Federal Concealed Carry Permit

[ErSwnn]

bold is me.

in reference to the red:
Let me ask you a question, when your carrying your firearm, have you ever engaged in any kind of disagreement, with anyone, that you have allowed to get heated enough to where the other person (or you) got angry enough to do this?

I'm going to bet that you havent. This is what happens when everyone is armed, or may be armed. I wont quote the cliche, but I'm sure you know what it is.

in black
If everyone had the right to carry, it doesnt mean that everyone would, people that arent comfortable with guns wouldnt, and those that do stupid shit would find out really quick that you dont screw around with firearms, as said by another poster, they would get shot/imprisoned, etc.

You are quite correct, I haven't engaged in a dispute to the point of armed conflict, and in fact have walked away from a couple of incidents because I was armed. Knowing the ultimate outcome potential I chose to leave instead of stand what I felt was solid ground.

As to the black again I agree with your take on this. The dumb ones would decrease through attrition.

As I stated, I'm more along these lines of thought but have taken an opposing stance for the sake of debate. Or more concisely to get a better grasp on the pros and cons of the issue. My thanks to you and Geoff for your counterpoints. Well done without a melee.

[larrymeyer]

personally, i'm not against LEOSA.

i'm against the need for LEOSA.

i would like to see more police officers more vocally support the right of citizens to carry in all 50 states as well. i would like to see the membership of the FOP demand that the FOP support our rights. i would like to see the FOP and other rank-and-file officers and associations more proactively counter the posititions of the "brass" when they come out in favor of gun control.

that is the one bad aspect of LEOSA. if it did not exist, more police officers would probably feel more motivated to speak out for the rights of everyone to carry everywhere (so they could carry everywhere themselves).

the opinions of police officers do tend to carry more weight with the general public than the opinions of non police officers in this area.

but, i do not want to see LEOSA repealed...i would, however, like to see it made irrelevant.

I agree but more and more LEO's are of the option the general public should be armed. per Dome light.com in Phila. I don't understand as I think more of us should stand up for our rights. We talk about getting rid of mayors who are anti. I think we should sue there asses off if your robbed or the victim of a crime. Using the mentally of the police weren't there to protect me. I pay taxes for that protection the government should be responsible and the mayor is the head of the police department in PA. If enough lawsuits are brought maybe the message gets through that people have the right to protect themselves

[larrymeyer]

FWIW, I don't think that Powdermill's wife was claiming some sort of "Privileged First-Class Citizen" status when she stated that he had a "federal carry permit." Probably, it was more likely that it was her level of understanding of the provisions of LEOSA as they applied to him and what its practical benefits are.

It is possible for LE to do their job in a conscientious manner without doing a Mexican hat-dance all over our Constitutional assurances, even if there are elements of their community or their specific agency who don't quite share the sentiment that we are a nation of citizens. Every time I see a thread on here that treats that whole community like a tether-ball to be battered about I get a bit queasy.

I didn't post this claiming she was claiming a privileged. I posted because my impression was there was no Federal License to carry. When I worked for the government there was no privileged to carry across state lines. If you wanted to carry you needed a state license. You could always get a Marshall or a LEO if you needed someone with a gun to assist you. Never mattered to me because I couldn't work in the good old USA anyway

[LittleRedToyota]

I think we should sue there asses off if your robbed or the victim of a crime. Using the mentally of the police weren't there to protect me. I pay taxes for that protection the government should be responsible and the mayor is the head of the police department in PA. If enough lawsuits are brought maybe the message gets through that people have the right to protect themselves

already been tried...already shot down by the supreme court. SCOTUS has ruled that the police do not have any duty to protect any given individual citizen from crime.

[Powdermill]

A little additional information regarding a CCW in any state for Feds:

Generally speaking, Feds as a group, do not have that privilege. I used to know some IRS people that would scare me to death if they were allowed to carry anything but a small stick on the job!

