Calguns.net
Register Now - it's Free!
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...

Reply
Go Back   Calguns.net > General Discussions > 2nd Amend. Politics and Laws
Reload this Page LEOs traveling outside their home state using LEOSA are breaking the Law generally...
 
Share   Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-30-2008, 7:52 PM
Liberty1's Avatar
Liberty1 Liberty1 is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,452
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default 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:
"(2)(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to
possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects
interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual
knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.

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


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

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

"(iii) that is--

"(I) not loaded; and

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

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

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

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


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

"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.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-30-2008, 7:55 PM
CalCop CalCop is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Nor Cal
Posts: 259
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Liberty1 View Post
...if they are knowingly within a school zone...
Yeah, but if you're out of your home state...you probably don't KNOW where the school zones are.
__________________
"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)
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-30-2008, 7:59 PM
rrr70's Avatar
rrr70 rrr70 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: San Franfricko, PRK
Posts: 1,138
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalCop View Post
Yeah, but if you're out of your home state...you probably don't KNOW where the school zones are.
Is not knowing makes somebody not guilty?
__________________
"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
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-30-2008, 8:03 PM
CalCop CalCop is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Nor Cal
Posts: 259
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rrr70 View Post
Is not knowing makes somebody not guilty?
Ignorance is not usually an excuse to illegal behavior. But, read the law itself in the first post, where it says you must KNOWINGLY do it to be illegal.
__________________
"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)
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-30-2008, 8:05 PM
Liberty1's Avatar
Liberty1 Liberty1 is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,452
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-30-2008, 8:18 PM
dreyna14's Avatar
dreyna14 dreyna14 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Oxnard, CA
Posts: 1,089
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalCop View Post
Ignorance is not usually an excuse to illegal behavior. But, read the law itself in the first post, where it says you must KNOWINGLY do it to be illegal.
There's certainly more than one firearms law I've read over that contains the exact wording, one being the 1000' law for schools if I remember correctly. However even if I was unknowingly at 999', I'd still get the book thrown at me as if I threw battery acid on a room full of puppies. If I was a cop, I might just get grounded and told, "NO! That's a bad, bad officer. Go to your room and think about what you've done."
__________________
"If you're juggling a number of women, and the numbers just don't add up, try multiplication"
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-30-2008, 8:29 PM
artherd's Avatar
artherd artherd is online now
Director
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: North SF Bay Area
Posts: 5,245
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

"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.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-30-2008, 8:33 PM
phbiggs phbiggs is offline
Member
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Bay Area Ca
Posts: 118
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-30-2008, 9:02 PM
sac550 sac550 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 153
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Police officers are allowed to carry their firearm in every state on or off duty, under federal law passed after 9/11. Federal officers have always been allowed to carry in every state or fly armed.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-30-2008, 9:52 PM
freakshow10mm freakshow10mm is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
iTrader: 15 / 89%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12-30-2008, 9:56 PM
383green's Avatar
383green 383green is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Riverside, CA
Posts: 2,514
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by freakshow10mm View Post
Actually the pilot has the right to deny their (federal LE) privilege to carry aboard aircraft. It's the pilot's call, not the .gov. The pilot has the right to refuse anyone to come aboard, government agents (except air marshals) included.
I wonder how safe that pilot's job would be if he or she refused to allow a sworn officer to board the aircraft and/or carry a weapon on it, and then that officer's agency called up the pilot's employer to raise a stink?
__________________
Mark J. Blair, NF6X
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-30-2008, 10:45 PM
freakshow10mm freakshow10mm is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
iTrader: 15 / 89%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-30-2008, 11:24 PM
Shane916's Avatar
Shane916 Shane916 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,898
iTrader: 53 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by freakshow10mm View Post
Very safe. My uncle is a commercial pilot and has denied boarding to a federal LE who wanted to carry while flying many times. Bottom line is it's the pilot's call.
Why would he do that?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-30-2008, 11:26 PM
freakshow10mm freakshow10mm is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
iTrader: 15 / 89%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-30-2008, 11:58 PM
artherd's Avatar
artherd artherd is online now
Director
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: North SF Bay Area
Posts: 5,245
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 383green View Post
I wonder how safe that pilot's job would be if he or she refused to allow a sworn officer to board the aircraft and/or carry a weapon on it, and then that officer's agency called up the pilot's employer to raise a stink?
Very. Pilots are essentially GOD on their aircraft and - absent negligence - are given quite a bit of leeway by their airlines, even today.

As a matter of law - if a pilot tells you to play pattycake, it is a felony not to play pattycake.
__________________
- 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.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-31-2008, 12:30 AM
becxltoo984 becxltoo984 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 219
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by sac550 View Post
Police officers are allowed to carry their firearm in every state on or off duty, under federal law passed after 9/11. Federal officers have always been allowed to carry in every state or fly armed.
They Can but they still need a permit for out of state Carry ! LOL
This is how AZ deals with it not sure about Ca.
http://ccw.azdps.gov/leosa.asp
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-31-2008, 12:35 AM
gimebakmybulits gimebakmybulits is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 218
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by freakshow10mm View Post
Very safe. My uncle is a commercial pilot and has denied boarding to a federal LE who wanted to carry while flying many times. Bottom line is it's the pilot's call.
Things must have changed since the 80's, the 5 of us would get an escort past security and since we never checked any baggage the M-16, 870 and our .45's would be in the plane with us and I'd bet the pilots never had a clue.
__________________
"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)
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-31-2008, 12:41 AM
becxltoo984 becxltoo984 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 219
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-31-2008, 1:31 AM
retired retired is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Riverside County
Posts: 5,210
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-31-2008, 5:26 AM
Liberty1's Avatar
Liberty1 Liberty1 is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,452
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by becxltoo984 View Post
My sister is in Federal law enforcement "USBP". Some of her perks- always get to meet the captain and gets an isle seat very time .
I just don't like the thought of the Federal Postal Police getting to carry over me, a flat foot with a 290+ qual, or for that matter any CGN member .
__________________

"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.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 12-31-2008, 6:01 AM
randy randy is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Santa Clarita, CA & Winnemucca, NV
Posts: 4,538
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

What is a federal school zone?
__________________
I move slow but I make up for it by shooting poorly.

When I hit the lotto I'm only shooting factory.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 12-31-2008, 6:04 AM
randy randy is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Santa Clarita, CA & Winnemucca, NV
Posts: 4,538
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sac550 View Post
Police officers are allowed to carry their firearm in every state on or off duty, under federal law passed after 9/11. Federal officers have always been allowed to carry in every state or fly armed.
WRONG.

Prior to 9/11 federal officers not on duty could not legaly carry their firearm while not in their home state. And no they could not fly armed.
__________________
I move slow but I make up for it by shooting poorly.

When I hit the lotto I'm only shooting factory.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 12-31-2008, 6:30 AM
joe schmoe joe schmoe is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by randy View Post
WRONG.

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

Respectfully I will disagree. I'm 100% sure of this. Some federal LEO's could not carry off-duty with their agency blessing prior to 9/11, but those that could had no "home state" only restriction. The only folks who saw changes after 9/11 were a few uniformed FLEO agencies. The 'plain clothes' folks have had the same off-duty (50 state) carry long before 9/11. Never heard of a federal agent being told he could only carry off-duty in his home state...
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 12-31-2008, 6:52 AM
jmlivingston's Avatar
jmlivingston jmlivingston is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: South OC
Posts: 4,198
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

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
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-31-2008, 9:55 AM
lrdchivalry lrdchivalry is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Diego Area
Posts: 439
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by becxltoo984 View Post
They Can but they still need a permit for out of state Carry ! LOL
This is how AZ deals with it not sure about Ca.
http://ccw.azdps.gov/leosa.asp

Actually your wrong. All the officer needs is his credentials to show he qualifies to carry under HR218. No other CCW is required as HR218 supercedes any state law. That link looks like it is for retired LEO's living in Arizona, which would allow the retired LEO to maintain his firearm qualification in order to be compliant with HR218.
__________________
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.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 12-31-2008, 10:02 AM
lrdchivalry lrdchivalry is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Diego Area
Posts: 439
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by randy View Post
WRONG.

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

I have been a federal LEO for over ten years. The feds were/are not bound by a home state as the state and locals were at one time. We were/are legally allowed to carry nationwide. You are also wrong about flying armed.. I have done it.
__________________
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.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12-31-2008, 10:03 AM
Fire in the Hole's Avatar
Fire in the Hole Fire in the Hole is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Tuolumne County
Posts: 1,564
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12-31-2008, 10:12 AM
lrdchivalry lrdchivalry is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Diego Area
Posts: 439
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmlivingston View Post
One thing LEOSA didn't cover was magazines, so an out of state LEO traveling into CA still can't bring mags holding over 10 rounds.

