Expand LEOSA to active duty/retired military?

This is a discussion on Expand LEOSA to active duty/retired military? within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by CowboyKen Many States do NOT require any training at all to issue a CCW and four States have "constitutional carry." There is ...

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 113
Like Tree66Likes

Thread: Expand LEOSA to active duty/retired military?

  1. #16
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,526
    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyKen View Post
    Many States do NOT require any training at all to issue a CCW and four States have "constitutional carry." There is no evidence that "training" as a requirement for concealed carry matters at all. I, for one, am in favor of "constitutional carry" throughout the USA.

    Ken
    Well read enough posts here and you will see plenty of evidence that training is needed.
    We get asked some of the most naive questions imaginable about everything from
    showing LEOs your CHL or not, to where you can carry, what signs you can ignore or not,
    what a merchant can or can not do with regard to asking you to leave, what an LEO may or may not
    do with regard to disarming you. We get questions about reciprocity and about scenarios in
    which folks seem to think lethal force is their first choice instead of their last desperate option.

    The posts on this board are great evidence that training is needed-- and lots of it.
    Secret Spuk and glockman10mm like this.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    Senior Member Array KBSR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Gulf Coast, MS
    Posts
    653
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckusaret View Post
    I have observed the quarterly LEO range training for several departments in my area and it amounts to nothing more then expending two boxes of ammo in the least amount of time possible for most officers. There are some exceptions, but very few.
    You've obviously never watched our qual's then. Ours are usually all day affairs, with regular qual's in the morning, and various combat, move/shoot course on steel in the afternoon, all tied together with some use of force instruction.

    There are some agencies that shortcut the process, but we always took it serious. Even the ones you observed were a hundred fold more shooting then most military get with a pistol though, as most don't shoot pistols at all, or just in basic training. When I was in the U.S. Navy we shot the 1911 and the M-16 in basic training, but once we qualified, we moved on to other topics that were non-firearm related.
    DocT65 likes this.
    " But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself... Baa." Col. Dave Grossman on Sheep and Sheepdogs.

  4. #18
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,796
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Well read enough posts here and you will see plenty of evidence that training is needed.
    We get asked some of the most naive questions imaginable about everything from
    showing LEOs your CHL or not, to where you can carry, what signs you can ignore or not,
    what a merchant can or can not do with regard to asking you to leave, what an LEO may or may not
    do with regard to disarming you. We get questions about reciprocity and about scenarios in
    which folks seem to think lethal force is their first choice instead of their last desperate option.

    The posts on this board are great evidence that training is needed-- and lots of it.
    Good grief........I will put the burden of proof on you since this is getting real old. I lived in NH and next to it was Vt. Neither has a requirement for classes. Check those two states out and the other states that do not require mandatory training and you tell me where that data is that supports the premise that mandatory training is necessary. I know you got the time Hop. If you can not show definitive proof thenI suggest that mandatory training is not needed. (BTW:don't matter, it should not be required anyhoo)
    Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
    And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

    Isaiah 6:8

  5. #19
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,816
    Wouldnt it be great if anyone that wanted to carry could, because the words "shall not be infringed" are inthe Second Amendment?

    If that were true, we wouldn't need all these separate "acts" saying who could carry and who couldn't.
    suntzu, Cold Shot, OD* and 2 others like this.
    The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it...- George Orwell

    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  6. #20
    Member Array CowboyKen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    384
    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyKen View Post
    Many States do NOT require any training at all to issue a CCW and four States have "constitutional carry." There is no evidence that "training" as a requirement for concealed carry matters at all. I, for one, am in favor of "constitutional carry" throughout the USA.

    Ken
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Well read enough posts here and you will see plenty of evidence that training is needed.
    We get asked some of the most naive questions imaginable about everything from
    showing LEOs your CHL or not, to where you can carry, what signs you can ignore or not,
    what a merchant can or can not do with regard to asking you to leave, what an LEO may or may not
    do with regard to disarming you. We get questions about reciprocity and about scenarios in
    which folks seem to think lethal force is their first choice instead of their last desperate option.

    The posts on this board are great evidence that training is needed-- and lots of it.
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    Good grief........I will put the burden of proof on you since this is getting real old. I lived in NH and next to it was Vt. Neither has a requirement for classes. Check those two states out and the other states that do not require mandatory training and you tell me where that data is that supports the premise that mandatory training is necessary. I know you got the time Hop. If you can not show definitive proof thenI suggest that mandatory training is not needed. (BTW:don't matter, it should not be required anyhoo)
    Just to add a note to the above, Florida has over a million permits issued. Florida does have a "training requirement" but any training will do (like a hunter safety class) and a dd214 will substitute for training. Please show me where this is a problem.

    Ken

  7. #21
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,796
    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyKen View Post
    Just to add a note to the above, Florida has over a million permits issued. Florida does have a "training requirement" but any training will do (like a hunter safety class) and a dd214 will substitute for training. Please show me where this is a problem.

    Ken
    First of all I do not think that training should be mandatory
    Second-what does hunting have to do with carrying concealed? Nothing. What does a rifle have to do with a handgun? Nothing.
    Third: What does a DD-214 mean? Nothing

    Having a subsitute for the training requirement is almost as stupid as having the training requirement to begin with. If it for gun safety then have airplanes fly over the country dropping flyers with the rules of firearm safety on them.

    One (CC training) has Zero to do with the other (hunter training, showing a DD-214) except for basic firearm safety. And if that is the intent then folks also need to advocate mandatory training to just own a firearm.
    Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
    And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

    Isaiah 6:8

  8. #22
    JD
    JD is online now
    Administrator
    Array JD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Central Iowa
    Posts
    19,118

    Re: Expand LEOSA to active duty/retired military?

    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    Wouldnt it be great if anyone that wanted to carry could, because the words "shall not be infringed" are inthe Second Amendment?

    If that were true, we wouldn't need all these separate "acts" saying who could carry and who couldn't.
    That would be great, not going to happen anytime soon but I'd be more than happy to see it.

    My issue isn't so much with the idea of GI Joe being able to carry etc, but that "the military" alone makes one Jesus with a gun because it just ain't so.

    I just wish that all carriers would put fourth the effort to become mentally and technically profecient in the carrying of arms, if that we're the case the idea for everyone being able to carry under "Shall not be infringed" would hold a lot more water.

    That being said, "Shall not be infringed" got thrown out with the bath water the first time that lawful carry by non criminals was prohibited.



    Sent via Tapatalk 2, and still using real words.

  9. #23
    Member Array CowboyKen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    384
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    First of all I do not think that training should be mandatory
    Second-what does hunting have to do with carrying concealed? Nothing. What does a rifle have to do with a handgun? Nothing.
    Third: What does a DD-214 mean? Nothing

    Having a subsitute for the training requirement is almost as stupid as having the training requirement to begin with. If it for gun safety then have airplanes fly over the country dropping flyers with the rules of firearm safety on them.

    One (CC training) has Zero to do with the other (hunter training, showing a DD-214) except for basic firearm safety. And if that is the intent then folks also need to advocate mandatory training to just own a firearm.
    So we agree that all of the above is worthless as "training" for concealed carry. And Florida has issued over one million permits that are recognized by 30-some odd States. Yet there do not seem to be a whole bunch of bad shootings or NDs by these permit holders.

    Any training requirement is a waste of time IMHO.

    Ken
    suntzu likes this.

  10. #24
    JD
    JD is online now
    Administrator
    Array JD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Central Iowa
    Posts
    19,118

    Re: Expand LEOSA to active duty/retired military?

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyKen View Post

    Any training requirement is a waste of time IMHO.

    Ken
    I don't know if I would go that far, but for the most part would have to agree.

    For every solid carry class there's probably a dozen crappy ones.

    Sent via Tapatalk 2, and still using real words.

  11. #25
    VIP Member
    Array archer51's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    21,077
    I spent 24 years on AD. I was qualified to carry .38 revolver and once the change over occurred the M9 pistol. However we only qualified 1 time per year. Military/LEO and civilian ROE are not the same, it varies between all 3. To say someone is qualified, by virtue of having been in the military is a LONG stretch of the imagination.
    sdprof and awoodpd13 like this.
    Freedom doesn't come free. It is bought and paid for by the lives and blood of our men and women in uniform.

