PDA

View Full Version : Law Enforcement Safety Act of 2004 supercedes Dept. Policy?


Liberty1
04-06-2008, 11:14 AM
This argument appears to be sound. And I like the result :D Join the reserves boys! $1 a year and national concealed carry to boot!

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

Application to agency internal policies
In enacting the LEOSA, Congress overrode the authority of any state or local government to deny LEOSA-qualified individuals, from any jurisdiction, the right to carry concealed firearms. However, there has been some debate over whether the heads of individual law enforcement agencies -- for example, a local police chief or county sheriff -- may order his own agency's employees not to exercise the right conferred by Congress.

It appears that most authorities believe that federal law now trumps the local chief's authority in this regard. The heads of state and local law enforcement agencies derive their authority from state and local law, and the LEOSA explicitly overrides "any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision. . ." (However, an agency can forbid an employee from carrying a specific weapon that is the property of the agency.)

A memo posted by the California Attorney General's office notes that the federal law overrides any local or agency internal policy regarding off-duty carry. The memo posed this question: "Does this Act trump state law, local ordinances, and local policy restricting carrying off-duty?," and gave this answer: "Yes, as it relates to an officer’s ability to carry a concealed weapon off-duty... Off-duty restrictions appear to be superceded [sic] by this Act." [1]

Moreover, during the congressional debates over the bill, both the authors of the bill and the opponents agreed that the legislation was intended precisely to confer on qualified officers the right to carry concealed in every state, regardless of any local laws or agency policies to the contrary. The most complete debate on the bill, including consideration of various amendments, occurred in the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee on June 16, 2004. The committee's report includes a transcript of the complete debate. A leading opponent of the LEOSA, Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.), complained that the bill "supersedes the ability of the chief of police to control his own officers. . . . If he should want to decide to prohibit his own officers from carrying concealed weapons when they are off duty, this bill will override his power over his own police officers.. . ." Scott then offered an amendment to add to the bill a restriction that it "shall not be construed to supersede or limit the rules regulations, policies, or practices of any State or local law enforcement agency." Scott explained that his amendment was necessary "so that the police chief can say no firearms in bars, no firearms when you are off duty, and that would be a decision that the police chief could make about his force. The bill overrides that. . . . The bill clearly prohibits the chief of police from prohibiting his officer going on vacation with a firearm. And . . .this is not just police and sheriff, that is anybody with arresting powers, game and fisheries, probation and parole officers, and everybody else." Scott concluded by arguing that unless his amendment was adopted, "they [the chiefs, et al] will have no say over what officers do off duty with their own guns." Several other Democratic members of the committee spoke up in support of Scott's Amendment. But the authors, sponsors, and supporters of the LEOSA uniformly opposed the Scott amendment. The bill supporters did not dispute Scott's interpretation of what the bill did -- rather, they argued that adoption of the Scott amendment would amount to a "back door opt-out" of the basic requirements of the legislation, defeating its purpose -- and they voted down the Scott amendment, 21 to 11. After the amendment process was completed, the final bill was approved 23 to 9. (No further amendments were adopted at any point in the entire legislative process in Congress.)

Six of the committee members who voted "no" on approval of the bill filed "dissenting views" in which they explained WHY they opposed the bill, including this reason: "Section 2 of the bill provides that regardless of 'any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof,' any individual who qualifies as a law enforcement officer and who carries photo identification will be authorized to carry any firearm. In a variety of contexts, including the Federal preemption of State law, courts have interpreted the term 'law' to include agency rules and regulations. The Supreme Court has ruled that this term specifically includes contractual obligations between employers and employees, such as work rules, policies, and practices promulgated by State and local police departments. See Norfolk & Western Ry. Co. v. Am. Train Dispatchers’ Assoc., 499 U.S. 117 (1991)."[2] (The Supreme Court decided the "Norfolk" case on a 7-2 vote.)
Nevertheless, some local agencies continue to assert that they have the legal right to instruct their own officers not to exercise the privilege conferred by Congress though enactment of the LEOSA.[3]

Waingro
04-06-2008, 11:20 AM
I think you get health insurance too.

Edit:

How long does it take to be in the reserves?
What are the requirements?
Do we get a fancy badge like the rest of the police (seriously)?
If we join a sheriffs dept do we have to work in a jail for 2 years?
Do we have to ride around in cop cars or can we sit behind a desk and answer questions?
Can we open carry (loaded) and conceal carry?
How many hours do we have to volunteer a week/month?

