View Full Version : Looking For HR218 Law Firm

04-10-2009, 8:29 AM
I've been asked by an attorney who represents cops on behalf of unions to find a California attorney / law firm familiar with HR218. While HR218 (LEOSA) seems simple enough when read, there are some nuances and discretionary issues that allow department heads to prevent implementation of HR218.

An example: A department allows retirees CCW within California only by:

1. Marking the retiree ID cards "Calif. CCW approved."
2. Only allowing retirees to requalify every three years whereas HR218 requires annual requals. So, in theory, a retiree cannot carry in another state on the 366th day after his/her most recent requal.

The attorney, on behalf of a cop union, is interested in taking legal action against at least one agency at this time. While there are alot of lawyers who are familiar with gun laws in general, he is looking for one who is knowledgeable about HR218 and LEO labor issues.

Thanks for any info. :thumbsup:

04-10-2009, 8:36 AM
You might also post your request over on www.calccw.com
There are quite a few CCW specific attorneys and legal experts there.

04-10-2009, 10:48 AM
Perhaps a Federal Court case should focus on why LEO agencies violating the intent of Federal law.

Congress felt it would improve "Public Safety" for retired officers to carry guns.

Conversely, if alot of agencies started to strip their former officers of guns, the public safety benefit would decrease.

The arguement some LE agencies would come up with is that it is a unfunded mandate.

Perhaps the police unions might also want to see what can be done in Congress, sponsor clean up legislation.

They probably have the votes and if it lands on Obama's desk, vetoing such a bill probably would cost him police support.


04-10-2009, 2:21 PM
Here are some interesting comments I picked up from an LEO site. What do some of our legal thinking pundits feel about this? Some of it is relative to the issues the lawyer was asking about:

“My agency has a policy that does not allow me to carry my firearm while I am off-duty. Does this mean that this legislation will not affect me?”

If you are a qualified active law enforcement officer, you will legally be able to carry a firearm under the provisions of the LEOSA. There may be agencies which enforce or adopt policies, rules, regulations, or employment conditions which discourage or punish officers who choose to carry while off-duty, but such actions do not mean that the officer cannot carry under the provisions of the bill.

“I am a retired officer, how do I qualify to carry under the provisions of this bill?”

Retired officers must qualify at their own expense and, once they do, will be able to carry the firearm with which they have been qualified with under the provisions of the LEOSA. Each state may adopt different procedures. The state may issue retired officers who have qualified with their firearm a document certifying that the officer has met the state's requirements. Retired officers must carry this documentation in addition to their photographic identification.

“Does the LEOSA allow me to carry a firearm on an airplane?”

No. This legislation exempts qualified active and retired law enforcement officers from state and local laws regarding the carrying of concealed firearms, not federal laws. Carrying firearms on aircraft is regulated by other federal statutes and airline policy. There are other laws regulating carrying firearms on military bases, national parks, court houses, and post offices.

“I am a constable. Do I benefit from this law?”

Not unless employed by a state, city, or county law enforcement agency, and granted powers to investigate crimes and make arrests. A contractual relationship with a city or county is probably not sufficient to grant the protection of this law, but further study is needed on this issue.

“Could the state do nothing to implement the LEOSA, and not be in violation of federal law?”

Yes. An officer has no right to state-issued identification, state-administered qualification, or for the state to establish a qualification standard. Many agency legal advisors conclude that if the state does not have a firearms qualification standard, then no standard must be met. In other words, retired and active officers could carry weapons without meeting any standard. As for identification for retired officers, the federal law does not require that the identification be current, or show that the officer is actually retired. If a state does nothing, the likely legal result is that officers can still carry concealed weapons.

“Who will issue the required identification for retired officers?”

Some agencies already do so. The law does not contemplate that the state will issue identification; the state's role is to issue a ‘certificate’ of qualification if the agency from which the officer retired does not do so.“

Who will administer the qualification of retired officers?”

Unknown. Should it be the agency from which the retired officer resides? What about retired officers who move to Utah (a big issue in Florida!)? Should it be the state’s POST?

“Who will maintain qualification records for retired officers?”

Unknown. Aside from individual agencies, a state POST could easily create a system transforming officers’ training records into retired officers' records once an officer retires from an agency. This does not address the situation of officers who retire from one state and move to another state.

A clean-up bill is pending in both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. Senate Bill 376 and House Resolution 2726 would amend the LEOSA to clarify the concealed carry rights of retired law enforcement officers. The bills also clarifies that Amtrak Police Department officers and the executive branch of the Federal Government who are classified as a GS-0083 meet the definition of “qualified law enforcement officer” in the LEOSA. The Senate bill proposes that the aggregate years of service needed to meet the definition of "qualified retired law enforcement officer" would be reduced from fifteen to ten years and cleans up confusing language related to that definition.