Today is Tuesday, September 02, 2014rss RSS feed

By Major Van Harl USAF Ret

Military Police

Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act H.R. 218 And Military Police

AmmoLand Gun News

AmmoLand Gun News

Wisconsin --(Ammoland.com)-  In 2004 then President George W. Bush signed the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA).

The act was introduced to Congress as H.R. 218 and if a policeman knows about this act he/she most likely will refer to it as H.R.218.

What H.R. 218 did was give police including military police officers the ability to carry a concealed firearm in any State or US possession, such as Puerto Rico.

This type of law enforcement concealed carry permit has nothing to do with the civilian concealed carry permits that States can issue to their residents.

The most important difference about an H.R. 218 concealed carry permit is–all 50 States have to honor the permit.

As of July 2013 all 50 States have some form of civilian concealed carry permit. However, unlike a drivers license issued in one State and honored in all of the other 49 States there is no one State that will honor all 49 other concealed carry permits or have their permit honored by all of the other 49 States.

The H.R. 218 is a special concealed carry permit for actively working cops and retired cops. There is a process to apply depending on each State’s protocol. You have to qualify each year on the handgun you plan to carry and when you have your H.R. 218 permit you can travel the 50 States and all US Territories with your legal handgun.

This includes: Washington D.C., New York City and the dreaded anti-gun city of Chicago.

The problem was when H.R. 218 first went into effect it failed to include Federal retired law enforcement such as FBI or ATF agents. So the bill was amended and they included military police both active duty and retired, but the wording was allegedly confusing to civilian law enforcement, so retired military police of any and all branches of the DoD and Coast Guard were denied the ability to have the H.R. 218 permit.

H.R.218 has been amended again this year and now there is specific wording that addresses military police both active duty and retired.

If you are retired military police, security forces, or master-at-arms you can qualify and carry a concealed handgun. Each State has (I believe-don’t quote me, (New Jersey may not)) set up an application procedure for former Federal law enforcement (this includes old military cops) members to acquire an H.R. 218 based concealed carry permit that has to be honored in every state.

I am a retired Air Force Security Forces policeman and I live in Wisconsin. As soon as the new amendment to H.R. 218 went into effect in 2013 the Wisconsin Department of Justice (Do J) modified their application process to include retired military cops under the former Federal law enforcement application process.

Last week after fulfilling a lengthy application process to include qualifying on the handgun I will be carrying, the Wisconsin DoJ issued me what I believe to be the first, former Federal law enforcement concealed carry permit assigned to an old Air Force retired cop.

If you are a retired military policeman from any branch of the DoD, you need a total of ten years service as a military cop. So even if you changed career fields and were not a cop your entire Air Force career that is OK, as long as you have at least the minimum ten years of military police time.

You have to be able to prove it on your DD 214. In actuality you do not have to be retired from military law enforcement. You have to only have ten years as a military cop. So if you have a DD 214 that can document you were a military policeman for ten years,(even if you separated before a twenty year retirement) that will work. If you are interested in having an H.R. 218 based law enforcement concealed carry permit, the first thing you need to do is contact the Department of Justice (or equivalent of) in your State of residence. Each State must have a process for former police officers to acquire a concealed carry permit.

There is precedence at least in the State of Wisconsin for an old Air Force policeman to have qualified and received an H.R. 218 permit, I am that precedence. One issue of the newly amended H.R. 218 is any active duty military policeman can with proof of current handgun qualification carry a concealed handgun out in the civilian world of all 50 States.

According to H.R. 218 any military cop from any branch of service (to include a reserve or Guard cop) can acquire their own privately owned handgun and carry it concealed off base. That will be a new experience for military commanders to deal with.

Even after you have your H.R. 218 permit tread lightly, there are a lot of people in power, especially on the east coast and in Chicago who might not completely understand that Federal law trumps anti-gun State statutes.

I contacted the Secretary of the Air Force’s office and was advised that the DoD is working the issue with intent to come up with DoD directed certification credentials for current and qualified former military cops to carry concealed under H.R. 218.

Times they are a changing in the world of military cops, old and new.

Major Van Harl UASF Ret / vanharl@aol.com

About Major Van Harl USAF Ret.:Major Van E. Harl USAF Ret., a career Police Officer in the U.S. Air Force was born in Burlington, Iowa, USA, in 1955. He was the Deputy Chief of police at two Air Force Bases and the Commander of Law Enforcement Operations at another. He is a graduate of the U.S. Army Infantry School.  A retired Colorado Ranger and currently is an Auxiliary Police Officer with the Cudahy PD in Milwaukee County, WI.  His efforts now are directed at church campus safely and security training.  He believes “evil hates organization.”  vanharl@aol.com

  • 63 User comments to “Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act Allows Military Police to Concealed Carry in 50 States”

    1. 19 Feb 2013 Security Forces posted a memo stating all Security Forces are not authorized to exercise LEOSA concealed carry privileges. The latest letter came out with the following: PURPOSE

      To present benchmark data collected from multiple large municipal and state police agencies, with respect to policy and procedures of 926 (c) LEOSA credentials and recommend Courses of Action (COAs) for the United States Air Force

      DISCUSSION

      - The AFSFC is creating a specific 31 series AFI to address the implementation of LEOSA based on the draft DoDI for Law Enforcement personnel; active, retired and individuals separated with 10 years aggregated TAFMS that qualify based on their active duty functions

      - Implementation of section 926 (c) of LEOSA will authorize retirees and separated members with 10 years aggregated service to carry the USAF issued LEOSA credential and, as per the LEOSA statue, carry weapon certification from the state in which they reside

      - In accordance with H.R. 218 (LEOSA) section 926 (c) (7), to be considered a “retired qualified law enforcement officer” means an individual who – “is not prohibited by Federal Law from receiving a firearm”

      - USAF Security Forces will be the issuing arm of this credential for all SF personnel

      - It is each issuing agency’s responsibility to ensure all aspects of the definition of “qualified law enforcement officer” are met to issue the credential and must insure the individual is not “prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm”

      - Most large police agencies examined place an expiration date on the 926C LEOSA credential and required re-issue after a background check confirmation of firearms qualification in insure compliance with section 926(c)(7) of H.R. 218

      - Data collected from these agencies are depicted in Table 1 (below)

      - AFOSI and sister services do not/are not placing expiration dates on 926(c) credentials, however, after discussion, are considering the addition of expiration dates (POC below)

      - 802nd JA, (Ms. Arlene Christilles) was consulted and it opined there is nothing in H.R. 218 that neither mandates nor prohibits placing an expiration date on 926(c) credentials

      COURSE OF ACTION (COA)

      - COA 1: Do not place an expiration date on the USAF SF 926C LEOSA credential and validate compliance with section 926(c)(7) of H.R. 218 only at time of issue

      - Pro: This is will place the USAF in compliance with the law and doesn’t incur additional work after the initial issue

      - Con: No recurring means to determine if the individual in possession of the 926(c) LEOSA credential subsequently is in violation of the Lautenberg Amendment after initial issue

      Lt Col Musacchia/AFSFC/SFOP/945-1028/jam/22 Jul 13

    2. Cory Dorsey on July 24, 2013 at 7:21 PM said:

      Do the H.R 218 includes Correctional Officers. I need to know because I have been told it does.

    3. johnny on July 24, 2013 at 7:34 PM said:

      “However, unlike a drivers license issued in one State and honored in all of the other 49 States there is no one State that will honor all 49 other concealed carry permits”

      This statement is incorrect. Since states like Arizona have constitutional carry laws where you dont need a permit to conceal they therefore in effect not just honor all ccw permits but also honor the right of any citizen who is legally allowed to possess a gun to also carry it.

    4. Matthew on July 24, 2013 at 7:43 PM said:

      I won’t support legislation that creates multiple classes of citizens – or fixing old legislation to include a few more in an über class

      I will support legislation that requires states to honor the constitution and recognize carry permits from other states under the full faith and credit clause.

    5. johnny-this is about Law Enforcement credentials which allow us to carry concealed-completely different from CCW. A lot of folks are in the CCW mindset for civilian carry instead of the LE credentials to carry.

    6. Why concealed ? Why just MP ? Every lawabiding US citizen should (as guaranteed by the 2′nd Amend.)carry in all 50 states,open or concealed.

    7. TSgt B on July 25, 2013 at 7:08 AM said:

      I’m retired Air Force, and was a qualified Security Policeman/Security Police Augmentee for over 12 years. As such, I held more than one valid AFSC. Does this qualify me for the LEOSA credential(s)? (Yes, I have a secondary AFSC of 811×0 annotated on my DD214)

    8. james karalis on July 25, 2013 at 7:59 AM said:

      Police should not have more rights than any other american this is bull !

    9. Patriot on July 25, 2013 at 8:56 AM said:

      Says alot about AF security ,MP etc what about Coast Guard..Its a Federal law enforcement agency. At the E-3 level we didnt have the authority to arrest but at the E- 4 levels we all had authority to arrest, do boardings, drug searches etc had our Miranda readings memorized & attended a crapload of LE schools. Qualifying every 6 months with weapons, curbed then pepper sprayed, I dont know how many 100s of pound of pot, coke etc we seized plus arresting bad guys. Dont know if we did that for 18 or 20 yrs if we qualify or not?
      Like I said ours is a diff entity than DOD and its an LE organization
      I agree above on the special treatment of diff people especialy ” Retired cops”: The 2nd is their for everyone but cops carry all their careers not like a civilian CCW. They have had a crapload of training , levels of force use to make a person compel to comply etc . I believe in the 2 nd & our rights to carry etc but a state that allows anyone to carry concealed isnt to smart ( unless their is training in order to do so) or is just anyone able to carry a gun in AZ just as long as they pass a background check?
      Anyways im done my ramble! I would LOVE 2 SEE DEMORATS & LIBRETARDS FACES ON THIS LAW!! Especialy someone carrying CCW in Obamaville ( Chicago) A buch should go their 2 stil crap up with the anti- gun crowd!

    10. Yet another appointed ‘special class of citizens’…discrimination by the Federal government and specifically the House of Reps…only in amerika….this is what you and I get when our ‘elected traitors’ go against the LAW as in the CONSTITUTION and Bill of Rights..in your face tyranny…

    11. Why are there always “haters”? Its not a special class of citizens, you can apply for a ccw in your state if you meet the criteria. Maybe you should be more American and earn something if you want it not just cry about it, so go become a police officer and get the credentials you so badly want. Also, if you get stopped in Arizona do they ask to see a ccw from another state? probably not, therefore they arent recognizing it, their law just doesnt require it. FYI, when I get out of the Army, i’ll have an MP for about 8 years so I wouldnt qualify for this if you need ten years, but I’m not whining about it.

    12. Ernest on July 26, 2013 at 2:37 AM said:

      Hi all i did 24 years as a Army MP no break in service, also deputy Sheriff for 5 years and 3 years as DOD Cop, I’ve been told that this law does not cover Army MPs and we are not allowed to carry period is that true?? I am in the state of Tenn.

    13. Chance on July 26, 2013 at 9:44 AM said:

      What about special operators? Green Berets? Navy Seals? Delta? Not to say MP’s do not know how to use a pistol. But as an 18B I am willing to be I carried my pistol and fired more rounds then 95% of the MP’s in the Army.

    14. DEPUTY CHIEF on July 26, 2013 at 11:35 AM said:

      @ CHANCE. HR-218 AND ALL ITS AMENDMENTS ARE CLEAR THAT THIS LAW ONLY APPLIES TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS….NOT SPECIAL FORCES FOR THE MILITARY.

      All the military and retired military MPs, SPs and MAs can thank the National FOP and its Civilian Police Unions for getting the verbage of STATUTORY APPREHENSION ADDED TO THE LAST AMENDMENT. DOD AND THE MILITARY continued to fight the civilian police officers saying they could not carry under the original law because they did not recognize a arrest and apprhension are and mean the same. It is the taking of a person into custody and CUSTODY is a arrest. DO NOT FORGET IT WAS THE CIVILIAN 0083s FOR THE MILITARY THAT GOT THIS FOR YOU WHICH MANY OF YOU HATE. THAT UNION GOT IT FOR YOU. REMEMBER THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    15. MartyC on July 26, 2013 at 1:40 PM said:

      There are several problems with allowing Military Police / Masters at Arms. /. Air Pollice to carry “off duty” . Here are a few. First off the academy training for Military Police is at best very basic ( I speak from experience, 32 years LE,, NJ State and Dept Of Defense) and lacks the actual training that most civilian academies provide.NJ is six months long. Having run the Police Training program for the Department Of Defense Police I can tesify that the alloted time is far too short and the sujects taught are a far cry from what the average civilian Police Officer gets. Many Military Police Officers are under the age of 21. This is a problem with carrying a firearm in several states. Several states, including NJ have it written in the law governing the actual qualifications of a Police Officer that they have to be able to make ” a Statutory Arrest” where most, if not al military bases call it an apprehension. Maybe they mean the same thing but some courts refuse to acknowledge it. Last but not least, Military Police are issued a duty weapon owned by the govt. They turn that weapon in at the end of their shift. Most base commanders will not allow a civilian firearm to be fired on a military range. The question, how and where does that person qualify with their off duty weapon since they cannot carry their duty weapon when they get off shift? These are just a few problems. I would guess that there would be many more.

    16. Aaron D on July 26, 2013 at 2:33 PM said:

      Marty,

      Military police training for the Army is woefully inadequate but an academy no matter how long does not fully prepare you to be a patrol officer, hence the reason every department has an FTO program. But this is a moot point if an Officer from one State enters another State he does not automatically have arrest authority but he can carry concealed. What is the difference between a Military Police outside of his jurisdiction and that of a local officer outside of his jurisdiction carrying concealed? The NJ standards and qualifications to be a peace officer have no bearing on the rest of the union and it certainly has no bearing on Federal law enforcement.

      Military investigative agencies such as Army CID, Air Force OSI, or Navy NCIS already have Title 10 authority to carry concealed regardless of what State laws say. I was running around the continental United States with Title 10 creds carrying concealed legally at age 19…

      Lastly every military base I have spent an extended amount of time at has had a range that was able to be utilized at least part time not only by soldiers wishing to fire their personally owned weapons but also by civilians…

    17. JOSEPH J on July 26, 2013 at 5:24 PM said:

      I am a 15 year MP and agree with the statement regarding 17 weeks is not enough time to teach a young 18 year old to be responsible enough to carry “off-duty”. That is why the time in service is 10 years. By the time you have 10 years in (and even know about this), you should be allot closer to being responsible enough.

    18. Listen, police academy’s teach how to shoot but can’t teach when to and when not to. A police officer no matter where their from, from a rookie to a veteran will have a issue pulling there weapon. A situation where your life is at stake becomes a nerve racking event. I have military and civilian weapons training that I can provide evidence for. I like the idea of MP’s and any military police officer being able to to ccw, but they should at least be 21.

