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?
 
#52 ·
Well... first being 21 years old, then the rest pretty much mirroring LEOSA's except for the LE part.
 is authorized by the DOD to carry a firearm;
 is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the UCMJ
 meets the standards, if any, established by the DOD which require the service member 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 DOD law from possessing a firearm.(This is where the PTSD/Mental Health bit would come into play... unfortunately a lot of our returning war heroes might have issues here)
I would also suggest some type of concealed carry course taught on base or even an online course would do (the military loves these courses). These would be the things I'd recommend initially. But ultimately the vast majority of service members that want to, could.
 
#56 ·
I goggled LEOSA 2012 and read the entire required qualifications that had to be met and I found one, dated 2 Jan. 2013, that does appear to allow ex military policemen to qualify:


have statutory powers of arrest or to "apprehend" for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (as of 2 January 2013)
 
#61 ·
Unless my memory fails me (and it often does these days), all members of the service have the authority to "apprehend" violators of the UCMJ.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bigmacque
#57 ·
chuckusaret.... the question is not whether active or ex military "civilian" police officers qualifiy (AKA Civilian Military Polic). That was indeed the reason for the latest Jan 2nd update LEOSA. The question now because they specified UCMJ apprehension powers is whether that implies all DOD commissioned officers, warrant officers, NCO's and petty officers since we all have limited LE powers under the UCMJ Art 7b rule 302. It will depend on how the DOD interprets the law. Which again is the issue and has been since the law was first established in 2004. It is still vague and open for interpretation by each agency.
 
#59 ·
I like, many senior NCO's and company grade officers, did perform a limited number of apprehensions of AWOL personnel and did perform prison chase duties during our time in service but, IMO, would really push the intent of the program. But, In my opinion, after reading the law, it does infringe on our rights.

I have to agree with SunTzu and I quote; "the goal is to reduce the infringement, not make up classes of folks that are deemed "special".

I earned my right to continue, as did millions of others, to bear arms under the 2nd amendment to the Constitution by my 24 years in the military protecting that right.
 
#58 ·
I wan't to start out by telling you I'm a vietnam vet 1968-1969 drafted not volentary. I am not interested in protecting the general public. We vets have paid for our freedoms and for some the price was verry high. My welcome home was being called a baby killer at the airport by a rich collage kid. I should have every right that any police officer has.
 
#60 ·
I was in the Marines, long time ago, and we did train on firearms quite a bit. I have to admit though, there are lots of active duty military folks who do not. Not everyone in the military is a "snake eater", so I don't think this should apply to them. JMHO.
 
#63 ·
Perhaps the point of LEOSA was missed to an extent. As a Safety Act, it is because over the course of a career, LEO's make alot of enemies, that don't go away when you retire. It's hard to imagine the Taliban trying to hunt down a service member after the combat action of the member is completed.

Not to take away from the service of armed forces members, as I am one myself.

The purpose of having qualified armed personel carrying concealed to maybe be at the right place at the right time to stop criminal, and/or acts of terrorism was a secondary consideration of the bill.

Furthermore, and I think relevant to this discussion is the fact that retired LEO's must annually recertify with their firearms with their agency, or a agency that allows retirees outside their jurisdiction to requalify to keep their credentials under LEOSA.
 
#66 ·
Too add to my last post: The military has to be anal about safety and I was not saying they should not. In fact they have to becasue a lot of folks in the military touch a gun once or twice a year so they are not use to using it. Why do you have to have PMI before the range? It is to make sure folks know the safety rules, do's and don'ts, and how to fire their primary weapon. If the folks are so well trainined in weapons and weapon safety you would think you would not have to review everytime you go to the range.

Tha is not a good reason to say military should have the same excemptions as LEO's.
 
#67 ·
Military with law enforcement training such as USCG drug interdiction might qualify however the minimum amount of time for a retired sworn LEO to be on active duty to qualify for HR-218 is 10 years.

I believe if this was to be considered an entirely new bill would have to be crafted for military personnel separate and apart from the LEOSA of 2004.

To all our men and women in the military current and past thank you for your service to our country.

Flag Flag of the united states Flag Day (USA) Line Veterans day


Regards,

FlaRon :urla9ub:
 
#69 ·
Under the 2nd Amendment I'd agree with this statement. But unless you are a retired law enforcement officer, you don't qualify. It took years and years, and a lot of work to get LEOSA passed into law. If you want the same thing, do the work to get your law passed, or put your ten years in to qualify as a LEO.
 
#72 ·
Guys, there is more to LEOSA than " firearms profiency" which seems to be the only thing that some seem to be keying on.

You can teach a monkey to pull a trigger. But the years of practicing and enforcing laws of the land, as well as specialized training in areas that are not directly linked to the application of deadly force, are things that are not taught in " shoot'em up " schools.

Actually, someone right out of the academy still has alot to learn. That's probably the reason for the LEOSA law requiring at least 10 years of LE duty as a qualifier.

It seems that there are some who are offended in the ego about not having this umbrella of the law. But regardless of what anyone " feels" , the fact of the matter is that until you have payed your dues, carried the badge, and continually placed yourself in harms way, learned how to handle the public, learn proper procedure for dealing with other Public Safety agencies, and had your family live under the fear of you not ever coming home the next morning, then you are not qualified.

Call it what you want, it's the law of the land, and all the sour grapes in the world will not make your feet big enough to fill these boots.
 
#86 ·
until you have payed your dues, carried the badge, and continually placed yourself in harms way, learned how to handle the public, learn proper procedure for dealing with other Public Safety agencies, and had your family live under the fear of you not ever coming home the next morning, then you are not qualified.
Somebody better send me a nationwide permit if that is the criteria you are going to use.

I can just about assure you that after 19 years in military bomb disposal, a lot of it in the Washington DC area, I can more than qualify under the criteria above, meeting all of it, probably more so than most "beat cops". If that were a list I could put a check after EVERY item.
 
#77 ·
that until you have payed your dues, carried the badge, and continually placed yourself in harms way, learned how to handle the public, learn proper procedure for dealing with other Public Safety agencies, and had your family live under the fear of you not ever coming home the next morning, then you are not qualified.
hmm, I seem to have done most of that. I did not bold the part about dealing with other agencies becuase I don't know what that has to do with life after retirement and the "privelege" to carry a weapon. I did have permission under Title 38 to work with the FBI and US Marshalls, and other LE agencies the last 11 years of my career so does tha count? And I did by a CCW badge for my wife as a joke......

Look, this is not an ego thing. Every point being made for LEOSA can easily apply to many other folks. I don't want to take away LEOSA, nor expand it under more "Federal" permission type legislations. I want, and I think we should strive for, is to get rid of the stupid permits.
 
#78 ·
or have national reciprocity like drivers licenses.
 
#79 ·
I'm pretty sure that you can't carry on base unless you are a MP. At least that's what I took the sign at the gate saying no firearms to mean (camp Lejeune anyway). I knew a few guys that had a gun or two but it had to be locked up in the armory. That of course only applies to those who lived in the barracks but still I'm pretty sure only MPs can carry on base. outside of base is of course is fair game.

As suntzu said, there are far more military members who are not in a field related to combat or an mos (like an mp) that would have the training to do so. Most AD military only shoot once a year to qualify then return to their desk, work bench, or what have you. Although there is nothing preventing them for signing up for the appropriate training that they need like a civilian would.
 
#81 ·
"I want, and ibthink we should get rid of the stupid permits".

I understand, and agree to a point. However, I do not think that everyone is competent to carry a firearm. I believe that there should be some qualifying training that at least gives the basics of safety for carry.

I have seen too many numbnuts who carry even with a CCW permit that I do not feel comfortable being around while they are handling a weapon.

And, I have seen a few fatalities in military service by carelessness and stupidity.

And yes, this can be applicable to LEO's as well, but in the grand scheme of things, I believe the ratio of incidents that occur with seasoned, experienced officers are quite low compared to the national average.

And, since this thread is about active and retired military, when I think back on the mentality of 17, 18, and 19 year old service members I served with in the military, I definitely don't think they should be allowed to carry around the public.
A few beers, in a topless bar, and a few handguns is a recipe for disaster with overblown egos and testosterone. Mix in the over consumption of alcohol, and it's hard to tell what could happen.

I'm not painting them all with the same brush here, but who has the ability to say who is who?

I remember a few years back when there was no concealed carry at all, for anyone. I'm glad that it's available now. But, before firearms became so popular with every Tom and Dick, things were a little quieter. Now you hear of some Dummy having accidental discharges in Walmart.

Sometimes I think you can cook the goose too much.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hopyard
#83 ·
"I want, and ibthink we should get rid of the stupid permits"..................................

And, since this thread is about active and retired military, when I think back on the mentality of 17, 18, and 19 year old service members I served with in the military, I definitely don't think they should be allowed to carry around the public.
A few beers, in a topless bar, and a few handguns is a recipe for disaster with overblown egos and testosterone. Mix in the over consumption of alcohol, and it's hard to tell what could happen.

I'm not painting them all with the same brush here, but who has the ability to say who is who?

Sometimes I think you can cook the goose too much.
First there are no 17, 18 or 19 year olds that meet the requirements of the LEOSA, must have ten years of experience. Second most states require a person to be 21 years of age to receive a weapons permit. Third, I don't know of many states that allow people in that age group to drink legally. Fourth, I do also believe 17, 18 & 19 year old military members act the same as their civilian counter parts.
 
#82 ·
As I stated earlier, I'm a retired LEO and I should have the same privilege as every other law abiding citizen in this country. No more no less. Nationwide reciprocity is the answer and what we all should be fighting for. For those who are constantly digging my state for it's restrictive concealed carry laws you are right to some extent but we honor concealed permits from the other 49 states. Does yours?
 
