Retired officers forced to sue D.C. for right to carry guns after receiving threats

[Law abider]

As time has gone on, 2A has become more and more convoluted in it's interpretation. The seat of the federal government and the building that house our copy of the constitution has prohibited citizens form exercising their inalienable right to life via 2A. No it is not complicated. It says what it means and means what it says, just like the federalist papers are not for lawyers only because they were printed in newspapers for the common folks like you and me.

It’s been six years since Robert L. Smith retired from his job as a corrections officer at the D.C. Jail, but he says he still receives threats from former inmates he supervised.

He keeps a legally registered handgun inside his Southwest D.C. home, but he would like to be able to carry it to protect himself. As a former jail employee, he said, he should qualify for a permit under federal statutes that allow retired law enforcement officers to carry guns without obtaining state licenses.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...s-sue-dc-for-right-to-carry-gu/#ixzz3MjUdl4TU

 

[davidmcbeth]

Another gov't employee who is a lizzurd.

he should be arguing that a permit should not be required.

 

[solus]

The district began contracting operations of the Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF) to the Corrections Corporation of America after it signed a 20-year contract with the CCA in March 1997.

additionally, DC's correction officers do not have arrest powers!! this is a key point in providing this elitist privilege.

the person whom they should be suing is the corrections director to change their duty responsibilities to state they have arrest powers.

ipse

added...er, uh, hummm...actually agree with David on his point!!

oh and sorry the poor retired correction officers are struggling to live like normal DC citizens who are not allowed to have firearms. life is filled with challenges.

 

[Firearms Iinstuctor]

They win.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3438443/posts

‎6‎/‎9‎/‎2016‎ ‎10‎:‎57‎:‎07‎ ‎AM · by VictimsRightsPro2a · 8 replies
Crime Prevention Research Center ^ | June 3, 2016 | Dr. John R. Lott Jr.

CPRC in Fox News.C. must let ex prison guards pack heat, federal court rules Dr. John Lott was quoted by Fox News about the new DC Circuit Court Decision on whether DC has to follow the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act that allows retired Law Enforcement with at least 10 years experience to carry concealed. Four former prison guards who were barred from carrying concealed guns despite a 2004 federal law that gave off-duty and retired law enforcement officers the right to pack heat won a landmark court victory on Thursday. . . . Smith, who retired as a Corrections

 

[solus]

wasn't DC precluding the correction personnel from being able to get recognized it was the prison administrator who refused to sign their paperwork since the law specifically states to qualify individuals must have had arrest powers.

Corrections personnel do not have those powers.

someone pulled one over me thinks...

ipse

 

[hammer6]

wasn't DC precluding the correction personnel from being able to get recognized it was the prison administrator who refused to sign their paperwork since the law specifically states to qualify individuals must have had arrest powers.

Corrections personnel do not have those powers.

someone pulled one over me thinks...

ipse

everyone has power to arrest

 

[utbagpiper]

Two or three wrongs?

On the one hand, our RKBA should not require government permission slips. And whether or the 2nd amendment protects a right to carry concealed, it certainly protects a right to carry in some fashion and once we get that, the 4th ought to protect our rights to be discrete if we so choose. And given the racist history of anti-concealed laws being used to deny racial minorities their RKBA, the 14th ought to also protect our right to carry discretely. (I personally think the 2nd protects the right to carry openly, casually concealed, discretely, or deeply concealed, as the bearer may choose for himself. But I see a couple of levels of fall back position if required.)

On the second hand, I don't see why retired officers should have any more access to an effective defense than anyone else. A rational case can be made that officers are never really "off duty" and so need to legally carry 24/7 within their State of residence. But retired? Or when traveling out-of-State for something other than official business?

On the third hand, federal law is federal law. And while I chafe at special privileges for a few, allowing off-duty and retired cops to carry doesn't actually deprive me of my rights any more than I already am....unless we consider that not allowing me to carry while allowing some other private citizen to do so is a violation of 14th amendment equal protection, hmm....and I don't think I can claim a right to others' helping me in my political causes, then federal law ought to be respected and enforced in all jurisdictions. If DC can get away with ignoring the retired cop carrying law, they can get away with ignoring the safe transport law.

What a mess.

Charles

 

[MAC702]

What percentage of ex-prison guards are assaulted, versus, say, convenience store clerks?

Elitist scum.

 

[JoeSparky]

On the one hand, our RKBA should not require government permission slips. And whether or the 2nd amendment protects a right to carry concealed, it certainly protects a right to carry in some fashion and once we get that, the 4th ought to protect our rights to be discrete if we so choose. And given the racist history of anti-concealed laws being used to deny racial minorities their RKBA, the 14th ought to also protect our right to carry discretely. (I personally think the 2nd protects the right to carry openly, casually concealed, discretely, or deeply concealed, as the bearer may choose for himself. But I see a couple of levels of fall back position if required.)

On the second hand, I don't see why retired officers should have any more access to an effective defense than anyone else. A rational case can be made that officers are never really "off duty" and so need to legally carry 24/7 within their State of residence. But retired? Or when traveling out-of-State for something other than official business?

On the third hand, federal law is federal law. And while I chafe at special privileges for a few, allowing off-duty and retired cops to carry doesn't actually deprive me of my rights any more than I already am....unless we consider that not allowing me to carry while allowing some other private citizen to do so is a violation of 14th amendment equal protection, hmm....and I don't think I can claim a right to others' helping me in my political causes, then federal law ought to be respected and enforced in all jurisdictions. If DC can get away with ignoring the retired cop carrying law, they can get away with ignoring the safe transport law.

What a mess.

