H.R. 6105 - LEOSA Reform Act

[TGS]

*If you're not a LEO and are butthurt, this thread isn't the place to bitch about you not having LEOSA*

I received this email today and wanted to share given FLEO obviously only represents a small fraction of LEOs throughout the US.

Write your reps, (https://www.usa.gov/elected-officials/) let's make it happen. The bill can be viewed here (https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/6105/all-actions?overview=closed#tabs). Note: the text isn't uploaded yet, but I guess there's the link for you to check back in the future.

I don't know how #6 is going to work out.


FLEOA has recently joined the fight for LEOSA reform with the introduction of H.R. 6105, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) Reform Act

You can see the bill here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/6105/all-info

This bill was introduced with the support and technical expertise of the Society of Former Agents of the FBI, Association of Former Agents of the US Secret Service and NYPD Sergeants Benevolent Association.

In summary, the bill looks to reform vagaries in the law in six areas:

1. The Federal Gun Free School Zone Act (GFSZA):

Current law does not exempt LEOSA personnel from carrying in so-called gun free school zones. In light of the horrible history of school shooters, it would seem prudent to allow law enforcement officers to be armed in and around schools.

2. The Common Carrier Conflicts:

LEOSA certified law enforcement officers don't have specific authorization to be armed on "common carriers." In light of the targeting of "common carriers" by terrorists and DHS preparedness mandate for emergency response personnel, it would seem an armed law enforcement officer aboard "common carriers" makes sense.

3. The National Park Rules:

Federal regulations prohibit weapon carry in a national park with no caveat for LEOSA certified officers. Since LEOSA is a federal law, it should apply on federal property.

4. Magazine Capacity Limitations:

Some states have instituted magazine capacity limits without proper caveats for law enforcement officers. This presents issues for officers crossing state lines and retiring with their duty weapon. It also contravenes the intent of LEOSA.

5. Qualification Standards:

Different states have different regulations with how retired law enforcement will qualify. This is again an area that states have filled in a LEOSA gap. The standards should be the same across the country and simplified.

6. Private and State Property Otherwise Open to the Public:

LEOSA allows private persons to ban weapon carry on their property and allows states to ban weapon carry on state property. If the purpose of LEOSA was to permit qualified law enforcement offices concealed carry waivers, having "patches" of application and non-application only diminishes the scope of LEOSA.


*If you're not a LEO and are butthurt, this thread isn't the place to bitch about you not having LEOSA*

[blues]

Yeah, I just got the email as well. I'll wait a bit and try to find out more before shooting off emails to Burr, Tillis and Meadows.

[Sherman A. House DDS]

This would be great. Especially the school caveat. Considering that one of the first responding officers at Parkland was off-duty, and doing work on the ball fields. He had to borrow a gun from a brother officer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Le Français]

#4 (The National Park Rules) is not quite right, methinks. Current federal law applies state law to the carrying of firearms in national parks. Some states have laws that mirror LEOSA. In such states, active and retired LEOs can legally carry in national parks without any additional state permits.

Not squarely addressed in the list above is the issue of off duty carry in federal buildings (whether a visitor's centre at a national park or a local post office).

[blues]

#4 (The National Park Rules) is not quite right, methinks. Current federal law applies state law to the carrying of firearms in national parks. Some states have laws that mirror LEOSA. In such states, active and retired LEOs can legally carry in national parks without any additional state permits.

Not squarely addressed in the list above is the issue of off duty carry in federal buildings (whether a visitor's centre at a national park or a local post office).

What I remember is very similar to what you're saying...I think I read that if the current or former LEO had a state license that had reciprocity with the state the Park was located within, then you were good to go as far as carrying within the park. I don't know about the structures, however. That's something I don't even remember reading one way or the other.

[LSP552]

Sure hope we can get this passed!

[TheNewbie]

Yea I think you can carry In a national park if you can carry in the state it's located in. I'm I wrong ?

What are common carriers ?

I'm not sure I agree with the private property thing. I love liberty and I love private property. Even if the people use it for foolish things or have stupid/ bad values.

As a whole , I really like it. Hope it works out.

[blues]

What are common carriers ?



Companies that transport passengers and / or freight.

[TheNewbie]

Companies that transport passengers and / or freight.

So Amtrak and Greyhound ? If we could carry on trains that would change my attitude towards taking a cross country train trip.

[Crusader8207]

I was thinking not the long ago the LEOSA needs an update. I will write my reps tomorrow.

[CWM11B]

Man, I hope this passes. NC has the most pain in the ass LEOSA requirements I've heard of anywhere. Curious as to how a national standard will be agreed to, given the territorial nature of many jurisdictions. Also want to see the mag capacity/hollowpoint deal go away. I have a general rule about leaving the sotheast, and lately north of Richmond is to much for me, but the wife has family and friends in occupied territory and is wanting to go visit. No way in hell Im treking up 95 without anything.

[jetfire]

Companies that transport passengers and / or freight.

If I had to pick one part of this bill that is going to put a bee in people’s bonnets and be the hardest part to get passed it will be this. I am all in favor of it obviously, but when people remember that airlines are common carriers, someone is going to shit bricks and those retards at the TSA will probably be opposed to it.

I’d love to see this get through though, love love love.

[blues]

If I had to pick one part of this bill that is going to put a bee in people’s bonnets and be the hardest part to get passed it will be this. I am all in favor of it obviously, but when people remember that airlines are common carriers, someone is going to shit bricks and those retards at the TSA will probably be opposed to it.

I’d love to see this get through though, love love love.


Yeah, I'm not sanguine about the chances of such receiving congressional approval. We shall see.

[Wayne Dobbs]

Phone call out to my Congresscritter. As for the common carrier issues, that one might go by the wayside, but if you have an NYPD entity on board that might create more leverage on this process.

[BigD]

when people remember that airlines are common carriers, someone is going to shit bricks and those retards at the TSA will probably be opposed to it.

I’d love to see this get through though, love love love.

The vast majority of active LEOs can't carry on planes, so I don't see them being allowed to carry on flights at retirement. Since we've only seen the executive summary, I wonder if flying armed is actually in the Reform Act since it seems like a non-starter and only increases the chances of the bill being derailed.

[LSP552]

Perhaps the common carrier provision is to require any common carrier to provide a firearm check baggage option. It’s my understanding that some trains/busses may not?

Agree that flying armed on the airlines likely isn’t going to happen.

[Beat Trash]

Addressing the magazine capacity limit is a huge step in the right direction in and of itself.

[TC215]

The vast majority of active LEOs can't carry on planes, so I don't see them being allowed to carry on flights at retirement. Since we've only seen the executive summary, I wonder if flying armed is actually in the Reform Act since it seems like a non-starter and only increases the chances of the bill being derailed.

The vast majority CAN carry on planes, if they have the training and meet the requirements (lots of hoops to jump through).

https://law.justia.com/cfr/title49/49-9.1.3.5.10.3.10.14.html

[BigD]

The vast majority CAN carry on planes, if they have the training and meet the requirements (lots of hoops to jump through).

https://law.justia.com/cfr/title49/49-9.1.3.5.10.3.10.14.html

The vast majority still CAN'T carry because they haven't had the training (and I’m not sure the vast majority would meet the requirements outside of training.). Non-Fed LEOs COULD if they have had the training and meet the following requirements:

For non-Feds---

(2) In addition to the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the armed LEO must have a need to have the weapon accessible from the time he or she would otherwise check the weapon until the time it would be claimed after deplaning. The need to have the weapon accessible must be determined by the employing agency, department, or service and be based on one of the following:

(i) The provision of protective duty, for instance, assigned to a principal or advance team, or on travel required to be prepared to engage in a protective function. (Very few meet this definition)

(ii) The conduct of a hazardous surveillance operation. (very few meet this definition)

(iii) On official travel required to report to another location, armed and prepared for duty. (Some will meet this if they need to have the weapon accessible from the time he or she would otherwise check the weapon until the time it would be claimed after deplaning. Pretty much you need to be flying for work and need to start working before getting to baggage claim. Worth noting that none of the retirees would meet this definition, which is probably a good thing for the purposes of getting the bill passed.

[TC215]

The vast majority still CAN'T carry because they haven't had the training (and I’m not sure the vast majority would meet the requirements outside of training.). Non-Fed LEOs COULD if they have had the training and meet the following requirements:

Yeah...that’s what I posted above. Just pointing out that basically any LE officer can, in fact, carry on an airplane when they meet the requirements.

I suspect that will not change any time in the near future.

I have no idea how many LEO’s have had the training or not. It is offered around here every year.

[BehindBlueI's]

I have no idea how many LEO’s have had the training or not. It is offered around here every year.

I'm almost 100% sure we can do it online through our e-training portal. I've had no call to use it, but that's what I recall.

[BigD]

TC215

I’m pointing out it’s more than just taking the training. You are supposed to have a need, and those needs are narrowly defined.

That’s a good thing for the passage of the bill, since it’s clear the powers that be don’t want every local yokel carrying a pistol on the plane. The sponsors of the bill can say, “Its not going to effect flying armed, as none of the retirees or off-duty cops will meet the needs requirements already established for flying armed.”

As Caleb pointed out, establishing blanket carry authority on commercial planes for everyone that falls under LEOSA will not go over well.

[TC215]

TC215

I’m pointing out it’s more than just taking the training. You are supposed to have a need, and those needs are narrowly defined.

That’s a good thing for the passage of the bill, since it’s clear the powers that be don’t want every local yokel carrying a pistol on the plane. The sponsors of the bill can say, “Its not going to effect flying armed, as none of the retirees or off-duty cops will meet the needs requirements already established for flying armed.”

As Caleb pointed out, establishing blanket carry authority on commercial planes for everyone that falls under LEOSA will not go over well.

Yes, that was this part of my original posts. But I think the horse has been beaten to death now and everyone gets it.


if they have the training and meet the requirements (lots of hoops to jump through).


carry on an airplane when they meet the requirements.

Anyway, it’s not hard to imagine why folks would not want LEOSA extended to airliners with places like Lake Arthur out there.

Plus, I’ve seen a lot of my co-workers shoot.

[TC215]

I'm almost 100% sure we can do it online through our e-training portal. I've had no call to use it, but that's what I recall.

That wouldn’t surprise me. There is not much at all to the training (PowerPoint).

[WobblyPossum]

I called my Congressman's office today and let my views be known. I'm urging everyone in my agency to do the same. When I see the corresponding Senate bill, I'll call my Senators and ask them to vote for that too.

[TheNewbie]

Carrying in federal buildings would be nice, even if it was only in the National Parks, as would be carrying on trains and buses.

[LtDave]

As for local le carrying on aircraft, I believe there has been a requirement to send a teletype to Homeland Security/TSA/Air Marshals via NLETS prior to the flight. This was in effect before I retired, so approaching 15 years now. Doubt any retired guy is going to make that happen. I’m pretty sure the only common carriers they are talking about are buses/trains.

[TGS]

Well, there's nothing actually in 49 USC 44903 that prevents local/state LE from having off-duty carry on flights. It's purely a policy matter, as the statute only mandates the Secretary manage a program detailing who/what/where/when/why. There's a lot of meaty stuff in that statute, so I'll leave it to you guys to read instead of me posting here....but the language of the statute actually is consistent with the idea, almost even encouraging it.

So, it's entirely within reason that local/state LE could be granted off-duty carry authorization on commercial flights. The flying armed system can use an overhaul anyways.....consistent with the meaty portions of that statute, let's institute 1) the 1-day Basic Aircraft Countermeasures class as mandatory, and 2) That the LEO shoot a minimum 255/300 on the FAMS qual, or equivalent score on a FAMS reviewed course of fire. Then, also consistent with the meaty portions of that statute, the authority to carry off duty (as long as the agency stipulates off-duty carry as within the scope of their duties) on commercial airliners be applied to any LEO....federal, state, or local.....who meets 1) and 2).

This is exactly the sort of thing that a coalition of LE organizations can effect change for. LEOSA itself sounded like a pipedream at one point in time and didn't just happen as a magical fart without people lobbying for it....

ETA: As I read the statute, I don't think retirees would legally be allowed unless the statute was amended. It requires a LEO be within scope of duties. Please post a correction if this is erroneous.

[blues]

As I read the statute, I don't think retirees would legally be allowed unless the statute was amended. It requires a LEO be within scope of duties. Please post a correction if this is erroneous.

I don't see that being altered, nor do I think it worth 'throwing the baby out with the bath water' over.

Better to fight for the gains that are realistically attainable, and which achieve the most good for the largest population of carriers under LEOSA's umbrella.

[KeeFus]

Man, I hope this passes. NC has the most pain in the ass LEOSA requirements I've heard of anywhere. Curious as to how a national standard will be agreed to, given the territorial nature of many jurisdictions. Also want to see the mag capacity/hollowpoint deal go away. I have a general rule about leaving the sotheast, and lately north of Richmond is to much for me, but the wife has family and friends in occupied territory and is wanting to go visit. No way in hell Im treking up 95 without anything.

Whats the rub with N.C. LEOSA?

[CWM11B]

The requirement for retirees to complete the entire inservice training program, to include an additional two hours of CCH permit type training. IMO, which I have expressed (to deaf ears), when combining the two to a retiree who, most likely, was the typical average training averse cop, there is a very real risk of a retiree out of the game for a while confusing the two and playing by 15A-401 (d)(2) when they have zero authority to do so. I am also of the opinion that there should be an OD/Retiree COF that is more reflective of reality and the spirit of the law. Requiring otherwise capable, but ageing and perhaps limited mobility/range of motion folks to go prone at twenty five yards with the typically carried compacts is not practical or relevant. Additionally, the burden of training and record keeping can be a real pain in the ass for the retiree's former agency. I did not have the time or resources to do it when I worked our range.

The attitude among some on the commision and in training and standards is "Get a CCH" which is fine as long as you remain in NC , since you are covered by 14-269, but leaving the state you are screwed if traveling to a place where there is no reciprocity. That got real dicey briefly when VA revoked the agreement a while back. As long as you are still sworn, it isnt a big deal. This question has been raised at pretty much every FI conference since LEOSA passed, and the answer from some has been borderline condescending.

[deputyG23]

Man, I hope this passes. NC has the most pain in the ass LEOSA requirements I've heard of anywhere. Curious as to how a national standard will be agreed to, given the territorial nature of many jurisdictions. Also want to see the mag capacity/hollowpoint deal go away. I have a general rule about leaving the sotheast, and lately north of Richmond is to much for me, but the wife has family and friends in occupied territory and is wanting to go visit. No way in hell Im treking up 95 without anything.
I feel your pain. My son lives in Baltimore and just moved out of downtown into Baltimore County. Been making trips on the weekend bringing up the last of his stuff from home and helping him there. My usual iron for those trips is either a G27 belt holstered or a 442 in the pocket. Glad he is out of bat shit crazy DA Marilyn Mosby's jurisdiction.
Whenever I retire, my LEOSA traveling guns will most likely be revolvers unless the law is amended. Don't want the hassles....

[KeeFus]

The requirement for retirees to complete the entire inservice training program, to include an additional two hours of CCH permit type training. IMO, which I have expressed (to deaf ears), when combining the two to a retiree who, most likely, was the typical average training averse cop, there is a very real risk of a retiree out of the game for a while confusing the two and playing by 15A-401 (d)(2) when they have zero authority to do so. I am also of the opinion that there should be an OD/Retiree COF that is more reflective of reality and the spirit of the law. Requiring otherwise capable, but ageing and perhaps limited mobility/range of motion folks to go prone at twenty five yards with the typically carried compacts is not practical or relevant. Additionally, the burden of training and record keeping can be a real pain in the ass for the retiree's former agency. I did not have the time or resources to do it when I worked our range.

The attitude among some on the commision and in training and standards is "Get a CCH" which is fine as long as you remain in NC , since you are covered by 14-269, but leaving the state you are screwed if traveling to a place where there is no reciprocity. That got real dicey briefly when VA revoked the agreement a while back. As long as you are still sworn, it isnt a big deal. This question has been raised at pretty much every FI conference since LEOSA passed, and the answer from some has been borderline condescending.

Ok, I'm tracking now and agree 100%. The retiree requirements are a bit of a PITA. Isn't there a FI conference coming up this year? I was in Salemburg last month and I think I heard something about one.

[CWM11B]

It should be in the fall, usually in October or late November. I go every year, even if its on my own dime. Worth it for the commision updates that you may otherwise not get

[blues]

It hasn't been a problem for me, at least not so far, here in western NC.

Every July I contact the sheriff's dept and agree on a date to meet the captain (and possibly some of the deputies) at the range. Run the 30 round daytime, followed by simulated night course for each of the guns I normally bring.

Bring the proof of qualification to the sheriff's office for notarization and then mail it off with a postal money order to Raleigh. One week later I have my certification card.

I hope the "new and improved" plan won't screw things up. But of course, it probably will. Sigh.

[TGS]

Bring the proof of qualification to the sheriff's office for notarization and then mail it off with a postal money order to Raleigh. One week later I have my certification card.

Is the proof of qualification a standardized form from the state?

[KeeFus]

It should be in the fall, usually in October or late November. I go every year, even if its on my own dime. Worth it for the commision updates that you may otherwise not get

Some Commission rules for in-svc firearms have already changed...We got word about a month ago.

I'm only about 20 minutes away from T&S...I'm thinking I need to start attending the quarterly Commission meetings. Looks like the next one is in August.

[blues]

Is the proof of qualification a standardized form from the state?

Yes. I either get one from the captain or I print one from the NC DOJ website before I go to qualify. Either way, it's the same document.

Send it in with payment and usually a document or two verifying my retired LEO status. (Which they "should" have on file but I send just in case.)

[medic15al]

Not an LEO but a (newly) retired paramedic and reserve police, And I agree with this as it is a good bill to cover the gaps. I never saw the inane reasoning of restricting LEOs from ammo/magazine that on duty locals can utilize.

[tcba_joe]

I really wish USCG CG-MLE would stop purposefully dragging it's feet. They've admitted on several occasions that we (certified boarding officers) are Fed LE and are eligible for LEOSA. But they have been pushing the timeline for implementation back consistently. Because we need a specific ID card, they get around not backing LEOSA by not issuing ID cards.

[jetfire]

I really wish USCG CG-MLE would stop purposefully dragging it's feet. They've admitted on several occasions that we (certified boarding officers) are Fed LE and are eligible for LEOSA. But they have been pushing the timeline for implementation back consistently. Because we need a specific ID card, they get around not backing LEOSA by not issuing ID cards.

That is hella dumb, especially when you consider that Active/Guard/Reserve military police across all the other branches are eligible for LEOSA.

[tcba_joe]

That is hella dumb, especially when you consider that Active/Guard/Reserve military police across all the other branches are eligible for LEOSA.

Exactly. CGIS (USCG investigative service) and CGPD (Post-certified base LEOs) are badged and covered. However, the USCG seems to imagine that LE is a secondary duty for all their BOs and treats us like we're an inconvenient reality. Not treating their BOs as LE turns into a spiral of people not taking it seriously which as time goes by they turn into leaders who don't take it seriously.

I know in the past there have been a few notable cases of CG BOs acting like clowns and taking their status to the most extreme. But instead of giving us better training and hammering the idiots they make the regs tighter on the rest of us.

[KeeFus]

Exactly. CGIS (USCG investigative service) and CGPD (Post-certified base LEOs) are badged and covered. However, the USCG seems to imagine that LE is a secondary duty for all their BOs and treats us like we're an inconvenient reality. Not treating their BOs as LE turns into a spiral of people not taking it seriously which as time goes by they turn into leaders who don't take it seriously.

I know in the past there have been a few notable cases of CG BOs acting like clowns and taking their status to the most extreme. But instead of giving us better training and hammering the idiots they make the regs tighter on the rest of us.

Coast Guard Boarding Officers are covered. If what you say is true USCG needs to unplug its head from its ass. While I hate to use Wiki as a reference...

“A number of other courts have held that Coast Guard boarding officers are qualified under LEOSA. In People against Benjamin L. Booth, Jr., Indictment No. 2007-940 (2007), a county court in Orange County, New York, dismissed a criminal charge against Booth, an off-duty member of the Coast Guard, who had been arrested for carrying a loaded handgun in a vehicle. The court held that Booth was authorized to carry a firearm while acting as a Coast Guard boarding officer, adding, "Although the proof at the hearing indicates that the defendant engaged in a violation of rules, regulations and policies of the United States Coast Guard by possessing a handgun for which he had no license, these violations do not act to lessen the scope of LEOSA as it is applied in this instance."

Another Coast Guardsman, Reserve Petty Officer Jose Diaz, was arrested for carrying an unloaded handgun in a vehicle in San Fernando, California, in November 2007, but the charge was later dismissed and Diaz won a $44,000 settlement from the city for false arrest. The Coast Guard has issued a formal directive to advise Coast Guard personnel of which Coast Guard personnel are considered to be covered by LEOSA, and the limitations of such coverage.[23]The first known criminal prosecution against an individual asserting concealed carry privileges under LEOSA occurred in New York in People v. Rodriguez, Indictment No. 2917 (2006).[22] Rodriguez was a full-time construction worker who was also employed as a Pennsylvania State Constable. He was arrested in New York City for criminal possession of a weapon. He testified in a hearing that he was authorized, qualified, and certified to carry a weapon in his state as a constable. The Court took judicial notice of the various Pennsylvania statutes that authorize constables to carry firearms, make arrests, serve process, and enforce the law. Upon applying LEOSA in terms of the known facts, the Court dismissed the charge against Rodriguez and held that he was covered by section 926B though constables are elected law enforcement officers and they lack government funding.[22]”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enforcement_Officers_Safety_Act

[TGS]

Exactly. CGIS (USCG investigative service) and CGPD (Post-certified base LEOs) are badged and covered.

Are the latter employed with statutory arrest authority, or Commander-derived apprehension authority like most DoD base police?

If the latter, that's a real burn given BOs have statutory authorities...

[tcba_joe]

I'll claim ignorance on the authority of CGPD.

As for the wiki article above, we all know about those incidents. CG-MLE is dragging its feet on the ID card issue that came about due to the most recent change. Basically, the BOs have no ID showing they're armed LE. All we have are CACs, which even civilian employees and non-LE personnel have.


When a BO transfers units, they don't bring their LE cert with them. Their new unit has to issue them a letter,and depending on the unit there may be increased standards to get that qual (like a small boat station BO transfering to a TACLET).

Dragging their feet on a simple ID card issue is par for the course. When I went through BO school we were told "its done and waiting for a signature". Then we got a new commandant and bam the date moved to the right.

But I'm a lowly JG...

[MDFA]

If you want to see how much LEOSA can be castrated check out NJ requirements for carry there..... what a clusterf k...

[blues]

Dragging their feet on a simple ID card issue is par for the course. When I went through BO school we were told "its done and waiting for a signature". Then we got a new commandant and bam the date moved to the right.

But I'm a lowly JG...

Homeland Security (DHS and its agencies) also has a less than stellar policy in regard to supporting LEOSA.

They may or may not issue an ID card for former agents, including those "legacy" agents from agencies which were merged and put under the DHS umbrella. It depends on how much bother it would put them through. (So, those poor souls who didn't request their "Retired" credentials upon separation can find themselves in a jackpot. Fortunately, I have mine.)

In no case will the department or its agencies be involved in qualifying their former agents. No way, no how.

