View Single Post
Old October 13, 2012, 10:15 PM   #30
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2010
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,877
I apologize for my lengthy posts; i try not to do that. I should add that my retirement post is outdated also....the requirement is 10yrs LE as long as your honorable discharge or whatever they call it isn't 'mental'. I have always been interested in leosa because I am pro nationwide CCW and hope it happens eventually. Especially with firearms laws and consequences can be volatile, so I am in the minority on TFL pro federal CCW.

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.
this statement is misleading. For one, I do understand how leosa operates. Also, leosa applies to every LEO that meets the guidelines. As I mentioned as well, I am unaware of federal officers being able to carry anywhere in America just because they are federal. First of all, it is a moot point due to leosa implemented in 2003/2004, but there are a whole bunch of federal agencies. Just because they are federal does not mean they had some kind of all of america(57 states as you put it protocol). An example is the amtrak police(clearly federal). They had to actually vie for an amendment which was signed by Obama in 2010(somewhere in the original literature, they were excluded).

The issue is moot because Federal officers don't need the LEOSA, not because the LEOSA doesn't exclude them. It would still apply to them after they retire.
Show me where this is true. either way, i assure you, leosa encompasses these individuals. At the very least it provides an extra blanket of protection, but that is not what i am getting at.

The point of the LEOSA is not for officers who are currently serving and off-duty within their own states, it is for the benefit of officers who are traveling outside of their home state, and for retired officers.
Actually it is. This law came to be after decades of fighting due to the fact that an off-duty chicago police officer was ambushed and gunned down off-duty by felons and thugs that I believe knew this cop(unsure of that specific). This off-duty cop who wore a sidearm everyday at work and put his life on the line everyday he put on his uniform was breaking the law(serious offense and serious career infraction) if he carried a CCW off-duty. LEOSA now nullifies that issue because it was in essence upsurd(just my opinion). An off-duty LEO in a state(such as IL) is now allowed to CCW anywhere without much of anything that he/she already has(career ID, honesty that they qualified with their weapon(human resources usually sets it up every yr so that is a gimme since they an't carry weapons at work without it), etc Furthermore, LEOSA is for all LEO's(past and present) - no matter what the reason - that meet the strict guidelines of the law. It doesn't mean squat that there is no off-duty clause(referring to how you mentioned that earlier).

I don't believe I said the law doesn't apply to them, I said they don't need it.
you referring to federal here...

The LEOSA applies to Federal officers only when they retire
when one reads it there are definite concerns on how one perceives what you are saying. leosa applies to qualified andor qualified, retired officers(of very many varying degrees).

there are other repetitive quotes I could display but might be going in circles ifso....I will add this one:

If he is not authorized by his agency and position to carry a weapon, the LEOSA doesn't do anything to override that.
I used NJ as an mentioned it wasn't brought up. Either way I believe this quote was used for federal example but it encompasses every leosa qualifier:

your statement is erroneous. The high courts have determined...without fail and without disrespecting leosa one time...that even if an agency doesn't cover it/allow the use of off-duty firearms, and so-on, leosa protects said individual and is protected and legal within the eyes & scope of the law.

Even with the interesting coast guard study(not military...coast guard since they met the requirements of the simple, short federal law), the military personnel was protected even though his unit, company forbid what he was doing, the person was breaking more than one law, wasn't honest about hidden firearm, had no license, etc. This person was still within his rights under leosa. without that he would've been up the creek(forgive me if I mistyped a couple of his details...I think there was a major one I forgot too).

*You probably understand leosa, but be careful of assigning it special stuff. It is a very clear and always upheld law. there are few exceptions which nullify leosa: someone's private property not allowing firearms(joe schmo anti gunner), state's restrictions on court carry, being drunk the main ones. leosa allows NJ, NYC, IL, HI(interesting case study), and so-on. it protects these individuals. in mass you need a class A CCW which is very hard to get(hard to get class B too)....leosa trumps it. I am pro national CCW..too much confusio the other way and people getting hung up(saw an interesting thread about navajo country on here)
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" -Admiral Farragut @ Battle of Mobile Bay 05AUG1864
youngunz4life is offline  
Page generated in 0.03528 seconds with 7 queries