Group Forums >> American Police Veterans / Policevets >> I Carry - Retired Cops Loaded

+2

I Carry - Retired Cops Loaded

8,523 Views
50 Replies Flag as inappropriate
George_brown_max50

161 posts

back to top

Posted about 6 years ago

 

I have a policevet friend, a disabled hero, that has arbitrarily been denied the right to carry under HR 218. He is licensed to carry concealed weapons in two states, but can't get credentials in New York.


I'm interested in the state of HR 218 and how retired and disabled cops are being treated.


I'm also interested in stories about how retired cops and cops traveling out of state have been called to action while armed under hr 218.


Opinions welcome.


George is the founder of American Police Veterans www.policevets.org a web community for former retired and disabled law enforcement officers.

Please stand with America's Policevets by participating regularly in the Policevets group at Policelink.

Never Alone - Together as One

George_brown_max50

161 posts

back to top
+1

Rated +1 | Posted about 6 years ago

 

Retired local officer holds suspect at gunpoint


CALDWELL — A retired Canyon County Sheriff’s Office lieutenant chased down a hit-and-run suspect and held him at gunpoint until police could arrive.


Story


George is the founder of American Police Veterans www.policevets.org a web community for former retired and disabled law enforcement officers.

Please stand with America's Policevets by participating regularly in the Policevets group at Policelink.

Never Alone - Together as One

1979_max50

3272 posts

back to top
+2

Rated +2 | Posted about 6 years ago

 

I retired as Disabled from a Department in South Carolina. I now live in Florida. I obtained a CCW permit from the State when I moved here and it of course was recognized in many States. SC was not one of them but NO South Carolina LEO is going to say a thing if another SC retired Officer is carrying. When HR218 came along my Department did everything they could to follow the rules even issuing me a photo ID which we did not have previously for some reason. I can't just run up there to qualify even though they told me anytime, so I called the local SO here and they told me come on over and we will qualify you and issue you a HR218 card so no problem. As long as you comply with Federal Law I think they would have a hard time doing anything to you and especially the publicity would kill them. I also look at it this way, unless there is some dire reason, they will never know I am armed anyway.

-64 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 6 years ago

 

 


 


This is a very complex issue, and has been since it's inception after 9/11.  It was basically written for the retired/disabled/injured officer.  Many people, including LEO's do not have a clear understanding of this bill/law.  It doesn't help that each state tried to either reject it or change it to each states desires, but it intially was failry clear as to who they were directing this bill to.  After several years, there is another bill being introduced to change some of the requirements and who this bill is intended for.  Anyone who has quit, was fired having an dishonorable reason for separation does not qualify. It also was quickly passed for the reason of having trained eyes out there after 9/11.


It has been discussed at length on this site, but I also see some members incorrectly interpreting this bill.  Get the technically legal and factual bill right from the bill passed (HR 218) and read it, and it should be clear as too who is qualified.  Because the first bill has some ambiguity in it, clarification is being made within this second bill.  And not to exclude each state's desire to restrict and limit how it is interpreded.  It is a Federal law, meaning it should blanket the entire country, but as time passes, it is evident some states choose not to abide by the original bill's writings.  If there are any questions you may have, post them, as we have members who have researched this bill extensively and even had city attorney, state legislators give their response and interpretation towards clarification of this bill.

Patrolcar_pic_max50

997 posts

back to top
+1

Rated +1 | Posted about 6 years ago

 

NYS does not recognize ccw credentials from any other state. If your friend has been denied to carry under HR218, I would imagine they would have to get pistol licenses in whatever state they want to carry in. I don't believe NY issues non-resident pistol licenses.


"People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. "

-64 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 6 years ago

 

Jkaz01 says ...



NYS does not recognize ccw credentials from any other state. If your friend has been denied to carry under HR218, I would imagine they would have to get pistol licenses in whatever state they want to carry in. I don't believe NY issues non-resident pistol licenses.



