HR 218 Guidelines

[swat]

The FOP put up a FAQ webpage regarding implementation of HR 218 that my fellow active and retired LEO's might find of interest. According to the webpage HR 218 allows active AND retired LEO to carry ammo that may be prohibited by state law. As a retired LEO I guess I can carry armor piercing rounds, but would probably have to buy them out of state. I wish the law would be expanded to allow retired LEO to acquire California banned AW's and .50 calibers.

http://www.fop.net/legislative/issues/hr218/hr218faq.pdf

[Dhena81]

Why not expand to allow anyone law abiding to buy AW police are not the only ones that are responsible citizens.

[Ron-Solo]

Why not expand to allow anyone law abiding to buy AW police are not the only ones that are responsible citizens.

Because LEOSA does not apply to non-LE ?

This has been slammed about enough times in this and other forums.

[003]

"I wish the law would be expanded to allow retired LEO to acquire California banned AW's and .50 calibers."


If you read the law it uses the term "firearm", not handgun, pistol or revolver. The law only restricts Federally defined NFA weapons. So it does appear that California cops, both active and retired can in fact possess what California defines as Assault weapons. While I have no intention of being the test case, it would be nice to get this issue resolved. It appears that this law also allows California cops, both active and retired to possess/carry California banned ammunition ie, AP, tracers, etc. It is my understanding that the ammunition part was put into the law to cover the New Jersey restrictions relative to hollow point ammunition, but it does not limit it to New Jersey. - - So.............??

[SVT-40]

Actually it says specifically "concealed firearms"

"The bill exempts qualified active and retired law enforcement officers from local and State
prohibitions on the carrying of concealed firearms.

[003]

Yes indeed, I agree conpletely that it says concealed. I can conceal a short stock AR with a 16 inch barrel in a case and carry it. While we do not have any local cases that address this issue. There is one Illinois case (People v. Drew Peterson, Case No. 08 CF 1169 (Oct. 1, 2010), where the Judge did dismiss felony weapons charges against a cop because he ruled that HR 218 allowed him to carry the weapon. (The case is a bit more nuanced than that), but the Judge did dismiss the charges because of HR 218. While his ruling only applies to a small area in Illinois, it does address this issue. Given that the law defines what firearms are not allowed, a good arguement could be made that firearms that are not mentioned are allowed. Be sure to click on the below link and read the case. It does raise interesting issues for California.

http://www.policelawblog.com/blog/2010/10/leosa-ruling-in-the-context-of-officer-felony-weapons-charge.html

As used in this section, the term `firearm' does not include--

`(1) any machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the National Firearms Act);

`(2) any firearm silencer (as defined in section 921 of this title); and

`(3) any destructive device (as defined in section 921 of this title).'.