Role of EMS/EMT Personnel in Securing Handgun During Emergency

[SemperFiGuy]

Most CHPs Acknowledge the Right of LEOs to Temporarily Take Handgun Custody From CHPs During an Emergency

Some CHPs have indicated a less-than-clear understanding of the role of EMS/EMT personnel during emergencies, such as road accidents.

Here's the law on the books:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
002 DEFINITIONS
002.06 “Emergency services personnel” shall mean a volunteer or paid firefighter or rescue squad member or a person licensed to provide emergency medical services pursuant to the Emergency Medical Services Practice Act (Nebraska Revised Statutes §§ 38-1201 et seq.

021 PROCEDURES FOR PEACE OFFICERS AND EMERGENCY SERVICE PERSONNEL ENCOUNTERING A HANDGUN
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.

021.02 The handgun shall be returned to the permit holder before the contact is ended if the peace officer or the emergency service personnel determine that there is no threat to anyone’s safety and that the permit holder is physically and mentally capable of possessing the handgun.

021.03 If emergency services personnel determine that the permit holder is not capable of possessing the handgun or if the permit holder is transported to another location for treatment.   The peace officer shall provide the permit holder with a receipt for the handgun which included the make, model, caliber, and serial number of the handgun.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Forum member who is also an EMT has agreed to share his insights on this forum.

He--along with any other fellow EMT--is now invited to share his/these insights, opinions, understandings, organizational instructions, experiences, and information which will increase the understanding among us CHPs on this issue.


sfg

[unfy]

Totally informal / personal experience notes, not from someone who works as LEO / EMT:

When I flipped my truck after Chris Z's course (near Syracuse, NE), the LEO and EMT's and hospital staff were real nice and friendly concerning the firearm in the truck etc.  EMT staff during the ambulance ride and nurses and doc at hospital didn't care about the empty holster in pants.

The LEO brought the weapon case to my hospital room, even left it (in it's briefcase style lock) at the foot of my bed hehehehe.  I think, at least.  It's possible the hospital staff secured it for check out.  LEO / myself discussed what kind of weapon it was, my opinions of it, etc.


Sometime... in the last year or two, I ended up driving myself to the newish bellevue hospital near 25th and 370.  Walked into the ER check in, started talking to receptionist about severe chest pain etc.  Realized I still had my weapon on me.  Offered to take it back out to the truck, but they didn't want me to leave.  They called the guard over, escorted me to the other side of the reception area where they have a safe.  I was told to disarm and unload the weapon and place it into the safe.  I did so, but asked if they would be so kind as to rack the slide to remove the chambered round (i barely had the strength to do so)... but they refused for legal reasons (prints / used in a crime possibilities). Managed to do so while trembling and was escorted to a normal room.

After my visit (wasn't serious thankfully), guard and nurse unlocked, the safe, i re-armed myself and walked out the door.  Turns out the reception check in lady (or nurse? she was in scrubs) also concealed carry and understood the weird situation I had placed myself in heh.

[gsd]

As an EMT/FF as well as a CHP Holder, i inform the individual that i need to remove the firearm in order to render care, that it will be placed in the secured possession of a LEO, and returned to them upon the completion of aid/care/investigation.

Never had a problem in the 15+ calls involving a firearm in the vehicle.

EDIT: as a disclaimer, any "weapon" within reach could theoretically be used to harm us, and we as EMT's are not allowed to render aid until the scene is safe.

[DaveB]

Once again, legal gun carriers are treated as if we are intent on causing harm to people trying to help us all because we have a permit to carry.

The law is the law, but I'll bet the ones without permits will be a lot less likely to inform an EMT that they are carrying.

[gsd]

Dave, the scene safe thing is merely an extension of the existing protocols.

Case in point, my squad was called out for an altercation where the offender was still on scene. Not armed, but still on scene. I posted my rig a block away until that person had been detained.

We are taught ourselves first, then our partners, then the patients safety.

[wallace11bravo]

I've refrained from commenting, as although I am an EMT, I do not work as one regularly.

DaveB; Before you get your panties all up in a bunch, consider this:

Long standing doctrine of battlefield casualty care is to disarm any patient with an even slightly altered mental status. This is part of your AVPU assessment, just after considering spinal immobilization (that is for gsd), in other words: one of the first things you do. A "A slightly altered mental status" can and does include, unconsciousness, not knowing where you are or what happened, panicking, inability to stand....... in other words: almost EVERY casualty worth any real attention.

This is a matter of safety and security of the unit, the care provider, and the individual. People who just suffered blast or ballistic trauma rarely behave rationally, often become hostile towards anyone and everyone, and in some cases become suicidal. Disarming them includes taking away all weapons and ordnance. Medical Evacuation units will not accept casualties that are still armed with so much as a smoke canister.

Casualties are disarmed in combat, often while under fire. I think you can tolerate being disarmed because an emergency care provider does not know you, does not have a complete knowledge of your previous or current mental state, and is responsible not only for his own safety, but, in part, the safety of all of the responding personnel.

[sjwsti]

It seems quite clear. You have a duty to inform if contacted by EMS/Fire. It is at the discretion of the Lead Medic to secure or not secure your weapon. 

There has been no official training for us on how to do that safely. There are plenty of EMT/Paramedics at every dept who have never handled a weapon before. Its probably one more good reason why you should always carry in a holster. One that can be removed from you without taking the gun out of it.

OFDs standard operating procedure states that no firearms are permitted in the rescue squad and will never be knowingly transported by a rescue squad. The weapon will be secured and given to responding LE. If transport must be initiated prior to the arrival of LE the weapon will be kept at the scene by OFD personnel and given to the responding Officers there.

Once again, legal gun carriers are treated as if we are intent on causing harm to people trying to help us all because we have a permit to carry.

The law is the law, but I'll bet the ones without permits will be a lot less likely to inform an EMT that they are carrying.

911 gets called because something is wrong. I assume everyone I meet at a scene is armed and dangerous until proven otherwise. Not everyone is happy to see us and attempted assaults on EMS personnel are a regular occurrence were I work. Have any of these violent patients been CCW holders? No, and I wouldn't expect them to be. That said, I must always be prepared for things to go sour, permit or not.

If the injury is traumatic or the medical issue critical, exactly as posted above, you will be disarmed immediately.

Like many things, what happens will depend on how you act. If your alert, cooperative and wont need transport to an ER, you will most likely keep your weapon. You will sign a refusal of treatment form and be on your way.

Act hostile and indignant, it will go differently. First I will assume you may be having a medical issue altering your mental state. Your weapon will be secured and given to LE. You will be treated and transported to an ER were LE will respond and return your weapon once your feeling better. If all medical issues are ruled out and your just being a PITA, well my guess is you will be left to deal with LE. Good luck with that.

- Shawn

[CitizenClark]

.

[CitizenClark]

.

[CitizenClark]

.

[Thanke]

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.

It gives him a legal right and it was already posted above.

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.

[gsd]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

[wallace11bravo]

Clark; there is no article of the Uniform Code of Military Justice that states a wounded person must be disarmed. What I was referring to has nothing to do with legality, it has to do with medical doctrine and protocols. I was attempting to demonstrate that the law is not motivated by gun grabbers, but by long standing medical practices. But of course, all you can think of is "military dictatorship"... Should have seen it coming.

Clark and others; So you are saying that an emergency responder has no right to ensure the safety of themselves and those around them? Mental status can rapidly deteriorate with a variety of conditions such as hypovolemic shock or hypoglycemia. By the time an altered mental status can be detected, it may already be too late, and I, for one, will not attempt to manually disarm someone pointing a weapon at me, as I am not a ninja.

[sjwsti]

I`ll try to keep this short and sweet as it is obvious that you need to have your meds adjusted 

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.

If you dont like the law, work to change it. Using emergency responder and "tyrannical agent of the state" in the same sentence is so ridiculous that you made me laugh.

I shouldn't have to sign anything to be left alone. If you lay your hands on me against my will, you are committing a battery.

My right to keep and bear arms should not be dependent on your ego.

A refusal of treatment form is simply a release of legal liability for the responder if you are advised to seek treatment and refuse to do so. If you suffer further injury or illness later its not our fault. Your free to refuse treatment and free to not sign. I will simply document your refusal in my report. You wont be "forced" to sign and if you believe this you are mistaken.

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.

I gladly assume the risks that come with my job. Every day I do what I can to reduce and manage those risks so I and my crew go home in one piece. If that means hurting your feelings so be it.

To insinuate that you are being victimized by emergency responders, simply by having your weapon temporarily secured for safety reasons, is BS and insulting.

There are a number of risks that we as CCW holders assume by carrying a weapon. Being involved in a medical or traumatic emergency while armed and having to have that weapon secured is one of them.

- Shawn

[NENick]

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.

I agree with you. It seems the typical concerns that non gunowners have about concealed carry are part of this. The Antis don't trust concealed carry and therefore may be interested in disarming us.

It seems that same zero tolerance aspect emerges in these LEO discussions as well. You EMTs are telling us the same sort of thing that the Antis do. I'm speaking in generality, and do understand what I’ve accepted with getting the CHP. The law is the law.

We have to give up our freedom to protect ourselves in order to receive care and services that we pay for. You are our employees.

If a massive storm blows through and wipes city infrastructure, it is very clear that the government cannot (regardless of desire) provide the services that most people anticipate.

Passes soap box off to the next in line =). There's no one I like to see more than a trained professional when someone gets hurt or my house is burning down.

[gsd]

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.

 Oh trust me, we would find it quickly. Part of our job is a hands-on physical assessment of all limbs. If we feel something that isn't supposed to be there, we are going to look/ask.

[NENick]

I`ll try to keep this short and sweet as it is obvious that you need to have your meds adjusted 

If you dont like the law, work to change it. Using emergency responder and "tyrannical agent of the state" in the same sentence is so ridiculous that you made me laugh.

Shawn, as an EMT, you are government. Time and again, the government has proven extremely capable of using any and every tool/reason to maintain its power and increase it. The government wants the best, most convincing reason, to justify anything that it does. An example of this would be protecting endangered species by freezing your ability use your land for whatever. No one wants to kill off a species... It's a different subject, but the pattern is always the same.

Your safety is extremely important, but we always have to remain vigilant when it comes to yielding freedom.