Is there anything like a "federal" CCW in the US?.

N

Nordeste

New member
Hi all:

I'll explain myself. From reading what you guys talk about, I see that whenever you get a CCW permit, it entitles you to carry your firearm in a determined area, be it a County, City or State. Or so I have understood (please do feel free to correct me whenever I'm wrong).

Besides, I've read that some States reciprocate CCW permits granted in some other States, whereas some other do not.

My question is whether there is any kind of permit that would allow an American citizen to carry a firearm in the whole of the Union's territory, put aside a Federal Agent, whom I guess is entitled to it due to his profession.

Thanks in advance.
 
No such animal, and for good reason - we don't want to give the Federal government power to regulate our CCW. What we do have is reciprocity agreements, that means if the state you are going to honors your permit, (for instance, AZ honors all state permits), you may carry concealed in that state, BUT you need to know the laws in question, too, as each state's laws on self defense, use of force, open/concealed carry are not the same. Clear as mud? Only so called universal permit is the Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act, which allows any current LEO to carry in any state, even after retirement with certain stipulations.
 
The short answer is "No."

The United States is a republic comprised of fifty more or less, in a manner of speaking, somewhat sovereign states, each of which enacts its own laws. Federal law is supposed to step in only to regulate matters affecting more than one state (such as interstate commerce). There are many of us who feel that the Congress and the courts have gone way to far in applying the "interstate commerce" justification to a lot of Federal laws that perhaps should never have been enacted ... but that's getting into politics.

The closest thing to a national carry law is perhaps a law enacted about three (?) years ago, now entitled the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA, for short). This law allows current and certain retired police officers to carry concealed handguns in any state. (I noted "certain" retired police officers, because in order to carry under the LEOSA retired officers must successfully pass a firearms requalification test on an annual basis. Those who don't bother or who fail the test are not allowed to carry under the law.)

There is no comparable law for "civilians" at this time, although proposals have been raised in Congress to require each state to recognize permits issued by the other states.

Bienvenido a La Línea de Desparar
 
This law allows current and certain retired police officers to carry concealed handguns in any state. (I noted "certain" retired police officers, because in order to carry under the LEOSA retired officers must successfully pass a firearms re-qualification test on an annual basis. Those who don't bother or who fail the test are not allowed to carry under the law.)
Click to expand...


Even this is not fully correct. This law is for the chief of police or the County Sheriff to decide it their workers will fall under this law.

I am a Correction Officer (Limited deputy) so off of the grounds of the jail/administration building/ court houses I am not a deputy. Why? Not sure its just what he wanted.
Not being a deputy means no carrying a handgun without CCW


Patrol is different they are 100% deputies at all times. If he decide they could be limited as well.
 
This law is for the chief of police or the County Sheriff to decide it their workers will fall under this law.
Click to expand...

That's not quite accurate either. The Amended 2010 verson reduced the requirement for being retired from 15 to 10 years.

The law revises the definition of "qualified retired law enforcement officer" to: (1) include officers separated (currently, retired) in good standing from service with a public agency as a law enforcement officer; and (2) reduce the years-of-service requirement for such officers from 15 to 10 years
Click to expand...

Basicly if you have some sort of retired ID card and qualify once a year you're good to go.
 
LEOSA, well, shall we say, upsets me, as do all the myriad other laws that establish civil servants as "super citizens," worthy of enjoying special privileges. Of course, Congress was merely doing what it does for itself in such cases.
 
Talking Halls said:
Even this is not fully correct. This law is for the chief of police or the County Sheriff to decide it their workers will fall under this law.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Here's the final text of the law -- please point out where it allows the chief or the sheriff to decide whether or not his officers are covered:

LEOSA said:
An Act​

To amend title 18, United States Code, to exempt qualified current and former law enforcement officers from State laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed handguns.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004'.



SEC. 2. EXEMPTION OF QUALIFIED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS FROM STATE LAWS PROHIBITING THE CARRYING OF CONCEALED FIREARMS.

(a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926A the following:

`Sec. 926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law enforcement officers

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).

(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.​

(c) As used in this section, the term `qualified law enforcement officer' means an employee of a governmental agency who--

(1) is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and has statutory powers of arrest;

(2) is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm;

(3) is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the agency;

(4) meets standards, if any, established by the agency which require the employee to regularly qualify in the use of a firearm;

(5) is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance; and

(6) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm.​

(d) The identification required by this subsection is the photographic identification issued by the governmental agency for which the individual is employed as a law enforcement officer.

