PA finally getting act together for retired LEOs to conceal carry under LEOSA

[Bruce]

I, uh, am a little confused, and surprised, by which posters in this thread I find myself siding with on this topic in general.

I keep seeing people say: Hey, this is a step in the right direction. I couldn't disagree more strongly. In fact, I insist it is a step in the wrong direction. The LEOSA is a Federal Law that attacks the Second Amendment!

A law, any law but especially a Federal law, that promotes, no - that actually *advances*, the concepts that:

1.) Individual States absolutely have the 'sovereignty' within the Union to create and maintain laws contrary to the Second Amendment of the CoTUS.

2.) Carrying firearms is a highly exclusive privilege that is reserved only for a certain sort of trained and experienced person.

3.) Working certain jobs in America can afford you a higher caste/class of "citizenship" above other citizens (in this case: cops, including retired cops) and those higher classes/castes get to have more government regulated privileges (such as the privilege enumerated in "2." above) than any other citizen.

Unless you are trying to advance a tiered class system among citizens in the United States, how can these steps possibly be in the right direction?

Look - I am not saying that cops are bad people or that they shouldn't have the same rights as any other citizen. However, I am saying that they are not better than any other citizen nor do they deserve special rights that no other citizen can get!

Cops have a tough job - no argument; but that is no reason to give them "special federal privileges" when off duty or after retirement - not in *this* country. If this were North Korea, or Cuba, or China or something - or even Europe (heck, go ahead an "knight" them or something over there) - I would expect all sorts of "ranking systems" for private citizens based on what jobs they had; but, the very idea of the LEOSA is patently un-American.

If the LEOSA only applied to on duty cops - during the course of their official duties - I would have no problem with it; none whatsoever! But this special, exclusive federal government privilege, established by a law, is specifically *only* for off duty or retired cops - people who should be considered private citizens by the government.
.

[The_Game]

I, uh, am a little confused, and surprised, by which posters in this thread I find myself siding with on this topic in general.

I keep seeing people say: Hey, this is a step in the right direction. I couldn't disagree more strongly. In fact, I insist it is a step in the wrong direction. The LEOSA is a Federal Law that attacks the Second Amendment!

A law, any law but especially a Federal law, that promotes, no - that actually *advances*, the concepts that:

1.) Individual States absolutely have the 'sovereignty' within the Union to create and maintain laws contrary to the Second Amendment of the CoTUS.

2.) Carrying firearms is a highly exclusive privilege that is reserved only for a certain sort of trained and experienced person.

3.) Working certain jobs in America can afford you a higher caste/class of "citizenship" above other citizens (in this case: cops, including retired cops) and those higher classes/castes get to have more government regulated privileges (such as the privilege enumerated in "2." above) than any other citizen.

Unless you are trying to advance a tiered class system among citizens in the United States, how can these steps possibly be in the right direction?

Look - I am not saying that cops are bad people or that they shouldn't have the same rights as any other citizen. However, I am saying that they are not better than any other citizen nor do they deserve special rights that no other citizen can get!

Cops have a tough job - no argument; but that is no reason to give them "special federal privileges" when off duty or after retirement - not in *this* country. If this were North Korea, or Cuba, or China or something - or even Europe (heck, go ahead an "knight" them or something over there) - I would expect all sorts of "ranking systems" for private citizens based on what jobs they had; but, the very idea of the LEOSA is patently un-American.

If the LEOSA only applied to on duty cops - during the course of their official duties - I would have no problem with it; none whatsoever! But this special, exclusive federal government privilege, established by a law, is specifically *only* for off duty or retired cops - people who should be considered private citizens by the government.
.

All this. I agree 100%.

[mpi]

yeah........standards.......having watched certain officers of a particular race and gender make no effort to qualify, secure in the knowledge that they would be covered no matter what they did. Knowing that they had guaranteed jobs PERIOD. watching Chicago officers that couldn't shoot at all, and had no knowledge of the weapons that they carried, down to not knowing how to strip their weapons to clean them. these special people, now older and slower, should be permitted the special privilege where a lesser person, just a plain citizen, would be jailed for the temerity of exercising a "right" ..........well that makes me feel safer!

[thetruepyromaniak]

Does anyone know how these laws affect states that do not allow CC. My reading of it was that you still must follow state laws.....

[son of the revolution]

Does anyone know how these laws affect states that do not allow CC. My reading of it was that you still must follow state laws.....

At first blush I would say that since its Federal, it supersedes State Laws. But, when it was first enacted , there as a HUGE amount of controversy created by the policy of the AG of .................................................. ..................NEW JERSEY. Who released a policy directive , instructing NJ Officers to seize the weapon of any retired LEO they came into contact with, who was carrying in State under LEOSA.

[tl_3237]

Does anyone know how these laws affect states that do not allow CC. My reading of it was that you still must follow state laws.....

The restriction on LEOSA ret'd on the carried firearms are:

18 USC 926C

(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.

(e) As used in this section, the term “firearm” does not include—

(1) any machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the National Firearms Act);
(2) any firearm silencer (as defined in section 921 of this title); and
(3) a destructive device (as defined in section 921 of this title).

Note that LEOSA arguably only applies to the firearm possessed therefore the issue of ammo (HP, FMJ, etc) and mag capacity is still controlled by state law. I think there was being introduced legislation to pre-empt ammo/mag issues also.

[Steve in PA]

At first blush I would say that since its Federal, it supersedes State Laws. But, when it was first enacted , there as a HUGE amount of controversy created by the policy of the AG of .................................................. ..................NEW JERSEY. Who released a policy directive , instructing NJ Officers to seize the weapon of any retired LEO they came into contact with, who was carrying in State under LEOSA.

That is because NJ has their head up their butt. No out-of-state LEO ever had his weapon seized.

[Steve in PA]

Does anyone know how these laws affect states that do not allow CC. My reading of it was that you still must follow state laws.....

Nope. Doesn't matter if the state doesn't allow CC.

[mjf]

Does anyone know how these laws affect states that do not allow CC. My reading of it was that you still must follow state laws.....

Sec. 926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law enforcement officers

`(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.

There you go, you don't have to follow permit holder laws, aside from ones relating to carrying on government property or laws specifically crafted to prohibit carry on private property (no guns signs).

Laws, such as Ohio's no firearms in bars law, can be safely ignored.

[tl_3237]

On 6/7/05 the NJAG issued guidance that out-of-state LEOSA qualified individuals could carry concealed pursuant to 18 USC 926B & C but they were "ordinary citizens while visiting our state and possess no police powers" and they have no imunity for non-preempted firearms offenses (incl HP possession - see APP A)