Question for CHL Instructors

[Smokey Lonesome]

Hello. I am a retired LEO (Arson Investigator). As I read H.R. 218, the “Law Enforcement Officers’ Safety Act” and S. 1132, the “Law Enforcement Officers’ Safety Improvements Act” it is my understanding that a retired LEO can carry concealed without having to have a state issued CHL, PROVIDING that he/she has a certificate of proficiency issued by either the former agency OR a firearms instructor who is certified in police firearms instruction. Can any of you instructors confirm this? Also, are there any certified instructors around? It might just be easier (but more costly) just to go ahead and get a CHL. Thanks
SL

 

[txinvestigator]

A CHL instructor can sign off on the police firearms instructor for you. This is the form; http://www.tcleose.state.tx.us/forms/retired_federal_firearms.doc

On page two you can see that a CHL instrcutor can administer the quailification course. The course requirements are;

(1) B-27 or similar silhouette target;
(2) Combat scoring;
(3) A minimum of 50 rounds, including at least five rounds of duty ammunition;
(4) Fired at ranges from point blank to at least 15 yards with a least 20 rounds at or beyond seven yards;
(5) Including at least one timed reload; and
(6) Minimum passing percentage of 70 (175 out of a possible 250 for 50 rounds).

 

[txinvestigator]

Upon re-reading your post, I see that you were a Texas LEO. The above link and info applies to Federal and out of State LEOS

To answer your question, you have to qualify thru your old agency to be eligible under the “Law Enforcement Officers’ Safety Act

 

[Smokey Lonesome]

Thanks for the info. Looks like it would be easier to get a CHL.

 

[Bithabus]

Thanks for the info. Looks like it would be easier to get a CHL.

If you retired in TX after at least 15 years and you get the certification from your agency you will have the same carry rights you had as a LEO. CHL carry is very restricted in comparison.

 

[CZ guy]

Thanks for the info. Looks like it would be easier to get a CHL.

Remember, not every state recognizes a Texas CHL but when you carry under LEOSA, you are good to go in ALL states.

Your agency won't allow you to attend qualifications? Call around and find a police range that will. The only hitch is YOUR chief has to sign the card.

 

[Smokey Lonesome]

I don't have a chief anymore......besides the wife..... Guess I should have done this before retiring. Since I left on a good note, I might contact the dept firearms training officer. Thanks for the input.
SJ

 

[CZ guy]

I don't have a chief anymore......besides the wife..... Guess I should have done this before retiring.

Ten-Four on the "chief"..... but it doesn't have to be the chief you served under before retirement, just the head of the department now. I've heard of some agency heads that refuse to sign the certification, saying they didn't want to take responsibility for the actions of a retired officer. Hopefully you won't have that problem. Any willing department can qualify you but it is for naught if your old department brass won't sign it.

 

[MR Redneck]

This brings a question to mind. Are Law Officers restricted from carrying anywhere?

 

[txinvestigator]

Active Peace officers are exempt, on or off duty, from penal code sections 46.02 as well as 46.03. Of course, 46.035 only applies to CHL holders. They also are not restricted under 30.06 or 30.05.

So, pretty much peace officers can carry anywhere. Federal Property is different.

With proper training and certification , they can even carry on commercial airlines.

Peace officers are also exempt from 46.05 (possession of a prohibited weapon).

Those carrying under LEOSA have the standard CHL restrictions, I believe.

 

[Bithabus]

Peace officers are also exempt from 46.05 (possession of a prohibited weapon).

No they're not.

Those carrying under LEOSA have the standard CHL restrictions, I believe.

They must obey State laws which prevent carry on government property, and State laws which permit private property owners from restricting carry. Other State restrictions can be disregarded.

 

[Smokey Lonesome]

I know that years ago each state had to have a reciprocity agreement with other states before a LEO from the other state could carry off duty. I believe there were two states, Arkansas and (I think)New Mexico that would not allow an LEO from Texas to carry except on official business. I do believe that has since changed. It was a stoopid law in my opinion.

 

[Texan2]

I know that years ago each state had to have a reciprocity agreement with other states before a LEO from the other state could carry off duty. I believe there were two states, Arkansas and (I think)New Mexico that would not allow an LEO from Texas to carry except on official business. I do believe that has since changed. It was a stoopid law in my opinion.

federal law now allows officers to carry in all 50 states

 

[Texan2]

No they're not.

Yes they are. Theorhetically it is an affimative defense, so technically if I take a switchbladde off a guy and take him to jail...while i am driving him to jail I am now violating the law by being in possession of the switchblade I just took off of him. Reality is no LEO will be charged with this.

My department owns fully automatic M-16s, so we are violaitng the law when we carry them. Anyone who owns a fully automatic weapon or a store that sells them is in violation of this law. 46.05 has some gapping holes in it.

Technically, a member of the armed forces while doing his duty is violating the law....he has an affirmative defense but he is nonetheless violating the law and could be arrested.

Reality is this aint never gonna happen. So in practice LEOs and military are exempt.

 

[SIG_Fiend]

Yes they are. Theorhetically it is an affimative defense, so technically if I take a switchbladde off a guy and take him to jail...while i am driving him to jail I am now violating the law by being in possession of the switchblade I just took off of him. Reality is no LEO will be charged with this.

My department owns fully automatic M-16s, so we are violaitng the law when we carry them. Anyone who owns a fully automatic weapon or a store that sells them is in violation of this law. 46.05 has some gapping holes in it.

Technically, a member of the armed forces while doing his duty is violating the law....he has an affirmative defense but he is nonetheless violating the law and could be arrested.

Reality is this aint never gonna happen. So in practice LEOs and military are exempt.

Which only further illustrates how preposterous so much of the law is here and in this country in general. "You're just doing your job, we won't charge you. No really trust us." LOL

 

[Texan2]

There is certainly room for improvement

 

[Bithabus]

Yes they are. Theorhetically it is an affimative defense, so technically if I take a switchbladde off a guy and take him to jail...while i am driving him to jail I am now violating the law by being in possession of the switchblade I just took off of him. Reality is no LEO will be charged with this.

No, they're not.

(b) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the actor's conduct was incidental to the performance of official duty by the armed forces or national guard, a governmental law enforcement agency, or a correctional facility.

If a LEO possesses a prohibited weapon "incidental to the performance of his duties", he has a defense against prosecution. This is a necessary safeguard for the reasons you mention, but it is a far cry from saying "LEOs are exempt from 46.05". If the later were true cops could possess auto knives and brass knuckles etc for personal use, which clearly they cannot.

 

[Renegade]

This brings a question to mind. Are Law Officers restricted from carrying anywhere?

Out of state LEOs are heavily restricted, much more then a Texas CHL. In-State LEOs can pretty much carry wherever they want.

 

[Renegade]

federal law now allows officers to carry in all 50 states

Subject to whatever state laws prohibit carry:

(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that--
(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or
(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.

 

[Texan2]

No, they're not.


If a LEO possesses a prohibited weapon "incidental to the performance of his duties", he has a defense against prosecution. This is a necessary safeguard for the reasons you mention, but it is a far cry from saying "LEOs are exempt from 46.05". If the later were true cops could possess auto knives and brass knuckles etc for personal use, which clearly they cannot.

I think that is pretty close to what I said. It becomes an excercise in picking out the fine points, but to most laymen, certain weapons are illegal to possess, but cops carry them, therefore most folks would consider them "exempt".

We both know that isnt how the law specifically reads, but that is how it is interpreted and enforced.