Recently, a vote in the House of Representatives granted police officers nationwide concealed carry privileges. The vote resulted in 221 to 185 for the new government-issued privilege. The bill is called H.R. 354 Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act “LOESA Reform Act of 2024.”
This new government-issued gun privilege rewarded to active and retired law-enforcement officers grants them the freedom to carry a firearm in places like school zones, national parks, and state, local, or private properties open to the public. It also includes certain federal facilities that are accessible to the public. The bill also widely expands the ability for certain law-enforcement officers to cross state lines with concealed carry firearms and reduces the frequency of which retired law enforcement would need to re-qualify in order to meet certain standards.
Aren’t they lucky?
I use the word privilege and I hope you can recognize my sarcasm because I don’t remember the Second Amendment reading, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, as long as those people are current or former police officers.”
Is this a move in the right direction or is this a slap in the face to gun owners across the country? Was this bill introduced under the assumption that police officers, active or retired, are better trained than the average gun owner? Because that is certainly debatable.
Many would argue that this bill was created, introduced, and sponsored because crime has gotten out of control throughout America and due to left-wing disrespect and defunding of police, politicians are finding themselves in a precarious situation of their own making. In what might appear to be an attempt at controlling some of the violence created by irresponsible left-wing policies, the bureaucrats behind HR 354 have neglected the rights of all, to allow privileges to some.
But that’s not all. It would appear that the bill also acts in part to address the obvious and deadly results of the 1990 Gun Free School Zones Act without actually changing the irresponsible law.
Joe Biden introduced the 1990 Gun Free School Zones Act as part of the Crime Control Act, and since it was signed into law, school killings have doubled and increased at twice the rate of increase every 10 years.
H.R. 354 would now allow active and retired police officers to carry on school campus. This does not change the law and therefore still prohibits civilian concealed carriers from doing the same.
So, what is this really about? Somebody got smart and recognized that Joe Biden’s deadly Gun Free School Zones Act is getting children killed, however, the Gun Free School Zones Act still allows unconstitutional authority over the 2nd Amendment and remains in place to benefit politicians. So even though you may have more training than a retired police officer, and you may have more will to protect children in schools, (than someone like Scott Peterson, an armed school resource officer at Parkland, who did nothing to save lives) you are still restricted from possessing a firearm on school campuses.
The irony of this bill is not so much the fact that certain privileges are given to certain people but more the idea that the government has taken a right, turned it into a privilege, and has found a way to make us argue over who deserves that privilege.
All gun laws are unconstitutional, and all should be abolished. This particular one sets a dangerous tone and pits law enforcement gun owners against private citizen gun owners in a way that supports acceptance of unconstitutional gun laws.
Ask yourself if current and retired law-enforcement officers will have a problem with this bill. The answer is probably no, which emboldens Legislators with the power of taking away rights and giving them back in bits and pieces as government issued privileges.
Now, ask yourself how private gun owners would react if those same bureaucrats decided to extend this new government-issued privilege to them. Would they denounce it in its entirety, push to remove the 1990 Gun Free School Zones Act altogether, and end all gun free zones, or would it be accepted and considered a win? Should gun owners accept this special treatment bill or demand Constitutional Carry for all?
Stealing rights from American citizens through unconstitutional gun laws and then rewarding some with the privilege of avoiding those laws in exchange for their support, is like starving your dog and then giving him a treat for rolling over.
About Dan Wos, Author – Good Gun Bad Guy
Dan Wos is available for Press Commentary. For more information, contact PR HERE
Dan Wos is a nationally recognized 2nd Amendment advocate, Host of The Loaded Mic and Author of the “GOOD GUN BAD GUY” book series. He speaks at events, is a contributing writer for many publications, and can be found on radio stations across the country. Dan has been a guest on Newsmax, the Sean Hannity Show, Real America’s Voice, and several others. Speaking on behalf of gun-rights, Dan exposes the strategies of the anti-gun crowd and explains their mission to disarm law-abiding American gun-owners.
