A Federal Law for National Concealed Carry for Current/Former US SpecOps

[CC4Operators]

Hi, as part of a group of current/former US Special Operations members, we have joined this forum so that we can discuss with you and spread the word, gain your input and suggestions, as well as to gain real support on creating a national law that will allow us to nationally concealed carry.

The current problem is that we are all subjected to the rules of our home states. This causes an issue for many of us who do not live in a state that easily allows concealed carry. Those who do have a state permit will find hardship or simply the inability to carry while traveling out of state.

While there is a Federal law (the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, with amendments) that allows retired police officers to carry nationally, there is nothing that provides current and former Operators self protection. The LEOSA is a benefit to us, as it shows such a law is possible.

A detailed look at the LEOSA shows that it was passed into law rather quickly. it was done so shortly after the September 11th attacks, to allow current and former law enforcement to protect their self and their family. However, a close look at the intent shows a secondary objective- allowing former "highly trained" people to help stop crimes and enhance national security.

That is the same goal we seek- a Federal law that allows us the ability to self protect, and as a secondary benefit, provide unconventional local and national security. While ours would not be sought to stop crimes, as former police are more in-tuned to, it would create increased security just having former Operators carrying.

It only makes sense that the people who fight against and stop the world's most dangerous individuals and groups, that are the most highly trained and dedicated bar none, be allowed to protect themselves, and their family, while providing secondary/informal national security when they leave the Profession.

It is interesting to consider that we have been overlooked until now. Many believe this is due to a few reasons. The main reason being, that ask any civilian or most regular military/veterans and they believe that current/former Operators are already protected.They both assume that you are carrying, and probably expect you to be doing so. Afterall, with the job you did your life must surely be in danger. Explain to them that no, you can not carry due to state laws and they are shocked.

The other reason we have been overlooked is due to lack of interest or thought on our own part. No doubt the majority of former Operators carry. And they do so because most live in pro-carry states. With that in mind, the general mindset is that it "usually works for me." However, it often does not work when you travel out of state, or for those who live in non-carry state.
-------
This project has been researched for about two years now. This is where we stand:

1)A few Members of Congress has been reached out to. The overall response as been positive. However, they stressed during those conversations that the project was a good idea and needed, however, the timing was bad. The best chance of success was waiting for the new president to take office, as well as waiting for the Congressional calendar to restart. This allows enough time for the bill to run its course. Currently, our timeline to start is January 2017.

It was also stressed that we need to build support. The LEOSA had the support(and non support) of entire agencies and police organizations. This is something we almost entirely lack.

With that in mind, one of our members (from a non-carry state) reached out to his higher level NRA representative. He was very interested in the idea, also confirmed the need to wait at the Federal level.

Some members of Congress (their staff) where generally disinterested, or misleading. One staff member stated that his Congressman was already working on this issue, and when pressed for details he confessed it had nothing to do with us but was for allowing recruiters to carry. Another stated it would be best to wait until a law allowing all citizens to carry was passed, then we could work on ours. When asked for clarification, since a citizen CC would in turn make ours unneeded and the LEOSA obsolete, no response was given. Those two examples show the mindset and simple inability to understand who we are and our needs, that we work against.

2)Writing up the Bill. No doubt that we can offer alot of ideas, but simply the Congressional Sponsor of the Bill will write it up a certain way. We need to make sure that this Bill gives us what we need the first time around. The LEOSA, for example, had major flaws in the first bill and needed multiple amendments. It is still not foolproof and sometimes open to "interpretation."

Some of the major pieces of the Bill will be who is qualified. One common idea is to keep it simple yet precise- anyone who is serving/served in any of the units under the USSOCOM. This prevents a lot of interpretation problems. Another take on it is to be very specified- for example, 18 series only, 11 series under the Ranger Regiment only, etc, etc. This method ensures "Operators" are protected but leave out any support elements in those units. That option carries a counter thought- that any possible threat will not take the time to note exactly what you did in a SOF unit.

3)Otherwise, it is generally believed that there should be no in service time limit, that there should be no sort of training or deployment requirement, that otherwise the permit carrier would otherwise be legal/able to posses firearms, have a Honorable Discharge if not serving, and there should be no cost to the government (a small fee may apply).

The DOD/USSOCOM knows exactly who former guys are, so it would not be difficult to issue permits to guys that are done. Otherwise, upon discharge you secure your permit.

There should be no limit to type of sidearm carried and ammunition used. Rifles, shotguns, suppressors/silencers would naturally not be permitted. Hollowpoints should be permitted under this Bill. Some states prohibit it, but we all know HP is one measure in preventing full penetration.

State and private non carry locations are still upheld. For example, some states prohibit carry in government buildings, that would be upheld. Same with business that deny carry.

The permit would naturally have to be carried anytime you are carrying. It should have the typical ID information on it, however, it should not go into detail who you are/why you are carrying on the SOF side of things.

You would also not have to carry, nor be obligated to intervene in any event.

4) General notes: We do believe in the states rights argument, on the other hand, sometimes the states fall short. We are/were a federal agency, tasked to do a federal job, that held consequences for national security and policy. We need federal level protection. The one NRA representative mentioned above agreed with this point.

Some citizens have caught wind of this project. While most support it, a few have stated that it creates a special class of people, entitled to special privileges the majority do not hold. No doubt it can be seen that way, however, what it really comes down to is that we are not any better then anyone else. Yet we did do something most people do not, and as such, our lives are more in danger then most people. That requires a certain/higher level of protection then most people.

Some regular military members/veterans have caught wind of this project. Again, most are supportive but perhaps a good amount question why they are not included. Simply put, at this time it is not a realistic endeavor to have such a law passed. One that allows the highest trained and the most in danger to have national protection is a more feasible project. On the other hand, some people have pointed that our Bill would be a sort of stepping stone. It may lead to other improvements to concealed carry at both state and federal levels.

It should also be noted that the DOD is already issuing these types of permits to some former "employees" such as Military Police and DOD security (under the LEOSA). Issuing one for current SOF guys is not that far fetched, and all is stopping them from doing so is a federal law mandating it.
----

That is pretty much the short writeup of whats happening. Questions, comments, suggestions, offers of help or assistance in any manner, contacts of any type please post here or PM us. Looking forward to a good conservation with the members here. Thank you for you time.

[CSB]

What is the National Rifle Association position on such proposed legislation?

[blue02hd]

Why did you not include contact information? Please provide organization info to include location and phone. Fill out your profile as an individual and follow site rules. You, who are posting, are an individual correct? Provide a legitimate point of contact? As of now you are a huge red flag.

[Team Sergeant]

Why did you not include contact information? Please provide organization info to include location and phone. Fill out your profile as an individual and follow site rules. You, who are posting, are an individual correct? Provide a legitimate point of contact? As of now you are a huge red flag.

Easy, I said they could post. ;) I thought they would do an intro first.

As far as the rest of the questions, have at it!

[Team Sergeant]

What is the National Rifle Association position on such proposed legislation?

The NRA backs anyone that is pro-gun to include harry reid and morons like him. I could care less what the NRA backs or doesn't. And yes I was a member there for decades but I've decided I no longer like their politics.

[PSM]

The NRA backs anyone that is pro-gun to include harry reid and morons like him. I could care less what the NRA backs or doesn't. And yes I was a member there for decades but I've decided I no longer like their politics.

¡Exactamundo! I'm an on-again, off-again member. I like it when they call me to renew so I can complain about their politics. (When on-again, I take advantage of their discounts. I know, I'm deplorable. ;))

Pat

[bblhead672]

I have the perfect text for the proposed bill:

"A well armed citizenry, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear modern Arms, including concealed handguns, shall not be infringed."

[Badger52]

Some citizens have caught wind of this project. While most support it, a few have stated that it creates a special class of people, entitled to special privileges the majority do not hold. No doubt it can be seen that way, however, what it really comes down to is that we are not any better then anyone else. Yet we did do something most people do not, and as such, our lives are more in danger then most people. That requires a certain/higher level of protection then most people.In my view, level of training or experience aside, this is something (the inherent right of self-defense) that applies (or should apply) to everyone. One can spin it 9 ways from Sunday but it does create another special class of people and, frankly, puts those recipients in the "rules for thee but not for me" category. The same rationale that has even city-level politicians with PSD's in states that resemble the former DDR.

The final sentence in that paragraph actually represents a statistical argument, that former SOF are more likely to be attacked (because you wear signs announcing who you are?). That same argument (likelihood of threat) has been used for years to deny shall-issue in states when, in reality, it's a binary thing. You are, or aren't, being attacked and we know that bad people do bad things to innocent people in supposedly safe places. If you're getting soaked in a storm it's little consolation that the forecast had only a 60% chance.

