Firefighter/EMT - Armed Ambulance Personnel Your Thoughts?

I’m a volunteer FF/EMT and business owner. We’ve had medics and EMT’s getting robbed and killed for pain meds in ambulances with no means to defend our apparatus/ambos. It’s even gotten as bad as stations getting robbed for equipment/medication seekers here in the MD are. What are your thoughts on having one designated person on each apparatus licensed to carry to defend against this growing issue?


That’s a new twist on it. Robbing the Fireman for drugs.


@KMO Welcome to the community! Have your Units discussed this with your Chiefs/Supervisors? This would be great if approved with the firearms training, and making changes in the company policies that cover prohibited firearms on the premises. If 39 states have the approval for teachers to qualify for conceal carry in schools, it should work for you first responders (FF/EMT) as well. First we all need to band together and fight for our 2A, and get rid of the gun control agenda. If all weapons are banned, how will we defend ourselves. Vote out this Administration! This gun control agenda does nothing to curve criminal violence, and only targets law abiding citizens. AS we all know, criminals DON’T OBEY the LAWS! Biden wants total civilian disarmament, and criminals will always, illegally, get firearms. So Unconstitutional.


If the police/law enforcement are not along with you on calls even after your problems, I’d check your state’s laws and make informed decisions.
In my personal opinion, meds should always be stored in locked, secured containers permanently attached to the ambulance/firetruck.
My father was a country doctor and carried certain meds in his little black case to temporarily ease immediate pain but, not enough to be worth crackheads, dopers to risk the definite penalties from local police, sheriff’s deputies and rangers for assaulting one of the few house call making doctor’s in the county.
Filthy immoral thieves ought to face credible resistance in a manner to reduce future depravities. Treatment might have a delayed effect on future activities if trained personnel were being cautious about approaching injured thieves for fear of attack.


You’re a volunteer in harm’s way. Kudos to you.

Just be mindful of how local laws view property crimes.
Then, proceed from there.



Cynic in my wants to say no. Not possible, because there are too many places that are illegal to carry in MD. You couldn’t even come close to doing your job becuase you couldn’t go where the victims/patients are without disarming first.

…because I’m tired of more protected classes of special people being created that get more Rights than the rest of us. The more people we exempt from bad laws, the harder it is to get rid of those bad laws.

Everyone else out there has to decide to be disarmed victims, or break the law and carry in case it saves their life…why should more government employees get special status?

Now, I say all of the above from the employee of the government perspective. Volunteer? I suppose that’s different…or is it? IDK.

IMO the problem is the laws making it illegal to carry all the places you might go and I don’t want more people exempted from the laws


Welcome and hell yes


Im not sure its a good idea…as a retired police officer i can say that during academy and in service training, it was taught over and over again about weapon retention and defeating a gun grab…FF/EMT will have both hands and their attention on a victim, not a possible assault on them…now the bad guys have the drugs and your weapon


Well, not a real problem… if an EMT is specified in law to carry, then it would work same as LEOs, who can and are expected to carry in all of those environments.


Yes, I know…bad laws that effect the rest of us are not a problem when government employees get to be a special class who is above the bad laws


This is not a new problem. As a retired paramedic with over 18 years experience, we faced this as far back as the early 80’s. Our training was first and foremost scene safety, if we did not feel safe we did not go in and waited for LEO. There are some places that it is required for medics to wear vest and there are some departments that do allow medics to carry. I always stated that if a druggie wanted the drugs I would draw every drug I had in a 50cc syringe and watch them inject then sit back and watch what happens.


First of all welcome and thanks for your service. Secondly fire arms are for saving lives like EMT’s. If your life is in danger than I would suggest getting a firearm. If not it doesn’t hurt to have one but not for saving stuff.


Welcome KMO! I admire when an employer is researching the safety and efficacy of allowing some of their employees to “carry”.

If done properly, I’d encourage “concealed”, with special training, and education. Not mandatory carry, but optional. Someone else shared, referring to carrying as a civil right.

Far too many employers prohibited it, thus - the good and honest worker has trouble “carrying” to and fro work during commutes.

At the very least, I wish employers would allow lockers, so employers can store them in.

A lot of workers in general like to have an adult beverage on the way home, there is where I’d be concerned – that they please don’t drink and “carry”.

At the same time, any and all other wrap-around strategies (as well) to safeguard EMS personnels’ safety.

Best of success to you.


Every red-blooded law abiding, I repeat law abiding , adult should be able to carry anywhere they go.

If a business that wants their criminal protection zone kept sacred should expect no service from law abiding Americans. Be they EMT, firemen, LEO, truck drivers bus drivers, whatever.

Why should anyone risk their own well being for someone that would rather keep criminals safe. Let the criminals take care of them. EMTs and others could keep their firearm concealed.
But to expect someone to go into some areas unarmed is just total insanity. It’s not like they actually have a choice whether to go there or not. The way this world has gone is shameful. The fact that there are criminal protection (gun free) zones is just outright virtue signaling. Do they believe that a gun free sign will keep law breaking criminals from entering armed? Pathetic. Or state laws that prohibit weapons on government (taxpayer’s) property?

Oh well you asked for our thoughts, these are mine.
Stay safe Brothers and Sisters-------------Geno.



Well, almost. Not quite anywhere. I’m good with not letting everybody carry into a criminal court proceeding, for example.

I’m also a little hung up on “law abiding” because, well…is a person who breaks the speed limit law abiding? That’s breaking the law, should one be prohibited from bearing arms if they break the speed limit?

Thoughts, those are what come to mind for me…we have to be really careful with the exact language used around goverment restrictions.


As a retired Municipal FF/PM in Md. I understand what you are going thru. I have come under attack 2 times in my career. Nearing the end of my service, I stated carrying a piece. My safety to me is paramount. What others didn’t know didn’t hurt them.


Yes law abiding. So speeding is an acceptable law to break? What other laws are acceptable to break? Coming into the country illegally? There’s a good reason that we have laws. It keeps order,
If a person makes a habit of breaking speed limit laws, if they can’t control their behavior on the road, then can they truly control their behavior with a gun?
Law abiding means law abiding. If a person picks and chooses which laws to obey, maybe that’s the type of person that should be restricted on where they can carry. American citizens that can control their behavior should be able to carry concealed anywhere.

When I decided to carry a firearm I also decided to be the most law abiding American that I could be. Yes, I’m that guy that’s driving 55 in a 55 zone, that you have to go around. If I have to go to a criminal protection zone I lock up my firearm in my vehicle before I reach my destination. I know that I’m not perfect but I really try my best.
Laws are meant to be followed.


I am a retired LEO of 40 years. I think it takes away from their oath to save lives. The jurisdictions in which I have worked would send LEO to scene if a flag came up. Currently I believe this is good.


I’m not sure there’s any law about it around here. From what I’ve been told and observed, it is at the discretion of the paramedics. They can go help or they can wait for cops, I’ve seen them do both.


Laws like those you mention in your first paragraph (quoted above) fly in the face of the principles upon which our Declaration was written - our stand against tyranny - and which later (after the blood of 30,000 patriots was shed) became the foundation for our Constitution. Some argue they are separate documents but the temporal context says differently. ALL men (members of the Family of Man) are created equal, with the UNALIENABLE, basic Human Rights to “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”. The universally acknowledged Right of Self-Defense cannot be separated from our Human Right to Life - to control our own lives and destinies - anymore than it can be considered separate from our Right to Keep and Bear Arms … because without the Right to DEFEND your life in the most effective way possible, such Rights are just words on paper.

AS for your second paragraph quoted above, if one has to break the law in order to defend one’s life and one’s Right to engage in any lawful occupation that pleases one, that law was illegally adopted and should be overridden. It is an unquestionable violation of those basic Human Rights as laid out in the1st and 2nd paragraphs of our Declaration. I’d love to see this argued before the SCOTUS!