Autolycus
Member
Spartan 55: Are you Border Patrol by chance?
Can LEO's CCW without permit?
- Thread starter glockman19
- Start date
- Status
Autolycus
Member
As I was saying we need to get the HR 218 law repealed. It is a bad law and unconstitutional in that it discriminates against people who are not Law Enforcment or prior law enforcement.
I will post a poll asking this.
I will post a poll asking this.
Damien45
Member
Sounds like you are a Parol Officer, or possibly a Juvenille Probation of some sort?
spartan55
Member
I will not give it up
I will not say what I do exactly due to keeeping a good buffer zone of my personnel business.
I was just curious if anyone could figure my profession out.
My point is this: Some do not like the HR218 law for thier own reasons, however for hundreds of thousands of others it is a law to protect some of those leos who before the law was not able to CCW.
I carry under this law, I do not have a CCW otherwise, for me this is a good law.
I will not say what I do exactly due to keeeping a good buffer zone of my personnel business.
I was just curious if anyone could figure my profession out.
My point is this: Some do not like the HR218 law for thier own reasons, however for hundreds of thousands of others it is a law to protect some of those leos who before the law was not able to CCW.
I carry under this law, I do not have a CCW otherwise, for me this is a good law.
Steve in PA
Member
So before HR218 passed it was okay to discriminate against LEO's because states would not accept their law enforcement credentials, but if they had a CCW that would be accepted?
Maybe I'll post a poll on this.
Maybe I'll post a poll on this.
The Amigo
Member
Tecumseh
Just food for thought say you have children and some lunatic walks in to the school or park and starts shooting kids. And me as an LEO under this law manage to put down the guy who is about to destroy your most loved ones. Would you still think the same? Why not just make CCW in all US Uniform for all no matter if your LEO or private citizen sounds better to me than to say LEOs don't deserve to carry under this bill. We need to stick together not run apart that's were the strength on making changes come from. My 2c
Just food for thought say you have children and some lunatic walks in to the school or park and starts shooting kids. And me as an LEO under this law manage to put down the guy who is about to destroy your most loved ones. Would you still think the same? Why not just make CCW in all US Uniform for all no matter if your LEO or private citizen sounds better to me than to say LEOs don't deserve to carry under this bill. We need to stick together not run apart that's were the strength on making changes come from. My 2c
I agree with The Amigo. As a 20 year State Trooper when I retire I'm supposed to be able to carry, but my outfit refuses to qualify retirees, so I'm unable to do so. I have a permit from my County, but better we have a uniform nationwide carry law than trying to derail the current law.
BTW- I made it 20 years by assuming EVERYONE was armed, rather than assuming they weren't. Works for me.
BTW- I made it 20 years by assuming EVERYONE was armed, rather than assuming they weren't. Works for me.
Autolycus
Member
Exactly my point The Amigo. This bill grants national reciprocity for LEOs to use their LE credentials. I dont have any LE credentials. There are bills for national CCW but it seems that there is not enough support for them. Why not just get LEO Organizations to support a national reciprocity bill and shall issue laws in all the states instead of creating a seperate bill for them and for us?
My theory on LE CCW is also equally valid when you start to apply it to other gun control bills. Like the ban on High Cap mags in some states. Why not restrict LEOs to 10 round capacity? Why not do the same thing with patrol rifles? Make the SWAT team use the same gear that citizens can buy?
My point is that to grant LEOs the ability to CCW without a permit in states that require permits or in states where there is no CCW creates a barrier.
Steve in PA: Why dont the officers just get permits? I mean its not hard is it? The states were not descriminating against you based on your LE status in any sense of the word. They were just treating you like a citizen.
I believe your LE in PA. Could you not travel to Chicago and CCW under your LE credentials? I believe you can. What would happen if I CCWed in Chicago as a citizen with no LE affiliations or credentials? I would go to jail. How is that fair?
If officers want to carry they can get CCW permits. I know a lot of states waive the traning requirement and fees for it when it is a LEO. I dont see why the officers cannot bother getting their permit.
My theory on LE CCW is also equally valid when you start to apply it to other gun control bills. Like the ban on High Cap mags in some states. Why not restrict LEOs to 10 round capacity? Why not do the same thing with patrol rifles? Make the SWAT team use the same gear that citizens can buy?
My point is that to grant LEOs the ability to CCW without a permit in states that require permits or in states where there is no CCW creates a barrier.
