(7-15-2005) Conflicting police guidelines floating around in Maryland mean cop shop managers can do what they want under the nation’s one-year-old cop carry law. As a result, individual officers could end up shouldering any liability when policy conflicts with national law, and potentially fewer officers will lawfully carry off duty or when retired.
President George Bush signed the Law Enforcement Officer’s Safety Act into law in July of last year, marking the start of national recognition for police officer Right to Carry. All jurisdictions would give full faith and credit to the carry permits of other jurisdictions’ off-duty or retired officers. Since the bill signing, officials from each state have worked to codify regulations and procedures for issuing each jurisdiction’s permits so there is something for others to recognize in the first place. Several other states have already completed the process, though most are waiting on anticipated adjustments to the federal law which will incorporate members of the judicial branch as well.
Rebuffing outside assistance (such as offered by the National Rifle Association, which has been instrumental in getting a clean implementation since the bill’s passage), the Ehrlich administration developed its own response, and last month unveiled it at a media event that featured the Governor with uniformed police for the photographers.
Unfortunately, the administration’s response amounts to little more than their staged photo op. Staff members have only published guidelines for agencies to use in processing police officer carry permits; they have not drafted any regulations, and they say none are in the works. In other words, nothing they placed on the internet has force of law, and each department across the state must figure out on its own how to proceed.
Administrators who don’t want officers carrying guns via that locality’s credentials can err on the side of following the letter of Ehrlich’s guidelines, which are restrictive. Breaking from conservative tenets, the administration has described an expansion of bureaucracy (in effect, creating a centralized state-wide registry of police authorized to carry off duty) and imposes more restrictions than in place for the elite who get permits under existing state law.
For example, Ehrlich’s guidelines would require annual renewals (present state law gives citizen licensees a multi-year permit), and apparently limit a licensee to only one firearm, which would need to be registered in a new state database. Licensing would require a person to annually pass the range certification test of their issuing agency – potentially a physically demanding exercise which will exclude many retirees.
[We were entertained to learn that one official stated applicants would need to pass a course on off-duty carry from the Maryland Police & Correctional Training Commission. Of course, MPCTC doesn’t offer a course on off-duty carry and none are in the works. Where have we seen this before? Back under Glendening, when safety training became required for a handgun purchase. Citizens were barred from buying until passing a MPCTC course which MPCTC did not offer. Development of the present videotaped class was not begun until after we filed suit … ]
Had administration staffers not rebuffed community attempts to work with them, they might have learned of more awkward problems with their non-approach. The most obvious one is what happens when an officer is challenged for carrying a gun outside of Maryland. Because the state has adopted no lawful regulations, nothing an investigator will find in researching the case can support a claim that the individual is lawfully complying with state carry law, which is required for LEOSA to shield him from prosecution. Liability is another problem. Use-of-force training for police is based on standards of behavior intended for badged officers on the job; off duty officers outside their jurisdiction (and retirees) are ordinary citizens having different use-of-force obligations. The administration’s guideline asks for certification of training that, if used in an emergency, could expose the individual to criminal charges or civil liability from which police are normally immune, but for which ordinary citizens are not.
Of course, because the administration has only published guidelines, most local officials will simply to do whatever they want, up to the point that cops realize their issuing agency’s credentials could be worthless outside of their jurisdiction. Our prediction is this: Ehrlich’s approach will result in a net loss of off-duty and retired cops who are both willing and able to lawfully carry. This subverts the public safety goals promised by Bush and LEOSA.
If Bob Ehrlich really cared about cops, not just a photo op, then he would do something having force of law. All he has done so far is to try to appear good on gun issues without actually risking any substantive effect. What we need for public safety is less bureaucracy, less potential liability and more honest people packing.