    19. My post was based on actual and factual experience training young men and women in the Military and DOD Police. The Auillary Officers attached to my Agency were far better trained than these young people due to Govt money and time constraints. The Military (All branches) does not really take the time to properly train their people as Police Officers. I never question the motivation or dedication, but the fact is that they are far more “Security Minded ” than LE Trained, that is indisputabe. I only use NJ as an example because the North East has been at the forefront of Police Education Requirements and Training for many years and most states accept NJ State Certification. For what it is worth I support carry for any LEGAL citizen that has passed a criminal background check, mental health check and common sense dictates a ” Firearms Safety Course” if you meet that criteria then by all means you should be allowed to carry a firearm!

    20. To Aron D. I only used the NJ standard because it is set at a very high level. Six months at a very high level will not always make a great cop but believe me, the Federal standards are really a joke. I speak from actual first hand experience as a Federal Instructor. I was hired because my NJ Credentials far exceeded anything any other instructor had but they resisted any real LE training because the standards are kept low since the salaries are a joke as well. When I retired from NJ my State pension was based on a base salary of over 100,000! After six years with the Feds I was not even close to that salary. You get what you pay for and the DOD pay nothing and gets low level employees, dedicated yes, well trained, no! Sorry but that is the honest truth.

    21. MartyC I think you are a little off base on your comment. First, almost every installation I have been on does allow Service Members to bring a civilian weapon and fire on ranges. Many installations actually have a Rod and Gun Club. There are even a few installations who now sell weapons, to include pistols at their PX/BX. This law does not state that those who qualify under LEOSA have to carry their duty weapon. If you look at the fact that it will require Military LE to use a personal weapon, only LE that are older then 21 years old will be allowed to carry due to the fact they cannot purchase a weapon unless they are over 21. Although the 17 weeks MP’s do to begin their training may not be enough, but that doesnt mean Military ME dont receive follow on training. Lets also not forget that many of our current Military LE have also deployed and know what it’s like to actually fire a weapon at somebody.

    22. Brian saari on July 27, 2013 at 1:27 AM said:

      I have almost 7 years as an MP. That sucks it doesn’t apply to me.

    23. Nathan on July 27, 2013 at 4:51 AM said:

      Does this apply to MPs that were medically discharged with less than 10 years of ADS?

    24. Eric Fryer on July 27, 2013 at 6:40 AM said:

      Corey Dorsey, yes this law does apply to correctional officers who meet the criteria. At least 10 years etc… The only thing required is something from your agency showing your retirement status ie retirement credentials and something showing that you qualified within the last year. Qualification can vary from agency to agency or state to state. If you are active duty then all you need is something that shows your active duty status as a LEO. To read the entire law go here, it is not as complicated as some want to make it. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-108hr218enr/pdf/BILLS-108hr218enr.pdf

    25. The so called experts making comments here are the ones that don’t seem to have their facts strait. The people in DOD are the true experts on this matter and they will give guidance based on the law. Wait for the AF/SF to publish the guidance and credentials. It will match Fed Law and generally keep you out of trouble. Nothing will ever stop untrained cops and knee jerk judges from stepping on Fed Law. If that happens, at least you will have Fed law on your side in court.

    26. FYI, USAF Security Forces, USA MP, and USN MA schools are now all FLETC Certified. So, they receive a FLETC Certification upon graduation. The academy has been rated with a rating to exceed FLETC standards.

    27. Steve C on July 27, 2013 at 12:43 PM said:

      @ Brian saari yes it does. The law states 10 years of aggregated service or medically separated with less than 10 years but having passe your probationary period. I have documentation from Brig General Allen D Jamerson Director Security Forces dated 19 Feb 2013. If you are interested I can shoot you a link to the document.

    28. PavePusher on July 27, 2013 at 9:54 PM said:

      So, yet another dodge around the Constitution for a small, “special” portion of the population. Abominable.

      And I say this with 22+ years and counting AD USAF service.

    29. Cory Dorsey on July 27, 2013 at 11:40 PM said:

      Thank you Eric Fryer for the info

    30. One could say that the Military’s LE training is totally inadequate. If one would only consider the basic LE training. I would not argue that point. However, I would like to remind you that in MOST cases, LE training doesn’t stop with the basic LE training (In the Army that would have been AIT). Each LE organization continues LE training after basic LE training. Granted some organizations do a better job than others. I went to MP AIT in the early 70′s, it was, except for 3 days, entirely LE training and lasted for 8 weeks. I was selected and went to the Military Police Investigations (MPI) course after a few years of LE experience. I also attended many many civilian LE advance courses, to include the FBI’s Hostage Negotiations course. I worked for several years as an investigator (civilian clothing and concealed weapon(s) as well as working road patrol. I’ve responded to many death scenes, child abuse scenes, drug busts and just about anything that a civilian police officer would respond to. I’ve been in bar fights, I’ve had to use my weapon, I’ve testified in court, I’ve had people go to jail for decades based upon my response to a scene and investigations of the case, I’ve testified in both military criminal courts and in federal criminal courts. I’ve had to be technically proficient in the UCMJ, Title 18 USC and the state laws of the states I was stationed in, which were many. I’m a trained and accomplished Traffic Accident Investigator using. In comparison to the states that don’t have almost any training standards, I’m extremely over qualified to work on may departments. I know what the “Fruits of the Poisonous Tree” are and I know many civilian police officers that had no clue what that was, as just one example. So, MartyC, do you think that Barny from BF, Oklahoma deserves to carry concealed any more than I do?

