Results 31 to 40 of 63
Thread: LEOSA
-
February 28th, 2015, 09:30 AM #31Member
- Join Date
- Mar 2012
- Location
-
-,
Pennsylvania
(Erie County) - Posts
- 91
- Rep Power
- 658397
Re: LEOSA
I received the identical same reply from Casey, yesterday afternoon, Friday, Feb.27
I thought, non-commital and pointing out how he voted in the past, might be about partylines.
However,
I see he joined Sen. Joe Manchin, in co-sponsoring Sen. James Inhofe's (R-OK) expansion of General Aviation Pilots' Rights, legislation.Last edited by Klyde; February 28th, 2015 at 10:05 AM.
-
February 28th, 2015, 10:33 AM #32Grand Member
- Join Date
- Oct 2008
- Location
-
Harrisburg area,
Pennsylvania
(Dauphin County) - Posts
- 4,683
- Rep Power
- 21474856
-
February 28th, 2015, 10:40 AM #33
Re: LEOSA
You are right Twency it's FRIGGIN B.S.
I wrote to him about the injustice of Shaneen Allen and how good law abiding citizens can make a mistake by crossing a state line and instantly become a criminal because of draconian laws.
Not one remark from him about Ms. Allen, only "yeah, but Sandy Hook""It seems that the Constitution is more or less guidelines than actual rules"
My feedback: http://forum.pafoa.org/showthread.php?t=305685
-
February 28th, 2015, 11:03 AM #34Member
- Join Date
- Mar 2012
- Location
-
-,
Pennsylvania
(Erie County) - Posts
- 91
- Rep Power
- 658397
Re: LEOSA
Compare the text of the current Casey response to the February 2013 canned response.
His staff is recycling messages with some editing.
February 11, 2013:
Thank you for taking the time to contact me about recent proposals related to guns. I appreciate hearing from you about this issue.
As you know, on December 14, 2012, an individual in Newtown, Connecticut forced his way into Sandy Hook Elementary School and opened fire on teachers and staff in the building. In total, the perpetrator murdered 20 students between the ages of six and seven years old, as well as six adults, many of whom heroically sought to stop the shooter and save the lives of children. Like many Americans, I was deeply affected by the scope and brutality of this act. My thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families.
The motives that led to this senseless massacre will likely never fully be comprehended. However, I believe that all public officials have a responsibility to work to prevent such an event from occurring again. This incident reflects a complex problem that requires a comprehensive strategy, including funding for law enforcement officers and the mental health care system. Too many individuals with mental illness are not receiving the services they need and tragically, sometimes a small number of these individuals turn violent. I have supported access to affordable and accessible mental health services for all Americans and I will continue to review proposed solutions to improve our mental health system. As lawmakers consider an appropriate response to this challenging issue, we should consider all of the factors that could prevent such heinous acts.
As you may know, I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. Pennsylvania has a fine hunting and sporting tradition, and I will defend the right to bear arms as it is enshrined in our Constitution. I will continue to back the right to bear arms for purposes of self-defense, recreation, sporting and collection. However, I also believe that the attack at Sandy Hook Elementary School highlights very serious dangers posed to public safety by the misuse of certain weapons and technology originally developed for warfare. According to reports, the shooter was able to kill many children and adults very quickly because he possessed a military-style semiautomatic weapon. He also allegedly used magazines containing up to 30 rounds of ammunition and carried hundreds of rounds more. After much reflection and careful study of the issue, I have decided to support a federal assault weapons ban as well as legislation restricting high capacity magazines. In light of what occurred at Sandy
Hook, these are two measures that will lessen the chances that this will happen again. Before supporting such a law, I would first and foremost ensure that it did not unduly abridge the right to bear arms as established by the Second Amendment.
Our Nation has already begun a critical dialogue as we examine what steps must be taken to prevent this type of tragedy in the future. On January 17, 2012, President Obama unveiled a package of proposals to reduce gun violence, which included strengthening the system of background checks, reinstating the assault weapon and high-capacity magazines ban, improving school safety and expanding access to mental health services. I look forward to reviewing these proposals in detail and to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to address this complex issue.
On January 24, 2013, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California introduced S. 150, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013. This legislation would explicitly permit the possession of affected firearms that were owned prior to the bill?s enactment; firearms that are manually operated; firearms used by military, law enforcement and retired law enforcement; and antique weapons. Further, this legislation lists 2,258 hunting and sporting rifles and shotguns that are entirely exempt from the ban.
