LEOSA: Qualifications and Covered Firearms

[The Big D]

Apples and walnuts!.

Of course, I have. Will send along a linky in just a bit that will help you understand (I hope!) the relationship between state and federal laws.

Be safe.

Hmm...heard the term 'sanctuary cities'? Marijuana, in Colorado?

 

[The Big D]

Legal rationale.

This might help explain how there can be seemingly different laws in place.

States Can Legalize Marijuana (Though Federal Laws Stand), Says Congressional Research Service - Hit & Run : Reason.com

To be sure, though, state law cannot preempt Federal law. And LEOSA qualified persons CAN indeed carry in every state and territory.

Be safe.

 

[ltgem612]

LEOSA

My problem is with the annual qualification. The cost of range time, instructor time and ammunition all adds up. Everyone doesnt get it for free. Being retired I am on a fixed income. It's not that I cant qualify i was a certified police firearms instructor for over 30 years and developed courses of fire and trained thousands of officers. It's the pain in the *** that annual qualifications places on any officer particularly those who have moved or have been retired for a long time in my case over 20 years. Not only am I 1200 miles from my home state I dont know the local cops, chiefs(and I was one) sheriff etc to qualify locally. None of that is required for a state CCW which is good in most states and lasts seven years. While LEOSA has some benefits, too me its not worth the effort. Additionally I personally feel that if a ordinary citizen and there are millions can qualify for a multi-year CCW license with little or no training that license should be accepted as meeting LEOSA requirements for training. Present your retired identification and state CCW and you should be good to go. After all you had many years of firearms training and qualifications. So if a state issued CCW is good enough to give the average resident the right to carry it ought to be good enough for the retired officer. LEOSA needs to be changed to reflect that IMO. (But I know that is not going to happen)

 

[blues7]

Despite the inadequacies of the federal law and the varying ways that states implement the statute, I for one am very pleased that this thread has provided both the opportunity and served as a repository for the discussion of LEOSA as it currently stands, (across the nation), and any future changes that may be engendered going forward.

Let's continue to maintain this thread to the benefit of all that are covered under the act.

 

[akviper]

Huh?

Your statement is not true...nor could any state opt out of compliance with a Federal law.

Be safe.

You can be the test case. I chose not to poke the beast. I will go to normal states to vacation rather than give an anti-gun state my money.

I've carried in 49 states without problem but Hawaii thumbs their noses at LEOSA and require that you comply with their state laws in addition to the federal requirement. They will allow you to carry if you comply with their permit and registration laws. The five day registration is problematic in that only certain PDs are designated as portals of the registration process. They allow registration only a couple days per week. If you are at the end of the line they will close before you get to the window and you will have to try again another day. If you show up beyond the five day window it can be a felony.

Hawaii has nothing that I need to make it worth the hassle of complying with their laws. Call if you want to experience the arrogance of the DAs that will be happy to try and get your bail maximized. I feel as you do that they shouldn't get away with what they are doing but that is the reality of island life. Review the above posted links kindly provided by AimHigher.

 

[ispcapt]

LEOSA does not prohibit registration. Many states still require retirees to register firearms. States can still require it. You may not like it but that does not mean HI has "thumbed their noses" at LEOSA. Read LEOSA. And when you do read the actual words and not some preconceived belief what you want LEOSA to say. It only exempts from CCW requirements by states/territories.
States/agencies are not required to issue retirement ID nor are they mandated to qualify retirees. Some claim that agencies failing to do so 'thumb their nose" at LEOSA. Not so. If you read the congressional discussions that occurred prior to the passage of LEOSA you will see the intent of LEOSA was not to mandate agencies to do anything and agencies are not liable for retirees. So any court case contesting some people's beliefs of ills with LEOSA the courts would take into consideration the intent of LEOSA by reviewing the legislative intent when the bill was passed.

 

[Fastbolt]

My agency was listing the specific make/model/caliber/serial number of weapon used for LEOSA qualification on the qualification document for a while.

Now, they merely ask if you want to shoot a revolver or a pistol, or both, and then list one or both types on the document if the retiree qualifies.

 

[ispcapt]

My agency was listing the specific make/model/caliber/serial number of weapon used for LEOSA qualification on the qualification document for a while.

Now, they merely ask if you want to shoot a revolver or a pistol, or both, and then list one or both types on the document if the retiree qualifies.

Same with ours. The listing of a specific weapon was not intended as a restriction as the only listed firearms you could carry. It was in case you were ever questioned if you qualified with auto or revolver that you could show, for example, an auto and it was a S&W 6904, ser # such and such or a revolver it was a S&W 649, ser # 12345J. Finally the dept decided that was getting to be too much paperwork needlessly retained so now we get a sticker on our retired ID which certifies we qualified during such a month in the current year and a contact number.
Less paperwork = happy range officers.

 

[GerSan69]

Furthermore, there needs to be specific duties and obligations required of (former) employing law enforcement agencies who should be required to either grant LEOSA credentials to former qualified employees or provide a factual, valid reason why the employee is not eligible.

I appreciate your sentiment, but we're under their thumb for years while we worked there.... I wouldn't want to continue that into retirement. Just send me my check every month, thanks.

