|
| The Rules | Register | Member Services | AW & OLL Guides | Donate to The Calguns Foundation |
LEOs traveling outside their home state using LEOSA are breaking the Law generally...
|
|
||||||||
|
|
Share | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
12-30-2008, 7:52 PM
|
||||
|
||||
LEOs traveling outside their home state using LEOSA are breaking the Law generally...
...if they are knowingly within a federal school zone...and not acting in their official capacity...
Time to get your UT and FL CWPs? http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wba...hool_zones.txt Quote:
__________________
 "Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen." -- Sir Robert Peel Disclaimer: my posts are not intended as legal advice and do not represent the positions of any public or private organization. My posts are mine alone. Last edited by Liberty1; 12-30-2008 at 8:06 PM. 
|
|
#2
12-30-2008, 7:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
"Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen." -- Sir Robert Peel (quote stolen from Liberty1's signature)
|
|
#3
12-30-2008, 7:59 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
"The police cannot protect the citizen at this stage of our development, and they cannot even protect themselves in many cases. It is up to the private citizen to protect himself and his family, and this is not only acceptable, but mandatory" Jeff Cooper كافر 
|
|
#4
12-30-2008, 8:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
"Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen." -- Sir Robert Peel (quote stolen from Liberty1's signature)
|
|
#5
12-30-2008, 8:05 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Now the question is if you are off duty in your own state are you still "acting in your official capacity" in order to be exempt?
__________________
"Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen." -- Sir Robert Peel Disclaimer: my posts are not intended as legal advice and do not represent the positions of any public or private organization. My posts are mine alone.
|
|
#6
12-30-2008, 8:18 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
"If you're juggling a number of women, and the numbers just don't add up, try multiplication"
|
|
#7
12-30-2008, 8:29 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
"knowing" is applied reasonable person standards here. Ie if you can see school signs - you reasonably should have known, and will be convicted.
__________________
- Ben Cannon. Facebook | Twitter Chairman, CEO - GPal, Inc.™ CoFounder - GeoVario™, LLC. - the hosting company that brings you Calguns™ Postings are my own, and are not formal positions of any other entity, or legal advice.
|
|
#8
12-30-2008, 8:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I dont recall the details but after 9/11 HR 218 (or something like that) gave sworn LEOs to carry across state lines legally or something to that effect. How that plays with school zones I dont know.
|
|
#10
12-30-2008, 9:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Actually the pilot has the right to deny their (federal LE) privilege to carry aboard aircraft. It's the pilot's call, not the .gov. The pilot has the right to refuse anyone to come aboard, government agents (except air marshals) included.
|
|
#11
12-30-2008, 9:56 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Mark J. Blair, NF6X
|
|
#12
12-30-2008, 10:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Very safe. My uncle is a commercial pilot and has denied boarding to a federal LE who wanted to carry while flying many times. Bottom line is it's the pilot's call.
|
|
#13
12-30-2008, 11:24 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#14
12-30-2008, 11:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Had a "if I can't carry, they can't carry" policy until the law was passed that pilots can carry a gun in the cockpit. Now since he can have a gun on board, they can have one too. He's all about fairness.
|
|
#15
12-30-2008, 11:58 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
As a matter of law - if a pilot tells you to play pattycake, it is a felony not to play pattycake.
__________________
- Ben Cannon. Facebook | Twitter Chairman, CEO - GPal, Inc.™ CoFounder - GeoVario™, LLC. - the hosting company that brings you Calguns™ Postings are my own, and are not formal positions of any other entity, or legal advice.
|
|
#16
12-31-2008, 12:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
This is how AZ deals with it not sure about Ca. http://ccw.azdps.gov/leosa.asp
|
|
#17
12-31-2008, 12:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." Thomas Jefferson......... I love this quote "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Ben Franklin (In honor of Blackwater Ops)
|
|
#18
12-31-2008, 12:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
My sister is in Federal law enforcement "USBP". Some of her perks- always get to meet the captain and gets an isle seat very time .
Last edited by becxltoo984; 12-31-2008 at 12:58 AM.
|
|
#19
12-31-2008, 1:31 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I have my former dept. issued ccw and my HR 218 one. My former dept. states if we have the latter, we don't need the former, but I prefer to have both. The dept. one is good for 5yrs. and of course, the HR 218 is one year.
I have yet to use the HR 218 as I never been stopped when in Laughlin, Vegas or at the River.
__________________
|
|
#20
12-31-2008, 5:26 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
 .
__________________
"Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen." -- Sir Robert Peel Disclaimer: my posts are not intended as legal advice and do not represent the positions of any public or private organization. My posts are mine alone.
|
|
#22
12-31-2008, 6:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Prior to 9/11 federal officers not on duty could not legaly carry their firearm while not in their home state. And no they could not fly armed.
__________________
I move slow but I make up for it by shooting poorly. When I hit the lotto I'm only shooting factory.
|
|
#23
12-31-2008, 6:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Respectfully I will disagree. I'm 100% sure of this. Some federal LEO's could not carry off-duty with their agency blessing prior to 9/11, but those that could had no "home state" only restriction. The only folks who saw changes after 9/11 were a few uniformed FLEO agencies. The 'plain clothes' folks have had the same off-duty (50 state) carry long before 9/11. Never heard of a federal agent being told he could only carry off-duty in his home state...
|
|
#24
12-31-2008, 6:52 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
One thing LEOSA didn't cover was magazines, so an out of state LEO traveling into CA still can't bring mags holding over 10 rounds.