Steve in PA: Why dont the officers just get permits? I mean its not hard is it? The states were not descriminating against you based on your LE status in any sense of the word. They were just treating you like a citizen.
I believe your LE in PA. Could you not travel to Chicago and CCW under your LE credentials? I believe you can. What would happen if I CCWed in Chicago as a citizen with no LE affiliations or credentials? I would go to jail. How is that fair?
If officers want to carry they can get CCW permits. I know a lot of states waive the traning requirement and fees for it when it is a LEO. I dont see why the officers cannot bother getting their permit.
The Amigo
Member
The barrier how does it gets created enlighten me? And if memory serves me right the CCW reciprocity bill along with certain states where CCW was really been hard to get one, Police associations have stepped in and in fact supported the more liberal issue of CCW to private citizens.
So i don't understand the argument of this. I think the eyes need to be on the politicians that keep these laws restrictive and have the responsibility to change the laws not the guys in blue that will do their best to keep u safe. They can only enforce what was written in that book that was put there by the politician to begin with.
Believe me as an LEO if all the responsible people that could have a gun to prevent crime in America could have one you think I will be against that? No way it makes my job a hell of a lot easier.
As far as the same equipment the line needs to be drawn somewhere. For example shall a 18 year old drive a tank instead of a Honda just cause the army has them? Does he need armor piercing rounds or a flamethrower ext..you see my point. I mean no disrespect for your difference of opinion but i'm trying to understand why do you think this way?
So i don't understand the argument of this. I think the eyes need to be on the politicians that keep these laws restrictive and have the responsibility to change the laws not the guys in blue that will do their best to keep u safe. They can only enforce what was written in that book that was put there by the politician to begin with.
Believe me as an LEO if all the responsible people that could have a gun to prevent crime in America could have one you think I will be against that? No way it makes my job a hell of a lot easier.
As far as the same equipment the line needs to be drawn somewhere. For example shall a 18 year old drive a tank instead of a Honda just cause the army has them? Does he need armor piercing rounds or a flamethrower ext..you see my point. I mean no disrespect for your difference of opinion but i'm trying to understand why do you think this way?
Autolycus
Member
Well the line gets created when you give one group power over another. It gets created when you start to allow one group certain proveledges.
How about the Blue wall created by Chicago PD when one of their own beats a bartender? How about the video about the Dayton cop who peppersprays a girl he accuses of stealing, even when she did not steal anything? I believe he got off scott free and the city footed $60,000 for his victim. These kinds of incidents and the publics reaction to them help create that divide?
When the police Union for Chicago asked for LE to be exempted in a bill that would try to stop Domestic Abusers from passing gives us the wrong message? The idea that LE can abuse someone in their homelife and carry a gun and badge at work is really scary. What kind of a message does that give us?
That creates a divide. But your right we should look at the politicians and their laws and views in regards to guns. I see more Law Enforcment Organizations supporting anti-gun bills then I see pro-gun bills. I posed an excellent article about this earlier. Link Here
These organizations are composed primarily of officers right? Why dont they steer it into a more progun organizations? I know that there is at least one organization, the LEAA, but I dont seem to see any FOP or other police unions speaking out against this? I did a search. These are the organizations that are really important.
When I see Chiefs of Police on TV asking for more gun control I ask why dont the police officers stand up and say no. Often the chief is saying they speak for the whole force.
There are some LE Organizations on this list: http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=15
Here is another good article:
http://www.leaa.org/Cops Versus Gun Control/copsversusguncon.html
I am willing to bet that the majority of LE are pro-gun but I dont think that we will see a major change in gun laws until we start to see officers actively campaigning for our side. They have done it for Anti-gunners so why not for pro-gunners? When someone is affected personally by injustice they become much more interested in fighting for their rights.
How about the Blue wall created by Chicago PD when one of their own beats a bartender? How about the video about the Dayton cop who peppersprays a girl he accuses of stealing, even when she did not steal anything? I believe he got off scott free and the city footed $60,000 for his victim. These kinds of incidents and the publics reaction to them help create that divide?
When the police Union for Chicago asked for LE to be exempted in a bill that would try to stop Domestic Abusers from passing gives us the wrong message? The idea that LE can abuse someone in their homelife and carry a gun and badge at work is really scary. What kind of a message does that give us?
That creates a divide. But your right we should look at the politicians and their laws and views in regards to guns. I see more Law Enforcment Organizations supporting anti-gun bills then I see pro-gun bills. I posed an excellent article about this earlier. Link Here
These organizations are composed primarily of officers right? Why dont they steer it into a more progun organizations? I know that there is at least one organization, the LEAA, but I dont seem to see any FOP or other police unions speaking out against this? I did a search. These are the organizations that are really important.
