General Categories > Carry Issues
Role of EMS/EMT Personnel in Securing Handgun During Emergency
Thanke:
--- Quote from: CitizenClark on December 01, 2012, 12:30:43 PM ---If you choose to be some sort of emergency responder, as far as I am concerned you are assuming the risks that come along with that choice. Your choice doesn't give you any right to abridge my liberty.
--- End quote ---
It gives him a legal right and it was already posted above.
--- Quote from: SemperFiGuy on November 30, 2012, 11:22:50 PM ---021.01 Peace officers or emergency services personnel may determine whether it is necessary to secure the handgun for the safety of any person present, including the peace officer or emergency service personnel, and may order the permit holder to secure or surrender the handgun.
--- End quote ---
gsd:
--- Quote from: CitizenClark on December 01, 2012, 12:25:30 PM ---The whole point of the right to keep and bear arms is to be able to defend yourself against tyranny. I can't imagine an emptier legal right to keep and bear arms than one that allows for any armed agent of the state or other "emergency responder" to arbitrarily disarm you.
--- End quote ---
Clark, I am not being mean here, but if I were to respond to an accident involving you, and you refused to relinquish your weapon, I would most likely deem it unsafe and return to my rig.
--- Quote from: CitizenClark on December 01, 2012, 12:25:30 PM ---If you choose to be some sort of emergency responder, as far as I am concerned you are assuming the risks that come along with that choice. Your choice doesn't give you any right to abridge my liberty.
--- End quote ---
I assume no risk by being an EMT, only that I wished to help people in need. I'll be damned if I am going to risk my life because you won't let a LEO hang on to your carry gun while I stop the bleeding.
ok, off my soapbox
DaveB:
I guess I'm not the one with my panties in a bunch. Disarming free and legal gun owners just because you can is more a show of power than a show of duty.
Once an injured person is showing aggression with a weapon, he then becomes a threat, it is then and only then should all procedures be stopped until such a time as the person can be disarmed and treated safely.
I am entitled to my opinion, unless someone decides they are better than me and wish to remove that right from me.
gsd:
--- Quote from: DaveB on December 01, 2012, 12:51:11 PM ---I guess I'm not the one with my panties in a bunch. Disarming free and legal gun owners just because you can is more a show of power than a show of duty.
Once an injured person is showing aggression with a weapon, he then becomes a threat, it is then and only then should all procedures be stopped until such a time as the person can be disarmed and treated safely.
I am entitled to my opinion, unless someone decides they are better than me and wish to remove that right from me.
--- End quote ---
Fair enough. This is after all, just a lively discussion. And as Shawn stated, OFD Policy is no weapons in the rigs, as it is with nearly all agencies operating to this day.
DaveB:
--- Quote from: gsd on December 01, 2012, 12:54:51 PM ---
Fair enough. This is after all, just a lively discussion. And as Shawn stated, OFD Policy is no weapons in the rigs, as it is with nearly all agencies operating to this day.
--- End quote ---
I understand the law, and to a point I understand the concern, but what I don't understand is a law that allows common good people to have their rights removed when the common thug isn't going to say anything until it's too late. I am required to inform, where a bad guy is not. Which one are you going to feel safer around as an EMT?
Would I voluntarily give up my gun to an EMT? Sure I would because I do my best to follow the law. That still does not make it right to me, but I am not out to scare good people by having a gun.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version