Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: Petition to Amend LEOSA for Correctional Officer's

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Formerly of Ireland, now Martinsburg, WV, West Virginia, USA
    Posts
    77

    Petition to Amend LEOSA for Correctional Officer's

    Ladies & Gent's.........

    If I might have your attention for a moment, Please sign up and put your name to this one.

    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...under/PhYjwYrw

    In theory... The State of West Virginia is covered but only for the Division of Corrections, the poor guys at the Regional level and so many other across the Country are still swinging in the wind.

    Before you state the obvious I do have a Permit and I DO Carry open and concealed.

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    "404 Error Not Found"


    No thanks, anyway. We gave cops more special privileges, and then heard their thanks in the response to Sandy Hook. Not all, granted. But, too many. Then there is the whole nest of anti-4th Amendment (search and seizure) nonsense exposed by the recent 4th Circuit opinion on open carry not giving rise to RAS--I'm speaking to the court's general comments about cops making it up as they go along.

    No special privileges for anybody else unless their unions and the private prison operators and so forth start calling for constitutional carry state-by-state, and it becomes successfully implemented. Then, once that is in place, there will be little need for special privileges anyway.
    Last edited by Citizen; 03-03-2013 at 09:46 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Much as I would like to see law enforcement professionals protected from the criminal class, I want to see me just as much protected from the same.
    If they want to be protected, then join with us 'unwashed masses' and get reform for Everyone, not just for the 'special people'.

  4. #4
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger
    Much as I would like to see law enforcement professionals protected from the criminal class, I want to see me just as much protected from the same.
    If they want to be protected, then join with us 'unwashed masses' and get reform for Everyone, not just for the 'special people'.
    What he said. (And Citizen too.)
    If we have Constitutional Carry, with civil rights recognized by all levels of government, there's no need for special privileges for any group.

    BTW, this has nothing to do with OC, so should be moved to the general discussion forum.
    Also, the plural of "officer" is "officers".

  5. #5
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    I agree with the above 3 posts.

    It's a class warfare.

    Reminds me a bit of Stormship Troopers......must serve to be a citizen.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Sorry, but having been there I see no reason - other than class warfare and "me-too"ism for correctional officers to come under LEOSA. The original intent was to put "off duty" cops on the streets to back up the on-duty cops. Not to provide self defense protection to those who might have a death threat or two hanging over their head.

    We all ought to be equal when it comes to self defense. I know some states believe that totally and completely unarmed is just as equal as everybody that wants to be allowed to carry, but that's a whole different discussion.

    Either MSM is engaged in a massive cover-up or those "stories" about folks on the outside carrying out vendettas against correctional officers are just not quite - shall we say - accurate.

    If this "me-too"ism is carried any further we will be seeing dog catchers wanting in on LEOSA because Fido might turn on them while they are off-duty.

    In the words of a certain blogger - "Hippie, please."

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  7. #7
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,273
    Considering that I directly benefit from LEOSA I still rabidly disagree with it. And some former officers or out of state should be damn careful because they must follow all the state restrictions just like the ordinary citizens. I believe the law's intent was to put armed trained citizens out there due to terrorism paranoia, but they did not want to arm the whole population. It is in the end class warfare. All citizens must be given the right honored to open carry(bear arms) everywhere but secured areas and private property at the discretion of the owner.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    And yet another silly White House petition???

    I thought the folks at this site had wised up about them. I guess not all here have that level of wisdom.

  9. #9
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    Considering that I directly benefit from LEOSA I still rabidly disagree with it. And some former officers or out of state should be damn careful because they must follow all the state restrictions just like the ordinary citizens. I believe the law's intent was to put armed trained citizens out there due to terrorism paranoia, but they did not want to arm the whole population. It is in the end class warfare. All citizens must be given the right honored to open carry(bear arms) everywhere but secured areas and private property at the discretion of the owner.
    Are you required to participate, subject yourself, to LEOSA? If you rabidly disagree with LEOSA why use it to your advantage?
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  10. #10
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Are you required to participate, subject yourself, to LEOSA? If you rabidly disagree with LEOSA why use it to your advantage?
    I only carry OC, so unless I traveled I would not use LEOSA. But to be honest it makes more sense to get a concealed permit, RLEO must qualify yearly under LEOSA and pay for the qualification if a state, local, or federal does not offer up the qualification training for free. Then there is carrying the paperwork, badge, and BS of the tacky showing of the badge when questioned. Some officers, I was one of them, do not like badge flashers, retired or current. Plus LEOSA does not give authority to carry in a GFSZ, a concealed permit does, or so I heard.

    I intentionally do not look like a cop, act like a cop, or want to be given special privileges that pisses off, rightfully so, the general public. So while I benefit IF I choose to use the act, I choose not to.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  11. #11
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    I only carry OC, so unless I traveled I would not use LEOSA. But to be honest it makes more sense to get a concealed permit, RLEO must qualify yearly under LEOSA and pay for the qualification if a state, local, or federal does not offer up the qualification training for free. Then there is carrying the paperwork, badge, and BS of the tacky showing of the badge when questioned. Some officers, I was one of them, do not like badge flashers, retired or current. Plus LEOSA does not give authority to carry in a GFSZ, a concealed permit does, or so I heard.