    31. Having said all the above. The major problem with this new amendment is that we (retired military LEOs) don’t have a retired ID that states that we were LEOs. However, the DOD will have to update DODI 5525.12. This, once they do update it, will provide for us retired LEOs to apply for the required ID and then get qualified on the “type” weapon we plan to carry and then “carry on”. You can either get qualified by your local PD or a qualified firearms instructor using the states standards.

    32. [...] thought this might be if interest to those of us who are Veterans. Interesting changes in the law. http://www.ammoland.com/2013/07/law-…#axzz2aKBWS0Ya I did about 13 years as an MP. But I have my CCDW and have never felt the need for anything more. [...]

    33. Hello,

      Just wanted to let everybody know some information is incorrect. The state of Indiana recognizes all other states valid Licenses to carry a firearm.

    34. @Chance go fu*k youself. Youre not special because youre a green beenie. Quit throwing your MOS around because youre 18 series. You are what makes us look bad.

    35. Does this give permission to MPs on Military Installation to concela carry putsaide their job (meaning bassard off) and AR 190-56 specifically states that DACP will not carry a weapon on military installation when off duty. Does Army Regulation trump this?

    36. How does this relate to carrying on military installation? As I read it, it says you can conceal carry if you meet certain requirements but doesn’t give you overall ability to carry on military installation. If it does please quote where it says that. Thank you.

    37. Why apply this to ONLY military LE? Why not ALL eligible military personnel qualified and authorized to carry a firearm to defend our country? Having served as SF for over 10 years, I see no reason why this should apply so narrowly. I realize SF, MP, etc are FLETC certified now…but so what? The jurisdiction remains extremely small and defined, no matter what you think from watching NCIS. So claiming a certification means something off base and should ordain extra consideration or privilege is erroneous. The standard for most CCW, if they include ANY shooting, is so minimal that every service could cover the classroom matters in a single day. Of course the shooting and weapons handling will be covered frequently. So, fine, give it to SF and MP, and then everybody else in the military.

    38. discharged early honorably. started as mp and went to cid. i get disability from government, and was wondering if i would be eligble to ccw. i was offered to take fed test along with other help i could offer them thru what i learned while in cid. i was a probie only lasted 9 months. no records but a dui (apparently i was drunk) i dont drink, but with what i did as a job a clean slate is not a good thing. any answer? or close to one.

    39. Maybe a little research into which MOS carries a 9M or other type of handgun routinely would define your answer for making this universal for all military. You are not concealing a AR-15 and after running ranges every three months for all weapon systems in MP arsenal (MP squad carries more weapons than typical infanrty squad) you would realize not everyone who shots M4 can qualify with M9 and qualifyng with M9 does not make you qualified to shoot a M4 either.

    40. Mp’s are stupid

    41. There are many good points in these comments, and there are some that simply lack enough information. Spliting hairs on who is and who is not qualified, will not get anyone LEOSA qualified any faster. Currently, the guidelines are specific enough to exclude people who do NOT meet the standards set. If you’re qualified to obtain one… do so.

    42. Crustyrusty on August 5, 2013 at 9:17 AM said:

      “…there are a lot of people in power, especially on the east coast and in Chicago who might not completely understand that Federal law THE CONSTITUTION trumps anti-gun State statutes.”

      Fixed it.

    43. Being a law enforcement officer for more than 15 years I must admit we are a gun loving country. Soon everyone, everywhere will be packing. This is not the answer to a safer country, if it was we would already be the safest country. I’m aware the vast majority of people own and use weapons properly, but I can’t help thinking more guns is not the answer. While the Supreme Court has ruled in favor or gun manufactures (what a surprise) it has also upheld what they consider reasonable restrictions, no tanks, LAW rockets, 50 cal machine guns and legal background checks. The forefathers never envisioned the society we would have today, never knew weapons would move from single shot muskets to automatic weapons with a sustained rate of fire of over 200 rounds per minute. They also never envisioned a large professional military, in 1786 the military was 90% national guard with no Armories, citizen soldiers kept their weapons at home until called to duty. Hence the need for the 2nd amendment “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The gun manufactures have shortened that to the Right to bear arms, forgetting the purpose behind the 2nd amendment. I’m sure what I wrote will not change a single mind, people rarely use common sense on issues such as this, but these are the facts. Since Newtown Conn, over 20 thousand people have been killed by guns. I can already here many of you saying, guns don’t kill people, people kill people; That is true. However; its equally true that guns make killing people easy, sometimes accidentally, sometimes on purpose. I can’t wait for the haters to start screaming at me. If you start carrying because of this new law, please be safe. Remember statistically your gun is far more likely to kill someone you love instead of someone trying to kill you or another person, act responsibly, remember weapons safety, security and retention……Please for you and other people be safe and be smart.

    44. Mike, you forgot a few words there, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”. Yep, it says the “right of the people”, doesn’t it? I think so. That would be the right of the people, not just the militia. Also, the 2nd Amendment provided for the people to protect themselves from the government and enemies with the weapons of the times. So, things aren’t exactly as outdated as you would like the many sycophants to believe. You have been sworn to protect and defend the Constitution, please start! BTW, your statistics are misleading. Just for clarification, how many of the 20,000 we shot and killed by law abiding citizens?