Charles

Agreed! +1

 

[solus]

everyone has power to arrest

incorrect statement, and since you left your comment as an open ended statement... i shall presume you mean this country's citizens ~ JQPublic...

wrong, NC citizens, by statute ~ 15A-404, do not have arrest powers, as has been discussed numerous times on this particular forum.

now if your statement meant this country's correction officers ...

wrong, as stated previously,DC's correction officers currently (added) do not have arrest powers.

ipse

 

[solus]

On the one hand, our RKBA should not require government permission slips. And whether or the 2nd amendment protects a right to carry concealed, it certainly protects a right to carry in some fashion and once we get that, the 4th ought to protect our rights to be discrete if we so choose. And given the racist history of anti-concealed laws being used to deny racial minorities their RKBA, the 14th ought to also protect our right to carry discretely. (I personally think the 2nd protects the right to carry openly, casually concealed, discretely, or deeply concealed, as the bearer may choose for himself. But I see a couple of levels of fall back position if required.)

On the second hand, I don't see why retired officers should have any more access to an effective defense than anyone else. A rational case can be made that officers are never really "off duty" and so need to legally carry 24/7 within their State of residence. But retired? Or when traveling out-of-State for something other than official business?

On the third hand, federal law is federal law. And while I chafe at special privileges for a few, allowing off-duty and retired cops to carry doesn't actually deprive me of my rights any more than I already am....unless we consider that not allowing me to carry while allowing some other private citizen to do so is a violation of 14th amendment equal protection, hmm....and I don't think I can claim a right to others' helping me in my political causes, then federal law ought to be respected and enforced in all jurisdictions. If DC can get away with ignoring the retired cop carrying law, they can get away with ignoring the safe transport law.

What a mess.

Charles

these individuals under discussion are normally not BLET trained LE professionals nor meet 18USC 926C's provisions:
(c) As used in this section, the term “qualified retired law enforcement officer” means an individual who—
(1) separated from service in good standing from service with a public agency as a law enforcement officer;
(2) before such separation, 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 or apprehension under section 807(b) of title 10, United States Code (article 7(b) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice);

DC's corrections operation is private agency not a public agency.

and as previously stated the correction personnel are suing the wrong entity...they should have gone after the prison administrator who refused to sign their applications...

ipse

 

[WalkingWolf]

everyone has power to arrest

Not everyone, some states that is removed by statute from civilians, not sure about DC.

 

[hammer6]

depends on your definition of "arrest" lol

 

[solus]

depends on your definition of "arrest" lol

well, here in the tarheel state might end up with your arrest for kidnap...but hey depends on your $$$$ situation and period of time you wish to endure the judicial gauntlet.

ipse

 

[utbagpiper]

and as previously stated the correction personnel are suing the wrong entity...they should have gone after the prison administrator who refused to sign their applications...

Two corrections:

1-With a ruling in place, I think they are no longer "suing" nearly so much as they "sued".


2-Much more materially, as for "wrong" entity, it appears the judge has ordered the city to allow them to carry which suggests they got what they wanted. Not a bad outcome for the plaintiffs having sued the wrong entity, eh?

Charles

 

[WalkingWolf]

depends on your definition of "arrest" lol

In NC there is no citizen arrest powers, though citizens may detain, but are limited to that detainment that it does not cross the line. Handcuff another person and it becomes an arrest, transport even the slightest distance and it becomes an arrest. Which is OK with me as I will not stick my neck out unless it has to do with my property or persons.

 

[solus]

Two corrections:

1-With a ruling in place, I think they are no longer "suing" nearly so much as they "sued".


2-Much more materially, as for "wrong" entity, it appears the judge has ordered the city to allow them to carry which suggests they got what they wanted. Not a bad outcome for the plaintiffs having sued the wrong entity, eh?

Charles

since the judge's ruling flagrantly violates the FEDERAL statute criteria...how long do you anticipate it will be until it is challenged and possibly overturned...

and when the thread started a week ago and as stated in the OP's title...

Retired officers forced to sue D.C. for right to carry guns after receiving threats

Finally, the Judge ordered the DC entityto allow them to carry, who is going to issue the Lawman's permits and makes sure these correction officers w/o arrest powers or who have never worked for a public agency meet the written criteria outlined by the federal statutes.

ipse

 

[utbagpiper]

since the judge's ruling flagrantly violates the FEDERAL statute criteria...how long do you anticipate it will be until it is challenged and possibly overturned...

I no longer make or take bets on what the super legislative branch of our government might do.

and when the thread started a week ago and as stated in the OP's title...

But you posted your comment almost 8 hours after "Firearms Instructor" informed us that the former guards had won their case. I don't care to be the grammar Nazis and so offered my comment tongue in check. As you suggested recently, I'll kindly return the advice: don't take things so seriously.

[/B]Finally, the Judge ordered the DC entityto allow them to carry, who is going to issue the Lawman's permits and makes sure these correction officers w/o arrest powers or who have never worked for a public agency meet the written criteria outlined by the federal statutes.

I don't know. If the former guards are ultimately not able to carry in DC you will be both de facto and de jur correct about the guards having sued the "wrong" entity. As of today, however, it appears that while you are de jur correct, de facto it has worked out fairly well for the former guards.

Again, don't take things so seriously. Sometimes comments are just a different way of looking at things and are not a "challenge" to you or your views.

Charles

 

[solus]

snipp

Again, don't take things so seriously. Sometimes comments are just a different way of looking at things and are not a "challenge" to you or your views.

Charles

fortunately mate, i do not, glad to see you are still hanging in there...

ipse

 

[hammer6]

here's my question-

why does a law enforcement officer get preferential treatment for "rights" from something that was written into law many years after the 2nd amendment?