I am trying to get my department to allow retired to shoot for qualification once a year on our dept. range so that they meet the requirements of HR 218 that Bush signed this year which allows national carry. Has your department formally set any policy on this issue? Like issuing retired qual cards, ID etc? My department is avoiding the issue like the plague.
LEO National Carry What Training?
- Thread starter Sulaco2
- Start date
Capt. Charlie
Moderator Emeritus
Frankly, I'm facing retirement here in a few years and that's a worry of mine also. If worst comes to worst, I'll pay our range officer to qualify me on his own time. Hey the rules don't say anything about dept. approval 
. I've also thought about qualifying with the acadamy rookies too if need be.
. I've also thought about qualifying with the acadamy rookies too if need be.Nobody retired has even contacted my Dept. about it. I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to issue retired cards out, though.
I'm curious as to how this works if you live in a State (such as mine, Georgia) that doesn't make yearly qualifications mandatory. There's small towns around here where the Chief, etc. hadn't qualified in 20 years...what do they do when facing retirement?
I'm curious as to how this works if you live in a State (such as mine, Georgia) that doesn't make yearly qualifications mandatory. There's small towns around here where the Chief, etc. hadn't qualified in 20 years...what do they do when facing retirement?
Except for one or two chosen retirees, my old department that I retired from does not make provisions for retirees to qualify with them.
I just went through a tough fight to get the county police academy to qualify retirees so they can meet the requirements of H.R. 218 or now Public Law 108-277. I don't know how many retirees have utilized the service.
I presently qualify with a state agency that I instruct for as an adjunct instructor in order to meet the NJ requirements and the requirements of H.R. 218/PL 108-277.
NJ has had a retired officer carry permit program since '97 and the NJSP issue a photo ID carry permit. That along with my retired officer photo ID from my old department, I’m good to go.
Those states that have not recognized that it is now 2005 and don't have in place a mandatory qualification program for LE have made it next to impossible for a retiree to meet the standards of PL 108-277. It’s time to get with the program.
I just went through a tough fight to get the county police academy to qualify retirees so they can meet the requirements of H.R. 218 or now Public Law 108-277. I don't know how many retirees have utilized the service.
I presently qualify with a state agency that I instruct for as an adjunct instructor in order to meet the NJ requirements and the requirements of H.R. 218/PL 108-277.
NJ has had a retired officer carry permit program since '97 and the NJSP issue a photo ID carry permit. That along with my retired officer photo ID from my old department, I’m good to go.
Those states that have not recognized that it is now 2005 and don't have in place a mandatory qualification program for LE have made it next to impossible for a retiree to meet the standards of PL 108-277. It’s time to get with the program.
Bare Bones
New member
Illinois Approach
Chicago (as expected) is fighting this like crazy evidently fearing litigation if a firearm is used by a retired and qualified officer.
Downstate, things are progressing better. The Peoria, Ill. Chief of Police established a program by the department range officers to qualify retirees. At present, two courses are held annualy. Officer alledgedly must carry the firearm he qualified with, but this is a sort of nebulous area. The record of qualification is lamanated on the back of the retirees identification.
Chicago (as expected) is fighting this like crazy evidently fearing litigation if a firearm is used by a retired and qualified officer.
Downstate, things are progressing better. The Peoria, Ill. Chief of Police established a program by the department range officers to qualify retirees. At present, two courses are held annualy. Officer alledgedly must carry the firearm he qualified with, but this is a sort of nebulous area. The record of qualification is lamanated on the back of the retirees identification.
Isn't it about time for somebody to post that cops shouldn't get special treatment and that the laws that exsist for private citizens should also apply for cops - or retired cops? I'm suprised that the second posting on this thread wasn't saying that.
Anyway here in Idaho they are still working on it. Shouldn't be too much longer.
Anyway here in Idaho they are still working on it. Shouldn't be too much longer.
We haven't yet heard of anything regarding the HR281 issues from CA DOJ. We're still waiting to see what the state decides when it comes to recommended/acceptable standards for compliance.
Here's some of the questions and thoughts being reviewed at present. http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/forms/pdf/leosiss.pdf
Like many agencies, we've never required our retirees to qualify, although that may change because of related issues. We've simply reissued a new retirement ID card every 5 years, and it includes the authorization for the retiree carry under existing CA law.
We've already heard of another agency that's considering changing their policies to require that their in-state retirees start qualifying annually, at their individual expense (travel, etc.), conforming to the spirit of HR218's requirements for annual qualification for retired L/E moving here from out-of-state. Hard to argue with that logic, viewed from that perspective. What would justify out-of-state L/E retirees and in-state L/E retirees be being treated any differently, when it comes to expectations of demonstrating a reasonable & acceptable proficiency, in order to continue to carry concealed handguns because of their retired L/E status? It appears these thoughts are being driven by concerns for potential agency liability, at least to some degree.
It'll be interesting to see how things develop.
Here's some of the questions and thoughts being reviewed at present. http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/forms/pdf/leosiss.pdf
Like many agencies, we've never required our retirees to qualify, although that may change because of related issues. We've simply reissued a new retirement ID card every 5 years, and it includes the authorization for the retiree carry under existing CA law.
We've already heard of another agency that's considering changing their policies to require that their in-state retirees start qualifying annually, at their individual expense (travel, etc.), conforming to the spirit of HR218's requirements for annual qualification for retired L/E moving here from out-of-state. Hard to argue with that logic, viewed from that perspective. What would justify out-of-state L/E retirees and in-state L/E retirees be being treated any differently, when it comes to expectations of demonstrating a reasonable & acceptable proficiency, in order to continue to carry concealed handguns because of their retired L/E status? It appears these thoughts are being driven by concerns for potential agency liability, at least to some degree.
It'll be interesting to see how things develop.
Not having a copy of the statute in front of me I seem to recall it requires a shoot to qualify to meet "state standards" what ever that is once a year and thats part of the problem. All the departments after basic have their own shoot courses that may exceed or be less than the "state standard". My dept is saying there is too much civil liability to allow retires to shoot, "I mean really what if they shot somebody, who gets sued?" And this is a valid concern not addressed by the Federal statute or state law. Like Capt C if I retire in 2-3 years and this still has not been addressed then I will go to a private range and shoot the basic course of fire as it is being taught in the State Academy and carry the score with my Washington State non-expiring CWP and retired ID.
This type of action maybe the best we will see anytime soon as departments seem REALLY adverse in dealing with this issue.
This type of action maybe the best we will see anytime soon as departments seem REALLY adverse in dealing with this issue.
Capt. Charlie
Moderator Emeritus
Jeff#111
Mine was the second post. Would you clarify please?
Mine was the second post. Would you clarify please?
Here's the text of the legislation ... http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_bills&docid=f:h218enr.txt.pdf
Since I really want to leave CA when I retire, I was resolved to simply apply for whatever CCW was applicable in my chosen retirement state, and abide by the same restrictions & limitations as any other CCW licensee. This may still be a viable option, depending what happens with the HR218 implementation in various states. Dunno ...
All things considered, I'd prefer to have the HR218 status, but if it becomes too difficult and burdensome then I'll probably move to OR or WA and see what's best for my needs and desires.
Mine was the second post. Would you clarify please? I was kind of wondering about that myself ...
Since I really want to leave CA when I retire, I was resolved to simply apply for whatever CCW was applicable in my chosen retirement state, and abide by the same restrictions & limitations as any other CCW licensee. This may still be a viable option, depending what happens with the HR218 implementation in various states. Dunno ...
All things considered, I'd prefer to have the HR218 status, but if it becomes too difficult and burdensome then I'll probably move to OR or WA and see what's best for my needs and desires.
Mine was the second post. Would you clarify please? I was kind of wondering about that myself ...
leo 218
My agency just allowed correcton deputies to carry off duty this year. I believe Hr 218 had a lot to do with it. I had to submit my weapon for approval along with the serial number. I also had to shoot the standard Florida police course. All of your fellow officers have to start lobbying your Chief or Sheriff. Have your state Sheriff's Association contact the Florida Sheriff's Association for guidance. Keep the pressure on, it will work.
My agency just allowed correcton deputies to carry off duty this year. I believe Hr 218 had a lot to do with it. I had to submit my weapon for approval along with the serial number. I also had to shoot the standard Florida police course. All of your fellow officers have to start lobbying your Chief or Sheriff. Have your state Sheriff's Association contact the Florida Sheriff's Association for guidance. Keep the pressure on, it will work.
Tshadow other then on line do you have any name/person to contact?
Capt C and Fastbolt I think Jeff#111 was just commenting on the fact that no one had interjected that line of thought into the thread yet as it shows up any time LEO's (Meow!) start discussing reality as opposed to "what should be".
Capt C and Fastbolt I think Jeff#111 was just commenting on the fact that no one had interjected that line of thought into the thread yet as it shows up any time LEO's (Meow!) start discussing reality as opposed to "what should be".
We post our info on our website.
http://www.isp.state.il.us/foid/hr218.cfm
We also post our course of fire so retirees know what they'll be shooting before they get there.
http://www.isp.state.il.us/foid/hr218secondarycw.cfm
IL does not have a state standard qual course. There is nothing to mandate an officer to ever fire a gun after they leave basic training. They have to qual at basic but after that someone could spend 40 yrs as an IL cop and there is no state standard requiring they ever fire a gun. A bill in the last session allowed the IL LE Training and Standards Bill to implement a state annual standard and to also administer HR218. That bill got a lot of flack from the IL Municipal League (mayors and town councils) who saw the bill as requiring them to pass more money for training and ammo for small depts. The bill will also take the retiree certification out of the hands of any dept that fails to or declines to qual their retirees. Retirees will be able to qual at any of the mobile training units. So if you have a PD/Chief/mayor who is anti-HR218 it won't matter. The MTU will provide them a chance to qual and then be issued the qual card.
http://www.isp.state.il.us/foid/hr218.cfm
We also post our course of fire so retirees know what they'll be shooting before they get there.
http://www.isp.state.il.us/foid/hr218secondarycw.cfm
IL does not have a state standard qual course. There is nothing to mandate an officer to ever fire a gun after they leave basic training. They have to qual at basic but after that someone could spend 40 yrs as an IL cop and there is no state standard requiring they ever fire a gun. A bill in the last session allowed the IL LE Training and Standards Bill to implement a state annual standard and to also administer HR218. That bill got a lot of flack from the IL Municipal League (mayors and town councils) who saw the bill as requiring them to pass more money for training and ammo for small depts. The bill will also take the retiree certification out of the hands of any dept that fails to or declines to qual their retirees. Retirees will be able to qual at any of the mobile training units. So if you have a PD/Chief/mayor who is anti-HR218 it won't matter. The MTU will provide them a chance to qual and then be issued the qual card.
Capt. Charlie.
I was being sarcastic. Guess I missed the mark. I was suprised that the second post on the thread wasn't complaining about how cops consider themselves above the rules and think that they're better then the average private citizen. That type of thing that I'm sure we've all seen if not on this forum then other ones. Sorry for any confusion.
Here in Idaho they are making provisions for retired officers. The whole thing is being overseen by the police academy - which is a state run organization here in Idaho. P.O.S.T. establishes the standard and trains all officers.
I was being sarcastic. Guess I missed the mark. I was suprised that the second post on the thread wasn't complaining about how cops consider themselves above the rules and think that they're better then the average private citizen. That type of thing that I'm sure we've all seen if not on this forum then other ones. Sorry for any confusion.
Here in Idaho they are making provisions for retired officers. The whole thing is being overseen by the police academy - which is a state run organization here in Idaho. P.O.S.T. establishes the standard and trains all officers.