    45. One more question, how many could have been save if a legally carrying and trained citizen was carrying and intervened? How many in Chicago alone?

    46. @MPRet….i understand where you’re going with this but ultimately the whole point of this isn’t for every citizen in the U.S….this LEOSA; (key words being LAW ENFORCEMENT)….now let me ask you a question did you start feeling this way about it when it was just limited to police officers or was it when they decided to include military…regardless of how you feel and i believe me i understand you completely the people do have the right to carry…i don’t have an exact stat showing who carries and who doesnt but all that aside….even if we are put on there its stil up to the commander to decide if we can do it or not…

    47. SPCurrent on August 15, 2013 at 9:40 PM said:

      @MartyC You blanket statement about MP’s/SF and MA’s is offensive and inaccurate at best. Firstly, if your using NJ as your example I will say NJ police are better trained than most police in the nation. Take Philadelphia police for example. They are poorly trained and many time didn’t attend a full time academy but underwent a night school type program known as Act 120 certification. They are many times less knowledgable about the law and their authority than most citizens they come in contact with. Now onto Civilians working for DoD, DoA, and DAF. Many of them are prior military, their training is provided by the military and if they don’t have a prior academy they attend VA LETC (A six week JOKE)… any other training they get is conducted through the military training section just like the military members they work with. Most Police tactical training (especially SWAT training) was derived from and taught by the military. which is why the military.

      Onto LEOSA, 21 year old can not purchase a personal fire arm (argument irrelevant), if you live in the dorms you cannot possess a weapon there. Creds will be issued, (DoD policy is in draft stages). Bottom line there are some shitty Military LEO’s just like there are some shitty Civilians LEO’s. Take some of these small town deputy sheriff’s or small town cops that live in a town of 200… they are no more qualified than my mother to claim they are LEO’s.

    48. Tray, I’m not really sure exactly what you are asking. But, I will give an answer based upon what I think you are asking.

      I have always felt this way. In fact, when I retired at age 39 as an MP, I could not apply for any Federal LEO jobs. Back then the law was that you could not apply for those jobs if you had attained the age of 35, period. So, here I was feeling young enough to take on the world, experienced and willing. But noooooo there was that age discrimination thing, something that only the Federal government could do. Then I find out that there are states that I could not carry in because I didn’t apply for an application and my prior LEO experience didn’t mean a hill of beans. And then there are the civilian LEOs that for some reason felt superior, as evidenced by some in here, to the retired and/or separated MPs. No Tray, this has always been an issue to me. It is that just now do we see a light at the end of the tunnel for some type of parity and recognition that we retired/separated (with 10 years of LEO experience) were fully qualified LEOs. Last, I do believe that our constitution is our permit to carry. However, that is not the case and it pisses me off. So, if there is a segment of society that has the legal training, the shot/don’t shoot training, the ethical training, the experience and the security requirement, than it is the retired/separated LEOs that deserve it. We can all fight for everyone else’s rights as we move along. Just being able to hit a target in near perfect conditions, even better than me, does not make a nonLEO qualified to carry. There is a lot more to it than just being a good shot. There is a lot more that I want to say and could say but enough is enough.

    49. Michael on August 25, 2013 at 3:31 PM said:

      Mike your arguement is irrelevant. What some else does with a gun has nothing to do with me. All the murders in the world have nothing to do with me. Don’t associate people with guns with murderers, one thing has nothing to do with the other.

    50. As a retired OSI agent, I look forward to the implementation of LEOSA. It seems that many of you don’t understand that carrying a weapon as a law enforcement officer on a daily basis for at least ten years is a big indicator that the individual was/is responsible with firearms and is less of a risk than someone without law enforcement training. Yes, there are always exceptions. As they do stupid things with their credentials, they’ll be weeded out. No way around that, no matter who you agency is. The only advantages I’ll have over my wife is that I can cross all state lines while armed and I won’t have to renew my CCW permit. I’ll have to shoot at least annually but she won’t (Utah).

    51. Larry Telford on September 8, 2013 at 1:18 PM said:

      I am responding to the individual who stated Military police training for the Army is woefully inadequate but an academy no matter how long does not fully prepare you to be a patrol officer.
      I am not sure what school you went too, we carried our weapons 24hrs a day..we spent more time on the range than any Police Officer, I spented 22y/0 of service and I have a SF designator of 18X(Special Forces weapons specialist…just a point of interest, how many service members have been killed by Military Police Officers, I have pulled my weapon numerous times and I don’t recalled shooting anyone out of fear….no civilian officer is even in the same league as a military police officer…I serviced all over the world…if you were really a Military Policeman, then you know we trained consistently all year round..you couldn’t have been an Officer, maybe a clerk assigned to a Military Police company.

    52. Thanks for reading my post Larry even if you obviously did not understand it. First of all 18x is an enlistment option not a a SF designator, or a MOS as we call it in the military. Secondly you are right I was not an “officer” Military Police are primarily enlisted not “officers” I would hazard a guess that it has been a very long time since a “military police officer” has shot anyone acting in a law enforcement capacity as generally there is only per shift and usually make themselves scarce. If our officers are getting super secret law enforcement training that I do not know about they better keep it secret cause if I find out about it I am gonna be pissed that they were never any help all those years.

      For my civilian friends who may be unable to identify a fraud please disregard Larry’s post.

      Also to clarify for anyone with equivalent reading comprehension skills as Larry the point I was trying to make was that experience is what makes a police officer not training.

      Additionally the diversity of experience a military police has the potential to receive has the ability to make a military police officer superior to his counterparts in my opinion.

    53. Ok I’m adding my 2 cents. Basically all the cops on here say the same thing that MP”s don’t know what there doing blah blah blah. We’ll I would say a good 80% of civilian police officers have never fired there weapon at anyone and if they have they shoot 30 bullets hitting 1 target. Now a combat MP has fired their weapon what I can’t understand is why don’t you cops just say you don’t like another group of people allowed to carry concealed because now your more scared…. Seriously any cop that doesn’t like anyone excersizing there 2nd amendment rights should not be a cop….. As a cop your not above the law and your protecting the rights of people. As an MP your protecting and defending a little piece of paper called the us constitution…. So I guess that’s not good enough to you coffee drinking sleeping in parking lot cops

    54. I spent 20 years a MP and a Special Forces OP,,,I trained with civilian police all over the world and trust me….your training does even belong in Military Police Training, we train constantly after every shift, no matter what shift and from what I’ve seen most of you guy would never pass our PT test…we are Federal Officer not county, city or state police..All MP’s have Statutory Apprehensive Authority…to most civilian Police it just a job you go home and sleep in your nice warm bed, you have no idea, but we all work for the people of this nation..end of story…I think most of you are like Police during Katrina, you quit and just go home…try that in the Military you’ll never see home….peace to Aaron he’s an idiot….and I’m sure he knows nothing about Special Forces…soldiers were never allowed to enlist for SF until the wars starred, get your facts correct.

    55. Yeah Military policeman for 20 years, 13 years georgia police officer training basically same with exception to georgia law regulations and codes. Police Officers regardless of city, county, state, federal, military & corrections officers are committed to protect & serve regardless of Their particular law enforcement title.

    56. Even if I had the LEOSA/HR218 carry permit, why would I go to an anti-gun “utopia” and risk being caught in their net by a local LEO who’s ignorant of the law. That in itself is enough to ruin your day.

    57. Subject not Citizen on April 24, 2014 at 9:43 PM said:

      I am a NEW JERSEY resident and separated MP with 11 years of honorable military service. I’m also a combat veteran. I Just went through the New Jersey State Police RPO (retired police officer) gun permit process. DENIED… I quote, “An inquiry was made with the Office of the Attorney General regarding an interpretation of N.J.S. 2C:39-61. As a result of the inquiry, the opinion of the Office of the Attorney General is your military service as a military police officer DOES NOT meet the statutory requirements of N.J.S. 2C:39-61″. This is the avenue of approach for retired / separated police officers in the State of New Jersey. NJ does not issue permits to subjects… or I mean citizens of the state. Period. My understanding is NJ Police will also arrest any RPO who is a resident of NJ who does not have the NJ State Police RPO ID Card. So when DOD finally issue ID cards to retired / separated soldiers, sailors, airmen or marines, it could get interesting. God Bless Brothers and Sisters.

    58. walter brazelton on June 18, 2014 at 1:42 PM said:

      I’m a resident of Washington State King County retired military police over 21 years how and where do i acquire a federal carry permit, under HR 218

    59. A Police Officer on June 20, 2014 at 1:05 PM said:

      There are some issues here, everyone needs to understand. The DOJ Actually sets the Standards for National carry (HR-218). 1. 6 Months or more of Formal LE TNG at a Civilian Academy, or FLETCO. 2. MP’s are Soldiers, not LE’s.It’s my understanding they enforce AR’s, not Laws. With the Strange exception of CID, and DoD Police, who are Federal Police Officers. In my Agency, I was taught local ordinances, State Penal Laws/Statues, and Federal Laws/Statutes, and had to pass a written exam on all. If the MP violated these things, who would get Sued? There is a lot consider here.

    60. A Police Officer on June 20, 2014 at 2:01 PM said:

      For Larry Telford- Tell me when did the Army start the 18X Program for HS kids? Do you even know what Laws are? Anyone can pull a trigger. In your case, as others, you are not allowed to Enforce ANY LAW!I suggest you contact the DOJ. They will tell you what states and Law Enforcement Agencies to stay away from.

