Defensive Carry banner

Expand LEOSA to active duty/retired military?

13K views 112 replies 34 participants last post by  Secret Spuk 
#1 ·
So while reading the verbiage in the LEOSA, I was thinking, why would this not apply to active duty military while off duty? Most AD military have extensive training regarding weapon safety, proficiency, and we even train for active shooter scenarios. Now I understand those with PTSD, legal issues and other stuff should be excluded. I think AD should be able to carry concealed in accordance with the LEOSA while off duty. COMMENTS?
 
#2 ·
The majority of folks in the military do not train extensively on firearms. Nor do most train on active shooters scenarios. Most military does not train with handguns. Almost no one in the military except special ops folks and other MOS's train for concealed carry. The bulk of thr training for military is with M16/M4 type weapons. The Air Force and Navy due to the way they are set up do not train realisticaly with weapons.

I fail to see your point at all. Or at least your rationale behind it. The only reason there are not a lot of ND's in the military is becasue the are too anal about gun safety.
 
#62 ·
The only reason there are not a lot of ND's in the military is becasue the are too anal about gun safety.
What?!?! No such thing as being "too anal about gun safety". Respectfully, I submit you could not find any reputatable LE, firearms group or other such folks that would support that assertion.
 
#3 ·
Nice thought but I don't see that happening. Training for warfare is not the same as training for concealed carry (and its inherent responsibilities).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hopyard
#4 ·
So while reading the verbiage in the LEOSA, I was thinking, why would this not apply to active duty military while off duty?
Because as the acronym implies, It's the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, Not the Retired Military safety act. It has nothing to do with overriding state firearms law for anybody with training. Active duty military wouldn't meet the requirements, even if they were MP's as they have no law enforcement authority in the real world outside of Military personal.
 
#6 ·
Why? Don't we already complain already how some pigs (no reference to LEO's LOL) are more equal than others? Being able to carry OC or CC is a right. No special priveleges should be conveyed because someone is retired LEO, military, MP/SP in the military. I swear, we try to find as many ways of accomodating the 2A as the anti's sometimes.
 
#7 ·
Ehhhhh. This would have to be done on a case by case basis. Otherwise, you would have every POG and non-combat MOS's trying to carry when they have NO idea what there doing, and on top of that, personally speaking from being in an infantry field, you don't receive the same type of training and awareness that a concealed carrier needs. Trust me, I wish this were true, but I know way to many former marines that should never be allowed to conceal a handgun ha.
 
#9 ·
good comments

I agree with those of you stating that we (American citizens) should be able to carry per 2A. The LEOSA grants no permission to arrest, apprehend, or detain anyone outside a LEO's jurisdiction which is why I don't see why it is solely for LE. The military at the very least trains safety and legal use of force. If you are assigned to a ship you are trained well on anti-terrorism and force protection. I just want to carry my gun without having to worry about CCW laws, not go out and save the world.
 
#10 ·
I agree with those of you stating that we (American citizens) should be able to carry per 2A. The LEOSA grants no permission to arrest, apprehend, or detain anyone outside a LEO's jurisdiction which is why I don't see why it is solely for LE. The military at the very least trains safety and legal use of force. If you are assigned to a ship you are trained well on anti-terrorism and force protection. I just want to carry my gun without having to worry about CCW laws, not go out and save the world.
The sentence in bold pretty well shows why the idea is not a good one. There is no such thing
as not worrying about CC laws. Whether you have reciprocity for your own state's handgun laws
or nationwide acceptance via LEOSA, you have to worry about the individual state laws; or at least
familiarize yourself with them.
 
#12 ·
I spent 22 years fixing radar, teaching, playing darts, and drinking coffee. How does that instruct me in any manner for responsibly carrying a concealed weapon? The weapon experience I have is from activities on my own time. However, all that aside, I can now show my DD214 in Florida and have it substitute for a CC class. But, since the CC class is cheap, available everywhere, and only a few hours, why wouldn't I take it to get the information I don't have from military service? This is not a great burden and the benefit is to me.
 
