National CCW for Animal Lovers


PDA






Michael Zeleny
August 3, 2004, 03:09 PM
With the signing of H.R. 218, the "Law Enforcement Officers' Safety Act," into law by President George W. Bush on July 22, 2004, qualified active and retired law enforcement officers have been exempted from State and local prohibitions with respect to the carrying of concealed firearms. Accordingly, all qualified active and retired law enforcement officers henceforth stand to benefit from a national right to carry concealed firearms. In California, this qualification appears to extend to humane society officers, endorsed by the head of their humane society for the standing as a peace officer.

Humane society officers exercise police powers under the California Food & Agriculture, Penal, and Health & Safety Codes. Here is a partial list of the powers and code sections:
* May initiate proceedings to collect civil penalties relating to spaying or neutering, pursuant to section 31763 of the Food & Agriculture Code.
* May seize, care for and euthanize animals that are without proper care, pursuant to Penal Code section 597.1 and 597f(b).
* Is required to locate owners of certain animals for the purpose of returning lost animals to the owners, pursuant to Penal Code section 597.1(l).
* Is required to assist horse owners who need to abandon or give up ownership of their horses, pursuant to Penal Code section 597.2.
* Must inspect vehicles that transport horses to slaughter, per Penal Code section 597o(a)(12).
* May cite horse owners and keepers who fail to meet certain standards for humane treatment of horses, pursuant to Health Safety Code section 25988.
* May inspect the records of pet dealers pertaining to the health, status, and disposition of dogs and cats pursuant to Health & Safety Code section 122145.
Humane officers are also grouped with officers "of a district, county, or city" with respect to Government Code provisions relating to misconduct in office and removal from office. (See Government Code section 3060-3075.)

Licensing dogs and performing other governmental functions for a city is further evidence that the humane society is a public authority. The ability to issue dog licenses is a governmental function, not a private one. (See California Government Code section 38792(a), "The legislative body of a city may impose and collect a license fee for a period not to exceed two years and not exceeding the cost of services relating to dogs...") Functioning under contract as an animal control agency is also a factor that may make a humane society the equivalent of a governmental entity. An animal control agency is specifically referred to as a "local public agency" in places throughout the California codes (see, i.e., the reference in Government Code section 53126.5 to "a local public agency such as street maintenance and animal control.") Similarly, animal control services are included in the list of governmental services in the "County Service Area Law." (See Government Code sections 25210.1-25210.9c, especially 25210.4a which refers to "animal control" as one of the "miscellaneous extended services" covered by the County Service Area Law.)

Humane societies are constituted in accordance with Sections 14500-14503 of the California Corporations Code. Sections 14501 et seq. confer important privileges on defenders of our furry friends' rights. However, Section 14500 in its "heretofore formed and existing" part appears to have been enacted in 1997 in order to curb abuses of access to these privileges. (An arsenal maintained by a Pepperdine University professor moonlighting as a humane society officer served as the catalyst for this legislative action.)

I am interested in exploring the possibility of qualifying as an active law enforcement officer to the extent of satisfying the predicates of H.R. 218. Should it be the case that no humane societies formed thenceforth are to enjoy the privileges of deputizing their officers, I intend to buy my way into an existing, grandfathered animal shelter. Otherwise I would prefer to form one anew.

I am about to turn my lawyer onto this issue. I am budgeting $10,000 on legal research and documentation. In addition to my philanthropic concern for extending the right to keep and bear arms, I have an ulterior motive in animal welfare. Humane societies can be economically viable. Herewith (http://www.wildlifewaystation.org) an example of a successful, albeit financially problematic, animal sanctuary. I intend to improve upon its model (
http://www.give.org/reports/care2_dyn.asp?951). I am looking for like-minded individuals willing and able to join forces in this project.

If you enjoyed reading about "National CCW for Animal Lovers" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
WYO
August 3, 2004, 03:53 PM
I copied the definition of “qualified law enforcement officer” from the LEAA Website (www.leaa.org) (I haven’t tried to find it in the congressional records to verify):

`(c) As used in this section, the term `qualified law enforcement officer' means an employee of a governmental agency who--
`(1) is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and has statutory powers of arrest;
`(2) is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm;
`(3) is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the agency;
`(4) meets standards, if any, established by the agency which require the employee to regularly qualify in the use of a firearm;
`(5) is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance; and
`(6) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm.

Do the people in question have statutory arrest powers and are they authorized by the agency to carry a firearm? I realize that this is a California law issue, and that you should consult an attorney licensed in the state of California for advice, but it looks like a stretch to me from the information provided.

tcdrennen
August 3, 2004, 04:10 PM
IIRC, if you are in the Federal NICS as a Peace Officer, tou are good to go. I knew a guy a few years back who had a deal with a eight-member Indian Tribe which had a 50 acre 'reservation" somewhere in the Kali Sierras where they appointed him the Chief of their "Tribal Police Dept." He was thus a LEO for Kali state and US Fed purposes; he had red & blues in his (personal) car grill and everything. I think he drove through the "reservation" once a year or so for his "patrol" duty.

jnojr
August 3, 2004, 04:30 PM
Hey! Maybe that's the ticket for Jims deputy idea... instead of a rural Sheriffs Department, maybe we could get a tribe to deputize us! Especially a non-gaming tribe... :-D

Michael Zeleny
August 3, 2004, 04:47 PM
Do the people in question have statutory arrest powers and are they authorized by the agency to carry a firearm?As far as I know, a humane society officer has jurisdiction and powers of arrest in cases of animal and child abuse, and may be authorized by their humane societies to carry a firearm.

Muzzleflash
August 3, 2004, 05:45 PM
I'd go for it.

gunsmith
August 3, 2004, 06:19 PM
I would be willing to clean dog poop and rescue cats and stuff,I used to work at an animal shelter and really do love animals- especially big friendly dogs.

I do have a concern that some "stranger ranger" type might get a hold of a badge/gun and ruin it for the rest of us.
But it seems like a good idea-you know-why limit yourself to CA? does NV or OR have "animal cops" that we might be able to attach ourselves to?

Michael Zeleny
September 28, 2005, 10:45 PM
I have researched this matter. My original inspiration goes back to a 1995 incident (http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.guns/msg/8b5f8e76e21362c6). As stated above, the laws that enable California animal shelters to deputize peace officers have been restricted in 1997 to "heretofore formed and existing" entities. If I can inspire enough interest in this matter, I would like to buy out an animal shelter that was formed and existed in California prior to that date. As stated above, everything needs to be on the level. Is anyone interested in joining forces?

GunGoBoom
September 28, 2005, 11:05 PM
Great, the annointed & elite get to exercise the fundamental right of self-defense, but not the serfs. Ridiculous.

Michael Zeleny
September 28, 2005, 11:08 PM
Great, the annointed & elite get to exercise the fundamental right of self-defense, but not the serfs. Ridiculous.Life is short. I would rather qualify than kvetch. Your priorities may differ.

DeseoUnTaco
September 28, 2005, 11:08 PM
Where do I sign? Seriously, I've been a vegetarian for many many years, and I really do love animals and this is something I would be happy to volunteer (some) of my time for.

And the law enforcement carry benefits are tremendous. That would let me carry in places like NYC, Hawaii, etc, where there are NO other options.

thorn726
September 28, 2005, 11:16 PM
pitbulls and their crazy owners are the reason it works for Animal Control in CA-
they drive police vehicles, (in most cities i dont think they have guns, not here of course) , have police badges, etc- i am fairly sure two big reasons=
to make assaulting an animal control officer he same penalty as assaulting LE,
and then of course, to get them funding thru the police dept.

anyway you can bet someone sicced their dog on an AC officer, and didnt get much punishment, so they incorporate them into police dept.

REMEBER= this is NOT A SHELTER, IT IS A POUND.

very different from aspca or humane society.

its the rounding up and killing of dangerous dogs that sets them apart for one thing.

basically you have to become an animal cop working for the city

secamp32
September 29, 2005, 01:13 AM
Under HR218 you must be employed by a govt agency. Just because you are enforcing Public law doesn't make you a govt employee. Contract LEOs working for the feds with LEO status aren't covered because they work for a contract agency not the govt directly. Humane law enforcement in NYC are peace officers in NY and can carry on their ID in NY but are not covered under HR218. They do not work for a govt agency. The same goes for University Police at a private University. In may states (Not NY) they have full police powers but they aren't covered.

Kurush
September 29, 2005, 02:13 AM
I have an idea, why don't we create a new class of federal LEOs who don't have any real power, but qualify for nationwide CCW. We should give them a properly honorable name--maybe 'Knights'...!

