GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-17-2013, 14:03   #76
kenpoprofessor
Senior Member
 
kenpoprofessor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Ex POW in the PRK now N. Phoenix AZ
Posts: 4,863
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cochese View Post
What truth, junior?

You are a loud mouth blowhard who has a twisted idea of how the world works, makes asinine dooshbag self defense YouTube videos and continually picks fights in a police subforum.

Like I give a rats ass about your worthless opinion. Kenpo teacher that looks like he hasn't seen a day of cardio or a shower in three weeks.

Let me make sure I jot down all of your super good advice on life and relevant opinions on LE.

Lol
So I see you're debasing me and not the message, why is that? I have done nothing to anyone on this thread, not personally threatened or called names.

Have a serious conversation about why you're right and I'm wrong.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde
__________________
"Occasionally, Mr. Darwin offers a spontaneous IQ test, some people fail."
kenpoprofessor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 14:08   #77
Cochese
CLM Number 209
Most mackinest
 
Cochese's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Unmarked Rustbox
Posts: 16,177


You debase yourself. You have no credibility. I call them as I see them. Always have.

If you had come in here years ago without being a total jerkoff then you wouldn't be in the position you are in.

None of us in here (the cops) agree with or want a ban. That said, pushing to limit the police to what the moron legislature wants to limit the citizens to... is counterproductive.

The focus should be on stopping unconstitutional legislation or overturning it asap. Not compounding it to LE.

If you are too dense to pick up the how and why then I can't help you.
__________________
"Never been dumped 'cause I'm the most mackinest,
never been jumped 'cause I'm known the most packinest."
Cochese is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 14:33   #78
kenpoprofessor
Senior Member
 
kenpoprofessor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Ex POW in the PRK now N. Phoenix AZ
Posts: 4,863
And how is limiting an off duty or visiting cop's mag limit counterproductive? You can tell me it is, but how is it?

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde
__________________
"Occasionally, Mr. Darwin offers a spontaneous IQ test, some people fail."
kenpoprofessor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 14:57   #79
DaBigBR
No Infidels!
 
DaBigBR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Circling the wagons.
Posts: 15,886
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gallium View Post
Hey, I am married, I don't need to come here to be insulted.

"qualified law enforcement officer" is the wording in LEOSA...but what if your state statute does not have that specific definition? Then you have to look at what HR218 uses to define that term, and to see who in your own state qualifies under the law.

So now I will ask you in a thread about NY's new law....and HR218, what is the extent of your knowledge of who qualifies under HR218 in NY? Because clearly, although you are a police officer SOMEWHERE in the CONUS, it does not make you (or as we are seeing here in NY) any of us, experts at this new serving of crap our legislature has handed us.

- G
The requirements are simply and generally given a wide berth when courts have interpreted.

Here is the law:

Quote:
A “qualified active law enforcement officer” is defined as an employee of a government agency who:

-is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation,
prosecution or the incarceration of any person for any violation of law;

-has statutory powers of arrest;

-is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm;

-is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the agency which could result in suspension or loss of police powers;

-meets the standards, if any, established by the agency which require the employee to regularly qualify in the use of a firearm;

-is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance, and

-is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing a firearm.
So, what matters is that the person is:

1) An employee of a government agency. If you have a guy that created a police department at his animal rescue, then he is NOT a government employee.

2) Authorized by law to detect, investigate, prosecute, or incarcerate people for any violation of law. This requirement is relatively straight forward and I think the phrase "for any violation of law" is a hint as to how broad it was intended.

3) Has statutory powers of arrest. The law gives no interpretation of what this means and whether or not the person must have statutory powers of arrest off duty. I suggest it was meant to be worded that way since the law was designed to allow officers to carry throughout the country, where their statutory powers of arrest would not extend, anyway.

4) Authorized by their agency to carry a firearm. No qualifiers are placed on this statement such as "on duty", etc.

The remainder of the clauses deal with qualification, disciplinary action, and drug use.

So, do the assorted people you mention under New York law get to carry? The question is as simple as whether the above clauses apply. The person's ability to obtain a permit in New York has nothing to do with it as the analysis will always be whether or not they meet the requirements under 926B (or 926C for retired folks).

Also worth pointing out that a "qualified law enforcement officer" is not the same as a permit holder. HR218 only allows limitations to be placed on carrying in government buildings and preserves laws allowing private property owners to restrict people from carrying on their property.

And I'm 2,000 miles from New York.
__________________
"Logic is rarely the engine that propels a police department forward."