#84 ·
5th- since you served from 53-77 you should know that age is no barrier to service members who want to drink in off base establishments.
6-we are talking about military service extension to LEOSA in the thread which could possibly circumvent the 21 year rule state law if obtained under a Federal jurisdiction for that purpose.
And...
7- yes 17,18,19 year old service members act just like their civilian counter parts, except, they have a constant paycheck in their pockets, and a new found sense of freedom, which is exactly the reason it's not a good idea.

Blessed to be a Plt Sgt to some extra special young men that I admired and loved, I will never forget all the nights awoke at zero dark thirty, to come and get them out of trouble for being a little immature.
 
#85 · (Edited)
When did soldiers begin to be allowed to drink under 21? Forgive me for asking but that would be new (realtively new). Back in the 80's the military drinking age in CONUS was that of the state. It was a change that as far as I know is still in affect today. You haven't been supplying underage folks with booze have you?:smile:

I remember having to get platoon sergeants and other NCO's and officers out of trouble for being a little immature

If they are getting drunk with a weapon they are breaking the law.

And I thought LEOSA you had to have 10 years in as a LEO so I would assume that would apply to military so you would not have 17-20 year olds being eligible.

Doesn't LEOSA already circumvent CC laws and reciprocity for the states?
 
#91 ·
SunZu, in all honesty, I have to admit, that as a Plt Sgt, I, and my upper command quite frequently bought beer for our Marines ( as well as food to grill) as a reward or appreciation for a job well done. And it was common for a Marine to be served on base. This was 86-93.

I remember when I was a " Geiger Tiger" out of boot camp, I went to the E club and was served despite being only 19. I was told by the bar keep if I was old enough to fight and die, I was old enough to have a beer.

At off base establishments like Tobys, the Thunder Bird, AJ's, and the Tar Hill Opry House, it wasn't good for business to turn Marines and Sailors away. It was the original " don't ask, don't tell" policy.

And I am absolutely in favor of national carry for all citizens. The FOP and other LE organizations fought long and hard for LEOSA. And, it actually opens the door for all people.

This isn't really a " us v them" issue, but people are making it out that way. And it's a shame. LEO across the nation have helped support and defend and promote citizens rights to carry, and truthfully, without the voice of the rank and file officer to off set the political Police Chiefs organizations, I don't think you would have had the success in the victories that have been enjoyed.
 
#92 ·
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You are correct..it is not us vs them...(well, some poster here seems to think you guys are more special and in need LOL). Get some sleep. I saw in your other thread you had a busy but good night.
 
#95 ·
Friends,
I created a very important petition on the White House website that will help reduce gun violence at NO ADDITIONAL TAX PAYER EXPENSE!!! "MILITARY SERVICE MEMBER'S SAFETY ACT"Please review,sign and forward on to all others if you agree with it. I need 100,000 signatures by March 3rd for the White House to respond. Thank you for your support.

http://wh.gov/pi8f

Sincerely,
RC
 
#96 ·
There are three of us signed up as of just a second ago. Applaud your effort sir.
 
#97 ·
I appluad his effort but I am not signing a petition that sets apart our population in priveleged classes. The petition should be for all folks to be able to carry everywhere.

Sorry.
 
#99 ·
I haven't read this entire thread .... but I have much of it. Prior to LEOSA a police officer traveling out of state (on or off duty) or maybe a retired officer who was authorized to carry lost the authorization at his state line. A police officer's training with weapons is not limited to proficiency. There are many hours of training devoted to laws and when one can or should shoot versus not shoot. Those rules, laws, change over time. When I started it was lawful to shoot a fleeing felon. We were cautioned ad nauseum to not shoot non violent fleeing felons, but if a felon was known to us and was fleeing and if his/her escape was likely to endanger innocents, they were fair game. That has changed somewhat, I just use it as an example .... nothing more. Police officers in different states do serve under some different laws but the basics don't change that much, much of the training in use of force is pretty much the same. Civilian law enforcement is not the same as that which most military firearms training is aimed at.

So what you had prior to the LEOSA was a lot of traveling or retired LEOs who either carried something nearby they could afford to loose or they didn't carry. If they didn't carry and came along as a trooper was engaged in a struggle roadside at 2am in another state .... what to do?? I recall a trooper in another state once being forced into her trunk at gunpoint when a bus driver stopped his bus and came across a median strip pistol in hand and saved said trooper. I know of a trooper in Wyoming who was in a life or death struggle when a truck driver stopped and distracted the attacker with his S&W .... that attacker later attacked a trooper further south and that trooper was able to shoot him. When I traveled out of state prior to LEOSA, I had to make a decision .... carry in violation or not carry and be lawful but helpless to assist if I should see an officer in need?

It's not that I am arguing against citizens carrying, I live in a open carry state and often encourage people to consider CCW or open carry under some circumstances. But I do not wish to see others attempt to use LEOSA as a vehicle to CC nationwide.
 
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