Trump - 2nd Amendment

[armedleo]

Points well taken pro and con re LEOSA.

I don't know that this has to do with a protected species class of persons concerning LEOs. Especially in light of the present administration's lack of either support or leadership relative to the wholesale killing of cops and the knee-jerk response in defending persons of color shot by police before all the facts are known.

But by my thinking, and this is mere speculation on my part, the purpose of the act was more to enhance the presence of persons with training and experience in high-stress, critical situations who can assist during a terrorist-type event, e. g., the Pulse nightclub incident in Orlando or San Bernardino or Paris' mass executions by well placed gunmen.

That said, I do think there should be nationwide reciprocity via our Constitution so that our citizenry can be armed as intended by our framers. But if a felon is caught carrying in a permit-free future the price in incarceration should be high.

 

[Old Bill Dibble]

I think Universal carry for everyone is preferred to avoid running afoul of laws by crossing an otherwise invisible line. I just worry about the implementation.

The standard is pretty high for LEOSA carry, currently the only form allowed. The standard for a CHL is moderately high in several states. I honestly don't see how the states will be able to come to an agreement.

 

[44 AMP]

OK, I'll try to be more precise, and will, for the moment, avoid extreme examples, to avoid further confusion.

My point was that a great many people put themselves at risk, and in harm's way doing "service to the state".

And I'm not against privilege/benefits for service. My point is that the "perks" are not applied fairly.

In the case of nationwide carry (specifically) LEOs who have "seen the elephant" and those who have not get the same perk, while at the same time, soliders, seamen, Firefighters and others who have ALSO placed themselves in harm's way, just as much as any LEO ever could, don't get the same "perk" under the law.

TO me, its not about what amount of risk in service to the state one personally endures, but about treating people who get a perk because of the risks they face, or potentially face the same under the law.

My rant about it being a job, is, I think a valid point, though I probably should not rant about it. If your personal sense of duty sends you to serve the state (as it should) there are many options and choices available, and choosing to become a LEO is just that, a choice, of job.

I don't want to sound like I'm bashing cops, that's not what I'm trying to say. I just think that if you are going to give some kind of special perk to cops, because cops take risks, then you should also give the same level of perk to everyone else who takes risks in service to the public/the state.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

The standard is pretty high for LEOSA carry, currently the only form allowed. The standard for a CHL is moderately high in several states. I honestly don't see how the states will be able to come to an agreement.

The states don't have to come to an agreement, if the Republican-controlled congress will just grow a pair and pass a law that requires each state to honor permits from any other state.

Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is carrying [a license or permit issued by any state or political subdivision thereof] may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

Just like the LEOSA. Some of the states didn't like that, either, but it's the law, and it hasn't resulted in blood running in the streets.

And this would be the time for all those active and retired LEOs who promised us "civilians" they'd help us get national reciprocity if we helped them get the LEOSA passed to make good on their so far empty promises, and step up to the plate for us the way we did for them.

 

[44 AMP]

I suppose that would be nice, but I'm not holding my breath. They GOT what they wanted...

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I'm not holding my breath, either. I predicted at the time that they'd do nothing for us once they got their LEOSA, and I was right (for once).

 

[steve4102]

You brought training into the discussion, I didn't.

Actually you did.

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca
The law would be basically parallel to the LEOSA, which tells the states that regardless of their laws, qualified LEOs and retired LEOs can carry in their jurisdictions. Just substitute holders of carry permits or licenses from their state of residence, and it's done.

You brought up the LEOSA and made the suggestion that we could/should use the LEOSA as a template for NR.

Well, before we can use the LEOSA as a template and just substitute "Qualified Law enforcement" or "Qualified retired law enforcement" we must determine what this template considers "Qualified".

The term "qualified" in the LEOSA template requires training.

If you do not want "training" as a qualifier, then the LEOSA cannot be used a a template and the NR cannot parallel it.

 

[JimPage]

My fear of the Feds imposing recognition of all states permits is that it imposes the Fed on everyone. The slippery slope starts there with the final outcome a Fed ban on carry and eventually ownership.

The issue of states that don't issue permits (eg Vermont) is another ball of wax.

I fear the imposition of Fed into the issue. They have imposed enough while pretending not to infringe.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

You brought training into the discussion, I didn't.

Actually you did.

The law would be basically parallel to the LEOSA, which tells the states that regardless of their laws, qualified LEOs and retired LEOs can carry in their jurisdictions. Just substitute holders of carry permits or licenses from their state of residence, and it's done.

You brought up the LEOSA and made the suggestion that we could/should use the LEOSA as a template for NR.

I did not suggest using the LEOSA as a "template." The issue raised, and to which I was responding, was how a federal universal reciprocity law would be allowed to override states' rights. My answer was that it would do so the same way the LEOSA does. I think that was clear from my previous posts, and I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish by quoting me out of context. See post number 84.

The training requirements in the LEOSA are not there to keep the states happy so much as to keep police departments happy. Many of them were not at all pleased with the prospect of their officers and retirees carrying guns all over the country while off duty and out of any jurisdiction where they have actual LEO authority. The annual qualification requirement was a response to that, and it's actually not all that difficult. It's either the same qualification that current officers go through or, for retirees, an abbreviated subset of same. That said, for national recognition of "civilian" carry permits, all the states (except Vermont) have standards in place ... just as each state has standards in place for the issuance of drivers' licenses. All a federal law needs to do is to require that all states recognize permits issued by the other states.

Would some states balk and resist such a law? Of course they would. Would some states try to sabotage such a law by inserting numerous poison pill changes? Of course they would. It's our job (and the NRA's, but the NRA needs us to cover their six) to hold the Republican congress's collective feet to the fire and ensure that they don't allow such crap to find its way into the bill.

 

[steve4102]

I did not quote out of context, I just quoted.

Here it is again.

It would require legislation, but with Republican majorities in both the House and the Senate, it might be possible if there aren't too many cowards on the R side of the aisle. The law would be basically parallel to the LEOSA, which tells the states that regardless of their laws, qualified LEOs and retired LEOs can carry in their jurisdictions. Just substitute holders of carry permits or licenses from their state of residence, and it's done.

If we just "Substitute" permit holder for "Qualified" LEO, then those Permit holders would have to be "qualified" as well, yes?

 

[Frank Ettin]

I did not quote out of context, I just quoted.

Here it is again.

It would require legislation, but with Republican majorities in both the House and the Senate, it might be possible if there aren't too many cowards on the R side of the aisle. The law would be basically parallel to the LEOSA, which tells the states that regardless of their laws, qualified LEOs and retired LEOs can carry in their jurisdictions. Just substitute holders of carry permits or licenses from their state of residence, and it's done.

If we just "Substitute" permit holder for "Qualified" LEO, then those Permit holders would have to be "qualified" as well, yes?

Let's see exactly what we'd be working with.

The LEOSA is codified at 18 USC 926B (active LEOs) and 18 USC 926C (retired LEOs). 18 USC 926B reads:

(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 or apprehension under section 807 (b) of title 10, United States Code (article 7(b) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice);

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

(3) is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the agency which could result in suspension or loss of police powers;

(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 that identifies the employee as a police officer or law enforcement officer of the agency.

(e) As used in this section, the term “firearm”—

(1) except as provided in this subsection, has the same meaning as in section 921 of this title;

(2) includes ammunition not expressly prohibited by Federal law or subject to the provisions of the National Firearms Act; and

(3) does not include—​

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

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

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

(f) For the purposes of this section, a law enforcement officer of the Amtrak Police Department, a law enforcement officer of the Federal Reserve, or a law enforcement or police officer of the executive branch of the Federal Government qualifies as an employee of a governmental agency who 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 or apprehension under section 807 (b) of title 10, United States Code (article 7(b) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice).

18 USC 926C reads:

(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) separated from service in good standing from service with a public agency as a law enforcement officer;

(2) before such separation, 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 or apprehension under section 807 (b) of title 10, United States Code (article 7(b) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice);

(3)

(A) before such separation, served as a law enforcement officer for an aggregate of 10 years or more; or

(B) separated 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) during the most recent 12-month period, has met, at the expense of the individual, the standards for qualification in firearms training for active law enforcement officers, as determined by the former agency of the individual, the State in which the individual resides or, if the State has not established such standards, either a law enforcement agency within the State in which the individual resides or the standards used by a certified firearms instructor that is qualified to conduct a firearms qualification test for active duty officers within that State;

(5)

(A) has not been officially found by a qualified medical professional employed by the agency to be unqualified for reasons relating to mental health and as a result of this finding will not be issued the photographic identification as described in subsection (d)(1); or

(B) has not entered into an agreement with the agency from which the individual is separating from service in which that individual acknowledges he or she is not qualified under this section for reasons relating to mental health and for those reasons will not receive or accept the photographic identification as described in subsection (d)(1);​

(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 separated from service as a law enforcement officer that identifies the person as having been employed as a police officer or law enforcement officer and 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 active duty standards for qualification in firearms training as established by the agency 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 separated from service as a law enforcement officer that identifies the person as having been employed as a police officer or law enforcement officer; and

(B) a certification issued by the State in which the individual resides or by a certified firearms instructor that is qualified to conduct a firearms qualification test for active duty officers within that State that indicates that the individual has, not less than 1 year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the State or a certified firearms instructor that is qualified to conduct a firearms qualification test for active duty officers within that State to have met—

(I) the active duty standards for qualification in firearms training, as established by the State, to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm; or

(II) if the State has not established such standards, standards set by any law enforcement agency within that State to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm.​

(e) As used in this section—

(1) the term “firearm”—

(A) except as provided in this paragraph, has the same meaning as in section 921 of this title;

(B) includes ammunition not expressly prohibited by Federal law or subject to the provisions of the National Firearms Act; and

(C) does not include—

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

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

(iii) any destructive device (as defined in section 921 of this title); and​

(2) the term “service with a public agency as a law enforcement officer” includes service as a law enforcement officer of the Amtrak Police Department, service as a law enforcement officer of the Federal Reserve, or service as a law enforcement or police officer of the executive branch of the Federal Government.​

It looks like there are an awful lot of rules there. So what rules, exactly, would apply to a private citizen?