When I see Chiefs of Police on TV asking for more gun control I ask why dont the police officers stand up and say no. Often the chief is saying they speak for the whole force.
There are some LE Organizations on this list: http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=15
Here is another good article:
http://www.leaa.org/Cops Versus Gun Control/copsversusguncon.html
I am willing to bet that the majority of LE are pro-gun but I dont think that we will see a major change in gun laws until we start to see officers actively campaigning for our side. They have done it for Anti-gunners so why not for pro-gunners? When someone is affected personally by injustice they become much more interested in fighting for their rights.
Aguila Blanca
Member
No, Steve, it wasn't okay to discriminate against LEO's.Steve in PA said:
But ... it's equally wrong to discriminate against NON-LEOs. When HR 218 was pending, this forum (and probably all gun forums, but I don't frequent all of them so I don't know) was virtually overrun by LEOs asking us to support getting this law passed. They told us it was "a necessary step to nationwide CCW for everyone," and that if we would support getting it passed, they would help us get nationwide CCW or reciprocity for the rest of us.
Well, we did our part. Now ... where are all those LEOs who promised us they'd be there to support our efforts to get some kind of national reciprocity? My guess is they're writing letters to their congresscritters explaining why private citizens can't be trusted with guns.
Now, I'm not saying you are doing this Steve, because from your posts here you generally seem like a stand-up guy. But since we helped get HR 218 passed for the LEOs, the LEO support for national citizen CCW has been a resounding silence. Personally, I feel your colleagues sold us out ... but I'm not disappointed, because it's exactly what I expected. I would note, though, that conduct such as that doesn't engender a whole lot of respect for the LEO profession. In my rather lengthy personal experience, good LEOs seem to be the exception rather than the rule.
Now that LEOs have their precious national ccw, good luck getting significant LEO support for national CCW or national ccw reciprocity. They have theirs. Why should they care about us serfs?
As long as State and local LEOs didn't have national ccw powers, self-interest might have motivated them to support national ccw or national ccw reciprocity. Now that their self interest is mostly taken care of, we have to rely on their magnanimity or their enlightened realization that national ccw will make their jobs easier or safer.
I'm not saying cops are generally bad. Even good cops are not likely to get politically active for a cause which directly affects only private citizens.
Blackfork
Member
American Thought
Anyone remember? The FIRST American Thought was that all men are created EQUAL. No laws for one group as opposed to another. No classes. No man that enjoyed legal privileges that everyone couldn't enjoy.
(The clock was ticking on slavery as soon as someone wrote: all men are created equal. It was just a matter of time.)
We are a long way from that now.
I think, as the founders did, that everyone ought to have to obey the same laws. No exceptions.
Period.
Anyone remember? The FIRST American Thought was that all men are created EQUAL. No laws for one group as opposed to another. No classes. No man that enjoyed legal privileges that everyone couldn't enjoy.
(The clock was ticking on slavery as soon as someone wrote: all men are created equal. It was just a matter of time.)
We are a long way from that now.
I think, as the founders did, that everyone ought to have to obey the same laws. No exceptions.
Period.
KINGMAX
Member
LEO will cover for LEO
Blue will cover Blue in most cases. Don't you think it fall into that 'Professional Courtsey' thing.
Blue will cover Blue in most cases. Don't you think it fall into that 'Professional Courtsey' thing.
ThatIsAFact
Member
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2004
- Messages
- 44
further discussion of Coast Guard and 18 USC 926B
I have a longstanding interest in the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA)(18 USC 926B, 926C). I would be very interested to know whether any command authority in the Coast Guard or the Department of Homeland Security has issued any document that actually speaks to the question of which, if any, Coast Guard personnel may carry off-duty under the LEOSA.
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. But it seems to me, based on very limited research, that some Coast Guard personnel do meet the LEOSA's definition of "qualified law enforcement officer." However, there is an additional consideration: The LEOSA overrides only state and local laws that ban or restrict concealed carry (with a few specific limitations that are spelled out in the LEOSA). But the LEOSA does not immunize anybody from any federal laws, rules, or agency policies.
Therefore, I believe that an LEO who works for a state or local law enforcement agency can exercise the federally conferred right regardless of any local agency policy to the contrary, including the policies of his own employing agency, as long as he is carrying a gun that is his personal property. (I know that some people have a different perception, and I am happy to debate that point later.) But the same is not true for a federal employee, who remains subject to the federal rules of his agency.
