Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BarryLee
The Atlanta Braves have implemented a new policy prohibiting off duty law enforcement officers from bring firearms into the stadium. This policy does not apply to officers who have direct jurisdiction over the stadium such as federal, state and Atlanta city officers...
...So, is this an issue as far as the Law enforcement Officers Safety Act is concerned? I thought LEOSA allowed off duty LEOs to carry, so can the Braves legally prohibit it? Since the only penalty is being forced to leave the property does that make it ok?
|
BarryLee,
As has already been mentioned a property owner, or controlling person of said property may prohibit carry there or ask someone to leave if discovered. The issue I have isn't just tied to this ball park, but to similar issues on both sides of the isle that really do no good, besides for certain peoples ego's.
The policy you mention which doesn't apply to federal, state, and Atlanta officers would ban, say a Maryland trooper, or a small town officer from Podunk as well. But the rub of the feds and who does or doesn't have federal jurisdiction. So, how do you define which federal agencies have jurisdiction there? Unless assigned to that ball game by detail, or specifically known to work that area, how are they going to not allow one fed, but allow another? If they are going by the debate of not knowing who is/isn't able to carry from local/state elsewhere, then how could they figure it out with the feds? They cant. Is this a case of where a fed from a less known agency is turned down, but works in Atlanta, but a fed assigned to Tacoma Washington and with the FBI is allowed in when he is on vacation? Sounds like a huge mess to me, and more liability then I care to be involved with.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KyJim
Are there not agencies which require off duty officers to carry, even if outside their jurisdiction? I'm not saying that trumps the private property owner rights but it sure places them in a predicament.
|
There may be some, but its typically been required to carry off-duty in/around their own jurisdiction. May be some required to carry off duty everywhere though. Would be nice to find out. This kind of reminds me of the issue in Texas at a ball field there and the issues involved there.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BarryLee
I assume all officers would have credentials identifying them as LEOs, but maybe the Braves don’t want to sort through what’s legitimate and what might not be.
|
BarryLee...Ummm...Well...You have done it now! You hit one of the 2 main issues with LEOSA. If you read through the LEOSA Act and Amendment there is no requirement that an ID be issued, if it is verifiable, and the reasons that it can or can not be issued., or a punishment for not doing that. Just because an officer has 30 years, good standing, never a problem (beyond basic authority, and time served for retiree's), doesn't mean he can get the required ID. Someone that has been a problem, but is legally able to posses a firearm, but meets the basic requirements, can be buddy buddy with his/her Chief, and get the required ID. One state passed a law, and I know that some in my state, including myself, are trying to get a similar law passed here.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ColoradoFOP link below
This bill guarantees current practice and the rights extended to retired law enforcement officers under federal law (LEOSA). This bill mandates that agencies cannot stop issuing photographic ID’s to officers who leave in good standing with ten or more years qualifying law enforcement experience provided the officer meets the standards set forth in LEOSA.
Furthermore if an agency denies this issuance of identification the agency shall issue a letter to the officer specifying the legal reasons for denial. If the officer is denied for reasons other than the disqualifiers under LEOSA that exposes the agency to potential litigation to enforce the rights extended to the officer under federal law.
|
http://www.coloradofop.org/index.cfm...&homeID=276917
So, there is that major problem with LEOSA. It is effectively and in a major way, may issue, not shall issue Also, there is no requirement in every state that an active officer be issued an ID that meets LEOSA. I know my state does not that I have found. Long story short, LEOSA has a lot of problems and needs some corrective action at the state or fed level, or needs to be replaced by a better law to avoid some of these issues.