This legislation would ban the sale, transfer, manufacturing and importation of all semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one of seven specified military features. S. 150 would further ban semiautomatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one of certain listed military features, as well as ammunition magazines that can accept more than 10 rounds. The Assault Weapons Ban would also regulate the transfer and storage of permitted, grandfathered weapons and allow local law enforcement to use certain federal funds for voluntary gun buyback programs. The Assault Weapons Ban was referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, of which I am not a member. Please be assured that should this legislation come before the full Senate for consideration, I will have your views in mind.
Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about this or any other matter of importance to you.
For more information on this or other issues, I encourage you to visit my website, http://casey.senate.gov. I hope you will find this online office a comprehensive resource to stay up-to-date on my work in Washington, request assistance from my office or share with me your thoughts on the issues that matter most to you and to Pennsylvania.
Sincerely,
Bob Casey
United States Senator
-
March 7th, 2015, 10:51 AM #35Member
- Join Date
- Oct 2006
- Location
-
Pennsylvania
- Posts
- 81
- Rep Power
- 2210098
Re: LEOSA
The way LEOSA was explained to me, and the easiest way I can explain it, is that it gives you the equivalent of 50 carry permits. When in a particular state (other than PA), you basically have the same legal ability/authority to carry a firearm as a licensee from that particular state, and are bound by that state's regulations regarding where you can carry, etc (some states prohibit businesses that sell alcohol, etc).
-
March 7th, 2015, 11:03 AM #36
Re: LEOSA
Doesn't LEOSA also cover you for US Territories? I thought it did or does?
If so, wouldn't that include PR and the US Virgin Islands?
-
March 7th, 2015, 12:02 PM #37
Re: LEOSA
Pretty close except LEOSA:
- arguably falls victim to the Gun Free Schools Zone Act;
- does not extend to OC.
YES
18 USC 921(a)(2) The term "interstate or foreign commerce" includes commerce between any place in a State and any place outside of that State, or within any possession of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia, but such term does not include commerce between places within the same State but through any place outside of that State. The term "State" includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone).Last edited by tl_3237; March 7th, 2015 at 12:07 PM. Reason: correct cite
IANAL
-
March 7th, 2015, 12:04 PM #38Junior Member
- Join Date
- Dec 2010
- Location
-
west central,
Illinois
- Posts
- 14
- Rep Power
- 0
Re: LEOSA
MedicCop said: " you basically have the same legal ability/authority to carry a firearm as a licensee from that particular state, and are bound by that state's regulations regarding where you can carry, etc (some states prohibit businesses that sell alcohol, etc)."
Respectfully, one carrying under LEOSA is not bound by any state's prohibited places EXCEPT:
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).
(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that—
(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or
(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.
Local restrictions on carry are superceded, and only a STATE law that prohibits carry in any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park is governing.
BushyLast edited by bushy223; March 7th, 2015 at 12:07 PM. Reason: verb tense compliance :^)
-
March 7th, 2015, 12:12 PM #39Member
- Join Date
- Apr 2013
- Location
-
Conshohocken,
Pennsylvania
(Montgomery County) - Posts
- 92
- Rep Power
- 181917
Re: LEOSA
LEOSA extends to ALL U.S. territory, including; WDC, Guam, American Samoa, USVI and PR. It's even valid in NJ, NYC, MA and CA!
The problem many, many former (min 10 yrs service) and retired officers have encountered is the position of their anti-gun LE administrations. More than a few PDs are refusing to issue the required separated/retired officer credentials required under LEOSA. No LEO creds, no LEOSA.
I support LEOSA, but I'd also like to see a national LTCF standard and reciprocity for all U.S. citizens.
-
March 7th, 2015, 12:21 PM #40
Re: LEOSA
Local governmental restrictions may arguably apply to LEOSA since a state's political subdivisions are given limited police powers under state statute. As such, any regulations/ordinances that they establish within their statutory empowerments may be interpreted as derivative of the enabling state statutes.
IANAL
Similar Threads
-
LEOSA Question
By fingers80002 in forum GeneralReplies: 35Last Post: June 9th, 2009, 06:04 PM -
A LEOSA question...???
By #1cagekicker in forum GeneralReplies: 7Last Post: June 1st, 2009, 06:46 PM -
LEOSA question...
By shefearsnothing in forum GeneralReplies: 59Last Post: January 28th, 2009, 08:51 PM -
LEOSA Question
By ItsEd4u40 in forum GeneralReplies: 4Last Post: January 3rd, 2009, 02:02 PM -
Question about LEOSA
By xd40_jim in forum GeneralReplies: 9Last Post: March 27th, 2008, 10:08 PM
Bookmarks