TexasCHLforum.com

Hoi,

The LEOSA was originally introduced a long time ago (like 1997 IIRC) and took until 2004 to get passed. It allows peace officers and correctional officers to carry firearms in any state if they meet some conditions. The employing agency must have been governmental, so private university police (like St. Mary's in San Antonio) are not covered and neither are the contract jail guards like Wackenhut. The officer must have qualified with his weapon within the past year. The officer must be active, honorably retired, or honorably separated after ten years of service (latest change, signed about a week ago added the separated and lowered the time from 15 years to 10 years of service). They must have a picture ID proving their status. And, to gain constitutionality, the weapon must have traveled in interstate commerce. The law specifically says the officers must obey state laws allowing the banning of firearms on private property or in sensitive places.

This is my understanding of the history that you should understand. I may not be remembering it all correctly, so anyone who wants to correct any part, feel free to jump in.

There has been some animosity created by the passing of the law along several lines. Many people feel the claim to constitutionality is weak (as do I, but a vacationing officer from another state is by definition interstate commerce anyway IMO). Many departments did not like the law because it allows their officers to carry off duty when they did not (NYPD being one famous for this). Many feel the law is unconstitutional since it applies to one group of people and not another, a denial of equal protection under the laws (I think the best argument for this is the private police that are full peace officers in Texas).

And one of the biggest causes of animosity is that the police asked for support for from the gun community in getting it past. Some of them advanced the argument that it would help get CHL's through and even help get a national law for reciprocity through. Some advanced the argument that anything that gets more people carrying is a step in the right direction and would help in future arguments for carry laws. And some police organizations promised to help get more liberal CHL and carry laws for everyone. Once the law was passed, the same anti-gun police organizations (such as IACP and FOP) continued to fight against carry for anyone. Some of the smaller police organizations did argue in favor of relaxed laws for everyone, but they tended to be the same ones who had been arguing in favor of it all along. The lack of support from the major organizations has left quite a few in the gun community feeling betrayed and used.

I really cannot say if there were promises made and broken or not, because politics does make for strange bedfellows, as they say. I am pretty sure the FOP did push for LEOSA though IACP fought it as hard as they fight any law loosening gun control. The police are not a monolithic group that always thinks the same and some organizations that were anti-gun remained that way even when they supported LEOSA as a benefit for officers. As I am sure everyone will agree, that is hypocrisy at its best (or worst). I think the biggest problem is the coalition that got together to get LEOSA passed did not remain together to help with other gun laws. This sense of betrayal, whether properly felt or not, still simmers in the gun community.

Hoi Polloi wrote:And the reasons I can remember on the other side, some of which contradict others, and none of which I claim in this context as my own belief:
...
6. If I have a driver's license issued in one state, it's valid in all states. If I have a currently valid CHL issued in one state, it should be recognized by all states.

That one jumps out at me in particular, having moved here from another state myself.

My California driver's license was not indefinitely valid in Texas. If I were here on vacation or just passing through, that's one thing. But once you move here, that out-of-state license has a shelf-life. If you do not obtain a Texas driver's license within the grace period, you will soon be driving without a license, and whatever rains down on your head as a result is your own fault.

Consequently, if you have a resident carry permit issued by another state, then yes, it should be valid if you're just passing through or vacationing here. But I would deem it unreasonable to expect that Texas would continue to honor an out-of-state resident permit indefinitely after you have established Texas residency. At some point, once you obtain residency in Texas, then you cannot be a resident of another state, and that out-of-state resident permit is invalidated. IMHO, it is then incumbent on you to either convert your out-of-state resident permit into a non-resident permit (if your former state of residence has reciprocity with Texas), or just man up and get a Texas CHL, and quite whining.

Edited to add: I would prefer "Constitutional Carry," like Arizona has. But the reality is that the law exists. It has been written the way it is for a reason. That reason is that this is what it took to get a CHL law passed. Not all of the politicians involved were/are sympathetic to the RKBA, and compromise is a political reality. It just is, and refusing to acknowledge that reality indicates an unrealistic world view.

I believe that Constitutional Carry can be achieved. But it isn't going to happen in one fell swoop; and flagrantly disrespecting the legislature's prerogatives in the matter is a sure fire way to lose ground. As much as some people hate it, the only way to successfully attain the goal of Constitutional Carry is to respectfully and incrementally move the ball forward. I believe that trying to cheat your way around the law hurts the cause more than it helps it.

This is probably completely off topic, but it's a pet peeve of mine. Why is it that "people" are not the least bit bothered by an LEO openly carrying a weapon but have conniption fits when we do? The only reason I can think of is that they trust LEOs to be honest and upstanding people (which is generally true but not always), but they don't trust us to be the same (which is generally false but not always.)

There, I said it. Now back to your regularly scheduled program.

I don't think everyone is completely OK with LEO's carrying guns. What I mean is from a very young age we see LEO's carrying guns and over time just accept it. Plus, we/they don't have any choice in the matter. It's just the way it is so everyone adjusts to it. If everyone grew up with ordinary people carrying guns they would accept it in the same manner.

The hurdle now is that everyone is used to people not carrying guns and to make that change would be easy for some and hard for others to accept. Eventually, it could be considered normal.

Geoelectro

Like Baldeagle said.

Especially up north the states area smaller, and likelihood of encountering a previous "client" is higher, even while out of state.

Unsure how LEOSA is a bogus law. It seems like a good idea to me. That's said, CCW nationwide reciprocity would be great.

gigag04 wrote:Especially up north the states area smaller, and likelihood of encountering a previous "client" is higher, even while out of state.

Unsure how LEOSA is a bogus law. It seems like a good idea to me. That's said, CCW nationwide reciprocity would be great.

IMHO, the LBGT community will actually be where our nationwide reciprocity comes from. If they can ever win the full faith and credit argument for gay marriage, the RKBA community will have an easier time winning that battle.
(Disclaimer: This is NOT meant to ignite a gay rights discussion.)

It's obviously unconstitutional if you read the constitution, but that doesn't seem to matter anymore.

I'm dismayed to see so many comments against loosening of restrictions for LEO's carrying in states other than the ones that employ them. They remind me of the reason why you don't need to put a top on a basket of live crabs - because if one tries to climb out, the others will pull him back down.

When I worked in New York, a New York City officer who lived in Rockland County and was faced with a major traffic jam on the Tappan Zee Bridge would commit a felony if he used the Palisades Parkway (which drops into New Jersey) to get to work on time. The public safety benefit of treating a highly trained and sworn good guy as a felon if he stepped over a state line completely eluded me then, and continues to do so now.

Although some might disagree with me, there is a significant difference in the training and experience level of most LEO's who carry and use firearms in dicey situations on a daily basis and CHL holders, many of whom only carry "when they need to" and have never drawn and pointed a firearm at another human being. This does have implications for justifying a level of confidence for responsible carry when proposals to expand rights are on the table. Still, LEOSA, which should have been a no-brainer, took 7 years to get passed in the no brain capital of the country.

In 2004 I saw LEOSA as a giant step toward the day when CHL's would be universally recognized across state lines. To me it made sense to let the LEO's lead the way in proving that trained, background checked good guys don't become bug eyed homicidal maniacs when they enter another state. I saw the step as similar to the passage of "shall issue" CHL legislation, which has incontrovertibly proven to be a resounding success and stands in stark repudiation of all the reality challenged folks who predicted blood running in the streets as a result. LEOSA is a huge step toward proving the same thing for interstate carry by non-LEO's, and it is establishing the same kind of highly successful track record.

Let's recognize that constitutional carry is highly unlikely to happen in one fell swoop. Just like the concealment requirement for Texas CHL's was not ideal but was a pragmatic necessity for getting the law passed at all, LEOSA is a major advance for gun rights.

Let's recognize this and avoid the temptation to make a basket of crabs look supportive of each other in comparison.

If New York has the power to deny a Brooklyn accountant from carrying in NYC, then they also have the power to restrict a Tarrant County deputy from carrying in NYC.

But if the 2A still says SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED then the right applies to all of THE PEOPLE.

Same as religious freedom applies to all people. It's not limited to chaplains employed by a government entity.

It's been long enough. It's time for the people who made promises to get LEOSA passed to honor those promises and actively push for it to be amended to include concealed carry licenses from all states.

Cobra Medic wrote:It's been long enough. It's time for the people who made promises to get LEOSA passed to honor those promises and actively push for it to be amended to include concealed carry licenses from all states.

I didn't know that was a promise.

WildBill wrote:

Cobra Medic wrote:It's been long enough. It's time for the people who made promises to get LEOSA passed to honor those promises and actively push for it to be amended to include concealed carry licenses from all states.

I didn't know that was a promise.

LEAA and other organizations made the promise so they could raise money and get citizens to ask their elected officials to spport LEOSA. I remember because I was one of the suckers they tricked.

I may be confused at the anger with LEOSO - it seems to repeal it would be a step backwards...

I don't think anyone here disagrees with it being amended to include all state CWP/CHL permittees.

srothstein wrote:The LEOSA was originally introduced a long time ago (like 1997 IIRC) and took until 2004 to get passed. It allows peace officers and correctional officers to carry firearms in any state if they meet some conditions.

Kind of makes me miss the old days, when a nice campaign contribution to a county sheriff (in some states) could get you a badge.

Nowadays, if an ordinary citizen could get LEO status that easily, it would be a great way to acquire a 50-state super CHL. Jeez, I would love to be able carry in states like NY, MD, CA, IL, NJ just to thumb my nose at them.