Six Un-Armed Off-Duty Police Inside Bar during Thousand Oaks Shooting

Police Respond
Six Un-Armed Off-Duty Police Inside Bar during Thousand Oaks Shooting

Thousand Oaks, California-(Ammoland.com)- Tragedy struck at a college country night at Borderline Bar and Grill located in Thousand Oaks, California 40 miles northwest of Los Angeles.

Ian David Long walked into the crowded Southern California bar dressed in black and opened fired on the revelers with his .45 caliber Glock 21 pistol. The 28-year-old Marine vet killed 12 people. There have been reports he used smoke bombs to sow chaos in the panicked crowd.

Long was thought to be suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder stemming from his deployment from his deployment in Afghanistan between 2010 and 2011.

Shocked bar patrons dialed 911 and two on-duty police officers were on the scene within three minutes, but the carnage was far from done. Long shot and killed Ventura County Sgt. Ron Helus, who was one year away from retirement after serving on the force for 29-years. His body was dragged out of the line of fire by another patrol officer.

Shortly after the firefight, Long turned the gun on himself and committed suicide bringing the horrific event to an end.

Sgt Helus was the first on-duty police officer on the scene, but there were six off-duty cops from multiple agencies at the bar when the shooting started. None of the law enforcement officers who were at the bar were armed at the time of the shooting.

As of this writing, it is unknown to why these officers were not armed. State law cannot prevent an off-duty police officer from carrying a gun due to the Law Enforcement Safety Act of 2000, but these officer's agencies can enact policies about carrying a firearm off-duty. AmmoLand does not yet know these officer's agencies.

When Long began his rampage, he was also the only one armed in the bar. California has some of the most restrictive concealed carry laws in the country. It is a “may issue” state.

In most California jurisdictions, a person who wants a concealed carry permit must demonstrate a significant and direct risk to their lives before the local law enforcement agency will approve a permit clearing the way for one to be issued. Ventura County where the shooting took place is one of these counties. Ultimately, the local head of law enforcement gets to decide who has the right to protect themselves with a gun and who doesn’t.

Long also has a history with the police. In April police responded to his apartment when a neighbor, Tom Hanson, called police after hearing loud banging coming from Long’s apartment.

“I didn't know if he was hurting himself,” Tom Hanson told reporters.

Police reported him acting irrationally in an irate manner. A mental health professional examined him and felt he did not meet the criteria for involuntary commitment to a mental health facility for a psychiatric evaluation. “Everything seemed to go back to normal after that,” Hanson said.

Involuntary commitments have declined at a steady rate since 1975. Social scientists believe the decline was due to the change of public opinion on mental health institutions. They tie the changing perceptions on involuntary commitment due to the impact of the ‘One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest' movie that was based on the book of the same name.

Many psychiatrists have urged politicians to reform the mental health system, but politicians have refused to act as it is easier to blame a tool than to get to the real root of the problems.

As of now, police have not released any motives in the attack. Although attackers did assault Long in 2015 in another Thousand Oaks bar, police have not concluded if that played a role in this attack.


About John CrumpJohn Crump

John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. He is the former CEO of Veritas Firearms, LLC and is the co-host of The Patriot News Podcast which can be found at www.blogtalkradio.com/patriotnews. John has written extensively on the patriot movement including 3%'ers, Oath Keepers, and Militias. In addition to the Patriot movement, John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and is currently working on a book on leftist deplatforming methods and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, on Facebook at realjohncrump, or at www.crumpy.com.

  • 79 thoughts on “Six Un-Armed Off-Duty Police Inside Bar during Thousand Oaks Shooting

    1. @ChrisMallory; When are you scheduling your surgery/ the one to have the tube cut/ that connects your A_S to your EYE that gives you such a SHITTY OUT LOOK ON LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    2. In my career as a Correctional Officer I saw a lot of bad people that I would not want to meet out of the confines of a prison. There are just as many if not more walking the streets of America every day. I never leave home without protection. I might go down but I will go down fighting if it is necessary. I saw a mother that lost her son in this shooting crying and telling people not to send her their condolences or prayers. She wanted all guns confiscated and made illegal. I wonder what would have happened if somebody in that bar had been armed besides the shooter? How many lives could have been saved? Would her son have been less dead if he had been killed with a machete, a pipe bomb or stabbed to death with a knife? Bad people do bad things. We have to be able to defend ourselves from them. The owner of this bar should be held responsible for part of this tragedy because of the policy of not allowing firearms inside the establishment. As many as six law officers were inside working as security while off duty. None of them were able to carry a gun because of the owners policy.

