Helping to train those who protect and serve | Sheepdog Academy

No Second Amendment Right To Carry Outside Your Home

2012-01-13T14:03:00.007-05:00

Hon. William H. Walls, USDJ

A Federal Court Judge in NJ followed a NY decision in holding that the Second Amendment does not extend to the carry of a firearm outside the home for self-defense. Therefore, states can prohibit the carriage outside the home in all but a few limited and undefined circumstances, like going to a shooting range or licensed hunting. Judge Walls stated that the Second Amendment "privilege is unique among all constitutional rights to the individual because it permits the user of a firearm to cause serious personal injury -- including the ultimate injury, death -- to other individuals, rightly or wrongly." See
http://anjrpc.site-ym.com/resource/resmgr/Legal_Motions___Briefs/NJ_RTC_Walls_Decision.pdf

The case was brought by plaintiffs who sought carry permits in NJ. The permits were denied for not eestablishing individual and credible death threats against them. Judge Walls ruled that the denial was not unconstitutional. The Court reasoned that the First Amendment protects possession of obscene material inside the home, but allows government restriction outside the home. It further reasoned that NJ's carry ban is over 90 years old and NY's carry ban is even older and they are therefore the sort of longstanding prohibitions recognized by Heller.

The Court also noted that obtaining a carry permit is not impossible in NJ, because the plaintiff in the case (Muller) actually received one during the case. Muller was kidnapped at gun outside of his business and transported across state lines by a biker grang before escaping. Of course, since Muller was outside his business when kidnapped he could not have legally carried a gun to protect himself. Also, since he was mistaken by the gang for another person, he could not have gotten a carry permit before the kidnapping.

Finally, the Court opined that the potential mayhem that could be caused by one person with a lawful firearm is too great, and the State has a compelling interest in ensuring the public safety of all citizens.

The Court's decision did not explain how the state will ensure the safety of unarmed law abiding people who are confronted by armed dangerous criminals who either cannot read the Court's decision or who do not care what it says. Perhaps these issues will be discussed on appeal.

Until then, if you do not know an active or retired LEO who can carry under LEOSA and help protect you while you are in NY, NJ, IL, HW, MD, or D.C., you can meet them at our seminars and webinars.

Education By Sheepdog Academy Saves Officer From Being Overcharged

2011-11-17T13:02:00.000-05:00

Oct 2011. We have all heard that "a mind is a terrible thing to waste," so we are glad that the education our seminars have provided recently saved an off-duty officer from being overcharged and correspondingly saved the Prosecutor's Office from a potential malicious prosecution claim.

Three off-duty LEOs arrested for brandishing firearms in their own state by itself would not be LEOSA news, but the charges against Jonathan Rivera, Damien DeFazio, and Gabriel Semarao lead us to believe that county prosecutors and the New Jersey Attorney General's Office have been learning from Sheepdog Academy. All three LEOs are employed by Union City, New Jersey. Rivera and DeFazio are full-time municipal police officers, Semarao is a part-time special police officer. All three were reportedly charged with aggravated assault with a weapon and possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose in connection with all three allegedly pointing their handguns at a man "in a manner to intimidate and scare [him]."

The part that should interest those following LEOSA is that Semarao was not also charged with unlawful possession of a firearm. A charge that would be brought if you believed that part-time or special police officers are not covered by LEOSA. New Jersey law only authorizes its special police to carry on-duty within the municipality for which they are employed and obtaining a CCW for off-duty is very dificult in NJ. Only Newark special police can carry off-duty under state law, and only in the City of Newark if they are residents of that City.

Semarao was reportedly off-duty at the time of this alleged criminal activity, so he could be charged under state law with unlawful possession of a firearm. That is unless the Hudson County Prosecutor's Office and/or NJ Attorney General believed he was covered by LEOSA. That would not suprise us in the least since both Offices have been represented at our seminars. See http://www.hr218leosa.com/docs/LEOSA-Attendee-Agencies.pdf

Several special police have also attended our HR 218-LEOSA seminars, so we analyzed whether they are covered by LEOSA and posted the results in our Table of Almuni Authorities. See http://www.hr218leosa.com/docs/Table%20of%20LEO%20Authorities.pdf We concluded that they meet the requirements of LEOSA, though the State has not formally acknowledged that fact and continues to oppose the applications of retired specials for carry permits though they can carry under LEOSA without a permit if they meet all of the criteria in 18 USC 926C.

Use of Force & Consequences: McDonald’s Shooting Involving Off-duty Agent

2011-11-07T17:52:00.002-05:00

Nov. 2011. Off-duty Diplomatic Security Special Agent Chris Deedy, age 27, was charged in the alleged fatal shooting of Kollin K. Elderts, 23 outside a McDonalds in Waikiki, Hawaii. The Elderts family reportedly allege that Deedy followed Kollin Elderts to the McDonalds after the two had gotten into an argument at a nearby club.

Deedy is based in D.C. and was in Hawaii to make preparations for an economic conference being held there. The President and leaders from 20 other nations are scheduled to attend the conference.

Are DSS agents covered by HR218-LEOSA? See our Table of Alumni Authorities to find out: http://www.hr218leosa.com/docs/Table%20of%20LEO%20Authorities.pdf

This is another case that should remind every active and retired LEO to have the best insurance coverage you can get. See our Links Page http://hr218leosa.com/?page=links for some of the policies available to active and retired LEOs. Compare the policies listed and others to see which best meets your needs.

If your want to learn more about LEOSA Nationwide Concealed Carry for LEOs, sign up and pay for one of our upcoming courses http://hr218leosa.com/?page=courses or purchase our seminar materials for just $10 at http://hr218leosa.com/?page=courses&course=001&material=001

Should Off-Duty & Retired LEOs Have Good Samaritan Immunity?

2011-10-12T19:15:00.000-04:00

The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act intended to provide a limited immunity against laws that prohibited the carriage of concealed firearms. Congress intended qualified active and retired LEOs to carry firearms locally and nationwide to protect themselves and others against criminals and terrorists. However, many qualified active and retired LEOs will not carry for fear of civil liability. Some who do carry, recognize that their self-defense insurance policies, if they have one, do not cover them for conduct taken to protect others. So, what if anything can be done?

Sheepdog Academy has drafted the following proposal and wants your comments posted on this site over next 60 days before forwarding the final version and selected comments on to Congress:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Law Enforcement Officers' Safety Act And Good Samaritan Act of 2012”, 18 U.S.C. 926D.

SECTION 2. PROTECTION OF QUALIFIED ACTIVE AND RETIRED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS WHO INTERVENE IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS.

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law relating to civil liability, an individual who without compensation or the expectation of compensation takes action, including the use of force, to (1) protect any other person in the presence of the individual from a crime of violence; (2) provide immediate assistance to any other person who has suffered or who is threatened with bodily harm; or (3) prevent the escape of any person who the individual reasonably believes to have committed in the presence of the individual a crime of violence, is entitled to the benefits of subsections (b) and (c) so long as the individual satisfies the requirements of subsection (d).

(b) An individual who satisfies the requirements of this Act shall be entitled to all common law and statutory immunities and defenses available to any private person and shall be immune from civil liability for (1) any acts or omissions undertaken in good faith; (2) failing to enforce any law; (3) for instituting a judicial proceeding; (4) entry upon any property where such entry is expressly or impliedly authorized by law, however nothing in this section exonerates an individual from liability for any injury proximately caused to a third-person subsequent to such entry by the individual’s own negligent or wrongful act or omission. Nothing in this act shall exonerate an individual from civil liability if it is established that his or her conduct constituted gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct. Any person taking action during the course of regular employment and receiving compensation or expecting to receive compensation for rendering such care is excluded from the protection of this subsection.

(c) An individual who satisfies the requirements of this Act and who is sued for civil liability by a person who is either convicted of, pleads guilty to, or pleads no contest to the underlying crime of violence, shall be entitled to collect costs and reasonable attorney fees from such person if the court determines that the individual is immune from civil liability.

(d) The benefits of subsections (b) and (c) shall apply to an individual who is either a qualified law enforcement officer within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 926B or a qualified retired law enforcement officer within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 926C, who has in effect a primary insurance policy for self-defense coverage with civil liability limits of one hundred thousand dollars or more and (1) for an active qualified law enforcement officer, who has during the most recent 12-month period, received, at the expense of the individual or otherwise, training in the use of force from his or her agency or other person authorized to provide use of force instruction to active law enforcement officers in that State, or (2) for a retired qualified law enforcement officer, who has during the most recent 12-month period, received, at the expense of the individual or otherwise, training in the use of force applicable to retired law enforcement officers from their former law enforcement agency or any other person qualified to provide use of force instruction to active law enforcement officers in that State.

(e) This Act shall take effect immediately.

We will discuss this issue and many other important LEOSA issues at our upcoming seminar and webinar. The seminar is on 05 Nov 2011 at the Rockland County Police Academy in Pamona, NY and the webinar will on 19 Nov 2011 and will be accessible to everyone with a computer and Internet connection who registers and pays in advance.

You must register in advance to guarantee your seat. You can register with a credit card at: http://hr218leosa.com/?page=courses

Click here to see a complete list of all agencies that have been represented at our LEOSA seminars or webinars: http://www.hr218leosa.com/docs/LEOSA-Attendee-Agencies.pdf

If you cannot attend the seminar, you can order our latest seminar materials on line at: http://hr218leosa.com/?page=courses&course=001&material=001

Or contact us to host a live webinar or seminar at your police academy. If you want faster LEOSA updates, click “Like It” on our Facebook Page. Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/pages/Sheepdog-Academy-LLC/166363213376404

Virginia: HR 218-LEOSA Seminar October 1, 2011

2011-09-04T12:24:00.002-04:00

One hundred active and retired Federal, state, and local LEOs attended our HR 218-LEOSA seminar on 01 October 2011 at Marymount University. Attendees included Special Police Officer "Dick Heller" of District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008)(2nd Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms) and representatives from the American Law Enforcement Alliance.

The five hour seminar was been taught by Steve Mannion attendees from over 40 agencies in ten states, including the Secret Service, FBI, ATF, ICE, FAMS, Los Angeles Police Department, New York City Police Department, D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, Notre Dame Univ. Police, and many others. Mr. Mannion has 18 years experience as a practicing attorney in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. He has won more HR 218 cases than any other attorney and been designated an expert witness on the subject of national concealed carry. This seminar was approved by the New Jersey Supreme Court for 4.6 hours of continuiing legal education at the Essex County Police Academy. Mr. Mannion explored the nearly 30 decisions, Federal guidance, and history of the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Acts of 2003 & 2010 (commonly known as "H.R. 218 or LEOSA") to help LEOs and their agencies better understand:

Who can carry firearms nationwide?
What firearms, ammunition, and magazines can be lawfully carried?
When qualified LEOs and qualified retired LEOs can carry?
Where qualified LEOs and qualified retired LEOs can and cannot legally carry?
Why or for what reasons qualified LEOs and qualified retired LEOs can carry?
Whether you and your agency has potential civil liability under LEOSA?

Click here to see a list of all agencies that have been represented at our LEOSA seminars or webinars: http://www.hr218leosa.com/docs/LEOSA-Attendee-Agencies.pdf

If you cannot attend the seminar, you can order our latest seminar materials on line at: http://hr218leosa.com/?page=courses&course=001&material=001

If you want faster LEOSA updates, click “Like It” on our Facebook Page. Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/pages/Sheepdog-Academy-LLC/166363213376404

LEOSA Shooting in Maryland

2011-08-16T09:18:00.000-04:00

12 Aug 2011

Off-duty Pentagon Force Protection Agency Officer Alex Thomas is a sheepdog. Thomas was in Clinton, Maryland, a may-issue state where carry permits are nearly impossible to obtain, was lawfully carrying under LEOSA when he pulled into the Mobile Market gas station. He observed one man, later identified as Ronald Delonte Royal (age 20) of Accokeek, beating another man (age 57) near the gas station.

Thomas tried to intervene and the attacker turned toward him with a gun. Thomas, who was in plain clothes, identified himself as an officer and ordered the man to drop the gun. When he did not, Thomas reportedly shot him. Royal was pronounced dead at a hospital. Royal had previously been arrested for armed robbery.

How To & Not To Respond To A Lawfully Armed Civilian?

2011-07-26T23:25:00.002-04:00

Lawful concealed carry and lawful open carry are becoming more common place and it is important for law enforcement officers to know how to respond professionally to lawful off-duty, retired, and civilian personnel carrying firearms. It is also important to knw how to reduce your chance of false arrest and the off-duty or retired officer. Our seminar materials can help and will detail the most recent LEOSA (HR 218) cases which involve off-duty and retired LEOs being disarmed and detained or arrested while carrying lawfully.

For example, in Hanover Park, Illinois, off-duty county LEO Sandefur was making a presentation at a Village Board meeting when he accidentally exposed a portion of his holstered handgun. Sandefur was tackled and dragged from the room by on-duty officers in the room, disarmed, and not permitted to return to complete his presentation. During the scuffle, he and a board member identified him as an off-duty officer.   Sandefur has sued the on-duty officers for violations of his 4th and 1st Amendment rights.

Also, an off-duty Federal LEO was arrested by a West Virginia State Trooper for unlawful possession of a concealed handgun during a traffic stop. The Federal LEO advised the Trooper about HR 218 LEOSA, but was arrested anyway.

Below are two video links and one audio link concerning on-duty officer encounters with lawfully armed civilians. These links provide excellent positive and negatives examples of how to and how not to respond to a lawfully armed civilian.

The first video took place on June 8, 2011 in Canton, OH. Notifying the police when you have a firearm is required by Ohio Law, but when this new licensee tries to he is verbally abused and the contact officer becomes increasingly agitated while the cover officer fails to take over.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kassP7zI0qc#at=45

The second video took place in Oceanside, CA. Law abiding civilians are allowed to openly carry an unloaded handgun in California.   Officer Matt Lyons briefly detains a an armed civilian, disarms him, interviews him, educates him, and does so professionally without incident.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZFzH5Oe-YL4

The audio link occured in Philadelphia. Open carry is lawful in Pennsylvania, but in Philadelphia open carry is only lawful with a concealed carry permit. According to this link, the person being investigated had a CCW permit.   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-vUYeJXSrA

With any such encounter the responding officer and law abiding subject have to use their heads. Be smart and respectful. While some civilians believe it violates their rights to have to provide information to an investigating officer, it should be remembered that there is a right to remain silent but no right to provide false information to a law enforcement officer.

Tragedy Highlights Reason for LEOSA

2011-07-26T19:49:00.003-04:00

Photo courtesy of New York Times

The tragic events of 22 July 2011 in Utoya, Norway highlight the reason why the United States Congress enacted LEOSA in 2004 and broadened it in 2010. That is so that qualified LEOs and retired LEOs can carry concealed firearms nationwide to stop crazed lunatics and terrorists bent on mass murder.

By contrast, according to the New York Times, Norwegian police are rarely armed and may only be armed with permission from their police chief. Norwegian patrol officers carry unloaded and locked firearms in their patrol cars, but must first get permission to use them. Lunatics and terrorists have the advantage of knowing when and where they will strike and do not ask for permission.

Sadly it should be no surprise that among the first killed in the Utoya onslaught was an unarmed police officer-- Trond Bernsten. He reportedly worked security at the Utoya island camp, but his radio and cell phone were no match for the heavily armed man who killed him and 67 others on the island that day and more with a bomb blast. We will never know whether Officer Bernsten would have stopped the gunman had he been armed, but we can be certain that an unloaded hangun locked in a box that cannot be opened without permission from someone else who is miles away, provides little to no deterrence to a mad man ready to kill.

For the thousands of off-duty and retired LEOs who bear the inconvenience, discomfort, and liability for carrying concealed every day and on vacation to help protect themselves, their families, and others, Sheepdog Academy thanks you for your continued service.

Use of Force & Consequences

2011-06-13T18:05:00.003-04:00

Off-duty Coast Guard Petty Officer Richard Kenneth Biffle, age 25, of Galveston, Texas was arrested in South Padre Island, Texas for unlawful discharge of a firearm. Investigators reported that Biffle had a verbal exchange that involved racial slurs at the closing hour with a group of men at about 2:00 a.m. Saturday morning at the Coral Reef Lounge. The men chased Biffle and he retreated to his car before firing three rounds into the ground to defend himself. On-duty Coast Guardsmen are trained not to fire warning shots. Investigators further reported that Biffle feared for his life.

Petty Officer Biffle is assigned to Coast Guard Station South Padre Island. He is still on the job and may face military prosecution after the investigation is over.

It is not yet known if Biffle was carrying under LEOSA and/or a CCW permit, but none of the articles reviewed thus far have indicated a charge for unlawful firearms possession. Regardless of the outcome, Biffle better have insurance because the Coast Guard will not provide him with a defense.

Can Your State Exclude Certain LEOs From LEOSA?

2011-05-23T23:16:00.000-04:00

Prof. Giles W. Casaleggio, J.D.

Congress enacted the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003 (LEOSA), commonly known as H.R. 218., and amended it in 2010 to trump state laws which prohibit the carriage of concealed firearms by active, off-duty, and retired qualified law enforcement officers. LEOSA does not require states to modify their laws to issue permits to qualified LEOs, because such persons can carry without a permit even though having dual authority is preferred to prevent false arrest and provide coverage in certain Federal and state gun free zones that LEOSA does not trump.

Decisions by state courts which deny permits to qualified active and retired LEOs also do not prevent those individuals from lawfully carrying concealed firearms under LEOSA, but such decisions do add to the confusion over who can carry.

Attorneys and active and retired LEOs from MD, NJ, NY, PA, and VA discussed these issues at Sheepdog Academy's annual LEOSA 5 hour seminar held at the Essex County Police Academy in Cedar Gove, NJ on Saturday, May 21, 2011.

New Jersey's Retired Officer Carry Law was cited by Congress as a model for LEOSA, but a recent decision-- In the Matter of Casaleggio will possibly cause that Law to be found unconstitutional. Meanwhile, the decision has sparked national concern has already added to the confusion over who is and is not included in LEOSA.

In the Matter of Casaleggio concerned retired assistant prosecutor-- Giles W. Casaleggio who applied for a retired officer permit in New Jersey. Casaleggio served as an assistant prosecutor and deputy attorney general in the Garden State for 30 years, during 29 of those years he was qualified to carry a handgun. His permit application was denied, so he appealed.

Under our Federal system each state can decide its own path for firearms carry, so long as its laws do not violate the United States Constitution.   NJ has two paths for a permit— establish justified need under NJSA 2C:58-4 or be a retired LEO under NJSA 2C:39-6l. The Casaleggio decision highlights that NJ's permitting scheme and possibly similar state schemes are flawed and subject to constitutional challenge.

The NJ Appellate Division affirmed the denial of Casaleggio's permit. Though Casaleggio was a retired law enforcement officer, the Court found that he did not meet the restrictive and narrow definition of "retired law enforcement officer" under the NJ Retired Officer Carry Law.   That is because his job title was not part of the politically negotiated list of titles listed in that particular Law.

The Law, however, was amended in 2008 to expressly include individuals who meet the requirements of LEOSA. Though Casaleggio is a retired LEO who had law enforcement authority and statutory authority to make arrests, he could not meet the standards of LEOSA because he lacks a retired ID from his former agency. Thus, the Court did not even need to reach the LEOSA prong of the state statute, but it did.

The Court noted that the legislative history for the 2008 amendment stated the inclusion of LEOSA was only meant to apply to retired LEOs who retired in other states and moved to NJ. So, had Casaleggio retired as a district attorney in California, he would be eligible for a NJ Retired Officer Permit, but as a retiree from NJ he was not eligible.

