A place for sharing news stories related to armed citizens, law enforcement & 2A/CCW topics.
Please note that when linking to an article you must cite the source URL and provide no more than a brief preview of the article to ensure fair-use standards are met.
NO DOCUMENT DUMPING.
Posts in violation of these rules are subject to immediate deletion without warning.
Jackson Township trustees approved the involuntary disability separation for Eric B. Martzolf, 50, on Jan. 23. Martzolf, who joined the Jackson Township Police Department in 1994, has appealed the dismissal through the Fraternal Order of Police.
Township officials have declined to specify the reason for the dismissal, which is allowed through the FOP contract covering patrol officers. A lawyer for the FOP hasn’t returned telephone calls seeking comment.
It is the second time Martzolf has been dismissed from the department. In October 2007, he was fired by trustees after being convicted of disorderly conduct following an incident where he was accused of domestic violence. Following an appeal, Martzolf was reinstated as an officer in September 2008.
In the second quote, this guy has a misdemeanor which has at its root a domestic violence/crime of violence. Isn't this a federal disqualifier as to firearms? If so, how was this guy reinstated the first time since he would presumably be unable to legally carry a firearm?
God,
Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
the courage to change the things I can
and the Wisdom to know the difference.
catfish86 wrote:In the second quote, this guy has a misdemeanor which has at its root a domestic violence/crime of violence. Isn't this a federal disqualifier as to firearms? If so, how was this guy reinstated the first time since he would presumably be unable to legally carry a firearm?
18 USC 925(a)(1) is interpreted to exempt individual law enforcement officers acting in their official capacities:
The provisions of this chapter, except for sections 922(d)(9) and 922(g)(9) and provisions relating to firearms subject to the prohibitions of section 922(p), shall not apply with respect to the transportation, shipment, receipt, possession, or importation of any firearm or ammunition imported for, sold or shipped to, or issued for the use of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or any State or any department, agency, or political subdivision thereof.
See https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/do-law- ... eceive-and" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; for the official ATF statement on this. And yes, they can carry off duty as well "if such possession is required or authorized by law or by official departmental policy."
catfish86 wrote:So if I want to beat my wife and still carry a firearm all I need to do is get a law enforcement job?
Laws for thee but not for me...
Yep, and that was the OFFICIAL position of the Chicago Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police when they went on NPR in 1996 to DEMAND that wife beating cops be exempted from an Illinois law disarming domestic abusers.
Life comes at you fast. Be prepared to shoot it in the head when it does.
catfish86 wrote:So if I want to beat my wife and still carry a firearm all I need to do is get a law enforcement job?
Laws for thee but not for me...
Yep, and that was the OFFICIAL position of the Chicago Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police when they went on NPR in 1996 to DEMAND that wife beating cops be exempted from an Illinois law disarming domestic abusers.
I wish the union that I belonged to was that strong!
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein
catfish86 wrote:So if I want to beat my wife and still carry a firearm all I need to do is get a law enforcement job?
Laws for thee but not for me...
Yep, and that was the OFFICIAL position of the Chicago Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police when they went on NPR in 1996 to DEMAND that wife beating cops be exempted from an Illinois law disarming domestic abusers.
I wish the union that I belonged to was that strong!
It was bar none, the second weirdest story I've ever heard on NPR. Only their interview with the "roving ambassador" for the Taliban they ran right before 9/11 was more grotesque.
Their argument was threefold:
You can't take the gun from a wifebeating cop because it's his "tool of the trade". Nobody at NPR thought to ask the FOP spokesman if that applied to hitmen and liquor store holdup men.
You can't take the gun from an angry, violent cop because that'll only make him MORE angry and violent. Again, nobody inquired as to the effect on Sammy "the Bull" Gravano's emotional state of being disarmed.
Finally, they argued that you could arm cops convicted of domestic violence because they'd be "closely supervised"... just not closely enough to stop them from kicking their wive's teeth down their throats.
As I said, it was simply bizarre. I wasn't sure if I was listening to a police union or the Afghan Taliban.
Life comes at you fast. Be prepared to shoot it in the head when it does.
DontTreadOnMe wrote:18 USC 925(a)(1) is interpreted to exempt individual law enforcement officers acting in their official capacities...
The official capacity exception (18 USC 925(a)(1)) only applies to protective orders and being under indictment for a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. Once a person has been convicted they are flat out ineligible to possess under 18 USC 922(d)(9) and 18 USC 922(g)(9), which you'll note that the official capacity exemption specifically excludes.
As to how this particular officer was not a prohibited person it all comes down to which division of the Ohio Disorderly Conduct statute he was convicted of. Specifically ORC 2917.11 (A)(2) does not "[have], as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon" as required by the Lautenberg law, thus is not considered a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence for federal purposes.
Thanks for that. I knew that LEOs in performance of their duties are excused from federal disqualifiers due to the above. I didn't know that applied to all disqualifiers except Lautenberg convictions.
DontTreadOnMe wrote:Thanks for that. I knew that LEOs in performance of their duties are excused from federal disqualifiers due to the above. I didn't know that applied to all disqualifiers except Lautenberg convictions.
Yeah it has lead to some weird situations where a guy who is a convicted felon for drug trafficking (for example) can serve as a LEO and carry a firearm provided there is no state law prohibiting it. Yet if it comes to light that back in 1971 he paid a $10 fine for disorderly conduct after he and his mutually drunk girlfriend got in a small fight, he's done.
DontTreadOnMe wrote:Thanks for that. I knew that LEOs in performance of their duties are excused from federal disqualifiers due to the above. I didn't know that applied to all disqualifiers except Lautenberg convictions.
Yeah it has lead to some weird situations where a guy who is a convicted felon for drug trafficking (for example) can serve as a LEO and carry a firearm provided there is no state law prohibiting it. Yet if it comes to light that back in 1971 he paid a $10 fine for disorderly conduct after he and his mutually drunk girlfriend got in a small fight, he's done.
Damn! I kissed a girl on the dance floor once. I hope I don't get burned for that! It was over 30 years ago. #metoo.
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein
