Velocity Systems

Questions Asked on the USAF Security Forces LEOSA Facebook Page

uestions we receive on a weekly basis…
1. I’m Army MP XX number of years can I apply to the AF. -NO.
2. What is LEOSA? -Really?
3. How does this benefit me? -See previous response.
4. I’m Guard/Reserve/IMA/Retired can I apply. -If AF, yes if qual’d.
5. Why do we have to pay? -No public tax dollars.
6. My CHL/CCW is better and this is a scam. -FALSE
7. This violates Posse Comitatus. -FALSE
8. Can I arrest people 24/7 as a cop. -Absolutely NOT
9. If I can’t carry on base what’s the point? -Really?
10. I already have a state issued LEOSA card based on my AF status. -You are in violation of the law because you must have an ID card issued BY YOUR EMPLOYER, ie. the USAF
11. Can I carry a weapon onto a plane. -NO, read the law!
12. I’m a SNCO and don’t have training records, am I eligible. -Seriously?
13. LEOSA/CCW insurance is a scam. -FALSE, its been around for years.
14. Can I carry my USAF issued M9? -NO
15. Can I carry an Uzi? Technically possible, sigh.
16. I’m an officer, but not SF or an MP, and I can apprehend based on my rank and the UCMJ; how can I apply? -NOT ELIGIBLE
17. I’m a First Sergeant but was never SF am I eligible? -NO
18. I was Air Police, do I qualify? -Yes
19. I was Security Police do I qualify? -Yes
20. I was a Security Police Security troop before the careerfield merged, do I qualify? -Yes
21. Does this apply in Puerto Rico? -Yes

By the way, the Air Force appears to be way out in front of the other services in issuing credentials to their LE personnel in accordance with the Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act.

31 Responses to “Questions Asked on the USAF Security Forces LEOSA Facebook Page”

  1. Jeff S says:

    -Something else to remember-
    LEOSA doesn’t supersede or limit the laws of an State that:
    a. Permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or
    b. Prohibit or restrict possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.


    LEOSA doesn’t give you carte blanche concealed carry…

  2. Prescott says:

    Still, great perk to get. I know some SF guys that will be a huge asset to the general public if some idiot pulls a gun while they are there. Not all…. but some.

  3. PNW_Tree_Octopus says:

    How do these blockheads not take the time to do their own research? They can use FB but not Google? Or… God forbid, call or email someone.

  4. Nick says:

    Good on the AF for this. The Army’s MP Corps (and other branches for that matter) is still abmismally behind on instructing PMI properly, ballistics, or general gun handling.

    We did shoot the MPAQC and some other Federal LEO course of fire but only as a check the box for what may be coming because someone above them put it in the POI.

  5. LegalAdvisor(not yours) says:

    I am a private attorney who acts as a Legal Advisor to several mid-size PD’s, and to be fair to the USAF guys, LEOSA is not the easiest thing to understand, either from the federal perspective, or, from the local PD’s POV. The statutory language can use some cleaning up and clarification, but all in all, I think it is a good idea in pronciple and practice thus far.

  6. Jbgleason says:

    Heads up on the LEOSA statute. My reading of it says you are required to Qual at least once a year on the weapon system you are carrying and have proof on your person. I made a wallet card and had the Range Officer write my scores out and sign it. You would think there would be a standardized format but I couldn’t find one.

  7. Gene says:

    The biggest problem I see with this is a failure on the part of some to understand that this does not give arrest or apprehension authority to AF LEOSA. I am waiting for some knucklehead to bust out his wallet with his badge in it and try to make an arrest. The attempts from Officers and others not in the MP/SecFor career fields trying to ride the coattails of this imakes me roll my eyes.

    I think this is a long time coming, and is a good law, and I am glad the AF got this handled. Now if the rest can sort it out. Personally, I’d like to see it as an option for all.

  8. Case says:

    Can we please stop calling Air Force cops SF guys. Just say’n.

  9. j c says:

    Can we stop using SF. god forbid that is mistaken for a real mans job

  10. balais says:

    Its not SF.

    Its SECFOR.

    There already is a “SF”

    • SSD says:

      Where did that come from?

      • Chuck says:

        I work as a Civ for an SF unit and I’m in the Reserves for another SF unit 4 States away and I have NEVER heard any of the Airmen, NCO’s SNCO’s or Officers claim to be SECFOR. Heck I’m the Chapter Chair of the local AFSFA Chapter and I quick shot this around. It got a ton of laughs and a bunch of questions. I’m going to have to hit the guys up at Lackland to see if they are pushing this because it’s crazy. The base knows us as SF, but most Security Forces members know that if your talking to a non AF member you say Security Forces followed by…that’s the MP’s for the AF (if you don’t want the deer in the headlights look.) I LOVE Security Forces as you can see by my involvement in all things Security Forces related, but to try and make the short conversation version of the name SECFOR just seems like someone is trying wayyyyy to hard to be cool.

  11. defensor fortisimo says:

    Secfor? Seriously? That’s just as bad as douchey little tech schoolers calling us Secfo. Our career field already has a grade A identity crisis, we don’t need to reinvent the wheel. Just stick with the basics, like cop, or that asshole who wrote me a 1408

  12. Qball says:

    Everybody wants to be Five-O. Stop it!

  13. Defensor fortismo says:

    Not exactly, but if it’s a choice between that and sounding like a tool… Plus that’s what base pop calls us anyway.

  14. Some former AF Dude says:

    What I never understood is why they (AF cops) wear the same color beret as those Tacp guys?

    • SSD says:

      They don’t.

    • Defensor fortismo says:

      Security forces is navy blue, TACP is black. Also, the flash is different.

      • Chuck says:

        Ok, be real it’s not Navy Blue…it should be, but it’s black. I’m waiting for the SF Center to realize after all these years that just because they put in the reg that it’s blue, doesn’t make the one that is issued that color. I would have no problem spending the time reshaping and shaving the beret if they reissued no kidding navy blue ones. Anyway LEOSA is awesome. It used to “grind my gears” that a guy who went through a 3 week FLETC course for the BOP fell under LEOSA but we didn’t. Granted my BOP cred used to look like it was made in a basement… Hahaha.

  15. cj says:

    Wish this aspect of the LEOSA didnt even have to exist, national reciprocity for ccw for everyone normally eligible to carry anyway.

    insane that my drivers license works every day when i cross state lines but heaven forbid i cross that line in the sand with my glock, then i’m a felon.

    this should be (and imo is, just not legally protected as of now) a right for everyone, not just a select group of people.

    • SSD says:

      I agree completely.

    • Ed says:

      I am curious why this discussion is even taking place:

      “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” – The Constitution of the United States, 2nd Amendment.

      So, are we recognizing at all here that the government trusts some people, but not others, and chooses to violate their civil rights?

      Compare the one sentence quoted above with the following, HR 218/Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act:

    • Ed says:

      Let us look at a much earlier explanation of why the LEOSA as a recognition of the restriction of rights for all but for all but an exceptional few is an abomination:

      “”Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive. ” (Noah Webster, “An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution,” 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56 [New York, 1888])”

      So, you all took an oath to support and defend the Constitution, did you not?