LEOSA Changes...

[jon_in_wv]

I guess cops don't deserve any special treatment unless its ABUSE. Then they get treated special. Thanks for you service NMPOPS, you'll find the cop bashers are the minority. This is a very good forum.

 

[danbrew]

I hope nobody takes my comments as cop bashing - that's not the case.

This is my first post on this forum, didn't want to start this way but felt I needed to. First, I retired after 25 years in Law Enforcement, been shot at, kicked beat on, too many stitches to count. So yes, maybe I do deserve LEOSA.

So you held a job for 25 years and stayed out of trouble? Me too. Nobody said you had to do it - and before you get your hackles up, I did if for three years. It was not something I wanted to do forever, so I did something different. I don't see how your former job entitles you to deserve something that is a right granted under the constitution that the rest of us are forbidden from enjoying.

Last, my mother in law is retired from Verizon and gets phone and cell phone rates cheaper than the rest of the public and auto industry employees can buy cars cheaper that you or I. Lots of people get breaks and privledges not just cops.

So when the local cops start offering cell phone service, you'll get no complaints from me if you get "the insider" price. Rights are not trinkets or services that should be parceled out or only offered to some who "are insiders".

Not trying to pick a fight with you specifically, and welcome to THR. Yet two sets of rules has always driven me mad.

 

[dogrunner]

Well, I qualify for the LEOSA 'benefits', as I did way over 30 in that game, and while I can understand the resentment that folks who don't have the 'privileges' carry I still have gotta believe that overall it's to ALL our best interests to have as many legal and acceptable carriers as we can.....it IS the foot in the door for everyone.

Far as bruises and contusions...well, anybody that did that job honestly sure has his share........frankly I stayed in the field because it was FUN. It was not an exercise in the same old daily grind in an office and I also funded MY OWN retirement benefits to the tune of 10% plus of my salary. But truly, I wasn't in that job for the bucks and I sure don't regret either my time spent nor the LEOSA grant.

Further, some of you basher types need to realize that you do have both friends and supporters in the LEO community. I, for one, did a national NRA ad in support of the '86 FOPA..........and yeah, I was more than a bit upset when that AH from NJ stuck the MG prohibition rider...........but face facts people.......your enemies are NOT the guys that are doing the day to day routine of being a peace officer, your enemies are those corrupt and self serving politicians that keep getting elected over and over and over........Take your choice, Kennedy, Schumer, Byrd and on and on....they have so corrupted the system and structure of our constitution and government that I am really fearful that we may not be able to recover it.............One thing is for sure, you can't damn the beat cop for the likes of Daly or Bloomberg.

And by the way. I HAVE bumped into the 'dirtbag' I put away for five plus and HE remembered me!

 

[NMPOPS]

Although I do excercise my rights under LEOSA I am also a NRA Life member and think that this is a right that should be extended to all law abiding citizens, not just cops. The more legal CCWs there are the less crime there is. Hopefully the reciprocity law will pass next year, then this won't be an issue. Glad I joined this forum.

 

[ljnowell]

After 20+ years of working nights, weekends, holidays for low pay and putting up with an untold amount of BS, any LEO with a good record and retired honorably should be given some minor consideration. They are firearms qualified and know the law.

But those of us in the private sector who spent as long or longer working weekends, holidays, and nights for low pay and an untold amount of BS dont deserve the right to protect ourselves across america?

No matter how you cut it, it stinks. Most of the locals I know are no more qualified with a firearm than anyone else. I guess thier life is just worth more than someone else, huh?

 

[RobMoore]

You're preaching to the choir. The people who make these laws don't think the way you do. Has anyone here said you shouldn't have the right to carry?

 

[Loyalist Dave]

Agreed...It is becomming us v. them.

It's OK

We're better armed.

Wanna bet? Why do you assume that simply because you have something "better" than what is issued, that the LEO community limits themselves to one firearm?

AND it's not "US" vs. "THEM". Geeesh I get so freakin' tired of this sort of drek..., again assuming that since somebody once was sworn as a officer/deputy/trooper, they are somehow mindless minions of the State, and agree with any and all legislation that comes out. Even if you take a very unscientific approach and get to know a few cops, you will hear them tell of how upset they are about the laws and what they are required to do. Sure, some will enforce anything..., and a big chunk of the population voted in a Socialist to the White House.

I laughed in his face and told him that I was better trained and spent more time around firearms than 99% of the cops out the

And that is based on what study? OR why do you seem to infer that your level of training is what is the norm for hundreds of millions of Americans?

Actually, the valid reason for retired LEO to be able to get CCW permits where it is harder or impossible for the standard citizen to obtain such, is that LEO's routinely make mortal enemies of criminals, who then finish their sentences, are incorrectly released/pardoned, or escape. The LEO and family are then possible targets. Now it is true that financial industry types or insurance folks might have a similar scenario, but the frequency of contact with violent criminals is much higher for the LEO, so much more likely. It is though, rare, in this country, for such to occur, for the time being.

With that being said, folks are right, that all states should be "show cause" states. I have always felt safer in areas where the locals could, and often did, carry, open or concealed.

Oh and FYI my very first oath, was To protect and defend the Constitution of The United States, against all agressors, foreign and domestic, from which I was never released, and yes we are rapidly identifying domestic agressors (imho), and they aren't cops nor the military, nor are they citizens who own firearms.

LD

 

[danbrew]

And that is based on what study? OR why do you seem to infer that your level of training is what is the norm for hundreds of millions of Americans?

(This is where I blow up my chest, stand on my soapbox, and thump my chest...) I go through well over 10,000 rounds a year in practice, and easily 1/2 of that again formal training programs. True, though, I have no idea whether most police do the same - I'm only guessing. Nothing scientific about my statement at all.

Actually, the valid reason for retired LEO to be able to get CCW permits where it is harder or impossible for the standard citizen to obtain such, is that LEO's routinely make mortal enemies of criminals, who then finish their sentences, are incorrectly released/pardoned, or escape. The LEO and family are then possible targets.

This is a pretty good point - and I agree with you. Yet, as you also indicate, other people can have mortal enemies or just flat out run into crazy people. Although I probably said this earlier, I'm not at all saying retired LEOs shouldn't have the right to carry - I'm simply saying that the rest of us should enjoy the exercise of that right as well. Just give me the same rights you give another citizen. Trust me based upon my past behavior - not how you think I may misbehave in the future. And this "us" vs. "them" thing isn't coming from the "citizen" side of the equation, btw.

 

[Inalienable Right]

I will put this out there first and foremost. I am NOT a "cop" basher. I AM a "corrupt cop" basher. But we will address that some other time.

You supposeded Law Enforcement Officer types need to go back to school and take Constitution 101 over again. This LEOS Act gives you nothing in the fifty States of the Union. This is an Act of Congress and signed by the Pressident in strick compliance to the Constitution of 1787. That means it only has authority where the Congress of the Union was given authority.

cite:
ARTICLE I
Section 1. Legislative powers; in whom vested
All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

cite:
ARTICLE I
Section 8. Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have the power
17. To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings: And,
18. To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

No where in the document did the States grant the Congress authority over anything in their souvereign countries. The reason I bring this up is all you federal guys would be in violation of whatever State law if you are using the federal law as your cover. Let me put it this way. If you are on oh say Fort Bragg and you as a federal retiree want to carry, well, no problem. You would be in compliance with the law. However the moment you stepped foot outside the gate into the State and off the federal enclave the county Sheriff or his boys should cuff you and stuff you for a couple day stay at the local county spa. The county Sheriff being the highest elected Peace Officer in the State should be protecting the citizens from seditious acts of a few.
Sedition being crimes against the Constitution.

I know the boiler pressure is rising in some of you who "can't handle the truth". Think about what would happen if a non-federally associated citizen was found on the federal reservation with a gun. The MPs, SPSs and whatever else police, heck mail police, would call out reinforcements and have the person in a brig awaiting a hearing with the federal magistrate on duty.

Now if I were a County Sheriff answerable to my constituents I would uphold their rights according to the organic laws of the union and uphold their rights that they naturally have held since the beginning of time. Any peaceable citizen would allowed to exercise their right to self defense without being questioned. Any peaceable citizen would be able to exercise their right to choose the tools of their self defense. Lastly, Any peaceable citizen would be allowed to choose the manner of carrying that tool meaning concealed or open. If you were one mine you would be the first one in the can for violating a fellow citizens rights under the color of law.

Notice I did not state a "law abiding citizen". That is a trap set up by the socialists of the twentieth century and their LEO lap dogs to diminish the natural born rights held by the people as written about in the Declaration of Independence and turn them into privileges granted by some arbitrary legal fiction called government.

Oh and before you fellow-citizen haters start the flame throwers. The cops started the us/them war when they started to call non-cop types civilians as a class different from anybody wearing a shiny badge. If you are not in the military in some capacity you are a civilian too. A cop (a non-corrupt cop) friend mine from years ago told me this about most of you. He said, "Most cops believe there are three kinds of people. Cops, bad guys, and bad guys who just haven't been caught yet.". Then he asked me to figure out which one I was. Hint. It wasn't the first two choices.

