LEOSA or Police Carry – The Legal Brief ~ VIDEO

Editors Note: this episode was film prior to the 2017 NRA Annual Meeting.

The Gun Collective
The Gun Collective

USA – -(Ammoland.com)- Welcome back to The Legal Brief, the show where we CRUSH the various legal myths and misinformation surrounding various areas of the gun world.

I’m your host Adam Kraut and today we are talking about a much asked about topic the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act or LEOSA which is the way cops can carry in different states.

Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, LEOSA

LEOSA was signed into law in 2004 and amended in both 2010 and 2013. The law has two separate sections, one applying to current law enforcement officers and one applying to retired law enforcement officers. As such, we’ll review it in two different parts.

The section pertaining to current law enforcement officers states that an individual who is a qualified law enforcement officer and who is carrying the required identification may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to certain restrictions. Seems simple enough right? First, we need to establish what a qualified law enforcement officer is.

The statute defines the term qualified law enforcement officer to mean an employee of a governmental agency who is (1) 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 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.

In simple terms, the individual is authorized by law or the Uniform Code of Military Justice to “arrest” (and I use quotes because the power is broader than simple arrest) an individual, is authorized by the agency for whom they work to carry a firearm, is not subject to any disciplinary action by the agency that would result in them being unable to exert police powers, qualifies to agency standards with a firearm, is not under the influence of any substance and is not a prohibited person, meaning the exception that allows a prohibited person to carry a firearm in performance of their duties as law enforcement does not apply to LEOSA.

Also note, that Congress specifically states that a law enforcement officer of the Amtrak Police Department, Federal Reserve, or the executive branch of the Federal Government is also a qualified law enforcement officer for the purposes of LEOSA.

The officer is required to carry a photographic identification issued by the governmental agency for which they work, which identifies them as a police officer or law enforcement officer of that agency.

The section also states that it 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. In other words, the states may still regulate that conduct as the individual is not acting in a law enforcement capacity under LEOSA.

Lastly, the term firearm, has the same meaning as defined in the Gun Control Act of 1968, includes ammunition that is not expressly forbidden by federal law and is not subject to the National Firearms Act of 1934 and does not include a machine gun, silencer, or destructive device. And yes, it would seem that the language, which was part of an amendment to the original LEOSA, would allow for an officer to carry hollow points in a state that would otherwise restrict its citizens from doing so. But states have been known to ignore federal law before, so if you choose to do so, you do so at your own peril. However, magazine capacity is not addressed, which means you’ll want to be sure to brush up on that before heading into a different state.

For those of you that are retired law enforcement officers, the section is fairly similar in nature. The notable differences are in relation to who is a qualified retired law enforcement officer and the form of photographic identification they are required to have. We’re just going to focus on the differences, to see the full text, you can look at the statute in the description.

The key points to take away how Congress defined the term qualified retired law enforcement officer are that they (1) retired from the agency and were not fired (2) were an officer for at least 10 years or completed any applicable probationary period to become an officer and were discharged prior to the 10 year mark due to a disability as a result of their job which was determined by the agency (3) during the past 12-months, has met, at their expense, the standards for qualification in firearms training for active law enforcement officers, as determined by their agency, 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 qualifications for officers in that state; and (4) have no mental health issues either acknowledged by the department’s mental health professional or self acknowledged. Remember, these are merely the key differences, there are other criteria in the statute which apply to this term.

Again, Congress was so kind as to include former officers of the Amtrak Police Department, Federal Reserve, or the executive branch of the Federal Government as a qualified retired law enforcement officer for the purposes of LEOSA.

The photographic ID in this section is a bit more robust than that of active law enforcement officers. In this context, the term includes (1) a photographic identification issued by the department that identifies the individual as a former officer who has qualified within the last year to department standards with the firearm they are carrying OR (2) a photographic identification issued by the department that identifies the individual as a former officer AND a certification issued by the state in which they reside or a certified firearms instructor who may conduct qualification tests for officers that the individual qualified within the last 12 months with the firearm they are carrying OR if there is no state test, standards set by any law enforcement agency within that state. Essentially, no matter which avenue the qualification occurs under, it must be within the past year. The term firearm has the same meaning as it does for active law enforcement officers.

Police Carry for Your Safety
Police Carry for Your Safety

Hopefully that gives you a better understanding of LEOSA. If you guys liked this episode, you know what to do, hit that like button and share it around with your friends. Have a question you want answered on this show, head over to The Legal Brief section on theguncollective.com. Be sure to check out my website adamkraut.com for more information on my quest to serve YOU on the NRA Board of Directors. Don’t forget to like The Gun Collective on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Full 30, Snap Chat and wherever else you can catch us on social media.

And as always thanks for watching!