We could even make the status hereditary. Then when there are too many Knights we could close it so that we'd be an elite club. We'd be the only ones allowed to carry weapons, and the commoners..oops I mean civvies would have to turn their eyes down before us and let us break in their wives.

Or maybe we could try being part of the solution rather than part of the problem and work at getting nationwide reciprocity instead.

Michael Zeleny
September 29, 2005, 03:09 AM
basically you have to become an animal cop working for the cityNo, you don't. Read the statutes that I cited. They are available online (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html).

Michael Zeleny
September 29, 2005, 03:11 AM
UnderHR218 you must be employed by a govt agency.It will work in California straightaway. We may or may not be able to create the additional predicate for satisfying HR218. But a California LE status in all other respects is a good start.

DeseoUnTaco
September 29, 2005, 03:41 AM
For those not blessed to live in CA... CA LE status means a lot more than just concealed carry. It means:

Access to handguns which are not on California's rather short "safety" approved list
Access to standard-capacity magazines for guns which use mags that hold more than ten rounds. This is a very big deal. CA CCW holders can't get access to these.
I think it would also give access to California "assault weapons". As a side note, once this thing gets started and I am doing animal control duties, I really would want a high-capacity compact semi-auto 22lr in case I ever have to deal with an angry pit bull. They are faster and scarier than most humans.

So this is far far better than CA CCW, and means a lot more to me than even a nation-wide CCW would. With all the reciprocity and CCW reform going on, I can get enough non-resident permits to carry almost everywhere in the US... except California. So nationwide CCW isn't a big deal for me. What I want is to carry here in CA, and I want the benefits listed above.

Under traditional US law and in traditional American society, there was/is very little distinction between law enforcement and ordinary civilians. Both had all the same rights, many of the same duties, and almost no privileges, and both worked together to preserve public safety. Unfortunately this blissful situation has changed: at the federal level, obviously federal LEOs have a lot of rights and privileges that non-LEOs don't have. And in California, local police officers also have a lot of rights that non-officers don't have. That is a sad situation. So here in CA you don't get your full Constitutional rights without being a LEO.

Michael Zeleny
September 29, 2005, 03:55 AM
For those not blessed to live in CA... CA LE status means a lot more than just concealed carry.What he said.

I will add only that once we have a real charity that does everything on the level, we have a good chance of securing all sort of cooperation from government agencies. The idea is not only to abstain from giving the authorities an incentive to shut us down, but to perform a useful civic function, as regards the statutory jurisdiction and powers of arrest in cases of animal and child abuse. In any event, the predicates for satisfying HR218 may well be satisfied automatically through compliance with the statutes that I quoted earlier.

As for practical matters, we need pledges of money, time, and expertise. Veterinarians, child psychologists, lawyers, physicians, and professional fundraisers are especially encouraged to apply.

Michael Zeleny
September 29, 2005, 04:14 AM
Or maybe we could try being part of the solution rather than part of the problem and work at getting nationwide reciprocity instead.Why is this an either/or proposition? Homo sum, et nihil humani generis a me alienum est. -- TerenceAs a fellow lover of the classics (http://www.livejournal.com/tools/memories.bml?user=larvatus), I urge you to reflect on the title of the play from which this statement (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Ter.+Hau.+53#fn2) is drawn: Heautontimorumenos: The Self-Tormenter.

Kurush
September 29, 2005, 01:54 PM
Why is this an either/or proposition?Because the law as written creates a special class of people, namely retired LEOs, who can carry. I find that to be objectionable and in conflict with Article 1 Section 9 of the constitution. If the government gives retired LEOs--as individuals--special priveleges, they are in effect creating a nobility class.

Mongo the Mutterer
September 29, 2005, 02:16 PM
JNOJR on August 3rd Hey! Maybe that's the ticket for Jims deputy idea... instead of a rural Sheriffs Department, maybe we could get a tribe to deputize us! Especially a non-gaming tribe... :-D

Not a bad idea for a tribe who is poor. Deputize us palefaces, give us a badge and swear us in. For a small fee...

Michael Zeleny
September 29, 2005, 05:15 PM
Why is this an either/or proposition?Because the law as written creates a special class of people, namely retired LEOs, who can carry. I find that to be objectionable and in conflict with Article 1 Section 9 of the constitution. If the government gives retired LEOs--as individuals--special priveleges, they are in effect creating a nobility class.Do you seriously expect your interpretation of Article 1 Section 9 of our Constitution to be upheld in any court of law in this land? If so, you are welcome to try it in your Federal district. As for me, after beating weapons charges on two occasions in the Los Angeles Superior Court, I am left free of the urge to torment myself any further.

Michael Zeleny
September 29, 2005, 05:45 PM
Not a bad idea for a tribe who is poor. Deputize us palefaces, give us a badge and swear us in. For a small fee...We got this question answered last year. No agency will create sham deputies for any fee. (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=87794) Not to put too fine a point on it, but I told you so (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=916222#post916222). It's high time to try a method that works. My method is known to work (http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.guns/browse_frm/thread/74064e779a92f690/) for Mercy Crusade (http://www.aaarf.org/). They are still in business, still bearing arms. As our fellow gun nut David Mamet put it (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119051/quotes), "What one man can do, another can do."

Kurush
September 29, 2005, 07:45 PM
Do you seriously expect your interpretation of Article 1 Section 9 of our Constitution to be upheld in any court of law in this land?I'm not claiming SCOTUS agrees with me; for that matter, after Kelo and Raich I'm disinclined to guess what if anything they think the Constitution means. What I'm saying is that the law is dangerous and is in opposition to republican principles and the rule of law. Trying to get into the new "just like everyone else but better" class in this case is no better than joining the Baath party in Iraq.

Gordon Fink
September 29, 2005, 08:00 PM
after beating weapons charges on two occasions in the Los Angeles Superior Court

Do tell. However, your idea sounds like as much if not more work than simply becoming a cop and would probably be equally dissatisfying.

~G. Fink

Michael Zeleny
September 29, 2005, 08:07 PM
Do you seriously expect your interpretation of Article 1 Section 9 of our Constitution to be upheld in any court of law in this land?I'm not claiming SCOTUS agrees with me; for that matter, after Kelo and Raich I'm disinclined to guess what if anything they think the Constitution means. What I'm saying is that the law is dangerous and is in opposition to republican principles and the rule of law. Trying to get into the new "just like everyone else but better" class in this case is no better than joining the Baath party in Iraq.Is it your contention that the Baath party in Iraq did nothing worse than try to get into the new "just like everyone else but better" class?

Kurush
September 29, 2005, 08:22 PM
Is it your contention that the Baath party in Iraq did nothing worse than try to get into the new "just like everyone else but better" class?The Baath party in Iraq was the "just like everyone else but better" class. It is very alarming to me that this law creates in our nation such a class by giving certain citizens extra rights off-duty and not in furtherance of their job, and worse that those rights are retained after they have retired.

artherd
September 29, 2005, 11:25 PM
I think the idea here is to create a "Just like everyone else, but better" club that is infact OPEN TO ALL INTERESTED & CHAIRATIBLE NON-PROHIBITED PERSONS!

Circumvent the elitism by diluting the 'members only' club.

Fine, if only LEOs can carry nationally, let's make every voulenteer non-felon a LEO if they want.


Regarding HR218, we need to look at the definition of 'employee'. Do they seek full-time employees or is a paltry part-time salary acceptible so long as we get W2s?

Michael Zeleny
September 30, 2005, 01:12 AM
Originally Posted by Michael Zeleny
after beating weapons charges on two occasions in the Los Angeles Superior Court Do tell.In 1990 I got the prosecutor to drop knife charges under P.C. Section 626.10 (http://www.equalccw.com/knifelaw.html#SECTION%20THREE) by explaining that I used my Randall #14 and Lile button lock folder in preparation and consumption of food. Two years ago I beat multiple weapons carry charges in a bench trial, by establishing that my 7" Darrel Ralph folding dagger was not a switchblade under P.C. Section 653k (http://www.equalccw.com/knifelaw.html#SECTION%20ONE), whereas my carry of a SIG P210-2 (http://www.livejournal.com/users/larvatus/33732.html) was justified as a reasonable countermeasure against death threats (http://www.livejournal.com/users/larvatus/4650.html) under the predicates of the necessity defense. Got my knives back in the first instance, lost my weapons and spent $3,000 in legal fees getting exonerated in the second matter.However, your idea sounds like as much if not more work than simply becoming a cop and would probably be equally dissatisfying.Level I and II reserve officers (http://www.lapdonline.org/get_involved/reserve_program/reserve_program_main.htm) in most, if not all, California police departments are both paid and authorized to carry arms on, and usually off duty. Most reserve deputy sheriffs (http://lasdreserve.org/whatisareserve.htm) are issued CCW permists that enable them to carry concealed weapons off duty. I would expect the commitment to service in the reserve humane officer program that I am proposing to equal or exceed those of a reserve member of a law enforcement agency, with rates of pay ranging somewhat closer to the $1 per year paid by to reserve deputies by the California Sheriffs, than the $15-$25/hour or thereabouts paid to reserve police officers by local police agrncies. It's all a matter of whether you would rather rescue animals than lock up criminals.

Michael Zeleny
September 30, 2005, 01:19 AM
Is it your contention that the Baath party in Iraq did nothing worse than try to get into the new "just like everyone else but better" class?The Baath party in Iraq was the "just like everyone else but better" class. It is very alarming to me that this law creates in our nation such a class by giving certain citizens extra rights off-duty and not in furtherance of their job, and worse that those rights are retained after they have retired.You have failed to answer my question. Please try again. Do you believe that the Baath party in Iraq did nothing worse than serve as the "just like everyone else but better" class?

Kurush
September 30, 2005, 02:22 AM
You have failed to answer my question. Please try again. Do you believe that the Baath party in Iraq did nothing worse than serve as the "just like everyone else but better" class?First, that is not the question you asked. Second, your new question is irrelevant and off-topic. Third, you are very presumptuous and rude, especially considering that you didn't address my objection to your plan in any way. I see that arguing with you is pointless and so I will desist. Have a nice day and plonk.

gunsmith
September 30, 2005, 04:29 AM
What came of it?
it sure seems like a good idea.

Michael Zeleny
September 30, 2005, 04:33 AM
You have failed to answer my question. Please try again. Do you believe that the Baath party in Iraq did nothing worse than serve as the "just like everyone else but better" class?First, that is not the question you asked. Second, your new question is irrelevant and off-topic. Third, you are very presumptuous and rude, especially considering that you didn't address my objection to your plan in any way. I see that arguing with you is pointless and so I will desist. Have a nice day and plonk.First, this is the question that I asked, with emphasis on the point that made your analogy so offensive. Second, it is directly relevant to the topic, which is your attempt to tar me with the Saddamite brush for proposing to create a humane society that satisfies the predicates of a law enforcement agency per the H.R. 218. Third, although I am proverbially (http://www.googlism.com/index.htm?ism=zeleny) almost unbelievably rude, I am nowhere near presumptuous enough to play the fascist card without a proper warrant, especially after my interlocutor had addressed my objection with a reference to the principle that I claim to endorse.

I will spell out my response, not for your benefit, but for the sake of interested bystanders. Reacting to a political proposal with overheated rhetoric not only fails to respond to the substance of the matter, but also discredits the self-righteous party as being more enamored with his own demagoguery than either the duty to speak truly or the burden to advance the cause of justice. Nothing in my proposal involves or implies granting anything like a title of nobility. Even assuming for the sake of argument that I aimed to create a hereditary elite, it would be strictly my doing, and not an act of Congress forbidden by Article 1 Section 9 of our Constitution. Moreover, not every hereditary elite has the character of the Baath party, as opposed to that of the Lubavicher Rebbe. Finally, it is pointless to argue with anybody, until and unless you learn to abstain from flaming strawmen and changing the subject.

You have a right to object to the law of this land on the basis of a constitutional interpretation as unfounded in elementary logic, as it is devoid of legal acumen. You have no right to claim that everyone who fails to follow you in this futilitarian self-torment is therefore a fascist. Lighten up.

Art Eatman
September 30, 2005, 11:59 AM
What in (bleep) does the Baath Party have to do with trying to figure out a way to use California laws to one's benefit? Why drag in that sort of stuff?

Stay on topic!

Art

Hawkmoon
September 30, 2005, 02:15 PM
No animal control officers in my state are authorized to carry weapons. Accordingly, "LEO" credentials notwithstanding, they do not qualify under H.R. 218.

I think this idea is idiotic. Sorry, but that's my opinion.

ziadel
September 30, 2005, 04:38 PM
are bounty hunters considered federal agents?

I only ask because I am pretty sure anyone can become a bounty hunter...

If you enjoyed reading about "National CCW for Animal Lovers" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!