 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| Disclaimer |
| CareerPoliceOfficer.com is not responsible for the contents of any linked site or any link contained in a linked site, or any changes or updates to such sites. Links are provided only as a convenience, and the inclusion of any link does not imply endorsement by this site. |
Concealed
Carry
Law for
Cops
Carry
Law for
Cops
In 2007 President Bush signed into law H.R.
218 (full text) giving active and retired police
officers the right to carry a concealed
handgun anywhere in the nation.
But...like any new law, this law has more
bugs than you can count. The creators of the
law envision giving trained police officers the
ability to take enforcement action to protect
life and property no matter where they might
find themselves.
While a majority of states now issue
concealed carry permits, many are not that
easy to obtain. In Maryland, for instance,
concealed carry permits are highly restrictive
as to the circumstances under which you can
be armed. Your desire to carry a concealed
handgun for self protection will not get you a
permit.
As a police officer, you'll probably be allowed
to wear your handgun off-duty anywhere in
the state where your jurisdiction is located.
Under H.R. 218 you'll now be allowed to
cross state lines while wearing your handgun
as long as you meet the identification
requirements as outlined in the law.
218 (full text) giving active and retired police
officers the right to carry a concealed
handgun anywhere in the nation.
But...like any new law, this law has more
bugs than you can count. The creators of the
law envision giving trained police officers the
ability to take enforcement action to protect
life and property no matter where they might
find themselves.
While a majority of states now issue
concealed carry permits, many are not that
easy to obtain. In Maryland, for instance,
concealed carry permits are highly restrictive
as to the circumstances under which you can
be armed. Your desire to carry a concealed
handgun for self protection will not get you a
permit.
As a police officer, you'll probably be allowed
to wear your handgun off-duty anywhere in
the state where your jurisdiction is located.
Under H.R. 218 you'll now be allowed to
cross state lines while wearing your handgun
as long as you meet the identification
requirements as outlined in the law.
However, this law does have limitations. Let's
say you're a police officer in the state of Virginia, and you've decided to take
some college classes at Virginia Tech University during your off-duty hours.
While Virginia has one of the most liberal concealed carry laws in the nation,
you'd better not be caught carrying on that campus. Even after that horrible
massacre of 31 students and faculty at Virginia Tech, their gun-free zone
policy is being enforced as strictly as ever. The fact that you're an off-duty
police officer won't entitle you to be armed.
say you're a police officer in the state of Virginia, and you've decided to take
some college classes at Virginia Tech University during your off-duty hours.
While Virginia has one of the most liberal concealed carry laws in the nation,
you'd better not be caught carrying on that campus. Even after that horrible
massacre of 31 students and faculty at Virginia Tech, their gun-free zone
policy is being enforced as strictly as ever. The fact that you're an off-duty
police officer won't entitle you to be armed.
H.R. 218 doesn't change the politics and
policies of most private and public
institutions. Here's an example of some of
the silly stuff that has always happened and
will continue to happen even with the new
law:
policies of most private and public
institutions. Here's an example of some of
the silly stuff that has always happened and
will continue to happen even with the new
law:
Shortly before I retired, I was
summonsed for a court appearance in
Glen Burnie, MD which is located in
Anne Arundel County which shares its
northern boarder with Baltimore City.
I entered the courthouse behind a
uniformed Maryland State Trooper. The
Trooper walked through an area around
the metal detector. Since I was in full
uniform, I followed the Trooper. I didn't
get far before being stopped by a
security officer who politely told me that
I had to surrender my weapon.
While I questioned the court officer as
to why I was required to check my
weapon, three Anne Arundel county
police officers and one Maryland
Transportation Authority officer walked
past us into the courthouse without
being required to check their weapons.
Now, here I was, a uniformed Baltimore
Police Lieutenant, and a member of the
largest police department in Maryland,
being disarmed under really humiliating
circumstances. I couldn't get the court
officer to come clean about why only
Baltimore police officers were being
disarmed, but I already knew the
reason. Some judge or courthouse
bureaucrat had a bone to pick with
someone, and this was his or her
juvenile attempt at retaliation.
summonsed for a court appearance in
Glen Burnie, MD which is located in
Anne Arundel County which shares its
northern boarder with Baltimore City.
