How many here can't get tattoos or are very limited?

Getting my first tattoo and I'm a little upset I can't go further down my arm.  Oh well. Tattoo isn't everything I suppose.

We can't have tattoos visible in a short sleeve or on the neck.  We have a couple who have that policy stretched to the max.

I agree with that policy.

No tats here.

We have a no visible tattoo policy. We a couple who are stuck in longsleeves all year round.

we have a no visible tattoo policy, which I don't even think is enforced unless you piss off the wrong boss...

I agree with said policy because it looks like shit or looks unprofessional, whichever term you prefer...

that being said, I am grandfathered in and sleeved up for about 10 years now and have been out of uniform for about 11 years now, I had plenty of ink before my sleeve. I got my sleeve before the policy change and my going into plainclothes had zero effect on my decision...

Has to be covered on duty. Some guys wear those pantie hose things on their arms to hide them although that might go away soon because an assistant chief is pushing for long sleeves for them since the nylon can and does melt. My advice is don’t get tattoos that can’t be covered by a t shirt if you want to be in this line of work.

Coming from the PNW to the south has been an eye opener for me.  I have applied to a number of departments only to find out I have been auto DQ'ed for tattoo's.  IMHO, dumbest policy on the planet.  My father in law that just retired as Chief for a department in Idaho even says tattoo policies are bullshit unless its a gang related tattoo or intentionally offensive.

I am a fed. My agency (to my knowledge) has no specific policy on tats.

It's pretty dumb to tell tattoos in visible places if you want to get into LE. Yes some agencies allow it but, as you have found, many do not.

If you want to get tattoos in visible places you have limited yourself in the places you can work. Not smart to limit yourself in what can sometimes be a tough job to get into.

@oldno7boozebag
So you're sleeved up, but still think the policy is a good policy? Seems like you should be on the other side of that.
I suppose, thinking about it, I wouldn't want my officers with some basement tattoos or offensive tattoos, etc. But, at least to the elbow shouldn't be that bad. Imho.

Simply mandating that no tats can be visible on duty avoids the whole trap of determining what is offensive and what is not.
I'd tell anyone with aspirations in the fire service to avoid any tattoos visible in a t-shirt and shorts until they are established at a place that has standards otherwise. We have a handful of guys who have to wear long sleeves year round.
Big city FDs tend to have much looser standards, but if you want to make big money in the suburbs, you are probably going to have to cover them up.

I loved being grandfatered in with the tattoo policy, especially when some asshole Captain who didn't know it only covered new hires tried to play hardass and started yelling about uncovered tattoos.

I'm going to espouse a view: If you are a child of God, and he made you, then he did it as He pleased, and what decoration he placed on you should be sufficient to please Him.

Therefore, who are we to "embellish" or "enhance" our body with the vain imaginations of our carnal mind? We certainly aren't perfect, and considering some of the subject matter of tats I've seen and their placement - plus the deliberate amount of partial nudity required to show them off - I then call into question some people's decisions.

Not that I don't like seeing the garter tats on a young "lady" wearing a miniskirt to show them off. But, perhaps, in a "general public" kind of way, maybe that's pushing the boundaries of public acceptance.

Can't wait to see those on a frosty February morning dancing down a street with 6" of sleet on it. Packers game?

Most of us would say you can do whatever you like to your body - the issue of killing your unborn baby aside. But maybe - just maybe - there are other standards and reasons that we like to invent to justify things. We do that with stuff like, carrying a gun - it takes a lethal threat to our lives to use it. Can't just shoot someone because they needed killin'. Amirite?

Well, some of us - despite what we might like to do - refrain from activities and markings which could put us in peril. Like, not tatting a serial number on our forearm in protest of the government taking religious zealots and putting them in camps to be executed. I never heard of that being done in Nazi Germany. Sometimes common sense prevails.

Same with MS13 - unlike the average member who adorns their face with symbols of group rites and obeseince to evil, some keep it clean as they worm their way into power positions for the purposes of exploitation. Why set off alarms?

Lacking any tats at all, nobody can get a signal or discern who or what I am. Good luck with that. "nice old Fudd, hope he dies in his sleep." I will - dreaming of hauling terrorists into the busses as we transferred them from Xray to Delta. Buahahahahahaha. Keep me from my family for a year. See what it gets you.

I don't need a tat of remind me of my unit while I was there. As much as the Grim Reaper appeals to me. Frazetta had a good eye. However, I won't need to explain it to my grandchildren, and they will be spared looking at it as it fades and deteriorates while my collagen disappears from aging.

Tats sound fun up front, go find some dude 67 years old and take a long look. Half the time he has to tell you what it was. Not to forget - art has it's period of popularity, and then style passes. Being a faded example of yesteryear is kinda like a pair of old 70's jogging shoes. Not so much. Spare us the short jogging shorts, tall socks and blow dried hair look in body art. Especially when it looks like a rock poster left out in the rain for a decade.

And some people complain about having them and being out of the mainstream. Yep, actions have consequences. Please don't wear a miniskirt at the gym, dude, it's not working on you.

Many do, I chose not too.

Whoa.. I don't even know how to react to that.

My old fire department outside of Houston next to the Woodlands had about 15% of firefighters with full sleeves. My current department, in a fairly conservative town, only has two with full sleeves but countless with lower arm that are visible. Just not really an issue anymore in most parts of Texas as long as you keep it off your face and neck.

Well, if my wife had her way, there'd be none.

Good thing she doesn't ALWAYS get what she wants...

The last administration used it as a cudgel against officers they didn't like. Current admins don't care and the younger officers are getting multiple tats.

Nothing on hands, neck or face.  We have to wear cover ups if it extends past our short sleeve uniform thou, which is what I do.

No face or neck here.  Other than that, we have guys covered all the way to fingertips.

We don't have a policy on it.  I'm working on ideas for a 3/4 sleeve.  Tattoo (except for not on necks) and beard policies are antiquated.  There is no reason why these need to exist anymore.

fixed it for ya...haha

Why not on a neck, if you are going to allow them elsewhere?
The reason a lot of these policies exist are because admin simply doesn't want to get into the business of policing (lol) tattoos. If you allow them, then you have to have some sort of policy regulating their content. Rather than go down that slippery slope, a lot of places just don't allow visible tats.
Personally, I don't care one way or another, but I usually recommend younger guys don't get anything that is not covered up by a t-shirt and shorts until they get a job somewhere and know what the rules are.