Amen Brother...
-
Forum Update: We've upgraded the software to improve security, performance, and the overall experience.
👉 Read why we made the change | Support the Forum
LEOSA
- Thread starter heeter3
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2022
- Messages
- 3
- Reaction score
- 5
Geeollie,
Agreed. Montana does not require you to qual with your specific carry firearm. I choose to qual with a revolver and semi-auto on the recommendation of my attorney. Qualification with both handgun types better covers me legally in the event I am required to use one. For EDC, the revolver is always with me and the semi 90+% of the time.
The States that place State imposed obstacles in the way of a qualified Officer (Active or Retired) from exercising LEOSA are, generally, those States who are ardently working against firearm rights to begin with.
A brief Internet search for LEOSA 2025 turns up numerous articles. The best distillation and most concise one that I found was published by an attorney, Robert Corbett from Florida.
Doug M.
Member
I try to qualify with a revolver (usually M66), a single action cocked and locked (Wilson KZ9) and a striker fired (Glock or Shield) to show I can do it.
LEOSA has nothing to do with taking police action. It is intended to allow for personal defense, period. The idea that one could or should take any enforcement action, or even farther off, is mandated to do so, is not in the intent or wording. I'm probably not taking any action for anyone other than myself or my wife unless a cop is under attack. I still carry religiously, because "Murphy". IMHO, it is well into irresponsible to be unarmed unless there is simply no choice (like when I have surgery).
Just saw a report of a non-LEOSA incident in Spokanistan yesterday -some guy went full cuckoo and tried to stab a woman bystander got her into his apartment to safety. The knife wielder went after another man and killed him, then went after some guy walking a dog who put in the 10 ring in self-defense.
I avoid stupid places and events as well as I can, but stupid is a universal concept and sometimes comes to visit you despite your best efforts. It could happen at the Safeway, or the barber, or ...
LEOSA has nothing to do with taking police action. It is intended to allow for personal defense, period. The idea that one could or should take any enforcement action, or even farther off, is mandated to do so, is not in the intent or wording. I'm probably not taking any action for anyone other than myself or my wife unless a cop is under attack. I still carry religiously, because "Murphy". IMHO, it is well into irresponsible to be unarmed unless there is simply no choice (like when I have surgery).
Just saw a report of a non-LEOSA incident in Spokanistan yesterday -some guy went full cuckoo and tried to stab a woman bystander got her into his apartment to safety. The knife wielder went after another man and killed him, then went after some guy walking a dog who put in the 10 ring in self-defense.
I avoid stupid places and events as well as I can, but stupid is a universal concept and sometimes comes to visit you despite your best efforts. It could happen at the Safeway, or the barber, or ...
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2009
- Messages
- 204
- Reaction score
- 192
Well, it’s federal law that says a convicted felon can’t possess a firearm or ammunition. You may not agree but that’s the way it is.
This sounds like the guy at the NRA I talked to. Right after LEOSA was signed into law in 2004 I was on a state committee where we were putting together what later became IROCC in IL. We talked to a lot of sources and other states to see what kind of programs they were putting together.
There was an attorney at the NRA who gave his opinion that under LEOSA an active/retired LEO could carry a handgun, rifle, or shotgun. I stated that I suppose that would be possible provided the person could carry a rifle or shotgun concealed. He replied "There's nothing in LEOSA that says anything about the firearm being concealed." I knew right then that guy didn't know beans from apple butter. I replied that the word "concealed" is in the very title of the statute and mentioned several times thru out the entire statute. He replied there was no mention of "concealed" and he was sticking with his teaching that LEOSA applied to any type firearm.
I emailed him a copy of both 18 USC 926 B and C. With each statute I highlighted and underlined every placed the word "concealed" was in the statute, including the titles of the statute. I asked him if he believed LEOSA did not mention the word "concealed" then he should read the actual statute and take note the word is listed in the title and thru out the entire statute. He replied something like "I'm an attorney. I studied the law. I know what the law said." That just confirmed my opinion of him. More full of himself than substance.
jack zeller
Member
Because you are carrying country wide, and some states DO require training.
And I worry about none of this and happily use my ordinary state CCL. Most places I go have reciprocity.
Sgt. Buzzard
Member
In my first post I stated that I only carry the two weapons that I had qualified with under LEOSA. Reading the opinions of the NRA is interesting.
When OTJ I was certified as an instructor by the FBI firearms instructors school. After teaching for two years in the police academy the academy Director put me in for rangemaster certification to the NJ State Police Training Commission. That was approved.
The fact is all of the instructors I worked with came through the FBI course which required three consecutive 95% or better. The NRA course is a joke. A bad one at that. They are in it for the money. Strangley the insurance companies want NRA certification for private ranges.
As the department and academy instructor I have had to testify in Grand Jury's over police training and actions in shootings. The take away from these years is that qualifying with your carry gun is of benefit to you. Furthermore keeping your firearm stock can save you untold grief. No trigger jobs, spring kits, action jobs, or extended magazines, all can be a problem. Maybe not in criminal court but in civilcourt anything can bite you. You think the deep pocket manufacturer will be the target? No they will send in their expert witness to testify, " No, that's not a Glock, you see right here where someone changed the trigger group" Right then you're screwed.
I wonder how many of these NRA experts have testified under oath?
When OTJ I was certified as an instructor by the FBI firearms instructors school. After teaching for two years in the police academy the academy Director put me in for rangemaster certification to the NJ State Police Training Commission. That was approved.
The fact is all of the instructors I worked with came through the FBI course which required three consecutive 95% or better. The NRA course is a joke. A bad one at that. They are in it for the money. Strangley the insurance companies want NRA certification for private ranges.
As the department and academy instructor I have had to testify in Grand Jury's over police training and actions in shootings. The take away from these years is that qualifying with your carry gun is of benefit to you. Furthermore keeping your firearm stock can save you untold grief. No trigger jobs, spring kits, action jobs, or extended magazines, all can be a problem. Maybe not in criminal court but in civilcourt anything can bite you. You think the deep pocket manufacturer will be the target? No they will send in their expert witness to testify, " No, that's not a Glock, you see right here where someone changed the trigger group" Right then you're screwed.
I wonder how many of these NRA experts have testified under oath?
walkin' trails
Member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2006
- Messages
- 1,177
- Reaction score
- 550
I don’t think as many cops as you suggest are beholden to leftists because they support such legislation. Barry signed the first LEOSA reform law and I still didn’t and don’t support him.
Most of my off duty concerns came from working on the SW border. Odd how you can be recognized far from it when you least expect it. I’m actually very much in favor of national reciprocity and eventually seeing the whole permit process disappear. But when that happens I’d also like to see public schools teach constitutional law that includes lawful use of force as well as gun safety.
HARLEY0
Member
I am retired from Corrections. Do I qualify for LEOSA?
To quote Barry, Let me be very clear,
I am not saying that cops are Leftist or that they support Leftist or that they're beholden to Leftists although I'm sure some are.
What I'm saying is that I think cops and especially the police brass tend to go along with his legislation because there's carve outs that exempt them. If they start applying these restrictions to the police exactly the way that they do citizens I would hope that the police would be vocal opponents.
geeollie
Member
HARLEY0 the answer to if you qualify under LEOSA will depend on your specifics.
The following is a good place to begin reading and learning.
It is from the Dept. of State and is to their personnel but the basics apply to all.
Here are SOME of the basics:
The following is a good place to begin reading and learning.
It is from the Dept. of State and is to their personnel but the basics apply to all.
Here are SOME of the basics:
- Separated from service in good standing from a public agency as an LEO (see “Did I Retire or Separate From Service in “Good Standing?”);
- Before such separation, was authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, or had statutory powers of arrest or apprehension under 10 U.S.C. § 807(b) (article 7(b) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice);
- Before such separation, served as a law enforcement officer for an aggregate of 10 years or more; or separated from service with CBP or its predecessor agency, after completing any applicable probationary period of such service, due to a service-connected disability, as determined by CBP;
Revelation
Member
My main questions regarding Annual Qualifications or any LEOSA Qualifications is what is to be gained or what is the benefit from any Qualification as a Retired Used To Be LEO, AKA American Citizen without a Badge of Authority? As an example, as a U.S. Military Veteran, I do receive VA benefits, and sometimes discounts from various merchants. On the other hand, as a Retired LEO, I find that LEOSA serves no bonafide law enforcement purpose. LEOSA does not utilize the many years of training and experience that was invested in us to Protect and Serve, so why the need for LEOSA Qualifications? It's nothing more than a big CYA for the LE Agencies that really don't want any part of LEOSA and any potential liabilities. All Lawful American Citizens should be fully afforded the functional Rights written into Law under The Constitution of The United States of America. There is great fear for the "M" word!
Mike LaNier
Member
And yet here in the Soviet Socialist Republic of Oregon, our Legislature is in the process of adopting a bill that is the direct opposite... restricts legal concealed carry in many areas of the state, with a companion bill that requires a 'permit' to even buy a gun, restricts magazine capacity and bans AR-type guns, as well as restricting young adults (18-21). It appears our gun grabbers are ignorant of existing and proposed pro-gun laws, as well as both the Federal and State Constitutions. Truly sad.
If you are not a retired LEO, then none of it applies to you… there are qualifications required that do not apply to a regular CCW permit. I would think there are LEO openings where you live so join up, do your 20+ and get a few benefits.
I live in the state of Idaho but retired from an agency in kalyfornya. The retired guys are fortunate that Idaho provides an HR218 CCW permit issued by the state that meets the federal HR218 requirement. Per federal requirements we have to qual every year, get our paperwork notarized and take to our local sheriff that does the background check and delivers it to the state for issue. It's great in the fact that we don't have to go back to our old agency to get it done, however the state issued CCW to the general public is good for 5 years. I don't mind the annual qual requirement but all the running around every year to get the paperwork done is a pain. Upping that requirement to 3 years would make a little more palatable. Idaho also allows their state issued (civilian) CCW permit to stand in place of a NICS check when you purchase a firearm, however ATF, in their infinite wisdom 
, does not allow the LE state issued permit to do the same.
, does not allow the LE state issued permit to do the same.And there it is.... I should have more privilege then the people who pay me.... The Kings guard gets to carry, but not me.
I did 21 years in the Army, so I should get to carry an "Assault Rifle" in the same places you get to carry a pistol...Fair enough?
I've shot plenty of Police "Qualification courses" and there designed for the lowest denomination of the force, so that bar is pretty low. Lets be honest... The majority of cops are not "Gun Guys" and there service weapons are just one tool that they have to use, and for most, they go there who career never having to use it.
Yet there are retired Mil guys (Not me) who spent 20 years kicking down doors and shooting like that was there only profession, and were telling them, sorry, you get no special privilege, your not a retired cop.
Retired LEO's should not get anymore privilege then anyone else. And after what I saw happen at Uvalde TX that just solidified it for me. It's already been ruled by the supreme court that the LEO have no duty to protect individuals, only enforce laws, where the side benefit is maybe someone's life is saved. So this extra privilege law is BS.
Brother I get what you are saying and I served in the military for 28 years and LE as well. It is a different program. The military is supposed to take lives and break things. When the military guys clear a room they usually follow a frag grenade in. LE has to use a bit more discretion. I also agree that many are not gun guys but he annual qual requirement is usually a bit more stringent than the civilian courses. I taught firearms for 40 years an always stressed the marksmanship is a perishable skill. The idea behind LEOSA was to increase an LE presence due to this countries unrest and terrorist threat. It's hard to stop being LE even when you retire. Most civilians don't have the training to intervein and a civilian CCW was intended for personal protection not safeguarding the public. I get that there are plenty of guys out there that would and could do that, but there has to be line drawn somewhere and differentiating those guys from the rest of the public CCW holders would not be easy.
When I see police officers convicted of raping a 14-year-old and murdering her and her whole family as happened at Mahmudiyah, Iraq your argument may have more credibility with me.
Four U.S. Army soldiers from Bravo Company, 1st Battalion, 502nd Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) committed the gang rape and murders.
- Steven Dale Green
- James P. Barker
- Paul E. Cortez
- Jesse V. Spielman (as a lookout)
Blaming the entire US Army for these seems as at least as sensible as blaming all police for failing to act at Uvalde.
Incidentally, isn't DoD taxpayer funded?
Last edited:
