|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
October 13, 2012, 09:56 AM | #26 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
|
Quote:
Not the strongest of cases, but I can see how an officer would use that as a basis for making an arrest. |
|
October 13, 2012, 02:28 PM | #27 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2010
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,877
|
Quote:
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:
__________________
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" -Admiral Farragut @ Battle of Mobile Bay 05AUG1864 |
||
October 13, 2012, 02:34 PM | #28 | |
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:
__________________
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" -Admiral Farragut @ Battle of Mobile Bay 05AUG1864 |
|
October 13, 2012, 04:55 PM | #29 | |||||||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And, from your next post: Quote:
|
|||||||
October 13, 2012, 10:15 PM | #30 | ||||||
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:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
there are other repetitive quotes I could display but might be going in circles ifso....I will add this one: Quote:
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 |
||||||
October 13, 2012, 10:59 PM | #31 | |||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
|
Quote:
Here's the statutory language: Quote:
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. |
|||
Tags |
ccw law , leosa |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|