[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by younggunz4life

Sir, please note the amendments provided in the link. I don't see anywhere where federal law enforcement officers aren't covered.

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

... Furthermore, the point of LEOSA is for off-duty law enforcement unless I am reading it and have read other material incorrectly.

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.

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.

I never suggested otherwise. The issue of an officer's agency supporting or not supporting the LEOSA wasn't under discussion (unless I missed something).

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.

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.

I believe NJ state troopers were having trouble with this way back when, but they were covered even if the agency was against it.

But, again -- this issue was not part of the discussion.

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).

Which of my statements was or were erroneous?

And, from your next post:

basically, Sir, an off-duty chicago police officer visiting washington DC has the right to carry a concealed weapon

Yes, precisely. Because of the LEOSA. Nowhere did I in any way suggest that a Chicago police officer visiting Washington. DC, would not be covered by the LEOSA.