Badges - Re: FW: Carry
- From: Charles Rahn <c.t.rahn@xxxxxxxx>
- To: Badges <badges@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 00:04:11 -0400
It's too bad that there are some states that have not complied with 218.
Obviously there is nothing that can be done about it. We are lucky here in
Florida to have it implemented and in place.
I wonder what the stats are on retired officers and officers out of
jurisdiction using their weapons other than the case that you quoted, Howard.
Just how many states are there without 218 in force?
Gator
> From: hmellon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To: badges@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Badges - Re: FW: Carry
> Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2010 23:15:57 -0400
>
> Correct up to a point. The certification required by HR-218 under the
> state of residence qualification for a retired officer must be issued by the
> "state" of residence, and since there are no regulations under HR-218, that
> should be construed to mean the state, and not some political subdivision or
> elected official such as a sheriff.
>
> By the way IL is one state that does have a system in place to have the
> state issue the certification. Quite a number of states do, such as
> Texas, CT, MD, FL and others, but many do not so a retired officer is out of
> luck in that regard. A good place to look at the history of HR-218
> complaince is at the FL attorney general's website, dealing with HR-218 and
> what it took to get Florida into compliance... and it took 3 years.
Badges Law Enforcement Discussion Group - Est. 1997
Other related posts:
