LEOSA police advocacy group is suing RI, AG Neronha, over concealed carry law.

[R_Wilson]

This police advocacy group is suing RI, AG Neronha, over concealed carry law.

Federal Law Enforcement Association says retired officers are being denied permits in violation of federal law.

www.providencejournal.com

PROVIDENCE – An organization that advocates for the rights of active and retired federal law enforcement officers is challenging the state’s permitting regime that requires its members to get state approval to carry concealed firearms.

The Federal Law Enforcement Association, whose members encompass 28,000 officers across 65 agencies in all states, including Rhode Island, sued Attorney General Peter F. Neronha and State Police Col. Darnell Weaver in U.S. District Court.

The association asks the court to strike down the law, arguing it is preempted by a federal law that allows qualified retired officers to carry concealed weapons. They ask, too, that the state be barred from arresting and prosecuting retired officers for carrying.

The group seeks unspecified damages and an order barring the state, Neronha as the state state's chief law enforcement officer, and the state police from requiring people who are entitled to carry a concealed firearm under federal law to secure a retired officer permit from the state police.

"We are reviewing the complaint and we will respond through our pleadings," Timothy Rondeau, spokesman for the attorney general's office, said in an email.

What is driving the lawsuit?​

The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act confers a national right for retired law enforcement officers to carry a concealed firearm if they are "qualified" under LEOSA, have at least 10 years of service and are carrying identification. Congress passed the act, the complaint says, to eliminate the “complex patchwork” of state and local firearm carry laws and replace it with uniform, national standards that apply to all retired law enforcement officers.

Rhode Island law, however, prohibits an individual from carrying a concealed firearm unless they have a state-issued license or permit. The law specifies that a retired law enforcement officer “may be issued a license or permit” if they retired in good standing after 20 years of service, or retired in good standing due to a physical disability other than a psychological impairment. The permit may be revoked at any time for “just cause.” The permit is good for only four years.

The association argues that the state law violates’ officers’ rights under federal law.

Officers being deterred​

According to the suit, qualified members have been “deterred from applying for a permit under Rhode Island law because it is onerous, unnecessary, and they fear that if their permit application is denied, it will permanently affect their ability to carry a firearm in the future."

Other members have been denied a permit by the state, “leaving them no alternative option to carry a firearm despite their federal right.”

 

[raziel1911]

Now they know how we feel.

 

[Bonesinium]

It's insane anyways, that we the people, despite the second amendment saying we do, don't have a federal law that allows us to carry throughout the entire country, yet police and retired police, a group that's amongst the least competent with guns, does.

Rules for thee and not for me. Badges shouldn't grant extra rights, but they do. Just like we are denied our rights guaranteed under the second amendment, so are we the same under the fourteenth amendment.

 

[Len-2A Training]

If this refers to the state requiring retirees to obtain a RI firearms license . . . and they win, this would negate MA requirement for same! This could get interesting.

 

[M1911]

Cry me a river.

 

[Dennis in MA]

Hey LEOSA - go F yourselves. "We're the only ones here professional enough. . . . "

 

[LakeTrout]

I couldn’t care less about this group

 

[Len-2A Training]

I couldn’t care less about this group

Then why are you posting in the LEO forum?
My bad! I thought this was in the LEO forum (where it belongs) not in General.

Cop-haters will hate, it is their right! Legistraitors created the laws, not cops. Blame them for privileged laws.

 

[vicorjh]

Then why are you posting in the LEO forum?

 

[LakeTrout]

Then why are you posting in the LEO forum?

First, isn’t this in general discussion?

Second, I don’t pick which forums to browse. I just click whatever threads come up in what’s new.

Third, I have a big problem with the LEO advocacy groups and police unions that lobby for special 2A privileges or lobby against the rights of what citizens can keep or carry vs. what they can.

So when I say I couldn’t care less about this group, I mean to say I couldn’t care any less about the legislative success of this or any other group that fights to protect 2A rights of only LEOs. And I think that is a perfectly reasonable position to have. And I certainly don’t think I’m alone on it, either.

 

[LakeTrout]

Then why are you posting in the LEO forum?
My bad! I thought this was in the LEO forum (where it belongs) not in General.

Cop-haters will hate, it is their right! Legistraitors created the laws, not cops. Blame them for privileged laws.

