LEOSA Not An Exemption to GFSZA?

CHL discussions that do not fit into more specific topics

Moderators: Charles L. Cotton, carlson1

Post Reply
User avatar

Topic author
ScottDLS
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 4679
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:04 am
Location: DFW Area, TX

LEOSA Not An Exemption to GFSZA?

#1

Post by ScottDLS » Fri Mar 04, 2011 4:38 pm

Here's one for the Texas Peace Officers, LEO, and Retired LEO on the board. If you choose to carry a gun under the authority granted to you by the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (i.e. carry outside Texas)...and you don't have a CHL (or equivalent) from the state you're in, do you risk falling afoul of the Federal Gun Free Safe School Zones Act of 1995 (GFSZA)?

If you look in my cite of the law, you'll not that the exemption is only for LEO's "acting in their official capacity". While one may make the case that off duty LEO's in Texas still have their jurisdiction...hence are always "acting in their official capacity", this seems to be tougher if you are out of state or carrying under the retired provisions of LEOSA. Perhaps another reason for a Peace Officer, or at least retired LEO to get a CHL.


-Scott
CITE

18 USC Sec. 922 01/05/2009

EXPCITE
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 44 - FIREARMS
HEAD
Sec. 922. Unlawful acts
STATUTE
(a) It shall be unlawful -
(1) for any person -
....
(2)(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to
possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects
interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual
knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a
firearm -
...
(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do
so by the State in which the school zone is located or a
political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or
political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains
such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or
political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified
under law to receive the license;
...
(vi) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official
capacity
; or
4/13/1996 Completed CHL Class, 4/16/1996 Fingerprints, Affidavits, and Application Mailed, 10/4/1996 Received CHL, renewed 1998, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2016...). "ATF... Uhhh...heh...heh....Alcohol, tobacco, and GUNS!! Cool!!!!"

User avatar

Excaliber
Moderator
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 5806
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 9:59 pm
Location: DFW Metro

Re: LEOSA Not An Exemption to GFSZA?

#2

Post by Excaliber » Fri Mar 04, 2011 4:53 pm

Most states treat LEOSA qualified officers as CHL's in those states. Some states (like Texas) give LEOSA qualified officers virtually the same carry privileges as active duty police officers.

I haven't heard of any issues regarding LEOSA carry and the requirements of the GFSZA.
Excaliber

"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Jeff Cooper
I am not a lawyer. Nothing in any of my posts should be construed as legal or professional advice.


Ameer
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1397
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 8:01 pm

Re: LEOSA Not An Exemption to GFSZA?

#3

Post by Ameer » Fri Mar 04, 2011 5:17 pm

Excaliber wrote:I haven't heard of any issues regarding LEOSA carry and the requirements of the GFSZA.
I haven't heard of anyone prosecuted for the new GFSZA unless they were also prosecuted for a violent crime like robbery, or illegal drugs.
I believe the basic political division in this country is not between liberals and conservatives but between those who believe that they should have a say in the personal lives of strangers and those who do not.

User avatar

Topic author
ScottDLS
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 4679
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:04 am
Location: DFW Area, TX

Re: LEOSA Not An Exemption to GFSZA?

#4

Post by ScottDLS » Fri Mar 04, 2011 5:26 pm

Excaliber wrote:Most states treat LEOSA qualified officers as CHL's in those states. Some states (like Texas) give LEOSA qualified officers virtually the same carry privileges as active duty police officers.

I haven't heard of any issues regarding LEOSA carry and the requirements of the GFSZA.
I was thinking that the TCLEOSE "license" for Texas Peace Officers may be considered a license for GFSZA purposes, but what about a Texas LEO carrying off duty in an Oklahoma school zone. BATFE has said the license must be issued by the state you're in (debatable, but that's their guidance). Or a retired Florida sheriff carrying in Texas with a Florida Retired (LEOSA) Card...?
4/13/1996 Completed CHL Class, 4/16/1996 Fingerprints, Affidavits, and Application Mailed, 10/4/1996 Received CHL, renewed 1998, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2016...). "ATF... Uhhh...heh...heh....Alcohol, tobacco, and GUNS!! Cool!!!!"

User avatar

ELB
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 7306
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 9:34 pm
Location: Seguin

Re: LEOSA Not An Exemption to GFSZA?

#5

Post by ELB » Fri Mar 04, 2011 5:39 pm

Ameer wrote:
Excaliber wrote:I haven't heard of any issues regarding LEOSA carry and the requirements of the GFSZA.
I haven't heard of anyone prosecuted for the new GFSZA unless they were also prosecuted for a violent crime like robbery, or illegal drugs.
202 F3d 1320 United States v. Tait comes pretty close.

Tait was prosecuted by the US District Attorney for being a felon in possession of a handgun and for having a handgun in a school zone. Tait prevailed at the trial court, and when the DA appealed to the 11th Circuit, Tait won there also, for the same reasons. Those reasons being 1) Tait was not a felon under the law, and 2) Tait had a concealed handgun permit issued by the state in which the school zone was located (Alabama).