I entered the courthouse behind a
uniformed Maryland State Trooper. The
Trooper walked through an area around
the metal detector. Since I was in full
uniform, I followed the Trooper. I didn't
get far before being stopped by a
security officer who politely told me that
I had to surrender my weapon.
While I questioned the court officer as
to why I was required to check my
weapon, three Anne Arundel county
police officers and one Maryland
Transportation Authority officer walked
past us into the courthouse without
being required to check their weapons.
Now, here I was, a uniformed Baltimore
Police Lieutenant, and a member of the
largest police department in Maryland,
being disarmed under really humiliating
circumstances. I couldn't get the court
officer to come clean about why only
Baltimore police officers were being
disarmed, but I already knew the
reason. Some judge or courthouse
bureaucrat had a bone to pick with
someone, and this was his or her
juvenile attempt at retaliation.
You're going to learn very quickly that a lot
of people have a total disdain for the
authority you possess, and that handgun you
carry is a powerful symbol of that authority.
Whenever these types have a chance to
exercise any amount of authority over you,
it's a temptation that's just too good to pass
up. When they're in a position to lawfully
disarm you, they'll feel like they've died and
gone to heaven.
H.R. 218 is a good law, and it's long overdue.
However, as a new police officer, you won't be
able to initially comprehend all the
complications that will occur along the way as
the law becomes settled. For instance, you
could find yourself in another state and in
the midst of a crime in progress. The implied
intent of H.R. 218 appears to indicate that
you're expected to act. But...to what degree
should you act?
Okay...let's say you're a police officer from
Las Vegas, Nevada visiting Baltimore,
Maryland. You're having a nice dinner in an
upscale restaurant when a disturbance
breaks out. One of the restaurant's patrons
is obviously intoxicated, and he's become loud
and verbally abusive toward the restaurant
staff and other patrons near to him.
Additionally, his verbal abuse consists of
of people have a total disdain for the
authority you possess, and that handgun you
carry is a powerful symbol of that authority.
Whenever these types have a chance to
exercise any amount of authority over you,
it's a temptation that's just too good to pass
up. When they're in a position to lawfully
disarm you, they'll feel like they've died and
gone to heaven.
H.R. 218 is a good law, and it's long overdue.
However, as a new police officer, you won't be
able to initially comprehend all the
complications that will occur along the way as
the law becomes settled. For instance, you
could find yourself in another state and in
the midst of a crime in progress. The implied
intent of H.R. 218 appears to indicate that
you're expected to act. But...to what degree
should you act?
Okay...let's say you're a police officer from
Las Vegas, Nevada visiting Baltimore,
Maryland. You're having a nice dinner in an
upscale restaurant when a disturbance
breaks out. One of the restaurant's patrons
is obviously intoxicated, and he's become loud
and verbally abusive toward the restaurant
staff and other patrons near to him.
Additionally, his verbal abuse consists of
threats to commit physical violence.
Since you're from Las Vegas, you probably have no idea what the Baltimore
Police Department's policy is for an off-duty Baltimore officer who finds him
or herself in a situation similar to what you're now experiencing. You'll find
that a lot of police departments don't want their police officers, when
off-duty, to take enforcement action(s); unless, such action(s) is absolutely
necessary. Baltimore is no different. An off-duty Baltimore officer's first
responsibility is to contact on-duty police officers.
At this point in your scenario, your only responsibility under H.R. 218 would
be to contact 911. But...let's take this to a new level. Before the arrival of
Baltimore police officers, this drunken moron acts on his threats of violence.
He picks up his steak knife, and he goes after his waiter. At this point,
there's no question that you're going to act. Thanks to H.R. 218, you have
the means to threaten or employ deadly force to the extent it takes to
protect lives and incapacitate the armed suspect.
In this knife scenario you'd act even if you weren't armed with your
handgun. You'd most likely arm yourself with a dining room chair and go
for broke. However, if your suspect is armed with a gun and you're not,
you'd have few, if any, options for aggressive action.
