The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old October 5, 2010, 07:35 AM   #1
hhb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2007
Location: Foothills of the Ozarks
Posts: 316
S. 1132

On 09/30/2010, the U.S. House passed by voice vote Senate Bill 1132 that makes changes to the LEOSA of 2004. The bill is on the President's desk for signature, and was sponsored by Sen. Leahy (D) of Vermont, and opposed by Sen. John McCain (R) Az. It created a whole new class of former LEO's that will qualify for nationwide carry under the law. The word; "Retired" has been stricken from the law, and the word ; "Seperated inserted. A seperated officer is one who worked as a LEO for 10 years or more, instead of the 15 years required under H.R. 218. The new law, if signed, will make it easier for those eligible to fire the annual qualification course by broadening who can range qualify them. Spread the word!
hhb is offline  
Old October 5, 2010, 08:03 AM   #2
Skans
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Posts: 8,041
Great. More "elite" government workers get to carry guns, while the government trys to find new ways to take away gun rights from private citizens. Wonderful!.....not.
Skans is offline  
Old October 5, 2010, 08:10 AM   #3
hhb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2007
Location: Foothills of the Ozarks
Posts: 316
S. 1132

The bill will include retired and "Seperated" military police officers qualifing because they worked for the Executive Branch of Govt.
hhb is offline  
Old October 5, 2010, 08:29 AM   #4
Sefner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 769
Here is the full summary of the bill:

Quote:
5/13/2010--Passed Senate amended. (This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the Senate March 11, 2010. The summary of that version is repeated here.) Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act Improvements Act of 2010 - Amends the federal criminal code to include a law enforcement officer of the Amtrak Police Department and the Federal Reserve or a law enforcement or police officer of the executive branch as a qualified law enforcement officer eligible to carry concealed firearms. Expands the definition of "firearm" to include ammunition not expressly prohibited by federal law or subject to the provisions of the National Firearms Act. Revises the definition of "qualified retired law enforcement officer" to: (1) include officers separated (currently, retired) in good standing from service with a public agency as a law enforcement officer; and (2) reduce the years-of-service requirement for such officers from 15 to 10 years. Revises: (1) requirements for firearms certification for such separated officers to allow firearms training in accordance with the standards of the officer's former agency, the state in which such officer resides, or if such state has not established training standards, standards established by a law enforcement agency within the state or those used by a certified firearms instructor; and (2) mental health requirements for such officers.
__________________
gtalk:renfes steamID: Sefner
Sefner is offline  
Old October 6, 2010, 06:34 PM   #5
Glenn Dee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 9, 2009
Location: South Florida
Posts: 1,487
I think this revison is more for former federal officers assigned to the executive branch (uniformed secret service) Amtrak police, and officers working for the federal reserve. (bank guards?) There are several requierment that must be met. The Officer must have seperated ( retired) in good standing. The word seperated in my opinion is used in leu of retired because many members of federal law enforcement move from agency to agency.... sometimes into a non law enforcement capacity.

I dont see where it gives any relief on who may qualify these seperated officers. Although the bill demands qualification up to local, or former agency standards it demands that a qualified firearms instructor do these qualifcations. I dont seriously think the intent is to allow anyone other than a qualified police instructor to participate in the program.

In my opinion this bill is nothing more than pork.

Glenn D
Glenn Dee is offline  
Old October 6, 2010, 07:09 PM   #6
heyjoe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Posts: 177
it also ends restrictions on ammunition not prohibited by federal law, which relates to new jerseys prohibition on hollow points. Thats a big plus for those of us who have to pass through new jersey on travel.

you are right about this Glenn Dee, this is the wording of the bill "or by a certified firearms instructor that is qualified to conduct a firearms qualification test for active duty officers within that State" - do you think that those who are qualified will do this as a sideline? or will their agency prohibit them?
heyjoe is offline  
Old October 6, 2010, 07:10 PM   #7
kraigwy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 9,548
Quote:
(1) requirements for firearms certification for such separated officers to allow firearms training in accordance with the standards of the officer's former agency, the state in which such officer resides,
or

Quote:
or if such state has not established training standards, standards established by a law enforcement agency within the state or those used by a certified firearms instructor;
I see this as making it easier for former/retired officers to be certified. Now we, after having moved to another state upon retiring, can qualify by our old department standards..........or................. the new state requirements..........and if the new state doesn't have requirements.......then the standards of a certified firearms instructor..........

Let me give an example. My old department had a qualification course for back up/off duty 5 shot revolvers that many officers carry. In my present location there is no such qualification. I had to qualify via standards using a normal service revolver. That made it difficult to qualify with 5 shots.

