PDA

View Full Version : LEOs traveling outside their home state using LEOSA are breaking the Law generally...


Liberty1
12-30-2008, 7:52 PM
...if they are knowingly within a federal school zone...and not acting in their official capacity...

Time to get your UT and FL CWPs?

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/gun_free_school_zones.txt

"(2)(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to
possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects
interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual
knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.

"(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a
firearm--

"(i) on private property not part of school grounds;

"(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to
do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a
political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or
political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains
such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or
political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under
law to receive the license;

"(iii) that is--

"(I) not loaded; and

"(II) in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack that is
on a motor vehicle;

"(iv) by an individual for use in a program approved by a
school in the school zone;

"(v) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered
into between a school in the school zone and the individual or an
employer of the individual;

"(vi) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her
official capacity; or

"(vii) that is unloaded and is possessed by an individual
while traversing school premises for the purpose of gaining access
to public or private lands open to hunting, if the entry on school
premises is authorized by school authorities.

CalCop
12-30-2008, 7:55 PM
...if they are knowingly within a school zone...Yeah, but if you're out of your home state...you probably don't KNOW where the school zones are.

rrr70
12-30-2008, 7:59 PM
Yeah, but if you're out of your home state...you probably don't KNOW where the school zones are.

Is not knowing makes somebody not guilty?

CalCop
12-30-2008, 8:03 PM
Is not knowing makes somebody not guilty?
Ignorance is not usually an excuse to illegal behavior. But, read the law itself in the first post, where it says you must KNOWINGLY do it to be illegal.

Liberty1
12-30-2008, 8:05 PM
Now the question is if you are off duty in your own state are you still "acting in your official capacity" in order to be exempt?

dreyna14
12-30-2008, 8:18 PM
Ignorance is not usually an excuse to illegal behavior. But, read the law itself in the first post, where it says you must KNOWINGLY do it to be illegal.

There's certainly more than one firearms law I've read over that contains the exact wording, one being the 1000' law for schools if I remember correctly. However even if I was unknowingly at 999', I'd still get the book thrown at me as if I threw battery acid on a room full of puppies. If I was a cop, I might just get grounded and told, "NO! That's a bad, bad officer. Go to your room and think about what you've done."

artherd
12-30-2008, 8:29 PM
"knowing" is applied reasonable person standards here. Ie if you can see school signs - you reasonably should have known, and will be convicted.

phbiggs
12-30-2008, 8:33 PM
I dont recall the details but after 9/11 HR 218 (or something like that) gave sworn LEOs to carry across state lines legally or something to that effect. How that plays with school zones I dont know.

sac550
12-30-2008, 9:02 PM
Police officers are allowed to carry their firearm in every state on or off duty, under federal law passed after 9/11. Federal officers have always been allowed to carry in every state or fly armed.

freakshow10mm
12-30-2008, 9:52 PM
Actually the pilot has the right to deny their (federal LE) privilege to carry aboard aircraft. It's the pilot's call, not the .gov. The pilot has the right to refuse anyone to come aboard, government agents (except air marshals) included.

383green
12-30-2008, 9:56 PM
Actually the pilot has the right to deny their (federal LE) privilege to carry aboard aircraft. It's the pilot's call, not the .gov. The pilot has the right to refuse anyone to come aboard, government agents (except air marshals) included.

I wonder how safe that pilot's job would be if he or she refused to allow a sworn officer to board the aircraft and/or carry a weapon on it, and then that officer's agency called up the pilot's employer to raise a stink?

freakshow10mm
12-30-2008, 10:45 PM
Very safe. My uncle is a commercial pilot and has denied boarding to a federal LE who wanted to carry while flying many times. Bottom line is it's the pilot's call.

Shane916
12-30-2008, 11:24 PM
Very safe. My uncle is a commercial pilot and has denied boarding to a federal LE who wanted to carry while flying many times. Bottom line is it's the pilot's call.

