PDA

View Full Version : Congress says Off-duty/retired cops can carry concealed weapons Anywhere



R00tBreaker
07-09-2004, 02:53 PM
http://www.officer.com/article/article.jsp?id=14748&siteSection=1

Have you guys seen this article? What do you think about it?

TradArcher
07-09-2004, 03:02 PM
Sounds great to me as we would be able to carry out of state.

However, I don't buy the reasoning behind this:

`This legislation will allow thousands of equipped, trained and certified officers to continually serve and protect our communities regardless of jurisdiction and at no cost to taxpayers,'' the House's chief sponsor, Rep. Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham, R-Calif

Heh, I like the words, "Continually" and
"Regardless of jurisdiction".:rolleyes:

L-1
07-09-2004, 03:21 PM
I read HR 218 yesterday and noted a clause that I think could be problematic for retired officers, strictly from a legal point of view. The law reads (in part)

`(c) As used in this section, the term `qualified retired law enforcement officer' means an individual who--

`(5) during the most recent 12-month period, has met, at the expense of the individual, the State's standards for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry firearms;

`(d) The identification required by this subsection is--

`(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

`(2)(A) a photographic identification issued by the agency from which the individual retired from service as a law enforcement officer; and

`(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.

Based on these qualifications, retirees will need to be retrained at their own expense every year. Because of the enormous expense involved, you know that most Departments won't do it for them. This means retirees will have to find private vendors who will qualify them according to their respective department's standards. This brings up a new wrinkle.

The law says the Department must certify retirees as having met the requirements. Will they certify them based on a private vendor's statement? Next, the Department must certify on the retired ID cards that the holder met the training qualifications within one year of any date on which they are carrying. In order to avoid falsifying documents, this means the Department must not only verify a retiree's training annually, but it must issue us a new ID card annually (otherwise, an old card would contain a false certification statement). I suspect most Department's are unlikely to go to this much time, trouble and expense for retirees.

Finally, the law requires that if the agency doesn't certify retirees as being training qualified, the state must do so. Probably this will be handled by each state's POST agency. However, here in California we have about 70,000 retired cops who will need certification. Anyone care to guess whether this can be done in a timely manner and how much they will charge for this service?

Don't misunderstand my pessimism. I know it will work. I just think it's going to be a pain in the *** to get it off the ground in the beginning. <G>

Your thoughts folks ??????

DAN'LL
07-09-2004, 03:49 PM
My initial thought is this:

The fact that off duty (currently employed) police officers, will be officially "licensed" to carry a concealed handgun, in all fifty states.....is a win, almost beyond belief!

In fact, I'll only believe it when I see it on paper! Paper that I can touch!

This is far from a done deal!

Retired cops and the problems of annual recertification?

Peanuts in comparison! If a retired cop wants to carry his weapon outside of his home state, he or she will go to the trouble of getting (somehow) qualified.

I am still far from believing any of this!

Dan

R00tBreaker
07-09-2004, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by DAN'LL

I am still far from believing any of this!

Dan
Exactly my thoughts when I read it. It sounds almost too good to be true.

BadgerFan
07-09-2004, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by R00tBreaker
What do you think about it? [/B] It's about time

retired
07-09-2004, 04:41 PM
It doesn't matter to me since I rarely carry, and if I do, I'll just continue to get a CCW permit in my home state where I don't have to get qualified. Interesting that as a citizen I don't have to qualify, but as a retired cop I would. Yea, a great bill!

Bodie
07-09-2004, 04:59 PM
I have a news flash. Many retired officers have always carried regardless of the law and ther are very few active duty officers that would have charged a retiree if they found them to be carrying unless it involved another crime. This new law is the best common sense thing Congress has done in decades to improve our lives as peace officers and retirees.

Let's not analize this to death just be happy we have it.

nyc
07-09-2004, 05:50 PM
Originally posted by DAN'LL
This is far from a done deal!

Oh, but it practically is a done deal. :D It's been sent to the President, and considering that this was his Administration's policy statement issued on June 23: "The Administration strongly supports H.R. 218 and urges swift House passage of this important measure," I doubt it will take him long to sign this into law.

