FREE e-Newsletter
Important News - Hot Topics
Get them Now!

Tactical Pants - Galls
A popular choice for public safety professionals, the Galls Tactical Pants are...

Departments : Point of Law

To Keep and Bear Arms

Concealed carry laws for active and former police officers are more than a little confusing.

February 01, 2009  |  by Devallis Rutledge - Also by this author

Lately, the legal limits on gun possession by both police and private individuals have come under judicial scrutiny. Two matters in particular bear a closer look.

LEOSA Precludes State Prosecution

In 2004, Congress enacted the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, also known as House Resolution 218. As codified in Title 18 of the US Code, sections 926B (active-duty officers) and 926C (retired officers), provide that with some exceptions, law enforcement officers are entitled to carry their firearms off duty in every state, notwithstanding state statutes restricting the carrying of firearms by the general citizenry. (See the full discussion of the text of the law in Point of Law, POLICE Nov. 2004.) This law was recently applied in a highly publicized case to prevent police officers from being prosecuted under state law.

State v. Smith

In the summer of 2008, the City of Sturgis, S.D., hosted the 68th annual Sturgis Motorcycle Rally. The one-week event draws motorcycle clubs from throughout the country. Members of the Iron Pigs Club, made up of motorcycle-riding law enforcement officers and firefighters, were in town when several of their number, including two police officers from Seattle visited the Loud American Roadhouse tavern on August 8. A confrontation broke out between several Iron Pigs and some Hells Angels, resulting in non-fatal shootings.Following an investigation, it was determined that the Seattle officers had been carrying concealed handguns. South Dakota law prohibits carrying concealed firearms without a permit, and also prohibits possession of firearms in an establishment where alcohol is sold. The State's Attorney obtained grand jury indictments charging the officers with violating state law. (A wounded Hells Angel was also charged with aggravated assault.)

The officers asserted a bar to prosecution, arguing that the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution makes federal law paramount over conflicting state law, precluding state prosecution. South Dakota Circuit Judge Warren Johnson agreed and dismissed the charges. In his memorandum opinion the judge wrote, "While states retain the right to prohibit the possession of firearms on government property and to permit private persons and entities to prohibit the possession of firearms on their property, they cannot restrict qualified law enforcement officers in any other manner."

The decision in this case is not binding precedent for deciding other cases, either in South Dakota or in other states; however, it does illustrate the approach state courts may be expected to take if other prosecutors seek to charge officers with firearms violations in conflict with the federal law. The outcome in this case might also influence prosecutors' decisions when considering state-law charges that would be barred by the LEOSA.

Comments (2)

Displaying 1 - 2 of 2

DiamondBob @ 2/16/2009 1:02 PM

That was surprising to me that a Judge dimissed the charges , usually they want to show everone from out of state who's in charge. Congrats to Judge Warren Johnson !

SFCMike @ 2/23/2009 12:34 PM

I feel pretty certain despite the number of LEOs who are former or current members of the military, there is a gap between civilian law enforcement officers and military police from all branches of the military. Now for the Navy, I can understand some of the reluctance to accept them as fellow LEOs, especially since SP-Shore Patrol is not an MOS-Military Occupational Skill, but a duty assigned to anyone who meets the duty roster criteria. In the Army, my MOS for 10 of my 21 years as a Reservist have been as a military police officer. Would LEOSA also apply to myself and fellow MPs, especially if we've qualified for a CCP in the recent past?

SFC Mike Milihram
[email protected]

Join the Discussion

POLICE Magazine does not tolerate comments that include profanity, personal attacks or antisocial behavior (such as "spamming" or "trolling"). This and other inappropriate content or material will be removed. We reserve the right to block any user who violates this, including removing all content posted by that user.
Police Magazine