Special Gun Rights Given to Police But Not to You

[Leo]

Precisely how many people who benefit from the unequal protection of LEOSA have made any effort whatsoever to expand LEOSA?

It's okay, though; the longer that LEOSA exists, the more LEO carve-outs are placed in gun control laws, the more tacit and obvious the unconstitutionality becomes.

I have no problem believing in the right being all the way, all across the board for all Citizens. The right did not become restricted all at once, I don't think we can restore it all at once. I have never seen anything happen like that. I would be willing to see it happen incrementally, if that happens. I am as sad that it did not work either way, as of yet. I am frustrated also.

In the mean time, I still write letters (on paper with a USPS stamp). In my mind, emails are too easy to delete. I still mail monthly checks to two legislative organizations and help people learn to safely operate firearms. That is what I can do presently. If 80 million gun owners put just that much pressure on, we would more likely see the "shall not be infringed" in full strength and purity.

 

[NHT3]

Actually, you are suggesting mandatory training. It sounds like you think that if the training requirements are created by a politician, it just won't be up to your standards.

You seem to have trouble with reading comprehension. As you highlighted I don't favor a mandatory test and in my response to ECS686 I stated that because any required training would need a pass/fail test to be labeled a test. In today's world everyone gets a trophy so any response to failure would be met with, you failed me because _______________, fill in any of a dozen answers. I don't see any reason to deny any US citizen the same right that has been bestowed on you simply because they don't have 20 years public service. You chose your profession and were adequately compensated or you would have changed careers. If anyone can pass the same lame shooting qualification they should be afforded the same benefits. I appreciate your service but don't see a need to worship at the altar you've created for yourself. I know a number of current officers that agree with me that don't have your attitude, that attitude is what puzzles me.

 

[chipbennett]

You seem to have trouble with reading comprehension. As you highlighted I don't favor a mandatory test and in my response to ECS686 I stated that because any required training would need a pass/fail test to be labeled a test. In today's world everyone gets a trophy so any response to failure would be met with, you failed me because _______________, fill in any of a dozen answers. I don't see any reason to deny any US citizen the same right that has been bestowed on you simply because they don't have 20 years public service. You chose your profession and were adequately compensated or you would have changed careers. If anyone can pass the same lame shooting qualification they should be afforded the same benefits. I appreciate your service but don't see a need to worship at the altar you've created for yourself. I know a number of current officers that agree with me that don't have your attitude, that attitude is what puzzles me.

My counterpoint here is that retired LEO also should not have to pass any kind of proficiency test merely to exercise a constitutionally protected right.

 

[NHT3]

My counterpoint here is that retired LEO also should not have to pass any kind of proficiency test merely to exercise a constitutionally protected right.

I agree, if one person or group doesn't have to pass a proficiency test no one else should be denied the same constitutionally protected right.

 

[Destro]

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!

You need to talk to the leadership at the department. Indiana law mandates you be issued an ID card. IC 35-47-15-4. It has nothing to do with paid vs. reserve.

 

[trader]

so much for the "all men created equal stuff". i have never thought of these valued city/state employees as "law enforcement". when i'm old enough and well read enough to know, their qualified immunity, makes for many felons to be committed by these same employees. nice "get out of jail card free." lots of good ones, but more bad ones. ty to the good ones.

 

[WestSider]

I understand the lay of the land.

My issue is that too many LEO otherwise support 2A, but hide behind their LEOSA privilege, instead of standing up for their fellow citizens' rights by arguing that LEOSA is unconstitutional.

I'm curious what LE not "hiding behind LEOSA" looks like, exactly.. If you want a cop to stand up and say unequal protection is unconstitutional, I'll be the first to agree. However, if every cop in the US protested LEOSA tomorrow by refusing to carry guns off-duty, you know what would happen? Absolutely nothing. Not a single politician (or citizen) would give a crap at all. Not saying there isn't merit to your argument, I just don't know that it's an effective line of attack in regard to moving the 2A ball forward.

 

[CodeBlue]

What about active military and ex-military that had to qualify every year and sometimes every six months, either on a handgun or the M series rifles or both? Most ex-military are more efficient and more highly trained than a law enforcement officer without military training or back ground.

 

[BigRed]

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

I would view it as the central state has removed its infringements from some, but not others. The central state should have absolutely no say in the matter whatsoever.

 

[ECS686]

so much for the "all men created equal stuff". i have never thought of these valued city/state employees as "law enforcement". when i'm old enough and well read enough to know, their qualified immunity, makes for many felons to be committed by these same employees. nice "get out of jail card free." lots of good ones, but more bad ones. ty to the good ones.

Qualified immunity doesn’t protect officers from illegal acts. Your heartburn (and mine) is Absolute Immunity that protects Prosecutors and Judges. There is zero recourse with a Prosecutor that refuses to charge and a Judge that refuses to sentence o releasing folks that probably shouldn’t be. (they somewhat rectified that with mandatory minimum but that’s not much)

What qualified im unity did was whe TN/Gardner happened it was common SOP LE could smoke a fleeing felon no matter what. When TN/Gardner happend USSC said no you can’t do that except under extreme conditions LE hammered it to stop and they didn’t go after LE prior as they acted within what was the law at the time.

As far as any department that has screwed up policy that is called into check by a lawsuit QI holds the department responsible and they have to change while they take care of any financial liability because their attorney signed off on it.

Don’t get me wrong nobody likes scum bag Officers that exceed their authority or plant evidence all that but QI isn’t the issue it’s the prosecutors that don’t prosecute that is!

 

[Bassat]

I have absolutely no problem with every Law Enforcement Officer (current/former/not convicted) in the county having the right to carry anytime/anywhere in the country. I think I should be afforded the same rights (not privilege - that is a smoke screen). I spent 9 years in a US Army uniform, am (was?) qualified with 1911 & M16a1, M60 MG, M2 MG (ground and vehicle mounted), M3 MG, 12g shotgun, and hand grenades. I put more rounds downrange in those 9 years than any police department requires in qualifications in a lifetime. I shot 1911 and M16 competitively with the 1st AD. I taught the M2 to new recruits for 2+ years. At one time, I was required to field strip and re-assemble the 1911 and M16 blindfolded, though I think that was just BCT harassment. I've been an up-standing citizen for 67+ years, and have had my LTC since 1983. I've earned the right to carry a gun wherever/whenever I please. Somedays I wonder why I am not REQUIRED to carry a gun in public.

 

[chipbennett]

I'm curious what LE not "hiding behind LEOSA" looks like, exactly.. If you want a cop to stand up and say unequal protection is unconstitutional, I'll be the first to agree. However, if every cop in the US protested LEOSA tomorrow by refusing to carry guns off-duty, you know what would happen? Absolutely nothing. Not a single politician (or citizen) would give a crap at all. Not saying there isn't merit to your argument, I just don't know that it's an effective line of attack in regard to moving the 2A ball forward.

Being more vocal about unconstitutional infringements on non-LEO would be a good start. Arguing against LEO carveouts. Arguing in favor of removing infringements. Arguing in favor of national reciprocity. And doing so in the legislative committee meetings where such laws are actually debated. (Doing so via social media as well would be nice, but ultimately that's not what moves the needle.)

Anecdotally, whether here at INGO or via social media, I have perceived too much ambivalence from the "well, I carry under LEOSA" crowd* that leaves the perception that such crowd only cares about their own exercise of a constitutionally protected right, and couldn't care less about those who are not unconstitutionally privileged by LEOSA.

*Note that I'm not in any way using a brush so broad as to cover all LEO/everyone who carries under LEOSA. Only those for whom the above description fits.

 

[chipbennett]

I have absolutely no problem with every person Law Enforcement Officer (current/former/not convicted) in the county having the right to carry anytime/anywhere in the country.

FIFY

 

[WestSider]

What about active military and ex-military that had to qualify every year and sometimes every six months, either on a handgun or the M series rifles or both? Most ex-military are more efficient and more highly trained than a law enforcement officer without military training or back ground.

idk man... I'm a firearms instructor and I've seen plenty of ex-military people who were very poor shooters, especially with handguns. Many bad training scars that have hung around for years, or just complete absence of training since them leaving the military... Plenty of cops that aren't high level either. Really just comes down the individual and how much continual training they have committed themselves to.

 

[WestSider]

Being more vocal about unconstitutional infringements on non-LEO would be a good start. Arguing against LEO carveouts. Arguing in favor of removing infringements. Arguing in favor of national reciprocity. And doing so in the legislative committee meetings where such laws are actually debated. (Doing so via social media as well would be nice, but ultimately that's not what moves the needle.)

Anecdotally, whether here at INGO or via social media, I have perceived too much ambivalence from the "well, I carry under LEOSA" crowd* that leaves the perception that such crowd only cares about their own exercise of a constitutionally protected right, and couldn't care less about those who are not unconstitutionally privileged by LEOSA.

*Note that I'm not in any way using a brush so broad as to cover all LEO/everyone who carries under LEOSA. Only those for whom the above description fits.

This is reasonable. A (non-criminal) citizen should be allowed to carry every single place a LEO can, period. I do see your overall point, it's a slippery slope when we are asking representatives of the government to be in favor of rights that are afforded to a select group of people.

 

[ECS686]

What about active military and ex-military that had to qualify every year and sometimes every six months, either on a handgun or the M series rifles or both? Most ex-military are more efficient and more highly trained than a law enforcement officer without military training or back ground.

In the 2013 LEOSA Revision they added Military Police/Security Forces career field and reduced the 15 year requirement to 10 years.

Each service has its own usually privatized company for the ID/Credentials

Here’s a link from Mississippi that has all the services links check there for your clarification

LEOSA Online

www.leosaonline.com

 

[Bassat]

FIFY

Thank you. I was only addressing the current topic. They took our rights away a little bit at a time. That is likely how we'll get them back. I really don't see it happening until someone does away with the entire Criminal Justice System. I think we should have a Victim's Justice System. Makes more sense to me. Victims deserve justice. Criminals deserve punishment.

 

[Gabriel]

What about active military and ex-military that had to qualify every year and sometimes every six months, either on a handgun or the M series rifles or both? Most ex-military are more efficient and more highly trained than a law enforcement officer without military training or back ground.

I don't know about that. Most of our worst shots are ex military. I used to think being in the military meant that one would be proficient with firearms, but I've long abandoned that falsehood.

 

[Vandujar]

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

 

[Vandujar]

i have great respect for law and order, but the constitutional rights should be equally to all Americans from a baby to the oldest one and without exceptions.