PA State Trooper not sane enough to carry a gun off duty, but can carry on duty!!!

reply to post by butcherguy


Maybe I'm a little off course but after reading the article a couple of times I'm left with the distinct impression that the headline is somewhat misleading. This court case seems to be entirely focused on his right to carry or own a firearm while off duty. Yes, he can still work for the Pa. State Police, yes he can technically carry a firearm while on duty. However, what his duties are should be under the auspices of his superiors no? The article goes on to state that when he originally was deemed ok to return to work by his doctor that the State Police fought it and he won. However the initial battle was over his return to work "in a limited capacity" which indicates to me that he's not out patrolling the streets armed. I'm trying to find additional information to corroborate that and will post it if I find such. I think that it's pretty heinous either way that his employers no longer thought he was up to the task but a magistrate felt it was OK to allow him to at least be around firearms if not actually have one himself while working.

reply to post by drivers1492

If he can't carry because he is unfit he shouldn't be a cop at all for the people's safety.

Amen to that, and as we've seen on here? Even unarmed cops working the booking desk can do A LOT of damage to people if they are vicious or sadistic ..or just unstable.

Badge + Bad Judgement = Tragedy only looking for circumstance to happen.

So apparently I was wrong. After looking around I found that this thing goes back initially to 2007 when the trooper was remanded for mental health issues. After 10 months his doctor deemed him fit to return to work. I'm not entirely sure what's wrong with a shrink that thinks an unbalanced individual shod have access to guns again but since the State Police had him Independantly examined and he was deemed unfit for duty. After a few rounds with the magistrate the court decided he should return to work. I found this part from the State Polce interesting-

In the appeal, filed a month ago, attorneys for the state police argue the decision should be overturned because the arbitrator ruled Keyes should not have access to firearms and the state police do not have any work sites where he wouldn't be able to get his hands on a firearm.

reply to post by peter vlar


That's very interesting. It sounds like the State Police are all but begging the State to get this guy out of their agency and out of police work.

Imagine what happens now if he does something stupid and anyone gets hurt or killed by it... That would be tragic, but also very interesting to follow for blame and liability to have had him there in the first place.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Wrabbit2000
Sounds like a Judge needs to be helped into finding another line of work. His judgement or corruption issues have overwhelmed the point of public safety in my view.

If a man cannot have a gun as a private citizen? He has no business in any line of work where handling them has any part of it...from Cop to Security Guard. None of the above... Sheesh.

I'm not here very often, but this is one Wrabbit where I disagree with you. We don't have all the details here. If he was addicted to drugs or alcohol this can screw with your chemistry enough that you do things you wouldn't normally do, like try to kill yourself. If he got himself cleaned up then he may very well have much better judgment than he had when he got himself locked down. Or he might have just been... depressed... It happens. It's hard to say for sure from the article what was really going on, but this happened better than seven years ago. People can get their head on straight in seven years.

If he had done something violent to someone else I could maybe condone banning him from a weapon, but not for depression and an attempted suicide. Personally, I don't think that should be grounds to prohibit him from having a firearm period. I think jerking someone's second amendment rights for this is a crappy way to reward someone for getting their stuff together, and it's possible that this guy did; perhaps that is what the judge is seeing.

As a PA resident and CCW holder, lemme state the truth...

You know this wouldn't have been a worry if folks would've left him complete what he set out to do those years ago.

You want out and going to OD on something? Good, you're making room on the highway. Think of all that money that would've been saved and this convo!

Yes, my tongue is partially in my cheek... not completely though!

Derek

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I had been wondering the same thing myself. In the instance that something goes awry and he does injure or kill a civilian, who eats the liability? Can the State Police be absolved because they spent nearly a decade trying to free themselves of the inappropriate burden of potential liability? Des the court system itself pick up the liability for permitting him to work in law enforcement despite the misgivings of the state and their psychiatric assessment? Does it really matter since nobody responsible for the train wreck will be found culpable and the taxpayers of Pennsylvania will instead pick up the tab? It's a disaster waiting to happen. It likely would have been more expedient as well as inexpensive to offer him a payout to make it go away or consider him disabled and let him keep his benefits. Unfortunately there really isn't easy answer to this as its gone on for so long. If it were me and a member of my family were hurt by this man while on duty I would attempt to file a civil suit against the magistrate who decided that he couldn't have a firearm on his own time but free access to a massive arsenal while working. I'm a huge 2nd amendment supporter and this is a huge failure of the system to let a situation like this perpetuate itself.

reply to post by butcherguy


Still seeking the court documents for more factual based information, but it seems this is stemming from an older instance of when he was admitted to a mental facility. I think there is more to this story than meets the eye....

Seems this man has been in court fighting the battle for a bit.

First, here is appeal

Here is the kicker though, from 2009:

On July 10, 2009, the court entered an order restoring appellant’s rights to possess a firearm. However, the court did not expunge appellant’s involuntary commitment record, ostensibly because such relief was not requested. Because these commitments remained on appellant’s record, although he could again possess a firearm under Pennsylvania law, he was
still barred from possessing a firearm under the federal Gun Control Act

It is the Federal Gun Control Act that allows him to possess a firearm though:
18 U.S.C.A. § 925(a)(1). of the Gun Control Act give the exception:

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.

The Court in this case, followed the letter of the law in my opinion; as asinine as it may seem.

reply to post by redhorse


Well, I completely respect your opinion here and I see where you're coming from.

I tend to think just a few positions in society need to be held, at the minimum, to a level above average and above the norm. People who can kill others with the full authority of the state and with no recourse given the proper circumstances are certainly among those. I simply feel any issues of judgment for men holding that power OR involved with the system that directs that power (working desks inside the Dept) should be a black and white disqualification.

It's very much how trucking is handled to what I have direct experience with. There are lines and there are criteria that will end your career or radically alter it ..and it's very different in almost every way from what people would ever tolerate outside of that industry for big brother ....but for pretty good reasons, IMO. Average or 'good enough' just isn't for some professions, if only a few.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Yes. Your reference to the specific exemption for agencies of the govt makes it clear....

The federal law does not prevent an insane person from carrying a firearm...if they are a government employee.

reply to post by butcherguy


But overall, Pennsylvania has already returned his Right to carry -- it is the Federal law that prohibits him. This case could easily reference the recent Bond v. United States and could easily win in my opinion if they have an astute lawyer.

I base this opinion on the following: He was involuntary committed and in which, both State and Federal Law barred him from carrying a firearm. He appealed and they reinstated his Right. He never sought, in that initial appeal, to expunge the involuntary commitment. However, because of that and the Federal Gun Control Act; he was still barred (even though the State -- in which he lives -- has reinstated that notion).

He invokes the exemption to fulfill his duty as an Officer of the law.

His past commitment to a mental facility is quite moot to the State of Pennsylvania; they feel he has the capacity since then to fulfill his duties [and] carry off duty. It is the Federal Government barring him from this.

ETA:
You are also making an assumption that he is "insane". That was no where near the claim nor why he was involuntarily committed. He has a mental breakdown. It happens.

reply to post by ownbestenemy

The federal code exempts people that work for government agencies... doesn't matter if they are insane, if they have been convicted of murder or other violent crimes.

So in this case, what I said stands, he can't carry as a civilian...anywhere, due to mental health issues as determined by federal law. He can carry in the performance of his duties as a policeman, again... because of federal law.

His past commitment to a mental facility is quite moot to the State of Pennsylvania; they feel he has the capacity since then to fulfill his duties [and] carry off duty.

It is all federal laws involved.
The Pennsylvania State Police did not want him back as a cop.
A labor arbitrator ruled that they had to take him back.
He wanted to have the right to carry when he is off duty.
The state judge can not overturn federal law.
So he can carry on duty on the police force that doesn't want him.... because of a federal exemption for employees of government agencies.
He can't carry when he is off duty.... because of federal law. He was involuntarily committed. He, in the eyes of federal law isn't to be trusted carrying a weapon.

The Pennsylvania State Police did not want him back as a cop. They fought against him being allowed back on the force. Why is that?

butcherguy
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

The federal code exempts people that work for government agencies... doesn't matter if they are insane, if they have been convicted of murder or other violent crimes.

So in this case, what I said stands, he can't carry as a civilian...anywhere, due to mental health issues as determined by federal law. He can carry in the performance of his duties as a policeman, again... because of federal law.

Not all true. His determined status regarding mental health has duality in regard to his right to possess. In one hand, the State of Pennslyvania does not bar him of that right based solely upon his involuntary conviction. It is clear they separated the two issues and have since, reinstated that very Right; on or off duty.

It is the Federal Law that is now encroaching upon his Right that is combining the two; his perceived mental health and his right to carry. The very same law, as we are pointing out over and over between posts, is that it exempts him from being barred due to his position.

This could easily be challenged in court -- an officer of the law has no more a right than you or I in regards to possession of a firearm. The law is not applied equally and has granted one "class" of citizens an ability that others cannot.

It is all federal laws involved.

It is still both State and Federal Law that were involved. At this point, yes, it is merely Federal Law. A law that exempts but yet denies. That isn't equality under the law.

The Pennsylvania State Police did not want him back as a cop.
A labor arbitrator ruled that they had to take him back.

This is moot. This argument is about his right to carry off-duty. He isn't arguing anything else now. He has won back those abilities.

The state judge can not overturn federal law.

It sure can...see Bond v. United States. Supremacy Clause fails here.

He, in the eyes of federal law isn't to be trusted carrying a weapon.

It is, not of my opinion, to be of any Federal concern. His own state, regardless if they are pushing him out as a State trooper, has already reinstated his ability to possess on or off duty.

They fought against him being allowed back on the force. Why is that?

From the court documents, it seems it was because he fought to be in the position other than a desk "cop". Maybe you can find otherwise?

reply to post by butcherguy


PA Resident here too butcher, howdie! Seriously, this is truly twisted. I'm not surprised though, sometimes I feel PA is EXTRA "special".

Just freaking great. I live in this Troopers patrol area. Probably have seen him around.

Figures. I know troopers who were fired for FAR lesser things (one for stealing anothers M&Ms and eating them-not confessing when confronted!!! lol).

But, typical for this barracks. About two years ago a PENN Dept of Trans snow plow driver did a stupid thing which caused the death of a person etc.

Well, lucky for him, his buddy Trooper got the case. The Trooper files a simple traffic citation on his buddy-the buddy paid the 125.00 ticket and went free. The Trooper resigned quickly and couldn't be dealt with.

(for confirmation and interest reading: www.pennlive.com...
& www.pennlive.com...

Chenot (the DA) said Frey (Trooper) met Hoover (Killer) at the district court at the end of Frey’s final shift. Chenot said Frey “filed the citation without the approval, authorization, or knowledge of the Perry County District Attorney, the Perry County Coroner, his state police supervisors, or apparently his fellow state police officers.” Now, the citation written by Frey and Hoover’s immediate guilty plea will “most likely preclude any further criminal prosecution of Hoover under double jeopardy laws of Pennsylvania,”

reply to post by anon72


Perry County?

The Harrisburg AM radio station always jokes about the people that live in Perry County. I think it stems from that dude and the cow... way back when.

reply to post by butcherguy


You a funny man. I am not from there, but live there now. And yes, the radio does/did do that occassional.

I am not sure it was a cow though..... maybe a bear or dear.

good to see you still around here!

I at a loss of words on this one. The insanity and stupidity in this ruling leaves me speechless.

I do know of airline pilots who have been arrested for DUIs and had their driver's license suspended but still retained their pilot's license and are allowed to pilot a plant with passengers.

jrod
I at a loss of words on this one. The insanity and stupidity in this ruling leaves me speechless.

I am curious, what has you lost for words? The man was already given his rights back, via his own State; it is the Federal Law that bars him and also grants him exception in the same breath (I think the focus should be on that nonsense). It isn't as if he is running around in a straight-jacket talking to himself. He was committed, treated and released.

The man is not a violent offender, save what the State thought was to himself. They committed him and he was subsequently released. He fought for his reinstatement of his Right, under the Pennsylvania Constitution, to once again bear arms. That was clearly returned to him. In that process, he did not challenge the "involuntary commitment" charges because the State does not utilize that as being reason to bar someone their natural right. The Federal Government does.

Thus entering his new case as we see here. Many are focusing on something that actually isn't there. The State of Pennsylvania does not see the man as a threat, even with his record of involuntary commitment. It is purely because of Federal law that his right to own a firearm is even in question. What makes it more ridiculous is that very same Federal law that bans him, also grants him exception.

Such a contradiction in legislation should be immediately withdrawn.

To me, it seems people are reading the head-line and letting their emotional imaginations run wild without even bothering to figure out, what is the truth.