Links for this episode:

  • 18 U.S.C. § 926B – https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/926B
  • 18 U.S.C. § 926C – https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/926C

About The Gun Collective

The Gun Collective is dedicated to bringing you the highest quality, fast paced gun content possible. Started in June 2015 by Jon Patton, TGC has rapidly taken off to become a go-to source for the things you need to know without a bunch of BS. Please check out TheGunCollective.com to learn more and see what the hype is all about!

29 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
KUETSA
KUETSA
4 years ago

I’m, at this point, totally sick of it all. For “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” there are endless restrictions, limitations, outright bans, magazine capacity limitations, AND RELENTLESS BILLS INTRODUCED TO FURTHER RESTRICT AND OUTLAW – all with double standards and exemptions – so that in the end – a constitutional right in place to insure that Americans are never in a defenseless position to be victim of government oppression, tyranny, and atrocity – has been turned into a system designed to ENSURE THAT GOVERNMENT ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES HAVE AN OVERWHELMING ADVANTAGE – TO AT THIS POINT – ENFORCE THE SURRENDER OF OUR… Read more »

The Revelator
The Revelator
4 years ago
Reply to  KUETSA

You forgot the Guy in Wasington DC who had muzzle loader bullets with no powder or caps, just bullets. His name is Mark Witaschek, and he was found guilty of possessing “Illegal ammunition.” The Second Amendment is not a right. It’s a restriction, a protection against the Government violating a PRE EXISTING right. If you read through the entire Bill of Rights, you will actually notice it is saying “YOU(the government) can’t do this, or this, and this, oh that too….” to the pre-constitutional rights held by the people. Have things gotten turned and twisted around? YES, they have. The… Read more »

Vanns40
Vanns40
4 years ago
Reply to  The Revelator

Many of us have been doing this for years. The problem now is that we’re growing old and many of us are without heirs to leave what we have been buying, storing, collecting all these years. For us it’s a very real dilemma.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
4 years ago
Reply to  Vanns40

@Vanns, Yes, and the timing of divesting one’s self, too! I don’t want to give it away too early! Give my treasures away to some nice young person and they will just sell it for too little because they need cash. I can sell it for too little all on my own. And exchanging what I have for mere money is completely Un Sat.

Vanns40
Vanns40
4 years ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

Agreed, especially since almost every piece in my collection has been a private purchase, sometimes fourth generation private sale. I want them to go to someone who will do exactly what I have done, keep them for the well being of self and country.

Matt in Oklahoma
Matt in Oklahoma
4 years ago

The retired LEOSA has been rendered worthless by policies and red tape bog downs in maintaining your qualification anyway.

Chiefton
Chiefton
4 years ago

Matt you are correct. I moved from Michigan (where I had all the connections I needed to get the silly annual qualification) and moved to North Carolina where I knew nobody. It took 3 years to get a connection to a qualified training officer to allow me to go through the qualification rounds. Most want to charge retired officers up to $150 a year to qualify and then the state gets another $45 for the first year and $25 a year thereafter. A general populace CCW is $100 for a 5 year license and a $75 renewal for every 5… Read more »

Matt in Oklahoma
Matt in Oklahoma
4 years ago
Reply to  Chiefton

Exactly! Why should I have to qualify annually where others NEVER qualify at all at my expense where they pay nothing or a much smaller fee.
Hours to days of my time is spent in a frustrating manner whereas they fill out a piece of paper and mail it in.
The whole retired LEOSA is a joke and on top of it all none of us need to do any of it as it’s our right

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
4 years ago

Congress designed it to be a “feel good but really can’t get it done” statute. When I came to Texas the County Sheriff and local PD never heard of it. Immediately, I got a Texas LTC. But that is just to keep Texas happy until Texas realizes that there is a Second Amendment Civil Right to keep and carry with nothing else needed.

Tionico
Tionico
4 years ago

Hah!! Learned one new thing: never knew Amtrak had their own police department. Tax fed Pinkertons. What a deal

Rick
Rick
4 years ago

It’s still basically a carve-out for our Betters. This reminds me the “rationale” as to why many states require police details at construction sites: the officer(s) _could_ intervene in a crime. How many crimes take place at or near construction sites? While I realize that this idea applies more to the retired cop aspect of the law, I wonder how many traveling cops have used their firearms when out of their home state. Do they know the laws well enough to act appropriately? Or do they carry just to protect themselves and their families? If the answer is B, then… Read more »

Vanns40
Vanns40
4 years ago
Reply to  Rick

As a retired LEO I am adamantly against LEOSA and always have been. Whether active or retired, police officers are no better than any other law abiding citizens. The idea that we are the “only ones” or the “chosen few” who somehow possess special knowledge or skills is beyond ludicrous. If police can carry anywhere so should you be able to. If I can posses, carry and use “special” weapons that are issued by a department then by god you should be able to also and without having to pay an exorbitant amount or an special tax.

Tionico
Tionico
4 years ago
Reply to  Vanns40

Once more, proof that some pigs are just more equal than other pigs.

Matt in Oklahoma
Matt in Oklahoma
4 years ago
Reply to  Tionico

This “pig” doesn’t think that you should have to jump thru hoops to carry. I don’t see why any legal person can’t carry without special permits or ID whatever.
I don’t have an issue at all with others having weapons. The 2nd says “shall not be infringed”. The permit bravo sierra is just a money gimmick that states need to drop.

Rick
Rick
4 years ago

Matt,

I took his pig reference as a “Animal Farm” one, not one referring to police.

The Revelator
The Revelator
4 years ago

Rick,

Seems like that movie/book is quickly becoming a forgotten subject these days. I’ve been out of the School system for over two lustrums. Can anyone even verify if it is still being used to teach in civics and economics classes anymore?

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
4 years ago
Reply to  Vanns40

I don’t know why Congress even passed it. The Second Amendment is our Civil Right to buy and sell and carry arms.

Bill
Bill
4 years ago
Reply to  Vanns40

And how vocal have you been about this? How vocal were you? To whom and how oftendid you express your view? Have you tried to right this wrong in any way? We all need to get on the same page. We all need to do our part to back each other. Far too much I hear the regular civilians expressing their support for law enforcement but its so rare the hear the reverse. In fact, its often disdain I hear from LEOs about civilian owners, who, like me probably train harder and more often than most LEOs, and on my… Read more »

Matt in Oklahoma
Matt in Oklahoma
4 years ago
Reply to  Bill

I do not nor will not talk in disdain on it. I speak in individual cases only.
I’m not better than you and am as staunch a 2A supporter as you will ever meet.
You are also right in that we all need a United front on support.

BS
BS
3 years ago
Reply to  Vanns40

Vanns40, I agree. Keep hoping the national reciprocity gets passed. I am lucky enough to know a state certified instructor who does my annual qual for a very reasonable price. Most of the other retired LEO’s I have shot with do okay, but there have been a couple I have seen that I wouldn’t trust with a bb gun. I have no problem with the annual qual. Though I shoot much more often with anything I plan on carrying. If we are going to have “extra” rights, then having “extra” requirements is fine. To be safe, when I am traveling… Read more »

HP
HP
4 years ago
Reply to  Rick

Hopefully concealed carry reciprocity passes.

Jim S
Jim S
4 years ago
Reply to  Rick

While I am not in favor of these carve outs and feel anyone legal to carry should be able to carry anywhere, but one way to keep playing this game would be to allow anyone who served in the military to also fall under LEOSA.

Ron
Ron
4 years ago
Reply to  Jim S

Members of the military are allowed to carry under LEOSA after 10 or more years of service.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
4 years ago
Reply to  Ron

, I really don’t like that “are allowed” part when carrying firearms is a Civil Right that we the people already possess. Allowed by whom… a bunch of parasites in the federal government. We are the people that “allow” them. They are out of control. There should be a two term limit on Congress (one House and one Senate, two House, or two Senate terms) and a one time ten year term limit on all federal judges, and any bureaucrat that sits at the pleasure of the president. That way the lobbyists will have a harder time corrupting and bribing.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
4 years ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

We the people also need the Right of Recall to use against our federal government employees that learn about bribes and other remuneration too quickly or anyone that thinks they can be part of a shadow government.

The Revelator
The Revelator
4 years ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

Wild Bill, Your first reply to Ron, I have to say that despite our differences in the past is the most 100% spot on comment so far on this article, and I don’t think anyone is going to surpass it. Term limits not just for the Federal level though too, but the state level as well. The Second Amendment is a limitation put on all Government levels against debarring a law abiding citizen’s right to own, transport, and make use of firearms for their own security. Because we have an Unalienable right to Life, we also must have the means… Read more »

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
4 years ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

Acta Non Verba is I believe the motto of the U.S. Merchant Maring. Cool. Let us try not to have differences in the future because there are too many real enemies out there.

The Revelator
The Revelator
4 years ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

It’s been my own personal motto for several years. “Action, Not Words” It’s part of why I reacted the way I did. If I am going to say I stand for telling the truth and not letting a personal opinion affect that judgement, then that means I have to defend people I disagree with when they get something right, and correct/stand against people I normally agree with when they get something wrong. That is part of what is missing that has caused the schism in this country to become as wide as it is, why our major news outlets have… Read more »

Dr Dave
Dr Dave
4 years ago
Reply to  Ron

Ron that is not totally true LEOSA only works with military who were assigned to MOS involving the UCMJ not every military man or woman qualifies in fact few do. Although I carry nationally under LEOSA I also carry locally under both PA and FL CCW’s the LEOSA simply allows me some freedom in nasty places like NJ and NY Someday hopefully the need won’t be there to have it as we might get national carry but don’t be misled by thinking that every former DoD man or woman can legally carry in the USA under LEOSA it is factually… Read more »