Guest commentary
Robert A. Young, in his Jan. 22 guest commentary ("A deadly example of why retired law officers shouldn't be armed") took a rare, isolated incident and desperately tried to suggest that a law in effect for over eight years should be repealed.
On July 22, 2004, former President George W. Bush signed H.R. 218, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (commonly referred to as the National Concealed Carry Law) into law, which gives both qualified law-enforcement officers and qualified retired law-enforcement officers the right to carry concealed firearms while off duty in any jurisdiction in the United States, across state lines, regardless of any state or local law to the contrary, with certain exceptions.
Young failed to mention that President Barack Obama signed into law the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act Improvement Act of 2010, which clarified certain language in the 2004 law, further defining the rights of both a "qualified law-enforcement officer" and a "qualified retired law-enforcement officer" under that earlier law.
Contrary to Young's statements to the effect that "states are qualifying police retirees based on relatively lax requirements, weak vetting procedures and virtually no advanced training" are simply not correct. Indeed, both the original 2004 law and the amended 2010 law stipulate that the officer or retiree "meet the standards" established by their agencies.
In the case of current active-duty officers, in addition to carrying official ID, they are required to "have statutory arrest powers, regularly qualify with that firearm, and not be the subject of any disciplinary action which could result in either suspension or loss of police powers." In the case of law-enforcement retirees, they must have separated from a public law-enforcement agency under honorable conditions, served honorably for over 10 years or more, had statutory arrest powers before retirement, and not been officially found by a medical professional to be unqualified for reasons relating to mental health.
Furthermore, they must have met the same standards for firearms qualification as active law-enforcement officers during the most recent 12-month period. Additionally, the current amendment mandates that qualified retired law-enforcement officers, among other things, carry on their person photographic identification issued by the agency from which the individual separated from, or such other state agency in the state in which the retiree resides, attesting to the aforementioned recent 12-month qualification.
Finally, Young failed to mention that virtually all law-enforcement agencies mandate that current active-duty officers undergo training that outlines when they should or should not intervene while off duty. That training identifies the "intervention assessment process" and classifies potential scenarios as noncritical; important, but not critical; or critical. Officers are, in fact, trained that, in the vast majority of cases, they should not intervene, but go to a safe location, call 911, continue to assess the situation and gather intelligence, and be a good witness for the responding on-duty officers.
Lastly, that training includes the caveat that there is no legal obligation in any jurisdiction to get involved and admonishes officers that do can be held liable should they act criminally, recklessly or irresponsibly. The bottom line is that most contemporary police firearms training teaches that off-duty intervention is permitted only when a life is at stake and the use of deadly force is legally justified, and then only when proper ID procedures and force protocol is followed, a point that Young also failed to make.
Collier County arrests 05-23-2012
Collier County arrests 05-22-2012
Editorial Cartoons: May 23, 2012
Scripps Interactive Newspapers Group
Comments » 11
nicot54#256354 writes:
Grossi writes an informative academic column on the Act. But the author never expounds on some serious issues on the ground and throughout America regarding its implementation by the states that have plagued it since its inception as H.R. 218,and through the 2004 and 2010 ammendments. The author never explains why lawmakers keep ammending it. The author gives readers all of the active duty agency requirements and says that these standards are held over and applied to qualify retired cops to carry guns nationally. But, what if a retiree has a hiatus of 10 or so years after retirement and returns to the department for a national license to carry? He's been off the radar for a decade and what has he been doing? He passes the background,by the dept. and state,but is not required to undergo a full medical and psyc.exam, only submit a paper from a doctor of his choice for "fitness for duty." The firearms qualification is equally lame. He Goes to an approved range,pays a fee, and shoots the standard target practice regimen, paper silhouette and all, and now proposes to carry across state lines into our communities during the next year before required to qualify again. Grossi states the obvious on duty,in-service training for active officers, but, if a retired cop has been out of service for a while,he/she will have to be updated more intensively than the current federal law requires due to the absence. When practical people really study this federal law and its implementation in light of the numerous and varied policing agencies qualifying retirees nationally in all communities large and small,they will likely find possibilities of unfit pensioners slipping through the cracks. The authors itemized legalise, an authoritative announcement at the scene of a serious crime, along with dept.,state and national ID's are not enough requirements to allow police pensioners with guns to join the posse and respond, (without advanced training post-retirement), to serious crimes. They should also defer to the on-duty local police whenever possible. There's alot of protocols for active officers relating to the use of deadly force,but are they followed by the pensioners? And incidentally,the author never weighs-in on the reported Seaford, N.Y. tragedy allegedly involving another Lt. from the state that the author once resided in and admittedly also policed as a commander. Practical and critical community members nationwide should really look closer at this law, its implementation, and in fact, the actual recipients of this country-wide credential, and tell their lawmakers to increase oversight by the feds and local authorities ,or simply repeal it and allow the traditional local permitting to continue as it has in the past at the grassroots level. Nationally?" (See Robert A. Young's "Should Retired Police Carry Guns Nationally? And comments on the internet).
