superdemon
Regular Member
imported post
hotrod wrote:
It was never intended to be used as a reason to arrest. I don't think anyone interprets it as making us "national"police officers. I think it was designed more with stopping active shooters, holding a suspect until that jurisdiction's police arrive, etc.
Besides, what's the first requirement of a lawful arrest? The officer must intend the action to be an arrest.
hotrod wrote:
superdemon wrote:Intervene as a civilian in a jurisdiction outside the Commonwealth and see how fast you loose those things you have worked so hard to acquire. That is the exact reason that I think 218 is a terrible law, it percieves to give law enforcement something they do not possess outside of their jurisdiction, power to make lawful arrest. If you make an arrest in Los Angeles using your weapon you will be on the other side of the bars, not for carrying possibly, but for using an arrest authority that you do not possess.hotrod wrote:superdemon wrote:i have never been a fan of 218, it makes 2 classes of people. It only gives you the right to carry where a civilian can not, it does not give you jurisdictional authority, and , it hasn't been tested in court for constutitionality, which I think it would fail before the US Supreme Court.zer0cool wrote:You would be liable, you may be able to carry in that state but you have to go by the laws of that state. So if its ok in ky and not in bufu idaho but they have a rec. agreement then you can carry what their law states is a deadly weapon or just simply a handgun. I always check state laws when I know I'm going to be crossing a border line. If you have a ky ccdw and you dont check the state laws of the state you are going to be visiting then thats on you.:banghead: Thats why you pay attention in the class you're required to take, they tell you that you have to check on the laws before you carry. I like the ccdw, since I'm not sworn yet and I'm working on a detail I can have by sidearm and my baton under a suit jacket and still be legal. Without that I would be in violation.
I didn't have to take a class. Before HR218, there was an exemption for police officers.After HR218, there was no point.
With HR218, and my agencies' concealed carry card/departmental ID, I have let my CCW expire, and don't plan on getting another one.
All it does is gives those of us who already have been trained inweapons, tactics and law the availability to intervene as a citizen ifwe are out and about. It only codified something that was already going on for decades, anyway.
And Ihardlythink the Supremes would knock it down, especially with their recent DC gun ban decision.
It was never intended to be used as a reason to arrest. I don't think anyone interprets it as making us "national"police officers. I think it was designed more with stopping active shooters, holding a suspect until that jurisdiction's police arrive, etc.
Besides, what's the first requirement of a lawful arrest? The officer must intend the action to be an arrest.