JB2245
07-09-2004, 06:58 PM
This is all well and good, however, often times when I go on vacation, I fly to my destination. Anyone know the procedure for transporting your weapon on a comercial aircraft? If it's a hassle, I'd just as soon leave my weapon at home.

retdetsgt
07-09-2004, 07:35 PM
Last I heard you have to put the ammo and gun in different bags, check both and notify the airline that you have them. Then they put red tags on both to let the whole world, including the baggage handlers know it.

If you do that, get the TSA locks from a luggage store. They can unlock them to search and then lock them back. Otherwise, they cut the locks and your suitcase with the gun goes onboard unlocked.

retired
07-09-2004, 07:53 PM
Originally posted by Bodie
I have a news flash. Many retired officers have always carried regardless of the law and ther are very few active duty officers that would have charged a retiree if they found them to be carrying unless it involved another crime. This new law is the best common sense thing Congress has done in decades to improve our lives as peace officers and retirees.

Let's not analize this to death just be happy we have it.

So currently retired officers who illegally carry in other states should get a pass? Doesn't matter to you that they are violating that state law? And how do you know that very few officers would not charge a retired cop with a crime for carrying? According to what you have posted previouly you would arrest you wife for DUI, but you wouldn't arrest a retired cop for carrying a weapon?

Tell me, how exactly does this new law improve our lives? Again, I don't care if the law is there, I'm just curious.

ViceSgt
07-09-2004, 08:23 PM
Originally posted by retdetsgt
Last I heard you have to put the ammo and gun in different bags, check both and notify the airline that you have them. Then they put red tags on both to let the whole world, including the baggage handlers know it.



Absolutely false. I have flown with my firearm many times. The red tag goes on your weapon, iside it's carrier, inside your suitcase. The weapon & ammo can be carried in the same suitcase. I just carry the ammo in the magazine. Never had a problem.

retdetsgt
07-09-2004, 08:52 PM
Originally posted by ViceSgt
Absolutely false. I have flown with my firearm many times. The red tag goes on your weapon, iside it's carrier, inside your suitcase. The weapon & ammo can be carried in the same suitcase. I just carry the ammo in the magazine. Never had a problem.

They've changed it then. I admit it was several years ago and it was before TSA, but they tagged my suitcase on the outside and I had to separate guns and ammo. Glad its' changed.

Yxboom
07-09-2004, 09:02 PM
IMO, active-duty officers should be allowed to carry their guns throughout the United States, but retired officers do not need this responsibility because they are, uhhhh, retired.

slim202cop
07-09-2004, 11:20 PM
Great. I hope this hurry up and becomes law.

I get tired of having to leave my weapon at home when I venture into MD from DC.

ViceSgt
07-10-2004, 12:16 AM
Originally posted by DAN'LL

Retired cops and the problems of annual recertification?

Peanuts in comparison! If a retired cop wants to carry his weapon outside of his home state, he or she will go to the trouble of getting (somehow) qualified.

Dan

If you want to carry, you go to the range & bust off a few rounds. No big deal.

DAN'LL
07-10-2004, 11:06 AM
I'll add this:

The day an off duty cop from Missoula, Montana, (and I do love Missoula, guys) is OK driving into Manhattan (New York City) without a carry license from that jurisdiction, well.....

........this is far from a done deal!

I repeat. I'll believe it when I hold the papers in my hand.

Dan

IPDBrad
07-10-2004, 11:21 AM
http://leaa.org/index.html

Waiting for GWB's John Hancock.



retired:
As far as an improvement, who knows. There may not be a single person that ever benefits from this. But what is the cost to anyone, nothing.

If anything, it may provide peace of mind to some officers (active and retired), and who knows, it may stop a crime sometime down the road.

retired
07-10-2004, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by IPDBrad
http://leaa.org/index.html

Waiting for GWB's John Hancock.



retired:
As far as an improvement, who knows.

I merely asked the question when he said it will be an improvement to our lives. I was just curious what he meant.:)

Bodie
07-10-2004, 12:47 PM
DAN'LL this is federal law and G W will sign it. New York nor any other state or local law can override it.
Take comfort in knowing that we finally got something almost for nothing.:rolleyes:

DAN'LL
07-11-2004, 03:49 PM
Bodie

Something just keeps telling me that this cannot happen. Until this point only Federal Marshalls, ATF, FBI and similar federal agents can carry anywhere in the country.

Local jurisdictions and state governing bodies have (as does the District of Columbia: Washington DC) had and have awesome powers according to the wishes of it's citizens.