I bet there is a free gym too.

Liberty1
04-06-2008, 11:52 AM
There are different levels of reserves and different ways of becoming POST. I'm not involved with any reserves so I really don't know. Contact you local PD or county SD.

I would not mention your excitement about shinny badges (yes you get one and a ccw generally) or the national carry benefit. You're doing it because you love your city and want to contribute back to society!:D

dustoff31
04-06-2008, 11:58 AM
I don't have it at hand right now, but I read something that said that LEOSA effected only statutes. That is to say, it would preclude criminal prosecution for CCW by an officer regardless of state/local law, but that it did not preclude any administrative action regarding their department policies.

Waingro
04-06-2008, 12:01 PM
I don't have it at hand right now, but I read something that said that LEOSA effected only statutes. That is to say, it would preclude criminal prosecution for CCW by an officer regardless of state/local law, but that it did not preclude any administrative action regarding their department policies.

You lost me.

Waingro
04-06-2008, 12:04 PM
There are different levels of reserves and different ways of becoming POST. I'm not involved with any reserves so I really don't know. Contact you local PD or county SD.

I would not mention your excitement about shinny badges (yes you get one and a ccw generally) or the national carry benefit. You're doing it because you love your city and want to contribute back to society!:D

Are you saying become a reserve officer, get into shape, get really good training, then 'retire' and still have a CCW? Is this California? THIS IS MADNESS!

I really don't want a shiny badge. Maybe I kinda do, that way I can stop kids from being run over by skate boarders when I sit at Starbucks.:p Or should I let social darwinism take over?

This is some seriously interesting stuff you got here.

Quiet
04-06-2008, 12:54 PM
How long does it take to be in the reserves?
What are the requirements?
Do we get a fancy badge like the rest of the police (seriously)?
If we join a sheriffs dept do we have to work in a jail for 2 years?
Do we have to ride around in cop cars or can we sit behind a desk and answer questions?
Can we open carry (loaded) and conceal carry?
How many hours do we have to volunteer a week/month?
Depending on the department, there can be up to 3 levels of reserves.
Level 3 = Unarmed. Duties mostly consist of prisoner transport and doing paperwork. Level 2 = Armed. Partnered with full-time LEO. Act as back-up/secondary unit. Level 1 = Armed. Can operate solo.

What level of reserve you are is dependent on what level of POST certification you have.

You go through same application/interview/background process as a full time LEO.

Waingro
04-06-2008, 1:32 PM
Depending on the department, there can be up to 3 levels of reserves.
Level 3 = Unarmed. Duties mostly consist of prisoner transport and doing paperwork. Level 2 = Armed. Partnered with full-time LEO. Act as back-up/secondary unit. Level 1 = Armed. Can operate solo.

What level of reserve you are is dependent on what level of POST certification you have.

You go through same application/interview/background process as a full time LEO.

What do you mean by post?

Liberty1
04-06-2008, 1:44 PM
...but that it did not preclude any administrative action regarding their department policies.

Did you read my above quoted wiki cites? I know it is wikipedia but still...they even quote SCOTUS' case law ;).

Liberty1
04-06-2008, 1:45 PM
What do you mean by post?

P.O.S.T. http://www.post.ca.gov/

New Laws Case Law update http://www.post.ca.gov/Training/cptn/pdf/2008_Legal_Update_Ref_Guide.pdf page 47 is interesting

leelaw
04-06-2008, 1:54 PM
Depending on the department, there can be up to 3 levels of reserves.
Level 3 = Unarmed. Duties mostly consist of prisoner transport and doing paperwork. Level 2 = Armed. Partnered with full-time LEO. Act as back-up/secondary unit. Level 1 = Armed. Can operate solo.

What level of reserve you are is dependent on what level of POST certification you have.

You go through same application/interview/background process as a full time LEO.

POST Reserve Level III certification comes with §832 PC and firearms certification, as well. Depending on the department, Reserve III may be armed, but are generally placed on assignments not likely to result in the Reserve's direct involvement with an arrest.

bulgron
04-06-2008, 2:09 PM
I think I'd rather just get my county to start issuing CCWs on a shall-issue basis. Then push for national reciprocity.

Or push for national reciprocity and make sure I always have an out of state CCW license from Utah or Nevada or someplace like that. :D

That way I don't have to worry about blowing out my knees.