In NYS, the requirements are very stringent.   It is my blelief and through talking with retired members of NY, not only qualification for HR 218 has to be done by qualified NY  personnel only, an officer has to go back and become qualified from a member of the department you became separated from.  What about the officer that is totally qualified to carry, but for some reason there's bad blood between your department and the officer, they would be basically out of luck.

Patrolcar_pic_max50

997 posts

back to top
+1

Rated +1 | Posted about 6 years ago

 

Icelady11 says ...



Jkaz01 says ...



NYS does not recognize ccw credentials from any other state. If your friend has been denied to carry under HR218, I would imagine they would have to get pistol licenses in whatever state they want to carry in. I don't believe NY issues non-resident pistol licenses.



In NYS, the requirements are very stringent.   It is my blelief and through talking with retired members of NY, not only qualification for HR 218 has to be done by qualified NY  personnel only, an officer has to go back and become qualified from a member of the department you became separated from.  What about the officer that is totally qualified to carry, but for some reason there's bad blood between your department and the officer, they would be basically out of luck.



That is very true. From what I understand as well, talking to a friend who's a retired trooper, he has to qualify with them every year or two I can't remember. It's an extreme pain in the butt. On top of that, if a police officer wants to transfer to a dept. in NY from another state, they have to do a re-certification of 300something hours. It's rediculous. NY is a very liberal state, and make it as difficult as possible to carry a weapon, whether you're an LEO or not.


"People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. "

Cb17_max50

8 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 6 years ago

 

I retired from Wisconsin and reside full time in Florida. As you are aware the HR218 is a two step process. First you must posess a photo retirement Iedntification issued from the department you retired from. Second you must complete the state certified course in the state where you reside. Many deparments in Wisconsin do not want any retiree to CCW. Many also feel some liability will arise if they carry a retirement Identification. Simply put, my department will not issue all retirees an identification card when they retire. No photo ID, no reason to take the shooting course in the state which you reside.


 


I wrote my cheif and asked if I could have just the Photo ID demonstrating I am a retired Police officer. His reply was that "I took office in January of 2008 and I will sign no ones identification who retired prior to my taking office." He went onto say that he had not done a full review of the 2004 federal statute HR218. He went onto say I might check with the Human Relations department with the municipality to see if they would issue some sort of identification.


 


My not being able to carry under HR218 hurts the public more them me. In making the decision he did, he fails to consider the additional protections which could have been extended to the public which HR218 contemplated. My state, the state of Florida have no problem certifying me but I cannot go foreword till my cheif decidesto issue Photo ID's to all retirees.

Cb17_max50

8 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 6 years ago

 

I retired from Wisconsin and reside full time in Florida. As you are aware the HR218 is a two step process. First you must posess a photo retirement Iedntification issued from the department you retired from. Second you must complete the state certified course in the state where you reside. Many deparments in Wisconsin do not want any retiree to CCW. Many also feel some liability will arise if they carry a retirement Identification. Simply put, my department will not issue all retirees an identification card when they retire.No photo ID, no reason to take the shooting course in the state which you reside.


 


I wrote my cheif and asked if I could have just the Photo ID demonstrating I am a retired Police officer. His reply was that "I took office in January of 2008 and I will sign no ones identification who retired prior to my taking office." He went onto say that he had not done a full review of the 2004 federal statute HR218. He went onto say I might check with the Human Relations department with the municipality to see if they would issue some sort of identification.


 


My not being able to carry under HR218 hurts the public more them me. In making the decision he did, he fails to consider the additional protections which could have been extended to the public which HR218 contemplated. My state, the state of Florida have no problem certifying me but I cannot go foreword till my cheif decidesto issue Photo ID's to all retirees.

Cb17_max50

8 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 6 years ago

 

I retired from Wisconsin and reside full time in Florida. As you are aware the HR218 is a two step process. First you must posess a photo retirement Iedntification issued from the department you retired from. Second you must complete the state certified course in the state where you reside. Many deparments in Wisconsin do not want any retiree to CCW. Many also feel some liability will arise if they carry a retirement Identification. Simply put, my department will not issue all retirees an identification card when they retire.No photo ID, no reason to take the shooting course in the state which you reside.


