Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
i wouldn't bet on it . already the federal law allowing leo's to carry here has been challenged and won .
the leosa law that was put in to effect was supposed to allow leo's to carry in all 50 states .
well that didn't work as planned either .
"Signed into law on July 22, 2004, by President George W. Bush and codified as 18 U.S.C. §§ 926B & C, LEOSA was intended to afford qualified active (QLEO) and qualified retired law enforcement officers (QRLEO) the privilege of carrying a concealed firearm in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and all other U.S. possessions (except the Canal Zone) notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any state or political subdivision thereof.
LEOSA sounds pretty cut and dried. But unfortunately, it isn't.
Vague language, confusing amendments, and a relative shortage of interpretive case law have allowed scuttlebutt and confusion to take over common sense application of its principles."
i wouldn't bet on it . already the federal law allowing leo's to carry here has been challenged and won .
the leosa law that was put in to effect was supposed to allow leo's to carry in all 50 states .
well that didn't work as planned either .
"Signed into law on July 22, 2004, by President George W. Bush and codified as 18 U.S.C. §§ 926B & C, LEOSA was intended to afford qualified active (QLEO) and qualified retired law enforcement officers (QRLEO) the privilege of carrying a concealed firearm in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and all other U.S. possessions (except the Canal Zone) notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any state or political subdivision thereof.
LEOSA sounds pretty cut and dried. But unfortunately, it isn't.
Vague language, confusing amendments, and a relative shortage of interpretive case law have allowed scuttlebutt and confusion to take over common sense application of its principles."
LEOSA 100% applies to cops, everywhere, including NYC. Every time a locality has challenged it or arrested a cop/retiree they have LOST. You have no clue what you are talking about.
cops are not the only ones considered leo's and that is where the gray area is . it has been decided on a case by case with other agency's.
as police magazine pointed out
"Qualification Requirements
Initially intended to apply only to people who are QLEO and QRLEO, LEOSA was amended in both 2010 and 2013, opening the door to individuals separated after an aggregate of 10 years or more service as an active, reserve, auxiliary, or volunteer law enforcement officer, as well as military and DOD police and law enforcement officers. In addition, LEOSA now applies for active law enforcement officers of the Amtrak Police Department, Federal Reserve, and executive branch of the Federal Government, even if they lack statutory powers of arrest. However, because of a failure to remain consistent with the language used in both parts of the statute, those without arrest authority are unable to qualify upon separation.
While many agencies argue that only full-time officers qualify for the privileges afforded by LEOSA, the plain language of the statute and case law interpreting it prove otherwise. "
even though these other cases win it is taking a court to decide the fate .
Last edited by mathjak107; 02-28-2017 at 08:10 AM..
In The People of the State of New York v. Arthur Rodriguez (Indictment # 2917/06 (NY. Sup. Ct. 2006), the New York Supreme Court found that Rodriguez, a Pennsylvania Constable (despite constables not being paid a salary by any municipal subdivision and working more like independent contractors paid on a per job basis), was in fact employed by the court and qualified for protection under LEOSA.
Another NY case, state lost:
Quote:
Another argument frequently raised by agencies hostile to LEOSA is that an individual must possess both law enforcement authority and agency authorization to carry a firearm while off duty in order to qualify for LEOSA. In one of the few criminal cases to examine this issue, People v. Booth, 862 N.Y.S.2d 767, (NY. Co. Ct. 2008), the defendant, a Coast Guard reservist, was charged with the crime of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree after a loaded handgun was found in a compartment underneath the seat of the vehicle in which he was traveling. Even though Booth was off duty at the time of his arrest and did not possess agency authority to carry while off duty, the Court found that Booth's duties in the Coast Guard, which were defined "as the prevention, detection, [and] investigation of violations of the law" as well as his "authority and duty to arrest violators" and qualification to carry a firearm, despite its time and place restrictions, qualified him for LEOSA and exempted him from prosecution under New York State Law. Id. at 770.
CA, state lost:
Quote:
Reliance on scuttlebutt surrounding qualification requirements and failing to recognize LEOSA's preemptive authority over state law can be costly. In People of the State of California v. Jose Diaz, Case No. 7GF00494 (Cal. Sup. Ct. 2007), a Coast Guard boarding officer was arrested under Cal. Pen. Code § 12031(A)(1) for carrying a loaded firearm in his vehicle while in a public place. At the time of his arrest, Diaz was traveling with a cased firearm and loaded magazine in the back seat of his automobile. The charge was dismissed on oral motion by the prosecutor after it became evident to the City that LEOSA preempted Diaz's prosecution. Diaz sued for a violation of his civil rights, Diaz v. City of San Fernando, et al., Case No. PC044139 (Cal. Sup. Ct. 2011). The civil suit settled outside of court, and the Settlement and Release Agreement entered into between Diaz and the City resulted in a $43,500 payment to Diaz and a redraft of the City's police training standards on LEOSA.
Shall I continue?
I hate to break it to you, but the article you posted wasn't written to warn individual cops to be wary of LEOSA protections, it was written to advise police agencies that they cannot arrest cops claiming LEOSA protections, even Coast Guard "cops" apparently. Lol
cops are not the only ones considered leo's and that is where the gray area is .
What gray area though? You are claiming it doesn't work the way it says, when in fact it does. Not only are cops protected, but wanna-be cops too! LEOSA works awesome, and states/localities that attempt to circumvent it LOSE, every time.
Just as they will when they arrest licensed handgun carriers once this present bill passes.
You are absolutely right in regards to NY state residents. This law won't change a thing as NY will continue to be a state where it is nearly impossible to procure a carry license, but the state/city will have ZERO power to invalidate the law as far as visitors go. How funny will it be knowing that a FL resident visiting Time Square will be able to legally carry a handgun concealed while the NY'er who lives around the block can't even TOUCH one without an onerous and expensive NYC permit? Hilarious. Maybe NY sheep, especially those who lean right, will be influenced finally to vote, consistently, for politicians who actually stand for our rights.
Yet another reason to set up residency in another state. Delaware, PA and Florida are looking better and better to me.
The 2nd amendment needs to be treated and respected with national reciprocity just the same way as a drivers license is (which is ONLY a PRIVLEDGE, not a RIGHT).
NY also needs to make the application process much less burdensome. It is extremely time consuming, long and expensive just to exercise a constitutionally guaranteed right. I would love to see the outrage if you had to go through a similar process to vote or use free speech.
The 2nd amendment needs to be treated and respected with national reciprocity just the same way as a drivers license is (which is ONLY a PRIVLEDGE, not a RIGHT).
NY also needs to make the application process much less burdensome. It is extremely time consuming, long and expensive just to exercise a constitutionally guaranteed right. I would love to see the outrage if you had to go through a similar process to vote or use free speech.
It is physically impossible to kill a person using free speech, so your comparison is moot. The second amendment itself clearly states that the government has to right regulate fire arms. As it is, too many nut cases and criminals have easy access to guns, I don't know what is the obsession with making it even easier for criminals and mentally unstable individuals to own and possess guns. When you look away shootings in states with strict gun control laws, the vast, and I mean vast majority, 70/80% of guns come from states where guns control laws are non existent. If this passes, I expect shootings to sky rocket in the coming years.
Hopefully, when baby boomers die, when can begin having common sense conversations about nation wide constitutional gun control.
I hate to break it to you, but the article you posted wasn't written to warn individual cops to be wary of LEOSA protections, it was written to advise police agencies that they cannot arrest cops claiming LEOSA protections, even Coast Guard "cops" apparently. Lol
yes , i said they won above but they had to go to court to win . it is not clear cut once you move away from just cops and that is why there are so many cases around the country .
if they can't get the wording right on this stuff you can only imagine the hitches in a national carry bill for civilians .
any bet this never even gets close to coming to pass ?
even though these other cases win it is taking a court to decide the fate .
Again, for "wannabes".
There is absolutely no question that LEOSA covers police officers and retired police officers, nationwide. You're making a strange point now (or trying to back off your initial assertion).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