One that allows the highest trained and the most in danger to have national protection is a more feasible project.Actually the most endangered are probably Mom's taking kids to a matinee, Christians, LGBTABCDEFG folks, or Buffy & Valerie spending a day at the mall as well as uniformed LE & first responders, particularly in certain "hoods."

If you're doing it simply because you think you can, then drive on & good luck. But in my view it's a wrong-headed and elitist approach.

[Trapper John]

Badger, let's not forget those of us that are in the "Basket of Deplorables" too. :eek:

[PRB]

My first thought too....define 'operator' .......

[Peregrino]

Not a supporter. As others have noted, we already have the 2nd Amendment and it applies to everyone (in spite of what the libprogs proclaim). This initiative is fundamentally un-American. I say that because I'm tired of special interests creating "privileged classes". As far as I'm concerned arguments about needing or deserving special treatment because of exceptional training or elevated risk are specious (that translates as BS). As a percentage of the force, the number of "special operators" who can claim either distinction is miniscule. Most are no better/safer or threatened than any other citizen. The ones I know who are, already take the appropriate steps to enhance their personal security. People should stop looking at legislation as the answer to every niggling problem and start exercising some personal initiative/responsibility.

[nousdefions]

My first thought too....define 'operator' .......

I respectfully submit

[Badger52]

Badger, let's not forget those of us that are in the "Basket of Deplorables" too. :eek:
:D

[Old Dog New Trick]

While I believe the concept has merit and sound reasoning, it lacks credibility and quantifiable requirements.

How many SOF "Operators" (BTW hate that term) have been targeted by terrorists or supporters of extreme Islamic fanatics? Not even DEVGRU has seen an episode of assault/attack and you can look up their home base on Google. Fort Bragg home of SF and potentially a target rich environment for those with a 201-file back window decal kit have not been singled out over the general population.

Then there are annual requirements for qualification and other legal matters specific to the LEOSA allowing carry for those retirees that are willing to do so. Many are not because of hurdles and regulations.

As has been said, we are no more 'special' than our fellow citizens and can choose to live or travel under the same laws afforded to the general public.

If the local commanders used good judgment and threat based reasoning he would issue all select persons a concealed or open carry permit (DD-Form ?) allowing carry both on and off base. When that is reached, asking for those same protections after retirement would be a logical next step.

JMO

[Trapper John]

Not a supporter. As others have noted, we already have the 2nd Amendment and it applies to everyone (in spite of what the libprogs proclaim). This initiative is fundamentally un-American. I say that because I'm tired of special interests creating "privileged classes". As far as I'm concerned arguments about needing or deserving special treatment because of exceptional training or elevated risk are specious (that translates as BS). As a percentage of the force, the number of "special operators" who can claim either distinction is miniscule. Most are no better/safer or threatened than any other citizen. The ones I know who are, already take the appropriate steps to enhance their personal security. People should stop looking at legislation as the answer to every niggling problem and start exercising some personal initiative/responsibility.

:lifter VERY good points especially People should stop looking at legislation as the answer to every niggling problem and start exercising some personal initiative/responsibility.

[Sohei]

Personally, I don't believe in specialty groups. Everyone should be able to carry until something happens to prove otherwise and then that individual's right to carry is removed.

[alelks]

Not a supporter. As others have noted, we already have the 2nd Amendment and it applies to everyone (in spite of what the libprogs proclaim). This initiative is fundamentally un-American. I say that because I'm tired of special interests creating "privileged classes". As far as I'm concerned arguments about needing or deserving special treatment because of exceptional training or elevated risk are specious (that translates as BS). As a percentage of the force, the number of "special operators" who can claim either distinction is miniscule. Most are no better/safer or threatened than any other citizen. The ones I know who are, already take the appropriate steps to enhance their personal security. People should stop looking at legislation as the answer to every niggling problem and start exercising some personal initiative/responsibility.

Well put! To me it's all or nothing, I don't want to be a special class I want what's guaranteed to me and everyone else in this country.

[CC4Operators]

Everyone, thanks for the questions, concerns, and comments.

What is the National Rifle Association position on such proposed legislation?

We, at the moment, only have one contact with the NRA. He was in favor of it, said it should be a Federal law. He said he would be bringing it up the chain. However, he said it is useless to work on anything solid until next year. Due to recent events, he believes the current President would never sign a pro-gun bill no matter who it benefits/needs it, and hopefully that changes.

If someone has a stronger NRA contact it would be helpful. Any recommendations/POC on approaching other organizations would also be good.

We also reached out to the VFW and American Legion as we saw this as a not only a firearms issue but a veteran's safety issue. While they were sympathetic and thought it a good idea, they pretty much stated they work along the lines of projects that help large numbers of service members and veterans. They would have to see it pretty much written up as a bill before they could decide if they could spare the resources.

Apparently, how they deal with legislative issues is complicated. If understood correctly, they approve on it at state levels and then the state representatives recommend the national level work on the issue.

Why did you not include contact information? Please provide organization info to include location and phone. Fill out your profile as an individual and follow site rules. You, who are posting, are an individual correct? Provide a legitimate point of contact? As of now you are a huge red flag.

Sorry, a link to a Facebook page was listed on the profile. Email is Operators4CC@gmail.com. We speak on behalf of a group dedicated to this project, so while an individual may type this it’s a group of people. The profile was kept basic/clean as not to overload it/be confusing. And a intro was made in your IntroductionsV before this thread was started, again kept basic. The only reason we joined (with permission) this great forum was this project. You will not see any other participation on your forum under this username unless related to the project. Our guys can have separate/personal usernames for that stuff.

When you say special ops what do you mean? I was reserve CA and was under SOC command back in the 1990's. Does that count? How about AF air commando's? 160th mechanics?

I am not opposed by any means. In fact I believe CCW should be valid in all states and any progress is good.

It gets a bit complicated there. While many of us believe it would be better to have all/as many SOF types qualify, it becomes an issue of what Congress will want to include. We are inclined to frontload everything we want but no doubt they will root though it. One method is if you worked under SOC you would qualify. The other method is a specific list. That method would include 160th pilots/crew but not mechanics. Would include 18 series but not the support guys. Include 11 series Ranger Regiment guys but not their support (that distinction is much needed when explaining this to a lot of folks, as we all know Ranger Tab folks is not related and would not be under this bill). It gets complicated when you factor in the AF guys attached to the SF/Ranger/SEAL units.

Try to actually write up a few different versions of the list and you’ll see how complicated it can get. It can get from one paragraph to and entire page. And, if too detailed, everytime a new group is added the law would need amending. Most of us remember a day where the Marines wanted nothing to do with USSOCOM. Now they have MARSOC. The law would’ve had to be amended just for them, and that might have took years to do so depending on political climate.

It comes down to ask a supportive civilian who should be included (all SOF) and ask a Congressman who should be included (the well knowns: SF, Rangers, SEALS, PJ, etc.)

As a guess, if it goes like the LEOSA did, Congress will have the main SOF personalities be included first. That way, the most qualified and needed guys are protected. Easier to both sell and pass. If enough backlash from our support guys is given they will amend it to include more under the umbrella. The LEOSA was at first strict who qualified, later Military Police and DOD security, Amtrak police, park police etc was included. The key term for them is “arrest powers.” USCG boat crews are included since they have arrest powers.

I have the perfect text for the proposed bill:

"A well armed citizenry, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear modern Arms, including concealed handguns, shall not be infringed."

This we agree on, however, it is quite doubtful such a strict interpretation will help current/former Operators who live in anti-CCW states and areas. Courts have proven that states such as NJ, for one example, do not infringe on 2nd Amendment rights when they have a “justifiable need” qualification for CCW permits. In that state, realistically the only ones who have carry permits are retired law enforcement. And they accomplished that through a separate state law, otherwise they too fail justifiable need.

In fact to make this less obscure, we at least know of 1 SF 1st Group, 2 75th Rangers, 3 other SOF, and 1 SEAL that live in NJ and can not get permits. Even if you try and are denied because of lack of justifiable need, everytime you apply for any permit you must explain why. In such states, the 2nd Amendment does little for you (so says the state). Try explaining that your SOF background qualifies as justifiable need to your local police chief and state level judge.

If you're doing it simply because you think you can, then drive on & good luck. But in my view it's a wrong-headed and elitist approach.

Why we are doing it is because we saw a need and deficiency. Not just for an individual or small group, but one that benefited the entire group of us. Including all the SF guys on the forum and elsewhere. In no way did we approach it from and elitist platform. Working for our common good. Don’t think ever run into a current or prior SOF guy acting like he is better then anyone else (or an elitist or part of a special class). Regular military yes, SOF no.

It was also decided because multiple laws that would have grants a nationwide CC ability to all citizens have made no progress and have always failed. They don’t even make it to the first committee.

Even the fact that such a citizen ccw law “is needed” shows the 2nd Amendment, unfortunately, will never be taken as truth as a whole as it should. Are we in a position to correct that? Not really.