Why would he do that?

freakshow10mm
12-30-2008, 11:26 PM
Had a "if I can't carry, they can't carry" policy until the law was passed that pilots can carry a gun in the cockpit. Now since he can have a gun on board, they can have one too. He's all about fairness.

artherd
12-30-2008, 11:58 PM
I wonder how safe that pilot's job would be if he or she refused to allow a sworn officer to board the aircraft and/or carry a weapon on it, and then that officer's agency called up the pilot's employer to raise a stink?

Very. Pilots are essentially GOD on their aircraft and - absent negligence - are given quite a bit of leeway by their airlines, even today.

As a matter of law - if a pilot tells you to play pattycake, it is a felony not to play pattycake.

becxltoo984
12-31-2008, 12:30 AM
Police officers are allowed to carry their firearm in every state on or off duty, under federal law passed after 9/11. Federal officers have always been allowed to carry in every state or fly armed.

They Can but they still need a permit for out of state Carry ! LOL
This is how AZ deals with it not sure about Ca.
http://ccw.azdps.gov/leosa.asp

gimebakmybulits
12-31-2008, 12:35 AM
Very safe. My uncle is a commercial pilot and has denied boarding to a federal LE who wanted to carry while flying many times. Bottom line is it's the pilot's call.

Things must have changed since the 80's, the 5 of us would get an escort past security and since we never checked any baggage the M-16, 870 and our .45's would be in the plane with us and I'd bet the pilots never had a clue.

becxltoo984
12-31-2008, 12:41 AM
My sister is in Federal law enforcement "USBP". Some of her perks- always get to meet the captain and gets an isle seat very time .

retired
12-31-2008, 1:31 AM
I have my former dept. issued ccw and my HR 218 one. My former dept. states if we have the latter, we don't need the former, but I prefer to have both. The dept. one is good for 5yrs. and of course, the HR 218 is one year.

I have yet to use the HR 218 as I never been stopped when in Laughlin, Vegas or at the River.

Liberty1
12-31-2008, 5:26 AM
My sister is in Federal law enforcement "USBP". Some of her perks- always get to meet the captain and gets an isle seat very time .

I just don't like the thought of the Federal Postal Police getting to carry over me, a flat foot with a 290+ qual, or for that matter any CGN member :D.

randy
12-31-2008, 6:01 AM
What is a federal school zone?

randy
12-31-2008, 6:04 AM
Police officers are allowed to carry their firearm in every state on or off duty, under federal law passed after 9/11. Federal officers have always been allowed to carry in every state or fly armed.

WRONG.

Prior to 9/11 federal officers not on duty could not legaly carry their firearm while not in their home state. And no they could not fly armed.

joe schmoe
12-31-2008, 6:30 AM
WRONG.

Prior to 9/11 federal officers not on duty could not legaly carry their firearm while not in their home state. And no they could not fly armed.


Respectfully I will disagree. I'm 100% sure of this. Some federal LEO's could not carry off-duty with their agency blessing prior to 9/11, but those that could had no "home state" only restriction. The only folks who saw changes after 9/11 were a few uniformed FLEO agencies. The 'plain clothes' folks have had the same off-duty (50 state) carry long before 9/11. Never heard of a federal agent being told he could only carry off-duty in his home state...

jmlivingston
12-31-2008, 6:52 AM
One thing LEOSA didn't cover was magazines, so an out of state LEO traveling into CA still can't bring mags holding over 10 rounds.

John

lrdchivalry
12-31-2008, 9:55 AM
They Can but they still need a permit for out of state Carry ! LOL
This is how AZ deals with it not sure about Ca.
http://ccw.azdps.gov/leosa.asp


Actually your wrong. All the officer needs is his credentials to show he qualifies to carry under HR218. No other CCW is required as HR218 supercedes any state law. That link looks like it is for retired LEO's living in Arizona, which would allow the retired LEO to maintain his firearm qualification in order to be compliant with HR218.

lrdchivalry
12-31-2008, 10:02 AM
WRONG.

Prior to 9/11 federal officers not on duty could not legaly carry their firearm while not in their home state. And no they could not fly armed.

Wrong on both counts.

I have been a federal LEO for over ten years. The feds were/are not bound by a home state as the state and locals were at one time. We were/are legally allowed to carry nationwide. You are also wrong about flying armed.. I have done it.