    USAF Retired
    NRA Life Member

  12. #26
    Senior Member Array royal barnes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Wendell, N.C.
    Posts
    539
    I could get the LEOSA permit but, after reading all the fine print, it is not worth the yearly quals and only being able to carry the gun I qualify with or at least one similar. That fine print also says you must abide by all applicable state laws. Sort of muddies the water. My state CHP is good in 38 states. The others are ones I won't travel to anyway. I won't expect special privileges until ALL qualified U.S. citizens get them.

  13. #27
    Ex Member Array Snatale42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    431
    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyKen View Post
    Any training requirement is a waste of time IMHO.
    The problem with that statement every time somebody makes it, is your taking your own training/common sense for granted. I've lost track how many times I've been at a range, a gun goes click, and some moron looks down the barrel, sweeps half the people there, carries a loaded cocked gun up to the counter in his hand and puts it down with the muzzle facing the staff etc. Morons at gun shows looking down sites aimed at my head! (what happened to treat every gun as loaded, oh right they never LEARNED that!) MANY people do NOT have enough common sense to carry a gun in public without training. Whether you like it or not those people ARE a danger to the people around them. There are plenty people that grow up around guns and learn many things there whole life and do fine without an NRA safety class or formal training, but to think that everybody is like that is foolish.

  14. #28
    Distinguished Member Array bigmacque's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,767
    Not to dance around the issue, but the problem with military carrying under the LEOSA is the first two letters of the act: LE.

    Military may have extensive weapons training, although I know I did not ( I was a straight up cook for the majority of my career and for those 20 years only shot the M-16 once a year ) but military does not have the LE knowledge that the LEOSA is assuming. That LE knowledge is critical here.
    I'm in favor of gun control -- I think every citizen should have control of a gun.
    1 Thess. 5:16-18

  15. #29
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,796
    Quote Originally Posted by Snatale42 View Post
    The problem with that statement every time somebody makes it, is your taking your own training/common sense for granted. I've lost track how many times I've been at a range, a gun goes click, and some moron looks down the barrel, sweeps half the people there, carries a loaded cocked gun up to the counter in his hand and puts it down with the muzzle facing the staff etc. Morons at gun shows looking down sites aimed at my head! (what happened to treat every gun as loaded, oh right they never LEARNED that!) MANY people do NOT have enough common sense to carry a gun in public without training. Whether you like it or not those people ARE a danger to the people around them. There are plenty people that grow up around guns and learn many things there whole life and do fine without an NRA safety class or formal training, but to think that everybody is like that is foolish.
    How many of these people that you have seen have had "training?" Don't know so yo don't know if training really would prevent these actions.
    You talk about people acting like idiots at the range and gun shows, and I agree it happens way too often..but...what will mandatory training for CC do to prevent these SPECIFIC actions in the areas you are talking about? These are public places where folks take out their firearms legally and do not need a CC and therefore no class. So how does a class for CC'ers prevent this?
    And to continue...how many folks that CC (training or no training) during the course of the day walk downtown and plays around and points a loaded gun toward someone? Never or close to it. How many times does a CC'er take his weapon out during the course of the day (not at a range) and fires it and it goes click and he looks down the muzzle? Never or I would like to think almost never..

    You are trying to justify mandatory training for incidents that have nothing to do with ND's by CC'ers outside of a range or gunshow, or their home with which they would not need a class.

    I submit your arguement is based on fallacies and really poor examples.

    And yes, they are a danger to those around them...but you gave example of where you don't need a permit nor training.
    Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
    And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

    Isaiah 6:8

  16. #30
    Distinguished Member Array bigmacque's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,767
    There can be an awful lot of gun ownership without training. In the Great State of Florida, all someone that buys a gun has to do is wait the three days to pick it up if they don't have a license. There's no training required at all to purchase a gun, and therefore no training required to purchase ammo and to take the gun to the range, as long as you transport it within the law.
    I'm in favor of gun control -- I think every citizen should have control of a gun.
    1 Thess. 5:16-18

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

2013 leosa
,
dod leosa 2013
,
dod leosa opinion
,
dod police leosa 2013
,

leosa 2013

,

leosa 2013 military

,
leosa amendment 2013
,
leosa concealed carry ex military police
,

leosa military police

,
leosa military police 2013
,
leosa texas
,
military police leosa 2013
Click on a term to search for related topics.