LE Federal Carry Law


PDA






usmarine0352_2005
December 2, 2008, 07:16 PM
.
Didn't President Bush sign into law a law that says active police officers can carry off-duty in any state and retired officers can do the same as long as they renew their license every year?


I thought this happened, but then an officer at Sturgis shot a biker and now he's being charged with murder and the carry of his pistol. (Not sure about all of the facts.)


Does anyone know about these two things?


.

If you enjoyed reading about "LE Federal Carry Law" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
damien
December 2, 2008, 07:40 PM
Last I heard they had to drop the weapons charge precisely because of this law. The prosecutor was not familiar with it because it is a newer law. There are some limitations, surely someone will chime in with the particulars.

Rob62
December 2, 2008, 08:29 PM
I believe you are refering to the LEO's Safety Act (HR 218).

http://www.fop.net/legislative/issues/hr218/hr218faq.pdf

Sorry I do not know anything about a shooting at Sturgis.

Rob

armoredman
December 2, 2008, 09:43 PM
The weapons charges against the three off duty officers, (Iron Pigs motorcycle club), were dropped due to this act, but the firefighter that was with them is hosed. No pun intended.

divemedic
December 2, 2008, 09:47 PM
The funny thing is that LEOSA bans police carry while under the influence. I find it a stretch to think the cops in the biker bar were drinking Evian.

isp2605
December 2, 2008, 10:17 PM
Didn't President Bush sign into law a law that says active police officers can carry off-duty in any state and retired officers can do the same as long as they renew their license every year?
It's known as the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004. Signed into law on July 22, 2004. It grants active LEOs the right to carry concealed anywhere in the US, territories and possessions. Retired LEOs have to meet certain guildlines one of which is qualify each year.

I thought this happened, but then an officer at Sturgis shot a biker and now he's being charged with murder and the carry of his pistol. (Not sure about all of the facts.)
He wasn't charged with murder because the Hell's Angel didn't die. The LEOs were from the Seattle area along with some firement. Things got heated and the end result was one of the Seattle LEOs shot one of the HAs. As another mentioned the LEOs and fireman were charged by the prosecutor based on the prosecutor's statement that SD law prohibits carrying a firearm in a bar. However, LEOSA exempts LEOs from all state laws except where a private person/entity can prohibit carrying on their property and the government can prohibit carrying on government property. LEOSA is very clear that a government agency can only prohibit on government property, cannot prohibit on private property, only the owner can. The charges were dismissed against the LEOs because they were covered under LEOSA the way the charges were written, ie, the state cannot prohibit LEOs from carrying on private property. The fireman has made the claim that he too is protected by LEOSA altho where he comes up with that claim isn't reflected in the statute as he is not a LEO.

usmarine0352_2005
December 2, 2008, 10:31 PM
However, LEOSA exempts LEOs from all state laws except where a private person/entity can prohibit carrying on their property and the government can prohibit carrying on government property.


ie, the state cannot prohibit LEOs from carrying on private property.



Don't these contradict each other?



So, all charges were dropped against the officers?


How long ago was this, and do you have a source?

I wanted to show it to someone.

.

isp2605
December 2, 2008, 10:51 PM
However, LEOSA exempts LEOs from all state laws except where a private person/entity can prohibit carrying on their property and the government can prohibit carrying on government property.
ie, the state cannot prohibit LEOs from carrying on private property.
Don't these contradict each other?

No. The government only has the right to prohibit carrying on government property and cannot restrict carrying on private property. Only the property owner can restrict carrying on their own property.

So, all charges were dropped against the officers?
Correct.

How long ago was this, and do you have a source?
The incident occurred the first week of August this year at the Sturgis Bike Week. The charges were just dropped this past week.
Do a websearch of it for the Rapid City newspaper. It's been covered there, by the FOP on the web, and several other LE sources on the web.

rscalzo
December 2, 2008, 11:49 PM
renew their license every year

There is no "license". Only a departmental ID is required. satisfaction to the departental statards or the standards of the current state of residence must be met.

The legislation simply states the laws requiring a concealed carry permit are waived. No other benefits are associated with the law.

In Sturgis the charges were filed because of a supposed violation of state law. Those charged were dropped last week.

the state cannot prohibit LEOs from carrying on private property.

That is incorrect. When out of state you have no police powers and as such are a private peoson. All state laws as to prohitied places, magazine capacity are in force. For example, in NJ HP cannot be carried by an out of state police officer. While this might be changed, at this time that is the law.

isp2605
December 3, 2008, 12:03 AM
That is incorrect. When out of state you have no police powers and as such are a private peoson. All state laws as to prohitied places, magazine capacity are in force. For example, in NJ HP cannot be carried by an out of state police officer. While this might be changed, at this time that is the law.
Nothing was ever said about mag capacity. LEOSA only addresses concealed carry. You are correct about mag capacity and HP restrictions but that is not the issue and is not addressed by LEOSA.
You should read LEOSA again. It is very clear who and what places can be restricted. The info I gave is correct. The government can only restrict carrying on goverment property. Only private individuals may restrict carrying on their property.
State laws as to prohibited places are exempt because of LEOSA. That's the entire purpose of LEOSA. Think about it. In IL state law prohibits carrying concealed. LEOSA exempts all those state laws and allows concealed carry. That is the purpose of LEOSA.
In case you haven't read LEOSA or haven't read it closely here are the only restrictions:
" b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that--
(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property;
or
(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park."
Read carefully. It is very specific. No where does it give the states the right to prohibit carrying on private property. That is the issue addressed with the Sturgis, SD shooting. The prosecutor charged because state law prohibited carrying in bars. The judge read LEOSA and clearly understood it as written. This has been explained ad nauseam since LEOSA became law.
1) says individuals can prohibit carrying on their property.
2) says government can prohibit carrying on goverment property.
Those are the only 2 restrictions. LEOSA is also very clear in the very first sentence of the statute "Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof,". Meaning, "inspite of any law of any state...." or in otherwords federal law preempts all state laws prohibiting the carrying concealed by LEOs and qualified retired LEOs.

rscalzo
December 3, 2008, 12:15 AM
Nothing was ever said about mag capacity.

I don't know where you are getting your information but it is totally offbase. The LEOSA gives LE, retired or current after additional rights out of stae beyond the requirement to obtain a concealed carry permit.

It does not allow carry into a location prohibited by a citizen (such as an establishment that serves alcohol).

Private property owners stated that they do not allow carry on their property will allpy to those coming under the LEOSA carry. Some states consider it a crime in itself. Some will only act when the individual refuses to leave when asked which would simply involve at best a Trespass charge.

Magazine capacity is limited in some states. Out of state LE cannot carry over ten rounds in MA and over 15 in NJ. In NJ hp ammo is not permitted (in concealed carry instances) by anyone outside of NJ LE.

The LEOSA also places additional restrictions such as a prohibitation while under the influence. It also requires qualification in states that do not require those actions.

If you are LE, I would suggest contacting your state union rep for the guidelines. Way too many seem to think they retain the rights afforded when in their home state during travel out of state.

jon_in_wv
December 3, 2008, 12:34 AM
LEOSA does not circumvent each state's restrictions placed on thier own CCW permit holders. In the state of WV, for instance, you can not carry on school grounds with a CCW permit and I also can not under LEOSA. In the case above SD does not allow carry in bars for CCW holders so the officer would also not be allowed to carry. If he was under the influence LEOSA would have also been nullified by that also.

isp2605
December 3, 2008, 12:37 AM
I don't know where you are getting your information but it is totally offbase.
I guess you haven't read the statute.
I was on the statewide committee where we did extensive research of the statute and talked to the Congressmen who wrote it. The committee was comprised of representatives of the USA's office, the IL AG's office and the IL State Police. It was our job to research the statute prior to IL implementing our requirements. So yeah, I have quite a bit of experience and research in LEOSA.
You're not disagreeing with me on most of the points except one. If you read the statute closely what I posted then you'll find the only 2 situations where carry locations can be restricted - government buildings, etc and private entities can prohibit on their property. That's it. (1) and (2) quoted previously.

The LEOSA gives LE, retired or current after additional rights out of stae beyond the requirement to obtain a concealed carry permit.

Correct, no one has said differently.

It does not allow carry into a location prohibited by a citizen (such as an establishment that serves alcohol).
Reread the statute. Tell us where it says such.
I'll help you out - it doesn't. The only time that restriction would be in effect is if the owner of the establishment posted such limits, not the state. Reread LEOSA again. It's very clear. Unless the business that serves the alcohol is owned by the government then the government cannot prohibit carrying there. That's made very clear in the statute and restated by the trial judge in SD.

Private property owners stated that they do not allow carry on their property will allpy to those coming under the LEOSA carry.
That is correct. That is b)(1) that I quoted from the statute. Now, read b)(2). What's it say?