I don’t hate cops. I have a very good relationship with quite a number of them, and work with law enforcement routinely.

 

[Mesatchornug]

Here's hoping we get another Canjura-level decision that can obviously expand from "highly trained professionals" to any civilian

 

[Len-2A Training]

Here's hoping we get another Canjura-level decision that can obviously expand from "highly trained professionals" to any civilian

Sadly, cops in MA aren't "highly trained professionals". 50 or 100 rds a year is not "highly trained"! However, media and legistraitors focus on the lie to win over the low information voters.

 

[Mesatchornug]

Sadly, cops in MA aren't "highly trained professionals". 50 or 100 rds a year is not "highly trained"! However, media and legistraitors focus on the lie to win over the low information voters.

Those scare quotes were meant to denote sarcasm. We're agreed. If I were more through, I'd have leaned more obviously on the fact that LE are civilians, too.

 

[granitestater]

Then why are you posting in the LEO forum?
My bad! I thought this was in the LEO forum (where it belongs) not in General.

Cop-haters will hate, it is their right! Legistraitors created the laws, not cops. Blame them for privileged laws.

police lobbied for the privileged laws and opposed nationwide carry for everybody else. They share the blame.

 

[M1911]

Sadly, cops in MA the US aren't "highly trained professionals". 50 or 100 rds a year is not "highly trained"! However, media and legistraitors focus on the lie to win over the low information voters.

FIFY

 

[Len-2A Training]

police lobbied for the privileged laws and opposed nationwide carry for everybody else. They share the blame.

Correction required: It wasn't "police lobbying" it was FOP lobbying a police union that was almost non-existent in MA. And their job was to represent their members, not the country at large. This was proposed back in the 1990s and went nowhere until 2004, as a result of 9/11. Many here will be happy to know that the entire MA legistraitor body and MCOPA lobbied against LEOSA. They don't even want cops carrying guns, never mind mere citizens.

 

[ddeck]

Barney

 

[KH56010]

Paywall... I'm not sure what the issue is here. I haven't heard of anyone having issues getting RI LTCs, let alone Police or Retired Police. I guess if I did more research the only thing I could think is that a Qualified Officer or retired officer is being refused the ability to do the annual qualification because he does not have a RI LTC. I'm pretty sure that scenario has already been to court in multiple states. If the Qualified or Retired officer is able to get his annual qualification then the RI LTC isn't needed at all, so who cares?

 

[SHOCKNAWE]

I have LEOSA and my instructor tells me every year that I re qualify to stay out of NY and NJ, those states simply don't care and will arrest anyone with a CCW regardless of who they are if they are not a resident, guess it's time to stay out of RI as well.

A bunch of guys I know are up in arms that they have to obey the 10 round gayness in Mass when off duty now, I love giving them shit about it since they always had that smugness about being above the law with standard cap mags lol

 

[granitestater]

Correction required: It wasn't "police lobbying" it was FOP lobbying a police union that was almost non-existent in MA. And their job was to represent their members, not the country at large. This was proposed back in the 1990s and went nowhere until 2004, as a result of 9/11. Many here will be happy to know that the entire MA legistraitor body and MCOPA lobbied against LEOSA. They don't even want cops carrying guns, never mind mere citizens.

Nevertheless, the police as a group have not advocated for nationwide carry for everybody. With respect to your comment that it was 9/11 that helped pushed this through, than how come retired police, private citizens, are able to carry nationwide? it is my further understanding that the law was amended in 2009 or 10 to make clear that any ammunition can be carried due to the NJ hollow point ban. But retired cops are private citizens with special rights due to the job they retired from. NOT FAIR! Super not fair that people still get arrested in NY, NJ, Mass, etc.

 

[KH56010]

I have LEOSA and my instructor tells me every year that I re qualify to stay out of NY and NJ, those states simply don't care and will arrest anyone with a CCW regardless of who they are if they are not a resident, guess it's time to stay out of RI as well.

A bunch of guys I know are up in arms that they have to obey the 10 round gayness in Mass when off duty now, I love giving them shit about it since they always had that smugness about being above the law with standard cap mags lol

As long as they meet the definitions of Qualified Law Enforcement Officer under 926B.. they can put their arms down.

 

[Dadstoys]

Then why are you posting in the LEO forum?
My bad! I thought this was in the LEO forum (where it belongs) not in General.

