Chicago won't help ex-cops carry guns

[ThatIsAFact]

This is excerpted from "City: Retired cops can't carry concealed guns," in the Chicago Sun-Times for December 12, 2005:

Retired Chicago Police officers will be getting letters in the mail soon saying the city won't certify them to carry guns -- a move that angers the head of the local Fraternal Order of Police. Congress passed the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004 to allow retired and off-duty officers across the country to carry concealed weapons. But the city is worried about the liability of allowing retired cops to carry guns when they haven't gone through refresher training or undergone mental and physical fitness evaluations. The city also is concerned about the lack of a national database of retired officers authorized to carry guns. . . . The letter to retired Chicago cops says "until these areas of concern are addressed by federal legislation, the Department has declined to adopt new procedures for qualifying retired officers to carry a firearm." . . . Under the city's interpretation of the federal law, the city can't bar out-of-town retired officers from carrying guns if they have been certified by agencies outside Chicago. But the city believes the federal government can't force the city to certify retired officers here if it chooses not to. [end of excerpt from article]

You can read the complete story here:
http://www.suntimes.com/cgi-bin/pri...ntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-conceal12.html

My comments: It is true that the LEOSA does not require any state or local law enforcement agency to issue annual firearms-qualification certificates to retired officers, and without such a certificate, the retired LEOSA cannot exercise the privilege conferred by the law, even if he meets all the other qualifications. Fortunately, however, the LEOSA does provide that such a certificate can be issued by a state, as well as by the local agency from which a given officer retired. And, it appears that the Illinois Law Enforcement Training and Standards Board is already set up to issue such certifcates to qualified retirees (see the material posted by that agency here). A retired Chicago LEO, carrying this state-issued credential, can lawfully carry in the city of Chicago under the LEOSA, even if the city masters do not like it. [UPDATE: As I explain below, I was wrong about this --an Illinois retired LEO, richp, has explained on another website that Chicago is refusing to provide documentation that the Chicago ex-LEOs retired in good standing, and therefore, the state agency will not allow them to shoot to qualify.] Note that I am not a lawyer and nothing here should be construed as legal advice.

By my interpretation of the LEOSA, even in a state in which there are no statewide firearms qualifications standards for active duty law enforcement officers, agencies may issue the required certificates to retired officers. In that case, the retired officer has met the same statewide standard as the active-duty officer, as the LEOSA requires (which is to say, no standard). That is exactly the way the LEOSA has been interpreted by the Attorney General of Florida (a state without a statewide training standard) in his solid legal opinion posted here.

 

[IndianaDean]

It's sometimes a shame that city was rebuilt after the Great Fire.

 

[George S.]

It's sometimes a shame that city was rebuilt after the Great Fire.

Or at least allowed the likes of Richard Daly and his cronies to run the place.

 

[Atticus]

Hey, I'm all for it. If the citizens of Chicago can't be armed, than why should ex cops? Current Chicago Cops should be disarmed next. Before you know it, the Gangsta's will be turning in weapons and everyone will be singing Kumbaya.

 

[Atticus]

Hey, I'm all for it. If the citizens of Chicago can't be armed, than why should ex cops? Current Chicago Cops should be disarmed next. Before you know it, the Gangsta's will be turning in weapons and everyone will be singing Kumbaya.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

I am with Atticus on this.

If the people of Chicago don't need weapons, then neither do the ex-cops.

What are the cops thinking? that they are a better class of citizen?

 

[Omni04]

But the city is worried about the liability of allowing retired cops to carry guns when they haven't gone through refresher training or undergone mental and physical fitness evaluations.

is that really such a big liability?

 

[Standing Wolf]

Hey, I'm an ex-advertising guy, so I should get extra-special treatment, too, shouldn't I?

 

[ThatIsAFact]

Revise the above in light of the following:

I see now that there is a new posting in a thread on the Police.mag website, here, by a retired Illinois LEO, "richp," who is obviously vastly more informed than me on this subject. He explains exactly what the situation is with respect to the Chicago retirees. I encourage you to read his entire explanation, but here is the nub: "So the problem in Chicago is that the city's retirement board will not issue the piece of paper that attests that the retiree left the Department in good standing. And without it IROCC [the state agency] won't let you shoot. When I qualified a month or so under the IROCC procedure, talk was there were about 4,000 Chicago PD retirees hung up this way."

 

[jsalcedo]

As soon as the cops seriously push for "citizens" to carry then I will back them up.

 

[Don Gwinn]

Much as I agree that all citizens should have the same right to carry, in Illinois and particularly in Chicago allowing retired officers to go first would have been a step in that direction.

That's the real reason Chicago is against it. If they thought they could buy off 4000 retired cops and make everyone else forget about concealed carry for the citizenry at large, they'd be willing to do that. The fact that they're fighting it should tell you something.

 

[insidious_calm]

Don, you know I would almost agree with you. However, we have seen time and time and time again the complete and utter lack of support for civillian concealed carry from the law enforcement community. As someone who has spent some time at the state capitol twisting arms on the issue I can tell you first hand that as a rule law enforcement orginizations are opposed to civillian concealed carry. One or two cops on an internet blog does not make a consensus. Their leaders, and more importantly their public spokespeople, actively work against our cause on a daily basis.

Personally I think I think it's good that this is happenening. They'll get it eventually. After all that's what they tell us. Maybe now that they see what it's like to be reduced to mere peasant status they'll have a change of heart. Somehow I doubt it.

I.C.

 

[jsalcedo]

A large percentage of cops have had off duty carry and retired carry LONG
before the shall issue boom we've had in the last 15 years.


I didn't see them pushing for our rights. The super citizen complex and the status quo were just fine.

allowing retired officers to go first would have been a step in that direction.

When has this ever been the case?

When has allowing one special group to exercise their civil rights and excluding the vast majority ever led to more freedom?

 

[Lone_Gunman]

The Law Enforcement Officers' Safety Act of July, 2004 was signed into law by President Bush and gave retired LEO's the ability to carry concealed weapons across the nation, with but a few restrictions.

It was touted by its supporters as a "first step" towards nation-wide reciprocity for simple civilians as well.

Well... I guess it would have been better described as the "only step". American gun owners were used, once again, by politicians and lobbyists. We bought the idea that they would continue to work for us to allow us the same priviledge.

How much effort have they made towards giving us nation-wide carry in the last 18 months? None.

Sorry, but I hope the LEO's dont get their way in Illinois. We are on our own, and they are on their own.

 

[jsalcedo]

It was touted by its supporters as a "first step" towards nation-wide reciprocity for simple civilians as well.

Fool me once shame on me...fool me twice shame on me... fool me three times
yeah might as well...

 

[SomeKid]

Much as I agree that all citizens should have the same right to carry, in Illinois and particularly in Chicago allowing retired officers to go first would have been a step in that direction.

That's the real reason Chicago is against it. If they thought they could buy off 4000 retired cops and make everyone else forget about concealed carry for the citizenry at large, they'd be willing to do that. The fact that they're fighting it should tell you something.

Got that a bit backwards. Our rights become infringed, but police are allowed to continue using them; not we give cops some special privilege, then it comes to us. It just doesn't work your way Don.


-Automatic weapons
-magazine capacity limits
-where you can carry
-types of ammo (NJ HPs)

In each of those catagories, we were banned from doing something, but the government allowed its agents to continue doing it. I never see them working with us to get things fixed.

Soon, there will be new restrictions on what we can have, that the all honored and super-trained police can use.

-types of guns allowed (NJ soon)
-types of ammo allowed (CA soon)

No Don, the cops ARE against us on this, and as a general rule. Exceptions do occur, but they are only exceptions, and more than likely would still test their boots out on you if ordered.

 

[Pilgrim]

Quote:
But the city is worried about the liability of allowing retired cops to carry guns when they haven't gone through refresher training or undergone mental and physical fitness evaluations.

is that really such a big liability?

The city is creating a liability when there isn't one to begin with. The PDRK has for a long time permitted retired peace officers carry without any qualification requirement and to the best of my knowledge there has been no problem with liability for lack of refresher training or mental and physical fitness evaluations.

I went through the H.R. 218 qualification process in Idaho because the PDRK still hasn't figured out how to implement H.R. 218 certification for retirees. The attorney general is still waiting for 'enabling' legislation. In my estimation, that will take as long as it did to execute "Tookie" Williams.

