Monthly Law Journal Article: Legal Aspects of Firearms Restrictions - Part One. Management’s Right to Restrict or Forbid an Officer from Carrying Firearms - I, 2009 (2) AELE Mo. L.J. 201
     Monthly Law Journal Article: Legal Aspects of Firearms Restrictions - Part Two. Management’s Right to Restrict or Forbid a Class of Officers from Carrying Firearms; Bargaining and Arbitration Rights, 2009 (3) AELE Mo. L.J. 201.

     Four retired correctional officers claimed that the District of Columbia improperly deprived them of their federal right to carry a concealed weapon under the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA), 18 U.S.C. 926C. They claimed that they met the statutory requirements but that they were unable to obtain firearms training because the District refused to certify that, as corrections officers, they had the power to arrest, specifically to arrest parole violators. The federal appeals court found that the complaint sufficiently alleged that they had been unlawfully deprived of a concrete individual right designed to benefit them, which could be remedied under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. Duberry v. District of Columbia, #15-7062, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 10096 (D.C. Cir.).
     The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a man's prior conviction for "intentionally or knowingly causing bodily injury to" his child's mother qualified as a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 922(g)(9), which forbids anyone convicted of such crimes from possessing firearms. The requirement of physical force can be satisfied by the "offensive touching" degree of force that supports a common-law battery conviction. The effect of the ruling will be to expand the types of convictions that will be classified as misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence barring those convicted of firearms possession. United States v. Castleman, #12-1371, 188 L. Ed. 2d 426, 2014 U.S. Lexis 2220, 82 U.S.L.W. 4207.
     A former deputy sheriff challenged his termination which was based on an expunged simple battery conviction in an incident involving a girlfriend. He had been placed on probation and obtained relief from a state law prohibition against firearm possession. He was fired on the basis of the federal law barring those convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor of carrying a firearm. A California appeals court found that the conviction at issue did not bar him from carrying a firearm under federal law, as it was not a misdemeanor conviction of domestic violence. The civil service commission was directed to either vacate its decision or conduct further proceedings. Shirey v. L.A. County Civil Service Commission, #B238355, 2013 Cal. App. Lexis 355.
     Seventh Circuit rejects a Second Amendment challenge to a permanent ban on owning firearms that is imposed on perpetrators of misdemeanor domestic violence. The Supreme Court’s decision in Dist. of Col. v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008) did not offer any relief. “Domestic assaults with firearms are approximately twelve times more likely to end in the victim’s death than are assaults by knives or fists.” Moreover, the recidivism rate for domestic violence is high. U.S. v. Skoien, #08-3770, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 14262 (7th Cir. en banc)
     Appellate court sustains the termination of a sheriff's lieutenant. When superiors served an order requiring that he surrender all of his firearms, he was alleged to have stated "no f***ing way are you taking my guns. I will go home right now, load those f***ers and I will be waiting." The panel determined that there was substantial evidence establishing that the lieutenant was guilty of misconduct and insubordination, as well as incompetence because he was no longer able to legally carry a firearm due to a domestic relations order. Matter of Guynup v. Co. of Clinton, #508781, 2010 NY Slip Op 4914, 903 N.Y.S.2d 580, 2010 N.Y. App. Div. Lexis 4810
     Federal appellate panel upholds an arbitration award that terminated a federal corrections officer who was convicted of the misdemeanor crime of domestic violence; it is illegal for him to possess a firearm. Allen v. Dept. of Justice, #2009-3240, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 405 (Unpub. Fed. Cir.).
     Supreme Court upholds the "Lautenberg Amendment" [18 U.S. Code §922(g)(9)] which prohibits anyone convicted of a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" from possessing a weapon. U.S. v. Hayes, #07-608, 2009 U.S. Lexis 1634, 172 L.Ed.2d 816.
     Second Circuit concludes that a NYPD officer lacks a property interest in carrying firearm while on duty. The commissioner disarmed him following his acquittal in a controversial shooting. Moreover, his liberty interest claim also failed because he was not terminated and he retained the opportunity to earn a promotion and overtime. Boss v. Kelly, #07-4104-cv, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 520 (Unpub. 2nd Cir.).
     Due to paranoia, there was no evidence of pretext in management's legitimate, nondiscriminatory, reasons for an officer's decommissioning while undergoing therapy. Although she claimed age and sex discrimination. Moreover, she was not qualified to perform the essential functions of her position, for purposes of an ADA claim. Reed v. Metro. Govt. of Nashville, #07-5557, 286 Fed. Appx. 251, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 13909 (Unpub. 6th Cir.).
     Federal appeals panel upholds the dismissal of a federal lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment that a conviction for disorderly conduct does not prevent a peace officer from possessing a firearm. Federal courts lack the power to interpret federal law absent a statutory or constitutional right to obtain judicial relief. Prier v. Steed, #05-3251, 456 F.3d 1209, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 20267 (10th Cir. 2006). [2006 FP Nov]
     Interpretation of the Brady Act "standing alone, is not a cause of action, nor does it confer federal question jurisdiction." Woods v. C&C of Denver, 62 Fed. Appx. 286 (10th Cir. 2003).{N/R}
     Federal appeals court overturns a FLRA ruling that excused the Customs Service from bargaining with the union over a proposal to allow armed agents to make shopping and convenience stops between their residences and work. The record did not support the FLRA's determination because there was no explanation for a conclusion that the agency's interests outweighed the benefits to the employees. NTEU v. FLRA, #04-1433, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 3793 (D.C. Cir. 2006). {N/R}
     Federal court in Kansas finds that an officer was disqualified from possessing a firearm after a misdemeanor conviction for slapping her husband. Prier v. Steed, #04-1387, 2005 WL 1162929, 2005 U.S. Dist. Lexis 10182 (D. Kan. 2005). [2005 FP Oct]
     Federal court declines to dismiss a discrimination suit filed by an officer who was convicted of domestic violence. Although federal law prevents her from carrying a firearm, she might be able to establish there are positions in the police dept. that she could be assigned to without being armed. Braphman-Bines v. NYPD, 03-CV-10207, 2004 U.S. Dist. Lexis 26416 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). [2005 FP Mar]
     New Jersey Public Employment Relations Cmsn. restrains arbitration over the issue of whether an officer, who was sued after a shooting, should be re-armed. The issue is not arbitrable because an award could limit a city's policymaking power to determine the conditions it allows officers to be armed. City of Newark v. F.O.P. Lodge 12, #SN-2004-13, P.E.R.C. #2004-36, 2003 NJPER (LRP) Lexis 176, 29 NJPER 174 (N.J. PERC 2003; rptd. 2004). [2004 FP Nov]
     Subject to several limitations, the Congress has enacted a law to allow current and qualified retired law enforcement officers to carry a concealed firearm, and overrides any state legislation that restricts the new law. H.R. 218, to be codified as 18 U.S. Code § 926B and C (2004). [2004 FP Sep]
     Court upholds the right of the NYPD Commissioner to reassign an officer to an unarmed assignment, after his acquittal from a controversial shooting -- even though no disciplinary charges were brought against him. Boss v. Kelly, #117531/02, 2004 N.Y. Misc. Lexis 391 (N.Y. Co. Sup. Ct. 2004). [2004 FP Jul]
     Congressman Steve Israel (D-NY) has introduced H.R.1064, to authorize Federal Bureau of Prison personnel to carry firearms while off duty. The Bill was referred to the House Judiciary Committee (Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security). {N/R}
     Federal appeals court sustains the termination of a corrections officer who was convicted of assaulting his live-in girlfriend. His conviction implicated the federal domestic violence gun ban. White v. Dept. of Justice, #02-3329, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 9177 (Fed. Cir. 2003). [2003 FP Jul]
     Appellate court in New York affirms an arbitration award that process servers in the sheriff's dept. must be provided with firearms and training. Matter of Arb. Monroe Co. Dep. Sheriff's Assn. and Monroe Co. Sheriff, #Ca 02-00998, 752 N.Y.S.2d 457, --- A.D.2d ---, 2002 N.Y. App.Div. Lexis 12887 (12-30-2002). [2003 FP May]
     Appeals court allows a chief or sheriff to restrict the arrest and concealed weapons powers of officers who successfully appeal their removal. Reinstated officers are entitled to administratively challenge any such restrictions, however. Gordon v. Horsley, #A088568, 86 Cal.App.4th 336, 2001 Cal. App. Lexis 21, 102 Cal.Rptr.2d 910 (Cal.App. 1st Dist. 2001). [2001 FP 23]
     California Attorney General rules that a business to which the public is invited may prohibit off-duty police officers from carrying concealed weapons on the premises. Cal. A.G. Opin. #99-1208, 00 C.D.O.S. 3664 (2000). [2000 FP 103]
     Appellate court in Wisconsin rejects a safety equipment lawsuit filed by an unarmed campus police officer; Congress did not intend OSHA to cover firearms. West v. Dept. of Commerce, # 98-1693, 230 Wis.2d 71, 601 N.W.2d 307, 1999 Wisc. App. Lexis 916. [1999 FP 166-7]
     DC and Seventh Circuits uphold the 1996 domestic violence gun ban (Lautenberg law): Gillespie v. Indianapolis, 1999 U.S. App. Lexis 15117 (7th Cir.), affirming 1998 U.S. Dist. Lexis 8691 (S.D. Ind.) and FOP v. U.S., 173 F.3d 898, 1999 U.S. App. Lexis 7304 (D.C. Cir.). [1999 FP 132]
     See also, law review articles on 922g (domestic violence law): 19 Pace L. Rev. 445 (1999); 30 St. Mary's L. J. 801 (1999); 29 Rutgers L. J. 607 (1998); 39 S. Tex. L. Rev. 1029 (1998); 1997 Army Lawyer 25. {N/R}
     FLRA requires a federal law enforcement agency to bargain over the implementation, but not the substance, of a nondeadly force policy and associated weaponry. INS and AFGE, #WA-CA-7026, Complaint dismissed 1999 FLRA Lexis 58 (2-26-1999), affirming ALJ Dec. No. 140 (1-5-1999). [2000 FP 70-1]
     INS ordered to stop implementation of its side handle baton program prior to completion of negotiations with the union. INS and AFGE, #DA-CA-30370, 1999 FLRA Lexis 201, ALJ Dec. No. 144, 55 FLRA 93 (9-17-1999) and 1999 FLRA Lexis 4, 55 FLRA No. 20 (1-121999). {N/R}
     Federal appeals court concludes that the “Domestic violence misdemeanor gun ban” law (the Lautenberg Amendment) violates the Equal Protection Clause. F.O.P. v. U.S.A., 1998 WL 543822 (D.C. Cir.). [1998 FP 152-3]
     Arbitrator refuses to reinstate a corrections officer who was fired because of a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction. Although the officer had the conviction set aside, it was still valid when management terminated him. Neb. Dept. Corr. Srv. and NAPE L-61, 110 LA (BNA) 129 (Caffera, 1998). [1998 FP 87-8]
     Justice Dept. announces it has indicted a man for possession of a rifle and a shotgun, who had been convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor a decade ago. U.S. v. Lewitzke (W.D. Wis. 10/7/97).
     City could lawfully adopt a regulation requiring all workers, other than police officers, to be disarmed in the workplace, even if an employee possesses a state CCW permit. Gross v. Norton, 120 F.3d 877, 1997 U.S.App. Lexis 19929 (8th Cir). [1997 FP 150-1]
     1996 domestic violence gun-ban upheld by federal court in Georgia. Officer, who lost his job, has no remedy absent a state court expungement. NAGE v. Barrett, 968 F.Supp. 1564, 1997 U.S.Dist. Lexis 9407 (N.D.Ga. 1997). [1997 FP 134-5]
     Arbitrator orders reinstatement of a police officer who was fired following his conviction for a domestic violence misdemeanor. Cleveland (City of) and Clev. Police Patrolmen's Assn., 108 LA (BNA) 912 (Skulina, 1997). [1997 FP 135-6]
     Federal court dismisses ADA suit filed by officer who was temporarily reassigned and disarmed after disclosing a dream wherein he pointed his firearm at the chief's head. Layser v. Morrison, 935 F.Supp. 562 (E.D.Pa.1995; Rptd. 1996). [1997 FP 87]
     Congress amends gun laws to prevent persons convicted of misdemeanor "domestic violence" offenses from possessing or owning a firearm. No "on-duty exception" for public employees. atf/treas.gov/ [1997 FP 8]
     Federal agency had a duty to bargain with the union before abandoning a practice of allowing its police officers to wear their firearms when commuting to and from work. G.S.A. Fed. Prot. Serv. Div. and AFGE L-1733, 50 F.L.R.A. 728, 50 FLRA No.90, 1995 FLRA Lexis 79. [1995 FP 169]
     Arbitrator finds that a firearm is not necessary safety equipment of a uniformed ordinance enforcement officer, even though he stops and cites vehicles. Novi (City of) and Teamsters L-214, 103 LA (BNA) 132 (Brown, 1994). [1995 FP 23]
     Although it violated internal regulations, it was not a crime for a suspended police officer to carry a concealed weapon and a duplicate police badge. People v. Epperson, 519 N.Y.S.2d 991, 137 Misc. 2d 146 (1987).
     California appellate court holds that a police officer who was in extremely poor physical condition could be disarmed and transferred to a nonenforcement assignment. Stuessel v. City of Glendale, 141 Cal.App.3d 1047, 190 Cal.Rptr. 773 (1983). {N/R}
     A failure to permit a retired law enforcement officer to carry a concealed firearm is not a right protected under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. The right of a retired officer to carry concealed weapons is not so fundamental as to warrant constitutional protection apart from its status under state law. Assn. of Orange Co. Dep. Sheriffs v. Gates, #82-5686, 716 F.2d 733, 1983 U.S. App. Lexis 16621. {N/R}
     Massachusetts appellate court upholds right of police chief to disarm officer formerly in a shooting incident; mandatory psychiatric evaluation properly ordered. City of Boston v. Boston Police Patrolmen's Assn., 392 N.E.2d 1202 (Mass. App. 1979).
     Policeman involved in shooting cannot be placed on inactive duty pending conclusion of civil suit; chief should assign officer to clerical duties and can forbid the carrying of firearm. People ex rel. Jaworski v. Jenkins, 372 N.E.2d 881 (Ill.App. 1978).
     California public employers may not prohibit certain peace officers from carrying weapons while off duty. Orange Co. Emplees. v. Co. of Orange, 14 Cal.App.4th 575, 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 695, 1993 Cal. App. Lexis 301. [1993 FP 174]
     A suspended police officer is not exempt from penal statutes which prohibit the possession of a firearm. Peo. v. Epperson, 581 N.Y.S.2d 342 (A.D. 1992). {N/R}
     A firearm is necessary “safety equipment” of a police officer. The city must furnish a firearm to police officers at the employer's expense, under a state labor code section requiring employers to furnish necessary safety equipment. Oakland Police Officers Assn. v. City of Oakland, 30 Cal.App.3d 96, 1973 Cal.App. Lexis 1140, 106 Cal.Rptr. 134. {N/R}
     Court would not interfere with the Police Commissioner's decision to limit the number of concealed weapons lawfully carried by retired officers. Caruso v. Ward, 539 N.Y.S.2d 649 (Misc. 1989).
     State trial court overturns the Mayor's order that police officers disarm before responding to calls on the University campus. Honolulu Police Officers Assn. v. Fasi, Unreported, Honolulu Co., Haw. {N/R}
     California Attorney General rules that a person who is authorized by state law to carry a concealed firearm may be required to disarm, as a condition of continued employment. An employee is "subject to his employer's lawful civil authority to regulate the conduct of all employees, and ... could be prohibited from carrying a firearm during the course of his employment." 81 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 63, at pp. 66-67. {N/R}