I will believe it when I see it.

It does appear to be happening, Bodie. But if it does.....then we will just start the "loophole process"!

You know those loopholes?

I am a bit of a cynic on this one.

I live in Massachusetts. And it goes with the territory

Dan

tan/grn
07-11-2004, 11:14 PM
Yxboom, so when I take my retired self and family and decide to travel by vehicle somewhere in these United States I don't need to take my weapon that I might need to protect me and mine?

Well, I will disagree with you on that one. I don't want the ability to carry so I can play cop around the country; I am retired! I want that ability for the protection of mine if the need arises. I'll make a phone call if possible if I see a crime in progress; I'll not endanger my family. If another on duty officer needs help and I'm able to get my family out of danger, I'll jump into physically help.

Even while active, I carried when I drove across the desert to Vegas, just in case. I glad 218 passed and I will do what is necessary to be able to qualify to carry across the country.

Frank Booth
07-12-2004, 12:13 AM
Congress says Off-duty/retired cops can carry concealed weapons Anywhere

Even in bars, schools, etc??

Valor55
07-12-2004, 09:29 AM
Originally posted by retdetsgt
They've changed it then. I admit it was several years ago and it was before TSA, but they tagged my suitcase on the outside and I had to separate guns and ammo. Glad its' changed.

The problem I have with flying now is that you have to leave your luggage unlocked. All I need is a convicted felon on the luggage ramp pulling out my gun case... I used to fly my guns in my luggage all the time but not since I have to leave the suitcase open for TSA inspection. (If it's locked they cut the lock and inspect so your weapon while in a locked case in the luggage is still susceptible to a thief rifling through luggage looking for goodies.)

The original reasons for preventing cops from flying armed off duty was that when we landed we would be carrying illegally. If you were on-duty most states had exceptions if you were actually working (i.e. extraditions) to allow you to be armed and that's why the airline allows it.

Once we can legally carry when we land the next step is to get the TSA to allow us to come on-board with them. This would effectively increase the number of armed cops on planes without hiring more air marshalls. You would follow the same procedures in place now for flying armed when you are working as when you are armed off duty.

Sleuth
07-12-2004, 02:13 PM
L-1, I guess you did not know that currently, any retired Peace Officer in the State of Califonia CAN carry concealed? It's right there in the law - I'll try to find the reference for you.

str8flush
07-12-2004, 03:45 PM
So if an officer is involved in a shooting out of his jurisdiction and the shooting is determined to be a bad shoot or just goes to trial, is that officer's originating department going to support him in his trial out of state? I see the obvious benefits to this bill. However, I have been know to be the devil's advocate on many issues. I just fear that ROOKIE officers especially with the ability now to carry where ever they go getting that cowboy mentality with this new law. Is that a valid concern? Should there be some type of requirement as to how long an officer must be an officer before he can carry off duty?

I don't see an issue with officers carrying. But I don't see the need to have retired officers carrying. They don't have arresting powers any longer but you're going to allow them to carry in ALL 50 states for the mere fact that they USED to be officers??

Sleuth
07-12-2004, 04:06 PM
str8flush, there are two sides to the issue. I don't expect my agency to do squat to help me if I get in a shooting. I expect to be on my own. I will not intervene in anything less than a life-or-death situation. There are officers out there now who should not be allowed within 20 feet of a loaded gun!

On the other hand, many of the bombing incidents in Israel have been stopped by armed civilians; who looks less like a cop?; most of us have decades of experience at making decisions under stress; we are there, on scene, with something more effective than a cell phone.

And on a personal note, I put over 1,000 people into the Federal prison system, many of whom did not like it. Not all of them live in my state. Should they get a free 'shot' at me because I crossed some imaginary line on a map?

str8flush
07-12-2004, 04:14 PM
I don't look down upon the law because of the fact that officers want to be prepared. That in itself is more than understandable. My issue are those officers that have the newbie rush of saving the world and going out there getting their noses into things that more veteran officers would be smart enough to avoid. Although it may be a less likely scenario, its still an issue to be of concern.
I have a lot of respect for the job as I have family members currently on the job. I am always concerned for their safety. This I know would help out. I do however fear my family member trying to help out in and out of state issue and drawing his weapon and that officer not listening to him identifying himself as an officer. There are so many variables to worry about. I just think it COULD create some friendly fire situations or bad shoots by over zealous rookies.
For the veterans, more power to you! If you're still on the job, you have much experience that could protect many lives and I am all for it. I would love to see some part of the bill where an officer has to be an officer for a certain amount of time with no record of any excess use of force...

