Home Rule 218

[djack16]

Retired should be able to carry absolutely; taking into account the circumstances of their retirement of course.

[bigislander72]

Exactly my point - too many stories on this forum of cops gone waco and beating the **** out of citizens while off-duty, ramming other cars and pulling guns on the drivers, etc. I know these are isolated occurrences but it shows a very real need for there to be some verbage as to what kind of "retired" officer can legally carry anywhere they want...

Of course, a lot of those things described would get ones right to even own a firearm denied.

[Fuzz]

I wonder if you would be willing to entertain a couple questions on this:

- Is it hard in some states to get a CCW? Why would there have to be a specific HR218 to allow retired officers to carry any time any place when they could just as easily (most likely already have) applied for and obtained a CCW.

Depending on your state and your county a CCW can be next to impossible to obtain. Good luck trying to get one in some Southern California counties unless you know someone or can prove a significant reason to need one (jewelry store owner, etc).

- What does HR218 deem to be "retired"? Can it be any LEO that retired for any reason, or does it have to be on good standing?

If I remember the HR218 bill correctly a retired officer must have an identification card from the department they retired from stating they are CCW. If an officer is medically retired for psych reasons and some others they would not be provided ID for CCW.

[jbauch357]

It has to be in good standing.

If you had an officer who was forced to retire, would you want him to carry a gun if they are a nut job?

Exactly my point - too many stories on this forum of cops gone waco and beating the **** out of citizens while off-duty, ramming other cars and pulling guns on the drivers, etc. I know these are isolated occurrences but it shows a very real need for there to be some verbage as to what kind of "retired" officer can legally carry anywhere they want...

[Mr. CO]

- What does HR218 deem to be "retired"? Can it be any LEO that retired for any reason, or does it have to be on good standing?

It has to be in good standing.

If you had an officer who was forced to retire, would you want him to carry a gun if they are a nut job?

[jbauch357]

I wonder if you would be willing to entertain a couple questions on this:

- Is it hard in some states to get a CCW? Why would there have to be a specific HR218 to allow retired officers to carry any time any place when they could just as easily (most likely already have) applied for and obtained a CCW.

- Does HR218 allow for carry in places that a regular CCW doesn't allow?

Re-read the above post and it looks like HR218 allows for cross-state carry, and that is why it's preferred to a standard CCW. If that is correct it answers my above two questions...

- What does HR218 deem to be "retired"? Can it be any LEO that retired for any reason, or does it have to be on good standing?

[VA Dutch]

I very much favor the provisions of HR-218 that apply to law enforcement officers (both active and retired). This is a way of putting thousands more 'good guys' on the street and may reduce/impede criminal activity without spending more taxpayer money.


The bad guys don't bother with crossing state boundaries and don't turn into good guys when leaving one state and entering another. Likewise, the good guys don't turn into thugs when driving from Ohio into PA.



Now, to add another question: {Sorry if you take this as a hijacking of the thread.}


What about national reciprocity for private citizens who have obtained "concealed carry" permits? There is far too much of a patchwork and mishmash of rules, regulations and laws that vary from state to state. Some states reciprocate, but many do not - and those that reciprocate may not be adjacent to each other.

Remember that one of the original ideas of HR-218 was to include private citizens with carry permits (rather than just LEOs). I have heard many arguments both for and against, but wonder how the idea would fare on this forum.



P.S. HR signifies that it was "House of Representatives" Bill #218. Likewise, bills that come from the US Senate will have an "S" in front of the number.

[Kieth M.]

Yes, I'm in favor, as long as they're physically able to carry and especially hit their target.

And it's not Home Rule, is it...isn't it House Resolution 218? A law proposed in the House of Representatives (AKA: Congress).

[Fuzz]

In favor as long as they can still qualify at the range. Just because someone retires doesnt mean they wont run into the same people/situations. HR 218 was a great step forward for LEO's.

[Chris116]

Just reviewed HR 218 and think its great move for retired Officers. Just briefly is allows retired sworn personnel to carry concealed anytime and anyplace. I have just retirede after 37 years of service and plan to make the most of it. I alwys carried when off duty, although it was a personal option with my department.
My question is : Are you in favor or allowing retired Officers (State-Local and Federal) to carry concealed or not. Just a yes or no will do and briefly why or why not. Thanks in advance for all and any responses.Active or retired "Be Safe"