The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old October 13, 2012, 09:56 AM   #26
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 5,951
Quote:
RCW 9.41.270
Weapons apparently capable of producing bodily harm — unlawful carrying or handling — penalty — exceptions.

(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm, in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.
I was of the opinion that the arrest of the guy in his car was a bogus charge, but due to the wording in the law I can see how it would apply: If another driver was alarmed, that's a clue that other persons could be alarmed.

Not the strongest of cases, but I can see how an officer would use that as a basis for making an arrest.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old October 13, 2012, 02:28 PM   #27
youngunz4life
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2010
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,877
Quote:
Again, there seems to be much you don't understand.

The LEOSA applies to Federal officers only when they retire, and it does not apply to any officers just because they are off-duty. The purpose behind the LEOSA was (and is) to allow law enforcement officers from one state to legally carry concealed firearms in states other than the state where they are sworn officers. In other words, it's effectively a national CCW for police officers (and retired police officers if they maintain their weapons qualification). Federal officers can already carry in all states. The LEOSA doesn't even address simple off-duty status.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enf...ers_Safety_Act

Sir, please note the amendments provided in the link. I don't see anywhere where federal law enforcement officers aren't covered. Also, said law enforcement officer needs to just fall under any and all guidelines. The alcohol consumption is noted. Furthermore, the point of LEOSA is for off-duty law enforcement unless I am reading it and have read other material incorrectly. Lastly, the courts have made very clear that even if an agency(as one example) disagrees with LEOSA and/or doesn't allow off-duty carry, the officer would be and is still covered under the trumping federal law of LEOSA. If you read some cases that are noted here(you will have to dig deeper), you will easily see where I am coming from with this last point.

I did not know that all federal law officers could carry in any state(you seemed to suggest that), but I am not sure of that. However, these officers are allowed to carry anywhere in America and its land and waters because of LEOSA making the issue a moot point. I believe NJ state troopers were having trouble with this way back when, but they were covered even if the agency was against it. The law gained serious momentum at the beginning of the millenium when an off-duty chicago police officer was ambushed and gunned down(couldn't protect himself because of chicago gun laws when he was off-duty). Any law enforcement officer qualifies if they meet the short list of requirements. period. I am guessing that is why they needed to do an amendment for certain agencies for whatever the reason.

ps- I am not an expert but it seems cut and dry and you seemed to make some erroneous statements(one of which maybe because you were typing too quick since it says the opposite of the actual purpose of the law with regards to off-duty LEO's). Many case studies of the law have shown how stubborn and rigid the law is, as it is not too lengthy & people(lawyers,states,etc) have tried to sway it their direction unsuccessfully since this is a federal law: example, coast guard having power of arrest, county jail personnel since they can "arrest" a disruptive + incarcerated inmate and so-on. I probably shouldn't give examples since it all boils down to amendments and also if the LEO meets all requirements; I gave the coast guard one since it was a serious court battle, and you will see what I mean if you read the arrest report. The other example is only to show that words can be deceiving and have more simple meanings unlike the regular cop on patrol that can arrest someone.

segment of original law(doesn't address retired personnel but they enjoy same benefits LEOSA provides them, allowing them to carry CCW even in IL as one example.

Quote:
What does “qualified law enforcement officer” mean?
A “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 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
6. is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm
__________________
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" -Admiral Farragut @ Battle of Mobile Bay 05AUG1864
youngunz4life is offline  
Old October 13, 2012, 02:34 PM   #28
youngunz4life
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2010
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,877
one of many examples

basically, Sir, an off-duty chicago police officer visiting washington DC has the right to carry a concealed weapon




****


Quote:
A “qualified retired law enforcement officer” is an individual who:
1. retired in good standing from service with a public agency as a law enforcement
officer for reasons other than mental instability
2. before retirement was 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 had statutory powers of arrest
3. before retirement was regularly employed as a law enforcement officer for a total
of 15 years or more or completed any applicable probationary period of such
service, and then retired early due to a service-connected disability
4. has a nonforfeitable right to benefits under the retirement plan of the agency
5. during the past 12 months has met, at his/her own expense, the State of
residency’s standards for training and qualification for active law enforcement
officers to carry firearms
6. is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug
or substance
7. is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm
How do I qualify to carry under the provisions of this bill?
A qualified retired law enforcement officer must carry on your person a photo id issued
by the agency from which you retired from service as a law enforcement officer that
indicates that you have been tested or otherwise found by the agency to meet the
standards established by the agency for training and qualification for active law
enforcement to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm.
OR
A qualified retired law enforcement officer must carry a photo id issued by the agency
from which you retired from service as a law enforcement officer and a certification
issued by the State in which you reside that indicates that you have been tested or
otherwise found by the State to meet the standards established by the State for training
and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry a firearm of the same type as
the concealed firearm within the past 12 months.
refer to actual law and newest material to be more correct but you get the jist....it has always been a steady, steadfast law not changing much(just confusion)
__________________
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" -Admiral Farragut @ Battle of Mobile Bay 05AUG1864
youngunz4life is offline  
Old October 13, 2012, 04:55 PM   #29
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 5,951
Quote:
Originally Posted by younggunz4life
Sir, please note the amendments provided in the link. I don't see anywhere where federal law enforcement officers aren't covered.
I don't believe I said the law doesn't apply to them, I said they don't need it.

Quote:
... Furthermore, the point of LEOSA is for off-duty law enforcement unless I am reading it and have read other material incorrectly.
The point of the LEOSA is not for officers who are currently serving and off-duty within their own states, it is for the benefit of officers who are traveling outside of their home state, and for retired officers.

Quote:
Lastly, the courts have made very clear that even if an agency(as one example) disagrees with LEOSA and/or doesn't allow off-duty carry, the officer would be and is still covered under the trumping federal law of LEOSA.
I never suggested otherwise. The issue of an officer's agency supporting or not supporting the LEOSA wasn't under discussion (unless I missed something).

Quote:
I did not know that all federal law officers could carry in any state(you seemed to suggest that), but I am not sure of that. However, these officers are allowed to carry anywhere in America and its land and waters because of LEOSA making the issue a moot point.
The issue is moot because Federal officers don't need the LEOSA, not because the LEOSA doesn't exclude them. It would still apply to them after they retire.

Quote:
I believe NJ state troopers were having trouble with this way back when, but they were covered even if the agency was against it.
But, again -- this issue was not part of the discussion.

Quote:
ps- I am not an expert but it seems cut and dry and you seemed to make some erroneous statements(one of which maybe because you were typing too quick since it says the opposite of the actual purpose of the law with regards to off-duty LEO's).
Which of my statements was or were erroneous?

And, from your next post:

Quote:
basically, Sir, an off-duty chicago police officer visiting washington DC has the right to carry a concealed weapon
Yes, precisely. Because of the LEOSA. Nowhere did I in any way suggest that a Chicago police officer visiting Washington. DC, would not be covered by the LEOSA.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old October 13, 2012, 10:15 PM   #30
youngunz4life
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2010
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,877
I apologize for my lengthy posts; i try not to do that. I should add that my retirement post is outdated also....the requirement is 10yrs LE as long as your honorable discharge or whatever they call it isn't 'mental'. I have always been interested in leosa because I am pro nationwide CCW and hope it happens eventually. Especially with firearms laws and consequences can be volatile, so I am in the minority on TFL pro federal CCW.

Quote:
Again, there seems to be much you don't understand.

The LEOSA applies to Federal officers only when they retire, and it does not apply to any officers just because they are off-duty.
this statement is misleading. For one, I do understand how leosa operates. Also, leosa applies to every LEO that meets the guidelines. As I mentioned as well, I am unaware of federal officers being able to carry anywhere in America just because they are federal. First of all, it is a moot point due to leosa implemented in 2003/2004, but there are a whole bunch of federal agencies. Just because they are federal does not mean they had some kind of all of america(57 states as you put it protocol). An example is the amtrak police(clearly federal). They had to actually vie for an amendment which was signed by Obama in 2010(somewhere in the original literature, they were excluded).

Quote:
The issue is moot because Federal officers don't need the LEOSA, not because the LEOSA doesn't exclude them. It would still apply to them after they retire.
Show me where this is true. either way, i assure you, leosa encompasses these individuals. At the very least it provides an extra blanket of protection, but that is not what i am getting at.


Quote:
The point of the LEOSA is not for officers who are currently serving and off-duty within their own states, it is for the benefit of officers who are traveling outside of their home state, and for retired officers.
Actually it is. This law came to be after decades of fighting due to the fact that an off-duty chicago police officer was ambushed and gunned down off-duty by felons and thugs that I believe knew this cop(unsure of that specific). This off-duty cop who wore a sidearm everyday at work and put his life on the line everyday he put on his uniform was breaking the law(serious offense and serious career infraction) if he carried a CCW off-duty. LEOSA now nullifies that issue because it was in essence upsurd(just my opinion). An off-duty LEO in a state(such as IL) is now allowed to CCW anywhere without much of anything that he/she already has(career ID, honesty that they qualified with their weapon(human resources usually sets it up every yr so that is a gimme since they an't carry weapons at work without it), etc Furthermore, LEOSA is for all LEO's(past and present) - no matter what the reason - that meet the strict guidelines of the law. It doesn't mean squat that there is no off-duty clause(referring to how you mentioned that earlier).

Quote:
I don't believe I said the law doesn't apply to them, I said they don't need it.
you referring to federal here...

Quote:
The LEOSA applies to Federal officers only when they retire
when one reads it there are definite concerns on how one perceives what you are saying. leosa applies to qualified andor qualified, retired officers(of very many varying degrees).

there are other repetitive quotes I could display but might be going in circles ifso....I will add this one:

Quote:
If he is not authorized by his agency and position to carry a weapon, the LEOSA doesn't do anything to override that.
I used NJ as an example...you mentioned it wasn't brought up. Either way I believe this quote was used for federal example but it encompasses every leosa qualifier:

your statement is erroneous. The high courts have determined...without fail and without disrespecting leosa one time...that even if an agency doesn't cover it/allow the use of off-duty firearms, and so-on, leosa protects said individual and is protected and legal within the eyes & scope of the law.

Even with the interesting coast guard study(not military...coast guard since they met the requirements of the simple, short federal law), the military personnel was protected even though his unit, company forbid what he was doing, the person was breaking more than one law, wasn't honest about hidden firearm, had no license, etc. This person was still within his rights under leosa. without that he would've been up the creek(forgive me if I mistyped a couple of his details...I think there was a major one I forgot too).

*You probably understand leosa, but be careful of assigning it special stuff. It is a very clear and always upheld law. there are few exceptions which nullify leosa: someone's private property not allowing firearms(joe schmo anti gunner), state's restrictions on court carry, being drunk the main ones. leosa allows NJ, NYC, IL, HI(interesting case study), and so-on. it protects these individuals. in mass you need a class A CCW which is very hard to get(hard to get class B too)....leosa trumps it. I am pro national CCW..too much confusio the other way and people getting hung up(saw an interesting thread about navajo country on here)
__________________
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" -Admiral Farragut @ Battle of Mobile Bay 05AUG1864
youngunz4life is offline  
Old October 13, 2012, 10:59 PM   #31
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 5,951
Quote:
Originally Posted by younggunz4life
Quote:
If he is not authorized by his agency and position to carry a weapon, the LEOSA doesn't do anything to override that.
I used NJ as an example...you mentioned it wasn't brought up. Either way I believe this quote was used for federal example but it encompasses every leosa qualifier:

your statement is erroneous. The high courts have determined...without fail and without disrespecting leosa one time...that even if an agency doesn't cover it/allow the use of off-duty firearms, and so-on, leosa protects said individual and is protected and legal within the eyes & scope of the law.
The statement that you quoted was not referring to off-duty carry, it was referring to police (and other agency) personnel who are not authorized by their agency to carry firearms in the course of their duties. (And, of course, if the agency doesn't authorize them to carry on duty, it certainly doesn't authorize them to carry off duty.)

Here's the statutory language:

Quote:
Originally Posted by 18USC926B
18 USC § 926B - Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law enforcement officers

...

(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 which could result in suspension or loss of police powers;
(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.
Based on the above, any law enforcement officer who is not authorized by his agency to carry a firearm (on or off duty) is not covered by the LEOSA. One example (based on paragraph (c)(4) above) would be an officer who failed his/her annual/semi-annual requalification. Until that officer can successfully requalify, he or she is not covered by the LEOSA. Another example would be an officer who, for whatever reason, is assigned to desk duty and has his/her authorization to carry on duty suspended. Unless and until the suspension is lifted, he or she is not covered by the LEOSA.

The section of the LEOSA I quoted above is the statement of what qualifiers an LEO must satisfy to be covered by the law. Note that (5) ends with "and" -- meaning that this is not a case of "pick any one and go." An LEO must satisfy ALL of these requirements before he or she is covered by the law.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Reply

Tags
ccw law , leosa

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2013 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.09205 seconds with 9 queries