1911Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,046 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
House bill seeks to improve officers' permit to carry concealed firearms

Press Release provided by Congressman J. Randy Forbes

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Congressman J. Randy Forbes (VA-04) introduced public safety legislation that will promote the responsible use of firearms in the United States by reforming regulations on retired law enforcement officials’ right to carry concealed weapons. The bill, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2007 (H.R. 2726), will modernize federal firearms laws to ensure that individual liberties are upheld and public safety is protected.

“This bill will work to enact common sense provisions while concurrently promoting safety in federal firearms laws. It’s important that trained law enforcement officials have the ability to handle emergency situations, regardless of their location and duty status,” said Forbes. “Retired law enforcement officers who have served admirably should be allowed to better protect themselves and their families from vindictive criminals and other public safety threats.”

Under current law, retired law enforcement officers must carry the required documents, including state-issued documentation verifying the officers' firearms qualifications, in order to carry a concealed firearm. However, some states have refused to issue this documentation. This legislation would provide an alternative to a state-issued document and would allow retired law enforcement officers to carry a certification from a firearms instructor stating that they meet the active duty standards for qualification in firearms training as established by the regulating agency in that state. This would allow retired members of law enforcement that left their agency in good standing to carry a concealed weapon.

Additionally, this bill would amend federal criminal code to include Amtrak and executive branch police officers as qualified law enforcement officers eligible to carry concealed firearms.

Congressman Forbes is the Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security. To learn more about what the Congressman’s work on crime, visit: http://forbes.house.gov/issues/crime.htm

My e-mail to the powers that be.

Please send one yourself.

Thanks

Sir;
Please support this.

I am a retired federal police officer and a retired 1SG US Army.

Introduced legislation to ensure retired law enforcement officers can carry firearms. Congressman Forbes introduced the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act Improvements Act, H.R. 3752, which permits qualified, retired law enforcement officers to carry a concealed weapon in other jurisdictions in order to increase public safety. The bill also covers retired Amtrak officers, executive branch officers, and Federal Reserve officers.
http://forbes.house.gov/Issues/Issue/?IssueID=3341

Thank you for your time.
James Kelly
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
570 Posts
Now, if this would just take to the airways too, we would not need air marshals.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,046 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
How about the same rules for retired combat arms troops?

:rock:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
388 Posts
Congressman J. Randy Forbes (VA-04) introduced public safety legislation that will promote the responsible use of firearms in the United States by reforming regulations on retired law enforcement officials’ right to carry concealed weapons.
A right retired law enforcement officers have that the rest of us do not. :confused:

The bill, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2007 (H.R. 2726), will modernize federal firearms laws to ensure that individual liberties are upheld and public safety is protected.
Individual liberties retired law enforcement officers have that the rest of us do not. :confused:

said Forbes. “Retired law enforcement officers who have served admirably should be allowed to better protect themselves and their families from vindictive criminals and other public safety threats.”
The rest of us face those public safety threats as well. :scratch:

Under current law, retired law enforcement officers must carry the required documents, including state-issued documentation verifying the officers' firearms qualifications, in order to carry a concealed firearm.
While the rest of us go to prison if we carry in the wrong state. :mummy:

However, some states have refused to issue this documentation.
Funny enough, they refuse to issue this documentation to the rest of us as well. Accordingly, officers can do like the rest of us; take your legal chances or don't go armed. :cool:


FWIW, unless the federal government is going to follow "shall not be infringed" then they can pound sand before I would back any such special 'rights' that impose federal power over state power. :barf:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,354 Posts
So why not a bill for everone???? LEO retired or not are no better to have there permits upgraded than regular folks!!
The bill is BS unless it includes everone... It also implys one group of people are more important than others....
Kind of like the Laws or Congressmen writes for us and exempts thereselfs from..


Our Fore Fathers meant for the 2ND to apply to everone!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
825 Posts
A right retired law enforcement officers have that the rest of us do not. :confused:



Individual liberties retired law enforcement officers have that the rest of us do not. :confused:



The rest of us face those public safety threats as well. :scratch:



While the rest of us go to prison if we carry in the wrong state. :mummy:



Funny enough, they refuse to issue this documentation to the rest of us as well. Accordingly, officers can do like the rest of us; take your legal chances or don't go armed. :cool:


FWIW, unless the federal government is going to follow "shall not be infringed" then they can pound sand before I would back any such special 'rights' that impose federal power over state power. :barf:
So if you don't get it, nobody should? Personally, I think the 2nd Amendment should be a nationwide concealed carry permit but it isn't. Until it is again; you have to start somewhere.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
825 Posts
So why not a bill for everone???? LEO retired or not are no better to have there permits upgraded than regular folks!!
The bill is BS unless it includes everone... It also implys one group of people are more important than others....
Kind of like the Laws or Congressmen writes for us and exempts thereselfs from..


Our Fore Fathers meant for the 2ND to apply to everone!
The bill they are talking about isn't a CCW permit, it's about cleaning up the 2004 Law Enforcement Safety Act because liberal states are working to circumvent it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
388 Posts
So if you don't get it, nobody should?
Nothing like that was in my post; either implicitly or explicitly. My point was that in this regard retired individual law enforcement officers have rights no further than any other citizen. What is proposed is, at essence, creation of special rights for a specific group... based solely upon previous employment status. That is simply not acceptable.


Personally, I think the 2nd Amendment should be a nationwide concealed carry permit but it isn't. Until it is again; you have to start somewhere.
It is a nationwide open carry permit with reasonable concealment considerations. Considerations that would have been common sense for the time period.

The right to keep and bear arms is precisely that; a right for all individuals to keep and bear arms. No special class of citizenry need be created for adequate and legitimate exercise thereof.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,974 Posts
The bill they are talking about isn't a CCW permit, it's about cleaning up the 2004 Law Enforcement Safety Act because liberal states are working to circumvent it.
Really??? Seems that it does address it and actually is promoting a way for retired LEO's to bypass much of what us "common folk" have to go through.

Under current law, retired law enforcement officers must carry the required documents, including state-issued documentation verifying the officers' firearms qualifications, in order to carry a concealed firearm. However, some states have refused to issue this documentation. This legislation would provide an alternative to a state-issued document and would allow retired law enforcement officers to carry a certification from a firearms instructor stating that they meet the active duty standards for qualification in firearms training as established by the regulating agency in that state. This would allow retired members of law enforcement that left their agency in good standing to carry a concealed weapon.

With that mentality then why shouldn't retired military who left on good standing and with all the firearms qualifications up to date also fall under this provision. Using the logic as outlined in the proposed bill then I along with all other veterans shouldn't be bothered by something as trivial as state laws or requirements. After all I left after 22 years fully qualified on everything from the M9 pistol to the Browning M2HB as well as most military explosives.

Also the whole “Retired law enforcement officers who have served admirably should be allowed to better protect themselves and their families from vindictive criminals and other public safety threats.”
is somewhat insulting in my opinion. What about other professions that also seem to peeve the criminal types such as lawyers, judges, bailbonds etc.. Or more importantly how about the regular folks who face a public safety threat daily? I guess clerks, cashiers, waitresses, and the list goes on are to be expected to have to jump hoops and actually meet their individual state's requirements.

Bottom line to me on this is easy. Either EVERYONES 2A rights are respected or they are not. The cherry picking we are seeing is intentional on the part of the liberal/statist politicians. As long as we allow ourselves to be seperated into differant groups/castes and allow our Natural born rights to be treated as priviliges then we will continue to see a concerted effort by the political elite to restrict or marginalize our Constitutional rights, whether its because of profession, income, status, etc...

I'm sure my position will not sit well with many of the LEO's on this forum but oh well. We are all citizens and no where in the COTUS do I see police, military or anyone else having anymore God given rights than any other citizen in this Republic.

Regards,
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
388 Posts
The bill they are talking about isn't a CCW permit, it's about cleaning up the 2004 Law Enforcement Safety Act because liberal states are working to circumvent it.
I question the legitimacy of the 2004 Law Enforcement Safety Act itself during a time when police powers are great and the exercise of individual rights are infringed and abridged.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
825 Posts
Really??? Seems that it does address it and actually is promoting a way for retired LEO's to bypass much of what us "common folk" have to go through.

Under current law, retired law enforcement officers must carry the required documents, including state-issued documentation verifying the officers' firearms qualifications, in order to carry a concealed firearm. However, some states have refused to issue this documentation. This legislation would provide an alternative to a state-issued document and would allow retired law enforcement officers to carry a certification from a firearms instructor stating that they meet the active duty standards for qualification in firearms training as established by the regulating agency in that state. This would allow retired members of law enforcement that left their agency in good standing to carry a concealed weapon.

With that mentality then why shouldn't retired military who left on good standing and with all the firearms qualifications up to date also fall under this provision. Using the logic as outlined in the proposed bill then I along with all other veterans shouldn't be bothered by something as trivial as state laws or requirements. After all I left after 22 years fully qualified on everything from the M9 pistol to the Browning M2HB as well as most military explosives.

Also the whole “Retired law enforcement officers who have served admirably should be allowed to better protect themselves and their families from vindictive criminals and other public safety threats.”
is somewhat insulting in my opinion. What about other professions that also seem to peeve the criminal types such as lawyers, judges, bailbonds etc.. Or more importantly how about the regular folks who face a public safety threat daily? I guess clerks, cashiers, waitresses, and the list goes on are to be expected to have to jump hoops and actually meet their individual state's requirements.

Bottom line to me on this is easy. Either EVERYONES 2A rights are respected or they are not. The cherry picking we are seeing is intentional on the part of the liberal/statist politicians. As long as we allow ourselves to be seperated into differant groups/castes and allow our Natural born rights to be treated as priviliges then we will continue to see a concerted effort by the political elite to restrict or marginalize our Constitutional rights, whether its because of profession, income, status, etc...

I'm sure my position will not sit well with many of the LEO's on this forum but oh well. We are all citizens and no where in the COTUS do I see police, military or anyone else having anymore God given rights than any other citizen in this Republic.

Regards,
Yep you're right, retired military should have the same privilege. I know legislatures have tried and for some reason not been successful. They've also tried for a reciprocity with CCW permits. That has failed too. They did try and were successful with the 2004 Law Enforcement Safety Act. This current legislation is cleaning up that law that has been in existence for 5 years. That law took over a decade of lobbying by the Law Enforcement Alliance of America. www.leaa.org Personally, I'm not an all or nothing kind of person. I'm fine with chipping away gun laws little by little.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
825 Posts
I question the legitimacy of the 2004 Law Enforcement Safety Act itself during a time when police powers are great and the exercise of individual rights are infringed and abridged.
Is that how you felt 5 years when this law was passed, or today. Yep, all of our individual rights were infringed, and had been that way long before I ever got involved. And despite the effort by many to see these rights returned, only one segment was successful. I call it a start, but I'm still involved for my family and friends; and because I just think the 2ndA "should be" the nationwide carry permit. I think some people are looking at this all wrong, and come across like -If I don't get mine, nobody else should either. I think its "big picture" time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
825 Posts
Really??? Seems that it does address it and actually is promoting a way for retired LEO's to bypass much of what us "common folk" have to go through.

Under current law, retired law enforcement officers must carry the required documents, including state-issued documentation verifying the officers' firearms qualifications, in order to carry a concealed firearm. However, some states have refused to issue this documentation. This legislation would provide an alternative to a state-issued document and would allow retired law enforcement officers to carry a certification from a firearms instructor stating that they meet the active duty standards for qualification in firearms training as established by the regulating agency in that state. This would allow retired members of law enforcement that left their agency in good standing to carry a concealed weapon.

With that mentality then why shouldn't retired military who left on good standing and with all the firearms qualifications up to date also fall under this provision. Using the logic as outlined in the proposed bill then I along with all other veterans shouldn't be bothered by something as trivial as state laws or requirements. After all I left after 22 years fully qualified on everything from the M9 pistol to the Browning M2HB as well as most military explosives.

Also the whole “Retired law enforcement officers who have served admirably should be allowed to better protect themselves and their families from vindictive criminals and other public safety threats.”
is somewhat insulting in my opinion. What about other professions that also seem to peeve the criminal types such as lawyers, judges, bailbonds etc.. Or more importantly how about the regular folks who face a public safety threat daily? I guess clerks, cashiers, waitresses, and the list goes on are to be expected to have to jump hoops and actually meet their individual state's requirements.

Bottom line to me on this is easy. Either EVERYONES 2A rights are respected or they are not. The cherry picking we are seeing is intentional on the part of the liberal/statist politicians. As long as we allow ourselves to be seperated into differant groups/castes and allow our Natural born rights to be treated as priviliges then we will continue to see a concerted effort by the political elite to restrict or marginalize our Constitutional rights, whether its because of profession, income, status, etc...

I'm sure my position will not sit well with many of the LEO's on this forum but oh well. We are all citizens and no where in the COTUS do I see police, military or anyone else having anymore God given rights than any other citizen in this Republic.

Regards,
Your argument is 5 years old. The problem now is some states aren't letting retired guys take a qualification course or stamp "LESA complaint" on their retired ID card. That's what this current law is trying to do.
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top