John
__________________
|
|
#25
12-31-2008, 9:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Actually your wrong. All the officer needs is his credentials to show he qualifies to carry under HR218. No other CCW is required as HR218 supercedes any state law. That link looks like it is for retired LEO's living in Arizona, which would allow the retired LEO to maintain his firearm qualification in order to be compliant with HR218.
__________________
Originally Posted by Parker Vs. DC To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). Last edited by lrdchivalry; 12-31-2008 at 10:20 AM.
|
|
#26
12-31-2008, 10:02 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I have been a federal LEO for over ten years. The feds were/are not bound by a home state as the state and locals were at one time. We were/are legally allowed to carry nationwide. You are also wrong about flying armed.. I have done it.
__________________
Originally Posted by Parker Vs. DC To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). Last edited by lrdchivalry; 12-31-2008 at 10:08 AM.
|
|
#27
12-31-2008, 10:03 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
SUMMARY of The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) of 2004
On July 22, 2004, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) of 2004, also commonly called “HR 218,” became law. (18 U.S.C. §§, 926B, 926C.) This federal law allows “a qualified law enforcement officer” or “a qualified retired law enforcement officer” with identification that meets specified criteria to carry a concealed firearm anywhere in the nation, In order to be “a qualified law enforcement officer” under the LEOSA, a person must meet the following requirements: 1. Be an employee of a governmental agency who is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for any violation of law.
|
|
#28
12-31-2008, 10:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
PC 12020 (a) Any person in this state who does any of the following is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or in the state prison: (2) Commencing January 1, 2000, manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, or lends, any large-capacity magazine. (b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to any of the following: (20) The sale to, lending to, transfer to, purchase by, receipt of, or importation into this state of, a large capacity magazine by a sworn peace officer as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2 who is authorized to carry a firearm in the course and scope of his or her duties.
__________________
Originally Posted by Parker Vs. DC To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad).
|
|
#29
12-31-2008, 10:23 AM
|
||||
|
||||
 Um...any thoughts on, or criticisms of the OP conclussion?
__________________
"Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen." -- Sir Robert Peel Disclaimer: my posts are not intended as legal advice and do not represent the positions of any public or private organization. My posts are mine alone.
|
|
#30
12-31-2008, 10:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
Originally Posted by Parker Vs. DC To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). Last edited by lrdchivalry; 12-31-2008 at 10:36 AM.
|
|
#31
12-31-2008, 3:15 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
At the end of the day, I doubt that many cops from out of state are going to be hassled the same way that you (non-LEO's) or I might be for carrying, say, just inside a school zone (if that is indeed illegal) or other prohibited place.
We might not like it, but professional courtesy will usually get them better treatment and more of a blind eye.
__________________
John -- bitter gun owner. Team Billy Jack Spokesman and Webmaster at www.californiaconcealedcarry.com HOWEVER, all opinions expressed here are my own unless I say otherwise. I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.  Note: TBJ and CaliforniaConcealedCarry.com uphold the law in every respect. We insist that Sheriffs and Police Chiefs also so do. Last edited by Glock22Fan; 12-31-2008 at 3:29 PM.
|
|
#32
12-31-2008, 3:16 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
What is the status of the Federal gun-free school zone act, since it was invalidated in US v. Lopez but then trivially reworded by Congress afterward?
__________________
NFA Life Member
|
|
#33
12-31-2008, 4:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Now locals were prohibited until after 9-11. Although CA officers going to Reno always took their guns and Reno PD didn't care. However, now as long as you have your police creds and they are not expired you can carry in every state.
|
|
#34
12-31-2008, 8:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
A cop caught carrying in a school zone wouldn't get in trouble.
Just like those cops in Sturgis didn't get in trouble for carrying in a bar. Different set of rules for police than for the rest of us. I guess all men weren't created equal.
__________________
 NRA Life Member
|
|
#35
12-31-2008, 8:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#36
12-31-2008, 8:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#37
12-31-2008, 9:09 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Methinks this is more of a difference between basic intent (just doing something illegal) and specific intent (knowing you're doing something illegal).
__________________
“The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion.” -Albert Camus Quote:
|
|
#38
01-01-2009, 12:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
Originally Posted by Parker Vs. DC To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad).
|
|
#39
01-01-2009, 1:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
2)(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone. "(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm-- "(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license If the person has a ccw issued by the state that the school is in, they may carry a concealed firearm onto school grounds. Using your reference to it being a federal law an LEO would be able to carry due to HR218 being in essence a federal ccw.
__________________
Originally Posted by Parker Vs. DC To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad).
|
|
#40
01-01-2009, 1:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
So what we should be doing is declaring the Federal AND State school zones at the same time as they are almost identical and provide an exemption for "licensed" people.
I don't understand how someone OC'ing is any more dangerous than someone who is concealing....just because they don't have to go through licensing? Please.
|
|
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
|
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 7:53 PM.