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: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enforcement_Officers_Safety_Act

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: http://www.constitution.org/col/99204_strict_construction.htm

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 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...

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.

since9 said:

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!..........

Click to expand...

The Constitution does not confer rights upon us, it affirms rights we already had.

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.