Well, if all these "bikers" posting here can't figure out the difference between three-piece patch MC, 1%er, AMA-sanctioned, non-AMA, non-three-piece MC, RC, or whatever the phuq.....

I'm sure it's all crystal clear to the general public. Actually, high school kids probably could figure out the system of "biker cliques" pretty quickly.I ride a Harley, I wear a leather jacket, sometimes, it happens to be black.....that usually sews it up for most.

If there was a uniform to express my individuality by showing how I am just like all the other people who want to be different from the other guys who are just riding to be free and not part of any society, then I would totally wear that to set myself apart just like everybody else.

 

FWIW, every other outfit that I'm aware of (Christian MCs, various military MCs, etc.) followed the accepted protocols of the MC/RC world, and went to the dominant club of their area, or went through the Confederation of Clubs, with their proposal to start a club, design of the colors, etc. Did the IPMC?

Does any club have to go through the protocols? Nope, as has been said, "It's still a free country." What I do not understand is why imitate something you apparently hold in disdain? Or maybe to remove the word "imitate", why use a symbol of something you apparently hold in disdain? Just doesn't make sense. And we can debate that symbol 'til the cows fly, but it doesn't change what the MC world says it is, and it doesn't change what even most outsiders think it means.

I have no beef with LEOs. Glad we have 'em around. When I've been stopped by them, except for a very few times, even when flying a patch, I've been treated courteously and fairly. The couple times I wasn't I didn't blame all LEOs, but I dang sure had a problem with those who went out of their way to mess me up. And the 2 instances where their behavior was way outside the boundaries happened to be times when I was completely innocent of anything except existing in their presence. But I still won't hold it against any one except those directly involved in the harrassment and mistreatment.

Lots of strong feelings on all sides of this. Don't reckon most of 'em are gonna change.

 

this explanation is good for people to know.

 

It really doesn't matter to me if you are a police or if you choose to belong to a club. We are all free men protected by the constitution aren't we? And there is always that really good one; judge not lest you be judged. I suppose we are all trying to emulate something or have been influenced by something aren't we? Does it matter?

I am under the impression the IP was point o eight, but I could be wrong. It has been posted on here that HR 218 has never been ratified or some nonsense that would never make it through an appeals court to uphold a conviction, "knowingly and willingly" and all that.

The only issue is whether they were armed and drinking. The rest is just me spouting my own opinions about people pulling guns in fistfights, even if the fight "doesn't look good" for them. Make your choice and live or die with it.

 

That's been my point all along. Don't hate the game, hate the player. A great piece of advise. If you hate the game, and that game is LE, I guarentee that hatred will be reflected in your attitude and that will get you no where! Stick to the issue at hand here and this thread will end cause the issues have been debated a hundred times and nothing is going to be settled on this thread. Same applies to OMC in my belief. If enforcement action is taken against a 1% for whatever reason, I don't hold that against every 1% that I come across, period! It works in all facets of life. Can't we just all agree to disagree and get on with discussing real motorcycle ****!

Don't hate the game,
hate the player!

 

The only fact about any of these post, on any of these Cop vs. HA threads is, not a single one of them will have any bearing on the final outcome of this case. And that is a really good thing!!

 

RideIrish, this article appeared last week in the Rapid City Journal concerning that:

Federal firearms act cannot be used in caseBy Journal staff Friday, August The Meade county grand jury that indicted a Seattle police officer for bringing a gun into a Sturgis bar in the early morning hours of Aug. 9 could not have used the federal Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004 to exonerate him, a spokeswoman for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives said Thursday.

Congress passed that law in the wake of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, to exempt qualified law enforcement officers from state laws that prohibit the carrying of a concealed weapon. But because the legislation was never implemented by its rule-making agency – the U.S. Attorney General’s office -- the Meade County grand jury could not have used it in any case to defend the actions of Seattle policeman Ronald Smith, according to Carrie DiPirro, public information officer in the Denver office of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Nowhere in America would that act have been considered by a grand jury, DiPirro said.

“The act was passed, but it’s never been enforced by the Attorney General’s office,” she said. Congress directed the U.S. Attorney General’s office to meet the conditions for its implementation – such as establishing the necessary databases and identifications -- something which DiPirro said apparently has never been done.

The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act amended the federal criminal code to authorize qualified law enforcement officers (including certain qualified retired officers) carrying the photographic identification issued by their governmental agency, notwithstanding state or local laws, to carry a concealed firearm. That authorization is not intended to supersede state laws that permit private entities to prohibit the possession of concealed firearms on their property, or prohibit the possession of firearms on state or local government property. The law also would not cover any officer under the influence of alcohol and it excludes from the definition of “firearm” any machine gun, firearm silencer, or destructive device.

