PDA

View Full Version : (operation started) How much would you pay for Valid LEO credentials (issued to you)?


Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

AJAX22
11-08-2009, 8:41 AM
For a summary of this thread please go to www.ccwforall.com
----
Just an update:

We incorporated the New Promethean Initiative to pursue this (and other 2A projects), and will be applying for 501c3 status during fiscal 2011. we are not yet a 501c3 organization.

If you want to support our efforts,

We can accept Paypal donations at: DonateNPI@gmail.com

or we can accept checks at:

New Promethean Initiative
P.O. Box 811353
Los Angeles CA 90081
__________________

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u115/Ratduster77/graph1.jpg

INTRODUCED BY ___________________________________
AN ACT CREATING A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY MEMBER KNOWN AS SPECIAL CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICER; AMENDING SECTIONS 7-32-201, 7-32-212 AND 7-32-234 MCA; ADDING NEW SECTIONS 7-32-240, 7-32-241, 7-32-242, 7-32-243, 7-32-244, 7-32-245, 7-32-246, and 46-6-209 TO MCA; AND PROVIDING AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Legislature declares that it is in the best interest of the People of the State of Montana to create a new law enforcement agency member known as auxiliary reserve officer.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:
Section 1. Section 7-32-201, MCA, is amended to read:
“7-32-201. Definitions.
As used in this part, the following definitions apply:
(1) “Auxiliary officer” means an unsworn, part-time, volunteer member of a law enforcement agency who may perform but is not limited to the performance of such functions as civil defense, search and rescue, office duties, crowd and traffic control, and crime prevention activities.
(2) “Council” means the Montana public safety officer standards and training council established in 2-15-2029.
(3) “General law enforcement duties” means patrol operations performed for detection, prevention, and suppression of crime and the enforcement of criminal and traffic codes of this state and its local governments.
(4) “Law enforcement agency” means a law enforcement service provided directly by a local government.
(5) “Law enforcement officer” means a sworn, full-time, employed member of a law enforcement agency who is a peace officer, as defined in 46-1-202, and has arrest authority, as described in 46-6-210.
(6) “Reserve officer” means a sworn, part-time, volunteer member of a law enforcement agency who is a peace officer, as defined in 46-1-202, and has arrest authority, as described in 46-6-210, only when authorized to perform these functions as a representative of the law enforcement agency.
(7) “Special services officer” means an unsworn, part-time, volunteer member of a law enforcement agency who may perform functions, other than general law enforcement duties, that require specialized skills, training, and qualifications, who may be required to train with a firearm, and who may carry a firearm while on assigned duty as provided in 7-32-239.
(8) “Auxiliary reserve officer” means a sworn, part-time member of a law enforcement agency who is not a peace officer as defined in 46-1-202, and who engages in the prevention, detection and investigation of violations of law, who may carry a firearm as provided in 7-32-241 and has arrest authority, as described in 46-6-209.”
Section 2. Section 7-32-212, MCA, is amended to read:
“7-32-212. Prohibition on reduction of full-time officers.
A local government may not reduce the authorized number of full-time law enforcement officers through the appointment or utilization of reserve officers or auxiliary reserve officers.”
Section 3. Section 7-32-234, MCA, is amended to read:
“7-32-234. Exceptions.
Provisions of 7-32-211, 7-32-213, and 7-32-214 do not apply to auxiliary officers, to special services officers, to auxiliary reserve officers, to sworn volunteer peace officers who are not assigned to general law enforcement duties, or to members of a posse organized to quell public disturbance or domestic violence in accordance with 7-32-2121(6).”
Section 4. Following new Sections 7-32-240, 7-32-241, 7-32-242, 7-32-243, 7-32-244, 7-32-245, 7-32-246, and 46-6-209, are hereby added to MCA:
7-32-240. LEOSA Qualification.
It is the express intent of the Legislature that each of the following offices qualify as a “qualified law enforcement officer” a such term is used in the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004: (1) law enforcement officer, (2) special services officer, and (3) auxiliary reserve officer.
7-32-241. Auxiliary reserve officers -- authorization -- role.
(1) Auxiliary reserve officers:
(a) are subordinate to full-time law enforcement officers;
(b) may carry a weapon while on assigned duty and while off duty upon successful completion of training described in 7-32-245;
(c) have arrest authority described in 46-6-209.
(2) A local government may authorize auxiliary reserve officers only on the orders and at the direction of the chief law enforcement administrator of the local government.
7-32-242. Qualifications for appointment as auxiliary reserve officer.
To be appointed an auxiliary reserve officer, a person:
(1) must be a citizen of the United States or legal resident of the United States in good standing;
(2) must be at least 18 years of age;
(3) must be fingerprinted, and a search must be made of local, state, and national fingerprint files to disclose any criminal record;
(4) may not have been convicted of a crime for which the person could have been imprisoned in a federal penitentiary or state prison;
(5) must be of good moral character as determined by a thorough background investigation through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System;
(6) must have completed the training described in 7-32-244; and
(7) must have paid the application fee, completed the appointment application, and signed the employment agreement, in each case as established by the chief law enforcement administrator.
7-32-243. Auxiliary reserve officer employment.
(1) A local government authorized by its chief law enforcement administrator to appoint auxiliary reserve officers shall appoint any person that satisfies the qualifications for appointment as a special conditional officer set forth in 7-329-242.
(2) The application fee described in 7-329-242(1)(h) shall not exceed $___________ for applicants that are residents of the State of Montana, $_____________ for applicants that are not residents of the State of Montana, or $_________ for any applicant with prior military service.
(3) At the time of appointment, an auxiliary reserve officer shall take a formal oath of office.
(4) The appointment of auxiliary reserve officer shall be a salaried position with an annual salary equal to $1.00 per year.
(5) Any action taken by any auxiliary reserve officer that is not taken under the direct supervision, or at the express direction, of a law enforcement officer, shall be deemed action taken by the auxiliary reserve officer as a private citizen.
(6) An auxiliary reserve officer may only be terminated by the appointing agency in writing and for cause. Any of the following shall be deemed cause sufficient to termination an auxiliary reserve officer appointment: (a) the conviction of the auxiliary reserve officer of a crime for which a person may be imprisoned in a federal penitentiary or state prison, and (b) the incurrence by the auxiliary reserve officer of any civil or criminal liability involving a firearm, or other deadly weapon, assault, or battery.
(7) In the event of any natural disaster or state of emergency, the governor of the State of Montana or an issuing agency may declare a recall of all auxiliary reserve officers appointed by such agency. In the event of such declaration, any auxiliary reserve officers notified thereof in writing, shall make a good faith effort to report to such issuing agency in person as soon as practical; provided however, such auxiliary reserve officer shall have to provide for his/her own food, boarding and other provisions. It shall be the responsibility of all auxiliary reserve officers to maintain and verify that the issuing agency has current contact information on file should an emergency recall be declared.
7-32-244. Auxiliary reserve officer training. Prior to appointment, an auxiliary reserve officer shall have successfully completed ___ hours of training, which may be completed online and which shall include, without limitation, the following subject matters:
7-32-245. Auxiliary reserve officer firearm training. Prior to carrying a weapon while on duty or off duty, an auxiliary reserve officer shall have successfully completed the NRA Basic Pistol Shooting Course, or, if no such course is then available, an equivalent course then certified by the National Rifle Association (or other association approved by the appointing agency), or any other course approved by the appointing agency.
7-32-246. Auxiliary reserve officers -- exemptions.
The authorization and appointment of auxiliary reserve officers shall be exempt from:
(1) any and all residency requirements;
(2) any collective bargaining agreements and/or participation requirements;
(3) any insurance participation or coverage requirements;
(4) any and all minimum wage requirements;
(5) any and all pension and retirement plan participation requirements;
(6) any and all minimum time on duty;
(7) all training, education, and certification standards outlined in 7-32-303; and
(8) any and all qualifying standards for employment promulgated by the Montana public safety officer standards and training council established in 2-15-2029.
46-6-209. Arrest by auxiliary reserve officer.
An auxiliary reserve officer may arrest a person when:
(1) the officer has an arrest warrant as defined in 46-1-202 commanding that the person be arrested;
(2) the arrest is made within the jurisdiction of the local government that authorized and appointed the officer; and
(3) the arrest is made under the direct supervision of a full-time law enforcement officer.
Section 4. Effective date. This act is effective on passage and approval.
- END -
________________________________________
Latest Version of HB _____ (HB__________)
Processed for the Web on _____________
New language in a bill appears underlined, deleted material appears stricken.
Sponsor names are handwritten on introduced bills, hence do not appear on the bill until it is reprinted.


Working on an interesting idea, trying to get some market data.

If you could be legally considered a Law enforcement officer under HR218, and able to carry concealed in any state in the union... how much would it be worth to you?

credentials would be valid over 5 year renewal intervals, after 3 renewal periods you would be eligable for 'retirement' credentials.... and background check etc... and all sundry processing fees would be included..

please vote for the maximum which you would actually pay.

And be honest.

Thank you


edit:

Added graph of market data. revenue is in $1000's

Added text of primary proposal

Dr. Peter Venkman
11-08-2009, 9:00 AM
Those are to be earned, not bought.

Nikola
11-08-2009, 9:04 AM
Sounds weird...what's the idea?

AJAX22
11-08-2009, 9:04 AM
Those are to be earned, not bought.

Um... no... they are NOT earned, they are simply issued, by cities or other governing entities... and in some places it is done with little or no qualification or requirements... CA has some requirements that must be met, but there are other places which do NOT have the same criteria, but still issue credentials which are valid for the purpose of concealed cary under the Law enforcement protection act.

Look, you may disagree with it morally/ethically etc. But it gets you a concealed Cary permit that is valid in any state in the union. INCLUDING CA and NYC.

AJAX22
11-08-2009, 9:06 AM
Sounds weird...what's the idea?

Don't want to get into details right now, I'm just trying to get some data.

Mitch
11-08-2009, 9:08 AM
I would contribute to Carona's re-election campaign.

Whoops, did I just post that?

bodger
11-08-2009, 9:10 AM
I'd donate $1000 to a movement to have LeRoy Baca removed from office and replaced by a shall issue sheriff.

command_liner
11-08-2009, 9:18 AM
I would pay $500 without a problem.

Based on history from the past ~20 years, I can see where this is going.
EG, in Texas, IIRC on US 10, a town was incorporated for the express
purpose of writing speeding tickets! There were not residents of
the town, just police. Speeders on 10 got tickets, and that paid the
cost of the town PD.

Similarly, there are whole towns for sale occasionally in the west. Buy
one and make a PD. Set the PD hiring policies, and have some reasonable
restrictions.

Probably most people here are good candidates.

Roadrunner
11-08-2009, 9:24 AM
Sounds like someone on a power trip. Unless you're going to actually do the job and go through all of the training, why would you want them other than for your own personal agenda? I think a better question would be how can we go about getting lawful CCW in all states and not have the Antigun Ted Kennedy types throw a fit like they did the last time.

I might also add that I think they are earned. If you see the kind of training they go through and actually stick it out, I'd say they earned it. On the other hand there are those that probably shouldn't be there and should have everything revoked.

GrizzlyGuy
11-08-2009, 9:29 AM
Interesting idea, but I wonder how you plan to meet these employment requirements:

"In order to be covered as a "qualified law enforcement officer," a person must meet each and every one of the following criteria: He or she must be (1) "an employee of a governmental agency..."

"In order to exercise the privilege, the LEOSA-qualified individual must carry "the photographic identification issued by the governmental agency for which the individual is employed as a law enforcement officer."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enforcement_Officers_Safety_Act

cineski
11-08-2009, 9:31 AM
Should cost $0 and that's what I'd pay. Change your poll's #1 and I'll vote.

M. Sage
11-08-2009, 9:32 AM
Those are to be earned, not bought.

:rofl2: Are you sure you even live in California!?

Ladyfox
11-08-2009, 9:42 AM
I'd be willing to pony up $500 for something like this. Any more than that and it would really not be cost effective IMHO.

Still, on a deeper level I'm not sure how I feel about this. On one hand it would be nice to have a CCW that covers the entire country.

But on the other hand it brings up my frustration over the fact that in order to get access to something that should already be my right to have I would have to be "qualified" as "law enforcement" which is a load of bunk. But that gets into something entirely different and outside the scope of the OP.

B Strong
11-08-2009, 10:37 AM
Right on the face of it, I see a major problem.

With respect to selling/issuing/granting LEO status to any individual outside of some odd bod, I have no trouble seeing any agency being slapped right down by either the state or federal authorities - the ATF has shown no hesitation in going after agencies issuing "love letters" for post-ban samples in cahoots with a dealer, so why wouldn't the authorities take action against an agency or municipality selling LE creds?

BTW, I've got an extra $1K sitting in the safe, so if you know something I don't know...;)

Window_Seat
11-08-2009, 10:42 AM
I don't believe it should cost me anything to the Govt to be able to exercise my right. The firearms, ammunition, etc; yes, but the Govt, no... This is not what the Framers wanted.

Erik.

AJAX22
11-08-2009, 11:05 AM
Interesting idea, but I wonder how you plan to meet these employment requirements:

"In order to be covered as a "qualified law enforcement officer," a person must meet each and every one of the following criteria: He or she must be (1) "an employee of a governmental agency..."

"In order to exercise the privilege, the LEOSA-qualified individual must carry "the photographic identification issued by the governmental agency for which the individual is employed as a law enforcement officer."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enforcement_Officers_Safety_Act

I agree that it SHOULD be free to exercise your rights... however, until that occurs, this would be an incremental approach which would effectively allow an individual to Cary a concealed weapon for the protection of his/her family regardless of state or local municipality law.

Photo ID and employment are easily satisfied... an independent contractor working for $1 meets the legal definition of an employee... and a photo ID can be whipped up with a digital camera and a laminating machine.

Note this would not confer any special powers or privileges beyond being considered to be a law enforcement officer, you would have statutory powers of arrest within a tiny little jurisdiction in a different state, and then only for gross violations of constitutional law.

You would be Just LEO enough to satisfy the federal requirements...

Think of this like the town sheriff swearing in the whole town, (and a few other towns) as deputies just in case they need a posse some day.... You'd be surprised how little requirements some states have as to what constitutes a law enforcement officer.

There is a reason the ABC, animal control, etc. etc. etc. all get to carry guns... and it ain't because they have some magical qualifications... the state says they are a LEO/Code enforcement officer.... so they get to carry a gun.... Now expand your thinking to include the fact that ANY citizen can perform a citizens arrest on anyone who commits a felony in their presence... If a LEO who is outside of their jurisdiction performs an arrest, it is no different than a citizens arrest... they are NOT enforcing law under the jurisdiction of their LEO credentials, they are simply acting as a private citizen performing a citizens arrest.

LEO credentials are not a license to run around playing cop... all they are is a license to carry a concealed weapon anywhere in the united states (with a few exceptions... i.e. private property etc.)

With that in mind, how much would it be worth to you to have a guaranteed method of providing protection for your person and your family? Heck a good 1911 costs more than 1K.... how much is your life worth to you?

Serpentine
11-08-2009, 11:22 AM
Well, when you start considering the the homeland foreign invasion provisions of the US Constitution 2A, the current and increasing in-country attacks in the news about "the killer is/or was a Muslim," the World Trade Center bombing, the 9/11 attack. EVERY US citizen should be armed either by some sort of national deputizing, coupled with a PC 832 course, background checks, and competency training, and with the "law enforcement" capacities limited to personal and national defense events only.

Can't we work this out with a reasonable 2A addendum with this national approved training course. The anti's might meet us in the middle on this sort of setup?

What do you think?

Linh
11-08-2009, 11:25 AM
Cost me?

Well it would cost the Government $50k+ per year and that's just the starting salary for me to start.

I already get paid $24k per year to go to school 7 hours a week. Plus my regular full time job. I'm pulling in a total of $61k.

So I'm willing to take a pay cut but it will be worth it in the long run since it will open up more opportunities such as retirement after 20 years etc.............

Legasat
11-08-2009, 11:25 AM
If there was a legal way to do this, I would do it.

Mitch
11-08-2009, 11:26 AM
:rofl2: Are you sure you even live in California!?

Maybe he doesn't live in Orange County.

M. Sage
11-08-2009, 11:36 AM
Maybe he doesn't live in Orange County.

Ooooh good one!

dansgold
11-08-2009, 11:40 AM
It's an interesting idea, if I properly grok what you are proposing.

I don't see how the whole "but what about the TRAINING, what about EARNING it?" argument follows logically. I base this on the (fairly large, I am told) number of of LE agencies and departments who deputize volunteer officers with minimal training. Sometimes it's no more than "hey I know old Bill's a good guy and can handle a gun". Ditto x 10 for the large number of celebrity deputies out there ... hell, ELVIS PRESLEY, Johnny Cash, Shaq, Lou Ferrigno, Steven Tyler (Aerosmith) anyone? When you consider that this extends to desk-jobs, traffic enforcement, part-time animal control or even mosquito-abatement(!?) positions ... why are we fussing over this?

I see some possible legal gotchas, but I love this out-of-box thinking.

AJAX22
11-08-2009, 11:42 AM
Well, when you start considering the the homeland foreign invasion provisions of the US Constitution 2A, the current and increasing in-country attacks in the news about "the killer is/or was a Muslim," the World Trade Center bombing, the 9/11 attack. EVERY US citizen should be armed either by some sort of national deputizing, coupled with a PC 832 course, background checks, and competency training, and with the "law enforcement" capacities limited to personal and national defense events only.

Can't we work this out with a reasonable 2A addendum with this national approved training course. The anti's might meet us in the middle on this sort of setup?

What do you think?

The legal structures are already in place which allow for this.

We don't have to meet ANYONE in the middle of anything... we can just do it.

And it may surprise you to know that there are a number of states which have no training/competency/qualification provisions for armed LEO status... which is why the HR218 text was drafted to include:

‘‘(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;
‘‘(4) meets standards, if any, established by the agency
which require the employee to regularly qualify in the use
of a firearm;
H. R. 218—2
‘‘(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.
emphaisis mine


***edited to add**** Lol Grok.... Heinlein rocks.

GrizzlyGuy
11-08-2009, 11:49 AM
Note this would not confer any special powers or privileges beyond being considered to be a law enforcement officer, you would have statutory powers of arrest within a tiny little jurisdiction in a different state, and then only for gross violations of constitutional law.

Ahhhh.... Thanks, that was a key piece of info for me. At first I thought there would be an obligation to deny my fellow citizens liberty by enforcing silly laws. I was going to suggest that you add some negative numbers to the poll (you pay me), even though no amount of money would cause me to do that. :D

I'm in, Dog Catcher for Podunk County, KY works for me. ;)

Meplat
11-08-2009, 11:52 AM
The anti's might meet us in the middle on this sort of setup?

What do you think?

I think you should check the color of the sun in your world.:rolleyes:

USAFTS
11-08-2009, 11:53 AM
Should cost $0 and that's what I'd pay. Change your poll's #1 and I'll vote.

THIS (above)....Is the correct answer.

It should not cost a penny to exercise a God given, natural and Constitutionally guaranteed, individual right.

AJAX22
11-08-2009, 12:09 PM
THIS (above)....Is the correct answer.

It should not cost a penny to exercise a God given, natural and Constitutionally guaranteed, individual right.

Could should would... ok I agree.

However here in the real world sometimes you gotta pay to play.

it'll cost you a heckuva lot more to fight a concealed weapons charge once you get busted for it than just throwing down a few bills up front for some 'auxiliary reserve deputy' credentials.

bohoki
11-08-2009, 12:13 PM
i'd just like some for a couple days so i could buy a bunch of magazines and non rostered pistols then resign

Fjold
11-08-2009, 12:16 PM
"Steven Seagal Lawman"

USAFTS
11-08-2009, 12:20 PM
Could should would... ok I agree.

However here in the real world sometimes you gotta pay to play.

it'll cost you a heckuva lot more to fight a concealed weapons charge once you get busted for it than just throwing down a few bills up front for some 'auxiliary reserve deputy' credentials.

Sadly, you are probably right...but it would only take about 4 seconds for our own government to slam the door on this idea.

Meplat
11-08-2009, 12:22 PM
I voted zero but on further review I would proly kick down $1000. But if we bought a cruiser and some of us volunteered to spend our vacation time writing tickets I think it could be at least a break even deal.

rambo
11-08-2009, 2:15 PM
i voted zero as well but as reading i would pay 1000 plus maybe more would depend. Let me know soon i need to get some of this cash out of the safe to make room for more guns!

swaits
11-08-2009, 2:24 PM
Count me in.

Carnivore
11-08-2009, 2:26 PM
This is the first time I had heard of this in the open. I know of more then one person that has a "bought badge". For those that think they should be earned, I whole heartedly agree but they unfortunately aren't in all cases.

Since I lost my CCW after Baca took it away when getting his office, I would be real interested in this idea. Problem is I am with most thinking the government will put the kibosh on this in some way once it is out in the open for every one to see.

Ross
11-08-2009, 2:42 PM
To be a Secret Squirrel and able to leagally protect my neighbors and those around me? - maybe 6 - 12 weeks of night classes.

If it will also require responding to an incedent where the bad guys aren't clearly defined - never.

jtippins
11-08-2009, 2:48 PM
Something that needs to be considered: Statutory rights to arrest is a HUGE authority. If a civilian detains another person it can be kidnapping. A great deal of authority is given to police for a reason. IT cannot just be given out for the sake of CCW and any agency that would do it should be shut down.

However, in a manner of gathering data, which is what this thread was intended, if agencies could offer such credentials that would give a person this right, what would you pay for it?

Hmmmm... not sure. Probably not as much as most would think. :)

I love the convo on these forums, it's delightful to see the passion and expression of such among the brotherhood!

SkatinJJ
11-08-2009, 2:52 PM
$500 plus my time to train and be sure to stay current with all laws pertaining to the responsibility of carrying the badge.

Count me in.

Semper FI!!!

JJ

bigcalidave
11-08-2009, 2:54 PM
I'm so in. I like this idea :) And seriously, steven seagal gets to be a cop and go aikido nuts on perps, that means anyone should be able to !

That said, I don't really care about the starting fee, but it can't be so much that it really sucks to lose it when the state in question revokes all the credentials. Few hundred bucks should be ok? Whomever is organizing it would really need to make sure it's a-ok with the state affected. If suddenly there are 20,000 california gun nuts working as sheriff deputies for a rural kansas town it's going to create some news.

trashman
11-08-2009, 2:58 PM
Those are to be earned, not bought.

I think you're confusing legal LEO credentials with the job of actually being a peace officer. Ethically I agree being a Peace Officer requires skill and training. Credentials, well....legally...that's another story.

The oddities of California law on this issue received a little sunlight in the media after the infamous Ferrari Enzo crash in Los Angeles involving Stefan Eriksson, who as it turns out was a "Deputy Police Commissioner" of the San Gabriel Valley Transit Authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Gabriel_Valley_Transit_Authority). Here is a link to an LA Times article (http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:DqC6r0nAzcIJ:articles.latimes.com/2006/may/10/local/me-ferrari10+San+Gabriel+Valley+Transit+Authority&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a) (cached because the LA Times archives are down).

--Neill

torsf
11-08-2009, 3:11 PM
Hmm, I should just call the Contra Costa Sheriff Posse and find out... :rolleyes:

Californio
11-08-2009, 3:23 PM
Did not the jerk that crashed the Ferrari Enzo in Malibu have a phony public transportation company that allowed it to have transit police under California law, get caught in a world of hurt. Is this what you are talking about?

http://www.wreckedexotics.com/special/enzo/

a1c
11-08-2009, 3:32 PM
Did not the jerk that crashed the Ferrari Enzo in Malibu have a phony public transportation company that allowed it to have transit police under California law, get caught in a world of hurt. Is this what you are talking about?

http://www.wreckedexotics.com/special/enzo/

Exactly what came to my mind when I saw that thread.

bigcalidave
11-08-2009, 3:37 PM
But his was phony, and not even his. He was just one of the members. What's being proposed here is apparently a qualified LEO program from another, more friendly state.

a1c
11-08-2009, 3:42 PM
But his was phony, and not even his. He was just one of the members. What's being proposed here is apparently a qualified LEO program from another, more friendly state.

This is the wrong way to go. Want a badge? Join the force.

bigcalidave
11-08-2009, 3:48 PM
That's your opinion. I wouldn't want to be forced to uphold the BS laws here in california.

bombadillo
11-08-2009, 3:51 PM
I put 5k as long as I can legally carry anywhere I go and that would be a one time shot. I would not pay 5k every 5 years however. I think thats absurd. 5k 1 time for me and re-qualify every year to prove that I am worthy to handle a firearm.

a1c
11-08-2009, 3:53 PM
That's your opinion. I wouldn't want to be forced to uphold the BS laws here in california.

So Kansas is your state of choice? You don't think they have BS laws over there?

bigcalidave
11-08-2009, 4:31 PM
So Kansas is your state of choice? You don't think they have BS laws over there?



Kansas was hypothetical, why are you *****ing at me again? Stick to the topic!

unusedusername
11-08-2009, 5:17 PM
I would be willing to put $500 into the pot for this experiment ...

Rob454
11-08-2009, 5:21 PM
I woudl pay about 500$ to get a CCW and with training power to arrest bad guys. The problem is not everyone can be a LEO and then yourun into the problem of power trips for non LEO trained people

glbtrottr
11-08-2009, 5:23 PM
Great idea. Judging by the number of posts and interest, it sounds like something much worth exploring...so what's the punchline intended? :)

a1c
11-08-2009, 5:38 PM
Kansas was hypothetical, why are you *****ing at me again? Stick to the topic!

Wow, calm down here. So let me see if I understand the topic in question, because it's still not quite clear for some of us what is suggested here.

What I seem to understand is that someone could set up a LEA somewhere in the US - basically, buys a town, for instance - and issue badges as some sort law enforcement deputy positions to whomever is ready to pay for it, even if they live out-of-state (in this case, CA).

Am I getting this right?

jnojr
11-08-2009, 5:38 PM
Something that needs to be considered: Statutory rights to arrest is a HUGE authority. If a civilian detains another person it can be kidnapping. A great deal of authority is given to police for a reason.

Here in California, an average citizen has nearly the same powers of arrest as a peace officer.

The difference is in knowing when you can place someone under arrest.

As for the poll... I see no moral or ethical issue here. If there was a way I could pay some money to get credentials that would allow me to CCW here and across the nation, you better believe I'll do it.

However... once this comes to light, if people start doing whatever it is, sooner or later they'll start to be arrested. Why not? You'll complain that you're acting legally. Your complaints will come from inside of a jail cell, or after you've paid thousands or tens of thousands to bond out. You will then have the opportunity to retain an attorney and fight an opponent who has unlimited funding and manpower. And if, somehow, you prevail... you won't even get an apology. And if you're ever arrested again, you can do it all over.

River Jack
11-08-2009, 6:11 PM
I'd do it, and pay a pretty penny (up to $500) if legal.

BigDogatPlay
11-08-2009, 6:51 PM
What I seem to understand is that someone could set up a LEA somewhere in the US - basically, buys a town, for instance - and issue badges as some sort law enforcement deputy positions to whomever is ready to pay for it, even if they live out-of-state (in this case, CA).

If that is indeed the premise, I think it's going to fall on it's face. All those who were issued would have to meet the peace officer standards and training of that state. They would also have to be "employed" by the local authority.

Besides... isn't "buying" CCW permits with "campaign contributions" something we've been railing against?

Dr. Peter Venkman
11-08-2009, 6:58 PM
Um... no... they are NOT earned, they are simply issued, by cities or other governing entities... and in some places it is done with little or no qualification or requirements... CA has some requirements that must be met, but there are other places which do NOT have the same criteria, but still issue credentials which are valid for the purpose of concealed cary under the Law enforcement protection act.

Look, you may disagree with it morally/ethically etc. But it gets you a concealed Cary permit that is valid in any state in the union. INCLUDING CA and NYC.

Let me know when LEAs start hiring cops that have not gone through the academy. :rolleyes:

kermit315
11-08-2009, 7:20 PM
not sure, but the idea is intriguing.

glbtrottr
11-08-2009, 7:29 PM
Besides... isn't "buying" CCW permits with "campaign contributions" something we've been railing against?

Err...no.

Not to speak on behalf of the whole community here, but what we have been rallying against is people's inability to enjoy their right to Keep and Bear Arms, wrongfully administered by the screwed up laws in California were only the privileged few can carry if only they pay off the right Sheriff.

Enjoying lawfully issued LEO / LEA creds as discussed in this thread as a mechanism for all those interested in assisting with the salary of those involved or the administration of such an agency would be very different than jumping on the bandwagon of a political campaign with the expectation of a favor in turn.

Similar perhaps in intent, but very different in their scope.

AJAX22
11-08-2009, 7:32 PM
LEA's have cops that have not gone through the academy all the time... remember there is a broad interpenetration of what constitutes a LEO for the purpose of HR218.

Which is specifically why HR218 is written the way it is.... there are a number of places where you are a cop if they say you are a cop... there are a number of places where you are considered a LEO even if you are just the equivalent of a process server.

Let me state this again.

There are states in the U.S. which have ZERO requirements for training, and ZERO requirements for applicants.

There are some instances where individuals can be legally considered LEO's even if they are convicted felons... which is WHY HR218 contains wording which prohibits felons and prohibited persons from carrying weapons even if they have law enforcement credentials.

Buying CCW's as a reward for campaign contributions is a no-no.... however if a municipality wanted to charge a 1k application fee to apply for a job as an auxiliary reserve constable which went directly into the city's coffers and was not a 'private' donation there would be no problem with it.

We need to remember that we in CA have different standards of what constitutes a LEO... we have post certification and state wide standards of acceptance, as well as other criteria... which simply do not apply uniformly across the U.S.

There are still places where you get to be a deputy simply by applying for the job... which makes you a LEO... which allows you to carry a concealed weapon anywhere in the USA.

The $$$$ incentive for the local municipality simply makes it a viable proposition for a cash strapped city council.

there is one state in particular which has a specific exemption in the penal code which allows for municipalities to appoint a special class of Law enforcement officers who are considered independent contractors and for whom the state/municipality assumes no liability for their actions... they also have limited jurisdiction and are paid only nominal sums.... BUT they legally qualify as LEO's... and there IS precedent to back it up with regard to HR218.

