LEOSA Applies to Military Police

[c.a.willard]

I know this has been posted on a lot of other forums and isnt new  news, but i did not see it posted here.  I was reading up on some other stuff and atumbled on something i thought worth noting.  In January LEOSA was ammended to include military and civilian police under the DOD.   I know the topic was discussed in dept on several forums back in 2011 after the last amendment mentioned officers of the executive branch.  the 2013 change specifically adds the word apprehend.   

 

The concern at this point would be what satisfies the credentials requirement.  Previously there were a couple of coastguardsment that used LEOSA as a defense and it was determined that their CAC Icommon Access Card (Military ID) met the requirement.  Unfortunately military ID's do not include your MOS(job).   

 

I am not encouraging any MP's active or retired to carry under this statute just an effort to keep others informed. 

 

[Dolomite_supafly]

Thanks for posting.

 

I was reading and although I meet the requirements I will still keep my HCP.

 

Dolomite

[TMF]

I'll have to explain this stuff to my dad.  He recently retired from being an LEO and got his CCP shortly thereafter claiming that he needed it to carry now that he wasn't an LEO any longer.

[Dolomite_supafly]

According to how it reads your father must still maintain the same qualification standards as when he was active.

 

Dolomite

[DaveTN]

I'll have to explain this stuff to my dad.  He recently retired from being an LEO and got his CCP shortly thereafter claiming that he needed it to carry now that he wasn't an LEO any longer.

As DS said I think he has to qualify with the Department he retired from. But if I were him I would look into pursuing it. When traveling, it would be the only way he could carry in some states.

[Dolomite_supafly]

This doesn't allow people to carry past gunbuster signs or anywhere else prohibited by state law. Even though I would qualify I will keep my HCP because this change to the LEOSA doesn't really change anything for me. 

 

Dolomite

[TMF]

As DS said I think he has to qualify with the Department he retired from. But if I were him I would look into pursuing it. When traveling, it would be the only way he could carry in some states.

 

I'm going to do that for sure when I see him in a few weeks.  My parents just took a trip up to New York and left their guns at home due to the carry laws.  Seems silly if there is a method to legally carry in all those commie states.

[DaveTN]

Even though I would qualify I will keep my HCP because this change to the LEOSA doesn't really change anything for me. 
 
Dolomite

? It would let you carry in all states if you are covered by LEOSA.

[Dolomite_supafly]

? It would let you carry in all states if you are covered by LEOSA.

 
But is says it does not supersede state laws.

 

Here is an excert and I read it to mean that if a person has a gunbuster sign you still must abide by that as well as state laws restricting firearms in government buildings. You are still unable to do anything more than you did before in this state and probably plenty of others.

( B) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that--

(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or

(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.

So for me the only thing this does the same thing as my current HCP but without the need to qualify every year. Now for those that travel it might make a difference but for me it doesn't.

Dolomite

[DaveTN]

But is says it does not supersede state laws.
 
Here is an excert and I read it to mean that if a person has a gunbuster sign you still must abide by that as well as state laws restricting firearms in government buildings. You are still unable to do anything more than you did before in this state and probably plenty of others.
So for me the only thing this does the same thing as my current HCP but without the need to qualify every year. Now for those that travel it might make a difference but for me it doesn't.

Dolomite

It supersedes state carry laws; otherwise there would be no point in it. It allows those covered to carry in Illinois and other states that only allow cops to carry. When it first came out Chicago City Administration tried to say they wouldn’t honor it; but they backed down.

Of course if you don’t travel it would have no advantage.

[Guest ab28]

I wish there was a way that the HCP would supercede the gunbuster signs. Personal defense is my own decision and business, not some random business owner's, who probably doesn't know anything about guns. I think my life is worth more than someone's property. A building can be replaced, same as a car, jewelry, ect.

[Patton]

I have yet to meet a retired police officer that didn't have a story of how hard it was to carry as retired. Some departments won't issue a retired ID card and some have given retirees trouble when needing to qualify.

One of the problems with Military Police carrying is the DOD has always been neglectful to allow DOD cops and MP's to carry on post, let them qualify with personal weapons, and support any off duty involment at intervening with crime. Even if the law says its ok it's hard getting the DOD on board.

[DaveTN]

I wish there was a way that the HCP would supercede the gunbuster signs. Personal defense is my own decision and business, not some random business owner's, who probably doesn't know anything about guns. I think my life is worth more than someone's property. A building can be replaced, same as a car, jewelry, ect.

The only way to do that is for the state to make carrying a right; not a privilege.

Make a law that the business can’t be named in a lawsuit when you hurt someone on their property and we would see a lot of those signs go away.