[razdog76]

[Panzergrenadier1979]

Originally Posted by kenpoprofessor

First off, I'm not a lawyer, nor do I ever want to be one. So, you asked a question, I found the answer I was looking for that suited the question, copy and pasted it, primarily because I'M NOT A LAWYER, or have any intention of being one.

I'd like to use this as a sig line.

Do I need to ask Clyde's permission to use it or can I just cut & paste it?

[lawman800]

Originally Posted by Panzergrenadier1979

I'd like to use this as a sig line.

Do I need to ask Clyde's permission to use it or can I just cut & paste it?

Only if you do it this way:

First off, I'm not a lawyer[1], nor do I ever want to be one. So, you asked a question, I found the answer[2] I was looking for that suited the question, copy and pasted it[3], primarily because I'M NOT A LAWYER[4], or have any intention of being one[5].

[1] Duh
[2] By copying and pasting, aka stealing, without comprehending what I'm putting out there
[3] Plagiarism feels so good
[4] Duh
[5] Lack of IQ notwithstanding, but I want a MENSA girl

[mrsurfboard]

Originally Posted by steveksux

I thought pretty much any sworn officer can legally carry under LEOSA, but if CCW isn't available, and department policy forbids off duty carry for some reason, that might even still be true somewhere... Legally they can still technically carry though.

Randy

They can, however if your dept regs forbid it, while you may not be breaking any firearms laws, you would be breaking dept regs and would be subject to dept discipline, including termination.

[series1811]

Originally Posted by kenpoprofessor

The two conceptions of that principle allow for due process and equal protection analyses to lead to contradictory results. The structure of that debate, which is apparent in a number of cases,[85] is as follows. One justice adopts a broad view of equal protection and concludes that the principle guarantees a given right to a class of people. Another justice adopts a narrow conception of equal protection and finds it inapplicable to the facts of the case.

The advocate of the narrow view then turns to a due process analysis and finds, in some cases, that due process does not entail the right at issue, or, if it does, that the benefit of the right is outweighed by its cost to the state.[86] In such cases, equal protection and due process analyses lead to divergent results.

For the rest see

Plessy v Ferguson
Brown v Board of Education.

Clyde

Textbook example of why you shouldn't get your law off of the internet.

Can't find an on point case that supports your legal contention? Doesn't matter. Just cut and paste some random verbage from any case you can find, plant your flag, and declare victory.

[BLACK Z]

This topic sure has derailed, and when someone searches this topic they are going to miss a lot of good info because they are not going to want to read between the non sense.

[DaBigBR]

Originally Posted by kenpoprofessor

First off, I'm not a lawyer, nor do I ever want to be one. So, you asked a question, I found the answer I was looking for that suited the question, copy and pasted it, primarily because I'M NOT A LAWYER, or have any intention of being one.

You know, Heller and McDonald both started as "questions" about certain laws, you see where they went right????

So, keep it up, I'm happy to keep giving it back, and if it bothers you, well, put me on ignore.


Clyde

Well, Clyde, file at will then. However, if you're trying to prove that LEOSA is unconstitutional under the fourteenth, you're trying to hard.

[razdog76]

Originally Posted by Panzergrenadier1979

I'd like to use this as a sig line.

Do I need to ask Clyde's permission to use it or can I just cut & paste it?

Being that he isn't, and doesn't, he probably didn't copy right it to prevent your joinder of it.