Fire in the Hole
12-31-2008, 10:03 AM
SUMMARY of The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) of 2004
On July 22, 2004, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) of 2004, also
commonly called “HR 218,” became law. (18 U.S.C. §§, 926B, 926C.) This federal law allows
“a qualified law enforcement officer” or “a qualified retired law enforcement officer” with
identification that meets specified criteria to carry a concealed firearm anywhere in the nation,

In order to be “a qualified law enforcement officer” under the LEOSA, a person must
meet the following requirements:
1. Be an employee of a governmental agency who 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.

lrdchivalry
12-31-2008, 10:12 AM
One thing LEOSA didn't cover was magazines, so an out of state LEO traveling into CA still can't bring mags holding over 10 rounds.

John

Actually they can and is covered in the California penal code.


PC 12020
(a) Any person in this state who does any of the following is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or in the state prison: (2) Commencing January 1, 2000, manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, or lends, any large-capacity magazine.

(b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to any of the following:
(20) The sale to, lending to, transfer to, purchase by, receipt of, or importation into this state of, a large capacity magazine by a sworn peace officer as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2 who is authorized to carry a firearm in the course and scope of his or her duties.

Liberty1
12-31-2008, 10:23 AM
:popcorn: Um...any thoughts on, or criticisms of the OP conclussion?

lrdchivalry
12-31-2008, 10:33 AM
:popcorn: Um...any thoughts on, or criticisms of the OP conclussion?

LEO's can carry in a school zone while off duty. The LEOSA trumps state and local law.

Glock22Fan
12-31-2008, 3:15 PM
At the end of the day, I doubt that many cops from out of state are going to be hassled the same way that you (non-LEO's) or I might be for carrying, say, just inside a school zone (if that is indeed illegal) or other prohibited place.

We might not like it, but professional courtesy will usually get them better treatment and more of a blind eye.

Telperion
12-31-2008, 3:16 PM
LEO's can carry in a school zone while off duty. The LEOSA trumps state and local law.
LEOSA says "notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof" but not "notwithstanding any other provision of the law of the United States" so the federal law cited by the OP is still binding.

What is the status of the Federal gun-free school zone act, since it was invalidated in US v. Lopez but then trivially reworded by Congress afterward?

sac550
12-31-2008, 4:50 PM
WRONG.

Prior to 9/11 federal officers not on duty could not legaly carry their firearm while not in their home state. And no they could not fly armed.

Well I respectfully disagree. I can tell you from first hand knowledge that federal officers can and have always been allowed to carry in all 50 states and fly armed even prior to 9-11.

Now locals were prohibited until after 9-11. Although CA officers going to Reno always took their guns and Reno PD didn't care. However, now as long as you have your police creds and they are not expired you can carry in every state.

cadurand
12-31-2008, 8:16 PM
A cop caught carrying in a school zone wouldn't get in trouble.

Just like those cops in Sturgis didn't get in trouble for carrying in a bar.

Different set of rules for police than for the rest of us. I guess all men weren't created equal.

BitterVoter
12-31-2008, 8:23 PM
A cop caught carrying in a school zone wouldn't get in trouble.

Just like those cops in Sturgis didn't get in trouble for carrying in a bar.

Different set of rules for police than for the rest of us. I guess all men weren't created equal.

We are created equal, we just haven't been enforcing it enough lately.

sac550
12-31-2008, 8:31 PM
A cop caught carrying in a school zone wouldn't get in trouble.

Just like those cops in Sturgis didn't get in trouble for carrying in a bar.

Different set of rules for police than for the rest of us. I guess all men weren't created equal.

why cant cops carry in a bar? There are no restrictions on a bar for cops. Different rules, yes, they are cops, different laws.

N6ATF
12-31-2008, 9:09 PM
Is not knowing makes somebody not guilty?

While the saying is ignorance is no defense, studied mistake of the law can be.

Methinks this is more of a difference between basic intent (just doing something illegal) and specific intent (knowing you're doing something illegal).

lrdchivalry
01-01-2009, 12:51 AM
Just like those cops in Sturgis didn't get in trouble for carrying in a bar.

