HR 218 question...

[Frog48]

The law says that retired LEO's need to undergo annual firearms requalification/certification, in order to maintain their exemption from state-level concealed carry laws via HR 218.

My question is... what happens if an LEO retires from a local PD or sheriff's office, and then moves to another state?

Must they travel, every year, back to the state from which they retired to keep their firearms qualification up to date?

 

[GRB]

They must either be qualified annually by their old agency, or under state standards in their state of residence and must receive a certification from their state of residence saying they have qualified.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Here's the exact text. Can be either one.
If they can find an LE agency in their new state it can come from there but I've read where many LE agencies are refusing to certify people.

`(1) a photographic identification issued by the agency from which the individual retired from service as a law enforcement officer that indicates that the individual has, not less recently than one year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the agency to meet the standards established by the agency for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm; or

`(B) a certification issued by the State in which the individual resides that indicates that the individual has, not less recently than one year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the State to meet the standards established by the State for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm.

 

[GRB]

-------------------------------------------------

 

[Frog48]

Ah gotcha. Thanks guys.

 

[divemedic]

It is no longer HR218. It is LEOSA.

The HR prefix indicates it is a bill.

 

[BIGR]

I have a question about out of state carry under HR 218. Am I correct in assuming that if a business(grocery store) has rules(no concealed carry) against concealed carry then an out of state LEO cannot carry concealed into that business?

 

[TexasRifleman]

Am I correct in assuming that if a business(grocery store) has rules(no concealed carry) against concealed carry then an out of state LEO cannot carry concealed into that business?

It appears that is true.

(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that--

`(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or

`(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.

 

[BIGR]

Just what I thought, TexasRifleman. I think you should be allowed to carry in most locations when I am out of state. Many places have a weapons or no ccw sign on their doors. What good is my firearm to me if I am in a store and some thug pulls out a gun on myself or someone else, but there is my gun in the car in the parking lot?

 

[TexasRifleman]

What good is my firearm to me if I am in a store and some thug pulls out a gun on myself or someone else, but there is my gun in the car in the parking lot?

Welcome to the world the rest of us non-LEOs live in.

It sucks but LEOSA/218 is progress. Little at a time I guess.

 

[obiwan1]

Question #2: Do you have to qualify with THE gun that you plan to carry (retirees)?

 

[TexasRifleman]

Doesn't say THE gun but it does say same type... revolver vs auto I suppose?

`(B) a certification issued by the State in which the individual resides that indicates that the individual has, not less recently than one year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the State to meet the standards established by the State for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm.

 

[Frog48]

I have a question about out of state carry under HR 218. Am I correct in assuming that if a business(grocery store) has rules(no concealed carry) against concealed carry then an out of state LEO cannot carry concealed into that business?

THe REAL question is...

Regardless of how the law is formally written, is a cop really going to arrest one of their bretheren? You know, considering the informal "brotherhood, thin blue line, us vs them" stuff.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I have a question about out of state carry under HR 218. Am I correct in assuming that if a business(grocery store) has rules(no concealed carry) against concealed carry then an out of state LEO cannot carry concealed into that business?

Yes ... and no.

An LEO carrying under the provisions of HR218 (or LEOSA) is subject to the same rules and laws as any CCW holder in the jurisdiction, and as we all know rules and laws vary by state -- and even city. If the state in which the store is located makes it illegal to carry if the premises are posted, then an LEO can't carry. If the laws of the state don't make it illegal to ignore a sign, or if the laws specify exactly what the sign must say and how it must look (like the Texas 30.06 sign) and the sign doesn't meet the criteria in the law, then just like a CCW holder an LEO can ignore the sign unless approached by management and asked to either disarm or leave.

 

[Erik]

Grant,the mileage will vary, as to whether blue on blue arrests are likely. The more serious the offense, the more likely. Where prosecution is expected, it is a certainty.

Which happens to be how it is for everyone else, also.