However, the DHLS has new authorities and happens to be headed by the agency I worked for. One of the authorities, provides certain, retired Feds, in specific agencies to be granted cross-state CCW jurisdiction. The justification for this is not known to the public as they have no need nor the authority to know the internal workings of our intelligence agencies. DHLS has the authority to call back retired agents from certain agencies for active duty in case of National emergency. National emergency means "near-end-of-world-scenario". You do not know this and I didn't tell you.

For specific agencies, their retired personnel are issued an ID card that provides them with CCW authority across state lines. Active agents do not require such a card as they have no need for such. The retired ones obtain them. Again, I am referring to a very specific group within maybe 2-3 Federal agencies that carry on-duty as a matter of course when pursuing their assigned duties.

I have such an ID. I also have a PA CCW to avoid having difficulties with any local LE that has never seen such an ID (which are most of them). In fact, since the subject has never, to my knowledge, ever come up, most local LE are not aware of this ID. In truth, the ID is used mostly by the certain agency for their informational purposes when conducting logistics during events of National import.

The world is changing. There are new rules. It is not required that the general public be informed of internal Federal agency regulations unless it affects them directly. And there are certain aspects governing Federal agency activity that you will obviously never be made aware of. This is one such topic.

The truth be known, if/when it hits the fan, no ID card is really going to make a difference or matter to anyone.

Should I have the pleasure of directly associating with any of you, I'd be happy to show you this ID card.

In this thread

http://forum.pafoa.org/pennsylvania-...community.html

The OP says My question is I was always even when I worked for the government that there was no such thing as a Federal Permit to carry.

I don't believe a FFL allows you to carry concealed from state to state ?

[chrisjames_71]

For specific agencies, their retired personnel are issued an ID card that provides them with CCW authority across state lines. Active agents do not require such a card as they have no need for such. The retired ones obtain them. Again, I am referring to a very specific group within maybe 2-3 Federal agencies that carry on-duty as a matter of course when pursuing their assigned duties.

Sorry, but as someone who works on a task force with many federal agencies (including DHS), I am not really believing much of what you are saying. Besides, any federal agent that meets the requirements, does not need a special ID to carry. Retired or not...

Which 2-3 agencies are you referring to??

Oh and its DHS, not DHLS.

[mjf]

Sorry, but as someone who works on a task force with many federal agencies (including DHS), I am not really believing much of what you are saying. Besides, any federal agent that meets the requirements, does not need a special ID to carry. Retired or not...

Which 2-3 agencies are you referring to??

Oh and its DHS, not DHLS.

I've never seen anyone from DHS spell it DHLS either.

[Bruce]

I've said it before (ad nauseum) and I'll say it (yet) again:

The LEOSA is bad law - very, *very* bad law.

My first instinct is to believe that the 'government' passed this act to 'pacify' (especially retired) cops - to keep them from fighting along side all the rest of us 'mere peons' for our Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Whether intentional or not - this law separates citizens of this country into two distinct classes: Cops and everyone the heck else; and it elevates cops to the status of "Super Citizen".

I don't care if you are a Lion Tamer, Railroad Conductor, School Marm or 'whatever' - no "job" should enable any one citizen to access more Constitutional Rights than any other citizen.

If you bother to look into my posting history, you'll find that I have no animosity towards cops whatsoever. On the contrary, I deeply appreciate that those men and women are willing to do such a nasty, dirty and dangerous job that *I* certainly do not want.

However, I will not accept the idea that cops deserve more/better Constitutionally Protected Rights than any other citizen. Laws such as these will only lead to resentment - to the belief in the 'superiority' of one 'class' of citizen over another (which is patently unAmerican).
.

[larrymeyer]

already been tried...already shot down by the supreme court. SCOTUS has ruled that the police do not have any duty to protect any given individual citizen from crime.

Then we keep going back till they get tired of us. By the way can you provide a link to this decision I like a copy. As my taxes and your's pay for that protection

[chrisjames_71]

I've never seen anyone from DHS spell it DHLS either.

Yeah, me neither and I work with quite a few from there.