This isn't the first time I've brought issues with LEOSA. Earlier this year:Police departments across the country are getting desperate to hire due to chronic understaffing and elevated burnout. Earlier this month, the Seattle Police Department became the latest major law enforcement agency to open recruiting to illegal aliens, and if hired, these new cops will end up having more gun rights than everyday Americans.
Under this new hiring policy, illegal aliens protected from deportation under the Obama-era DACA program will be eligible to apply. Of course, should these aspiring officers pass the training academy, they will be sworn to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States and empowered with the full authority of the law, including the authority to arrest, execute warrants, and carry service weapons.
Many readers may not be aware that a series of federal laws exist that exempt active and retired police officers from state and local gun control laws when carrying off-duty and in restricted areas. This can include the right to carry in many gun-free zones and exempt them from bans on certain firearms and certain magazines. On top of that, House Republicans just passed a bill to further expand these rights to carry for current and retired cops on certain public lands and in many federal buildings.
While it sounds like a great idea at first glance, there's a serious constitutional question that's being ignored: Why should a certain class of people be given special rights that all Americans can't enjoy especially when that class of individuals may now include illegal aliens?
While cops can carry nationwide thanks to these federal protections, this right should be afforded to all Americans under the Second Amendment. Every hardworking, law-abiding citizen deserves to be able to exercise their rights and be able to defend themselves without fear of prosecution for crossing an imaginary line or for carrying a magazine capable of carrying "too many" rounds.
Some will argue "they have training" or "they've demonstrated responsibility," but those are not pre-requisites in a free country for free people to exercise their rights. Just this week the U.S. Supreme Court flatly rejected an argument by the Department of Justice that a lack of "responsibility" can be enough to disarm someone.
For local officials to greenlight the hiring of people who aren't citizens, to be vested with the authority to arrest and use force against Americans, is antithetical to our founding. Moreover, it's even more damning when those same officeholders fight to keep Americans from being able to exercise their Second Amendment rights that our founders so wisely and eloquently fought to ensure and guarantee.
Of course, hiring illegal aliens wouldn't even be an issue if burnout wasn't so high among active cops, but these same local officials are usually to blame for that too. When local lawmakers, mayors, and prosecutors choose to de-prioritize the prosecution of real crime as is wholly the case in Seattle and Los Angeles it's inevitable that law enforcement gets drained. Who wants to serve and protect when the bad guys are walking out shortly after going in, including for violent offenses where a firearm was used?
This is not a piece arguing for the end of legal immigration, as many, including this author's family, have lawfully come to this great nation with a desire to serve in our armed forces or on our streets as law enforcement officers. Many would agree that some of the very best freedom-loving Americans come from foreign lands, often where freedom is treated as a crime.
Regardless, it's ironic and hypocritical that anti-gun jurisdictions like Seattle and Los Angeles are empowering non-citizens to enforce tyrannical gun laws against Americans, all while they themselves will be granted full exemption from the very gun laws they're enforcing. Let that sink in.
The State of Washington only recognizes carry permits from ten other states, meaning an American hailing from the forty others cannot bring his or her firearm and carry for their protection unless of course they're a cop.
Politicians and political insiders often quip over why the American public distrusts those in office. This example of restricting Americans from exercising their inalienable rights while granting a carve out for non-citizens is a glaring example.
Police Shouldn't Get Special Gun Rights | May 14, 2024
Heck, even when I was sworn I've brought up issues with LEOSA.Like all public officials, police officers swear to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. I, like countless other men and women in blue, took that oath.
We raised our right hand and swore to uphold the Constitution, in its entirety.
Unfortunately, many politicians today are of the opinion that certain constitutional rights, or the exercising of them in particular situations, should be reserved to only some. For police officers, this is manifested in laws that routinely afford them greater Second Amendment rights than the general public. This is wrong.
This week is National Police Week, a noble and somber time to reflect on the courage and sacrifice of so many peace officers. Tens of thousands will gather in the nation's capital to commemorate the occasion, which will culminate with Peace Officers Memorial Day on May 15.
The U.S. House of Representatives is expected to move a slate of bills with law enforcement tie ins, one of which would further expand Second Amendment rights to carry concealed firearms to off-duty and retired police. While I would personally benefit from the legislation, I cannot support a bill that would create special privileges for some when they should in fact be afforded to all citizens.
The Second Amendment doesn't say "the right of the duly sworn police to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." This right is afforded to "the people," the general public.
Those who wear the badge or have in times past are undoubtedly part of "the people." But our nation was founded on principles of equality, not classes, nobility or aristocracy. Our rights are unalienable, and legislation like this violates that basic principle.
All Americans deserve the full access and restoration of their rights, not just those who carry a piece of tin in their wallet. I know many in law enforcement feel the same way, but often they are silenced by their political overlords with the threat of career blacklisting.
Furthermore, I know they, like me, don't believe that only a select class of citizens should be empowered to carry nationwide. Why should an officer's spouse, friend or loved one be stripped of their Second Amendment rights when they cross an imaginary line?
For example, when my wife and I travel from Florida to New York to visit family, I can carry without fear of persecution. But my wife, my partner in life, is disarmed when we make that trip. What makes her a lesser person in the eyes of lawmakers? Why are her rights stripped away? Most will quickly respond without thinking through the deeper point:
"They have the training."
"They know how to handle those weapons."
"We should trust them more than the average person."
The Constitution does not grant rights based on who the government trusts. Imagine the public outcry if a law were enacted to require mandatory wait periods or special training to make a post on social media, or to author a column such as this. Couple that with a parallel law that empowered credentialed journalists to bypass such restrictions, and one can begin to understand the deeper philosophical frustration I am trying to convey.
Countless honorable men and women have worn the badge, and they know it didn't come with special privileges beyond the authority to arrest and execute warrants. While this legislation is well intentioned, the onus is on us, the men and women in blue, to speak out.
Creating special classes of citizens based on government decision making dilutes the purposefully robust nature of our Second Amendment rights.
What Congress should advance this week is national reciprocity for all, rather than merely extending rights to a select few individuals whom lawmakers choose to politically knight with their proverbial swords.
LEOSA Reform Act Would Exempt Law Enforcement Officers from More Gun Control Restrictions | Feb 18, 2019
The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act allows current duty and retired LEOs to carry concealed firearms in any jurisdiction in the US. Last week, Nebraska Rep. Don Bacon introduced a LEOSA reform bill that would extend the number of locations of the exemption.
Per the FOP's press release:
This bill would allow retired and active law enforcement to carry in a number of places that are currently prohibited (schools, post offices, etc.) and grants them an exemption from local magazine capacity limits.
As an active duty police officer, would this affect me in a positive way? Yes. Do I support it? No.
Why?
Simple. My profession doesn't make me any different than the law abiding general public. It isn't fair on a constitutional level for me to be granted special exemptions because I carry a piece of tin in my wallet while my fellow gun owners have their rights trampled by gun-grabbing politicians.
When the Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act was passed, many claimed it would be a gateway towards national reciprocity for conceal carry permit holders. Fifteen years later I'm still waiting for national reciprocity.
