Amend LEOSA to have 50 state carry?

[Midwest]

Amend LEOSA to have 50 state carry?


What is the feasibility of passing an amendment to the LEOSA law to include those who already have carry permits from some state? For instance, people in NJ can get Florida and Utah carry permits.

Positives

A proposal to amend LEOSA would mean....

There is no new law to sponsor, just an amendment to an existing law.

No new law that is dragged out, watered down, or hampered with restrictions.

The LEOSA bill is already in place.

The Feds don't get to run the permit system or issue permits.

The states continue to issue permits as they always have.

States rights are maintained.

Nothing changes, except a simple paragraph is added to the LEOSA bill to now include anyone who has a valid carry permit from any state.

Simplicity

The amendment proposal could read.....

"In addition, any person (including non retired LEO) who has a valid carry permit from any state can now also carry under LEOSA rules."


That is it.

Now that the Republicans have both houses, can we make this veto proof?

(Note:I would much prefer constitutional carry across the 50 states where there is no permit or required training, but I think it is unlikely for that to ever happen nationally. However this could work.)

This idea came about as I was reading some threads over at njgunforums. The talk was about the 'justifiable need rule' which makes carry in NJ a near impossibility. The rule in NJ is too vague and open to interpretation as well as an infringement on the Second Amendment. But something has to be done, maybe this is it?

I keep hearing these suggestions and proposals for a national carry law valid in all 50 states. I'm against the feds issuing carry permits period, it should be left to the states.

The idea of having the feds issue carry permits frankly is a bad idea. It could bring a host of new restrictions in the future. The point now, if one state is too restrictive one could end up moving to another state if they wished. If the Feds run the permit system, well ...we just can't leave the country if the Feds tighten the restrictions too much in the future.

By amending LEOSA, (a law that is already on the books) to now include law abiding citizens who have a valid carry permit (from any state in the U.S.) would avoid problems (and potential abuse) of the Feds issuing carry permits. Again, everything remains the same, the states still issue permits, the Feds don't get involved, all that is added to LEOSA to included those with valid carry permits from any state.
.

 

[Warp]

Don't want it. Bad precedent. State's Rights. Opens Pandora's box (I really don't want the Federal legislature or executive branch dictating carry laws).

That line towards the end..."the feds don't get involved"...rose colored glasses. Even if they don't immediately it would only be a matter of time. It might only be a matter of time anyway, but may as well not unlock the door for them.

NopeNopeNope

 

[splithoof]

For those who live in jurisdictions (like most counties in California) where they will likely never be able to obtain lawful CCW in their lifetimes, it is certainly better than what they have now. Can't blame them for wanting federal oversight, they are sick and tired of having been told "NO" for literally decades.

 

[Twiki357]

If I understand you correctly, it seems that would be the equivalent of mandatory national CCW reciprocity without any direct federal involvement or database.

 

[GRIZ22]

LEOSA is the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act. Adding non-leos makes it totally different. Any thing done on the federal level would require a new law.

 

[HorseSoldier]

Now that the Republicans have both houses, can we make this veto proof?

I doubt enough Repubs would vote for it to get it through both houses.

 

[Warp]

For those who live in jurisdictions (like most counties in California) where they will likely never be able to obtain lawful CCW in their lifetimes, it is certainly better than what they have now. Can't blame them for wanting federal oversight, they are sick and tired of having been told "NO" for literally decades.

If they are sick and tired of being told "NO" for literally decades they should fix their state's laws or they should move. They wouldn't even have to leave the state, just find a different county, perhaps. Though leaving the state sure seems better to me.

If I understand you correctly, it seems that would be the equivalent of mandatory national CCW reciprocity without any direct federal involvement or database.

How in the heck does the federal government dictate to the states what they must do without any direct federal involvement?

 

[Thermactor]

The King's Men should have no special privileges over the common folk.

 

[Steve in PA]

As already stated, LEOSA has its foundation in law enforcement. Non-LE affiliation would not fly. Also, LEOSA does NOT mandate that a department qualify its retired officers, so trying to have a non-LE acceptance into something that is a "maybe", would not be a good thing either.

 

[Warp]

The King's Men should have no special privileges over the common folk.

Sounds like you want to apply all firearms laws to the Secret Service the same as everybody else. That's not going to happen.

The LEO from rural Nebraska (or wherever) probably isn't one of the "king's men" so I don't really think your stated opinion is relevant to this law or this topic.

But I am guessing you don't think LEOs should have special privileges either (I don't think anybody should, no special classes period) which would seem to put you against LEOSA entirely. And I would agree with that. ALso, from a practical standpoint, maybe if cops had to disarm or risk felony charges and years in prison for crossing a state line, there would be more pressure for both reciprocity and Shall Issue.

 

[Steve in PA]

A better option would be getting the states to recognize other states carry permits, just like with driver's licenses.

Now, it's not as simple as that since every state must abide by a set of DL laws, which means testing, etc.

Some states, like PA has no testing for being able to carry a firearm, other than passing a background check.

 

[HexHead]

Sounds like you want to apply all firearms laws to the Special Service the same as everybody else. That's not going to happen.

The LEO from rural Nebraska (or wherever) probably isn't one of the "king's men" so I don't really think your stated opinion is relevant to this law or this topic.

But I am guessing you don't think LEOs should have special privileges either (I don't think anybody should, no special classes period) which would seem to put you against LEOSA entirely. And I would agree with that. ALso, from a practical standpoint, maybe if cops had to disarm or risk felony charges and years in prison for crossing a state line, there would be more pressure for both reciprocity and Shall Issue.

Police are first and foremost civilians, like the rest of us. They chose to do the job. They, and especially retired ones, shouldn't have any more privileges than any other law abiding citizen. As for you comment about "maybe there would be more pressure for both reciprocity and shall issue", one could only hope. Too many, and especially the administration types like the Chiefs, feel only they should have guns.

 

[Warp]

Police are first and foremost civilians, like the rest of us. They chose to do the job. They, and especially retired ones, shouldn't have any more privileges than any other law abiding citizen. As for you comment about "maybe there would be more pressure for both reciprocity and shall issue", one could only hope. Too many, and especially the administration types like the Chiefs, feel only they should have guns.

Yeah, we could hope, but it would probably just go back to the way it was prior to LEOSA, where LEOs looked out for each other (but not anybody else) by selectively enforcing weapons laws (not going to arrest another cop for committing a felony and carrying in a no-no state).

The answer is either for The People to change their own state's laws to Shall Issue (or better yet, no license required), then we can work on reciprocity. Even that isn't easy though. I still can't carry in South Carolina or Nevada or or or several other states because they either don't recognize anybody's or they get hung up on the training requirement. Which is stupid. I could provide proof of training that goes way beyond any state mandated requirement, and show my carry license, but nope, only if I have a carry license that required a low-level training course to acquire it.

Logical. /sarcasm

 

[Speedo66]

Yeah, we could hope, but it would probably just go back to the way it was prior to LEOSA, where LEOs looked out for each other (but not anybody else) by selectively enforcing weapons laws (not going to arrest another cop for committing a felony and carrying in a no-no state).

That certainly wasn't universal. Jersey cops would arrest off duty NY cops passing through, and NYC or Port Authority cops arrested anyone, cop or not, who had a handgun in NY without a local permit.

LEOSA is not that old, it happened under George W. Cops couldn't cross state lines without risk of arrest not that long ago. I benefit from LEOSA and wish there was universal reciprocity with state licenses.

 

[Madcap_Magician]

The feasibility is: low.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...The amendment proposal could read.....

"In addition, any person (including non retired LEO) who has a valid carry permit from any state can now also carry under LEOSA rules."


That is it.....

Really? That's it? Do you know what "LEOSA rules" are? Do you know what the law actually says?

The LEOSA is codified at 18 USC 926B (active LEOs) and 18 USC 926C (retired LEOs). 18 USC 926B reads:

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified law enforcement officer and 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, subject to subsection (b).

(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that—

(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or

(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.​

(c) As used in this section, the term “qualified law enforcement officer” means an employee of a governmental agency who—

(1) is 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 has 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);

(2) is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm;

(3) is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the agency which could result in suspension or loss of police powers;

(4) meets standards, if any, established by the agency which require the employee to regularly qualify in the use of a firearm;

(5) is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance; and

(6) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm.​

(d) The identification required by this subsection is the photographic identification issued by the governmental agency for which the individual is employed that identifies the employee as a police officer or law enforcement officer of the agency.

(e) As used in this section, the term “firearm”—

(1) except as provided in this subsection, has the same meaning as in section 921 of this title;

(2) includes ammunition not expressly prohibited by Federal law or subject to the provisions of the National Firearms Act; and

(3) does not include—

(A) any machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the National Firearms Act);

(B) any firearm silencer (as defined in section 921 of this title); and

(C) any destructive device (as defined in section 921 of this title).​

(f) For the purposes of this section, a law enforcement officer of the Amtrak Police Department, a law enforcement officer of the Federal Reserve, or a law enforcement or police officer of the executive branch of the Federal Government qualifies as an employee of a governmental agency who is 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 has 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).

18 USC 926C reads:

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified retired law enforcement officer and 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, subject to subsection (b).

(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that—

(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or

(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.
​

(c) As used in this section, the term “qualified retired law enforcement officer” means an individual 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; 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 subsection (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.​

(d) The identification required by this subsection is—

(1) a photographic identification issued by the agency from which the individual separated from service as a law enforcement officer that identifies the person as having been employed as a police officer or law enforcement officer and indicates that the individual has, not less recently than one year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, 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; or

(2)

(A) a photographic identification issued by the agency from which the individual separated from service as a law enforcement officer that identifies the person as having been employed as a police officer or law enforcement officer; and

(B) a certification issued by the State in which the individual resides or by a certified firearms instructor that is qualified to conduct a firearms qualification test for active duty officers within that State that indicates that the individual has, not less than 1 year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the State or a certified firearms instructor that is qualified to conduct a firearms qualification test for active duty officers within that State to have met—

(I) the active duty standards for qualification in firearms training, as established by the State, to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm; or

(II) if the State has not established such standards, standards set by any law enforcement agency within that State to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm.​

(e) As used in this section—

(1) the term “firearm”—

(A) except as provided in this paragraph, has the same meaning as in section 921 of this title;

(B) includes ammunition not expressly prohibited by Federal law or subject to the provisions of the National Firearms Act; and

(C) does not include—

(i) any machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the National Firearms Act);

(ii) any firearm silencer (as defined in section 921 of this title); and

(iii) any destructive device (as defined in section 921 of this title); and​

(2) the term “service with a public agency as a law enforcement officer” includes service as a law enforcement officer of the Amtrak Police Department, service as a law enforcement officer of the Federal Reserve, or service as a law enforcement or police officer of the executive branch of the Federal Government.​

It looks like there are an awful lot of rules there. So what rules, exactly, would apply to a private citizen?

• That the citizen carry a particular form of identification?
  
  
• That the identification the citizen carries complies with the requirements of 926B(d) or 926C(d)?
  
  
• That the citizen has qualified (and periodically re-qualified) with his firearm in accordance with 926B(c)(4) or 926C(c)(4)?
  
  
• Any other clause or provision which could be interpreted as a "rule" under the LEOSA?

So beyond the policy issued addressed by others, the proposed simple form of amendment would not do the job. The LEOSA was written to apply to LEOs and retired LEOs. Extending it to private citizens would entail an extensive rewrite.

 

[fastbolt]

Really? That's it? Do you know what "LEOSA rules" are? Do you know what the law actually says?
...
So beyond the policy issued addressed by others, the proposed simple form of amendment would not do the job. The LEOSA was written to apply to LEOs and retired LEOs. Extending it to private citizens would entail an extensive rewrite.

No kidding.

It was hard enough to get agreement at the federal level to pass it when the amount of LE training, knowledge of laws and periodic qualifications were being discussed. It would be mind-boggling to think about changing it from LEOSA to something more akin to LEOSA & NLEPCSA (non-LE private citizen safety act).

Besides, can you imagine the hue & cry that would result if private citizens suddenly found they had to adhere to this little section?

... 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;

Then, even if private citizen licenses/permits were suddenly accepted for such a hypothetical revision of the federal law, how about the couple of states permits aren't needed for concealed carry, or AZ, where a permit is optional? How about the people without licenses?

It would be mind-boggling to think of the possible ramifications that might be involved in an attempt at a federal law controlling CCW reciprocity.

As far as just getting states to agree on anything such far-reaching, I suspect a lot of folks aren't even aware of the trials and issues that were involved in trying to get the Driver's License Compact (DLC) & Non-Resident Violator Compact (NRVC), and then the Driver's License Agreement (DLA), up and running.

I also suspect many folks aren't aware of exactly what those agreements were created to do, in the first place.

Read the material under the tabbed headings in the link:
http://www.aamva.org/Drivers-License-Compacts/


DLA:
http://www.aamva.org/uploadedFiles/...bers/DLA Administrative Procedures Manual.pdf

I think some folks think getting national reciprocity would be as easy as the road (no pun intended) to the DLC, NRVC & DLA.

Good luck getting all the state's "firearms licensing depts" (for lack of a better term) to get together and agree on accepting the licenses and permits from everyone else. It's somewhat variable and subject to change, as it is, with the current reciprocity efforts. Notice the occasional disagreements on what's adequate training? That would be the biggest hurdle for gaining national agreement, I'd think. (And again, how about the ones who don't issue licenses & permits?)

Who knows what's in the future, though.

I'd also bear in mind the admonition to be careful what you wish for, because you might just get it.

 

[Midwest]

Since the proposal is not feasible, then please close the thread.
.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

I say no. We certainly don't need the Feral Government involved in anything that shouldn't even be an issue in the states. Clean up all the infringements instead.

Woody

 

[mister_murphy]

What is the feasibility of passing an amendment to the LEOSA law to include those who already have carry permits from some state? For instance, people in NJ can get Florida and Utah carry permits.

....................


By amending LEOSA, (a law that is already on the books) to now include law abiding citizens who have a valid carry permit (from any state in the U.S.) would avoid problems (and potential abuse) of the Feds issuing carry permits. Again, everything remains the same, the states still issue permits, the Feds don't get involved, all that is added to LEOSA to included those with valid carry permits from any state.

I doubt that it would be able to get enough support at the federal level. It took a fair amount of effort to get LEOSA passed in the first place. As far as the part in bold, and underlined above, that is something most people overlook.

First, while the majority of the states are shall issue when it comes to regular concealed carry, how many states when it comes to LEOSA, have both a system in place (laws, photo ID standard, qualification standard), AND a requirement that the various departments must issue the photo identification and must provide a means of qualifying annually those meeting LEOSA? There is no clear list on this, but a search of the issue on google shows that it is lagging behind somewhat best I can tell.

Also, if you look at the various state laws in reference to LEOSA, many have adopted the earlier version but failed to update the laws, as changes were made to the federal law over time, so there is the broken system of laws which would have to be corrected.

 

[ilbob]

how about we just get rid of LEOSA?

 

[Warp]

how about we just get rid of LEOSA?

Perfect

 

[Frank Ettin]

That's all, folks.