I have also been talking to legislators about LEOSA QRLEO ID because many states have state law requiring the ID to be issued where Iowa does not, so there is significant inconsistency between departments and some simply refuse to issue their retired officers the ID. This issue effects retired law enforcement and former officers with 10 + years service. There are related issues that could also be fixed within one bill. Nobody questions that On Duty police can carry armed withing a No Carry Zone, or carry high capacity magazines, or hollowpoint ammo, or "assault" patrol rifles and other "police tools of the trade" in common use by police but the Off Duty and QRLEO guys tend to be treated as if they were civilians with a carry permity. (Personally Im OK with Constitutional Carry). But I find it to be an entirely unreasonable problem that an off duty police officer from Des Moines might go to visit DC or NY or some other jurisdiction and can legally carry his department issued firearm but can in those jurisdictions be arrested and go to jail for having too many bullets in his magazine or having the wrong type of ammo or having his patrol rifle in the trunk of the car. Quite simply the deck has been stacked in favor of the bad guys in a lot of places and Iowa should not be one of them. We need the law to be very clear that police (On Duty + Off Duty + QRLEO) are one classification and that because the same required education - training, and the same required annual firearms qualification and because of QRLEO service years requirements that any state or local laws which restrict carry within a No Carry Zone or restrict "Police Tools of the Trade" do not apply to Off Duty Police or QRLEO Police. Same rules as On Duty Police!!!! Same Requirements = Same Rules, one Classification: Police. If we truely understand LEOSA we understand that it is Anti Terrorism a response to 9-11-01 that took until 2004 to write into law and was fixed again in 2010 and again in 2013 and it still needs fixed because nothing in the law requires compliance and no agency is tasked with oversight and there is no recourse to pursue non compliance - I know thats retarded but true. We have to understand that there are some places that certain people really think a "No Carry Zone" is desirable. Personally I think a No Carry Zone is a killing field a place that terrorist and criminals disregard the rule and only honest decent men follow the rule. If we cant eliminate No Carry Zones we need to at least allow trained police to carry within them to include the Off Duty and QRLEO retired police who annually qualify and maintain their proficiency. BATFE told me LEOSA does not exempt Off Duty and QRLEO from a No Carry Zone which is quite frankly retarded because we know that no ATF agent is going to lock his gun in the car to go into some business just because they have a no carry sticker on the door. The rules need to make sense and fixing this will help to protect the public from violent in progress crime.

http://le.nra.org/leosa.aspx



https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/111th-congress/senate-report/233/1



https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/house-bill/4310/text              
          ( See sec 1089 which adds to those who are QRLEO eligible )
SEC. 1089. AMENDMENTS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER SAFETY PROVISIONS
                         OF TITLE 18.

   Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
           (1) in section 926B--
                   (A) in subsection (c)(1), by inserting ``or
               apprehension under section 807(b) of title 10, United
               States Code (article 7(b) of the Uniform Code of
               Military Justice)'' after ``arrest'';
                   (B) in subsection (d), by striking ``as a law
               enforcement officer'' and inserting ``that identifies
               the employee as a police officer or law enforcement
               officer of the agency''; and

[[Page 126 STAT. 1971]]

                   (C) in subsection (f), by inserting ``or
               apprehension under section 807(b) of title 10, United
               States Code (article 7(b) of the Uniform Code of
               Military Justice)'' after ``arrest''; and
           (2) in section 926C--
                   (A) in subsection (c)(2), by inserting ``or
               apprehension under section 807(b) of title 10, United
               States Code (article 7(b) of the Uniform Code of
               Military Justice)'' after ``arrest''; and
                   (B) in subsection (d)--
                         (i) in paragraph (1), by striking ``that
                     indicates'' and inserting ``that identifies the
                     person as having been employed as a police officer
                     or law enforcement officer and indicates''; and
                         (ii) in paragraph (2)(A), by inserting ``that
                     identifies the person as having been employed as a
                     police officer or law enforcement officer'' after
                     ``officer''.

I qualify yearly for the HR218 which allows carry in all 50 states...if I remember correctly, and the ID my old department issues yearly states that I am a retired Police Officer.  I even have a badge with my old badge number that says Retired on it.  Your mileage may vary.

Off duty and retired cops should have to follow the same laws as civilians. They should not be treated as better or different than other law abiding citizens with a carry permit.

The law is what it is.  It's not worth being butthurt over.

And to the OP,... holy sweet Jesus I could try to help you but you need to break that bad boy into a couple paragraphs and make it easier to figure out what the heck you're trying to say.

No butthurt here, just my opinion.

I do have to follow the same laws because now I am a civilian.  To my knowledge I'm not treated any different.  The carry permit is different in that it affords latitude that non-leo people don't have.  I've seen numerous retired cops that don't take advantage of HR218, or even a CCW of any kind.  To each their own.

I'm not denigrating it or you, but stating the fact that you have your own special thing, which we don't. Please don't pretend that retired-LEOs and non-LEOs are treated equally.
Having "latitude that non-LEO people don't have" is not "follow the same laws". You have a different law with special privileges.

i hope you're ok with me dissecting this a bit.  i'll also toss out an opinion to boot...

first, we need to establish the things that are self-evident, but often skipped.  unless you're military, you're civilian.  thus, if you're a cop, you're a civilian.  we tend to lump LE and MIL together, but that is an important distinction to make.  let's not forget that one.  (yeah, i know you can be in the military and still be a cop at the same time, but for the purposes of carry permits via current or former officer, we know the score)

fundamentally i agree whole heartedly with your sentiment on what 'ought' to be the case.  but today it isn't the case in terms of what each permit grants you.  considering 'ought' isn't in the average liberal's world view unless it comes to doing what they want by saying you 'ought' to pay more taxes, etc., etc., etc., then we'll skip how silly those folks really are.  the issue of 'ought' remains.  and since 'ought' is about something that should be done, we need to place those things we 'ought' to do in the correct order.  yes?  

so we're seeing a right conferred or privilege extended to some and not others.  there are two logical ways to respond to this.  we can either be miffed an LE or former LE has a courtesy we don't and see the recognition of that permit rolled back, or we can use the example of LE and LE retired permits towards how well national reciprocity could/should/would be?

i could have been one of those guys that said, "fuck em', i've got my permit" or, "fuck em', i've got my sbr" or, "fuck em', i've got my can" and went about my business.  but i wanted it for everyone, but it was correct and righteous.  you guys are right there with me for the most part.  i think we should push hard for cleaning this law up and use it as an example of what we can do moving forward for ALL good guys with a gun.

that's how we win.  that's where our heads should be.  

food for thought.

I agree with you 100%. I'm not advocating restricting what former LEO can do with their carry permit, I think I should have the same ability to carry with my permit as they do. I don't think it's right that it's 1 set of rules for them, and another set for everyone else.

You should familiarize yourself with Public Law 108–277, incorrectly referred to as H.R. 218.  I sincerely wish that the rules I have to follow now were just like yours.  That being said, I would like to see national reciprocity passed too.  It would make things much easier for ALL of us.

If you will forgive me quoting literature, George Orwell's allegory was "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others".
Septic did put it best, maybe this is a path to equal protection under the law.

I would really like to see national reciprocity happen for permit holders and I really wish there was no such thing as a "No Carry Zone".

The reality is we will probably always have some places that permit holders wont be allowed to carry firearms.  I still see it as a problem and lack of sound judgement to tell off duty police and retired police that they can not carry within those "No Carry Zones" or worse to leave it unclear.

Several states that are notoriously anti gun have laws restricting magazine capacity or type of firearm, type of ammo etc, and I dont get to vote there,  but I see it as a problem for off duty and retired police particularly those from out of state, to not be governed by the exact same rules as On Duty Police in those jurisdictions.  If a Des Moines Police Officer went to New York on vacation and had his duty pistol say a high capacity glock which he can check through in his luggage and legally carry there.  I believe it is unreasonable to expect him to be required to comply with their 7 round magazine law or a prohibition on hollowpoint ammo.  

The thing that bothers me most about LEOSA is the inconsistency.  "Your mileage may varry"  Some police departments and some State of Iowa agencies do issue the QRLEO ID. State of Iowa agencies that issue it are DPS, DOT, DNR, possibly others and DPD does not issue the QRLEO ID.  When I asked DPD for my QRLEO ID they basically told me "Nothing in Federal Law requires us to issue it."    When I asked the U.S. Justice Dept. they explained that not only is a department not required to issue the QRLEO but that LEOSA does not exempt retired and off duty officers from No Carry Zones etc.  Senate Judiciary explained to me that the Federal Government can only compell the states to obey what is specifically written in the Constitution.  

I find it a bit frustrating that we have LEOSA which was an obvious Anti Terrorism response to 9-11-2001 but the complexity and lack of clearity of the wording renders much of the intent ineffective.  I believe it sets a very bad example for the State or Federal Government to refuse to obey its own law.  

I spent 23 months as Federal Police for U.S. Dept. of Labor,  9 yrs 8 months as a Texas Peace Officer and well over 10 yrs as Special Police for Iowa Dept of Public Defense but none of them is willing to issue the QRLEO.  So I have a Non Pro Permit and I dont visit states like Illinois that dont have reciprocity with Iowa.

