HR218/LEOSA Carry for Police and Retired Police?
Advertise with us Click for Rates
Results 1 to 7 of 7
Like Tree9Likes
  • 2 Post By coach1299
  • 3 Post By deputy
  • 2 Post By coach1299
  • 1 Post By 1shot1k
  • 1 Post By coach1299

Thread: HR218/LEOSA Carry for Police and Retired Police?

  1. #1
    Senior Member NGF Addict!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,701

    Default HR218/LEOSA Carry for Police and Retired Police?

    Anyone here that's active or retired police and have any comments or thoughts about HR218/LEOSA carrying? Not sure how it is where you're from, but in my area of NY and NJ it doesn't have any teeth. Both states are politically arrogant and only recognize their own state permits regardless of the federal provisions that allow you to carry. Making matters worse the NRA/ILA has no interest in backing you up on it, and takes on the position that it's up to each state to call their own shots as they don't want to get involved. Big problem is that you could be falsely arrested and have to deal with the aggravation and costs to be found not guilty, and good luck getting an attorney that understands this, as all the ones I spoke to about it told me to seek legal help from the NRA who was not willing to get involved either. I thought this federal law/right to carry was great at first, but I finally accepted the fact that the law is vague, complicated, arguable, and could get you cuffed up and face prosecution. Now my feeling is that I'm not willing to take the chance of getting arrested. I feel that my best way of avoiding aggravation is to have the state carry permit for whatever state I might be in. I'm confident that a national reciprocity bill by Trump will have much better teeth because the NRA/ILA will make sure of it, provide representation, and even help you with a civil suit afterwards. Is there any states out there that honor HR218/LEOSA like they're supposed to? This is sad, but it's reality around here.
    1shot1k and Popeye like this.

  2. #2
    Senior Member NGF Addict!
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    west central Texas
    Posts
    3,407

    Default

    i have not really studied it that much.......i am starting to get close to retirement and my thoughts were simply to get a carry permit and be like everyone else if i wanted to CC......in my mind, a retired LEO is just that......retired. He joins the herd.......if he wants to be apart from the herd, then he gets a CHL like any responsible citizen who is a sheepdog and not a sheep.
    Order without liberty and liberty without order are equally destructive.
    Theodore Roosevelt

    [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

    I'm a Timex watch in a digital age...........

  3. #3
    Senior Member NGF Addict!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,701

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deputy View Post
    i have not really studied it that much.......i am starting to get close to retirement and my thoughts were simply to get a carry permit and be like everyone else if i wanted to CC......in my mind, a retired LEO is just that......retired. He joins the herd.......if he wants to be apart from the herd, then he gets a CHL like any responsible citizen who is a sheepdog and not a sheep.
    If most LEO's in Texas think like you, then your state is much like NY and NJ. Sad that there's a law and no one seems to honor it, or is willing to defend it. I have state carry permits. I just raise this point because any Trump National Reciprocity can be treated like toilet paper as well if it doesn't get the support that it deserves. You probably don't need a carry permit but because of political arrogance and people who choose to not honor certain laws you might have to get a civilian permit. I have no plans or desire to go to Texas, so that state doesn't really matter to me, but thanks anyway. And BTW if you get stopped for a traffic violation and are hoping for a break, don't mention that you're a retired LEO because you're retired and just a sheep, rather than a sheep dog.
    Last edited by coach1299; 02-11-2017 at 09:59 PM.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    NationalGunForum.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #4
    Senior Member NGF Addict!
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    west central Texas
    Posts
    3,407

    Default

    i have no idea what other TX officers think on the subject..........most retired officers that i know obtain a carry permit.
    and....a CHL is a sheepdog........a CHL is a responsible citizen.