Quiet
04-06-2008, 2:41 PM
POST Reserve Level III certification comes with §832 PC and firearms certification, as well.

There's an additional module (Level 3, Part 2) that is taken after you get your PC832 certification, in order to be POST level 3 certified. PC832 certification is Level 3, Part 1.

leelaw
04-06-2008, 2:48 PM
There's an additional module (Level 3, Part 2) that is taken after you get your PC832 certification, in order to be POST level 3 certified. PC832 certification is Level 3, Part 1.

The "part 1" "part 2" and "module" stuff was done away with years ago.

For reserves, it is now:
Reserve Officer Level III (includes §832 PC and Firearms)
Reserve Officer Level II
Reserve Officer Level I

Additionally, the hours of required instruction for the three levels of Reserve academy are changing 07/01 this year.

Quiet
04-06-2008, 2:58 PM
Good to know.

When I went through the POST levels, from 2001-03, they still had level 3 part 1 & level 3 part 2 for Riverside Sheriff's.

CSDGuy
04-06-2008, 3:05 PM
The "part 1" "part 2" and "module" stuff was done away with years ago.

For reserves, it is now:
Reserve Officer Level III (includes §832 PC and Firearms)
Reserve Officer Level II
Reserve Officer Level I

Additionally, the hours of required instruction for the three levels of Reserve academy are changing 07/01 this year.
I hold PC832. It is STILL the minimum training required to exercise Peace Officer Powers. To be at the minimum level of a Reserve Officer, (Level III) you must complete the entire Level III module. something like 2 or 3 years ago they did away with Level III Module 1 and Level III Module 2 to complete the Level III Reserve training and combined them into a single course. It actually makes sense to me.

Also, the academy hours DO change, but not by much. The idea is to be sure that the Reserves understand the material as well as the folks that go through a Regular Basic Academy do... It's literally a couple hours difference. A good change, IMHO.

dustoff31
04-06-2008, 3:26 PM
Did you read my above quoted wiki cites? I know it is wikipedia but still...they even quote SCOTUS' case law ;).

I did. And below is essentially the same question I was referring to earlier.

HR 218 - LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS SAFETY ACT
(LEOSA) OF 2000 - - ISSUES
1. Does this Act trump state law, local ordinances, and local policy restricting
carrying off-duty?

Yes, as it relates to an officer’s ability to carry a concealed weapon off-duty.
However, an officer is still subject to his/her employing agency’s policies and conditions of employment.

I don't doubt the cited SCOTUS rulings, but appearently the CA AG isn't so sure that it trumps everything, otherwise why would they publish this disclaimer?

Liberty1
04-06-2008, 3:38 PM
I did. And below is essentially the same question I was referring to earlier.

HR 218 - LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS SAFETY ACT
(LEOSA) OF 2000 - - ISSUES
1. Does this Act trump state law, local ordinances, and local policy restricting
carrying off-duty?

Yes, as it relates to an officer’s ability to carry a concealed weapon off-duty.
However, an officer is still subject to his/her employing agency’s policies and conditions of employment.

I don't doubt the cited SCOTUS rulings, but appearently the CA AG isn't so sure that it trumps everything, otherwise why would they publish this disclaimer?

Well without having DOJ qualify that disclaimer, I'd say that it means that other then the preemption of off duty carry of firearms an officer is still subject to other off duty policies and conditions (non concealed firearm ones)? Beyond that I don't know. More FUD perhaps:confused:

mymonkeyman
04-06-2008, 3:39 PM
Norfolk & Western Ry. Co. was about trumping contract law, not trumping policy. It is also a totally different context and a totally different type of statute with different statutory goals. I really think departmental policy preemption could go either way.

CSDGuy
04-06-2008, 3:42 PM
I did. And below is essentially the same question I was referring to earlier.

HR 218 - LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS SAFETY ACT
(LEOSA) OF 2000 - - ISSUES
1. Does this Act trump state law, local ordinances, and local policy restricting
carrying off-duty?

Yes, as it relates to an officer’s ability to carry a concealed weapon off-duty.
However, an officer is still subject to his/her employing agency’s policies and conditions of employment.

I don't doubt the cited SCOTUS rulings, but appearently the CA AG isn't so sure that it trumps everything, otherwise why would they publish this disclaimer?

