Pointman wrote:
What I find obnoxiously amazing is the
Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act allows officers to carry weapons nationally because they're trained in firearms usage and need to remain "safe,"
even though there are local officers to protect them, yet military personnel, who are far better trained than SWAT teams, are stripped of weapons in every possible way by the government.
There is another aspect to this that you may have missed. It is the simple fact that if an Officer is qualified to carry a weapon on and off duty in a specific area, why should they not be able to do so in another state or area.
An off duty Officer retains all the powers of an on duty Officer, and can exercise them anytime even outside their jurisdiction. What LEOSA does is provide an added layer of covert Police coverage, without costing anyone more money. It increases the chances that there will be an off duty Cop whocan deal with a dangerous situation at any given place and time.
I take exception to "military personnel" being far better trained than Swat teams, or even your average Cop for that matter.
Military personnel are trained to operate with firearms in a specific (wartime) environment and have a very different objective. As for training, we are talking about two very different objectives. "Friendly fire" is an accepted fact in the Military, but is absolutely not acceptable inany Police realm. The shoot/don't shoot standards are very different.
A soldier may be more proficient on a battlefield, but city streets are not a war zone, and require different more refined tactics.