Magazine capacity is limited in some states.
Why are you even bringing up mag capacity? It is not addressed by LEOSA. LEOSA does not give any exemption to mag capacity or HP ammo. You're confusing issues and yourself. LEOSA doesn't address nor exempt either. LEOSA is about concealed carry.

The LEOSA also places additional restrictions such as a prohibitation while under the influence.
That is correct. However, that is not a limitation on where you can carry as a LEO/retired LEO, only a limitation on your physical condition which would prevent carrying. If you are under the influence it doesn't matter where you're at, can't carry under LEOSA.

Way too many seem to think they retain the rights afforded when in their home state during travel out of state.
Once again, no one said differently.
The only point where you're "off base" is thinking the state can regulate restrictions other than government property. LEOSA is clear where the government can restrict carry and that is limited to "government property, installation, building, base, or park."
Using your reasoning then you as a LEO/retired LEO could not carry in IL because IL law prohibits carrying concealed weapons. Clearly that is not the case. LEOSA preempts state statutes in that regard. That's the purpose of LEOSA to preempt state laws to allow LEOs/retired LEOs the right to CCW in all states.

isp2605
December 3, 2008, 12:45 AM
In the state of WV, for instance, you can not carry on school grounds with a CCW permit and I also can not under LEOSA.
Why do you think that is? Read (b)(2). School = Government building.
Don't try reading more into LEOSA than what is written. You're confusing yourself.

In the case above SD does not allow carry in bars for CCW holders so the officer would also not be allowed to carry.
You need to read the judge's ruling. That's exactly why the charges were dropped. SD state law says can't carry in a bar. The judge read b)(2) and understood what it says. He even used the example that if the government owned the bar then it could make the restriction but since the bar is not government property then b)(2) applies, ergo, the officers involved in the SD shooting were covered under LEOSA.

If he was under the influence LEOSA would have also been nullified by that also.
Entirely different issue and I agree. But it doesn't matter if a LEO is under the influence and standing in the middle of a field then he would not be covered under LEOSA because of (b)(5), not because he's in a bar or on government property. It's a completely separate issue.

david_the_greek
December 3, 2008, 12:52 AM
... ok, quickie question. Would this apply to reserve officers?

rscalzo
December 3, 2008, 12:57 AM
That's exactly why the charges were dropped. SD state law says can't carry in a bar

While a SD judge may have made that ruling, it misn't going to be binding in other states. I would not want to base my freedomn on a non-binding ruling.

Having gone through the same reviews in NJ, I understand the restridctions and the fact that are still many gray areas. I had a somewhat long discussion a few weeks back with the staff of Sig Academy. They and the academy itself cannot get answers to their questions which is the sole reason they have not implimented a planned LEOSA Qualification Course.

The bottom line is that no one, from the top down has all the answers on this legislation.

franconialocal
December 3, 2008, 01:47 AM
Well.....what I see happening on this forum is exactly what is happening in "real life" about this exact issue. It's still just a confusing mess for everyone involved. My Dad (retired Chief PPO) is getting the run-around and being an LEO myself I'm still very wary about the whole topic.

Rob62
December 3, 2008, 09:02 AM
For those that have not read and choose to do so. I have previously linked to a copy of the law. Here is further information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enforcement_Officers_Safety_Act#Scope_of_privilege_conferred_by_the_law

There are several other links at the bottom of the Wiki page with even more information.

I recommend that any LEO's, specially those that are eventually planning on retiring from their agency read this important information.

Rob

isp2605
December 3, 2008, 10:29 AM
ok, quickie question. Would this apply to reserve officers?
It depends. What is a reserve officer in your area? In IL a reserve can be anything from a position similar to an Explorer scout to a part time officer. It depends on how the sheriff wants to classify them and their duties.
The question would be do they meet the standards outlined by LEOSA. Some reserves do, some don't.

While a SD judge may have made that ruling, it misn't going to be binding in other states. I would not want to base my freedomn on a non-binding ruling.

That's a given. No argument. However, if you read LEOSA you'll find the ruling was exactly what we were told discussing it with Cunningham's people and the AG in 2004. LEOSA is very simple in this regard and clearly spells it out. People tend to make it more difficult than it really is. While there is often the discussion as to who is covered under LEOSA the restrictions of when and who can implement restrictions is very clear. What makes it confusing to some is when they start trying to interject their own opinions like does HP ammo apply or does the mag limits apply. Those are not issues addressed by LEOSA. LEOSA only addresses CCW and has nothing to do with the other. It's when people start interjecting their personal opinions about "LEOs have to comply with the state's CCW restrictions" that shows they don't have a grasp of LEOSA. If they thought about it a bit deeper than many are capable of doing then they'd realize that doesn't water. Taking their opinion further would show that LEOs wouldn't be able to carry in IL or WI since there is no CCW in those states. Clearly, that is not the case and it clearly the intent of LEOSA to prohibit those exclusions.
It's amazing that cops who spend their careers enforcing the laws are often the very ones incapable of reading a statute and understanding it without interjecting their personal interpretation that isn't in the statute.

The bottom line is that no one, from the top down has all the answers on this legislation.
That's why we went to the people who wrote it. That's where legislative intent comes into play.

Frog48
December 3, 2008, 04:56 PM
The funny thing is that LEOSA bans police carry while under the influence. I find it a stretch to think the cops in the biker bar were drinking Evian.

Drinking =/= drunk. Having a beer or two is not necessarily the same as having 10 beers and getting hammered.

With that said, having any alcohol while carrying a firearm is generally not a good idea.

jon_in_wv
December 3, 2008, 07:45 PM
Why do you think that is? Read (b)(2). School = Government building.
Don't try reading more into LEOSA than what is written. You're confusing yourself.

I stand corrected, rudely corrected, but corrected nonetheless.

I swear there was additional language about restrictions in the bill but we have received so much contradictory guidance from my agency its ridiculous. The Attorney General finally stepped in in 2005 and slapped their wrist and told them to stop it.

isp2605
December 3, 2008, 08:26 PM
Just pointing out the obvious. It's only been law for over 4 yrs and still people are reading their own interpretation without ever reading and understanding the statute and interjecting limits that aren't in the statute. People read more into the statute than what's there, if they read the statute at all. LEOs are some of the worst for doing that. They also are some of the worst for not thinking it thru. Deep thought and reasoning is a rarity for some and an impossibility for some others. For example I can't count the number of LEOs who say LEOSA doesn't preempt state law and that LEOs must comply with the state's CCW restrictions. They don't think about it. If LEOSA didn't preempt state law then what does it do? That's what LEOSA does and that's the intent of it, to preempt state laws concerning CCW. Otherwise a LEO from any state wouldn't be allowed to carry in any other state that restricts CCW.

Neo-Luddite
December 4, 2008, 07:49 PM
Here is a *fun* question for consideration based on the progression of this thread thus far (and yes, I'm looking for isp2605 or even Mr. White to respond in particular because I would value their professional opinion):

Can IDOC Correctional Officers carry concealed under the LEOSA?

Now, of course, the IDOC policy is that they may not carry off duty without 'special' say so from the department.

While not police officers, Illinois Department of Corrections Officers;

-are sworn officers (Conservators of the Peace) with full legal authority of 'Peace Officers' with regards to those offenders under their custody and care and full arrest powers for re-taking escapees. They regularly escort offenders in public while armed and stand details while armed at correctional facilities.

-qualify yearly and are authorized to carry firearms for duty as required.

-are issued badges, photo ID, and weapons qualification credentials by the department.




My bet is, that *outside* of Illinois the answer would be easy----but in Illinois a number of somewhat pre-conceived ideas and notions-- may come into play. So thanks in advance for your consideration for anyone who chimes in on this (I have researched the issue somewhat, and from what I can gather---the IDOC itself REALLY isn't too sure and seems to hope the 'problem' doesn't come up in a serious way).

Thanks in Advance,

Mike

Dday
December 4, 2008, 08:05 PM
Seems to me that this is just another example of how FU'd our laws are. Why should we even need a law giving retired officers the right to carry? This shouldn't be necessary because there never should have been any challenge to a retired officer's right to carry. Of course in the Peoples Repubik of the US (the nation that we've become since the 60's) the mere fact that this law became necessary is indicitave of how poluted the minds of leftist-liberal law makers are. I just can't understand how the lefties, who claim to be in favor of equal rights for all, are so hell-bent on eliminating our 2A rights. Could it be they don't trust an armed citizenry?

isp2605
December 4, 2008, 10:15 PM
Can IDOC Correctional Officers carry concealed under the LEOSA?
This was run past the IL AG and USA back in 2004. IDOC officers are not LEOs and therefore not covered by LEOSA. Their "arrest" power is really not arrest but taking escapees back into custody. However, some positions with IDOC are considered LEOs but those are not the usual correctional officers.
There were 111 different positions in state government where people were authorized to carry firearms, issued badges, conducted investigations of some type and presented cases to obtain charges. However, most of those are not LEOs. For example, Dept of Ag Meat Inspectors. Some of them met all of those but they aren't LEOs, they're meat inspectors.