Smith and four other men were charged on two alternative concealed weapon permit violations. According to the South Dakota Secretary of State’s Web site, Washington and South Dakota do not have reciprocity of concealed weapons permits, but Attorney General Larry Long said Thursday he could not immediately confirm that.

“We’re not sure if Washington is or not,” Long said.

The grand jury issued alternative concealed weapon permit indictments for Smith and the others. The men could be convicted of carrying a concealed pistol without permit or failing to abide by a permit of a reciprocal state, but not both counts, Long said.
_________________

 

I had to look at that HR218 law, and since I did I will post it here! I hope all of you that are trying to fall back on this will read it! It clearly states about being out of state, and under the influence!



H.R. 218 was signed into law by President George W. Bush.

Also known as the "National Concealed Carry for Cops" legislation and the "Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004," this new law allows law enforcement officers to carry their weapons while off duty between states.



It is expected that guidance on this law will come down from the State Attorney General's Offices, and we strongly recommend that officers wait until such time before carrying their weapons over state lines.

We would like to offer some warnings for all to heed.

First, when in another state you will be subject to the use of force laws of that state. Additionally, the laws of arrest, self defense, and firearms in other states will be different and will govern any actions taken.

HR 218 will not be a defense to possessing hollow point bullets, carrying a weapon on a school campus, carrying a prohibited weapons, carrying a weapon in a casino, etc. Some of these scenarios are illegal in certain states. Know HR 218, but also know the laws of that state in which you intend to carry!

Second, and this goes double for uniformed officers, you have to identify yourself. You need to identify yourself by badge and by word. Officers who work primarily in uniform are the worst at this since they are not accustomed to identifying themselves at scenes. The uniform takes care of that. When identifying yourself, use the loudest voice possible so witnesses will hear you and be able to corroborate your account of the incident later.

Below we have provided a basic breakdown of the new law. We again caution that guidance should be sought by your agency and/or the Attorney General's Office before acting on the new HR 218 law. Consult the administration from your own agency regarding HR 218 before acting on it. Also, at the bottom of the page we have provided a link which will bring you to the actual text of the new law.



Okay, what is HR 218?
...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).



For whom does HR 218 apply?
This law applies to persons who meet the definition listed below of a "Qualified Law Enforcement Officer."

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.



What kind of "Identification" is Necessary Under HR 218?
(d) The identification required by this subsection is the photographic identification [emphasis added] issued by the governmental agency for which the individual is employed as a law enforcement officer.



What Does HR 218 Prohibited me from Carrying?
(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).



What About us Retired Guys?
Yes, HR 218, the Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act of 2004, applies to retired officers who meet the law's definition of "qualified retired law enforcement officer."



How does the Law Define "Qualified Retired LEO?"

(c) As used in this section, the term `qualified retired law enforcement officer' means an individual who--

`(1) retired in good standing from service with a public agency as a law enforcement officer, other than for reasons of mental instability;

`(2) before such retirement, was 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 had statutory powers of arrest;

`(3) (A) before such retirement, was regularly employed as a law enforcement officer for an aggregate of 15 years or more; or

`(B) retired from service with such agency, after completing any applicable probationary period of such service, due to a service-connected disability, as determined by such agency;

`(4) has a nonforfeitable right to benefits under the retirement plan of the agency;

`(5) during the most recent 12-month period, has met, at the expense of the individual, the State's standards for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry firearms;

`(6) is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance; and

`(7) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm.



What about Identification for Retired Officers?

(d) The identification required by this subsection is--

`(1) a photographic identification [emphasis added] issued by the agency from which the individual retired from service as a law enforcement officer that indicates that the individual has, not less recently than one year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the agency to meet the standards established by the agency for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm; or

`(2)(A) a photographic identification issued by the agency from which the individual retired from service as a law enforcement officer; and

`(B) a certification issued by the State in which the individual resides that indicates that the individual has, not less recently than one year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the State to meet the standards established by the State for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm.

 

So, a law passed by congress and signed by the President of the United States is not really a law?

 

Went through this earlier. It is a law, but may not be enforceable if the conditions for implementation, set up by the law, are not met. In the law in question, the conditions for implementation have not been met; hence, the law can not be enforced. That means for all practical purposes, the law does not exist.

Gonna make some lawyers rich off all this mess!