Ambulance personnel divided

Now from what I understand of MA law - it is not illegal to have firearms IN YOUR HOUSE without a license (somebody please correct me on this if I am wrong) - but the problem is that you cannot remove them from the house at all. So (if this is true) - the thing that got this guy was the transportation, not the possession. So the first cop gave him bad advice. Then the second cop didn't feel like giving him a break.

No, you cannot possess in your home without a license. If you have an expired (not revoked) license, and a renewal has not been denied, the penalty for possession is a civil fine of between $500 and $5000. Furthermore, the procisions of Chapter 269 section 10 shall not apply, and this civil offense shall not be a reason for disqualification of a renewal (MGL Chapter 140 Section 10-m).

So,

(a) The arrest for a civil offense was improper

(b) The individual committed the alleged offense after being told it was legal to do so by a police officer acting in official capacity, so even if it were a crime, he'd have the basis for an entrapment by estoppel defense. From Wikipedia "As described in United States v. Howell, 37 F.3d 1197, 1204 (1994), the defense "applies when, acting with actual or apparent authority, a government official affirmatively assures the defendant that certain conduct is legal and the defendant reasonably believes that official."

----------------------------------------------

Back on topic -

The EMT issue is another reason every eligible individual in your family should have an LTC. If I feel the big cramp and am conscious while the EMTs are on the way, I'll give my gun to any nearby LTC holder I trust.

EMTs should be taught basic firearms safety so they know how to make a gun safe, and also understand why one won't just go off by itself it it's in a holster. If the opportunity presents itself, GOAL should consider pushing for a law to give EMTs acting in a medical capacity immunity from gun possession charges as long as they summon police or a license holder to take possession of the gun with a reasonable time after taking it from a patient.
 
Last edited:
I wonder how often an illegal or unregistered firearm is discovered? In other words, is it likely that most call outs involving EMTs and firearms are to permit holders, or to BGs?

If it's BGs, I'd fully support the idea of protecting ones self by waiting for an LEO or similar.

Also curious as to how many times the EMTs arrive after the police, anyway. I've lived in MA for about 20 years and CT for about 15 and it generally seems like when I see an ambulance at a scene, the cops are there first anyway. In CT it seems like the cops ARE the first medical responders in a lot of cases.

This is all from anecdotal observation and not a huge sample.
 
My first request of an EMT would be to render aid and keep the hands off the firearm if it is holstered. As discussed in numerous thread in this forum there are many states of readiness that a weapon could be in. From nothing in the chamber, cocked and locked, several others and then there is always to self firing, exploding Glocks, in my case. Unless someone is well versed in the safe handling of a loaded weapon messing with it for no reason could quickly make a bad situation much worse.
 
Also curious as to how many times the EMTs arrive after the police, anyway. I've lived in MA for about 20 years and CT for about 15 and it generally seems like when I see an ambulance at a scene, the cops are there first anyway. In CT it seems like the cops ARE the first medical responders in a lot of cases.

It depends on the call and system. I have worked in places where an ambulance, engine and cruiser get sent to every medical/trauma call regardless of type. If it is someone having chest pain, there is a decent chance the ABC's of EMS will apply. Not airway, breathing, circulation but ambulance before cruiser. On the other hand car accidents and domestics will generally get the cops first.
 
To me, the biggest surprise about that EMT thread is how many insist that they won't do their job unless their absolute safety is guaranteed by a third party. The fact that EMTs are rolling on a call is a clue that there is a high probability that someone's safety has already been compromised. If they want guarantees and a safe life, they probably picked the wrong profession.
<headshake>Agree. This attitude is wrong on so many levels
 
Well, I have some experience in this area. I have to agree with Ryan. The people with the biggest voice (especially on EMTLife) are those who appear to be very conservative..

It seemed like the most vocal wasn't even an EMT, but a student who had never even worked the job.
People unfamiliar with firearms tend to be brainwashed that guns just "go off" on their own which leads to this unfounded fear of an inanimate object. Oddly enough, whenever I see someone unfamiliar with a gun pick one up, they ALWAYS put their finger right on the trigger.
 