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


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

(b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to any of the following:
(20) The sale to, lending to, transfer to, purchase by, receipt of, or importation into this state of, a large capacity magazine by a sworn peace officer as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2 who is authorized to carry a firearm in the course and scope of his or her duties.
__________________
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).
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 12-31-2008, 10:23 AM
Liberty1's Avatar
Liberty1 Liberty1 is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,452
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 12-31-2008, 10:33 AM
lrdchivalry lrdchivalry is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Diego Area
Posts: 439
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Liberty1 View Post
Um...any thoughts on, or criticisms of the OP conclussion?
LEO's can carry in a school zone while off duty. The LEOSA trumps state and local law.
__________________
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.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 12-31-2008, 3:15 PM
Glock22Fan's Avatar
Glock22Fan Glock22Fan is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Rural edge of Los Angeles County
Posts: 3,553
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 12-31-2008, 3:16 PM
Telperion's Avatar
Telperion Telperion is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Bay Area, Peninsula
Posts: 484
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lrdchivalry View Post
LEO's can carry in a school zone while off duty. The LEOSA trumps state and local law.
LEOSA says "notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof" but not "notwithstanding any other provision of the law of the United States" so the federal law cited by the OP is still binding.

What is the status of the Federal gun-free school zone act, since it was invalidated in US v. Lopez but then trivially reworded by Congress afterward?
__________________
NFA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 12-31-2008, 4:50 PM
sac550 sac550 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 153
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by randy View Post
WRONG.

Prior to 9/11 federal officers not on duty could not legaly carry their firearm while not in their home state. And no they could not fly armed.
Well I respectfully disagree. I can tell you from first hand knowledge that federal officers can and have always been allowed to carry in all 50 states and fly armed even prior to 9-11.

Now locals were prohibited until after 9-11. Although CA officers going to Reno always took their guns and Reno PD didn't care. However, now as long as you have your police creds and they are not expired you can carry in every state.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 12-31-2008, 8:16 PM
cadurand cadurand is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 194
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 12-31-2008, 8:23 PM
BitterVoter BitterVoter is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: LA County
Posts: 116
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cadurand View Post
A cop caught carrying in a school zone wouldn't get in trouble.

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

Different set of rules for police than for the rest of us. I guess all men weren't created equal.
We are created equal, we just haven't been enforcing it enough lately.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 12-31-2008, 8:31 PM
sac550 sac550 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 153
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cadurand View Post
A cop caught carrying in a school zone wouldn't get in trouble.

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

Different set of rules for police than for the rest of us. I guess all men weren't created equal.
why cant cops carry in a bar? There are no restrictions on a bar for cops. Different rules, yes, they are cops, different laws.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 12-31-2008, 9:09 PM
N6ATF's Avatar
N6ATF N6ATF is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: East San Diego County, CA
Posts: 5,588
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rrr70 View Post
Is not knowing makes somebody not guilty?
While the saying is ignorance is no defense, studied mistake of the law can be.

Methinks this is more of a difference between basic intent (just doing something illegal) and specific intent (knowing you're doing something illegal).
__________________
“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:
Originally Posted by Wherryj View Post
Those dastardly law-abiding citizens who know their legal rights-they are making a mockery of our Police State!!!
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 01-01-2009, 12:51 AM
lrdchivalry lrdchivalry is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Diego Area
Posts: 439
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cadurand View Post
Just like those cops in Sturgis didn't get in trouble for carrying in a bar.
Although it is illegal in the state to carry a gun into a bar the LEOSA trumped the state law and that is why they did not get into trouble. The firefighter that was with them and carrying is still on the hook.
__________________
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).
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 01-01-2009, 1:03 AM
lrdchivalry lrdchivalry is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Diego Area
Posts: 439
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Telperion View Post
LEOSA says "notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof" but not "notwithstanding any other provision of the law of the United States" so the federal law cited by the OP is still binding.

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

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

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

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

If the person has a ccw issued by the state that the school is in, they may carry a concealed firearm onto school grounds. Using your reference to it being a federal law an LEO would be able to carry due to HR218 being in essence a federal ccw.
__________________
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).
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 01-01-2009, 1:13 PM
BitterVoter BitterVoter is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: LA County
Posts: 116
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 7:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2010, All Rights Reserved.