      1. She would have been thankful to that person for saving her son and all the others as well. I’m alive as well as my daughter because I had my husband’s weapon and knew how to use it!

    3. California establishments (bars, public venues like sporting events, concerts, etc) can and almost always do have a no-firearms-in-their-businesses policy, even if the off-duty officers will not be drinking. California enabled this right for private businesses, even if the officer has a CCW. In addition, most departments have a no drinking while armed policy.

    4. @JimmyHeadstream; You are right Ft. Hood all military training plus the restrictions of personal weapons have to be secured at the armory has been in effect since I was in the service in the late 60’s to present, my son is still in and he says it is still in effect today, same falls true for police in certain locations when off duty how sad! @JDC; Thanks for your service from another Vet, I didn’t make a career of the military, I was Army Infantry, and know about cold meals and missing what other people got to see and do that we didn’t! @ Don Bailey; I’m old enough to have seen this come down, and the politicians can’t see or understand why this is the problem, and help is not readily available to help these people!

    5. JDCThank you for your service and your dedication to freedomFolks today don’t know how to appreciate what you had to go through back in the “old days “some of us do ,appreciate it /watch your six/1776

      1. LMAO OK it’s true this is the old west cowboys Indians Mexicans people from back east you name it strapdown cause theres a lot of varmints out there partner

    6. Proven true again! It takes a good guy “WITH” a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun every time!!! Sad but proven once again! Six very good guys (off duty LEO’s) without their guns unable to stop shooter! Not a lot different from Fort Hood Texas – we train our people to use weapons to protect and defend us then remove their right to carry making them just as exposed to danger as every other unarmed person! Sad!

    7. As I tell every anti-gun zealot I meet, the only deterent against a terrorist with a gun is a response of equal or greater force. It’s been that way from the beginning of time. Gun free zones are an invitation for slaughter and since only the law abiding
      follow the laws this is what you get. Liberals want to disarm the criminally insane by disarming the lawful. Had someone been armed this wouldn’t have made the local news. Citizens are safer when criminals don’t know who’s armed.

    8. Blame the ACLU we used to have a system for mental problems, but the ACLU got in there and said the treatment was horrible and the patience had all kinds of rights so they cut them loose, the states were forced to shut down most of systems, so now you have independent shrinks doing the check-ups and with Doctor Patient clauses they don’t want to step on any bodies rights, so they say there is no problem!!!!!! Most bars and states have laws in place about carry and drinking, it is like government buildings, court houses, post offices, and police stations, plus any business that post no fire arms, not a right, it is a privilege, common sense think, also if it is posted I don’t support that business, I will not go unarmed!

      1. @willy d, your comment about the ACLU and the mentally ill is right on point. When legislation was rewritten to meet the liberal view of the ACLU, just about every stated funded mental health facility across the Nation was shut down. That was the starting point of when we had the hoards of homeless and individuals who refused to take their psych. medications because they then had the right to refuse to take them. These same individuals often go into our prison systems to be housed with the general prison population(unless they are violent). This is a sad fall-out for our mental health population, our society in general, — all created by liberals.

        1. During my time as a Correctional Officer there was a law that enables inmates to come off of their mental health meds so that they could be transferred to general population facilities. Some of them that transferred did ok but some of them had problems. I saw some of the ones that didn’t. They were doing whatever they had to do to get transferred back to !metal institutions to get back on their meds. They became a danger to themselves as well as the others around them.

      2. Hubby worked in state corrections when mental health officials changed the laws and many were released! They were unable to live on the outside as wouldn’t take their meds and needed the counseling. Now they are out there causing and breeding havoc.