Yet, right under that same quote, it also says:
On-duty restrictions placed by the department appear to be permissible. Off-duty restrictions appear to be superceded by this Act.
They were probably hedging their bets a little.

Furthermore, an amendment that specifically would have kept the LEOSA from overriding agency policy and/or allowing agencies to "opt out" of LEOSA applicability was shot down and never made it into the law. That is in the Congressional record...

SchooBaka
04-06-2008, 4:00 PM
LOL, don't get too excited about the patrol car. It's not exactly an interceptor.

Capitola volunteers (http://www.scsextra.com/story.php?sid=75695&storySection=Local&fromSearch=true&searchTerms=)

Waingro
04-06-2008, 5:14 PM
Now I am completely lost... can anyone explain this situation in layman terms?

dustoff31
04-06-2008, 5:24 PM
Now I am completely lost... can anyone explain this situation in layman terms?

Here is the discussion as I understand it.

Say you are an LEO who's departmental policy does not allow off duty carry.

Liberty1 posted information that indicates that a department may no longer have such a policy in view of LEOSA.

I piped in that I read that an LEO in that situation could legally carry, that is not be prosecuted for CCW without a permit, but that he could still possibly be fired for violating departmental policy.

Waingro
04-06-2008, 6:01 PM
Here is the discussion as I understand it.

Say you are an LEO who's departmental policy does not allow off duty carry.

Liberty1 posted information that indicates that a department may no longer have such a policy in view of LEOSA.

I piped in that I read that an LEO in that situation could legally carry, that is not be prosecuted for CCW without a permit, but that he could still possibly be fired for violating departmental policy.

Ohh - well, that's a double sided sword. But your making 1$ a year - who cares if you get fired? Would the only negative consequence be a waste of time? Would you have a bad record or something?

dustoff31
04-06-2008, 6:11 PM
Ohh - well, that's a double sided sword. But your making 1$ a year - who cares if you get fired? Would the only negative consequence be a waste of time? Would you have a bad record or something?

Let's hope that Liberty1 is right. I don't think you would get any kind of bad record, unless one intended to try to continue in the LE world.

Of course, getting fired would be the end of CCW under LEOSA.

leelaw
04-06-2008, 6:40 PM
Ohh - well, that's a double sided sword. But your making 1$ a year - who cares if you get fired? Would the only negative consequence be a waste of time? Would you have a bad record or something?

If you have any plans to become a peace officer, it would be devestating.

tyrist
04-06-2008, 9:40 PM
I did. And below is essentially the same question I was referring to earlier.

HR 218 - LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS SAFETY ACT
(LEOSA) OF 2000 - - ISSUES
1. Does this Act trump state law, local ordinances, and local policy restricting
carrying off-duty?

Yes, as it relates to an officer’s ability to carry a concealed weapon off-duty.
However, an officer is still subject to his/her employing agency’s policies and conditions of employment.

I don't doubt the cited SCOTUS rulings, but appearently the CA AG isn't so sure that it trumps everything, otherwise why would they publish this disclaimer?

You can be within the LAW and beyond crimminal prosecution but still subject to administrative discipline/termination. However if the agency does do this it's likely to result in wrongful termination law suits, which will likely be lost. They could however still go through with it. Violating department policy and violating the law are often times two different things. State law is very easy going on the Police.

DesertGunner
04-07-2008, 1:58 AM
Short and sweet: if your department does not allow you to CCW, and they find out that you are doing so, you can be fired. You probably wouldn't get prosecuted, but you would lose your job or be open to other administrative punishment.

HR 218 protects you criminally, but your authority to carry or not to carry comes from your agency (usually delegated down to your first-line supervisor) and CAN be restricted beyond what the law says.

CSDGuy
04-07-2008, 8:53 AM
Short and sweet: if your department does not allow you to CCW, and they find out that you are doing so, you can be fired. You probably wouldn't get prosecuted, but you would lose your job or be open to other administrative punishment.

HR 218 protects you criminally, but your authority to carry or not to carry comes from your agency (usually delegated down to your first-line supervisor) and CAN be restricted beyond what the law says.
Exactly. The only question at issue here is whether or not the LEOSA supercedes agency policy. If it does, then the various agencies that would otherwise restrict your ability off-duty CCW would look for other creative ways to make your life miserable or those agencies would put into place policies that essentially say that if you're in a shoot off-duty, you're on your own. No agency backup.

