LEOSA challenge in South Dakota.

[EMTRN]

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=916472

http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2008/08/29/news/local/doc48b784e086e0d898298826.txt

I started this in response to Fallguy's questions in another thread. Interesting case in South Dakota.

[Fallguy]

Interesting.

I didn't read in the article about the weapon being used though.

If the Washington's LEO is arguing that he can carry in a bar in South Dakota because of LEOSA...well if South Dakota bans carry in bars, that is incorrect.

My understanding is that LEOSA does not allow officers to carry anywhere and everywhere. It does allow them to carry in states like IL that do not issue permits or in other states that might not otherwise recognize a permit/license issued by another state. But the LEO still has to abid by any restrictions placed on carry within the state he is in. Right?

LEOSA did pass on a federal level, but has been up to each state to figure out how to comply by it within in their state.

[Fallguy]

My understanding is that LEOSA does not allow officers to carry anywhere and everywhere. It does allow them to carry in states like IL that do not issue permits or in other states that might not otherwise recognize a permit/license issued by another state. But the LEO still has to abid by any restrictions placed on carry within the state he is in. Right?

Well after further reading of the law, it would seem that statement is incorrect.

There are only 2 restrictions on carry.

1. If a private property owner prevents or restricts carry.

2. If the State or Local goverment prevents or restricts carry on property, installation, building, base, or park owned by the agency.

...and those two only apply if the state has laws in place that address those restrictions.

I also read the second article about the shooting. So it is the shooting itself that is being challenged as legal or just that he was armed or both? I think he's being armed (as long as he wasn't drinking) was 100% legal. As far as the shooting, well more details are needed and that will be up to the grand jury and/or trial jury I guess.

It'll be interesting to see how tihis turns out.

Edited October 3, 2008 by Fallguy

[EMTRN]

I need to find an update. They have dropped several of the original charges. I cannot believe they are trying to challenge LEOSA. I guess some DA is trying to make a name for himself. I think the officer made some poor decisions to get to this point, but I was not there and I hate to Monday-morning quarterback.

[Fallguy]

I'd like to read any updates.

Reading LEOSA some more, it does say to be covered by LEOSA the LEO must have a photo ID issued by his department...so if the guy didn't have that with him...then maybe, but anyway.

I still wonder that at this point, if it is still really a challenge to LEOSA? I mean if they have dropped the charges of carry without a permit and it is only about the shooting, I don't think that has much to directly do with LEOSA.

Also....I wondered something else about LEOSA, like I said above it only has to restrictios on carry, but, as we have discussed in another thread TN has restrictions on LEO carry in certain places, it would seem LEOSA trumps those laws, right? I mean I need to read it a little more, but surely LEOSA wasn't meant to do that, I thought it was mainly so LEOs could just carry in all 50 states and US territories.

Edited October 3, 2008 by Fallguy

[EMTRN]

It looks like the two felony charges, perjury and assault, were dropped. I can't find any new info on the misdemeanor weapons charge.