The Good Guys Can Fight Back

[Bugsey]

Good Guys Can Fight Back - Criminals Beware!

SPRINGFIELD, Va., Nov. 18 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A ruling on a case from South Dakota -- where off-duty law enforcement officers were criminally charged for carrying guns despite the authority to do so under the federal 'Law Enforcement Officer's Safety Act of 2004' (LEOSA) -- has confirmed that all qualified off-duty and retired law enforcement are allowed, by federal law, to carry a concealed gun for personal self-defense irrespective of state law. The federal law supersedes the crazy, confusing and often conflicted state and local laws that limit legitimate self-defense.

LEAA's Executive Director, Jim Fotis said, "When LEAA co-authored the original draft of what became affectionately known as 'National Cop Carry' back in the early 1990's, I knew it would save cops' lives and give those who choose to resist violent criminals a fighting chance. In 2004 I shook President Bush's hand after he signed our bill into law and rejoiced that our fight -- for more than a decade -- was finally over!"

The local prosecutor's apparent effort to challenge the federal law, and send a message to all in law enforcement not to carry a gun for self-defense in South Dakota, was soundly rejected! Thankfully, after careful review, the gun charges against the officers were dismissed. "The Judge's crystal clear and unambiguous legal opinion should be required reading for every prosecutor in the nation so that no other law enforcement professionals, active or retired, have to endure what those officers and agents have endured in South Dakota," declared Carl Rowan, LEAA's Vice President.

Robert Van Norman and Kenneth Orrock, Attorneys for the officers, said "We are pleased with the court's decision, as it reaffirms the intent of the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act and in effect will protect law enforcement officers and our communities. The law enforcement community should find comfort that LEOSA has been properly applied in this case."

A copy of the Judge's memorandum decision -- and extensive background information on LEOSA -- is available at the LEAA website: www.leaa.org

The Law Enforcement Alliance of America, Inc., (LEAA) is the nation's largest not for profit, non-partisan coalition of law enforcement professionals, crime victims, and concerned citizens dedicated to making America safer.

Law Enforcement Alliance of America
CONTACT: Daniela Ayala of the Law Enforcement Alliance of America,[phone], [e-mail]

Web site: www.leaa.org/

[Deleted]

This ruling out of the events in Sturgis, S.D. is great news for a law that was passed 4 years ago.

Now, if only we can get Ray Kelly to get his head out of his ass and facilitate retired NYPD to take advantage of this law.

Or can we go somewhere else to get the needed certification and ignore that petty tyrant alltogether?

[airborneguy]

I hate to come across as antagonizing, but I would love to hear Proud's opinion on this. I remember how vocal he was against this law on the old Rant when it first passed, even to the point of basically calling anyone who trusted it stupid. In his defense, he wasn't the only one.

[proudpd]

Airborne:

I don't think I was against the law, I believe that I thought individual states would disregard it and cause problems for officers who carried across state lines. I thought it would be up to the states to recognize it.

If possible can you bring up my post on that and post it here? I'm no longer a member of the original Rant and can't do any research on it. Thanks.

[airborneguy]

I don't ever go there either! I don't think the old Rant from then exists anymore anyway.

"I thought it would be up to the states to recognize it."

Actually that may have been your argument, and maybe it just got heated and that's why you called a few people stupid, but I do remember that clearly. You have been known to call people stupid before

NJ avoided the issue a few years ago with the shooting by a retired NYPD cop by basically letting it disappear, but this one definitely sets the precedent that this law works and is here to stay. My argument was always that Ted Kennedy supported it, and if that fat liberal A-hole supported something like this, than it must be legally sound.

[proudpd]

Airborne

You have been known to call people stupid before

That is indeed possible. We all have our lines in the sand and I have no problem identifying those that cross mine with an appropriate identification. I think the atmosphere on the old Rant may have had a lot to do with it. That's why I jumped the fence. Things are much calmer here. I will admit that I still lurk at the old stomping grounds. You can never tell when something interesting or, God forbid, educational will pop up.

I haven't been following the HR218 issue very closely but I seem to recall that the law required an individual be licensed by the agency they retired from. NYPD does not qualify retirees. Therefore I felt that qualification by any other agency or entity would not count even if it was identical to the NYPD qualification course.

If someone can correct me by posting the exact wording that allows an NYPD Retiree to be licensed by other than NYPD, I would appreciate it.

Many individuals post wording and then qualify it by saying: "I THINK this means......" I'm looking for straight out plain wording.

[exfed2002]

If someone can correct me by posting the exact wording that allows an NYPD Retiree to be licensed by other than NYPD, I would appreciate it.

From 18USC926C

(2)(A) a photographic identification issued by the agency from
which the individual retired from service as a law enforcement
officer; and
(B) a certification issued by the State in which the individual
resides that indicates that the individual has, not less recently
than one year before the date the individual is carrying the
concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the State to
meet the standards established by the State for training and
qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry a firearm
of the same type as the concealed firearm.