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

You read it correctly.
A judge ruled that a PA State Trooper who is not fit to carry a gun when off duty because of mental issues (federal law)... including being involuntarily committed, IS still allowed to carry his gun while on duty!

He is too CRAZY to be an armed citizen, but he's not too crazy to be a COP?

OMG, I am losing faith in our legal system more and more every day.

Link to story: PennLive

Pennsylvania State Trooper Michael L. Keyes is in an odd situation. When on duty, he can carry a gun. Yet while off duty, he is barred by law from possessing any firearms, because seven years ago he suffered from deep depression, repeatedly tried to kill himself by taking drugs and was involuntarily committed for mental health treatment. Keyes' latest attempt to be allowed to have a gun all the time was rejected this week by the state Superior Court. That court upheld an earlier ruling by Perry County Senior Judge Keith B. Quigley that Keyes' involuntary mental health commitment constitutes an unsurmountable legal barrier to his ability to possess a gun while off duty.

An arbitrator's decision ordering his return to limited duty was fought by the state police, but ultimately was upheld by Commonwealth Court. The state Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of that ruling, and he was placed back on duty in 2010. In 2012, Commonwealth Court also ordered that Keyes be awarded nearly $16,000 in back pay. Keyes began battling for full reinstatement of his ability to carry firearms in 2008. The problem, according to court filings, is that the federal Gun Control Act bars those who have been subject to involuntary mental health commitments from possessing guns. In its ruling issued Tuesday, the Superior Court found there is no way for Keyes to have the record of his involuntary mental health commitment expunged. That means Keyes cannot surmount the federal ban on his having a gun off-duty, President Judge Emeritus Kate Ford Elliott wrote in the state court's opinion.

The State Police wanted him fired, but an arbitrator ruled that he gets to keep his job. But due to federal laws, he can never have a gun off duty.... ever.

Marvelous.

Only in the USA They are thinking of arming the TSA too now.

This reminded me of the wooden gun scenes in the film "the other guys", good film too by the way.

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.

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 am a PA resident. I hope something happens to ensure that the judge does find his way out of the judiciary and into the private sector. Maybe he will get pulled over by Mr. Crazy Cop!

reply to post by butcherguy


The story is hard to fathom....

One thing I have always carried with me from growing up around cops was one thing I heard my Father say many times in full awareness of the power of his position as one.

He'd note that, as a cop, every single contact..however minor..he had with a member of the public had the potential to alter their life in dramatic ways, or even bring it to an end. All with the authority and power granted by society, alone in the moment with someone, to use that how judgement dictates.

Judgement... That was what he'd meant to convey by saying it.. The power and sheer importance of judgement, and how in some lines of work, that simple factor can determine whether someone ends their day in their own bed or a concrete cell ...whether they are home, or in the morgue.

NO ONE with compromised judgement should be permitted anywhere near law enforcement. That is one of a few lines of work where judgement is everything and a cop is nothing but a threat to everything around them, without it, IMO.

Only in the USA They are thinking of arming the TSA too now.

This is the US where those with money or brute force have a voice. The NRA is working for the day when there will be a gun carried in the open by everyone including felons, mentally deranged, people with restraining orders, teachers, baristas, pilots, crossing guards, kids. The stated goal is to eliminate all restrictions on guns period.

Everyone has the right to be spiritually fortified by lethal force. I am convinced it is a mental illness.

Quit watching TV! It's full of brainwashing. Clockwork orange isn't science fiction people.

reply to post by butcherguy


It's F&S for so many reasons... I won't even go there.
I needed a second or two also with the subscribe button before posting anything, for fear of losing this thread. The whole situation prints out so fundamentally dysfunctional the trooper might be closing in to the Troopers' admins for sanest of the lot.

Item One: if he was depressed and better now, get a note from the doctor... hit the channels and out from under the rediculous life sentence from the Feds. Full reinstatement is and should be a option for individuals displaying a good service record otherwise. That is of course unless that law was supposed to render the 'patient' permanently hobbled.. always a good thing, comrade. Where's that Trotsky clip-on beard?

Item Two: judge not. The individual that passed this decision down is tempting me to make another observation only. IF you go against the law that's supposed to protect us and give the guy the work tools, you Judge (notice I capitalized) should be directly held liable for whatever negative occurrances result from the decision.

Strongly attempting to resist judging and again remaining only an observer, I notice none the less an intellectual disconnect making it seem to the magistrate safe for the trooper to have a weapon while on duty. I for one would demand to see the clinical workup before making the call. Was it procedure?

reply to post by derfreebie

The part I find interesting is that the State Police did not want him to remain a police officer. An arbitrators ruling demands that he retains his job as a police officer.
I wonder how his fellow officers feel about the decisions in this case?

Any LEO's want to add their opinions? Excathedra?

ETA: It isn't any wonder to me that a police officer might have a mental breakdown.... quite a bit of stress involved, and if you have issues with what other officers do and you can't cross the thin blue line.....

butcherguy

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 am a PA resident. I hope something happens to ensure that the judge does find his way out of the judiciary and into the private sector. Maybe he will get pulled over by Mr. Crazy Cop!

edit on 7-1-2014 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)

If my quiet concerns pan out the judge would be one of, if not the last victim of any cosmic justice. It just seems to work out that way, and consequently this bumper crop of disconnectoids. derf

butcherguy
reply to post by derfreebie

 

The part I find interesting is that the State Police did not want him to remain a police officer. An arbitrators ruling demands that he retains his job as a police officer.
I wonder how his fellow officers feel about the decisions in this case?

Any LEO's want to add their opinions? Excathedra?

As only a concerned layman the arbitrator had to have the individual's psych folder in front to make his job call. For carrying off duty I still don't get why PA would get to trump USC... why didn't its spirit carry logically downstairs?

EDIT::: from the article, part of the decision carrying one caveat and a universal copout: you gotta love "tomorrow afternoon" scenarios, the best control mechanism of all time for shrinks working for the government...

"Given the extreme potential harm attendant to the possession of deadly weapons by the mentally ill, and the risk of relapse," the judge wrote, " we see an important government interest in controlling the availability of firearms for those who have ever been adjudged mentally defective or have ever been committed to a mental institution but are now deemed to be cured."

It is "rational" for Keyes to still be allowed to have a gun on-duty because then he is under the supervision and observation of superior officers and his fellow troopers, Ford Elliott concluded.

"Were [Keyes] to again fall into a depressive state with suicidal ideation, it would be much more likely to be discovered while he is on-duty and his superiors could then restrict his access to state police firearms," she wrote.

Emphasis added by derf. And we have 24/7 cameras on the trooper? If you're solo doing motor, who's holding your hand? Martin Milnor? Devil's advocate, maybe... but I have to back out and look at the original restrictions. Valid or not, the guy's either dangerous or not... on duty isn't a factor.

reply to post by butcherguy


this is just insane! what is this judges reasoning for this? is he incompetent or just corrupt? and as insane as iowa allowing blind people to have guns.

I see something happening behind the curtain in the anti-gunning community.
What laws will this kind of thing lead to?
Do we not have enough laws already?
If you cannot own privately, why can you on the corporation time?
Many questions...

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Wait, I understand what your saying and I do agree with you. But all this Judge ruled on was this cop getting to have a gun when off duty and the judge said no.The issue of him being back on duty had already been determined before this and he had been allowed to be back on duty. Or am I reading this wrong?

Dimithae
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

Wait, I understand what your saying and I do agree with you. But all this Judge ruled on was this cop getting to have a gun when off duty and the judge said no.The issue of him being back on duty had already been determined before this and he had been allowed to be back on duty. Or am I reading this wrong?

You have it right.
The state judge can't overrule federal law.
The problem I have is with the fact that the feds say he is too crazy to carry a gun as a civilian..... but they are okay with a crazy cop carrying a gun... apparently.

Biigs
Marvelous.

Only in the USA

They are thinking of arming the TSA too now.

This reminded me of the wooden gun scenes in the film "the other guys", good film too by the way.

I know.

They seem to give any yahoo a badge and gun and tell em to go "hunt bad guys" in the states.

reply to post by Dimithae


..which is what I don't understand here...

If I go get myself admitted to a Hospital for mental issues of *ANY* kind whatsoever? The very first thing authority will do upon learning I have it, is remove that Concealed Carry permit from my wallet and throw it through a shredder. No one would so much as talk to me in passing about a position of employment that would involve cleaning guns in a gunsmith shop, let alone carrying a loaded one in public....or my own home for that matter.

So..it's with bewilderment I see a story like this where someone that carries the authority to literally shoot you dead by his own judgement alone ..can continue to carry and not have that addressed as a major issue ..For the record if NOTHING else?

If you can't be trusted in civie clothes?! What in all creation makes someone think you could be trusted with the badge and authority of a police officer?

* The Judge can..and many do...make an FTR type statement on peripheral issues to his actual ruling. In this case, it could have been screaming for the force delivered in the fact a BIG issue was now open and needed pursued by others, likely in the same courthouse ..if the Judge couldn't do something more.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

If you can't be trusted in civie clothes?! What in all creation makes someone think you could be trusted with the badge and authority of a police officer?

It would seem like the badge is what matters, not the person, in many cases. We have seen many times before where a cop does things that are uncalled for... whether beating, choking, tazing, shooting, even killing people... and they get a slap on the wrist. Then off they go to work as a cop in another city or municipality.

In this particular case, the federal government has a law that prevents a civilian from possessing firearms, but the very same person..... wearing a badge, is not prevented by law to possess them.

Is this equal representation under the law???

I guess a judge would tell me that it is..... I just have to get a badge.

reply to post by butcherguy


Why can't he still be in the profession as a clerical person or something? How is he allowed to keep his position and legally carry while on duty? WTF has our legal system come to? WTF has our laws come to? WTF is this judge thinking? I am just dumbfounded even reading this garbage....In my state nonetheless!

And some of us wonder why police kill people for no reason....I am sure this is a higher percentage of officers that are just not classified with mental illness. Police should NEVER be allowed to shoot anyone without 100% reasonable doubt...Somehow their reasonable doubt is so illogical it still passes our court system. Once it is done once and gotten away with, it will keep going on....Nobody in our judicial system will put their foot down to stop this crap...../rant

The issue with this decision is that you aren't only placing the public in harm you're doing the same to the trooper. A cop is ALWAYS on duty, at least in the sense that when dealing with the public and potentially offending the sensibilities of a psychopath, the cop runs the risk of retaliation and my be unable to defend himself.

If he can't carry off duty then he shouldn't be a cop for his own safety. Especially now that its made public.

Perp: "Its ok officer, I'll see you after school"

reply to post by Rosinitiate

If he can't carry off duty then he shouldn't be a cop for his own safety.

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



This article made me stop and go take some aspirin.