------

It seems the definition of who would qualify is still a major tripping point. For those who it bothers please specify who you think should qualify. Even if you don’t support it you can still help with a definition. Just so it is known, the “Operator” part is only borrowed from the USSOCOM factbook they publish, listing us all Operators now. It is easier to use one encompassing term to explain the project to people. We all know who that term is really meant for.

It would be interesting to know, for those who carry, why you do so. Do you carry just because, or because of your individual experience, you feel a need, even slight, to carry?

If the realistic chance of you needing protection has you carrying, does your SF background have nothing to do with it? In either capability, need, or want?

If you don’t want to be part of a “special class” (again, some understandably see it that way but is not an intention) and the law was in effect, would you refuse the permit offered to you? Would you refuse it at discharge/retirement, or mailed to you tomorrow?

If the 2nd is what it’s supposed to be, then gun laws would not be needed, CC permits of any kind not needed. It’s been spun over a thousand times online. Yet that is how this game is played in this country today and the foreseeable future. The fact anyone here who applies for a state issued CC permit is playing the game. Not everyone in your state qualifies for a permit perhaps. But, you apply, and are granted, and carry. Maybe you would not be approved if you lived one state over. Some may think you are already in a special group.

[FlagDayNCO]

With orders assigning an individual to a post, you can change your residence to that state, or at the least obtain a local drivers license and address. With that, you can get your permit. I know, as I did it when I was stationed at Benning, with my home of record being a very non-permissive state.

As just about everyone else stated, creating a special class is just dividing the American citizenry. Look at all the retired LEOs that now have national carry status. Now their unions have stated they are "neutral" on the national right to carry movement. BS there too; they just want it for themselves.

Finally, every time "The People" go to the Federal Agitators for a ruling or permission involving firearms, they now have established another set of limits and qualifying factors. All of which, can be taken away when the Judges decide you aren't entitled anymore. Forget about your rights.

The NRA... Remember they were against "military" firearms before everyone else. They were at the table when NFA was being discussed in the 1960s.

[Divemaster]

Not even DEVGRU has seen an episode of assault/attack and you can look up their home base on Google.
JMO

EVERYONE who shot bin Laden is still alive, right?

I'm not even wild about all retired LEO having a special "right" the rest of us don't have. Many of them are a hazard to the rest of us with a drawn weapon.

Have you ever worked with a local or federal SWAT team? Depending on the agency, we should have received hostile fire pay.

[Badger52]

Finally, every time "The People" go to the Federal Agitators for a ruling or permission involving firearms, they now have established another set of limits and qualifying factors. All of which, can be taken away when the Judges decide you aren't entitled anymore. Forget about your rights.
Precisely. That's why many framers thought even listing a "bill of rights" (as if that could be all-inclusive at the outset) was a bad idea because of exactly what you state. The appearance, and acquiescence, that the State then holds the power to restrict or diminish something that does not need to be codified in the first place.

To posture that someone isn't a special class of citizen while advocating to be treated as one is simply disingenuous, which is the polite term.*


* dis-in-gen-u-ous syn. as colloquial, see "horsehockey"

[Box]

I am completely in favor of such a move since I am an 18 series - I should be more entitled than those who have not completed the star-exam and for god sakes lets not let any "support" folks get in on this or we would have Ranger Medics and Commo Guys thinking that they had earned some respect for being elite.

The rest of the citizenry can pound sand; besides 51% of them voted democrat in the last election so they dont want to carry guns anyway.
I'm special..... read the tab. (or maybe we should just change the tab to read "eLitist f0rces"



Now.... when can I get my CCW permit?


edited to add: I also want some tax breaks for my ammo since I am more equal than other citizens.

[Trapper John]

Wait, wait we are in the basket of deplorables - Never mind! :p

[PRB]

Special Forces guys don't believe in 'specialty groups'...sorry boys...BS flag on that one.

Sounding a bit sanctimonious here at the moment.

Whether you agree or disagree with the OP he's not trying to burn up the Constitution.

If I could get a carry anywhere I'd take it.....some times a near target can lead to a longer distance engagement.

[UWOA (RIP)]

EVERYONE who shot bin Laden is still alive, right?

I'm not even wild about all retired LEO having a special "right" the rest of us don't have. Many of them are a hazard to the rest of us with a drawn weapon.

Have you ever worked with a local or federal SWAT team? Depending on the agency, we should have received hostile fire pay.

That's why LEOSA requires an annual qualification; if the retired LEO doesn't meet minimum qualification standards they don't get to carry. So the generality doesn't apply. What does apply is the problem-solving ability that impacts knowing when to draw the weapon ... there I will agree that not all retired LEOs meet the standard I'd like to see before they are qualified under LEOSA. (Do I carry under LEOSA; yes, I do. But other than one time, when I backed up an officer, in a jurisdiction far from home, who was making a felony car stop of multiple individuals by himself while I was passing by, and stopped to assist until other backup arrived -- it's the only time I've drawn my weapon.) Yet I've seen a lot of shit go on and did not get involved because it either didn't meet the exigency that required a firearm or mere observation could not establish all the parameters that would indicate involvement was merited, i.e. there's always two sides to every story and if you can't establish multiple perspectives to what is occuring, you're gonna get burned. JMHO.

.

[Peregrino]

That's why LEOSA requires an annual qualification; if the retired LEO doesn't meet minimum qualification standards they don't get to carry. So the generality doesn't apply. What does apply is the problem-solving ability that impacts knowing when to draw the weapon ... there I will agree that not all retired LEOs meet the standard I'd like to see before they are qualified under LEOSA. (Do I carry under LEOSA; yes, I do. But other than one time, when I backed up an officer, in a jurisdiction far from home, who was making a felony car stop of multiple individuals by himself while I was passing by, and stopped to assist until other backup arrived -- it's the only time I've drawn my weapon.) Yet I've seen a lot of shit go on and did not get involved because it either didn't meet the exigency that required a firearm or mere observation could not establish all the parameters that would indicate involvement was merited, i.e. there's always two sides to every story and if you can't establish multiple perspectives to what is occuring, you're gonna get burned. JMHO.

.

A lot to think on in the highlighted comment. Based on conversations I've been party to over the years, much of it nuanced beyond the reasoning ability of the average "because the 2nd Amendment says I can" CCW aspirant. The old double edged sword - on the one hand is the right to bear arms, on the other is the requirement to use maturity, judgment, and restraint in the exercise of that right. Unfortunately, the first time the licensing authority realizes they've made a mistake is usually after everything has gone to shit.

[Leozinho]

While there is a Federal law (the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, with amendments) that allows retired police officers to carry nationally, there is nothing that provides current and former Operators self protection. The LEOSA is a benefit to us, as it shows such a law is possible.

A detailed look at the LEOSA shows that it was passed into law rather quickly. it was done so shortly after the September 11th attacks, to allow current and former law enforcement to protect their self and their family. However, a close look at the intent shows a secondary objective- allowing former "highly trained" people to help stop crimes and enhance national security.

That is the same goal we seek- a Federal law that allows us the ability to self protect, and as a secondary benefit, provide unconventional local and national security. While ours would not be sought to stop crimes, as former police are more in-tuned to, it would create increased security just having former Operators carrying.

It only makes sense that the people who fight against and stop the world's most dangerous individuals and groups, that are the most highly trained and dedicated bar none, be allowed to protect themselves, and their family, while providing secondary/informal national security when they leave the Profession.


I support everyone's right to carry concealed, but I have reservations about creating an elite class that is allowed to carry, and some of your arguments fall short.

Unlike retired law enforcement, 'operators' (I'll use your words) haven't been trained in the legal application of lethal force in the US, or much less have to live it daily as a law enforcement officer has to. While you are highly trained in many things, that is something you aren't trained in and it can't be underestimated.

To carry under LEOSA, one must qualify yearly. Presumably your plan has no such requirement.

I just don't think using LEOSA as an example is helpful.

---------

I also question just how highly trained some of your proposed 'protected' class is. An 11B that did one hitch in the Ranger Regiment and got out? Is he that highly trained? How far back are you going to go? Mid-90s Rangers that never deployed or were never issued a M9? Those guys deserve a special designation while other law abiding citizens can't get a carry permit? What about the guys that had their tabs revoked? I could go on.

--------

You also haven't demonstrated that former operators are in any more danger than anyone else. (If that is the case, maybe we former operators should stop blasting our former profession all over social media. This supposed threat isn't forcing many to keep a low profile.)

[Old Dog New Trick]

I am in agreement also that LEOSA is a bad precedent to use for national concealed carry by non-former police/LE. A LEO has spent 20, 30 or more years living by Use of Deadly Force policies and legal situations covering such use. The military through applicable laws, treaties and regulations conforms to Rules of Engagement and Law of Land Warfare which can be rather strict or liberally applied depending on the environment. One is not the other and they are not the same.