Lets assume for a minute that everything I'm suggesting is on the up and up... and this is simply a case of you pay your 'application fee' you pass a background check and you get issued credentials...

How much is it worth to you?

G17GUY
11-08-2009, 7:49 PM
For some reason I don't see this happening?

AJAX22
11-08-2009, 7:54 PM
For some reason I don't see this happening?

If 10,000 people spend 1,000 per application to get credentials, that's 10 million dollars... which for a small town in the rust belt is close to 5 times their annual budget...

that's 10 million very persuasive reasons to give it a try.

Solidmch
11-08-2009, 7:57 PM
cant issue. Must go through a post academy and have working hours to have this. Now a Sheriff or chief can issue a ccw, but it does not make you a leo!

AJAX22
11-08-2009, 7:59 PM
cant issue. Must go through a post academy and have working hours to have this. Now a Sheriff or chief can issue a ccw, but it does not make you a leo!

your correct... In CA

however for the purpouses of HR218 ANY municipality can issue you your credentials according to their own criteria (IF ANY).

remember CA has different standards than the national LEOSA bill.

blackberg
11-08-2009, 8:09 PM
Im surprised at the number of people who lack reading comprehension skills. :banghead:
-bb

Quiet
11-08-2009, 8:20 PM
there is one state in particular which has a specific exemption in the penal code which allows for municipalities to appoint a special class of Law enforcement officers who are considered independent contractors and for whom the state/municipality assumes no liability for their actions... they also have limited jurisdiction and are paid only nominal sums.... BUT they legally qualify as LEO's... and there IS precedent to back it up with regard to HR218.

Does this state allow non-residents of that state to be eligible for this special class of LEO?


Lets assume for a minute that everything I'm suggesting is on the up and up... and this is simply a case of you pay your 'application fee' you pass a background check and you get issued credentials...

How much is it worth to you?
Need more info...

Seesm
11-08-2009, 8:21 PM
To be able to help the world we live in and carry a gun... LEGALLY?

Well that would be worth lots to me personally as I think we all need to do more to help and stand together united as one.

So more than a dollar and less then a million?

bigcalidave
11-08-2009, 8:21 PM
I thought about it and I still like it. Can the state violate the federal law on this one ? If they figure out the obvious intent can they just say they don't recognize our badges as legit ? Couldn't we buy a town in CA? They are all bankrupt too ! I figure the four different ccw permits I need to travel in and around CA cost at least 1000 to get. Not to mention renewals.

Fire in the Hole
11-08-2009, 8:23 PM
It's a silly question to even propose. How about I'd pay XX$$ for a medical doctor degree and license, so that I can practice brain surgery.

nick
11-08-2009, 8:28 PM
Combating crime is every citizen's responsibility. However, at some point, just like all of us don't make shoes or provide IT services, some citizens were designated to combat crime. Keep in mind that they're still ordinary citizens who happen to have the job of fighting crime.

At some point, we gave these citizens extra powers, immunities, exceptions to the laws imposed upon the citizens not in the profession of fighting crime, etc. Which effectively made these citizens whose job is to combat crime more equal than the rest.

Then we've come up with the myth of one having to be a superhuman and have mythical training standards in order to be allowed to be the citizen whose job it is to fight crime.

However, this myth is BS fed to the citizenry by those interested in having the monopoly for the use of force and the ones who have acquired the Stockholm syndrome. As such, I'm not surprised to see a lot of outrage here over "non-qualified" "ordinary" people being granted LEO status by some "clearly misguided" city. I also have no problem with being granted such status, as it simply recognizes something that should need no recognition, but thanks to the sorry state of civil rights in this country does need it.

nick
11-08-2009, 8:37 PM
It's a silly question to even propose. How about I'd pay XX$$ for a medical doctor degree and license, so that I can practice brain surgery.

Because you don't become a LEO by virtue of training and a degree. You become a LEO by virtue of, while being an ordinary citizen, being designated to fight crime and uphold peace, and as such granted the relevant powers. It's up to whomever grants you those powers to demand training if you're given the job.

Just like it's up to the Board to demand training and certain credentials before issuing you the license to practice medicine.

Another example: when you're designated a soldier, someone whose job is to defend this country and its Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic, you don't become one by the virtue of your training and graduation from Basic. You become one because you were selected, or you volunteered, to perform this specific duty of a citizen. Training is provided to make you more effective at that.

nick
11-08-2009, 8:45 PM
That being said, the response to this by governments from local to federal would likely be unpleasant and most likely unconstitutional. Not that the latter ever stopped any government body, and I doubt a bunch of corrupt and dishonest judges would be of much help.

gcrtkd
11-08-2009, 8:48 PM
Details, details...

Text of LEOSA when it was HR 218...
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_bills&docid=f:h218enr.txt.pdf

‘‘(d) The identification required by this subsection is the photo-
graphic identification issued by the governmental agency for which
the individual is employed as a law enforcement officer."

The grey area comes in the definition of the word "employed." How grey? Charcoal. If you catch a case while trying to use your fantasy LEO credentials to justify LEOSA for yourself, then the case will come down to the judge/jury having to decide whether you are actually "employed" as a LEO. You may conjure up a scenario in which you may consider yourself employed when you do not do something as your main source of income, and you do not do it for, say, at least 30 hrs/week, but will the judge/jury actually buy this alternative definition of "employed"? Hey, take your chances.

That being said...
CA AG says that LEOSA applies to active, sworn reserve officers... http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/forms/pdf/leosiss.pdf. Many departments specifically prohibit reservists from being being paid (+ no benefits, + no POA, + no retirement)... which would reasonably make them non-employees of the dept. and, following a strict reading of LEOSA, not grant CCW. So, a bit of a contradiction there. Then again, the AG doesn't make the law... this is just his interpretation of it.

So, there you go.

-gcrtkd

BigDogatPlay
11-08-2009, 9:10 PM
There are states in the U.S. which have ZERO requirements for training, and ZERO requirements for applicants.

Can you name one or two please? With links or citation to the relevant codes of said state?

trashman
11-08-2009, 9:12 PM
Did not the jerk that crashed the Ferrari Enzo in Malibu have a phony public transportation company that allowed it to have transit police under California law, get caught in a world of hurt. Is this what you are talking about?


Yes he did, and for a whole lot of other reasons -- but the SGVTA was (as I recall) legal.

It wasn't legit (in the sense that they weren't actually doing what they claimed to be in business to do), but it apparently was legal under CA law.

--Neill

erblo
11-08-2009, 10:08 PM
I think this would be a great idea, count me in!

383green
11-08-2009, 10:27 PM
Best of luck if y'all try to go through with this. That being said, I don't think I'd personally touch this with a ten foot pole.

Solidmch
11-08-2009, 10:45 PM
Im surprised at the number of people who lack reading comprehension skills. :banghead:
-bb

No! I knew exactly what he was saying. I just feel that MOST states require you to be a resident to be given leo status. I have never heard of a state that gives a non resident that status. I feel that status would never work here. I could almost guarantee an attempted prosecution for trying it. I would hate to stand in front of 12 jurors here, and say " I am a cop in Alabama, but I have never even been to the state, but this card gives me leo status to carry a gun. "

Also the civil liability toward any department that issued this would be off the chart. Wait until one of the applicants does something stupid. Just a simple 417pc would put them a great civil liability

SVT-40
11-08-2009, 11:12 PM
your correct... In CA

however for the purpouses of HR218 ANY municipality can issue you your credentials according to their own criteria (IF ANY).

remember CA has different standards than the national LEOSA bill.

Lets just say some unscrupulous PD in whatever backward state did just as you say they could and issued LEO credentials to you upon receipt of $1,000 (or what ever amount)

So they make their cash. One week, month or year later they rescind your LEO status.

Since you are not lawfully "retired" and you are no longer an LEO you are not entitled to nationwide carry.

And you are still out the cash with no legal recourse.

Scammers usually end up getting scammed.

Bruce
11-08-2009, 11:39 PM
your correct... In CA

however for the purpouses of HR218 ANY municipality can issue you your credentials according to their own criteria (IF ANY).

remember CA has different standards than the national LEOSA bill.

‘‘(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;
‘‘(4) meets standards, if any, established by the agency
which require the employee to regularly qualify in the use
of a firearm;H. R. 218—2
‘‘(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."


You are conveniently interpreting "if any" as applying to standards applying to LEO status in general when it clearly refers to regular firearm qualification. Some agencies qualify with their firearms every month, some every other month, some twice a year. Some require their retirees to qualify annually, others not at all.

locosway
11-09-2009, 12:08 AM
Being a LEO is a job, and usually a lifestyle for most. I do not want their job or their lifestyle. I'd rather see citizens get the same rights as LEO's as they're one and the same.

leelaw
11-09-2009, 12:15 AM
Why pay a ton of money for credentials only, when I can pretend to be a cop for less?

Besides, with this baby they'll know I mean business! :D

http://www.popguns.com/privateinvestigator/images/badgewallet%20images/badgebeltcliplg.jpg

</sarcasm>

bigcalidave
11-09-2009, 2:14 AM
rofl ! I think it's a better idea that we get an ID card instead of a badge. For some reason people with badges all seem to have major ego problems!

Capt. Speirs
11-09-2009, 2:21 AM
Sounds weird...what's the idea?

Wierd, that is what Sheriff Carona did.

Quiet
11-09-2009, 6:54 AM
Wierd, that is what Sheriff Carona did.

Also, what a former Nye County (NV) Sheriff Wade Lieseke did as well. Issued special badges/granted special LEO status as favors to friends & contributors. All came to light when one of the special LEOs got into an arguement with TSA about being able to carry a loaded handgun onto an airplane. Sheriff lost his job over the hubub. All the special LEOs got their status revoked, because none of them were POST certified. Some of them were found to have had Post-'86 MGs in their possession for "LE use", the BATFE was not pleased.

Charlie50
11-09-2009, 7:53 AM
Some thoughts on the practicality of purchasing a “Town”, incorporating it and having potentially thousands of “deputies” running around the country with law enforcement credentials. Buying a town, cheap part, keeping the city from going broke with law suits and legal wrangling, “priceless”. I suppose if you had the blessings of large organization such as NRA it might be possible to stay of trouble for a while but once the politicians and the media got wind of this, the antis would all over this in a heartbeat. I can see them now, lights and cameras all around, microphones sprouting from all corners, Nancy Pelosi, her face with that just stretched look, breathlessly announcing new bills to prevent this travesty… Do I like the idea yes, but you have to figure lowest common denominator of IQ and common sense of the ‘deputies”. The probability of one out of 10,000 getting into trouble and doing something really stupid (shooting someone, unlawfully arresting someone, etc) within a year days of issuance is likely 100%. So some plaintiff, backed with the full force of the feds will sue everybody in the “town” and our 500 -1000 dollar CCW becomes worthless because there is no town, no mo.

All that being said, would I bite? Yes I throw out $500 just to tic Pelolsi off. If this thing was big enough, 100,000 plus with enough concentrated voting power it might help force the issuance of valid CCWs in CA. All that being said, would it be better to throw $500 directly to the CCW cause?

Southwest Chuck
11-09-2009, 8:03 AM
Shouldn't this be in the CCW Discussion Forum? What does this have to do with 2A? Just saying....:confused:

AJAX22
11-09-2009, 8:17 AM
There are special classes of Leo in some places for which municipalities are indemnified against actions committed by the officer. (think bounty hunter/process server)

This wouldn't have all that much more legal exposure than current non resident ccw permit programs.

The legal requirement for Leo status requires a picture ID not a badge.

Posted from iPod

AJAX22
11-09-2009, 8:44 AM
Just something to think about, many police officers in NYC live in new jersey and cllaim nj residency.... So there are non resident leo out there.. Residency in the state of employment is not a typical requirement.... And for federal law of is not a factor in determining elagability under HR218

a1c
11-09-2009, 8:46 AM
Because you don't become a LEO by virtue of training and a degree. You become a LEO by virtue of, while being an ordinary citizen, being designated to fight crime and uphold peace, and as such granted the relevant powers. It's up to whomever grants you those powers to demand training if you're given the job.

Just like it's up to the Board to demand training and certain credentials before issuing you the license to practice medicine.

Another example: when you're designated a soldier, someone whose job is to defend this country and its Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic, you don't become one by the virtue of your training and graduation from Basic. You become one because you were selected, or you volunteered, to perform this specific duty of a citizen. Training is provided to make you more effective at that.

You can spin it any way you want, but being a cop or a soldier does require special training. There are recruiting standards one must meet to get hired or selected, and, once you have the training, standard you must withhold, or you get fired or discharged.

xxdabroxx
11-09-2009, 8:58 AM
you're missing the point. You would be no more than an on call officer that never gets called. You have the right to carry concealed, and no more unless you are acting in your official capacity. 99.9999999% of the time you are an off duty officer waiting to get called into duty who just happens to be out of his jurisdiction as well.

AJAX22
11-09-2009, 9:00 AM
Which is why a dentist can be comissioned a major without ocs or ROTC training?

There is nothing magic about Leo status....

It has come to be seen that way... But In reality it is not.

You know what with the 14th ammendment and all

a1c
11-09-2009, 9:04 AM
you're missing the point. You would be no more than an on call officer that never gets called. You have the right to carry concealed, and no more unless you are acting in your official capacity. 99.9999999% of the time you are an off duty officer waiting to get called into duty who just happens to be out of his jurisdiction as well.

And that sounds like a fantastic straw position. Buying a title. Sounds very medieval Europe to me.

AJAX22
11-09-2009, 9:09 AM
I agree a1c

It IS very mideval European

We should have never created a system of lords and vassles, or different classes of citizens with different rights

But we did....

And now we have to figure out how we serfs can get a landed gentry's right to carry a sword....

thegratenate
11-09-2009, 9:15 AM
I live in a county that issues, so I don't have that much incentive to purchase credentials, but it would be nice to know that they are valid anywhere I travel.

My concern would be that the LEOs that I live next door would probably think scam if I flashed an out of state credential, I would probably take a trip to jail just to sort things out and that would not be cool.

Bizcuits
11-09-2009, 9:18 AM
Those are to be earned, not bought.


Earned?

Most departments and agencies hire family or friends of current Officers. Head back east, and you'll find it's a lot more of a Family business, then a depiction of the actual community being served.

a1c
11-09-2009, 9:41 AM
Earned?

Most departments and agencies hire family or friends of current Officers. Head back east, and you'll find it's a lot more of a Family business, then a depiction of the actual community being served.

So because corruption and nepotism reign in some areas of the country, it's OK to follow a similar model?

And now we have to figure out how we serfs can get a landed gentry's right to carry a sword....

The way we need to figure this out is not through some loophole which would be quickly closed by the same legislators who accidentally opened it. That's a lame, dubious short-term solution that would anyway only benefit an elite which could buy their way in (plus, running a municipality is not exactly a picnic).

nick
11-09-2009, 10:03 AM
And that sounds like a fantastic straw position. Buying a title. Sounds very medieval Europe to me.

Yep. As is the situation we've created as a society.

USAFTS
11-09-2009, 10:04 AM
you're missing the point. You would be no more than an on call officer that never gets called. You have the right to carry concealed, and no more unless you are acting in your official capacity. 99.9999999% of the time you are an off duty officer waiting to get called into duty who just happens to be out of his jurisdiction as well.

