[glock_40_calibe]

ISP, since you seem committed to attacking me personally about this for disagreeing with you it is apparent to me that you are not interested in a productive debate, but only want to engage in a pissing match to make yourself feel better. Do everyone else here a favor, and keep your head under the iron curtain that is the state line for Illinois and let the grown ups continue the conversation.

LEOSA is a simple law to understand. Either folks meet it, or they don't. A prosecutor in SD, and at least one in NY felt pretty sure it didn't apply to a couple individuals, but some other person in a black robe apparently thought it did. "Statutory" is a pretty easy word to understand. It means as described by statute. If you all have another definition for it please, share it with the rest of us. Again, there is no requirement the qualified law enforcement officer has to have a certain amount of arrest authority, or peace officer status. There must be a statute that gives them arrest authority though. I'll ask once more for documentation contradicting that assertion.

I've said it before, but the issue of reserve officers being covered is a moot point for me, as I am not one nor have I ever claimed to be. Personally, I do not think they would be covered, as the wouldn't meet the definition of an employee. That has no bearing on the statutory authority to make an arrest though. If they are not employees of a government agency (and the other organizations specifically addressed in the amended law) the discussion about the other qualifications is pointless.

[glock_40_calibe]

Originally Posted by DaBigBR

One thing that leads me to the belief that the ONLY statutory powers of arrest valid are those derivative of employment is that 18USC926C (retired officers) says: "before such retirement, was 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 had statutory powers of arrest"

The "had" is very telling in my opinion.

The "had" is not telling at all. It merely provides the authority must have been there while on the job, retirement will not provide more ability to carry than what you had while actively working.

[isp2605]

You try to discuss a topic that even you admitted you haven't researched. Now just how silly does that make you sound? Are you even aware just how silly you made yourself sound? Nope, you sure don't.
Again, don't embarrass yourself further. You have no credibility and your "legal knowledge" is more than lacking.
Don't feel offended. It's your own doing, or in your case, your own undoing.
If you want to claim a valid point at least don't look so silly and try to discuss something that you said you haven't even researched. That's more than pitiful.
You continue to prove you don't have a clue with this statement "Again, there is no requirement the qualified law enforcement officer has to have a certain amount of arrest authority, or peace officer status. "
Please, go away until you are capable of understanding LEOSA once you do actually read it. LEOSA actually does say in section (a) "who is a qualified law enforcement officer" which contradicts your "legal interpretation" that LEOSA makes not mention of "peace off status". And it is specific in requiring "statutory power of arrest" in section (c)(1) contrary to your other lack of understanding.
Once again I challenge you to do some research. Go to the MI statutes and you'll find where LEOs get their power to act as agents of the govt. Maybe then you'll understand the difference. I'm not holding my breath tho. You haven't bothered yet to do any research yet you'll mouth off your opinion with nothing to back it and expect those of us who have done research on LEOSA to believe your word. If you expect credibility then do the research.

[GD2J]

Originally Posted by glock_40_calibe

The "had" is not telling at all. It merely provides the authority must have been there while on the job, retirement will not provide more ability to carry than what you had while actively working.

I believe that what DaBigBR is indicating is that the word 'had' is indicative that for the purposes of LEOSA, the SPOA (statutory powers of arrest) are derived from the position held, and not something automatically granted to all persons through an all-encompassing 'citizens arrest' statute.

I'm not trying to get into this debate per se, except to show that this is a good example of why LEOSA still needs adjustments and tweaking. While they're at it, LEOSA should address the so-called Gun Free School Zone law, which currently leaves off-duty officers high and dry, even if you're just driving by a school.

[DaBigBR]

Originally Posted by glock_40_calibe

ISP, since you seem committed to attacking me personally about this for disagreeing with you it is apparent to me that you are not interested in a productive debate, but only want to engage in a pissing match to make yourself feel better. Do everyone else here a favor, and keep your head under the iron curtain that is the state line for Illinois and let the grown ups continue the conversation.