Neo-Luddite
December 4, 2008, 10:45 PM
Thanks for your fast response isp2605--I appreciate it--
Mike (Neo-Luddite)

Old Guy
December 4, 2008, 10:50 PM
HR218 of 2004, kind of simple really when it comes to being in a bar.

Think about it, retired Cop in bar having a loan drink. Just one, it is a hot day, a criminal just released from a prison this one drink Officer had put him.

Does it make any sense to not allow Officers to Carry in a bar, retired or currently serving!

The law was to protect serving and retied Officers to carry because their
jobs, have put them in a unique position of threat.

Hence a Bar.

Keep Safe,

divemedic
December 5, 2008, 09:36 AM
I can see that in your home state, but how can a retired cop living in Florida expect me to believe that he is in danger from the guy he put in jail in Hawaii while he was on the job?

Otherwise, he is in exactly the same position that I am in- he is just as likely to be a victim of crime as I am.

When this law was being lobbied for, gun owners were told that if we supported this law, LEO would in turn help us expand the law to include national reciprocity. That support has since not materialized. We held up our end, now it is time for the cops to hold up theirs. Speak out, help us get national reciprocity, and stop talking about "getting guns off the street" and supporting "gun buy backs." Use the same voices that got you LEOSA to win reciprocity for all, your unions.

heyjoe
December 5, 2008, 10:35 AM
I agree with you Divemedic. Keep in mind though that the voices calling for getting guns off the street and advocating gun buy backs in the vast majority of cases belong to the politically appointed hierarchy, not the rank and file. Except for a few states, the qualification of retired officers for HR 218 is non existant. It was a republican Sensenbrenner from Wisconsin who insisted on the yearly qualification from the former agency or state knowing full well that most states and agencies would not want to incur the liability of doing so. It was a democrat, Kennedy (big surprise there) who has blocked changes in the law to improve it. To the point we havent even been able to establish an effective national carry law for retired leo's as of yet. As far as i am concerned if you have a ccw for one state it should be honored by all states, just as drivers licenses are.

madmike
December 5, 2008, 11:22 AM
I say the firefighter should be covered.

Next time, we hope for an ambulance driver.

Then a ham operator.

Then a Scoutmaster.

Then someone who's brother is a cop.

Then pretty much everyone.

Of course, I'm just ticked that military aren't covered by this law.

Erik
December 5, 2008, 04:21 PM
"I can see that in your home state, but how can a retired cop living in Florida expect me to believe that he is in danger from the guy he put in jail in Hawaii while he was on the job?"

There are many metropolitan and commuting areas comprising multiple states in the US; arguably the main reason the law was passed.

---
Sturgis is approximately 1112 miles from Seattle.

divemedic
December 5, 2008, 05:07 PM
Weak excuse. If it were that big of a problem, the metro areas could have negotiated an answer.

rscalzo
December 5, 2008, 05:34 PM
HP ammo apply or does the mag limits apply

If you go back to original post, the subject is the LEOSA and how it interacts with state restrictions. To say it doesn't apply is brushing off some serious questions.

One of the questions that is being debated in NJ is the two areas you brush off. No one has determined what rights a sworn officer has in the state when carrying his departmental mandated firearm and ammo when it is in violation of the act. As the state will not modify the law, it is up to authors of the bill to seek change which is being done now.

While you are right in its original form it was a simple bill. However is left way too many question marks that must be dealt with unless agencies are willing to accept arrests of their personnel.

isp2605
December 5, 2008, 06:17 PM
It's not "brushing off some serious questions". Nothing in LEOSA even mentions ammo type or mag sizes. LEOSA only deals with the carrying of concealed weapons by active and retired LEOs. LEOSA only exempts LEOs and qualified retired LEOs from CCW restrictions. They are still obligated to obey state statutes as far as mag size and ammo types.
It's the same weak excuse some LEOs make when they say they are mandated by their dept to carry "X" ammo and "Y" gun. Doesn't matter what their dept mandates when they're outside their jurisdiction. If dept in IL or any other state mandated their officers carry "X" ammo when they go to NJ in an unofficial capacity they're not LEOs and any actions they take would not be in conjunction with their dept.
Again, LEOSA is pretty simple to understand provided one is capable of understanding what is written without trying to interject stuff that isn't even mentioned in the statute. Ammo type and mag capacity isn't covered in the LEOSA statute as being exempt from state laws. LEOSA is only the carrying of concealed firearms.

rscalzo
December 5, 2008, 07:34 PM
Doesn't matter what their dept mandates when they're outside their jurisdiction

Yes it does. I'm not aware of any department that will qualify an employee with a handgun not approved by the department itself. While I can only speak for NJ, no officer is permitted to carry and handgun on or off duty wilthout qualifying with it using the HQC 1 or 2. Ammo used is specified in the qualification report and changes are not permitted. The only variation is the use is same power/ballistics ammo in qualification.

Anyone leaving the state with a handgun not authorized and qualified to carry by the department (and state) is in violation of the act. While it really isn't going to matter all that much up until the point where the finer points of the law are investigated and one is facing a court case. then the details start to matter.

But all in all, I agree with what you are saying. We just have some different thought on some areas that affect few in the country. After all, only NJ worries about the bullet makeup.

isp2605
December 5, 2008, 08:02 PM
You're missing the point. When you are out of state you no longer have LEO authority. You are exempt from CCW laws but you have no LEO authority. If you would be involved in a shooting outside your state you are not acting under color of law of your agency/jurisdiction but you are acting as a private citizen in that state who happens to be able to carry because of LEOSA. Nothing in LEOSA grants a LEO any legal authority to perform as a LEO. Read the Congressional record during the 12 years LEOSA was being discussed in Congress. This very issue was discussed. That is where legislative intent is important. Congress recognized that when a LEO is outside his jurisdiction they have no legal LEO authority and their depts do not have any obiligation to indemnify them. This was discussed several times because LEO administrators initially opposed LEOSA because some believed their agencies would be liable should one of the LEOs become involved in a shooting in another state. Congress made it clear in hearings that they would not be.
If you are in another state and carry a firearm not authorized by your agency you are not in violation of LEOSA. You may be in violation of your dept rules but not in violation of statute. 2 entirely different things.

no officer is permitted to carry and handgun on or off duty wilthout qualifying with it using the HQC 1 or 2.
If you had done research on the topic by talking to other states then you would have learned what you think occurs is actually not at all the case in most states. A lot of states have no state mandated firearms qual for LEOs after their initial qual. That is why a lot of states haven't implemented a program for retired LEOs - they have no state standards which is one of the requirements for retirees who have to meet either the standards of their dept or the state standards where they live.

Ammo used is specified in the qualification report and changes are not permitted.
That's dept policy and it has nothing to do with LEOSA. You may be in violation of dept policy and could be subject to discipline but carrying ammo contrary to dept policy is not a violation of LEOSA. That only applies tho to active and not retirees. Once you are retired you are no longer bound by any policy of your former dept.

Anyone leaving the state with a handgun not authorized and qualified to carry by the department (and state) is in violation of the act.
Once again you are putting your own words and interpretation into the statute but if you read the statute it's not the case. To refresh your memory here's what LEOSA says concerning active LEO qualification. "4) meets standards, if any, established by the agency which require the employee to regularly qualify in the use of a firearm;"
Note words 3 and 4 "if any". If the agency has no standards then the LEOs are still in compliance with LEOSA as long as they meet the other requirements. 4) is the only subpara that has wiggle room to allow "if any".

GRIZ22
December 5, 2008, 08:18 PM
ISP2605,

If LEOSA didn't preempt state law then what does it do? That's what LEOSA does and that's the intent of it, to preempt state laws concerning CCW.

If LEOSA preempts state carry laws, and NJ has restrictions on hollow points and magazine capacity, why doesn't LEOSA preempt these restrictions? I know there is no mention of them in LEOSA as there is machine gun, destructive device etc. If something is not prohibited by the law then it's legal (like open carry in a lot of states).

I'm not trying trying to sharpshoot you just interested in your take on this.

isp2605
December 5, 2008, 08:28 PM
and NJ has restrictions on hollow points and magazine capacity, why doesn't LEOSA preempt these restrictions?
Because LEOSA specifically only addresses concealed carry and there is no mention of types of ammo or mag restrictions. Read para (a) for both active and retirees. That's where it states what the statute addresses. You'll note it only provides exemption for carrying concealed firearms. No where in the statute is ammo or mags mentioned as being exempt.

If something is not prohibited by the law then it's legal (like open carry in a lot of states).

Some states have restrictions on HP ammo and mag size. LEOSA does not provide exemption for those, only for concealed carry. No where in LEOSA does it grant exemption for anything other than concealed carry.

jon_in_wv
December 6, 2008, 10:09 AM
Your right. LEOSA does not even attempt to address those issues. It only applies to CCW laws NOT mag capacity, hollowpoints, registration, etc... Sometimes its difficult to know what to do. I avoid communist cities like Chicago and I try to make myself familiar with the laws of whatever state I may be traveling through. Many of the registration requirement of the state I've looked at apply only to residents and not people traveling through the state but it's still on you to look it up.

Speedo66
December 6, 2008, 10:11 AM
The NJ ammo ban directly affects many LEOs in the NY Metro area.

Many officers take the George Washington Bridge to get to their homes in NJ or NY's Rockland or Orange Counties, or even farther upstate.

Passing that short time through NJ with their mandated duty ammo makes them criminals.

jon_in_wv
December 6, 2008, 02:01 PM
That sounds like a common sense rule to me!! puke.

rscalzo
December 6, 2008, 04:59 PM
Passing that short time through NJ with their mandated duty ammo makes them criminals.

In fact is does. In reality it isn't worried about but if an incident were to occure it would needlessly create a hassle. Years back prior to the LEOSA NJ and NY LE had a pissing match. For a while the NY guys were rightfully concerned about travelling to there home and using NJ as a shortcut. the unions on both sides of the river put a stop to it. To be totally legal they would have to be removed from the handgun and secured. the handgun then can be reloaded with a FMJ or my favorite, federal's EFMJ. Think of a PITA for the few miles on the PIP.

Currently there is a push to correct that problem with the NJ law. It's just that no one has made it a priority.

Some states have restrictions on HP ammo
NJ has to take credit for being the only one at this point as far as I'm aware.

parkinc
December 15, 2008, 02:31 AM
I am with the Fraternal Order of Police. Here are two guidlines you and our members might enjoy reading.

DHS Policy
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/foia/mgmt_instruction_257_01_001_law_enforcement_officers_safety_act.pdf

DoD Policy
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/552512p.pdf

Although military police were not specifically mentioned, they are mentioned in footnote #3, page #3 of the DHS policy. HR 2726 is meant to clarify some of the terminology in HR 218 and the FoP Legislative Team is actively working this and other issues.

Are you aware some states still refuse to verify annual weapons qualifications of retired LEOs and some jurisdictions continue to circumvent the law by refusing to issue any type of Retired LEO ID or Credential? Hopefully Congress will mandate this in upcoming ammendments.

In the interim, I would highly recommend any retired LEO become a member of the Fraternal Order of Police and immediatly sign up for the HR 218 Legal Defens @ $50/yr http://www.hylant.com/fop/hr218.htm

Yours truly,


A friend and brother retired LEO

JDoe
December 15, 2008, 11:35 AM
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=407554&

Captain38
February 27, 2009, 11:52 AM
I TOTALLY and WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree with isp2605's interpretation of LEOSA. Any other opinions to the contrary are simply lacking in understanding of this particular federal statute and case law to date concerning it!

Neo-Luddite
August 7, 2009, 01:23 PM
It *is* looking more and more that IDOC CO's are in fact covered by LEOSA after all.
That fact won't alter departmental policies and the 'learning curve' will be steep for many folks in this state. Details to follow as they become available.

isp2605
August 7, 2009, 01:33 PM
It *is* looking more and more that IDOC CO's are in fact covered by LEOSA after all.
On What are you basing your opinion?
Note this important requirement of LEOSA. "and has statutory powers of arrest;"
IDOC CO's don't have statutory powers of arrest.

Neo-Luddite
August 7, 2009, 01:54 PM
There are some CO's on Prisonofficer.org in contact with the union (AFSCME) and the FOP regarding this. No, I wouldn't reccomend that CO's in IL start carrying off duty without consulting an attorney and reading up on the background material. The IDOC has long standing policies against the practice, but these mostly are concerned with the control of weapons carried onto grounds in officers' POVs (an obvious security threat prohibited by law for ANYONE not specificly authorized to do so) and CO's possibly misreading LEOSA privileges as serving any other purpose than personal protection (ie. misrepresenting themselves as police officers or for moonilighting as armed security officers, etc).

We will see. The bigger issue is the general issue of obtaining CCW permits in Illinois in general. And, of course for those employed by the IDOC---the looming threat of pink slips.

isp2605
August 7, 2009, 02:04 PM
AFSCME and FOP sure aren't the ones I'd go to for legal opinions. They can ask anyone they want but they don't have statutory arrest powers. Ask any of them to show you the statute that provides them with arrest powers. It isn't there. Even when they pick up an escapee they aren't making an arrest but returning an escapee back into custody.
By statute they are not considered LEOs but COs. A completely different job title. Just because a person works in the criminal justice system does not make them a LEO.

Neo-Luddite
August 7, 2009, 02:21 PM
We'll have to see how it shakes out. Hard and fast aswers are hard to get until someone decides to prosecute (so far, the few cases that have come up in IL have not made it that far before being dropped). It is reassuring that no active member of the FOP has ever been successfully prosecuted for carrying off duty since LEOSA passed. The FOP was the driving force behind HB 218. AFSCME's opinion, really, will count less for legal than for negotiating possible future policies with the department. We'll see.


Finding one way to exclude someone from a catagory on a point that is largly semantic is a different philosophical approach than looking at overall intentions of the catagory and determining if they should be included for overall purposes. Are CO's LEO's in Illinois? That depends on who you ask I guess. LEOSA is about protecting goverment employees who work with dangerous populations of people on the job who might seek to harm them when they are off duty.



(730 ILCS 5/3-2-2)
Sec. 3-2-2. Powers and Duties of the Department (of Corrections).

(1) In addition to the powers, duties and responsibilities which are otherwise provided by law, the Department shall have the following powers:

(i) To appoint and remove the chief administrative officers, and administer programs of training and development of personnel of the Department. Personnel assigned by the Department to be responsible for the custody and control of committed persons or to investigate the alleged misconduct of committed persons or employees or alleged violations of a parolee's or releasee's conditions of parole shall be conservators of the peace for those purposes, and shall have the full power of peace officers outside of the facilities of the Department in the protection, arrest, retaking and reconfining of committed persons or where the exercise of such power is necessary to the investigation of such misconduct or violations.

AJChenMPH
August 7, 2009, 02:29 PM
Of course, I'm just ticked that military aren't covered by this law.
Ah, that answers my questions re: military. Anyone know if there's any effort to include them for the future?

isp2605
August 7, 2009, 03:24 PM
There are some in IDOC who have arrest powers. Not the COs tho. The COs are shopping for answers. They know they aren't LEOs but they want to be able to carry anyway.
Many of them are COs becaue they couldn't get hired as LEOs. If they want a legal opinion why not ask the AG? The AG gives legal opinions, not AFSCME or FOP. Those are both staffed by their own. Sort of like asking Mom. They don't like the answer from the AG so they think if they shop around they'll get an answer they want to hear. They but they don't want to know the answer. In 2004/2005 when the state was implementing LEOSA the AG's office was part of the process and COs were not included because they aren't LEOs. They are not considered LEOs either meeting state mandated LEO training or by definition. They're COs, a different job classification. Their "arrest" power is just to take an escapee back into custody and not charge with additional charges.
If you think it's a good idea for COs to be covered by LEOSA then take a visit to Joliet, Pontiac, and some of those facilities and look at who they've hired as COs. Many are gangbangers with active gang affiliations.

Anyone know if there's any effort to include them for the future?
It took 12 yrs from the time LEOSA was first introduced until it was finally signed as law. During that time there was discussion concerning including the military and the inclusion was dropped early on.

AJChenMPH
August 7, 2009, 03:36 PM
Thanks. So there's no talk/chatter of including them going forward, huh? Grrrrr...

Neo-Luddite
August 7, 2009, 05:01 PM
OK, isp2605. We're done.

isp2605
August 7, 2009, 06:16 PM
There are some names on a monument in Springfield. The first laid down his life in 1865 at Joliet. Visit it sometime.
So what? If that's what you're hanging your hat on then you're in for a rude awakening. That doesn't prove anything. The LE Memorial is a private organization and whatever they do has no legal bearing whatsoever. They carry as much weight as the FOP and AFSCME which is absolutely none. Read LEOSA. There is no mention of anything concerning LE Memorial meaning anything.
Look up the name of Joseph Sigler. You won't find his name on the wall yet he was a town LEO killed in the line of duty in 1934 and the memorial committee refused to include his name on the wall.
You can pout all you want. If you don't like it that DOC COs aren't considered LEOs then take it up with the AG and ILETSB. Trying to hang your hat on labor unions is a sure trip to jail. Doesn't matter what AFSCME and your FOP thinks. Their opinions have no legal standing whatsoever.

Art Eatman
August 7, 2009, 06:43 PM
Closing comment:

Neo-Luddite cited, "...arrest, retaking and reconfining of committed persons or where the exercise of such power is necessary to the investigation of such misconduct or violations."

"Commited persons"

That's a very limited amount of power for arrest, and does not appear to meet the usual concept of police powers within the meaning of the federal law. But rather than argue here at THR, get an AG opinion.

Enough.

If you enjoyed reading about "LE Federal Carry Law" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!