I note that many of the posters in this forum are LEO's as am I. To them I pose the following question: Do you find the LEOSA useless as I do? I carry under authority of my Florida ccw permit and not hr218 having read the actual law and its amendments and having now been retired since 1995. Do any of you retired guys carry under the provisions of LEOSA?

I'm now eligible to retire, but not quite ready to. The major advantage for carrying under LEOSA, I believe, is for travel to states where they don't honor regular CCW permits or issue any of their own (California). I have talked to some who believe that it is a hassle to have to go and qualify periodically under the qualifications standards of their state, but for a few of those types, maintaining firearms proficiency while they were working wasn't ever a priority. I bump into a retired fed once in a while who carries and qualifies, but he was an instructor when he worked for a living. I have considered getting a state permit, but would be just to have as I intend on exercising my right to carry under LEOSA. Heck, we fought hard for a long time to get it...

I DO the same... I carry on my LTC. Being retired for quite a while 1988....I really i'm not in the mood to back to my old department and run thru a course for 8 odd hours, so someone can tell me i can shoot straight. Besides my pursuit days are long behind me. My permit covers me for what i need it for. My dues to FOP and RDPA i keep current.

So, not being eligible, and not having a dog in the fight, isn't the usefulness of LEOSA being able to carry in states that deny FL CCW privilege? (NJ, NY, CA, etc)? That seems sensible to me, to have a 100% true nationwide CCW for LEO/retired LEO... am I mistaken in my understanding?


And if my limited understanding is correct, it DOES not exempt the LEO from having a home state CCW also right? Basically LEOSA +home state CCW = Legal USA carry? pretty cool deal.... I sure would do it if I could!

Useless? How so?

Yes, I am current with LEOSA quals and carry pursuant thereto. I travel frequently about the US of A and usually CCW. Though one can do so via a "home state" permit in some states, that does not cover one's self in such states as MA, NY, CA, MD, and the District of Columbia...all of which I frequent on a regular basis. Yep, I am "good to go" in those jurisdictions per LEOSA.

So, not sure why you consider LEOSA "useless." Care to elaborate?

Be safe.

I'm due to requal and the only thing I have enough ammo for is my 1006. This ought to be fun.

Absolutely agree with a couple of posters on here, the purpose of the bill was to allow Ex-LE to be able to carry in states like MA and CA where no one but the rich and privileged can get permits, as well as crime ridden places like Chicago and D.C. where local laws are anti-gun.

Just duct tape a sponge in your hand and then the gun to your arm, you'll be fine.

Each state handles it a little different. In Pa a lot of P.D.'s won't qualify the retired guys so the agency that handles the education and training requirements also handles the retired qualifications and its really simple. Any firearms instructors that want to qualify retired officers sign up with the state and their name and phone number goes on the states' web site. You fill out a form, call an instructor and get qualified. Also, the Harrisburg Area Community College police firearms range has qualifications once a month. There is a short lecture on the law and then you shoot. You supply your gun and ammo. They charge $75. There were only 7 or 8 people qualifying. I was in and out in about 2 hours. With Leosa certification, you don't need any CCW. When I was on the Police dept, we had to qualify several times a year. This is only once a year. After you shoot, the instructor signs a card that you take to the Sheriff's office and they register it in their system and the Sheriff signs it and laminates it. It took 10 minutes. LEOSA is federal law and you can carry in all 50 states.

__________________
Dennis
He's got a gun!

Yes, I carry a retirement weapon under LEOSA when driving out-of-state (such as now).

No, I don't consider it useless.

Yes, I've read the details of LEOSA.

No, the restrictions articulated in it don't bother me.

And before you ask ...

No, I doubt I'll ever feel the desire to try and "mix 'n match" CCW licenses and their occasionally variable reciprocity agreements.

LEOSA makes it much simpler.

__________________
Ret LE Firearms inst & armorer

Shooting is the easy part. Collecting the brass is the (not so) fun part. Good thing is I only have to shoot 5 "duty" rounds. The rest can be the watered down stuff. The range owner prefers you use that instead of the full "nucaler" to not "shoot the ****" out his back stop. Needless to say he is colorful.

