Special Gun Rights Given to Police But Not to You

[Tanfodude]

Special Gun Rights Given to Police But Not to You

This government-issued gun privilege rewarded to active and retired law-enforcement officers grants them the freedom to carry a firearm.

www.ammoland.com

Recently, a vote in the House of Representatives granted police officers nationwide concealed carry privileges. The vote resulted in 221 to 185 for the new government-issued privilege. The bill is called H.R. 354 Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act “LOESA Reform Act of 2024.”

This new government-issued gun privilege rewarded to active and retired law-enforcement officers grants them the freedom to carry a firearm in places like school zones, national parks, and state, local, or private properties open to the public. It also includes certain federal facilities that are accessible to the public. The bill also widely expands the ability for certain law-enforcement officers to cross state lines with concealed carry firearms and reduces the frequency of which retired law enforcement would need to re-qualify in order to meet certain standards.



Aren’t they lucky?

I use the word privilege and I hope you can recognize my sarcasm because I don’t remember the Second Amendment reading, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, as long as those people are current or former police officers.”​

Is this a move in the right direction or is this a slap in the face to gun owners across the country? Was this bill introduced under the assumption that police officers, active or retired, are better trained than the average gun owner? Because that is certainly debatable.

Many would argue that this bill was created, introduced, and sponsored because crime has gotten out of control throughout America and due to left-wing disrespect and defunding of police, politicians are finding themselves in a precarious situation of their own making. In what might appear to be an attempt at controlling some of the violence created by irresponsible left-wing policies, the bureaucrats behind HR 354 have neglected the rights of all, to allow privileges to some.


But that’s not all. It would appear that the bill also acts in part to address the obvious and deadly results of the 1990 Gun Free School Zones Act without actually changing the irresponsible law.

Joe Biden introduced the 1990 Gun Free School Zones Act as part of the Crime Control Act, and since it was signed into law, school killings have doubled and increased at twice the rate of increase every 10 years.​

Number of School Shootings Increased Every Decade

H.R. 354 would now allow active and retired police officers to carry on school campus. This does not change the law and therefore still prohibits civilian concealed carriers from doing the same.​

So, what is this really about? Somebody got smart and recognized that Joe Biden’s deadly Gun Free School Zones Act is getting children killed, however, the Gun Free School Zones Act still allows unconstitutional authority over the 2nd Amendment and remains in place to benefit politicians. So even though you may have more training than a retired police officer, and you may have more will to protect children in schools, (than someone like Scott Peterson, an armed school resource officer at Parkland, who did nothing to save lives) you are still restricted from possessing a firearm on school campuses.

The irony of this bill is not so much the fact that certain privileges are given to certain people but more the idea that the government has taken a right, turned it into a privilege, and has found a way to make us argue over who deserves that privilege.

All gun laws are unconstitutional, and all should be abolished. This particular one sets a dangerous tone and pits law enforcement gun owners against private citizen gun owners in a way that supports acceptance of unconstitutional gun laws.​

Ask yourself if current and retired law-enforcement officers will have a problem with this bill. The answer is probably no, which emboldens Legislators with the power of taking away rights and giving them back in bits and pieces as government issued privileges.

Now, ask yourself how private gun owners would react if those same bureaucrats decided to extend this new government-issued privilege to them. Would they denounce it in its entirety, push to remove the 1990 Gun Free School Zones Act altogether, and end all gun free zones, or would it be accepted and considered a win? Should gun owners accept this special treatment bill or demand Constitutional Carry for all?

Stealing rights from American citizens through unconstitutional gun laws and then rewarding some with the privilege of avoiding those laws in exchange for their support, is like starving your dog and then giving him a treat for rolling over.​

---

About Dan Wos, Author

 

[Route 45]

The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) was passed in 2004. Qualified active and retired officers have been able to carry across state lines for the last 20 years. The new bill just adds a few additional exemptions to prohibitions and modified training/qualifcation requirements. It is not primarily focused on gun-free school zones.

Active police officers can already carry on campus, and I'm not sure what business a retired officer has "protecting children" on campus if he's retired and not working for the school, other than if a rare incident should occur when he/she is dropping off a child. In any event, anybody who can legally carry can have a firearm in their vehicle while dropping off or picking up their child in Indiana.

 

[gassprint1]

As route 45 said, but i thought it was always that way. Also from my understanding, even once retired..they still keep the badge or credentials.

 

[KokomoDave]

I was a reserve officer for a decades and am not afforded these LEOSA privileges. Indiana needs to revamp the laws regarding reserve officers. We are not paid, get retirement benefits or insurance but we sure can get killed or maimed like merit officers!

 

[JTKelly]

They are the King's men, after all.

 

[ECS686]

I was a reserve officer for a decades and am not afforded these LEOSA privileges. Indiana needs to revamp the laws regarding reserve officers. We are not paid, get retirement benefits or insurance but we sure can get killed or maimed like merit officers!

There is no specific wording on reserve or active. As a reserve you qualify if you have the years. The issue is if your department doesn’t want to issue you a retired credentials.

I’ve been involved with LEOSA since 2004 on the Federal side and we didn’t have the issues state and municipal folks did. That said one issue I am seeing is (other then the retired credentials) is Indiana one is suppose to be a ILEA instructor to qualify retired folks. To be a ILEA instructor or keep your certification your suppose to be “sponsored” by an agency or on their books in some capacity however a lot of Chiefs and Sheriffs are forbidding their department instructors to qualify them part because of control part because they are uneducated and think the department bares some responsibility of retiree is a dimbass which isn’t the case.

Lots of other issues that need revised in it.

As far as the haters it was sold and then the indication from the Bush administration was it was going to be a nationwide reciprocal for civilians on their home state permits 20 years later with 12 years of a Dem presidency here we are

 

[Denny347]

They are the King's men, after all.

 

[Gabriel]

Aren’t they lucky?

Yes, we are.

 

[Gabriel]

I’ve been involved with LEOSA since 2004 on the Federal side and we didn’t have the issues state and municipal folks did. That said one issue I am seeing is (other then the retired credentials) is Indiana one is suppose to be a ILEA instructor to qualify retired folks. To be a ILEA instructor or keep your certification your suppose to be “sponsored” by an agency or on their books in some capacity however a lot of Chiefs and Sheriffs are forbidding their department instructors to qualify them part because of control part because they are uneducated and think the department bares some responsibility of retiree is a dimbass which isn’t the case.

Lots of other issues that need revised in it.

We have specific range dates every year for our retirees to maintain their LEOSA status.

 

[ECS686]

We have specific range dates every year for our retirees to maintain their LEOSA status.

There are a few places that so everyone and ILEA has a couple dates as well and I am able to qualify folks too.

My issue is there is no mechanisms in the law that prevents a Chief or Sheriff from flat out refusing their staff from conducting the required qualification. A few only qualify staff from their department other nobody at all.

As well as an agency can refuse to issue the required credentials if someone decides they don’t like the law or just want to be a controlling asshat.

(I also wish everyone had reciprocal ability to carry anywhere too but that’s another issue)

 

[Gabriel]

They are the King's men, after all.

 

[KokomoDave]

Yah, I have 27 years before I retired.

 

[NHT3]

There are a few places that so everyone and ILEA has a couple dates as well and I am able to qualify folks too.

My issue is there is no mechanisms in the law that prevents a Chief or Sheriff from flat out refusing their staff from conducting the required qualification. A few only qualify staff from their department other nobody at all.

As well as an agency can refuse to issue the required credentials if someone decides they don’t like the law or just want to be a controlling asshat.

(I also wish everyone had reciprocal ability to carry anywhere too but that’s another issue)

Seems like the simple solution would be to allow "civilians" with LTCH to qualify on the same course?
I can't seem to find the course of fire (30 rounds)for retired officers but did locate the course of fire for current officers, it appears similar to the FBI course. It doesn't appear to be overwhelming although I doubt most LTCH holders could pass it. Anyone know what the 30 round course of fire for a retired officer is?

https://faqs.in.gov/hc/en-us/articles/115005064427-What-is-the-ILEA-s-Qualification-Handgun-Course

 

[Expat]

They are the King's men, after all.

All Animals Are Equal but Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others​

 

[Ziggidy]

Seems like the simple solution would be to allow "civilians" with LTCH to qualify on the same course?
I can't seem to find the course of fire (30 rounds)for retired officers but did locate the course of fire for current officers, it appears similar to the FBI course. It doesn't appear to be overwhelming although I doubt most LTCH holders could pass it. Anyone know what the 30 round course of fire for a retired officer is?

https://faqs.in.gov/hc/en-us/articles/115005064427-What-is-the-ILEA-s-Qualification-Handgun-Course

A requirement to be able to carry is still an infringement.

 

[NHT3]

A requirement to be able to carry is still an infringement.

I agree but this point not an issue in Indiana with constitutional carry. Personally I think there should be a qualification for a LTCH and I know some disagree but, like driving I think it's prudent to demonstrate basic knowledge and skills to engage in an activity that potentially dangerous to others. Not "Navy Seal" skills but qualification akin to what retired LEOs are required to do. Working as RSO at a public range gave me a perspective of how much of a danger, to themselves and others, many people are that carry a gun. A 12 year old can buy a car drive in their back yard but I think it's only prudent to expect someone to have basic skills to operate one on public. I feel the same about a firearm. If that doesn't seem logical tell me where I'm going wrong?

 

[ECS686]

Seems like the simple solution would be to allow "civilians" with LTCH to qualify on the same course?
I can't seem to find the course of fire (30 rounds)for retired officers but did locate the course of fire for current officers, it appears similar to the FBI course. It doesn't appear to be overwhelming although I doubt most LTCH holders could pass it. Anyone know what the 30 round course of fire for a retired officer is?

https://faqs.in.gov/hc/en-us/articles/115005064427-What-is-the-ILEA-s-Qualification-Handgun-Course

There is no set “standard” for LEOSA as far as what qualification is required. ILEA does a 30 round course others have done a simple 15-20 round backup gun course they just require an ILEA certified Instructor

In Ohio at one time an NRA was GTG Vance runs them once a month

Here is the ILEA 30 round LEOSA links

First click on “retired Officer qualification and it explains sign up

Latest Information from ILEA

www.in.gov

2nd is the course of fire

https://www.in.gov/ilea/files/ILEA-Retired-Officer-Course-of-Fire.docx

 

[ECS686]

I agree but this point not an issue in Indiana with constitutional carry. Personally I think there should be a qualification for a LTCH and I know some disagree but, like driving I think it's prudent to demonstrate basic knowledge and skills to engage in an activity that potentially dangerous to others. Not "Navy Seal" skills but qualification akin to what retired LEOs are required to do. Working as RSO at a public range gave me a perspective of how much of a danger, to themselves and others, many people are that carry a gun. A 12 year old can buy a car drive in their back yard but I think it's only prudent to expect someone to have basic skills to operate one on public. I feel the same about a firearm. If that doesn't seem logical tell me where I'm going wrong?

I wish people wanted to practice but I disagree on requiring any kind of minimum standards. And I sure wouldn’t use driving as an example for proving one’s proficiency.

I mean most everyone took a drivers course and everybody with a valid license took and passed a test with “Minimum Standards” yet look at I 465, I 70, I 65, US 40, (pick a road) yeah how’s those minimum standards working out!!!

You don’t have to pass a “test” to practice any other constitutional right!

Off topic but related if you go to a LEOSA qualification my buddy Darryl Bolke made a good point. That is perfect proof that suggesting a revolver isn’t always a bad thing. Here is a group of folks that had a 20-30 year career of qualification yet here they are fiddle farting around hardly able to keep an auto loaded or running because they forgot how to or simply can’t work the slide. But everyone can open a cylinder!

So again wether a current LEO qualifying for their agency or some Retiree at a LEOSA course here is a annual “minimum score” requirement that 80% of Officers meet barely pass and 1 They never get any better and 2 are the ones involved in the Officer Involved Shootings that turn into utter abortions!

It’s the same with average gun owners so if you are the one running it a qualification requirement will make you pull your hair out and is scary as hell!

 

[Gabriel]

Seems like the simple solution would be to allow "civilians" with LTCH to qualify on the same course?

Or you could simply dedicate twenty years of your life to law enforcement.

 

[Creedmoor]

I agree but this point not an issue in Indiana with constitutional carry. Personally I think there should be a qualification for a LTCH and I know some disagree but, like driving I think it's prudent to demonstrate basic knowledge and skills to engage in an activity that potentially dangerous to others. Not "Navy Seal" skills but qualification akin to what retired LEOs are required to do. Working as RSO at a public range gave me a perspective of how much of a danger, to themselves and others, many people are that carry a gun. A 12 year old can buy a car drive in their back yard but I think it's only prudent to expect someone to have basic skills to operate one on public. I feel the same about a firearm. If that doesn't seem logical tell me where I'm going wrong?

One of those is a God Given Right, the other is not.
And even with Constitutional Carry, we still have places where Agents of the Government can carry and the surfs can't.
That's a problem.