Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Finally...

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Finally...

    ...HR 218 is explained in simple, easy-to-understand language.

    From this month's issue of Police magazine:

    Active-Duty Officers
    Officers who are currently employed by a governmental agency must meet seven requirements to come within the allowance of 926B to carry concealed weapons in any state:
    1. You must have statuatory arrest powers and be 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.
    2. Your employing agency must have authorized you to carry a firearm.
    3. You must not be subject to any disciplinary action.
    4. You must meet departmental standards of firearms qualifications.
    5. You must not be under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
    6. You must not be prohibited by federal law from receiving a firearm.
    7. You must carry a photo ID issued by your department

    One other interesting note from the article. According to the law, "it does not apply to weapons that have not 'been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.' So you might have difficulty carrying a concealed weapon that was manufactured in your own state."
    "For example, if you are a Massachusetts officer carrying a Smith & Wesson, or a Connecticut officer with a Colt, or a Georgia officer carrying a Glock, you may want to acquire a different off-duty weapon to carry outside your local jurisdiction"

    The article also goes into the eight requirements for carrying as a retired officer. I just don't have the time to type that out as well.
    Caution and worry never accomplished anything.

  • #2
    Re: Finally...

    Originally posted by kirch

    One other interesting note from the article. According to the law, "it does not apply to weapons that have not 'been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.' So you might have difficulty carrying a concealed weapon that was manufactured in your own state."
    "For example, if you are a Massachusetts officer carrying a Smith & Wesson, or a Connecticut officer with a Colt, or a Georgia officer carrying a Glock, you may want to acquire a different off-duty weapon to carry outside your local jurisdiction"
    Uhh what is the point of that?
    All Gave Some - Some Gave All

    {"data-align":"none","data-size":"custom","data-tempid":"temp_14312_1475388990098_890","height":"65","title":"flower.gif","width":"72"}

    Comment


    • #3
      "For example, if you are a Massachusetts officer carrying a Smith & Wesson, or a Connecticut officer with a Colt, or a Georgia officer carrying a Glock, you may want to acquire a different off-duty weapon to carry outside your local jurisdiction"

      who cares, like I would do anything to a Connecticut officer that is carrying a Colt off duty in Ohio. i can see it now..."sorry Mr. Smith, you are a Hartford officer. didn't you know you couldn't carry your colt here in Columbus....you're under arrest..."

      YEA RIGHT.....FAT CHANCE!!

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Frank the Tank
        who cares, like I would do anything to a Connecticut officer that is carrying a Colt off duty in Ohio. i can see it now..."sorry Mr. Smith, you are a Hartford officer. didn't you know you couldn't carry your colt here in Columbus....you're under arrest..."

        YEA RIGHT.....FAT CHANCE!!
        Roger that.

        Not to mention, I didn't need HR 218 to keep me from jacking around with a copper carrying out of state.
        Do your best, do what is right

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Re: Finally...

          Originally posted by Resq14
          Uhh what is the point of that?
          From the same article:

          "Because Congress had to find some law-making authority in the Constitution to supplant local laws relating to firearms possession, it looked to the Commerce Clause (Article I, section 8), which gives the federal government the power to regulate foreign and interstate commerce."

          The article goes on to call this a "significant restriction." I don't know how significant it is, since I can't imagine a cop in the US that would take another officer to task for failing to meet this requirement. The only time I could see it coming up would be if an officer were to get involved in a shoot while carrying off-duty out-of-state in an area that traditionally restricted officers from doing so. In that case the locals (more likely the DAs than the cops themslelves) might go after the cop for violating that restriction. But even that's a stretch.
          Caution and worry never accomplished anything.

          Comment


          • #6
            When carrying in your own state you aren't carrying under HR218 but under your state law permitting you to carry off duty...as soon as you leave your state you are carrying under HR218 and your gun has been "transported in interstate commerce".

            So it really doesn't matter.

            Comment


            • #7
              Let me ask a question: How many of you, prior to HR218, would have busted an off-duty cop from another State or jurisdiction for CCW?
              Extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice. Barry Goldwater

              Comment


              • #8
                The courts have held that an item made in one state, which "affects" interstate commerce, can be regulated under the commerce clause. So, the Mass. officer who buys (or is issued) a S&W has chosen it over a gun made in another state, thus reducing the interstate sales of the other gunmakers. Thus, he (or his agency) have "affected" interstate commerce.
                "A man who has nothing which he cares about more than he does about his personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the existing of better men than himself."
                John Stuart Mill

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by keith758
                  Let me ask a question: How many of you, prior to HR218, would have busted an off-duty cop from another State or jurisdiction for CCW?
                  Certainly not me...but Keith you and I both know that a lot of LEOs these days have odd attitudes toward the "brother/sisterhood" of LE.

                  Especially in WI...how many LEOs do you know that carry off duty? How many think it's a bad idea?

                  Being a recent academy grad I was SHOCKED to get ZERO training in off-duty carry and almost fell off of my chair when the academy director read an article about a rookie Milwaukee cop using his off-duty gun to cause some trouble...the director actually said "I don't know why any of you would even think about carrying a gun off duty".

                  So there is a bunch of impressionable academy cadets with that attitude burned into their brain.

                  And having a State Patrol that doesn't allow its officers to carry of duty doesn't help much either.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by x5150x
                    And having a State Patrol that doesn't allow its officers to carry of duty doesn't help much either.
                    That's something I'll never understand. These guys have the nicest training facilities in the state AND they go to the longest academy -- yet their brass doesn't trust them to carry off-duty?

                    Oddly enough, I was just talking about the SP tonight with a trooper. He told me they are just starting up a review of ALL of their policies and procedures. Off-duty carry is high on their wish list. After that, the ability to work PT for other LE agencies (that's right, if you're a trooper in WI, you are prevented by department policy from working for any other agency).
                    Caution and worry never accomplished anything.

                    Comment

                    MR300x250 Tablet

                    Collapse

                    What's Going On

                    Collapse

                    There are currently 3093 users online. 218 members and 2875 guests.

                    Most users ever online was 158,966 at 04:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

                    Welcome Ad

                    Collapse
                    Working...
                    X