Devonai
Member
This weekend I saw an old friend of mine who is a police officer in a major Massachusetts city (and has been for 15 years). I mentioned I would soon apply for my Mass non-resident permit. He told me that HR 218 applies to active military personnel as well as law enforcement. He's also a bar-qualified lawyer, so I was inclined to believe him. Being the CYA type, I looked up the text of the law as it was signed by Bush.
I was dismayed to discover that the law doesn't say a thing about military personnel. I plan on calling my friend and asking him how he arrives at this interpretation, but until then I'd like to discuss it with my fellow High Roaders. I do not plan on carrying into Massachusetts or anywhere else I'm not permitted, but I did notice a potential argument that would make my friend right.
HR 218 defines a law enforcement officer thusly:
(1) 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, and has statutory powers of arrest;
(2) is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm;
(3) is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the agency;
(4) meets standards, if any, established by the agency which require the employee to regularly qualify in the use of a firearm;
(5) is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance; and
(6) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm.
As a soldier in the National Guard I have performed duties that would make me fall under the definitions in (1), I am authorized to carry a firearm while under orders (2), and I regularly qualify with my weapon and so satisfy (4). One could not argue that I did not meet the definition of a law enforcement officer according to HR 218 while I was under those orders. This alone is a moot point as I'm already authorized to carry a weapon while on duty anywhere the Army may send me, but it's important as it declinates who I am and who I am not according to this law.
The real question becomes whether or HR 218 considers me a LEO when not acting under orders. I am tempted to say "no" and let that be the end of it, except that HR 218 has no language that defines when a LEO is on duty or not (after all it's meant to apply to off duty cops).
So if someone meets all of the definitions of the law as it is written, what's the difference between an off duty part-time, reserve, or auxiliary cop, and a reservist or active duty soldier not under orders? They're both authorized to carry a firearm and perform law enforcment duties while on duty, right? The only difference is that the soldier's orders must specifically define law enforcement functions while the cop's responsibilities are implied and assumed.
I am not trying to argue that a soldier is a cop. Masschusetts law, for example, is too specific in it's definition of a LEO for this discussion to even apply. However, HR 218 allows room for interpretation and since that's the law that overrides local statues, that's the one we need to worry about.
Thoughts?
I was dismayed to discover that the law doesn't say a thing about military personnel. I plan on calling my friend and asking him how he arrives at this interpretation, but until then I'd like to discuss it with my fellow High Roaders. I do not plan on carrying into Massachusetts or anywhere else I'm not permitted, but I did notice a potential argument that would make my friend right.
HR 218 defines a law enforcement officer thusly:
(1) 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, and has statutory powers of arrest;
(2) is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm;
(3) is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the agency;
(4) meets standards, if any, established by the agency which require the employee to regularly qualify in the use of a firearm;
(5) is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance; and
(6) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm.
As a soldier in the National Guard I have performed duties that would make me fall under the definitions in (1), I am authorized to carry a firearm while under orders (2), and I regularly qualify with my weapon and so satisfy (4). One could not argue that I did not meet the definition of a law enforcement officer according to HR 218 while I was under those orders. This alone is a moot point as I'm already authorized to carry a weapon while on duty anywhere the Army may send me, but it's important as it declinates who I am and who I am not according to this law.
The real question becomes whether or HR 218 considers me a LEO when not acting under orders. I am tempted to say "no" and let that be the end of it, except that HR 218 has no language that defines when a LEO is on duty or not (after all it's meant to apply to off duty cops).
So if someone meets all of the definitions of the law as it is written, what's the difference between an off duty part-time, reserve, or auxiliary cop, and a reservist or active duty soldier not under orders? They're both authorized to carry a firearm and perform law enforcment duties while on duty, right? The only difference is that the soldier's orders must specifically define law enforcement functions while the cop's responsibilities are implied and assumed.
I am not trying to argue that a soldier is a cop. Masschusetts law, for example, is too specific in it's definition of a LEO for this discussion to even apply. However, HR 218 allows room for interpretation and since that's the law that overrides local statues, that's the one we need to worry about.
Thoughts?