In my mind, it shouldn't be too difficult for you to comply with H.R. 218 --
even with all the questions which will arise -- as long as you act
appropriately. By appropriately, I mean this: When you observe criminal
activity, you notify on-duty police officers and assist the on-duty officer(s)
when needed. Prior to arrival of an on-duty officer(s), you should take
enforcement action only under imminent life threatening circumstances.
There's also a thing called police civil liability. Just because you act
correctly, whether it be in your own jurisdiction or in another state, that
doesn't mean you can't be sued. Can you imagine how much more
complicated things will get if you take enforcement action in somebody else's
back yard.
Never forget this...there's a lot of politicians who simply hate the idea of H.R.
218. Just because it's a law doesn't mean anything to them. They'll exploit
every weakness and omission (aka: loophole) in the law to make an
example...and you don't want to be that example.
There will, for certain, be examples. It's inevitable that police officers from
other states will employ the use of their firearms while in another state. As
long as the use of deadly force is to protect the officer's life, or the life of
another, there shouldn't be a problem; unless, it can be argued that the
officer's action(s) prior to the use of deadly force in some way contributed to
the creation of the deadly force situation. That covers a lot of territory, and
here's my simple advice: keep your mouth shut and act only when a life is in
imminent danger.
H.R. 218 includes retired police officers as well as active officers. Retired
officers have a tremendous advantage over new, or much younger, police
officers. They've been there and done that, and they're aware of the dangers
of letting altruism supersede pragmatism.
Since you're from Las Vegas, you probably have no idea what the Baltimore
Police Department's policy is for an off-duty Baltimore officer who finds him
or herself in a situation similar to what you're now experiencing. You'll find
that a lot of police departments don't want their police officers, when
off-duty, to take enforcement action(s); unless, such action(s) is absolutely
necessary. Baltimore is no different. An off-duty Baltimore officer's first
responsibility is to contact on-duty police officers.
At this point in your scenario, your only responsibility under H.R. 218 would
be to contact 911. But...let's take this to a new level. Before the arrival of
Baltimore police officers, this drunken moron acts on his threats of violence.
He picks up his steak knife, and he goes after his waiter. At this point,
there's no question that you're going to act. Thanks to H.R. 218, you have
the means to threaten or employ deadly force to the extent it takes to
protect lives and incapacitate the armed suspect.
In this knife scenario you'd act even if you weren't armed with your
handgun. You'd most likely arm yourself with a dining room chair and go
for broke. However, if your suspect is armed with a gun and you're not,
you'd have few, if any, options for aggressive action.
In my mind, it shouldn't be too difficult for you to comply with H.R. 218 --
even with all the questions which will arise -- as long as you act
appropriately. By appropriately, I mean this: When you observe criminal
activity, you notify on-duty police officers and assist the on-duty officer(s)
when needed. Prior to arrival of an on-duty officer(s), you should take
enforcement action only under imminent life threatening circumstances.
There's also a thing called police civil liability. Just because you act
correctly, whether it be in your own jurisdiction or in another state, that
doesn't mean you can't be sued. Can you imagine how much more
complicated things will get if you take enforcement action in somebody else's
back yard.
Never forget this...there's a lot of politicians who simply hate the idea of H.R.
218. Just because it's a law doesn't mean anything to them. They'll exploit
every weakness and omission (aka: loophole) in the law to make an
example...and you don't want to be that example.
There will, for certain, be examples. It's inevitable that police officers from
other states will employ the use of their firearms while in another state. As
long as the use of deadly force is to protect the officer's life, or the life of
another, there shouldn't be a problem; unless, it can be argued that the
officer's action(s) prior to the use of deadly force in some way contributed to
the creation of the deadly force situation. That covers a lot of territory, and
here's my simple advice: keep your mouth shut and act only when a life is in
imminent danger.
H.R. 218 includes retired police officers as well as active officers. Retired
officers have a tremendous advantage over new, or much younger, police
officers. They've been there and done that, and they're aware of the dangers
of letting altruism supersede pragmatism.
| Copyright © 2006 - 2008 - Barry M. Baker - CareerPoliceOfficer.com |
| Online Video Learning Systems: Police Exam - U.S. Border Patrol Exam |