Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

States and cities blocking HR 218

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

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

  • States and cities blocking HR 218

    I was at my local indoor range on Tuesday taking a handgun class and was told by the instructor that California and Chicago are arresting cops and retired cops from other areas found with concealed weapons.

    Can anyone confirm this?

    Isn't this a violation of the new Federal law?

    If this is true how can the cities and states doing this get away with violating Federal law?

  • #2
    I'm not a guru on Federal Law by any means. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

    My understanding is that 218, because it's Federal, over-rides any city ordaninces or state laws regarding carrying a hand gun (and everything else).

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by transitive
      Isn't this a violation of the new Federal law?
      If this is true how can the cities and states doing this get away with violating Federal law?
      Yes, and they can't. Current and retired LEO's can carry concealed in all 50 states...


      HR 218
      "Think like a man of action, act like a man of thought" ~Henri Louis Bergson
      ______________________


      ComptonPOLICEGANGS.com

      Comment


      • #4
        Can you ask your instructor to be more specific like what city and county? California is a huge state.

        By the way, I work in CA and no cop has been arrested for HR218 in my city.

        Comment


        • #5
          Only way I can see it is if the guy isn't carrying the proper ID or retired ID showing he's in compliance in his home state. My Dept. is currently qualifying our retired members if they desire to carry out of state. They can carry in state without the qualifications, but to carry under HR218 nationwide, they have to pass and then they carry a slightly different retired ID.

          I am sure there are some few horror stories out there, HR218 has some conditions that have to be met.

          "That's right man, we've got mills here that'll blow that heap of your's right off the road."

          "Beautiful Daughter of the Stars."(it's my home now)

          >>>>> A Time for Choosing <<<<<

          Retired @ 31yr 2mo as of 0000 hrs. 01-01-10. Yeah, all in all, it was good.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Traffic_82
            I'm not a guru on Federal Law by any means. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

            My understanding is that 218, because it's Federal, over-rides any city ordaninces or state laws regarding carrying a hand gun (and everything else).

            You are correct however in the great people's republic of CA, the State has a habit of telling the federal government to stick it. (IE medical marijuana)

            I will never arrest an active, good standing, sober, off duty officer for carrying off duty no matter what the state says. And if I am ordered to do so, I will tell my field supervisor to make the arrest because I can not justify it because it isn't against the law. Shortly after that I would contact my Union rep and hope I pressed record on dutybelt.

            Tripe, plain and simple.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Traffic_82
              I'm not a guru on Federal Law by any means. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

              My understanding is that 218, because it's Federal, over-rides any city ordaninces or state laws regarding carrying a hand gun (and everything else).
              I disagree. A state can enact a law that is more strict than federal law, but not less strict. So, technically, a state could enact a CCW law that prohibits law enforcement from carrying concealed and the law would still be legal. The state cannot, however, enact a law that is less strict than the federal law and expect that law to override federal law.

              Since the passage of HR 218, I've been of the opinion that it might end up going to the USSC as a states rights issue. After all, the law technically says that a LEO can transport a concealed firearm across state lines (a power given to the federal government), but creates a gigantic gray area about whether or not the states have the right to prohibit CCW within the boarders of the state. While I'm 100% in favor of national LE CCW, unfortunately I don't see the federal government winning this in the end.
              "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
              -Friedrich Nietzsche

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Bing_Oh
                I disagree. A state can enact a law that is more strict than federal law, but not less strict. So, technically, a state could enact a CCW law that prohibits law enforcement from carrying concealed and the law would still be legal. The state cannot, however, enact a law that is less strict than the federal law and expect that law to override federal law.

                Since the passage of HR 218, I've been of the opinion that it might end up going to the USSC as a states rights issue. After all, the law technically says that a LEO can transport a concealed firearm across state lines (a power given to the federal government), but creates a gigantic gray area about whether or not the states have the right to prohibit CCW within the boarders of the state. While I'm 100% in favor of national LE CCW, unfortunately I don't see the federal government winning this in the end.
                I'll answer this in the form of a jeopardy game...
                What does preemption mean?

                If I'm not mistaken, the language of HR218 has "implied preemption".
                Usually, when it is impossible to comply with both state and federal law, federal statutes are followed.

                Now I guess this brings us to the next argument, is this a state right?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by nitromt
                  Now I guess this brings us to the next argument, is this a state right?
                  Unfortunately, the proper question should be, "Is this a right specifically given to the federal government by the US Constitution?" Remember, under the 10th Amendment, it's assumed that it's a state right unless it's specifically stated otherwise in the Constitution. That leaves the burden of proof on the federal government...a burden of proof that (unfortunately) I don't think the feds can meet.

                  It sucks, to be sure, but this is a battle that many of us have been expecting since the passage of 218. It would be very unfortunate that a useful federal law...something that's awfully rare anymore...might be sunk by a couple of anti-gun liberal states.
                  "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
                  -Friedrich Nietzsche

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I believe the source of information concerning HR 218 erred and probably was refering to the following article:

                    http://www.fleoa.org/Legislative/Leg...ealedCarry.htm

                    The article was prepared by the FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ASSOCIATION and addressed Concealed Carry Legislation nationwide. Item 29 of that article states:

                    29. California is generally very restrictive in issuing gun licenses to civilians but automatically issues a concealed carry firearms license to every honorably retired state and local peace officer.