The denial, unless appealed successfully, prevents Casaleggio from obtaining a NJ retired officer permit. It does not prevent any qualified active or retired LEO from risking false arrest as they lawfully carry a concealed firearm in NJ or other states so long as each meets all of the requirements of LEOSA.   The ID problem Casaleggio faces is common to many retired LEOs, the agency he retired from-- the NJ Division of Criminal Justice, does not issue retired IDs to deputy attorneys general. Some county prosecutor’s offices in NJ, however, do issue retired IDs to their assistant prosecutors. So, a retired ass't prosecutor from NJ who has a retired ID is eligible for nationwide carry under LEOSA (See our Table of Alumni Authorities http://www.hr218leosa.com/docs/Table%20of%20LEO%20Authorities.pdf), but Casaleggio will not be until he obtains an ID card either from the State or one of the prosecutor offices he worked for. Either will suffice.

The Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution requires that state laws treat similarly situated persons even handedly. Obviously, granting a NJ permit to a retired California deputy attorney general, but denying Casaleggio does not treat similarly situated individuals evenly.

No doubt some will focus on the early part of the opinion in which the Court found that Casaleggio was more legal advisor than LEO. If so, why was he armed for 29 years to begin with? Also, the NJ permit application does not require the applicant to demonstrate any particular law enforcement training, door kicking, or a resume with any arrests.

Consider that the NJ Law would also grant a retired officer permit to a 74 year old applicant from Tiny Town, Any State who retired 50 years ago with a disability after only four years of service. That applicant would be eligible though he has sold shoes for 50 years and had no firearms or law enforcement training in the intervening time. More importantly, that applicant is less likely to encounter a violent former customer than Casaleggio is.

What this means is that the NJ Retired Officer Carry Law, which has already been challenged in court as unconstitutional since last week’s decision in Casaleggio, may be struck down for violating equal protection. If that happens, no permits will be issued until the Legislature fixes the statute. It can do nothing or it can enact an evenhanded law that grants permits to any off-duty or retired resident LEOs who meet the requirements of LEOSA.

To learn more about LEOSA you can order our May 2011seminar materials http://hr218leosa.com/?page=courses&course=001&material=001 and they will be emailed to you within 24 hours.

Contact us to host a live webinar or seminar at your police academy. If you want faster LEOSA updates, click “Like It” on our Facebook Page. Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/pages/Sheepdog-Academy-LLC/166363213376404

Retired LEO Shoots Robber At McDonalds

2011-04-15T23:53:00.000-04:00

A retired Burbank police officer fatally shot a parolee during an attempted robbery at a McDonald's. The shooting occured during a struggle between the parolee, an employee and the retired police officer in Los Angeles, CA. in March 2011. The employee and retired LEO were reportedly trying to subdue the parolee after he pulled a handgun in the restaurant, which had more than 20 customers at the time.The two heros wrestled the suspect to the ground in a "scuffle that lasted quite a while," and the retired LEO fired his own gun several times, killing the alleged would-be robber.

The retired officer suffered "significant injuries," and two female employees were also injured after one was struck by the gun. The parolee is believed to have robbed other open businesses in the area and is alleged to have pistol-whipped by a man during one robbery.

See video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syMswxnJ9g8

To learn more about off-duty carry, you MUST attend our next LEOSA seminar being held on Saturday, 21 May 2011 from 10 am to 2 pm at the Essex County Police Academy in Cedar Grove, New Jersey. You can register online by clicking here http://hr218leosa.com/?page=courses

If you cannot attend, you can order our November 2010 seminar materials http://hr218leosa.com/?page=courses&course=001&material=001

Historic Gathering of Sheepdogs Discuss LEOSA

2011-03-05T13:46:00.000-05:00

Joe Cacciatore, Prof. Sheepdog, and Tony D'Aiuto

On February 25, 2011, 63 active and retired federal, state, and local LEOs gathered at the Liberty Science Center in Jersey City, NJ for Sheepdog Academy's 15th seminar on the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003 and 2nd on the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act Improvements Act of 2010.

While there were no acoustic guitars, singing of folk songs, or peace pipes, these Sheepdogs came together for a civil and informed discussion about LEOSA's history, Congress' intent in passing this law, and the nearly 30 court decisions that have interpreted LEOSA.

Retired LEOs Tony D'Aiuto and Joe Cacciatore organized the 4 hour seminar to bring this vital information to LEOs from Hudson County, NJ and New York City. Their efforts were instrumental in insuring a diverse pool of attendees which included the New Jersey State Police Firearms Unit, Senior Officers from the Jersey City Police Department, and one of the plaintiff officers from the Second Amendment Foundation civil suit against the State of New Jersey over its "justified need" requirement for handgun carry permits. The attendees included 43 active LEOs, 20 retired LEOs, and 1 civilian firearms instructor. 33 different agencies were represented, including a reserve police officer from Georgia, two active U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers who drove over 6 hours each way for the seminar, the FBI, National Park Service, several active U.S. Coast Guard boarding officers, and regular and reserve or special police and arson investigators from New York and New Jersey. Click here to see a complete list of all agencies that have been represented at our LEOSA seminars or webinars:
http://www.hr218leosa.com/docs/LEOSA-Attendee-Agencies.pdf

Firearms Carry "Professor" Steve Mannion's most shocking revelation during the seminar was that the New Jersey Retired Police Officer program, which was cited by Congress as a model for LEOSA, is not LEOSA compliant. That is because the prescribed N.J. Division of Criminal Justice qualification course for NJ resident retirees is not a course approved for active officers. The retiree course is only slightly different from the course for active officers, but any difference is enough to invalidate the program for nationwide carry.

To correct this problem, the N.J. Division of Criminal Justice has two main options. It can designate the retiree course as one available for active officers or some sub-category of active officers. Or, it can drop the retiree course and have retirees shoot the same course as active officers. Each option presents different challenges, but until it complies with LEOSA, NJ resident retired LEOs who want both the LEOSA compliance for concealed carry and the N.J. Retired Police Officer permit card which the NJSP confirmed allows for open or concealed carry in NJ, retired LEOs here will have to shoot both the qualification courses for retirees and active LEOs.

If they do not shoot the active LEO course with a certified instructor they are not exempt from the hollow-point ban and are not certified for nationwide carry. Mr. Anthony Colandro of Gun For Hire, a N.J. Division of Criminal Justice approved firearms instructor, was on hand to assure New Jersey resident RLEOs that Gun For Hire can certify them for nationwide carry. He can be contacted through http://www.gunforhire.com/

Another hot topic was what to do as an on-duty LEO who encounters an armed person claiming LEOSA status. As with any other situation, take measures to ensure your own safety and conduct a reasonable investigation. If the subject has her government agency photo ID, a matching drivers license, a clean NCIC check, is not under the influence, or violating any other laws, but the on-duty still has suspicions or an uneasy feeling which do not rise to the level of probable cause, consider continuing the investigation after the investigatory detention. You may wish to consult our Table of LEO Authorities to see if the person has the authorities needed for LEOSA. See http://www.hr218leosa.com/docs/Table%20of%20LEO%20Authorities.pdf This is why we have statutes of limitations, i.e., to give law enforcement years if necessary to conduct and conclude a thorough investigation.

If you did not attend this seminar or our November 2010 LEOSA Seminar, you MUST attend our next LEOSA seminar being held on Saturday, 21 May 2011 from 10 am to 2 pm at the Essex County Police Academy in Cedar Grove, New Jersey. You can register online by clicking here http://hr218leosa.com/?page=courses

If you cannot attend, you can order our November 2010 seminar materials http://hr218leosa.com/?page=courses&course=001&material=001

First Victory Under the Amended LEOSA Law!

2011-02-10T14:37:00.006-05:00

Another victory for LEOSA and the first under the Amended LEOSA law! Arson investigators in New Jersey carry guns, not hoses. They investigate crime and have statutory powers of arrest, but can only carry off-duty if in an on-call status. When retired Arson Investigator Jonathan Wheeler applied to the New Jersey State Police for a retired officer permit in New Jersey Two years ago, he was denied. The State Police rejected his application, stating that Wheeler was not a “retired police officer” within the meaning of New Jersey law. Wheeler was pro se and won at the trial level, but the State won at the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division, however, noted that neither side addressed whether Wheeler was a “qualified retired law enforcement officer” within the meaning of LEOSA and left that issue unresolved.

That issue has now been addressed at the trial level for a different retired arson investigator. Because firearms applications in New Jersey, unlike New York and other states, are confidential, we will not disclose the name of the retired LEO. We will just call him “David” for taking on a Goliath.

David took up that challenge and rather than use a small stone to fell Goliath, he brought in Steve Mannion, Esq. The duo appeared for trial in December 2010 to argue their case in Superior Court. As in Wheeler, the County Prosecutor and State Police opposed the application. The trial court found in an Opinion dated February 2011, that a retired arson investigator is a “qualified retired law enforcement officer” within the meaning of LEOSA.

Unless either side appeals, however, the decision will remain confidential and non-binding. So, any other would-be Davids should hire counsel and attend Sheep Dog Academy’s upcoming seminar if they hope to achieve the same result.

Nonetheless, the victory confirms again the intent of Congress to apply LEOSA to all qualified law enforcement officers without regard to job title, status, or agency permission for off-duty carry.

If you did not attend our February 2011 or November 2010 LEOSA Seminars, you MUST attend our next LEOSA seminar being held on Saturday, 21 May 2011 from 10 am to 2 pm at the Essex County Police Academy in Cedar Grove, New Jersey. You can register online by clicking here http://hr218leosa.com/?page=courses

If you cannot attend, you can order our November 2010 seminar materials http://hr218leosa.com/?page=courses&course=001&material=001

Or contact us to host a live webinar or seminar at your police academy.

If you want faster LEOSA updates, click “Like It” on our Facebook Page.

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/pages/Sheepdog-Academy-LLC/166363213376404

Off-duty Officer Wins LEOSA Settlement for False Arrest

2011-01-24T22:14:00.007-05:00

Jason Davis, Esq.

Would you rather spend $40 on a Sheepdog Academy LESOA webinar or $44,000 in a settlement?

Coast Guard Reserve Petty Officer Jose Diaz has won a $44,000 settlement from the City of San Fernando, California for false arrest because one of their police officers did not understand HR218-LEOSA. Jason Davis, Esq. represented Diaz who is at least the seventh Coast Guardsmen arrested on charges for unlawfully posessing a firearm since LEOSA was enacted in 2004 and the seventh to beat the charges. Davis and Diaz, however, are the first team to recover a cash settlement.

Davis relied on the Booth case to establish that Diaz was covered by LEOSA. The U.S. Coast Guard has since issued ALCOAST 549/10 which makes clear that certified boarding officers, boarding team members and specified other Coast Guard personnel are covered by LEOSA.

The San Fernando Police Department is also reportedly now required to implement new policies and procedures regarding LEOSA. Diaz argued that the Police Department had a contest to see who could make more gun arrests. In November of 2007, Diaz was driving to a shooting range when he was subject to a motor vehicle stop to check his vehicle registration.

Upon approaching Diaz’s vehicle, the Officer observed a firearms case in the rear seat with a cable lock around the handle of the case. The Officer opened the case which contained two loaded magazines and an unloaded Glock pistol.

Diaz showed his Coast Guard ID and told the Officer that the LEOSA permitted him to carry a firearm, but the Officer did not believe that Diaz was covered by the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act. Obviously, the arresting officer failed to attend any of Sheepdog Academy's 12 seminars and webinars on the topic. Shame on him.

The Officer arrested Diaz for unlawful possession of a loaded firearm. Diaz was spent one day and night in jail. The weapons charges were later dismissed.

Regretfully, no one from Diaz' Command was willing to testify in his case. Nonetheless, Davis and Diaz obtained a great result on their own and Diaz is now being all he can be in the Army National Guard.

If you cannot attend, you can order our November 2010 seminar materials http://hr218leosa.com/?page=courses&course=001&material=001

Or contact us to host a live webinar or seminar at your police academy.

If you want faster LEOSA updates, click “Like It” on our Facebook Page.

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/pages/Sheepdog-Academy-LLC/166363213376404

Warning: N.J. State Police & Hollow Points

2011-01-21T15:07:00.002-05:00

The N.J. State Police Firearms Unit has requested that the N.J. Division of Criminal Justice reconsider its guidance regarding the possession of hollow nose ammunition by retired officers. Bottom line, Retired LEOs cannot legally carry hollow nose bullets in New Jersey unless the RLEO is LEOSA compliant.

We will discuss this issue in detail at our upcoming LEOSA seminar.

If you cannot attend, you can order our November 2010 seminar materials http://hr218leosa.com/?page=courses&course=001&material=001

Or contact us to host a live webinar or seminar at your police academy.

If you want faster LEOSA updates, click “Like It” on our Facebook Page.

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/pages/Sheepdog-Academy-LLC/166363213376404

LEOSA: Shootout Leaves Two Injured And Everybody Gets Sued

2011-01-17T13:40:00.004-05:00

Probationary Officer Bryan Pour

Does your agency have a LEOSA policy? If not, it should.

During the early morning hours of November 9, 2008, four off-duty St. Louis, Missouri police officers were socializing at Mack -N- Mick’s Sports Bar outside of Ponton Beach, Illinois. Police Officers Bryan Pour, Christopher Hantak, Philip Meyer, and another were in plain clothes, but were openly advertising that they were police officers by showing their badges and through other conduct. All but the unidentified officer were carrying their service handguns. Since Illinois does not issue carry permits or offer reciprocity, the three were carrying concealed firearms under LEOSA.

Pour, age 26, however, was ejected from the bar because of his level of intoxication, but he remained in the parking lot. That is where he became involved in a scuffle with three civilians outside—Kevin Elliott, Ted Wallace, and John Hadley. Pour ended up on the ground. Accounts of what happened next differ.

According to Jeffrey Bladdick, age 25, a friend of the three civilians, he observed Pour on the ground and helped lift him to his feet. Once on his feet, Pour allegedly spun around and fired one round into Bladdick’s torso. Bladdick testified that he had not interacted or conversed with Pour at anytime prior to picking him up off the ground. He also testified that he had no idea Pour was a police officer prior to the shooting.

Either way, Pontoon Beach Police then arrived. Responding Police Officer Aaron Morgan then shot off-duty St. Louis Police Officer Christopher Hantak in the head and once in the shoulder after Hantack reportedly refused to drop his handgun. Hantak was intoxicated at the time. Police Officer Morgan was subsequently cleared by a Grand Jury investigation, but was sued by Hantak for alleged excessive force.

According to Pour’s attorney, Bladdick struck him over the head with a pipe and that Pour acted in self-defense. Nonetheless, the St. Louis Police Department terminated the employment of Officers Pour, Hantak, and Meyer. Pour later pled guilty in August 2009 to a reduced charge of aggravated discharge of a firearm and received four years probation because of a request for leniency by Bladdick.

Bladdick sued Pour, the members of the St. Louis Police Department Board of Police Commissioners, and the bar. Pour and his agency were sued under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pour was also sued for negligence.

To establish a claim under § 1983, Bladdick must show that Pour “acted under color of state law.” However, Pour was not in St. Louis and therefore was not acting under state law. He had no police power. Instead, he carried into Illinois under LEOSA, which is Federal law. At the time of the shooting, Pour was intoxicated and was thus outside the scope of LEOSA coverage as wells as outside the scope of his agency’s policy.

The Federal Court dismissed the § 1983 claims against Pour, holding that he “was acting as a private citizen at the time” and not under color of law. It reasoned that his agency’s policy stripped him of authority once he became intoxicated. The policy specifically stated, “LEOSA does not provide authority for a person to carry a concealed firearm while under the influence of alcohol or any other intoxicating or hallucinating substance.” Everything Pour did after he became intoxicated was done for personal reasons, not to further any official policy. Carrying an agency firearm alone, was not enough to establish § 1983 liability.

The Federal Court also dismissed the § 1983 claims against the St. Louis Police Department and reasoned that although the Police Department failed to prohibit the carriage of its firearms across state lines, its LEOSA policy did prohibit carriage of agency firearms while intoxicated and provided for sanctions and other discipline.

Bladdick’s state law negligence claims against Pour and the bar were dismissed without prejudice on December 8, 2010, but can be refiled in state court. Importantly, however, while § 1983 claims allow prevailing plaintiffs to recover their attorney fees, negligence claims typically do not.

The lessons here, include the following: 1) Agencies need to have well written LEOSA policies; 2) agencies need to train their officers about LEOSA; 3) booze and firearms do not mix; and 4) anyone who carries a firearm must have LEOSA training and appropriate insurance coverage.

If you cannot attend, you can order our November 2010 seminar materials http://hr218leosa.com/?page=courses&course=001&material=001

Or contact us to host a live webinar or seminar at your police academy.

If you want faster LEOSA updates, click “Like It” on our Facebook Page.

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/pages/Sheepdog-Academy-LLC/166363213376404

Magazine Capacity Restrictions

2011-01-13T22:53:00.001-05:00

Congresswoman McCarthy has issued a letter to her colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives seeking support to reinstitute the Federal ban on firearms magazines with greater than a ten-round capacity.

HR218-LEOSA does not trump magazine restrictions in New York or Maryland, and would not trump this proposed bill.

This ban if reinstated will exempt most retired law enforcement officers but will not exempt off-duty law enforcement officers from private universities and other non-governmental agencies from possessing "high-capacity" magazines when off-duty.

If you cannot attend, you can order our November 2010 seminar materials http://hr218leosa.com/?page=courses&course=001&material=001

Or contact us to host a live webinar or seminar at your police academy.

If you want faster LEOSA updates, click “Like It” on our Facebook Page.

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/pages/Sheepdog-Academy-LLC/166363213376404

Civilian Sheepdogs Subdue Shooter

2011-01-10T09:28:00.002-05:00

Joseph Zamudio was shopping at a Walgreens in Tuscon, AZ when he heard gunshots. Most people would have taken cover or run the other way, but Zamudio was prepared to confront the shooter and save lives. Armed with a concealed handgun and a permit to carry it, Zamudio ran toward the gunman who had already shot a Federal judge, U.S. Congresswoman, a nine year old, and sixteen other law abiding civilians.

When Zamudio arrived on scene he observed a man with a handgun and ordered the man to drop the weapon. Bystanders informed Zamudio that the gunman was the man on the ground struglling to get free. Zamudio then turned his attention to helping to restrain Jared Loughner, the man now in Federal custody for this horrific act of violence.

Zamudio has had no formal firearms training. His father taught him to shoot and bought his first firearm for him when he was eight years old. He obtained his concealed weapons permit and carried a handgun to protect himself and others. Zamudio is a civilian sheepdog, but was not alone in reacting.

Patricia Maisch distracted Loughner by grabbing his magazine to prevent him from reloading and Col. Bill Badger, USA (Ret.) and Roger Salzberger tackled Loughner. All four are heros for risking their personal safety to protect others.

If you carry off-duty, as a retired officer, or pursuant to a permit, you may risk your life, but should not risk your house. Get insurance. See the Sheepdog Academy links page for available insurance links.

Are you authorized to carry nationwide to protect yourself and your family? Our next HR 218-LEOSA seminar will be held on 25 February 2011 from 6pm to 10 pm at Liberty Science Center in Jersey City, New Jersey. You can register online by clicking here http://hr218leosa.com/?page=courses

If you cannot attend, you can order the seminar materials http://hr218leosa.com/?page=courses&course=001&material=001

Or contact us to host a live webinar or seminar at your police academy.

If you want faster LEOSA updates, click “Like It” on our Facebook Page.

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/pages/Sheepdog-Academy-LLC/166363213376404

Retired Officer Detained & Disarmed

2011-01-09T19:03:00.002-05:00

Tad was disarmed during a motor vehicle stop and contacted Sheepdog Academy for a reality check. Was he too sensitive or did the investigating officer go too far?

Tad is a retired officer. He and his family recently moved to Florida where he promptly qualified and certified as a retired officer under Florida law. He and his family were driving home in the early afternoon when they were stopped by the Florida Highway Patrol. Tad's wife was driving the car. Their 11 year old son was in the front passenger seat and Tad was in the rear seat on the passenger side.