In regard to one comment that police and civilian carry permits should be same privileges I must say you may not really want to go down that path because.  Police are required to annually qualify on the current police pistol range and a lot of civilian carry permit holders may not be at that proficiency level.  In addition the average civilian carry permit holder simply does not have the same type of experience dealing with combative, violent difficult people that a police officer with several years service has.  I will tell you that there are times when I was a police officer in San Antonio when I could have been justified shooting an armed man but refused to do so because of the risk to other innocent bystanders close to him who could have been injured. So responsibilities and privileges go hand in hand.  There is a reasonable argument that being armed in public goes hand in hand with the responsibility to be proficient with your firearm.  Even so when the first bullet goes past you and the adrenaline kicks in your fine motor skills decrease.

.  LEOSA is a Federal Grant of authority.
The wording needs to be very clear regarding who is QRLEO eligible. Currently the wording is there but not clearly written in a format such as
QRELO requirements  1. Education Component - trained by a law enforcement academy or school that trains law enforcement officers.
                               2. Armed as a requirement of their employment.
                               3.  Authorized by law to Arrest or to Detain under the UCMJ
They need to make the executive decision if they wish to include Prison Guards currently that is not clear see   http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-dc-circuit/1737738.html

Currently - Each state reads their own definition of police rather than all states using the same definition.   There needs to be some federal agency tasked with oversight and some appeal process if a request for QRLEO ID is denied.  Some police departments simply do not issue the QRLEO ID to anyone. I know quite a few retired police who don't have their QRLEO ID.

In 2013 Military Police / Air Force Security Forces and others with authority to Detain under the UCMJ were added.  

Iowa law does not require the QRLEO ID to be issued. Texas Law does requires the last police department an officer works for Shall Issue if he has 15 or more years Service.   While a Federal Agency can be compelled to obey Federal Law apparently the only way to do so is in Federal Court.

It would be really helpful to a lot of Iowa's retired police officers who's departments refuse to issue their QRLEO ID if the legislature would require the last department to issue their QRLEO.  It would help me if they also made it clear that Special Police under 29a56 were included. http://law.justia.com/codes/iowa/2015/title-i/subtitle-11/chapter-29a/section-29a.56/

While we are throwing opinions and observations around, here are few of mine...........

A.   According to Merriam Webster (sorry Michael):

Definition of CIVILIAN:

   1.  a specialist in Roman or modern civil law

   2.  a :  one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force
        b :  outsider 1

B.   While the law states that it provides certain active and qualified retired LEO to carry nationwide, it also allows that any state or political subdivision thereof AND private persons or entities the right to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property.  Several states and cities have stated in the past that they will NOT honor the federal law.  There is no published list of these places because they can decide yes or no on the spot.  Others demand that you obtain one of their permits too or the "H.R. 218" permit is invalid.  My old agency issues both my retired and requaled photo ID along with the standard Iowa PTC.  The Feds are doing ZERO to clarify any of this so any LEO or QRLEO is really out on a limb at best when traveling armed.

C.   I have to drive over 400 miles round trip annually and qualify on the ILEA qual course with a "duty type" weapon/ammo approved by the agency that I retired from.  This is all at my expense.  I have to carry proof that I successfully re-qualed with me at all times I carry.  Do you have to do that?  I think this should be the case for everybody.  You know, same standards for all.

D.   I now live in a different county than the agency I retired from is in.  Therefore I have to get a permit from them to go along with my agency issued ID/"H.R. 218" credentials.  I get no special deals on that permit.  I apply, wait and pay the same as everybody else does.

E.   Even if Bernie Sanders was king there will always be individuals that have something you don't or can do something you can't.  In the big scheme of life 99.9% of those inequities are meaningless.  

F.   "H.R. 218" was enacted as a reaction to 9-11.  It's been a POS since it was passed and the 2 amendments to it failed to do anything more than fuck it up worse.  The absolute best solution to it is "repeal and replace" it with National reciprocity for carry permits.

G.   Am I more equal than others because of some ambiguous, pile of shit federal law?  Not even close.

I don't get the whole "civilian" debate.  If you swear an oath to support and defend the United States, its laws, and its people; respect a chain of command and follow orders that might result in your death as a condition of employment, then you're not a "civilian."

The definition of 'civilian' has changed in modern vernacular. It furthers the subconscious us-vs-them mentality though, which is the last thing we want nowadays when many people don't trust the police for various reasons.

I agree.  I think the "civilian" debate is being blown way out of proportion.  Lot's of definitions morph over time.  I'm retired.  I'm a civilian now.  Doesn't bother me in the slightest.  It falls in that 99.9% category I listed earlier.

As far as the subconscious us-vs-them mentality...........when you've got one person grabbing your legs and another on your back trying to take you to the ground while 5 or 6 more "civilians" are encouraging them to "Get his gun!  Get his gun"!  Or you and another officer are standing in front of Firestone trying to slow vehicles down so they don't hit strikers that think it's OK to try and block moving vehicles by jumping out in the street.  And then some of those same "civilians" think it's cool to throw snowballs packed with nails or bags full of shit at you.  Or you're checking an abandoned vehicle in a farm field in the middle of nowhere and a "civilian" starts taking shots at you from a treeline.  

That's three out of dozens of incidents that I experienced over 30 years.  Us-vs-them?  At times, you're fucking right it is.  But I'm a civilian now!

Sorry OP.

 that's ok dude.  we're golden.

my reference to 'civilian' is one of long standing use and origin dating way back several hundred years.  if you look deeper into wartime references, you basically have a couple terms...  you're either a member of the military or a non-combatant.  IE, civilian, as in 'civil' participant and/or countryman.  plus if you dig a bit deeper, you'll see that uncle sam still categorizes you/me that way in terms of how you're dealt with.   geneva convention, and many conventions before and since basically lump us all into two categories.  a civilian, and that includes joe blow butcher, and joe blow policeman, joe blow baker, etc. and then the members of the armed forces.  i think this stemmed from categories made from occupied countries actually, as you'd be considered a prisoner of war and entitled to certain status as a private in the army in opposition to being a cop or baker of the country just invaded.

but...  that's following the rabbit hole a bit deep.  i'll concede that the current definition says mil and leo david, if you'll concede the word 'militia' meant something different when the 2A was written as opposed to how CNN refers to it and defines it today.  



what say you?

maybe i'm blurring the lines a bit, but ride this one out with me for a second.  

to me, it's important to remember, respect, and use the words handed down from history in the proper context.  while today's definition of 'civilian' means something different than it did just a few decades ago, it matters to me.  this isn't about a cop's commitment being any lesser than that of a person volunteering for military service.  there's a stigma associated with being in the military.  this isn't 'nam smokey, there are rules...  <--- (big lebowski plug)  lol...  but i say that seriously too.  there are complete and total rules and guidelines for everything you do in the military.  law enforcement isn't quite that way and the rules that exist change from state to state, jurisdiction to jurisdiction, not to mention that each lawman applies the business of keeping the peace differently.  so while i can't quite put my finger on it, they are certainly perceived differently, as they should be.  

nobody get all nutty and go silly on something like the 'militarization' of the police in america.  that IS NOT my beef here.  while it is an important discussion to be had, it'll fuck up a perfectly good thread.  instead, what i'm trying to say is that there is a connotation associated with being within another's 'control' and i think to differentiate is supremely important.  if the military was doing the job of law enforcement, there'd be tanks zipping around, guys in green, and velcro shit everywhere.  imagine living within that.  in other words you're living in an 'occupied' country.  i don't like to think of law enforcement in the same vein as that for many many many reasons.  so, rightly, i look at law enforcement differently.  not with more or less respect, but as men and women i'm alongside through thick and thin, rather than those of total control with an ROE to follow.  that distinction, while many can't verbalize it matters.  it matters to our very core.  

...and that's why i won't be giving in to the debate that MIL and LE are to be lumped into the same category.  they're both important, but those two roles ARE NOT the same, nor should they be, nor where they ever intended to be...

as far as LEOSA goes, my hope is that it becomes streamlined.  there's no reason for it to be a hassle.  i have a good friend and former sheriff that can't seem to attain his "HR 218" or whatever that's called because his place of employment doesn't have a training program and can't certify his performance...  the man was a deputy forever, and then was elected sheriff and held that role through four or five election cycles until he retired.  ...but the poor bastard can't snag a permit because the way this federal code is written, it's messed up.

so, yeah...  i'd like to see this process cleaned up.  big time.

You should probably stay out of rabbit holes.  The word is nothing more than a term to me.  The circles that I've been associated with for almost the last 50 years, MIL and LE, use the term as the definition states.  It never meant two shits to me then and it doesn't now.  It's just a term.  Not a social class or any of that nonsensical bullshit.  I understand the not wanting to mix civilian LE with the military and I am in total agreement with you.  We cannot allow that to happen.  With that said, I will continue to use the term as I always have and if that ruffles feathers, so be it, because I have reached the age where my filters are worn out and I just don't care anymore.  Just keep in mind that I know where you're coming from and agree with what you are saying.

somebody is operating on a serious hug deficit...  i'm prepared to lend aid.

SWEET!  Your hugs ARE delicious!

Does this mean Dave gets to sit in the circle at the fall get together because he is a civilian?

yes, that's exactly what that means.

I would like to see Iowa Legislature  Require the QRLEO ID to be issued to police who can show 10+ years honorable service, to include those of us who were 29a56 Special Police, and to police disabled in the line of duty who completed probation.  
I would like to see Iowa Legislature Allow Off Duty Police and QRLEO retired police to carry firearms within No Carry Zones including school Gun Free School Zones, same as On Duty Police. ( Yes I would love to not have No Carry Zones, or to allow Permit Holders to carry within these Zones but I dont realistically think that will fly so I see this as a step in the right direction.)  
I believe that centrally issuing of QRLEO ID cards would be a wise choice because the same type of features to prevent counterfeit ID's used on driver licenses could be used, and all ID cards would be same format.  
I am not currently aware of any Iowa jurisdictions that restrict magazine capacity, assault rifle or type of ammo but I would like Off Duty Police and QRLEO retired Police to be viewed the same as On Duty Police are in regard to any laws restricting such items, this might be best done by definition of POLICE as a category which includes On Duty + Off Duty + QRLEO.

Let me start off by saying, Life Isn't Fair.  I just assumed everyone here knew that.  Yes I carry a little plastic card in my wallet that says I'm a retired LEO.  No, it hasn't gotten me out of any jams because I don't break the law.  And I'd hazard a guess that I've had far more firearms training then the "average" guy that burns a couple hundred rounds a year, and I know some of you are blackops/delta-ranger-seals that have more training than me.  I also know if they offered the blackops/delta-ranger-seal a special carry permit, they would get it.

Whether your a "civilian" or not, we as a species will never be treated equal to one another.  EVER!  There will always be someone better looking, has more power, has more money, or whatever than the rest of us.  And if your killed in a firefight in Afghanistan or in Dallas, guess what...your equally dead.  Does it really matter who the "Civilian" is????  It won't matter shit to either of those people's family.

Probably no secret that I would like to see LEOSA expanded. While I would love to see Constitutional Carry and 50 state reciprocity I wont hold my breath waiting for US Congress and Senate to act. Even though I am NOT a Combat Veteran I have asked that LEOSA be extended to Combat Veterans with 10+ years service based on the intent of LEOSA being Anti Terrorism as well as our response to Active Shooters.  I feel the idea has merit.  LEOSA in 2010 set 3 standards for who qualifies.  1. Education some formal law enforcement academy or training program  2. Carry a firearm as a condition of employment 3. Authority to Arrest  - or - to Detain under the UCMJ (added in sec 1089 of 2013 National Defense Authorization Act.)   I see a certain similarity in that Combat Veterans have 1. Education at Basic Training plus advanced schools which include firearms training and combatives  2. Combat Veterans are certainly armed as a condition of their employment.  3. While Combat Veterans are not specifically tasked with arrest authority they certainly do take prisoners, guard prisoners and are involved in "police actions" in the course of their honorable service.   In the spirit of the law, the second Amendment does include the wording "well regulated militia".  While the term militia is quite broad it most certainly would include Police as well as Combat Veterans within this broad grouping of well regulated honorable men.   Like I said, I myself am not a Combat Veteran, all my service has been as Police but protecting our United States merits reasonable consideration of such an expansion of LEOSA and extending those right to highly trained professional who have served honorably.

I just don't pack when i'm not on duty.  no fus, no muss

The goal of those who came up with the law in question was plainly stated all along. Get retired LEO’s authorized in all fifty states and then by statute or case law extend it to all permit holders regardless of their status as a retired LEO or civilian. It took two generations to F-up our carry system and it will take two generations to fix it.

I really wish we would see true 2nd Amendment carry the way it was originally intended.  I absolutely despise the concept of No Carry Zones because they are killing fields where bad guys don't obey the rules and every decent person is handicapped by being un-armed, similarly I find it unreasonable that some states have enacted anti gun laws that infringe on the 2nd Amendment.
At this point the response I get from asking the Federal Legislators to fix LEOSA is that the Fed can not compel the States to obey unless it is specifically listed in the Constitution so they wont pursue fixing it and dont have the 60 votes needed to pass anything. Iowa AG says "Nothing in Federal Law Specifically requires us to issue the QRLEO ID."  When I asked about the possibility of adding Combat Veterans with 10 years + service to LEOSA --- Crickets