(e) As used in this section, the term `firearm' does not include--

(1) any machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the National Firearms Act);

(2) any firearm silencer (as defined in section 921 of this title); and

(3) any destructive device (as defined in section 921 of this title).​

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926A the following:

`926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law enforcement officers.'.



SEC. 3. EXEMPTION OF QUALIFIED RETIRED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS FROM STATE LAWS PROHIBITING THE CARRYING OF CONCEALED FIREARMS.

(a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is further amended by inserting after section 926B the following:

`Sec. 926C. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified retired law enforcement officers

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified retired law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).

(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.​

(c) As used in this section, the term `qualified retired law enforcement officer' means an individual who--

(1) retired in good standing from service with a public agency as a law enforcement officer, other than for reasons of mental instability;

(2) before such retirement, was authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and had statutory powers of arrest;

(3)(A) before such retirement, was regularly employed as a law enforcement officer for an aggregate of 15 years or more; or

(B) retired from service with such agency, after completing any applicable probationary period of such service, due to a service-connected disability, as determined by such agency;

(4) has a nonforfeitable right to benefits under the retirement plan of the agency;

(5) during the most recent 12-month period, has met, at the expense of the individual, the State's standards for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry firearms;

(6) is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance; and

(7) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm.​

(d) The identification required by this subsection is--

(1) a photographic identification issued by the agency from which the individual retired from service as a law enforcement officer that indicates that the individual has, not less recently than one year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the agency to meet the standards established by the agency for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm; or

(2)(A) a photographic identification issued by the agency from which the individual retired from service as a law enforcement officer; and

(B) a certification issued by the State in which the individual resides that indicates that the individual has, not less recently than one year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the State to meet the standards established by the State for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm.​

(e) As used in this section, the term `firearm' does not include--

(1) any machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the National Firearms Act);

(2) any firearm silencer (as defined in section 921 of this title); and

(3) a destructive device (as defined in section 921 of this title).​

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for such chapter is further amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926B the following:

`926C. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified retired law enforcement officers.'.
Click to expand...
 
There is indeed such a thing as a national-level CCW permit right now.

It's called an "Honorary Deputy US Marshall".

The reason we know about this is that the US-DOJ at one point had to write a memo saying "no more of these for US congresscritters and senators". Dianne Feinstein was widely suspected of having one. The memo pointed out that they cannot be both legislative and executive branch members at the same time.

So yeah, some types of "elites" are absolutely getting this status, for sure.

We want this ended and at a minimum, a permit system as rational as the driver's license system put in place in every US state and territory - and THEN we start pushing for trans-national reciprocity.
 
Actually, the strictest construction of the constitution, the Leosa is unconstitutional. The National government does not have the power to enforce that kind of law...

Don't get me wrong, they have and no-one has challanged it, but that is not in their power. They cannot misuse the "Commerce" clause to justify that one.
 
Thanks for the answer, gents. It a lot of aspects, your thoughts make sense to me. I say this because I consider myself one of those "rare" europeans that understands (and supports) the American approach towards firearms. This hasn't been always like this, I admit, but it took just a short while working with Americans on a daily basis and a few conversations about life in our own countries to understand it. However, the fact that a citizen, after all a U.S. citizen, is allowed "here" to carry, but not "there" is still a bit surprising.

Over here, a LEO, even those belonging to Municipalities, are allowed to carry in the whole country. Of course, LEOs who belong to national level LEAs can too. CCW permit holders can carry nationwide too.

In our case, ours is not a Federal country. Instead, our regions are called "autonomous" and have their own Government and Parliament. They can make their own laws too and rule themselves in a good number of matters, but still some others remain exclusive to the central administration, as it is case with anything related to firearms.
 
I have to retest once every year but the Sheriff for what ever reason does not allow us to have the 'power of arrest' out side of the jail. Also we are not permitted to carry a firearm outside of work w/o a CCW. Its one of those "Yes Sir can I have another" situations. In all reality I should be able to. But is it worth my job? No.
 
The issue of what powers reside with the Federal Government and what is reserved for the state and local level has been an ongoing and ever-changing debate since the foundation of the nation. We've had two founding documents (initially the Articles of Confederation and subsequently the Constitution) and fought a horribly destructive civil war over the issue (the U.S. Civil War is the most destructive event in our nation's history).

As it stands, the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land and the United States Supreme Court has the final say in what does and does not pass Constitutional muster (the only ways to overrule the Supreme Court are to either convince the court to overturn an earlier decision or to amend the Constitution). The Second Amendment, which guarantees the right to arms, is an issue on which the Supreme Court has ruled only three times in all of U.S. history in United States v. Miller, Heller v. The District of Columbia, and Mc Donald v. Chicago.

In Miller, SCOTUS (the acronym most of us use for Supreme Court Of The United States) ruled that certain weapons, namely those subject to regulation under the National Firearms Act of 1934 such as machineguns, silencers, and short-barreled rifles and shotguns, do not fall under the protection of the Second Amendment and as such may be regulated in any way the government sees fit (NFA items, while not completely banned, are regulated much more heavily than other firearms).

Under Heller, SCOTUS ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to own firearms for self-defense rather than a collective right. Heller, however, left open the issue as to whether that right protected against Federal law only or whether it also applied to the states.

McDonald answered some of the questions left open by Heller as SCOTUS ruled that the Second Amendment also applies at the state level because it is incorporated under the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

As far as the ability to legally carry a firearm for self-defense outside one's own property, there are four different systems used by various states in the U.S.: Constitutional Carry, Shall-Issue, May-Issue, and No-Issue. Under Constitutional Carry, anyone over the age of 18 who is not disqualified due to factors such as a felony criminal record or involuntary comittal to a mental institution may carry a firearm without the need for a permit or license. Currently, only four states have adopted Constitutional Carry: Alaska, Arizona, Vermont, and Wyoming.

Shall-Issue means that while a license or permit is required to legally carry a loaded firearm, anyone who applies for said license, meets the requirements for said license (minimum age, training requirements, paying of any fees), and is not legally disqualified from obtaining said license due to criminal records or history of mental illness must be issued a license. Shall-Issue is the most popular system in the U.S. with most states in the South, Midwest, and West adopting it. Particulars, however, such as requirements for the license and legal disqualifiers vary from state-to-state.

May-Issue differs from Shall-Issue in that the body which is responsible for issuing the license (usually the head of the local law-enforcement agency such as the chief of police or county sheriff) may deny it at their discretion even if all the legal requirements are met. Application of may-issue varies greatly depending on the locality even within the same state. For example, many counties in Northern New York treat may-issue like shall-issue and a license is relatively easy to get. New York city, on the other hand, makes getting a license extremely difficult and the people who do manage to get them are either able to spend a large amount of money, politically connected, or both. May-Issue is most popular in politically liberal states in the Northeastern U.S. such as New York and Massachussetts and West Coast states like California.

No-Issue means exactly what it says: citizens are expressly forbidden from carrying a loaded firearm outside their property with very few exceptions such as police officers or armored car drivers. Currently, the only two areas of the U.S. that retain No-Issue are the state of Illinois and the District of Columbia (the state of Wisconsin was No-Issue, but passed a Shall-Issue law a few weeks ago).

The main reason that there is such a hodge-podge of laws regarding carry in the U.S. is that SCOTUS has, thus far, been silent on the issue. As such there is currently no Constitutionally-guaranteed right to carry a firearm outside your property. There have, however, been two lawsuits brought forth in Illinois challenging the Constitutionality of that state's no-issue system. Given that all of the five-justice majority that rendered favorable decisions in both Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010) are still serving on SCOTUS, the carry of firearms outside one's own property will most likely become a Constitutionally-guaranteed right within the next couple of years.
 
Nationwide reciprocity, ala: driver's licenses, is the way to go.

I'm covered under the LEOSA, yet I'm in favor of everyone being permited to carry everywhere.
 
Talkinghalls said:
the Sheriff for what ever reason does not allow us to have the 'power of arrest' out side of the jail. Also we are not permitted to carry a firearm outside of work w/o a CCW.
Click to expand...
Then it's not the sheriff refusing to allow you to be subject to the law (which he can't do, a county sheriff does NOT trump Federal law). Your problem is that the definition of your position, per your agency, does not place you under the purview of the law.

LEOSA said:
(c) As used in this section, the term `qualified law enforcement officer' means an employee of a governmental agency who--

(1) is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and has statutory powers of arrest;

(2) is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm;
Click to expand...
Ergo: you are not authorized by your agency to carry, so you are not a "qualified law enforcement officer" within the context of the LEOSA. That's a very different story than

Talkinghalls said:
This law is for the chief of police or the County Sheriff to decide it their workers will fall under this law.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top