law enforcement officers safety act improvements act of 2010 HR218

U.S. District Court Rules against Retired Officers in HR 218/LEOSA Case

This issue has been tried in U.S. District Court

http://www.policelawblog.com/blog/2...nst-retired-officers-in-hr-218leosa-case.html



Some agents are talking about entering into litigation with the state but as we all know this can be a costly and time consuming effort. I plan to contact the FOP and legislators on both the state and federal level to lean on IDOC but am looking for any other suggestions you all may have. Thanks in advance.[/QUOTE]

cowboyridn said:

This issue has been tried in U.S. District Court

http://www.policelawblog.com/blog/2...nst-retired-officers-in-hr-218leosa-case.html



Some agents are talking about entering into litigation with the state but as we all know this can be a costly and time consuming effort. I plan to contact the FOP and legislators on both the state and federal level to lean on IDOC but am looking for any other suggestions you all may have. Thanks in advance.

Click to expand...

If I'm reading the link correctly the suit was dismissed on the grounds that the feds do not have the legal or constitutional authority to order the state to provide retired credentials. That seems like the proper ruling to me.
The law has no enforcement actions that I'm aware of. And there is no "voluntary" provisions either, like the national speed limit did ("you can post any limit you want, but we'll withhold highway funds if it exceeds 55").

Here in Wisconsin the law on retired officer certification cards was tweaked in 2011 to add the word "shall" to it's language. Meaning an agency has to issue the cards if the officer qualifies and requests one. When I retired in '07 my agency at the time wouldn't issue one, which is one reason why I took a part-time patrol gig with another department after I had retired. It allowed me to keep my certification and peace officer status. My old agency has since changed their tune. I have heard that there are some chiefs and sheriffs that still won't issue them. Eventually there will be a law suit on that, but it will be in state court because it is a state law.

But it's all absurd anyway, isn't it? This state, and the entire country for that fact, needs to obey the supreme law of the land and have Constitutional carry. No more location restrictions, no more licenses or permits, and no more special classes of people. It's all such a crock.

WalkingWolf said:

Why don't you fight for the rights of everybody instead of just yourself... YOU and I do not deserve more rights, or more safety than our non RLEO brothers and sisters.

Click to expand...

pkbites said:

This state, and the entire country for that fact, needs to obey the supreme law of the land and have Constitutional carry. No more location restrictions, no more licenses or permits, and no more special classes of people. It's all such a crock.

Click to expand...

Why can't there be more LEO like you (pl)?
(Or have I just had the supreme bad luck to run into the few who still think like Flynn?)

MKEgal said:

Why can't there be more LEO like you (pl)?
(Or have I just had the supreme bad luck to run into the few who still think like Flynn?)

Click to expand...

Bad policy, bad administration, leads to bad decisions.

When you have the head promoting bad things some see as a lic to commit them.

MKEgal said:

Why can't there be more LEO like you (pl)?
(Or have I just had the supreme bad luck to run into the few who still think like Flynn?)

Click to expand...

There are several problems with LE right now. One~screw ups get promoted, good officers don't want to work with them, they are either fired or promoted. Two~police depts are run by politicians, they only care when it affects their bottom line. Three~there are bungholes in every profession, unions and civil service regulations makes it hard to get rid of them. Four~Being a bunghole is part of the job, some people cannot put it in prospective, and do it appropriately at the correct moment in time. Five~militarization of the police by the Fed Gov since 9/11, it reinforces the US against them theme that gov is encouraging.

When I became a police officer there was a lot of work being done to soften the police image. The FBI under the direction of Pres Carter was actually seeking out to punish police aggressively for almost any type of civil rights violation. Completely opposite from today. The youth of today has changed, some cannot think for themselves, and when they become police officers common sense goes completely out the window. Add to that they know little of the constitution or understand it's intended meaning.

Jimmy Carter was a lousy president, BUT we need someone like him to redirect the role of the LE in this country so that it again serves the people and the constitution. I am amazed at the people who voted for Obama are the same people that are typically abused by the police, and they do not call him to task for it.

WalkingWolf said:

When I became a police officer there was a lot of work being done to soften the police image. The FBI under the direction of Pres Carter was actually seeking out to punish police aggressively for almost any type of civil rights violation. Completely opposite from today. The youth of today has changed, some cannot think for themselves, and when they become police officers common sense goes completely out the window. Add to that they know little of the constitution or understand it's intended meaning.

Jimmy Carter was a lousy president, BUT we need someone like him to redirect the role of the LE in this country so that it again serves the people and the constitution. I am amazed at the people who voted for Obama are the same people that are typically abused by the police, and they do not call him to task for it.

Click to expand...

I don't agree with some of this. There should be as little federal involvement in local/county/state law enforcement as possible. The problem with the civil rights stuff is that everything we do get's lumped into a civil rights aledgement. Ever write a black person a traffic ticket? Of course you only pulled them over because they're black, and not because they were going 37 over the limit in a car with suspended plates and they have a revoked drivers license and they reek of weed and booze. You certainly wouldn't pick on a white guy doing the same thing, would you? Now imagine that every single one of those ridiculous claims resulted in a federal investigation. A nightmare for us, a delight for the left.

When I got into it in '82 all you needed was to be 18 with a high school diploma and no criminal record. Now we're getting all these college kids who's heads have been filled with gunk by profs who have only seen the inside of a squad car when they got arrested in college. I like the technical school route better. The police science instructors tend to be real cops who know how the real world works.

MKEgal said:

:banghead:
That's the whole problem. There are still people relying on old case law, instead of the current real laws.
That ruling was made before the WI Constitutional amendment protecting RKBA, before Act 35 changed the transport statute for pistols, and before (can't remember the number) the other Act changed the transport statute for long guns.
At best, the situation is confusing & the legislature needs to clarify that simply getting into a car does not magically make OC into cc.

Click to expand...

Changes to 167.31 have zero to do with CCW and 941.23 Violations. Nothing about 167.31 grants you the authority to carry a loaded handgun or an unloaded long gun in the passenger compartment of your car. It previously prohibited you from placing a loaded or uncased firearm in or on your vehicle and now does not prohibit you from placing a loaded handgun or an unloaded long gun in your vehicle. Do not read anything more into this Statute. Current real law 941.23 prohibits you from carrying a concealed long gun even with your license. The only thing up for debate regarding case law is what constitutes "hidden". Below the window line is an accurate synopsis of current case law recognized by the WI DOJ.