LEOSA is a simple law to understand. Either folks meet it, or they don't. A prosecutor in SD, and at least one in NY felt pretty sure it didn't apply to a couple individuals, but some other person in a black robe apparently thought it did. "Statutory" is a pretty easy word to understand. It means as described by statute. If you all have another definition for it please, share it with the rest of us. Again, there is no requirement the qualified law enforcement officer has to have a certain amount of arrest authority, or peace officer status. There must be a statute that gives them arrest authority though. I'll ask once more for documentation contradicting that assertion.

I've said it before, but the issue of reserve officers being covered is a moot point for me, as I am not one nor have I ever claimed to be. Personally, I do not think they would be covered, as the wouldn't meet the definition of an employee. That has no bearing on the statutory authority to make an arrest though. If they are not employees of a government agency (and the other organizations specifically addressed in the amended law) the discussion about the other qualifications is pointless.

So that I'm clear...

Your position is that reserve officers aren't covered because you don't consider them to be "employees", yet you continually argue the statutory powers of arrest part? What makes an employee? Reserve officers in my state are required to fill out tax documents (W4 and I9) for their service and are required by state code to be paid a minimum of $1. Form W4, as you likely know, is labeled "Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate" and makes numerous references to the person completing the form as the EMPLOYEE and the agency would be listed as the EMPLOYER.

That seems much more cut and dried to me than your contention that a citizen's arrest statute that applies uniformly to all PRIVATE PERSONS throughout the state satisfies the "statutory powers of arrest" requirement.

[lndshark]

Originally Posted by glock_40_calibe

Personally, I do not think they would be covered, as the wouldn't meet the definition of an employee. That has no bearing on the statutory authority to make an arrest though. If they are not employees of a government agency (and the other organizations specifically addressed in the amended law) the discussion about the other qualifications is pointless.

I am a sworn, armed reserve police officer. I work road patrol, 8-16 hours per week. Oh, I am also an employee of the city in which I "work." Employee number, life insurance, etc. No compensation for what I do. Once again, this varies by interpretation, not merely a statute. By the way, I'm in Michigan.

I'm not really worried about being covered by LEOSA, personally. I hold a Michigan CPL (albeit, I'm exempt from pistol free zones) which is reciprocal in many (surrounding) states. If I leave Michigan, I rarely carry a pistol. When I travel, it's either to Saskatchewan (a concealed pistol ANYWHERE in Canada is unheard of), where I'd never consider carrying, or Washington State, which also recognizes my Michigan CPL. Then again, I'd be on vacation in either locale, and thus, carrying a pistol isn't high on my priority list.

Just food for thought...

[isp2605]

Originally Posted by DaBigBR

That seems much more cut and dried to me than your contention that a citizen's arrest statute that applies uniformly to all PRIVATE PERSONS throughout the state satisfies the "statutory powers of arrest" requirement.

What the "legal expert with no research" is failing to understand is that agents of the govt are granted their authority due to powers passed by the legislation granting and defining those powers. As LEOs we act as agents of the govt, not as "private persons" as mentioned in the reference MI statute. Our authority to act is statutorially spelled out and defined. We don't act as "private persons" when taking action. We are acting as agents of the govt. When we arrest someone it's not "Joe the private person wearing a uniform carrying a gun and acting as private person" who arresting the person. It's "Joe, agent of the govt acting on behalf of the govt" who is making the arrest. Without the statutory authority granting a govt agent powers to act then as agents of the govt we cannot and could not do those acts. Anyone who has been sued under a 1983 action has read those words "acting under color of law". You didn't get sued as "private person" because "private person" cannot act under color of law since he's acting as a "private person".
It's simple high school civics. Apparently glock 40 slept thru that part of his class. Methinks he's a criminal justice student, probably just finishing his junior year, who knows everything there is to know about the law. Having worked near a major university with with a large CJ program he sure fits the mould. They were the ones when you stopped them they were quick to tell you how to do your job and try to impress you with their "knowledge". We had a saying about CJ students - you can always tell a CJ student but you can't tell them much. (No offense to CJStudent).

[Hack]

Originally Posted by isp2605

What the "legal expert with no research" is failing to understand is that agents of the govt are granted their authority due to powers passed by the legislation granting and defining those powers. As LEOs we act as agents of the govt, not as "private persons" as mentioned in the reference MI statute. Our authority to act is statutorially spelled out and defined. We don't act as "private persons" when taking action. We are acting as agents of the govt. When we arrest someone it's not "Joe the private person wearing a uniform carrying a gun and acting as private person" who arresting the person. It's "Joe, agent of the govt acting on behalf of the govt" who is making the arrest. Without the statutory authority granting a govt agent powers to act then as agents of the govt we cannot and could not do those acts. Anyone who has been sued under a 1983 action has read those words "acting under color of law". You didn't get sued as "private person" because "private person" cannot act under color of law since he's acting as a "private person".
It's simple high school civics. Apparently glock 40 slept thru that part of his class. Methinks he's a criminal justice student, probably just finishing his junior year, who knows everything there is to know about the law. Having worked near a major university with with a large CJ program he sure fits the mould. They were the ones when you stopped them they were quick to tell you how to do your job and try to impress you with their "knowledge". We had a saying about CJ students - you can always tell a CJ student but you can't tell them much. (No offense to CJStudent).

Unfortunately there are high schools lacking a lot concerning education. Heck, KC MO has not been accredited for a while now, and the state is looking into taking it all over; (or, may have already done so).

My reason for saying that is that I think some people lack a proper education in simple civics. Heck, when I went through high school mine was probably lacking some, in that it seemed that most teachers graded on the bell curve.

So, it takes people who has had a least a minimal education in LE, (while serving in LE, gaining experiential knowledge, and so on), to educate those who are willing to at least listen.

However, some are hard heads, and think they know everything. If he is a CJ student, he is going to be thoroughly surprised at just how much some old heads can teach him, after he has embarrassed himself a little. The school of hard knocks is an excellent, but tough school. I just hope he doesn't get anyone hurt during the learning process.

[isp2605]

Originally Posted by Hack

Unfortunately there are high schools lacking a lot concerning education.

Definitely. My wife and daughter were/are both teachers. Between the 2 of them they hav a total of over 40 yrs. Sad state of affairs in education and what they're forced to allow as now being acceptable. Even more obvious when sitting on interview boards. Some really sad "educated" folks.

I just hope he doesn't get anyone hurt during the learning process.

Absolutely. Hopefully no dept will be that hard to hire someone so "educated". There are plenty of better candidates who have way more smarts. Supervisors have enough on their plates without having to deal with such types.

[Hack]

Originally Posted by isp2605

Definitely. My wife and daughter were/are both teachers. Between the 2 of them they hav a total of over 40 yrs. Sad state of affairs in education and what they're forced to allow as now being acceptable. Even more obvious when sitting on interview boards. Some really sad "educated" folks.


Absolutely. Hopefully no dept will be that hard to hire someone so "educated". There are plenty of better candidates who have way more smarts. Supervisors have enough on their plates without having to deal with such types.

My wife has a mentor from her high school days, who kept in contact for some time. He seems like the genuine deal as far as caring about a good education is concerned. The PC games, and what have you practically chased him out of where he used to teach back at that time. It was just more than he could stand, feeling like the boy plugging his finger in the dike.

[nohocop]

Glock 40, do you have a view of these two California statutes?:

Labor Code 3362.5: Whenever any qualified person is deputized or appointed by
the proper authority as a reserve or auxiliary sheriff or city police
officer, a deputy sheriff, or a reserve police officer of a regional
park district or a transit district, and is assigned specific police
functions by that authority, the person is an employee of the
county, city, city and county, town, or district for the purposes of
this division while performing duties as a peace officer if the
person is not performing services as a disaster service worker for
purposes of Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 4351).

Government Code 810.2: "Employee" includes an officer, judicial officer as defined
in Section 327 of the Elections Code, employee, or servant, whether
or not compensated, but does not include an independent contractor.

[isp2605]

My wife finally had enough and retired from teaching. She got tired of kids who were a lot less disciplined, administration run by people who were no more than immature kids themselves, and govt regulations.
We talk about cops not getting paid much for what they do. Same goes for teacher salaries. I've spent 41 yrs in LE and would do it all over again but I wouldn't spend 1 day as a teacher.

[isp2605]

Originally Posted by nohocop

a reserve or auxiliary sheriff or city police officer, a deputy sheriff, or a reserve police officer of a regional park district or a transit district, and is assigned specific police functions by that authority,

Here's one for you nohocop. IL use to have a statute authorizing cemetery police. A lot of cemeteries are privately owned by families, churches, organizations, etc. IL's statute authorizing those entities who owned a cemetery to form their own police force which had full police powers anywhere in the state. So if your family owned a piece of ground with a small family plot where great, great, great grandfather was buried you could form your own police dept which had legal authority to make arrests for any violations and carry firearms. It had been on the books a long time and I never bothered to research why the legislature thought such a statute was necessary or who specifically pushed for it. You can bet some politico's buddy owned a cemetery.

[nohocop]

Wow. You got me there ISP!

Under LEOSA, though, no "government agency.". That was the problem with Amtrak and why they fixed it with the 2010 amendments.

[isp2605]

Originally Posted by nohocop

Wow. You got me there ISP!
Under LEOSA, though, no "government agency.". That was the problem with Amtrak and why they fixed it with the 2010 amendments.

Yeah, you're right about private cemeteries. However, some cemeteries are city, county, or township owned which would have put them under LEOSA had there been such a thing back then. That would have made for an interesting conversation had LEOSA been in effect and one of those guys gotten stopped out of state carrying a firearm. "You're a cop where???? In a cemetery???" Really now, who would have believed it? I always wondered what a cemetery police badge would look like. Shape of a tombstone?
This was long before LEOSA. I first ran across the statute in themid-70s while researching something else. I remember doing a brief look and couldn't find any such animal anywhere else. Don't know how long it had been on the books prior to that.

[nohocop]

Hey, if we can make a cemetery a government agency under LEOSA, works for me!!

[lawman800]

Originally Posted by isp2605

Yeah, you're right about private cemeteries. However, some cemeteries are city, county, or township owned which would have put them under LEOSA had there been such a thing back then. That would have made for an interesting conversation had LEOSA been in effect and one of those guys gotten stopped out of state carrying a firearm. "You're a cop where???? In a cemetery???" Really now, who would have believed it? I always wondered what a cemetery police badge would look like. Shape of a tombstone?
This was long before LEOSA. I first ran across the statute in themid-70s while researching something else. I remember doing a brief look and couldn't find any such animal anywhere else. Don't know how long it had been on the books prior to that.

Gives a whole new meaning to "working the graveyard shift".

[steveksux]

Originally Posted by glock_40_calibe

The "had" is not telling at all. It merely provides the authority must have been there while on the job, retirement will not provide more ability to carry than what you had while actively working.

Private citizens do not lose their citizens arrest powers when they retire.

Hence the "had" is VERY telling, as it rules out citizens arrest powers granted to anyone. It obviously refers to some other arrest authority, namely statutory arrest authority granted to officers while on the job, but which they no longer have when retired, hence the word "had".

Randy

[Hack]

Originally Posted by lawman800

Gives a whole new meaning to "working the graveyard shift".

Well, we have peckerwood hill at our fine facility. But, we're too short of staff to staff it.

Cemetery police. That's different.

[glock_40_calibe]

MI Attorney General Opinion #5265 addresses the concept of auxiliary officers and their employment status. Reserve officers and certified part-time officers are two different animals.

There are quite a few classifications of law enforcement officers not considered to be a peace officer that are covered by LEOSA. In Michigan, motor carrier enforcement officers and state property security officers are two examples. Neither have peace officer status but are most certainly covered. Peace officer status has zero impact on a person's standing with LEOSA, but meeting the requirements as laid out in the nice, pre-packaged checklist does.

California state law may be different, and thankfully in many regards it is, than what Michigan has. In California, a reserve officer may well meet the definition of an employee. If you try to apply California law here you will not be happy with the results, the same as if I tried to apply Michigan law there.

I love this board. Because someone disagrees with some of you, all of a sudden that person becomes a CJ student with no experience in the real world, and an idiot due to lack of education. All this while at the same time unable to produce anything beyond opinion to counter an argument. I bet your supervisors and prosecuting attorneys just love you all. "I said it is so, and that is all there is to it. You don't need any evidence to back up what I tell you." Let me know how that works out for you. The fact is none of you have even the faintest idea of my level of experience in law enforcement or what my education level is.

I freely admit I have not researched the laws for every state. If you want to assume it is because I am lazy or incompetent, that is fine. Your opinion of me does not change anything. What the laws are in Illinois or California has no effect on me unless I travel to or through those jurisdictions.

[isp2605]

Originally Posted by glock_40_calibe

I love this board. Because someone disagrees with some of you, all of a sudden that person becomes a CJ student with no experience in the real world, and an idiot due to lack of education.

Don't get us wrong. Obviously you have misunderstood. We think that because you freely admit you never researched it and you can provide nothing but your opinion as if it were fact. And when others point out the fallacy of your interpretation you go on the attack and still admit you haven't research it.
So what else would you expect others to think? You created it. You earned it. And you continue to show just how much you want to wear it.

[steveksux]

Deft change of subject. Don't remember seeing anything about powers of arrest anywhere in that post...

Randy

[steveksux]

So I stumbled onto this looking into the subject, curious for your analysis...

I thought LEOSA exempted you guys from state defined pistol free zones. Not so according to this:

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mc...q_339816_7.pdf

According to this you may not carry in a bar or casino under LEOSA in MI. I don't think that's correct. Now, private property owners can ban firearms on their property, and LEOSA does not exempt you from that. But I thought it overrides state law.

So casinos themselves can ban firearms on their premises, and that would apply to people carrying under LEOSA. In MI, I think that is simple trespass, only a problem if you refuse to leave.

Randy

[lawman800]

Originally Posted by steveksux

So I stumbled onto this looking into the subject, curious for your analysis...

I thought LEOSA exempted you guys from state defined pistol free zones. Not so according to this:

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mc...q_339816_7.pdf

According to this you may not carry in a bar or casino under LEOSA in MI. I don't think that's correct. Now, private property owners can ban firearms on their property, and LEOSA does not exempt you from that. But I thought it overrides state law.

So casinos themselves can ban firearms on their premises, and that would apply to people carrying under LEOSA. In MI, I think that is simple trespass, only a problem if you refuse to leave.

Randy

LEOSA leaves private property owners their own discretion as to what to do, and overrides state law prohibiting it as a blanket rule. That was one of the arguments in the SD shooting, no? The guy carried into a bar where it wasn't allowed under state law... or was it because he was a firefighter? Ugh... whatever.

[steveksux]

Originally Posted by lawman800

LEOSA leaves private property owners their own discretion as to what to do, and overrides state law prohibiting it as a blanket rule. That was one of the arguments in the SD shooting, no? The guy carried into a bar where it wasn't allowed under state law... or was it because he was a firefighter? Ugh... whatever.

Don't remember that case, but that's what I remember from the discussions of LEOSA too.

6. Can I carry a concealed firearm under a LEOSA Certificate in a bar or a casino?
No, you may not carry under a LEOSA Certificate in a bar or a casino. If you hold a
Michigan Concealed Pistol License that designates you as exempt from pistol free zone
restrictions, you may carry in a bar; however, you may not carry concealed weapons in a
Michigan casino under a LEOSA Certificate or a Michigan Concealed Pistol License.

I think that refers to legal prohibition, not to the ability of a property owner to prohibit carry on his property. That doesn't seem right to me...

Randy