It would be even more interesting for those smaller agencies that have people who meet the criteria but aren't sworn officers and don't normally have off-duty CCW privileges.

tiki
04-07-2008, 11:42 AM
Are you saying become a reserve officer, get into shape, get really good training, then 'retire' and still have a CCW? .

Get into shape? Bwaaaa haaaa haaaaa haaaaa.

CSDGuy
04-07-2008, 11:49 AM
Are you saying become a reserve officer, get into shape, get really good training, then 'retire' and still have a CCW? Is this California? THIS IS MADNESS!
Most reserves do not have a non-forfeitable right to retirement. However, you could become a reserve LEO, get really good training, get into decent shape, gain the off-duty CCW privilege, and be a reserve officer well after you retire from your normal job(s). IIRC, you'd have to put in a certain number of hours and do Continuing Education (they call it CPT) every 2 years, but... it is an option.

DesertGunner
04-07-2008, 1:49 PM
Exactly. The only question at issue here is whether or not the LEOSA supercedes agency policy. If it does, then the various agencies that would otherwise restrict your ability off-duty CCW would look for other creative ways to make your life miserable or those agencies would put into place policies that essentially say that if you're in a shoot off-duty, you're on your own. No agency backup.

It would be even more interesting for those smaller agencies that have people who meet the criteria but aren't sworn officers and don't normally have off-duty CCW privileges.

I don't think there is any way that the LEOSA could supercede agency policy. It allows specified and qualified LEOs to carry where they wouldn't be able to otherwise because of state or local laws. This has no effect on agency policies that I can think of. If agency X doesn't want their officers carrying off duty, they can still be fired for doing so even if they can't be charged criminally (thanks to the LEOSA).

CSDGuy
04-07-2008, 2:36 PM
I don't think there is any way that the LEOSA could supercede agency policy. It allows specified and qualified LEOs to carry where they wouldn't be able to otherwise because of state or local laws. This has no effect on agency policies that I can think of. If agency X doesn't want their officers carrying off duty, they can still be fired for doing so even if they can't be charged criminally (thanks to the LEOSA).
There hasn't been any LEOSA cases that deal with this yet. Such a case, could have happened with the Utah mall shooting a few months ago. The cop's department declined to discipline him. If the department had, there could have been a case started under the LEOSA on this point. The problem is that agency policy can have the effect of law upon the members of that agency. If that is in fact the case, the LEOSA could in theory supecede the policy.

DesertGunner
04-07-2008, 2:58 PM
There hasn't been any LEOSA cases that deal with this yet. Such a case, could have happened with the Utah mall shooting a few months ago. The cop's department declined to discipline him. If the department had, there could have been a case started under the LEOSA on this point. The problem is that agency policy can have the effect of law upon the members of that agency. If that is in fact the case, the LEOSA could in theory supecede the policy.


(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;
(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


This seems to clearly establish that the authority to carry under LEOSA is derived from the agency.

And from the "GUIDANCE ON THE APPLICATION OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS SAFETY ACT OF 2004 TO CURRENT AND RETIRED DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS" memorandum of 31 January 2005 (link (http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/agmemo01312005.pdf)):


The Act has no effect on the requirement of any Department law enforcement components that agents or officers carry a firearm at all times. Similarly, any component's regulations or procedures with respect to on-duty agents or officers will continue to be in effect. Those requirements, regulations, and procedures separately remain in effect, notwithstanding any provision of the Act.
It is important to note that the Act does not supersede existing agency regulations or policies limiting, restricting, conditioning, or otherwise affecting the carrying of concealed firearms. The Act does preempt and supersede inconsistent state laws and local ordinances, whether criminal or civil. It does not prohibit any component from taking any appropriate disciplinary action for any violation of its existing regulations or policies.

Granted, this is for the US DOJ, but the principle holds, IMHO.

CSDGuy
04-07-2008, 3:30 PM
On-duty restrictions placed by the department appear to be permissible. Off-duty restrictions appear to be superceded by this Act.

The Act has no effect on the requirement of any Department law enforcement
components that agents or officers carry a firearm at all times. Similarly, any component's regulations or procedures with respect to on-duty agents or officers will continue to be in effect. Those requirements, regulations, and procedures separately remain in effect, notwithstanding any provision of the Act.

It is important to note that the Act does not supersede existing agency regulations or policies limiting, restricting, conditioning, or otherwise affecting the carrying of concealed firearms. The Act does preempt and supersede inconsistent state laws and local ordinances, whether criminal or civil. It does not prohibit any component from taking any
appropriate disciplinary action for any violation of its existing regulations or policies.
What is interesting to note is that the Federal DoJ's memo does not mention off-duty CCW, only specifically references on-duty policies. The California DoJ's memo states specifically that off-duty policies appear to be superceded by the LEOSA. In particular, the LEOSA was written with off-duty LEO in mind. This is important if you're also going to argue the "spirit of the law". It should also be noted that the US DoJ's agencies are not very friendly to their retirees in this matter. They delegated their qualification to the states. Some states will not qualify retirees, including their own, so a bunch of otherwise qualified retired LEOs are SOL.

artherd
04-07-2008, 3:39 PM
Interesting, what are the time commitments required of a Level III ?

CSDGuy
04-07-2008, 4:29 PM
It's been a while since I've checked into it but... I believe that it's a little over 160 hours.

Liberty1
04-07-2008, 4:37 PM
What is interesting to note is that the Federal DoJ's memo does not mention off-duty CCW, only specifically references on-duty policies. The California DoJ's memo states specifically that off-duty policies appear to be superceded by the LEOSA. In particular, the LEOSA was written with off-duty LEO in mind. This is important if you're also going to argue the "spirit of the law". It should also be noted that the US DoJ's agencies are not very friendly to their retirees in this matter. They delegated their qualification to the states. Some states will not qualify retirees, including their own, so a bunch of otherwise qualified retired LEOs are SOL.

The law specifically states "...notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof..."

So I can see LEOSA affecting state & local peace officer agency's policies as they derive their authority from the state or a political subdivision but not effecting Fed. LEA policies as they do not derive their authorities from those sources delineated in LEOSA (unless one were to argue that the Fed. Gov. derives its authority from the constitution which required ratification (permission) from the States :p)

This is not really an issue for CA Peace Officers whos authority extends to any place in the state at all times per the PC as CA courts and AG have declared agencies cannot regulate the off duty carrying, open or concealed, of pistols, rifles, or shotguns . see Orange County Employees Assn., Inc. v. County of Orange (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 575 , 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 695

gose
04-07-2008, 4:49 PM
Interesting, what are the time commitments required of a Level III ?

It seems to be vary between departments. When I checked around in the Bay Area it seemed to be between 14-20h/month.

Oh, and only some PDs will actually accept a level III.

Liberty1
04-07-2008, 5:13 PM
And from the "GUIDANCE ON THE APPLICATION OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS SAFETY ACT OF 2004 TO CURRENT AND RETIRED DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS" memorandum of 31 January 2005 (link (http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/agmemo01312005.pdf)):

Granted, this is for the US DOJ, but the principle holds, IMHO.

The Memo was addressed to the the directors of ATF, DEA, FBI, USMS, and BOP regarding their agencies and was not addressing the issue of State agency policy. So I refer to my earlier thought that LEOSA applies differently to Fed agencies and State agencies regarding policy based on the language of the bill.

DesertGunner
04-07-2008, 5:40 PM
The Memo was addressed to the the directors of ATF, DEA, FBI, USMS, and BOP regarding their agencies and was not addressing the issue of State agency policy. So I refer to my earlier thought that LEOSA applies differently to Fed agencies and State agencies regarding policy based on the language of the bill.

As far as I know no Federal LEOs (except maybe NMCs) would be affected since they can carry nationwide anyway. Although I'm not sure about the FBI and USSS Uniformed Divisions now that I think about it. I have no idea what their carry policies are.

E Pluribus Unum
04-08-2008, 1:36 AM
Here is an idea:

If you are not a gang member or drug dealer carrying a concealed fix-blade knife is a felony, but carrying a concealed firearm is a misdemeanor.

It is likely that on a first offense with a clean record it would be plead to a "disturbing the peace, pay a $200 fine and do 30 hours community service" conditional dismissal plea.

This of course depends on the cirumstances.

It seems to me that instead of spending years training and working for free as a "reserve" deputy just for the right to carry concealed, it would be cheaper to simply carry concealed without a permit or move to an area that issues permits freely.

The odds of an otherwise law-abiding citizen carrying CCW without a permit getting caught are so remote they almost go without saying. This is of course assuming one knows how not to incriminate himself.