Valor55
07-12-2004, 04:15 PM
What if it's the fifth Tuesday of the month during a Blue Moon and there's a bank robbery in progress across the street from a gas station and a van full of Nuns is in the parking lot? Do you shoot?

If there's a cop out there dumb enough not to anticipate the civil and criminal ramifications of using their gun out of their jurisdiction they shouldn't be cops. I doubt there are but a few cops dumb enough to use their guns out of state in a lame situation that doesn't require it. When they do they'll lose their jobs anyway and won't be carrying nationwide anymore.

This law is only going to protect us from criminal prosecution for possession of the concealed weapon. If you are not reasonably justified in displaying or using your gun you will face the criminal and civil ramifications of it. If you are justified in shooting someone you won't be facing an illegal possession charge. If you aren't justified you won't be facing the possession but you will face the homicide. As we know we are subject to civil prosecution regardless of how justified we are whether we're at home or not. That won't change if you're out of state.

My police association provides us lawyers if we shoot someone, maybe now the LEAA would like to offer similar benefits to members who are travelling out of state?

Sleuth
07-12-2004, 04:24 PM
Str8flush, now that you have clarified your position, let me clarify mine. I am a retired Federal Agent. Thus, I never wore a uniform or drove a marked car. City, county, and state boundries ment nothing to me, and I always understood that none of the local/county/state officers would know who I was. We trained for that exact situation, so this is nothing new to me.

For officers coming out of the academy, they are so stuffed full of liability issues, many refuse to carry off duty, and many more state they will only carry to defend their families.

The track record of civilian CCW holders is a solid basis for saying that your fears are not groundless, but overblown. Few civilians, even in states like Vermont where no permit is needed, have gotten involved in stopping crimes where lives are not at risk.

I see far more benifits than risks in this new law.

str8flush
07-12-2004, 04:28 PM
My concerns may well be overblown. Fair enough. Thanks for your opinions!

Yxboom
07-12-2004, 06:02 PM
quote:
Posted by tan/grn
Yxboom, so when I take my retired self and family and decide to travel by vehicle somewhere in these United States I don't need to take my weapon that I might need to protect me and mine?

Well, I will disagree with you on that one. I don't want the ability to carry so I can play cop around the country; I am retired! I want that ability for the protection of mine if the need arises. I'll make a phone call if possible if I see a crime in progress; I'll not endanger my family. If another on duty officer needs help and I'm able to get my family out of danger, I'll jump into physically help.

Even while active, I carried when I drove across the desert to Vegas, just in case. I glad 218 passed and I will do what is necessary to be able to qualify to carry across the country. I too am glad that HR218 passed. It's about time!!! :)

However, I simply see no need for retired non-sworn citizens to carry guns nationwide because they are no longer sworn officers. If we're going to allow non-sworn retired folks to carry guns nationwide, then we might as well allow non-sworn citizens with CCWs to carry nationwide.

IMO, only active-duty sworn officers should be allowed to carry guns nationwide.

What do you think? :confused:

Sleuth
07-12-2004, 06:39 PM
I think you are on the right track, from the wrong direction. WHY NOT have nationwide concealed carry for everyone?

BTW, Just because I retired does not mean some of those folks who I put in Club Fed will not try to get even.

str8flush
07-12-2004, 08:26 PM
I do empathize with your concerns for your safety. I am not sure where the law is coming from by making retirees qualify every year and when joe blow doesn't have to. Seems counter-productive?? Well good luck and stay safe!

Frank Booth
07-12-2004, 11:13 PM
If we're going to allow non-sworn retired folks to carry guns nationwide, then we might as well allow non-sworn citizens with CCWs to carry nationwide.

I'd feel more comfortable with a 65 year-old retired guy who's had a CCW permit for the last 20 or 30 years carrying a gun than I would with a lot of guys who are 6 months out of the police academy and their parents' house carrying one anywhere, let alone nation wide.

Deputy757
07-13-2004, 12:12 AM
I think Valor55 summed it up pretty well in his last post as far as the liability issue goes. And I think that a retired officer should have the right to carry until he/she gets to the point where they can't shoot straight. Like Frank said, a 65 year old retired cop who put in 25-30 years is much more capable of making an informed decision about whether to get involved in a situation than a 1 year rookie. Having said that, I wouldn't begrudge that rookie the privilege to carry since he/she is doing the exact same job that I am. If he/she screws up or succumbs to the Rambo mentality that str8flush alludes to, then they will be subject to the same consequences we all would be if we erred.
It could be what-if to death. Why should the overwhelming number of qualified, intelligent officers pay the price for what a few knuckleheads MIGHT do? Just deal with the knuckleheads when they screw up!

L-1
07-13-2004, 12:32 AM
Several of you have expressed strong concern that you do see the "need" for retired officers to still be able to carry. Please forgive me as it is not my intention to be rude here (but) your opinions on the matter don't really mean a lot at this point.

As a matter of public policy, the people of this country (in their wisdom or lack of it, depending on your point of view) have granted retired personnel the right to carry as a matter of law, through HR 218. Unless you intend to write the President and urge him to veto HR 218 because you disagree with the retired CCW provisions, don't you think that debating this area any further is a little pointless?

(Quickly retreating to avoid the flames that may follow)

str8flush
07-13-2004, 11:51 AM
The point of this discussion is to voice our opinions and not to change policy! I think as a member of this country myself and all those involved in this discussion have that RIGHT to express their opinions despite wether or not it will change this law! Wether or not you find it pointless is for you to decide. That's your opinion! Let the rest of the group make up THEIR minds as to wether or not THEY find it beneficial to continue the discussion. Its not required that you click on this topic if you find it pointless...

Sleuth
07-13-2004, 02:26 PM
I swore "to protect and defend the Constitution from all enimies, foreign and domestic". That means all of the Constitution, including the freedom of speech and the freedom to assemble, even in cyberspace. I see no personal slanders, no threats to overthrow the Government. If you dislike this topic - leave.

Rita
07-13-2004, 03:04 PM
Originally posted by Valor55
The problem I have with flying now is that you have to leave your luggage unlocked. All I need is a convicted felon on the luggage ramp pulling out my gun case... I used to fly my guns in my luggage all the time but not since I have to leave the suitcase open for TSA inspection. (If it's locked they cut the lock and inspect so your weapon while in a locked case in the luggage is still susceptible to a thief rifling through luggage looking for goodies.)

I've never had to leave my luggage unlocked. Since 9-11 the luggage is checked at the ticket counter or close by. I unlock it at the ticket counter etc. show them my weapon, ammo etc and then lock it back once it is searched. I have never had a problem with locks being cut or anything. As someone else said, the tag goes on the case that the gun is in and that case is locked. I usually carry the locked gun case inside of a locked suitcase. They used to put the tags on the outside but I think that a lot of weapons "went missing" so they changed that.

retired
07-13-2004, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by Sleuth
I swore "to protect and defend the Constitution from all enimies, foreign and domestic". That means all of the Constitution, including the freedom of speech and the freedom to assemble, even in cyberspace. I see no personal slanders, no threats to overthrow the Government. If you dislike this topic - leave.

I'm not taking any sides here, but the 1st amendment of freedom of speech doesn't apply here. This is a private forum.

Frank Booth
07-13-2004, 03:34 PM
Like Frank said, a 65 year old retired cop who put in 25-30 years is much more capable of making an informed decision about whether to get involved in a situation than a 1 year rookie.

What I meant was that I had more faith in a lot of 65 year-old retired guys from ANY occupation than a lot of new cops. I think citizens should be allowed to carry in any state if they have a good CCW permit. I DO think that active or retired cops should be allowed to carry in areas like bars, school zones, etc. too.

Valor55
07-13-2004, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by Rita
I've never had to leave my luggage unlocked. Since 9-11 the luggage is checked at the ticket counter or close by. I unlock it at the ticket counter etc. show them my weapon, ammo etc and then lock it back once it is searched. I have never had a problem with locks being cut or anything. As someone else said, the tag goes on the case that the gun is in and that case is locked. I usually carry the locked gun case inside of a locked suitcase. They used to put the tags on the outside but I think that a lot of weapons "went missing" so they changed that.

