Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 103

Thread: H.R. 6105 - LEOSA Reform Act

  1. #21
    Modding this sack of shit BehindBlueI's's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Midwest
    Quote Originally Posted by TC215 View Post
    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.
    Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.

  2. #22
    @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.
    Last edited by BigD; 06-25-2018 at 02:19 PM.

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by BigD View Post
    @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.

    Quote Originally Posted by TC215 View Post
    if they have the training and meet the requirements (lots of hoops to jump through).
    Quote Originally Posted by TC215 View Post
    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.

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by BehindBlueI's View Post
    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).

  5. #25
    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.
    My posts only represent my personal opinion and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or official policies of any employer, past or present. Obvious spelling errors are likely the result of an iPhone keyboard.

  6. #26
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Carrying in federal buildings would be nice, even if it was only in the National Parks, as would be carrying on trains and buses.
    Last edited by TheNewbie; 06-25-2018 at 07:51 PM.

  7. #27
    Site Supporter LtDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Central AZ
    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.
    The first indication a bad guy should have that I'm dangerous is when his
    disembodied soul is looking down at his own corpse wondering what happened.

  8. #28
    Member TGS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Back in northern Virginia
    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.
    Last edited by TGS; 06-25-2018 at 10:09 PM.
    "Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer

  9. #29
    banana republican blues's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Blue Ridge Mtns
    Quote Originally Posted by TGS
    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.
    Last edited by blues; 06-25-2018 at 10:29 PM.
    There's nothing civil about this war.

    Read: Harrison Bergeron

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by CWM11B View Post
    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?
    Last edited by KeeFus; 06-26-2018 at 05:07 AM.

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
  •