I was in SC a couple of weeks ago for a few days of heavy range time with a friend who lives there. An older gentleman showed up with his wife and he was trying to help her learn to shoot. It was a Sig in 380 and I could hear him telling her that the gun was jamming (failure to eject) because, “she was limp wristing it”). He never once told her what that meant that I can recall. Then it jammed good and he asked if anyone had any tools. I did, so I went over. Another guy… Read more »
the active duty ones in south florida are like him for the most part,like Duane said about 3%are gun guys
One of Miami’s finest once told a reporter that an FMJ round was a “warhead.”
You can make this stuff up, but you don’t really need to. David Codrea’s “Only Ones” files are full of examples of cops being self proclaimed firearms experts yet not being able to find their a$$es with both hands and a flashlight.
With just a quick search you’ll find DEA agent Lee Paige shooting himself in the foot, a BATFE “expert” who can’t rack the slide on a Glock, and a New York SWAT officer with his EOTech sight on backwards.
I was told that the the Glock had a switch and that you must first remove a ‘glock switch’ before it can be field stripped, which the FBATFE was trying to do. I’m not a Glock guy so I don’t know. You?
Shouldn’t the folks constantly yammering about the evils of 3D printed switches have known all of that and maybe practiced a bit with their props before going on camera?
As for having any special affinity for Glocks, have you noticed that “Glock Leg” is a thing but no one talks about “Beretta Leg” or “Colt Leg” or “Sig Leg” or ….
Haven’t heard about Glock Leg, just numerous negligent discharges when pulling the trigger in order to disassemble. I guess the cop who shot himself in the leg after telling the elementary classroom he was the only one qualified to carry a gun was carrying a Glock. So far no Sig Leg here with a P220 carry. I can see making a discreetly purchased Glockish PMF. Just in case. We’ll see how SCOTUS goes.
It’s in the same category as “M-1 Thumb”.
For heaven’s sake, read instruction manuals before going to the range.
Some years ago I took my adult daughter to a range where LEOs regularly qualified. After some basic instruction, daughter put 9 of 10 shots in the 10 ring from a Glock 27. An LEO (a younger female) in the next lane over failed to hit the target with 5 out of 10 shots at the same distance. I’m convinced lack of shooting ability is a primary qualification for LEOs.
Sacramento kommiefornia. Young black man breaking into cars at night. Cops are called and arrive, he runs, they chase him down, he pulls his cell phone, the two cops fire 20 rounds and clear their guns. The perp goes down dead with 3 bullet holes in him. 25 feet was the distance.
I saw something similar some years ago. I don’t recall the specifics but something like 15 cops were shooting at the driver of a white Chevy van. All 15 did mag dumps and I think only three or four shots hit the van. It did scare the poo out of the perp and he exited the van with his hands up. In Californistan it’s often been noted that the safest place to be when LEOs are shooting is in front of them.
LOL, thanks for my first laugh this morning. I will keep that in mind when standing behind them. LOL
Those three anecdotes, taken together, made me laugh until the tears rolled down my cheeks!!!
Glad I could pull a Clint Eastwood and make your day. Good morning.
That is down right dismal!
city of miami is not much better , three cops empty their glocks at a homeless guy with a transistor radio in his hand 45 rounds guy was killed by a ricochet. they never identified all the impact points but there were several into an apartment where a child was sleeping…..could have been bad
they were shooting facing west on grand ave in coconut grove facing us1 how many hit cars on the road
That is sad!
Kind of depends… doubt it was the situation but 50-100 yards off side of the freeway I doubt I could hit a semitrialer going by at (pedestrian) 70 mph. I just don’t have practice on moving targets and haven’t studied how far to lead. Real reason I wouldn’t hit vehicle on freeway is that I would not shoot – man’s got to know his limits and hitting unintended targets is undesirable.
Similar situations I’ve heard of have been in parking lots with vehicle either stopped or moving slowly and cops mere feet away. So yeah – absolutely abysmal.
That is funny!
you could be right
Heavy suppression is all that’s needed when a LEO.
I know an old retired cop that had the same problem. When he retired they were still using 6 shooters and some guy convinced him that a 380 was just as good as his 357mag but better because it was slimmer for concealed carry and held more rounds. He knew how to load the mag, cock it but knew nothing about how to clear the jam out the the POS 250 dollar gun.
Oregoneistan
know ex fish and game officer that asked if I could look at his glock, he had not cleared or cleaned it since retiring rounds were corroded together in the mag case in the chamber was salt eaten ,cant understand people that dont take care of their tools…whatever they be gun or hammer
They are not “tool” people.
HLB
My point exactly even cops most of them never shoot anymore except the minimum they have to to requalify every one or two years whatever their department requires. Practice practice practice.
“Rights” that can be given, and in turn taken away, are not rights in the first place. Rather, they are permissions.
I am unfamiliar with any “permission to keep and bear arms.”
Yes, license!!!! You are correct, sir.
We have had a form of LOESA for 20 years now. This is the latest addition it has been reformed a couple of times. Has it done any harm hard to qualify that, just like has it done any good. Should We have permit less/ constitutional carry nation wide absolutely. Any change that allows more people to carry in more places is a good change. Who is more qualified then another that is wide open question. I have spent more then 4 decades as a instructor. It breaks down like this no mater if civilian, police or military. For 90… Read more »
Amen!!!
My problem with what ever Bill they pass is like now here in Texas once you qualify with your Shooting you never have to requalify your Shooting again. I would be willing to bet 90% of everyone here in Texas that gets their carry permit will never shoot their handgun again after the qualification. Practice practice practice and they will never do that either. I have to re-up my carry every four years I should have to requalify my shooting at the same time. But no, they have done away of that now which I think is wrong.
In Texas, you must requalify with a handgun for alternsting renewals of a handgun carry license, which license is not required to carry a handgun. Aside from that, proficiency is desireable, but not for the State to test or determine.
Where did you get that info? Not sure how many times I’ve renewed, but have yet to have to requalify. As barnjoer implied, passing qualifying test is insufficient. We each must practice and test ourselves – individually or through classes or competition. Studies have shown that doing away with qualification test perversely causes people to train more. The qualification test gives a false sense of competence – just see how most cops shoot! When there is no qualification test the majority of carriers decide to pursue more training! Admittedly shops and instructors encourage this for both altruistic and profit reasons… Read more »
To me GFSZ are a critical reason to get an LTC. Under constitutional carry, get caught within a 1000′ feet of a school and you are facing serious charges with serious consequences. With LTC all you need is to stay out of buildings and sports venues. See guy in Montana who was charged for carrying break action shotgun while mowing his mother’s lawn – in face of deadly threats made by a neighbor. Think his name was Metcalf or something like that… It’s certainly discussed heavily in archives of this site. Other reasons – if you are caught within 30.06… Read more »
The problem with government-mandated qualifications is government abuse until nobody can qualify.
most police are criminals, sorry guys but anyone that enforces an unconstitutional …they arnt laws more like edictsis a criminal title 18 241 ,and 242 problem is enforcement mechanism of title 18 is flawed,requires a prosecutor that believes in constitution
HR 218 already did this years ago. This is simply an update. Not even a big deal as it was already happening. It’s more political than anything.
All that being said it can be used in the battle for national carry which of course is stalled because so many, even in the so called gun community, are liberal and vote that way.
“It also includes certain federal facilities that are accessible to the public”
This is also already done for all; via Title 18, Section 930, Subsection D, Paragraph 3. The problem is, nobody can read.
HLB
The problem with claiming permission under 18 U.S. Code § 930 – Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilitiesis that “other lawful purposes” are not defined. And though it be contradictory, paragraph (e)2 does not exempt (d)3. (a)Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.…(d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to—(1)the lawful performance of official duties… Read more »
I never had an issue distinguishing if I was supposed to or not. I’m not sure why it would be confusing. Worst case call ahead and ask
The problem is that is you call ahead and ask the government whether you can do any thing the answer is always “no”, in spite of what the law says. That is the way they are wired internally in their brains.
HLB
That certainly hasn’t been my experience. Even last year I called Yellowstone and got good information and a site that explained fed/state and the things of carrying there and what happens should you say shoot a bear.
I had a great experience while visiting
I also called Yellowstone citing the law and received negative information about carrying in a federal facility. I did not go and thus had no great experience while visiting. 30 years employment with the federal government was a constant unrelenting string of “No”.
You are charmed.
HLB
Thank you for replying. As for “other lawful purposes” not being defined: The rule of lenity is a principle used in criminal law, also called rule of strict construction, stating that when a law is unclear or ambiguous, the court should apply it in the way that is most favorable to the defendant. Thus, this is a moot point. Just because a particular phrase in a law has not seen a judgement by a court does not mean that the government can bend it to say what they want. Your remark that “paragraph (e)2 does not exempt (d)3” only applies to… Read more »
You’re right on (e), don[t know how I missed that. But I certainly don’t trust the the government to have any respect for the rule of lenity. Even if you win the case, the punishment of time in jail and massive legal expenses mean you still lost. I’m glad for your success in carrying in federal facilities. As for me, I’m getting a nice pocket knife with a length of less than 2-1/2 inches.
Well, my cost was the loss of my job. The case never came to trial because I chose not to risk the loss of my retirement benefits under a confused judge. My lawyer conveyed my willingness to retire rather than sue the government and that is what happened. At one point a copied email from their lawyer indicated that they wanted to punish me for bad conduct (not being saints like they were). I had my lawyer express my disdain for their thoughts and they knew I would fight in court to retain my good name, and things went smoothly… Read more »
My rights don’t end with a libtards hurt feelings and law enforcement officers working or retired do not have anymore God given rights than I do . FJB and all Democrats and anyone who promotes rights for the privileged.
Getting votes from LEOs, active and retired, is what this legislation is really about, not enhancing public safety.
EVERYTHING biden does is to buy votes.
RIGHTS, rights are given to mankind by GOD ALMIGHTY, they are not granted by people in governments. In this country at least SOME of those RIGHTS are guaranteed under the constitution. Among these guaranteed, GOD given rights are; life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, to PEACEABLY assemble, to vote your conscience, self defense and defense of others….. and then there is the second amendment which guarantees that ALL free citizens have the RIGHT (and obligation) to keep and bear arms. This right includes the use and carry of firearms for defense, for hunting and sporting, for trading and selling, for… Read more »
You have an excellent understanding of Rights! Well said.
trusting in someone else to protect your family says they dont mean much to you, you outsource things that are not important
This is so true. When ever some one says I should give up my weapon because government will protect me, I have uncontrollable laughing fits.
HLB
The government doesn’t care about dead kids. The government cares about control. Arming police retired or not; on duty or not and across state lines or not gives the government another element of control. What’s sad is that cops will see this as another green light to exercise the control their masters order them to exert. Liars and thieves (read politicians) will always be among us. It’s the enforcers (read cops) of politicians will that are the real traitors.
Dear Author Dan Wos, If you are going to talk law, then you have to use the right terminology. First, our Constitution only gives powers and authorities to governments. Government can not give to others what it does not have. Thus governments can not give Rights to others. What the governments can give (and take back) is license. Rights, privileges, and immunities, in the language of constitutional law are all the same thing, are pre-political, and are given by God to people. Only individuals can have Rights, privileges, and immunities. Rights, privileges, or immunities are impunity from any law, statute,… Read more »
You know, this is a load of crap. Was in the USMC, handled guns since age 13, have all types of guns now and shoot and reload for all of them, took the training and shooting course to get my concealed and shoot no less than once a month which is more than most cops shoot who have a gun because it is a requirement for their job. Now add, haven’t had a ticket for at least 25 years and when I got that one it had been at least 15 years before that and haven’t been in jail. Why… Read more »
you left out the one in parkland that ran and hid
Did he accidentally shoot himself? or, did he do the world a favor!!!!!
No. Scot Peterson was found not guilty on several counts of child neglect and is now receiving a healthy pension, one you or I would be jealous of.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/parkland-officer-pension_n_5afd4199e4b0779345d61b3f
I can’t believe jury would not have found him guilty of dereliction of duty. I would have.
Yep. I’d send him to a maximum security facility with nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing, but a bar of soap in one hand and a jar of Vaseline in the other. I stop there because some bleeding heart liberal would protest having F*** ME! tattooed in large letters on his back. Ditto with having all his teeth pulled.
dropped from c130…
Notice how police make no attempt to correct them? Or insist that they are wrong? And that the 2A was designed for Americans irrespective of stupid cops???
My wife and I watch Cops, On Patrol Live and The First 48 for entertainment in the evening. We, and especially she, are appalled at the firearms handling techniques exhibited by the cops. We bet on who might get shot as they fumble around trying to clear the guns. Since I carry all the time I’m concerned for my safety if I’m ever stopped and they want to disarm me for “their” safety. My inclination is to get under the vehicle the farthest away from the cop trying to clear my P365 with the manual safety. I think most of… Read more »
What is overlooked is that to carry under LOESA requires a yearly qualification with a handgun. Those that do not qualify do not get the permit. My local Sheriff’s range has civilian days 2 times a month. I was told by the range officer that I shoot better than most of the department because I practice regularly and I am 79 years old. My brother retired after 44 years in law enforcement and just requalified by scoring a 98 out of 100 with a S&W Model 15. Most of the other officers shot Glocks. He has a range in his… Read more »
You make some very vlaid points. I am one of those retired LEO’s who definitely benefits from the LEOSA ACT. You do not mention if this was passed in the Senate as well as the House but if it has not passed the Senate I do not think it will and I dont think Biden will sign it. I do believe it is a step in the right direction and hopefully it will lead to National reciprocity and in a pefect world the elimination olf all the draconian idiotic anti gun laws we have on the books now. For me,… Read more »
Can I put a sign on my door indicating a gun free zone for law enforcement officers?
While I understand the consternation of watching our lawmakers turning a right into a privilege, it is good to remember that many laws proposed by the Congress never actually get passed by BOTH the House and the Senate. As of late May, 2024,H.R. 354 has been placed before the Senate Judiciary Committee where no action has been taken. It could actually die there. Even if this bill gets passed by the Senate, it would still have to be approved by President Biden. His record of supporting increased concealed carry across the nation, by anybody, is deplorable at best! It seems… Read more »
This seems to be a clarifying extension of the original LEOSA of some
years back. I put forward then that although a good idea on its own merits,
Our application of the constitution precludes different classes of people
with regards to the disbursement of rights. I mentioned that a class of people with their “own” rights, might begin to see themselves as separate and above
others. A more subtle form of the division, constantly used by the Marxist model of governance.
So has it made it through the Senate and been signed by sippy cup ?
All the peace officers I know in NYS/NYC will not carry off duty. Don’t know about your state/s. The women always keep them in their lockers anyway and the guys feel that if they use them lawfully, invariably, the target will be either: gay, underage, a veteran, pregnant etc. It won’t be a “good shoot.” That’s where we are in NY Metro area. So actually, as a civilian, I carry more than they do. Civs make different assumptions than the PD here. All I can say is anyone who thinks NY is a giant gun free zone have no idea.… Read more »
I’m curious as to how many people get actual training in use of force issues and not just being able to carry, or getting quality firearms training and range time?
One of the local ranges offers CRAC classes – Civilian Response to Armed Confrontation. They’re OK but not great. They use simunition. At least one other local range offers classes but I have not checked them out yet.
Join the Armed forces you’ll get all the training you want.
Not an option at my age and not exactly a low cost option at any age.
The point I was trying to make was that Veterans should fall under this bill also. The training is more in depth than a LEO for most soldiers. Not all but any soldier with a combat MOS.
Unfortunately VETS do not fall into this category unless they were USA Military Police or USAF Security Forces or other type of military law enforcement. I’m a retired USAF SF therefore I have LEOSA credentials and have to qualify once per year to maintain my HR-218. At least in the USAF there were 3 groups: A, B and C. A – qualified semi annually (M4 & M9) and annually on heavy weapons B – qualified annually (M4 and M9) C – qualified tri-annually (M4 enlisted M9 officer) Not all vets get the training necessary for “use of force” like SF… Read more »
As a retired police officer with 3 decades of service, and as a current holder of a LEOSA qualifying card, I’d like to put in my 2 cents worth. When LEOSA in its congressional designation HR218, originally included those citizens with state issued concealed carry permits. In that form, the bill languished in the house for years. Following the September 11th terrorist attacks, a fresh effort was made by the authors to push the bill through without success. In an effort to pass the bill, the authors and supporters changed the language to apply the bill to law enforcement and… Read more »
It should be either expanded to everyone, or repealed. No more of this divisive unconstitutional “You get some rights, but those over there don’t.” For the record I’m glad you favor expansion, as I’m convinced most LEOs, active or retired, don’t and are worthless when it comes to defending civil rights.
or someone else’s life, as shown in parkland
As a retired USAF SF Combat Arms Master Sergeant I do have retired LEO credentials. I have been qualifying annually for the HR-218 since retirement. It allows me to carry in all 50 states and places that most folks can’t carry. This just expands those areas. I do have more training than most. i.e. sniper school, numerous armory schools, retired federal firearms instructor and even a college degree in firearms technology. I am more than able to carry and protect. I would imagine most people wouldn’t even be able to qualify on the 38-round qualification. You have to hit 33… Read more »
Nobody cares about your resume. Equal rights for all, cut this stupid LEO-exception BS out.
I have had a LEOSA credential for nearly a decade now, after service as a military policeman for more than 13 years. For me it means that I can carry no matter what state I am in, and in NJ I can carry whatever ammo or magazine I like. The law that supports this was intended to have more trained law enforcement offices, armed and on the street, in the case of another 9/11 type of attack. I have no wish to get into any kind of discussion about law enforcement or your belief’s, but the law itself and its… Read more »
All citizens are equal, it’s just that some get to be more equal than others. In other words, a crock of sh*t is still a crock of sh*t, regardless of what reasoning you gussy it up with.
The retired law enf that qualify under leosa that has been around for over 20 years are given this right because it increases security for the population all over the nation with this law. It’s not an issue of being better trained with a gun which Leo are overall better trained, as retired Leo it’s that they were trained in using the guns in certain situations whereas average personnel who carry with a permit have a fraction of when to properly use deadly force. Don’t get all angry over the Leosa law because most Leo want people to be able… Read more »
Leo it’s that they were trained in using the guns in certain situations whereas average personnel who carry with a permit have a fraction of when to properly use deadly force. Yeah like shooting a unarmed women through her window. Or shooting kids with water/ bb pistols. And there are many more instances of this so called training. lol
Oh come on… it’s not like armed civilians end twice as many mass shooters and hit half as many innocents doing so.
Oh yeah… it is like that! Also depending on state licensed carriers are convicted of felonious crimes at a rate 1/10-1/3 the rate of police officers — and many of those crimes by civilians are simply due to accidentally carrying in prohibited areas (which lacking intent to cause harm is a paper crime).