There is a case (hopefully) winding its way to the SCOTUS where an Army LTC/COL with high level knowledge of some sophisticated military equipment/system is fighting New Jersey because they would not issue a CCW because he couldn't prove his life or that of his family is in immediate danger. Even though his name and place of duty has been publicly announced. The state permit he has is no longer valid because of reciprocity laws of NJ.

This would be a better approach is to go after 'reciprocity' laws that violate the national transportation and commerce act. A permit issued in one state is valid in all 50 states or a special permit requiring a higher level of legal training and competence (available to all citizens) could be obtained, even if it cost more.

Personally, it's a violation of the 2A to require a permit, a tax, or a fee to exercise a free right but that's another argument.

[UWOA (RIP)]

In 2011 there was a little known law passed under national defense authorization act, that said ANYONE in the military could arrest a civilian for suspected terrorism. So under a strict interpretation of the law anyone that was in the military, active or reserve, at that time or since then should fall under the LEOSA.

Ahh yes second and third order of actions fall here. I understand good intentions but sometimes good intentions have the reverse effect down the line.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/ndaa.asp

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/dec/15/americans-face-guantanamo-detention-obama

Boy, that's a stretch.

Using your logic, the fact that a citizen can make an arrest for a felony committed in his presence (in some states, e.g. Indiana) would qualify that citizen to be armed under LEOSA ... I don't think so. There are also other prerequisites such as qualification to the state of residency's law enforcement qualification standards or those of the department where the individual performs/ed law enforcement service, and if retired have met the ten year (used to be fifteen) requirement. A military service (as a retired SF LTC with an AG secondary, I think I'm qualified to render an opinion) is not a "department" or "agency" and therefore doesn't meet your parameters (e.g. "strict interpretation").

Absent specific language to qualify such an individual your argument fails.

JMHO.

.

[DJ Urbanovsky]

How about CCW reciprocity at a national level, and just be done with it already?

[35NCO]

I have written up portions of a proposal for a bill before in the past that applies to ALL veterans and active/reserve mil. Your proposal is certainly not the first and absolutely not the last. (Respectfully, No disrespect intended.)

I have for many years submitted the concept to my congressional representation.

It has never gone anywhere. It sure receives a lot of "I am pro-gun...blah..blah.. blah..this is how awesome I am....No to your proposal." OR "I am pro-gun, BUT....guns are evil."

I was upset when I read about the LEO portion years ago too. It especially pissed me off when the Devil of Cali directly mentioned that military is too dangerous for certain firearms rights because soldiers can have PTSD.

All the above considered, I am just stating that I was wrong. I was wrong because of many of the reasons you all stated. My strategy was increment to 100% coverage. It was thought about in the context of the long game by using our patriotism as a subliminal reminder to the populace of the value to live and serve for the rights that should apply to all, not as a special class representation.

You are all right though, it is a slippery slope to everything we are against. I had not considered that before.

I have lost faith that this type of legislation is even possible anyway. The federal government does not seem to be jumping up to support those accidentally stuck in an arrest in other unconstitutional ban states. I do not see congress particularly caring, at least at this time.

There is always the good ol revolution, however that seems to also be a delusion in modern society. I personally see no recovery of that at this time. If it gets that bad, well it will be exactly that bad.

If anything is to ever be done it would have to be done with deep consideration with like minded individuals, quietly of incremental strategy over time, until such time that it could be acceptable to an overt audience. At this time things are being disassembled, and "de"-patriotism is flowing free. I have more concerns about what should be done to stop that before it does snowball into being as bad as we can presume it could be.

(But seriously though, I think it is criminal that I can be captured and imprisoned in NY state if I am driving through with my family with a loaded handgun in the vehicle.)

[Divemaster]

Did the OP just do a drive by, spray a mag here, and leave? Lots of questions, not many answers.

[Sohei]

How about CCW reciprocity at a national level, and just be done with it already?

That's exactly what needs to be done. There needs to be "one" singular group that focuses on that -- and that alone -- without getting off track and chasing down other rabbit trails. The NRA was there at one time and then they simply became political rather than simply focusing on the 2nd Amendment.

One group with one focus -- national level CC!

[blue02hd]

Sorry, a link to a Facebook page was listed on the profile. Email is Operators4CC@gmail.com. We speak on behalf of a group dedicated to this project, so while an individual may type this it’s a group of people. Our guys can have separate/personal usernames for that stuff.



It gets a bit complicated there. While many of us believe it would be better to have all/as many SOF types qualify, it becomes an issue of what Congress will want to include.

I know this seems like a minor point, but I have always been favorable to the old 5 W's, and you are not providing me a "Who" right now. I understand your "What" and "Why", and that you are looking for a "How", but so far your points are not grounded well, and this makes me curious as to how big your "group" is. Consider me from Missouri, the Show Me State. From your FB Page: "It is not an easy task as most of us stay in the shadows." This does not instill the transparency required to change Federal Law, and sings more of Air Soft Ambition.

For me this is simple, I carry and I carry constantly. I carry legally, and within the requirements of local and federal laws. I chose NOT to move to a state where my right to carry is infringed upon, and I vote often in my state to protect my rights now. I will not move to New Jersey, and therefore will not pay taxes to New Jersey, a state that denies my 2nd Amendment right. If you live in New Jersey, Kalifornia, Washington DC etc then you CHOSE to live there and therefore CHOSE to be subject to their laws. These laws CAN be changed, but at the local level and with a majority of voting citizens. You can't do this from the shadows. After reading that line about "staying in the shadows" on your FB page I literally stopped reading. I couldn't take your page serious anymore.

My training does not make me special or more deserving, our Constitution does. Congress has no say in the matter, and if you already admit that Congress will direct "who they want to choose", then this concept is DOA for me.

[blue02hd]

For some reason the Tacoma "Hilltop" incident keeps jumping into my mind.

Not all "Operators" are equal,,,,

[Peregrino]

Posts 38 and 39.

Well said.

[PRB]

For some reason the Tacoma "Hilltop" incident keeps jumping into my mind.

Not all "Operators" are equal,,,,

True, not all Cops are either....

[Old Dog New Trick]

For some reason the Tacoma "Hilltop" incident keeps jumping into my mind.

Not all "Operators" are equal,,,,

Wow! That's a throwback memory (I currently work with one of those fools.) I had just arrived at Lewis a couple months afterwards. It was still being discussed as what not to do.

The thing is though, they took back their neighborhood and things got better. In fact 27 years later Hilltop is one of the better places to live and work in Tacoma.

Here's a news clip for those unfamiliar: http://www.nytimes.com/1989/09/27/us/off-duty-soldiers-trade-gunfire-at-a-house-linked-to-drug-sales.html

[miclo18d]

I had totally forgotten about that whole incident. I didn't know they had a name for it.

During Just Cause I bumped into a guy I went to RIP with that was there. He told me they intentionally didn't shoot to kill anyone, but shot to scare the shit out of them. Fire discipline or crappy shots? You decide.

[Divemaster]

For some reason the Tacoma "Hilltop" incident keeps jumping into my mind.

Not all "Operators" are equal,,,,

Being in Group at the time, I remember that. 2/75 became a laughing stock for a while. The 11Bs there would always say, "hey, they were support troops" as an excuse. Word at the time was that over 100 rounds were fired and not a single person hit.

This was well before Hilltop turned the corner. However, I still wouldn't live there today. To get to Engine House No. 9, I have go drive down South Sprague (Hilltop's western boundary), and it still does not look like the happiest place on Earth.

Map attached for those not familiar with the area.

[Team Sergeant]

For some reason the Tacoma "Hilltop" incident keeps jumping into my mind.

Not all "Operators" are equal,,,,

LOL, you mean the "2000 rounds fired and no one hit" incident? (Maybe they were trying out for a TV series?)

[UWOA (RIP)]

True, not all Cops are either....

Agreed.

.

[CC4Operators]

Unlike retired law enforcement, 'operators' (I'll use your words) haven't been trained in the legal application of lethal force in the US, or much less have to live it daily as a law enforcement officer has to. While you are highly trained in many things, that is something you aren't trained in and it can't be underestimated.
To carry under LEOSA, one must qualify yearly. Presumably your plan has no such requirement.
I just don't think using LEOSA as an example is helpful.
---------
I also question just how highly trained some of your proposed 'protected' class is. An 11B that did one hitch in the Ranger Regiment and got out? Is he that highly trained? How far back are you going to go? Mid-90s Rangers that never deployed or were never issued a M9? Those guys deserve a special designation while other law abiding citizens can't get a carry permit? What about the guys that had their tabs revoked? I could go on.
--------
You also haven't demonstrated that former operators are in any more danger than anyone else. (If that is the case, maybe we former operators should stop blasting our former profession all over social media. This supposed threat isn't forcing many to keep a low profile.)
A few important points here. No one can argue that LEO get a lot of training/experience in application of legal lethal force. Yes, SOF largely does not. On the other hand, neither do the multitude of citizens who carry. Yet they still carry. Some states do offer a class on it as part of the process. Some do not.
Yes, under LEOSA you must qualify (I think according to what the individual’s state demands). That can be all of 1 or 2 times a year. The rest of the time they don’t have to shoot at all. Not sure that keeps the “skills” up but the box is checked.
This was discussed by us early on. Using LEOSA as an example (though you think it is not, it is helpful to use it as a simple example) we discussed both qualifications and the lethal force issue. Sure we can ASK for the bill to have no qualifications, or we can ASK for them. The easiest way to solve both problems is to incorporate qualification as part of the permit process, needing it to be x amount of times or x amount of years, and part of that process is a class on lethal force and the laws regarding it. Such classes do exist and found through the NRA, etc.
Using LEOSA is useful as a loose example for many reasons. It was passed very quickly (something like 6 months). It had multiple police organizations involved with it, about half for it and half against it. It brings up questions of age, ability, need, qualifications, use, etc. It also shows the mindset concerning its creation- 1)to protect current and former LEO and their families and 2) protect community and nation (by giving former LEO the ability to help when needed in light of the September 11th attacks). In short, something “similar” showed that this project was doable.
-----
You question who is highly trained, by example of one Ranger having one stint. Where is the line that, once crossed, someone is “highly trained?” Remember being taught that “don’t be so confident as to think someone isn’t better then you, you only set yourself up for failure.” There was a time that one “stint” in Regiment was 4-6 deployments (4 year contract). Yet before September 11th (as a recent example) deployments were rare (for anyone).

I never thought that this topic would become an issue of measuring one’s level of training and experience in SOF. Combat arms SOF vs SOF support aside, that there is a question of one SOF being more highly trained (and thus more deserving of a CCW) then another is simply an echo of the special class argument here. Cutting out SOF support from the bill is one thing, and a reasonable thing to do. Yet to start hacking up guys time in SOF to see who is bigger is disgusting to say the least. We all know some of us have more time in, more experience, more opportunities, then others. It shouldn’t mean x amount of schools and x amount of deployments and x amount of time in = CCW.

---
Since LEO was mentioned earlier, all of the LEO’s that we have talked to about this (from local to Federal) all stated support, and in fact, expressed almost a desire to have us carrying. They always stated the benefits of having “highly trained and experienced” guys on their side, before we even mentioned it. The ones who where familiar with LEOSA even recommended that we use it as a model. Sure, perhaps some officers will be against it. It has not been our experience so far.

[CC4Operators]

How about CCW reciprocity at a national level, and just be done with it already?

I have written up portions of a proposal for a bill before in the past that applies to ALL veterans and active/reserve mil. Your proposal is certainly not the first and absolutely not the last. (Respectfully, No disrespect intended.)

I have for many years submitted the concept to my congressional representation.

It has never gone anywhere. It sure receives a lot of "I am pro-gun...blah..blah.. blah..this is how awesome I am....No to your proposal." OR "I am pro-gun, BUT....guns are evil."


No disrespect taken. It is good you attempted to do such a thing. We are familiar with some previous attempts (perhaps not yours), but there was one flaw in them. It was too wide of a scope. Ask even the most pro gun of legislators about the likelihood of a wide sweeping national CCW bill for either military/veterans or all citizens, and most will admit its a slim chance.

The multiple national CC bills that have been introduced in recent years, including the current term, many legislators admit, are "feel good measures." They never expect them to pass, and they don't make it to or through the first committee. Take the LEOSA (as a loose example) and you will see a bill that allows a small group of trained people to carry. Still alot of people against it, but it passed very quickly. Look at the LEOSA listing of legislators who voted for it, you will find even strict anti-gun ones approved of it.

For example, many of us are well aware of how strongly anti-gun Dianne Feinstein (Senate-D-CA) is. She was one of 70 co-sponsers of the LEOSA. That is probably because the LEO organizations successfully made it less of a gun issue and more of a safety issue for a small reliable group of people.

[CC4Operators]

Did the OP just do a drive by, spray a mag here, and leave? Lots of questions, not many answers.

No, we are still here. It is just a lot of information to process and think about. We look over each response. Don’t want to get too stirred up about it either, some time helps keep things on track and not heated. Spraying a mag is for amateurs, we are serious about this issue.

If a serious question is asked and for some reason we don’t get to it or its overlooked please PM and we will directly get to you.

[CC4Operators]

I know this seems like a minor point, but I have always been favorable to the old 5 W's, and you are not providing me a "Who" right now.

Actually, to us, this is a major point. It is one of the reasons we asked to come to this forum, is to figure out the who.

There seems to be a strong vibe here that the who be strictly specified. Other then a strict listing of MOS and units we haven't seen any specific requests?

If we are still stuck on a who, please guys make a list. Make a list here or PM it. Make it detailed, make it broad, it don’t matter. If you are interested in this for yourself, or simply to help your brothers who live in those bad states and can’t move, or have to visit often, or have to work in them, etc., and are not lucky enough to live in a better location then please make a list of who should qualify.

Again, how legislators eventually write up and then agree on the final wording of any bill is up to them. We just present the ideas, suggestions, requests, and perhaps a draft. They tear it up from there.


You can't do this from the shadows. After reading that line about "staying in the shadows" on your FB page I literally stopped reading. I couldn't take your page serious anymore.

Well agreed, and that’s the reason we reached out to this forum? If we did it from the shadows you’d never would have heard from us. And you can’t tell me the majority of SOF is out in the light.

Instead of a criticism how about an offer of help? A real suggestion on how to come across better, reach out to more people, a better way to word the bill. Tell us how to do a better Facebook page perhaps? Make a post on there offering assistance and spreading the word? Or did you find fault in one sentence and gave up?

Since you feel most of us aren't in the shadows and easily accessible, how about you explain how to reach out to all of us to promote this other then Facebook and reaching out on forums? Its not like we have some secret handshake club or a signal or something, an easy way to reach out to all of us.

. . . a state that denies my 2nd Amendment right. If you live in New Jersey, Kalifornia, Washington DC etc then you CHOSE to live there and therefore CHOSE to be subject to their laws. These laws CAN be changed, but at the local level and with a majority of voting citizens. . . .
My training does not make me special or more deserving, our Constitution does. Congress has no say in the matter, and if you already admit that Congress will direct "who they want to choose", then this concept is DOA for me.

This is the classic argument, and you seemingly contradict yourself.
You state the Constitution defines.
Then, that states do in fact deny 2nd Amendment rights.
Then explain that the States, through their citizens, can change the laws.
It is those laws that deny Constitutional rights.
It is also those laws the can both restore and/or affirm Constitutional rights.

Do you carry in your state under a "state law" or a Constitutional right?

[CC4Operators]

With respect, it feels that this thread is off track. It is not meant to be a moral, political, or legal (constitutionality) discussion. It was meant to field out the feasibility and interest of proposing such a bill.

If you are either for or against this, its respectable and understandable for whatever the reason.

If you are against it, please keep your reasons specifically to the proposal itself. For example, "I'm against it because it includes SOF support guys," or, "I'm against it because lack of yearly qualification." Explain in detail and how you feel that "error" can be remedied in detail.

If the reason is political, legal, or moral, stating so is no real help to this thread.

If you are for it, please state so and state what you like, your ideas on it, and what can be changed and how.

You need not state so publicly either way. Simply PM if you wish.

Thank you for your time and understanding. Just trying to keep things beneficial and on track.

[Badger52]

If you are against it, please keep your reasons specifically to the proposal itself. For example, "I'm against it because it includes SOF support guys," or, "I'm against it because lack of yearly qualification." Explain in detail and how you feel that "error" can be remedied in detail.In many cases (varies by state) those carrying under LEOSA - while a law recognized nationally - in states that have a carry permit process are still under state guidelines regarding the specifics of carrying a firearm. They are not magically armed where a normal permit holder would not be allowed to carry either. And, in my state anyway, a regular permit allows for concealed carry of other weapons as well, whereas carry under LEOSA is restricted to a handgun & does require annual recert. True, the LEOSA is recognized nationally, but there are plenty of states where a retired officer is just another off-duty person who happens to be carrying insofar as their standing vis a vis a resident carrying, and where.

So you are proposing something even more broad than LEOSA?

If the reason is political, legal, or moral, stating so is no real help to this thread.
Respectfully, regardless of this thread, if you aren't prepared to address those things when they come up I don't predict success. Then again, quite often, political with legal & moral, are mutually exclusive.
:rolleyes:

Legislative actions like this (or LEOSA) have more chance (if only a little) because the critters in the Capitol don't like to be seen generally voting against "these fine heroes who keep us safe everyday" or whatever mantra of the day is needed for covering fire. Peasants (us "deplorables") matter not. If it actually gets off the ground & I'm still alive I'll happily be pinging my reps bigtime against it. That's the political side, but it's mine. You may get some traction at an opportune moment.

