Extending LEOSA to Judges & Prosecutors

There's good and bad to that. Left leaning judges and prosecutors will see it as a 'not for thee, but for me' entitlement. Right leaning judges and prosecutors probably already have permits anyway.

As someone who enjoys LEOSA, I'm also an advocate for nationwide reciprocity for every law abiding citizen.

shafter said:

As someone who enjoys LEOSA, I'm also an advocate for nationwide reciprocity for every law abiding citizen.

Click to expand...

This! The 2A guarantee this right not asks for permission!

I understand the reasoning behind LEOSA for retired police officers but judges and prosecutors should have to suffer the same limitations we peasants have to contend with.

Would they also have to have an annual qualification?

Craig_VA said:

I agree with your sentiment, but consider this proposed LEOSA expansion as a do-able step in the right direction of eventual Federally mandated universal reciprocity.

Click to expand...

I hope you are right but this smells to me like the elite carving out a special right just for themselves. The great unwashed masses can't be trusted with such freedom. Am I pessimistic, oh yeah I am, but we've seen this stuff going on for too long.

rdnktrkr said:

Would they also have to have an annual qualification?

Click to expand...

THAT IS MY FIRST QUESTION !.

Next I would ask how many [ if any ? ] would agree to a nationwide CCW permit to any and all ----- who pass a qualification as the LEO's have to ?.

I see that any and all should be allowed the "possession of any firearm [ yes even "class III" ] ,but I would like to see any who want to carry around me & mine = ACTUALLY KNOW & SHOW they can do so.

Let the rants begin !!

Would love to see anyone change my mind = not just get pissy with me !

Another separation of the thralls and jarls.

Either the Second Amendment means what it says or it doesn't.

No Free Citizen should have to beg and pay tithe to the King to exercise their Rights.

I submit that if we are required to have a permit and background check to exercise the Second Amendment then the same should be true for voting.

scaatylobo said:

THAT IS MY FIRST QUESTION !.

Next I would ask how many [ if any ? ] would agree to a nationwide CCW permit to any and all ----- who pass a qualification as the LEO's have to ?.

I see that any and all should be allowed the "possession of any firearm [ yes even "class III" ] ,but I would like to see any who want to carry around me & mine = ACTUALLY KNOW & SHOW they can do so.

Let the rants begin !!

Would love to see anyone change my mind = not just get pissy with me !

Click to expand...

I feel similarly to you but I'm very hesitant to give the government that much power. It's just another small bite out of the 2nd Amend. I have seen some very dangerous gun handling by some but it isn't any more dangerous than an incompetent vehicle driver. Actually it is probably safer than bad drivers.

Absolutely not!

Since they would be no better qualified to carry a firearm than any other “citizen” I see no reason why they should get a special privilege. A trained retired LEO is one thing. A judge or prosecutor should have to go through the same training and requirements of whatever state they reside in to obtain the same CCW as any other resident.

Twiki357 said:

Absolutely not!

Since they would be no better qualified to carry a firearm than any other “citizen” I see no reason why they should get a special privilege. A trained retired LEO is one thing. A judge or prosecutor should have to go through the same training and requirements of whatever state they reside in to obtain the same CCW as any other resident.

Click to expand...

Slippery slope. Military Police, who often shoot MUCH less than other members of the armed forces are put into this LEOSA category while other (better qualified) people in the military are not. However, while the retired military don't qualify the MP's and SP's do.

In and ideal world we would ALL have our liberties and not be fighting over scraps for some.

The issuing department can require their retirees to qualify annually and limit what they can carry to maintain their LEOSA based on their department policies and procedures.

Judges and DA's don't answer to the Chief's of Sheriff's. A separate national policy may be in the works.

And again I say the 2A applies to everyone! The Founding Fathers did not include "qualifications"! And despite popular opinion there wasn't a "Brown Bess" above every fireplace. Finding "Regulars" that had a gun and could shoot was a big problem for GW! A Google search may find that the number of armed citizens may be even higher today than in 1776!

Full disclosure: I'm a POST (LEO) Certified Firearms Instructor and an NRA Instructor in multiple disciplines.

All the best,

scaatylobo said:

I see that any and all should be allowed the "possession of any firearm [ yes even "class III" ] ,but I would like to see any who want to carry around me & mine = ACTUALLY KNOW & SHOW they can do so.

Click to expand...

What would you accept, given the power, as proof of someone knowing what they're doing?

bearcreek said:

What would you accept, given the power, as proof of someone knowing what they're doing?

Click to expand...

They should take every single hour of class that I had to sit through for a license...

We’re all equal right? I’m not a professional gun handler, they’re not professional gun handlers. Makes sense.

Unless they are more equal than me based upon their occupation...

Demi-human said:

They should take every single hour of class that I had to sit through for a license...

We’re all equal right? I’m not a professional gun handler, they’re not professional gun handlers. Makes sense.

Unless they are more equal than me based upon their occupation...

Click to expand...

I believe scaatylobo was talking about requiring everyone to get training before being "allowed" to carry, including judges. I was curious what level of training he thinks people, all people, should be required to get in order to carry a gun. At this time, I'm not aware of any state that requires enough training to bring a person to a place of any real competence.