    61. FormerSP/Current FL Cop on July 2, 2014 at 1:58 AM said:

      I am currently a central FL Police Officer (17 years) and a former USAF SP (13 years). To “A Police Officer”, All military cops are responsible for enforcing federal laws not just AFI’s or AR’s (which are actually the equivalent to municipal ordinances) or just DOD Directives (county level ordinances if you will)for that matter. MP’s are LE’s and have to be especially since not everyone on a military installation is a military member. Bases do have civilian civil service workers, civilian contractors and not to mention military spouses and dependants are civilians. If any one of these civilians were to punch a MP in the face what do you suppose the charge is? It’s 18 USC 111 violation of Battery on a Federal Police Officer, No different than F.S.S. 784.07 here in FL. The only difference is that the civilian would have to appear before a federal magistrate judge in a federal court. I have arrested all while in the military and have done the same since as a civilian police officer. As far as the rest of the military being covered under this. Sorry but Tac. Operators and such do not have the liability training and experience with interacting with innocent civilians who do not follow directions and often impede you properly. You can’t blow them off and pretend they’re not there, you become responsible for their safety. In other words other military career fields lack the ability and training to separate military and law enforcement use of force procedures. Not because they are unable to figure it out but because they were never “signed off” on it officially by the DOD. The DOD needs a way to say in court that they can in no way be responsible for the actions of an “off duty military member”. People are forgetting that the FED always ensures they have their “out” in law suites. If we are to truly be fair about this I will make a correlation with “police motorcycle training”. As a certified police motorcycle instructor (University of North FL, IPTM), IMHO NO ONE that has not been through a Police Motor Operators Course should be operating a motorcycle period. The course should actually be titled just Proper Motorcycle Operations Course since less than 0.01% of what is taught applies solely to law enforcement. The skills learned in this course cannot be crammed into a 3 day class like the MSF joke is. It provides the student with all the skills necessary to safely and properly operate a motorcycle while gaining an understanding of the “physics” to the actual capabilities of the motorcycle. A motorcycle should never take more than two lanes to complete a U-turn. 85% of all Motorcycle crashes where the motorcycle is not at fault could have been avoided. It really pains me that this course is not available to the general public but it is what it is. It takes every bit of the 80 hours to ensure the trainees can be properly evaluated before they are certified. So if we were to make a civilian version it would most likely be at least a month long, but who would be willing to do that and pay for it, not to mention take the time off from work? Who would be left legally riding motorcycles? Same issue here. We have 50 different States with 50 different law enforcement training standards, throw in the Federal Agencies and were stuck with more than 50 different levels of training and directions. Police are NOT and NEVER HAVE BEEN created equal. We all police differently for varying reasons and yes even within the same organization like the USAF, no two bases enforces laws the same. I don’t understand for the life of me all this discontent here. We need to realize that it’s the FED up to their old divide and conquer tactics again so they can get away with yet another attack on OUR civil liberties. It would be much more worth everyone’s while and time to work together to get rid of the IRS and BATFE. IMHO everyone who is law abiding should be trained in proper firearms handling and should have the ability to carry openly if they so desired. The laws should also be written clearly enough for everyone to understand and attorneys should not be something “needed” but just a “nice to have” option. Lets keep our guns pointed at the politicians and not each other please.

    62. Subject not Citizen on July 5, 2014 at 7:40 AM said:

      To “A Police Officer”: It is clearly obvious that you have never served a single day in a military uniform and have zero knowledge of the training and education that military police in any branch earn. The USAF Security Police Basic Course is accredited by FLETC for example. We enforce AR’s and AFI’s, but we also enforce state and federal laws every day. From assault to rape to murder, we are no different than civilian cops. A rookie MP or veteran patrol supervisor may refer the aforementioned felonies to MPI or CID, but civilians also refer to there division detectives. As far as 18x go, I would ask where anyone thinks SWAT was developed. It was not with the LAPD or FBI, and it certainly was not with “A Police Officer”‘s local department. It was with Americas special forces long before kent state. Please give our military LE more credit than what you think you know from watching the A Team.

    63. PaulycarriesNEways on July 19, 2014 at 6:01 PM said:

      WOW. You idiots all need to ease off the DBOL and Winstral. So you were a cop. That just means you’ve committed more felonies than the rest of us. This is classic tiny dock syndrome. Not once did I read the phrase “civil rights”. You bozos don’t think the populace actually has any. YOUR EGO IS NOT YOUR AMIGO, Mensa. I carry now, always have and won’t stop. I earned that right by being born here. I’m a service-connected combat Veteran. Try and step to me with that “war. Veteran’s aren’t fit to carry” bullshit. I will debate any of you, and teach.you some principles, if you’re capable of listening. The SF argument proves most of you have any clue the mission CJSOTF is tasked with, or what selfless professionals the soldiers doing it are. These guys don’t just go kill everyone. And when AOB-140 brought assets back to be interrogated, NATO inspectors flew in and observed. How many cops ever had any oversight?

    Leave a Comment

    • Sign up Ammoland for your Inbox

      Daily Digest

      Monthly Newsletter

    • Recent Comments

      • Mike11C: EAT THAT, Shannon Watts!!!
      • Janek: Resisting the onslaught of ‘Progressive’ policies via ‘boycotts’ limits your freedom...
      • Scott Weir: A 200″+ or anything close would go great on my wall
      • james bollerud: Does Secretary Salatazar have an office or a contact person working in Anchorage, Alaska?
      • Charles K. Bent JR.: VOTE HIM OUT!
    • Social Activity

    • Most Popular Posts

    • AmmoLand Poll

    Copyright 2014 AmmoLand.com Shooting Sports News | Sitemap | Μολὼν λαβέ
    14256432
    14868736