Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Burban v. City of Neptune Beach

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Jacksonville Division

March 27, 2018

CAMILLE BURBAN, Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF NEPTUNE BEACH, FLORIDA, Defendant.

          ORDER

          MARCIA MORALES HOWARD UNITED SLATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant City of Neptune Beach, Florida's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and Memorandum of Law (Doc. 11; Motion), filed on May 4, 2017. Plaintiff Camille Burban filed Plaintiff's Response to Defendant City of Neptune Beach, Florida's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Doc. 21; Response) on May 30, 2017. Accordingly, this matter is ripe for review.[1]

         I. Background[2]

         The factual allegations in the Amended Complaint (Doc. 9) relate to Burban's efforts to exercise her rights under the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA), 18 U.S.C. §§ 926B, 926C. See generally Amended Complaint. Thus, before summarizing Burban's factual allegations, the Court will provide an overview of LEOSA.

         A. Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act

         Congress created LEOSA in 2003 “to protect officers and their families from vindictive criminals, and to allow thousands of equipped trained and certified law enforcement officers, whether on-duty, off-duty or retired, to carry concealed firearms in situations where they can respond immediately to a crime across state and other jurisdictional lines.” S. Rep. No. 108-29, at 4 (2003), available at 2003 WL 1609540. LEOSA achieves this purpose by establishing “a mechanism by which law enforcement officers may travel interstate with a firearm.” Id. at 4. As relevant to this action, LEOSA provides:

Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual [1] who is a qualified retired law enforcement officer and [2] 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.

See 18 U.S.C. § 926C(a). Thus, in order to carry a concealed firearm across state lines, an officer must satisfy two conditions. Id. First, the officer must be a qualified retired law enforcement officer, and second, the retired officer must carry the identification required by the statute. Id.

         With respect to the first condition, a qualified retired law enforcement is one who:

(1) separated from service in good standing from service with a public agency as a law enforcement officer;
(2) before such separation, 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 or apprehension under section 807(b) of title 10, United States Code (article 7(b) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice);
(3) (A) before such separation, served as a law enforcement officer for an aggregate of 10 years or more[3]; or
(B) separated 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) during the most recent 12-month period, has met, at the expense of the individual, the standards for qualification in firearms training for active law enforcement officers, as determined by the former agency of the individual, the State in which the individual resides or, if the State has not established such standards, either a law enforcement agency within the State in which the individual resides or the standards used by a certified firearms instructor that is qualified to conduct a firearms qualification test for active duty officers within that State;
(5) (A) has not been officially found by a qualified medical professional employed by the agency to be unqualified for reasons relating to mental health and as a result of this finding will not be issued the photographic identification as described in subsection (d)(1); or
(B) has not entered into an agreement with the agency from which the individual is separating from service in which that individual acknowledges he or she is not qualified under this section for reasons relating to mental health and for those reasons will not receive or accept the photographic identification as described in subjection (d)(1);
(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.

See 18 U.S.C. § 926C(c).

         As to the second condition, LEOSA provides two methods by which an officer can satisfy the identification requirement. Under the first option, the agency where the officer served issues a photographic identification indicating that the individual served “as a police officer or law enforcement officer, ” and that within the year, the individual has “been tested or otherwise found by the agency to meet the active duty standards for qualification in firearms training as established by the agency to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm.” 18 U.S.C. § 926C(d)(1). Under the second option, the individual must carry two documents: (1) “a photographic identification issued by the agency from which the officer separated, ” 18 U.S.C. § 926C(d)(2)(A), and (2) a separate firearms certification “issued by the State in which the individual resides or by a certified ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.