Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 103

Thread: H.R. 6105 - LEOSA Reform Act

  1. #11
    CWM11B
    Member
    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.

  2. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by blues View Post
    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.
    Last edited by jetfire; 06-25-2018 at 09:55 AM.

  3. #13
    banana republican blues's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Blue Ridge Mtns
    Quote Originally Posted by caleb View Post
    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.
    There's nothing civil about this war.

    Read: Harrison Bergeron

  4. #14
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Allen, TX
    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.
    Regional Government Sales Manager for Aimpoint, Inc. USA
    Co-owner Hardwired Tactical Shooting (HiTS)

  5. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by caleb View Post
    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.

  6. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    East Greenwich, RI
    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.

  7. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    S.W. Ohio
    Addressing the magazine capacity limit is a huge step in the right direction in and of itself.

  8. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by BigD View Post
    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/title49/4...0.3.10.14.html

  9. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by TC215 View Post
    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/title49/4...0.3.10.14.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.
    Last edited by BigD; 06-25-2018 at 01:13 PM.

  10. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by BigD View Post
    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.

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
  •