One trooper maintained a cover position while the contact officer approached on the passenger side and asked Tad's wife for her driving credentials. Tad's wife fumbled through her large pocket book a little too long and Tad observed the trooper becoming nervous. With the hope of defusing a potentially dangerous situation, Tad identified himself as a retired police sergeant. Concerned that the trooper might notice the bulge on his hip, he also informed the trooper that he was lawfully armed under HR218-LEOSA.

The trooper explained that they were stopped because of an expired vehicle registration and directed TAD to step out of the vehicle. Tad was disarmed and then he surrendered his retired police identification, Florida retired officer qualification certification, and other documents from his "grand jury kit." The trooper did not appear to understand LEOSA and said that the certification was not a permit to carry. Tad agreed and explained that the certification together with his retired police identification authorized him under Federal law to carry a concealed handgun.

The troopers then radioed for guidance and ran a NCIC check on Tad, apparently with no negative results. Nonetheless, the contact trooper placed the handgun in the trunk separate from its ammunition and told Tad not to retrieve it until he reached his home.

Tad was upset that he was being disarmed after the investigatory detention and told to continue on without being able to protect himself and his family as Congress intended. He was also embarrassed that these directions were given in front of his family who assumed he was not lawfully able to carry.

While the trooper apparently needs to attend one of our LEOSA seminars or webinars, we completely understand and support on-duty officers taking reasonable steps to insure their safety and the safety of the public. Securing the handgun and ammunition during a brief investigatory detention to verify LEOSA status is not unreasonable. Placing the handgun and ammunition in the trunk to prevent immediate access is also not unreasonable.

The only disagreement we have in what Tad relayed, was the instruction not to retrieve the handgun until Tad reached home. If Tad was covered by LEOSA or had a CCW, he should have been able to rearm himself once the troopers drove off. If Tad was not covered by LEOSA or a CCW, then the instruction to leave the handgun in the trunk makes sense, but we would have expected either an explanation from the trooper or additional law enforcement action.

What would you have done as the investigating officer? What would you have done as an off-duty or retired officer in Tad's situation? Kindly submit your comments.

Our next HR 218-LEOSA seminar will be held on 25 February 2011 from 6pm to 10 pm at Liberty Science Center in Jersey City, New Jersey. You can register online by clicking here http://hr218leosa.com/?page=courses

If you cannot attend, you can order the seminar materials http://hr218leosa.com/?page=courses&course=001&material=001

Or contact us to host a live webinar or seminar at your police academy.

If you want faster LEOSA updates, click “Like It” on our Facebook Page.

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/pages/Sheepdog-Academy-LLC/166363213376404

Sheepdog Saves Wife & Stops Three Gunmen

2010-12-17T21:46:00.002-05:00

Will you be ready when evil strikes? The Castillos were ready. On December 16, 2010, Ramon and Eva Castillo were working in their Houston, Texas jewelry and pawn shop when three armed men attacked.

The incident began at 2:08 p.m. while Eva Castillo was showing rings to two men who allegedly posed as customers. Then, a third man entered and announced the robbery. The first two men then pulled out their handguns and ordered Mr. & Mrs. Castillos to the rear of the store where they began to tie Mrs. Castillo up.

As the men tried to get control of Mr. Castillo he pulled out his own handgun to defend his wife and himself. He starting firing in self-defense and the three gunmen opened up. Out gunned and wounded from several rounds, Mr. Castillo killed one robber with his handgun and then transitioned to a nearby shotgun and ended the assault, killing the other two.

Houston Police were amazed at the number of empty shell casings around the store and more so that Mrs. Castillo was not hit.

Mr. Castillo was listed in critical but stable condition at an area hospital. Thankfully, he is expected to survive.

Are you ready to protect yourself and your family if evil strikes? Can you legally carry a firearm for self-defense? Can you carry nationwide? Do you need self-defense insurance? Sheepdog Academy can help you answer these questions and many more.

If you cannot attend, you can order our November 2010 seminar materials http://hr218leosa.com/?page=courses&course=001&material=001

Or contact us to host a live webinar or seminar at your police academy.

If you want faster LEOSA updates, click “Like It” on our Facebook Page.

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/pages/Sheepdog-Academy-LLC/166363213376404

Layoffs: How To Protect Your Family

2010-12-02T22:40:00.001-05:00

Many law enforcement officers take for granted their authority to carry a firearm to protect themselves, their families, and others from the wolves that prey upon our society, but what happens when the layoff notice comes? No doubt your right to carry a firearm for defensive purposes will not be the first concern you have if you receive a layoff notice. But if you are forced to turn in your badge, credentials, and agency issued firearm, the reality that you no longer have the means to protect yourself and family will add insult to your injury.

If you have been laid off as a law enforcement officer, you have options. If you served an aggregate of ten years as a law enforcement officer, you can seek to establish yourself as a “qualified retired law enforcement officer” even if you are not drawing a pension or even eligible for one. Assuming you did not have an aggregate of ten years of law enforcement service, you can apply for a firearms carry permit.

Whichever route you take, also get yourself insurance protection that will cover your attorneys fees, civil liability and criminal defense costs related to carrying a firearm as an armed civilian. That is because a laid off law enforcement officer, like a retired law enforcement officer is a civilian under the law. Except that you will be held to a higher standard by the court and will not have an agency to back you up if you have to shoot a bad guy in self-defense.

Having a firearm to protect your family is not an end in itself. You need to know where you can and cannot carry under a permit and/or LEOSA. When you are off-duty, laid off, or retired the rules of the road get much more complicated. You may find yourself facing criminal charges and bankruptcy for simply doing what you had been trained to do.

So, you need to be re-educated. Your agency trained you how to carry their handgun, not your own. Different rules apply. You need to know those rules. Courts, district attorneys, and juries will hold you responsible for knowing the rules even if you are outside your jurisdiction. That is where Sheepdog Academy can help. We have helped train hundreds of federal, state, and local law enforcement officers from nearly 100 agencies in over nine states.

If you cannot attend, you can order our November 2010 seminar materials http://hr218leosa.com/?page=courses&course=001&material=001

Or contact us to host a live webinar or seminar at your police academy.

If you want faster LEOSA updates, click “Like It” on our Facebook Page.

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/pages/Sheepdog-Academy-LLC/166363213376404

Active & Retired LEOs Explore HR 218-LEOSA

2010-11-17T22:47:00.001-05:00

On 12 November 2010, ninety-two sheepdogs attended our first HR218-LEOSA seminar since the recent amendments were enacted. The Rockland County Fire & Police Academy in Pomona, NY hosted the 62 retired LEOs, 29 active LEOs, and 2 civilian firearms instructors who attended to learn about the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003, its amendments adopted in 2010, and the 26 known LEOSA cases which have come about since 2004.

New York retirees learned that they do not have to rely upon their former agencies to get qualified, and also learned what firearms instructors are certified to qualify them for nationwide concealed carry and which are not.

