RE: LEOSA

Captain 38, All I can say is it must be nice not to have to deal with BS with your former dept. and to live in a state that complied with LEOSA. Indiana still hasn't passed anything in regards to allowing retired officers to qualify and from what I can find out has no plans to. It's up to each dept. what they want to do in regards to firearms training.
My former dept. (chief) even refused to respond to me when I wrote and requested a retirement ID (because I only had 17+ years on, the chief refused to let me have a retirement ID when I left) and to be able to shoot to be qualiflied under LEOSA. ( I met all the other requirements under LEOSA )I ended up filing a Federal and State lawsuit which was settled out of court. The towns take on LEOSA is that the 15 years or more is that only applies to depts. that allows an officer to retire at 15 years. Yet they had nothing in policy as to when an officer could retire, the pension plan says 15 years with reduced benefits , the town even passed an ordinance (after the lawsuit had been filed) saying that an officer had to have 20 years on to retire (except for me) The Town ordinance also states the cost is $500.00 dollars a year, the retiree gets one chance a year to qualify (I get two if needed) and the dept. only has to let you shoot within a year of paying the fee. All of this and more (this is the short verison) is why I am hoping that the new amendments in congress gets passed so I don't have to deal with my former dept. except for the ID.
So be very appreciative

Also if I may ask what does your dept. charge for you to qualify?

Last edited @ 5/25/2007 12:38 AM

RE: LEOSA

Dogman, providing our own ammunition is our only expense.  The Legislature provided for a fee of up to twenty-five dollars for each year's qualification but my department waives that as a service to its own retirees.

Let me clear up a point, however, where I may have misled you. This upcoming qualification series BEGINS our third year of LEOSA availability in this state. The Virginia State Police, the Illinois State Police, Springfield, IL PD and a few other agencies all got there first and were collectively very helpful in providing the information we needed to get up and moving with our program. Thanks to them for paving the way!

Last edited @ 5/25/2007 2:39 AM

RE: LEOSA

Captain38, and with my former dept. the retiree has to provide everything except the range, even the staples for the target.

Indiana HR 218

Wow, I'm not surprised at your Department's reaction. I also retired from a small Indiana PD but haven't approached them about retired officer qualification. I'm sure that I know what their reaction would be. Instead I took advantage of the Indiana Lifetime permit for Retired Police Officers and have used that as my CCW since retirement in 98. The Lifetime Permit isn't really that restrictive if you travel in States' that accept the Indiana CCW. You avoid the hassle and expense of the annual Qualification and I can practice at my leisure.

I too would not expect a warm reception since I'm the only officer that has ever successfully retired with a State Pension (PERF) from the department.  I moved away from the area (but still in Indiana) and have no real contact with the department. Most of the officers that I knew have moved on to larger departments, quit or were terminated. The lone officer that I know has been a discipline problem his entire career but has moved up thru attrition and longevity and probably would not support my return for qualifications. it's a shame that most of these small departments quickly forget those who served admirably and that the officers who were marginal manage to hang on and are promoted thru small town politics without regard for Professionalism, Productivity or Achievement. 

I really did expect more from the Indiana Legislature and the ILEA but should have expected such. When I was thinking about a move to sunny Florida, they were downright Hostile about HR 218 and FLEA wouldn't even consider granting any aspects of HR 218.

I feel for you but Hang Tough

sarge

Last edited @ 5/25/2007 5:27 AM

RE: LEOSA

4Sarge, You know the sad thing is that there's no need for it, and not just with me but with all the good officer's retired out there that meet's the requirements of LEOSA and for whatever reason their former dept. won't do the right thing by them, even when I went and talked to my lawyer about LEOSA and told him what to expect, he didn't believe me, a few days later he told me no problem he'd get it taken care of, a year and a half later he told me that he couldn't believe how they were.
I do have a Indiana handgun permit, the present one expires in 2009 and then I'll get a lifetime one when I renew, and that was the town's defense for a year and a half as to why I didn't fall under LEOSA, because I had to pay for my Indiana permit. The town didn't want to hear that one law had nothing to do with the other. If they could figure out a way to twist the wording of LEOSA they did.
That's why I responded to Captain38 , it is nice to know that there are depts. out there that try to do the right thing by their retirees.

Last edited @ 5/25/2007 8:37 AM

LEOSA and S-376

A new Senate Bill has cleared committee and is pending a vote by the US Senate. S-376 should be the fix for inequities found in the original bill. Text of the proposed amendment can be found at this link: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.376:

S 376

Thanks, Lets Hope that this Bill Passes

S. 376

To amend title 18, United States Code, to improve the provisions relating to the carrying of concealed weapons by law enforcement officers, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

January 24, 2007

Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. SPECTER, Mr. KYL, and Mr. CORNYN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, to improve the provisions relating to the carrying of concealed weapons by law enforcement officers, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2007'.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER SAFETY PROVISIONS OF TITLE 18.

(a) In General- Section 926B of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(f) For purposes of this section, a law enforcement officer of the Amtrak Police Department 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.'.

(b) Retired Law Enforcement Officers- Section 926C of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in subsection (c)--

(A) in paragraph (3)(A), by striking `was regularly employed as a law enforcement officer for an aggregate of 15 years or more' and inserting `served as a law enforcement officer for an aggregate of 10 years or more';

(B) by striking paragraphs (4) and (5) and inserting the following:

`(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 set by the officer's former agency, the State in which the officer resides or a law enforcement agency within the State in which the officer resides;'; and

(C) by redesignating paragraphs (6) and (7) as paragraphs (5) and (6), respectively;

(2) in subsection (d)--

(A) in paragraph (1), by striking `to meet the standards established by the agency for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm; or' and inserting `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'; and

(B) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking `otherwise found by the State to meet the standards established by the State for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm.' and inserting `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.'; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:

`(f) In this section, the term `service with a public agency as a law enforcement officer' includes service as a law enforcement officer of the Amtrak Police Department or as a law enforcement or police officer of the executive branch of the Federal Government.'.

LEOS 2007(as it would read after S. 376 Amendments)

I, for one, find it confusing skipping back and forth from the section dealing with LEO retirees in LEOSA 2004 to S. 376 trying to figure out how LEOSA 2007 in will read IF AND WHEN it's passed. I took a little time to "strike" and "insert" where appropriate with the following results. I apologize for any inadvertent errors on my part that I may have made during this transition. I hope my efforts prove helpful.

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

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

“(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that-

“(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or

“(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.

“(c) As used in this section, the term ‘qualified retired law enforcement officer’

means an individual who-

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

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

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

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

“(4) 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 set by the officer’s former agency, the State in which the officer resides or a law enforcement agency within the State in which the officer resides;’; and

“(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-

“(1) a photographic identification issued by the agency from which the individual retired from service as a law enforcement officer that indicates that the individual has, not less recently than one year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the agency to meet the 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’; and

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

“(B) a certification issued by the State in which the individual resides that indicates that the individual has, not less recently than one year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the State 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.’; and

“(e) As used in this section, the term ‘firearm’ does not include-

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

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

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

“(f) For purposes of this section, a law enforcement officer of the Amtrak Police Department 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, of the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and has statutory powers of arrest.’.

RE: LEOSA

When will police officers ever be able to carry a gun on a plane???? I refuse to put my gun in the belly of the plane. Should the legislature attach to a bill so we can carry? Honestly I fell naked with out my Kimber on my hip.

I know I got off track....Oregon allows retired officers to carry concealed weapons. For as liberal as this state is, I am thank full my fellow retired officers are allowed to still protect them selves 24/7.

Re-Qualification Range

I attended my former agency's first LEOSA retirees' qualification firing range session of the year just yesterday. The turnout exceeded any previous numbers. It looks like this LEOSA thing is really catching on. It was like a homecoming, getting to see a lot of familiar faces and even meet some of the retirees I'd never gotten to know before. I jokingly suggested that we should plan to make it a pot-luck when we get back together next year. A good time was had by all!