See you in two months. It's back to Afganistan for me.

 

[glockman19]

Actually, the valid reason for retired LEO to be able to get CCW permits where it is harder or impossible for the standard citizen to obtain such, is that LEO's routinely make mortal enemies of criminals, who then finish their sentences, are incorrectly released/pardoned, or escape. The LEO and family are then possible targets. Now it is true that financial industry types or insurance folks might have a similar scenario, but the frequency of contact with violent criminals is much higher for the LEO, so much more likely. It is though, rare, in this country, for such to occur, for the time being.

I have put people in jail too. Some were repeat offenders. Don't I deserve the same ability to protect myself and my family other than to call 911?

Nice try.

I am required now to report suspicious financial activity. I have been required to take money laundering courses as continuing education to keep and renew my license. These people are absolutely positively capable of paying someone, anyone to harm me and my family.

In some way or form we are all responsible for policing our Profession, Industry, city and neighborhood. It is only the elected politician that feels we the ones that put them there are not worthy. Perhaps because we have become a tyranical government and they are just protecting themselves from our constitutional mandated removal process.

 

[MisterMike]

I'll confess that I'm LEOSA-certified retiree, and I'm personally happy that I have the breadth of options that I have. I lament the fact that many others don't, and to that end I support the NRA, the ISRA, and actively lobby my elected representatives to expand gun rights. Frankly, most of the active and retired LEOs I know are strong advocates of the RKBA.

As with almost any legislation, the LEOSA was the result of compromise and horse trading, and it took years to get it enacted. It isn't perfect, but there are a couple of things worth noting:

One of the rationales for the law was the fact that LEOs tend to be at somewhat higher risk than the normal Joe or Jane since we often have been responsible for putting offenders behind bars. Frankly, that's at least part of the reason why I availed myself of the opportunity to obtain state certification. I don't have any greater moral right to self-protection, but I do believe that most LEOSA-qualified folks are arguably at greater risk.

However, one of the reasons behind the enactment of the law was the very notion that all RKBA advocates continue to argue in pushing for laws recognizing the right to carry--the legislative history expressly recognizes the fact that the police can't be everywhere and protect everybody. The enactment of LEOSA required a fair number of legislators, included entrenched anti-RKBA types, to buy into the notion that a more broadly-armed populace enhances public safety. I think this really did represent a step in the right direction that ultimately benefits the RKBA movement, and not just cops and former cops.

I understand the disappointment of many that we don't all have these rights, but it does seem to be counterproductive to bash those who do. It seems to me that any incremental expansion of the right to carry a gun is ultimately a step that benefits us all. Those who want to expand gun rights should not be decrying the LEOSA; they should be pointing to it as yet another illustration of how rational and effective gun rights can be in deterring violence.

 

[481]

Mike,

Well said.

I am also a LEOSA-certified retiree.

The arguments that other non-LE professionals and laborers espouse, fails to recognize the fact that in and over the course of our LE careers we acquire many "enemies" of the sort that the average citizen will never make.

The "average citizen" employed employed in either sector (public or private) will likely never detain, search, arrest (possibly forcibly), transport, charge, book, testify against and eventually incarcerate another person in the course of their career or in their entire life.

These professional actions tend to anger (often permanently) those recipients of such treatment and sometimes (though rarely) those folks seek us out with out lethal intent, sometimes years afterwards.

I agree with what you said here:

I understand the disappointment of many that we don't all have these rights, but it does seem to be counterproductive to bash those who do. It seems to me that any incremental expansion of the right to carry a gun is ultimately a step that benefits us all. Those who want to expand gun rights should not be decrying the LEOSA; they should be pointing to it as yet another illustration of how rational and effective gun rights can be in deterring violence.

The LEOSA of 2004 was (and is) a step in the right direction and it was the correct thing to do for those who (continue to) pay the price of keeping order in our society long after that professional responsibility has ended.

 

[sfc_mark]

Of course there is an element of divide and conquer involved here.

In the movement for national concealed carry, we had a fair number of active/retired LEOs, who are largely respected by legislators. By granting this subgroup the carry rights they are looking for, you largely end their activism on the subject (they have theirs, they can spend their lobbying money elsewhere, on issues that still affect them).

Those of us left out have lost an influential lobbying ally, and now there's a wedge (us vs. them) driven between at least portions of the two groups.

The LEOs feel compelled to defend the privilege (which should have been a right) granted them, while the rest resent being relegated to second-class status.

Buying in to the us vs. them argument doesn't help our side at all, but ultimately, I think throwing the LEOs a bone probably helped the antis more than it did us. I suspect LEOSA effectively took the majority of LEOs out of the active fight for universal concealed carry (and I'm talking about what they actually DO, not how they feel about it).

 

[.45&TKD]

The arguments that other non-LE professionals and laborers espouse, fails to recognize the fact that in and over the course of our LE careers we acquire many "enemies" of the sort that the average citizen will never make.

The "average citizen" employed employed in either sector (public or private) will likely never detain, search, arrest (possibly forcibly), transport, charge, book, testify against and eventually incarcerate another person in the course of their career or in their entire life.

These professional actions tend to anger (often permanently) those recipients of such treatment and sometimes (though rarely) those folks seek us out with out lethal intent, sometimes years afterwards.

And law enforcement is always surprised when witnesses don't wish to testify.

 

[ilbob]

The constitution just does not give congress the power to do this.

The NRA made a deal with the devil to get this. IMO, the police unions laid a major scam on the NRA to get this passed by making some claim of future support for actual RTC, as opposed to limited privilege to carry for a select few.

Its doubtful that the average citizen will ever gain anything out of this unholy and immoral arrangement.

 

[481]

And law enforcement is always surprised when witnesses don't wish to testify.

It is one of many, but not the only reason, that victims and witnesses refuse or fail to testify.

So your point is that this right, conferred upon a potential witness, will increase victim/witness compliance?

Highly unlikely.

 

[ljnowell]

I am also a LEOSA-certified retiree.

The arguments that other non-LE professionals and laborers espouse, fails to recognize the fact that in and over the course of our LE careers we acquire many "enemies" of the sort that the average citizen will never make.

The "average citizen" employed employed in either sector (public or private) will likely never detain, search, arrest (possibly forcibly), transport, charge, book, testify against and eventually incarcerate another person in the course of their career or in their entire life.

These professional actions tend to anger (often permanently) those recipients of such treatment and sometimes (though rarely) those folks seek us out with out lethal intent, sometimes years afterwards.

Thats still not a good enough excuse. This allows anyone who put in the required time as a cop to carry. The level of rampaging violence against retired officers is hardly something to be mentioned. When was the last time you read about a retired officer being attacked years later by someone they put away? Least of all in a state across the country from where it hapened?

The "average" police officer will never have to deal with being retired and having someone track them down, just like the "average citizen" in your post. However, the average citizen will spend a career or lifetime unarmed and dealing with the same thugs that the armed police do. Seems totally fair.

It stinks. Plain and simple. More class warfare and elitism is all it is.

 

[481]

Of course there is an element of divide and conquer involved here.

In the movement for national concealed carry, we had a fair number of active/retired LEOs, who are largely respected by legislators. By granting this subgroup the carry rights they are looking for, you largely end their activism on the subject (they have theirs, they can spend their lobbying money elsewhere, on issues that still affect them).

Those of us left out have lost an influential lobbying ally, and now there's a wedge (us vs. them) driven between at least portions of the two groups.

The LEOs feel compelled to defend the privilege (which should have been a right) granted them, while the rest resent being relegated to second-class status.

Buying in to the us vs. them argument doesn't help our side at all, but ultimately, I think throwing the LEOs a bone probably helped the antis more than it did us. I suspect LEOSA effectively took the majority of LEOs out of the active fight for universal concealed carry (and I'm talking about what they actually DO, not how they feel about it).

This, broadly sweeping generalization, like most others, presumes that a certain group acts in a certain manner or holds certain views without any of the proof requisite or necessary to support the predicate argument and like the vast majority of such generalizations; it is simply untrue.

 

[pbearperry]

For many years the LEOSA bill along with the right for everyone to carry in all 50 states has been in the making.Some of the biggest antis against both bills were Ted Kennedy & John Kerry.Kennedy was quoted "How do we know they won't carry hand grenades"(meaning the Cops)IN fact while Kerry was running for President,this was the only bill I believe that he bothered to show up for to try to defeat it.
Last year the right to carry Bill for everyone was just barely defeated to both the dismay of many and glee to many others who troll in these gun forums.It seems there are just some folks that will never be satisfied.I personally don't care where the right comes from,Fed,or states.
As a retired LEO do I want to see everyone included,the answer is yes.Maybe next year it will pass?Do I feel as though I am more important?The answer is no.I firmly believe if 9-11 did not happen,the LEOSA bill would still be not signed.Lastly,I surely would love to see the cop bashing stop,but it never will for many reasons.All I can say is I am glad I am retired after 32 years of dealing with the Public.It was not a walk through the tulips.

 

[481]

Thats still not a good enough excuse. This allows anyone who put in the required time as a cop to carry. The level of rampaging violence against retired officers is hardly something to be mentioned. When was the last time you read about a retired officer being attacked years later by someone they put away? Least of all in a state across the country from where it hapened?

It was not an excuse, it was an explanation and it stands whether you agree with it or not. I am actually aware of several incidents that exemplify my stance, however, I doubt that given the tenor of your post, you'd accept them as factual and that is simply not something that I am concerned enough to deal with.

The "average" police officer will never have to deal with being retired and having someone track them down, just like the "average citizen" in your post. However, the average citizen will spend a career or lifetime unarmed and dealing with the same thugs that the armed police do. Seems totally fair.

The sarcasm underlying your statements above ("Seems totally fair."), hints at anger ruling your thoughts and effecting your argument. Citizens are, in many States able to obtain licensure that would allow them to be armed and can usually do so with little more effort than taking a few classes and some cursory training.

It stinks. Plain and simple. More class warfare and elitism is all it is.

So much anger. Too much of this :banghead: isn't good for anyone. I hope that you feel better soon.

 

[ljnowell]

It was not an excuse, it was an explanation and it stands whether you agree with it or not. I am actually aware of several incidents that exemplify my stance, however, I doubt that given the tenor of your post, you'd accept them as factual and that is simply not something that I am concerned enough to deal with.

Cop out. Post it or dont talk about it. Otherwise its more garbage. Convince me.

The sarcasm underlying your statements above ("Seems totally fair."), hints at anger ruling your thoughts and effecting your argument. Citizens are, in many States able to obtain licensure that would allow them to be armed and can usually do so with little more effort than taking a few classes and some cursory training.

And that permit allows the citizen to carry in all 50 states? States allowing CCW does nothing to change the fact that this bill is elitism as its best.

So much anger. Too much of this isn't good for anyone. I hope that you feel better soon.

You must be psychic also. To be able to read anger across the internet from plain text. Insulting and implying your feelings doesnt change an argument.

Provide your evidence in support of, or dont, but dont try to imply I have anger issues because we disagree, thats a childish thing to do.

 

[481]

Convince me.

Why waste my time?

You've made it clear, it is apparent to all but the most daft, that you are angered at the state of affairs. It is also equally clear by your "tone" that you are unlikely to change your point of view even if you were provided factual material.

You must be psychic also. To be able to read anger across the internet from plain text. Insulting and implying your feelings doesnt change an argument.

Provide your evidence in support of, or dont, but dont try to imply I have anger issues because we disagree, thats a childish thing to do.

Nope, not psychic.

Anyone reading the content of your prior post can witness your anger and frustration for themselves and see that you are just here to argue.

Take care, sir.

 

[ljnowell]

Why waste my time?

You've made it clear, it is apparent to all but the most daft, that you are angered at the state of affairs. It is also equally clear by your "tone" that you are unlikely to change your point of view even if you were provided factual material.

Typical internet cop-out.

Nope, not psychic.

Anyone reading the content of your prior post can witness your anger and frustration for themselves and see that you are just here to argue.

Take care, sir

Same as above.
I'm not sure if you realize this or not, but people dont always share your opinion. In which case they disagree. I am sure that in your experience, disagreement is always equal to argument, but that is not so. If you cannot disagree and post something to back up your viewpoint, then all you will ever do is argue. Dont accuse other people of arguing with you because you are not capable of stating evidence or backing up your claim.

Have a nice day!

 

[.45&TKD]

So your point is that this right, conferred upon a potential witness, will increase victim/witness compliance?

481, No offense.

I just meant to point out that rather quite randomly and suddenly, a non-LEO could find themselves in the same scenario you described for LEO's and have the same need for self defense that you described.

The laws should apply to everyone equally. Percentage chances of something happening have nothing to do with it. Not to mention that self defense is a God given right, rightfully put in our highest law of the land.

 

[481]

481, No offense.

I just meant to point out that rather quite randomly and suddenly, a non-LEO could find themselves in the same scenario you described for LEO's and have the same need for self defense that you described.

The laws should apply to everyone equally. Percentage chances of something happening have nothing to do with it. Not to mention that self defense is a God given right, rightfully put in our highest law of the land.

None taken.

I agree with all that you've said. Anything can happen.