Although it is illegal in the state to carry a gun into a bar the LEOSA trumped the state law and that is why they did not get into trouble. The firefighter that was with them and carrying is still on the hook.

lrdchivalry
01-01-2009, 1:03 AM
LEOSA says "notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof" but not "notwithstanding any other provision of the law of the United States" so the federal law cited by the OP is still binding.

What is the status of the Federal gun-free school zone act, since it was invalidated in US v. Lopez but then trivially reworded by Congress afterward?

They would still be able to carry.

2)(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to
possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects
interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual
knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.

"(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a
firearm--

"(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to
do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a
political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or
political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains
such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or
political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under
law to receive the license

If the person has a ccw issued by the state that the school is in, they may carry a concealed firearm onto school grounds. Using your reference to it being a federal law an LEO would be able to carry due to HR218 being in essence a federal ccw.

BitterVoter
01-01-2009, 1:13 PM
So what we should be doing is declaring the Federal AND State school zones at the same time as they are almost identical and provide an exemption for "licensed" people.

I don't understand how someone OC'ing is any more dangerous than someone who is concealing....just because they don't have to go through licensing? Please.

Liberty1
01-01-2009, 1:24 PM
They would still be able to carry.

2)(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to
possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects
interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual
knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.

"(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a
firearm--

"(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to
do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a
political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or
political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains
such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or
political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under
law to receive the license

If the person has a ccw issued by the state that the school is in, they may carry a concealed firearm onto school grounds. Using your reference to it being a federal law an LEO would be able to carry due to HR218 being in essence a federal ccw.


States don't license visiting out of state LEOs unless that officer has a non resident CCW issued or recognized by that state(states could recognize other states leos when off duty by their own statute but I don't know of any which do). And LEOSA doesn't supersede federal laws.

It may also be that LEOs, in their own employing states and not carrying while "acting in their official capacity", if their LEO status is not considered a "license" or "official capacity" under the Fed. GFSZ act, may also be technically violating this when off duty.

Would a federal prosecutor bring charges against an out of state visiting LEO if the only crime was a fed. school zone violation and there were no other questionable circumstances? I don't think so.

I posted this for that element of the CLEO and LEO communities which don't sympathize with private persons carrying for self defense. Be careful as the law, when it infringes on a right, can cut both ways.

Liberty1
01-01-2009, 1:28 PM
What is the status of the Federal gun-free school zone act, since it was invalidated in US v. Lopez but then trivially reworded by Congress afterward?

Has not been overturned yet.

DDT
01-01-2009, 1:47 PM
So, is there any reason for a LEO or retired LEO to ever get a CCW rather than rely on their LEO credentials?

Liberty1
01-01-2009, 2:26 PM
So, is there any reason for a LEO or retired LEO to ever get a CCW rather than rely on their LEO credentials?

In reality no. The chances of being charged federally under the GFSZ act (a misdemeanor) (even if not a LEO) are slim.

Technically, yes. The visiting LEO would need to either be acting in an "official capacity" or "licensed" by the state in which the SZ is found to be exempt (IMO).

DDT
01-01-2009, 2:28 PM
In reality no. The chances of being charged federally under the GFSZ act (a misdemeanor) (even if not a LEO) are slim.

Technically, yes. The visiting LEO would need to either be acting in an "official capacity" or "licensed" by the state in which the SZ is found to be exempt (IMO).


I meant in general, not in the specific school zone case.

Liberty1
01-01-2009, 2:42 PM
I meant in general, not in the specific school zone case.


Generally not legally, unless one didn't want to have to show their dept. id. and have their dept. called to verify it's validity (that in and of it self can cause problems).

Also LEOSA only covers concealed arms. If you wanted to open carry loaded in say Utah, you'd need a recognized CWP to be exempt from their loaded ban (firearm must be two stages from firing - no round in chamber). Other states which require a license to OC would be Indiana, Georgia, or if in Philadelphia, Penn., etc...

Another reason would be if LEOSA was found to be unconstitutional because of it's dubious (and bogus IMO) use of the commerce clause to justify otherwise unconstitutional congressional powers.

If they really wanted state leos carrying they could just say that when we are off duty we are activated "federal militia" and can carry arms everywhere and execute the laws of the union (and carry on airplanes too :D - like the elite postal police!!) :thumbsup:

Liberty1
01-01-2009, 2:52 PM
A cop caught carrying in a school zone wouldn't get in trouble.

Just like those cops in Sturgis didn't get in trouble for carrying in a bar.

Different set of rules for police than for the rest of us. I guess all men weren't created equal.

They were actually covered by LEOSA's provisions.

DDT
01-01-2009, 3:06 PM
Well, I was mostly asking for my Dad who is retired so there won't be other departmental repercussions. Good to know about the open carry issues.

Don't dog the Postal Inspectors. A good friend of mine went Recondo-black ops-Postal Inspector. Most unassuming guy you'd ever hope to meet but he has wicked interview skills and I never saw, or questioned his other job-related skills. He mostly worked mail bombings.

Liberty1
01-01-2009, 3:22 PM
Don't dog the Postal Inspectors.

Go PIS (http://postalinspectors.uspis.gov/)! :smilielol5:

and the PIS MOSTWANTED (http://postalinspectors.uspis.gov/pressroom/wanted.aspx)

Sorry couldn't help myself.

DDT
01-01-2009, 3:33 PM
Go PIS (http://postalinspectors.uspis.gov/)! :smilielol5:

and the PIS MOSTWANTED (http://postalinspectors.uspis.gov/pressroom/wanted.aspx)

Sorry couldn't help myself.

Better than these vicious criminals...

Ten Most Wanted! (http://www.epa.gov/fugitives)

Liberty1
01-01-2009, 3:40 PM
Better than these vicious criminals...

Ten Most Wanted! (http://www.epa.gov/fugitives)

Omran Alghazouli
Wanted Poster (PDF) (1 pg, 59K, About PDF)
Alghazouli was charged in the Southern District of California.

Alghazouli sold R-12 Freon, an ozone depleting substance, that had been illegally smuggled from Mexico.


Alghazouli currently is a fugitive believed to be living in Syria.
If sighted, contact the Criminal Investigation Division office in San Diego, California at: 1-619-557-2920

I :surrender:

BigDogatPlay
01-01-2009, 5:09 PM
Wrong on both counts.

I have been a federal LEO for over ten years. The feds were/are not bound by a home state as the state and locals were at one time. We were/are legally allowed to carry nationwide. You are also wrong about flying armed.. I have done it.

Not to start an argument but pre 9/11 I watched an FBI agent travelling with his wife be told at check in get his firearm into his checked baggage by a ticketing agent (United) at the counter. They were next in line in front of me so I saw / heard the entire exchange. As my weapon was already in my bag I declared it and went on my way.

After the PSA flight that went down on the Central Coast in 1987 thanks to a former employee who got a .44 Mag on board and killed the flight crew, a lot of rules changed including pilots and flight crew being forced to go through screening which eliminated flight deck folks from being armed until the FFDO program was launched post 9/11. The airlines have full authority over who they would allow on board armed and are within their common carrier rights to refuse boarding to anyone who doesn't want to get into line with their rules.

And past the airline, the captain has final and complete authority. 9/11 changed a lot of minds and the airlines are from what I've seen much better about federal LEOs boarding armed than they used to be.

cadurand
01-01-2009, 7:21 PM
They were actually covered by LEOSA's provisions.Yes, I know. This is where things being unequal comes into play.

That cop in Sturgis wasn't there in any official capacity. He was partying, in a bar, with his biker buddies.

I doubt LEOSA was meant to cover a wanna be biker cop drinking in a bar in Sturgis.

Liberty1
01-01-2009, 7:59 PM
Yes, I know. This is where things being unequal comes into play.

That cop in Sturgis wasn't there in any official capacity. He was partying, in a bar, with his biker buddies.

I doubt LEOSA was meant to cover a wanna be biker cop drinking in a bar in Sturgis.

LEOSA is not for "official capacity". It exempts qualified LEOS from state laws that would prohibit that officer from carrying a concealed weapon. And that is what it did. It doesn't preclude prosecution if that weapon was used unlawfully (say murder or assault).

And I agree, everyone should be allowed to carry everywhere all the time equally. Restrictions which the law a biding obey, even in a "bar", only create victim rich zones. Ca and Nv have no laws generally restricting firearms in "bars". But South Dakota and Az do.

lrdchivalry
01-01-2009, 11:46 PM
States don't license visiting out of state LEOs unless that officer has a non resident CCW issued or recognized by that state(states could recognize other states leos when off duty by their own statute but I don't know of any which do). And LEOSA doesn't supersede federal laws.

No one is saying it supersedes federal law, however, look at what that federal law has stated. If you have a ccw issued from the state in which the school is located you can carry in a school zone. The point I was trying to make was that the LEOSA serves basically as a federal CCW. Are you suggesting that on a federal level only state ccw's are honored in a school zone and not a federal ccw?

It may also be that LEOs, in their own employing states and not carrying while "acting in their official capacity", if their LEO status is not considered a "license" or "official capacity" under the Fed. GFSZ act, may also be technically violating this when off duty.

A private citizen with a ccw is not acting in any official capacity so I don't see a state issued ccw being honored and not a federal one.

Would a federal prosecutor bring charges against an out of state visiting LEO if the only crime was a fed. school zone violation and there were no other questionable circumstances? I don't think so.

Agreed, however I don't see it as a violation of federal law.

I posted this for that element of the CLEO and LEO communities which don't sympathize with private persons carrying for self defense. Be careful as the law, when it infringes on a right, can cut both ways.

Well according to the federal law a private citizen can carry in a school zone if the ccw was issued in the state that the school is located in.

lrdchivalry
01-01-2009, 11:54 PM
So, is there any reason for a LEO or retired LEO to ever get a CCW rather than rely on their LEO credentials?


No..Why pay money for a ccw when HR218 already gives them the authority to carry for free.

lrdchivalry
01-02-2009, 12:08 AM
Not to start an argument but pre 9/11 I watched an FBI agent travelling with his wife be told at check in get his firearm into his checked baggage by a ticketing agent (United) at the counter. They were next in line in front of me so I saw / heard the entire exchange. As my weapon was already in my bag I declared it and went on my way.

So...You watched an FBI agent being told he had to put his firearm in checked baggage, that doesn't mean that it was illegal for him to fly armed. First off the ticket agent doesn't have the authority to determine if the federal agent can fly armed, the federal government does.

After the PSA flight that went down on the Central Coast in 1987 thanks to a former employee who got a .44 Mag on board and killed the flight crew, a lot of rules changed including pilots and flight crew being forced to go through screening which eliminated flight deck folks from being armed until the FFDO program was launched post 9/11. The airlines have full authority over who they would allow on board armed and are within their common carrier rights to refuse boarding to anyone who doesn't want to get into line with their rules.

Really? I have been a federal leo since 1998 have have flown armed multiple times prior to 9/11 so you wrong in saying it was illegal prior to 9/11. The only person who has the authority to deny an armed leo onboard an aircraft is the captain of the aircraft the leo wishes to fly on.

And past the airline, the captain has final and complete authority. 9/11 changed a lot of minds and the airlines are from what I've seen much better about federal LEOs boarding armed than they used to be.

As I have said earlier only the captain can deny an armed leo from boarding, the airline does not have that authority.

retired
01-02-2009, 12:20 AM
LEO's can carry in a school zone while off duty. The LEOSA trumps state and local law.

And a retired leo with a dept. issued ccw (not the HR218 one) can also do so and that is covered in penal code section 626.9pc.

(o) This section does not apply to an honorably retired peace
officer authorized to carry a concealed or loaded firearm pursuant to
subdivision (a) or (i) of Section 12027 or paragraph (1) or (8) of
subdivision (b) of Section 12031.

No..Why pay money for a ccw when HR218 already gives them the authority to carry for free.

I can't speak for any dept. but my own of course, but dept. issued ccw permits for retired deputies do not cost anything, nor does the renewal. Ours are good for 5yrs. When it was time for renewal, I just called dept. personnel and requested a new one. After an investigation to ensure I had not done anything to be disqualified from being issued one, I was told to bring in my old one and a new one was issued. Mine was renewed this summer. I also, as stated in my first post, have a HR 218 ccw.