LEOSA

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

I have a basic understanding of LEOSA. I was wondering if some of you more informed individuals out there could explain it a bit more to me.

Who is eligible?
What does it allow?
What are the "rules"/laws?
etc.
etc.
etc.

Like I said I have a basic understanding but want more info as I am looking to get into Law Enforcement within the next 2 years or so.

Thanks!

[gregthehand]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enforc ... Safety_Act

[chabouk]

I have a basic understanding of LEOSA. I was wondering if some of you more informed individuals out there could explain it a bit more to me.

Who is eligible?
What does it allow?
What are the "rules"/laws?
etc.
etc.
etc.

Like I said I have a basic understanding but want more info as I am looking to get into Law Enforcement within the next 2 years or so.

Thanks!

All your questions are answered in the law itself.

Who? An employee of a government agency who has statutory power of arrest and is authorized to carry firearms by the agency.
What? Carrying a concealed firearm, notwithstanding the laws of any state or political subdivision, except for state (not local) restrictions on carry on/in certain government properties; or, in violation of state laws that allow property owners to forbid guns from their private property.
Rules? You can't be intoxicated, and must carry your agency ID.

It's a very simple law, despite people's efforts to complicate it through endless "what if" games.

[chartreuse]

I can see how it would be useful for folks who are currently working and even for retired folks who go out of state a lot (especially to states that don't have reciprocity with us)

But for a retired LEO who mostly stays in state, or only visits states that have reciprocity with us, it seems like a TX CHL would be less hassle, on account of not needing to qualify with a handgun annually.

[Keith B]

I can see how it would be useful for folks who are currently working and even for retired folks who go out of state a lot (especially to states that don't have reciprocity with us)

But for a retired LEO who mostly stays in state, or only visits states that have reciprocity with us, it seems like a TX CHL would be less hassle, on account of not needing to qualify with a handgun annually.

However, other than the cost of qualifying if required, LEOSA is free. I think most locations don't charge for certifying the person, so you would only be out the cost of ammo.

[chartreuse]

I can see how it would be useful for folks who are currently working and even for retired folks who go out of state a lot (especially to states that don't have reciprocity with us)

But for a retired LEO who mostly stays in state, or only visits states that have reciprocity with us, it seems like a TX CHL would be less hassle, on account of not needing to qualify with a handgun annually.

However, other than the cost of qualifying if required, LEOSA is free. I think most locations don't charge for certifying the person, so you would only be out the cost of ammo.

Which you would be shooting anyway, as part of your regular practice regime.

OK - you convinced me it's better.

[Hoosier Daddy]

So much for equal protection.

[Keith B]

So much for equal protection.

What do you mean? Can you expand on your comment?

[Hoosier Daddy]

Retired cops are not active duty cops. They should not get rights denied to other retired people. If this is still America.

[Keith B]

Retired cops are not active duty cops. They should not get rights denied to other retired people. If this is still America.

Well, they really don't that much. They still are restricted to all carry locations like CHL's are. The only thing they get is a free qualification and license if they can fins someone to certify them for free. I personally have no issues with it; how would you like to have no capability to carry after you retired, when the guy you put in prison 3 years earlier is getting out and decides to retaliate now that you are no longer able to protect yourself. Now, CHL is OK, but LEOSA allows them to carry in other states that don't honor your state's license.

And yes, we should all have those rights, but let's face it,we currently don't, so if they get a little extra after committing their life to protecting ours, then so be it.

[chabouk]

Retired cops are not active duty cops. They should not get rights denied to other retired people. If this is still America.

Well, they really don't that much. They still are restricted to all carry locations like CHL's are.

Under LEOSA, neither active nor retired officers are restricted as to where they can carry, except for state laws restricting carry on/in certain government property, and private property that is posted off limits according to state law.

Active and retired officers can carry in 51% locations, at professional sporting events, and at parimutuel racetracks even though CHLs cannot.

[A-R]

Don't understand why someone would have a problem with this. I think it's a great law. It's a nice perk for ex-LEOs, but also a very necessary means of safety/security as Keith B aludes to. I don't mind when first-responder types and military get a few extra perks. For the most part, they deserve it. And those who don't were likely dishonorably discharged in some way.

If you want the same perks, then go wear a badge for a while.

[Gearheart]

Would this one do?

[joe817]

Oh good grief Gearheart!

[gigag04]

Retired cops are not active duty cops. They should not get rights denied to other retired people. If this is still America.

thugs don't care if you are retired. I get e-mails from our intel branch daily about TDC and Fed releases of prisoners - some have been away for 15-20 years. Many of their arresting officers have retired...I think they should still be allowed to protect themselves wherever they are.

In the NE and smaller states, many of these officers deal with out of state offenders, as people commute across state lines.

What does former peace officers being allowed to carry have anything to do with this being America? And why are you so upset?