SIG SAUER - Producer of DoD’s Modular Handgun System

Final Draft of AFMAN for USAF Implementation of Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act

The US Air Force has been rather slow to implement the provisions of Public Law 108-277 dated 22 July 2004, The Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act of 2004 (LEOSA) as amended by Public Law 112-239 dated 2 January 2013, as well as specific instructions under the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 and DoDI 5525.12, The Amended Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004. That 2013 amendment told DoD that its LEOs were covered as well by the legislation because they weren’t quite sure before. But, this is going to happen guys.

You see, the LEOSA as it is commonly known, is a federal law, that allows two classes of persons; “qualified law enforcement officers” and “qualified retired law enforcement officers”, to carry a concealed firearm in any jurisdiction in the United States, regardless of state or local laws, with certain exceptions. That is a pretty big privilege.

Why is taking the AF so long to comply with Federal Law? Probably because they’ve never had to face something like actually facilitating the concealed carry of firearms by current and former Airmen. I’ve said it before (while in uniform) and I’ll say it again; the Air Force is institutionally afraid of guns. That might make you understand their apprehension. That, and they haven’t let a contract to handle issuing credentials yet. Security Forces is the largest enlisted careerfield in the Air Force. It’s also going to be a bit of a mess dealing with Retired and those with 10 years cumulative experience as a Qualified LEO. Supposedly, this won’t happen until Fall, 2014.

I will go on record to say that I cannot support LEOSA because it creates a privileged class of gun owners who have rights that other citizens do not. It is my contention that legislation such as LEOSA divides the gun owning populace. Since current and retired LEOs may concealed carry virtually anywhere, they have effectively been removed from the pro-2A lobbying effort. Their concerns have been answered and there’s no reason for them to go to bat to help normalize concealed carry laws across the nation. At the federal level, it means that anyone who qualifies under LEOSA is not subject to the concealed carry laws of any state, with a couple of exceptions.

However, LEOSA is the law of the land and the military departments must comply, offering their current and “retired” LE personnel the credentials necessary for compliance with the law. That, I do support.

I’ve been told that this version has been signed but not issued yet so I’m calling it a final draft. The Air Force Manual lays out in its simplest terms what the Air Force is required to do in order to make this happen for current/former Airmen. Specifically, under LEOSA and this Manual, “individuals who have apprehension authority and are identified as qualified law enforcement officers, active, retired or separated with 10 or more years of aggregate service in a position as a qualified law enforcement officer, may carry privately owned weapons (POW) concealed while off duty and outside the boundary of the installation.” Notice that they still won’t be able to off-duty concealed carry on military installations or any other “gun free zones” for that matter.

There are a couple of interesting points in the draft of the AFMAN. I wonder how those made it past the legal review.

3.2. All personnel receiving a USAF SF LEOSA credential who choose to carry a concealed weapon should obtain concealed carry or self-defense insurance with civil and criminal defense coverage in the event they are involved in an off-duty LEOSA Use of Force incident. The Air Force has no liability and will not provide legal defense if an individual is involved in an off-duty LEOSA Use of Force incident. The USAF role is solely to determine that all requirements to carry under LEOSA are met; any action taken by the individual is their personal responsibility.

3.3. Personnel should also consider carrying a “grand jury kit.” A recommended grand jury kit consists of the AF Form 688D or E, weapons qualification documentation, driver’s license or state issued identification card, proof of ownership for the weapon carried, copies of DoDI 5525.15, this AFMAN and the LEOSA Act legislation.

While I have issues with the underlying law, I’m very glad to see that we will be welcoming a wide variety of new, serving and Veteran military LEOs to the concealed carrying public and I’m also glad to see the Air Force is finally making some headway with this.

Feel free to read the DRAFT AFMAN LEOSA.

104 Responses to “Final Draft of AFMAN for USAF Implementation of Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act”

  1. Big Bob says:

    You are 100% correct in saying that the Air Force is afraid of weapons! I noticed this myself, but when I say it out loud, people say I’m just being silly…
    The Air Force instituted a policy that non-Security and non-SOF types would only qualify with their gun prior to a deployment that requires a firearm.
    I have met Airmen that have not fired a weapon since basic! (I’m talking 3,4 , 5 + years time)
    However, most Airmen that I got to know/work with WERE gun owners, it’s just the institution that has a resentment/fear of firearms…

  2. Chuck says:

    Any idea where the 10-year thing came for vets?

    • Michael Pugh says:

      It comes from the LEOSA act itself, not just 10 years Security Forces, OSI, Military Police, etc… Just as someone who has perform a recognized form of Law Enforcement for a period of 10+ years

  3. Mac says:

    Are the other branches doing the same with their MPs/SPs?

  4. Mike says:

    As an active LEO, I support all law abiding citizens in the right to carry. My peers share my sentiment as we may need your assistance someday.

  5. Tank says:

    I think it is pretty ignorant for you to remark that LEOSA creates a privileged class of gun owners. Privileged ? or well trained citizens who have already gone above and beyond, and know the law, and in most cases have had at least bi-annual training. Can you say this for every civilian with a concealed carry permit. Is everyone you know that carries concealed well versed in the law, trained as adequately as they should, and have ever been in situations where their judgement is tested in life and death scenarios ? Also you commented “… they have effectively been removed from the pro-2A lobbying effort. Their concerns have been answered and there’s no reason for them to go to bat to help normalize concealed carry laws across the nation.” Nothing like generalizing an entire group of people. Who are you to say that LEOSA personnel don’t care about the rights of others ? I was a law abiding citizen with a concealed carry permit long before I was qualified under LEOSA. When I became a Federal Law Enforcement Officer I didn’t cancel all my memberships to pro gun/pro 2nd amendment organizations, I didn’t stop fighting for and supporting all the companies who also supported my common beliefs. Also to inform you, everyone I know that is also a Federal Law Enforcement Officer holds a current and valid concealed carry permit from their state. I respect this site and have been visiting it daily for years. I don’t expect to see baseless ignorant comments that are based on skewed personal opinion rather than fact.

    • David says:


    • Shame says:

      “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

      ? George Orwell, Animal Farm

      I’d say SSD’s comments are right on, I seem to have missed the large groundswell of law enforcement support for national right to carry laws.

      • Tank says:

        @Shame, why do you say you have missed the large groundswell of LEO support, is that because of personal interactions and people you know, or is that because its what you heard on TV and you take everything the media says about LEO’s as the truth. You’re right, ABC and CNN said the law enforcement community is against right to carry, so we all must be on board with that agenda. All us LEO’s are out to get everyone else and we think we are so much more entitled to carry that Joe the average citizen. Sorry I forgot to read the latest conspiracy theories of the day.

        • Shame says:

          No conspiracies needed. From one of your own organizations.

          International Association of Chiefs of Police


          Shame on you for pretending that law enforcement wants citizens to own guns. It doesn’t. Never has.

          • Mike says:

            @Shame, as a former member of IACP I can say they are anti-gun ownership. They are run by a small group (as compared to all) of Police Chiefs mostly from large agencies. They DO NOT speak for most Chiefs and certainly do not reflect the opinion of a majority of Police Officers. The Police One survey ( is much more reflective of the true LEO attitude about gun ownership.

          • Agentofwrath says:

            The IACP does not speak for the rank and file, just the polished neer-do-wells that tote the Gold Brick of the FBINA. There are as liberal as the AARP.

          • Kendall says:


            Please don’t confuse the IACP and other Chief’s orgs with cops that are on the ground. Even amongst LEOs, there are those who are gun folks, and those that are not. For you to say that “All cops don’t want citizens to own guns, etc….” is nonsense. The IACP is made up of Chiefs and Sheriffs, and doesn’t speak for ALL LEOs. Period. (Crap, I just saw what Mike adn Agentofwrath says below. Ditto.)

            It doesn’t seem like LEOSA has really put a damper on 2A support, but I’m looking at a small group, and don’t have a larger group to look at. A PD is like the general public, there are those who carry, and there are those who shouldn’t. (Or at least not as good as others with their tools.)

    • Bman says:

      Add another +…. I am covered by LEOSA but I seem to be an even bigger advocate of firearms rights than non-leos. I think law enforcement in general are some of the nost pro-2A people there are and we have been covered for a long time. I still have a concealed carry permit just because. What many have to recall is that LEOs have family also. As for me, I got my girlfriend to carry, my brother, my girlfriends brother and father, some non-LE coworkers who have also gone and gotten their spouses to carry. I think being against the LEOSA would just be used by gun control people to say a national reciprocation of concealed permits/licenses is too far if the cops can’t even do it.

    • JB says:

      “or well trained citizens who have already gone above and beyond, and know the law, and in most cases have had at least bi-annual training.”


      • Tank says:

        Well said JB, my quote with your evil laughed added at the end. Good job, thanks for the input and the healthy debate.

        • Steve (the other one) says:

          He’s laughing because in the same post you bust on SSD for generalizing, you do the exact same thing in trying to show how LEOs are better suited for being allowed universal CC. While most cops have likely “gone above and beyond, and know the law, and in most cases have had at least bi-annual training”, there’s a signifcant number that haven’t, or have chosen to ignore that training, or have not had the life and death-depend on your gun experiences upon which you hang your position. They’re allowed universal CC as well under this Act. With over a decade of war and the proliferation of civilian weapons training opportunities, there is a growing number of non-LE US civilians with more than adequate training to prepare someone to safely carry concealed in public. One doesn’t require time behind a badge to be competent in exercising a variant of a Constitutional right.

    • Steve says:

      Plus one. Oath keepers are not just in the military. This is the dumbest thing I have seen on ssd. I am getting real tired of the anti LEO trend. Now it pops up on ssd. This is sad.

      • SSD says:

        Exactly how is this anti-LEO?

        • Steve says:

          It’s anti Leo , because it doesn’t even need to be mentioned. If we look at all professional jobs in the United States you will find anti 2nd amendment people so why not mention them. Instead of looking at this particular law as a dividing line look at it as a start in the right direction. Leos are allowed to do it now, and hopefully law abiding citizens will be able to in the future. We all have to work together. What do you have to backup your statement about Leos not fighting for the right to carry? The chiefs of police association doesn’t speak for all law enforcement. In fact it is the minority of Leo. I don’t know about the east and west coast, but I live in the middle where the majority of law enforcement officers, local and fed, are very conservative people who believe in fighting for the second amendment. The point is why did you single law abiding law enforcement officers out. My brothers and sisters put our lives on the line every day to protect our freedoms, and this type of “BS” is taking a step backwards.

          • Steve (the other one) says:

            Ok Steve, what other highly visible pro-2A LE organization is there to counter the IACP? That’s the same argument made by “moderate” Muslims–“The vocal minority don’t represent the feelings of the majority”. Until the majority take a strong public stand, you’re effectively accepting the minority’s position.

            • Steve1622 says:

              The main leo org. Is the FOP. Do you see any anti gun bs coming from them? The iacp is a bunch of brass and is not the voice of police officers.

              • SSD says:

                Actually yes, we do. I did some research after this was brought up. Turns out, at the national level, the FOP has been consistently on the wrong side of gun legislation.

        • Timmay says:

          It’s the interwebs, if you disagree with a Po-Lice-on almost any subject- you are a hater.

    • Stefan S. says:

      Sorry I agree with the privileged class statement. I served 24 years ARSOF. Better qualified than most LEO in small arms. But I can’t carry on the Post I served most of my career on. But someone who has no jurisdiction on Federal Property can freely carry concealed? Ask the Fort Hood victims if that is fair before you take a holier than thou attitude!

      • Bman says:

        Read the restrictions in the law and it will answer your question. On top that, the military post is dictating those rules. Your fight is with the military’s idea of gun control. To answer it for you, even in my own state where I have more authority to carry than what the FLEOSA gives, I do not carry on military bases. along with a list of non-federal sites. Also just made mention of it, crimes on military bases are subject to state laws as well. The cases where the feds take over are the higher profile ones with media attention. Most other cases are handled by local LE agencies. Lastly, read my comment in regards to the purpose of the law.

  6. The Stig says:

    SSD’s comments about LEOSA are far from ignorant. On the other hand if you think that qualifying once or twice annually makes you well trained. . .

    On top of that, I don’t recommend getting legal advice from cops.

    Most CCW holders I come across are well versed in the law (youtube is a testament to how many are better versed than LEOs – just watch some open carry videos), and spend more than one or two afternoons a year qualifying. I can’t say the same for all cops I’ve run across, and yet here we are giving them privileges that no one else gets. You can be a LEO and accept that it stinks. I’m the beneficiary of many government privileges that I don’t believe I should have or others in my group should have.

    • Mike says:

      Meeting minimal qualification standards does not make one a gunfighter. Here in CO you can get a CCW without firing a shot. Some training is better then none. In my observations most CCW permit holders rarely train or practice. Some CCW holders do train and practice and so do some retired LEOs.

      • The Stig says:

        Precisely my point. So then why is creating two classes acceptable? I’m not sure it’s really borne out in the notion that LEOs are better trained. Some are, some aren’t . Some should have never been allowed to touch a gun in the first place.

        • SSD says:

          I don’t care of it was LEO and non-LEO. The point isn’t the actual groups of people but rather that legislation created them. The only people who seem upset by my civil libertarian position seem to be the guys who benefitted from the law in question. I don’t begrudge cops for having their rights affirmed by legislation, I just don’t like the law that did it. Any law that creates classes of people should be questioned.

  7. Shadow says:

    AFOSI has been carrying concealed for decades. Although the meet the LEOSA criteria it was against USAF instructions to carry under LEOSA. I am not sure where you got your information from because there is no issue with their agency credentials either, the have them just like NCIS, FBI, etc. The Air Force is not afraid of guns they just want their people to go through the proper training, i.e. FLETC. To my knowledge the USAF is not letting more people carry concealed they are simply meeting the same standard of all the other Military Criminal Investigating Officers.

    • SSD says:

      I am having a hard time relating what you wrote to the article at hand. It’s vaguely tied to it and yet, it’s off on a tangent. Maybe you can clarify?

  8. Mike says:

    “Since current and retired LEOs may concealed carry virtually anywhere, they have effectively been removed from the pro-2A lobbying effort. Their concerns have been answered and there’s no reason for them to go to bat to help normalize concealed carry laws across the nation.”

    I take issue with the above quote. What is your assumption based upon? As a retied LEO I am fully engaged in protecting the 2nd Amendment both with my time and donations to worthy organizations. A majority of retired LEOs that I know are also engaged in pro 2A causes. You are certainly entitled to your opinion but you are off the mark on this.

    • SSD says:

      I would fully expect SSD readers to fully support the 2A. But can you say the same of every LEO you know? You and I both know you can’t.

      I don’t expect military or Law Enforcement personnel to support Second Amendment rights just because they wear a uniform or carry a gun on duty.

      And, I don’t support special laws that divide gun owners. Divide and conquer remains a valid strategy. I’m not anti-LE, I’m pro-2A.

      • Mike says:

        Have you ever seen the Police One surgery on LEO opinions concerning 2A laws?

        “But can you say the same of every LEO you know? You and I both know you can’t”

        Nothing is absolute. The 2A has more rank and file support of LEOs then you may believe.

        • Chris K. says:

          Agreed, the majority of LEOs I worked with are supporters of 2A.

          • Bman says:

            Same here… We all want to go to more calls where the victim says he tried to rob me so I blasted him instead of the other way around.

        • SSD says:

          I’ll ask who is speaking for these guys? A poll no one has heard of except the folks who participated is nice, but if there isn’t an advocacy group using the data to influence policy and legislation then it has no effect. And that’s a shame.

          • Cereal says:

            SSD, maybe some clarification would help. Per my department’s policy (which has gone through judicial review at the appellate level) (and for large agencies this policy is not uncommon) I am not allowed to say, ‘Hi, my name is cereal. I work for the Acme police department. I believe in and support the 2A.

            I can be terminated for that. Just speaking my beliefs about a part of the US Bill of Rights….What were you mentioning about different groups having different rights?

            I love the Orwell quote. The op didn’t realize the humor at the time. You ‘pigs’ are more equal than us “pigs” when it comes to the 1A. :)

            Ok serious
            Does a biannual qual constitute training? No. I’m a full time trainer at my agency, I known for our state and all that I am aware of (idk all 50 state’s standards) there is a very large component of decision making based training, as well as applicable state criminal and federal criminal law, state and fed civil law, departmental policy on UoF, evidentiary issues, etc. It isn’t just about shooting.

            As an example, at my employer potential officers will receive the following (~)hours of training at the basic level that is pertinent to this topic:
            Firearms training: 70hrs
            UoF training (applicable law/policy/legal trends) 26hrs
            Scenario/reality based training (FOF environment trains, then tests decision making, physical/hands on skills and officer tactics etc) 90-100hrs. (Important note: this does not account for the initial time to learn the skill. This is only the time were they are applying it while another human is attempting to stop them/hurt them in a force on force environment.)
            I’d be a liar if I said I knew the hours for crim and con law, but it’s north of 80hrs. Closer to 100.

            Could a non cop take this much training? Sure. But from whom/where? What are they learning?

            An extreme example; Tommy’s upstairs tactical combat training classes are ran every weekend. But who is tommy? Where did his POI come from? What verifiable training does he have to conduct this training? Has tommy ever testified in front of a grand jury in defense of one of his students that was forced to kill some one? Does tommy even have a lesson plan to show the gj what was taught?

            Now contrast that to the cop side, all of that training is being conducted by a state certified instructor, in a state sanctioned academy, with approved POI’s all of which has to stand a yearly audit preformed by the state’s governing body for police training.

            Next thought.
            Do people get into my agency that I think shouldn’t? Yes. Do people graduate from our shop that I wish didn’t? Yes, “C’s” get degrees. Are there officers working that have no business being a cop? Yep. Are there crap academies? Sure. Are there garbage PO-lice instructors? They abound.

            It’s the 10% rule. Ten percent of any group has no business being there; cops, firefighters, preachers, teachers, architects, ccw holders whatever. I’ve been told the same occurs at the highest echelons of SMU’s. I think it’s just life.

            Next thought
            I believe every state has a governing body for police training. The training isn’t exactly the same across the country, but it has to be close (based on USSC cases). The hours will be different, some terms might be different. Some academies are 4-5 months, some are 9 months long. Generally speaking, they are closer together than further away.

            How’s that for ccw issued state to state? What do you have to complete in PA to get a permit? How about NC? I’m asking.

            What happens when a state doesn’t have a ccw provision? Now I disagree with that as much as you do, but most of us are for a smaller central government, right? What would we say when the federal government steps in, institutes something we didn’t have and we didn’t want and forces us to recognize it and abide by it? We usually don’t like it. Just because it pertains to something we like doesn’t mean the way they do it is ok.

            But cops already carry. There isn’t a huge, noticeable change for the sheep.

            If you actually want to understand how cc started with cops, the above is why. Is it perfect? Nope. Are there SSD readers that would do much better than an average cop? I’m sure. But how do you differentiate? What mechanism identifies the wheat from the shaft? And once you figure that out good luck convincing the house and the senate on your theory. You can choose to be butt hurt if you’d like. Or we can be realistic. Cops are the first, easier sale.

            Overly simple allegorical time. You need a smoke detector in your home to save your family from burning to death in a fire. The salesman tells you have two options. The first isn’t awesome, but the majority of the time it works ok. The second option is dicey. It is either super awesome, always works perfectly or it might not work at all. Downside to the second option is there’s no way to know if it’s good or not until it’s actually used in a fire. Which would you choose?

    • Bob says:

      Ive seen enough cops to know like most civil servants you have good ones and bad ones. The fact is the majority cant shoot worth a darn. They only shoot when they qualify . Once a year… get real. Its an entitled class. Get over your selves. Its been proven time and time again that Police Officers often times dont have command knowledge of the laws. BAD IDEA! You where a cop, here’s your Doughnut and cup of coffee now go sit in the corner and find something useful to due. Apply for Concealed Carry and show proof of a CC class completion like the rest of us.

  9. Tank says:

    The Stig: Biannual training is just a requirement from the institution, do you really think that the overwhelming majority don’t shoot on their own time and take private training courses ? I forgot because I am required to shoot twice a year to stay qualified that is the only time I shoot, get real, and know what you’re talking about. And besides I guess the 8 years in Army Special Operations, the three years as a private contractor, and now as a Federal Law Enforcement Officer doesn’t mean that I am well trained. I guess the average citizen with a CCW has all that training too right ? I suppose you are one of those people who watches a few Youtube videos of ill informed police officers from some small town and take that as gospel that all law enforcement officers are ignorant. You look at us with distrust and think we are all power hungry fat boys with guns. Do you also watch CNN or Fox News to get all you facts ? As I said in the previous comment I was a civilian too with just a concealed carry permit, except I was aware of my training and limits and was glad that there were law enforcement officers out there more versed than I. Just because you have a pistol and an AR and you go to the range and shoot every week doesn’t make you an expert either, no matter how many Youtube videos you watch with “cool tactical experts.” These privileges aren’t given The Stig, they are earned, earned through expert world class training, and in most cases time spent in military service. Don’t make it sound like I went to some 8 hour course and bam now I am LEOSA qualified. I EARNED it, and have demonstrated the knowledge, composure, and skill to maintain it.

    • SSD says:

      No, I do not believe the majority of LEOs shoot on their own time nor attend private training courses. How do I know? Take a look at the training industry. As big as it is, it would be bigger if every one of America’s 1,000,000+ sworn officers was taking multiple courses per year. You’d be looking at a minimum of $1 Billion per year.

      I’m not saying you haven’t worked hard as an individual, but as a community, Law Enforcement has some work cut out for it. Unfortunately, most cops are horribly underpaid, resourced, equipped and trained. There are almost 20,000 law enforcement agencies in America, employing those million cops. The vast majority are tiny. They need better resourcing. Cops deserve better pay commensurate with the risk and responsibility we give them.

      However, you might be the bestest tier one shooter in the world who goes to the range daily and is now a federal agent, that still doesn’t explain why you deserve to be allowed to concealed carry in every state while the next bestest tier one shooter who didn’t become an agent doesn’t deserve the same treatment.

      • Tank says:

        @ SSD: Again with the generalizations, we are not all “cops.” You seem to be basing all your facts and theories on police officers. Not all Federal Law Enforcement Officers are cops. Beside that point, you are arguing that law enforcement has its work cut out as a community, but not civilians ? I live in PA where anyone with $25 can go to the courthouse and purchase a CCW. No training, not even proof they know how to use a firearm. So how is that community any better off than LEO’s ? In North Carolina where I first obtained a CCW I was at least required to take a course and prove that I had the ability to shoot. I wish all states were like that. So the person who just purchased their first firearm and never even shot it should have the same privileges to carry as a sworn law enforcement officer should ? You do understand the purpose behind LEOSA was to give qualified, reliable, proven individuals the ability to carry anywhere in the country because they are statistically more likely to properly engage a threat without collateral damage. I don’t think that same trust can be placed on everyone in the country who carries a firearm. Its not like I can go down to Washington D.C. all willy nilly with a drop leg holster and a glock and stroll into whatever establishment I want. LEOSA still follows the rules that average civilians do, just with more reciprocity. Nothing is stopping you from getting permits that are recognized in other states. That is why most LEO’s still get a CCW in their state. Stop making it sound like we are entitled and have so much more power than the average man. Or better yet don’t put your personal feelings in a post about the Air Force and LEOSA, try sticking to just the facts.

        • SSD says:

          The reason we are talking about how well cops are trained is because you guys brought it up.

          As for the Law Enforcement profession, you are going to have to come to terms with the reality that the vast majority are cops and not special agents. Most of them are from small agencies. Those are your peer group.

          As for your position on civilian firearms use and concealed carry. Perhaps you should retread what you wrote. You’re doing a fine job of making my point that LEOSA creates a divided gun community. I’m basically getting a lot of “untrained, dangerous civilians” from your comment.

          • Tank says:

            “Untrained, dangerous civilians,” those are your words, not mine. Do you disagree that everyone should have valid proper training that decides to carry. Whether they be civilian or police. I am not saying every cop or LEO is a great shot, we’ve seen proof of that before. Nor the civilian. The only reason there is a divided gun community is because you feel slighted that I, under LEOSA, have more reciprocity than you. I don’t see myself as upper class, or look down upon the lowly civilian with a CCW (That was sarcasm) On the contrary, I wish everyone carried, and did so responsibly and was well trained. If there was an active shooter situation, I would like to know a small group could assemble and neutralize the threat before loved ones and innocent bystanders were killed. So, how is that a divided gun community. If I were to use my weapon its not like I have giant flashy vest that says LEOSA on it and take command of the situation. Why do you feel it is divided ? I am not against you carrying, but you seem to be against me, so who is doing the dividing ?

            • Steve says:

              Bingo! Ssd this is how the majority of Leos think.

            • SSD says:

              I’m not against you carrying. You seem to have this odd chip on your shoulder. I’m against legislation that only applies to one segment of society, creating a privileged class where none need exist. I’ve said this repeatedly which leads me to believe that you either have a hard time reading or a compulsion to make everything a confrontation with you as the victim.

              Please don’t start in on the scenarios of why LEOSA is valid. Anyone could play devil’s advocate and easily counter any of the arguments made in favor of the legislation. It’s already law, you don’t need to try to convince us. That’s not the issue. The issue is that the law has been expanded and more, military shooters will be covered.

              Now, I want to know what you are going to do personally, aside from coming on SSD and tell us how outraged you are, to help the rest of America’s shooters have exactly the same opportunities as you do to carry concealed, without licensing requirements. Action, that’s what matters.

        • Stefan S. says:

          Tank, The same LEO’s that in NYC take 60 rounds to hit a perp? Or, 2013/ 09/ 15/ cops-accidentally-shoot-two-bystanders-while-trying-to-subdue-man. sorry not buying it.

      • Bman says:

        I think you should the read the idea behind the law itself. As I recall it is two fold. To increase the amount of cops with guns in a terrorist event (this back in 04 and thought of earlier) and secondly, cops have enemies and receive death threats on a regular basis where the average citizen does not recieve the same amount odf legitimate death threats. Given the “new” ways of dealing with active Shooters, do you want to take the firearms away from off duty LEOs? Who is the most likely to intervene in an active shooter incident? A cop who has been trained to anf has the piece of mind his badge should prevent him from being confused with the bad guy or a civillian who may or most likely would not have been trained to address an active shooter and does not have the piece of mind of being identified as a good guy? its more practical than you make it seem.

        • SSD says:

          I’m not against having more folks carrying. I’m just against creating privileged classes. This law did that. I’m glad some military personnel are going to get the opportunity to carry as well.

    • The Stig says:

      I neither know what the majority of LEO nor the majority of CCW holders do or don’t do in their free time. I’m unfortunately not omniscient.

      I do know that shooting a little doesn’t make LEO or CCW holders well trained. Yet that is what you were arguing. I was merely showing the fallacy of that.

      Regardless, some LEOs are well trained, perhaps like yourself, and others not so much. Some CCW were tier 1 SOF, and some just got a CCW license because they felt like it, but have never fired a gun. Yet we are treating the two very differently when perhaps they aren’t so different.

      I do know that regardless of the reasons for LEOSA, by creating two different classes you will breed resentment of law enforcement, and that is not a good thing. There’s already too much of that as it is.

      PS, I enjoyed your ad hominem attacks. Next time stick to just arguing the issue. I assure you, you know nothing about me, and your background doesn’t impress me. Composed individuals don’t resort to insults and feeble attempts to make themselves appear more important than they are.

      • Tank says:

        @ Stig, thanks for the big words and latin phrases, I’m just a stupid uneducated Fed so I had to Google the definitions. I am sorry I don’t impress you, I was really trying too. My background wasn’t to tout my abilities or to impress anyone, you don’t know me, so why would you be impressed. I am painting a picture of the level of training of some law enforcement. I know some LEO’s are fat slobs who eat donuts and never go to the range and when they do, disgrace their unit. I am not afraid to say who I was to hopefully help others understand their are some out there who care, and have been on both sides of the argument. I was a civilian before I was military, military before FLEO. Even when I was a civilian I didn’t wish I had more authority or get mad when others had what I didn’t. I think others said it best when they commented that LEOSA should be looked at as a stepping stone for all citizens. I would love if everyone had universal carry privileges, not just me.

        So I am sorry that all you got out of my comments was that I was trying to come off as a hardcore badass and insult people. I’m wasn’t. I am not the greatest shot, the best trained, the most knowledgeable about CCW or 2nd Amendment. I have to say that I was unaware of the level of loathing and disdain for law enforcement and the authority they are given. In my mind it is better for some to have more authority than none at all. I don’t care if that is me, you, or any other agency. If they came out with a law allowing a certain group to carry full auto SBR’s anywhere they chose, I would say hell yea and support it. I wouldn’t say, “hey why am I not part of that group, that’s not fair.” There is always someone or some group with more privileges and leeway, that’s society, it will never change. So the whole “he has it and I don’t, that’s not fair” argument will never change.

        Other than that the rest of your comment is spot on.

  10. Bussaca says:

    SSD, question, is it the Airforce whom is slow to act or the entire military on this LEOSA.. I’m a 12 year MP.. and the ARMY has NO idea how to administer this LEOSA, and if they do, they are being very tight lipped about it..

    Are the Marines running around with a Fully administered LEOSA?
    How bout the navy.. anybody get thier NAVY consealed credentials yet?

    As far as being scared of thier firearms.. I would say the whole military does not inharently trust its soldgiers to have weapons.. They talk a big game about “train as you fight”… just make sure the pistol is on the stand and your rifle is in the V-notched stake..

    Reload from a pouch.. thats WAY too high for the risk assesment.. Draw from the holster on your pistol qualification.. you are insane.. transition from your rifle to your pistol.. get off my range…

    Troops do not shoot to survive, they BARELY/RARELY train as they fight (weapons training).. they train to qualify… and then when they get into country, they drag them off to some sand dune in the middle of no-where, give them 4 magazines, and tell them to flip it to burst… constatuteing the bulk of thier COMBAT firearms training… Maybe not the experiance had by all the Seal Team 6 members on this web page.. but most regular joes..

    • SSD says:

      I really don’t know the status of the other services implementation of services. I do know the status of the Air Force because I retired from that service and I have several friends who keep me apprised of what’s going on.

      I agree with your assessment of BRM and appreciate your forthrightness.

    • Michael Pugh says:

      From an article I read earlier today, the Army is teaming up with the Air Force supposedly. and should be hiring a contract agency for credentialing within the next 60-90 days.

      No word on Navy yet

    • Agentofwrath says:

      I have 20+ years of fed LEO experience. And our firearms “training” is a joke. We “qualify” with our handgun. rifle and shotgun twice a year. And it’s all about safety and stand in one place and shoot your alloted rounds in the alloted time. Don’t even think of moving and shooting or loading your magazines to capacity.
      I will tell you that carrying a firearm and using it presents a huge liability to the FLEO. Beacuse when and if you do make the decision to pull the trigger you better be 100% within policy. From personal experience you will be treated like a criminal and it is assumed you have done something wrong. Your shooting will be reviewed by USDOJ Civil Rights Division for potential wrongdoing. You will be looked at by your local jurisidiction for wrongdoing as well. Not a very heart warming experience for just having put your ass on the line.
      Based on my experience, most cops aren’t shooters and don’t shoot apart from mandated qualifications, sad but true. It’s a rare bird that pays his own way to a shooting class and buys ammo to shoot on his own.

      • Comprehension says:

        Thank you for your honesty and contribution. Stay safe and brightest blessings.

      • Bman says:

        I think you may have a tainted perspective being at the federal level. My experience is the opposite. I personally know a good number of big city and rural cops and I would say the majority are “shooters” and enjoy it. The biggest factor is whether their agency provides them ammunition or a range where they can actually train. I will not go back to another local range where I cant shoot “rapid fire”, from the hip, or fire quickly after reloading. Don’t get me started on doing malfunctions, cover, from the supine, back or seated positions. The majority of federal leos I know went federal because they didn’t like the constant business of being a state or local cop and wanted something slower and are there for the benefits not the action. Many federal LEOs are already retired from an agency or the military so go figure. They are just working on another retirement. I have even met some DEA guys that acted like they were retired on duty which was very surprising. I also do not know why you would feel like a criminal if you shoot someone because you work for a federal agency. If you recall, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement refused to investigate the FBI shooting of the guy connected to the Boston bombers in Orlando despite having authority to do so. They felt it was sufficient having them investigate themselves. I could only see that in states that are really big on being anti-federal government.

  11. Bill says:

    Carrying 24/7/365 as a cop isn’t a “privilege,” it’s a responsibility. The same argument about many if not most cops not being shooters won’t get any argument from me, there’s nothing I dread more than doing in service quals with guys and girls who couldn’t care less and refuse to be motivated. But I’ll wager the same argument translates to Big Fed and all branches of the military: what percentage of them focus, really focus, on gunfighting? I’m not going to point out agencies or specialities, but for every cop, fed or mil member who can shoot somebody in the left eye socket in under a half second, there are thousands of others who either don’t care, won’t realistically find themselves in that position, or whose job requires reloading a copy machine and not a pistol.

    In 3 hours I can be in 5 different states. HR218 enabled me to provide one more armed good guy to 10% of the nation. I’d love for every responsible adult to carry with training and think the AR is the Kentucky Long Rifle of the last generation plus. But I’m not a member of a preferred class, LE supervision being what it is today, I can’t even talk my way out of a ticket.

    • SSD says:

      Nobody can talk their way out of a ticket anymore, so don’t feel bad.

    • Comprehension says:

      @Bill…carrying a firearm, either CCW or open carry, is a responsibility regardless of whether one is an individual or an individual with a badge. Anytime one is in a capacity to preserve another life or take a life defending their own…responsibility is a must. Not saying this is always the case in today’s society, but my point remains…it is a responsibility whether one chooses to assume it or not.

  12. Comprehension says:

    In relation to Federal Law Enforcement Officers…many have seen the classroom video of a ATF agent telling the classroom of elementary kids he was the only one professional enough to handle a firearm. Right before putting a round through his foot. I can name you a few acronyms with “Federal Law Enforcement Officers” within their soup that do not actively shoot and train. Your argument touting the superiority of not being just “a cop” is flatter than stale beer.

    Law Enforcement in general…gone are the days of respectable public servant. Wake up and realize you are merely civilians who serve the People. Serve being the key word. You are not special and as more of your peers exhibit retarded behavior with their arms, more people are realizing this and discarding said foil hat.

    In regards to the “reading the idea behind the law…”, ummm SSD, I may derail this like a Sir. Apparently some have lost the concept of the 2nd as a whole and to hell with the CCW, and those who put a distinction on some sacred blessing it bestows. Horseshit. Unless one has a complete comprehension of the 2nd Amendment, word for word, one should not call themselves pro-2A without exerting that Right in its entirety. This is to include the “idea behind…” the Right. SSD did say it like a Sir…divide and conquer remains a valid strategy.

    • Tank says:

      @ Comprehension, are we going to go back and forth all day with, “I saw this video on Youtube.” “Yeah well I saw this video on another site.” Another well educated individual judging an entire community based on social media, good job at being informed. And please don’t hurt my feelings with a witty acronym that you thought off, you must be the first person to use an acronym to make fun of someone. Mature and original. I am sure there are no videos out there of civilians doing stupid shit at the range or shooting themselves. And as far as being “not just a cop,” as you put it, you rephrased my original comment, “just” implies than I am somehow better than a regular street patrolman, that I as a Federal LEO am better trained, and more entitled to carry under LEOSA. And put another tick down for a user with a broad generalization, “gone are the days of respectable public servants.” Really ? so you are displeased with the cop who gave you a ticket, or you saw another video on Youtube, or judging by your clear inability to reference valid factual material online, you saw some slander hate video on police and the government and how they are all out to get your guns. We all are behind our desks eating eclairs plotting out next demise of the 2nd amendment which I only skimmed through when reading. What are you basing your facts on that we civil servants are not respectable ? What do you do that makes you so much more so ? Everyone in defense of SSD’s comments makes it appear that average civilians are so much more respectable, better trained, and well equipped to deal with situations than LEO’s. You are pointing out flaws with the LEO community but not the flaws of the civilian populace that chooses to carry. I don’t deny that everyone is not some Seal Team 6 member just because they are FLEO, but either are you. You are quick to point out problems, but not solutions. If the system is so flawed, what do you propose should be done ? And finally, “Divide and Conquer,” would only work if people like you turn against the supposed upper class of LEO’s that fall under LEOSA. Not vice versa. LEO’s are not turning against you, so you in fact would be the downfall of pro 2A and would facilitate the conquering. Well played Sir.

      • Comprehension says:

        Ummm…no, I am not pissed any munchkin for a ticket. Your assumption is humorous and typical of the profiling used to wrongly engage individuals. The video, shown well outside of social media and used for safety training, is relevant…regardless of how you deny it or justify it bruising the eye. As for acronyms…I served in this government and know the flavor of soups.

        Everyone’s defense of the article may stem from the reality that one is more likely to be shot and killed by a law enforcement officer than a terrorist…yet bar codes, color codes and duct tape is supposed to make us safe from terrorist. What makes one safe from a civilian who didn’t get a handy or blowjob last night? And for the record, without audio and video we would not be aware of these civil violations on the People and misuse of weapons on the population until they happen to us. Albq, NM to name one…many other examples as well.

        As for my opinion of law enforcement…it is founded and substantiated. I grew up in California with a respect for peace officers…even the feared LAPD had more than a handful of quality officers who exhibited the word professional. Just like a LEOs life is not worth more than mine, my children’s and my wife’s…a LEO should not inherit previleges merely because they are a LEO in regards to firearms. Or any other matter. You have the Right to call me immature and call it how YOU see it…but I do too. And for one to voluntarily associate themselves with a general term like Law Enforcement and expect respect in today’s climate and general opinion of law enforcement…is beyond funny. I find it retarded. You want to be the exception, than be it. But it sure will not happen sitting on a blog site for soldiers who serve, and have served, touting how much more professional with firearms you are over the general population of this site. Which is exactly what you are doing. Because many veterans, especially enlisted, do not find the need for a. CCW or for qualifying under some assoc that does not truly support the Constitution. And as for an armed society…well, it would be a polite society.

        • Tank says:

          I am not sure you’re full grasping my responses. I am not profiling groups or communities, just you. You made the comment about not respecting today’s LEO’s. I am profiling just you as someone who doesn’t trust or respect law enforcement. I believe most gun owners and CCW carriers are more respectful and well spoken. On the subject of respect, I don’t expect or demand it because of my position. I didn’t take my career to get perks or run around acting like a badass commanding respect. You draw comparisons out of left field about cops and terrorists. I’ll admit I haven’t looked up the statistics but I am pretty sure you are more likely to be killed by a civilian with a gun than a cop. Whether it be gang member, random shooting or domestic violence, I am sure those stats far out weight being shot by a LEO.

          This thread is on a soldier related website because it involves soldiers, former and current MP’s getting LEOSA qualified, etc.. Where else would you like to discuss soldier related issues ? I am a veteran of combat arms, and I feel the need for a CCW. You said, “Because many veterans, especially enlisted, do not find the need for a. CCW or for qualifying under some assoc that does not truly support the Constitution.” What is this based on. I was an enlisted soldier with multiple combat tours so why should I not want a CCW ?

          Nobody said anyone’s life was worth more than another. That is why you have the right to carry. That is why I support that right. Again I don’t think you understand what I am saying, by the “handy and blowjob” comment you made I would say you’re missing a lot. None of this comes from “sitting on a blog site,” it comes from a long career serving and fighting for everyone’s rights, supporting organizations that support civilians not just the privileged few. As I said before I support and want you to have firearms and the ability to carry, you might save my life or my childrens life. Why would I want that right taken away? But your disdain for an entire community divides the gun community as a whole. People like you are who the liberals will target and turn against the law enforcement community.

          • Bob says:

            Hey Tank, the Hot and Fresh light is on. You are not special. You deserve no special rights in regards to firearms outside the citizenry. Warren vs District of Columbia, comes to mind when I think of the “Special Protective Powers of Law Enforcement”. Your ship has sailed and the citizens of this country are not buying you guys as special in regards to firearms usage and ownership. Like I said above. Concealed Carry permit and all the same restrictions as the rest of us. Divide and Conquer is all this is about.

          • Comprehension says:

            @Tank…we will agree to disagree, that is kosher. I will point out a few things before walking away from this discussion.

            “I am not sure you’re full grasping my responses. I am not profiling groups or communities, just you. You made the comment about not respecting today’s LEO’s. I am profiling just you as someone who doesn’t trust or respect law enforcement. I believe most gun owners and CCW carriers are more respectful and well spoken. On the subject of respect, I don’t expect or demand it because of my position. I didn’t take my career to get perks or run around acting like a badass commanding respect. You draw comparisons out of left field about cops and terrorists. I’ll admit I haven’t looked up the statistics but I am pretty sure you are more likely to be killed by a civilian with a gun than a cop. Whether it be gang member, random shooting or domestic violence, I am sure those stats far out weight being shot by a LEO.”… I do not believe it is you who grasp my logic. You admit to profiling me as an individual, although I assure you I am not the only one who questions the jurisdiction of public servants. That is the point…I am questioning YOU. And as a constituient of “the People” in accordance with the Declaration of Independance and Constitution, I have the authority to question YOU. When you act in violation of the Constitution it is MY responsibility to question YOU, your dept, your supervisors and the very need of your existence in a position of trust and servitude. I question your comprehension of the term “profiling”, your use thereof and your logic in expressing as a professional law enforcement officer your content in profiling individuals…especially over a difference of opinions on a blog site. Furthermore, regardless of profiling YOU will be judged and criticized by association to your profession…by how unprofessional your coveted fraternity of blue is as a whole. One stain can make a dress look like horseshit, the more stains the shittier YOU look. No different than serving in the military, you are a reflection thereof. I do not draw my comparison from anything other than what it is…facts. I never mentioned civilians, gangbangers or other lowlife scum incapable of comprehending the Constitution and what it entails. Mainly because I can assure you I do not feel threatened by individuals, regardless of social status or Tard Card color. I do however, question a standing army who accepts orders blindly and have shown in EVERY state to be a threat to liberty and freedom.

            Your second paragraph is in relation to my own personal experience serving in the Army and observation thereafter…nothing more and nothing less. Why is it E4 and below pop chub anytime they get to qual and fingerfuck a weapon? There is a difference with NCOs from my experience and opinion, however.

            Paragraph tres…the retarded law placing an emphasis on criminal enhancement charges for those convicted for taking the life of a law enforcement officer assuring they will die either with life in prison or the death penalty. Enhancements lost to the families of individual Americans assuring many convicted murderers are released back into society. Want proof supporting that fact? The blowjob and handy comment relates to the false sense of authority and jurisdiction imposed on the People and how it can relate to an officer’s actions when initiating a contact and dealing with personal issues.

            In closing, Tank…if you are that rare sumbich who is not above questioning your peers, criticizing their actions both positive and negative, acting in accordance with your oath to serve the People and uphold the Constitution as the ultimate law with a comprehension of jurisdiction and what it allows you…you are in a class I hold a high opinion of and am proud to have serving my fellow countrymen. There are not many in that class anymore. With respect…

    • Eric B says:

      Sorry Bro, ashamed to admit it but,…that dickhead was DEA Miami. So much shame. Sigh.

  13. Reverend says:

    Simply put… if you carry a weapon for something other than target shooting. Get trained. If you think your department has trained you properly, get a clue. And if you think that civillians haven’t trained as well as some of the people who are regular LEO’s, you haven’t shot competition against them.

    No offense, but after shooting against some of the LEO’s in the area in “action matches”, and IDPA… I felt safer with the Boy Scouts when it comes to firearms handling.

  14. Ex11A says:

    Non-military law enforcement officers are civilians. I do not care what some jacked up online dictionary says. When you can take off your badge and walk off the job without going to jail or risking being shot, you are a civilian.

    • Stefan S. says:

      Roger that! They think that the free MRAPS and body armor and kit that they are our equals.

      • Bman says:

        Rather arrogant of you. Perhaps all the SSD readers should leave their humility behind and strive to attain your greatness.

      • Bill says:

        Equals? The only reason we have an MRAP is that otherwise it would be hauling raw opium for some Afghan warlord. If we could trade it for 2 used F250s we’d be a lot better off.

    • Bman says:

      In many cases, you cant just walk off the job without facing charges and more cases, losing your ability to ever be the police again no matter what training and experience you have. In every case, your on duty 24/7 according to the SCOTUS and cant turn a blind eye to violent crimes without being sued and prosecuted. In every case you represent the government and the law. I am sure you will see many definitions of what a civilian is. I believe the CIA classifies as civilian, military, and para-military (includes LE) which just goes to show its kind of irrelevant to the point of the argument.

      • Ex11A says:

        And what agency would that be? Every agency I have worked with (and yes, I work in law enforcement), once an officer or agent leaves, they just become another witness subject to a suboena. What agency charges you when you criminally when you quit? The CIA is a civilian agency with a para-military division, SAD. Check their website if you don’t think they are a civilian agency. Their SAD is definately not LE. Their LE guys are in the OIG, like almost all federal agencies have. My comment is relevent because too many people on here are referring to LEO as something other than civilians. Sorry, Bman, but LEOs are civilians in the US. And that’s how we like it (re: Posse Comitatus restrictions). That is why we don’t have a caribinieri or gendarmerie or other national police force.

  15. Chris K. says:

    Everyone’s too focused on just guns/shooting with their arguments. Here’s the bottom line: LEOs are trained and sworn to enforce the law. Whether you think you can out shoot some one at a public range doesn’t matter, that’s like saying your better than some SOF soldier because you shot better at paper targets under comfortable conditions. LEOs are trained to carry a firearm on duty and usually off duty as well. They are trained to use it under extreme circumstances with follow on training during the year. Just because they may only qualify twice a year doesn’t mean they are not doing other important training on deadly force scenarios. Yeah the training varies, but they are held to a standard and just as important they are trained to enforce the law in a lawful manner. Even if you’re a former Tier 1 cool guy you are not trained or sworn to enforce the law. Enforcing the law for a living day in and day out sure as anything makes you better trained and experienced than the average citizen on the use of deadly force and ALL of it’s facets.

    • Steve says:

      Bingo again.

    • Matty says:

      So that’s why they don’t need to shoot 90 times to kill one person. Or shoot up a truck full of asian women delivering newspapers. Or hitting innocent bystanders. Damn I feel safer already that these guys get annual training.

    • Steve (the other one) says:

      And there are a slew of lawyers, law professors, judges and other legal professionals out there who’s understanding and exercise of the law far exceed that of your average LEO. Should they be allowed universal CC and the LEOs be denied based on their extensive knowledge? Being a self-proclaimed “expert” in the legal implications of the use of deadly force should not hold priority over one’s right to self-defense, nor one’s Constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and BEAR arms.

      • Steve1622 says:

        Guys lets use this as a stepping stone for the future. Why are you mad us, leos? Bad stuff happens all of the time. Officers are put in very stressful situations where they have a split second to make a decision. Sometimes it goes wrong. You hardly hear when it goes right. Its not a right its a responsibility. I am on duty every time i walk out of my front door home. Even if i dont want to be. I carry a gun everywhare I go, because i couldnt live with the thought of not being able to stop something when i have the ability to. As it stands now if you ahve a ccw permit you can almost go to any other state that also has a ccw law anyway. The only ones that i know of are blue states. That is the fault of that states law makers. The leo law is a step in the right direction. Be mad at blue states not blue line brothers and sisters. Btw my department has 2 ccw classes a year. The cost goes towards funding our pistol team.

        • SSD says:

          Wow…there is so much wrong here I’m going to create a special hall of infamy page just for this comment. However, good on you guys for holding CCW classes. It’s just that you probably need to actually attend one of them.

      • Chris K. says:

        You missed the point. Lawyers and Judges are not trained to use deadly force. And being certified and sworn to enforce the law sure as shit ain’t self-proclaimed.

  16. Bill says:

    With all this talk of bad police shootings and blue on blue shootings, no mention of military fratricide? How many rounds are expended by .mil per EKIA?

    Be careful with what arguments you make. Cops aren’t soldiers, and vice versa, the job descriptions have nothing in common, not even the rules regarding the use of force.

    • SSD says:

      Dude, you really don’t want to go there. Take a knee and a deep breath.

      • Bill says:

        The knife cuts both ways. We’re big boys and girls, the facts are what the facts are, and to get to the facts you have to “go there.” If either profession starts thinking that they are perfect, that’s when the real problems begin. When people start pitching bad police shootings, and there have been too many, they’d better be certain that their own house is in order in the same regards.

        And don’t forget the demographics and rules under which LEOs are hired. With a decreasing crime rate and a lowered hiring rate, a retirement bubble of baby boomer cops and the number of vets entering the workforce, not even including the cops who were prior military before 9/11, there are any number of agencies that are essentially only hiring vets, so local and fed agencies are starting to look like they did after WW2. If this conversation was taking place at shift change at the office, there’d be a lot of vets from all branches, and Guard and Reservists, with a whole lot of tours, who’d have opinions to share. And those are the 20 somethings and thirty year olds, not the old guys like me, the exact reverse of when I came on.

        • SSD says:

          So you’re saying that there is more military fratricide than police on police or police on bystander shootings? I’m really going to need to see some statistics from a reputable source for this.

          That isn’t even addressing your intimation that our military is supporting the opium trade in a Afghanistan.

          • Bill says:

            Nowhere did I say that there was more .mil fratricide than LE – Its a problem for both professions. But we have pots calling kettles black, and that dog don’t hunt.

            Nowhere did I say that the military is supporting the opium trade. Do you actually think that if we leave all those essentially impracticable MRAPS in Afghanistan they aren’t going to wind up in tribal hands after we leave? So they’ll bake in Arizona, or wind up at PDs, like the Nam-era M16s we get, where they’ll rot in the county garage lot or get wedged into a street corner they can’t negotiate.

            • SSD says:

              Why did you bring up military fratricide? It has zero to do with this situation. The law does not give LEOSA privileges to all military personnel. I’m not getting the connection.

              Additionally, MRAPs are operated by US military personnel. So if you’re suggesting they are used in the opium trade that would mean that the US military is participating in the trafficking of narcotics.

              • Bill says:

                Military fratricide is relevant when instances of police fratricide or the wrongful shooting of citizens by police is introduced. Failure of target identification and isolation is not limited to the cops. The military application of small arms may not translate to domestic LE or defensive shooting.

                The surplus MRAPS were introduced by someone claiming that they made we police “equal” with the military. The fact of the matter is that many of us don’t want surplus MRAPS as they are essentially useless for domestic LE work, nor do we have the infrastructure to support Chevy Impalas, let alone those. But the DOD won’t leave one functional one behind after all US forces are withdrawn, as they know full well that they won’t wind up in peacekeeping. They WILL be used in tribal conflict, which is invariably driven by the opium trade, if they are left behind.

                You are letting your emotions cloud your analysis.

                • SSD says:

                  No, you are attempting moral relativity as a deflection tool because your argument ain’t looking so hot.

  17. Ron says:

    Wtf…. Did I accidentally stumble on This anti LEO /cop bashing/hostility is the last thing I expected from this site. I have noticed though that some of “SSD’s” comments lately have been a little more confrontational and hostile than I remember in the past. Not sure what’s up with that.

    Why can’t this be seen as a small victory in the bigger fight? This “all or nothing, no compromise” approach isn’t working guys. Doing things a little at a time isn’t giving in to the anti gun people, it’s waging the battle in an intelligent maner. Bottom line is we all apparently have something in common, because we come to this site. Instead of nitpicking and attacking each other, let’s use each other, as well as each other’s victories to our benefit.

    Too many people are willing to jump on the anti cop bandwagon based on a faulty assumtion that rank and file police officers don’t support their gun rights. The lobbying organizations do not speak for the officers. They speak for the agencies and administrations. While there are certainly anti gun cops, all the objective surveys I’ve seen have showed them to be in the minority. Keep in mind also, the people who walk around open carrying with the intention of provoking and filming a public or law enforcement response aren’t exactly pro police and most likely aren’t going to post any of the positive interactions they have in YouTube. But when they have a less than favorable encounter rest assured it will be posted. But again, let’s stop the pissing contest and work together. Us turning on each other makes them happy.

    • SSD says:

      I used to delete anti-LEO comments but when I post that I don’t support legislation that divides the electorate and then get labeled as anti-LEO I figure it’s time that you guys see how frustrated people actually are with the law enforcement profession. And right now, I’m pretty frustrated with the childish behavior I am seeing from the guys coming on here claiming to be sworn officers. I’m seeing a lot of pompous, holier-than-thou attitudes and a complete lack of understanding of the predicament you’ve created for yourselves. This post wasn’t about hating cops but you’re so wrapped up in your bullshit that you had to make it about you.

      This blue line, us vs them attitude is getting you nowhere and ultimately contributing to the fragmentation of our society. Not everyone is your enemy but when you treat them that way long enough, they eventually take the hint. I can tell you that the message is received, loud and clear.

      This is the reality of the world your profession has created. This doesn’t happen in a vacuum. The exact segment of the population who should be supporting the very concept of law enforcement is now turning their backs to it. Go read up on insurgencies. You’re losing the IO campaign.

      • Ron says:

        Uh… I’m pretty sure my post was about all of us working together towards a common goal, so I’m not quite sure where you get this “us vs. them” thing that you seem so worked up about. Unless of course you are basing your opinion of all law enforcement officers on the actions of some/ a few/ or whatever. You know what causes this divide you bring up? Cops being attacked and put down as a whole by people based on faulty assumptions and internet heresay. Being constantly told you don’t know how to shoot, are incompetent, want to disarm the word… No matter how much you try to explain that you have no interest in doing so, and that you just plain suck in general by people who have never even met you tends to cause cops to want to keep to themselves. It’s not that they don’t like anybody else. It just gets old hearing the same bullshit over and over. I was a strong supporter of 2A before I came a cop, and I’m still one now. Probably even more so.

        I think your statement about cops making it about them is disingenuous. You posted a story about gun legislation that relates to DOD/ military police. I think ANY pro gun legislation passing, or being expanded in scope is a good thing. But then you had to throw in your personal feelings about law enforcement and inequality as far as reciprocity for non LEO’s is concerned. You could have expressed many of the same points in a way that was much less disrespectful towards what turns out is a size able portion of your readership. We come to your blog. We like the stuff you put out. We’re your fans. We are overwhelmingly pro second amendment. Again, I have to ask how alienating people who are on your side helps the greater fight. Or are you so caught up in your personal feelings that you can’t put that aside? I’m not trying to be a smartass or argue with you. I really don’t understand what there is to gain by being a dick to people who share the same values as you.

        Regardless I’ll still come here everyday and read your page because of the content you provide, but I have to admit that the sense of belonging or whatever you want to call it dosen’t feel like it’s there anymore. It kinda sucks.

        • SSD says:

          No, several folks who claim to be LE commented about how upset they were that SSD was anti-LE because I don’t support divisive legislation. I said two negative things about LE in my story, Jack and shit but that didn’t stop them.

          They made it all about them. And, they’ve gotten plenty of attention for it. Now, this same crowd is upset because they’ve reached the epiphany that there are people who really don’t like cops and they’ve got reasons for it that they are more than willing to share.

  18. Comprehension says:

    “Uh… I’m pretty sure my post was about all of us working together towards a common goal, so I’m not quite sure where you get this “us vs. them” thing that you seem so worked up about. Unless of course you are basing your opinion of all law enforcement officers on the actions of some/ a few/ or whatever. You know what causes this divide you bring up? Cops being attacked and put down as a whole by people based on faulty assumptions and internet heresay. Being constantly told you don’t know how to shoot, are incompetent, want to disarm the word… No matter how much you try to explain that you have no interest in doing so, and that you just plain suck in general by people who have never even met you tends to cause cops to want to keep to themselves. It’s not that they don’t like anybody else. It just gets old hearing the same bullshit over and over.”
    The “us for them” may stem from previleges and laws to promote color thereof bestowed to LEO, the numerous accounts of civil Rights violations, LEO quotes asserting a difference between themselves and the public and the general consensus among LEO that everyone is either going to commit a crime, committing a crime and/or leaving the scene thereof. Blame DHS for instilling that last one. These are not assumptions…they are facts. With a whole lot of evidence to support this. Attacked? Actual attacks on LEO are rare…in comparison especially to attacks on the People by LEO. What you are is questioned. And like most humans…no one likes being questioned or called on their shit. Birds of a feather flock together…if you are LEO and LEOs are being unprofessional, you will look like shit too. You wanted the job…and you got everything that goes with it. Don’t like being questioned like your inept, advocate for better standards throughout LEA and fight to break the culture that has become endemic throughout this country.

    • Tank says:

      Therein lies the problem, the few of us that do speak up, advocate change, and go against the status quo get nowhere. The old heads of departments with old school mentality refuse to change and stay in their positions until they retire. We who care about ourselves, our training, and the reputations we try to uphold, get shit on. Thats why people take offense when their fellow gun owners and shooters look at us as a whole and don’t help speak up for change. I have often complained to higher ups that training was irrelevant, outdated, or just plain shit. I am trying to do my part, when is the last time anybody on here that is non LEO called a state rep. or congressman and asked why their local police weren’t better trained, or more informed. Social media and online video sites don’t create change they create distrust and contempt.

      I personally take every opportunity to train friends and family, support shooting programs, and advocate CCW, especially for women. I loan out guns, give out free ammo and targets, and provide areas for people to shoot. I build guns, recommend parts, advocate for class 3 and provide living trust paperwork for free, maintain membership and donate to pro gun organizations, support local and state police and more. I like to think I do my part to support everyone’s rights so yea, I get vocal and defend my position when people tell me I am an entitled piece of shit who doesn’t care about civilian rights.

      I am not a unique flower, their are plenty of others out there who do the same and more. I advocate as much as possible without being insubordinate to higher ups.

  19. Comprehension says:

    I have a lame horse needing shot…anyone got a stick to borrow so I can beat it a little afterwards? Actually a unicorn we named Democracy. Opted for Liberty or Freedom but they were already taken.

    A simple question for the LEO…how can one be supportive of the 2nd Amendment when they violate other Amendments like the Fourth, First, Sixth and every other Amendment protecting the Rights of the People – all in the name of doing your job and following orders? The very reason to include the Second Amendment in the BORights was so the People can defend themselves from those who would violate ANY of their Rights. Where is the logic in supporting a Right that cannot already be infringed, in place to protect the very Rights that LEO, as known record with facts to support, violate on a daily basis? Someone needs to have their soul buttfucked with a lesson on the Declaration of Independence and Constitution…we won’t do it on SSD. But the gist was already explained well above. Off to find that damn unicorn…

  20. SF LEO says:

    As a current LEO and AFSF member, I can see the argument made regarding supporting the act and the reasoning behind it. I swore to protect the Constitution above all twice and I feel that it is EVERYONE’S right to own and carry firearms concealed or not. There has been far too much “interpretation” when it comes to the second amendment.

    I will go to bat for those that are not LEO’s because the purpose of the Constitution, especially the second amendment, was to protect the people and to ensure that the Government remained in fear of the people, not the other way around.