New LEOSA court case and S 1132

[Jared1981]

Not necessarily. You could carry copies of your separation paperwork with you.

This is incorrect, you absolutely must have the ID card and it must be issued by the agency, substitute paperwork is no substitute for the ID card.

18 USC 926B(d)

The identification required by this subsection is the photographic identification issued by the governmental agencya 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 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
(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 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.

I hope this helps. As you can see, the ID must be issued by the agency, there is no way around this.

[mej16489]

I haven't read the actual proposed legislation, does it cover large-cap mag issues? i.e. carry in Hawaii, etc

[003]

Large Capacity magazines in California are not covered. Given that Hawaii is one of the 50 states, yes retired cops are covered in Hawaii if they meet the qualification requirements. The original HR 218 covered all 50 states. This new bill takes nothing away from the original. If you have not read it you should take the time to do so. Google HR 218 and it will come up. The new bill is quoted below.

S. 1132 would amend the federal criminal code to include a law enforcement officer of the Amtrak Police Department and the Federal Reserve or a law enforcement or police officer of the executive branch as a qualified law enforcement officer eligible to carry concealed firearms. The bill would expand the definition of "firearm" to include ammunition not otherwise prohibited by federal law or subject to the provisions of the National Firearms Act.

The bill would alter the definition of "qualified retired law enforcement officer" to do the following:

Include officers separated (currently, retired) in good standing from service with a public agency as a law enforcement officer; and
Reduce the years-of-service requirement for such officers from 15 to 10 years.

S. 1132 would also revise the requirements for firearms certification for separated officers to allow firearms training in accordance with the standards of the officer's former agency, the state in which such officer resides, standards established by a law enforcement agency within the state, or those used by a certified firearms instructor. Lastly, the bill would set forth specific mental health requirements for such officers"

[mej16489]

Large Capacity magazines in California are not covered. Given that Hawaii is one of the 50 states, yes retired cops are covered in Hawaii if they meet the qualificaiton requirements.

I think you somewhat misunderstood my question...

Part of the LEOSA 'clean-up' was to make clear some of the problematic issues i.e. no hollowpoints in NJ. I was curious if it also clears up magazine capacity issues suchas no 10+ mags in Hawaii.

[Jared1981]

I haven't read the actual proposed legislation, does it cover large-cap mag issues? i.e. carry in Hawaii, etc

Unfortunately not on its face. Myself, retired (from Calguns) and many others called Rep. Forbes's office to get the magazine exemption; however, it was not added.

It would take a court decision to iron this out as well since it is not explicitly stated in the law. The answer is unclear at this time.

Perhaps next year we could try for this. Also, we could try get a mandate that would require all federal agencies to issue the proper LEOSA ID at the cost of the retiree. While congress can not force state and local LEO agencies to issue the ID card, they could add a clause that states that if they do not then that agency will lose any and all federal funding until they comply.

[mej16489]

Unfortunately not on its face. Myself, retired (from Calguns) and many others called Rep. Forbes's office to get the magazine exemption; however, it was not added.

Bummer! I hope you get the current bill signed; and good luck with more fixes next year!

[AJAX22]

Been watching this, I was hoping a few more of the little adjustments/relaxations were going to make it in...

The leosa Is still a powerful potential tool for the rkba.

[eltee]

PORAC recently established a membership level for retirees which includes LDF. According to PORAC, this retiree LDF includes services to deal with an agency that refuses to allow a retiree to CCW. Now that the amended LEOSA does not require "retirement" but merely a service requirement, it should be even easier to fight the anti-LEOSA agencies out there.

Ron Cottingham, exec. dir of PORAC is familiar with the problem

The change from "retired" to "separated" is interesting, especially if it could include officers fired (therefore, separated) for cause but meeting the length of service requirement. What about officers fired (separated) for criminal acts?

[Jared1981]

PORAC recently established a membership level for retirees which includes LDF. According to PORAC, this retiree LDF includes services to deal with an agency that refuses to allow a retiree to CCW. Now that the amended LEOSA does not require "retirement" but merely a service requirement, it should be even easier to fight the anti-LEOSA agencies out there.

Ron Cottingham, exec. dir of PORAC is familiar with the problem

The change from "retired" to "separated" is interesting, especially if it could include officers fired (therefore, separated) for cause but meeting the length of service requirement. What about officers fired (separated) for criminal acts?

Fired LEO's are not covered, you must seperate in good standing.

[Old Deputy]

[CaptMike]

I am glad the President signed it. Now the fun begins

How do we get departments to start issuing some kind of separation ID. some departments may not want to issue an ID with their info due to liability concerns. Some will definitely not put on the ID that we are qualified to carry. I came up with a generic ID that may be simple enough to pass the scrutiny of most agencies. It should also be good enough for most law enforcement officers that see it, can know what it is. tell me what you think or how we can improve this to make it acceptable for a department to issue upon separation.

[eltee]

A couple of other issues from the LEO labor front. There are retirees from agencies that no longer exist. There are retirees from agencies that refuse to issue an ID card because they only worked a couple years for the final agency and the bulk of the requisite, aggregate time was with another agency...and the final agency doesn't want to be held accountable for the time served elsewhere.

Ideally, there could/should be a federal level agency that would permit retirees, etc. having problems getting a department issued retired LEO ID card to submit documentation of qualifying service in order to get a retired "government issued" ID card. With that card, they could go to one of the many places available to qualify on a range annually to meet that criteria to CCW.

Some chiefs and elected sheriffs, etc. are opposed to the LEOSA. For some, it may be a power/control thing, others are concerned about the (overused) "L" word, some are OK with in-state CCW but not country-wide. It's a federal law so hopefully somewhere down the road there will be a federal clearinghouse or something to help those members/retirees who hit a local wall.

The ability of a chief / sheriff to deny an honorably retired ("separated") member the right to CCW by simply not issuing an ID card is a loophole that needs closing, IMHO. It is the ONLY issue I've gotten from the union members I rep.

Still, this is AMAZINGLY GOOD legislation when you look at the widespread positive impact it has.

[lrdchivalry]

The change from "retired" to "separated" is interesting, especially if it could include officers fired (therefore, separated) for cause but meeting the length of service requirement. What about officers fired (separated) for criminal acts?

Text of HR218:

`(3) is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the agency

I would have to say no. According to the text of the law, officers who are still employed but are subject to disciplinary action are not covered under HR218, therefore, those fired would not be covered.

[eltee]

Alot of cops simply are allowed to quit when facing departmental charges, knowing that the evidence is overwhelming. It helps the cop save face and a legal battle, it saves the agency a ton of legal hassle and embarassment. I wonder if that will change now. When you are in the box facing charges, etc. and you resign "voluntarily" (some legal beagles would argue that constitutes a "constructive termination") your file looks clean and you might qualify as a "separated" LEO for HR218 purposes. Don't know how the chiefs and sheriffs will feel about that in the future.

It is true, however, that if you are terminated you are ineligible for the time served in that agency. If you are one of those "floater" cops who floats from one agency to another I suspect you may have an argument if you have enough aggragate time served in agencies that did not terminate you although these days it is harder to get rehired by another agency unless you have juice.

[swat]

Alot of cops simply are allowed to quit when facing departmental charges, knowing that the evidence is overwhelming. It helps the cop save face and a legal battle, it saves the agency a ton of legal hassle and embarassment. I wonder if that will change now. When you are in the box facing charges, etc. and you resign "voluntarily" (some legal beagles would argue that constitutes a "constructive termination") your file looks clean and you might qualify as a "separated" LEO for HR218 purposes. Don't know how the chiefs and sheriffs will feel about that in the future.

It is true, however, that if you are terminated you are ineligible for the time served in that agency. If you are one of those "floater" cops who floats from one agency to another I suspect you may have an argument if you have enough aggragate time served in agencies that did not terminate you although these days it is harder to get rehired by another agency unless you have juice.

You raise a good point. There was an officer in S. California recently who aburptly resigned after he came under investigation for having on duty sex with with a waitress from a local strip club. According to the newspapers he actually fathered a child with the stripper. I wouldn't feel comfortable with that guy getting a CCW, even though his service record technically reads that he "volutarily" resigned.