Alo? Ha!

[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...a-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.