    9. The mental health issue looms large here, but keep 2 things in mind:
      1. He WAS evaluated by cops and mental health professionals and deemed not to be a danger to himself or others, and,
      2. The mental health profession has NO reliable means to predict who will become violent in the future (without a HUGE number of false positives).
      So, when we start saying we want people evaluated for violence potential, we are often asking for the impossible. Going to a court directly is even worse. The judge has no way to predict future violence either, but will almost invariably err on the side of caution, ie, deprive the person of his gun rights, rather than face the public outcry that he failed to act to stop a potential act of violence. There’s almost NEVER any outcry if a judge simply deprives a person of his gun rights, so there’s no downside for the judge (who is often an elected official).

    10. Here in Ohio it is a felony for anyone to be armed while under the influence of alcohol, no exception for police officers. Many officers have been charged with this. With a felony on your record you cannot be a police officer. Other places don’t want to hire anyone with a felony as well You might go from a good career to working at McDonald’s and loosing your house.

      A police officer can also be charged carrying in a government building or any business that has no guns posted. Basically they have the same rights as Joe citizen when off duty. I have been a police officer for 38 years and I am very careful when and where I carry. Not a fan of potentially facing a liberal Judge who doesn’t like police and going to prison.

      1. @John, It should be a felony in every state for anyone to be armed, drive, or vote while under the influence of libtardedness.

    11. A lot of Police Departments have regulations against officers carrying off-duty in liquor establishments. That is the only reason I can think of why they were not armed.

    12. City or county attorneys, administrators (within or outside of the departments) will determine whether a LEO can carry off duty and/or while consuming alcohol. It is based on whether the governing body wants to accept the liability should the LEO become involved in certain actions. If the city/county has been forced to pay out large sums of money in the past for such activity then they may prohibit off duty personnel from carrying while drinking, appearing in a place that serves alcohol or something similar. The people making these determinations do not care about the citizens the officer is trying to assist but they do care about the bottom line thus their jobs. No administrator wants to face their boss to answer why $ XXXXX dollars was paid for an incident. Most administrators will pay millions to avoid a legal battle in court for fear of losing. The attorneys that take these cases know that and will squeeze the city/county for as much as possible because that is what these ????? do. The administrators agree to out of court pressure and settlements to avoid losing in court and still having to suffer the legal costs. They will agree to pay even if they have a good chance to win just to avoid a costly trial. These attorneys threaten the government with a drawn out legal battle to force a higher settlement.

      In the first year of law school you learn the best defendant (person or company) to sue is the one with the deepest pockets. The law student is reminded of this all through law school. I do not know if any of the off duty personnel were from a restrictive department but I know that prior to going dancing and drinking those officers considered if carrying their weapon was worth losing their job, home, family or whatever. When an off duty officer is around alcohol and something occurs their supervisors automatically assumed the officer was impaired. That officer is guilty in their eyes even if their blood alcohol tested .000. That assumption will prevent everything they do in the future. It will affect promotions, annual ratings and when ever they testify in court any defense attorney will raise the issue and imply the officer was drunk but the department covered it up. It may be false but the attorney has raised doubt in the eyes of the jury and that was their point in order to save their client.

    13. Would not be surprised if the unarmed officers were a result of some local bureacratic policy. Lessons learned, fools? I doubt it, if so. Shameful, short-sighted, and typical of these jurisdictions.

    14. Can’t wait to see the gun control legislation that will effectively eliminate crazy. I may be waiting a long time, but in the meantime a bunch of new laws restricting people from protecting themselves will be enacted.

    15. The bar is a “Posted Gun Free Zone”. The LEO’s present were off duty and working as Bar Security. The owner of the bar set a” no armed policy” on the security personnel. As a retired LEO, I would never take this type of gig without being armed. A friend who is a LAPD Lt. and lives in Thousand Oaks, provide me with this info.

      1. The bar owner needs to be taken to court for this poor decision. I have great empathy for these officers working off-duty to earn extra bucks, but they never should have agreed to accept the job under those conditions. You can only imagine how they feel after this has happened, just because of the bar owner’s stupid policy.

    16. Regardless of the law or rules. As I advised my Lt once when
      the brilliant idea of carrying an unloaded sidearm on duty. Hopefully you made a lot of copies of punishment forms for disobedience to policyance . Have a gun or two.

    17. Here’s an other one like all the rest, people knew he was loony but nobody did anything about it! But, yeah, let’s make more helpless, defenseless victims by disarming even more law-abiding citizens! As we all know, the proper response to a threat of violence is to immediately disarm. Gutless morons!

