Voice Recording

[joeroket]

UNLESS... he is out of his home state and not on official business. A cop in FL on vacation from NYC, even if he's carrying under LEOSA, has no more enforcement authority in FL than the guy dressed in the Donald Duck costume at WDW. Nor can he call for backup, or expect his union to take care of him if he does something stupid. Something they sometimes forget...

So you are saying that a SPD officer who happens to be at the everett event center watching a hockey game with his/her kids is on the clock? You could not be further from reality.

 

[FMCDH]

So you are saying that a SPD officer who happens to be at the everett event center watching a hockey game with his/her kids is on the clock? You could not be further from reality.

Off the clock, yes.

Looses his authority as an LEO in Washington, no.

Now, if he were watching a hockey game over in Idaho...he may be given "professional consideration" if he were to effect an arrest in a state where he isn't authorized, but technically he has no LEO authority beyond what special provisions the state is willing to give him while he is there.

 

[johnfenter]

I think we're talking past each other, joeroket...

And I think I see the disconnect. You are classifying "off the clock" as not on shift, not collecting pay. We are classifying "on the clock" to indicate that anytime/anyplace in his home state, the cop is a commissioned LEO who is empowered and authorized to respond to any indication of criminal activity, and may be "required" to do so while "off duty" by his departmental policy, just like he can be told to carry a duty firearm while off duty, regardless of whether or not his pay clock is running.

 

[joeroket]

And I think I see the disconnect. You are classifying "off the clock" as not on shift, not collecting pay. We are classifying "on the clock" to indicate that anytime/anyplace in his home state, the cop is a commissioned LEO who is empowered and authorized to respond to any indication of criminal activity, and may be "required" to do so while "off duty" by his departmental policy, just like he can be told to carry a duty firearm while off duty, regardless of whether or not his pay clock is running.

Yes there was a disconnect. I agree with your definition of on the clock.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Yet these officers get the privileged of keeping their weapons on them without needing a license even when not in home state.

 

[joeroket]

Yet these officers get the privileged of keeping their weapons on them without needing a license even when not in home state.

Their commission card is their license. Do they even still issue commission cards? I sure wish we could get a federal license so we could do the same.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Their commission card is their license. Do they even still issue commission cards? I sure wish we could get a federal license so we could do the same.

Does this apply to tribal police? A few years back I almost thought of joining that department.

My friend who is a cop in California, says the state makes him pay $300 dollars a year for a permit to carry. I told him I think they can't do that by federal law, unless his agency doesn't want him to carry. He said his agency is fine with it, the state isn't.

 

[joeroket]

Does this apply to tribal police? A few years back I almost thought of joining that department.

My friend who is a cop in California, says the state makes him pay $300 dollars a year for a permit to carry. I told him I think they can't do that by federal law, unless his agency doesn't want him to carry. He said his agency is fine with it, the state isn't.

It does apply to tribal police as long as they meet the minimum requirements to be a commissioned officer and they have been commissioned by the local Sheriff. Tulalip police are commissioned with the exception of I think 3 officers and they are working on training to get them within the requirements needed.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

It does apply to tribal police as long as they meet the minimum requirements to be a commissioned officer and they have been commissioned by the local Sheriff. Tulalip police are commissioned with the exception of I think 3 officers and they are working on training to get them within the requirements needed.

I'm pretty sure Lummi does the same. I know they work closely with the Whatcom Sheriff in several matters.

I just learned at the last Fireman pancake feed, from a tribal officer there, that they are not only commissioned for the Reservation, but pretty much go anywhere, tribal members have rights to engage in certain activities, hunting, fishing, etc. He gets to ride quads through the woods as part of his duties.

 

[amlevin]

Officers on "Active Duty" are allowed to carry in other states under HR-218

(d) The identification required by this subsection is the photographic identification issued by the governmental agency for which the individual is employed as a law enforcement officer.

Essemtially all they need is their department ID card. Retired are also afforded this privilege.

Both Retired and Active officers have to be able to show they have "qualified" within one year of the date they are carrying in that "foreign" state.

http://www.leaa.org/218/218text.html

 

[Trigger Dr]

H.R. 218: LEOSA Improvement Act
Lawler | Oct 06, 2010 | 0 comments
0diggs
digg12
ShareEmail0diggsdiggShare120Email
Senate Bill 1132, the Law Enforcement Officers’ Safety Act Improvements Act of 2010 (LEOSA 2010) passed the United States Senate by unanimous consent in Mid-May of this year. The legislation has strong bi-partisan support. Many of the changes in the legislation, if it becomes law, would improve certain provisions of the Law Enforcement Officers’ Safety Act (LEOSA) / HR 218, especially with respect to retired law enforcement officers.

The legislation would also make clear that law enforcement officers employed by the Amtrak and Federal Reserve Police Departments, and those employed by the Executive Branch of the federal government who are classified in OPM Series, GS-0083, would automatically meet the definition of “qualified law enforcement officer” under the current version of LEOSA. The legislation would also lower the aggregate years of service needed in order to meet the definition of “qualified retired law enforcement officer” from the current fifteen (15) years to ten (10) years and the legislation would also remove some confusing language related to this same definition. S.1132 having passed the Senate, is currently in the House of Representatives.

According to the Congressional Research Service, LEOSA 2010:
amends the federal criminal code to include a law enforcement officer of the Amtrak Police Department and the Federal Reserve or a law enforcement or police officer of the executive branch as a qualified law enforcement officer eligible to carry concealed firearms. Expands the definition of “firearm” to include ammunition not expressly prohibited by federal law or subject to the provisions of the National Firearms Act.

Revises the definition of “qualified retired law enforcement officer” to: (1) include officers separated (currently, retired) in good standing from service with a public agency as a law enforcement officer; and (2) reduce the years-of-service requirement for such officers from 15 to 10 years. Revises: (1) requirements for firearms certification for such separated officers to allow firearms training in accordance with the standards of the officer’s former agency, the state in which such officer resides, or if such state has not established training standards, standards established by a law enforcement agency within the state or those used by a certified firearms instructor; and (2) mental health requirements for such officers.

The bill has passed the House and will now make it’s way to the President.

It has been signed by prez

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Thanks Trigger Dr.

I read that act before now I know the whole name to reference to my buddy. Although I feel it's a crappy thing to elevate officers rights above citizens.

 

[amlevin]

Thanks Trigger Dr.

I read that act before now I know the whole name to reference to my buddy. Although I feel it's a crappy thing to elevate officers rights above citizens.

But you have to remember that only police officers are "qualified enough" to carry firearms. Just ask the DEA agent that now walks with a limp.

 

[joeroket]

But you have to remember that only police officers are "qualified enough" to carry firearms. Just ask the DEA agent that now walks with a limp.

HAHAHA.

We should try and get the USCSA (United States Citizen Safety Act) introduced. After all an officer on vacation across the country is not going to be known any more to the criminals than I am. I mean thats what the bill is all about right? Keeping LEO safe from the people he arrested during his career?

I want to be safe from the criminals I have testified against in court or have just witnessed commit a crime.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

But you have to remember that only police officers are "qualified enough" to carry firearms. Just ask the DEA agent that now walks with a limp.

Ha!!!

I'm the only one here qualified....

HAHAHA.

We should try and get the USCSA (United States Citizen Safety Act) introduced. After all an officer on vacation across the country is not going to be known any more to the criminals than I am. I mean thats what the bill is all about right? Keeping LEO safe from the people he arrested during his career?

I want to be safe from the criminals I have testified against in court or have just witnessed commit a crime.

Good point! Me likey!