There are MANY details involved in an idea like this that would make it sink or swim and most would be technicalities. Politicians and LEO's do not like technicalities when they are used "against" them. I imagine that it could be crafted to balance on the razor's edge of actually being book-legal but once "the plan" is figured out by the powers that be, the politics will begin and "Freedom City" will likely be quickly turned into a ghost town.

If it was possible to do this in a lasting, solid, legal, thumb-your-nose at Nancy Pelosi type of way...I would definately take a look at it.

AJAX22
11-09-2009, 10:08 AM
So because corruption and nepotism reign in some areas of the country, it's OK to follow a similar model?

The way we need to figure this out is not through some loophole which would be quickly closed by the same legislators who accidentally opened it. That's a lame, dubious short-term solution that would anyway only benefit an elite which could buy their way in (plus, running a municipality is not exactly a picnic).

Yep... those credentials issued by nepotism and corruption are just as valid under federal law as those that are 'earned' through service to the state(king)...

I think I've heard the term 'loophole' bandied about before.... seems to be the mantra of the people who recognize that something is totally legal even if it does not sit with their personal ideology/agenda.

Yes the legislature could i(n theory) 'crack down' on this... it would have to occur at a federal level... essentially imposing harsher levels of qualification for consideration under the LEOSA... which would be VERY hard to get the legislature to pass.. since many many states would not meet the new 'qualifications'.... so I don't see that as a overly likely outcome.

Let me make this perfectly plain. I am NOT suggesting that we all run out and buy a municipality... that adds a level of complexity that is unnecessary.

There are plenty of townships/towns out there who can issue the credentials we want and $$$ talks... particularly to areas with a mean income of around 14k per year.... a cash injection of 10 million to a community of 2500 is a substantial enough bit of cash that they can't easily dismiss the probability.

Ok... some people may think its 'dubious' or a 'scam' but the fact of the matter is the law is the law... they wrote it.. they make us follow it... and what is proposed here is LEGAL... and even in a worst case scenario where the opposition rallies the troops and shuts us down we'd get a few years of legal CCW.... which is a few years of keeping our family safe... AND it could easily pave the way for national reciprocity of CCW permits....

Legal is legal.... CCW permits are just for that 1 time in 100 where you get hassled.... and even with one of those you don't always beat the ride... but with valid LEO credentials you WILL beat the rap.... the same was true for all our OLL endevors.

Look, I'm not saying this sort of thing is an ideal situation... but we ALREADY have an elite (LEO's) who get privilages that the rest of us are denied.

This is simply a broad lowering of the barriers to entry into that protected class (which shouldn't exist in the first place)

I dislike that this is nececary to exercise our rights... however, it IS legal... and it DOES allow us to exercise those rights....

Heck, I'd love to run detachable mags in my full featured AR.... but the MMG I have on it is simply the price I have to pay to legally do what I need to have the means to protect my family..... and now that I live and go to school in NYC, I have ZERO recourse or ability to have those means... they all live back in 'free' California...

I was originally just looking into this for personal and selfish reasons... but I think it could be a large and significant step forward in the advancement of the 2A in America.

nick
11-09-2009, 10:14 AM
You can spin it any way you want, but being a cop or a soldier does require special training. There are recruiting standards one must meet to get hired or selected, and, once you have the training, standard you must withhold, or you get fired or discharged.

Nope, it doesn't. Ever heard of draft? The training in question isn't what designates one a LEO or a soldier. In case of LEOs, officially deputizing/granting them the relevant fraction of the powers of their government does. In case of soldiers, designating them soldiers is what does the trick. Many agencies simply require training as a condition of employment (just like I'd want to see a degree in CS for a person applying for a developer position. However, if I'm the owner of the company, I can hire a gardener who's never seen a computer as a developer, if I so please).

The military routinely commissions the specialsits it needs without them having to go through any officer training.

berto
11-09-2009, 10:17 AM
This isn't about serving as a LEO, arresting people, flashing badges, playing pretend, etc. It's about following the existing framework, under fed law, to gain CCW where many of us are otherwise unable.

It's a neat idea and, while I'm not sure it will work, I am sure the first guy to test it in court is in for one hell of a ride.

nick
11-09-2009, 10:18 AM
That being said, what Carona did was to issue it to those he wanted favors from. If a place is "shall issue", and sees its duty in granting the citizens the status/rights they should've had in the first place, if it wasn't for the feudal system we've introduced into our society, how is that corrupt? I'd argue that the other way around is corrupt, and just because it's been going on for a long time doesn't make it any more legitimate. Well, it does in some eyes, it seems.

nick
11-09-2009, 10:24 AM
This isn't about serving as a LEO, arresting people, flashing badges, playing pretend, etc. It's about following the existing framework, under fed law, to gain CCW where many of us are otherwise unable.

It's a neat idea and, while I'm not sure it will work, I am sure the first guy to test it in court is in for one hell of a ride.

Yep. I wasn't around for the OLL debate, but from what I still hear on the subject in some gun stores, etc., I'd imagine the debate was somewhat similar. Loophole vs. following the letter of the law; who wants to be the test case, etc. The test case part is valid though. In case of OLLs, the person willing to be the potential test case had the means to hire decent defense, if needed. After all, just because you do something legal doesn't mean you won't be prosecuted for it, to scare the rest who might dare. Kind of like what my ancestors did with their serfs (the similarities are quite striking, but then, similar problems call for similar solutions, right? :)).

gun toting monkeyboy
11-09-2009, 10:34 AM
I am only reading the first couple of posts, but I just want to let you know that this is a bad idea. Minimal screening, and pay for a LEO credential? And give out something that works as a CCW? This is one of those ideas that sounds too good to be true, and would likely end up being used as a really big stick that the other side beats us with. Work with the system, and try to change it legally. Don't try an end-run that can set us up for a major setback if (when) it blows up. What happens when some John Wayne wannabe uses his credential to take a gun someplace he shouldn't, and whips it out to show off? Or somebody uses their LEO ID to pull over a driver that pissed them off and starts yelling and screaming at them. Or worse? There are already enough nutballs out there doing it with novelty badges. Do you really want to start something like that, have it accociated with the pro-gun movement, and then have a whackjob go postal? I see nothing but potential down sides here.

choprzrul
11-09-2009, 10:47 AM
http://www.alberttexas.com/home/
$595,000 buys this texas ghost town.

The town can hire LEO "contractors" to provide enforcement within the confines of the town only. The term of the contract is for 32 days. $750.00 is charged up front for background investigation purposes. The 32 day contract pays exactly $1.00. At the end of the contract, the contractor is given the opportunity to "retire".

Now, the contractor can travel the country as an offically retired LEO from Albert, Texas.

800 x $750 = $600,000 to purchase
200 x $750 = $150,000 to move in modular home, 1 yr wages for the city "administrator" to process "contractor" applications, and necessary supplies to issue paperwork etc.

After the yearly administrator wage is met, all additional monies go into a legal defense fund.

The "owner" of Albert could be an offshore corporation?

Just random thoughts. It seems like there would be fewer opportunities for individuals to do stupid things if A) a thorough background check is done, B) they understand that they are RETIRED and have no official capacity.

geeknow
11-09-2009, 10:55 AM
Those are to be earned, not bought.

...umm, no...just ask FORMER OC Sherrif Mike Carona...;)

Super Spy
11-09-2009, 10:55 AM
This seems like an interesting idea, though I have reservations. I agree that most people with these credentials have worked pretty hard to get them. If you start some business selling these credentials, you may make a bunch of sales, but sooner or later someone will see what's going on and new legislation will be enacted....If you did this and hooked up 4 or 5 of your buddies this might fly, but as soon as you throw it out there for the masses.....sooner or later something will happen, someone with one of these credentials does something stupid, even just shooting their mouth off to the wrong person or the wrong time. Somebody gets it in there head to go and "act" like a cop. Some anti gets wind of this and decides something must be done, enter politicos and voila it all goes away.

That said I'd love to be able to carry in all 50 states, own high cap mags, buy guns off the roster......but I'm skeptical of the long term viability of this.

bubbagump
11-09-2009, 10:56 AM
Let me know when LEAs start hiring cops that have not gone through the academy. :rolleyes:

http://jobs.spb.ca.gov/wvpos/more_info.cfm?recno=118981

Getting a POST 832 certificate takes about 1 week.

Dick Thomas
11-09-2009, 11:01 AM
As I recall from my reading of HR218, to be CCW qualified nation-wide as a retired LEO requires one to have served on active duty for a minimun of 15 years, anything less will not qualify under HR 218. Also, this is a really stupid idea, and as a 35 plus year local LEO retiree, I resent the idea of people "gaming" the system just to be able to carry a gun concealed.

gcrtkd
11-09-2009, 11:01 AM
http://www.alberttexas.com/home/
$595,000 buys this texas ghost town.

The town can hire LEO "contractors" to provide enforcement within the confines of the town only. The term of the contract is for 32 days. $750.00 is charged up front for background investigation purposes. The 32 day contract pays exactly $1.00. At the end of the contract, the contractor is given the opportunity to "retire".

Now, the contractor can travel the country as an offically retired LEO from Albert, Texas.

800 x $750 = $600,000 to purchase
200 x $750 = $150,000 to move in modular home, 1 yr wages for the city "administrator" to process "contractor" applications, and necessary supplies to issue paperwork etc.

After the yearly administrator wage is met, all additional monies go into a legal defense fund.

The "owner" of Albert could be an offshore corporation?

Just random thoughts. It seems like there would be fewer opportunities for individuals to do stupid things if A) a thorough background check is done, B) they understand that they are RETIRED and have no official capacity.


No, no, and NO! Has anyone here even read the text of the Act?

‘‘(c) As used in this section, the term ‘qualified retired law
enforcement officer’ means an individual who—
...
‘‘(3)(A) before such retirement, was regularly employed as
a law enforcement officer for an aggregate of 15 years or more;
or
‘‘(B) retired from service with such agency, after completing
any applicable probationary period of such service, due to a
service-connected disability, as determined by such agency;
‘‘(4) has a nonforfeitable right to benefits under the retirement
plan of the agency;

-gcrtkd

kermit315
11-09-2009, 11:04 AM
As I recall from my reading of HR218, to be CCW qualified nation-wide as a retired LEO requires one to have served on active duty for a minimun of 15 years, anything less will not qualify under HR 218. Also, this is a really stupid idea, and as a 35 plus year local LEO retiree, I resent the idea of people "gaming" the system just to be able to carry a gun concealed.

I resent LEO's being "more equal" than anybody else.

Dick Thomas
11-09-2009, 11:04 AM
See below:
Sec. 926C. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified retired law enforcement officers

`(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified retired law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).

`(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that--

`(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or

`(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.

`(c) As used in this section, the term `qualified retired law enforcement officer' means an individual who--

`(1) retired in good standing from service with a public agency as a law enforcement officer, other than for reasons of mental instability;

`(2) before such 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)(A) before such retirement, was regularly employed as a law enforcement officer for an aggregate of 15 years or more; or`

(B) retired from service with such agency, after completing any applicable probationary period of such service, due to a service-connected disability, as determined by such agency;

`(4) has a nonforfeitable right to benefits under the retirement plan of the agency;

`(5) during the most recent 12-month period, has met, at the expense of the individual, the State'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; and

`(7) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm.

etc etc etc

choprzrul
11-09-2009, 11:06 AM
Ok, replace "retired" with "unpaid administrative leave"

choprzrul
11-09-2009, 12:21 PM
This isn't about serving as a LEO, arresting people, flashing badges, playing pretend, etc. It's about following the existing framework, under fed law, to gain CCW where many of us are otherwise unable.

It's a neat idea and, while I'm not sure it will work, I am sure the first guy to test it in court is in for one hell of a ride.

If a person is under contract with a city to provide law enforcement services, why would a court have a problem as long as you meet requirements under that city's and state's laws?

dansgold
11-09-2009, 12:32 PM
... I resent the idea of people "gaming" the system just to be able to carry a gun concealed.
Personally I resent the idea that politicians have "gamed the system" to infringe upon what the US Constitution considers a fundamental, pre-existing, granted-by-creator, human right.

I resent the notion that - in such a context - following applicable laws to bring about a desired result is considered "gaming the system" by anyone laying claim to rationality.

I respect law enforcement officers and the incredible risks that some of them encounter. I also know that some are desk polishers, foot-draggers and political appointees/hires who hardly bring honor to the badge or uniform. Some are well trained, I know many who are not, in any reasonable sense of the words "well" and "trained". I resent any of them thinking that they are "special people" with "special earned rights" when it comes to firearms.

I resent LEO who see most of the public as anything but their natural ally, as most of the public are.

I like liberty, and I don't mind defending it in any rational way. The first duty of ANY law enforcement official is to defend and uphold the Constitution. Anyone who spouts any BS about "following orders" doesn't deserve a badge or anyone's respect, as ANY amount of training they've had is effectively meaningless given that level of intellectual corruption.

I've had it with the hand-wringing.

glbtrottr
11-09-2009, 12:44 PM
I resent LEO's being "more equal" than anybody else.


This is a great debate! It mirrors the great line we often see as "discretionary" and "equal".

Dick, we all much respect your service. Frankly, you don't fit in my pocket, and you're not cheap enough to hire you.

If the 2nd Amendment was properly enjoyed, this conversation wouldn't really be necessary. I don't think anyone here is looking at this with hungry eyes at having arrest powers. No one here wants to run DOJ /EPIC/NCIC/DMV snoopy sear ches on their neighbors.

It just so happens that the very same infrastructure in place that you resent the rest of the non-LEO world as "gaming" is what creates fear within the general public.

If it takes LEOSA getting revisited for people to take notice, so be it :) I think the fear, uncertainty and doubt you want to share and spread within a law enforcement community is easily ameliorated by a proper background check and interview.

Cheers!

berto
11-09-2009, 12:48 PM
If a person is under contract with a city to provide law enforcement services, why would a court have a problem as long as you meet requirements under that city's and state's laws?

It's not a court that worries me but a DA with an agenda. The test case may or may not be easily won but it will cost money.

glbtrottr
11-09-2009, 12:52 PM
...umm, no...just ask FORMER OC Sherrif Mike Carona...;)

Guys, it's one thing when the media and a tired old hag now acting as appointed Sheriff uses this line.

It's another when we as a community use the same tactics and quotes the bad guys use to bash each other.

It has been proven in court with large amounts of testimony that the far and wide vast majority of CCW holders in the County of Orange never met the Sheriff nor contributed to his campaign.

By implying that CCW's issued in OC were given as a function of political favor is to completely bash the OC ccw community as a whole, and buy into the arguments of the bad guys.

Let's not do that.

Ladyfox
11-09-2009, 1:19 PM
I resent LEO's being "more equal" than anybody else.

Agreed.

While do I appreciate the work that those in law enforcement do on a daily basis I greatly resent the implication that I'm somehow a lesser person due to the uniform they wear. And as long as that attitude and/or mindset is allowed to persist and grow all the bad things that go with it will continue to occur.

When you are ready to come back down to reality let the rest of us know so that we can welcome you back to the human race.

coolusername2007
11-09-2009, 1:56 PM
Still, on a deeper level I'm not sure how I feel about this. On one hand it would be nice to have a CCW that covers the entire country.