I wouldn't call LEOSA useless, but it also wasn't well-written law and some states have done their best to circumvent it in ways that make it difficult or unworkable.

Take MA as an example (someone PLEASE take MA and dump it in the ocean!):

It took 4 years after LEOSA passed to implement anything in MA. And here's how it was done to make it unworkable for retirees.
- ONLY FT Municipal and State Police can qualify in MA. NO Feds, PT'rs or other ancillary police groups qualify under the MA CMR.
- The retiree "qualification card" is an 8.5x11" sheet of paper that you have to carry around in your wallet at all times that you are carrying under LEOSA.
- No PD can be forced to issue LEOSA-compliant IDs. Some PDs refuse to issue IDs to retirees as a matter of principle or to certain officers because the chief doesn't like them.
- LEOSA doesn't address large-capacity magazines for states like MA where they are illegal to possess if mfd after 9/13/1994. The authorities in MA have declared that even on-duty officers can only possess department-owned new large capacity magazines and only while working. They actually came out and said that officers should leave their duty mags at the station at the end of their shift each working day and only carry low-capacity magazines after work hours. Thus, MA won't support LEOSA if the SHTF and may even desire to prosecute a visiting LEO if the higher authorities were to learn of such alleged "violations".
- MA has refused to modify their CMR to reflect the changes in LEOSA made in 2010. For instance, I am now legally qualified to be covered under LEOSA (17 yrs good service as a PT Municipal PO before separation, no pension, no retirement) but know that it will never happen in MA.

__________________
MA Gun Law & NRA Instructor

When I said useless I meant for me. I will always be a retired LEO with badge and id card to prove same. My carry gun has never been discovered or seen. In the one or two traffic stops over the last 18 years I identified myself as a retired LEO. The question of if I was armed never came up. Professional courtesy is always a possibility. For me a Fl ccw permit serves my purpose and is recognized by the states I travel in. My Florida permit basically gives me the same authority as HR218 it just isn't recognized by all states. I can and have renewed by mail and its good for many years(seven from memory). No qualification is required. I don't have to spend time trying to locate a agency or person that will qualify me each year. I don't have to pay each year for a one year card. I don't have to hope that I will still be able to do it one year later etc. I don't have to buy ammunition each year(now over 50.00) and hope I qualify with whatever the firearm standards have become. I think part of the INTENT of the LEOSA was to show you were proficient in your carry firearm. But for a active officer that is a full size heavy weapon. I carry a small light weight firearm and if I met the INTENT of the law I should fire the prescribed course of fire with that j frame. My department that I retired from had a course of fire that included various distances(all timed), multiple targets, strong and weak hand shooting, barricade fire, stress fire(running up to the target), etc. I designed that course of fire. I was a NRA and State of Ohio certified police firearms instructor and trained hundreds of police officers over my 30 years in law enforcement but NOW 18 years later I am not sure I could qualify on my old course with my j frame since the course was designed for our Glocks. Having worked in Ohio but now living in Florida where I know no active chiefs or officers just makes it that much harder. So for me the LEOSA is basically useless.

I think I understand your concerns, but one facet of LEOSA that helped make it law was that standards for qualifications were mandated. For example, in Maryland a retiree MUST qualify with the off-duty course of fire active duty LEO's in the state shoot. That includes timed targets, strong and weak hand shooting, standing, kneeling, barricades, and distances up to 25 yards. In addition, there is classroom instruction.

No, all cannot pass the course. I think that's good...though I was sad to see a fine officer, former range instructor, and all around good fellow not pass last time I qualified. He was simply unsafe...and he understood that.

I daresay LEOSA would not have passed had there not been standards that must be met.

FTR, I qualfied with a M60-NY1, 2" barrel.

Re: PD's not being required to do anything, that's not cool. Maryland, though, is a very progressive state, and many agencies do qualify their retirees. I personally qualify with the Maryland Police and Corrections Training Commission and that requires a 300 mile round trip. Happy to do it, however.

Be safe.

I think the one thing congress neglected to consider when passing this act was what the person is required to do. As a law enforcement officer I had a duty to take action in certain situations. I was there to stop a robbery, rape etc. As a retiree things are totally different. I don't have those obligations. As such I now don't need to be able to engage multiple targets, shoot weak and strong hand, fire around barricades etc. While I still have had my police training my requirements are much different and as such my need to be able to perform the same as a active duty police officer is much different. I am 68. How many active duty officers are that age. My physical strength alone has changed over the years. I feel very comfortable engaging one target at 7yds or less and as a civilian that is probably all I will ever have to do. And as has been pointed out in prior posts there is no uniformity from state to state or even department to department as to what annual qualification is. Some states apparently are so lenient a almost blind man could pass. This act finally came about(had been a FOP priority for years) in response to the terrorist threat to our country--get more qualified officers out there protecting us regardless of whether they were on or off duty or where they were. That threat still exists.

I do , and am a certified qualification officer for Pa. Work at a local indoor pistol range and offer it there as a first come first served basis. Takes about 1.5 hours. We charge $45.
Is it perfectly written? No, but never saw a law that was in my 25 years. Good to have if you travel.
Need to have congress come up with a civilian version.

I was retired for several years before getting qualified under LEOSA. Our 40th anniversary was coming and we planned a trip to NYC. I got myself qualified and have used it ever since. My home state says a retired LEO is authorized to carry in state w/retired creds from his/her home agency. For me it makes things easier when traveling out of state, I don't need to concern myself w/a bunch of differing ccw laws for retired cops.

There are a couple of retired LEO's I know that qualify via the NRA in the DC area. All you need to do is supply your weapon and ammo (no mouse guns) and the NRA does not charge you anything. I'm not sure if this is a members-only offer but for those having difficulty it might be worth checking into.

__________________
Old Cop
LEO (Ret.)

First and foremost, the State of Mass cannot circumvent Federal Law by making up their own rules regarding LEOSA. if a retiree, say a Fed or relocated state or local retiree wants to qualify, they are able to do so AND Mass can't tell them how, when or where to do it.

Mass can refuse to change their CMR or whatever it's called...who gives a dam. If you meet the criteria for LEOSA under the FED statue you are good. Mass can do what it pleases, lock you up if they choose. You have an affirmative defense and will have a nice pay day thanks to those M*******S.

I NOT only feel your pain, i live it....here in Massachusetts...

My old agency doesn't issue retired IDs and prefers to ignore the whole thing. Wyoming has shall issue CCW plus constitutional carry. The CCW is honored in any states I care to be found in.

More deponent saith not.

MA not only can but has done this intentionally. I attended the hearing and testified against the CMR (much like CFRs under Fed gov't) and then attended a very contentious Gun Control Advisory Board (appointed by the governor) meeting on the subject right afterwards. One member of the GCAB was a retired Fed and no he can not qualify in MA (unless with a Federal agency). The only LEOSA instructors certified in MA have strict rules to go by or they lose their certification from the state to run the training and it prohibits anyone but FT MA Municipal and MA State Police from qualifying. The retiree requirement to carry a 8.5"x11" piece of paper in addition to an ID in their wallet everywhere for a year also makes LEOSA extremely difficult . . . it was an "in your face" move by the state (see below).

There is now also a uniform state ID for all LEOs in MA (allegedly compliant with LEOSA), guess what they don't issue them to retirees or a whole bunch of LEO categories that aren't the above-mentioned groups.

If it was fought out in Federal Court, MA would lose but nobody (org) cares enough to spend the money to do battle with a state that actually voted in lock-step against LEOSA (the Mass Chiefs Assn lobbied against it). BTW, FOP is almost unheard of in MA police departments. The unions that represent officers in MA are tiny, with no real political clout to accomplish anything and the locals merely exist to negotiate contracts for the departments.

__________________
MA Gun Law & NRA Instructor

Which is one of the many reasons S&W needs to leave MA, along with every other legitimate business.

P.S. Thank you CT for sending us Ruger.

I think what ultra45 was saying is that MA can do what they want, as can any state, about how you qualify and what the card can look like but if a retired LEO comes into MA having met the requirements of LEOSA they would have to, pursuant to federal law, honor that. I can see no reason a retiree could not go to another state if they lived close to the border and qualify there in that state. Once you've met the requirements of LEOSA you have met them and are now good for carry in any state. Or am I wrong?

Wife and I are already planning our escape to NH!

I agre with you . . . and all that actually love the Constitution as written should leave as well and let this cesspool drown.

__________________
MA Gun Law & NRA Instructor

I think that you should actually read the law. You MUST qualify either in the state you retired (or >10 yrs good service prior to separation) from OR the state you live in. I have a friend, retired OH LEO, he has to go back to OH each year to qualify! No other option even though he is 1/2 hour from NH (but as I stated above, that isn't legal).

__________________
MA Gun Law & NRA Instructor

Actually, the definition of what is a cop for LEOSA is generally federal, and after my research (7 page memo), my old agency issued retired ID to any reserve who had served 10+ years and left under good terms if desired. However, the federal definition may be varied depending on what state law is about who is a cop in your state, so you have to know it.

As for value? Priceless. Sometimes I have to go to places where my collection of CPLs won't cover me, and I don't have to worry about most details of that nature.

__________________
NHI, 10-8.

Did they at one time? If so, did they stop issuing after LEOSA? If in fact they did, the Feds on't be happy, as they are trying an end around a Fed law.

If they NEVER issued retired ID's you are out of luck, unless you can change their minds/policies. Good Luck.

I'm still active, but being able to carry in all 50 States without having to worry about getting jacked up is a big plus to LEOSA. Yes, some bone head can try and arrest you anyway, but with all the lawsuits that have been lost by cities that try and do it, I think the word has gotten around that trying to arrest someone covered by LEOSA is a loosing proposition. Provided of course the active or retired officer is acting in accordance with the LEOSA provisions.

Actually, I will be qualifying two retired officers tomorrow for LEOSA. One is a retired NY Corrections Officer living in PA and the other is a retired PA State Trooper.

I've qualified under LEOSA for the last 6 years. This was the first year the agency I retired from conducted a qualification. In the past I've driven as much as 180 miles round-trip to attend qualifications at other agencies. We travel in our Rv quite a bit so it's important to me to keep my qualification status current. I always qualify with semi-auto and revolver, this year a 2" pre-10 and Glock g27, so I can carry either.
To be honest, I'm surprised by the lack of interest in LEOSA by many eligible retired officers. The "crowd" hasn't exactly been overwhelming at any of the qualifications I've attended. If you're able I'd really encourage you to get qualified. Like most things it may come down someday to lack of use resulting in loss. The more it becomes "the norm" the harder it becomes for agencies not to participate.

__________________
SWCA #1917

Many officers move after retirement. Now they are in a different state usually without any contacts to the law enforcement community. They don't know the local sheriff, chiefs, or officers. That's problem number one. Next comes cost and difficulty with a one year qualification rather than a multiyear provided by the state ccw permit. Retirement usually means fixed income, so dollars do count. Having to purchase ammo for qualification(yearly), pay for instructor and/or range time and maybe even the card itself not to mention the time it takes to get to where the qualification is held all add up especially if your regular travels take you to states that honor your states ccw permit. So I rely, as do many others, on my state ccw permit along with my id card and retirement badge. And as I stated in a earlier post why does a retired officer need to qualify on the same course as a active officer who has a much greater duty to the community. I'm not expected to stop a robbery, rape, etc. IMO the writers of this law didn't take that into consideration. They could have said that if you have a current state ccw permit that state issued permit would meet the qualification requirement and could be used in lieu of annual qualification. If it is good enough to allow hundreds of thousands of civilians to carry why is it not good enough for a honorably retired LEO with years of firearm training. As far as I understand LEOSA doesn't grant any extra authority it just is good everywhere rather than only where there is reciprocity. It would have been simple to include language in the bill that the holder of a state issued ccw permit meets the qualification portion of the act as long as the state permit remains valid.

Some good points have been brought up, and I also have a better understanding of the perspective of the OP after subsequent comments.

Implementation (documentation, access to ranges, etc) of the law at the state & local level has made it difficult, if not impossible, for some retirees to take advantage of what was the obvious intention of Congress. Not surprising, considering the more than 17K LE agencies at the state & local levels.

I was fortunate, having had some small input into how my former agency prepared to address this issue. My former agency was already issuing retirement ID cards (under CA law) with the exemption for carrying a concealable firearm (which involves qualification upon periodic renewal of the ID if the exemption is desired by the retiree).

They also permit other qualified retirees from other agencies, now living within their jurisdiction, to schedule a LEOSA qualification at our range. For the time being this includes range access, ammunition, targets, range staff/instructor & a qualification record at no charge to the retiree (but which could change as may be deemed necessary due to the actual costs involved, of course, as it costs money to open the range and provide staff & materials). The retiree is allowed to bring a pistol or a revolver for qualification, or both.

I can certainly see how this could become difficult, or even nigh unto impossible, for retirees in other areas and circumstances.

Since it's going on not quite 10 years since the first LEOSA implementation, I'd have hoped things would have shaken out by now. Bureaucracy at various local levels ...

__________________
Ret LE Firearms inst & armorer

LEOSA doesn't grant any extra authority but there is one thing that LEOSA does that your CCW license doesn't. In many states they place restrictions on where the CCW can carry such as bars, restaurants, sporting events, etc. LEOSA supersedes those restrictions. LEOSA is clear that the only places the government can restrict are those places owned by the government. So if the government body doesn't own the bar, restaurant, sporting event, etc then the govt cannot restrict a LEOSA certified person from carrying in those establishments/events. Only the owners can restrict under LEOSA.
The other thing that LEOSA does that no CCW does is allow you to carry in all 50 states, terriorities, and possessions of the US including Washington DC.

__________________
183rd FBINA

The retired officer who I qualified today, remarked on the lack of people seeking qualification under LEOSA. He asked me how many I have been doing and I told him, only a handful. Basically, the same 5-6 guys every year.

I can't believe some states are still having problems, WOW.

I have my Retired ID since the day I left. I qualified to carry retired two months before I retired and recieved my Carry ID the same month I retired.
The State of New jersey actully had retired officers carrying before LEOSA became law. We get the forms from the State Police website, take it to the range, then send it in with our check.
The NJSP really do a great job, even though they are short staffed.

When the law first passed we were qualifing FBI,Marshals, DOC,NJSP,and locals.
This did alot for builing relationships within the state. It is a shame that our department put a stop to it and now only retirees from our department are allowed to fire on our ranges.

I feel it's great for me to be armed. I just might be passing by on the highway when a cop has some dirtbag pulled over and he decides to put another notch in his gun's grip.
I would love to see every law abiding person to have the same right to carry.

Yes I carry under LEOSA. I have been retired since '06 and have qualified yearly with revolver and auto. No big deal. Plus this allows me to carry in unfriendly states Like NY & NJ that I must occasionally travel ro to visit relatives. Also yearly it's great to catch up with old buddies.

__________________
Support your Police, & NRA

There are not a lot of cops that are really gun guys, care about personnel defense, etc. I'd say a good # don't carry off duty often if at all, don't carry at least 1 BUG on duty, and won't care about carrying when they retire. For me, the LEOSA process has been simple, and although I rarely go to places where carrying is an issue as I have also collected a good number of non-resident carry licenses, the belt and suspenders approach is appealing to me. I don't find the qualification to be difficult, and have done it with both an auto (G33) and revolver (M58 S&W, with 210 grain Gold dot!).

__________________
NHI, 10-8.

Correct, but the course can be given by any instructor that meets the criteria described In the LEOSA statue to the current standard course of fire mandated in that state.