It seemed like the most vocal wasn't even an EMT, but a student who had never even worked the job.
People unfamiliar with firearms tend to be brainwashed that guns just "go off" on their own which leads to this unfounded fear of an inanimate object. Oddly enough, whenever I see someone unfamiliar with a gun pick one up, they ALWAYS put their finger right on the trigger.

But I thought Glocks explode? I don't bother with that site anymore. While I have no problems helping students and newbies, there are a few people who refuse to see any other side of a debate. The unfortunate part is the guy I think makes the most sense gets berated.
 
Well, I have some experience in this area. I have to agree with Ryan. The people with the biggest voice (especially on EMTLife) are those who appear to be very conservative. I personally don't care either way if someone is armed on the back of the EA. There have been people that declared they were armed and some have not. I personally would rather some let me know. There are 2 specific situations, other than some already presented, where I personally would request the police to disarm someone.

The first is an unconscious LEO. Granted this may seem like a no-brainer but if a cop is unconscious and then becomes conscious he will go to his hip.

The second is someone with altered mental status. Normal, good people to really strange things when altered especially folks who are hypoglycemic. Some tend to be violent.

Some may say they would sue me or hope that I would lose my ticket, but bottom line is I WILL go home to my family in the morning.



I am excluding people who are exhibiting some sort of psychotic break. Chances are those people's body don't full realize what has happened to it (kind of like how a dude hopped up on drugs will outlast a gun shot to keep fighting more than a regular person). But if a person is lying there, in need of serious medical help, and there is a gun present, but nothing hinting that the EMT won't be safe, then yeah, that EMT better get in there and do his job.
 
I am excluding people who are exhibiting some sort of psychotic break. Chances are those people's body don't full realize what has happened to it (kind of like how a dude hopped up on drugs will outlast a gun shot to keep fighting more than a regular person). But if a person is lying there, in need of serious medical help, and there is a gun present, but nothing hinting that the EMT won't be safe, then yeah, that EMT better get in there and do his job.

I don't disagree. The presence of a weapon, gun or other, alone does not deem a situation unsafe IMO.
 
I wondered about this as well. I work in a hospital and we have a lock box for weapons brought in by patients.

But if you think of it I would really rather not have an untrained person handling my weapon, although I would not want them to not treat me because it is on me. I say if it's holstered and the EMT/Medic doesn't have to go around my hip to treat me and I am not drugged up (by them of course) then leave it where it is until proper personnel arrive (LE)
 
Well I can't speak for rural areas but around here(metrowest/ Boston) police are on scene well before the ambulance pulls up. In most cases.
 
The overriding requirement - Job One is "Scene Safety." The agency where the EMT works might have a policy on it. Depending on the circumstances, the EMT can call police to take possession of the firearm. Personally, if someone is unconscious I probably won't approach the person without police present. For all I know the person can awaken with altered mental status and shoot me. Person can shoot me anyway, could be a set up. Additionally, depending on the situation I may not want to handle the patient's gun - a ND through my partner or through a 20K Cardiac Monitor will result in much paperwork. Common sense always prevails. Case by case.

This sounds cold: fear keeps you alive but panic kills you.

1. It's not my emergency
2. before I do something stupid, I go back to rule number 1.
 
Nice.

I was responding to the OP though, & I'm still wondering how an EMT that approaches a scene, sees a woman laying motionless & bleeding profusely from her head, can determine if that bulge in my coat pocket is a Seecamp or an Ipod.

There are ways. In addition to my initial response to this question, there are any multitude of situations that could lead to it. Depending on how the weapon is concealed. If the weapon is in a hip holster with a jacket or sweatshirt covering that opens up or pulls up revealing the weapon is one example. I just think it is a possibility.
 
This all depends entirely on the situation. Chances are I don't see why it would be an issue if I am just going on a medical/trauma call and a law abiding citizen has a firearm on him. If the patient or someone around the patient is concerning me with a firearm then chances are the police would have arrived ahead of us anyways or we would have staged waiting for them. I think emts can figure out a reasonable plan to deal with a firearm carried by a peaceful person during an emergency. If it is a low priority call and we are in the home, stow it before we go. Does everyone here realize that the typical ems call is for "emergencies" that most people would just drive themselves to the hospital. If it is a pri 1 call the police are going to show up anyways, same thing for an mva and they can deal with. If we are allready transporting the pt during the discovery I'd just secure it for him as firearms are not allowed in the ER and give it to the security guard. You'd be hard pressed to find a day were at least half of my FD does not have an LTC same thing with hospital security staff so that is not a big issue. I have seen this happen it it is a non issue. If I am worried about some scum bag we ask the pd to search them before transport or send a cop with us. There is always the chance that someone can pull a gun way out of the blue while you are treating them and that is why the pd goes first for psychs and suicidals. They have bullet proof vests and guns for that we don't. Use common sense, safety, and sops.


Am I misunderstanding this comment? "Personally, if someone is unconscious I probably won't approach the person without police present."
If not I don't know where to start.
 
I wonder how often an illegal or unregistered firearm is discovered? In other words, is it likely that most call outs involving EMTs and firearms are to permit holders, or to BGs?

I had the exact same question. Earlier today I called a family member who's been an EMT/paramedic in Mass. for 15+ years, working everything from tiny towns to massive cities. He told me that in all that time, the only time they've run into someone lawfully carrying a gun were injured, on duty cops.

Yes, I know that's just one person's experience, too. [laugh]

But he's been to multiple homicides, suicides, shootings, gang fights, etc. where people involved have guns. He's a pro-gun guy, so he wouldn't blink if someone were lawfully carrying (in fact, he said that sometimes if the cops injuries don't allow the duty belt to be removed, they've removed the gun from the holster and passed it off to another cop), but I'd imagine that EMS staff are people just like the rest of the world. Some are very into guns, some pee a little when they see a picture of one, some are in between.

But I think it's important to look at it from their point of view as well. If 100% of the time you deal with guns as EMS on someone who's not a cop it's illegal, chances are, especially if you're not a gun person, you're going to respond like some of the people in that thread.

I'm not endorsing their choices, but I'm speaking as someone who's never had to work on a patient in a bumpy ambulance with a pistol in the mix, so I'll give the professionals a little bit of leeway.

The overriding requirement - Job One is "Scene Safety." The agency where the EMT works might have a policy on it.

+1 to the whole post, but to these two points in particular. An overly-brave medic can become a 2nd patient if they read a situation wrong, which makes a bad situation worse.

That, and company policies are generally well intentioned, but are often written by desk jockeys who can only imagine the situations that they write about in employee handbooks.

I was responding to the OP though, & I'm still wondering how an EMT that approaches a scene, sees a woman laying motionless & bleeding profusely from her head, can determine if that bulge in my coat pocket is a Seecamp or an Ipod.

I think generally they wouldn't (obviously, it's concealed), but in the process of cutting off one's clothes, checking the body for injuries or dealing with a patient in general it could very easily come up, as 03roushs1 stated.
 
Before responding to this thread, I wanted to run this by my Fire Chief. Spoke with him yesterday and learned that some places have taken positive actions to avoid paranoia.

I was informed:

- That the FD sponsored a "firearms safety course" a while ago so that they could learn the proper safe handling of firearms if they run into them at a call. FFs were encouraged to get their own LTCs and many of them did so, so they can legally take possession of a patient's firearm if need be and secure it properly.

- Part of this was a desire to integrate better with the PD and LECs in case there is an active shooter scenario.

- The Fire Chief assured me that encountering an armed person in need of medical care would NOT be an impediment to that person receiving proper and timely care!!

I've known our Fire Chief (and his predecessor) for a lot of years, they are good people and I'm not surprised that they have their priorities straight and have the patient's best interests as "Priority One" in any emergency situation.
 
Before responding to this thread, I wanted to run this by my Fire Chief. Spoke with him yesterday and learned that some places have taken positive actions to avoid paranoia.

