LEOSA

[snorri]

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

This is just a guess, but my guess is Hooiser Daddy has read the United States Constitution.

As a Federal law, LEOSA clearly violates the Tenth Amendment. No question about it. Plain English.

If it applied to all citizens, not just a privileged few, it might be a different story. One could argue that the Second Amendment, plus Sections 1 and 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, would make a US Citizen Safety Act in compliance with the Tenth Amendment. However, as written, LEOSA is clearly anti constitutional and therefore anti American.

But that's just my guess.

[Excaliber]

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.

LEOSA isn't always free. Individual agencies can issue proficiency certification cards to their retired members, but TCLEOSE charges a $25.00 annual fee for processing applications for retired out of state and federal LEO's and for the firearms proficiency card that is issued to these folks. Over a 5 year period, this is usually more expensive than a CHL, but, as noted elsewhere, it carries fewer restrictions.

Law enforcement organizations may not charge for yearly qualifications (although they can), but private instructors often do. Range time is at such a premium at many law enforcement training facilities that the private route is the only viable option when renewal time rolls around.

[WildBill]

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

This is just a guess, but my guess is Hooiser Daddy has read the United States Constitution. As a Federal law, LEOSA clearly violates the Tenth Amendment. No question about it. Plain English.

If it applied to all citizens, not just a privileged few, it might be a different story. One could argue that the Second Amendment, plus Sections 1 and 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, would make a US Citizen Safety Act in compliance with the Tenth Amendment. However, as written, LEOSA is clearly anti constitutional and therefore anti American.

Why is everyone so upset when Diane Feinstein was issued a CCW when other Californians couldn't get one? Just because you happen to like retired LEOs, aren't they just another type of privileged class like politicians or celebrities? Senator Feinstein has served this country in public office since 1978. Doesn't she deserve to be safe from her enemies the same as a retired LEO?

[A-R]

Why is everyone so upset when Sen Diane Feinstein was issued a CCW in California when other citizens can't get one? Just because you happen to like retired LEOs, aren't they just another type of privileged class like politicians or celebrities? Diane Feinstein has served this country in public office since 1978. Doesn't she deserve to be safe from her enemies the same as a retired LEO?

LEOs serve the public by taking away freedom from the worst among us, who don't deserve it (criminals)

politicians like Feinstein serve themselves and their benefactors by attempting to take away freedom from the best among us, hardworking regular citizens like you and me.

[WildBill]

LEOs serve the public by taking away freedom from the worst among us, who don't deserve it (criminals)

Politicians like Feinstein serve themselves and their benefactors by attempting to take away freedom from the best among us, hardworking regular citizens like you and me.

Just like Bernie Kerik?

[gigag04]

Why is everyone so upset when Sen Diane Feinstein was issued a CCW in California when other citizens can't get one? Just because you happen to like retired LEOs, aren't they just another type of privileged class like politicians or celebrities? Diane Feinstein has served this country in public office since 1978. Doesn't she deserve to be safe from her enemies the same as a retired LEO?

LEOs serve the public by taking away freedom from the worst among us, who don't deserve it (criminals)

politicians like Feinstein serve themselves and their benefactors by attempting to take away freedom from the best among us, hardworking regular citizens like you and me.

I get what you're saying but LEOs don't take away anyone's freedoms. Those decisions are made in a court of law by the person's peers (usually).

As far LEOSA being anti 10th amendment, I can sort of see the point, however in my limited research (wiki and a phone call to some attorney friends) not many laws are ruled UC by SCUSA due to the 10th amendment alone. I'm sure one could spend a few hours in their (justice's) opinions on those cases to find out why.

You won't get any complaints from me on the whole deal.

[GrayGhost]

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

Okay, Hoosier, I'll bite. This is an unpopular stand, but I happen to agree. I'll even go a little further. I don't believe the penalty for mudering a cop should be any worse than killing the little old lady down the street. I know these guys take more risks than most of us. But they knew the job was dangerous when they took it. Murder should be punished the same when it is the same circumstance, whether the victim is a police officer, a president or a homeless person. JMHO. Wait....
Okay, I have the flame suite zipped up. Go ahead.

[gigag04]

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

Okay, Hoosier, I'll bite. This is an unpopular stand, but I happen to agree. I'll even go a little further. I don't believe the penalty for mudering a cop should be any worse than killing the little old lady down the street. I know these guys take more risks than most of us. But they knew the job was dangerous when they took it. Murder should be punished the same when it is the same circumstance, whether the victim is a police officer, a president or a homeless person. JMHO. Wait....
Okay, I have the flame suite zipped up. Go ahead.

What about the penalty for killing a 6 year old?

[marksiwel]

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?

I think he is saying just because they USED to be Cops doesn't mean they get to carry to "Protect themselves" while the rest of us cant. The LEOSA lets them break/ignore/circumvent most state laws in ANY State. So if you were a retired LEO in Houston you can carry in Boston, Mass. Which is cool, but why cant I as a non Leo have the same privilege?
It does trample state rights to an extent (Letting retired LEOs from out of State carry in your state and you cant do anything to stop it)
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others?


After posting this I realized that the photo was of Pigs, the irony!

[marksiwel]

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

Okay, Hoosier, I'll bite. This is an unpopular stand, but I happen to agree. I'll even go a little further. I don't believe the penalty for mudering a cop should be any worse than killing the little old lady down the street. I know these guys take more risks than most of us. But they knew the job was dangerous when they took it. Murder should be punished the same when it is the same circumstance, whether the victim is a police officer, a president or a homeless person. JMHO. Wait....
Okay, I have the flame suite zipped up. Go ahead.

What about the penalty for killing a 6 year old?

Hmmm, thats where It gets murky. Why does 6 give you the needle but 7 gets you life in prison.

Also the murder of a cop has to be because he is a cop. If you kill someone because you walk in on them with your wife, and then find out later its a cop, you wont get the death penalty.

Now as far as killing ON DUTY Police Officers, I support you getting the Needle for that, thats more than attacking the person per say, but attacking the Government. Its like Burn a House, get charged with Arson, but a Church get charged with a Hate crime.
The law is tricky , eh?

[A-R]

I want to be clear that by supporting LEOSA, especially in terms of retired LEOs, I am not necessarily opposed to allowing all law-abiding citizens to carry under same provisions. But, as we all know, that is a much tougher political task. As always, there is what the Constitution says, what is SHOULD mean, and what it currently means as interpreted by the majority of current citizens/leadership.

To put it another way, I think all CHLers should be able to carry under a LEOSA-like national law. And this was tried just this past year in the US Congress and failed - some on this forum were against that proposal because they believed it usurped state's rights and could actually lessen our ability to carry in some areas (forgive me for not taking time to search for and link to the thread about this bill from last year).

But until that happens (all CHLers allowed to carry under LEOSA-type law) I like that AT LEAST those of us who served in a dangerous job have that right that we all should have. To complain of unfairness because one segment of the population is allowed a right that we ALL want to have, is to cut off our nose to spite our face.

Some, it would seem, want to do away with LEOSA because "it isn't fair/isn't Constitutional", when in reality to do so would be to further set back the possibility that some day all law-abiding citizens will be able to carry nationwide (which is basically one of our shared goals, is it not?)

An LEO fearful of an "early released" bad guy that he/she helped put away is a solid reason to carry a gun 24/7 anywhere in the US. A divorced woman fearful of her violent ex-husband is an equally good reason. I don't want to take away the LEO's right to carry 24/7 in a misguided effort to put him/her on equal ground with the divorced woman; I want to allow the divorced woman (and all of us) an equal right to carry.

Lastly, irrespective of the above comments, I do generally believe LEOs, other first responders, military etc., have earned a few perks. That may fly in the face of fairness, Constitutionality, and reek of "Animal Farm", but it's something I believe. We can't possibly pay these folks enough to do these dangerous but essential jobs, so if they get a few perks more than me, I'm fine with that. The benefits of the VA system are a perfect example. Military veterans get special health care benefits (though some would say they're not really "benefits"), special deals on home mortgage lending, etc.

[Excaliber]

I want to be clear that by supporting LEOSA, especially in terms of retired LEOs, I am not necessarily opposed to allowing all law-abiding citizens to carry under same provisions. But, as we all know, that is a much tougher political task. As always, there is what the Constitution says, what is SHOULD mean, and what it currently means as interpreted by the majority of current citizens/leadership.

To put it another way, I think all CHLers should be able to carry under a LEOSA-like national law. And this was tried just this past year in the US Congress and failed - some on this forum were against that proposal because they believed it usurped state's rights and could actually lessen our ability to carry in some areas (forgive me for not taking time to search for and link to the thread about this bill from last year).

But until that happens (all CHLers allowed to carry under LEOSA-type law) I like that AT LEAST those of us who served in a dangerous job have that right that we all should have. To complain of unfairness because one segment of the population is allowed a right that we ALL want to have, is to cut off our nose to spite our face.

Some, it would seem, want to do away with LEOSA because "it isn't fair/isn't Constitutional", when in reality to do so would be to further set back the possibility that some day all law-abiding citizens will be able to carry nationwide (which is basically one of our shared goals, is it not?)

An LEO fearful of an "early released" bad guy that he/she helped put away is a solid reason to carry a gun 24/7 anywhere in the US. A divorced woman fearful of her violent ex-husband is an equally good reason. I don't want to take away the LEO's right to carry 24/7 in a misguided effort to put him/her on equal ground with the divorced woman; I want to allow the divorced woman (and all of us) an equal right to carry.

Lastly, irrespective of the above comments, I do generally believe LEOs, other first responders, military etc., have earned a few perks. That may fly in the face of fairness, Constitutionality, and reek of "Animal Farm", but it's something I believe. We can't possibly pay these folks enough to do these dangerous but essential jobs, so if they get a few perks more than me, I'm fine with that. The benefits of the VA system are a perfect example. Military veterans get special health care benefits (though some would say they're not really "benefits"), special deals on home mortgage lending, etc.

It's worthwhile to note that those who opposed LEOSA bleated about the horrible consequence of all those additional guns on the streets. They couldn't get over the horror of the folks who carried guns to protect them for 15 or more years would continue to do so after they changed clothes at the end of their law enforcement service.

Needless to say, there's no blood running in the streets from this law any more than there was when CHL was passed. It actually serves as evidence that widespread carry by responsible folks is only a threat to violent criminals, as it should be. I believe that, in the long run, this will provide additional evidence to help expand the carry rights of CHL holders to the type of universal reciprocity there is for driver's licenses, which only cover a privilege, not a right.

[marksiwel]

It's worthwhile to note that those who opposed LEOSA bleated about the horrible consequence of all those additional guns on the streets. They couldn't get over the horror of the folks who carried guns to protect them for 15 or more years would continue to do so after they changed clothes at the end of their law enforcement service.

Needless to say, there's no blood running in the streets from this law any more than there was when CHL was passed. It actually serves as evidence that widespread carry by responsible folks is only a threat to violent criminals, as it should be. I believe that, in the long run, this will provide additional evidence to help expand the carry rights of CHL holders to the type of universal reciprocity there is for driver's licenses, which only cover a privilege, not a right.

I hope that it leads to a Universal Carry, but it seems to be a "For LEOS and LEOS only" mentality when they talked about passing it (Mostly that they were "Trained" and that "Criminals will be looking for defenseless ex-LEOS")
But it does trample over State Rights, but I guess I can stomach that to an extent.

[tacticool]

Why not ignore the 4th and 5th Amendments too?

the Constitution. As long as the cops are happy.

[gigag04]

Why not ignore the 4th and 5th Amendments too?

the Constitution. As long as the cops are happy.

Sounds good...


Why is this a "us vs the cops" issue....

I'm not sure if I would call this a "TRAMPLING" of state's rights afterall...

It seems like a limited protection of 2A rights....it's only truly protected for LEOs etc. Oh, and for the record I completely agree with everything Austinrealtor posted last. A great choice of words for SURE.


As far as capital felonies - you know that you can get to a capital felony by committing murder in course of committing any other felony? IE killing an 8 yoa person during a kidnapping..

Or shooting your spouse while DWI the third time....etc.