TSA (http://www.tsa.gov/public/display?theme=183&content=09000519800aece5)



Locking Your Checked Baggage

In some cases screeners will have to open your baggage as part of the screening process. If your bag is unlocked then TSA will simply open and screen the baggage. However, if you decide to lock your checked baggage and TSA cannot open your checked baggage through other means, then the locks may have to be broken. TSA is not liable for damage caused to locked bags that must be opened for security purposes.

You can buy a special lock that TSA is able to open and re-lock when they are done searching your bags. If I wanted to take my weapon with me again on a plane trip I'd do that. It seems like too much of a hassle now though unless I was really motivated... Once we are able to carry concealed nationwide (when Pres. Bush signs H.R. 218) we can start working on letting us carry on-board.

L-1
07-13-2004, 03:55 PM
Str8flush & Sleuth,

Of course, you are both right and perhaps I should have stated my position a little better.

Granting CCW rights to honorably retired peace officers who served their communities for many years hurts no one. Many states (mine included) have given retired cops this right for years.

By virtue of the fact that this legislation has passed both houses, it reflects the collective will of the people. When in spite of this, individual officers speak in opposition to such legislation, it can be interpreted by retirees as a slap in the face from their peers and can needlessly create divisions within the law enforcement community. It also helps reinforce the belief that once you retire, you are no longer a part of the police family and like all the other retirees, are simply being cast off as a reward for your years of service. Granted it's your right to speak your mind. But as cops, how many times have you held your tongue because you knew that expressing your opinion in a particular matter would do more harm than good?

This can be particularly difficult when other officers make comments like I don't "think" retirees "need" this right. Think back to the last time you handled a police matter, totally with policy and totally within the rules. Then you find that some uninvolved party who has no standing in the matter and who was not effected by the outcome, has made a complaint against you to the Department, not because you did anything wrong, but because "in their opinion," you just didn't "need" to do it the way that you did. In the long run, such complaints are meaningless. However, think about how it made you feel when someone with no standing tried to influence your working conditions, your life or your legal rights, just because they want to impose their personal philosophy on you. It's the same thing here. While the slight is minor, it can be very hurtful when it comes from one of our own.

Granted there are folks out there who say it's not fair that the cops get CCW rights while others don't. In response, all I can do is remind them that when dealing with controversial legislation (which this is) progress is made one step at a time, in small increments, and not in giant leaps. To oppose this legislation because it does not include everyone eliminates the first step that could lead to granting this right to others down the line (remember the old line about needing to get your foot in the door first). If other groups truly want this right then they need to do the same things the police did - work hard and lobby the legislature for 12 years. But, to cry foul just because they can't ride on police coat tails would appear to benefit the anti-gun lobby more than a firearm rights agenda.

OK, stepping off of soapbox.

str8flush
07-13-2004, 04:20 PM
I do appreciate your position and your opinions. But you aren't often going to find 100% of any group agreeing on a topic. That's just the reality of individuals and their views of the world we live in. Its also what makes this country great and sometimes regretful.

I don't think this forum however should be seen in the same light as someone filing a complaint on you for your actions while performing your duties. We are all here mainly giving our opinions on legislation that yes may be controversial, but as well may be as step in the right direction. "Without struggle, there can be no progress" Great quote and very true! Nothing good ever came easily. Hopefully this bill will be a case we can look back on an appreciate.

I can see how as a retiree you could take offense to a current officer stating that retirees don't NEED this right! I can understand that. To avoid beating a dead horse, my opinion is that I think this should only apply to active officers with arresting powers. Now some of you may say that is bs or why, but that's my belief. EVERYONE has a right to protect themself ALREADY. But the reason i say this is that even if a retired officer sees something going down while he is about his business, he has no more of a right to engage a suspect with no arresting powers than a 23 yr old graduate from North Eastern's school of Criminal Justice! Thats my point. Yes he may have experience, but his powers are no longer in existance. So I can accept the position that he wants to protect himself from criminals that MAY track him down, but that is already a right he has to protect himself and his family from harm by use of deadly force. I highly doubt an officer filing charges on a retired officer for fatally shooting a suspect that was threatening his life or the life of his family simply because he didn't have his CCW permit. But maybe I am wrong there. I know I wouldn't!

You will always have an opposition to any position. Another fact that makes this country great. However, ridiculing those for their opinions because you view it as pointless I don't view as productive. You may think some of us are crazy for our opinions, but not everyone has the same experience, the same intelligence level or lives in the same types of areas where this type of bill could mean the difference in saving a life one day!

Deputy757
07-13-2004, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by str8flush
To avoid beating a dead horse, my opinion is that I think this should only apply to active officers with arresting powers. Now some of you may say that is bs or why, but that's my belief. EVERYONE has a right to protect themself ALREADY. But the reason i say this is that even if a retired officer sees something going down while he is about his business, he has no more of a right to engage a suspect with no arresting powers than a 23 yr old graduate from North Eastern's school of Criminal Justice! Thats my point. Yes he may have experience, but his powers are no longer in existance.
But the point you are missing is that if you, an active LEO in let's say Florida, are vacationing in Nevada, you have no more right to engage a suspect than the retired officer does. You have no police powers in Nevada, only the right to carry concealed, which is EXACTLY what the retired officer would have. So the only time your scenario would apply is if you are in the same state (or jurisdiction) that you are certified in. That's the only time you would have more power than the retired officer has.

DAN'LL
07-13-2004, 05:29 PM
757

You summed it all up pretty damn well.

I'll say this: never mind "active" or "retired", or carrying in another state other then your own home state: what about this?

I am an active on duty LEO who must travel to my post, and must drive through four jurisdictions, other than my own in order to get there! In my own state!

I go there in full uniform (dressed to the nines) and carrying my duty weapon.

Do you think for a minute that I want to get involved in an incident on my way to work, just inches from my own jurisdiction?

That is a minefield (can of worms) that every cop already knows about.

And this topic is about getting involved with a gun....in another state?

Anyway! I repeat!

This is not a done deal, yet!

Dan

retired
07-13-2004, 05:55 PM
Originally posted by str8flush


I can see how as a retiree you could take offense to a current officer stating that retirees don't NEED this right! I can understand that. To avoid beating a dead horse, my opinion is that I think this should only apply to active officers with arresting powers.

Active officers in other states don't have any more arrest powers than a retired officer, or an ordinary citizen for that matter. Where in the bill does it mandate that the states grant arrest powers to out of state officers along with the CCW reciprocity?

L-1
07-13-2004, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by str8flush
I can see how as a retiree you could take offense to....

Dude,

I'm not retired yet. Don't be in a hurry to push me out the door! (G)

retired
07-13-2004, 06:52 PM
Originally posted by L-1
Dude,

I'm not retired yet. (G)

No, but you should be!:D :D ;)

Yxboom
07-13-2004, 09:56 PM
I am a ROAD officer. That means "retired on active duty." :D :D :D

Frank Booth
07-13-2004, 10:28 PM
To avoid beating a dead horse, my opinion is that I think this should only apply to active officers with arresting powers.

John Q. Public as much "arrest powers" as off-duty municipal police officers who are outside of their jurisdictions in this state. Unless things have changed, a cop from city A can only arrest for a felony while off-duty (or even on-duty, absent a couple exceptions) in city B. Just like a regular citizen.

Deputy757
07-13-2004, 11:03 PM
Originally posted by Frank Booth
John Q. Public as much "arrest powers" as off-duty municipal police officers who are outside of their jurisdictions in this state. Unless things have changed, a cop from city A can only arrest for a felony while off-duty (or even on-duty, absent a couple exceptions) in city B. Just like a regular citizen.
That's why I put "or jurisdiction" in parantheses. In some states, officers have state wide arrest authority. In others, like KY, you only have arrest authority in the county that you are sworn in (and depending on the size of the city you work in, you may not even have that).

tan/grn
07-14-2004, 03:57 AM
Yxboom, you KNOW what I think. And I am certainly glad you had nothing to say about HR218 passing, because obviously you would have fought to restrict it to active officers only. I have 27yrs experience, I have no intention as I said, in playing policeman; I want only to protect my family.

We will agree to disagree.

Rita
07-14-2004, 12:49 PM
tan/grn

I agree, I think that most officers take their weapon with them not so that they can arrest the bad guy but for protection purposes. I know that is the reason I take mine.

retired
07-14-2004, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by Rita
tan/grn

I agree, I think that most officers take their weapon with them not so that they can arrest the bad guy but for protection purposes. I know that is the reason I take mine.