 

[isp2605]

An LEO carrying under the provisions of HR218 (or LEOSA) is subject to the same rules and laws as any CCW holder in the jurisdiction, and as we all know rules and laws vary by state -- and even city. If the state in which the store is located makes it illegal to carry if the premises are posted, then an LEO can't carry. If the laws of the state don't make it illegal to ignore a sign, or if the laws specify exactly what the sign must say and how it must look (like the Texas 30.06 sign) and the sign doesn't meet the criteria in the law, then just like a CCW holder an LEO can ignore the sign unless approached by management and asked to either disarm or leave.

Not at all true. Have you read LEOSA. LEOSA is very clear about this.
First, read the initial paragraph. LEOSA exempts LEOs and qualified retirees from state laws.
"(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b)."
People who are supposedly trained to interpret the statutes they are enforcing seem to have problem understanding that. In layman's terms that means "It doesn't matter what the state laws say, qualified LEOs can carry concealed."

There are only 2 exceptions which are clearly spelled out in the LEOSA statute:
"(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that--
(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property;
or
(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any
State or local government property, installation, building,
base, or park."

So to clarify (b)
1) private persons/entities can prohibit LEOs from carrying on their property
and
2) the state can prohibit LEOs from carrying on state or local government property, installations, buildings, bases, or parks.
So unless the bar, restaurant, store is owned by the state or local government then the state or local government cannot prohibit the LEO from carrying. Only the person/entity that owns such private establishment can prohibit carrying.
If a state passes a law that says a CCW carrier cannot carry in a liquor establishment then that's a statute exempted by LEOSA because the bar is not a government property, installation, building, base, or park.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

isp2605, what you are saying sounds a lot like, for example in Texas, I as a private CCW holder am free to ignore a non-compliant 30.06 sign but an out-of-state LEO (or even a retired Texas LEO carrying under LEOSA/HR218) must observe the sign because the owner has prohibited concealed carry.

And on the other hand you seem to be saying that I, as a private CCW holder, cannot concealed carry into a restaurant that derives more than 50% of its income from selling booze, even if I'm only there for a pizza and a Coca-Cola, in states with 50% laws -- but because it's the state law retired LEOs carrying under LEOSA/HR218 can ignore the state's 50% law?

I don't think that's what the law really says or means.

 

[divemedic]

That does appear to be what it says. I think ISP is correct.

 

[isp2605]

isp2605, what you are saying sounds a lot like, for example in Texas, I as a private CCW holder am free to ignore a non-compliant 30.06 sign but an out-of-state LEO (or even a retired Texas LEO carrying under LEOSA/HR218) must observe the sign because the owner has prohibited concealed carry.
And on the other hand you seem to be saying that I, as a private CCW holder, cannot concealed carry into a restaurant that derives more than 50% of its income from selling booze, even if I'm only there for a pizza and a Coca-Cola, in states with 50% laws -- but because it's the state law retired LEOs carrying under LEOSA/HR218 can ignore the state's 50% law?
I don't think that's what the law really says or means.

That's exactly what LEOSA says and means. I quoted all of the exceptions to LEOSA exactly from the text of the statute.
First, LEOSA exempts LEOs and qualified retired LEOs from state laws. That's what the first paragraph says. It's very clear. If you don't believe it, think about. According to your interpretation then any state, such as IL or WI which doesn't have CCW for anyone, then LEOSA doesn't apply. That is simply not the case. LEOSA preempts state laws allowing LEOs to carry in those states simply because the very first paragraph says so. LEOSA is very clear on that point.
LEOSA lists only 2 circumstances where LEOs can be limited. One is private citizens/entities prohibiting the carrying on their property. Again, LEOSA is very clear in that. The only other restriction is governmental agencies can prohibit LEOs from carrying "prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park." Again, LEOSA is very clear. Specifically it is limited to only government property, installations, buildings, base, or park." Those are the only 2 restrictions listed. No where does it permit a government agency prohibiting a LEO from carrying on private property. The only place is government prohibiting on government property. That's the full extent of LEOSA.
I'm quite familiar with LEOSA and it's intent. When LEOSA was first signed into law I was on the state committee researching how our state was going to fully implement that law statewide. As a result we did a lot of research including talking to DOJ and the congress people who wrote the bill and their intent. All you have to do is read the bill to know what it says and means. My above explanation is exactly what it says and means. It's not my interpretation, it's what the writers say it means.

 

[GRB]

Does just about anything posted in these forums, having to do with law enforcement officers, have to devolve to derogatory posts like this one:

THe REAL question is...

Regardless of how the law is formally written, is a cop really going to arrest one of their bretheren? You know, considering the informal "brotherhood, thin blue line, us vs them" stuff.

Is that the REAL question? Is that how you see police officers and other LEOs. Well here is a definitive answer to your real question: Yes you can expect cops to arrest other law enforcement officers for violations or perceived violations of state and local law, and you can expect feds to lock up LEOs for violation of federal laws. It happens frequently. That thin blue line stuff is an insult to any honest officer. Just as there are corrupt: politicians, priests, teachers, firemen, tax collectors, store owners, gun owners, cheerleaders, students, professors and whomever, there are also corrupt LEOs. There are also many more honest ones, and yes they do arrest other LEOs.

 

[ilbob]

It sucks but LEOSA/218 is progress. Little at a time I guess.

IMO it is a big step backwards.

 

[razorback2003]

Check State Laws

You may want to check some states that you plan to travel to because you might be better than with just a license. An example would be Arkansas, where if you are a certified law enforcement officer from Tennessee carrying off duty, say visiting Hot Springs, you can carry ANYWHERE you want under Arkansas state law because TN and AR both allow each other's off duty LEO's to carry in the respective states. Generally, retired LEO's (both resident and non resident) who keep up their certification can also carry anywhere they please in Arkansas.

I believe Georgia also has a similar law regarding out of state off duty LEO's carrying anywhere they want with no restrictions.

I am not totally up on the law enforcement laws because i am not a LEO and just have a TN Handgun Carry Permit.

 

[isp2605]

An example would be Arkansas, where if you are a certified law enforcement officer from Tennessee carrying off duty, say visiting Hot Springs, you can carry ANYWHERE you want under Arkansas state law because TN and AR both allow each other's off duty LEO's to carry in the respective states. Generally, retired LEO's (both resident and non resident) who keep up their certification can also carry anywhere they please in Arkansas.

For LEOs and qualified retired LEOs it doesn't matter what the state law says or authorizes. LEOs are exempt from state laws except any which prohibit carrying on government property. The very first paragraph of LEOSA is specific in that regard. It states "a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified retired law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b)."
What that says in plain English is "It doesn't matter what the state laws say, state law doesn't apply, qualified LEOs can carry concealed."
So it doesn't matter if AR has a statute on the books permitting TN LEOs carry. Since July 22, 2004 the federal law (LEOSA) makes that particular state law obsolete.

 

[TexasRifleman]

So it doesn't matter if AR has a statute on the books permitting TN LEOs carry. Since July 22, 2004 the federal law (LEOSA) makes that particular state law obsolete.

So how does this particular case end up in a place where they are making the, in my opinion, bizarre claim that LEOSA is useless because of some wacky administrative thing that's not even in the text of the law.

I admit I'm no legal scholar, that one has me befuddled.

 

[isp2605]

So how does this particular case end up in a place where they are making the, in my opinion, bizarre claim that LEOSA is useless because of some wacky administrative thing that's not even in the text of the law.

LEOSA only applies to a qualified LEO if they meet all the stipulations of the statute. Violate any one of the stipulations then the LEO is not covered by LEOSA. One of those stipulations is:
"(5) is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance"
Violate that paragraph and the LEO is no longer covered by LEOSA.
Additionally, LEOSA does not give the LEO the authority to violate any law and then use the firearm in the commission of that violation. In other words, a LEO cannot be the one instigating the fight then pull a gun and use it illegally in that fight. Doing so would not give the LEO any protection under LEOSA as the acts committed are illegal.