LEOSAinstructor writes:
Robert Young (whose writing format appears very similar to the anonymous
nicot54#256354) is trying to make an argument that cannot hold water.
For readers who are not familiar with this law,let me point out something else that Mr Young withheld. HR-218, known as LEOSA, is codified under 18 USC 926B and 926C. Read this law for yourself before believing what he wrote. Better yet, for a clearer explanation, read this well written article on what the LEOSA is by Special Agent Bulzomi who is a legal instructor at the FBI Academy: http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/pub...
It is important to understand that LEOSA does not give active or retired officers any law enforcement authority whatsoever when they in of off-duty status---PERIOD. Mr Young's article and comments give the reader the notion of the opposite. That was never the intent of that law when it was being written, and that is not what the law is as it stands today. Any officer who uses a firearm while carrying it pursuant to LEOSA is acting on his own accord with no more powers than an ordinary citizen who is conducting a citizens arrest or applying self defense.
The LEOSA only exempts off-duty and retired officers nation-wide from having to apply for and obtain state-issued conceal carry permits, but disconnects him from his agency powers when he does carry that personal firearm pursuant to that law. He must follow all firearm laws of the jurisdiction he is traveling in. He has no special powers to do otherwise. In fact, the LEOSA does not even allow him to carry the firearm openly. He must carry it concealed. When carrying pursuant to LEOSA, his agency-issued photogenic identification is nothing more than a national conceal carry permit. It is not a badge authorizing him to enforce laws. Legally speaking, the officer cannot use his identification to force behavior of the perpetrator. He can only show it to responding on-duty officers in order to justify his permission to carry that firearm. In other words, the identification must be used in the very same manner as a state-issued concealed carry permit. (continued....)
LEOSAinstructor writes:
(Continued...) Some agencies allow their officers to carry firearms and make arrests within their jurisdictions when they are in an off-duty status, and many of those internal polices existed before HR-218 was even introduced. If that is the case with the NYPD, then the off-duty NYPD lieutenant was NOT acting pursuant to LEOSA. Instead, he was acting under his internal agency policies. He may have been legally carrying a firearms pursuant to LEOSA before intervening in the robbery, but once he chose to assume a law enforcement role under the color of his badge, he abandoned LEOSA and acted under agency policy (assuming NYPD grants him that off-duty power). Mr Young needs to understand this and realize that perhaps agency policies need to be repealed---not the LEOSA.
On the other hand, the retired Nassau County police officer does not have any law enforcement powers in New York. Therefore, he was carrying a firearm pursuant to LEOSA, but when acting on the robbery, he was held to the use of force and justifiable homocide laws of New York. The LEOSA, a federal law, only protects him from carrying the firearm. Whether it was used properly is up to the jury to decide under state law. But again, instead of a retired officer armed under LEOSA, he could have been a conceal carry permit holder with a gun, a licensed security guard with a gun, or a citizen armed with no gun and a baseball bat, and the jury focus will be the same---was he a CITIZEN who used legal force? Keep in mind that in my state (I am not from FL or NY), a citizen is protected under use of force laws if he is in the prescence of a sworn officer who is giving him instructions to assist him in preventing a crime.
Furthermore, on the topic of annual qualifications, most "shall issue" states do not require citizens to pass a firearm qualification in order to obtain a conceal carry permit. However, the LEOSA requires ALL states to have their active duty and retired officers pass a qualification if that officer chooses to carry off-duty pursuant to LEOSA, which as I explained, would be equal to him carrying concealed carry permit but recognized nation-wide. Mr Young can criticize the varied state to state qualification standards, but the fact will always be that all officers carrying under LEOSa must pass some level of training before they can carry their personal firearm, while their equally powered fellow citizens who carrying under a permit are exempt from such training. With that said, HR-822 (the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act) is picking up legislation speed. If passed into law, this bill would force states to recognize conceal carry permits from all other states much like they do with drivers licenses, thus giving those qualification exempted permit holders from "shall issue" states the right to carry their firearms in states and jurisdictions which have stricter gun laws.
Mr Young is barking up the wrong tree and decieving his readers.
LEOSAinstructor writes:
To address some of the questions of nicot54#256354.....