 


I wrote my cheif and asked if I could have just the Photo ID demonstrating I am a retired Police officer. His reply was that "I took office in January of 2008 and I will sign no ones identification who retired prior to my taking office." He went onto say that he had not done a full review of the 2004 federal statute HR218. He went onto say I might check with the Human Relations department with the municipality to see if they would issue some sort of identification.


 


My not being able to carry under HR218 hurts the public more them me. In making the decision he did, he fails to consider the additional protections which could have been extended to the public which HR218 contemplated. My state, the state of Florida have no problem certifying me but I cannot go foreword till my cheif decidesto issue Photo ID's to all retirees.

-43 posts

back to top
+1

Rated +1 | Posted about 6 years ago

 

HR-218,  yes a major problem in New York. I retired from New York and have a CCW with a stamp stating I am a retired Police Officer. Why the stamp so I can carry in NYC. btw I worked in NYPD prior to Long Beach


My department at present does not issue the HR-218 card, due to liability. I can carry anywhere in the State of New York but if I leave the State I could be arrested for CCW. I am a member of an organization that is fighting to help retired NY Officers in Albany but that attempt has been useless since the passage of HR-218.


Good luck to all of the LEO's throughout the USA but the NY Leo's well guess we will just have to wait..

Munz_max50

370 posts

back to top
+1

Rated +1 | Posted about 6 years ago

 

I am retired disabled from NY. My department doesn't even want to hand out retired id cards now because of "liability" reasons though I can see no liability issue. The problem is that the department hasto qualify you every year on a certified PPC by a certified trainer.


In New York, maybe a lawyer could make a case out of it I don't know, stranger things have happened.


regardless I have a permit to cary conceled - when i was about to retire I went to the county court judge who issues them who also heard most of my cases. he grasiousley signed for my permit to carry in the state. With my disability, I rarley leave the county and have never ventured from my state since i retired, the trip anywhere would kill me.


HR 218 is a wonderful thing, but it needs to be fine tuned and given nationalized regulations on more than the carry end. It needs restructuring on the issuing end to make it easier for the officers who fall under it to be ableto carry.


 


Bob

George_brown_max50

161 posts

back to top
+2

Rated +2 | Posted about 6 years ago

 

When the hr 218 became law, Massachusetts Chiefs of Police were left on their own to implement the law. Many of them don't want to issue pistol permits to anyone. Big persception of liability.


The Mass FOP organized a meeting of the minds with other unions and fraternal organizations with the Chiefs of Police Association to establish Regulations under Massachusetts law. The resulting regulations are at http://massfop.org/site/pdf/leosa.pdf 


This took the heat off of the Chiefs and gave all the retires a predicable and level playing field.


State regulations might be a good way to erase the liability issue and work around the agency must qualify issue at least making it a statewide option of getting qualified.


I've heard many agencies will qualify officers if their agency allows it.


Have other states codified hr 218?  


George is the founder of American Police Veterans www.policevets.org a web community for former retired and disabled law enforcement officers.

Please stand with America's Policevets by participating regularly in the Policevets group at Policelink.

Never Alone - Together as One

Alice_max50

44 posts

back to top
+1

Rated +1 | Posted about 6 years ago

 

You know, I have never heard of a retired police officer ever being a danger to people in New York or anywhere else. I hope you all win this battle.


God Bless you

Bullet_holes_08_max50

2 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 6 years ago

 

I fully understand HR218, being from Mass and having a retired id card issued in 03 which has not 1 reference to the current Mass regs, might cause me problems even if I have a recertification letter in hand. But living in FL now what do you think the chances are I can get another ID, without traveling back to Mass and attending thier coarses etc. Plus a new boss there might not be willing to issue some old retired guy the new id? In my opinion those "polls" in mass are just trying to get most retired guys to shy away from 218 and just keep thier LTC or in the case of most Mass retired guys move to another firearm friendly state and get a CW permit. If the Dems get in this time around, and it looks like they will I am betting the hr218 will get the dumpster anyway....I remember Teddy K. saying to many guns now already, and if cops get this bill and  can carry everywhere they will be carring machine guns for sure. But I regress, he's out of the picture or will be soon. As another poster stated no one will know I am carring unless it is a deperate matter, and then only to defend me or a loved one. Otherwise I am staying low and moving fast. The public can fend for themselfs this time around!

Munz_max50

370 posts

back to top
+2

Rated +2 | Posted about 6 years ago

 

You know not to change the subject, but the whole idea behind 218 was because the presidedent and congress were afraid of terrorists and thought that having the retired leo's armed was good for national security. That there was a chance that armed people who had proven themselves on the right side of the law could carry and protect our citizens beyond their tour of duty.


That being said, since we haven't had any major attacks on us since 9/11 people in the US and congress get complacient. If may god forbid, we ever suffer such an attack again as we did on that fateful day. They will ask WHY more of us aren;t taking advantage of 218. Then we have to make a stink about this and make people accountable for making this so difficult for us.


I don;t know of any retired cop who is 218 status that wants to carry just to show off their guns. It is a matter of PROTECTING themselvs and others. That's the whole simple point of this. Our representatives need to understand this if we are to get anywhere with this issue before it is "too late"


People who try to stop the initial intent of 218 are not only doing the people of the US a disservice but are pretty stupid. They are getting FREE protection in the hiomeland by professional minded upright citizens. They should be kissing our butts for being willing to put ourselves in harms way again for nothing except knowing that we are doing the right thing. Instead we get this typical nonsense of buracracy and a hard time.


Well that's my 2 cents worth.


 


Be safe


 


Bob

-64 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 6 years ago

 

TheMunz says ...



You know not to change the subject, but the whole idea behind 218 was because the presidedent and congress were afraid of terrorists and thought that having the retired leo's armed was good for national security. That there was a chance that armed people who had proven themselves on the right side of the law could carry and protect our citizens beyond their tour of duty.


That being said, since we haven't had any major attacks on us since 9/11 people in the US and congress get complacient. If may god forbid, we ever suffer such an attack again as we did on that fateful day. They will ask WHY more of us aren;t taking advantage of 218. Then we have to make a stink about this and make people accountable for making this so difficult for us.


I don;t know of any retired cop who is 218 status that wants to carry just to show off their guns. It is a matter of PROTECTING themselvs and others. That's the whole simple point of this. Our representatives need to understand this if we are to get anywhere with this issue before it is "too late"


People who try to stop the initial intent of 218 are not only doing the people of the US a disservice but are pretty stupid. They are getting FREE protection in the hiomeland by professional minded upright citizens. They should be kissing our butts for being willing to put ourselves in harms way again for nothing except knowing that we are doing the right thing. Instead we get this typical nonsense of buracracy and a hard time.


Well that's my 2 cents worth.


 


Be safe


 


Bob



Whoever were the authors of this bill had some foresight....................in the event retired officers could be some some assistance with no active LEO's around.  It was a great thought. Yet, as you mention Bob, because so far there has not been a monumental need for these players the squabbling continues. Only after a very public incident where a retired or disabled officer saves the day because of HR 218, will the squabbling be muffled.  Then you'll see every state co-operate.  Isn't that the way our government works. 


Prevention rather than cure, should always be the answer, but it's like pulling teeth to get at that point.

Pa_iii_frank_dimiceli_01_max50

64 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 6 years ago

 

As it is done in Pennsylvania,,and as I under stand HR218,,,First a Standardized ID card must be developed and approved by the state (MUST  be issued by your former agency and must contain required info),,,the retired LEO must qualify by a certified firearms instructor with weapon specific (can only carry weapons that you qualify with) on the standard firearms course,,must qualify once a year.It is the retired LEO to make arraignments to qualify,,,(jump in with a local dept,,,,your former agency,,,have a Certified Police firearms instructor qualify  him/her at the instructors convenience,,,,)  Once the card is issued everything else falls in place.


psps. the firearms instructors must maintain records and forward the info to a central location(in Pa. it will be in Harrisburg at either M.O.P.E.T.C. and/or PSP


ppsps. I don't know if Pa. added some requirements or not,, I believe that is the states prerogative

Dogs_max50

426 posts

back to top
+1

Rated +1 | Posted about 6 years ago

 

After remaining at the house through and days following Hurricane Katrina, I am even more thankful for my retired credentials allowing me to carry a weapon.  I've never seen the streets so dark, 9-1-1 didn't work most of the time, and the looters were striking houses just to destroy them. Some crapped on towels and smeared it all over the homes.  What a waste of flesh!  Now with Hurricane Gustav and a possible hit from Hurricane Ike, I'm just thankful my brother in law, a retired Fed. agent , has decided to remain at our house, along with fellow deputies having access to the place.  Its time looters were shot!!!!  They were threatened with being placed in Angola upon arrest, and that should at least make some think long and hard about being arrested during a state of emergency.  But the hard timers won't care.  Please pray for the hurricane to just go into the ocean and die.  A CCW permit or retired credentials can be the only equalizer between us and them. 

Meinuniform_max50

236 posts

back to top
+1

Rated +1 | Posted about 6 years ago

 

I live in Florida and the local sheriffs office offers to qualify any and all retired law enforcemnt professionals. I have been carrying under HR-218 for 2 years now. I also go to NY pretty often and bring my guns through in my checked luggage. I have been stoped in different areas of NY and my HR-218 credentials have always been respected and treated legally. HR-218 is a Federal law, if you are a NYretiree, living in NY, you have to be qualified by the department you retired from...however, they are batteling that out by passing a new law that would prevent this. NY also tried to lock up an on duty constable from PA who was serving a warrant, they did lock the Constable up as ordered...despite the fact that they had police ID and were working.....the case was thrown out and the judge also specifically mentioned HR-218 and the right to carry, he ruled that this right should not and will not be violated by any department. For now, NYPD will win this petty game of "you have to qualify where you work to carry under hr-218 and live in NY", however, I feel that will be short lived. I also would not mind being the Constable...I would use my excellent attourneys, and sue for wrongfull arrest..etc...I would like to see the payday that will come out of that.


Just make sure that you know the states laws in regards to carrying....are hollow points illegal like they are in New Jersey, can you carry in a national park, or in a church....as long as you do not violate the individual laws of the states you are carrying in...and have the proper hr-218 documentation, you will be covered...and if arrested, have an awesome lawsuit.


                                                         Det. Michael J. Saxe Retired/Disabled (line of duty) NYPD


Michael is the V.P. of American Police Veterans www.policevets.org, for all sworn Law Enforcement, from the newly hired to active and retired and disabled Law Enforcement Professionals. He is also Executive Director of Central Florida C.O.P.S.-P.O. Stephen Driscoll NYPD /Det. Joseph Vigiano NYPD E.O.W. 9/11/2001
Monday morning quarterbacking should be done on Monday morning, by quarterbacks

Photo_user_banned_big

9 posts

back to top
+1

Rated +1 | Posted about 6 years ago

 

What I don't understand is why the criminals don't have these rules to abide by and they have some really good fire arms, we are 24/7 on or off duty we are expected to act appropriately again being accountable for our actions. Why do we lose our constitutional rights to bare arms because of the criminals? Who wants to be in a situation where you are at risk because they have weapons and you don't because you follow the law?


Law or no law - pry it from my hand if you can and id never break the law rather id enforce the rights of the public and put down the criminal if it came to it.


Known to some (not on any site) but unable to BMC, Undercover is undercover! Life isn't what it should be but it's a life.

Photo_user_blank_big

1 post

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 6 years ago

 

I have heard that CA is allowing retired Auxilliary and Reserves to be qualified for HR218. Does anyone know of any other states that have done this as yet? I am also interested in any Florida agencies who have allowed a retired Reserve who is fully sworn, (not the part time academy) to carry under HR218.


Apparently there is no use of the words "full time" in HR218. The operative words are "regularly employed". There is no true legal definition for this term. The closest appears to come from court decisions and the resultant interpretation is: "qualified and available for work".


 


I would appreciate any input, especially Florida based. By the way, in Florida, the Volusia County Sheriff's Office qualifies retired LEO's once a month on their gun range, at no charge, regardless of the employing agency.

Photo_user_banned_big

29 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 6 years ago

 

Has the State of Calif. progressed to the point of having State certified program instructors qual for 218.  It wasn't so a couple years back.  I have qual. through BSIS twice a year, but it seems, told this by another member, it has to be a state certified program (well BSIS is state) so where is the diffirential..?

Photo_user_banned_big

9 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 6 years ago

 

Some states only require civilians to be trained by a certified instructor - 2 days 8 in class and 8 on the rang. Unless you know someone.


Oppribrious

Lastday041108_max50

3 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 6 years ago

 

Retired Carry legally? Not in Pa...........


       Brothers and Sisters, Timing is everything. I'm still on terminal leave pending retirement until the end of October, but my agency, The Capital City of Pennsylvana, Harrisburg, has advised that they will not issue a retired identification card. Not that this hasn't been past practice for as long as I can remember. But it is one of  requirements for retired carry and that may make the municipality liable should I have to use a weapon in self defense. 


       Part of the problem is timing. HB-218 was passed in 2004. Pennsylvania passed a companion bill (Act 79) in 2005 so that the process could be implemented. Since that time, it has been bottled up in the rule making process with bickering between the State Police, the FOP, and municipaities over the wording, who does what and the cost. You can check the website for the Municipal Police Officers Education and Training commission http://www.mpoetc.state.pa.us/mpotrs/site/default.asp and find a page that says until the rules are in place, there is no way a retired officer can legally carry under the act. If you check www.irrc.state.pa.us. you will find the history of the rule making process for #17-75 and note that it is "not due" till 2010!


      So you see after 35 years in uniform, I have to wait another 2 years (At least) before I am trusted to carry a weapon out of uniform. Oh. I forgot to mention, that I'm a former tactical officer and firearms instructor in 5 disciplines. Timing is everything!


 

Lastday041108_max50

3 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 6 years ago

 

Sorry, must be my frustration level causing memory lapses.


       As far as Pennsylvania is concerned, until the regulations for act 79 are finalized, my suggestion  would be to obtain a concealed carry permit from your local sheriff. I have had one for several years in preparation for retirement. That will provide some relief but be advised Pa. is a ":shall issue" state and doesn't have reciprocity with states that have a minimum training standard for concealed carry.


       There is a process where even out of state resident can obtain a Florida State Concealed Carry Permit. It requires proof of classroom training for the application process and therefore is accepted in states that have a minimum training requirement. I do not have any more information on the Florida permit but I'm sure your can find it on the internet.


       In any event, I endorse concealed carry for qualified civilian as well as retired law enforcement. It keeps the criminal element off balance and a little more careful in choosing their victims.


Ralph


 

-79 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 6 years ago

 

I carry, no matter what.

Lasdpatch_normal_max50

220 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 6 years ago

 

Here is the bill being proposed to clean up HR 218. Write your Congfressman andSenator.


HR 2726


110th CONGRESS


1st Session -


H. R. 2726


To amend title 18, United States Code, to improve the provisions relating to the carrying of concealed weapons by law enforcement officers, and for other purposes.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


June 14, 2007


Mr. FORBES (for himself, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mr. CHABOT, Mr. BUCHANAN, and Mr. BOOZMAN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL


To amend title 18, United States Code, to improve the provisions relating to the carrying of concealed weapons by law enforcement officers, and for other purposes.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.


This Act may be cited as the `Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2007'.


SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER SAFETY PROVISIONS OF TITLE 18.


(a) In General- Section 926B of title 18, United States Code, is amended--


(1) in subsection (c)--


(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting `(or apprehension)' after `arrest'; and


(B) in paragraph (3), by inserting `which could result in suspension or loss of police powers' before the semicolon;


(2) by striking subsection (e) and inserting the following:


`(e) As used in this section, the term `firearm' has the same meaning as defined in section 921 of this title and is deemed to include ammunition and accessories the possession of which is not expressly prohibited by Federal law, or which are not subject to the provisions of the National Firearms Act, but does not include--


`(1) any machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the National Firearms Act);


`(2) any firearm silencer (as defined in section 921 of this title); or


`(3) any destructive device (as defined in section 921 of this title).'; and


(3) by adding at the end the following:


`(f) For purposes of this section, a law enforcement officer of the Amtrak Police Department or a law enforcement or police officer of the executive branch of the Federal Government qualifies as an employee of a governmental agency who is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and has statutory powers of arrest (or apprehension).'.


(b) Retired Law Enforcement Officers- Section 926C of title 18, United States Code, is amended--


(1) in subsection (c)--


(A) in paragraph (1), by striking `retired in good standing from service with a public agency' and inserting `departed in good standing from service with a public agency after completing an aggregate of at least 15 years of service with the agency';


(B) in paragraph (2)--


(i) by striking `retirement' and inserting `departure' ; and


(ii) by inserting `(or apprehension)' after `arrest';


(C) by striking paragraphs (4) and (5) and inserting the following:


`(4) during the most recent 12-month period, has met, at the expense of the individual, the standards for qualification in firearms training for active law enforcement officers as set by the officer's former agency, the State in which the officer resides or a law enforcement agency within the State in which the officer resides;'; and


(D) by redesignating paragraphs (6) and (7) as paragraphs (5) and (6), respectively;


(2) in subsection (d)--


(A) in paragraph (1), by striking `to meet the standards established by the agency for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm; or' and inserting `to meet the active duty standards for qualification in firearms training as established by the agency to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm or'; and


(B) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking `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.' and inserting `otherwise found by the State or a certified firearms instructor that is qualified to conduct a firearms qualification test for active duty officers within that State to have met--


`(i) the active duty standards for qualification in firearms training as established by the State to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm; or


`(ii) if the State has not established such standards, standards set by any law enforcement agency within that State to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm.';


(3) by striking subsection (e) and inserting the following:


`(e) As used in this section, the term `firearm' has the same meaning as defined in section 921 of this title and is deemed to include ammunition and accessories the possession of which is not expressly prohibited by Federal law, or which are not subject to the provisions of the National Firearms Act, but does not include--


`(1) any machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the National Firearms Act);


`(2) any firearm silencer (as defined in section 921 of this title); or


`(3) any destructive device (as defined in section 921 of this title).'; and


(4) by adding at the end the following:


`(f) In this section, the term `service with a public agency as a law enforcement officer' includes service as a law enforcement officer of the Amtrak Police Department or as a law enforcement or police officer of the executive branch of the Federal Government.'.


END


 


 


"DUTY, HONOR, COUNTRY" - Douglas MacArthur

"I've been through some terrible things in my life, some of which actually happened.." - Mark Twain

Cb17_max50

8 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 6 years ago

 

This revision still has one big problem. Nothing says a "Photo ID "has" to be issued to any retiree. Correct the training part and still, if no ID is issued, nothing else can follow. I have written the authors of this amendment and I guess they do not get it. There is no requirement that the department that employed you issue an ID. So the chief simly says, "we do not issue a retiree any ID." Everything else under this bill is now moot.

Apvbadgeheader_max50

12 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 6 years ago

 

HR218 I mean:-)

I've been treated very well since retiring from IL and moving to Missouri. I'm accepted by our city PD as well as our Sheriff. In fact they invited me to come and qualify with them to comply with HR318. I shot with the guys just last week and it was just like being one of the guys. A fun time and it's nice to live in an area where they treat retired officers so well.


http://gunner777.wordpress.com

Next Page >