Now, I can use the local sheriffs department to qualify using my old departments qualification using the 5 shot stub nose which I carry.

There is nothing in either version that indicates that the CC would be limited to firearm instructors.

Also the way I read it, and the past version, if one upon retirement has a Permanent POST Firearms Instructor Certification, he can qualify others per HR218 and this change, as long as he keeps his certification current. For example Alaska requires providing instruction in a given subject, 8 hours per calender year.

Maybe someone can point out where I'm misreading this.

As far as adding the additional "former" clause, wouldn't affect one who had retired after 20 years and was qualified by the old version of the law.
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School Oct '78
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071
kraigwy is offline  
Old October 7, 2010, 01:03 PM   #8
heyjoe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Posts: 177
the house version of the bill was introduced by Randy Forbes a republican. sorry to confuse the issue with facts
heyjoe is offline  
Old October 13, 2010, 08:26 PM   #9
heyjoe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Posts: 177
s1132 was signed into law by the president yeserday
heyjoe is offline  
Old October 14, 2010, 07:19 PM   #10
Glenn Dee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 9, 2009
Location: South Florida
Posts: 1,487
I'm a retired Police Officer. Strangely I dont feel very elite. I have served my comunity for many years. I've suffered injuries, cried over dead children, seen things, and done things I never wanted to. I've sacrificed time, and effort often at the expense of my own loved ones. I've learned skills, and gained insight not found anywhere else. I still have, and will always have my cops eye's. My cop insight. My cop skills.

Nope I'm not elite... I'm just one of you who decided to serve the people. I dont ask for anything more than the benifits promised when I signed on.

Allowing us to carry firearms isnt a perk... It's a responsibility.
These laws arent giving to us elite status as civilians..
IMO these bills are the people saying to men and women like me..
We still need you.

Glenn Dee
Glenn Dee is offline  
Old October 15, 2010, 12:40 AM   #11
tyme
Staff
 
Join Date: October 13, 2001
Posts: 3,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn Dee
Allowing us to carry firearms isnt a perk... It's a responsibility.
These laws arent giving to us elite status as civilians..
IMO these bills are the people saying to men and women like me..
We still need you.
Your service and the service of good LEOs like you is very much appreciated, but that service should be its own reward. When laws like these are passed, it only widens the rift between LEOs and private citizens that has been created by an increasingly overbearing government employing a number of increasingly visible bad apples.

If civil society really needs ex-LEOs to be able to carry (with a minimum of red tape) to help preserve order, maybe the government should work on getting federal ccw reciprocity for all, and/or federal Vermont carry passed.

If the Dems can't agree to that, I think maybe they have ulterior motives in passing this bill rather than just "your service was appreciated, and we still need you guys." I have no doubt they need you, but more because of the ballot box than the ammo box.
__________________
“The egg hatched...” “...the egg hatched... and a hundred baby spiders came out...” (blade runner)
“Who are you?” “A friend. I'm here to prevent you from making a mistake.” “You have no idea what I'm doing here, friend.” “In specific terms, no, but I swore an oath to protect the world...” (continuum)
“It's a goal you won't understand until later. Your job is to make sure he doesn't achieve the goal.” (bsg)
tyme is offline  
Old October 15, 2010, 03:19 PM   #12
1776 Patriat
Member
 
Join Date: August 24, 2010
Location: Ga
Posts: 41
Any bill concerning guns introduced by VT Sen. Leahy(D) can't be good. At least not for us gun toatin citizens, lol.
1776 Patriat is offline  
Old October 15, 2010, 05:01 PM   #13
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,092
He's not the worst on guns. He voted against the Brady bill.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old October 15, 2010, 07:10 PM   #14
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,686
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn Dee
Allowing us to carry firearms isnt a perk... It's a responsibility.
These laws arent giving to us elite status as civilians..
IMO these bills are the people saying to men and women like me..
We still need you.
You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but in this instance your opinion would be wrong. This is not in any way meant to disparage your past service as an LEO, but the intent and purpose of the LEOSA was in no way related to "We still need you." The LEOSA does not convey any authority as an LEO outside of that granted by your state. Which means if you are a police officer in Albuquerque, NM, anywhere outside of NM you are an ordinary citizen who happens to have Big Brother's permission to carry a firearm for your own self defense outside of your home state. If you are retired, you no longer have any police authority even in your own state and none is conveyed by the LEOSA. You are just another retired guy, but one who happens to have permission from Big Brother to carry a sidearm without a permit.
Aguila Blanca is online now  
Old October 16, 2010, 09:06 AM   #15
kraigwy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 9,548
The LEOSA was and is not about giving officers or retired officers police powers anywhere. They already have/had that in their jurisdiction.

The Law Enforcement Officers SAFETY ACT, is just that, about safety of the LE Officer.

Cops by the very nature of their job make enemies. Enemies with long memories.

Case in point. Sturgis SD. A Seattle LE officer was on a road trip to the Sturgis Bike Week with a group of other LE & Fireman Bike Riders from the Seattle Area.

At one time, this officer worked undercover and his work resulted in several outlaw bikers being arrested and prosecuted.

Now while in Sturgis, the officer runs across a group of bikers from the outlaw gang which he helped to break up. Revenge caused a fight to break out, forcing the officer to take action where upon he had to shoot one of the bikers.

Had he not been able to carry out of state, then things might have gone different. Some will say, the officer should not have put himself in that position, but why, because one is in LE, or retired from LE, should he have to stay home and hide?

Thats why they call HR 218 the Law Enforcement Officers SAFETY Act and not the Law Enforcement Officers ARRESTING POWERS act.
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School Oct '78
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071
kraigwy is offline  
Old October 17, 2010, 07:00 AM   #16
blume357
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 2, 2005
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 3,943
The problem with these type bills is not that they are giving

extra rights to retired and 'separated' LEO's but that those rights were taken away in the first place... from all of us including the LEOs.
blume357 is offline  
Old October 17, 2010, 09:55 AM   #17
shortwave
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2007
Location: SOUTHEAST, OHIO
Posts: 5,936
Quote:
Cops by the very nature of their job make enemies
kraigwy makes a very valid point.

Unfortunately, our family was the victim of same scenario of which kraigwy referred to.

Many years ago, my sister and I were escorted to and from elementary school due to threats on us by a felon that was released from prison. Dad had dealt with him while working as an LEO. Our family moved often. Would just get settled in a new school and it would be time to move.
Two elementary schools, three jr. high and two high schools. Not to many long-lasting friends as a kid.

Won't go into the marital hardship between mom and dad all this caused.

Even after dad's departure from the dept., he kept a close eye on the where-abouts of this guy. As I recall, this POS died in prison ,many years after dad left dept and dad was very relieved of the good news.

Just a bit of in-sight on a few things LEO's and their families may go through that some may not think about.

I'm a very firm believer that if a civilian meets the criteria(not a felon,criminal etc) they should be allowed every right to own guns and cc.

I'm also a very firm believer that an LEO(in good standing) should have every right to carry after leaving dept. and should not have to go through the BS a civilian has to go through to start carrying.
As it stands today, a civilian doesn't go through nearly the background check to carry as an LEO did to join a dept.

As far as arrest powers of a retired LEO:
IMO, arrest powers of a retired LEO should be no more than the arrest powers of a civilian. Unless I'm reading this bill wrong, I don't think 'arrest powers' are what it's referring to.

Last edited by shortwave; October 17, 2010 at 10:01 PM.
shortwave is offline  
Old October 17, 2010, 09:51 PM   #18
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,496
Quote:
Cops by the very nature of their job make enemies. Enemies with long memories.
One of my nephews is a Captain in a large metropolitan department. One of his life-long friends was a public defender and later became a prosecutor. Both have dedicated their lives to law enforcement and have made many enemies among the criminals they have put away. LEOSA deems one of them worthy of special privileges to protect themselves.
gc70 is offline  
Old October 18, 2010, 02:39 AM   #19
MTT TL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 1,801
Quote:
Your service and the service of good LEOs like you is very much appreciated, but that service should be its own reward.
That is pretty rude. Why do you presume that this is a "reward". I understand the jealousy part on some because the officers are getting a privilege that others don't get. But if you think it through you might see that this is in fact a necessary evil. It is evil because it creates an inequality, it is necessary because some state legislators are still idiotic enough not to give people their rights.

Are you the kind of person who would take medical benefits away from a soldier who was wounded in combat in service to his country? Because I can see the parallels here. Some officers will be haunted and hunted for the rest of their lives. Trying to deny them the means to protect themselves from extra threats gained through public service seems small and mean.

BTW- MPs are not federal officers and many do not even work in any law enforcement capacity. CID agents and the like are Federal Agents and I guess could be covered by the law.
__________________
Proxima est Mors, Malum Nullum adhibit Misericordiam
MTT TL is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.11177 seconds with 9 queries