Active federal, state, and local law enforcement officers learned how to determine who is and is not covered by this law and what firearms may be carried concealed. Along with the retired LEOs, Steve Mannion instructed all attendee on how to reduce their risk of false arrest and how to avoid common pitfalls that could lead to a bona fide arrest.

Anthony Colandro of “Gun For Hire” in Belleville, NJ also addressed the attendees about the added value of concealed weapons permits and how to obtain Utah and Florida non-resident permits which have reciprocity in nearly 30 states.

If you cannot attend, you can order our November 2010 seminar materials http://hr218leosa.com/?page=courses&course=001&material=001

Or contact us to host a live webinar or seminar at your police academy.

If you want faster LEOSA updates, click “Like It” on our Facebook Page.

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/pages/Sheepdog-Academy-LLC/166363213376404

If I'm Covered By LEOSA, Do I Need Agency Permission to Carry?

2010-10-14T23:08:00.106-04:00

Congress enacted the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004 so that qualified active and retired law enforcement officers (LEOs) could carry concealed firearms to protect themselves, their families, and others from criminals and terrorists. LEOSA was amended in October 2010 so that even more LEOs would enjoy the protections of this law as they carry in their home states and nationwide.

Still, many LEOs are waiting on the sidelines for their respective agencies to issue policies acknowledging their LEOSA rights. They are fearful that carrying under LEOSA may subject them to false arrest, criminal prosecution, or agency disciplinary charges. Those fears may be real, but agencies are not obligated to advise their employees of their off-duty rights. Agencies are also not obligated to roll out the red carpet for your LEOSA rights.

The fact is most law enforcement agencies do not have LEOSA policies to guide their LEOs. On the Federal level, the U.S. Justice Department issued guidance for its agencies, and some of those agencies, like the Federal Bureau of Prisons, issued supplemental guidance and policies.

Conversely, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security issued an order to its subordinate agencies in October 2008 to adopt LEOSA policies for their respective LEOs. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) published a policy, but most DHS agencies have not. The U.S. Coast Guard is a DHS agency and has not published a LEOSA policy even though at least three of its boarding officers and boarding team members have been arrested for criminal possession of a handgun and prevailed against criminal charges with LEOSA arguments.

LEOSA resulted from years of lobbying by rank and file law enforcement officers and the unions and organizations who support them. Management largely opposed LEOSA then and now. So, management is unlikely to rush out and adopt policies that confirm or support your LEOSA rights.

If you are going to exercise your LEOSA rights, its incumbent upon you to be prepared to go it alone. You need to know if you can or cannot carry under LEOSA, what you can and cannot carry, when you can and cannot carry, where you can and cannot carry, and for what reasons (why) you can and cannot carry under LEOSA. You must also know how to reduce your chance of false arrest and civil liability.

Sheepdog Academy is the only organization that has taught active and retired LEOs across the United States about LEOSA so that they can answer these questions. If your union or agency wants to schedule a Sheepdog Academy LEOSA seminar or webinar, contact us or attend one of our upcoming classes.

Are you authorized to carry nationwide to protect yourself and your family?

If you cannot attend, you can order our November 2010 seminar materials http://hr218leosa.com/?page=courses&course=001&material=001

Or contact us to host a live webinar or seminar at your police academy.

If you want faster LEOSA updates, click “Like It” on our Facebook Page.

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/pages/Sheepdog-Academy-LLC/166363213376404

President Signs Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2010

2010-10-12T21:53:00.004-04:00

Today, the President signed into law the amendments to the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act Improvements Act of 2010. This new law amends LEOSA of 2004 (a/k/a/ H.R. 218) to include law enforcement officers of the Amtrak Police Department and of the Federal Reserve as well as law enforcement and police officers of the executive branch as a qualified law enforcement officer eligible to carry concealed firearms.

The Act revises the definition of "qualified retired law enforcement officer" to: (1) include LEOs separated in good standing from service with a public agency as a law enforcement officer; and (2) reduce the years-of-service requirement for such officers from 15 to 10 years. It also revises: (1) requirements for firearms certification for such separated officers to allow firearms training in accordance with the standards of the LEO's former agency, the state in which such officer resides, or if such state has not established training standards, standards established by a law enforcement agency within the state or those used by a certified firearms instructor; and (2) mental health requirements for such officers.

Finally, the Amendment expands the definition of "firearm" to include ammunition not expressly prohibited by federal law or subject to the provisions of the National Firearms Act.

Are you authorized to carry nationwide to protect yourself and your family?

If you cannot attend, you can order our November 2010 seminar materials http://hr218leosa.com/?page=courses&course=001&material=001

Or contact us to host a live webinar or seminar at your police academy.

If you want faster LEOSA updates, click “Like It” on our Facebook Page.

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/pages/Sheepdog-Academy-LLC/166363213376404

Can You Sue for Violations of your FOPA or LEOSA rights and win?

2010-10-07T22:45:00.002-04:00

The Firearms Owners Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. § 926A (FOPA) and the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 926B, 926C (HR218 or LEOSA) are often confused because they both allow possession of firearms regardless of state laws to the contrary. They are neighboring provisions within the Gun Control Act and like the 14^th Amendment Due Process clause, both provisions arguably create “negative rights.” That means they both are phrased as limits on state and local power to act. When a FOPA or a LEOSA right attaches, it functions as a shield or a “safe harbor” against liability or penalty imposed by state or local law.

The power of these negative rights flow from the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, which requires that federal laws trump inconsistent state and local laws, rules, and regulations. Thus, a person possessing a firearm in their vehicle in compliance with either FOPA or LEOSA would, for example, have the same defense against prosecution for a criminal charge of unlawful possession in South Carolina as he would against a civil penalty for unlawful possession in Oregon.

Courts have found FOPA right to be qualified and narrow. At least one federal judge in the Torraco case concluded that FOPA protects against conviction, not inconvenience. With regard to a civil rights suit for an arrest where FOPA applies, the Second and Third Circuit Courts of Appeals in Torraco and Revell held that law enforcement officers are not subject to civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for an arrest contrary to FOPA. That means you may be in full compliance with FOPA and be arrested, spend days in jail, thousands on a lawyer, and not be able to sue for a violation of FOPA. That sounds bad, but you can sue for a violation of your Second Amendment rights and for false arrest. The arresting officer would defend the suit by arguing probable cause. Whatever the outcome, when transporting a firearm be prepared for delays and be prepared to prove the lawfulness of your firearm (such as with a receipt) and your conduct.

If you cannot attend, you can order our November 2010 seminar materials http://hr218leosa.com/?page=courses&course=001&material=001

Or contact us to host a live webinar or seminar at your police academy.

If you want faster LEOSA updates, click “Like It” on our Facebook Page.

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/pages/Sheepdog-Academy-LLC/166363213376404