After shooting the H.R. 218 qualification in Idaho, I suspect the refresher training and mental and physical fitness evaluation process will take care of itself. What I saw of the sixteen retired officers at my class was a few retired officers who shoot regularly and were highly competent. The rest obviously haven't shot much since retirement, and one or two haven't shot at all in the 10-15 years since they retired. Eventually those who don't shoot much will decide it is just too much of a bother to qualify annually and will just let their certifications expire. Especially since the qualification classes will cost them $10-$35 a year added to the Sheriff's $25 fee to process their application and issue an ID card.

 

[DonP]

All of a sudden the FOP is PO'd

I heard the head of the Chicago FOP is steamed about this.

He started going off in a radio interview about trusting the police etc.

The city attorney is now claiming that they have no database of retired police (where do they send the pension checks to then?) and they don't even know if they left the force in "good standing" (no records of their retirement either, huh?).

It all boils down to Daley hating the idea of anyone (besides his personal and family bodyguards and all the aldercritters of course) having guns in Chicago. If retired cops get to carry and the "blood doesn't run in the streets" someone may actually point that out and that would be bad for Daley. Oh well, he can always count on his syncophants at the Tribune to go anti for him.

The next move for Daley will be to go to his meat puppet, Blago the governor, and have a state wide ban on retired police concealed carry. Because all those retired cops that now live outside the city limits, the Sheriff's police and every small town retired cop will be carrying.

At least it will be obvious to the cop retirees that they are just plain, vulnerable citizens like the rest of us.

 

[MechAg94]

You know, I respect some poster's principles, but I have to say that sometimes this All or Nothing attitude is just wrong. Sometimes you can't have everything you want all at once, you have to fight for every little piece. I, personally, would rather have some concealed carry now rather than wait another 20 years for the All or Nothing law.


Can the City legally not give documentation to a retired officer about the conditions under which he left the department? What if he wants to get a part time job in security or something else. He will likely need that documentation. I am sure that refusal would not survive a lawsuit if someone had the means and will to do it.

 

[Gunpacker]

Retired cops are simply citizens. The city gives them no special authority for arrest, they need no special rights. However, all citizens should have that right, and I will join them in their fight when it is for all citizens.

 

[lostone1413]

Retired cops are simply citizens. The city gives them no special authority for arrest, they need no special rights. However, all citizens should have that right, and I will join them in their fight when it is for all citizens.

I agree! I grew up just South of Chicago. I can tell you without a doubt the Chicago Police Dept has no trouble at all violating your rights. Take and read up on the Cage Units They are made up with State Police and the City of Chicago Police Dept. They should be in jail instead of putting people in jail.

 

[Thefabulousfink]

Hey, I'm all for it. If the citizens of Chicago can't be armed, than why should ex cops? Current Chicago Cops should be disarmed next. Before you know it, the Gangsta's will be turning in weapons and everyone will be singing Kumbaya.

If this happens, I'll just get some friends together, march in, and declare myself Mayor-for-life. When the population is disarmed, all it takes is a strong will, lack of morals, and force of arms.

History has proven it countless times.

 

[Mongo the Mutterer]

If this happens, I'll just get some friends together, march in, and declare myself Mayor-for-life. When the population is disarmed, all it takes is a strong will, lack of morals, and force of arms.

History has proven it countless times.

You might be able to get away with it .... your name Daley perchance??

I was for disarming the Chicago Cubs, too. Take their bats away. Then I thought, ah well, they can't hurt anybody with them anyway...

 

[Helmetcase]

Aww, now you're just being mean.

 

[geekWithA.45]

The FOP is PO'd?

GOOD. With their knightly privileges in the balance, let them see what it's like for the peons.

As for the whole idea that retired LEO carry somehow leads to wider acceptance of arms for the masses, I really don't think so.

For starters, people who aren't sympathetic to the right of arms carve out a great big exception in their minds for the annointed, and the (ret'd) after their name keeps them in that exceptional category, at least as far as the GFWs are concerned.

Furthermore, NJ tried this, passing a "shall issue" permit system for retired LEO's, based on the same theory, with zero result on the normal civilian side.