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 bigmacque There can be an awful lot of gun ownership without training. In the Great State of Florida, all someone that buys ...

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 113
Like Tree66Likes

Thread: Expand LEOSA to active duty/retired military?

  1. #31
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,552
    Quote Originally Posted by bigmacque View Post
    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.
    Thank you...that was one of the points i was trying to make. Nobody that I know of has shown any significant increase in safety of cc'ers that have training and those that are not required training. All of the examples folks give of gun shows and what they see at the range can be folks that do not have a CC or even worse, they do have a CHL and mandatory training and still do these stupid stunts.

    I challenge anyone to show real data that states that have mandatory training for CC'ers shows any signifcant differences amongst that population compared to non mandatory training states.
    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

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #32
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,158
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    Thank you...that was one of the points i was trying to make. Nobody that I know of has shown any significant increase in safety of cc'ers that have training and those that are not required training. All of the examples folks give of gun shows and what they see at the range can be folks that do not have a CC or even worse, they do have a CHL and mandatory training and still do these stupid stunts.
    It really isn't just a matter of safety. There are things covered in the required training (or which should
    be covered) that can keep someone out of trouble. E.g., there is a longish and somewhat unnecessary
    thread elsewhere here that's been running for a couple of days. It is about a misunderstanding
    of signs posted in places that sell alcohol. Taking the course should have informed on that matter.
    Then there are the issues of appropriate v illegal uses of lethal force which folks need to learn. They are
    sufficiently complex that just allowing people to get training on their own or by "osmosis" from
    friends isn't going to do it; and if someone messes up in that area they will face a manslaughter
    or murder 1 charge.

    Though the knife laws and the laws about carrying pepper are not really about concealed carry of guns,
    they are covered within the CHL handbook, and they are worth learning. True we have to sign
    under oath that we have read them, but they are so complex that without some instruction
    they are incomprehensible-- even with instruction they are to some degree incomprehensible.

    I think the beneficiary of the training requirement is the recipient of the training. Just one quick example,
    a trip to the bank today. They had a non-conforming no guns sign. If someone didn't take the course
    they'd likely not recognize that it means nothing and only the 30.06 sign is valid. (The place has been
    robbed twice in two years. The signs didn't help. Now they have armed security but clearly have
    not chosen to keep the CHL holders out as they didn't post a 30.06 sign.)

    As I've said here repeatedly, I would prefer that the training be standardized in the form of on-line or distributed
    DVD instruction, if for no other reason than that would make it less expensive to poorer people who might
    need a license, or to folks who just have no time to go to class. But, I am truly grateful that
    I had training before getting my license, and though it is a pain, I'm grateful for the renewal classes.
    bigmacque likes 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

  4. #33
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,552
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Hop, I don't care if someone gets arrested for ignorance of the law. If you want to carry you still need to do more than what you get at the class anyway. So your premise is the class is to protect us from ourselves? Please. If I buy a table saw or band saw I am at way more at risk of injuring myself than with a gun or by getting arrested for not knowing the law. There is no requirement for me to have formal training for those peices of equipment.

    ..do you have any data that says mandatory training decreases your chance of being arrested for being a bonehead vs states where there is no mandatory training? I am just trying to figure oout where all this data is that is used to justify a stupid law.
    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. #34
    Distinguished Member Array chuckusaret's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    SE Florida
    Posts
    1,627
    Quote Originally Posted by KBSR View Post
    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.
    The question is; were there mandatory training objectives to be met and did all meet or exceed the objectives. What additional training was offered to those that did not meet the intended objectives or was it mostly a weapons familiarization day for most. Pass or fail they are still on the street. Right? I was born in Biloxi and raised in Gulfport and the majority of my family still live there. Hey, one of my best friends while in school later became a well know Harrison county sheriffs, Leroy Hobbs. LOL
    US Army 1953-1977

    ‘‘We, the People are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts — not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution.’’
    — Abraham Lincoln

  6. #35
    Distinguished Member Array Tally XD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Tallahassee, FL
    Posts
    1,825
    I also disagree that LEOSA should extend to active or retired military. Most enlisted in the military spend most of their time unarmed and almost none are trained in civilian world concealed carry situations. Also, I think it would extend this to way too many people that really have no need for it.
    awoodpd13 likes this.
    “I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry.”
    - Barack Obama Chicago Tribune, April 27, 2004

  7. #36
    Distinguished Member Array Tally XD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Tallahassee, FL
    Posts
    1,825
    Speaking of training, I would like to see stats on those who successfully protected themselves, and/or their families, that actually had training.

    While I agree that training is great, and should be sought by any responsible gun owner, I find it unthinkable to require anyone to have a training requirement in order to purchase a gun for protection against a criminal element that has little to no training themselves.

    The threat is real. I could care less about training requirements while someone has a gun pointed at anyone in my family.
    “I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry.”
    - Barack Obama Chicago Tribune, April 27, 2004

  8. #37
    VIP Member Array Secret Spuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    2,178
    The mandated training in Florida is a simple course that the candidate is aware of the law regarding concieled carry, that the candidate has been infirearms safety, and the candidate has shown proficiency in firing a gun. Thats it. Many instructors also include lectures about reaction with the police, how to properly conciel, options and firearms available... But for the most part it's the law, safety, and proficiency. While a DD214, or an honorable discharge may not garente the person is familiar with Florida law... It does stand for the other two standards. A hunter safety course is similar... The law, safety, proficiency. The CCW course in Fla is not as much training as it is just basic information. There are some instructors who will sell you some training that will qualify the shooter for the CCW cert. IME most CCW course's consist of filling the application, this is a gun... be carefull, then firing one shoy into a bullet trap, or a range... some even use a Co2 gun to qualify. I would say that a Florida CCW course in most cases is NOT!!! training.

  9. #38
    Distinguished Member Array chuckusaret's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    SE Florida
    Posts
    1,627
    The approved training requirements in the state of Florida meet the minimum requirements. There are excellent courses taught by certified NRA instructors that can be taken at minimal costs and then there are the very basic courses presented at gun shows. IMO, the courses presented at gun shows provide nothing more then a piece of paper and impart very little knowledge to those in attendance.

    I believe it is the individuals right to make the choice to attend or not attend any type of advanced training.
    US Army 1953-1977

    ‘‘We, the People are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts — not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution.’’
    — Abraham Lincoln

  10. #39
    Senior Member Array KBSR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Gulf Coast, MS
    Posts
    653
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckusaret View Post
    The question is; were there mandatory training objectives to be met and did all meet or exceed the objectives. What additional training was offered to those that did not meet the intended objectives or was it mostly a weapons familiarization day for most. Pass or fail they are still on the street. Right? I was born in Biloxi and raised in Gulfport and the majority of my family still live there. Hey, one of my best friends while in school later became a well know Harrison county sheriffs, Leroy Hobbs. LOL
    Yes to your first question. Everyone is required to qualify at 70%, and our SRT Members (Special Response Team) have to shoot 90%, but of course they try very hard to shoot 100%. Most agents are issued two handguns (primary and backup), or use a personally owned weapon and an issued backup, and a long gun, which could be a Remington 870, an M4 Carbine or an MP5 SMG so qualification takes some time.

    Everyone will pass, or their weapons (and badge and credentials) are pulled, which puts them in jeopardy of losing their job. Very few issues in this area. If they fail to qualify, they get a requal, and they can choose to practice between qualifications if need be. We do lose an employee or two from each academy class, for firearms issues, as some of these kids come to the job with zero experience, and just can't grasp it. Having said that, our firearms instructors do an excellent job of training both experienced and seasoned shooters at the FLETC.

    I knew Leroy when he was Sheriff, but was working in another state when he took his fall. You know he ran for Sheriff again when he got out of prison right? Actually had a few people vote for him too, which is amazing. I was raised an Air Force brat, and lived on Keesler before we moved to Gulfport. Probably have more friends in common.

    Be safe.
    " 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.

  11. #40
    New Member Array rcpolynikes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Newport, RI
    Posts
    8

    Another Wrench!!

    Interesting development indeed. Alright, forgive me for beating a dead horse and believe me when I say that it's not my intention to anger any LE but here goes. First of all I'm a commissioned military officer that is by no means involved in any "daily" law enforcement capacity. However, as some of you may know Article 7b rule 302 of the UCMJ grants "apprehension powers" to commissioned officers, warrant officers, NCO's and petty officers. Many officers take on investigative legal roles as well in commands. Now I fully understand that the intent of the latest development to the LEOSA signed into law by the CinC Jan 2 probably wasn't intended for those groups of people. However, that's how it was written and signed(which ever lawyer wrote the extension should have been a bit more careful with this bit). I'm personally going to meet with a JAG this week to verify the legality of coverage for all commissioned officers, warrant officers, and NCO's. I'll be sure to pass on the info but I'm fairly certain he won't have an answer for me right away. And when he does... it probably won't be the answer that I'd like. I understand how some in the law enforcement community would not be impressed with Butter Bar Smith or Sgt Timmy carrying under LEOSA but we have to remember that all it grants LE's is exemption from state CCW's... This is especially a pain in the behind for military members who have to get various CCW's for the different duty stations we are sent every couple years.

    The new law states:
    A “qualified active law enforcement officer” is defined as an employee of a government agency
    who: 2
     is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation,
    prosecution or the incarceration of any person for any violation of law;
     has statutory powers of arrest or apprehension under the Uniform Code of Military Justice;
     is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm;
     is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the agency which could result in suspension
    or loss of police powers;
     meets the standards, if any, established by the agency which require the employee to
    regularly qualify in the use of a firearm;
     is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or
    substance, and
     is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing a firearm.

    As far as I can see, even just as a commissioned officer I meet all those criteria. My only concern is the showing the proper credentials. I don't think a CAC card would cut it. Though they do show a service members rank...ie, officer, warrant, NCO....clearly not LE credentials though. I won't carry until I receive the okay for the legal office. And yes... I will carry if a DOD legal tells me that I'm justified(as vague as that hope may be)... I have to try right? Ultimately the way ahead that I'll take is writing my Congressional Representatives and recommending a similar "Miltary Member Safety Act" for qualified service members... since we all know that "congressional carry" is long gone. Thoughts?

  12. #41
    Senior Member Array KBSR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Gulf Coast, MS
    Posts
    653
    Quote Originally Posted by rcpolynikes View Post
    Interesting development indeed. Alright, forgive me for beating a dead horse and believe me when I say that it's not my intention to anger any LE but here goes. First of all I'm a commissioned military officer that is by no means involved in any "daily" law enforcement capacity. However, as some of you may know Article 7b rule 302 of the UCMJ grants "apprehension powers" to commissioned officers, warrant officers, NCO's and petty officers. Many officers take on investigative legal roles as well in commands. Now I fully understand that the intent of the latest development to the LEOSA signed into law by the CinC Jan 2 probably wasn't intended for those groups of people. However, that's how it was written and signed(which ever lawyer wrote the extension should have been a bit more careful with this bit). I'm personally going to meet with a JAG this week to verify the legality of coverage for all commissioned officers, warrant officers, and NCO's. I'll be sure to pass on the info but I'm fairly certain he won't have an answer for me right away. And when he does... it probably won't be the answer that I'd like. I understand how some in the law enforcement community would not be impressed with Butter Bar Smith or Sgt Timmy carrying under LEOSA but we have to remember that all it grants LE's is exemption from state CCW's... This is especially a pain in the behind for military members who have to get various CCW's for the different duty stations we are sent every couple years.

    The new law states:
    A “qualified active law enforcement officer” is defined as an employee of a government agency
    who: 2
     is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation,
    prosecution or the incarceration of any person for any violation of law;
     has statutory powers of arrest or apprehension under the Uniform Code of Military Justice;
     is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm;
     is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the agency which could result in suspension
    or loss of police powers;
     meets the standards, if any, established by the agency which require the employee to
    regularly qualify in the use of a firearm;
     is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or
    substance, and
     is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing a firearm.

    As far as I can see, even just as a commissioned officer I meet all those criteria. My only concern is the showing the proper credentials. I don't think a CAC card would cut it. Though they do show a service members rank...ie, officer, warrant, NCO....clearly not LE credentials though. I won't carry until I receive the okay for the legal office. And yes... I will carry if a DOD legal tells me that I'm justified(as vague as that hope may be)... I have to try right? Ultimately the way ahead that I'll take is writing my Congressional Representatives and recommending a similar "Miltary Member Safety Act" for qualified service members... since we all know that "congressional carry" is long gone. Thoughts?
    Another hurdle you'll have to clear is convincing your last command to issue you the LEOSA ID. Those ID's come from the law enforcement agency you retire from, not another branch of the government. My agency wouldn't issue you one, because you didn't retire from my agency. See the catch 22? Maybe the Air Force or Army wants to do it, but I think you have an uphill slog to get that accomplished.
    Hopyard 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.

  13. #42
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,158
    Quote Originally Posted by rcpolynikes View Post
    Interesting development indeed. Alright, forgive me for beating a dead horse and believe me when I say that it's not my intention to anger any LE but here goes. First of all I'm a commissioned military officer that is by no means involved in any "daily" law enforcement capacity. However, as some of you may know Article 7b rule 302 of the UCMJ grants "apprehension powers" to commissioned officers, warrant officers, NCO's and petty officers. Many officers take on investigative legal roles as well in commands. Now I fully understand that the intent of the latest development to the LEOSA signed into law by the CinC Jan 2 probably wasn't intended for those groups of people. However, that's how it was written and signed(which ever lawyer wrote the extension should have been a bit more careful with this bit). I'm personally going to meet with a JAG this week to verify the legality of coverage for all commissioned officers, warrant officers, and NCO's. I'll be sure to pass on the info but I'm fairly certain he won't have an answer for me right away. And when he does... it probably won't be the answer that I'd like. I understand how some in the law enforcement community would not be impressed with Butter Bar Smith or Sgt Timmy carrying under LEOSA but we have to remember that all it grants LE's is exemption from state CCW's... This is especially a pain in the behind for military members who have to get various CCW's for the different duty stations we are sent every couple years.

    The new law states:
    A “qualified active law enforcement officer” is defined as an employee of a government agency
    who: 2
     is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation,
    prosecution or the incarceration of any person for any violation of law;
     has statutory powers of arrest or apprehension under the Uniform Code of Military Justice;
     is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm;
     is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the agency which could result in suspension
    or loss of police powers;
     meets the standards, if any, established by the agency which require the employee to
    regularly qualify in the use of a firearm;
     is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or
    substance, and
     is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing a firearm.

    As far as I can see, even just as a commissioned officer I meet all those criteria. My only concern is the showing the proper credentials. I don't think a CAC card would cut it. Though they do show a service members rank...ie, officer, warrant, NCO....clearly not LE credentials though. I won't carry until I receive the okay for the legal office. And yes... I will carry if a DOD legal tells me that I'm justified(as vague as that hope may be)... I have to try right? Ultimately the way ahead that I'll take is writing my Congressional Representatives and recommending a similar "Miltary Member Safety Act" for qualified service members... since we all know that "congressional carry" is long gone. Thoughts?
    Maybe I'm being excessively pessimistic here, but I think you would be skating on thin ice even if a JAG gave you
    an interpretation that it is OK. The law clearly was intended (legislative intent counts) to allow LE officers certain
    privileges. You are not a law enforcement officer, you are a commissioned officer with some limited power
    to detain ONLY members of the military.

    After LEOSA was passed there were several episodes discussed on this forum or mentioned on this forum in which
    various state authorities simply interpreted LEOSA in a way that made it not apply in their state. See, the initial decision
    on application is going to be made by a street cop, then a local judge, then if you can afford it and haven't been
    kicked out of the military, a slew of state and Federal appeals courts. None of them will give a hoot what a JAG told you
    the law meant. That part (if well documented) might keep you from being in doo with the military, but it won't mean
    jack in the civilian courts.

    No disrespect meant, but if you want the privileges of a law enforcement officer, consider changing your occupation.
    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

  14. #43
    New Member Array rcpolynikes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Newport, RI
    Posts
    8
    Yeah, thanks for the insight and I most def see what you mean. The only way I'd carry under LEOSA is if... and that's a big IF somehow the DON would issue some sort of credentials. In the mean time I am applying for yet another CCW for yet another state which I am currently stationed. It's getting old though. I've also just emailed my 2 Senators and a Congresswoman about my "Military Members Safety Act" idea. Maybe we'll see that coming down the road soon. And I meant "constitutional carry" in the above.

  15. #44
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,552
    Quote Originally Posted by rcpolynikes View Post
    Yeah, thanks for the insight and I most def see what you mean. The only way I'd carry under LEOSA is if... and that's a big IF somehow the DON would issue some sort of credentials. In the mean time I am applying for yet another CCW for yet another state which I am currently stationed. It's getting old though. I've also just emailed my 2 Senators and a Congresswoman about my "Military Members Safety Act" idea. Maybe we'll see that coming down the road soon. And I meant "constitutional carry" in the above.
    No disrespect but I think it is a stupid idea. The goal is to eliminate the infringement, not make up classes of folks that are deemed "special"
    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. #45
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,158
    Quote Originally Posted by rcpolynikes View Post
    Yeah, thanks for the insight and I most def see what you mean. The only way I'd carry under LEOSA is if... and that's a big IF somehow the DON would issue some sort of credentials. In the mean time I am applying for yet another CCW for yet another state which I am currently stationed. It's getting old though. I've also just emailed my 2 Senators and a Congresswoman about my "Military Members Safety Act" idea. Maybe we'll see that coming down the road soon. And I meant "constitutional carry" in the above.
    I feel your pain about applying for multiple licenses at each duty station. Unfortunately there are many on this board
    who oppose any proposal for National Reciprocity, something that would solve your problem as whatever license you had
    or could get at your official home state would be good across the land.

    Good luck with your efforts to get to carry where you need to and where you live.
    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

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1234567 ... 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 opinion
,
dod police leosa 2013
,

leosa 2013

,

leosa 2013 military

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

leosa military police

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