There was an incident underlying this, apparently handled by the "locals," but I have never been able to find out exactly what happened or how it turned out.


FYI to all: more here on the GFSZA: FAQ: Gun Free School Zone Act
USAF 1982-2005
____________
“The only thing more enjoyable than seeing your opponent lose an election they rigged is seeing them lose an investigation they rigged.” Author unknown but dead on the mark.

User avatar

ELB
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 7306
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 9:34 pm
Location: Seguin

Re: LEOSA Not An Exemption to GFSZA?

#6

Post by ELB » Fri Mar 04, 2011 5:46 pm

Excaliber wrote:...I haven't heard of any issues regarding LEOSA carry and the requirements of the GFSZA.
A retired LEO carrying under the LEOSA in a school zone in another state would have to 1) come to the attention of the local police, and 2) come to the attention of local police who are willing to arrest and prosecute an out-of-state cop. Since the first hurdle is probably rarely, if ever, crossed, the whole issue dies right there.

But I will wager a few $$ that there is a substanitial liklihood that the police in Nassau County, New York, would arrest a retired Texas peace officer carrying near a school in their jurisdiction, and the local fed DA (Manhattan Office, I think) would prosecute it.
USAF 1982-2005
____________
“The only thing more enjoyable than seeing your opponent lose an election they rigged is seeing them lose an investigation they rigged.” Author unknown but dead on the mark.

User avatar

gigag04
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 5474
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 7:47 pm
Location: Houston
Contact:

Re: LEOSA Not An Exemption to GFSZA?

#7

Post by gigag04 » Fri Mar 04, 2011 5:53 pm

Officers have been arrested and charged (unsuccessfully) in gun restricted NE states. Though covered by leosa, they tried to lawfully check a weapon at the airport. I *think* it was Boston but I don't remember. Seems stupid to me.
Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work. - Thomas Edison


Crosstimbers Okie
Junior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 2:34 pm
Location: Kansas City, MO USA

Re: LEOSA Not An Exemption to GFSZA?

#8

Post by Crosstimbers Okie » Sat Mar 05, 2011 3:30 am

LEOSA is no protection from the GFSZA. The only defense is a CCW issued by the state the school is in, or if that state recognizes you as an LEO and exempts LEOs who are not carrying in the performance of their duties.
Teach others to fight back when unjustly assaulted; be it on the street or in the courtroom. Self-defense is a normal, moral act. So teach your family, friends, and students practical defense against both physical and legal marauders.-Jerry VanCook

User avatar

Excaliber
Moderator
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 5806
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 9:59 pm
Location: DFW Metro

Re: LEOSA Not An Exemption to GFSZA?

#9

Post by Excaliber » Sat Mar 05, 2011 9:42 am

gigag04 wrote:Officers have been arrested and charged (unsuccessfully) in gun restricted NE states. Though covered by leosa, they tried to lawfully check a weapon at the airport. I *think* it was Boston but I don't remember. Seems stupid to me.
Most NY law enforcement agencies will not allow their own retirees to range qualify for LEOSA carry.

A LEOSA qualified officer flying into one of the New York area airports patrolled by the Port Authority would do well to contact the Port Authority Police before flying in or out with a gun there to find out the latest on their policies.

These areas aren't just other states - they often behave like other countries.
Excaliber

"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Jeff Cooper
I am not a lawyer. Nothing in any of my posts should be construed as legal or professional advice.


srothstein
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 4198
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2006 8:27 pm
Location: Luling, TX

Re: LEOSA Not An Exemption to GFSZA?

#10

Post by srothstein » Sat Mar 05, 2011 11:45 pm

I would have to agree with ScottDLS on his interpretation. My license from TCLEOSe would count under the exact wording of the federal law. It says "licensed by their state to do so". It does nto specifically say a concealed handgun license or anything that would be taken to mean only the CHL.

But out of state, the whole concept of LEOSA is to be the same as a CHL equivalent. The law specifically says that it doesn't apply where a state allows a property to be barred and that it must be concealed. Excaliber is correct about Texas allowing a retired LEO to carry as if he were an active LEO (which includes open carry BTW), but that would not apply in other states.

GigAg04,

I don't know about the LEO's being arrested in the northeast at an airport, but there was a serious test of the LEOSA in South Dakota (at the bike rally in Sturgis). Off duty officers from out of state were hanging out in a bar and ended up in a shooting with some bike gang members. One of the officers had worked cases against the gang and they remembered him. The officers were initially charged with unlawfully carrying even though the shooting was ruled self-defense (though that was also touchy). A judge later dismissed the charges specifically noting that LEOSA allowed the officer to carry there.
Steve Rothstein

Post Reply

Return to “General Texas CHL Discussion”