-David Simon in "Homicide"
DaBigBR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 15:02   #80
AtlantaR6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 332
What responsibilities or protection does an off duty cop have? Aren't they basically citizens at that point, who can walk away from a crime in progress? If they choose to defend, can't they still be prosecuted or sued in civil court as any other civilian?

Serious question, I don't know.
AtlantaR6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 15:16   #81
Gallium
CLM Number 182
Charter Lifetime Member
 
Gallium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 47,557


DaBigBr,

Some corrections officers here meet all of those criteria, and are "peace" officers, and have convoluted rules about what happens when they punch out from that job.
Gallium is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 15:16   #82
GRIMLET
Deceased
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenpoprofessor View Post
And how is limiting an off duty or visiting cop's mag limit counterproductive? You can tell me it is, but how is it?

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde
How is limiting any legal gun owners handgun magazine productive?

If a certain user group has a chance to regain their right, you become annoyed.

We, as a group, are attempting to help ourselves. We are not whining about someone having something others may have.

If you dont like a law, petition your law makers and get it changed.

I am pushing for a change in LEOSA to cover higher capacity magazines for off duty and retired LEOs.

It is not about being held to a higher standard. Its about picking and choosing your battle. The realistic win involving magazine capacity for us is changing LEOSA.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
GRIMLET is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 16:10   #83
kenpoprofessor
Senior Member
 
kenpoprofessor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Ex POW in the PRK now N. Phoenix AZ
Posts: 4,863
Quote:
Originally Posted by GRIMLET View Post
How is limiting any legal gun owners handgun magazine productive?

If a certain user group has a chance to regain their right, you become annoyed.

We, as a group, are attempting to help ourselves. We are not whining about someone having something others may have.

If you dont like a law, petition your law makers and get it changed.

I am pushing for a change in LEOSA to cover higher capacity magazines for off duty and retired LEOs.

It is not about being held to a higher standard. Its about picking and choosing your battle. The realistic win involving magazine capacity for us is changing LEOSA.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
So what you're saying is: I want more special rights than anyone else because of my profession, it can be very dangerous.

But that doesn't explain why you need more rights than any other citizen when you're "off duty", or visiting another state out of your jurisdiction.

So, tell me again how you're working for everyone's rights? You're not, you're just like the legislature that passes bills with themselves being exempt, you just want a piece of the "well, I'm deserving of an exemption" crowd.

You can't abide by the state laws like everyone else, no matter how stupid they are?

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde
__________________
"Occasionally, Mr. Darwin offers a spontaneous IQ test, some people fail."
kenpoprofessor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 16:30   #84
railfancwb
Senior Member
 
railfancwb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Shelbyville, Tennessee TN
Posts: 3,823
At this point New York law enforcement is limited to seven rounds.

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?se...ork&id=8958116

Duh!

"We have to pass the bill to find out what's in it."


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
__________________
"Never give to your friend any power that your enemy may some day inherit." -- Paul Weyrich
railfancwb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 16:39   #85
railfancwb
Senior Member
 
railfancwb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Shelbyville, Tennessee TN
Posts: 3,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtlantaR6 View Post
What responsibilities or protection does an off duty cop have? Aren't they basically citizens at that point, who can walk away from a crime in progress? If they choose to defend, can't they still be prosecuted or sued in civil court as any other civilian?

Serious question, I don't know.
According to a number of court cases, up to and including the US Supreme Court if memory serves, even on duty cops have no duty to protect and defend members of the general population.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
__________________
"Never give to your friend any power that your enemy may some day inherit." -- Paul Weyrich
railfancwb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 16:51   #86
igor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: near Annapolis Maryland
Posts: 583
i just finished breaking iin a beretta nano if i ever have to go to ny, and my sister will have to come to me now. i will use the nano with its 6 rd mag plus several spares.stupid law passed by stupid politicos. remember his when he is runniong fro president.
__________________
igor
igor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 17:37   #87
DaBigBR
No Infidels!
 
DaBigBR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Circling the wagons.
Posts: 15,886
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtlantaR6 View Post
What responsibilities or protection does an off duty cop have? Aren't they basically citizens at that point, who can walk away from a crime in progress? If they choose to defend, can't they still be prosecuted or sued in civil court as any other civilian?

Serious question, I don't know.
This varies by locality to some degree. As a certified peace officer in my state, I have powers of arrest for all offenses throughout the state at all times whether on duty or off. Department policy restricts what I am allowed to do, but department policy is for internal use only and a violation of policy does not equal civil or criminal liability.

I'll go out on a limb and say that most agencies make off duty carry optional and set policies regarding when and if an officer may take enforcement action while off duty. Officers taking law enforcement action off duty may still be entitled to qualified immunity as they are when on duty. Officers who are on duty can be criminally prosecuted and/or civilly sued, just like those who are off duty.

Quote:
Originally Posted by railfancwb View Post
According to a number of court cases, up to and including the US Supreme Court if memory serves, even on duty cops have no duty to protect and defend members of the general population.
The purpose of law enforcement is order maintenance and the proetection of society at large, not individual people, unless a special relationship exists. If your house gets broken in to, you can't sue the police department for failing to prevent it. If a member of your family is murdered, you can't sue the police department for failing to prevent it.

That changes when a "special relationship" is created. For example, if I place a person under arrest, I do now have a responsibility to protect that indivdual person and may be liable if something happens to them.
__________________
"Logic is rarely the engine that propels a police department forward."

-David Simon in "Homicide"
DaBigBR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 17:42   #88
fla2760
Senior Member
 
fla2760's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: FL
Posts: 1,123
This whole thing is a nightmare,the amending of LEOSA to address these issues is imperative. I only hope this useless law does not result in the death of a retired MOS. Picture a retired police officer that trains an qualifies with a pistol that holds more than 7 in the magazine and during an incident the gun is emptied but do to prior training you reflexively try to clear what you perceive as a jam in a now empty pistol. The nanoseconds lost can be get you killed. I qualify with a Glock 27 every year.
__________________
STEVE, NRA LIFE MEMBER; Member GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA
What part of "shall not be infringed" does the Democratic Party not understand? The TAX and BAN Party needs to be voted out.

Last edited by fla2760; 01-17-2013 at 17:46..
fla2760 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 17:54   #89
kenpoprofessor
Senior Member
 
kenpoprofessor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Ex POW in the PRK now N. Phoenix AZ
Posts: 4,863
Quote:
Originally Posted by fla2760 View Post
This whole thing is a nightmare,the amending of LEOSA to address these issues is imperative. I only hope this useless law does not result in the death of a retired MOS. Picture a retired police officer that trains an qualifies with a pistol that holds more than 7 in the magazine and during an incident the gun is emptied but do to prior training you reflexively try to clear what you perceive as a jam in a now empty pistol. The nanoseconds lost can be get you killed. I qualify with a Glock 27 every year.
So why is it any different if a world renowned heart surgeon has the same problem? I would feel just as bad if it were anyone.

Why are police so set on getting just exemptions for them, and not everyone else?

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde
__________________
"Occasionally, Mr. Darwin offers a spontaneous IQ test, some people fail."

Last edited by kenpoprofessor; 01-17-2013 at 17:55..
kenpoprofessor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 18:29   #90
GRIMLET
Deceased
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenpoprofessor View Post
So what you're saying is: I want more special rights than anyone else because of my profession, it can be very dangerous.

But that doesn't explain why you need more rights than any other citizen when you're "off duty", or visiting another state out of your jurisdiction.

So, tell me again how you're working for everyone's rights? You're not, you're just like the legislature that passes bills with themselves being exempt, you just want a piece of the "well, I'm deserving of an exemption" crowd.

You can't abide by the state laws like everyone else, no matter how stupid they are?

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde
No, Clyde. Thats not what I am saying. And you know that.

The rights I am fighting for are not special in any way as you describe it.

You either dont get it or you just like to troll cops. Whatever.

And no, I am not trying to pass legislation for eveyone regarding magazines Thats your job if you fit in that group. It is probably a lost cause. I choose to put my efforts into legislation which has a chance of passing.

Go play with your little stick somewhere else. Bu-bye




Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
GRIMLET is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 18:35   #91
fla2760
Senior Member
 
fla2760's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: FL
Posts: 1,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenpoprofessor View Post
So why is it any different if a world renowned heart surgeon has the same problem? I would feel just as bad if it were anyone.

Why are police so set on getting just exemptions for them, and not everyone else?

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde
This thread is addressing LEOSA. I am no fan of any of this new legislation. How many heart surgeons were instrumental in sending people to prison.
__________________
STEVE, NRA LIFE MEMBER; Member GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA
What part of "shall not be infringed" does the Democratic Party not understand? The TAX and BAN Party needs to be voted out.
fla2760 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 18:36   #92
Schaffer
Senior Member
 
Schaffer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 595
Quote:
Originally Posted by ithaca_deerslayer View Post
Come for some Genny Cream Ale. Stay for the wings

Wonder if you could have a 10-round mag if it was possesd before the ban. I can, but not sure if you could bring it in state.
I can stay in PA and get that.
Schaffer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 18:41   #93
Schaffer
Senior Member
 
Schaffer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 595
Quote:
Originally Posted by railfancwb View Post
At this point New York law enforcement is limited to seven rounds.