Cop-haters will hate, it is their right! Legistraitors created the laws, not cops. Blame them for privileged laws.

I bet right up until that happened they were polishing his knob like a $100 whore with every anti 2A law he passed.
Now it effects them it's "Whoa there, muh rights."
See MA. as a textbook example of that .

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Then why are you posting in the LEO forum?
My bad! I thought this was in the LEO forum (where it belongs) not in General.

Cop-haters will hate, it is their right! Legistraitors created the laws, not cops. Blame them for privileged laws.

That is a simplistic view that omits one specific but important fact.

The cops use their influence to actively lobby for special privileges for themselves, and endorse bad gun laws as soon as draft legislation is tweaked to include an LEO exemption.

A great example is the ill fated MA Katrina act. It was all but a fiat accompli, reaching the point where MA bills typicalle get approved - and the police lobby arranged to have it killed because it included penalties for police that violated that law.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Paywall... I'm not sure what the issue is here. I haven't heard of anyone having issues getting RI LTCs, let alone Police or Retired Police. I guess if I did more research the only thing I could think is that a Qualified Officer or retired officer is being refused the ability to do the annual qualification because he does not have a RI LTC. I'm pretty sure that scenario has already been to court in multiple states. If the Qualified or Retired officer is able to get his annual qualification then the RI LTC isn't needed at all, so who cares?

RI is still "may issue" for an AG permit, and a town permit can takes ages for a non-resident (in those towns that even accept applications from non-residents).

The justification for "may issue" is towns provide a "shall issue"alternative. This is a viable Bruen based attack surface since only an AG permit allows open carry, therefore, there is no "Snall issue" option for open carry, only for concealed carry.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

LEOSA

 

[Len-2A Training]

That is a simplistic view that omits one specific but important fact.

The cops use their influence to actively lobby for special privileges for themselves, and endorse bad gun laws as soon as draft legislation is tweaked to include an LEO exemption.

A great example is the ill fated MA Katrina act. It was all but a fiat accompli, reaching the point where MA bills typicalle get approved - and the police lobby arranged to have it killed because it included penalties for police that violated that law.

It's not "cops"; it's chiefs. Chiefs aren't cops anymore; they are politicians bowing to a higher power. The rank and file can't use their position to lobby for anything; they would face discipline and perhaps firing for doing so. Chiefs, on the other hand, do the bidding of their superiors.

 

[Dennis in MA]

Then why are you posting in the LEO forum?
My bad! I thought this was in the LEO forum (where it belongs) not in General.

Cop-haters will hate, it is their right! Legistraitors created the laws, not cops. Blame them for privileged laws.

C'mon. You don't really believe that legislators just decided, "You know what? We love cops. Active cops, off duty cops, retired cops. Let's give them special rights." Do you?????

You KNOW that any LEOSA laws are lobbied HARD by police. And, as you recall from the 20+ years ago "detail law" that was suddenly struck down on Bacon Hill, sometimes, police use veiled threats instsead of lobbying pressure.

 

[Len-2A Training]

C'mon. You don't really believe that legislators just decided, "You know what? We love cops. Active cops, off duty cops, retired cops. Let's give them special rights." Do you?????

You KNOW that any LEOSA laws are lobbied HARD by police. And, as you recall from the 20+ years ago "detail law" that was suddenly struck down on Bacon Hill, sometimes, police use veiled threats instsead of lobbying pressure.

It was strictly FOP police union that carried that water. In MA each department has a bargaining unit with MPA, but MPA has no teeth other than assisting contract bargaining. This was told to me by my town's bargaining unit years ago. I can't speak about any other states.

The bill was filed annually and ignored in congress for >20 yrs. Somehow it snuck thru in 2004 and MA didn't implement it for years after that. Many officers in MA are refused the legally requried retired ID to participate in LEOSA as the brass really doesn't want anyone carrying off duty! It's the brass that does the lobbying in MA and they are anti-2A to the core. If officers used their status to actively lobby for gun rights, they would be terminated in most towns/cities in MA, that's a fact!

 

[Drix]

If this refers to the state requiring retirees to obtain a RI firearms license . . . and they win, this would negate MA requirement for same! This could get interesting.

Once you're retired, you're retired. You're not LEO, you shouldn't be getting advantages to your former station.