                    So, it would appear that all of the negative discussion concerning "The Peoples Republic of Kalifornia" is unnecessary and mute. Carry in CA if you comply with HR 218; and, for the most part, if you are sober and are properly carrying ANY law enforcement identification wherein your department permits CCW. Enjoy the Golden State and quit worrying. Just leave it in your trunk when you go to most of the Stadiums and Amusement Parks - they are very restrictive.
                    Be courteous to all, but intimate with few, and let those few be well tried before you give them your confidence!

                    [George Washington (1732 - 1799)]

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by nitromt
                      Now I guess this brings us to the next argument, is this a state right?

                      The Federal government has not worried about State rights since 1865. Congress was trying to regulate baseball for Christ sakes.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I really don't think they want to open that can of worms up because then the full faith and credit(article 4, section 1) section of the Constitution would have to be brought up. It would be nice to see most of these silly federal laws brought and examined Constitutionally.

                        "Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."

                        Originally posted by Bing_Oh
                        Unfortunately, the proper question should be, "Is this a right specifically given to the federal government by the US Constitution?" Remember, under the 10th Amendment, it's assumed that it's a state right unless it's specifically stated otherwise in the Constitution. That leaves the burden of proof on the federal government...a burden of proof that (unfortunately) I don't think the feds can meet.

                        It sucks, to be sure, but this is a battle that many of us have been expecting since the passage of 218. It would be very unfortunate that a useful federal law...something that's awfully rare anymore...might be sunk by a couple of anti-gun liberal states.
                        "Respect for religion must be reestablished. Public debt should be reduced. The arrogance of public officials must be curtailed. Assistance to foreign lands must be stopped or we shall bankrupt ourselves. The people should be forced to work and not depend on government for subsistence." - Cicero, 60 B.C.

                        For California police academy notes go to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CABasicPolice/

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by pkagel
                          I really don't think they want to open that can of worms up because then the full faith and credit(article 4, section 1) section of the Constitution would have to be brought up. It would be nice to see most of these silly federal laws brought and examined Constitutionally.

                          "Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."

                          I was thinking of this issue before I even read through this thread. In Virginia, a civilian concealed-carry permit is indeed a "judicial proceeding" because permits are issued through the circuit court. Would this mean that every other state would have to honor a VA carry permit (as they would a marriage license or driver's license from any other state)?

                          Using a strict constructionist or originalist interpretation of the US Constitution, it would seem so.......but you know how so many politicians - both elected and appointed - hold our founding documents and traditions in contempt nowadays. I am not going to hold my breath!

                          The comments above reflect my personal opinion as a private citizen, ordinary motorist and all-around good guy.

                          The aforementioned advice should not be construed to represent any type of professional opinion, legal counsel or other type of instruction with regard to traffic laws, judicial proceedings or official agency policy.

                          ------------------------------------------------

                          "Ignorance on fire is hotter than knowledge on ice."

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by pkagel
                            It would be nice to see most of these silly federal laws brought and examined Constitutionally.

                            If so, you could argue that more than half of all federal legislation is indeed "unconstitutional" -- and really upset someone's apple cart.

                            The rub, however, is that we are dealing with a lot of politicians (in both parties) who view the US Constitution as an "obstacle" to their agenda, rather than a limitation upon their power(s).


                            Nice thought, though!!

                            The comments above reflect my personal opinion as a private citizen, ordinary motorist and all-around good guy.

                            The aforementioned advice should not be construed to represent any type of professional opinion, legal counsel or other type of instruction with regard to traffic laws, judicial proceedings or official agency policy.

                            ------------------------------------------------

                            "Ignorance on fire is hotter than knowledge on ice."

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Well, yes, that's exactly what I'm arguing. The constitution is such an amazing document. It's too bad those we elect aren't required to read and understand it.

                              Originally posted by VA Dutch

                              If so, you could argue that more than half of all federal legislation is indeed "unconstitutional" -- and really upset someone's apple cart.

                              The rub, however, is that we are dealing with a lot of politicians (in both parties) who view the US Constitution as an "obstacle" to their agenda, rather than a limitation upon their power(s).


                              Nice thought, though!!
                              "Respect for religion must be reestablished. Public debt should be reduced. The arrogance of public officials must be curtailed. Assistance to foreign lands must be stopped or we shall bankrupt ourselves. The people should be forced to work and not depend on government for subsistence." - Cicero, 60 B.C.

                              For California police academy notes go to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CABasicPolice/

                              Comment

                              MR300x250 Tablet

                              Collapse

                              What's Going On

                              Collapse

                              There are currently 2807 users online. 156 members and 2651 guests.

                              Most users ever online was 26,947 at 07:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

                              Welcome Ad

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X