Can retired NYPD cop get non-res LTCF

[Steve in PA]

Originally Posted by Qtrborecrazy

Ranger
I just had a talk this morning with a fellow shooter and friend who is retired NYPD. He just applied for his federal carry license being a retired LEO. He can carry any where in the USA. If you need more details I`ll get it for you. Any retired LEO can get it.

Qtrborecrazy

There is no such thing as a "federal carry license".

The LEOSA is not a federal carry license, but rather a law that recognizes qualified current and retired officers as being allowed to carry in any state.

[caldwelljoe]

You Betcha!

Notice how the NJSP COL says that active and retired officers are not immune under HR218, and further they do not have police powers, and are just "private citizens outside their jurisdictions? Hmmn?

What Congress did with HR218 was create a special class of citizen. Hell, I have permits that allow carry in about 37 states, why should they have more privileges than we do? Although I have New England covered with Mass, RI,ME, NH,CT> it's a PIA to have to apply. Our PA LTCF should be all we need.

Now that the USSC has affirmed our right to Keep&Bear arms, in time we too will have nationwide carry rights!

Originally Posted by Bruce

Personally, I find the LEOSA offensive; both politically and morally.

I am not anti-cop (read through my post history), but I am against any laws that create separate "classes" of citizens. With regard to the lawful carriage (bearing) of arms, the LEOSA creates two classes of American citizens:

1.) Cops (and retired cops) and
2.) Everyone the heck else.

Firstly, I do not subscribe to the idea that 'bearing arms' should ever be regarded as either a privilege or an entitlement. I believe that, as American citizens, we all have the Right to keep and bear arms.

I feel what the LEOSA does is further the idea that bearing arms (carrying firearms) is an entitlement reserved for one class of American citizen. This whole idea disgusts me.

Of course I feel that cops (and retired cops) should be able to carry firearms wherever they want legally. However, I also think that all law abiding citizens should have this Constitutionally protected Right respected throughout the country as well.

I am opposed to any statute or legislation that takes a Right, twists it into a privilege and an entitlement, then doles it back out to establish different classes of citizens. I find such things utterly appalling. I find such things patently un-American.
.

[1iarrowking]

Originally Posted by Bruce

Personally, I find the LEOSA offensive; both politically and morally.

I am not anti-cop (read through my post history), but I am against any laws that create separate "classes" of citizens. With regard to the lawful carriage (bearing) of arms, the LEOSA creates two classes of American citizens:

1.) Cops (and retired cops) and
2.) Everyone the heck else.

Firstly, I do not subscribe to the idea that 'bearing arms' should ever be regarded as either a privilege or an entitlement. I believe that, as American citizens, we all have the Right to keep and bear arms.

I feel what the LEOSA does is further the idea that bearing arms (carrying firearms) is an entitlement reserved for one class of American citizen. This whole idea disgusts me.

Of course I feel that cops (and retired cops) should be able to carry firearms wherever they want legally. However, I also think that all law abiding citizens should have this Constitutionally protected Right respected throughout the country as well.

I am opposed to any statute or legislation that takes a Right, twists it into a privilege and an entitlement, then doles it back out to establish different classes of citizens. I find such things utterly appalling. I find such things patently un-American.
.

I don't usually add to my post count with a quickie agreement post but this time I will make an exception. What he said plus 1.

[Qtrborecrazy]

BSI
Thanks for saving me the trouble of asking my buddy about getting the info for retired LEO to carry concealed. Like I said we were just talking about it.
Steve In Pa.
What do you call H.R. 218? If this does not give retired LEO the right to carry in the good ole USA what would you call it? I`m not being a smart ass either!

Qtrborecrazy

[policemedic]

Originally Posted by Qtrborecrazy

BSI
Thanks for saving me the trouble of asking my buddy about getting the info for retired LEO to carry concealed. Like I said we were just talking about it.
Steve In Pa.
What do you call H.R. 218? If this does not give retired LEO the right to carry in the good ole USA what would you call it? I`m not being a smart ass either!

Qtrborecrazy

We call it HR 218, or LEOSA. In fact, my former department's retiree ID cards now state 'LEOSA AUTHORIZED' on the front and the back has a statement making it clear the officer is a 'qualified retired law enforcement officer' under the relevant section of the Act.

What amazes me is that so many people have so much difficulty understanding what is in essence a very simple law.

Even here, there is misinformation being promulgated.

To clarify-
1.A NYPD retiree cannot live outside NY state and return there to qualify. If he lives in any other state, he must qualify to that state's standards. That qualification/certification must be issued by the State (through a duly constituted law enforcement agency). This means that although many private instructors are making a nice buck doing LEOSA qualifications, those cards aren't worth the paper they're printed on unless the State has specifically named them an agent for the stated purpose of HR 218 quals (as PA is in the process of doing). See the relevant excerpt from the Act-

d) The identification required by this subsection is--

`(1) a photographic identification issued by the agency from which the individual retired from service as a law enforcement officer that indicates that the individual has, not less recently than one year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the agency to meet the standards established by the agency for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm; or

`(2)(A) a photographic identification issued by the agency from which the individual retired from service as a law enforcement officer; and

`(B) a certification issued by the State in which the individual resides that indicates that the individual has, not less recently than one year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the State to meet the standards established by the State for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm.

2. This is the reason Florida retirees could not carry under the auspices of LEOSA. Until recently, there were no statewide police firearms qualification standards in Florida. There are standards in place now, mostly as a result of LEOSA. Retirees of Florida agencies, or those who have moved to Florida, can now qualify under LEOSA.

3. There is no need to 'apply for' anything. The ability to carry is part and parcel of being a retired cop. All they have to do is shoot the course once a year.

4. The requirements for active duty officers are slightly different. We must only meet standards set by the agency we work for and not those set by the state. Usually they're the same, although my agency has higher standards (thankfully).

5. The process being put in place by the PA MPOETC is a waste of government time and money and is not required under the provisions of the Act. The one good thing about it is that it will mandate the issuance of retired police ID cards to qualified retirees. This came about because certain anti-gun chiefs/sheriffs would not issue their guys retired IDs, knowing it would give them the ability to carry nationwide. Thus, the officer was screwed. Retired IDs will soon be mandatory and standardized. However- anyone carrying an original (i.e. issued by their agency prior to the new card coming out) retired ID will still meet the requirements of the Act.

I could go on....

I also agree that a PA LTCF should be respected nationwide just as a PA driver's license or marriage license is.

[policemedic]

Originally Posted by BCI Instructor

Also, it appears that the NJ Atty Gen'l takes a dim view as to LEOSA generally, even encouraging NJ departments to encourage officers NOT to carry out of state ... http://www.njdcj.org/agguide/pdfs/hr-218.pdf

In fact, that memo states no such thing. It simply says that New jersey police agencies should consider their liability exposure if they choose to allow their cops to carry government owned weapons pursuant to LEOSA. It implies that agencies (as my former one does) should restrict their officers from carrying the PD's pistol into another state. If they choose to carry a personally owned weapon there is no issue.

Of course, what is left unsaid is that the agency will still be sued under several tort theories regardless of who owns the weapon the officer used if they're sued for shooting someone.

What is interesting is the assertion that NJ retiree must still receive a NJ carry permit to carry in NJ. This is patently untrue. It's amazing that NJ fully recognizes all portions of LEOSA except where it trumps their picayune retiree permit system. No prosecution brought for a violation of that requirement would withstand a challenge based on LEOSA.

To recap- active cops and qualified retirees with appropriate agency ID can carry nationwide regardless of any state law to the contrary. The list of people who qualify under the act is very broad, and recently was expanded to include a Coast Guard sailor.

[Steve in PA]

Originally Posted by Bruce

Personally, I find the LEOSA offensive; both politically and morally.

I am not anti-cop (read through my post history), but I am against any laws that create separate "classes" of citizens. With regard to the lawful carriage (bearing) of arms, the LEOSA creates two classes of American citizens:

1.) Cops (and retired cops) and
2.) Everyone the heck else.

Firstly, I do not subscribe to the idea that 'bearing arms' should ever be regarded as either a privilege or an entitlement. I believe that, as American citizens, we all have the Right to keep and bear arms.

I feel what the LEOSA does is further the idea that bearing arms (carrying firearms) is an entitlement reserved for one class of American citizen. This whole idea disgusts me.

Of course I feel that cops (and retired cops) should be able to carry firearms wherever they want legally. However, I also think that all law abiding citizens should have this Constitutionally protected Right respected throughout the country as well.

I am opposed to any statute or legislation that takes a Right, twists it into a privilege and an entitlement, then doles it back out to establish different classes of citizens. I find such things utterly appalling. I find such things patently un-American.
.

Until the passing of LEOSA, your PA LTC was recognized in other states, but a LEO's credentials were not.

[dgg9]

Originally Posted by Steve in PA

Until the passing of LEOSA, your PA LTC was recognized in other states, but a LEO's credentials were not.

Maybe, but a LEO could always get a PA CCW too.

[Bruce]

Originally Posted by Steve in PA

Until the passing of LEOSA, your PA LTC was recognized in other states, but a LEO's credentials were not.

Um... what's your point?

Why should an LEO's right to carry (outside of their jurisdiction or off duty) be classified differently than anyone's else's?
.

[policemedic]

Originally Posted by dgg9

Maybe, but a LEO could always get a PA CCW too.

Wrong.

For many, many years the Philadelphia Police Department steadfastly refused to issue a LTCF to any active police officer, whether they worked for PPD or not. Hell, I think they still do.

Their reasoning was cops don't need LTCFs to carry guns. This is true, but at the time only applied to PA.

Now, they were dead wrong and should never have refused any qualified person, but that was the way it was. Therefore, saying a LEO could always get a PA LTCF (not CCW, which is an act not an object) is not accurate, at least if you live in Philadelphia.