Frank Borelli
Editor-in-Chief
Officer.com

I have previously touched on "the oldest debate" about the long drawn out argument about whether bigger/slower bullets are better than smaller/faster bullets. With this blog I want to touch on the controls of law enforcement agencies over duty and off-duty weapons. A little history: When I was in the Army as an MP the U.S. Military still used the 1911 .45ACP pistol. It was the first pistol I learned and I still appreciate it to this day. A few years after I went in - in fact the year my enlistment ended - the Army switched over to the M9 (Beretta 9mm). When I became a civilian police officer my first agency issued me a Smith & Wesson Model 10, .38 revolver. My second agency issued me a Colt Trooper Mk III .357Magnum 6" revolver. I was authorized to purchase and carry my own S&W Mdl 15 .38 4" revolver. Within a couple years my second agency switched guns - they went to the SigArms P226 9mm. This was where I saw the change in outlook and administration of duty and off-duty weapons. Prior to the agency "standardizing" on the Sig duty revolvers were issued, but agency controls allowed for any 4" or 6" .38 or .357 to be carried. Off-duty we were permitted 2" .38s or .357s. In fact, at one time, the agency also approved .41 and .44 for off-duty as well. When we switched to the Sig 9mms, things changed. The agency created new General Orders regarding off-duty carry. Those orders still permitted .38 / .357 "snubbies" off-duty, but the .41 and .44 were removed from the list. What was added? Pistols that met certain standards:
  • It had to be in an approved caliber to include .380ACP, 9mm, .45ACP or 10mm (.40 was pretty new then)
  • It had to have at least a 3" barrel
  • It had to carry at least 6 rounds in the magazine
  • It had to have an external safety
Gradually those orders changed so that Glocks were approved (no external safety requirement) and an added requirement of a passive firing pin block was added (which took most 1911 style pistols off the list of approved off-duty guns). What I wondered one day was this: if agencies are responsible for their officers' police actions off-duty just as much as they are on duty, then why were the controls for off-duty weapons so different from on-duty? I mean, we had to carry the issued pistol on-duty. But off-duty we had this long list of available weapons. My next thought (because I don't have many at a time too close together) was this: if the officer is more proficient with a specific approved off-duty firearm, why shouldn't (s)he be able to carry it on duty? The argument I usually hear has to do with liability management for the agency. To some extent, I understand that, but I still go back to the off-duty scenario: agencies are just as responsible for the officer's actions. Doesn't liability management matter as much then? Don't get me wrong: this blog isn't an argument for mandating that officers carry their issued duty weapon off-duty. In fact, it's the exact opposite: I believe that officers should have greater leeway in what they carry ON-DUTY. Here's what I think: I think that officers, once properly trained and qualified with the agency's duty weapon in the academy, should be able to select their own duty weapon within certain guidelines and meeting some requirements. What are they?
  • Caliber criteria: 9mm, .40S&W, .357Sig, .45GAP, .45ACP, 10mm
  • 4"- 5.5" barrel length
  • Minimum magazine capacity of 10 rounds
  • Passive firing pin block
Obviously those requirements could / should be modified for those working plainclothes or administrative assignments. The other requirement I'd have in place would regard the duty holster. The officer would be required to provide a duty holster of equal security level to that of the issued item. In other words, if the agency issues a Level III security holster, but no manufacturer makes a Level III holster for the gun you want to carry then you're out of luck until you find one. I would really appreciate comments and opinions from officers at all levels of rank. I'm especially interested in feedback from firearms instructors and upper level management, i.e. captains on up. Thanks for your time in reading / responding and STAY SAFE!!
About the Author

Lt. Frank Borelli (ret), Editorial Director | Editorial Director

Lt. Frank Borelli is the Editorial Director for the Officer Media Group. Frank brings 20+ years of writing and editing experience in addition to 40 years of law enforcement operations, administration and training experience to the team.

Frank has had numerous books published which are available on Amazon.com, BarnesAndNoble.com, and other major retail outlets.

If you have any comments or questions, you can contact him via email at [email protected].

Sponsored Recommendations

Voice your opinion!

To join the conversation, and become an exclusive member of Officer, create an account today!