Down the road, so many special classes may have special permits that plain ol' deplorable kulaks will be stripped of that. If you cannot see any problem with measures like this, with the perception that goes along of just another "ha-ha I've got mine", then that is part of the problem.
That's one legal side but, again, it's mine; others may differ, that's cool.

I'll leave the moral side alone; I've made my decisions & do what I have to for me & mine, piece of paper or not.

[blue02hd]

CC4 (et al?),

I appreciate your response, and wish you well with your efforts, however I cannot see the end state as clearly as you. If my comments appear harsh or unexpected then perhaps they may help in future conversations you will have with other individuals. As you said, my points are "classic". Hopefully your sight aperture may have opened a bit, but I will continue to dissent on this topic.

WHO: Guys in Shadows
WHAT: Advocating for the emplacement of a Federal CCW Permit for military SOF.
WHY: Due to SOF's higher level of training and (collective?) combat experience.
HOW: By structuring a Federal Law that will super-cede local and state laws.
WHEN: TBD

Although the above is EXTREMELY simplistic, is this not what you are trying to advocate for?

One of SOF's key tenants is to understand your operational environment. You propose to create a law that will in effect raise citizens with military experience above that of citizens without military experience with respect to the right to carry a firearm in jurisdictions that have already weighed in on the matter at the local level. But yet,,,,,,,, does our Constitution not protect our citizenry (in total) from that VERY thought by appointing a civilian Commander in Chief? WE WORK FOR CIVILIANS. Checks and balances placed so that the military will never have more authority than the civilian leadership. So I wonder if you understand your operational environment. If you think my comments obstructive, wait til you argue with the Liberals. My comments may seem contradictory, but they are really not.

You asked for a productive comment, as it seems my former comments may have been to "straight forward". Drop any and all language that refers to "Shadows" from your public communications, IE FB. It simply does you no favors, and in reality undermines your efforts.

Thank you for asking if I was aware of this elusive "shadow world" that you and your cohorts belong to. I can only respond with "yes, I have Call Of Duty Shadow Warriors on XBOX One" you can find me online. I will say though, I am a vetted member here, and though I do not speak for the whole of this community, I believe my reasoning is sound. Just my POV, nothing personal.

Again, thank you for responding. And thank you for considering my opinion as well.

Blue02hd

[bblhead672]

Actually it is a help to this thread. If the very folks you are wanting to arm believe it is morally wrong to set them apart and give them "rights" that the average person does not have you might want to think long and hard about your proposal. I know the intentions are good and you are trying to do the right thing, no one here believes otherwise, but second and third order of consequences set in here.

My opinion doesn't count here as I am merely an old Navy vet who has lifelong admiration and respect for the Special Forces. I hope and believe that the SF will be ready and willing to stand with an armed citizenry to oppose a corrupt and belligerent Constitution abusing government run amok.

So, as an outsider, I'm torn between the "2A amendment rights everywhere for me but not for thee" side and the "you guys deserve to be able to protect yourself after having placed your lives on the line against our enemies, many of whom would love to behead you" side.
I fear the overreaching government now about as much as the Islamic terrorists striking it seems almost weekly (or daily?).
However this effort turns out, I hope and pray that whatever the government gives you that in return they do not demand loyalty to them instead of the Constitution.
And, could be I'm just full of crap and paranoid about where my country is headed....

[UWOA (RIP)]

I find Blue02hd's comments above extremely succinct and very relevant.

.

[Trapper John]

:lifter to UWOA's post!

And Blue, I will say though, I am a vetted member here, and though I do not speak for the whole of this community, I believe my reasoning is sound. Just my POV, nothing personal. You must still be drinking that Greygoose and Red Bull? ;)

[PRB]

:lifter to UWOA's post!

And Blue, You must still be drinking that Greygoose and Red Bull? ;)

Quite the drink...is that so you can do dumb shit faster and with more energy?

[blue02hd]

Quite the drink...is that so you can do dumb shit faster and with more energy?

Well, it beats drinking ones own Kool Aid? Wouldn't you agree??

:lifter:lifter:lifter

[CC4Operators]

WHO: Guys in Shadows
WHAT: Advocating for the emplacement of a Federal CCW Permit for military SOF.
WHY: Due to SOF's higher level of training and (collective?) combat experience.
HOW: By structuring a Federal Law that will super-cede local and state laws.
WHEN: TBD

Although the above is EXTREMELY simplistic, is this not what you are trying to advocate for?

Hi, yes that is simplistic. As is the Facebook page, it is not tailored only for SOF guys but the general public as well. SOF support of this project is one thing, while support from, and education for, everyone else can only help. A certain aurora concerning those in “the shadows” makes sense for some people. Again, its generic yet factual- not all SOF guys are comfortable with people knowing who they are and what they did.

Since you/the other QP’s here are not the general public, we can get more detailed. I’ve tried to do so before in this thread but its gotten lost in the mix. You helped by breaking it down. This is more appropriate, with feedback inserted from posts here.

WHO: Current and former SOF combat series MOS. A detailed list would include all 18 MOS, all 11 MOS from 75th Ranger Regiment only, all Navy SEAL’s, etc.
Question- who else do you want added?

Otherwise, current service or Honorable Discharge is required, legal ability to own firearms is required, background check, etc.

Question- if you want a regular firearms qualification requirement, someone needs to come up with how that can be dealt with for a federal permit. Not many states require it for their permits.

WHAT: Advocating for the emplacement of a Federal CCW Permit for military SOF.

WHY: State CCW laws/permits are inadequate for all current and former SOF. Some can not carry in their home state. Most can not carry out of their state. No Federal law/permit exists. Currently, there is no Federal law/permit probable for all citizens.

Due to SOF's higher level of training and experience, such a Federally issued permit is needed as it will allow those qualified to self protect in any state the reside in, or during travel. This permit is needed until the laws change allowing all citizens to carry nationally.

In a post-September 11th nation, this permit could help bolster national security.

HOW: By structuring a Federal Law that will super-cede local and state laws concerning the permit process itself. State laws forbidding carry in certain specific locations (like courthouses, municipal buildings, bars, private and public property when indicated, schools, etc) is upheld. State laws requiring a carrier to only carry a sidearm that is registered with the state, and ones that limit type of ammunition used, is exempt.

WHEN: TBD, but project submittal is slated for late January 2017 for the 2017-2018 Congressional calendar.

Thank you for asking if I was aware of this elusive "shadow world" that you and your cohorts belong to. I can only respond with "yes, I have Call Of Duty Shadow Warriors on XBOX One" you can find me online. I will say though, I am a vetted member here, and though I do not speak for the whole of this community, I believe my reasoning is sound.

Again, please do not take that in a personal aspect. That terminology is not meant for guys with your/our background. To everyone outside the Profession that is how things seem. Your COD reference proves it.

Your reasoning is sound, and respected. However, it is one of many. In addition, we are aware of your status here, and others, on this forum. We try to respond with respect to both you and the others, yet at the same time respect to the project and all the time and effort we have placed into it. On the other hand, your system of “vetted members” and how your run this forum is the main reason we came here to both inform you and seek suggestions.


One of SOF's key tenants is to understand your operational environment. You propose to create a law that will in effect raise citizens with military experience above that of citizens without military experience with respect to the right to carry a firearm in jurisdictions that have already weighed in on the matter at the local level. But yet,,,,,,,, does our Constitution not protect our citizenry (in total) from that VERY thought by appointing a civilian Commander in Chief? WE WORK FOR CIVILIANS. Checks and balances placed so that the military will never have more authority than the civilian leadership. So I wonder if you understand your operational environment. If you think my comments obstructive, wait til you argue with the Liberals. My comments may seem contradictory, but they are really not.

Not quite following everything you are trying to say here. Will just respond that yes, the military works for its citizens. Yet eventually, those military members become civilians again. In this case, former SOF become those “in charge.”

It is not so much the “military” having power over the civilian leadership, as far as this permit is concerned. It is the federal government, elected by the people, who will be both passing the law and issuing the permit. If what you are trying to say is that it is a states rights issue, some people will argue that a federal permit will only take back what states have taken from them.

A lot of people are for a citizen national CCW. Does that, in itself, not undo what has been decided “in jurisdictions that have already weighed in on the matter at the local level”?

We are all for checks and balances. If we give this our all and the checks and balances punts our proposal out, so be it. However, if it makes its way through the system, with civilian appointed leadership voting it though, and lands with the “civilian Commander-in-Chief’s” signature on it, it would seem your procedure was followed.

If you think my comments obstructive, wait til you argue with the Liberals. My comments may seem contradictory, but they are really not.

Again, not really here to argue over people’s personal opinions on this matter. They are all warranted and are good to hear. However, for every comment that we don’t need such a bill because we have the Constitution, is the counterargument that it don’t work for everyone.

As far as liberals go, we’ve dealt with them. We got the typical “guns are bad” and “whatever happens to you over there (meaning deployments/military service) don’t follow you back home,” and “you have the police to protect you so you don’t need to carry.” When I responded with, “the police have their own carry law, why do they and do your support that,” the response was, “oh well, I um, it’s a law. When the time comes and your proposal is written as a bill I’ll give it serious consideration.”

[1stindoor]

....Not quite following everything you are trying to say here. Will just respond that yes, the military works for its citizens. Yet eventually, those military members become civilians again. In this case, former SOF become those “in charge.”

”

I would question that statistic. How do you define "those?" Are you talking about our current political and/or corporate leaders? How many of those were former military much less in the SOF community?

[tonyz]

Such an elite group should bring to bear all their might for nationwide reciprocity for concealed carry. Further division just plays into BigGovs game.

If you're legal in your home state you should be good-to-go in all other states - seems to work for marriage and driving.

FWIW the stats supporting state concealed carry folks being law abiding folks - and not using a firearm in a crime is compelling. We had threads on those numbers a few years ago. TX and FL were cited with statistical data provided. As I said, the numbers were compelling.

That ticket or piece of plastic never stops the bad guys from carrying wherever they want to carry.

Widespread licensure for concealed carry is a relatively modern phenomena - Florida could be said to have started the trend of "shall issue" with inaccurate predictions of "blood running in the streets" if "shall issue" passed. The naysayers were wrong then and they are wrong now for denying nationwide reciprocity.

Keep it simple - gather support and focus on the "right" objective not settling for the crumbs that government bureaucrats see fit to grant.

Good luck with whatever direction you choose. In the short run, we'd all probably be better off with you folks carrying everywhere. But, IMO we have settled too often lately. In the long run, less division of all law abiding Americans into more and more separate groups is preferable...come to think of it...that just might be better in the short run, too.

Just .02.

[Badger52]

A lot of people are for a citizen national CCW. Does that, in itself, not undo what has been decided “in jurisdictions that have already weighed in on the matter at the local level”?Many are against it as well, since it abrogates to the Fed that which they shouldn't have their hand in.

We are all for checks and balances. If we give this our all and the checks and balances punts our proposal out, so be it. However, if it makes its way through the system, with civilian appointed leadership voting it though, and lands with the “civilian Commander-in-Chief’s” signature on it, it would seem your procedure was followed.

Again, not really here to argue over people’s personal opinions on this matter. They are all warranted and are good to hear. However, for every comment that we don’t need such a bill because we have the Constitution, is the counterargument that it don’t work for everyone.
Something I'll offer along a messaging line (maybe you've already considered this) and I mean this as sincerely as you can take it. Being objective here - completely separate from my personal objection to such things - it's that, like it or not, you are engaging in an environment where words & the perceptions on the distant-end matters. The political process is what it is, and I've been through a couple of legislative rodeos on matters regarding this issue. Take care to understand both the environments you need to operate in; both that small population who are actually the enablers/deal-breakers of your goal as well as (perhaps most importantly) those who can influence the former.

When you speak of "citizen" and separate them from the small constituency you're trying to lobby for, it's off-putting. It draws a fence and implies, whether you mean it that way or not, that one is better than the other and that someone carrying the mantle of "citizen" really doesn't amount to much. Use of the term Commander-in-Chief, in the wrong context, can have the same effect. CinC is a role; the President signs laws. Just take care that you're talking about the one that those citizens (who you may want support from) have in common with you. Jes' sayin'.

Good luck.

[bblhead672]

How many Special Forces operators have been specifically targeted and injured or killed in retaliation by forces loyal to the islamists after returning to the US?

[The Reaper]

How many Special Forces operators have been specifically targeted and injured or killed in retaliation by forces loyal to the islamists after returning to the US?

Including MAJ Hassan?

TR

[Joker]

How many Special Forces operators have been specifically targeted and injured or killed in retaliation by forces loyal to the islamists after returning to the US?

I have received direct threats via my work email. Physically attacked? No.

Bring it.

[Team Sergeant]

I have received direct threats via my work email. Physically attacked? No.

Bring it.

Never been threatened, not once. But I agree with Joker, Bring it.

[UWOA (RIP)]

Never been threatened, not once. But I agree with Joker, Bring it.

I've never been threatened as SF, but a bunch as a Sheriff's Deputy, yeah; they usually went to jail because of something stupid and illegal, but a few did walk away after using their First Amendment right. More than a few times I've annunciated during a confrontation the options they had:

"You can leave (not always an option), you can go to jail, you can go to the hospital and then go to jail, or you can go to the morgue. Take your pick."

I've never had to send anyone to the morgue after announcing the options, although in twenty-five years on the street I've had occasion to send a few to the hospital (and then to jail).

Bottom line, don't see the need as a retired SF officer; I do carry as a retired LEO -- I don't look to enforce the law now, but no idiot is going to go 'round shooting people indiscriminately while I'm in the AO.

.

[GratefulCitizen]

I don't look to enforce the law now, but no idiot is going to go 'round shooting people indiscriminately while I'm in the AO.

.

The trend in mass shootings (and stabbings) is no longer indiscriminate.
Often, before shooting or stabbing you, they'll first ask about your religion.

Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormon kids in white shirts will knock on your door, but they don't try to kill you.
Religion of peace...

[UWOA (RIP)]

The trend in mass shootings (and stabbings) is no longer indiscriminate.
Often, before shooting or stabbing you, they'll first ask about your religion.

Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormon kids in white shirts will knock on your door, but they don't try to kill you.
Religion of peace...

I think you're missing the point of my statement ....

.

[GratefulCitizen]

I think you're missing the point of my statement ....

.

Apologies for the thread jacking, didn't mean to distract from your point.
The choice of the word "indiscriminately" illustrates the changes which have occurred in this country.

Before, it was random deranged individuals, and concealed carry was a self-defense issue WRT criminals and insane persons.
Now, it has escalated to include defense against domestic enemies of the Constitution.

Sharia and the Constitution are incompatible.
Only one or the other can prevail.

[CC4Operators]

I would question that statistic. How do you define "those?" Are you talking about our current political and/or corporate leaders? How many of those were former military much less in the SOF community?

In his post, blue02hd stated SOF work for civilians. The counterpoint is that- yes that is true, but that those SOF members eventually become civilians themselves. So my point is former SOF is “in charge”, and if former SOF, in whole or in part, has this request then those we are in charge of should listen.

The USSOCOM Factbook states that there is something like 66,000 SOF at any given time. No doubt, a large number of that is support and leadership. Wikipedia states there is something like 2 million service members in the United States. So yes, we are a minority group. On the other hand, “former SOF” is a multiplier. While only 66,000 may be serving at any given time, former SOF continues to add up over time.

Therefore, while former SOF may not be in charge, as in a leadership positions, we are in charge as the US Citizenry is concerning its leadership.

No statistic implied with the previous post. And no, not talking about current political and/or corporate leaders.

However, since you brought it up, in preparing for this project we already researched this and created a database of who in Congress has military experience, are pro-firearms, who have shown special support for SOF, those who support a citizen based national permit, and those who has shown support for the LEOSA and then its improvements.

What we found was:
85 Representatives with military background
21 Senators with military background
238 are C or better NRA scored
229 (in total) have supported the various national carry bills for citizens
124 supported LEOSA
12 supported LEOSA Improvements
35 showed additional SOF support.

This comes down to:
343 total legislators of 535 total, 64% identified
291 Representatives of 435, 67% identified
52 Senators of 100, 52% identified
46 states and 2 U.S. Territories represented
9 states with SOF presence (if the legislator is on the list, the state is counted).

It should be noted that we only found 1 out of the 106 legislators with a military background have a SOF background. The majority are support backgrounds.

Naturally, it should also be noted that these numbers may not be exact but its close.

In addition, those figures are an account of legislators currently serving. For example, more might have supported the LEOSA or its improvements, but if they are not currently serving, they are not counted.

We did this research to see how favorable the current environment was (how much support we might have).

Thank you for the comment and hopefully that clarifies things for you.

Such an elite group should bring to bear. . . . .
Many are against it as well, since it abrogates to the Fed that which they shouldn't have their hand in.. . . .

Thank you, all well stated.

[x SF med]

In fact to make this less obscure, we at least know of 1 SF 1st Group, 2 75th Rangers, 3 other SOF, and 1 SEAL that live in NJ and can not get permits. Even if you try and are denied because of lack of justifiable need, everytime you apply for any permit you must explain why. In such states, the 2nd Amendment does little for you (so says the state). Try explaining that your SOF background qualifies as justifiable need to your local police chief and state level judge.



And that's one of the reasons why I left the NY/NJ area...

[Penn]

UWOA
Bottom line, don't see the need as a retired SF officer; I do carry as a retired LEO -- I don't look to enforce the law now, but no idiot is going to go 'round shooting people indiscriminately while I'm in the AO.

This is both the crux of the issue and a counter argument with a solution.

The legislative dynamic of issuing a CCW national permit to Former 18 series is equivalent to passing a constitutional amendment, next to impossible.

So the question and answer to that problematic undertaking is the LEO certification, would not your goals be more quickly served, if all qualified and legally certifiable 18 series were automatically deputized as retired US law enforcement officers; possibly through completing a program at a state police academy, or its federal equivalent?

This approach would eliminate the burdensome legislative hoop jumping, thereby streamlining and conforming to civilian standards, for those interested in a national CCW

[SF-TX]

UWOA

So the question and answer to that problematic undertaking is the LEO certification, would not your goals be more quickly served, if all qualified and legally certifiable 18 series were automatically deputized as retired US law enforcement officers; possibly through completing a program at a state police academy, or its federal equivalent?

This approach would eliminate the burdensome legislative hoop jumping, thereby streamlining and conforming to civilian standards, for those interested in a national CCW

While not automatic, the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement has authorized a streamlined process for Special Forces and Military Police to become a commissioned peace officer.

http://tcole.texas.gov/content/military

Rule 219.25 (http://texreg.sos.state.tx.us/public/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=R&app=9&p_dir=&p_rloc=&p_tloc=&p_ploc=&pg=1&p_tac=&ti=37&pt=7&ch=219&rl=25) - Defines what "Special Forces" means in regards to this process

[CC4Operators]

UWOA


This is both the crux of the issue and a counter argument with a solution.

The legislative dynamic of issuing a CCW national permit to Former 18 series is equivalent to passing a constitutional amendment, next to impossible.

So the question and answer to that problematic undertaking is the LEO certification, would not your goals be more quickly served, if all qualified and legally certifiable 18 series were automatically deputized as retired US law enforcement officers; possibly through completing a program at a state police academy, or its federal equivalent?

This approach would eliminate the burdensome legislative hoop jumping, thereby streamlining and conforming to civilian standards, for those interested in a national CCW

While an interesting suggestion, wouldn't the same "burdensome legislative hoop jumping" have to be performed to accomplish this? In addition, an applicant must work as an LEO for 10 years with arrest powers to qualify for former officer carry.

And, it is much simpler then your comparison of a constitutional amendment. Its a change in the U.S. Code which is done regularly, for example, 18 U.S. Code § 926B, and 18 U.S. Code § 926C. LEO did it in about 6 months once the bill hit the floor.

While not automatic, the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement has authorized a streamlined process for Special Forces and Military Police to become a commissioned peace officer.

http://tcole.texas.gov/content/military

Rule 219.25 (http://texreg.sos.state.tx.us/public/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=R&app=9&p_dir=&p_rloc=&p_tloc=&p_ploc=&pg=1&p_tac=&ti=37&pt=7&ch=219&rl=25) - Defines what "Special Forces" means in regards to this process

Thanks for pointing this out. Such a method would only help those former SOF who want to work as LEO, of which the numbers would, as a guess, be low.

In addition, it is interesting to see a major SOF unit, 75th Rangers, do not make the list unless specially approved by the commission, while PJ and Force Recon is specifically stated. Additional changes to that state law is not needed with the option of special consideration with service under the USSOCOM. However, it is a good example that such a federal law would have the same issues and would need to be addressed similarly.

The other issue is one would need to have, under this Texas streamlined application, at least 2 years in SOF and no more then 4 years between service and applying as a Texas LEO. Then, one must serve 10 years as LEO to qualify under LEOSA.
*Apparently 10 years makes you "highly trained", and it takes 10 years for your LEO experiences to make your life in danger of retribution*
---
Such a process on a federal level would require the same amount of work to make it a bill then law, and then more burden on the applicant as SOF service is not good enough.

At least Texas recognizes Special Forces background makes one a cut above the rest.

[Penn]

LEO for 10 years with arrest powers to qualify for former officer carry.

You could argue the LEO 10 year requirement is met through an equivalent time of military service; iirc, a thread here commented the 10 year mark in SF is usually the go, or no go, decision point on making the SF career choice, the experience though entirely different, is still 10 years of serious exposure to keeping the peace....

[tonyz]

Just a quick observation that I'm sure everyone is aware of - but it sometimes gets lost in the heat of battle - when lawful firearm owners are divided on a proposed law or an issue - its chances of survival even in a favorable environment are reduced.

Division often results in failure.

However, insisting on all-or-nothing from any legislature is difficult - these folks (legislators) by nature are compromisers.

What I do hope you don't loose sight of (CC4 and your constituency) on this journey is the fact that the God given right to self defense - for all law abiding citizens - does not end at a state border. Remind those Congresscritters of this.

Remember, your group is handing them a very reasonable compromise - allowing you elite folks to carry nationwide. This might be viewed as a victory of sorts for the politicians...and an incremental victory for all lawful firearms owners. Good luck !

ETA maybe vid below will assist with sales pitch and delivery on Capitol Hill...those folks have such a great sense of humor...

Bitch I Operate
MBest11x
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=l-ieIQFNjWg

[CC4Operators]

You could argue the LEO 10 year requirement is met through an equivalent time of military service; iirc, a thread here commented the 10 year mark in SF is usually the go, or no go, decision point on making the SF career choice, the experience though entirely different, is still 10 years of serious exposure to keeping the peace....

A valid point, however, what that example boils down to is the "arrest power" qualification. To do some sort of equivalency would require changing LEOSA to incorporate that, then our own law on top of it (I think).

As far as a time in SOF, most believed early on in either no numbered amount, or a very low one. We doubted 10 years LEO is comparable to 10 years SOF, for example. We figured a compromise would be, if needed, and not sure how to legally write it up, but something that figured in one completed contract in SOF.

Just a quick observation that I'm sure everyone is aware of - but it sometimes gets lost in the heat of battle - when lawful firearm owners are divided on a proposed law or an issue - its chances of survival even in a favorable environment are reduced.

Division often results in failure.

However, insisting on all-or-nothing from any legislature is difficult - these folks (legislators) by nature are compromisers.

What I do hope you don't loose sight of (CC4 and your constituency) on this journey is the fact that the God given right to self defense - for all law abiding citizens - does not end at a state border. Remind those Congresscritters of this.

Remember, your group is handing them a very reasonable compromise - allowing you elite folks to carry nationwide. This might be viewed as a victory of sorts for the politicians...and an incremental victory for all lawful firearms owners. Good luck !


Well put, thanks. We have no problem with compromising to ensure success, as long as it is reasonable and positive towards the goal.

We have not forgotten that these rights do not end at state borders, or shall it be more appropriate to say should not. This is the core of the issue. Currently, the fact that once you cross a legally enforced border you can be very well disarmed totally or partially. All the rights in the world won't stop that, without some tangible force saying so.

Its a complicated and emotionally charged issue, no doubt.

[bblhead672]

A valid point, however, what that example boils down to is the "arrest power" qualification. To do some sort of equivalency would require changing LEOSA to incorporate that, then our own law on top of it (I think).

As far as a time in SOF, most believed early on in either no numbered amount, or a very low one. We doubted 10 years LEO is comparable to 10 years SOF, for example. We figured a compromise would be, if needed, and not sure how to legally write it up, but something that figured in one completed contract in SOF.



Well put, thanks. We have no problem with compromising to ensure success, as long as it is reasonable and positive towards the goal.

We have not forgotten that these rights do not end at state borders, or shall it be more appropriate to say should not. This is the core of the issue. Currently, the fact that once you cross a legally enforced border you can be very well disarmed totally or partially. All the rights in the world won't stop that, without some tangible force saying so.

Its a complicated and emotionally charged issue, no doubt.

I think all of y'all just need to come on down to Texas to live and work! Lots of open spaces and the libs are pretty much concentrated in a few locations.

[Badger52]

Do you anticipate participants in this class of license paying any fee for issuance (for verifying creds, maintaining files, tracking revocations/disqualifying events, any/all sundry administrative requirements as only the .gov can come up with)?

[Team Sergeant]

Do you anticipate participants in this class of license paying any fee for issuance (for verifying creds, maintaining files, tracking revocations/disqualifying events, any/all sundry administrative requirements as only the .gov can come up with)?

Wow, maybe my "special" skills might be profitable after all! ;)

[Badger52]

Wow, maybe my "special" skills might be profitable after all! ;)I'm sure The Hall of Shame, et al, are no indication that anyone would game this for the sake of an elite license.

Am just curious if the contemplated fee structure (if any) would let it be (cough) revenue neutral, or further illuminate the difference in how things are applied to Joe Schmoe.