There is one...it's called 2A and its free. (Not available in stores, available June 2010).

:D

nick
11-09-2009, 2:32 PM
There is one...it's called 2A and its free. (Not available in stores, available June 2010).

:D

And the state of the Union being what it is, you go to jail for exercising it.

AJAX22
11-09-2009, 3:20 PM
Guys we might be getting just a tiny bit off topic

This will either prove out or not....

I would like to know if any one has changed their opinion from what they initially voted... It would also be good to know of those who have voted who are already vested with Leo credentials

xxdabroxx
11-09-2009, 3:43 PM
it would prob be worth 500, but 1000 i just could not do.

coolusername2007
11-09-2009, 5:34 PM
It'll be worth a lot more than what I think it's worth now, IF 2A is NOT incorporated to the States in Chicago v McDonald.

Dr. Peter Venkman
11-09-2009, 6:03 PM
Earned?

Most departments and agencies hire family or friends of current Officers. Head back east, and you'll find it's a lot more of a Family business, then a depiction of the actual community being served.

Never said that made it OK.

...umm, no...just ask FORMER OC Sherrif Mike Carona...;)

And we want to follow in his footsteps why again? To give us 2nd Amendment rights by pretending to be cops?

AJAX22
11-09-2009, 6:16 PM
Oh, okay then. LE and the military don't need training, just mere designation of ranks and titles :rolleyes:

Never said that made it OK.

And we want to follow in his footsteps why again? To give us 2nd Amendment rights by pretending to be cops?

Legally no, LE and military do not need training.... designations of a special class of citizenry with special priviliges is typically not dependent upon training... thats just the line they feed you.

Kind of like how the 'supremem commander of the armed forces' doesn't require any training/military background what so ever...

Kind of like how the LA police chief wasn't post certified for a very very long time...

I don't care if I have to 'pretend' an albino Eskimo with a speech impediment to get my damn 2A rights back... if wearing mucklucks and lisping while wearing makeup gets me the ability to protect my family then I'll be a muckluck wearing, ssss slurring fool in white face.

this is not about 'playing cop' this is about getting 2A rights back,.

if you've got a better idea of how me and my family will get the legal ability to carry a pistol for personal protection while living in NYC (in a time frame which keeps us alive... remember justice delayed is justice denied)... lets have it....

If not... well... I can tell you I'm going to get mine... others are welcome to join me once the details get sorted.

M. Sage
11-09-2009, 6:19 PM
I was thinking about this. Even with the easy availability of CHL here in Texas, there are many places you can't carry - "51%" establishments (that percent of gross receipts is from sale of on-premise alcohol), schools, hospitals (WTF!?)... unless you're a LEO.

I'm not sure if it's all LEO or if I'd have to qualify as a Texas Peace Officer. But if it would get rid of those restrictions (and others), I'd be happy to save up $300-$500 to do it.

colossians323
11-09-2009, 6:26 PM
This is the wrong way to go. Want a badge? Join the force.

Um technically that is what is being talked about here, just not their local force:rolleyes:

Californio
11-09-2009, 6:37 PM
How do you plan to vet 10,000 persons that pony up $1,000.00, even established departments that vet officers get bad seeds, how do you plan to address the liability issues and what chain of command will be in place to monitor the activities of these 10,000 person spread out across many States.

It seems the legal liability and inability to monitor the conduct of 10,000 individuals would doom any plan of this scale.

choprzrul
11-09-2009, 7:15 PM
How do you plan to vet 10,000 persons that pony up $1,000.00, even established departments that vet officers get bad seeds, how do you plan to address the liability issues and what chain of command will be in place to monitor the activities of these 10,000 person spread out across many States.

It seems the legal liability and inability to monitor the conduct of 10,000 individuals would doom any plan of this scale.

Hire as contractors for a short period such as 32 days. The contract stipulates that the 1st month is a probationary period where the contractor can't engage in any LE activities.

At about the 2 week point, the city places the new contractor on unpaid administrative leave of absence andas such he/she has no arrest or other LE authority. The original 32 day contract contains a clause whereby the contract is automatically extended even when on unpaid administrative leave of absence. The leave can only be ended upon signed approval of the city officials.

Departments separate themselves from employees all the time using the unpaid administrative leave of absence. It doesn't mean that the employee gives up their badge and gun necessarily. Correct me if I am wrong, but are cities liable for what officers do while on unpaid administrative leave of absence?

As long as the original contract is worded correctly, I see no particular legal liability on the city's part; but then again I am no lawyer.

jnojr
11-09-2009, 7:33 PM
I wouldn't want to be a LEO

This thread is not about "being an LEO". It's about acquiring a piece of paper that will stop the state from infringing upon our rights.

If this idea comes to pass, and I can be a Special Constable for East Tree Stump County... how likely am I to try enforcing the law, there or anywhere? Answer: not at all.

I don't want a badge, or power, or the headache. I just want to exercise my rights in peace and without fear of prosecution.

choprzrul
11-09-2009, 7:52 PM
This thread is not about "being an LEO". It's about acquiring a piece of paper that will stop the state from infringing upon our rights.

+1 Agreed

Dont Tread on Me
11-09-2009, 8:47 PM
Interesting out of the box thinking but this has to stay legal!

lehn20
11-09-2009, 9:58 PM
tag

choprzrul
11-09-2009, 10:06 PM
Ok, who wants to be a law officer from Sunrise Wyoming?

http://www.sunriseminewyoming.com/

And this in Nevada from 2006: "For $70,000, I'll turn over the keys to Coaldale. The town needs fixing up, I admit, but it's got a great future," says Ylst. He can be reached at (775) 482-7750." from http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/20060220/NEWS/102200042

Seems like there are towns that come available. We just need to figure out which state(s) to target.

Super Spy
11-09-2009, 10:15 PM
This thread is not about "being an LEO". It's about acquiring a piece of paper that will stop the state from infringing upon our rights.

If this idea comes to pass, and I can be a Special Constable for East Tree Stump County... how likely am I to try enforcing the law, there or anywhere? Answer: not at all.

I don't want a badge, or power, or the headache. I just want to exercise my rights in peace and without fear of prosecution.

You just made my wall of fame. Nicely Put.

pTa
11-09-2009, 10:40 PM
Those are to be earned, not bought.

The badge is NOT earned. It's not an award, or medal of valor. You pay for it by attending a class and gaining employment...

groovielou
11-09-2009, 11:24 PM
I don't care if I have to 'pretend' an albino Eskimo with a speech impediment to get my damn 2A rights back... if wearing mucklucks and lisping while wearing makeup gets me the ability to protect my family then I'll be a muckluck wearing, ssss slurring fool in white face.

http://mypetfat.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/03/12/larry_the_cable_guy.jpg

Now, dats funny right there I don't care who you are....

I would be interested, $500 sounds like a good figure!

a1c
11-09-2009, 11:56 PM
You have got to be very naive not to realize that this scheme would be very quickly defeated.

You are trying to use a provision in existing laws. As soon as legislators or the media get wind of this little project and the first badges or IDs are issued, you can bet that it won't take long for legislation to be drafted to make sure that those LEOs on "administrative leave" (or whatever statute you give them) don't get to carry in CA.

Instead of spending hundreds or thousands towards that project (which I doubt will ever see the light of day), why don't you donate just 50% of that money to the CGF or other organizations that defend and represent our rights in the state?

packnrat
11-10-2009, 12:51 AM
You can spin it any way you want, but being a cop or a soldier does require special training. There are recruiting standards one must meet to get hired or selected, and, once you have the training, standard you must withhold, or you get fired or discharged.

That is why there are NO fat lazy out of shape cops ?????

Yea right sure.

And all leo's are marksmen shooters


.

lehn20
11-10-2009, 3:41 AM
:smilielol5:

Im in for 1K

nicki
11-10-2009, 3:54 AM
As of this time, 70 percent of us would do it if it was 500 dollars, but something tells me if it was 1000 dollars, people would bite.

If this is something that is in fact possible, it is something that we would have to make sure that we make reasonable efforts to make sure that those of us getting badges are in fact responsible.

Nothing is 100 percent, what we want to avoid are people getting permits who then go around like they are royality. That type of behavior is what burns sheriffs.

Nicki

guns_and_labs
11-10-2009, 6:54 AM
Interesting concept. I'd go in for some bucks. I do know that there are a number of agencies that just relaxed their standards for reserve sworn officers, maybe for this reason.

Chatterbox
11-10-2009, 6:57 AM
You have got to be very naive not to realize that this scheme would be very quickly defeated.

You are trying to use a provision in existing laws. As soon as legislators or the media get wind of this little project and the first badges or IDs are issued, you can bet that it won't take long for legislation to be drafted to make sure that those LEOs on "administrative leave" (or whatever statute you give them) don't get to carry in CA.

Instead of spending hundreds or thousands towards that project (which I doubt will ever see the light of day), why don't you donate just 50% of that money to the CGF or other organizations that defend and represent our rights in the state?

After reading the thread, I think that a1c is correct. As all loopholes, this one will be closed with speed proportional to the number of people who take advantage of it.

xxdabroxx
11-10-2009, 9:10 AM
After reading the thread, I think that a1c is correct. As all loopholes, this one will be closed with speed proportional to the number of people who take advantage of it.

Just like the OLL "loophole" :rolleyes:

tgriffin
11-10-2009, 10:27 AM
You have got to be very naive not to realize that this scheme would be very quickly defeated.

You are trying to use a provision in existing laws. As soon as legislators or the media get wind of this little project and the first badges or IDs are issued, you can bet that it won't take long for legislation to be drafted to make sure that those LEOs on "administrative leave" (or whatever statute you give them) don't get to carry in CA.

Instead of spending hundreds or thousands towards that project (which I doubt will ever see the light of day), why don't you donate just 50% of that money to the CGF or other organizations that defend and represent our rights in the state?

You mean like the OLL movement was?

Super Spy
11-10-2009, 10:43 AM
Interesting concept. I'd go in for some bucks. I do know that there are a number of agencies that just relaxed their standards for reserve sworn officers, maybe for this reason.

Really? Which Agencies?

berto
11-10-2009, 10:55 AM
You are trying to use a provision in existing laws. As soon as legislators or the media get wind of this little project and the first badges or IDs are issued, you can bet that it won't take long for legislation to be drafted to make sure that those LEOs on "administrative leave" (or whatever statute you give them) don't get to carry in CA.

The House and Senate would need to agree on a bill restricting LEO carry rights. Difficult to do an about face and take guns away from cops. Tough for the blue dog types to explain. Requiring residency in the state where one is a LEO won't work. The clowns in Sac. would be helpless.

USAFTS
11-10-2009, 11:01 AM
I was thinking about this. Even with the easy availability of CHL here in Texas, there are many places you can't carry - "51%" establishments (that percent of gross receipts is from sale of on-premise alcohol), schools, hospitals (WTF!?)... unless you're a LEO.

I'm not sure if it's all LEO or if I'd have to qualify as a Texas Peace Officer. But if it would get rid of those restrictions (and others), I'd be happy to save up $300-$500 to do it.

It's interesting to me the different amounts that people have posted. Some think $300 - $500 would be worth saving up to secure an actual LE credential, affording them a National CCW. Others would pay much more.

I spent $600 for a regular, highly restricted, single-weapon, two year CCW...and was denied. As a resident of the Peoples Republic of Kalifornia, I hoped against hope...but completely expected the decision. I decided to make the sacrifice as part of my ongoing battle for 2A.

If there was a LEGAL, solid, honest, LASTING way to secure a National CCW...I would pay far more than $600.00. Sadly this is just a fantasy unless / or until SHALL ISSUE is achieved. Even then, it would not be nationally recognized.

The Banana
11-10-2009, 11:38 AM
I absolutely hate people who tell you what cannot be done, they slow down the people who are actually getting things done, generally. I come from entrepreneurship as a career and everyone always wants to tell you why your idea is stupid/crazy/whatever. Oh and then when it works (and you make a lot of money) they tell you how they were actually helping. Forget all the people who tell you how it cannot be done and let's do it. Nay sayers are generally people clinging to some small sliver of thought that they are in fact special and important well beyond the general population.

I do think many of you are not thinking the economics of this entirely through ... you have states such as Illinois (of which I am a co-resident) that has NO CCW permitting. So beyond our little sliver of CA there are far more restrictive states not to mention the problems found in other states previously mentioned like TX. We are talking about a NATIONALLY recognized permit, that makes even the best CCW look like a child's toy. I think there is a TON more money here than any one has calculated.

I would want some guarantees beyond that of the mayor's office though. A lawyer would need to work this out and I am betting there would be enough money to "adopt" a number of towns nationwide. If this could be buttoned up tight by a decent legal team, this would be fun times even if it didn't stand very long.

I know they are considered looney but has anyone looked into asking the Oath Keepers about this? Many of them as I recall are law enforcement and probably would help in pointing us in a helpful direction.

I cannot wait to see if this has legs beyond a discussion on this board, its a wonderful idea on so many levels.

Oh and for those of you rambling on about Mike Carona ... #1 he was not found guilty on any charge involving CCW's, a man is innocent until proven guilty and he was clearly not proven guilty on any of those related charges, he was proven guilty on a charge in no way related to CCW's. #2 he was a sheriff, people here are talking about going a level or two above that station to the actual creators of the local laws not the enforcers of them, huge difference #3 these would be legally sanctioned LEO's not under the table dealings, it would be created under colour of law and would be done openly, that is the beauty of the plan.

Res
11-10-2009, 11:45 AM
$500 I would be a shoe in. $1000 would be doable.

kermit315
11-10-2009, 11:45 AM
I have a feeling that some of the backlash against the idea is coming from people with something to lose if they were to "fix" HR218 should this idea be workable.

That being said, I dont think they could do a whole lot to HR218 without losing backing from C's.O.P., police unions, etc. Any ensuing fight 'might' force the police organizations to fight alongside us gunnies rather than fight against us for once.

camsoup
11-10-2009, 12:29 PM
As I recall from my reading of HR218, to be CCW qualified nation-wide as a retired LEO requires one to have served on active duty for a minimun of 15 years, anything less will not qualify under HR 218. Also, this is a really stupid idea, and as a 35 plus year local LEO retiree, I resent the idea of people "gaming" the system just to be able to carry a gun concealed.


I resent the fact, that we the people are forced to have to think about how to "game" the system to be able to exercise a right granted to all of us by our constitution.

Last time I checked it didn't read you have the right to keep and bare arms, but if you want to carry that arm concealed you have to obtain a permit to do it.

What we need to do, is get all of the unconstitutional laws repealed, staring with the crappy NFA laws!!

guns_and_labs
11-10-2009, 12:32 PM
Really? Which Agencies?

Out of state.

choprzrul
11-10-2009, 12:47 PM
... I think there is a TON more money here than any one has calculated.

I would want some guarantees beyond that of the mayor's office though. A lawyer would need to work this out and I am betting there would be enough money to "adopt" a number of towns nationwide. If this could be buttoned up tight by a decent legal team, this would be fun times even if it didn't stand very long.
...

I really think that buying our own town that is already abandonded (but previously established) gives us the level of control we need. This would afford the opportunity to word the city's ordanances the way they need to be. You are correct that the legaleez makes/breaks this whole deal.

