Certified troops can carry weapons
Our buddy, Jeff Schogol, sends us a link from the Military Times’ Oriana Pawlyk who tells us that some folks in the military are authorized to carry concealed weapons on and off duty with certain permissions;
The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004, a little-known federal law that was extended to apply to military personnel in 2013, already gives credentialed troops — in addition to military police — authority to carry weapons while off duty in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, according to a U.S. military official.
[…]
A key requirement to qualify for concealed carry under the law is 10 or more years of experience as a law enforcement official.
When it comes to determining threats, LEOSA-credentialed individuals are considered to have skill sets that go “beyond the average citizen,” the military official told Military Times on the condition of anonymity.
So, it’s not for grunts, but, if it applies to anyone out there, the article goes into detail on how to get certified.
Category: Veterans Issues
What’s that phrase again? Oh, yeah:
“All animals are equal. But some are more equal than others.”
Sure the LEOSA authorizes it but the Army has yet to implement it. LEOSA has been around since 2004 and was clarified to specifically include the DoD who pushed back and dragged their feet for years. The AF is the only who has implemented a system to comply with the act thus far. Army says it coming. Hurry up and wait I guess…
Should start issuing credentials next month.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=822715864473064&id=652443208166998
This is really, really good stuff for active and retired LEOs who meet the qualifications.
Yeah. It’s nice to have “special privileges” not available to the general public.
But when such “special priviliges” happen to involve a basic right explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution to all, well, yeah – I have a problem with that. Those by definition are “all or nothing” cases.
This is the law that I’ve been referencing for years as an example of the ridiculous legal exceptions that are made for first responders and, in some instances, the military, that pretty much indicate that the laws are inherently flawed. If a restrictive law is good, it is good for everyone, not 90% of the citizens.
I’d be willing to bet that most of us here have at least as much, if not more, firearms experience and training than a lot of the law enforcement running around in our towns and counties. Yet, they are allowed the privilege of carrying a concealed weapon anywhere in the US because they have been granted the ability to arrest in their local jurisdictions. It doesn’t matter that there isn’t a correlation between arrest authority and weapons knowledge, its just another arbitrary discriminator.
Also, I’d love to know how many of those who the AF has certified are members of the AF OSI, who typically have their uniformed agents running around in civilian clothes, hence the desire to allow them unlimited carry.
AFOSI agents are already credentialed as Federal agents…they need no LEOSA creds to carry.
“I’d be willing to bet that most of us here have at least as much, if not more, firearms experience and training than a lot of the law enforcement running around in our towns and counties.”
That may be true but also not particularly the issue. Familiarity with civilian law most likely is a more significant issue. Shoot/Don’t shoot issues are very different in civilian vs military circumstances, for instance. (Not that either are perfect at implementing their particular rules/law.) Not saying that it is difficult to teach the difference because it’s really not all that hard to do. But, without that specific training, which line troopers outside military law enforcement just do not get, it is unreasonable to expect any of them to understand the difference. Again, some will anyway, but it’s not an assumption which should be made across the board.
No, it’s not the issue.
The issue is that a right explicitly guaranteed under the Constitution for all – and recognized now as an individual right by the courts – is being unequally applied based on group membership (LEO 10+ years or retired = group 1, everyone else = group 2). I have a problem with that.
Try to do that with the right to vote, free speech, freedom of religion, search and seizure, or any other right considered “fundamental” by making a distinction based on on defined group membership. Not sure any of those will fly.
Have you seen some of the recent Iraq and Afghanisran ROI?
“….“All animals are equal. But some are more equal than others.”….”
Yup, Orwell’s books have become the instruction manuals for our decision makers.
I’ve never understood that requirement of being an LEO in order to do something. LEOs don’t necessarily have any more training then any one else.
Hell in many cases the LEO go to civilians for certain training skills. In the dojo where I train ew get requests from local LEO to do special classes on weapon retention and such.
The restriction is nuts. I would be all for training in order to do so. Learning to defend yourself is not natural…by any means. You need to train.
Many retired mil cops (non-civilian) were gnawing at the rope over this stuff. Kept telling ’em to stay certified with their jurisdiction because this “card” was nothing more than a symbolic feels good deal and actually intended for retired civil service employees, whats the job number…0811’s(?)not them and there was nothing fair about this. IE- Say an Army MP(E4) with 4 yrs and wounded, is medically retired but is not covered by this act.
So, get a CHL or CCW and tell DOD to keep that plastic, feels good card and give it to the lazy ass retired civilians.
SS,
CHL, CCW still have areas where you cannot carry,in Northern Mexico, I mean New Mexico, I cannot carry on a public bus, into a school, or daycare center. LEOSA, as I read it, allows carry in these areas. So there could be some benefits to those VERY few people that would qualify to get a LEOSA card.
Here’s my shoot/don’t shoot criteria. If some SOB is shooting at me, and I have a weapon, I shoot back. End of story.
Just curious, did you develop that criteria after 10 or more years of experience as a law enforcement official?
An interesting criteria – and one with which almost none of us would disagree. In the civilian world, there are many other situations which legally authorize the use of lethal force.
The topic was certification. Which does fly in the face of the US Constitution, as Hondo has pointed out, and many, if not most of us, would agree with what he has articulated so well.
Personally, I find it disgusting that any limitations/restrictions are made to the freedoms granted by the Constitution. In the mean while, as many “certifications” or whatever they wish to call it as are issued to retired law enforcement, military, or underwater basket weavers as possible get kudos from me. The more categories of folks they add to the list, the better I like it.
As far as the AF is concerned, LEOSA went through an exhaustive approval process at the AF Security Forces Center…if Big Blue was going to co sign on this they wanted to ensure that their corporate liability was minimalized as much as possible and that they did not issue creds to the “wrong” person. There are a metric ton of training requirements (Most of which are “5 level” or journeyman skill level), and an administrative mine field to navigate prior to application. This includes 5 computer based training courses, 11 sections (and numerous sub sections…) of training in everything from career field history, rights advisal and use of force to SABC and a commanders endorsement.
Some of our folks have done it…others find it easier to simply do the state level CCW.
At its heart, this is an officer safety issue. It is not dissimilar to a civilian dept issuing an off duty carry order to its officers or carry creds to its retired folks. We often run into unsavory types or those who carry a grudge against us for past actions related to their indiscretions or misdeeds. Off base/off duty/out of uniform or retired…matters not. It is amazing how many people grow balls when they strap on a gun or when they find a badge wearer without his or her authority readily displayed.
I am not a fan, simply because I know many troops I hesitate to arm for duty…the last thing I want is for them to grow a false set of cojones because they have a card that “legalizes” their carry.
BLUF is that the military is finally acknowledging that its Cops actually