State Constables, the best kept secret in PA.

[pex]

From the following section of unconstitutional law, found suitably mentioned at the following site:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/1...6---B000-.html

§ 926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law enforcement officers

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).

(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that—
(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or
(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.
(c) As used in this section, the term “qualified law enforcement officer” means an employee of a governmental agency who—
(1) 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;
(2) is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm;
(3) is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the agency;
(4) meets standards, if any, established by the agency which require the employee to regularly qualify in the use of a firearm;
(5) is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance; and
(6) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm.
(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.
(e) As used in this section, the term “firearm” does not include—
(1) any machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the National Firearms Act);
(2) any firearm silencer (as defined in section 921 of this title); and
(3) any destructive device (as defined in section 921 of this title).

It looks to me like a Constable can't just be elected and use LEOSA...Act-44/Act-235/Act-Whatever might need to be passed to meet (c)(2) requirements.

The only worry I'd have here is that because constables are independent contractors, it's hard to put them into an agency (which we see multiple times mentioned in 926B). They are certainly agents, but are they their own agency? Is the president judge? Is the PCCD?

LEOSA kind of sucks with the (b)(2) exclusion, where any state can prohibit firearms on 'public property' which certainly could include roads.

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by Dredly

Also can someone confirm or deny the 50 state carry thing? Do constables fall within those requirements or are the excluded as LEO even though they aren't?

there was a case where a PA constable was arrested in NYC for carrying. the case ended up getting tossed because the judge said LEOSA applie to that constable.

here is a little blurb about it on wiki...

(from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enf...ers_Safety_Act)

See the text of the law at [1] The first known criminal prosecution involving LEOSA occurred in New York in People v. Rodriguez, Indictment No. 2917 (2006). [1] Rodriguez was a full-time construction worker who was also employed as a Pennsylvania constable. He was arrested in New York City for criminal possession of a weapon. He testified in a hearing that he was authorized, qualified, and certified to carry a weapon in his state as a constable. The Court took judicial notice of the various Pennsylvania statutes that authorize constables to carry firearms, make arrests, serve process, and enforce the law. Upon applying LEOSA in terms of the known facts, the Court dismissed the charge against Rodriguez and held that he was covered by section 926B though constables are elected law enforcement officers, lack government funding, wear plain clothes, receive no salary, use private vehicles, and are independent state employees.

(i don't think this would apply to all constables, though...just those who have gone through the training/qualifications to be "certified" by the state to carry on the job. but, i've never really looked into it.)

[mjf]

Originally Posted by pex

From the following section of unconstitutional law, found suitably mentioned at the following site:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/1...6---B000-.html



It looks to me like a Constable can't just be elected and use LEOSA...Act-44/Act-235/Act-Whatever might need to be passed to meet (c)(2) requirements.

The only worry I'd have here is that because constables are independent contractors, it's hard to put them into an agency (which we see multiple times mentioned in 926B). They are certainly agents, but are they their own agency? Is the president judge? Is the PCCD?

LEOSA kind of sucks with the (b)(2) exclusion, where any state can prohibit firearms on 'public property' which certainly could include roads.

State Constables belong to the executive branch of government (according to the state supreme court) and hold an office, as such they are, for all intents and purposes, their own agency. A Constable, by virtue of his office, may carry a firearm without a license in the Commonwealth.

(c) As used in this section, the term “qualified law enforcement officer” means an employee of a governmental agency who—
(1) 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;
(2) is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm;
(3) is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the agency;
(4) meets standards, if any, established by the agency which require the employee to regularly qualify in the use of a firearm;
(5) is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance; and
(6) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm.

Now, some would argue, that since a Constable is their own agency that a Constable who does not prescribe himself training to carry a firearm, meaning decided to sign up for the firearms class & qualification, would fall under the "if any" clause of c(4). As their own office, they have elected not to prescribe the training, thus there is none. That, and under c(2) are already authorized, by law, to carry a firearm under the UFA.

I'm not really risking to try that one in court though.