I feel very fortunate to be able to contact the captain of my local sheriff's office by email or phone and arrange a date to qualify at a moment's notice.
(Plus they have invited me to shoot with them even when I don't required a qualification score to submit to the DOJ for my annual certification card.)

It's definitely a mixed bag, but it's what we've got and I'm happy to have it. Hopefully it can and will be better in the future.

[KeeFus]

It should be in the fall, usually in October or late November. I go every year, even if its on my own dime. Worth it for the commision updates that you may otherwise not get

I noticed on T&S webpage that the guy that was handling the Retired/218 stuff is not there anymore and the position is listed as vacant...

Maybe one of you retired dudes can get up in there and change it...?

[blues]

I noticed on T&S webpage that the guy that was handling the Retired/218 stuff is not there anymore and the position is listed as vacant...

Maybe one of you retired dudes can get up in there and change it...?

Is that the guy, Ed Z.? I bet it is because I tried to send him an email after I qualified yesterday and the email bounced back to me. (Yet his name and email is still listed on the DOJ site as the go-to.)

I wonder how long it will take to get the new certification card now...:rolleyes: (He usually had mine back to me in a week.)

I think I'll stay here in western NC, thank you very much. ;)

[psalms144.1]

In no case will the department or its agencies be involved in qualifying their former agents. No way, no how.My agency is the same. Absolutely verbotten for me to "qualify" retired agents under any circumstances...

[KeeFus]

Is that the guy, Ed Z.? I bet it is because I tried to send him an email after I qualified yesterday and the email bounced back to me. (Yet his name and email is still listed on the DOJ site as the go-to.)

I wonder how long it will take to get the new certification card now...:rolleyes: (He usually had mine back to me in a week.)

I think I'll stay here in western NC, thank you very much. ;)

Yea, him. I don't blame you for staying out west. I've been out to Boone and Asheville (shudder) the past two weekends getting a teenage driving diversion program started out there. It was nice but I was glad to see some flat land. We went to a place in downtown Asheville to eat a late lunch...I will never go back to downtown Asheville again. Finding a parking spot was a challenge then dealing with all the...locals...was more than this ole boy could take.

Maybe that spot will be open in 2.5 years. I'm close enough to their office to make it a 20 minute ride everyday.

[blues]

I rarely go to Asheville. And try never to have to go anywhere I need to park downtown.

Much more pleasant in my little neck of the woods about 40 minutes southwest. Next time you're in the area, see if you can swing by. You'd like it a lot better.

[Grizzly21]

I rarely go to Asheville. And try never to have to go anywhere I need to park downtown.

Much more pleasant in my little neck of the woods about 40 minutes southwest. Next time you're in the area, see if you can swing by. You'd like it a lot better.

Keefus is my training coordinator and fellow firearms instructor and he is a grumpy old guy. He really likes attending those rallies in downtown Asheville :rolleyes:

I have taught the HR218 course and the NC requirements need to be revised....qualify day and night and complete documentation and send to T&S unless your agency is willing to complete the qualification once you are retired.

[blues]

Keefus is my training coordinator and fellow firearms instructor and he is a grumpy old guy. He really likes attending those rallies in downtown Asheville :rolleyes:

I have taught the HR218 course and the NC requirements need to be revised....qualify day and night and complete documentation and send to T&S unless your agency is willing to complete the qualification once you are retired.

I always wondered if Keefus was just an agent provocateur. ;)

I've been doing just that, (my day and night quals via the local sheriff's office), for the last several years. Couldn't be more convenient.

NC DOJ messed up my current credential this month but the T&S Deputy Director who is, (I suppose), filling in for Ed Z. who retired, corrected it within a few days and sent out a new one. She seems to be very quick to respond to email or phone messages.

Federal agencies will not qualify their retired agents under any circumstances...and in some cases won't even support their agents with documentation to indicate they are retired LEOs. Sad.

Fortunately, those of us who retained their "retired" credentials can tell our former agencies to pound sand.

[KeeFus]

I always wondered if Keefus was just an agent provocateur. ;)



Yes, I stir the pot with a big boat oar. LOL! Its my only form of comic relief at work.

And I don't plan on any more trips to downtown Asheville. That place is a liberals paradise.

[Poconnor]

The wife and I visited Asheville a few years ago. The junkies, homeless and grasshoppers were in abundance. We left early.

[Hot Cereal]

Plus, I’ve seen a lot of my co-workers shoot.

^ This x100.

[the Schwartz]

Federal agencies will not qualify their retired agents under any circumstances...and in some cases won't even support their agents with documentation to indicate they are retired LEOs. Sad.

Fortunately, those of us who retained their "retired" credentials can tell our former agencies to pound sand.


I've seen this happen with municipalities/counties in my state. Fortunately there are options, namely OPOTA-certified training organizations, that will allow (for a nominal fee) retired-LE agents and officers to qualify in sponsored programs. I would encourage folks who find themselves in the position that you describe to look into such options; maybe ask around local LE agencies who out-source their training to such organizations.

As for those without retirement creds, not sure that much can be done about that.

[Crusader8207]

Just got this update. Looks like the "Common Carrier" portion has been removed.
15th CONGRESS

2d Session
H. R. 6105

To amend title 18, United States Code, to improve the Law Enforcement
Officer Safety Act.


__________________________________________________ _____________________


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

June 14, 2018

Mr. Bacon (for himself, Mr. Perry, and Mr. Rutherford) introduced the
following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

__________________________________________________ _____________________

A BILL



To amend title 18, United States Code, to improve the Law Enforcement
Officer Safety Act.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``LEOSA Reform Act''.

SEC. 2. IMPROVEMENTS TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER SAFETY ACT.

