LEOSA

I am retired from Corrections. Do I qualify for LEOSA?

If you trained and qualified with a pistol/ revolver you certainly should. Nearly half of the police academy classes I taught were Corrections. All of those officers were eligible. This was in NJ which had been jerking retired cops, deputies, corrections and federal special agents around for over two decades. Every LEOSA rewrite has been aimed, at least in part, toward NJ.

They are still trying to get around Supreme Court doctrine for civilian carry by the stupidest reinterpretation of past laws that had been overthrown.
 
I am retired from Corrections. Do I qualify for LEOSA?
All I know is that issue was the subject of one of the notable New York arrests. Do you have a retired officer credential?
If they qualified and had their current card it shouldn't be much of a dispute....
Hence, the hullaballoo . . .
 
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'm down
Retired LEO's should not get anymore privilege then anyone else.
Off Duty LEOs should have no extra privileges especially given that I've heard quite a few cops on this and other forums state that their agencies policy is you do not get involved off the clock unless somebody is going to die if you don't
 
Last edited:
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.
You are aware that cops are civilians right?

And I don't want to hear about Merriam Webster. If you don't have an enlistment contract(AKA you can't resign at will) you're a civilian . If you can't be stop lossed you're a civilian. If you can't be recalled from retirement to active duty you're a civilian. If you're not subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice you are a civilian. If you can't be deployed for a year you were a civilian.
 
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.
It's kinda bums me out that they save the best parking spaces at Lowe's for veterans. I mean, what's good for the should be good for me, right?

And I guess you don't plan on ever taking advantage of that whole VA medical benefits thing either?

I jest of course.
 
The roughly 20,000 US law enforcement agencies each make their own policies on off-duty carry, use-of-force, and performance expectations; each is accountable to their governing body or bodies and, inevitably, the courts. Not to another agency.

There is no law enforcement agency hierarchy; each agency is accountable to its executive. If a 3-officer police department decides to investigate a 10 (or 100) victim homicide that occurs entirely within their jurisdiction, they can, and are without legal obligation to 'hand over' the case to county, state, or Federal agencies. Same is true for off-duty carry policies.
 
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.
Like the multiple cases where an armed civilian was able to stop an active shooter???

Like Elishija Dickens who made one helluva pistol shot and stopped an Assault rifle armed active shooter??
The right to bear arms is not predicated on skill and the narrative that "Only cops have the training" is BS as much as Retired Military officers who get on TV and tell reporters "I've seen weapons of war and no one needs an AR15"
And thanks to the main stream media, who kill those stories quickly, before the average American puts down there smart phone and actually start using there brain to figure out that an armed society is a polite well ordered society.

Law enforcement likes to perpetuate the myth that there level of training is well above us mere Civilian's (Even though cops are in that same category), But I've taken many shooting classes over the years, (One which I was the only non LEO) and found out quickly, that the average dept, ran by administrators, do not want to fund much beyond basic qualification and training.

And years of watching body cameras of OIS's has reinforced that view.


I'm pretty sure that I read somewhere on some document written by some old dudes that "All men are created equal" but I guess some feel there more equal then others.

At the end of the day, we all have our views, I've shared mine and I know I'm not going to change the minds of those who benefit having that "Special" privilege.

But as Fletcher once said, "Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining"
 
It's kinda bums me out that they save the best parking spaces at Lowe's for veterans. I mean, what's good for the should be good for me, right?
The best parking spots at Lowe's are there for handicapped people.
And I guess you don't plan on ever taking advantage of that whole VA medical benefits thing either?
You do understand that my VA medical benefits are legitimate compensation for damage done to my body while I was in the Army?

I'm going to assume that you don't understand that not everybody who applies for VA benefits get them.

You have to prove you're disabled and you have to prove that it is directly related to you being in the military and you have to be significantly disabled (70% or better).

I'm guessing that somebody decided that it was cheaper for the VA to provide the medical care directly than to pay for civilians(please note the proper use of that word) medical care.

My VA compensation does not grant me extra civil liberties that the average citizen doesn't have.
I jest of course.
I don't
 
Last edited:
I want to be clear about what I'm trying to communicate.

I understand why a retired cop would take advantage of LEOSA. That's simple human nature.

What I'm saying is that LEOSA itself is bad because it's a bait and switch.

LEOSA is a bone that the people (Bloomberg, Soros, Giffords and the like) who are trying to disarm America threw to the cops so you wouldn't raise Hell while they strip the Proletariat"s Rights.

I promise you (Cops) that once we're disarmed you retirees are next and then the active cops will be drawing arms from the police armory and turning them back in at the end of their shift.

Look at Canada and England folks because that is your future
 
It was George W. Bush who signed LEOSA into law due to increased risk of terrorism and violent crime. There were hundreds of thousands of retired guys who had served honorably for 25-30 or more years. The various states controlled the right to carry with sometimes onerous regulation. And only within that home state.

President Bush saw the opportunity to pass a law to arm those officer's who qualified and make it legal nationwide. Restricted to officer's trained in, use of force, arrest search and seizure, constitutional law, state laws, local ordinance, evidence gathering and preservation, court procedures, testimony. report writing, first aid, basic life support and quite frankly a whole lot more. Also a complete background check as well as hopefully, a psychological examination. Those approved had to have a minimum of 15 then 10 years on the job.

You will note that those with the required amount of time in the Military Police or Coast Guard service might also qualify.

So it really is quite a bit more than a lot of posters here know or want to admit. Police academy subject matter is varied and far reaching but required for certification. Shooting a gun is a very small part of the overall syllabus.
 
Last edited:
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?
My career mirrors your to the letter, excepting I found the NRA L.E. Instructors course excellent
as was the FBI and many others I attended.
 
No permit required at all for open carry in TN. I don’t actually agree. I’d like to see those who have no training get some, especially regarding legal issues. It is hard to paint everyone with a broad brush but I know people who think they can shoot someone who walks up to their car, without a weapon. Or, is stealing their car in their driveway. Or someone who is stealing their lawn mower.

The purpose of LEOSA as originally conceived was to enable retired LE, military police and others who met specific requirements to carry in every state. If you are participating in this discussion I would urge you to read the entire statute. You’ll be left with some questions.

It wasn’t supported by many agencies including mine due to liability. Finally, they had to issue a “firearms ID card” and the agency who qualifies you annually sometimes issues a card to go along with your agency card. Honestly, with the spread of reciprocity, it almost makes the LEOSA card unnecessary. As for the states who offer no reciprocity, I have no plans to visit any of them. But, not everyone can say that.
 
Tennessee looks out for retired police.
Lifetime permit....no cost last I checked. Reciprocity in about 37-38 other states. LEOSA is fine but far from necessary unless you plan on traveling to one of those dozen other states.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_9198.jpeg
    IMG_9198.jpeg
    1.6 MB · Views: 0
that Canadian thing would be nice "if" the American society didn't expect their LEO's to be their personal babysitter's 24/7/365. Regardless of whether that LEO is out for the day with their own family trying to have a nice family meal, or watch a show, or enjoy their kids sporting event, etc., etc., etc. 😤
Personal babysitter 24/7/365?????? That’s rather presumptuous. And maybe even a touch arrogant. Nobody I know counts on LE to look out for them. They are simply called , after the fact.
 
Back
Top