So I think after all is said and done we're on the same page. I just sensed a little animosity towards the HR128/LEOSA carry. I'm changing my outlook on this. If I get collared for carrying, I might lose at that moment and be inconvenienced, but I will win big in court, and then I'll take the loser from criminal court to civil court and win again. I have very good carry insurance. In the long run anyone who does not honor a proper HR218 person carrying will lose as they should. Yes I was running a little scared at first, but now I'm sick of the nonsense. I've accepted that I might go in cuffs, but that's just the beginning, I could always use another house, car and boat. Nothing here is suggesting that I feel better than anyone else who wants to carry, Carry any way you can, as long as you're a good guy. Tired of the BS!
and i totally agree with the above statement......and also that a retired officer can obtain a CHL... just like anyone else.... to do it and abide by the same rules like everyone else......afterall, the retired officer is now just like everyone else.
no one has preached that here......retired officers should carry just like any responsible citizen should carry......just different opinions as to the license method......LEOSA license vs State permit is the discussion along with just what are "privileges" that should be granted to retired officers vs those same retired officers just joining the citizenry and getting a chl instead of being held a half-step above the citizens and therefore more privileged.
And then there is the whole basic question started over a year ago now with this thread in the OP that was the origin of this thread ...What is the general perception of officers and that there was a mess of trouble in NJ and NY from LEOSA not being reconized... and what other States that fail to reconize it........and i have no idea what the attitudes of other officers or States are as to enforcement which is why i myself will not depend on LEOSA.
and i have no idea where this came from........there are bound to be more considerations than just "bad apples" due to the numbers game on the size of the dept...or urban vs rural.......as was mentioned in the OP some entire States are failing to comply........and then the questioned knowledge of the LEOSA law by individual officers regardless of the size of any dept and then different politics as well. I have no crystal ball as to what officers, departments, or regions of this Country are compliant and those which are not.......other than what others post.....as what was specifically stated in the OP about non-compliance with NY and NJ. And from news accounts of anti-gun States, that leads me to believe a higher probability of non-compliance in States such as CA.....or city states such as Chicago that trouble may lurk there as well for the retired officer depending on LEOSA.
and then there is this from the OP......
BINGO!!!!!!! we have a winner