I was informed:

- That the FD sponsored a "firearms safety course" a while ago so that they could learn the proper safe handling of firearms if they run into them at a call. FFs were encouraged to get their own LTCs and many of them did so, so they can legally take possession of a patient's firearm if need be and secure it properly.

- Part of this was a desire to integrate better with the PD and LECs in case there is an active shooter scenario.

- The Fire Chief assured me that encountering an armed person in need of medical care would NOT be an impediment to that person receiving proper and timely care!!

I've known our Fire Chief (and his predecessor) for a lot of years, they are good people and I'm not surprised that they have their priorities straight and have the patient's best interests as "Priority One" in any emergency situation.

I am actually surprised the firearms statutes don't refer to "first responders" in some context and exempt them, for the period necessary, to possess another's firearm without repurcussions. It seems stupid that a firefighter or EMT who removes someone's gun, for the purpose of providing treatment, would be at risk for violating the firearms possession statutes. [thinking]

Perhaps common law necessity would prevail in that situation.
 
Or more likely, common sense. Police are unlikely to start a pissing contest with the people who would be responding if they where in a TA or shot while on the job. "Sorry, office, I can't stop the bleeding because there's a gun in my way."

Ken
 
I can honestly say, I never came across that scenario, other than the times cops were the patients..
 
Or more likely, common sense. Police are unlikely to start a pissing contest with the people who would be responding if they where in a TA or shot while on the job. "Sorry, office, I can't stop the bleeding because there's a gun in my way."

Ken

I agree that police are likely to be disinclined to arrest those that may one day save their life. However, if an EMT without an LTC or FID removes a firearm from someone to treat them and possesses said firearm on their person, then they would be committing a crime. No EMT should be faced with having to consider that to decide whether or not to treat someone.
 
How would you know if the injured party has a concealed sidearm? [thinking]

If they are injured severely enough, you find out when you cut their clothes off to examine them. When the jacket hits the floor with a lout THUD it's a giveaway. Or, when you see it sticking out of their waste band, while taking off their jacket.

Sometimes, if they're gang members, all you'll find is an empty holster as either a friend or an enemy has removed the firearm itself before anyone showed up.

It's never bothered me, although I do relieve any armed patient of their weapon. That's only because if they are unconscious or semi conscious they may wake up and instinctively reach for their firearm. That includes POs, if another officer hasn't secured the weapon yet.

I don't unload them, I don't "make them safe", I don't even touch them without gloves on. That's on the odd chance that there is a crime involved and the firearm is evidence.

I also don't ask if they have a LTC since I don't care.

I was responding to the OP though, & I'm still wondering how an EMT that approaches a scene, sees a woman laying motionless & bleeding profusely from her head, can determine if that bulge in my coat pocket is a Seecamp or an Ipod.

Just because you have a head injury and are bleeding from it does not preclude you from having other injuries. If you are unconscious, it is very likely that you do. In that case, once any immediately life threatening conditions are corrected, I am going to move you from the ground into the ambulance. There, all of your clothes will be removed, by cutting them off if necessary. Not doing a thorough physical exam, which requires removal of clothing, is negligent at the least. I can relate a dozen cases where EMTs didn't do what I just described and failed to find serious injuries. I know of two or three where the patient died from them.

During process, it's very likely that whatever is in your pocket is going to hit the floor. Again, I've had that happen. No big deal to me since I'm comfortable with guns, but I do put them in a secure place until a PO shows up to take it from me. And yes, I have recovered what later proved to be a murder weapon doing that.

I am actually surprised the firearms statutes don't refer to "first responders" in some context and exempt them, for the period necessary, to possess another's firearm without repurcussions. It seems stupid that a firefighter or EMT who removes someone's gun, for the purpose of providing treatment, would be at risk for violating the firearms possession statutes.

I've never even heard it mentioned in 31 years in the field. On the contrary, I've been thanked for securing weapons and no one has asked me if I had a LTC. Contrary to what some people think, cops aren't stupid and they aren't looking to arrest people for shit that a DA would laugh at them for. Not to mention the shit that they'd take from their PS.

In fact, I'd be more concerned that some office bound idiot in my own agency would make an issue of it because we have a "no weapons" policy. Even that is pretty far fetched.

Or more likely, common sense. Police are unlikely to start a pissing contest with the people who would be responding if they where in a TA or shot while on the job. "Sorry, office, I can't stop the bleeding because there's a gun in my way."

Ken

This. The old time cops, all retired, most dead, loved when EMTs came along and relieved them of ambulance duty. They hated it, mostly because they were helpless to do anything for the patients except bounce them in the back of the paddy wagon while driving like hell for the hospital. Which is pretty much a quote I heard dozens of times early in my career.

An interesting fact I think in this case would be to know how many combat medics have been shot by the person they are treating. That would give you a good indication of how dangerous an armed person would be to treat. Not only that but in the case of the combat medics any weapon they come across would be loaded and the safety most likely off, not just sitting idly in a holster.

Good question. I don't know, but I can find out if someone really wants to know. From what I've seen and heard second hand, injured people who are not capable of using their weapon to defend themselves are relieved of weapons. When I was doing some basic level medical support for a law enforcement agency, we trained to secure the weapons if another operator wasn't there to do it for us. That's just once agency, non military, so I won't make a general statement.

Depending on what branch and the specific MOS of the medic, some of them are armed and are operators in addition to medics. They are well versed in handling weapons.

Then again, I don't know how or if that translates to the civilian world where most people don't train as much and aren't as disciplined.
 
All I have to say is that if an EMT refuses to treat me because I have a weapon and I'm facing certain death as a result of his/her failure to use common sense, I'm going to use every last bit of my strength to shoot the bastard in the back and take him/her with me.


Disclaimer: Of course I'm kidding. I would never shoot anyone, not even a real bad guy since all criminals are really just disadvantaged and their actions are not their fault. My gun is only for show.
 
I am actually surprised the firearms statutes don't refer to "first responders" in some context and exempt them, for the period necessary, to possess another's firearm without repurcussions. It seems stupid that a firefighter or EMT who removes someone's gun, for the purpose of providing treatment, would be at risk for violating the firearms possession statutes. [thinking]

Perhaps common law necessity would prevail in that situation.

I would agree that this should probably be addressed in law but what LEO is going to arrest one of his towns EMT's or firefighters for something like this? This exact situation has certainly happened before and i've never heard of a first responder being charged with illegal possession of a firearm under these circumstances.
 
I'm an LEO, and I'll go it one better, when I or any other LEO get hurt in my city, when we get to the hospital they won't even look at us until we give our belt to the responding Sgt. This is the one instance that I can't carry concealed. Any other circumstances that I have to go to the hospital I'm strapped. And just to echo the prevailing sentiments here, If (God Forbid) I'm so sick or injured that I need to ride in an ambulance and because I'm exercising my 2A rights they deny me.......I'll own them, then I'll spread the word amongst my brethren and we'll see how long it takes to get to those calls in which we're needed. Traffic can be terrible at 4 am.
 
This. The old time cops, all retired, most dead, loved when EMTs came along and relieved them of ambulance duty. They hated it, mostly because they were helpless to do anything for the patients except bounce them in the back of the paddy wagon while driving like hell for the hospital. Which is pretty much a quote I heard dozens of times early in my career.

When I joined the PD we had station wagons with a litter in back and an oxygen tank. No adequate training to go with it. As Gary said, the motto was "you call, we haul, that's all!" Yes, we were very thankful when the FD took over those responsibilities and trained their men to be EMTs (and later Paramedics). I think that transition came just about the time I joined the PD IIRC.
 
and if they will not touch a person until LEO arrives, etc, and the person dies, I pray that the EMT/paramedic loses their job. I am *NOT* kidding. If I need medical attention like that, and you refuse me treatment roadside because of my firearm (which I have a permit for), you bet your ass I will make your life a living hell once I recover. Do EMTs and Paras have no obligation to do their job?!

+1

They may even find themselves forced to treat the patient at gunpoint. [angry]
 
Back
Top Bottom