But self-protection isn't the only reason Cunningham gives for the bill. He says you should continue to serve and protect even if you are off-duty or retired. Quite frankly, during my entire career I never once encountered, or was aware of a BG I had put in jail. However, it doesn't bother me that most LEO's want to carry a weapon around the U.S. Below is a quote from his website.

"H.R. 218 will give off-duty, as well as retired police officers the right to carry their firearms throughout the nation to help prevent crime in our communities and protect themselves from criminals who are never off-duty. Unfortunately, it is all too often that current and retired police officers come upon situations in which they can prevent violent crime and save lives. It only makes sense they should continue to have the tool of their trade available to serve and protect."

tan/grn
07-14-2004, 03:30 PM
Cunningham is crazy if he thinks I'm playing cop as I travel. If I was physically fit enough to to do that, I'd still be working with my dept. Even if I was still employed, I'd only act in the manner I already stated.

str8flush
07-14-2004, 04:21 PM
If Cunningham is so concerned about stopping violent crime, why not let private citizens go through enough training so they would be able to carry a firearm as well and make our streets that much safer??

I have nothing but respect for the law enforcement community. I think however from the numerous posts I have seen from retired officers that they are not in the physical shape or have attained injuries from their career that hamper their lives, that this bill should be applicable to only current officers. There is going to be incidents I am sure that retired officers try to help out and end up getting injured because of their limitations. I hope this doesn't happen. Obviously not all retired or current officers will partake in this opportunity, but I hope all of you who do STAY SAFE!

Deputy757
07-14-2004, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by str8flush
If Cunningham is so concerned about stopping violent crime, why not let private citizens go through enough training so they would be able to carry a firearm as well and make our streets that much safer??
Amen to that!

I think however from the numerous posts I have seen from retired officers that they are not in the physical shape or have attained injuries from their career that hamper their lives, that this bill should be applicable to only current officers. There is going to be incidents I am sure that retired officers try to help out and end up getting injured because of their limitations.
While I see the point you are trying to make, I have to say that there are many, many active officers that are in poor physical shape. Also, I'm not sure exactly where it happened (perhaps DC) but there was an incident recently where an active officer was being robbed at gunpoint, he tried to draw down on the suspect and was killed. I'm just pointing out that, IMHO, getting injured is going to have less to do with your service status as it will with getting in over your head in a situation.

str8flush
07-14-2004, 05:11 PM
Point well taken. I think my point is that with Retired officer obviously being older, injury tends to come much easier. Granted there will be examples on each side of the issue.

One other thing i was thinking about.. Can an officer be held liable for not acting if he had the opportunity to act and did not? Exsmple, let's say joe officer is on vacation in florida. His family is out at burger king getting lunch. Subject enters restaurant and brandishes a shotgun. The off duty officer is armed but decides it would be better to not attempt to intervene. As subject is fleeing he ends up shooting a employee. Could this be a case that the officer could be held responsible for NOT acting? Just curious...

Sleuth
07-14-2004, 05:27 PM
No

retired
07-14-2004, 05:55 PM
Originally posted by str8flush
Obviously not all retired or current officers will partake in this opportunity, but I hope all of you who do STAY SAFE!

I can assure you that I don't intend to take any police action while I am traveling in other states.

tan/grn
07-14-2004, 06:35 PM
What retired said. I can only speak for myself,I want the ability to protect my family and myself if the situation arises while traveling, not to act as a leo. Now I will have it legally. Because of my physical limitations, I know what I can and can't do and will act accordingly, but thanks for your concern.;)

Sleuth
07-16-2004, 12:42 PM
To expand on what others have said:
I have no intention of spending my hard earned retirement checks on lawyers (you think you will not get sued? HA!), travel, and hotel rooms going back to deal with the aftermath. If I can save someones' life, maybe. If I need to protect my family, YES!

But what if one retired/off duty officer just happens to be in the right place, at the right time, and nails the terrorist before he/she/it can light the fuze? Is the law worth it then? You Bet it is!

retdetsgt
07-16-2004, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by Sleuth
To expand on what others have said:
I have no intention of spending my hard earned retirement checks on lawyers (you think you will not get sued? HA!), travel, and hotel rooms going back to deal with the aftermath. If I can save someones' life, maybe. If I need to protect my family, YES!


Good point, my agency would back me in a lawsuit when I was working. Being retired, I'm completely on my own and frankly, I can't afford to give some dirtball my house.