MA will pull the LEOSA Instructor credentials of anyone who certifies someone that didn't retire from a MA Municipal PD or Trooper (FT only on both)!

__________________
MA Gun Law & NRA Instructor

So, retired officers from other states/departments are screwed??

Yes, exactly.

__________________
MA Gun Law & NRA Instructor

This is why I started this thread. Responses have shown there are still issues that need to be addressed.
As I understand it, congress has twice modified(amended)this legislation. Maybe there needs to be a third time to work out the remaining kinks so LEOSA works for all of us not just some. Nobody has responded to my suggestion that a state issued ccw permit could be used in lieu of the annual qualification requirement. Still seems to me that if that process is good enough for hundreds of thousands of a states civilians it should be good enough for retired LEO's with our years of experience and training. But what do I know. Anyone know your US representative or senator and can put a bug in their ear?

A state CCW might not require any type of qualification. In PA, there is no firing of a handgun in order to obtain a license to carry firearms.

i certainly use HR 218...darn glad president busg signed it in

__________________
SWCA#2208
KK4EMO

Not sure what state you are from or how you are interpreting LEOSA, but I am retired from New Mexico and live in Arizona. Both New Mexico and Arizona state that I must qualify to the POST standards of the state in which I live. I cannot go back to New Mexico each year and qualify, I must qualify in Arizona. I think the purpose of the law was to make it easier for the individual. Fro example, I know a few retired NYPD officers, wouldn't it suck if they had to go back to NYC each year just to qualify??

__________________
Support your Police, & NRA

I worked on Capitol Hill toward the passage of the LEOSA Improvement Act of 2010. One of the good things that came into the act was the ability to qualify under any LEO qualification course in the state in the event your state had no provisions for LEOSA. Of course changing the required qualifying time of employment as a LEO from 15 to 10 years was also good. What is missing is a standardized identification and standardized qualification course. When the issued id changes from state to state you end up with officers not knwing if an id is authentic when they see it. Your home agency id also is not ideal as it identifies who you worked for in the past. No one needs to know who employed you in the past unless you want them to (think DEA, ATF). Not that another LEO would cause a problem but there are other times when diplay of that credential would be required.

A standardized course of fire is also needed, simply because as stated earlier there is no need to qualify on the same course as current authorized LEOs.

To: Smithbrother

That's why I suggested that a state issued ccw permit should be able to be substituted for the qualification part of LEOSA. They are easy to obtain in most cases and the individual states have determined that they are good enough for the tens of thousands of untrained civilians residing within their state. Regardless of what they entail for qualification if they are good enough to allow a civilian to carry they should be good enough to allow a trained veteran(at least 10 years of service) LEO to carry since as a retiree there is no more responsibility on us than a civilian has. Would appreciate it if you could go back to your contacts and present this idea to them and see what they think about a third amendment to the act.

You are not correct in your "interpretation"...and it appears your states (AZ and NM) are not correct, either.

It is well settled that the retiree's former employer (regardless of the state in which the retiree now lives) can qualify the retiree. It is specifically stated in the legislation. Said retiree can also be qualified per state standards in the state in which the retiree now resides.

You may have gotten your info from the azdps.gov site. That info is not correct; they cannot amend Federal law.

Hope this is useful.

Be safe.

A retiree can be qualified by the organization from which he/she retired or per state active duty standards for state LEO's in the state in which he/she lives. For example, a retiree from the Baltimore PD could be qualified by Baltimore PD even if he/she now resides in any of the other 49 states.

Be safe

Seems to me that dumbing down the requirements.

And there is absolutely zero chance that any professional LEO would fail to recognize my LEOSA Maryland identification. Ditto my retiree credentials.

Re: qualification course of fire, MD mandates a "night" fire component. I think that's excellent and should be universal.

Be safe.

That may be true. Maryland might have a very recognizable and professional design. What about the other 50 states and the hundreds of LEO organizations within each. In my opinion, its a federal law, and the federal government should design an adequate uniform identification that can be tracked and have security features to prevent counterfeiting. It's a big hole in the system.