ScottDLS wrote:If you carry as a retired officer under LEOSA, aren't there some restrictions that are actually stricter than for a CHL. Like yearly requalification and having to qualify with the particular firearm to be carried?
There are some things that are stricter and the annual requalification is one of them. But there is no legal requirement for me to qualify with each weapon or stick with specific weapons. Some departments require that for their officers, but their rules do not apply to retirees. The federal law simply says must meet the state's standards for active officers. Some might consider that qualification test a little harder also, but it is really a low standard too. Yeah, probably not as low as the CHL test but very close to it.
CHL lasts 5 years, and presuming you get SA version virtually no restrictions on type of gun. I know you mentioned you are a currently a reserve PO in Texas, but were you not and were carrying under the retired provisions of LEOSA, wouldn't you have significant benefit?
Sorry, but I need to clarify this part. I am not currently a reserve officer. When I left TABC, I did think about it and have looked at doing it a little. But I went back to college instead. I started working on a doctorate (which will probably change soon) and it eats up all my spare time so I cannot serve as a reserve.
If I were a reserve, I would have all of the benefits in this area of any other active peace officer, so CHL would not apply.
Oh and you could get your original CHL with PO discount and I believe even a waiver of the shooting requirements by using your status as a reserve Texas PO. Right?
I think that this would be correct for peace officers, including reserves. The really crazy part to this is there is one requirement that might be even harder. For a peace officer to get a CHL, the agency administrator has to sign for it and a lot of administrators do not want to do this. They don't want the "liability" for it and are worried that it means they cannot disarm their officer if they suspend him for something. Politics get involved, of course.
No criticism intended, just think there might be some benefits for you. Personally I carry several concealed carry permits in addition to Texas and once it helped me when Texas took longer than the statutorily allowed time to renew my CHL and I carried w/ a Florida CWFL for about 20 days.
Well, as a retired officer, I have a few stricter standards to meet - such as the annual qualification. But I also get to carry anywhere in Texas a regular officer can and can carry in any state without regard to reciprocity. There are a few places I have been warned will arrest anyway and try to fight LEOSA, but this is dying out since there has been a nationally publicized case. I would certainly hate to try New York or New Jersey on it, and I have been told California will still arrest for an officer carrying a high capacity magazine.
As I said, I think the main benefit to me might be the waiver of the NICS. You are correct about the annual qualification instead of the 5 year one, but I don't see that as a significant thing right now. It might come up later on though.
at the time.
Before then, I'm just reading and trying to decide which Colt is going to have my name on it. Kinda working between a Combat Elite, a Delta Elite or a Rail Gun. The rail gun is definitely in 3rd place, the other two are really neck and neck. It'll probably come down to which one I can find at a decent price.
