I would have a chat with the Sheriff. Likely the Deputy wasn't aware of what he law states.
HR 218 qualification-new rules
I've got a question for any retired LEO's out there.
Thursday I did my annual HR 218 qualification. On the paper work I had to list the make, model, and serial number of the weapon that I qualified with.
I had never before had to do this.
When I had completed the course of fire, my qualification card said "Sig Sauer P226".
I asked the deputy why he had noted the make and model and not just "automatic or revolver" as the law required,
He explained that it was a new rule and that the only gun that I could carry under HR 218 was the exact gun that I had qualified with.
I pulled up a copy of the law and sure enough it states that a qualified person "must qualify with the TYPE (auto or revolver) of firearm that they intend to carry".
He said that if I were involved in a shooting in another state that the IRCSO could only attest that I was proficient with a Sig Sauer P226 ser#xxxxxx.
I have been retired since 2011 and have been HR 218 certified every year since then. All of my previous certification cards only specify "semi-auto".
Has anyone else had this happen? Can a county or state override Federal Law?
On a further note,
This change negatively effects all current and retired LEO's. It directly contradicts Federal Law as written and should be challenged.
Previously (and currently as stated in HR 218) you would be able to carry ANY handgun of the TYPE that you had qualified with concealed in all states and territories.
Now some states will only allow you to carry the very handgun that you had qualified with.
What this means is that if 3 months after you qualify your handgun breaks and you buy another one of the exact make, model, and caliber you would have to re-qualify with the new handgun to be covered by HR 218.
I don't know how much it would cost to challenge this but I'm sure that it is much more then an individual could afford.
I'm sure that this was originated by gun hating attorneys and if this is allowed to stand we have to wonder what they will come up with next in order to further neuter HR 218.
Thursday I did my annual HR 218 qualification. On the paper work I had to list the make, model, and serial number of the weapon that I qualified with.
I had never before had to do this.
When I had completed the course of fire, my qualification card said "Sig Sauer P226".
I asked the deputy why he had noted the make and model and not just "automatic or revolver" as the law required,
He explained that it was a new rule and that the only gun that I could carry under HR 218 was the exact gun that I had qualified with.
I pulled up a copy of the law and sure enough it states that a qualified person "must qualify with the TYPE (auto or revolver) of firearm that they intend to carry".
He said that if I were involved in a shooting in another state that the IRCSO could only attest that I was proficient with a Sig Sauer P226 ser#xxxxxx.
I have been retired since 2011 and have been HR 218 certified every year since then. All of my previous certification cards only specify "semi-auto".
Has anyone else had this happen? Can a county or state override Federal Law?
On a further note,
This change negatively effects all current and retired LEO's. It directly contradicts Federal Law as written and should be challenged.
Previously (and currently as stated in HR 218) you would be able to carry ANY handgun of the TYPE that you had qualified with concealed in all states and territories.
Now some states will only allow you to carry the very handgun that you had qualified with.
What this means is that if 3 months after you qualify your handgun breaks and you buy another one of the exact make, model, and caliber you would have to re-qualify with the new handgun to be covered by HR 218.
I don't know how much it would cost to challenge this but I'm sure that it is much more then an individual could afford.
I'm sure that this was originated by gun hating attorneys and if this is allowed to stand we have to wonder what they will come up with next in order to further neuter HR 218.
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
It is a rule set forth by the FDLF and is in effect for all departments. It is totally contrary to Federal law and further more it effectively creates a gun registration list,I would have a chat with the Sheriff. Likely the Deputy wasn't aware of what he law states.
I spoke extensively with an attorney at the NRA Law Enforcement Division. He assured me that individual states could indeed decide what qualification procedures they wanted to use.
Even so this does NOT nullify LEOSA's standard that one must qualify (with states individual standards) with the "TYPE" of weapon that is to be carried and is not limited to that specific weapon.
He assured me that if I qualified with a Sig Sauer, that would NOT limit me to a Sig Sauer. He assured me that I could carry a Glock, Ruger, S&W or any other handgun to include a revolver if I so chose.
This is a copy of the reply I got from the NRA:
Thank you for contacting the NRA-ILA. You are correct. Please see the first answer in our LEOSA FAQ section. You may also call 800-672-3888 and ask for our Law Enforcement Division.
“This is a frequent concern given the statute's use of the term "type of firearm." LEOSA authorizes the carrying of a "concealed firearm" of the same "type" the individual receives certification for. As there is no case law interpreting this wording, the word "type" should be read to conform with the dictionary definition; something distinguishable as a variety. Accordingly, "type" of firearm should be read to mean either long gun or hand gun, which would permit you to carry any type of legal long gun or hand gun based on your qualification and not one particular make, model, or caliber.”
Sincerely,
David
Grassroots Division
NRAILA
LA-ContactNRAHQ
From:do-not-replynrailado-not-replynraila
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 9:15 PM
To: ILA-Contact <ILA-Contactnrahq
Subject: Contact NRA-ILA Form
If you have questions or concerns please call the above number and ask for the Law Enforcement Division. Please visit the link below.
I guess I can't show the link but it can be found on the NRA web site by searching for LEOSA.
UPDATE
I checked with two adjacent counties. They DO NOT take the serial number of the weapon and the certification card will only indicate "semi-auto or revolver or both"
I re-qualified with one of the counties and got a new certification card that reads "semi-auto/revolver"
It seems that Indian River County is one of few that go above and beyond what the law requires and lists the exact gun/guns that you qualified with.
I checked with two adjacent counties. They DO NOT take the serial number of the weapon and the certification card will only indicate "semi-auto or revolver or both"
I re-qualified with one of the counties and got a new certification card that reads "semi-auto/revolver"
It seems that Indian River County is one of few that go above and beyond what the law requires and lists the exact gun/guns that you qualified with.
My state qualifies you on weapon type. My card, which I just received last week says:
Weapon type- Handgun
It doesn't distinguish between semi-auto or revolver.
Weapon type- Handgun
It doesn't distinguish between semi-auto or revolver.
Having done HR 218 Qualifications in FL for about ten years, I’ve found it depends on who does the certification and how they interpret the law. Unless the law had changed, it is type, being a revolver or semi automatic. Not a specific firearm, though I’ve had a couple do it that way.
In Kali, at least for civilians, you now have to qualify with every individual weapon, by serial number, that you intend to put on your permit. If you want to add a weapon, you have to re-qualify with that new weapon. If you were careless and lost the signed-off list of wepons you qualified with, you would have to re-qualify with every weapon by S/N again...
Thank you for bringing this to our attention OP. On the civillian side, they also made us list the make, model, sn# too on our qualifying CCW in SC. Essentially a defacto gun registration. That is one of the first things I questioned, along with employer info. I told them employer has no bearing on whether or not I obtain a CCW and it is a violation of privacy rules for CCW. Suffice to say, I was correct and things were processed just fine.
Nobody reads anymore! Remember, WORDS MEAN THINGS.
Nobody reads anymore! Remember, WORDS MEAN THINGS.
My friend, this is beyond ridiculous. How is AZ looking to you??In Kali, at least for civilians, you now have to qualify with every individual weapon, by serial number, that you intend to put on your permit. If you want to add a weapon, you have to re-qualify with that new weapon. If you were careless and lost the signed-off list of wepons you qualified with, you would have to re-qualify with every weapon by S/N again...
According to an attorney, that is the correct way to interpret the law. It should only state either "handgun or rifle" as to type.My state qualifies you on weapon type. My card, which I just received last week says:
Weapon type- Handgun
It doesn't distinguish between semi-auto or revolver.
It's on my radar for sure-used to live up in Prescott 25 years ago...My friend, this is beyond ridiculous. How is AZ looking to you??
It appears Sac County, Kali patterned our permit after that. I’ve been wanting to sell one of my handguns but have to wait until CCW renewal.What this means is that if 3 months after you qualify your handgun breaks and you buy another one of the exact make, model, and caliber you would have to re-qualify with the new handgun to be covered by HR 218.
My permit Section B lists maximum of three handguns including manufacturer, serial #, caliber and model.
In addition, Section A has my business/employer address and occupation.
WHAT???? You're limited to only three guns on your permit? That's crazy!It appears Sac County, Kali patterned our permit after that. I’ve been wanting to sell one of my handguns but have to wait until CCW renewal.
My permit Section B lists maximum of three handguns including manufacturer, serial #, caliber and model.
In addition, Section A has my business/employer address and occupation.
Yes, sir.WHAT???? You're limited to only three guns on your permit? That's crazy!
“How many guns can I list on my CCW permit?
At the present time only three handguns can be listed. Governor Brown signed a bill that became law January 1, 2017 that authorizes the creation of a CCW ID card. DOJ must first convene a committee to study this issue and recommend a standardized CCW ID card. It is not known what mandated information must be on the new CCW ID card or whether permit holders will be able to list more than three handguns.”
This depends on which county you live in in Kali. Here in KERN county, we can have up to TEN on our permits....Yes, sir.
“How many guns can I list on my CCW permit?
At the present time only three handguns can be listed. Governor Brown signed a bill that became law January 1, 2017 that authorizes the creation of a CCW ID card. DOJ must first convene a committee to study this issue and recommend a standardized CCW ID card. It is not known what mandated information must be on the new CCW ID card or whether permit holders will be able to list more than three handguns.”
UPDATE to HR 218 (LEOSA) qualifications: I August of 2019 I relocated to Texas. In Junenof 2020 I qualified (LEOSA) here in Texas and have done so every year since. None of my qualification cards even list the type of weapon that I qualified with. They simply state that "the above listed person has met the qualification standards for LEOSA". It shows the date of qualification and that it is good for one year. I questioned the officer who signed my cars as to the validity of it since it does not list the "type" of weapom/ He stated that no one has ever had a problem with it when presented in other states of jurisdictions. It seems that there is no set standard that applies to all states and even various departments within a state may have different standards. Has anyone had similar experience?
What if you were unemployed?It appears Sac County, Kali patterned our permit after that. I’ve been wanting to sell one of my handguns but have to wait until CCW renewal.
My permit Section B lists maximum of three handguns including manufacturer, serial #, caliber and model.
In addition, Section A has my business/employer address and occupation.
It sounds like this is something we need to get people involved and clear and equal standards.
I don't like the idea of anyone having to give make model and ser. #'s. Or limits of what a retired LEO wishes to carry at any time.
So as mentioned if a retired LEO travels and does not have make model ser.# on his card and they don't mind. Why make their local retired LEO's do so ? Well we all know why but needs to be addressed.
Maybe they can do the same for criminals for say guns they carry or drugs they sell or limit their criminal activity.
I don't like the idea of anyone having to give make model and ser. #'s. Or limits of what a retired LEO wishes to carry at any time.
So as mentioned if a retired LEO travels and does not have make model ser.# on his card and they don't mind. Why make their local retired LEO's do so ? Well we all know why but needs to be addressed.
Maybe they can do the same for criminals for say guns they carry or drugs they sell or limit their criminal activity.
There are two separate issues here.
First is the concept of federal preeminence. States and local jurisdictions cannot put additional restrictions on what is granted under a federal law. Although clearly some of them do. Could they successfully convict you for violating the higher standard they imposed? Probably not, but it might cost you a lot of money for your legal defense, and that might include having to have the conviction over turned on appeal.
H.R. 218 does not however preempt the laws of any State that:
(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property" (such as a bars, private clubs, amusement parks, etc.); or
(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.
Also H.R 218 does not take precedence over the Federal Gun Free School Zone Act. It’s ok for serving officer to carry a gun in a school, but it’s not ok for a retired officer to do the same.
Second, is the potential for the statute and implementing regulations to be interpreted in a more restrictive manner by the cognizant federal agency. That’s become a real problem in a number of federal agencies as executive branch agencies have increasingly infringed on the power of congress to make laws through the abuse and mis use of the Chevron Doctrine.
Yesterday the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 against the EPA in a case where it had tried to claim a pond home owners had filled in was covered under the Clean Water Act when they defined it as “waters of the United States” despite that particular pond having no continuous connection to any navigable water way.
In effect the EPA had interpreted the statute to effectively encompass any area that has water in it, or sometimes has water in it, as a “wet land“.
The Supreme Court in this decision firmly put the brakes on that type of over reach given both the infringement of private property rights, and the potential to expose citizens to criminal penalties when the authority to do that is not clearly spelled out and granted to the agency by congress.
That very clear 9-0 ruling is going to result in some serious wing clipping in regard to federal agencies engaged in regulatory creep and over reach, including the ATF.
——
In terms of H.R. 218 that regulatory creep and over reach and or related interpretation and implementation by states is evident in interpreting “type of firearm“ from:
The problem with that creep and increasingly restrictive interpretation is clear, and it in fact flies in the face of the intent of H.R. 218 to create a common standard and set of rules at the federal level governing concealed carry by retired law enforcement officers.
First is the concept of federal preeminence. States and local jurisdictions cannot put additional restrictions on what is granted under a federal law. Although clearly some of them do. Could they successfully convict you for violating the higher standard they imposed? Probably not, but it might cost you a lot of money for your legal defense, and that might include having to have the conviction over turned on appeal.
H.R. 218 does not however preempt the laws of any State that:
(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property" (such as a bars, private clubs, amusement parks, etc.); or
(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.
Also H.R 218 does not take precedence over the Federal Gun Free School Zone Act. It’s ok for serving officer to carry a gun in a school, but it’s not ok for a retired officer to do the same.
Second, is the potential for the statute and implementing regulations to be interpreted in a more restrictive manner by the cognizant federal agency. That’s become a real problem in a number of federal agencies as executive branch agencies have increasingly infringed on the power of congress to make laws through the abuse and mis use of the Chevron Doctrine.
Yesterday the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 against the EPA in a case where it had tried to claim a pond home owners had filled in was covered under the Clean Water Act when they defined it as “waters of the United States” despite that particular pond having no continuous connection to any navigable water way.
In effect the EPA had interpreted the statute to effectively encompass any area that has water in it, or sometimes has water in it, as a “wet land“.
The Supreme Court in this decision firmly put the brakes on that type of over reach given both the infringement of private property rights, and the potential to expose citizens to criminal penalties when the authority to do that is not clearly spelled out and granted to the agency by congress.
That very clear 9-0 ruling is going to result in some serious wing clipping in regard to federal agencies engaged in regulatory creep and over reach, including the ATF.
——
In terms of H.R. 218 that regulatory creep and over reach and or related interpretation and implementation by states is evident in interpreting “type of firearm“ from:
- handgun or long gun (as intended in statute); to
- pistol or revolver; to
- Sig P226; to
- Sig P226, SN number xxxxx.
The problem with that creep and increasingly restrictive interpretation is clear, and it in fact flies in the face of the intent of H.R. 218 to create a common standard and set of rules at the federal level governing concealed carry by retired law enforcement officers.
Thank you for clarifying a few things for me.There are two separate issues here.
First is the concept of federal preeminence. States and local jurisdictions cannot put additional restrictions on what is granted under a federal law. Although clearly some of them do. Could they successfully convict you for violating the higher standard they imposed? Probably not, but it might cost you a lot of money for your legal defense, and that might include having to have the conviction over turned on appeal.
H.R. 218 does not however preempt the laws of any State that:
(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property" (such as a bars, private clubs, amusement parks, etc.); or
(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.
Also H.R 218 does not take precedence over the Federal Gun Free School Zone Act. It’s ok for serving officer to carry a gun in a school, but it’s not ok for a retired officer to do the same.
Second, is the potential for the statute and implementing regulations to be interpreted in a more restrictive manner by the cognizant federal agency. That’s become a real problem in a number of federal agencies as executive branch agencies have increasingly infringed on the power of congress to make laws through the abuse and mis use of the Chevron Doctrine.
Yesterday the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 against the EPA in a case where it had tried to claim a pond home owners had filled in was covered under the Clean Water Act when they defined it as “waters of the United States” despite that particular pond having no continuous connection to any navigable water way.
In effect the EPA had interpreted the statute to effectively encompass any area that has water in it, or sometimes has water in it, as a “wet land“.
The Supreme Court in this decision firmly put the brakes on that type of over reach given both the infringement of private property rights, and the potential to expose citizens to criminal penalties when the authority to do that is not clearly spelled out and granted to the agency by congress.
That very clear 9-0 ruling is going to result in some serious wing clipping in regard to federal agencies engaged in regulatory creep and over reach, including the ATF.
——
In terms of H.R. 218 that regulatory creep and over reach and or related interpretation and implementation by states is evident in interpreting “type of firearm“ from:
- handgun or long gun (as intended in statute); to
- pistol or revolver; to
- Sig P226; to
- Sig P226, SN number xxxxx.
The problem with that creep and increasingly restrictive interpretation is clear, and it in fact flies in the face of the intent of H.R. 218 to create a common standard and set of rules at the federal level governing concealed carry by retired law enforcement officers.
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Ruger Forum
A forum community dedicated to Ruger firearm owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about optics, hunting, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Top Contributors this Month
View All
rmichael63
488 Replies
maddmatter1970
455 Replies
Robert70
353 Replies
Recommended Communities
