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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by CSB

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]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

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]

Originally Posted by CC4Operators

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.

Originally Posted by CC4Operators

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by PRB

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

I respectfully submit

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by Trapper John

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

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

VERY good points especially

People should stop looking at legislation as the answer to every niggling problem and start exercising some personal initiative/responsibility.