• That the citizen carry a particular form of identification?
  
  
• That the identification the citizen carries complies with the requirements of 926B(d) or 926C(d)?
  
  
• That the citizen has qualified (and periodically re-qualified) with his firearm in accordance with 926B(c)(4) or 926C(c)(4)?
  
  
• Any other clause or provision which could be interpreted as a "rule" under the LEOSA?

So a simple form of amendment would not do the job. The LEOSA was written to apply to LEOs and retired LEOs. Extending it to private citizens would entail an extensive rewrite.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

It looks like there are an awful lot of rules there. So what rules, exactly, would apply to a private citizen?

That the citizen carry a particular form of identification?

That the identification the citizen carries complies with the requirements of 926B(d) or 926C(d)?

That the citizen has qualified (and periodically re-qualified) with his firearm in accordance with 926B(c)(4) or 926C(c)(4)?

Any other clause or provision which could be interpreted as a "rule" under the LEOSA?


So a simple form of amendment would not do the job. The LEOSA was written to apply to LEOs and retired LEOs. Extending it to private citizens would entail an extensive rewrite.

Or an extensive edit, to simply remove all the LEO-specific stuff.

For example:

"(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is carrying a license or permit issued by any state or political subdivision thereof 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."

That's really all that's required. (Except for Vermont, but Trump might be able to persuade Vermont to offer optional permits for those Vermonters who want national carry recognition.)

 

[44 AMP]

So, would an acceptable solution be to have Vermont (or any other place that does not require a permit) to issue, as requested, an "export only" ID that functions as a permit OUTSIDE the state boundaries??

Then, all that would be necessary for the other states is to "recognize and give full faith and credit to" the "out of state use permit" and no nationwide Fed permit, OR system of requirements is needed.

I could live with that...

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Then, all that would be necessary for the other states is to "recognize and give full faith and credit to" the "out of state use permit" and no nationwide Fed permit, OR system of requirements is needed.

Correct. Which is what we have (supposedly) been taking about. Trump hasn't been talking about a federal permit, I haven't been talking about a federal permit, the only people talking about a federal permit seem to be those who aren't paying attention to what Mr. Trump is saying. He is NOT calling for any federal permit, he is calling for all states to recognize permits issued by the other states.

"Just like a driver's license." (Trump's words, from his position paper.) I don't understand why so many people want to make it more complicated than what it is. It's really a very simple concept.

 

[JimPage]

Aquilla Biancur: Would some states balk and resist such a law? Of course they would. Would some states try to sabotage such a law by inserting numerous poison pill changes? Of course they would. It's our job (and the NRA's, but the NRA needs us to cover their six) to hold the Republican congress's collective feet to the fire and ensure that they don't allow such crap to find its way into the bill.

Excellent point.

 

[rwilson452]

Sorry but I'm not a lawyer. Please bear with my non legal way of writing. In any law of this type I would like to see a clause that states something to the effect of: If the out of stater can carry certain firearms, mags and ammo in there home state they can carry carry it in the state they are visiting.

Thus avoiding the traps of states like NY and NJ.

 

[44 AMP]

If the out of stater can carry certain firearms, mags and ammo in there home state they can carry carry it in the state they are visiting.

I understand your point, but I think this is a separate question from just recognizing another state's permit, I also think it says "can of worms, size: huge, one each.."

Thus avoiding the traps of states like NY and NJ.

It's a trap, but not a baited or concealed one. More like just a hole in the ground in broad daylight, that any one can see, if they but look.

The laws are in no way hidden.

The 1986 FOPA was written to help those who were pushed into the hole accidently, to get out, but doesn't help people who simply blindly walk in eyes closed.

 

[rickyrick]

I would be ok with "you and your gun can take the most direct route to the state line", for those who wander into a prohibited state.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

In any law of this type I would like to see a clause that states something to the effect of: If the out of stater can carry certain firearms, mags and ammo in there home state they can carry carry it in the state they are visiting.

How is this different from universal recognition of other states' licenses or permits?

Or are you asking for universal permitless (a.k.a. "constitutional") carry? I agree that's the way it should be and that's what the Second Amendment actually says, but I don't expect that we'll see that in my lifetime. I would gladly settle for universal recognition/reciprocity, with no strings attached.

 

[steve4102]

Or an extensive edit, to simply remove all the LEO-specific stuff.

For example:

"(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is carrying a license or permit issued by any state or political subdivision thereof 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."

...and (c)

(c) As used in this section, the term “qualified permit holder” means an individual who—

(4) during the most recent 12-month period, has met, at the expense of the individual, the standards for qualification in firearms training for active Permit Holders, as determined by, the State in which the individual resides or, if the State has not established such standards, either a law enforcement agency within the State in which the individual resides or the standards used by a certified firearms instructor that is qualified to conduct a firearms qualification test for active permit holders within that State;