 

[JWM]

This is an old thread, but we need to put forward specifics to improve the LEOSA. I retired from federal LE service last summer and had my first LEOSA qual with a municipal police dept here in South Carolina. Fortunately, South Carolina does not split hairs with "type of handgun". I specifically asked that question and they shoot either semi auto or revolver, does not matter. I qualed with my Glock 17, but 99% of the time carry my 5-shot .38 revolver. No fancy qual card issued, just a letter on agency letter head stating that I passed the test with my G17. Folded it up and stuck in my retired Creds case. In my opinion, there are three areas that need legislation to correct LEOSA: 1). Clarify that separate qual with auto or revolver are not necessary to carry the other platform (NRA's position). 2). Specific language that carry under LEOSA exempts from the school Gun Free Zone Act. 3). Specific language that those carrying under LEOSA are exempt from state imposed magazine restrictions. Being retired, I'm now traveling around the USA in a motor home. That is why I chose to carry my revolver because I did not want to worry about magazine restrictions.

 

[JWM]

Improvements to LEOSA:

1) Allow Hi-capacity mags to those covered under LEOSA.
2) Clarify that only need to qual with either auto or revolver, not both.
3) Exempt those carrying under LEOSA from the Gun Free School Zone Act.

 

[CH4]

My county only requires retirees to qualify with one type of weapon, but issues a card that allows for both.

LEOSA is purposely vague to be as inclusive as possible, but what does "type," actually mean? Nowhere in 926c is it defined.

 

[Steve_in_PA]

LEOSA relies on the definition of a "firearm" from 921;

(3) The term "firearm" means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.

From the NRA's FAQ section on LEOSA;

1. Does the agency who qualifies me need to make a record of the make, model, caliber, or serial number of the firearm I qualify with?No. LEOSA does not require the agency to maintain this information. This is a frequent concern given the statute's use of the term "type of firearm." LEOSA authorizes the carrying of a "concealed firearm" of the same "type" the individual receives certification for. As there is no case law interpreting this wording, the word "type" should be read to conform with the dictionary definition; something distinguishable as a variety. Accordingly, "type" of firearm should be read to mean either long gun or hand gun, which would permit you to carry any type of legal long gun or hand gun based on your qualification and not one particular make, model, or caliber. As an action outside of LEOSA requirements, the creation and maintenance of a database may expose the agency to liability, as discussed below.

 

[Muley Gil]

I retired from a PD in Alabama, but live in Virginia. I worked in an adjoining county for over 7 years and got to know the sheriff very well. I have done my LEOSA qualification with that agency for several years now.

The card issued by the sheriff's office reads that I have met annual firearms training and qualification standards established by the SO to carry a concealed handgun, valid one year from date of issuance.

I have a lifetime permit from Alabama, a permit from Virginia and my LEOSA. I've also been known to wear a belt and suspenders.

"If you have any firearms training, such as law enforcement or military, the AZ permit is super easy to obtain. Fingerprints, copy of your firearms training, 1 page CCW permit application filled out, and a $60 money order, and you're good for 5 years. Renewal is $45."

My five year VA permit costs $15. I'm actually exempt from the fee as a retired LEO, but the county needs the money.

 

[les.b]

Well, thought I'd jump in here, not with anything new, but I just had the pleasure of qualifying with my old Department today at their new (still under construction) range. They could not have treated me any better. I first qualified with our old service gun, the Glock 23, and then they asked me if I wanted to go through with any other guns. I just happened to have my Smith and Wesson 640-1 Pro Series in the Jeep, and said sure. I did better with the 640 than the Glock!! In fact I aced the course with it. I have to admit that I didn't have any .357 with me, but had a box of 158 gr standard .38 spl. I had not planned to shoot it, but I'm glad I did. They recorded both my guns, so I have qualified with both a revolver and a semi., although we do not interpret LEOSA to require that.

I'm pretty happy, because I have to admit that I was a little nervous about shooting...I've been retired 20 years now, and even though I still shoot frequently, it's a different kind of shooting, and don't have range commands, and buzzers going off, and timed fire, and different positions, distances etc. but when I got there, everything fell into place, and I shot pretty good.

I'm a belt and suspenders guy, and I have a current WV permit, a current FL permit, and my LEOSA credentials as well. Not to mention that here in WV we now have "constitutional carry", so I guess here at home I'm covered 4 different ways.

Best Regards, Les

 

[blues7]

Nice going, Les. I'll be heading out with the sheriff's office for my yearly qualification in a few weeks.

 

[AimHigher]

California has a history of ignoring certain aspects of obscure federal laws and essentially, will threaten to sue an individual or entity that California determines is not complying California's arbitray spin on the law - regardless of what the actual federal laws says. As an example, the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), is one of the areas of law that CA will decide what federal provisions it will follow - if any.

 

[blues7]

California has a history of ignoring certain aspects of obscure federal laws and essentially, will threaten to sue an individual or entity that California determines is not complying California's arbitray spin on the law - regardless of what the actual federal laws says. As an example, the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), is one of the areas of law that CA will decide what federal provisions it will follow - if any.

Sounds a lot like NJ in that regard. (From things I've been hearing since, oh, the 80's.)

 

[AimHigher]

Sounds a lot like NJ in that regard. (From things I've been hearing since, oh, the 80's.)

Yes, and CA, NJ, NY and more will absolutely go ballistic with lawsuits if/when National CCW Reciprocity becomes federal law.

 

[Squarebutt]

Don't forget Massachusetts. We take a back seat to no one when it comes to creative interpretations. Last July our attorney general ruled that all the AR 15-pattern guns that were bought with the blessing of the state since 2004 were illegal to sell and own, and therefore a felony, but she wouldn't prosecute. For now.