Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 103

Thread: H.R. 6105 - LEOSA Reform Act

  1. #81
    I stand corrected. Thanks for the link KeeFus.
    I will try M. Schilling next.
    Last edited by Newbie; 09-27-2018 at 10:26 AM.

  2. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by Newbie View Post
    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.

  3. #83
    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.

  4. #84
    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!

  5. #85
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    South East South Dakota
    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

  6. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by Catshooter View Post
    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...
    I had an ER nurse in a class. I noticed she kept taking all head shots. Her response when asked why, "'I've seen too many people who have been shot in the chest putting up a fight in the ER." Point taken.

  7. #87
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Allen, TX
    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.
    Regional Government Sales Manager for Aimpoint, Inc. USA
    Co-owner Hardwired Tactical Shooting (HiTS)

  8. #88
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    South East South Dakota
    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

  9. #89
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Allen, TX
    Quote Originally Posted by Catshooter View Post
    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.
    Regional Government Sales Manager for Aimpoint, Inc. USA
    Co-owner Hardwired Tactical Shooting (HiTS)

  10. #90
    Well...

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

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •