1911 Firearm Addicts banner

1 - 20 of 61 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,182 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
OK...maybe an AMENDED bill and not new...but apparently this was introduced to ease some of the restrictions in the current LEOSA Bill....

H.R.6105 - LEOSA Reform Act115th Congress (2017-2018) |
BILL

Sponsor: Rep. Bacon, Don [R-NE-2] (Introduced 06/14/2018)
Committees: House - Judiciary
Latest Action: House - 06/14/2018 Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. (All Actions)
Tracker:
This bill has the status Introduced

Text: H.R.6105 — 115th Congress (2017-2018)All Information (Except Text)
There is one version of the bill.

Introduced in House (06/14/2018)

115th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. R. 6105

To amend title 18, United States Code, to improve the Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
June 14, 2018
Mr. Bacon (for himself, Mr. Perry, and Mr. Rutherford) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL
To amend title 18, United States Code, to improve the Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act.

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 “LEOSA Reform Act”.

SEC. 2. IMPROVEMENTS TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER SAFETY ACT.


(a) Allowing Qualified Current Or Retired Law Enforcement Officers To Carry A Firearm In A School Zone.—Section 922(q)(2)(B) of title 18, United States Code, is amended—

(1) by striking “or” at the end of clause (vi);

(2) by striking the period at the end of clause (vii) and inserting “; or”; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:


“(viii) by an individual authorized by section 926B or 926C to carry a concealed firearm.”.

(b) Allowing Qualified Current Or Retired Law Enforcement Officers To Carry A Firearm On Property Open To The Public (Including On Amtrak).—Each of paragraphs (1) and (2) of sections 926B(b) and 926C(b) of such title are amended by inserting “, except to the extent that the laws apply to property open to the public” before the semicolon.

(c) Allowing Qualified Current Or Retired Law Enforcement Officers To Carry A Firearm In A National Park.—Each of sections 926B(a) and 926C(a) of such title is amended by inserting “or any regulation prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior pertaining to a unit of the National Park System” after “thereof”.

(d) Allowing Qualified Current Or Retired Law Enforcement Officers To Carry An Ammunition Magazine Of Any Capacity.—Each of sections 926B(e)(2) and 926C(e)(1)(B) of such title is amended by inserting “and an ammunition magazine” before “not expressly”.

(e) Allowing Retired Law Enforcement Officers To Qualify For Concealed Carry By Passing A State-Approved Qualification Course For Retired Officers Or A Course Needed To Obtain A Concealed Carry Permit In The State.—Section 926C(d)(2)(B) of such title is amended—

(1) in the matter preceding clause (I), by striking “active duty officers” each place it appears;

(2) in clause (I)—

(A) by striking “active duty”; and

(B) by striking “or” at the end;

(3) in clause (II), by striking the period and inserting “; or”; and

(4) by adding at the end the following:


“(III) the standards set by the agency referred to in paragraph (1) to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm.”.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WC145

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,619 Posts
While I appreciate what police do especially today since they are looked down upon by so many I am equally tired of the special privileges provided to them simply because they were or are police officers.
If they can carry in schools I should be able to myself. It was proven statistically that people with carry permits commit less crimes than police officers. I've had my permit for over 30yrs and regularly take training classes. On the other hand I know some cops who only look at their guns at just another tool on their belt and rarely shoot. On average concealed carriers shoot more often than cops. So we should have the same rights to carry where they can. Same goes for Natl reciprocity and carry.
Like I said I'm thankful for what cops do and are willing to do. Glad they are treated well by congress. I just don't like the double standard because in the end they are people too and no better or different than me.
 

·
It WAS Quack
Joined
·
1,586 Posts
The problem is, we are different, like it or not. Many officers are required by their departments to carry off duty, even though a cop is never truly "off-duty." You, as a citizen, are not expected to expose yourself to danger when a felonious crime is committed in your presence, we are. Hence, why having a gun on your person is considered by many to be absolutely necessary, at all times. You're also not targeted and hunted solely based off your chosen profession, we are.

If you want to have the special privileges, go through the academy and become a cop. I don't have the same privileges as other professions, but yet I don't complain about it. I chose my profession, you chose yours. With certain professions comes certain benefits.
 

·
Never Forget
Joined
·
9,119 Posts
The problem is, we are different, like it or not. Many officers are required by their departments to carry off duty, even though a cop is never truly "off-duty." You, as a citizen, are not expected to expose yourself to danger when a felonious crime is committed in your presence, we are. Hence, why having a gun on your person is considered by many to be absolutely necessary, at all times. You're also not targeted and hunted solely based off your chosen profession, we are.

If you want to have the special privileges, go through the academy and become a cop. I don't have the same privileges as other professions, but yet I don't complain about it. I chose my profession, you chose yours. With certain professions comes certain benefits.
I will never, ever, never, reveal credentials online. But, I will say that your badge is tearing through your polyester it has become so heavy. This holier than thou, us vs them thought process by law enforcement officers just like you is why good law abiding gun owners don't support legislation such as this.

You chose your profession, just like anyone else chose theirs. Do I believe any and everyone should or could be a police officer? No. What I do believe is that the second amendment applies to everyone. Farmers, construction workers, traveling businessmen, or women, teachers, mail ladies, milk men, and everyone else.

Step back into reality with the rest of the pro constitution Americans who own guns.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,619 Posts
The problem is, we are different, like it or not. Many officers are required by their departments to carry off duty, even though a cop is never truly "off-duty." You, as a citizen, are not expected to expose yourself to danger when a felonious crime is committed in your presence, we are. Hence, why having a gun on your person is considered by many to be absolutely necessary, at all times. You're also not targeted and hunted solely based off your chosen profession, we are.

If you want to have the special privileges, go through the academy and become a cop. I don't have the same privileges as other professions, but yet I don't complain about it. I chose my profession, you chose yours. With certain professions comes certain benefits.
You are human and NO different than I.
When you are off duty are you in uniform?
Didn't think so.
So again you are no different than I.
I AM exposed to danger everytime I am out of my house as witnessed by random violent crimes everywhere.
Will you be there every time to protect me from that?
Didn't think so.
How many crimes have you as a police officer prevented instead of simply reported to after it happened?
Didn't think so.
Like I said I am most appreciative for your willingness to do the job you do, especially in today's day and age.
I just don't like the double standard as again you are no better than I am and won't be anywhere near me when I'm picking my kids up from school and some nut job decides that was the day he wanted to shoot up the place.
 

·
Student of the Columbian Exchange
Joined
·
7,954 Posts
This thread went to places I didn't expect it to. Me, I think people who choose public service are different from the rest of us, just by the nature of that commitment.

First responders put their lives on the line every day, if I follow the argument put forth here, I guess I do as well, walking across the street, or driving a car. Course when a house is on fire no one expects me to run into it, or if gunfire erupts I'm not obliged to run towards it.

And I know as a fact that many professions do indeed offer very specific benefits available in that particular profession only.

I guess I'm slow, I don't get why we're throwing rocks at one another.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,619 Posts
This thread went to places I didn't expect it to. Me, I think people who choose public service are different from the rest of us, just by the nature of that commitment.

First responders put their lives on the line every day, if I follow the argument put forth here, I guess I do as well, walking across the street, or driving a car. Course when a house is on fire no one expects me to run into it, or if gunfire erupts I'm not obliged to run towards it.

And I know as a fact that many professions do indeed offer very specific benefits available in that particular profession only.

I guess I'm slow, I don't get why we're throwing rocks at one another.
I said twice I am very thankful for what they do.
It is not a conscripted position. It is voluntary and takes a specil kind of person to be willing to do this in today's day and age. As said above they are targeted when in uniform simply for the uniform. I am not.
But to give them special privileges when off duty and in plain clothes makes them the same as me just another person who may wind up in the wrong spot and the wrong time. And for that reason I should be afforded the same privileges they are.
I'm not tossing rocks at anyone. I associate with cops and agents from alphabet agencies on an almost daily basis. I have no ill will toward them, only gratitude. They are welcome to take advantage of everything congress wants to give them. I only feel I should be considered in same light is all.

And don't forget LEOSA applies to former LEOs who are never in uniform or on duty anymore. They don't report to crimes or carry radios to be alerted of them. They don't enforce the law nor are they expected to do so anymore.
They are now citizens who used to be cops.
 

·
Never Forget
Joined
·
9,119 Posts
This thread went to places I didn't expect it to. Me, I think people who choose public service are different from the rest of us, just by the nature of that commitment.

First responders put their lives on the line every day, if I follow the argument put forth here, I guess I do as well, walking across the street, or driving a car. Course when a house is on fire no one expects me to run into it, or if gunfire erupts I'm not obliged to run towards it.

And I know as a fact that many professions do indeed offer very specific benefits available in that particular profession only.

I guess I'm slow, I don't get why we're throwing rocks at one another.
It's not about what's being given to law enforcement. It's about what's being taken away from the people who they can't be protecting every minute of every hour of every day in every location.
 

·
Student of the Columbian Exchange
Joined
·
7,954 Posts
It's not about what's being given to law enforcement. It's about what's being taken away from the people who they can't be protecting every minute of every hour of every day in every location.
Thank you for that perspective Mr. Givens, I said I was slow. Always can count on you to watch my back. Let me reread this thing, I guess I got distracted with the other comments.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,182 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
Wow...I did not think my posting would elicit such a response. I am not one to throw disparaging remarks or stones. I simply posted this to show that there seems to be a movement to loosen regulations put in place.

I for one, and wholeheartedly, am in favor of national reciprocity. And I believe strongly, as most do, in the second amendment.

I am glad to see some regulations loosened. I can’t speak for other agencies, but in mine we constantly train in “Shoot/No shoot” situations.

In my agency, We also constantly train with our side arms, and not just punching paper, however shooting on the move, in and around obstacles, and work on our tactics so that we are proficient. Again, not all agencies do this but I am in favor of more doing so.

Being that we are law enforcement, we are also entitled to representation, should the need arise, when engaging a threat in an off duty capacity. We also have to demonstrate proficiency with our off-duty carry pieces, and held to the same standards as our regular qualifications as law-enforcement officers, which I will admit varies drastically from agency to agency.

But the fact remains, we do have, in some cases, some better training available to us than the average civilian. And if the government, or whoever, is going to allow folks to carry to protect others, why not start with them? At least it demonstrates some faith in individuals to carry and protect, albeit a small group compared to the larger Numbers that have concealed carry permits.

I will state again, I am all for national reciprocity with a common standard for demonstrating proficiency and safety, but I will take whatever is offered in the long ongoing fight for our rights.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,385 Posts
To the OP thank you for the information. I guess the members are free to comment how they like on any topic. Again thank you for the time you spent to inform us all of a Second Amendment related issue.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,619 Posts
Wow...I did not think my posting would elicit such a response. I am not one to throw disparaging remarks or stones. I simply posted this to show that there seems to be a movement to loosen regulations put in place.

I for one, and wholeheartedly, am in favor of national reciprocity. And I believe strongly, as most do, in the second amendment.

I am glad to see some regulations loosened. I can’t speak for other agencies, but in mine we constantly train in “Shoot/No shoot” situations.

In my agency, We also constantly train with our side arms, and not just punching paper, however shooting on the move, in and around obstacles, and work on our tactics so that we are proficient. Again, not all agencies do this but I am in favor of more doing so.

Being that we are law enforcement, we are also entitled to representation, should the need arise, when engaging a threat in an off duty capacity. We also have to demonstrate proficiency with our off-duty carry pieces, and held to the same standards as our regular qualifications as law-enforcement officers, which I will admit varies drastically from agency to agency.

But the fact remains, we do have, in some cases, some better training available to us than the average civilian. And if the government, or whoever, is going to allow folks to carry to protect others, why not start with them? At least it demonstrates some faith in individuals to carry and protect, albeit a small group compared to the larger Numbers that have concealed carry permits.

I will state again, I am all for national reciprocity with a common standard for demonstrating proficiency and safety, but I will take whatever is offered in the long ongoing fight for our rights.
I'll personally thank you for your service AGAIN as well as ask you to point out where any disparaging remarks were made or stones thrown?
When officers are on duty they are in uniform and can go just about anywhere they want armed.
When not on duty, in plain clothes or retired they are no different than I. And all I said and will say again is I'm glad they get the ability to do so but feel I should as well. And that is especially regarding carrying in or around schools.
 
1 - 20 of 61 Posts
Top