OC for ME
Regular Member
I'd enjoy reading the outcome of WW detaining a citizen who wore a gun in a GFSZ.
Me too!I'd enjoy reading the outcome of WW detaining a citizen who wore a gun in a GFSZ.
The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.
Printz v. United States (95-1478), 521 U.S. 898 (1997)
States may participate in various ways in the enforcement of federal criminal law. But, taking it on their own to enforce federal laws is not authorized by the constitution. States lack power to enforce federal criminal law directly because state prosecutors don't have authority to prosecute federal offenders themselves in state or federal court. Enforcement of federal criminal law by state prosecutors more than likely violates the Appointments and Take Care Clauses of Article II of the U.S. Constitution.
I would bet any officer that would detain an open carrier that is within 1,000 ft. of a school without more will find them-self in hot water.
And I know of no federal case law where someone was prosecuted in federal court just for the fact of being within 1,000ft. of a school carrying a gun.
If you know of a case I would like to see it.
Lets stay on point; the title of this thread is "Local LEO's enforcing federal law? Allowed or not?"Well let's see~~it is lawful for a citizen to make a detention on federal law~~IF the person resists with violence I am sure the prosecution would not be JUST for GFSZA. I have a school 2 miles from me, BenHaven, feel froggy?
I am more than willing to test this out.
Lets stay on point; the title of this thread is "Local LEO's enforcing federal law? Allowed or not?"
For more than 25 years my home abutted a school. Open carried on a regular bases. The area was residential. The police chief and a couple of his officers did not see eye to eye with my stance as it related to citizens and their possession of firearms. I was never challenged in regards to being within 1,000 ft. of the school. That's my experience. What's yours?
On point it is allowed, even private citizens have the power to detain or make arrests, it would be stupid to think police officers are excluded. Here is my experience any felony in NC a citizen can, and they have detained individuals for. Violation of GFSZA is a felony, and it is within a private persons power to detain for a felony. There is nothing that the citizen could get in trouble for as YOU alluded. Most people do not give a damn about the GFSZA, including LEO's but that is not a invitation to press your luck. Even as a police officer I avoided gun charges if at all possible. But as a private citizen I would make a exception for a Richard head.
Hell clerks in stores and LP has detained for passing bad notes, on federal law, private citizens make arrests across the country and it is common. Even in DC the power of citizen's arrest is recongnized. Which DC laws are federal laws.
District of Columbia Law 23- 582(b) reads as follows:
(b) A private person may arrest another -
(1) who he has probable cause to believe is committing in his presence -
(A) a felony, or
(B) an offense enumerated in section 23-581 (a)(2); or
(2) in aid of a law enforcement officer or special policeman, or other person authorized by law to make an arrest.
(c) Any person making an arrest pursuant to this section shall deliver the person arrested to a law enforcement officer without unreasonable delay. (July 29, 1970, 84 Stat. 630, Pub. L. 91-358, Title II, § 210(a); 1973 Ed., § 23-582; Apr. 30, 1988, D.C. Law 7-104, § 7(e), 35 DCR 147.)
Anytime you want to test your theory let me know. I have made many detentions as a private citizen, all convictions. In fact the prosecution loves private citizens detentions, because it is a case where the private citizen is a witness to the crime. I am guessing you are not a attorney. :lol:
Although it appears the below link is based on Connecticut law with emphasis on immigration, it may shed some light, though not legal opinion/advise, on this specific topic:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/rpt/2005-R-0457.htm
It appears, local, county, and state, may detain/arrest for federal crimes based on the law of each state that allow it.
WW your proving our point... the State must have a law on file that says you can enforce said law. It isn't just "if it doesn't say I can't, then I can".
Connecticut law authorizes state and local police to arrest people for violations of federal criminal law. But, whether they can legally make an arrest for a specific federal crime depends on whether federal law explicitly or implicitly allows them to make an arrest for that crime. Congress' power to prohibit a state from enforcing a federal law rests with the Supremacy Clause of the federal constitution, which provides that the “laws of the United States. . .shall be the supreme law of the land. . .any thing in the Constitution of laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding” (U.S. Constitution Art. VI, cl. 2).
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/rpt/2005-R-0457.htm
Above is an excerpt from a paper on Connecticut law and the enforcing immigration laws.
As a police officer you are either on duty or off duty. But irrespective of being on duty or off duty, when an officer interacts with a citizen relating to a violation of law that officer is acting in the line of duty. That is the millstone around the officer's neck. If the officer wants to make a citizens arrest then the officer needs to cast off the millstone.On point it is allowed, even private citizens have the power to detain or make arrests, it would be stupid to think police officers are excluded. Here is my experience any felony in NC a citizen can, and they have detained individuals for. Violation of GFSZA is a felony, and it is within a private persons power to detain for a felony. There is nothing that the citizen could get in trouble for as YOU alluded. Most people do not give a damn about the GFSZA, including LEO's but that is not a invitation to press your luck. Even as a police officer I avoided gun charges if at all possible. But as a private citizen I would make a exception for a Richard head.
Hell clerks in stores and LP has detained for passing bad notes, on federal law, private citizens make arrests across the country and it is common. Even in DC the power of citizen's arrest is recongnized. Which DC laws are federal laws.
District of Columbia Law 23- 582(b) reads as follows:
(b) A private person may arrest another -
(1) who he has probable cause to believe is committing in his presence -
(A) a felony, or
(B) an offense enumerated in section 23-581 (a)(2); or
(2) in aid of a law enforcement officer or special policeman, or other person authorized by law to make an arrest.
(c) Any person making an arrest pursuant to this section shall deliver the person arrested to a law enforcement officer without unreasonable delay. (July 29, 1970, 84 Stat. 630, Pub. L. 91-358, Title II, § 210(a); 1973 Ed., § 23-582; Apr. 30, 1988, D.C. Law 7-104, § 7(e), 35 DCR 147.)
Anytime you want to test your theory let me know. I have made many detentions as a private citizen, all convictions. In fact the prosecution loves private citizens detentions, because it is a case where the private citizen is a witness to the crime. I am guessing you are not a attorney. :lol:
Cite?
Common law originates from England during that time I don't believe there was felonies. Sheriffs had the power of arrest and delegated that power to the subjects in his jurisdiction. From this came the power for arrests for all crimes for all citizens.Maybe I'm missing something, maybe the whole point, but I'll take a crack at it anyway.
Concerning cite for statement that LEOs are given "authority to arrest" through state statute...
Well, for Texas, it is in Code of Criminal Procedure. Chapter 14 covers arrest without warrant, chapter 15 with warrant. Without these statutes, there would clearly be no "authority to arrest" whatsoever. Any "arrest" that takes place outside the bounds of these authoritating statutes would certainly qualify as criminal offenses in other statutes, such as unlawful restraint. In such statutes where "authorized" acts overlap, these "authorized arrests" must be specifically excluded**.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CR/htm/CR.14.htm
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CR/htm/CR.15.htm
I'd be seriously surprised if you didn't already know this and weren't just trying to force the poster to start posting more factually with cites.
** http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.20.htm
Sec. 20.02. UNLAWFUL RESTRAINT.
...
(d) It is no offense to detain or move another under this section when it is for the purpose of effecting a lawful arrest or detaining an individual lawfully arrested.
...
Police do not have "authority" by default, it must be defined by statute and passed by legislator.
Or at the very least, an existing statute must be perverted by the courts.
Edit: As far as common law goes... I'm certainly no common law expert but I would think that any common law authority to arrest would only apply to common law offenses.
Common law originates from England during that time I don't believe there was felonies. Sheriffs had the power of arrest and delegated that power to the subjects in his jurisdiction. From this came the power for arrests for all crimes for all citizens.
States limit the authority, as in NC, but there are no federal laws that outlaw citizen arrests. These arrests were vital in the early 19th century as there was very few police. Most towns had no law enforcement at all. States pass laws to regulate or make things illegal, it is not illegal unless there is a law making it illegal. Police are regulated in every state, outside of that they have the same power as any other person in the US.
In title 18, can't remember exactly, in the case of wanted federal suspects local police are given by federal law the status of US Marshal, even if they are outside their jurisdiction. Title 18 also spells out that private citizens cannot make a arrest unless directed by a judge for IRS codes. Clearly this would not be necessary if the power did not exist for private citizens to make arrests. In fact in the fourth amendment there is no mention of police in the limitations of arrest. Because of this many argue that police are unconstitutional, no matter what state laws say.
I will have to do some digging to see if police are spelled out in the constitution, but before it was written British soldiers were the primary police. And until the posse comitatus act US soldiers acted police on occasion. They still can and do under certain circumstances, and in those circumstances they can enforce local law.
For the most part US Code only gives federal officers powers for US Code, BUT they are still people with the same powers in any state that are afforded by the state. Some states such as CA have statutes laying out that US officers are not police officers UNLESS. Unless they complete the proper training, then they may act as CA police.
I think it very foolish for some to give the impression that local police cannot arrest for a federal crime. This is a bad message to put out there to the public, and it is a false message.
You can think it to be as foolish as you want, you can also:...I think it very foolish for some to give the impression that local police cannot arrest for a federal crime. This is a bad message to put out there to the public, and it is a false message.
Government doesn't is not supposed to have the same freedom of citizens. Their authorities are supposed to be limited where the citizens are not.
This is the same sort of way the Feds stuffed the 55 mph speed limit down the state's throats - by saying "we're gonna cut off your highway funds unless you make the interstate speed limit 55 mph!".Guidance Concerning State and Local Responsibilities
Under the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994
This guidance is to provide information concerning State and local responsibilities under the Gun-Free Schools Act (GFSA), which was enacted on October 20, 1994 as part of the Improving America?s Schools Act of 1994 (the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA)), Public Law 103-382. Preliminary information was mailed to Governors and Chief State School Officers in a letter dated November 28, 1994. Revisions to the guidance were made and issued on October 31, 1995. This revision of the guidance contains an additional question and answer (Q. 10) concerning reporting.
The GFSA states that each State receiving Federal funds under ESEA must have in effect, by October 20, 1995, a State law requiring local educational agencies to expel from school for a period of not less than one year a student who is determined to have brought a weapon to school. Each State's law also must allow the chief administering officer of the local educational agency (LEA) to modify the expulsion requirement on a case-by-case basis...
http://www2.ed.gov/offices/OSDFS/gfsaguidance.html
Here's an example of how the Feds push stuff on local PDs. So basically the Sheriff would refuse to enforce the STATE law that would need to be passed to comply with this example. Again, just an example.