Results 1 to 5 of 5
Thread: Okay, Guys and Gals, Check . . .
08-29-08, 04:44 PM #1
Okay, Guys and Gals, Check . . .Federal firearms act cannot be used in case
By Journal staff Friday, August 29, 2008
The Meade county grand jury that indicted a Seattle police officer for bringing a gun into a Sturgis bar in the early morning hours of Aug. 9 could not have used the federal Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004 to exonerate him, a spokeswoman for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives said Thursday.
Congress passed that law in the wake of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, to exempt qualified law enforcement officers from state laws that prohibit the carrying of a concealed weapon. But because the legislation was never implemented by its rule-making agency – the U.S. Attorney General’s office -- the Meade County grand jury could not have used it in any case to defend the actions of Seattle policeman Ronald Smith, according to Carrie DiPirro, public information officer in the Denver office of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Nowhere in America would that act have been considered by a grand jury, DiPirro said.
“The act was passed, but it’s never been enforced by the Attorney General’s office,” she said. Congress directed the U.S. Attorney General’s office to meet the conditions for its implementation – such as establishing the necessary databases and identifications -- something which DiPirro said apparently has never been done.
The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act amended the federal criminal code to authorize qualified law enforcement officers (including certain qualified retired officers) carrying the photographic identification issued by their governmental agency, notwithstanding state or local laws, to carry a concealed firearm. That authorization is not intended to supersede state laws that permit private entities to prohibit the possession of concealed firearms on their property, or prohibit the possession of firearms on state or local government property. The law also would not cover any officer under the influence of alcohol and it excludes from the definition of “firearm” any machine gun, firearm silencer, or destructive device.
Smith and four other men were charged on two alternative concealed weapon permit violations. According to the South Dakota Secretary of State’s Web site, Washington and South Dakota do not have reciprocity of concealed weapons permits, but Attorney General Larry Long said Thursday he could not immediately confirm that.
“We’re not sure if Washington is or not,” Long said.
The grand jury issued alternative concealed weapon permit indictments for Smith and the others. The men could be convicted of carrying a concealed pistol without permit or failing to abide by a permit of a reciprocal state, but not both counts, Long said.Be courteous to all, but intimate with few, and let those few be well tried before you give them your confidence.
[George Washington (1732 - 1799)]
08-29-08, 06:10 PM #2
We all knew it was only a matter of time until a DA would test the LEOSA. While the details of the shooting itself are sketchy, there indications that this is a witch hunt - just a DA trying to make a name for himself by convicted some cops.
From what I read the Seattle detective was indicted for Aggrvated assault, Perjury and Carrying a concealed weapon. I believe the Hells Angel member that was shot was also indicted for Aggravated Assault. It was previously reported that the owner saw the Hells Angels grouping up and he had called police prior to the fight/shooting because he thought there might be trouble. Witnesses stated that the Iron Pigs were attacked by a group of Hells Angels. The officer testified that he was pined down by several outlaw bikers and was in fear of losing his life. Sounds like self defense to me, not mutual combat. What is the perjury charge for? Because the OUTLAW 1%er bikers had a different story?
The thing that affects the most of us directly is if caselaw will establish LEOSA as a valid defense for carrying a concealed weapon, either in the local court or on appeal. Part of the law states that a LEO cannot carry under the influence of alcohol. The bar owner was quoted in the Seattle Times as saying that he did not recall any of the Iron Pigs as being intoxicated. A local law says that noone can carry a firearm in an esablishment that serves alcohol, I believe federal law should supersede the local law. I see there is an argument that the US Attorney General never implemented a database for identification or verification of LEO status. If the Seattle detective was carrying his dept issued ID, then this shouldn't be much of an issue. He was already detained by local police for the investigation and while being detained the local police dept did verify that he was a LEO, along with the other four Seattle cops who were charged with Carrying a Concealed Weapon but did not shoot.
It'll be interesting to see what the court determines, but in the meantime the most we can do is watch and wait."never bring paws to a gunfight" - Jenna
08-29-08, 06:41 PM #3
It's bad enough that some states don't allow civilians to carry concealed, but this is absolutely absurd.
08-29-08, 07:01 PM #4
HORSESHIT!Do not war for peace. If you must war, war for justice. For without justice there is no peace. -me
We are who we choose to be.
R.I.P. Arielle. 08/20/2010-09/16/2012
08-29-08, 08:53 PM #5
This will be a LEOSA test case.
Too bad it wasn't a better case. I think the guy was actually on the dark edge of the law because he was carrying in a bar out of State where he had no police power.I'm your huckleberry...
Quemadmoeum gladis nemeinum occidit, occidentus telum est!
You can be the weapon, and the gun in your hand is a tool - or the gun is a weapon and you are the tool.
I was looking for a saint who was a devil of a lover,
but every girl I found was either one way or the other...
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)