Demi-human said:

They should take every single hour of class that I had to sit through for a license...

We’re all equal right? I’m not a professional gun handler, they’re not professional gun handlers. Makes sense.

Unless they are more equal than me based upon their occupation...

Click to expand...

Might need to 'standardize' that class. My CCW 'class' was a waste of time..a square filler, nothing more...Be nice if one could demonstrate some basic, practical knowledge of firearms before getting a CCWP..

I would oppose such because when HR 218 (LEOSA) was first proposed, it included reciprocity for CCW permits. Correct me if I am wrong. The LEOs begged for that to be dropped because it would cause the bill to be rejected. However, they swore that they would step up to demand reciprocity and the bill would be a first step. The support for reciprocity from major police agencies, chiefs, etc. never happened. It died.

Reciprocity died in the first year of the Trump administration when the GOP Congress couldn't wait to ditch gun positive bills at their first chance. DJT had no interest in actively supporting them.

This bill will do absolutely nothing for the average person. It will not be a first step. It has no chance of passing. It is just virtue signaling and posturing in the great: Send A Check - gun suckers!

Easing carry can't happen in the present Congress and the next will probably be even worse. Easing carry in SCOTUS - well, we see how that went. NO chance for years to come.

Spare me from these hypocrites posting bills to get a check! It's like the constant posting of gun ban bills every season. Just marking out their virtue.

Now, if one party gets a true, veto proof majority - maybe you would see something. However, I doubt it.

LEOs get them because they go through their officers training.
What firearms training does a prosecutor receive in their degree?

The class and training standardization is not my point. The fact that we are making an exception for humans not even closely related to using a firearm for an occupation is my rub. We do this for police because they are police. Why should an office worker be allowed the same leeway for carrying into restricted places as an Enforcement Officer would?

I think everyone should get training.
I believe it should not be mandated.
In Michigan it is.
I sat through it. I even learned somethings.
They should sit through it too.
If they want to carry into stadiums and concerts and have the privilege that we extend to our officers, they should take the minimum requirement to be an officer, not carry concealed.

Personally, I don’t believe we should need a license, but I live here.
The classes are not enough to turn a completely new to firearms human into an operator. They are better than nothing, though I don’t like them required. I am conflicted.

FFGColorado said:

Be nice if one could demonstrate some basic, practical knowledge of firearms before getting a CCWP..

Click to expand...

That is what ours is. If you don’t get removed for blatant stupidity, you win.
If you cry when you shoot, you don’t. (My class was fun.)
The standards can also be oppressively high, draw back. A tough issue.

What is the differential rate of judges and prosecutors being attacked vs. the rate of violent crime against the average citizen, esp. those who don't live in the 'better' areas? Most judges do. In shall issue states, the well connected have an easier time getting permits. Why should this sort of privilege be extended?

I have a better idea. Reintroduce the reciprocity bill as a key point in the upcoming election. Make it part of the platform. Have be part of numerous press conferences and tweets.

The standards issue is irrelevant. There aren't studies that show that mandated training classes increase or decrease bad behavior by permit holders. Yes, everyone should train. Most never will. In CA, a study of new gun owners demonstrated that after buying a gun, only 25% ever did anything gun related with it. The percent that every did anything but shoot a box at a stationary target is probably tiny. Karl Rehn studied this on LTC folks and the percent of folks with such who got anything like real training was in the single digits.

The issue is extending privilege to the chosen few of the 'state'. Why?

First, let me preface by saying I'm a retired LEO.

The original law ostensibly was an effort to put armed trained retired LEO's on the street as an aid to LE. If that's the case, I see the possible extension of this to judges and prosecutors as nothing but a political move. They are not trained and have no street or arrest experience.

As far as I'm concerned, this is total BS. By adding this to LEOSA, they are doing nothing but dumbing it down. Let them get their own bill if they want this, although I don't see any reason for them to have as opposed to every other citizen.

I'm all for universal carry rights, but what's next, anybody who was ever elected or politically appointed gets it? The dog catcher, a senator's "assistant" (girl friend), a poll worker?

I sincerely hope this does not pass. if it does, hold their hands to the fire and make them pass the same qualification as every active LEO in their state, as the retired LEO's must. Not some "special" course where the range officers are required to pass them.

bearcreek said:

What would you accept, given the power, as proof of someone knowing what they're doing?

Click to expand...

Simple = the same as I get after a qual,card with my name & picture.

And dated as to when I did the class.

I would be thrilled if all took that class every 5 years !

We had retirees that could shoot a qual at 80 years of age.

George Dickel said:

I feel similarly to you but I'm very hesitant to give the government that much power. It's just another small bite out of the 2nd Amend. I have seen some very dangerous gun handling by some but it isn't any more dangerous than an incompetent vehicle driver. Actually it is probably safer than bad drivers.

Click to expand...

And my issue is also related.

Driving is NOT a "right" as gun ownership is.

But that "right" does not allow you to endanger my life !.

My right to draw breath should not have ANYTHING to do with your right to carry = UNLESS you carry around me !.

I have taught officers how to shoot,and they qual yearly.

Too many are NOT truly qualified to use that gun.

But I want all to be at the very least 'that good'.