LEOSA Question

[Rogue187]

I am asking for a retired friend.

He has been retired for over 23 years.

When he retired he received his retired creds and paperwork.

Since that day he hasn't carried a CCW. But now he wants to.

I told him that he needs to take a refresher course and get up to speed with current LEOSA rules.

I specifically mention that you have to get qualified once a year.

When he retired LEOSA was not around. HR218 was not even created yet.

So does he need to get some updated training to get up to speed or can he just continue CCW using his retired creds?

He is a retired Federal LEO.

I'll pass along the information you provide.

[RickD427]

I am asking for a retired friend.

He has been retired for over 23 years.

When he retired he received his retired creds and paperwork.

Since that day he hasn't carried a CCW. But now he wants to.

I told him that he needs to take a refresher course and get up to speed with current LEOSA rules.

I specifically mention that you have to get qualified once a year.

When he retired LEOSA was not around. HR218 was not even created yet.

So does he need to get some updated training to get up to speed or can he just continue CCW using his retired creds?

He is a retired Federal LEO.

I'll pass along the information you provide.

There is no requirement in the LEOSA for any recurrent training. There is a requirement for an annual qualification.

If your friend meets the definition of a retired law enforcement officer as contained in the LEOSA, it's irrelevant how long ago he retired.

It would be wise to check the content of his retired ID to ensure that it contains all of the required LEOSA elements.

While formal training may not be required to carry under LEOSA, it may be wise to receive such training. There have been many developments in case law concerning the use-of-force, and there are many good training aids and case studies that one can learn from.

[SharedShots]

Just as important, the 23 years puts him in the 60s age brackets at the very least. Strapping on after 23 years is a significant change in lifestyle and if he wasn't actively carrying in his job (desk bound, gun goes into the drawer at work and just carried to and from) it can be a real change that takes considerable thought and some serious planning and mental reset.

The use of force issue isn't going to be much of an issue because he's not on the job anymore, he's really just a civy from that point. One thing he'll need to remember is that as a civy there is no use of force escalation so don't get wrapped up in that, it doesn't apply; there is no they have fists so I'll use gas thing and then if they have a stick I'll try a baton. That will get you killed. Its either a deadly threat or a get out of there (in that case too if you can) and retreat instead of deadly force is the best answer if it's possible. That is sometimes a hard concept to keep in mind after retirement, there is no justification for pursuit or continuing an encounter when the alternative to get out is available. Stand your ground if applicable is BS because after you've sold the house, the cars and you're lucky to have underwear you'll wish you just took the opportunity to break and get out. There is no legal defense from the employer to fall back on, it's all self funded, insurance be damned.

[Rogue187]

I'll be briefing him as more points of view come in.
He hasn't actively carried in years and now he wants to.
I told him to take a shooting course so he can get up to speed.
All that did was make him pissed off that I told him that. He said he went thru the academy and worked as a cop.

I tried to tell him things change and his old tactics may get him killed and he needs to be more aware.

If he takes a course good for him.. If he doesn't then it's all on him.

Plus since he hasn't qualified in all those years will he be able to draw from concealment and fire accurately?

Great guy but set in his ways..

[SVT-40]

What state does he reside in?

[Rogue187]

He is currently in California.

[9Cal_OC]

I told him to take a shooting course so he can get up to speed.
All that did was make him pissed off that I told him that. He said he went thru the academy and worked as a cop.

Great guy but set in his ways..

[SVT-40]

He is currently in California.

Copy. He's going to have to find out how his old federal agency handles qualifying for retirees.

[Rogue187]

Copy. He's going to have to find out how his old federal agency handles qualifying for retirees.

His old federal agency didn't do qualifications when you retired back then.

You received your paperwork with retired on it and your retired creds.

The department wouldn't issue retired creds if you were a menace. They counted on you having some common sense.

This was all before LEOSA.

LEOSA has a yearly qualification requirement. He hasn't qualified in over 20 years. He wants to carry now.

I've told him of the LEOSA standards to include a yearly qualification.

I've told him the statues to read and understand and to read the CA. LEOSA requirements.

[RickD427]

His old federal agency didn't do qualifications when you retired back then.

You received your paperwork with retired on it and your retired creds.

The department wouldn't issue retired creds if you were a menace. They counted on you having some common sense.

This was all before LEOSA.

LEOSA has a yearly qualification requirement. He hasn't qualified in over 20 years. He wants to carry now.

I've told him of the LEOSA standards to include a yearly qualification.

I've told him the statues to read and understand and to read the CA. LEOSA requirements.

That's all quite good.

The LEOSA has a couple of legal "bugs" to be aware of:

1) The LEOSA requires the officer to possess an identification card containing the required information, but there is no corresponding requirement for the agency to issue such a card.

2) There is an annual qualification requirement. That can be met by completing the qualification by the agency retired from, or from a state recognized trainer in the state where the retiree lives. There is no requirement in the LEOSA that agencies provide their retirees with the opportunity to qualify.

3) There is nothing in the LEOSA that allows agencies to restrict their retirees ability to carry under LEOSA based on their being deemed a "Menace." There is a provision that agencies may restrict LEOSA carry if the retiree has been found mentally unqualified by a "Qualified Medical Professional Employed by the Agency" or if the retiree agrees that they are so unqualfied. But that don't mean much. The agency can effectively deny the ability to carry simply by declining to issue the required card.

[chsk9]

That's all quite good.

The LEOSA has a couple of legal "bugs" to be aware of:

1) The LEOSA requires the officer to possess an identification card containing the required information, but there is no corresponding requirement for the agency to issue such a card.

2) There is an annual qualification requirement. That can be met by completing the qualification by the agency retired from, or from a state recognized trainer in the state where the retiree lives. There is no requirement in the LEOSA that agencies provide their retirees with the opportunity to qualify.

3) There is nothing in the LEOSA that allows agencies to restrict their retirees ability to carry under LEOSA based on their being deemed a "Menace." There is a provision that agencies may restrict LEOSA carry if the retiree has been found mentally unqualified by a "Qualified Medical Professional Employed by the Agency" or if the retiree agrees that they are so unqualfied. But that don't mean much. The agency can effectively deny the ability to carry simply by declining to issue the required card.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20210121/president-trump-s-executive-order-expands-leosa-carry-rights

[RickD427]

https://www.nraila.org/articles/2021...a-carry-rights

The E.O. is a good thing, but it's effect is limited to federal agencies. The E.O. doesn't do anything to prevent state and local agencies (who employ the vast majority of LEO's) from arbitrarily declining to issue retired ID cards.

My first LE agency has already adopted that practice and seems to be getting away with it.

[Tallship]

The wording on his retirement creds should have that he had "the ability to make arrests" or had "the authorization to carry firearms". Those are the magic words for LEOSA. BTW what county is he in?

[chsk9]

The E.O. is a good thing, but it's effect is limited to federal agencies. The E.O. doesn't do anything to prevent state and local agencies (who employ the vast majority of LEO's) from arbitrarily declining to issue retired ID cards.

My first LE agency has already adopted that practice and seems to be getting away with it.

If you read it there is language specifically directed to State and local governments:
"vi) prevent State and local governments from obstructing the ability of qualified law enforcement officers and qualified retired law enforcement officers, as those terms are defined by the LEOSA, from carrying a concealed firearm pursuant to the LEOSA, including by refusing to issue identification documents; and"

https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-protecting-law-enforcement-officers-judges-prosecutors-families/

Further, I believe EO do have the force of law under Title 3.
"Both executive orders and proclamations have the force of law, much like regulations issued by federal agencies, so they are codified under Title 3 of the Code of Federal Regulations, which is the formal collection of all of the rules and regulations issued by the executive branch and other federal agencies.Jan 25, 2021"

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/publications/teaching-legal-docs/what-is-an-executive-order-/

We will have to see if Taliban Joe decides to undo that, and if the LEOSA reform act make it to his desk.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1210/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22hr+2%22%5D%7D&r=3&s=1

[RickD427]

If you read it there is language specifically directed to State and local governments:
"vi) prevent State and local governments from obstructing the ability of qualified law enforcement officers and qualified retired law enforcement officers, as those terms are defined by the LEOSA, from carrying a concealed firearm pursuant to the LEOSA, including by refusing to issue identification documents; and"

https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-protecting-law-enforcement-officers-judges-prosecutors-families/

Further, I believe EO do have the force of law under Title 3.
"Both executive orders and proclamations have the force of law, much like regulations issued by federal agencies, so they are codified under Title 3 of the Code of Federal Regulations, which is the formal collection of all of the rules and regulations issued by the executive branch and other federal agencies.Jan 25, 2021"

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/publications/teaching-legal-docs/what-is-an-executive-order-/

We will have to see if Taliban Joe decides to undo that, and if the LEOSA reform act make it to his desk.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-...%5D%7D&r=3&s=1

I've gotta respectfully disagree with you here and stand by my original post.

The Executive Order doesn't impact state and local agencies. Please re-read the link that you posted to ABA website. That site does use the verbiage "force of law" as you have quoted, but you need to read that in the context of the surrounding text. The paragraph containing that quote starts off by making clear that "An executive order is a signed, written, and published directive from the President of the United States that manages operations of the federal government." State and local governments are not subject to presidential orders. Please refer to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Printz v. U.S. for a good description of the federal power over state and local governments.

If the power of an Executive Order were as broad as you would suggest, we would have no need for Congress, the President could simply conduct all business via such orders.

I also have to correct your assertion that the Executive Order contained language that would "prevent State and local governments from obstructing the ability of qualified law enforcement officers and qualified retired law enforcement officers, as those terms are defined by the LEOSA, from carrying a concealed firearm pursuant to the LEOSA, including by refusing to issue identification documents." Those words do appear in the text of the Executive order, but again, you have to read them in context. Those words do not appear as directive in the order for anybody to follow. Those words appear as the requested subject of legislation (perhaps because the President realized that he cannot accomplish it via order) for Congress to pass in order to enhance the LEOSA.

I'll close with the observation that the LEOSA Reform Bill that you referenced contains no provision that would require state and local agencies to issue a LEOSA compliant ID card to their retireees.