    I intentionally do not look like a cop, act like a cop, or want to be given special privileges that pisses off, rightfully so, the general public. So while I benefit IF I choose to use the act, I choose not to.
    Thank you for the insight. +1 to you Sir.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Fond du Lac Wisconsin
    Posts
    171
    I'm a retired state correctional officer. I do not believe that I need any special privilages under LEOSA. I've been threatened many times inside prison walls. It is a part of the job. We deal with angry and emotional people. Outside prison walls I carry open and concealed for the same reasons as most everyone here does - to protect me and mine. All law obeying citizens have the constitutional right to protect themselves. This right should not end or be restricted just because we cross some state boundry.

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    I only carry OC, so unless I traveled I would not use LEOSA. But to be honest it makes more sense to get a concealed permit, RLEO must qualify yearly under LEOSA and pay for the qualification if a state, local, or federal does not offer up the qualification training for free. Then there is carrying the paperwork, badge, and BS of the tacky showing of the badge when questioned. Some officers, I was one of them, do not like badge flashers, retired or current. Plus LEOSA does not give authority to carry in a GFSZ, a concealed permit does, or so I heard.

    I intentionally do not look like a cop, act like a cop, or want to be given special privileges that pisses off, rightfully so, the general public. So while I benefit IF I choose to use the act, I choose not to.
    Yes, but the permit must be issued to a resident in the state in which the school zone is located.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Yes, but the permit must be issued to a resident in the state in which the school zone is located.
    That is the predominant opinion on what the law means. However, the word "license" does not have to mean a piece of paper. The word can also mean "permission." I don't want to be the test case, but if anyone with a permission slip from another State gets busted for carrying in a GFSZ without a permission slip from the school's State, I suggest arguing the plain meaning of the word "license."

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    That is the predominant opinion on what the law means. However, the word "license" does not have to mean a piece of paper. The word can also mean "permission." I don't want to be the test case, but if anyone with a permission slip from another State gets busted for carrying in a GFSZ without a permission slip from the school's State, I suggest arguing the plain meaning of the word "license."


    T
    hat's kinda thin, I think.

    Here is the text of the relevant section of the despicable statute. The earlier heading makes this an exception to the prohibition (please forgive the formatting problem arising from copying a pdf):
    (ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to
    do so by the State in which the school zone is located
    or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of
    the State or political subdivision requires that, before
    an individual obtains
    such a license, the law
    enforcement authorities of the State or political
    subdivision verify that the individual is qualified
    under law to receive the license;
    http://www.gunlaws.com/Gun_Free_School_Zones.htm The link to the pdf of the statute is near the very bottom of the page.
    Last edited by Citizen; 03-06-2013 at 11:30 AM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    "Has a license" implies that the license is an object. "Is licensed" means "is permitted."

    Remember, not all States issue "licenses." Some issue "permits." Are they invalid? Clearly not. So, "is licensed" clearly has a greater scope than simply "having a license." Since vague laws are usually interpreted against the government and for the accused, a court could well decide that the meaning of "is licensed" is to be interpreted as broadly as possible, meaning "is permitted," which includes permission granted as a result of a license from another State.

    Again, I am not volunteering to try this argument in court, just throwing it out there should some unfortunate find himself charged under this stupid and unconstitutional law. I'd love for that argument to get a hearing in court.
    Last edited by eye95; 03-06-2013 at 11:44 AM.

  17. #17
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post


    T
    hat's kinda thin, I think.

    Here is the text of the relevant section of the despicable statute. The earlier heading makes this an exception to the prohibition (please forgive the formatting problem arising from copying a pdf):
    (ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to
    do so by the State in which the school zone is located
    or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of
    the State or political subdivision requires that, before
    an individual obtains
    such a license, the law
    enforcement authorities of the State or political
    subdivision verify that the individual is qualified
    under law to receive the license;
    http://www.gunlaws.com/Gun_Free_School_Zones.htm The link to the pdf of the statute is near the very bottom of the page.
    Very few states actually license to do so, NC has no specific language in the laws that would indicate there is a license to carry in a GFSZ. In fact NC actually points to federal laws as restrictions in the matter of Concealed Carry. I believe CO and Utah actually address carrying in GFSZ in their carry statutes. Most people do not concern themselves because the law is clearly unconstitutional, and the Feds do not want to chance a run in with the current SCOTUS, IMO.

    But in a persons home state it is a advantage for a RLEO to hold a permit/license just for the comfort of not being in non compliance with GFSZA. It is also my opinion, FWIW, that if a state recognizes a permit/license from another state, then they are licensed to do so. If in fact a permit is a license to do so.

    First we need to understand what "is" means. Where is Bill Clinton when you need him?
    Last edited by WalkingWolf; 03-06-2013 at 12:01 PM.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    "Has a license" implies that the license is an object. "Is licensed" means "is permitted."

    Remember, not all States issue "licenses." Some issue "permits." Are they invalid? Clearly not. So, "is licensed" clearly has a greater scope than simply "having a license." Since vague laws are usually interpreted against the government and for the accused, a court could well decide that the meaning of "is licensed" is to be interpreted as broadly as possible, meaning "is permitted," which includes permission granted as a result of a license from another State.

    Again, I am not volunteering to try this argument in court, just throwing it out there should some unfortunate find himself charged under this stupid and unconstitutional law. I'd love for that argument to get a hearing in court.
    Well, yes. But, the statute says licensed by the state in which the school zone is located. So, whether its a general legislative permission ala (Wyoming?), a constitutional permission ala a state's 2A provision, or a piece of paper, it still has to be from the state in which the school zone is located.

    Now, lets say you were visiting a state like (Wyoming?) that passed a law saying everybody is licensed for the purposes of carrying through a federal school zone, then you'd be exempted, depending on whether the statute said "residents of Wyoming" or just everybody. But, you couldn't use the 2A provision of a state constitution that doesn't have one, for example, like CA.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Petition to Amend LEOSA for Correctional Officer's

    The way the State in which the GFSZ is located is licensing the carry is via legislation whereby they recognize the license or permit from another State. That legislation gives permission ("licenses") the carry.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  20. #20
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    The way the State in which the GFSZ is located is licensing the carry is via legislation whereby they recognize the license or permit from another State. That legislation gives permission ("licenses") the carry.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>
    This is my opinion, but I wouldn't want to spend a chunk of money trying to prove it. I think it is a question that should be answered for carriers that travel out of state. Especially a state like NY where they recognize very few out of state permits, if any. I would not even trust them with LEOSA. All they would have to do is wait for the RLEO to cross a GFSZ and then pop the RLEO.

    It would tend to PO NYLEO's though, I would be rich for all the times I ran across one and have them proudly proclaim they are police officer from NY. Only to have me burst their bubble with "NOT HERE, Bubba!"
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    The way the State in which the GFSZ is located is licensing the carry is via legislation whereby they recognize the license or permit from another State. That legislation gives permission ("licenses") the carry.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>
    Oh, I see what you're saying.

    The federal statute requires law enforcement to verify the carrier is legal to possess before the license is issued. That knocks out all legislative blanket permissions. So, reciprocity between states is out.

    Non-resident licenses are the only thing that could squeak through, I think, assuming the given non-resident license is only issued after law-enforcement checks to verify the carrier is legal to possess.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  22. #22
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Oh, I see what you're saying.

    The federal statute requires law enforcement to verify the carrier is legal to possess before the license is issued. That knocks out all legislative blanket permissions. So, reciprocity between states is out.

    Non-resident licenses are the only thing that could squeak through, I think, assuming the given non-resident license is only issued after law-enforcement checks to verify the carrier is legal to possess.
    The states do verify, or the reciprocity would not work. They are recognizing that background checks are done before permits are issued, or the permits are not even good for the state they are issued in. A person with a CHP has had a federal, local, and state check before a permit is issued, the same is true for all the states that NC recognizes, so a check has been done. The person with the permit is in not only in the state database, but the federal too. Which is one of the problems I have with permission slips.

    So if the checks have been done, as required by state law for the home state, and the state being visited recognizes that permit, it is a license to do so. Or at least to conceal carry which is what is recognized by the state where the GFSZ is located.

    I believe this is one of the problems that Fl ran into with reciprocity, because there may have been some inconsistencies in the meeting of requirements.
    Last edited by WalkingWolf; 03-06-2013 at 02:13 PM.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Oh, I see what you're saying.

    The federal statute requires law enforcement to verify the carrier is legal to possess before the license is issued. That knocks out all legislative blanket permissions. So, reciprocity between states is out.

    Non-resident licenses are the only thing that could squeak through, I think, assuming the given non-resident license is only issued after law-enforcement checks to verify the carrier is legal to possess.
    If the State issuing the permission slip requires the check to issue that slip, the requirement of the law is met for persons holding a slip from such a reciprocated State. The argument has flaws for issuing States that do not perform checks when using the slip in reciprocating States. Then again, the law wouldn't allow carry in that State by resident slip-holders.

    This, of course, ignores completely the unconstitutionality of checking to see if a person is not barred from an activity before "permitting" him to do it, as opposed to charging him when (actually, if) it is discovered that he broke the law. But that is another argument, one in which almost every one of us would find ourselves on the same side.

  24. #24
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    OK, fellas. I see what you're saying about reciprocity. I didn't think about that; you're right.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Petition to Amend LEOSA for Correctional Officer's

    I don't know that I am right. I just believe that, before a reasonable judge, it is a likely winner--that is assuming that the whole law is not tossed as unconstitutional (that would be the most correct outcome).


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •