What does liquidating mean
2008), the defendant, a Coast Guard reservist, was charged with the crime of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree after a loaded handgun was found in a compartment underneath the seat of the vehicle in which he was traveling. Reliance on scuttlebutt surrounding qualification requirements and failing to recognize LEOSA's preemptive authority over state law can be costly. This problem is only compounded by the fact that LEOSA does not bestow either an explicit right to obtain the required photographic ID or a federal remedy for an agency's failure to issue one. LEOSA is clear that QRLEOs must meet "the standards for qualification in firearms training for active law enforcement officers as determined by the former agency of the individual, the State in which the individual resides or, if the State has not established such standards, either a law enforcement agency within the State in which the individual resides or the standards used by a certified firearms instructor that is qualified to conduct a firearms qualification test for active duty officers within that State."While some states do afford NRA Law Enforcement Certified Instructors with the qualification to perform this test to retired officers, most states do not.
Diaz sued for a violation of his civil rights, Diaz v. While enacted in an effort to limit the ability to qualify for LEOSA to only those military and DOD personnel that served in a police or law enforcement billet, this change will likely cause substantial difficulties for many non-DOD law enforcement officers that already have significant problems obtaining the required identification cards from their agencies, and especially for those who qualify but do not hold, or never held, the title of police or law enforcement officer. Highlighting the fact that "Congress made clear that the term 'firearm' 'has the same meaning' as in 18 U. As most retirees unable to qualify with the department or agency they separated from are well aware, a cottage industry of instructors claiming to posses the ability to perform LEOSA qualifications has emerged.
I cannot Cary under leosa because our IDs say nothing about being law enforcement.
But under 14USC89 it states petty commissioned and warrant officers have law Enforcement powers and on my id it says Petty Officer but that is it goods enough for this law.
NEVER HARRAS A RETIRED OFFICER UNLESS HE IS COMMITING A CRIME. I noticed a theme in the law suits listed in the article. Perhaps this article should be mandatory in-service training material in those two states (actually every state should provide this info to all LE agencies). Thanks I have had my LEOSA permit for 4 years with no problems.
I HAVE BEEN RETIRED 20 YEARS NOW AND STILL WHOULD REUP IF I WASNT OLDER. Lamebrain")I hope you're comment wasn't directed to Roger Prince. If it was, you must be one of those "wanna-be-cops that just couldn't make it. I have been stopped twice on traffic stops, and advised the officer that I was a retired Trooper with a LEOSA permit (twice in Michigan and once in Nebraska) and had several loaded handguns in the car.
Don't know how Police Departments are on this, but would bet some are the same way.
The biggest problem for me is being coast Guard with law enforcement powers.
Barbusin, a special police officer of the District of Columbia Protective Services Police Department, asserted LEOSA protection following charges stemming from the alleged illegal possession of an assault weapon in the District. Even though Booth was off duty at the time of his arrest and did not possess agency authority to carry while off duty, the Court found that Booth's duties in the Coast Guard, which were defined "as the prevention, detection, [and] investigation of violations of the law" as well as his "authority and duty to arrest violators" and qualification to carry a firearm, despite its time and place restrictions, qualified him for LEOSA and exempted him from prosecution under New York State Law. This issue has been challenged multiple times in state court and the denying agency has always prevailed; first, in the 2007 case of Mc Kinley v. 06-C-376, and then again in the 2010 cases of Moore, et al. Accordingly, many individuals performing LEOSA qualifications do not possess the authority to do so. What this means is that you are not exempted from carrying a concealed firearm in these areas UNLESS you are on official duty or possess a valid and qualifying state-issued concealed carry permit. While it was once reasonable to assume that professional courtesy would eliminate the probability of prosecution based on a violation in one of these areas, that all changed last year when a QRLEO was charged while walking through an alleged GFSZ in New York City. § 922(q)) allow for individuals carrying concealed in accordance with the laws of the state in which the federal park or GFSZ is located to carry concealed in them; however, an individual carrying under LEOSA is carrying under federal law and not in accordance with the laws of the state they are in. Go check out your local planning department's Website or take a quick look at the map below taken from the San Francisco Planning Department's Website ( Most cities are so laden with GFSZs that it is virtually impossible to travel anywhere without inadvertently passing through one of them.BUT I ALWAYS SHOWED RESPECT FOR GUYS THAT WERE RETIRED THEY PAVED THE WAY FOR ME……….. None of the officers even wanted to see the guns (as I believe they had a right to do).Right after I obtained my LEOSA permit/credentials 4 years ago, I attended a Federal Training class at a Federal facility.