For the comment, "The author never explains why lawmakers keep ammending it": The LEOSA was amended only once in 2010, and it was done to expand and clarify the definition of a "qualified law enforcement officer" for LEOSA purposes, and to better accomodate retired officers needing to recieve the annual qualification.
Prior to the amendment, a retiree had three ways to recieve his qualification: 1) through the agency he retired from whether that agency is in the state he lives in or not, 2) through any law enforcement agency in the state of his residence, or 3) through the state qualification standard/program established for retirees and ran by his state of residence.
The LEOSA does not mandate agencies to provide those qualifications (options 1 and 2). It is up to them to decide whether or not they want to offer it to retirees. Also, most states do not have a state standard (the 3rd option). What this resulted in was retirees not having any means to recieve their annual qualifications........until the 2010 amendment included an option 4: through any firearm instructor who is certified to conduct firearms training for active law enforcement officers in their state.
Furthermore, it is true that wishy-washy retirees or separated officers could be covered under the LEOSA just for the fact that they served 10 years. A good example could be an officer who is prompted to resign before an internal investigation starts which might have implicated him in charges that would lead to getting fired. In that case, the resigned officer was never fired for disciplinary reasons, and is therefore qualified under the LEOSA.
HOWEVER.......
Just like annual qualifications, the LEOSA does NOT mandate agencies to issue photogenic identification to their retired and separated officers. They simply reserve the right to issue identification cards to anyone--including that officer who resigned---and the law allows them to do that. That identification is key because it is a REQUIREMENT for the separated/retired officer to have in his possession in order to carry a firearm under the LEOSA. Once the LEOSA became law, all agencies should have re-visited how they issue those identification cards to ensure it's being done responsibly in respect to LEOSA consequences.
So again, the law is soundly written, and Mr Young's focus should be on agency polices that apply to it.
nicot54#256354 writes:
The LEOSA instructor is working overtime lately. All the intricacies of the Act must be explained in detail because someone's calling for reform. Very technical information must be presented and not much communication for public consumption. The instructor seems to denounce, vilify and order around a pensioned street cop from the big city who probably has a tiger by the tail. Check out the 9 talking points by the instructor which were sprinkled about the morass of legalities marauding the comment box. #1-"Robert Young (whose writing format appears very similar to the anonymous nicot54....is trying to make an argument that won't hold water". The anonymous secret Robert Young is hiding behind a mandatory poster's handle, how ridiculous.Mr. Young is not witholding any information as the instructor claims.
#2-"Read this law for yourself before believing what he (Mr. Young) wrote." Mr. Young's column printed in NaplesNews.COM on 01-22-12,it is a simple 750 word story that speaks for itself. The instructor is ordering you to read it.
#3-"Mr. Young's article and comments give the reader the notion of the opposite". In his column and comments Mr. Young never focuses on "law enforcement authority" at all, he simply sites a reported incident that happened in reality on the ground in N.Y. and calls for reform or repeal of the law for the reasons he has explained. Mr. Young gave no "notions" and the federal law puts the retiree in the field armed. It is obvious without all this legal wrangling that the individual retiree acts on his or her own volition.
#4-It was reported in the N.Y. Times in Dec.2011 that the Seaford N.Y. incident allegedly involved a Nassau County Lt. and a NYPD officer,the instructor inaccurately reverses this informaton in the comment.
#5-"Mr. Young needs to understand this and realize that perhaps agency policies need to be repealed, not LEOSA." Since when do American lawmakers "repeal", police department "agency policies?" That function is the purview of agency police administrators. Lawmakers "repeal"laws and police chiefs change directives LEOSA INSTRUCTOR. But, even more interesting is the fatherly voice of the instructor who actually admits that there may be a problem out there, and that's essentially what Mr. Young has been communicating. Which ever way you look at it the instructor is walking on a thin line here between LEOSA and police policy which should be one and the same.
#6-"Mr. Young can criticize the varied state to state qualification standards..." But don't criticize the instructor's bread and butter i.e. LEOSA. Mr. Young is an American Citizen and this commenter is ordering him exactly what he can and cannot criticize. Bizarre. Mr. Young posits that the variety of law enforcement agencies are problematic in this retired officer's right to carry vein, as is the implementation and management of LEOSA and he calls for reform or repeal. Continued... Next post.
nicot54#256354 writes:
#7- The coffee's wearing off and the instructor gets hostile."Mr. Young is barking up the wrong tree and deceiving his readers..." What tree should the canine, Mr.Young, bark up then not to deceive his readers, instructor? Is the commenter accusatory of Mr. Young?
#8- This is a big confusing post: "Furthermore,it is true that WISHY-WASHY Retirees or seperated officers could be covered under this LEOSA...A good example could be an officer who is prompted to resign before an internal investigation starts which might have implicated him in charges that would lead to getting fired. In that case, the resigned officer was never fired for disciplinary reasons and is therefore qualified under the LEOSA..." Ah, so a fired officer can qualify to carry a gun nationally under the law? And officers who left the job under suspicion by internal affairs can also carry nationally? Well then, isn't Mr. Young right about the lax requirements and inadequate vetting process and lack of advanced training and the absence of continued random drug and alcohol testing and no medical and psyc. exams? But this circumstance is not due to LEOSA its due to agency policy, right instructor? What does the term "WISHY-WASHY Retirees"actually mean? The National Police Unions will want to know about this new designation. The smoke keeps a-blowin'.
#9-Hostility again from the instructor: "And Mr. Young's focus should be on agency policies." Over-load with extraneous information,confuse and divert attention and vilify the messenger and questioner. The Wizard of OZ delivers another fiat to an American citizen and the expert dictates what the writer should write about. Sounds a tad totalitarian,does it not. Smoke and mirrors and the public should wonder why.
LEOSAinstructor writes:
nicot54#256354:
I'm not sure if I should even respond further to your comments, but here goes......
An officer who becomes terminated for conduct that did not include a crime of felony or domestic violence does not lose his right to possess a firearm. That officer can apply for a concealed weapons permit like any other non-law enforcement citizen and carry a firearm through that channel, especially in "shall issue" states.
This means the end result is he will be legally able to carry a firearm in public regardless of whether he loses his LEOSA privileges or not. The LEOSA, whether it exists or not, has no effect on preventing an officer from carrying a firearm because as an off-the-clock or retired officer, they are citizens who have the same rights as any other citizen. Then, if or when HR-822 becomes law, his conceal carry permit will be honored in all states.
Of all the retirees I know, only a few choose to carry firearms using the LEOSA route. Most of them just apply for conceal carry permits, including additional out of state permits which would give them greater reciprocity to travel with their firearm across other state lines. In most cases and depending on which state you reside in, using the conceal carry permit route is cheaper and less hassling than the LEOSA route.
There is no threat of LEOSA reform. There are no bills to appeal it, and there is no movement in that direction. If anything, the LEOSA was strengthened in 2010 as Mr Grossi pointed out, and HR-822 just recently passed in the house with a margin of 272 to 154. What was the model mirror for HR-822? Answer: The LEOSA.
nicot54#256354 writes:
Another Isolated Incident: "Former Cop ALLEGEDLY Had Illegal Arsenal In House."
According to the Philadelphia Inquirer Newspaper, a 62 year old former Vineland, N.J. police officer reportedly pleaded guilty to possessing: QUOTE: "a massive cash of guns,a tear gas canister, and a live grenade at his home...Four assault rifles and twenty-one large capacity ammunition magazines according to the (N.J.) Attorney General's Office ."END QUOTE(1).
According to the article, the former cop, at the time of his arrest, reportedly attempted to get away from active duty troopers, tried to grab a gun, and reportedly had to be forcibly taken into custody.(1)
(1) Footnote Source: "Ex-South Jersey Police Officer Pleads To Weapons Charges",:By Staff Writer: Joelle Farrell, Philadelphia Inquirer, 02-03-12.
See what Robert A. Young police pensioner means in the courageous guest opinion: "Should Retired Officers Carry Guns Nationally?" 01-22-12, Naples Daily News.
LEOSAinstructor writes:
This is not so much an an "isolated" incident for this topic, but an irrelevant incident. Repealing LEOSA would not have prevented this.
nicot54#256354 writes:
To the contrary, definately not irrelevant.
Presented anecdotally speaking to possible ramifications of the 2010 national LEOSA, offered for the public to consider in their local communities,to prevent these types of people from possibly acquiring a national right to carry.
LEOSAinstructor writes:
This guy was intentionally committing a crime. How would an appeal of the LEOSA prevent him or anyone else with criminal intent from possessing illegal Title II firearms and destructive devices? Would he wake up one morning and say to himself, "Oh shucks, there's this new law on top of all the other firearm laws that I'm already breaking, and it's called the LEOSA. I must now get now get rid of these and become law-abiding?" Keep in mind the LEOSA only allows concealable weapons (handguns) to be carried nation-wide. Not assault rifles or grenades, and definitely not illegal ones. But the LEOSA would have prevented him from all of that?
Share your thoughts
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.