This year, the day after Thanksgiving saw Americans finally getting back to the business Americans love: Shopping!

FBI statistics show that a new record was set during that one Friday for background check requests from gun buyers. There were 129,166 requests to the NICS. That was a third more than the previous all-time record of 97,848 on Black Friday 2008. On Black Friday last year, there were 87,061 requests.

Some of the buyers believe that stockpiling guns is a better way to prepare for hard times than gold. Nevertheless, many of those shopping for guns at several gun stores in the Federal Way area were almost certainly women purchasing guns for their own protection.

Federal Way’s local Armed Defense Training Association has been in contact with an instructor named Jennie at Rivendell Sales and Consulting in Kent. Jennie teaches women how to shoot. She owns and operates a store that markets to women who shoot.

I asked her what ladies need to know when they first decide to buy a gun. The first consideration, she stated, is not to let someone at a gun shop — or a well-meaning significant other — sell you a small gun that “you shoot once, it hurts and you put it away.”

Jennie said a woman needs her own gun that fits. “I have seen too many ladies with a gun that does not fit their hand, one that is too large a caliber for a beginner, or they are told at some gun shop that the itty-bitty gun is just the one for them. The gun that does not fit you right just goes unused and sits on a shelf.”

Jennie encourages her students to consciously make the decision to defend their own life. “If you are killed or severely injured, how will your family function without you?”

Of course, hardly anyone ever actually states that his or her own life is not worth defending. But, despite all the philosophical and political arguments, take the steps to get trained and actually get a gun into your hands. This demonstrates that you are prepared to fight back.

Jennie demystifies the “danger” of guns. She told me, “I have seen many ladies not even sure they want to touch a gun. Her students learn quickly that a gun does not go off by itself. Once a woman realizes that she can effectively and safely operate the efficient little safety device, fear goes away and smiles start to appear.”

However, too many women take a beginner class and think that they are ready to go out on the street and deal with all the legal, physical and emotional things that go with armed self-defense.

“In order to carry for self-defense, you have to make the commitment to train and practice,” Jennie explains. “Training generally teaches you a skill and how to practice that skill; practice needs to continue on a regular basis.” Jennie recommends competition to test skills, keep skills sharp and make training interesting and fun.

“The holster that fits a slim man will usually not work for a curvy lady.” Men behind the gun counter, who have absolutely no idea what a lady needs for shooting gear, are the reason why Jennie became an instructor and opened her gun shop. Apparently, in the world of women’s self-defense, most of the old wives’ tales are perpetuated by men.

According to John Lott, the longer “shall issue” laws (such as Washington’s concealed carry law that requires a permit to issue within thirty days) are in place in a state, the more effective they are. In the period studied, for every five years a shall-issue law was in place, murder rates dropped by at least 15 percent, robberies by 11 percent and rapes by 9 percent. The benefits of concealed-carry laws for women are especially striking. According to Lott’s research, one additional woman carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for women by about three to four times more than one additional man carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for men.

According to LAUREL S. BARTON, a guest columnist in the Seattle PI:

Most people will be horrified and will fail to ask the crucial, underlying question: How many of those guns were purchased legally? After all, laws will affect guns legally acquired, not those from secondary sources. The answer: 15 percent of guns used in crimes are legally obtained. That leaves 85 percent unaffected by changes to gun control laws.

The number of crimes prevented by firearms based on incidents reported to the police nationwide is roughly 64,615 yearly; the estimate can jump as high as 2.45 million if one factors in unreported cases. Compare those numbers to 30,000 gun-related deaths yearly and one can see the difference is, at the very least, 34,000 people saved by guns.

According to an article in the Detroit News a few years ago, Americans own more than 200 million firearms, more than 60 million of which are handguns (National Institute of Justice statistics):

“Figures vary widely about the gender breakdown of ownership, but federal statistics claim 9 percent of women own guns.”

Brian Anse Patrick, a professor at the University of Toledo who studies gun culture, has observed that, as concealed carry permits are becoming more available due to rapidly changing laws in many states, the issue of concealed carry has become mainstream and more women are carrying:

“Before the CCW laws were liberalized, the people getting trained traditionally in gun culture were the old white guys,” Patrick said. “But after (2001) women said, ‘I am a woman and at risk and it’s a pretty sensible thing to do.‘”

In Colorado, a woman named Jeanne Assam, was thrown right into the path of a mad-dog killer:

Amid deafening cracks of gunfire, smoke-spewing canisters and the flight of thousands of New Life Church members, Jeanne Assam said she suddenly saw the hallways clear and a gunman come through the door.

“I took cover. I identified myself. I engaged him. I took him down,” the 42-year-old former law officer and volunteer church security guard said Monday at a news conference in the Colorado Springs police station.

The armed attacker invading the church was carrying two handguns, an assault rifle and over 1,000 rounds of ammunition, said Sgt. Jeff Johnson of the Colorado Springs Police Department.

See also Michelle Malkin “Feminization of Gun Debate.”

“Generally a lot of women are out alone at night and they just want to feel like they have that level of protection. There are also a lot of single moms who feel it is important to protect their family and their kids in that regard.”

If you are a woman or man that has questions, comments or additional information, including statistics pertaining to concealed carry permits issued in the Seattle-Tacoma area you should send us an e-mail at knapp.m@comcast.net.

I am not sure where we found this article but I only made a few changes in it and have had it posted for a number of years.

Criminals, particularly gang members, are normally not frightened of being confronted by a citizen with a firearm. I read an FBI report where exhaustive interviews were held with incarcerated gang members. Incidentally, convicts often have nothing better to do to keep busy in prison but to practice taking guns away from you by distracting you and executing well-rehearsed moves.

Many of the old-school “truths” that we learn in the course of our firearms training are wrong. To condense the report into some of the salient points:

1. Criminals are scared of being confronted with a firearm.

False. Most gangbangers have seen plenty of firearms, have been shot at a few times, and may carry one or more gunshot scars. They are not afraid of a gunfight.

2. If you point a gun at them, they’ll run away.

False. They will most likely shoot you where you stand. If you plan to draw a firearm, you’d better be prepared to fire it immediately.

3. Crooks never practice and are really bad shots. Since I just spent $$$ on a training course, I’m superman, in comparison.

False. Gang members may not use the latest techniques, they do indeed practice, and some are quite good. They use their firearms in confrontations regularly- you don’t!

4. All it would normally take is a couple shots to end a confrontation.

False. More and more confrontations are against multiple assailants, who may not bug out when the shooting starts. That handy little Kel-Tec in your pocket is about worthless in this situation.

This info reiterates, at least to me, some key factors in carrying for self-defense.

1. Carry enough gun - sufficient caliber, sufficient ammo capacity. What’s sufficient for you is a weapon that you can shoot in a caliber that you can handle well that is light enough that you will take it with you when you leave home.

2. If you carry, be prepared to shoot. Some folks carry around a pistol like a talisman to ward off evil. They figure if they ever need to draw, they will not need to shoot. That thinking may get you killed. You might NOT have to shoot, which is fine, but don’t assume that to be the default.

Go to Gang Members Practice More Than Police.

The internet has made it possible for average citizens to plunge into cyberspace and learn the secrets of the Matrix by obtaining information about our local communities that was never available in the past. Until recently, most Federal Way news was from two Federal Way newspapers and Seattle and Tacoma news outlets that focused on Seattle and Tacoma stories.

The modern Matrix of social media, websites and online forums empowers every citizen with an interest in journalism to deliver news to an audience potentially as huge as that of the Seattle Times. Citizen journalists may not be able to deliver the news to a reader’s doorstep but we can do even better! Thanks to the Matrix, activists, community organizers and agents of change can deliver the news to your cell phone and even right to the top of your desk!

The town of Vernon, New Jersey is an interesting example of the powerful potential for change presented by the internet. Vernon’s town government operated like Federal Way did not so long ago under a “council-manager” government. The city council, not the people, elected the mayor.

The result in Vernon was that corruption in Vernon became so bad that the citizens issued a declaration of independence. The solution that led to reform in Vernon’s government was for the people to elect a strong, honest mayor! The change was initiated by a local online newspaper named THE REVERED REVIEW.

Another catalyst for change is social networking media such as Twitter. Chris Carrel, the Communications Coordinator for our Federal Way government, recently told me that social media is an incredibly interesting area to explore because of the opportunity for 2-way communication. The City is cautiously moving forward with a plan to interact with Federal Way residents by launching a Facebook page and Twitter stream managed by Chris.

Chris told me that the project is a 1-year pilot project, with an eye towards measuring the City’s ability to build an audience and the effectiveness of the new tools in communicating with the public. City departments will forward messages, news and photos to Chris to post or tweet. The Community Center will have also have a sub-page on Facebook. Other departments have the option during the pilot period to undertake their own Facebook page or Twitter stream.

Just as in Matrix- the movie- the Social Media Matrix contains the potential for creating destructive phenomenon like the flash mobs now being utilized for robbery, looting and to foment chaos. It has become critical for law enforcement to understand the potential of social media for enabling criminal activity like we saw in London. But it is also critical for law enforcement to understand how to utilize social media proactively to prevent violence.

Federal Way Police Department may want to consider the option of utilizing social media for 2-way communication with the community. During the London riots that spread to other English towns and cities, the police utilized Twitter and other social media to follow up on rumors and prevent the rampant speculation that occurs when whole neighborhoods are burned and homes and shops invaded by gangs of thugs.

According to Mark Payne, a Superintendent with the West Midlands Police, England’s TV channels were publishing banner headlines directly from his tweets. The Superintendant stated that he gained 5000 extra followers within 24 hours after the riots started. Payne provided advice worth passing on to the community and especially to the FWPD.

You need to understand what you are doing and develop a follower base so people start to trust your voice on a daily basis and turn to you for information in a crisis. Be brave –the benefits of using social media outweigh the potential pitfalls. One of the benefits of social media is that there are already networks of engaged citizens in Federal Way just waiting to talk to law enforcement.

FWPD can answer the public’s questions and promote established principles of community policing with Twitter and Facebook. Encourage individual officers to engage through social media. Twitter and other social media can add a personal dimension to a local officer that used to be more common when officers always walked their daily beats in the same part of town.

When local government officials and concerned citizens get involved on a local basis, the big media news outlets will also be impacted. Social media can help to reassure people and dispel rumors during emergencies. By sharing news locally, every citizen of Federal Way can now impact our community and the nation- even the world- by engaging in honest communication and dialogue at a local level.

The Seattle Black Panther Party, founded in 1968, was an armed defense group that holds a controversial record in modern American history. The Seattle Black Panthers was the first BPP chapter formed outside California. The Black Panthers based its armed defense for the black community on an understanding of the U.S. Constitution that sometimes led to violent encounters with law enforcement. Nevertheless, the Seattle Panthers avoided the shootouts with police that were often associated with Panthers who also were known for providing lunches to school kids and other worthwhile community service.

On one occasion, several Black Panthers grabbed their guns and drove to Rainier Beach. The Panthers walked into Seattle’s Rainier Beach High School with their weapons and told the principal that he needed to start protecting Black students from being harassed or the Panthers would return. The police arrived but the Panthers left with no further problems.

In 1967, thirty Oakland Black Panthers, concerned that the California state legislature was about to outlaw the public display of guns, had appeared in full paramilitary regalia in front of the capital building- all fully armed! The fact that they were arrested for conspiracy to disturb the peace did not deter the Seattle Panthers.

After the incident at the Rainier Beach High, Seattle Mayor, J.D. Braman pushed to have a gun law passed that would put restrictions upon firearms in the city. In February, 1969, legislators in Olympia were also passing a new law that would make it a gross misdemeanor to exhibit firearms or other weapons in a manner manifesting intent to intimidate others. The Panthers stood on the capitol steps with rifles and shotguns to protest the pending gun legislation. Washington State Patrol officers just told the Panthers to put the guns away. The Panthers complied and no arrests resulted because no laws had been broken.

Some legislators and citizens reacted by proclaiming that the Panthers had demonstrated “open and active anarchy and rebellion.” Governor Evans promoted restraint during the incident and rebuked Lieutenant Governor Cherberg for calling in the state patrol during the Governor’s absence. The Bellevue High School even invited the Panthers to come to a Civics class where the Panthers were able to explain their philosophy of self-defense to the students.

The law enacted at that time by the Washington State Legislature- still in effect- prohibits display of a weapon in “a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.”

The legislature apparently included the language pertaining to display that “warrants alarm for the safety of other persons” in order to discourage further displays of armed force at the state capitol. Lawyers have challenged that language for being vague and arbitrary. In the 1994 case of STATE V. SPENCER, the Washington courts upheld a conviction under RCW 9.41.270 when a man with an AK-47 slung over his shoulder and a loaded magazine walked through a residential area just North of Federal Way with his head down avoiding eye contact.

Like the quotation that came out of one famous U.S. Supreme Court obscenity case- the justices knew obscenity when they saw it- the judges in Washington state seemed to know display warranting alarm when they saw it and held that Spencer had unlawfully displayed his weapon. But every time there is a new attempt to ban certain firearms, some gun advocates come openly armed to the Capitol Building in Olympia. The Washington State Patrol still acknowledges the citizens’ First Amendment and Second Amendment rights and refuses to harass armed citizens sitting and standing in the hearing rooms and corridors of our state legislature. Maybe we can thank the Black Panthers for paving the way!

Reprinted from King County Bar Association Bar Bulletin (September, 2011).

I read KCBA President Joe Bringman’s message in the Bar Bulletin (August, 2011 President’s Page). Many lawyers have the impression that the KCBA is taking political positions that conflict with the conservative principles which animate more than a few lawyers. The President’s comments related to state preemption of local gun control efforts might be commendable as an opinion piece or an expression of his personal opinion. Nevertheless, the fact that he was writing as President to KCBA members raises the issue of whether the President’s Page is an appropriate venue from which to advocate taking a questionable position regarding RCW 9.41.290.

Consider how many lawyers and even judges have CPLs and ask how those of us that “bear arms” as a normal part of our daily routine would be able to navigate our way down the freeway if we have to research the laws of every municipality into which we enter. If it is a challenge for lawyers that are experts when it comes to legal research then what about the non-lawyer that chooses to carry? If judges and lawyers adopt the approach that each man or woman that bears arms also bears the risks of running afoul of a patchwork of confusing laws, the chilling effect will hobble any meaningful exercise of our rights under the U.S. Constitution and SECTION 24 of the Washington State Constitution:

RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

If I go to a park in Seattle using public transportation would I check my gun in with the driver before I get on the bus? If I am walking around Seattle, will the City provide a lock box outside each entrance to a city park the way the courts are required to do by statute? And what about when I park in a municipally owner parking while stopping in a city that has decided to enact legislation prohibiting firearms in vehicles parked in municipal parking lots? The unpredictability and chaos will lead to utter disrespect for the law.

The impact of any potential modification concerning RCW 9.41.290 collides with common sense Local governments are not best situated to determine how to ensure the safety of their citizens. Local lawmakers react to local political pressures often without considering ramifications that involve travelers, visitors and business people that may be carrying large amounts of money with no place to safely store a weapon when they enter an area that restricts firearms. Many states have similar preemption laws and are safer than cities like Chicago where most residents have been prohibited from keeping guns- even in their homes- and the murder rate is out of control. Enacting the President’s proposals for Washington State would create legal chaos and make us less safe!

RCW 9.41.290 states:

The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state, including the registration, licensing, possession, purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, discharge, and transportation of firearms, or any other element relating to firearms or parts thereof, including ammunition and reloader components. Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities may enact only those laws and ordinances relating to firearms that are specifically authorized by state law, as in RCW 9.41.300, and are consistent with this chapter. Such local ordinances shall have the same penalty as provided for by state law. Local laws and ordinances that are inconsistent with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law shall not be enacted and are preempted and repealed, regardless of the nature of the code, charter, or home rule status of such city, town, county, or municipality.

Given the harm all too frequently associated with statist theoreticians, it’s time that we ask whether the benefits provided by our state’s firearms preemption law outweigh any short term political advantages to be gained by modifying state law.

A few years back, the Bar Bulletin published a great article entitled PRYING THE SECOND AMENDMENT’S MEANING FROM THE FOUNDERS’ COLD DEAD HANDS. The well written legal analysis of the Second Amendment was written by a young attorney that started out with negative assumptions about the Second Amendment but she discovered that its provisions are actually very meaningful.

There are presently lawsuits pending in Illinois that will almost certainly establish a right to carry a firearm in many public places. The Washington State Constitution is unequivocal in its legal protection for gun owners and those of us that bear arms. Proposals to modify firearms preemption are actually a giant step back to the patch work laws that have worked to completely deprive many people in Illinois from enjoying a right that residents of most states take for granted; i.e., the right to simply possess a firearm within their own homes!

Things have changed a lot since most of us were in law school. One reason to think soberly and clearly about such proposals is because, as lawyers, we are more likely to be threatened with violence than most people. The threats to judges and prosecutors in particular have been escalating according to a study by the Washington State Board for Judicial Administration (BJA).

See article.

There is no evidence that armed citizens are creating a threat by wearing pistols in public places and a concurring opinion in the NORDYKE V KING case (Ninth Circuit, 2009) contained a strong comment as to how effectively the Second Amendment protects Americans from the promiscuous carnage that occurred during the attacks in Mumbai by terrorists armed with automatic rifles. A few guns at the youth camp in Norway could also have saved many lives. An unarmed officer in uniform was one of the victims in the early stages of that attack.

More lawyers should get involved in the full debate about guns. The issues are serious and the public needs the rigorous analysis lawyers can provide on the subject of gun law, not the kind of superficial analyses that politicians and news media often produce.

Terms like homophobia have come to be the accepted nomenclature to describe anyone that opposes a political agenda that is advocated by the mavens of our American media-political complex. Control of the language ensures cultural dominance. For example, opposing government entitlement programs translates into hate for minorities. And many Americans are now convinced that actually enforcing immigration laws indicates fear of people that don’t speak English.

According to my sources, the Yiddish term “maven” became common in political parlance during the 1980s when William Safire, the Conservative mantelpiece at the New York Times, began describing himself as “the language maven“. A maven is someone who has a disproportionate influence on other members of his or her network.

The role of mavens and psycholinguistics in propagating opinion has been well-documented. It may someday become common to read stories in magazines and newspapers about hoplophobia; i.e., morbid fear of guns! The Bellevue-based Second Amendment Foundation has now moved for a preliminary injunction against the State of Illinois to prevent the state from prohibiting citizens from carrying guns - something allowed in every other state.

Rahm Emanuel wants to avoid adverse court rulings on two pending federal lawsuits challenging Chicago’s ban on gun ranges. The City of Chicago is reluctantly taking steps to perpetuate its systematic hoplophobia by finally allowing gun ranges within its City limits. This seems like a move in the direction but the proposed zoning regulations would contain such severe restrictions that the legal expense alone will discourage most business people from even trying to construct a gun range!

Ranges in Chicago would be confined to areas zoned for manufacturing- but that’s only the beginning. Gun ranges would be prohibited within 1,000 feet of a school, park, place of worship, day care center, liquor store, library, museum, hospital or residential district!

That doesn’t leave too many viable locations. But the Mayor and Chicago’s aldermen are also busy trying to figure out how to make sure that, if any would-be range operators ever do obtain the required special use permits- after a prolonged and difficult public hearing process- no one could leave the range with ammunition purchased there. Did I mention that Illinois is now the only state where carrying of firearms by private citizens is completely prohibited!

Lawyers and historians are very familiar with all the unintended consequences that result from any policy choice. But there may come a time that the citizens of Chicago will look back to when violent crime was rampant in their city’s streets and wonder how they ever submitted to the tyranny of hoplophobic politicians like Rahm Emanuel. Parents all over the U.S. may even tell their children how toy guns could lead to dreadful retribution exacted by school officials under the control of a mental abnormality that once swept over our American ruling class.

Illinois also has a huge spending problem, four modern governors convicted of corruption and a river of blood in its streets. The Second Amendment was written by men that had read about similar times and they called hoplophobia something else- a recipe for tyranny!

Most of our readers recognize that the Federal Way Firearms Lawyer does not merely rant about guns. In fact most of our readership recognizes the column as a source of thought provoking insight into life’s weightier questions. The fact that this column is often a Socratic dialogue that transcends mundane commercial pursuits raises the question, “How can such an inquiry be relevant to the market place in which the need to make a buck is preeminent?”

Understanding the premises of the Firearms Lawyer blog requires unabashed bumper sticker logic starting with the following three precepts:

Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.

When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will own guns.

Gun control means using both hands.

Bumper sticker has been appearing around Seattle regarding the Starbucks Memaid!

Last year the Brady Bunch added to the potential for humor with histrionics about right-wing gun activists seething with threats. One can actually observe Progressive-Liberals like Helmke, Congressman Adam Smith and his beltway twin, Anthony Weiner, exhibiting Histrionic Personality Disorders.

HPD is defined by the American Psychiatric Association as a personality disorder characterized by a pattern of excessive emotionality and attention-seeking, including an excessive need for approval and inappropriately seductive behavior, usually beginning in early adulthood. These individuals are lively, dramatic, enthusiastic, and flirtatious.

They may be inappropriately sexually provocative, express strong emotions with an impressionistic style, and be easily influenced by others. Associated features may include egocentrism, self-indulgence, continuous longing for appreciation, and persistent manipulative behavior to achieve their own needs.

The comments in the Seattle PI’s online publication of our recent column about the Starbucks Mermaid logo with guns demonstrate that there is no joking around when it comes to Progressive sacred cows. According to one online response:

“The vast, overwhelming majority of tyranny in the world’s history is right-wing tyranny. This country fought too hard to defeat Fascism and Nazism to stand by and let their ideological brethren take over this country with flimsy excuses and cheap scare tactics. (Read Mein Kampf to see that Adolf Hitler based the vast majority of National Socialism directly on American conservatism. Fact!)”

It quickly becomes apparent that we aren’t getting comments from the sharpest knives in the PI readership’s drawer. But if the article gets republished enough maybe Congressman Weiner will log in from rehab with one of his smart and clever ripostes. Our own representative in DC is Adam Smith but he is busy studying the polls related to deficit reduction. It would be presumptuous to expect Smith to enter a dialogue that is no laughing matter for Ceasefire, the Brady Campaign and apparently a large number of baristas that would, according to Paul Hemke and company, prefer to ask armed Starbucks customers to leave rather than take a chance on some caffeine inebriated open-carry enthusiast letting off an accidental discharge or worse!

About a year ago, the Brady Campaign warned that “gun rights” activists were also converging on Washington, D.C., seething with threats of right-wing violence. And Conservatives are supposedly so paranoid compared to the smooth-tempered, reasonable libs and homophiles that have been cautiously warning for years that Christians are conspiring with Republicans to establish a Neo-Wagnerian trilogy of religion, guns and fascist repression against hoplophobes and homosexuals.

Of course, the Brady Campaign rejects the “bumper sticker logic” of the gun lobby.

The gun control group called for a new reality-based discussion of guns and violence.

Someone at the Brady Center wrote a book titled “Lethal Logic: Exploding the Myths that Paralyze American Gun Policy”. The author dissected the superficial appeal of bumper sticker logic (e.g., when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns).

While I don’t normally display bumper stickers, I am convinced that the stickers provide profound sociological data. Which brings us to the question posed herein: What does it mean that the Starbucks lady is now on a bumper sticker carrying a handgun?

In California a few years ago, some folks were offended by fellow coffee drinkers in Starbucks (and other spots) with pistols and revolvers visibly hanging from their hips. Organizations like the Brady Center, which wants to take guns away from the rest of us, demanded that armed customers be prohibited from such publicly “lethal” expressions of free speech.

Some retailers reacted by announcing a “no guns” policy. Starbucks, on the other hand, allowed guns in its stores. The anti-gun groups held demonstrations around the U.S. to try and coerce Starbucks into changing its policy. The demonstrations spread to Seattle and resulted in swarms of reporters, demonstrators and armed caffeine addicts intermingling in an exchange of viewpoints that could have become lethal to Starbucks’ profit and loss statement.

Did the Brady Campaign encourage the bumper stickers in order to shame the coffee chain? Or did the open-carry crowd adopt the image as a means of trumpeting their victory over the progressing forces of tyranny?

There has always been a certain mystery surrounding the Starbucks lady with the star above her head. Her mermaid-like mien is normally encompassed by porpoise tails. Thus, the image of her brandishing a gun could be a shout of indignation against environmentalism — or even a new breed of environmental radicalism?

Maybe she is just a symbol of Seattle rising amid the splendors of an Emerald Sea. The Starbucks logo certainly offers something for everyone.

The next time you visit a Starbucks, thank your favorite barista for keeping us caffeinated and for protecting our First and Second Amendment rights. And give the Starbucks lady the respect she deserves for sticking to her guns!

Christine Gregoire gave the legislature an additional thirty days- starting April 22nd- to produce a two-year state budget and it looks like the law makers finally have a budget after a special session that looked like it was about to go into another overtime. Gov. Gregoire signed three gun bills into law passed by lawmakers during the regular session. HB 1016 allows use of suppressors. Known as silencers, suppressors are common in many other states. Federal law requires some red tape with the BATFE, however. European gun enthusiasts have used silencers for years because it eliminates many of the complaints about noise that plague gun ranges.

HB 1455 deals with where to petition the courts for the right to possess firearms. People previously convicted of certain crimes or involuntarily committed on psychiatric grounds are presently able to petition for their gun rights in any county within the State of Washington. After July 22, 2011, petitioners must file in the county where he or she resides or in the county where the conviction or commitment occurred.

Under SHB 1923, a check with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) will determine whether individuals can obtain a Concealed Pistol License. Thus, a person with a valid, current CPL issued after July 22nd will not be required to undergo a NICS check when purchasing a firearm from a licensed dealer. But BATFE will have to make a formal determination that the new law meets the federal standard.

The legislative enactment that has gotten the most attention is the legalization of firearms suppressors. Neighboring states like Oregon permit silencers; Washington has permitted possession but not the actual use of a silencer. The BATFE issues tax stamps to gun owners in Washington- as they do in many other states. The stamp costs $200.00 and requires permission from a Chief Law Enforcement Officer; e.g., a Washington sheriff or police chief. The red tape involves a good deal of time and expense to own something that could not be used! Now shooting a round through your silencer in this state will no longer be a crime.

I advise an NFA Gun Trust. Federal law still requires the signature of a chief LEO but an NFA Trust makes the signature unnecessary. I am told that in the Seattle area obtaining the required signature can be problematic. Thus, people wanting to own silencers will now get more benefit from an NFA Trust because they can actually get out and shoot in peace and quiet without going to Oregon or Idaho! You also need to go to other states to own fully automatic weapons. The legislature is unlikely to allow private ownership of full auto weapons very soon, however!

All three of the bills above will take effect on July 22, 2011. Joe Waldron publishes a regular legislative update from which we obtained much of the legislative information above. There has not normally been too much gun legislation enacted in Olympia because the anti-gun legislators have been in a prolonged stalemate with pro-gun law makers. Every session, however, a number of proposed bills- both pro and anti-gun- die a natural death, often without being reported out of committee!

One of the most interesting developments, according to an addendum to the Goal Post for the month of May:

The week before the regular session ended, Rep. Brian Blake (D-19), one of the strongest proponent of our right to keep and bear arms in Olympia, introduced HB 2099. The bill would open the door once again to lawful possession of short-barreled rifles and short-barreled shotguns. The bill was filed too late for consideration in this year’s session, but will be at the top of the stack for 2012.

Up until 1994, there was no restriction on the possession of short-barreled rifles and shotguns in Washington, provided they were possessed in compliance with federal law (just as suppressors are lawfully possessed). Back when Rep. Marlin Appelwick (D-Seattle), and Senators Phil Talmadge (D-Seattle) and Adam Smith (D-Federal Way) were drafting the so-called “Youth Violence Act” (E2SHB 2319), they added a provision banning the possession of these heavily (federally) regulated firearms. There was no good reason for the ban then, nor is there one today. Hopefully the bill will move forward next regular session.

Contact Joe Waldron at jwaldron@halcyon.com.

Saturday, June 25th ADTA Law of Armed Defense Meeting:
Location: Regional Library at 34200 First Way South in Federal Way.

The class is for members, the public and especially for armed citizens interested in knowing more about armed defense of self and others! We will cover Washington laws pertaining to your duty to carry a firearm responsibly and how to deal with the legal decisions ypu will encounter before, during and after an actual defensive encounter in which you are armed with a gun. We will also invite you to join the Armed Defense Training Association at the meeting but we will not pressure anyone. Our nonprofit corporation provides opportunities to participate in shooting activities that develop action shooting and tactical skills.

Since we first raised the issue of a gun range for Federal Way we have had a positive response. Several business leaders are spearheading the newly incorporated Armed Defense Training Association (ADTA). We held our first meeting to answer questions and recruit membership on January 26th, 2011.

Our members pay an annual membership fee that helps provide monthly events at local ranges. The goal is to provide members with opportunities to draw from the holster, shoot on the move from cover and to proceed into more advanced tactical training scenarios. We are negotiating reduced rates for range time and expect to bring in instructors for training in various defense techniques; e.g., weapon retention, pepper spray, knives, etc.

We now have over sixty members, mostly from around Federal Way and encourage people from every background to get involved.

Our goal is to build a range in one of Federal Way’s empty commercial buildings. We raise funds by various events, many of which may be open to the public. These will include hosting seminars with instructors and other speakers. ADTA members will be able to participate in all these events at reduced or no cost.

The number of gun enthusiasts in the Federal Way area includes quite a few active members of service clubs like Rotary, Kiwanis and the Chamber of Commerce. It is not surprising that men and women that volunteer countless hours to their community are also passionate about being ready to “preserve and protect” a community which we are constantly working to improve.

See http://www.armeddefense.org/home.

The benefit of having ADTA members that put serious time and effort into training together will make all of us safer in schools, businesses, churches and anywhere we go during our normal routine. We might even stimulate the economy as the ADTA starts to host bigger events!

Check out what we are doing at http://armeddefense.org. Proper firearms training creates discipline and respect that will enhance public safety. Additionally, there are many new gun owners with recently obtained Concealed Pistol Licenses in King and Pierce Counties. Many states require testing that includes proficiency with your weapon in order to obtain a Concealed Pistol License.

The State of Washington only requires a background check to obtain a CPL but that does not excuse armed citizens from understanding the laws pertaining to keeping and bearing arms. We also need to be prepared for the possibility of stressful tactical situations. Firearms safety will always be emphasized at every level of training. The tax payers will pay nothing and Federal Way will reap all the benefits.

We have made it clear that we welcome Progressives, liberals, Republicans and Democrats- from every religious and political persuasion or no religious persuasion! We will not tolerate anyone that advocates breaking the law, however. Recent events in Tucson show how dangerous it can get when anarchy, rebellion and lawlessness of any sort is tolerated. Join us for safer and more prosperous communities!

Our club is sponsoring training events that are not typically available to the general public.

We’re eager to meet you, answer your questions and hear your ideas.

What is the Armed Defense Training Association?

1. We promote the safe and ongoing development of responsible self-defense skills.

2. We organize regular events (including live-fire, no-fire, interactive demonstrations, seminars, and social outreach events) to build interest in responsible self-defense and to provide training opportunities for individuals to practice and improve their defensive skills and knowledge.

3. We assemble involved, like-minded individuals, that as a group we can explore developing unique resources and facilities (the Shooting Arts Center)

4. We advocate to all individuals to consider their roles as rational, self-determined, law-abiding adults who may someday be required to immediately act in defense of life, either their own or their loved ones.

5. We participate in our communities of family, friends, neighbors, cities, and region, for their growth and health.

E-mail info@ArmedDefense.org for more information

Amended LEOSA Empowers Retired Law Enforcement

LEOSA has been around for about seven years now; most officers across many states aren’t very familiar with the law. Despite the 2010 amendments, understanding the LEOSA and related laws seems to be subject to some interpretation but we have received some help from a federal law enforcement officer who is also a Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) and NRA instructor. He keeps himself very well versed in Washington State and federal laws that relate to LEOSA.

Active and retired LEOs should fully educate themselves on the firearm laws of any jurisdiction in which they are traveling and strive to always be in compliance with the various laws because their knowledge is what will ultimately protect them. We choose to carry concealed firearms for one purpose- to preserve life. The moment when the off-duty officer or retiree has to present that firearm and pull the trigger is critical because whether he was fully justified or not, those moments may land him in court explaining his actions. Things will be far more complicated if the court finds that the officer or retiree was in illegal possession of that firearm when he made the decision to deploy deadly force.

The Opinion Letter referenced in an April 26th Mirror article was drafted before the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act Improvements Act which was recently signed into law. The Washington legislature amended RCW 36.28A.090 last year. LEOSA Improvements Act amended LEOSA to allow the option of using a “certified firearms instructor that is qualified to conduct a firearms qualification test for active duty officers within that State” if the state does not have a certification standard.

• S. 1132/H.R. 3752 would reduce the period an officer must serve before gaining eligibility to carry firearms as a retiree. Under current law, only officers with 15 years of service are “qualified.” This arbitrary requirement discriminates against those who go into law enforcement as a second career–after retiring from the military, for example. S. 376 reduces the requirement to 10 years.

• S. 1132/H.R. 3752 eliminates the requirement that retirees have “nonforfeitable” retirement benefits to qualify. Some small agencies have no such benefits–but a retiree`s need to defend himself shouldn`t depend on his pension plan.

• S. 1132/H.R. 3752 would clarify training requirements–ensuring that a retiree can meet the mandatory re-qualification standard either through the agency he or she formerly served, or through the state where he or she currently resides.

• S. 1132/H.R. 3752 would create more flexibility in training. Currently, many retired police officers who are otherwise well qualified, can`t find a state agency willing to train them because of liability concerns. While those concerns are largely imaginary, S. 1132/H.R. 3752 would fix the problem; it would allow certification of the retiree`s training by any person authorized to test law enforcement officers` qualifications.

RCW 36.28A.090 was also amended to remove several sections including the FBI check requirement that required the retiree to apply for certificates at LEO agencies, allowing only LEO agencies to issue certificates, and requiring the retiree to pay fees.

Removing those sections from RCW 36.28A.090 made it even clearer that the agency, individual or entity does not face legal risk and liability for certifying retired officers. The agency role as certifier does not authorize anyone to carry or use a weapon. Once the agency hands that signed certificate over to that retiree, whether he is a Microsoft retiree or an LEO retiree, it is up to that retiree to make sure he or she acts properly under federal and state gun laws. If an agency is sued for damages where the allegation is that a retired officer is not competent to carry, the certificate becomes about as relevant as a score sheet from a bowling alley because the certifier’s job is simply to certify the retiree’s shooting ability to the standards of the state (or departmental standards), and that is where departmental responsibility begins and ends. It is the retiree’s responsibility to be in compliance with federal and state firearm laws.

With the amended RCW, it’s hard for WASPC and others to argue that agencies may be held liable. In fact, there aren’t any requirements to keep records or databases on any retiree who receives a qualification because all administrative requirements were removed from the RCW when it was amended.

Here is how LEOSA certifications work in one federal agency:

The Department’s policy prohibits its agencies from conducting qualifications for retirees, and directs retirees to seek qualification through their state’s standard. Of course, Washington does have a state qualification standard, (RCW 36.28A.090), but the standard allows the qualification to done by any of three means: a law enforcement agency or individual or entity certified to provide firearms training.

Several months ago, the federal officer/FLETC certified instructor asked the Executive Director of the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs whether he and other FLETC certified instructors met the RCW 36.28A.090 definition of “an individual certified to provide firearms training” who can qualify retirees on the state standard. The Executive Director stated that the WASPC allows individual instructors who are CJTC and NRA certified, and because of that, they would also recognize individual instructors from Federal agencies who are FLETC certified.

Then our correspondent asked his agency for permission to conduct LEOSA qualifications during his off-duty, non-paid time, and the Ethics Office and chief executive approved his request. So now, even though the agency cannot allow him to conduct qualifications during paid time, he can provide the qualification as a self-employed individual instructor during off-duty time, and because of that, the agency retirees now have an easily accessible means to receive their Washington state annual qualifications. It’s his way to give back to co-workers when they retire.

Qualifications are conducted using the Washington state standard and the Model Certificate provided by the WASPC. The LEOSA (amended) directs certifications to be done according to “the standards used by a certified firearms instructor that is qualified to conduct a firearms qualification test for active duty officers within that State.” Utilizing the state standard is allowable and proper because RCW 36.28A.090 directs “an individual certified to provide firearms training” to certify the retiree “according to the standards established by the criminal justice training commission,” and FLETC instructors meet the definition of “individual certified to provide firearms training” for that purpose. Also, using the state standard instead of the agency’s standard is more appropriate because it eliminates any perception that the instructor is representing the agency, or violating agency policy.

Law Enforcement agencies can conduct retiree qualifications under the analysis outlined above. Ordinarily, a firearm instructor would be certified by the CJTC, and if their agency offered a qualification program for retired officers, they would be the very same instructor administering the qualification during their paid shift.

Instructors from local agencies can assist retirees to qualify during off-duty, non-agency paid time while acting as self-employed individual firearm instructors. The individual’s status with his or her agency as Firearm Instructor signifies only that the instructor meets the skills recognized by the WASPC to do LEOSA qualifications in this state, but it does not mean the qualifications they do are endorsed by their agency. And instead of having the retiree qualify on their agency’s standard, they would be qualifying them on the state standard that is outlined on the WASPC Model Certificate.

Of course, there are often agency policies that have to be considered; e.g., requesting authorization for outside employment even though offering the service to retirees at no charge (they only cover the officer’s expenses such as ammo and targets).

Washington State may have the best program in terms of how much red tape the retiree has to deal with, cost, and availability. Also, it seems that Washington State’s standard is unique in that it allows individual instructors to conduct the qualification without requiring the retiree to go through a local LEO agency (and possible red tape) during any part of the process, thus making it easier for retirees to exercise this right.

Retired LEO’s who fell into the RCW 10.93.020 definition of “General authority Washington peace officer” when they retired may the only retirees who are fully exempted from concealed weapons licenses and may carry a concealed firearm within the state without such license. Nevertheless, we have it on good authority that retired King County Reserve Deputies receive a retirement card that exempts them from needing a CPL to carry within Washington State.

LEOSA also allows them to carry within the state and extends that privilege beyond the state’s borders. Any retiree who fell into the other three RCW 10.93.020 definitions of “Limited authority Washington peace officer,” “Specially commissioned Washington peace officer", and “Federal peace officer” when they retired may not have the state exemption, and the only way they can legally carry a concealed weapon in WA state is under LEOSA- which means they must have an agency-issued photographic ID, a current WASPC Model Certificate, and a WA state Drivers License or ID card (the WADL proves to out-of-state authorities that the Model Certificate from WA state is the retiree’s proper state certification).

At first glance, RCW 9.41.060 seems to exempt ALL retired LEOs, but it does not. This is explained in the following Attorney General Opinions:

AGO 2006 No. 15
AGO 2009 No. 7

For example, “Federal Peace Officers” lack the full exemption under RCW 9.41.060 but are still eligible for LEOSA status.

Volunteer, uncompensated reserve officer; i.e., “Specially commissioned Washington peace officers” may not have an exemption to carry concealed while off-duty (absent specific authorization). But even though RCW 9.41.060 does not exempt a reserve officer, a retired reserve officer may be eligible to carry pursuant to LEOSA. If (s)he meets the LEOSA requirements (an LEO with at least 10 aggregate years of LEO authority with statutory powers of arrest, who carried a firearm, along with possessing an agency-issued photo ID, a current WASPC Model Certificate, and WADL). Thus, since LEOSA was enacted in early 2011, LEO’s from all RCW 10.93.020 definitions may have full off-duty exemption if they meet LEOSA requirements.

While on this topic, here are some other notes about off-duty active and retired LEOs in Washington State:

Active “General authority Washington peace officers” are the only LEOs who have FULL exemption under RCW 9.41.060 when they are off-duty. The other three categories of peace officers have only a LIMITED exemption when off-duty, and it is mostly limited to off-duty periods when they are authorized by the proper authorities in their chain of command to carry a concealed firearm when off-duty such as when commuting to and from work with their service pistol.

A limited authority Washington peace officer is defined in RCW 10.93.020 as:

“[A]ny full-time, fully compensated officer of a limited authority Washington law enforcement agency empowered by that agency to detect or apprehend violators of the laws in some or all of the limited subject areas for which that agency is responsible.”

RCW 10.93.020(4).

On the other hand, Washington law identifies a reserve officer, as a “Specially commissioned Washington peace officer” defined as follows:

(5) “Specially commissioned Washington peace officer", for the purposes of this chapter, means any officer, whether part-time or full-time, compensated or not, commissioned by a general authority Washington law enforcement agency to enforce some or all of the criminal laws of the state of Washington, who does not qualify under this chapter as a general authority Washington peace officer for that commissioning agency, specifically including reserve peace officers, and specially commissioned full-time, fully compensated peace officers duly commissioned by the states of Oregon or Idaho or any such peace officer commissioned by a unit of local government of Oregon or Idaho. A reserve peace officer is an individual who is an officer of a Washington law enforcement agency who does not serve such agency on a full-time basis but who, when called by the agency into active service, is fully commissioned on the same basis as full-time peace officers to enforce the criminal laws of the state.

RCW 10.93.020 (5)

Under the amended LEOSA, retired officers must have separated from service in good standing from service with a public agency as a law enforcement officer, before such separation, have been authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and had statutory powers of arrest. Additionally, either before such separation, he or she must have been regularly employed as a law enforcement officer for an aggregate of 10 years or more, or be retired from service with such agency, after completing any applicable probationary period of such service, due to a service-connected disability, as determined by such agency. Thus, a “specially commissioned Washington peace officer” (i.e., reserve officer) qualifies to carry under LEOSA if he or she qualifies every year and meets the other criteria.

We are still working on this project to assist agencies and individuals to deal with some very fact-specific determinations that can have critical results if misinterpreted. For instance, the U.S. Coast Guard has promulgated a guideline policy stating that a LEOSA “Qualified Law Enforcement Officer” includes only:

(1) COMMISSIONED, WARRANT, AND PETTY OFFICERS, INCLUDING RESERVISTS COVERED BY CHAPTER 3.C.1.B.3 OF REFERENCE ©, WHO HOLD A CURRENT, EFFECTIVE, AND PROPERLY ISSUED COMMAND DESIGNATION LETTER AS A BOARDING OFFICER OR BOARDING TEAM MEMBER IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 3.C.1.B.1 OF REFERENCE ©…. LEOSA EXTENDS THE DEFINITION OF QUALIFIED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER TO THOSE AUTHORIZED TO SUPERVISE LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY PROVIDED ALL OTHER CRITERIA ARE SATISFIED. ALTHOUGH STATE COURT DETERMINATIONS WILL GOVERN INDIVIDUAL CASES, THE USCG INTERPRETS THIS TO MEAN THOSE PERSONNEL WHO ARE IN THE DIRECT OPERATIONAL CHAIN OF COMMAND AND WOULD INCLUDE: COMMANDING OFFICERS AND OFFICERS-IN-CHARGE OF UNITS SUPERVISING AT LEAST ONE FULL-TIME BOARDING TEAM AS THAT TERM IS DEFINED IN REFERENCE ©, CHIEFS OF RESPONSE OF AREAS, DISTRICTS, AND SECTORS, CHIEFS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OF AREAS, DISTRICTS, AND SECTORS, AREA COMMANDERS, CG-DCO, DISTRICT COMMANDERS, DOG COMMANDER, COMDT (CG-5), COMDT (CG-53), COMDT (CG-531), AND DOG (DG-3) PROVIDED SUCH PERSONS ARE, AT THE TIME OF CONCEALED FIREARM CARRIAGE, AUTHORIZED TO CARRY A GOVERNMENT ISSUED PERSONAL DEFENSE WEAPON (GI-PDW) IN ACCORDANCE WITH REFERENCE (D) AND APPENDIX H OF REFERENCE ©.

One of the best things an agency can do for their officers and retirees is to write a well-written LEOSA policy. The agency might already have a written policy on carrying personal firearms off-duty within the state based on state statutes, and if that’s the case, then it only needs to be update so that it includes interstate possession under LEOSA. It is important to bear in mind, however, that administrative policies do not determine an officer’s status under LEOSA. Anindividual’s status as a qualified law enforcement officer is determined by his or her statutory power of arrest along with the other criteria enumerated pursuant to LEOSA.

The City of San Fernando Police Department settled with a member of the U.S. Coast Guard, Jose Diaz, in the amount of $44,000.00 after they ignored his right to carry under LEOSA. The following excerpt is from a brief filed by the Plaintiff’s attorney, Jason Davis, in opposition to the City of San Fernando’s Motion for Summary Judgment in the case of Jose Diaz vs City of San Fernando. The E-4 Coast Guard Petty Officer Third Class was arrested and booked into jail for having an unloaded Glock pistol in his vehicle:

C. LAW ENFORCEMNT OFFICER SAFETY ACT (LEOSA) PERMITS DIAZ TO CARRY A FIREARM AS A MATTER OF LAW

Mr. Diaz is a member of the United States Coast Guard Reserves. The United States expressly permits certain qualified law enforcement officers to possess firearms, regardless of state laws. Specifically, 18 U.S.C. section 926B(a), also known as the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003 (LEOSA), states as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who [1] is a qualified law enforcement officer and [2] who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that [3] has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).

Each of these three requirements are discussed below.

i. Plaintiff was, at the time of the incident, a Qualified Law Enforcement Officer:

Qualified law enforcement officer, is defined by 18 U.S.C. 926B© as an employee of a governmental agency who:

• is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and has statutory powers of arrest;
• is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm;
• is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the agency;
• meets standards, if any, established by the agency which require the employee to regularly qualify in the use of a firearm;
• is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance; and
• is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm.

Nothing in LEOSA requires that the Officer be issued a firearm. LEOSA applies to persons “authorized by the agency to carry a firearm.”

A Petty Officer in the Coast Guard has the general authority of the power to arrest and the authority to carry a firearm are also provided within 14 U.S.C. 89(a), which states in part:

The Coast Guard may make inquiries, examinations, inspections, searches, seizures, and arrests upon the high seas and waters over which the United States has jurisdiction, for the prevention, detection, and suppression of violations of laws of the United States.

For such purposes, commissioned, warrant, and petty officers may at any time go on board of any vessel subject to the jurisdiction, or to the operation of any law, of the United States, address inquiries to those on board, examine the ship’s documents and papers, and examine, inspect, and search the vessel and use all necessary force to compel compliance. (Multiple emphasis added.)

Here, the authority to carry firearms for petty officers is found within the phrase “use all necessary force to compel compliance.” That LEOSA applies to members of the Coast Guard, has already been established:
Under New York law there is a presumption that possession of a weapon is evidence of intent to use the weapon unlawfully against another. N.Y. Penal Law § 265.15 (4). However, this presumption is questionable in light of plaintiff’s arguable entitlement to carry a concealed weapon under federal law. See People v. Booth, 20 Misc. 3d 549, 552-53, 862 N.Y.S.2d 767, 770 (N.Y. Co. Ct. 2008) (member of Coast Guard covered by section 926B held to be exempt from prosecution for Criminal Possession of Weapon in the Second Degree).

(See LaFontaine v. City of New York (2009) 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105838, RFJN Exhibit 8; UMF No. 12; Exhibit A, Mack Depo., pp. 26, 54-55; Exhibit B, Diaz Depo. ¶¶2-9, Internal Exhibit 16 [Plaintiff’s Coast Guard identification card].) As such, at least one court has found that LEOSA does permit members of the Coast Guard to carry concealed firearms as a matter of law.

ii. Plaintiff Carried and Provided Officer Mack with Proper Identification:

Proper Identification is defined by 18 U.S.C. section 926B(d): “The identification required by this subsection is the photographic identification issued by the governmental agency for which the individual is employed as a law enforcement officer.”

Plaintiff stated he was a maritime law enforcement officer. (UMF NO. 11; Exhibit A, Mack Depo., pp. 26, 54-55; Exhibit B, Diaz Depo., p.30) Officer Mack looked at the Coast Guard identification card presented by Plaintiff, which did not state that Plaintiff was a law enforcement officer with privilege of carrying a loaded firearm. (UMF No.12; Exhibit A, Mack Depo., pp. 26, 54-55; Exhibit B, Diaz, Depo., Internal Exhibit 16 [Plaintiff’s Coast Guard Identification Card].)

It is undisputed by Defendants that Plaintiff provided Officer Mack with his photographic identification card identifying Plaintiff as a law enforcement officer for the Coast Guard reserves. A review of the license identifies Plaintiff as an “E4” “PO3,” which is a Petty Officer – Third Class. As noted above, Petty Officers meet the criteria of qualified law enforcement officer for the purposes of LEOSA. (UMF No. 12; Exhibit A, Mack Depo., pp. 26, 54-55; Exhibit B, Diaz Depo. ¶¶2-9, Internal Exhibit 16 [Plaintiff’s Coast Guard identification card]).

iii. It is undisputed that the firearm is a Glock that was Shipped In Interstate Commerce:

Defendants do not dispute that the firearm is a Glock 9mm. Glock, Inc., which manufactures Glock firearms in the United States, is based in Smyrna, Georgia. (See UMF No. 38; Plaintiff’s RFJN ¶10.) As such, Plaintiff requests that the court take judicial notice of the fact that the firearm at issue, a Glock 9mm, was manufactured and shipped in interstate commerce, as required by 18 U.S.C. section 926B(a) . If this matter is not deemed judicially noticed, then this is a material fact for the Jury to determine that goes to the lawfulness of Plaintiff carrying his firearm at the time of the incident.

iv. LEOSA Exempted Plaintiff as a Matter of Law

There are no material facts in dispute regarding the application of LEOSA to Plaintiff. In fact, the question is a question of law. As discussed in above Plaintiff is a Qualified Law Enforcement Officer, which entitles him to the legal right to carry a concealed firearm, provided he show proper identification, which he did.

The USDOJ has a policy for it’s officers and different agencies within the DOJ also have a written policy of their own that breaks down the USDOJ’s policy into instructions that are more specific to the different categories and positions within the agency. A lot of staff did not welcome those two policies when it came out because the policy was regarded as the USDOJ and agency trying to interfere with legal rights.

But after enough off-duty officers carrying under LEOSA were arrested, and LEOSA litigation ensued the DOJ came to realize that writing the policies was a good thing.

Note well: The policy cannot override or restrict LEOSA. The policy gives the officer and retiree everything the LEOSA grants him but in addition to that, it gives the officer clear guidance on how to practice it so that he does not break agency policies. Agency policy should cover such things as:

Official use of agency ID’s (shown only to prove LEOSA eligibility—not to imply they are carrying to further their official duties outside of jurisdiction or state);

LEO arrest authority off-duty (the LEOSA does not grant this);

Reiterate the fact that LEOSA only exempts state CWP requirements, but it does not exempt other state/local laws such as possession in off-limit areas

Provide guidance as to which officer/staff positions in the agency are not qualified under LEOSA;

Guidance for retirees such as annual certifications (does the agency provide this? If not, then how?);

Such a policy is a pro-active way for an agency to take care of it’s staff when they go off-duty. Occasionally officers get into trouble while carrying under LEOSA and it turns out to be something that could have been alleviated if the officer had an agency policy to follow. It doesn’t take classroom time to have officers understand the interpretation of a law that widely covers LEO’s nation-wide. LEOs know how to read and understand regulations, so all it takes is a well-written agency policy that closes up the gray areas within the LEOSA that specifically apply to that officer’s position in his or her agency.

After several cases of US Coast Guard officers getting into trouble with this law, the Coast Guard finally issued it’s own LEOSA policy just 5 months ago. Some of the problems in the past could have been cleared up if that policy was written six years ago. Here’s the USCG policy: http://www.uscg.mil/announcements/alcoast/549-10_alcoast.txt