Therefore, even if a given employee of (let's say) the Coast Guard meets all of the qualifications in the LEOSA for a "qualified law enforcement officer" -- and it seems to be that some do -- if the Department of Homeland Security or the Coast Guard command enforce rules that say he can't use his Coast Guard ID to carry off duty, then he can't, because the LEOSA does not override any federal rules.
I emphasize that I do not know whether any federal authority has, in fact, spoken to this question. It would be my hope that the responsible federal authorities would honor the general congressional intent behind the LEOSA, which was that those who carry firearms in the course of performing law enforcement functions should be able to carry concealed firearms in any jurisdiction. However, as I read the law, Congress has left the door open for a federal agency to deny its own employees this right, if it chooses to do so.
So, again -- does anybody really know if Dept. of Homeland Security or Coast Guard officials have issued any official guidance as to which (if any) Coast Guard personnel are allowed to carry, off duty, under 926B?
I have a longstanding interest in the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA)(18 USC 926B, 926C). I would be very interested to know whether any command authority in the Coast Guard or the Department of Homeland Security has issued any document that actually speaks to the question of which, if any, Coast Guard personnel may carry off-duty under the LEOSA.
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. But it seems to me, based on very limited research, that some Coast Guard personnel do meet the LEOSA's definition of "qualified law enforcement officer." However, there is an additional consideration: The LEOSA overrides only state and local laws that ban or restrict concealed carry (with a few specific limitations that are spelled out in the LEOSA). But the LEOSA does not immunize anybody from any federal laws, rules, or agency policies.
Therefore, I believe that an LEO who works for a state or local law enforcement agency can exercise the federally conferred right regardless of any local agency policy to the contrary, including the policies of his own employing agency, as long as he is carrying a gun that is his personal property. (I know that some people have a different perception, and I am happy to debate that point later.) But the same is not true for a federal employee, who remains subject to the federal rules of his agency.
Therefore, even if a given employee of (let's say) the Coast Guard meets all of the qualifications in the LEOSA for a "qualified law enforcement officer" -- and it seems to be that some do -- if the Department of Homeland Security or the Coast Guard command enforce rules that say he can't use his Coast Guard ID to carry off duty, then he can't, because the LEOSA does not override any federal rules.
I emphasize that I do not know whether any federal authority has, in fact, spoken to this question. It would be my hope that the responsible federal authorities would honor the general congressional intent behind the LEOSA, which was that those who carry firearms in the course of performing law enforcement functions should be able to carry concealed firearms in any jurisdiction. However, as I read the law, Congress has left the door open for a federal agency to deny its own employees this right, if it chooses to do so.
So, again -- does anybody really know if Dept. of Homeland Security or Coast Guard officials have issued any official guidance as to which (if any) Coast Guard personnel are allowed to carry, off duty, under 926B?
BOP222
Member
Arrest Authority, BOP
§ 3050. Bureau of Prisons employees’ powers
An officer or employee of the Bureau of Prisons may—
(1) make arrests on or off of Bureau of Prisons property without warrant for violations of the following provisions regardless of where the violation may occur: sections 111 (assaulting officers), 751 (escape), and 752 (assisting escape) of title 18, United States Code, and section 1826 (c) (escape) of title 28, United States Code;
(2) make arrests on Bureau of Prisons premises or reservation land of a penal, detention, or correctional facility without warrant for violations occurring thereon of the following provisions: sections 661 (theft), 1361 (depredation of property), 1363 (destruction of property), 1791 (contraband), 1792 (mutiny and riot), and 1793 (trespass) of title 18, United States Code; and
(3) arrest without warrant for any other offense described in title 18 or 21 of the United States Code, if committed on the premises or reservation of a penal or correctional facility of the Bureau of Prisons if necessary to safeguard security, good order, or government property;
if such officer or employee has reasonable grounds to believe that the arrested person is guilty of such offense, and if there is likelihood of such person’s escaping before an arrest warrant can be obtained. If the arrested person is a fugitive from custody, such prisoner shall be returned to custody. Officers and employees of the said Bureau of Prisons may carry firearms under such rules and regulations as the Attorney General may prescribe.
§ 3050. Bureau of Prisons employees’ powers
An officer or employee of the Bureau of Prisons may—
(1) make arrests on or off of Bureau of Prisons property without warrant for violations of the following provisions regardless of where the violation may occur: sections 111 (assaulting officers), 751 (escape), and 752 (assisting escape) of title 18, United States Code, and section 1826 (c) (escape) of title 28, United States Code;
(2) make arrests on Bureau of Prisons premises or reservation land of a penal, detention, or correctional facility without warrant for violations occurring thereon of the following provisions: sections 661 (theft), 1361 (depredation of property), 1363 (destruction of property), 1791 (contraband), 1792 (mutiny and riot), and 1793 (trespass) of title 18, United States Code; and
(3) arrest without warrant for any other offense described in title 18 or 21 of the United States Code, if committed on the premises or reservation of a penal or correctional facility of the Bureau of Prisons if necessary to safeguard security, good order, or government property;
if such officer or employee has reasonable grounds to believe that the arrested person is guilty of such offense, and if there is likelihood of such person’s escaping before an arrest warrant can be obtained. If the arrested person is a fugitive from custody, such prisoner shall be returned to custody. Officers and employees of the said Bureau of Prisons may carry firearms under such rules and regulations as the Attorney General may prescribe.
The Amigo
Member
No such guidance letter from homeland security or the Coast guard how ever some individual commands at the individuals request have issued letters stating that they do not have a problem with x person carrying a weapon off duty and that x person is classified as a law enforcement officer or investigator Ive seen them.
glockman19
Member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2007
- Messages
- 3,700
1) Yes
2) Yes
3) No
4) Yes HR 218 does
2) Yes
3) No
4) Yes HR 218 does
Autolycus
Member
Glockman19: Who are you addressing in your previous post?
Either way laws that grant priveledges to some, especially government agents, are unconstitutional.
Either way laws that grant priveledges to some, especially government agents, are unconstitutional.
The Amigo
Member
Either way laws that grant privilege's to some, especially government agents, are unc
That's your point of view, to which i disagree however its the law. And going in to every forum related to this and complaining/making polls about how much you hate anyone who can carry a gun who is not you, will get you nowhere you want the law changed talk to the lawmakers.
That's your point of view, to which i disagree however its the law. And going in to every forum related to this and complaining/making polls about how much you hate anyone who can carry a gun who is not you, will get you nowhere you want the law changed talk to the lawmakers.
Autolycus
Member
Just because its the law does not make it right.
So you support the idea that the government has the right to violate the rights of its citizens while completely ignoring its agents?
I am going forum to forum trying to recruit others to our side.
So you support the idea that the government has the right to violate the rights of its citizens while completely ignoring its agents?
I am going forum to forum trying to recruit others to our side.
Steve in PA
Member
The only way the CG is going to authorize/allow anyone to carry is in the performance of their duties, not just because they want to carry "off duty".
Pilgrim
Member
There are a number of law enforcement officers who support national ccw reciprocity. However, it is going to take an organization with national recognition and lobbying power to get Congress to pay attention to the issue.
Law enforcement national CCW only came about after years of lobbying by several law enforcement organizations, fraternal orders, etc. Then it took champions in the Congress who were interested and kept talking to other members of Congress why it is a good idea.
It is a good sign that so many states now issue permits on a 'shall issue' basis. It is even a better sign that many states recognize the permits of other states and even enter into full reciprocity agreements. Each new state added to the list of 'shall issue' is one step closer to national carry.
I think a more achievable goal is converting the 'may issue' states to 'shall issue'. California almost did it in the nineties. It was the powerful Calif. Sheriff's Association that shot it down. This can be changed if the Sheriff's Association changes its executive board membership to reflect the greater number of rural counties in the state. If you are a California CCW permit holder, pester your sheriff to take a more active role in his organization to change this bias against CCW issuance.
Pilgrim
OH25shooter
Member
Tecumseh,
For crying out loud. It's a law (HB218) signed by President Bush. I noticed from your profile you are a 25 year old student. What part of "it's a law" do you not understand? You've made your opinion clear. You are not, nor have ever been a law enforcement officer, so deal with it. You can post all the polls you wish. The law has merit and I doubt the president will monitor this forum and change it because some student feels he got short changed. Unbelievable!
For crying out loud. It's a law (HB218) signed by President Bush. I noticed from your profile you are a 25 year old student. What part of "it's a law" do you not understand? You've made your opinion clear. You are not, nor have ever been a law enforcement officer, so deal with it. You can post all the polls you wish. The law has merit and I doubt the president will monitor this forum and change it because some student feels he got short changed. Unbelievable!
- Status
