Again, there seems to be much you don't understand.
The LEOSA applies to Federal officers only when they retire, and it does not apply to any officers just because they are off-duty. The purpose behind the LEOSA was (and is) to allow law enforcement officers from one state to legally carry concealed firearms in states other than the state where they are sworn officers. In other words, it's effectively a national CCW for police officers (and retired police officers if they maintain their weapons qualification). Federal officers can already carry in all states. The LEOSA doesn't even address simple off-duty status.
Sir, please note the amendments provided in the link. I don't see anywhere where federal law enforcement officers aren't covered. Also, said law enforcement officer needs to just fall under any and all guidelines. The alcohol consumption is noted. Furthermore, the point of LEOSA is for off-duty law enforcement unless I am reading it and have read other material incorrectly. Lastly, the courts have made very clear that even if an agency(as one example) disagrees with LEOSA and/or doesn't allow off-duty carry, the officer would be and is still covered under the trumping federal law of LEOSA. If you read some cases that are noted here(you will have to dig deeper), you will easily see where I am coming from with this last point.
I did not know that all federal law officers could carry in any state(you seemed to suggest that), but I am not sure of that. However, these officers are allowed to carry anywhere in America and its land and waters because of LEOSA making the issue a moot point. I believe NJ state troopers were having trouble with this way back when, but they were covered even if the agency was against it. The law gained serious momentum at the beginning of the millenium when an off-duty chicago police officer was ambushed and gunned down(couldn't protect himself because of chicago gun laws when he was off-duty). Any law enforcement officer qualifies if they meet the short list of requirements. period. I am guessing that is why they needed to do an amendment for certain agencies for whatever the reason.
ps- I am not an expert but it seems cut and dry and you seemed to make some erroneous statements(one of which maybe because you were typing too quick since it says the opposite of the actual purpose of the law with regards to off-duty LEO's). Many case studies of the law have shown how stubborn and rigid the law is, as it is not too lengthy & people(lawyers,states,etc) have tried to sway it their direction unsuccessfully since this is a federal law: example, coast guard having power of arrest, county jail personnel since they can "arrest" a disruptive + incarcerated inmate and so-on. I probably shouldn't give examples since it all boils down to amendments and also if the LEO meets all requirements; I gave the coast guard one since it was a serious court battle, and you will see what I mean if you read the arrest report. The other example is only to show that words can be deceiving and have more simple meanings unlike the regular cop on patrol that can arrest someone.
segment of original law(doesn't address retired personnel but they enjoy same benefits LEOSA provides them, allowing them to carry CCW even in IL as one example.
What does “qualified law enforcement officer” mean?
A “qualified law enforcement officer” means an employee of a governmental agency who:
1. is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection,
investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any
violation of law, and has statutory powers of arrest
2. is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm
3. is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the agency
4. meets standards established by the agency which require the employee to
regularly qualify in the use of a firearm
5. is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug
6. is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm