Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: LEOSA is Un-American

  1. #1
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Newport News, Virginia, USA

    LEOSA is Un-American

    LEOSA is an act that confers a priveledge to a certain class of persons and is clearly un-American.

    What is LEOSA?

    The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) is a United States federal law, enacted in 2004, that allows two classes of persons—the "qualified law enforcement officer" and the "qualified retired law enforcement officer" -- to carry a concealed firearm in any jurisdiction in the United States, regardless of any state or local law to the contrary, with certain exceptions.

    The LEOSA was considered during the 108th Congress as H.R. 218. It was signed into law by President George W. Bush on July 22, 2004 as Public Law 108-277. It is codified as 18 U.S. Code 926B (qualified law enforcement officers) and 926C (qualified retired law enforcement officers).

    LEOSA Link:

    Why is this Un-American?

    Because the Constitution was written to ensure that special classes of persons were not created, that all would be equal under the law.

    Here is the theory:

    ... there is also a problem in interpretation that people try to discern the meaning of provisions separately from one another, when in fact they comprise a functional unity. The Constitution was intended to cover every legal issue the framers were aware of, so if we find one they apparently overlooked, we are justified in interpreting provisions that do not seem, from their language, to cover the case, but which convey the functional intent to do so. An example of that would be the prohibitions on "titles of nobility". Some would interpret the restriction strictly, as prohibiting only those "titles" in use in Europe at the time of ratification, but if we keep in mind that it is delegations of authority that must be interpreted narrowly, and not restrictions on that authority, and that there can exist a form of abuse of power in which certain persons are granted privileges, immunities, or protections that put them "above the law" or make them a special privileged class, and that such is what was contemplated in the prohibitions, then we can reasonably infer that the prohibitions are not on "titles" as such but on the substance of making persons functional "nobles".

    Theory link:
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  2. #2
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Whatcom County
    In fact I believe we are supposed to be more armed and have more rights than any government worker. Not, as you pointed out, the other way around creating special classes.
    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)

  3. #3
    Regular Member jbone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Add affirmative action, dummying down entry test scores, and we have a one **** sandwich being severed.

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    I suppose we're the third class of citizen, the ones whom have to scratch, scrape, beg, borrow, and plead for permission to be allowed to exercise what the Constitution confers upon all of us (current and retired LEOs, as well), the RIGHT to keep and bear arms!

    Given 2A, this law seems terribly redundant...
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. OO-RAH!!! Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and other founding documents.

    As for President Trump, he's getting the job done.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Urban Skeet City, Alabama
    I whole-heartedly agree. In many states, Law Enforcement's interests are represented in law, not the citizen's. The right of a law enforcement officer to bear arms should (and does in the State of Alabama) come from the citizen's right to bear arms.
    It takes a village to raise an idiot.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    I suppose we're the third class of citizen, the ones whom have to scratch, scrape, beg, borrow, and plead for permission to be allowed to exercise what the Constitution confers upon all of us (current and retired LEOs, as well), the RIGHT to keep and bear arms!..........

    The Constitution does not confer rights upon us, it affirms rights we already had.
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Swanzey,NH, ,
    I agree that there should be no restrictions on carrying a firearm "ANYWHERE". I will for full disclosrure say that I am a retired LEO and when I was active, as now did and do take advantage of the law.

    If the agrieved class of people would have the money and resources that could be a great law suit.

Posting Permissions

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