right unless you're persecuted for it or there's actually a tyrannical law for it.

 

[EPeter213]

Well, how about this?

You are a restaurant owner.
One of your servers keeps telling all the customers that the food sucks, the company is going downhill, maybe even throw in some homophobic or racists comments.

Are you arguing that the owner doesn't have a right to fire them?
After all, freedom of speech.

The situation you describe here involves behavior that is disruptive to business. In what way is lawful possession of a firearm disruptive?

A firearm is a tool. Posession of a tool should not be a criminal act. So long as the employee does nothing criminal with the tool, the employer shouldn't restrict possession.

I understand that in some businesses appearance can be very important, and a visible firearm have a negative impact. In these cases I can even understand requiring cc of those who desire to carry.

 

[actaeon277]

The situation you describe here involves behavior that is disruptive to business. In what way is lawful possession of a firearm disruptive?

A firearm is a tool. Posession of a tool should not be a criminal act. So long as the employee does nothing criminal with the tool, the employer shouldn't restrict possession.

I understand that in some businesses appearance can be very important, and a visible firearm have a negative impact. In these cases I can even understand requiring cc of those who desire to carry.

Well, let's say your business is feeding skinny pants wearing hippies.
You don't think that would affect your business.

 

[gregr]

An officer is not carrying it into your house because it is his "right".
He is carrying it because it is his duty.
(If he is on duty)


If he is off duty, than you can ask the officer to leave it in the car.

Sorry, but it`s one or the other, not both depending on circumstances. I see it as my duty to uphold the United States Constitution, and keep and bear arms. No business should have the right to cause me to be disarmed in order for me to make essential purchases.

 

[gregr]

In your house, I do not have the freedom of speech. If I start cursing profusely, you ask me to stop, and I don't, you can ask me to leave. I do not have the right of freedom of speech in your house.

Freedom of speech isn`t about cursing or profanities. It is about the free expression of ideas and thoughts, even opinions. But when, or if, it becomes profane or filthy, then it`s an assault, and must be stopped.

 

[actaeon277]

Sorry, but it`s one or the other, not both depending on circumstances. I see it as my duty to uphold the United States Constitution, and keep and bear arms. No business should have the right to cause me to be disarmed in order for me to make essential purchases.

How did they cause you?
There are no other stores?

 

[actaeon277]

Freedom of speech isn`t about cursing or profanities. It is about the free expression of ideas and thoughts, even opinions. But when, or if, it becomes profane or filthy, then it`s an assault, and must be stopped.

Yes, it is about cursing and profanities.
Speech which everyone likes, does not need to be protected.
Freedom of speech protects that which offends.

Otherwise, they just designate that your speech about guns is profane, and poof, you can't talk about guns.

 

[EPeter213]

Well, let's say your business is feeding skinny pants wearing hippies.
You don't think that would affect your business.

Not if the Hippies don't see my gun.

But to get back to the main thread... It seems to me that first responders have a much higher risk of ending up in an area or situation where the need for self defense could occur than your typical Starbucks Barista.

I also suspect that most customers served by EMT's could care less about whether the EMT arrives with means of protecting themselves.

If someone calls an ambulance, and then refuses treatment because the EMT is armed, this discussion MIGHT have more relevance, but I just don't see that happening.

Aside: I am enjoying this friendly discussion, but just because I have chosen to defend this particular position does not mean I am not open to the opinions of others.

 

[actaeon277]

Not if the Hippies don't see my gun.

But to get back to the main thread... It seems to me that first responders have a much higher risk of ending up in an area or situation where the need for self defense could occur than your typical Starbucks Barista.

I also suspect that most customers served by EMT's could care less about whether the EMT arrives with means of protecting themselves.

If someone calls an ambulance, and then refuses treatment because the EMT is armed, this discussion MIGHT have more relevance, but I just don't see that happening.

Aside: I am enjoying this friendly discussion, but just because I have chosen to defend this particular position does not mean I am not open to the opinions of others.

Don't worry about me. Had to have a thick skin to grow up in my family.

 

[EPeter213]

Don't worry about me. Had to have a thick skin to grow up in my family.

Just making sure friendly debate is not mistaken for violent disagreement.

I could argue the other side, but I honestly do feel that possession in and of itself should not be grounds for for termination, or prosecution. Does this mean that I think we shouldn't check to see if a gun found in suspicious circumstances is stolen? No.
Does this mean that I think everyone should carry a gun? No.

It means that I think everyone should be allowed to carry a gun for self defense.