Alo? Ha!

[Gray01]

Hawaii Says Cops From Out Of State Can't Carry Guns, Despite Federal Law...

https://defensemaven.io/bluelivesmatter/news/hawaii-says-cops-from-out-of-state-can-t-carry-guns-despite-federal-law-ah0-5IoSwUiKt7XeWyOuDw/?fbclid=IwAR1WxhyJeHuxiEBpETYWbx03FYLx9JEjn-I16y8ZXlb9CloeXzA64U5iXwA

[blues]

Clearly active and retired LEOs are the greatest threat to America.

Truly pathetic.

[TGS]

Clearly active and retired LEOs are the greatest threat to America.

Truly pathetic.

No, just mainlanders.


:(

[Rangers13]

Hawaii Says Cops From Out Of State Can't Carry Guns, Despite Federal Law...

https://defensemaven.io/bluelivesmatter/news/hawaii-says-cops-from-out-of-state-can-t-carry-guns-despite-federal-law-ah0-5IoSwUiKt7XeWyOuDw/?fbclid=IwAR1WxhyJeHuxiEBpETYWbx03FYLx9JEjn-I16y8ZXlb9CloeXzA64U5iXwA

Hawaii can say what they want but can’t enforce it. They will get sued. There are 3 cases already. N.C. MASS and I forgot the third but I believe it was N.C. as well. The cases were thrown out and got hit with hefty lawsuits and paid for it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Gray01]

It must take some twisting of the English language to obfuscate the text of the LEOSA whereby it says: “...Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof...”

[GuanoLoco]

I am honestly sympathetic.

Sarc/ It sucks to be treated as poorly as regular citizens. /Sarc

[jnc36rcpd]

It would seem that allowing off duty and retired LEO's to carry out of state without the expected rivers of blood anticipated by PERF and IACP might offer some credence to the thought that reciprocity for CCW permits would not cause similar bloodshed.

[KeeFus]

Hawaii can say what they want but can’t enforce it. They will get sued. There are 3 cases already. N.C. MASS and I forgot the third but I believe it was N.C. as well. The cases were thrown out and got hit with hefty lawsuits and paid for it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’m not aware of the NC case(s) you mention...and I live in NC. Link to the case(s)?

[Hambo]

Hawaii can say what they want but can’t enforce it. They will get sued. There are 3 cases already. N.C. MASS and I forgot the third but I believe it was N.C. as well. The cases were thrown out and got hit with hefty lawsuits and paid for it.

Yeah, but who wants to be the test case?


I am honestly sympathetic.

Sarc/ It sucks to be treated as poorly as regular citizens. /Sarc

I thought LEOSA was a bad idea from the beginning and I would much rather see national CCW reciprocity.

[Poconnor]

Book’em Dano

[blues]

No, just mainlanders.


:(

When I went to Hawaii with my wife in 1994, I traveled armed and flew between Oahu, Big Island, Kauai and Maui. No issues whatsoever.

At the airport to fly back to the mainland, some jackass working the fruit and vegetable inspection area was very concerned with why I had a boarding pass with a firearms authorization attached. I told him that I was a fed and showed my ID even though it was none of his business.

Not ten minutes later I see a couple of local PD walking around the boarding area near the gate. I just knew they were looking for me so I approached them and asked if they were looking for a man with a gun. They said they were, and I told them I was the man they were looking for. Showed them my ID, we had a good laugh and they told me the guy who made the report was a self-important twit with not enough to do but make trouble.

I couldn't understand, back then, why anyone would make a report like that when everything was kosher.

Sad that such a sentiment exists in that lovely locale. I enjoyed my few weeks there immensely.

[wsr]

Logical progression of elitist gun attitude...how long until off duty local cops are denied the right to carry?
They need to re-evaluate the side they are on

[olstyn]

I thought LEOSA was a bad idea from the beginning and I would much rather see national CCW reciprocity.

This. It's patently obvious that LEOs should be able to carry off-duty and/or in other states, but doing it by making it a special privilege just creates a divide between two groups who, in theory at least, should be on the same side.

[Rangers13]

It must take some twisting of the English language to obfuscate the text of the LEOSA whereby it says: “...Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof...”

It’s a federal law that supersedes any state law. HR218. It states that any active or retired LEO can carry in any state as long as the maintain there states qualification law. NJ we have to qualify twice year. It also has case law backing it as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LittleLebowski]

https://defensemaven.io/bluelivesmatter/news/hawaii-says-cops-from-out-of-state-can-t-carry-guns-despite-federal-law-ah0-5IoSwUiKt7XeWyOuDw/?fbclid=IwAR0xnaXuo2gNnFlotdQFbCSPFAPddF0esmzEP0XL CKG%C2%ADwFj_JGcz1FSr6bp8



According to Hawaii's Department of the Attorney General, if police officers from out of state are not on duty, then they are not actually considered to be police officers and LEOSA doesn't apply to them.

"If you are not on official duty with your governmental law enforcement agency and you are carrying a concealed firearm pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 926B, you are not considered a 'law enforcement officer' in the State of Hawaii. The Hawaii Revised Statutes will be applied to you as if you were a 'civilian' with no law enforcement powers," the state Attorney General memo says.

[Gray01]

Even though they want LEOSA to be their own personal wax nose, it was also written carefully enough to define its own terms:

"As used in this section, the term `qualified law enforcement officer' means..."

and

"As used in this section, the term `qualified retired law enforcement officer' means..."


But I am from an age when one had the privilege of going to school (in a time and place) whereby the ability to carefully diagram sentences was a skill both required and mastered in fourth grade (as well as other arcane subjects such as geography and history). The past is another country.

[Jason M]

Hawaii can say what they want but can’t enforce it. They will get sued. There are 3 cases already. N.C. MASS and I forgot the third but I believe it was N.C. as well. The cases were thrown out and got hit with hefty lawsuits and paid for it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am sill looking for these cases. Can you provide names of parties or docket numbers?

[AMC]

Hawaii certainly can 'enforce' it. They don't care if they're sued, and the don't care that they will likely lose. After all, it's not their money....it's the taxpayers' money! None of the politicians who vote for obviously problematic laws are ever responsible for the negative outcomes, even by the voters who got screwed by their nonsense. They could bankrupt the state, and they'll still win re-election. The goal here is to make it so unpleasant for any out of state LEOs that they just comply, rather than risk a career ending incident and financial ruin. That way, regardless of what any court says, they win.

What's truly disturbing is the increase in tension between some states and the Federal government in regards to laws. Yes, there's always been tension inherent in federalism, but it's being taken to another level because of radically incompatible worldviews. Not a good trend.

[Hambo]

Hawaii certainly can 'enforce' it. They don't care if they're sued, and the don't care that they will likely lose. After all, it's not their money....it's the taxpayers' money! None of the politicians who vote for obviously problematic laws are ever responsible for the negative outcomes, even by the voters who got screwed by their nonsense. They could bankrupt the state, and they'll still win re-election. The goal here is to make it so unpleasant for any out of state LEOs that they just comply, rather than risk a career ending incident and financial ruin. That way, regardless of what any court says, they win.

Given the number of cops that don't carry off duty in their own locale, this won't be a big problem for Hawaii.

[Gray01]

Hawaii certainly can 'enforce' it. They don't care if they're sued, and the don't care that they will likely lose. After all, it's not their money....it's the taxpayers' money! None of the politicians who vote for obviously problematic laws are ever responsible for the negative outcomes, even by the voters who got screwed by their nonsense. They could bankrupt the state, and they'll still win re-election. The goal here is to make it so unpleasant for any out of state LEOs that they just comply, rather than risk a career ending incident and financial ruin. That way, regardless of what any court says, they win.

It makes one ponder if whether James Madison foresaw that when he wrote "without due process of law", that it would mutate into the process being the penalty.

[Jim Watson]

Great phrase, the process becomes the penalty. What I call the chilling effect.
We need a loser pays plan.

[HCM]

Even though they want LEOSA to be their own personal wax nose, it was also written carefully enough to define its own terms:

"As used in this section, the term `qualified law enforcement officer' means..."

and

"As used in this section, the term `qualified retired law enforcement officer' means..."


But I am from an age when one had the privilege of going to school (in a time and place) whereby the ability to carefully diagram sentences was a skill both required and mastered in fourth grade (as well as other arcane subjects such as geography and history). The past is another country.

Exactly. A “qualified LEO” under LEOSA is what ever the federal LEKSA statute says it is. It doesn’t matter what anyone in state government thinks.

There is case law involving NY state and coastguard members had charges dismissed because they were qualified LEO under LEOSA even though state law said otherwise. In NJ there have been cases involving PA corrections officers and PA constables in which charges were upheld because the PA officers did not meet the definition of Qualified LEO as found in LEOSA.

This is a combination of HI politics liberal streak, Anti gun streak, HI’s general predjudice against mainlanders with a little racism thrown in for good measure.

[Rangers13]

I am sill looking for these cases. Can you provide names of parties or docket numbers?

I am waiting for my buddy to send it to me. I use to have it but can’t find it. I will post it as soon as I get it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[idahojess]

There was the 2008 Sturgis case, in which a Seattle PD officer was charged with assault and unlawful possession. The assault charges were dismissed by the prosecution, but the unlawful possession charges were eventually ordered to be dismissed by the court. I don't think there was any sort of a civil suit brought by the officer against South Dakota, just that the criminal charges were dismissed after probably quite a bit of work by the defense attorney.
Older article below, not sure who actually wrote it:
http://lawofficer.com/archive/hr-218-pre-empts-south-dakota-prosecution/

[Jason M]

Exactly. A “qualified LEO” under LEOSA is what ever the federal LEKSA statute says it is. It doesn’t matter what anyone in state government thinks.

There is case law involving NY state and coastguard members had charges dismissed because they were qualified LEO under LEOSA even though state law said otherwise. In NJ there have been cases involving PA corrections officers and PA constables in which charges were upheld because the PA officers did not meet the definition of Qualified LEO as found in LEOSA.

This is a combination of HI politics liberal streak, Anti gun streak, HI’s general predjudice against mainlanders with a little racism thrown in for good measure.

There was a case involving a PA costable in NYC. He was pinched for possession of his gun, spent some time in the jug, and eventually had his case dismissed. The problem with this in PA is that there are a number of constables who errantly believe that this amounts to “case law” and believe that this grants them access to the LEOSA club 🙄. This is despite the best efforts of their certifying body, The Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency, advising otherwise.

[TMW Trav]

In the DFW area, arresting people, cops or civilians, for carrying a pistol, has become kind of passé. Arresting a police officer for carrying is a waste of time. I understand there are scenarios where police officers have to be arrested. If you have a badge and come here from any state, including Hawaii, we aren't going to arrest you just for carrying a pistol.

[Gray01]

In the DFW area, arresting people, cops or civilians, for carrying a pistol, has become kind of passé. Arresting a police officer for carrying is a waste of time. I understand there are scenarios where police officers have to be arrested. If you have a badge and come here from any state, including Hawaii, we aren't going to arrest you just for carrying a pistol.

I just saw where Texas may become the 13th state to eliminate the need for concealed licensure.

[Rangers13]

In the DFW area, arresting people, cops or civilians, for carrying a pistol, has become kind of passé. Arresting a police officer for carrying is a waste of time. I understand there are scenarios where police officers have to be arrested. If you have a badge and come here from any state, including Hawaii, we aren't going to arrest you just for carrying a pistol.

They will have a hefty lawsuit on there hands if they arrest an active or retired LEO regardless where he is from. HR 218 covers them as long as they maintain the qualification of the state they reside in. In NJ we qualify twice a year. I have my retired ID and my latest qualification and that’s all I need. There is case law backing it as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TGS]

Everyone here knows what LEOSA is, more properly identified as 18 USC 926B.

HR218 is a repeating number used every year with new bills, it's not the actual law.