The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in a case handed down in December of 2009, Ord v. District of Columbia (D.C. Cir. 2009) reversed a federal court's decision to dismiss a case seeking a ruling about the ability of an individual to carry his firearm into the District of Columbia under the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004, allowing the case to be heard in Federal District Court. The individual, qualified in Virginia under LEOSA had filed suit because of the District's contention that they might arrest him for carrying his weapon into the District of Columbia, despite his qualifications under H.R. 218/LEOSA. See the link below for the 33-page opinion and dissent Ord v. District of Cocumbia .
May 2010
05/27/2010
05/24/2010
H.R. 218 - Many Questions Left for Officers in Wake of 2004 Law
Many questions remain open in the wake of the passage of H.R. 218, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004. I will attempt to address many of these issues in the next few postings to the Police Law Blog. The law has been a tremendous asset to federal and state law enforcement since it became law (18 U.S.C. Sections 926B-926C). However, many of the officers that I have represented have found that some areas of the law could be more clearly set out in regulations.
In the next few posts, I will consider some of the issues that are out there and which should be addressed. Please feel free to comment. See below for the header to the passed version from 2004 courtesy of the House of Representatives and Thomas.gov