595 people @ $1000 each buys http://www.alberttexas.com/home/

ilbob
11-10-2009, 1:42 PM
I'd like to know how ANY law enforcement officer can justify enforcing ANY of the various blatantly unconstitutional laws on the books.

The justification is to continue receiving paychecks. It is that simple for the most part, with some nuances here and there.

Sgt Raven
11-10-2009, 1:44 PM
I have a feeling that some of the backlash against the idea is coming from people with something to lose if they were to "fix" HR218 should this idea be workable.

That being said, I dont think they could do a whole lot to HR218 without losing backing from C's.O.P., police unions, etc. Any ensuing fight 'might' force the police organizations to fight alongside us gunnies rather than fight against us for once.

You know they might just push through a national CCW law to get rid of this. That would be OK too, if a CCW from anywhere was OK everywhere. :p

bigcalidave
11-10-2009, 5:09 PM
See! Tons of towns for sale! Then total responsibility lies with the commission running it for us.

Oh and guys don't just think about CCW...
No high cap magazine laws
DEPARTMENT ISSUED AW PERMITS???? maybe?
NO ROSTER!
So many more advantages. Hell, as it turns out we might all be eligible for federal benefits for LEOs and a retirement plan sponsored by the town we create through the funding for the town! There is always going to be a list of people who want to be a cop in "our town" and not many expenses since the town is two blocks and a "police department"
Gotta pay someone to man the phones and fax machine there though... :D

kermit315
11-10-2009, 6:22 PM
You know they might just push through a national CCW law to get rid of this. That would be OK too, if a CCW from anywhere was OK everywhere. :p

Agreed.

M. Sage
11-10-2009, 6:31 PM
It's interesting to me the different amounts that people have posted. Some think $300 - $500 would be worth saving up to secure an actual LE credential, affording them a National CCW. Others would pay much more.

I spent $600 for a regular, highly restricted, single-weapon, two year CCW...and was denied. As a resident of the Peoples Republic of Kalifornia, I hoped against hope...but completely expected the decision. I decided to make the sacrifice as part of my ongoing battle for 2A.

If there was a LEGAL, solid, honest, LASTING way to secure a National CCW...I would pay far more than $600.00. Sadly this is just a fantasy unless / or until SHALL ISSUE is achieved. Even then, it would not be nationally recognized.

That's the thing: value is relative, often to where your butt is parked. I'm sitting in a state where I can get a CCW by taking a joke of a "class" and then sending in the right paperwork. That CCW is honored by the majority of States, and honored by every state I can imagine visiting in the forseeable future. Heck, the reason I don't have a CCW yet is partly because I hardly need one - I can carry without a license while traveling and while in my own vehicle (traveling or just going to the gas station) and carry of long guns isn't restricted like it is with handguns...

So no, you won't catch me paying as much as someone living in NY or CA would be willing to. It would be nice for me to get it, but I wouldn't break the bank getting it done since the cost/benefit would skew too far to the "cost" side.

USAFTS
11-10-2009, 7:05 PM
That's the thing: value is relative, often to where your butt is parked. I'm sitting in a state where I can get a CCW by taking a joke of a "class" and then sending in the right paperwork. That CCW is honored by the majority of States, and honored by every state I can imagine visiting in the forseeable future. Heck, the reason I don't have a CCW yet is partly because I hardly need one - I can carry without a license while traveling and while in my own vehicle (traveling or just going to the gas station) and carry of long guns isn't restricted like it is with handguns...

So no, you won't catch me paying as much as someone living in NY or CA would be willing to. It would be nice for me to get it, but I wouldn't break the bank getting it done since the cost/benefit would skew too far to the "cost" side.

M. Sage - You nailed it. It is beyond frustrating. Wouldn't it be nice to have a nationally uniform shall-issue law, with 100% reciprosity? Maybe some day.:rolleyes:

Purple K
11-10-2009, 7:50 PM
LEA's have cops that have not gone through the academy all the time... remember there is a broad interpenetration of what constitutes a LEO for the purpose of HR218.

Which is specifically why HR218 is written the way it is.... there are a number of places where you are a cop if they say you are a cop... there are a number of places where you are considered a LEO even if you are just the equivalent of a process server.

Let me state this again.

There are states in the U.S. which have ZERO requirements for training, and ZERO requirements for applicants.

There are some instances where individuals can be legally considered LEO's even if they are convicted felons... which is WHY HR218 contains wording which prohibits felons and prohibited persons from carrying weapons even if they have law enforcement credentials.

Buying CCW's as a reward for campaign contributions is a no-no.... however if a municipality wanted to charge a 1k application fee to apply for a job as an auxiliary reserve constable which went directly into the city's coffers and was not a 'private' donation there would be no problem with it.

We need to remember that we in CA have different standards of what constitutes a LEO... we have post certification and state wide standards of acceptance, as well as other criteria... which simply do not apply uniformly across the U.S.

There are still places where you get to be a deputy simply by applying for the job... which makes you a LEO... which allows you to carry a concealed weapon anywhere in the USA.

The $$$$ incentive for the local municipality simply makes it a viable proposition for a cash strapped city council.

there is one state in particular which has a specific exemption in the penal code which allows for municipalities to appoint a special class of Law enforcement officers who are considered independent contractors and for whom the state/municipality assumes no liability for their actions... they also have limited jurisdiction and are paid only nominal sums.... BUT they legally qualify as LEO's... and there IS precedent to back it up with regard to HR218.

Lets assume for a minute that everything I'm suggesting is on the up and up... and this is simply a case of you pay your 'application fee' you pass a background check and you get issued credentials...

How much is it worth to you?

I'd gladly pay $500 to be able to CCW legally. That's a very small price to pay for the added safety and security it would afford me and my family.

I'm disgusted by all the nae-sayers on this topic. Ajax22 is thinking outside the box here, he's trying to help us ALL. Just as the trailblazers of the OLL movement thought outside the box. Those trailblazers studied the law as it was written, applied it studiously, and WE have all benefitted. Just think where we'd be now if those trailblazers had listened to all their nae-sayers.... Ajax22 is not advocating that we all get credentials and go around arresting people, pretending to be cops. He's just saying...... You get credentialled, carry concealled, that's it!

M. Sage
11-10-2009, 8:32 PM
M. Sage - You nailed it. It is beyond frustrating. Wouldn't it be nice to have a nationally uniform shall-issue law, with 100% reciprosity? Maybe some day.:rolleyes:

Well, technically, even if we ignore the 2A for a moment...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Faith_and_Credit_Clause

tankerman
11-10-2009, 8:58 PM
Um... no... they are NOT earned, they are simply issued, by cities or other governing entities... and in some places it is done with little or no qualification or requirements... CA has some requirements that must be met, but there are other places which do NOT have the same criteria, but still issue credentials which are valid for the purpose of concealed cary under the Law enforcement protection act.

Look, you may disagree with it morally/ethically etc. But it gets you a concealed Cary permit that is valid in any state in the union. INCLUDING CA and NYC.You are correct, the Coast Guard recently sent us a letter stating they consider ALL employees of California State Lands Commission to be LEO's.

Stryprod
11-10-2009, 9:12 PM
$500

USAFTS
11-10-2009, 9:18 PM
Well, technically, even if we ignore the 2A for a moment...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Faith_and_Credit_Clause

Yes Sir. Yet another chapter and verse that is ignored or disinterpreted to justify infringment. Maybe some day, this will be stacked on top of incorporation and we will actually freely exercise our right as it was designed.

Charlie50
11-10-2009, 9:27 PM
I would like to see some real legal eagle types chime in on this idea. We can bat this idea around for weeks and in the end watch it falter in self-doubt and nay saying. This “outside the box” type thinking needs serious people who have legislative/ legal experience to contribute constructive ideas and criticism. Does the Calguns community have the horsepower and financial wherewithal within its ranks to get serious about this or is this just another flight of fantasy? Do I hear crickets in the distance… or the beginnings of a groundswell?

choprzrul
11-10-2009, 10:05 PM
I sure would like to hear back from Ajax22 as to what he has brewing and why he posted the survey to begin with. Give us an update or some direction.

vrand
11-10-2009, 10:31 PM
Yep... those credentials issued by nepotism and corruption are just as valid under federal law as those that are 'earned' through service to the state(king)...

I think I've heard the term 'loophole' bandied about before.... seems to be the mantra of the people who recognize that something is totally legal even if it does not sit with their personal ideology/agenda.

Yes the legislature could i(n theory) 'crack down' on this... it would have to occur at a federal level... essentially imposing harsher levels of qualification for consideration under the LEOSA... which would be VERY hard to get the legislature to pass.. since many many states would not meet the new 'qualifications'.... so I don't see that as a overly likely outcome.

Let me make this perfectly plain. I am NOT suggesting that we all run out and buy a municipality... that adds a level of complexity that is unnecessary.

There are plenty of townships/towns out there who can issue the credentials we want and $$$ talks... particularly to areas with a mean income of around 14k per year.... a cash injection of 10 million to a community of 2500 is a substantial enough bit of cash that they can't easily dismiss the probability.

Ok... some people may think its 'dubious' or a 'scam' but the fact of the matter is the law is the law... they wrote it.. they make us follow it... and what is proposed here is LEGAL... and even in a worst case scenario where the opposition rallies the troops and shuts us down we'd get a few years of legal CCW.... which is a few years of keeping our family safe... AND it could easily pave the way for national reciprocity of CCW permits....

Legal is legal.... CCW permits are just for that 1 time in 100 where you get hassled.... and even with one of those you don't always beat the ride... but with valid LEO credentials you WILL beat the rap.... the same was true for all our OLL endevors.

Look, I'm not saying this sort of thing is an ideal situation... but we ALREADY have an elite (LEO's) who get privilages that the rest of us are denied.

This is simply a broad lowering of the barriers to entry into that protected class (which shouldn't exist in the first place)

I dislike that this is nececary to exercise our rights... however, it IS legal... and it DOES allow us to exercise those rights....

Heck, I'd love to run detachable mags in my full featured AR.... but the MMG I have on it is simply the price I have to pay to legally do what I need to have the means to protect my family..... and now that I live and go to school in NYC, I have ZERO recourse or ability to have those means... they all live back in 'free' California...

I was originally just looking into this for personal and selfish reasons... but I think it could be a large and significant step forward in the advancement of the 2A in America.

Your Sheriff is the law of the land

January 14, 2009 by DrD

Power of a “County Sheriff”

Bighorn County Sheriff Dave Mattis spoke at a press conference following a recent U.S. District Court decision (Case No. 2:96-cv-099-J (2006)) and announced that all federal officials are forbidden to enter his county without his prior approval …… “If a sheriff doesn’t want the Feds in his county he has the constitutional right and power to keep them out, or ask them to leave, or retain them in custody.”

The court decision was the result of a suit against both the BATF and the IRS by Mattis and other members of the Wyoming Sheriff’s Association. The suit in the Wyoming federal court district sought restoration of the protections enshrined in the United States Constitution and the Wyoming Constitution.

Guess what? The District Court ruled in favor of the sheriffs. In fact, they stated, Wyoming is a sovereign state and the duly elected sheriff of a county is the highest law enforcement official within a county and has law enforcement powers exceeding that of any other state or federal official.”

Re-read this quote.

The court confirms and asserts that “the duly elected sheriff of a county is the highest law enforcement official within a county and has law enforcement powers EXCEEDING that of any other state or federal official.”
:79:
http://harmonyhealth.wordpress.com/2009/01/14/your-sheriff-is-the-law-of-the-land/

vrand
11-10-2009, 10:38 PM
In fact, they stated, Wyoming is a sovereign state and the duly elected sheriff of a county is the highest law enforcement official within a county and has law enforcement powers exceeding that of any other state or federal official.”

If you can get a sheriff from ANY state to issue, as ALL 50 states are sovereign, then this idea looks like its good to go.

a1c
11-10-2009, 10:58 PM
If you can get a sheriff from ANY state to issue, as ALL 50 states are sovereign, then this idea looks like its good to go.

"within a county" - keywords here. So don't get your hopes up.

7x57
11-10-2009, 11:50 PM
Your Sheriff is the law of the land

January 14, 2009 by DrD

:79:
http://harmonyhealth.wordpress.com/2009/01/14/your-sheriff-is-the-law-of-the-land/

I suspect this is misleading at best, false at worst:

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message227513/pg1

Scroll down to where a (purported) Montana legislator chimes in.

Of course, "I read it on the internet, but I ain't no lawyer." So which is correct? The smell test says the one where the feds can still enforce federal rules, I'd say.

Sorry.

7x57

vrand
11-11-2009, 12:03 AM
"within a county" - keywords here. So don't get your hopes up.

Sheriff Deputy's can also travel outside the county, just like the OP suggested City police can travel outside the city limits and still can carry CCW. Maybe at the county sheriff level there is more 'protection' vs city level.

vrand
11-11-2009, 12:15 AM
I suspect this is misleading at best, false at worst:

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message227513/pg1

Scroll down to where a (purported) Montana legislator chimes in.

Of course, "I read it on the internet, but I ain't no lawyer." So which is correct? The smell test says the one where the feds can still enforce federal rules, I'd say.

Sorry.

7x57

The story is somewhat true.

Sheriff Mattis in a story in "The Spotlight" is quoted as having said
that Internet reports calling it a "court decision" and quoting the
sheriff saying he can detain federal officers in custody are wrong.
Mattis said the original report originated in Nashville, Tennessee in
1997, and also that the Wyoming Sheriffs Association was not involved.

Assuming that the story is a hoax, and that there is no 2:96-cv-099-J
or Castenada v USA, does that make the Constitution less applicable in
this instance? I don't think so. In fact, Sheriff Mattis has issued
notice to the federal government that they must secure his permission
before they can do business in Bighorn County, and so far, they have
complied with his request.

Right is still right, and the tenth amendment to the Constitution
gives powers not delegated to the United States (federal government)
by the Constitution, to only the states and the people. There are only
four law enforcement categories defined in the Constitution for the
federal government, and all others should be the premise of the states
and the people. Those categories are piracy, treason, counterfeiting,
and postal issues, and according to the Constitution, the supreme law
of the land, all other law categories are the premise of the states
and the people.

To paraphrase Alexander Hamilton, (from Federalist # 78) if the
Constitution doesn't give the fed the authority, any law they make is
invalid. Last I heard, that hadn't been changed by any amendment.

The way I see it is that we have two choices. We can sit back and
accept that the federal government is going to usurp our rights or we
can do as Sheriff Mattis has done, and put the federal government on
notice that they are not welcome in our states and counties without
the approval of law enforcement agents in those states. Montana has, I
understand, passed legislation that requires the federal government to
gain the permission of local sheriffs before attempting to conduct
federal business in any part of the state not ceded to the federal
government already. (Montana House Bill #415). Nevada just failed to
pass similar legislation, declaring the states sovereignty and
independence from the federal jurisdiction that has governed most of
the state. Too bad.

"We the people" are the first words of the Constitution. If we want to
remain first, we must declare our rights as guaranteed to us under
that great document. If we are not willing to do that, we have no
chance of retaining national sovereignty either. Get ready to welcome
the new world order, if you are not prepared to fight for your own
states sovereignty.


http://www.no-debts.com/anti-federalist/files/posse13.txt

vrand
11-11-2009, 12:26 AM
County Sheriff: Dave Mattis (R) — (307) 568-2324 — bhcsheriff@tctwest.net

BIG HORN COUNTY — County Seat: Basin 82410

http://www.wyovoters.org/County/CoContactInfo.htm

Looks like he is still sheriff up there in Big Horn County.

vrand
11-11-2009, 12:38 AM
Maybe 'buy' a town inside a pro 10th amendment state and county?

Many states are now doing the 10th amendment on state gun rights.

The People > states > US Federal govt.

This is going to be very interesting how all this plays out.

Harley
11-11-2009, 1:17 AM
ZERO. I would rather earn it.

The Director
11-11-2009, 8:13 AM
So what's the actual proposal on this....lots of talk but no clear proposal.

glockman19
11-11-2009, 8:17 AM
So what's the actual proposal on this....lots of talk but no clear proposal.

My guess is...We all go in a buy a town. Appoint someone Mayor and Police chief. Appoint every citizen a LEO. Give then minimal pay and a picture ID.

Did I get it right?

Shotgun Man
11-11-2009, 8:36 AM
How come the poll is public poll where people can see your response? I'm leery of those polls.

Someone could challenge my credibility someday by saying, "Isn't it true, sir, that you have publicly said that would pay $500 for law enforcement credentials?"

Chatterbox
11-11-2009, 8:40 AM
How come the poll is public poll where people can see your response? I'm leery of those polls.

Someone could challenge my credibility someday by saying, "Isn't it true, sir, that you have publicly said that would pay $500 for law enforcement credentials?"

It's a good point. I think this thread needs to be deleted.

kermit315
11-11-2009, 8:47 AM
It's a good point. I think this thread needs to be deleted.

oh yeah, it should be deleted. We dont want those gun nuts talking about things that are legal to do again, now do we?:rolleyes:

Fjold
11-11-2009, 8:47 AM
ZERO. I would rather earn it.

Earn what? You get LEO credentials when you get hired by a department. Some states don't even require a high school diploma to be a LEO.

7x57
11-11-2009, 8:53 AM
The story is somewhat true.


True, but misleading. It implies that the sheriff has the absolute authority to do what he's doing, and that isn't at all clear. It's the authority that everyone is interested in, not a policy that the feds may simply have decided not to challenge at this time.

Here's another simple reality check: if county sheriffs have the kind of authority claimed, how could de facto segregation have been ended against the will of the Southern sheriffs? If he can throw out the feds, it seems the will of the federal courts could not have been imposed.

7x57

AJAX22
11-11-2009, 8:53 AM
I will post a bit more when I'm off my iPod

I don't think that it will be neccecary to purchase a town...and that would require a large aMount of up front capital (which kills projects)

I'm currently working on getting a (or a few) pro 2a communities on bord...

There are a few different states where this could work... But untill we find one who is tentativly willing to procede we can't go forward

I'm working on this right now... But I have somewhat limited time

There are tens of thousands of communities which we can approach for this.... Law of averages...we'll find at least one

Then it's a matter of carefully examining all state and local laws to verify the validity of the location...

And then we draft a very carefully tailored employment contract which mimimiZes exposure for the town, and still satisfies all aspects of hr218

AJAX22
11-11-2009, 9:02 AM
The poll is public so I can make up a list of people to contact if/when this is a go

If someone somewhere sometime asks me if I publically stated that I'd pay for Leo credentials I would like to answer them by pulling out an leo Id and stating YUP... Would you like one?

dansgold
11-11-2009, 11:28 AM
If the idea is to find friendly towns willing to deputize, I suggest that it be only towns or cities which have already deputized 'auxilliary', 'volunteer', 'reserve', 'contingent' officers. Even moreso if they already deputize 'animal-control officer', 'wildlife control officer', "traffic control officer" or anything else fairly innocuous.

For the record, I am perfectly willing to take a few days off of work every year and go do forensic computer analysis in some Podunk jurisdiction ... maybe even 'on demand' as cases arose. I'm qualified, and they couldn't afford my billable-hour rate. 'Volunteering' my time in exchange for minimum wage and credentials is in everyone's interest.

Rather than creating a perfectly-legal fiction, offering genuine service seems more consistent with our goals.

AJAX22
11-11-2009, 11:39 AM
Providing Cash is a heckuva service...

So far a couple of states which have shown promise are: Ohio (expressly allows for non resident LEO's with case law to back it up), Pennsylvania (has a class of officer called 'constibles' for which the state is indemnified against the actions of the individual and has case law with HR218), Alaska (no residency requirement, VERY pro 2A), Wyoming,

Ones which will not work (usually for residency requirements for LEO's) are: Montana, California

I've made a few calls today, hopefully I can get some local help from some of the 2A lawyers in these various locations to sort through the local statutes and point me in the direction of 2A friendly locations..

If anyone has any knowledge of particularly 2A friendly towns, mayors, or sheriffs in other states please let me know.

armygunsmith
11-11-2009, 11:51 AM
If the idea is to find friendly towns willing to deputize, I suggest that it be only towns or cities which have already deputized 'auxilliary', 'volunteer', 'reserve', 'contingent' officers. Even moreso if they already deputize 'animal-control officer', 'wildlife control officer', "traffic control officer" or anything else fairly innocuous.

For the record, I am perfectly willing to take a few days off of work every year and go do forensic computer analysis in some Podunk jurisdiction ... maybe even 'on demand' as cases arose. I'm qualified, and they couldn't afford my billable-hour rate. 'Volunteering' my time in exchange for minimum wage and credentials is in everyone's interest.

Rather than creating a perfectly-legal fiction, offering genuine service seems more consistent with our goals.

I would certainly be willing to offer my skills and time. After all, there has to be some departments that could use a military trained Small Arms/Artillery Repairman every once in a while.

guns_and_labs
11-11-2009, 11:51 AM
Sounds like a potential winner of a plan. Let us know how we can help.

vrand
11-11-2009, 11:55 AM
Providing Cash is a heckuva service...

So far a couple of states which have shown promise are: Ohio (expressly allows for non resident LEO's with case law to back it up), Pennsylvania (has a class of officer called 'constibles' for which the state is indemnified against the actions of the individual and has case law with HR218), Alaska (no residency requirement, VERY pro 2A), Wyoming,

Ones which will not work (usually for residency requirements for LEO's) are: Montana, California

I've made a few calls today, hopefully I can get some local help from some of the 2A lawyers in these various locations to sort through the local statutes and point me in the direction of 2A friendly locations..

If anyone has any knowledge of particularly 2A friendly towns, mayors, or sheriffs in other states please let me know.

Pro 10th amendment sheriff's:

Wyoming:
County Sheriff: Dave Mattis (R) — (307) 568-2324 — bhcsheriff@tctwest.net

BIG HORN COUNTY — County Seat: Basin 82410

Arizona:
County Sheriff: Joe Arpaio: (602) 876-1801

Maricopa County

RANGER295
11-11-2009, 12:28 PM
I put in the poll $500 because that is what I know that I would without any hesitation or thought drop on this. Depending on details, I could pay 1k or more but I would rather not. Basically, what I guess I am saying is that if this works I am in regardless up to $500 or $600 and beyond that, I still want to be kept in the loop because I would give it consideration.

Would this also exempt us from handgun roster requirements and maybe even “hi-cap” restrictions? That would make it worth even more.

All of this being said, I hate the fact that LEO’s get special treatment. It is like one that I know of that carries a switch blade. When asked “isn’t that illegal” his reply was “yeah, but no one cares because I am a cop”. I have never had any run ins with LEO’s other than getting pulled over once and let off with a warning and having one CHP officer start to search my truck when I pulled over to pull him out of a ditch. I have several friends that are good guys and LEO’s, but I kind of have a low level of respect for them as a whole. Despite all of that, if this would help me be able to exercise my rights, then I am game.

Chatterbox
11-11-2009, 12:46 PM
I dunno - I'm getting really bad flashbacks to the "Chief Thunder" case. That was the guy who made a sweetheart deal (ATF said "bribe") with some podunk PD to get them to sign LE sample letters, to import machine guns. When he was busted, he had ~150 full auto rifles sitting in a warehouse. He went away for a couple of years to Club Fed based on that. Call me paranoid, but the only way I'd play this game if I had strong assurances from legal authorities I trusted (somebody like Eugene Volokh or Chuck Michel, for example) that the whole scheme was legit.

dansgold
11-11-2009, 12:53 PM
This is why it is important to engage only departments (assuming we go for pre-existing towns) which have a history of issuing non-resident LEO credentials, and especially if they are issued for "non patrol" type roles like animal control, etc.

If we deal with such, and provide legitimate service to those communities ... where is the problem? With many small towns experiencing chronic budget/manpower problems, this as good of a win/win, "fully legit anyway you look at it" type of scenario.

Chatterbox
11-11-2009, 12:58 PM
This is why it is important to engage only departments (assuming we go for pre-existing towns) which have a history of issuing non-resident LEO credentials, and especially if they are issued for "non patrol" type roles like animal control, etc.

If we deal with such, and provide legitimate service to those communities ... where is the problem? With many small town experiencing chronic budget/manpower problems, this as good of a win/win, "fully legit anyway you look at it" type of scenario.

I think the key words are "legitimate service". Typically, the service is expressed in terms of work performed, whereas giving $$$ can be construed as some form of bribery. IANAL, but AFAIK the money does not even need to go to somebody's pocket - even if it goes into the town's budget, it can be construed to constitute bribery.

AJAX22
11-11-2009, 2:51 PM
You can't bribe the whole town

There has to be an element of personal proffit for it to be illegal....

There is nothing illegal with paying an administrative processing fee directly to the town or sherrif.

Otherwise I'd be 'bribing' the state whenever I pay my vehicle registration

GuyW
11-11-2009, 2:58 PM
I'd like to know how ANY law enforcement officer can justify enforcing ANY of the various blatantly unconstitutional laws on the books.


Easy - they swore an oath to uphold and defend the government against all enemies foreign and domestic

(which government, incidentally, signs their paycheck)

.

bigcalidave
11-11-2009, 3:03 PM
How come the poll is public poll where people can see your response? I'm leery of those polls.

Someone could challenge my credibility someday by saying, "Isn't it true, sir, that you have publicly said that would pay $500 for law enforcement credentials?"

It's a good point. I think this thread needs to be deleted.

The paranoia here is ASTOUNDING...
It's a poll, if you don't want your opinion known, DON'T CLICK ON IT!!! We don't have to delete this thread because of it. This is a great topic!

JaMail
11-11-2009, 3:05 PM
yea, ive batted the idea around and i actually know someone that has a vacation house in a small town, is friends with the sherriff and is a reserve sherriff of that town and carrys under LEO credentials, its pretty much the same thing carona did without the blatant bribes..

and for the LEO's that take offense at this, if its legal, you have to deal with it, if we bought one of these little 1 million dollar towns, for sale in northern california, incorporated, and built a police force made of 15,000 cal guns volunteers for a town with only 10 people, then so be it.


my idea would be, if someone applied for a CCW permit, was turned down, then was raped, or they had a family member shot during a mugging, wouldnt that be cause for ae lawsuits against the LEO that turned them down?

bigcalidave
11-11-2009, 3:12 PM
yea, ive batted the idea around and i actually know someone that has a vacation house in a small town, is friends with the sherriff and is a reserve sherriff of that town and carrys under LEO credentials, its pretty much the same thing carona did without the blatant bribes..

and for the LEO's that take offense at this, if its legal, you have to deal with it, if we bought one of these little 1 million dollar towns, for sale in northern california, incorporated, and built a police force made of 15,000 cal guns volunteers for a town with only 10 people, then so be it.


my idea would be, if someone applied for a CCW permit, was turned down, then was raped, or they had a family member shot during a mugging, wouldnt that be cause for ae lawsuits against the LEO that turned them down?

If we did buy a little town in northern california I would GLADLY live there... Anyone else gonna jump on that boat? Hell I'll be the mayor ;)

choprzrul
11-11-2009, 3:15 PM
my idea would be, if someone applied for a CCW permit, was turned down, then was raped, or they had a family member shot during a mugging, wouldnt that be cause for ae lawsuits against the LEO that turned them down?

I've wondered about that myself, especially in the context where the sheriff uses the arguement that they are denying due to potential liability. I would think that several lawsuit examples where someone was turned down and then suffered at the hands of the bad guys could help sway someone into signing off on your CCW.

I am thinking that buying a town outside of CA makes more sense. That way, Sacremento has no control over changing the rules to keep the thing from working. Buy a ghost town in Alaska where non-residents can be LEOs and the state is very pro 2A.

choprzrul
11-11-2009, 3:51 PM
So far a couple of states which have shown promise are: Ohio (expressly allows for non resident LEO's with case law to back it up), Pennsylvania (has a class of officer called 'constibles' for which the state is indemnified against the actions of the individual and has case law with HR218), Alaska (no residency requirement, VERY pro 2A),

I really like the sound of Livengood Alaska: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livengood,_Alaska

There was a post office there from 1915 to 1957, and I can find an area code and prefix for Livengood. The current population of 29 (??? 2000 census) could most likely use 15,000 CalGun'rs as part time peace officers. Let's see, 15,000 x $500 application processing fee = $7,500,000.00. Enough to make me think about moving there to help process all of those applications.

vrand
11-11-2009, 4:13 PM
I really like the sound of Livengood Alaska: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livengood,_Alaska

There was a post office there from 1915 to 1957. The current population of 29 (??? 2000 census) could most likely use 15,000 CalGun'rs as part time peace officers. Let's see, 15,000 x $500 application processing fee = $7,500,000.00. Enough to make me think about moving there to help process all of those applications.


- Density 0.1/sq mi (0.0/km2)

And 10 miles to your nearest neighbor, nice open ranges. :D

choprzrul
11-11-2009, 4:22 PM
Alaska has something called Village Police Officers. From what I am reading in AK's code of regulations, you can be a VPO for 12 months without having the AK required certification. After 12 months, you have to have a gap in service of 90 days. It would appear that after those 90 days, you are good to go for another 12 months. Anyway, here is the link to the code:

http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/folioproxy.asp?url=http://wwwjnu01.legis.state.ak.us/cgi-bin/folioisa.dll/aac/query=[/url][JUMP:'Title13Chap89']/doc/{@1}?firsthit

Go to title 13, Part 6. The link is funky and won't take you to the specific page.

What's the chance that someone here knows someone living in Livengood, AK?

JaMail
11-11-2009, 4:48 PM
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1609287/posts

i remember when this was up for sale a couple years ago, 1.75 million..

5k people at 500.00 each, and you have 2.5 million, which gives you the gap to run a full time acadamy

http://www.post.ca.gov/faqs/become.asp

savageevo
11-11-2009, 6:30 PM
Im in for at least 1k. when you get all the details nailed let me know. by the way, it took me almost two hours to read all the post. can u start a new thread on your find.

choprzrul
11-12-2009, 2:51 PM
AJAX22:

Are you going to condense this info and start a new thread per the above request, or have you already? Please keep us up to date on current status.

nativeofsandiego
11-12-2009, 3:53 PM
Why would you pay for it when you can just move out of this state...?