    And BTW if you get stopped for a traffic violation and are hoping for a break, don't mention that you're a retired LEO because you're retired and just a sheep, rather than a sheep dog.
    so now are you saying that a retired LEO should be privalaged to carry and break traffic laws as well?

    i view LEO work as a profession.......when i retire it will be a former profession that i was proud to be a part of. I will be nothing special when i retire and i do not seek special federal privileges .....i will be a responsible citizen. And i think responsible citizens should have a CHL.....they should be sheepdogs......not sheep.


    i also view such law as federal interference in a States Rights issue and also a step towards a nationalization of law enforcement in general. I do not need the feds blessings. Not all State Laws are the same...nor are the requirements for being an LEO, training as an LEO, or enforcement actions as an LEO.. There are just too many variables. Such also sets a precedent for a national standardization in my mind.....or at least laying a stone for such.

    i am basicly cautious against such federal "help" or "interference" depending on one's perspective......and i am just as cautious about any sort of national carry license on a federal level for the general public.
    Popeye, 1shot1k and Mad Scientist like this.
    Order without liberty and liberty without order are equally destructive.
    Theodore Roosevelt

    [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

    I'm a Timex watch in a digital age...........

  6. #5
    Senior Member NGF Addict!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,701

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deputy View Post
    i have no idea what other TX officers think on the subject..........most retired officers that i know obtain a carry permit.
    and....a CHL is a sheepdog........a CHL is a responsible citizen.



    so now are you saying that a retired LEO should be privalaged to carry and break traffic laws as well?

    i view LEO work as a profession.......when i retire it will be a former profession that i was proud to be a part of. I will be nothing special when i retire and i do not seek special federal privileges .....i will be a responsible citizen. And i think responsible citizens should have a CHL.....they should be sheepdogs......not sheep.


    i also view such law as federal interference in a States Rights issue and also a step towards a nationalization of law enforcement in general. I do not need the feds blessings. Not all State Laws are the same...nor are the requirements for being an LEO, training as an LEO, or enforcement actions as an LEO.. There are just too many variables. Such also sets a precedent for a national standardization in my mind.....or at least laying a stone for such.

    i am basicly cautious against such federal "help" or "interference" depending on one's perspective......and i am just as cautious about any sort of national carry license on a federal level for the general public.
    No going to argue, just one of those situations where we don't see eye to eye, but that's okay because in America we are all entitled to our own perspectives. At least we're both for the Second Amendment. Peace Brother!
    1shot1k and deputy like this.

  7. #6
    . NGF Addict! 1shot1k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,781

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by coach1299 View Post
    No going to argue, just one of those situations where we don't see eye to eye, but that's okay because in America we are all entitled to our own perspectives. At least we're both for the Second Amendment. Peace Brother!
    Coach, I was only a reserve a short while right after college and come home from overseas, and not reserve certainly for the ten years at least total accrued needed to apply etc. , but as an instructor to issue needed twelve month certs I know of these and 2013 additions for DoD and related. I share your concerns and what I think are your frustrations as to how a Fed passed application(s) are not known or properly handled as one would think they could or should be. But from discussions on our CHL Instructors forum sites, this was and I guess still is still one or more cans of worms for many. I'll touch on highlight concerns as " I recall them" as am on a smart phone and am long winded typing anyway...lol...*many states such as CA. Attny Gen. said in print they wouldnt honor any way any how...* some confusion on 1995 gfszn gun free safe school etc. , as this fell under its own published areas of places states could choose not to allow, yet many states would allow another states CHL to be accepted in zones or within 1000 ' etc. * I remember many calling foul or unconstitutional as DoD or retired MP's or others foregoing NCIS unlike CHL holders from state (as to 2013 additions) am fuzzy on details but remember was an issue ...*many preferred their state permit and reciprocity carry, as most good for 4 years etc. so why bother with annual recert of proficiency per LEOSA etc. ...theres more if we wanna discuss it, but as I recall, using your state permit just won out on too many levels, per my observance anyway. One thing I do remember reading up on, LEOSA
    (at that time ) hadnt been challenged at SCOTUS yet, and was linked somehow to Commerce laws, and folks were anxious to see it come up cause as I recall, fail or uphold, as it went so would go the 1995 safe gun zone act etc. ? Anyway, from what I knew of it unless much has changed, I would have stuck with a state CHL and use reciprocity where allowed, as prospects of ALL states Having to allow because of FED LAW, seemed weak at the time. Hell, we got a county here near Austin, spanish lady sheriff, their fixing to loose funds cause she wont notify ICE or Customs of illegal alliens she releases...just like good old SF or NYC. I guess I'm sayin I think states are more together on this per ATTGen letters from each other, than the FED laws..? Regards, 1shot
    coach1299 likes this.
    Texas CHL Instructor
    2009 - 2013

  8. #7
    Senior Member NGF Addict!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,701

    Default

    1 Shot, I totally agree, and while Trump seems to have a plan for reciprocity, that too will probably have a lot of growing pains as states will flex their own clout and good people will pay the price as guinea pigs as the law gets sorted out. I wish I had the money and a situation where I could take a hit and be arrested to set the record straight but it's beyond me in my situation. There have already been multiple arrests on LEOSA carry situations, none of which resulted in a prosecution to my knowledge, but rather many resulting in civil settlement payoffs to those who were unjustly arrested. Those cases can be found on line by googling LEOSA HR218 cases. You are correct that it is a huge can of worms as I have found out for myself without getting arrested, but rather being close enough to see what's going at offices involved with the administration of justice at both state county and state levels. Not good for people carrying in general, and many opinions conflicting with one another . Not sure if LEOSA was crafted to throw a bone to LE and just let everyone wing it knowing that the law was weakly made with ultimate objective of giving a sense of a right to carry to LE but at the same time keeping those who carry under LEOSA on eggshells and again letting the lawyers make some money sorting it all out. Either that or it was just poorly crafted. The states that I have dealt with have already put their own twist on LEOSA and declared that it must fall under their own permit system resulting in total disregard for the Federal provisions of LEOSA. So will this happen with anything Trump does with national reciprocity? Hope not, might sound great at first but might end up going down the same way as LEOSA has with the states just turning up their noses and putting their own spin on it. Puts the average person in a quandary and at risk of being arrested. I guess venting here might be a small seed if anything, but I actually have a lengthy background in all of this controversy (particularly relating to LE) and maybe letters to our reps might be best. Problem with that is that it is so complicated that most US Senators and Congressmen just want a short letter and would not bother going through the pains of trying to understand the complexity of this matter. It will take some real listening and work and some real follow up and oversight by feds to make this work if they want a national carry policy whether it be for police, civilians, or both. Many will argue that the states should have all to say, and that letting the feds step in is a bad precedent, but if they don't step in, and states continue to ignore the Second Amendment, there will be no other recourse other than to deal with it from the top down (fed level). Very frustrating because it gives government at all levels more flex than they should have in honoring laws. The other thought I hear and see is some people just leave certain states particularly like NY and NJ and move to states that have better gun laws, but something seems wrong with that picture as it think it's just running away from the anti gun political cancer which really needs to be cured or it will end up spreading everywhere. There is a debacle going on in NY right now where the rural counties upstate are looking to cut a deal for better gun laws for themselves in the rural upstate parts and sell out on the NY City and the greater NY City area. I'm hearing that the local gun lobby, the NYS Rifle and Pistol Club, who is closely aligned with the NRA/ILA, does not want to go for this, as they feel we should all stick together and leave no ones rights behind. At first I thought about folding over and going along with the idea of selling out on the metro area in southern NY, but on second thought I had to agree that selling out is wrong. Everyone in America is entitled to same basic Second Amendment rights as everyone else. Selling out on others gun rights is a very bad precedent as it begins a trend where any political group can be sacrificed for the benefit of a few. That's really not the American way. The crux of it is that most of us can carry under whatever laws and provisions we have, but if the matter ends up on the desk of a prosecutor, DA, or other high sitting government legal official, you're likely to be in for some real legal aggravation like jail, big fines, and a record that will flag you from not being able to get your hands near any guns at all. All to fall on your back with the time and cost of fixing it.That's a pretty severe result that most of us don't want to deal with.
    1shot1k likes this.

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)