AJChenMPH
Member
Ah, that answers my questions re: military. Anyone know if there's any effort to include them for the future?
LE Federal Carry Law
- Thread starter usmarine0352_2005
- Start date
- Status
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
AJChenMPH
Member
Thanks. So there's no talk/chatter of including them going forward, huh? Grrrrr...
Neo-Luddite
Member
OK, isp2605. We're done.
Last edited:
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
Moderator In Memoriam
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.
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.
- Status
