department issued; and illegal firearms are not covered by
considerations in their favor.Taking those factors singly, this Court finds as follows:
An intent of
to allow qualified law enforcement officers to carry
concealed firearms, so that if the need arises, such an officer may unconceal; show; and
ultimately use his weapon.
does not provide definitions as to the issue of carry
or concealment, including whether it is permissible to have the weapon in a case, holster,
waistband, and so forth. Similarly,
does not indicate that the size of the weapon
is a factor in determining whether it can be concealed and carried. In fact, machine guns
are typically larger than handguns and the machine gun is the only true firearm excepted
The State has presented no evidence sufficient to show this court that insome way the Defendant acted outside of his authority at any time relevant hereto while
carrying or concealing the subject weapon.
there is no distinction found by this Court that would treat a
qualified law enforcement officer differently whether he possessed a firearm while on
duty or off duty.
a qualified officer, he is allowed to carry a concealed firearm either
way, except as otherwise provided by 18 USCS §926B(b). The case law presented is
certainly consistent with this finding.
Privately Owned vs. Department Issued
This Court can find no evidence to support the State's contention that under
it should draw a distinction between the same weapon possessed and used by a