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?se...ork&id=8958116

Duh!

"We have to pass the bill to find out what's in it."


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
All I got from that was a senator that agrees that the bad guys can't have more ammo, so why the limiting.
Schaffer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 18:53   #94
kenpoprofessor
Senior Member
 
kenpoprofessor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Ex POW in the PRK now N. Phoenix AZ
Posts: 4,863
Quote:
Originally Posted by fla2760 View Post
This thread is addressing LEOSA. I am no fan of any of this new legislation. How many heart surgeons were instrumental in sending people to prison.
My testimony was responsible for sending two Airman to military prison for dereliction of duty when I was Active Duty, does that count?

Shouldn't veterans have the same "extra rights"?

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde
__________________
"Occasionally, Mr. Darwin offers a spontaneous IQ test, some people fail."
kenpoprofessor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 19:20   #95
Patchman
Florist
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Land of Flora, Fauna & Merriweather
Posts: 11,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenpoprofessor View Post
So why is it any different if a world renowned heart surgeon has the same problem? I would feel just as bad if it were anyone.

Why are police so set on getting just exemptions for them, and not everyone else?

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde
I would welcome the AMA to lobby their connections in Washington DC and the various states to get exemptions for their heart surgeons.

Given the AMA's connections to monies, political connections and political juice, they'd probably be more effective than any LEOSA effort.
__________________
Sounds like he has nothing left but be a monkey's uncle. It's not like he's got a monkey's manhood left.

And thank YOU for being perfect, all the time, every time. Go forth and reproduce. We need more of you.
Patchman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 20:04   #96
Stuntman22
Retired
 
Stuntman22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by WT View Post
Why would LEOSA apply to retired NJ cops within NJ?

I thought LEOSA addressed interstate travel of retired and active police officers. Since retired NJ cops living in NJ obviously is not an interstate travel thing I don't see where the federal law applies.

That said, I cannot believe a retired NJ cop carrying his NJ concealed carry permit is going to get jammed up for carrying HPs.

Maybe a Garden State cop could chime in with his understandings?
I am retired from NJ but work a different job in NYC. It is true that as of my last qualification (twice a year) retired NJ Police can not carry hollow points. Silly, I Know. We do carry Hornaday Critical Defense rounds. They are esentially hollow point but the hollow point is filled with some softer red type of matter.

I cant get a clear answer as to if I can carry my 10 round glock mag in NYC. As for now, I carry my LCP and 5 shot smith.
I'll keep ya posted.
Stuntman22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 21:55   #97
deguelo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 444
Quote:
Originally Posted by boomhower View Post
After this I won't got into the state on principle alone. I'd wanting to visit NYC at some point but I will not use my money to support a state that will pass this crap.
i don't blame you, brother. i avoid illinois, nj, hawaii, md and cali for the same reason...

me and the family enjoy visiting your place, though.
deguelo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 22:31   #98
RetailNinjitsu
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuntman22 View Post
It is true that as of my last qualification (twice a year) retired NJ Police can not carry hollow points.
unreal...
RetailNinjitsu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 22:59   #99
Cochese
CLM Number 209
Most mackinest
 
Cochese's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Unmarked Rustbox
Posts: 16,177


Quote:
Originally Posted by kenpoprofessor View Post
And how is limiting an off duty or visiting cop's mag limit counterproductive? You can tell me it is, but how is it?

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde
Really?

I can't make logic appear in your head, dude.

Police officers, even "off duty" can and will respond to SHTF scenarios. WASTING time on *****ing about police not being restricted INSTEAD of putting forth the effort to make sure the ban doesn't happen to ANY OF US...

IS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE.
__________________
"Never been dumped 'cause I'm the most mackinest,
never been jumped 'cause I'm known the most packinest."
Cochese is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 22:59   #100
Cochese
CLM Number 209
Most mackinest
 
Cochese's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Unmarked Rustbox
Posts: 16,177


I sent my letters to my reps Clyde.

Have you?
__________________
"Never been dumped 'cause I'm the most mackinest,
never been jumped 'cause I'm known the most packinest."
Cochese is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 21:16.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,419
417 Members
1,002 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42