      1. Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder for some of us warriors is a real monster to battle. The country ship guys out but will do little to really put our the that these guys need. Most people here in America don’t care it’s not a family member or a close friend! The numbers tell it all, under one percent will serve in the military. This careless attitude runs back to the Vietnam War, and it continues to this day. And, yes, I am a Vietnam War veteran. I saw it first hand when I returned to America two years later after I left Vietnam; 11/1970-11/1971. PTSD!

    18. In my state LEOs are allowed to drink alcohol while carrying. Private citizens can’t CC and drink, but are allowed to drink while OC. The caveat being that one cannot be under the influence and carry.

      A relative, now former LEO, would not carry if he was going to drink, even though he legally could. It could well be these officers, even if they were allowed, also thought that carrying and drinking is not a good idea. Tragically their decision not to carry, allowed or not, cost many lives.

      Many believe that the likelihood of something bad happening is so low that it is not worth being prepared for. Unfortunately we keep reading about tragic events that could have been prevented or stopped if someone was adequately prepared. This is why I carry when I can and use situational awareness. I don’t want to be that statistic.

    19. If only one of the off duty cops was carrying their firearm this may have ended much sooner, how can a cop defend themselves if they run into someone they may put in jail and has a grudge against the cop?
      Stupid to put yourself in that type of situation.

      1. @Missouri Born, Wow, just read your comments and felt your frustration. You must wonder why the six off-duty officers were unarmed. If you and I are frustrated by their actions, then you can imagine how they must now feel after everything was said and done. After all, a certified peace officer is on duty 24/7 and yet they all disarmed themselves. You must wonder if this is a policy of their own department, or if it was their own decision to un-arm themselves. I’ll bet they never put themselves in that same position again. If it is a policy of the department they work for, maybe they need to find employment elsewhere.

    20. Can’t carry if you are consuming alcohol. That was the first thing my instructor told us at CWP class.
      We are ALL living under a media magnifying glass in the Y2K.
      A few decades ago, carry in a bar was OK for off-duty LEOs.
      They were regarded as very disciplined, trained, controled professionals.
      Results were the main objective then and that was what mattered to the community.
      The only thing that matters nowadays is procedure.
      Sad times when the media can convict you before the facts ever get revealed.
      This POS knew no one could carry a weapon in a bar, same as in a movie theatre, same as at a school.
      Easy targets.

    21. If citizens are not allowed to be armed, then government employees should not be armed. No special privileges for those among us of such low morals and suspect character that they take government employment so they can live off the sweat of the citizen’s brow.

      1. Chris Mallory you are a rectal orifice of a maggot. People of low morals and character don’t run towards gunshots. They run away. Now go back to watching your recorded episodes of The View and Cheetos.

        1. If you want to live off the sweat of some one else’s brow, then you are scum. All cops are just lying welfare queens. I don’t eat cheetos and have never watched the view.

          Government employment should not give special privileges, PERIOD.

      2. IDIOT. If you have never worked for the government, or serve in the military you are a “useful idiot” propagandized by who knows who.

        1. I did serve in the military. One enlistment was enough to show me that it was a sucker’s bet. I have spent the rest of my life doing productive work for people who voluntarily pay me for my services. Now jump back to your knees and worship your government thugs.

          1. @Chris Mallory, a suckers bet? I think that you did not do it right. All one has to do is focus on what they want you to learn and do what they want you to do, and then the military keeps offering opportunities. I went from slick sleeve 12b, to LTC. Got three college degrees cumulating in a doctorate. Set up for my next career. Two federal pensions. Got to see the crappiest parts of the world so that I have something to compare the US to, and a huge appreciation for the Republic of Texas.

      3. EXCUSE ME!!!!! You didn’t really just say that did you? So every single person who puts their life on the line for you has low morals and suspect character? Wow!!! That has to be one of the stupidest statements I’ve ever heard! Our first responders and military do a tough, mostly thankless job. The fact that cretins like you say crap like this is in excusable. By the way, you probably never thought about it but they are also citizens and pay taxes just like the rest of us!

        1. They put their lives on the line for their bloated paychecks, platinum benefits and early retirements. I don’t need or want their protection.

      4. I am a “government employee.”. I have no special privileges at all. I have a state issued CCW. Government Officers of Law are allowed to carry in all states as they are deemed well trained and always “On Duty.”. In my state they are allowed to carry in schools and other gun free zones. I am glad at least someone is allowed to. You should be too.

      5. I was a government employee for 34 years.

        My “special privileges” were to get shot at in two wars, miss the birth of my second child because I was deployed, fighting in one of those with JSOC. I ate cold food when I had time to eat, and lousy coffee that had been on a burner for hours longer than it should have been. That is, if we got alongside another ship to resupply.

        One of the very first Indian Ocean cruises I made, before we had logistics established, we missed the resupply, due to a hard Suez Canal transit time. We lived off dried stores (no fresh veggies, meat, milk, or eggs) for 100 days and no port calls.

        When we did pull into port it was in some not so nice place where the US wanted to show the flag. I can’t tell you how many port calls we lost over the years because of a crisis somewhere and they sent an aircraft carrier filled with those “privileged government employees” like me.

        I worked a typical 60-70 hour week, except when deployed when I was “privileged” to work an 18 hour day minimum. As Operations officer of an aircraft carrier, I was responsible for the safety and daily operations of a mobile airfield and worked 20 hour days until my health started giving out. I’ve ejected out of an aircraft at over 500mph, shot missiles and been engaged in return. My back, knees and right shoulder tell me every time a weather front moves through.

        In the Carter years, we were paid below the poverty line. A lot of times in those early years, I would window shop at the Navy Exchange because I didn’t have two nickels to rub together, and knew I had to put gas in the car. Yet I made some of the best friends and allies anyone could ask for. One, my best friend in the Navy went out one night off the coast of Sri Lanka and along with his 3 other crewmen, didn’t come back. He was my squadron CO, and someone I’d worked for during 3 tours. We were like brothers. I got to pack up my “brother’s” stateroom and give his eulogy in front of the entire ship. I was 31 years old.

        I taught as an ethics professor at a Big 10 school and commissioned young Marines and Naval Officers for 3 years at the end of my career.

        So, Mr. Mallory, I won’t compare jobs, pedigrees, education, morals, hours worked, nor privilege with you on this Veterans Day. I will wish you well, and hope that maybe, just maybe you are a bit ashamed at what you wrote..

        My real “privilege” was to see the dedication of the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Coasties, and Marines I served with. My daughter and son-in-law continue that legacy of service today, and are on watch today. They defend what “privileges” you have.

        1. JDC, thank you endlessly for your service. Please rest assured, this Veteran’s Day, that many civilians honor and respect you for your service and sacrifice. Please ignore those who don’t, as the rest of us will continue to support you service members. The selfless sacrifices, as you so greatly described, are what keep this country going forward and ahead of all great nations. God Bless America.

          1. Thanks for your thoughts, Mr. Mallory. There is not a lot of discussion to be had with you , and certainly not a civil one.

            I’ve always thought it interesting that people will say things on line that would get them poked in the nose if they had the courage to say it in person.

            Guess I join the ranks of other “glorified welfare queens” like George Washington, Teddy Roosevelt, and Dwight David Eisenhower, Arleigh Burke, George Patton and Jim Mattis.

            I suspect that your one tour in the military was less than satisfactory, and your resulting DD or OTH soured you for life. Just a guess. Hopefully we won’t be reading about you in the papers for your own exploits anytime soon.

            I could go on, but don’t need to waste more time with you. Goodbye and good luck.

    22. The crazy types just don’t like country music do they??one good guy armed would confuse this guy enough that he would have either left or been shotPolice officers that don’t carry a firearm 24 hours a day regardless of what somebody says are just stupid admittedly doorstop commonsense would tell yet law doesn’t kick in and kick off on a schedule

    23. California law is like many, you may not carry concealed while consuming alcohol. Rules are slightly different for Peace Officers. Seems to be depending upon the dept.

      I haven’t found what this police dept’s policy was but found this about CA LEO in a different area (NOT the area where the bar killings occurred):

      “Under state law, a sworn peace officer can carry a gun while off duty, but some departments, including the Sheriff’s Department, the Oceanside Police Department and the Carlsbad Police Department, curtail that right if the off-duty officer is drinking alcohol.”

      Certainly, having 6 armed cops in the place would have reduced the killer’s ability to pick targets at will, post to Facebook, and reload.

    24. The Law Enforcement Safety Act does not necessarily allow off duty or retired officers to carry in restricted areas. In State officers, active on and off duty are regulated by state and departmental regulations. For example, a department may restrict any carry when drinking. Others may have BAC limits of .02 or .94. In my last agency, I changed the regulations from no alcohol within 4 hours to .02 to at least allow a glass or two wine or beer when off duty with a legal presumption of sobriety. Prior to the change, they would not risk departmental punishment even when going out armed to dinner with a spouse or date if the were to only have one drink.
      My daughter has a CCW in Virginia which restricts CCW carriers in bars while drinking.
      Personally, my days having more than two drinks out are pretty much over. If I did go out with other COPs one of us was the designated driver and gun bearer. In today’s environment most young COPs would rather go unarmed while partying than risk losing their jobs which is a real possibility. It is tragic and I am sure if the report is true, they will be dealing with this for a long time.

    25. Notice the danger of being in a gun free zone…Thanks to commy libturds for the radical laws that are allowing mass murders to happen two-three times a week..

    26. Again and again and again, mass shooting in a GUN-FREE ZONE; this time in a place where even off-duty cops were apparently required to be GUN-FREE. When will the insanity end? When we stand up to the panty-waists and demand the right of self defense EVERYWHERE, that’s when!
      The “mental health” system of this country is BROKEN and every nut cannot be identified and stopped before they go off because they are good at hiding it, and the “mental health” system is too panty-waist-ed to lock them up even when they are identified (ie Parkland). And by the way, it is now being reported that a high-school coach identified him as a nut BEFORE he joined the military, so you can’t even blame PTSD. The point is, the more society pushes the “mental health” system to molly-cot-tel people who are psychopathic, sociopathic, schizophrenic, etc. and leave them free among us, the more we the people are going to be left to defend ourselves from them.
      You do what you want, but I won’t go anywhere unarmed, and I won’t go any place that requires me to be unarmed. It the SHTF wherever I am, I will go down fighting if I have to to protect myself and those innocents around me. LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.

    27. Evil has no boundaries or respect for the Law. I blame the Lawmakers for getting this Officer killed. Fight fire with Fire. Liberalism is a disease. ‘Think Like a Cop ‘

    28. It blows my mind that not one of those off duty cops had a weapon. They should all lose their jobs. All the cops I know here in Florida wouldn’t be caught dead without their gun when off duty. Every one of them have said you really aren’t ever off duty, it’s just the same as we carry to protect ourselves and loved ones. They are protecting themselves and those they serve. Of course those cops out there don’t believe in concealed carry so they probably don’t want their officers to be armed when they are off duty either. If that’s the case, I hope the families of the victims sue the authorities. This could have been stopped a lot quicker with less or maybe no casualties.

      1. Keywords here were “wouldn’t be caught dead “thank God for Florida stand your ground law and the ability to still use our second amendment as communists close in on our Second Amendment rightsThis is the biggest fight of freedom’s lifeAmerican stand up to the illegals/ fraud voting here in Florida has gone rampant

    29. Could the shooter been under mind control he’s from the military and has the training. This attack was involving many of the witnesses from the HWY 91 festival where many believe there were multiple shooters and political connections. These events keep coming and police and FBI investigations are seriously flawed. One side wants to disarm the other side wants to arm everyone I have a feeling it’s going to trigger a civil rights uprising sooner than later.

    30. Many responsible gun owners won’t carry while they are drinking. Like the designated driver, what about a designated carrier?

      1. Kansas law might be of interest. Having a glass of wine with Thanksgiving or Christmas dinner out.
        KSA 21-6332. Possession of a firearm under the influence.
        (a) Possession of a firearm under the influence is knowingly possessing or carrying a loaded firearm on or about such person, or within such person’s immediate access and control while in a vehicle, while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or both, to such a degree as to render such person incapable of safely operating a firearm.
        (b) Possession of a firearm under the influence is a class A nonperson misdemeanor.
        (c) This section shall not apply to:
        (1) A person who possesses or carries a firearm while in such person’s own dwelling or place of business or on land owned or possessed by such person; or
        (2) the transitory possession or use of a firearm during an act committed in self-defense or in defense of another person or any other act committed if legally justified or excused, provided such possession or use lasts no longer than is immediately necessary.
        (d) If probable cause exists for a law enforcement officer to believe a person is in possession of a firearm under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or both, such law enforcement officer shall request such person submit to one or more tests of the person’s blood, breath, urine or other bodily substance to determine the presence of alcohol or drugs. The selection of the test or tests shall be made by the officer.
        (e) (1) If a law enforcement officer requests a person to submit to a test of blood under this section, the withdrawal of blood at the direction of the officer may be performed only by:
        (A) A person licensed to practice medicine and surgery, licensed as a physician’s assistant, or a person acting under the direction of any such licensed person;
        (B) a registered nurse or a licensed practical nurse;
        (C) any qualified medical technician, including, but not limited to, an emergency medical technician-intermediate, mobile intensive care technician, an emergency medical technician-intermediate/defibrillator, an advanced emergency medical technician or a paramedic, as those terms are defined in K.S.A. 65-6112, and amendments thereto, authorized by medical protocol; or
        (D) a phlebotomist.
        (2) A law enforcement officer may direct a medical professional described in this subsection to draw a sample of blood from a person if the person has given consent or upon meeting the requirements of subsection (d).
        (3) When so directed by a law enforcement officer through a written statement, the medical professional shall withdraw the sample as soon as practical and shall deliver the sample to the law enforcement officer or another law enforcement officer as directed by the requesting law enforcement officer as soon as practical, provided the collection of the sample does not jeopardize the person’s life, cause serious injury to the person or seriously impede the person’s medical assessment, care or treatment. The medical professional authorized herein to withdraw
        25
        the blood and the medical care facility where the blood is drawn may act on good faith that the requirements have been met for directing the withdrawing of blood once presented with the written statement provided for under this subsection. The medical professional shall not require the person to sign any additional consent or waiver form. In such a case, the person authorized to withdraw blood and the medical care facility shall not be liable in any action alleging lack of consent or lack of informed consent.
        (4) Such sample or samples shall be an independent sample and not be a portion of a sample collected for medical purposes. The person collecting the blood sample shall complete the collection portion of a document provided by law enforcement.
        (5) If a sample is to be taken under authority of a search warrant, and the person must be restrained to collect the sample pursuant to this section, law enforcement shall be responsible for applying any such restraint utilizing acceptable law enforcement restraint practices. The restraint shall be effective in controlling the person in a manner not to jeopardize the person’s safety or that of the medical professional or attending medical or health care staff during the drawing of the sample and without interfering with medical treatment.
        (6) A law enforcement officer may request a urine sample upon meeting the requirements of subsection (d).
        (7) If a law enforcement officer requests a person to submit to a test of urine under this section, the collection of the urine sample shall be supervised by:
        (A) A person licensed to practice medicine and surgery, licensed as a physician’s assistant, or a person acting under the direction of any such licensed person;
        (B) a registered nurse or a licensed practical nurse; or
        (C) a law enforcement officer of the same sex as the person being tested.
        The collection of the urine sample shall be conducted out of the view of any person other than the persons supervising the collection of the sample and the person being tested, unless the right to privacy is waived by the person being tested. When possible, the supervising person shall be a law enforcement officer. The results of qualitative testing for drug presence shall be admissible in evidence and questions of accuracy or reliability shall go to the weight rather than the admissibility of the evidence. If the person is medically unable to provide a urine sample in such manner due to the injuries or treatment of the injuries, the same authorization and procedure as used for the collection of blood in paragraphs (2) and (3) shall apply to the collection of a urine sample.
        (8) The person performing or assisting in the performance of any such test and the law enforcement officer requesting any such test who is acting in accordance with this section shall not be liable in any civil and criminal proceeding involving the action.
        (f) (1) The person’s refusal shall be admissible in evidence against the person at any trial on a charge arising out of possession of a firearm under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or both.
        (2) Failure of a person to provide an adequate breath sample or samples as directed shall constitute a refusal unless the person shows that the failure was due to physical inability caused by a medical condition unrelated to any ingested alcohol or drugs.
        (3) In any criminal prosecution for a violation of this section, if the court finds that a person refused to submit to testing when requested pursuant to this section, the county or district attorney, upon petition to the court, may recover on behalf of the state, in addition to the criminal penalties provided in this section, a civil penalty not exceeding $1,000 for each violation.
        (g) If a person who holds a valid license to carry a concealed handgun issued pursuant to K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 75-7c01 et seq., and amendments thereto, is convicted of a violation of this section,
        26
        such person’s license to carry a concealed handgun shall be revoked for a minimum of one year for a first offense and three years for a second or subsequent offense.
        (h) In any criminal prosecution for possession of a firearm under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or both, evidence of the concentration of alcohol or drugs in the defendant’s blood, urine, breath or other bodily substance may be admitted and shall give rise to the following:
        (1) If the alcohol concentration is less than .08, that fact may be considered with other competent evidence to determine if the defendant was under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or both.
        (2) If the alcohol concentration is .08 or more, it shall be prima facie evidence that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol.
        (3) If there was present in the defendant’s bodily substance any narcotic, hypnotic, somnifacient, stimulating or other drug which has the capacity to render the defendant incapacitated, that fact may be considered to determine if the defendant was under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or both.
        (i) The provisions of subsection (h) shall not be construed as limiting the introduction of any other competent evidence bearing upon the question of whether or not the defendant was under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or both.
        (j) Upon the request of any person submitting to testing under this section, a report of the results of the testing shall be made available to such person.
        History: L. 2014, ch. 97, § 6; July 1.

        Having a “a drink” is not getting staggering drunk. Notice that Kansas vehicle DUI and concealed carry follow the same standard.

      2. Sounds good in theory but what ever happened to responsible drinker’s?We just seem to have to go overboard on everything don’t we?maybe that’s part of America’s problem

    31. The killer was a graduate, combat experience Marine. What ever was wrong with his mind, he knew that officers would soon be arriving. His experience would have taught him to watch the door. It is even possible that he had previous contact with Deputy Sgt Helus and knew his patrol schedule. It might not have been an accident.
      But clearly, California attitudes and laws about guns and safety are not safe.
      Reports are that the door screener who was unarmed and was there to keep under age girls and boys out and not defend anybody.
      Inside the club, six officers were drinking [ assumed ] and so did not carry. Friends have a designated driver, maybe cops need a dedicated armed guard.
      Mayors and county commissiners probably don’t go to clubs without a squad of armed security.

    32. I live in Michigan and based on what a few police officer friends have told me here, they are “required” to carry when off duty. Either way I am saddened by this loss of life.

    33. I worked in Law enforcement in Florida for over 36 full years. I retired as a Captain. I’ve written two (2) non-fiction (True Crime) books and now I also do a monthly newsletter. It can be found via my web site at: http://www.badge149.com
      I was very interested in the claim that “Six Un-Armed Off-Duty Police (were) Inside Bar during Thousand Oaks Shooting.” I’m not doubting your reporting, though, but I find it very disturbing that I have not seen this same claim mentioned in any other media source (which doesn’t surprise me, I might add). I would like to learn more about this and even include this information in my next newsletter. And, of course, any information that I happen to learn from you, I will mention in my newsletter that it came from you. Thank you for your fine work.

    34. Finally, someone ferreted this out. I heard it yesterday on Headline news.

      Consider this; The Deputy that responded first took only 3 minutes to arrive. He was a certified weapons trainer and a SWAT member. Let’s face it, this brave officer was one of the best that could have been sent in…It saddens my heart that he lost his life to a disillusioned puke. However it illuminates a bigger reality.

      3 minutes is about the time of a good rock, blues or country song, but if you just stop for 3 minutes and watch the clock, it’s an eternity. If you are under live fire, it’s a lifetime. 1, 2 or even better, 10 armed patrons in this venue, and this pukester would have been down in seconds, not minutes.

      1. Above goes to show how dangerous being in a gun free zone can be…Those six off dutys wood probably lose their jobs if caught CC…Thank our commy libturds for that..

      2. You’re very likely correct. At a minimum, he’d have been distracted and changed his plans, even if he didn’t completely stop. It seems like most of these incidents continue until something or someone changes the murderous thug’s focus, and he offs himself. The earlier that happens, the better. More armed resistance obviously gets this done faster. I’m sure he was absolutely conscious of the FACT that this bar was going to be gun free, except for his…

    Leave a Comment 79 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *