• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Petition to Amend LEOSA for Correctional Officer's

irish_ironsight

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2007
Messages
77
Location
Formerly of Ireland, now Martinsburg, WV, West Vir
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.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
"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:

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
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'.
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
Fallschirmjäger said:
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".
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
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.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
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.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
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?
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
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.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
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.
 

Peacekeeper

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2010
Messages
171
Location
Fond du Lac Wisconsin
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.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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."
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
"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:

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina


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:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
"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.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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>
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
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!"
 
Top