#13 ·
Not all Army personnel receive extensive weapons training. While I served most of the combat arms personnel, infantry, airborne, combat engineers and of course Delta Force, Special Forces, Rangers, and a few other select organizations did receive on going/annual small arms weapons training and qualification. With that said, that leaves a lot of active Army personnel that have received no other small arms training other than the limited training received during basic training.

Expand LEOSA to active duty/retired military? No.
 
  • Like
Reactions: awoodpd13
#14 ·
LEOSA was written and intended for retired Law Enforcement officers, and it shouldn't be altered or changed to include non-law enforcement retirees, IMHO. Law Enforcement retiree's have spent their career carrying/concealing/utilizing and qualifying with sidearms as a regular part of their duties. In my agency we qualified once a quarter.

I've had the opportunity to teach firearms courses, and to run qualifying courses in the role of Firearms Instructor while assigned to the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC). From my experience, most of the prior military folks had little or no experience/training with pistols, with the exception of some prior special forces (Green Beret/Navy SEAL) troops. For the most part they train on rifles in boot camp to demonstrate proficiency and or minimal qualification, and then then don't shoot live ammo again. Coast Guard people probably train and qualify more with sidearms then any of the other services, due to their law enforcement mission.

I utilize LEOSA, as it's good anywhere in the U.S., but I'm considering a CCW from my state as well, because the state of MS issues permits for 5 year periods, whereas the LEOSA has to be reissued each year, which is a pain. MS also waives the $100.00 fee for prior law enforcement officers as well, so $32.00 (fingerprint fee) is all that's required, with no training or classes necessary.

Be safe.
 
#15 ·
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.
 
#17 ·
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DocT65
#19 ·
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.
 
#22 ·
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.
 
#25 ·
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.
 
#26 ·
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.
 
#54 ·
First, qualifying yearly is more than most CCW permits require, which is good. Second, regardless you need to abide by all applicable laws of whatever state you happen to be in at the moment. Third, I qualify with both a revolver and an auto so I can carry whatever I want. Last LEOSA is a privilege that I earned with 25 years of my life.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2
 
#28 ·
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.
 
#30 ·
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.
 
#31 ·
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.
 
#33 ·
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^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.
 
#35 ·
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.
 
#101 ·
Air Force Security forces carries 9mm beretta with one in the chamber safety selector on fire as our primary weapon when on duty as LE. I can't speak on other branches so you shouldn't assume either now your facts, we also have concurrent jurisdiction which means we enforce civilian laws as well as military laws. When we stop a civilian for speeding on base we write a ticket to them that they get fined and points on their license. When ppl commit crimes we arrest them charge them and go to court when they are being prosecuted
 
#36 ·
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.
 
#37 ·
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.
 
#38 ·
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.
 
#40 ·
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?
 
#41 ·
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hopyard
#43 ·
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.
 
#44 ·
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"
 
#46 ·
Suntzu, I agree that the goal is to completely eliminate the infringement on EVERYONE's rights... but realistically I can't see full constitutional defense carry...nationwide including D.C, NYC, U.S. territories(as LEOSA covers) coming anytime soon. Might as well help as many law abiding citizens as we can in the mean time. Qualified military members might be a good place to start now that all LEO's are taken care of.
 
#48 ·
Back on topic, I don't think LEOSA should be expanded to include military. I say that as a veteran. In 5 years, I never fired a handgun at all,as it wasn't part of the TOE for my rank/MOS. As others have said, the vast majority of the military will not have experience with handguns.
 
  • Like
Reactions: awoodpd13
#49 ·
Mulle... it is now and has been for quite some time required at basic for all military members going through basic or officer indoctrination to qualify on the M9. However that may be the last time a lot of those service members touch a handgun in the military. Obviously as a member of the military who is also a big advocate of defensive carry for many years... I'd like to take advantage of LEOSA... if at all legally possible (Credentials..etc). However I do see the problem in saying that every Officer, Warrant and NCO should fall under this. Ultimately I think it would make sense to petition our Congressional Reps to create some other sort of safety act for "qualified" military members.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top