Neo-Luddite
Member
Thanks for your fast response isp2605--I appreciate it--
Mike (Neo-Luddite)
Mike (Neo-Luddite)
LE Federal Carry Law
- Thread starter usmarine0352_2005
- Start date
- Status
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,
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
Member
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.
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.
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
Member
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.
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.
"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.
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
Member
Weak excuse. If it were that big of a problem, the metro areas could have negotiated an answer.
rscalzo
Member
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.
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.
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
Member
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Member
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.
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.
rscalzo
Member
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.
NJ has to take credit for being the only one at this point as far as I'm aware.
HR 218 LEOSA || DHS and DoD Policy Letters
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/...1_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
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/...1_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
Last edited:
Neo-Luddite
Member
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.
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.
Neo-Luddite
Member
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.
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.
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.
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
Member
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.
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.
Last edited:
- Status