Meplat
11-12-2009, 4:01 PM
negative. They swore to uphold the constitution of the united states, just like all us veterans and civil servants did. That is why I rejected a career in law enforcement fourty years ago. I saw this coming and knew at some point I would have to refuse to enforce unconstitutional gun laws and lay down my badge. Too bad that idealistic young man did not yet understand the value of a fifth column.;)


Easy - they swore an oath to uphold and defend the government against all enemies foreign and domestic

(which government, incidentally, signs their paycheck)

.

Meplat
11-12-2009, 4:05 PM
If we did buy a little town in northern california I would GLADLY live there... Anyone else gonna jump on that boat? Hell I'll be the mayor ;)

Only if you promise to be dog catcher, not mayor!

five.five-six
11-12-2009, 4:08 PM
I would contribute to Carona's re-election campaign.

Whoops, did I just post that?

yep, $1k was the going rate

hollabillz
11-12-2009, 6:13 PM
Before reading this thread, I voted $500. After reading the thread and understanding the legitimacy and legality of the idea, I'd contribute $1,000 or more, including my own time to help do the grunt work. My preference would be to buy a small town (like Livengood, AK) instead of paying an "administrative fee", since the latter some anti might attempt to construe as bribery or other such nonsense. If we went the "administrative fee" route, we should actively involve lawyers to ensure legality and integrity. If we bought the town, then my feeling is there would be less room for misinformation.

Either way, great idea. :) This kind of fresh thinking is truly inspiring. CG at its best! :cool:

hollabillz
11-12-2009, 11:39 PM
Can we just start our own town (http://www.slate.com/id/2130597/fr/rss/)? Gunville, KS? :o

AJAX22
11-13-2009, 1:01 PM
Been making phone calls today, if anyone knows of any sherrifs, mayors, or communities who are particularly pro gun please let me know.

Some I've come across are:

Greenleaf Idaho
Mayor Brad Holton (208) 454-0552?

Kennesaw Georgia
(770) 424-8274 Mayor Mark Mathews

AJAX22
11-13-2009, 1:58 PM
Can we just start our own town (http://www.slate.com/id/2130597/fr/rss/)? Gunville, KS? :o

Its been brought up a few times... And it is a pretty good idea... however, it requires a large initial capital investment which tends to doom projects.

Legasat
11-13-2009, 2:18 PM
I would not use these "credentials" to CCW, but I WOULD use them to buy some more off-list toys.

G17GUY
11-13-2009, 2:55 PM
I would not use these "credentials" to CCW, but I WOULD use them to buy some more off-list toys.

I thought you had to be CA LEO for exemption status.

Also what is CGF view on this? Will it hold up,it seems like something the feds would swarm in on.

Legasat
11-13-2009, 3:37 PM
I thought you had to be CA LEO for exemption status.

Hmmm, not the way I understood it. But, I have been wrong before!

hollabillz
11-13-2009, 3:42 PM
Been making phone calls today, if anyone knows of any sherrifs, mayors, or communities who are particularly pro gun please let me know.

Some I've come across are:

Greenleaf Idaho
Mayor Brad Holton (208) 454-0552?

Kennesaw Georgia
(770) 424-8274 Mayor Mark Mathews

Looks good. Assuming they were picked for their requiring residents to keep guns?

The smaller the better, but both Idaho (http://www.idaho-post.org/) and Georgia (http://www.gapost.org/) seem to have POST requirements... :confused:

hollabillz
11-13-2009, 4:01 PM
Will it hold up,it seems like something the feds would swarm in on.

I think the key is having a competent lawyer(s) to make sure we're following the law to the letter (and we avoid any liability gotchas, which is critical at this scale), and of course a friendly mayor that could use a small reserve pool of out-of-state officers, in the event they're needed in the future.

Beyond that, there would be a fairly big political cost to pay if they tried legislative reform to restrict LEO liberties, but by then we'll all already be enjoying shall issue under incorporation right? :p

AJAX22
11-13-2009, 4:15 PM
Looks good. Assuming they were picked for their requiring residents to keep guns?

The smaller the better, but both Idaho (http://www.idaho-post.org/) and Georgia (http://www.gapost.org/) seem to have POST requirements... :confused:

It seems like GA may have a legal requirement for POST certification, but I think in Idaho it is not a legal requirement.

hollabillz
11-13-2009, 4:21 PM
It seems like GA may have a legal requirement for POST certification, but I think in Idaho it is not a legal requirement.

If that's the case, Greenleaf seems like a great candidate! They have a population of less than 1,000, versus Kennesaw's 20,000, and seem to be less economically developed. Which of course means a landslide of LEO applicants could bring a much appreciated stream of administrative revenue to the town.

7x57
11-13-2009, 4:24 PM
While I'm not sanguine that this admirably outside-the-box idea will ultimately be feasible, one way to offer a "genuine service" (if legally advisable) would be to purchase a house in the issuing town and ask/allow/whatever members to spend a week or two there as "on call" reserve officers. Doesn't matter if you were called--you were present and available for service.

Yep. You also get a time-share vacation home with your LEO credentials. NOW how much will you pay? :D

I suppose for California types used to el cheapo homes costing between a quarter and a half million dollars I should point out that there are places (I can name one) where houses can be had for a few thousand dollars. You just have to find a small rural town where external forces have destroyed the economy so that there are a lot of vacant homes that have no buyers, whatever their theoretical value.

The grain elevator moved out of my dad's old hometown in Montana, and the population is maybe half what it was twenty years ago. That translates to quite a few unsalable homes. Montana is apparently not suitable for your purposes, but there must be plenty of other homes across the West in a similar situation.

The "right" way to do this, naturally, is to see if you can find a place where the hunting or something is good so some will be happy to visit for a while. That is contrary to the goal of finding a place with super-cheap real estate, however.

7x57

hollabillz
11-13-2009, 5:01 PM
7x57. I'm not sure what that helps unless we're required by law to reside in our jurisdiction. Is there something I'm missing? (happens a lot ;)) If anyone wants to do this on the side, to the town's approval and benefit, why not...

CHS
11-13-2009, 5:05 PM
7x57. I'm not sure what that helps unless we're required by law to reside in our jurisdiction. Is there something I'm missing? (happens a lot ;)) If anyone wants to do this on the side, to the town's approval and benefit, why not...

Read his post again. It's all about INCENTIVE.

hollabillz
11-13-2009, 5:13 PM
Read his post again. It's all about INCENTIVE.

Ohhhhh lol, got it. I must not be the target market for that kind of incentive. :o

7x57
11-13-2009, 7:41 PM
Ohhhhh lol, got it. I must not be the target market for that kind of incentive. :o

Also, if it turns out that your legal eagles say that it won't fly if you're not providing a concrete service to the town, you have a service: emergency/reserve deputies/constables/whatever.

But mainly I want you to prove me wrong that it's not going to work so I can go do my week or two of hard, slavish duty every year carrying a pager while hunting and fishing in the Rockies or something. Because I'm just that kind of giving, selfless guy. :43:

7x57

nick
11-13-2009, 7:52 PM
Been making phone calls today, if anyone knows of any sherrifs, mayors, or communities who are particularly pro gun please let me know.

Some I've come across are:

Greenleaf Idaho
Mayor Brad Holton (208) 454-0552?

Kennesaw Georgia
(770) 424-8274 Mayor Mark Mathews

Shouldn't they be in one of the states you mentioned?

choprzrul
11-13-2009, 8:00 PM
So, let's start narrowing this down one step at a time beginning with states. The chosen state must allow non-resident LEOs. Based on memory on what AJAX22 previously said, there are two that come to mind, Alaska and Ohio. So here is the acceptable/rejected state list:

Acceptable
1. Alaska
2. Ohio
3. California
4. NC?
5. Alabama
6. Tennessee


Rejected
1. All others until someone verifies that residency is NOT a LEO requirement.

Another state level caveat is a POST requirement. From the way I read it (I am no lawyer though), you can maintain LEO status for 1 year in AK without certification. After that, you have to have at least a 90 day gap to reset that 1 year requirement. I have not looked at Ohio's requirements.

I will edit/add to this post as others supply information so that we can get this narrowed down. Once top level requirements are thoroughly researched and addressed, we can start looking at counties and towns within the identified states. 48 states to go, please help me out with this.

choprzrul
11-13-2009, 8:20 PM
Found California's:

The minimum peace officer selection standards are set forth in Government Code Sections 1029 and 1031. Every California peace officer must be:
free of any felony convictions;
a citizen of the United States or a permanent resident alien who is eligible for and has applied for citizenship (CHP officers must be US citizens at time of appointment);
at least 18 years of age;
fingerprinted for purposes of search of local, state, and national fingerprint files to disclose any criminal record;
of good moral character, as determined by a thorough background investigation;
a high school graduate, pass the General Education Development test or have attained a two-year, four-year, or advanced degree from an accredited or approved institution, and
found to be free from any physical, emotional, or mental condition which might adversely affect the exercise of the powers of a peace office


Will add CA to acceptable list above. I really think that we should locate the town outside of CA so that Sacramento can't legislate us out of existence, but I will leave that up for discussion.

Interesting caveat for CA peace officers:

Level III Penal Code sections 830.6(a)(1) and 832.6(a)(2)
Level III reserve officers may perform specified limited support duties, and other duties that are not likely to result in physical arrests, while supervised in the accessible vicinity by a Level I reserve officer or a full-time regular officer. Additionally, Level III reserve officers may transport prisoners without immediate supervision.

NOTE: no mention of POST or other certification for Level III officers.

AJAX22
11-13-2009, 8:31 PM
Found a cool reference site for reserve law enforcement requirements....

http://www.nrlo.net/TrainingAuthorities.html

currently reading up...

choprzrul
11-13-2009, 8:38 PM
Washington state:

The only thing I have been able to find so far is in regards to certification requirements:

Who must be certified?
Every full-time peace officer in Washington state, including the Washington State Patrol, and Fish and Wildlife officers regardless of rank. Reserve Officers do not need to be certified.


ONE THING THAT REALLY CAUGHT MY EYE: Washington state treats Indian Tribes completely different. Perhaps we should be offering to be contracted LEOs for an Indian tribe rather than for a town? Anyone with Indian affairs background or knowledge? Does the federal law that allows for LEO nationwide CCW include tribal LEOs?

AJAX22
11-13-2009, 8:56 PM
Check out provision D of the arkansas reserve requirements :D

Honorary police officers are exempt from the provisions of this subchapter.

http://www.clest.org/12_9_304.html

not sure if honorary police officers satisfy HR218's provisions however.

choprzrul
11-13-2009, 9:02 PM
Check out provision D of the arkansas reserve requirements :D



http://www.clest.org/12_9_304.html

not sure if honorary police officers satisfy HR218's provisions however.

Nice find AJAX22. Your thoughts on tribal LEO? I think that a lot of state and federal SNAFUs could be avoided by working with an Indian Tribe as they are sovereign entities if I am not mistaken.

AJAX22
11-13-2009, 9:05 PM
Tribal LEO would be ideal, I'd love to whip that out of my pocket....

Anyone have friends/family on a reservations tribal council?

choprzrul
11-13-2009, 9:20 PM
Tribal LEO would be ideal, I'd love to whip that out of my pocket....

Anyone have friends/family on a reservations tribal council?

I think that any small tribe that doesn't have a casino for cash flow would be open to this type of program.

This would also keep wingnuts from going off the farm on us. The whole authority trip thing that a lot of people seem to have concern with would be negated, unless of course they show up on Indian property and try a power trip. I don't see that happening.

caliboy1321
11-13-2009, 9:31 PM
Once a state is chosen we can use these links to find a small town to deal with:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070627084042AAElD4s

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_places_with_fewer_than_ten_residents

AJAX22
11-13-2009, 9:36 PM
Apparently NC has a category of LEO called a 'Special Deputy' who has full powers of arrest but is appointed without requirement (unconfirmed)

And Alabama has a category of "Honorary" or "Special" Deputies....

TN has an odd category of LEO called a "Conservator of the Peace"

AJAX22
11-13-2009, 9:59 PM
The title of Honorary Deputy Sheriff in Illinois confers full powers of arrest apparently...

AJAX22
11-13-2009, 10:03 PM
Maryland :D looks awesome

Volunteer/Auxiliary officers/deputies who are granted powers of arrest while on duty are also considered law enforcement officers

choprzrul
11-13-2009, 10:08 PM
So, let's start narrowing this down one step at a time beginning with states. The chosen state must allow non-resident LEOs. Based on memory on what AJAX22 previously said, there are two that come to mind, Alaska and Ohio. So here is the acceptable/rejected state list:

Acceptable
1. Alaska
2. Ohio
3. California
4. NC?
5. Alabama
6. Tennessee
7. Arkansas
8. Maryland


Rejected
1. All others until someone verifies that residency is NOT a LEO requirement.

edited

bigcalidave
11-13-2009, 10:14 PM
I don't get this quote from the text of HR218

may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).

Why does the firearm carried have to have been shipped or transported in interstate commerce?

And sadly, it also excludes a silencer... :(

AJAX22
11-13-2009, 10:25 PM
Alabama might be a possibility

found an interesting anecdote Sheriff Lamar Glover is a first class lawman and a good friend. Prior to the recent reciprocity law, I discussed my problem of concealed carry across-state-lines with him and he wrote me a "Special Deputy Sheriff" identification card. This card states I'm a Honorary Deputy ... of good character and any special or courteous consideration is appreciated. Lamar said this card and my pistol permit "may be honored" across state lines. The key word here is "may" which implies there are no guarantees of any courtesy by out-of-state LEOs.

bigcalidave
11-13-2009, 10:29 PM
What's the year of that quote? Could be before HR218

choprzrul
11-13-2009, 10:31 PM
I wonder if the Blackfeet Nation of Montana (http://97.74.249.201/ ) would be interested in hiring several thousand contracted LEOs? State and Federal laws shouldn't apply?

AJAX22
11-13-2009, 10:34 PM
New Mexico apparently has zero requirements for reserves.

Santa Fe is recruiting too.... if you are interested in becoming a part time deputy, full time hero, contact Corporal Vanessa Pacheco or Sergeant Ken Johnson at 505-986-2400.

AJAX22
11-13-2009, 10:36 PM
I don't get this quote from the text of HR218



Why does the firearm carried have to have been shipped or transported in interstate commerce?

And sadly, it also excludes a silencer... :(

because HR218 draws its authority from the commerce clause.

albeit broadly interpreted and potentially unconstitutional...

a1c
11-13-2009, 11:05 PM
New Mexico apparently has zero requirements for reserves.

Santa Fe is recruiting too....

I lived in Santa Fe, and I highly doubt they would be interested in straw reserve peace officers. I also don't see them recruiting reserves anyway. All their positions require New Mexico residency.

7x57
11-14-2009, 12:26 AM
Anyone have friends/family on a reservations tribal council?

I met someone from one of the California reservations at an NRA event once. Nice guy, but I haven't the faintest idea how this would sound even if somehow he could be found. He cared a lot about gun rights, but agreed most indians don't see it as their issue. But money is a universal language, spoken by tribes and small towns alike. :D

7x57

7x57
11-14-2009, 12:33 AM
This would also keep wingnuts from going off the farm on us. The whole authority trip thing that a lot of people seem to have concern with would be negated, unless of course they show up on Indian property and try a power trip. I don't see that happening.

I think you'd find it would be a very temporary problem. :43:

7x57