Think of it as a first step in the right direction for national concealed carry reciprocity, or even national constitutional carry. Current and former LEOs being able to carry nationwide was the low-hanging fruit. The tougher fight is for the Regular Joe to have the same right too.

Besides, the more good guys with guns out there, the better, right?

quote:

Originally posted by police340:
Hi Mike,

My brother wrote about me in this post.
Do you know the Navy is currently in processing of granting to MA's so if thats what you do,
you should be covered soon. Not sure of the requirements Navy place on you. Good luck.

I'm a retired local cop in NC, I was a sworn LEO in the USCG ( I know my rank looks like the Navy's, but it's the CG) with arrest powers for US laws and Customs laws. I attended 640 hours of accredited time while in the service (equal to the state requirement in NC)...but I've seen so many idiots who were sent to the CG's course based on their location and not their intelligence or ability, that I wouldn't even consider them an LEO...(plus we were never issued CREDENTIALS in the CG-soooooo no LEO ID, no bueno)

I don't know if an MA (USN) is a sworn leo or even have credentials. A requirement is that the person must have creds issued from the department (When I was an active duty cop-I would not accept a Military ID/CAC card as credentials, because DOD CAC cards are not credentials)

**Added to clarify: The agents in the Navy (NCIS), CG (CGIS), Army (CIS), and AF (Dunno what they are called) are all sworn leos and have and carry credentials. I was a "Boarding Officer" and under LEOSA I was covered, but didn't carry credentials.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: MikeinNC,

quote:

Think of it as a first step in the right direction for national concealed carry reciprocity, or even national constitutional carry. Current and former LEOs being able to carry nationwide was the low-hanging fruit. The tougher fight is for the Regular Joe to have the same right too.

Yep. Good point.

Thanks to the last President signing the LEOSA amendment in 2010, I am now covered under LEOSA as a "retired" LEO.

I am grateful that I can carry in every state now. However, my wife - a full time concealed carrier since 1985 can't. When we pick our vacation spots etc... you can rest assured that states that do not honor her current permits/licenses are not considered as viable choices.

Hopefully some day soon, we will all have true nationwide reciprocity for concealed carry.

quote:

Originally posted by cmr076:
Am I the only one that thinks this program is comeplete bullshit?

Not quite bullshit, but program doesn't cover all LEO. Correction officers WITHOUT "powers of arrest" are not covered.

In KY we are allowed to qualify annual thru a commercial source. You just put the qual sheet in your ID card wallet along with the LEOSA ID. I can't speak for other states, I just renewed my qualifications.

quote:

Am I the only one that thinks this program is comeplete bullshit?

Nope. I disagree with having different classes of citizens.

quote:

Originally posted by cmr076:
Am I the only one that thinks this program is comeplete bullshit?

We're bent outta shape because people who spend careers protecting others are given an opportunity not given to everyone else as a benefit of their service. But, we're all OK with free lifetime medical insurance for retired military (a benefit not accorded to most other retirees) and the GI bill for education. Seems like a double standard to me.

LEOSA (HR 218) covers active law enforcement officers, as well as former or retired officers. The officer must be actively employed, or have served as a sworn officer as defined for a minimum of 10 years to be eligible (initially it was 15 years), or medically retired. Law enforcement officer is broadly defined is one who was employed full time to bear firearms, make arrests, and handle prisoners.

Law Enforcement organizations had been trying to get a federal law passed that would cover officers wherever they went in the U.S, to eliminate confusion over which state they could and could not carry. Of course the blue states resisted. In some states a retired officer could be arrested in his own state for carrying a firearm, which is crazy given the grudges held by people an officer encounters in a career. I recall one instance where a state officer from one state was arrested by an officer in another state because he had his service pistol in the glove box while on the way to Florida for a job interview. That's just nuts. Technically an on duty officer crossing certain state lines on official business could not legally carry his firearm into the other state. That's just nuts.

The threat to former and retired officers is real. LEOSA stands for Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act.

Following 9/11 there was a lot of uncertainty about how widespread the attacks were going to be. At the same time with the growth of CCW licenses nationwide, it seemed that everyone and his brother was carrying a gun. People in the wake of 9/11 wanted a cop on every street corner, but there were not enough to go around.

It was logical to Congress that having all those former officers with 15 years or more of experience and training with the means to counter an attack wherever they were was a sensible way of multiplying the force. In that climate the LEOSA got enough support to get it over the top. You can't really equate it to a national concealed carry arrangement because of the training and experience requirement.

Federal law enforcement agencies in the DoD were left out by LEOSA. Civilian agents in CID, NCIS, and OSI, and civilian DoD police were covered by LEOSA, but military agents they worked side by side with were not. OSI and CID approached DoD with a request to include military agents under LEOSA, and the uniformed military LE organizations jumped on the bandwagon. After a couple of years of bureaucratic red tape and some lobbying, the military LE folks were included under LEOSA. Somewhere along the way the 15 years of experience was lowered to 10 years as well.

It's not free. The law requires individuals carrying under LEOSA have an ID issued by their agency, and they must qualify annually with the course of fire used by their agency, or that is used by law enforcement for qualification in the state where they reside. Some agencies charge for this qualification, and some states authorize contractors to provide it.

Individuals carrying under LEOSA must abide by the laws of the state where they are traveling so it is not carte blanche. The control here is the agency certifying that the individual served 10 or more years honorably.

That is the current state of LEOSA and how it got where it is.

Thank you for taking the time to explain.

quote:

But, we're all OK with free lifetime medical insurance for retired military (a benefit not accorded to most other retirees) and the GI bill for education. Seems like a double standard to me.

Military is service. When you sign on the line, you now belong to the US Government. You do what they say, when they say, go where you're told, etc.

LEO is a profession. You can come and go at your leisure. Two totally different things.

That said, the risk to LEOs is real. So is the threat to any other regular person. My gripe isn't about benefits, it's about the law. LEOs probably get a pension. I don't have one. I don't care. That's a perk that came with their job choice.

My gripe is with a law that gives one class of citizens different protections than another. Familiar with the woman with the blindfold and scales? That represents something that many seem to overlook.

The good news is that many states have already worked this out among themselves to accommodate those with CCWs. It's not perfect, it could certainly be better, but it's also not as bad as it once was.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
Think of it as a first step in the right direction for national concealed carry reciprocity, or even national constitutional carry. Current and former LEOs being able to carry nationwide was the low-hanging fruit. The tougher fight is for the Regular Joe to have the same right too.

Besides, the more good guys with guns out there, the better, right?

Some wiseguy once said; "..Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us."

^^^^^^
That cuts both ways, Sigmonkey, and those of us who are not LEO are still forbidden, for the most part.

I have no sympathy for retired LEOs who can carry damned near anywhere, while I'm still highly restricted, even within my own state.

My point being that as Rougue stated, it leans toward us and not away.

If you were in a a battle and all surrounded, and some squirted and got away, but you are captured. Are you going to be passed because your fellow comrades got away and may well be key to your liberation, or would you cheer them even though you may perish?

I'm gonna be a cheering mutha fucker...

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

quote:

But, we're all OK with free lifetime medical insurance for retired military (a benefit not accorded to most other retirees) and the GI bill for education. Seems like a double standard to me.

Military is service. When you sign on the line, you now belong to the US Government. You do what they say, when they say, go where you're told, etc.

LEO is a profession. You can come and go at your leisure. Two totally different things.

That said, the risk to LEOs is real. So is the threat to any other regular person. My gripe isn't about benefits, it's about the law. LEOs probably get a pension. I don't have one. I don't care. That's a perk that came with their job choice.

My gripe is with a law that gives one class of citizens different protections than another. Familiar with the woman with the blindfold and scales? That represents something that many seem to overlook.

The good news is that many states have already worked this out among themselves to accommodate those with CCWs. It's not perfect, it could certainly be better, but it's also not as bad as it once was.

I agree with you, but let's direct our anger at the proper place.

We NEED nationwide CCW for law abiding citizens. Put it to a vote, I"ll vote for it. Put up legislators who pledge to pass it, I'll vote for them/donate to their campaign.

Wading through the massive amount of legal nonsense to determine if you are allowed to enter a state carrying the way it is now is at the very least, the most absurd inefficient mess possible.

It SHOULD be just like a driver's license. If you have a valid one from your state, then it should be honored in the other 49 states.

But direct your ire at the cowardly lawmakers who won't make it happen, and work to get people in there who WILL make it happen.

quote:

Originally posted by KevinCW:

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

quote:

But, we're all OK with free lifetime medical insurance for retired military (a benefit not accorded to most other retirees) and the GI bill for education. Seems like a double standard to me.

Military is service. When you sign on the line, you now belong to the US Government. You do what they say, when they say, go where you're told, etc.

LEO is a profession. You can come and go at your leisure. Two totally different things.

That said, the risk to LEOs is real. So is the threat to any other regular person. My gripe isn't about benefits, it's about the law. LEOs probably get a pension. I don't have one. I don't care. That's a perk that came with their job choice.

My gripe is with a law that gives one class of citizens different protections than another. Familiar with the woman with the blindfold and scales? That represents something that many seem to overlook.

The good news is that many states have already worked this out among themselves to accommodate those with CCWs. It's not perfect, it could certainly be better, but it's also not as bad as it once was.

I agree with you, but let's direct our anger at the proper place.

We NEED nationwide CCW for law abiding citizens. Put it to a vote, I"ll vote for it. Put up legislators who pledge to pass it, I'll vote for them/donate to their campaign.

Wading through the massive amount of legal nonsense to determine if you are allowed to enter a state carrying the way it is now is at the very least, the most absurd inefficient mess possible.

It SHOULD be just like a driver's license. If you have a valid one from your state, then it should be honored in the other 49 states.

But direct your ire at the cowardly lawmakers who won't make it happen, and work to get people in there who WILL make it happen.

If national CCW reciprocity ever becomes federal law, it will only override objections from states like NY, NJ, and CA because the (federal) courts recognized the precedent set by HR218. If one objects to the premise that LEOs have the privilege of CCW in states outside their own (even if that state objects to the intrusion of federal law), they may as well give up on national reciprocity.

As to the "difference" between the benefits enjoyed by those having served in the military and those who've served in law enforcement: Even with a draft (and we haven't conscripted citizens for decades), people volunteer their services in exchange for giving up certain rights. If benefits weren't offered (pay, medical coverage, retirement, etc...), we wouldn't have members in either occupation that remain in service beyond their initial commitment. While its true that one can't just quit the military after they've "signed on the dotted line", its not like they were forced to enter the armed forces in the first place. Even if they were, our government (like every other) isn't required to provide benefits, it elected to do so to meet the need for volunteers and to entice those who join to stay beyond their initial enlistment.

I fully appreciate the fact that members of our armed forces can't just say "No" and walk off the job when things get rough or they receive an assignment they don't like. They (unlike most LEOs) face discipline for insubordination beyond loss of their employment. But its also worth noting that if a cop decides he/she doesn't want to meet their legal obligations, sanctions can include criminal as well as civil penalties that will effect them for the rest of their lives too. With an "all volunteer" military, the distinctions between those who serve are becoming fewer and more blurred. Better to acknowledge that those in both professions serve our nation and community than to try to drive a wedge between them.

quote:

I agree with you, but let's direct our anger at the proper place......But direct your ire at the cowardly lawmakers who won't make it happen,

That's the only place my anger is directed. Lawmakers are the only ones who make laws that create different classes of citizens. The lawmakers themselves tend to fancy themselves in their own class.

I'm not mad that a police officer (or any other person) takes advantage of a law that others don't get the advantage of. I'm only mad that the law exists in that form to begin with.

I get your anger. Imagine mine-I had two attempts on my life while off-duty in the 80's. My agency refused to permit me to carry off duty (Bureau of Prisons), so outside my house I was either risking a felony or my family was not protected. My family WAS protected, screw them and California.

quote:

Originally posted by Fredward:
I get your anger. Imagine mine-I had two attempts on my life while off-duty in the 80's. My agency refused to permit me to carry off duty (Bureau of Prisons), so outside my house I was either risking a felony or my family was not protected. My family WAS protected, screw them and California.

I live in pa and work in nj, on top of also receiving multiple death threats, I often carry 10-20k dollars in cash on me and there's exactly a 0% chance I'll get a nj ltch

When I was ambushed by a madman with a 12 gauge the only thing that saved me were my reflexes. Missouri law didn't allow me to be armed.