(a) Allowing Qualified Current or Retired Law Enforcement Officers
To Carry a Firearm in a School Zone.--Section 922(q)(2)(B) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (vi);
(2) by striking the period at the end of clause (vii) and
inserting ``; or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(viii) by an individual authorized by
section 926B or 926C to carry a concealed
firearm.''.
(b) Allowing Qualified Current or Retired Law Enforcement Officers
To Carry a Firearm on Property Open to the Public (including on
Amtrak).--Each of paragraphs (1) and (2) of sections 926B(b) and
926C(b) of such title are amended by inserting ``, except to the extent
that the laws apply to property open to the public'' before the
semicolon.
(c) Allowing Qualified Current or Retired Law Enforcement Officers
To Carry a Firearm in a National Park.--Each of sections 926B(a) and
926C(a) of such title is amended by inserting ``or any regulation
prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior pertaining to a unit of the
National Park System'' after ``thereof''.
(d) Allowing Qualified Current or Retired Law Enforcement Officers
To Carry an Ammunition Magazine of Any Capacity.--Each of sections
926B(e)(2) and 926C(e)(1)(B) of such title is amended by inserting
``and an ammunition magazine'' before ``not expressly''.
(e) Allowing Retired Law Enforcement Officers To Qualify for
Concealed Carry by Passing a State-Approved Qualification Course for
Retired Officers or a Course Needed To Obtain a Concealed Carry Permit
in the State.--Section 926C(d)(2)(B) of such title is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding clause (I), by striking
``active duty officers'' each place it appears;
(2) in clause (I)--
(A) by striking ``active duty''; and
(B) by striking ``or'' at the end;
(3) in clause (II), by striking the period and inserting
``; or''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(III) the standards set by the agency
referred to in paragraph (1) to carry a firearm
of the same type as the concealed firearm.''.
<all>

[blues]

Can't say I'm surprised if that's the case.

[WobblyPossum]

I'm also not too surprised based on our earlier discussions about how common carriers included commercial aircraft. I really hope this passes in its current form without being gutted.

[jetfire]

Even with Common Carriers removed, this bill would do a lot to remove some of the awful carve-outs from LEOSA.

[Newbie]

Can one of you North Carolina members advise me as to where I may be able to LEOSA qualify in the Asheville area. PM is fine if you don’t want to post specific info on the board.

[psalms144.1]

Can one of you North Carolina members advise me as to where I may be able to LEOSA qualify in the Asheville area. PM is fine if you don’t want to post specific info on the board.Paging Mr. blues

[blues]

Newbie

Who's this for Newb? You movin' outta Texas? (I mean we do have plenty of Mexican food locally and all...)

[Le Français]

blues, it’s Newbie vs TheNewbie


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[blues]

blues, it’s Newbie vs TheNewbie


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ah, thanks for that. My brain isn't operating on all cylinders before that first cuppa Joe.

Newbie...I'd contact the Buncombe County Sheriff's Office and inquire with them as a starting point. The completed paperwork, following qualification, has to be notarized and sent to Raleigh for issuance of a card from the DOJ which certifies that the individual qualified, the date the qualification is good until, and the firearms qualified with.

See the following link (https://www.ncdoj.gov/About-DOJ/Law-Enforcement-Training-and-Standards/Criminal-Justice-Education-and-Training-Standards/Training-Certification-Programs/Retired-Law-Enforcement-Officer-Firearms-Cert.aspx) for further information.

[KeeFus]

Ah, thanks for that. My brain isn't operating on all cylinders before that first cuppa Joe.

Newbie...I'd contact the Buncombe County Sheriff's Office and inquire with them as a starting point. The completed paperwork, following qualification, has to be notarized and sent to Raleigh for issuance of a card from the DOJ which certifies that the individual qualified, the date the qualification is good until, and the firearms qualified with.

See the following link (https://www.ncdoj.gov/About-DOJ/Law-Enforcement-Training-and-Standards/Criminal-Justice-Education-and-Training-Standards/Training-Certification-Programs/Retired-Law-Enforcement-Officer-Firearms-Cert.aspx) for further information.

Zaplosky retired. New guy named Derek Smith is handling retired credentials now...he should have a list of local firearms instructors who may be able to help you. Find him at this link:

https://www.ncdoj.gov/About-DOJ/Law-Enforcement-Training-and-Standards/Criminal-Justice-Education-and-Training-Standards/Contact.aspx

[blues]

Zaplosky retired. New guy named Derek Smith is handling retired credentials now...he should have a list of local firearms instructors who may be able to help you. Find him at this link:

https://www.ncdoj.gov/About-DOJ/Law-Enforcement-Training-and-Standards/Criminal-Justice-Education-and-Training-Standards/Contact.aspx

I was wondering when they'd remove Ed's name from the web page. I was assisted by a deputy director named Schilling when I qualified in July. She was quite helpful in straightening out an error as well.

[Newbie]

Thanks for the info gentlemen. I tried emailing Zaplosky but the email was returned. Makes sense now that you mentioned he retired.

Someone told me that Buncombe County Sheriff’s Office will not qualify retired personnel, but I will call to find out for sure.

Can you explain to me, or offer your opinions as to why the F-9R qualification form needs to be sent to the state. The federal law is clear that the retiree merely needs to have proper retired ID, along with:

“(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.” (18 USC 926C)

My point is that a qualified firearms instructor will certify page two of the form in accordance with B, above, and as long as the retiree carries the signed F-9R along with retired ID, he or she should be in compliance with the law. Your thoughts?

[blues]

I agree that it would appear to meet the federal standard but having a card that fits into my credential wallet is a lot more convenient than folding up that 8x11 sheet and walking around with it every time I leave the house.

I just bite the bullet and send them their pound of flesh annually...and they send me back their nifty little card.

[Newbie]

I have an 8.5”X11” in my wallet now from my previous state of residence. I read that South Carolina does not issue a card, just an 8.5X11.

[blues]

I have an 8.5”X11” in my wallet now from my previous state of residence. I read that South Carolina does not issue a card, just an 8.5X11.

Well, you can be our test case. :cool:

The way I read the language, I think that you could more compellingly argue that if you shelled out money to a "state certified instructor" his validation would probably be sufficient.

On the other hand, the sheriff's dept. doesn't charge for the qualification, and though the range officer puts down his certification number on the document, the understanding (tacit as it may be) seems to be that you then mail the notarized document in to Raleigh with a money order.

I guess you can let us know what the state certified instructor tells you. (Don't make us send a money order to get the answer. ;))

[Newbie]

Blues, I was thinking all along that I do not want to be the test case....

[blues]

Blues, I was thinking all along that I do not want to be the test case....

Keep us posted if you find someone in your area, whether private or through the sheriff's dept.

If you are unable to find something satisfactory, PM me, provide me some info as to your name, former agency and the area you reside and I'll reach out to the captain on my sheriff's dept. who runs the quals and ask him if he can accommodate you. We're about 40 minutes southwest of Asheville...the range a bit further west. So figure an hour each way for travel.

Happy to help if I can.

[Newbie]

Blues, thanks for the info and the offer! I will keep you posted. Hopefully by mid week I'll have some answers.

[blues]

Blues, thanks for the info and the offer! I will keep you posted. Hopefully by mid week I'll have some answers.

You're welcome.

[TheNewbie]

blues, it’s Newbie vs TheNewbie


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

lol even I'm confused reading the posts.

[Newbie]

Earlier this week, I emailed someone at NC DOJ who is on the contact list Blues linked. Still waiting for a response. If I don’t hear back, I’ll make a phone call to them. Thanks again gentlemen.

[blues]

Earlier this week, I emailed someone at NC DOJ who is on the contact list Blues linked. Still waiting for a response. If I don’t hear back, I’ll make a phone call to them. Thanks again gentlemen.

Credit where credit is due, it was KeeFus that provided the link to that list of names.

You might try sending an email or calling the number for M. Schilling on that list. She was very helpful when I had a matter needing resolution back in July.

Keep us posted.

[Newbie]

I stand corrected. Thanks for the link KeeFus.
I will try M. Schilling next.

[KeeFus]

I stand corrected. Thanks for the link KeeFus.
I will try M. Schilling next.

I've had to speak with her once over a separate issue and she was very helpful. I ASSuME the new guy is still getting his wheels under him because he has only been in that position like a month or so.

[Newbie]

Deputy Director Schilling referred me to the Asheville PD Training Unit. I’ll let you know how this works out. Thanks again for providing the contact list and recomennding I contact her.

[Newbie]

Stoppng by the local PD and the BCSO was on my to do list had I not come across this thread....So as of now, they still are!

[Catshooter]

I'm not LEO, so please pardon my ignorance if any.

I don't follow why a retired cop would need to qualify under this law. They have qualified many, many times in the past so wouldn't it be superfluous?

I know most cops aren't gun guys, but still.


Cat

[jlw]

I'm not LEO, so please pardon my ignorance if any.

I don't follow why a retired cop would need to qualify under this law. They have qualified many, many times in the past so wouldn't it be superfluous?

I know most cops aren't gun guys, but still.


Cat

The primary reason is that the qualification is required under the law...

[Wayne Dobbs]

And that annual qualification requirement will show us when somebody's health, eyesight and/or mental acuity has dropped too far to be carrying a gun everywhere.

[Catshooter]

I knew it was required under the law, that is what I was questioning.

And I see your point Mr. Dobbs, but I also see it as another door for infringement. It sounds reasonable, but 'reasonable' but "Sorry Mr. Hanson but your eyesight is only 20/25 so . . ." And the mental health is much more subjective.

Oh well. It's a better law than the one before (none).


Cat

[Wayne Dobbs]

I knew it was required under the law, that is what I was questioning.

And I see your point Mr. Dobbs, but I also see it as another door for infringement. It sounds reasonable, but 'reasonable' but "Sorry Mr. Hanson but your eyesight is only 20/25 so . . ." And the mental health is much more subjective.

Oh well. It's a better law than the one before (none).


Cat

It's already a privilege law, not a right. I say that because there is no requirement for an agency to grant LEOSA carry credentials to any retired officers at all. The law says they "may" do so, not must do so.

[Joe Mac]

Well...

With the House changing hands, is this dead? Anyone have some insight?

[LSP552]

Well...

With the House changing hands, is this dead? Anyone have some insight?

No insight, but in a House where guns are bad/common sense gun control (insert sarcastic thingy) I’m afraid it will be. I just don’t see a Nancy House voting for anything that could be remotely seen as pro gun/pro LE. Hope I’m wrong.....

[Joe Mac]

No insight, but in a House where guns are bad/common sense gun control (insert sarcastic thingy) I’m afraid it will be. I just don’t see a Nancy House voting for anything that could be remotely seen as pro gun/pro LE. Hope I’m wrong.....

I hope we're both wrong, because those were my thoughts exactly..

[Rex G]

No insight, but in a House where guns are bad/common sense gun control (insert sarcastic thingy) I’m afraid it will be. I just don’t see a Nancy House voting for anything that could be remotely seen as pro gun/pro LE. Hope I’m wrong.....

Well, FWIW, it was leftist legislators, such as, IIRC, Senator Barbara Boxer, changing their minds on HR 218, that finally got the LEOSA passed. With the events of September 11th, 2001, they finally saw it as a public safety and national security issue, independent of gun control.

Actually, both the left and the right, in their own ways, dislike LEOs. In Texas legislature, it has been Democrats who have actually helped us, at the LEO and PD level, with State Senator Whitmire and State Rep Turner being examples. Repugnantcans are all about “law and order,” but are not pro-LEO.

[blues]

Well, FWIW, it was leftist legislators, such as, IIRC, Senator Barbara Boxer, changing their minds on HR 218, that finally got the LEOSA passed. With the events of September 11th, 2001, they finally saw it as a public safety and national security issue, independent of gun control.

Actually, both the left and the right, in their own ways, dislike LEOs. In Texas legislature, it has been Democrats who have actually helped us, at the LEO and PD level, with State Senator Whitmire and State Rep Turner being examples. Repugnantcans are all about “law and order,” but are not pro-LEO.

Can't really argue with your observations, Rex.

Everybody hates LEOs until they need one. (Nothing new under the sun.)

[LSP552]

Well, FWIW, it was leftist legislators, such as, IIRC, Senator Barbara Boxer, changing their minds on HR 218, that finally got the LEOSA passed. With the events of September 11th, 2001, they finally saw it as a public safety and national security issue, independent of gun control.

Actually, both the left and the right, in their own ways, dislike LEOs. In Texas legislature, it has been Democrats who have actually helped us, at the LEO and PD level, with State Senator Whitmire and State Rep Turner being examples. Repugnantcans are all about “law and order,” but are not pro-LEO.

Great comments, as always Rex. I hope everyone sees it as a public safety and national security issue.

[TheNewbie]

Well, FWIW, it was leftist legislators, such as, IIRC, Senator Barbara Boxer, changing their minds on HR 218, that finally got the LEOSA passed. With the events of September 11th, 2001, they finally saw it as a public safety and national security issue, independent of gun control.

Actually, both the left and the right, in their own ways, dislike LEOs. In Texas legislature, it has been Democrats who have actually helped us, at the LEO and PD level, with State Senator Whitmire and State Rep Turner being examples. Repugnantcans are all about “law and order,” but are not pro-LEO.

What do you mean the Democrats are more pro-LE in Texas?

I may be missing something, and don't mean that sarcastically.

[Rex G]

What do you mean the Democrats are more pro-LE in Texas?

I may be missing something, and don't mean that sarcastically.

Well, the “blue wave” type of democrats are not pro-LEO, but many older democrats really were/are our best friends in in the legislature, in Austin. One, of course, Sylevester Turner, finally won a mayoral election, in Houston. Senator Whitmire sponsored, and worked for, plenty of legislation to make LEOs’ lives easier.

LEOs need decent pay and benefits, and good equipment. Conservatives love to make it hard on us, in these areas.

[blues]

Well, the “blue wave” type of democrats are not pro-LEO, but many older democrats really were/are our best friends in in the legislature, in Austin. One, of course, Sylvester Turner, finally won a mayoral election, in Houston. Senator Whitmire sponsored, and worked for, plenty of legislation to make LEOs’ lives easier.

LEOs need decent pay and benefits, and good equipment. Conservatives love to make it hard on us, in these areas.


That's always been an issue to wrestle with since I first began my LE career decades ago. The Dems generally were much more supportive of pay / benefits / pensions. The R's more likely to try to cut back on pay and pensions.

Even today my two R senators will smile and thank me for my service while telling me they intend to do what they can to undercut my pension and benefits. (Yet I still voted for them.)

Supporting Republican candidates is often like a "I know this is going to hurt me more than it hurts you" proposition.

[Rex G]

That's always been an issue to wrestle with since I first began my LE career decades ago. The Dems generally were much more supportive of pay / benefits / pensions. The R's more likely to try to cut back on pay and pensions.

Even today my two R senators will smile and thank me for my service while telling me they intend to do what they can to undercut my pension and benefits. (Yet I still voted for them.)

Supporting Republican candidates is often like a "I know this is going to hurt me more than it hurts you" proposition.

It is not just pay and benefits. The “conservatives” seem to think we can uphold “law and order” without vehicles, people to maintain those vehicles, equipment, fuel, etc.

The previously-mentioned State Senator Whitmire also worked for common-sense solutions to the criminal justice aspect, which generally meant being tougher on criminals, though first- and second-offense BMV was lowered to a misdemeanor. Until the blue wave, Democrats in Texas had not generally been known to be easy on criminals.

[willie]

As most know, Texas and all other southern states were one party states with the Democratic Party being the single party. This orientation can be traced to distain of the Republican Reconstruction Era after the Civil War. Southern Democrats opposed civil rights legislation and began to leave the party after passage of the 1964 Civil Rights legislation. Fiscal and social conservatism and Texas politics go hand in hand and did so during the one party years. Today it continues under the two party system. I do agree that today's Texas Democrats are more likely to vote for pay raises and benefits for municipal and state workers including law enforcement. In general they are perceived to be more generous with tax funds than are Republicans and are perceived to support tax increases more readily than Republicans. Some Texans say that demographics will kill us. From this statement, the reader might infer that these Texans point to the ever increasing number of citizens that will swell the ranks of the Democratic Party and will less likely support conservative beliefs. I'm a knee jerk voter who votes a straight Republican ticket. Doing so, I've helped elect a couple idiots and one or more incompetent politicians. Too, I may have voted for a few mean spirited persons. Perhaps things would be better for us if the two sides could argue and debate and hash out concerns in an effort to reach consensus. Everybody wants a raise and better benefits. Everybody wants a good pension. Nobody wants higher taxes. It's like this, "Don't gore my ox." You see, it's ok if somebody else's ox gets gored. That's mean spirited thinking.

[Crusader8207]

Just saw this regarding Hawaii. I travel to Hawaii regularly and have taken my gun each time.

https://defensemaven.io/bluelivesmatter/news/hawaii-says-cops-from-out-of-state-can-t-carry-guns-despite-federal-law-ah0-5IoSwUiKt7XeWyOuDw/?fbclid=IwAR2x2TNZgwYcSc-UCrnrzJZIm1SCkeQsroJFPFQUsbKhtTbX4VCz-JeeOR8

[jnc36rcpd]

So any issues? I suspect there has been little noise about Hawaii's anti-law enforcement and anti-Second Amendment stance because of its location. If Maryland or NJ pulled that crap, it would have been already challenged.

[Crusader8207]

So any issues? I suspect there has been little noise about Hawaii's anti-law enforcement and anti-Second Amendment stance because of its location. If Maryland or NJ pulled that crap, it would have been already challenged.

Personally no issues. One time when at Honolulu PD, I did have an officer tell me I was not allowed to carry it. I advised I was covered under LEOSA. He replied: “Good luck with that”. I continued to carry without incident. I even had the misfortune of being involved in a small traffic accident with my rental car with no issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk