Iowa state law mandating training and licensing
2008), the defendant, a Coast Guard reservist, was charged with the crime of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree after a loaded handgun was found in a compartment underneath the seat of the vehicle in which he was traveling. Reliance on scuttlebutt surrounding qualification requirements and failing to recognize LEOSA's preemptive authority over state law can be costly. This problem is only compounded by the fact that LEOSA does not bestow either an explicit right to obtain the required photographic ID or a federal remedy for an agency's failure to issue one. LEOSA is clear that QRLEOs must meet "the standards for qualification in firearms training for active law enforcement officers as determined by the former agency of the individual, the State in which the individual resides or, if the State has not established such standards, either a law enforcement agency within the State in which the individual resides or the standards used by a certified firearms instructor that is qualified to conduct a firearms qualification test for active duty officers within that State." While some states do afford NRA Law Enforcement Certified Instructors with the qualification to perform this test to retired officers, most states do not.
Diaz sued for a violation of his civil rights, Diaz v. While enacted in an effort to limit the ability to qualify for LEOSA to only those military and DOD personnel that served in a police or law enforcement billet, this change will likely cause substantial difficulties for many non-DOD law enforcement officers that already have significant problems obtaining the required identification cards from their agencies, and especially for those who qualify but do not hold, or never held, the title of police or law enforcement officer. Highlighting the fact that "Congress made clear that the term 'firearm' 'has the same meaning' as in 18 U. As most retirees unable to qualify with the department or agency they separated from are well aware, a cottage industry of instructors claiming to posses the ability to perform LEOSA qualifications has emerged.
Despite its intent, LEOSA does not preempt all state laws. § 930(a) an individual is prohibited from possessing or attempting to possess a firearm in a federal facility, which is broadly defined in the statute to include "a building or part thereof owned or leased by the federal government, where federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties." While the ban on possession in federal facilities appears to be well understood and recognized by those carrying under LEOSA, the exemptions which allow individuals with a state-issued permit to carry concealed firearms in federal park lands and through GFSZs (gun-free school zones) are not. An examination of the legislative history, as well as two cases addressing the issue, clearly demonstrates that LEOSA applies to all firearms except those specifically exempted.
§ 922(q)) allow for individuals carrying concealed in accordance with the laws of the state in which the federal park or GFSZ is located to carry concealed in them; however, an individual carrying under LEOSA is carrying under federal law and not in accordance with the laws of the state they are in. Go check out your local planning department's Website or take a quick look at the map below taken from the San Francisco Planning Department's Website ( Most cities are so laden with GFSZs that it is virtually impossible to travel anywhere without inadvertently passing through one of them.Until the late 1990s, many Southern states were either "No-Issue" or "Restrictive May-Issue".Since then, these states have largely enacted "Shall-Issue" licensing laws, with numerous states legalizing "Unrestricted concealed carry". What is not included in the statute is where problems may arise. Bobby Scott (D-VA) proposed an amendment to add "semi-automatic assault weapons" to the firearms excluded from exemption under the statute, arguing: "Since we have decided that people, without authority to carry firearms, even in their own agency, who may have no training, can carry concealed weapons in violation of the local ordinances and local agency regulations, we just want to make sure that this bill does not allow them to carry military assault weapons concealed in violation of local laws and regulations." Scott's amendment was rejected. Explicitly written into the statute are several areas considered off limits to those carrying under LEOSA such as restrictions imposed by private persons or entities on their property and those imposed on state or local government property, installations, buildings, and parks. During initial debate in the House on this issue, Rep.