Hawaii Says LEOSA Doesn’t Apply in the State, Bans Carry by Out-of-State Cops

hawaii concealed carry law enforcement LEOS

courtesy hawaii.gov

The Hawaii attorney general has released a new guideline and in their legal opinion, they state that unless out-of-state law enforcement officers and agents are on official business within the state, they cannot carry a concealed firearm.

hawaii LEOSA

courtesy hawaii.gov

Whether you agree with the Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act federal law allows currently sworn or retired law enforcement officers to carry nationwide even, if the state or territory they are carrying in doesn’t allow it for the masses. The state of Hawaii is, in effect, saying that federal law doesn’t apply in the 50th state.

Additionally, there is even some confusion as to when an out-of-state cop is on duty. Since Hawaii doesn’t believe that LEOSA supersede state law, on-duty out-of-state officers need to comply with state law in order to carry their guns in Hawaii. If an on-duty officer is in possession of a gun in the state for more than five days, they are required to register their gun with the chief of police in the county in which they are staying.

They also may not possess a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds of ammunition. If the out-of-state cop is stopped by a local LEO, the local agency can take possession of the officer’s weapon until the out-of-state officer’s agency can confirm that they are, in fact, on official duty.

It appears that Hawaii is pushing a state’s rights claim on this matter, much in the same way that other states have passed drug legalization laws.

Also a number of states have passed so-called Firearm Freedom Acts, declaring that if a gun is made within the state without the intent to be sold in another state, then the National Firearms Act doesn’t apply. Montana passed such a law and the Federal Government curb stomped it twice (here and here) stating that state laws or legal opinions do not override and supersede the federal law.

It also appears that the gun grabbers, intentionally or not, are starting to curb carve-outs to law enforcement. New Jersey just passed a magazine ban and said off duty law enforcement officers aren’t exempt.

Will the federal government tell Hawaii to back down or will they let the state flout federal law? If Hawaii or the feds fight this, it will end up in the Ninth Circuit. Would you like to guess how they’ll rule on this one?

comments

  1. avatar Barry says:

    And off duty officers should be subject to the same laws….it’s a job…after i get off, why would i want to do more work, although i have a knack for wanting to help people and will still look into being a cop.

    1. avatar tdiinva says:

      Except a police officer’s job isn’t like yours. Cops in America are never off duty in their jurisdiction. They are only off shift. They still have full authority to enforce the law.

      The real test will be when they stop a vacationing federal agent and try to disarm him. Chance are the local cop is going to find himself under arrest for assaulting a federal officer.

      1. avatar Jack says:

        I find it interesting the Marxist are even turning on the cops. When you go to NJ off duty to you carry your weapon with a magazine that holds more than ten rounds?

        1. avatar james says:

          NJ bans > 10 round magazines by the new Governor signing the idiotic law.
          They are working on a revision to allow LEO to do so but until then they are felons like us if arrested.

        2. avatar New Continental Army says:

          It actually makes a lot of sense for them to turn on the police. It’s not popular to say here, but it’s true. Police and military are vastly conservative professions with the exceptions of the big blue cities. The left downright *despises* both the police and military. And if you look at leftist movements historically it’s quite fitting. The Bolsheviks and Nazis both, as they rose, violently fought and overthrew the standing police forces and militaries of their time. The standing police and military are then replaced after the overthrow with a new party aligned force. Should the leftists in this country succeed in their desires, it won’t be your local police department enforcing the new laws because they’ll all be dead. It’ll be a new nationalized “police” force like the NKVD.

        3. avatar Broke_It says:

          Sadly I just take it back over a century. The Ruger SR 1911 in 10mm with few mods makes an excellent single stack 8 +1 for a guy such as myself to EDC. I don’t leave home without a spare and usually ankle carry my beyond patriotic WE THE PEOPLE P938 with a spare. That’s 25 rounds of the best MM and then another 15 of backup 9mm. Spread over more mags than my 19 and 20 but it pays to have options I can stomach.

        4. avatar Broke_It says:

          Ankle carry is dogshit BTW. I only do it as habbit from my helo pilot days. So much easier to get to when buckled in. Not an operator or anything cool. Just a dude that did agriculture and flight training.

        5. avatar anonymoose says:

          Broke_It that’s nice and all, but no normies are legally allowed to carry guns in NJ or Hawaii, except maybe for hunting.

      2. avatar HiCarry says:

        First, a mainland cop visiting Hawaii for anything other than “official business” is “off duty.”

        Second, for it’s passage, LEOSA has always said that qualified LEOs were not “police” and were subject to the same state laws as other citizens legally carrying firearms. That means magazine restrictions in some states (like Hawaii) and ammunition restrictions (New Jersey- no hollow points) in others.
        This isn’t new and while Hawaii is definitely anti-gun in general, this particular issue isn’t indicative of that bias, simply an interpretation of LEOSA consistent with the plain language of the act.

        1. avatar Clark Kent says:

          So in your (little) mind it would be better if an armed off duty officer refused to intervene to save your fat azz because he was ‘off duty’? Grow up.

        2. avatar TexasLaw says:

          Not true. The Hawaii opinion totally ignores the language of LEOSA that covers retired LEOs.

        3. avatar Sir Robert Peel says:

          The LEOSA Improvement act of 2010 exempts LEOSA qualified persons from prohibitions on Hollow Point bullets.

        4. avatar HiCarry says:

          Clark Kent: My little pea brain interprets the limitations on magazine capacity as it applies to those carrying under LEOSA the same way the FOP does…meaning that if you carry under LEOSA you are subject to the same magazine restrictions as citizens that legally carry.
          My statement of fact has nothing to do with any desire to have an off-duty LEO save my “fat azz.” Because, of course my small brain also understands that even “on-duty” cops have no legal obligation to “save” me…but by all means, continue to make disparaging remarks and ad hominem attacks when your understanding of the situation limited your meaningful discourse…maybe it is you that should “grow up.”

          Texas Law: How? The FOP says those carrying under LEOSA are subject to applicable state laws, with the exception of types of guns and ammunition.

          Sir Robert Peel: yes, you’re correct. The 2010 Amendment allows those carrying under LEOSA to carry hollow point ammo regardless of state law. Thanks for the info.

        5. avatar TexasLaw says:

          HiCarry,

          Simply that saying that all officers who carry under LEOSA must be on duty ignores the provisions within HR218 that allow “Qualified Retired” LEOs to carry thus violating the federal law.

        6. avatar Bill Will says:

          The NJ hollow point ban was eliminated in the last revision of LEOSA.

          There is already another revision working its way thru congress to eliminate the magazine limit.

      3. avatar MLee says:

        What you will have is a big pissing match.

        1. avatar Mike. says:

          If issued with a Hi cap magazine then that is what I would carry, even if that state banned them. Carry what you are issued

      4. avatar RMS1911 says:

        You also have full authority to enforce laws.

        1. avatar tdiinva says:

          Go ahead and try.

      5. avatar Walter Reed says:

        I think this article is about traveling LEO’s …. you are right to some degree about the powers extending ‘off-shift’ but those powers don’t extend fully outside of their specific jurisdiction and absolutely not outside of the state those powers and the color of authority is regulated/licensed.

  2. avatar Specialist38 says:

    Good. LEOSA is just another slap in the face to armed civilians.

    If I can’t carry there, then some vacationing flat foot from another state shouldn’t be able to carry either.

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      Apparently Hawaii is so safe no one needs guns, even vacationing cops. Or at least that’s the idea anyway.

      1. avatar William Burke says:

        So you are saying that Dan-O ain’t booked ’em in a long, long time?

      2. avatar Sir Robert Peel says:

        What we are witnessing is the deep resentment, resistance to US Federal Authority by those seeking to correct the illegal overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii and reestablish the Kingdom of Hawaii. All of which has lots of supporters.

        1. avatar Al says:

          While I love vacationing there, that would be fine by me. We could save tons of tax subsidies….

    2. avatar HiCarry says:

      Police are civilians!
      I think you meant “armed citizens.”

      1. avatar Specialist38 says:

        You are correct. No edit…..

      2. avatar Salty Bear says:

        Wishful thinking. In practice, police are not civilians. They are the standing army the founders warned us about.

        1. avatar Specialist38 says:

          Also correct ….as evident by these special carve-outs for LEOs.

          Some animals are more equal than others.

    3. avatar Clark Kent says:

      That is like claiming YOU should be allowed to practice medicine anywhere you want regardless if you are a M.D. or not. THINK before you post, dork!

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Clark Kent,

        Actually, anyone SHOULD be able to practice medicine (yes, even without an M.D.) as long as they fully and truthfully disclose their qualifications — including their lack thereof.

        Let the market decide whether or not someone is worthy of their services.

      2. avatar Xaun Loc says:

        Sorry, Clark, but just stay home and polish your tin badge while dreaming of all the crimes you are going to stop when you grow up.

        You have made multiple arrogant posts about how special you are and how we should bow down to your ability to save the world.

        Sorry, but you ain’t all that special.

      3. avatar Specialist38 says:

        I do think. I think You are an asshat.

        LEO in another state has no jurisdiction as an officer of the law.

        They are civilians and should suffer the inane laws of other states and municipalities like any other.

        I am not asking to practice law, medicine, or any other board certified profession.

        I am looking to carry a weapon to defend myself and others.

        The constitution is not “board certified”……dork.

        Try thinking….

        1. avatar Bill Will says:

          Then apply, pass a background, poly, drug test, psych, and serve honorably for at least 10 years and you can.

      4. avatar Ash says:

        STFU. LEOs have no duty to protect the public and when they aren’t shooting homeowners, their dogs, or good guys with guns, they tend to off themselves and their spouses with great regularity.

        Your continued childish antics and excessive arrogance is one of the main reasons that many don’t #backtheblue.

  3. avatar Napresto says:

    If this starts happening enough, maybe law enforcement officers and orgs, feeling put upon, will become more broadly in favor of 2A freedoms for all. (Maybe?)

    I realize that many individual officers ARE pro 2A, but not enough of them, and certainly not enough LE organizations as a whole. Taking away carve outs could open some eyes (or at least redirect selfish wants into happy directions), and perhaps wind up helping the greater cause in the long term…

    (Again, maybe?)

    1. avatar DavidW says:

      By an overwhelming margin, the rank and file officers across the nation (including here in the Democratic Peoples Republic of Kalifornia) reject the infringement of 2A in any way. They don’t even (here) support the state’s imposition of grossly wasted gun controls on semi-automatic weapons. The LEOs are supportive are, for the most part, those who owe their positions to politics. Chief’s of Police in larger metropolitan areas like LA, San Francisco, NYC, etc. Law Enforcement agencies in CA, even stepped up and attempted to stop the state from ramming through a batch of gun laws. They were ignored and the legislature rammed the package through and “Moonbeam” signed almost all of the bills into law.

      This information comes from a very in depth poll of police officers nationwide. It was broken down by age, race, sex, rank, position, years on force, size of force, size of community served, etc.

      I know from my discussions with present and former police officers, and military police officers over many years. In my county, our elected sheriff posted a letter on the SO web page that he will comply with federal laws and agencies, approves CCWs, will brook no violation or infringement of 2A, and, if it comes to it, he will deputize ever pro-2A person in the county. Our county board elected not to be a sanctuary county, and the Sheriff was just re-elected. Such is the nature of those of us who reside in the 93% of the state that is classified as rural. Unfortunately, the power base is in the hands of the progressives who reside, primarily, in the major cities.

      LEOs have a conflict to overcome. They swear an oath to enforce the laws of the state, as well as defending the Constitution of the United States. I understand their situation. However, the Constitution is the law of the land and takes precedence. The military faces the same dilemma. Whether to violate the Constitution, or not.

      While there are many officers who will do as ordered, there are a great many who will not. After all, they are Americans who have constitutionally protected rights just as we all do. They do not like having their rights infringed. These are our neighbors. Their children go to school with ours. They are part of our communities.

      Now, I KNOW people are going to have their personal bias against cops because they were pulled over, cited, or whatever. Those who think that way are not going to change based on what I say, and they can give all manner of reason to believe that all cops are bad. I spent my career in the military/law enforcement. I know first hand how we talk about different subjects. I also know that in any group, bad apples make the rest look bad and the good people in the group rarely get the recognition they deserve.

    2. avatar New Continental Army says:

      There are a lot of pro 2A police, in fact most of them are and are also politically conservative leaning. However they actually don’t make much waves politically, because, police are actually a small voting block. Last I read the total number of police ifficers in America topped out at about 500,000-600,000. Spread out across the entire country it’s not really enough, even if they all voted none way, to really effect many elections when special interest identity politics draws in 10s of millions.

    3. avatar Michael Stilinovich says:

      Or possibly they will pay attention when they want to disarm the LEO’s.

  4. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    If the Constitution also doesn’t apply to the state of Hawaii,then end any federal monies going their and send their Marxist’s representatives back to the islands.

  5. avatar D says:

    The HI AG should be jailed.

    I know lots of gun folks don’t like Leosa, but the fact is that off duty cops have a great risk of running into scumbags on the street that they have previously arrested. They do have a greater risk than no cops

    1. avatar No one of consequence says:

      In a completely different state. That, for the most part, you have to fly to get to.

      Seriously, just no. Rather than give some people extra special privileges and exemptions how about treating everyone the same?

    2. avatar Manse Jolly says:

      Question…

      Who are scumbags more afraid of? Cops or private citizens?

      I submit that private citizens have more of a target on their backs (including me) than Cops.

      Do scumbags rob Cops at gunpoint? Do scumbags attempt to carjack Cops?

      something to think about.

      just sayin…

      1. avatar tdiinva says:

        If you are a gangbange or involved in illegal activities you are definitely more likely to need your heater than a cop. So are you telling me this statement applies to you?

        1. avatar Manse Jolly says:

          The question leads to the point that there are more private citizens than cops and scumbags prey on private citizens….not cops. So who has more of a target on their backs?

          My “Heater” is a split system air pump and it’s running now. Why? because I live in South Carolina and its’ winter time. Any temp below 60deg is winter.

        2. avatar tdiinva says:

          When a cop is off duty he looks just like you or me to a perp so he has at least as big a target on his back as you do.

        3. avatar Broke_It says:

          “Gangbange” kinda sounds like how I prepare my morning eggs.

      2. avatar Salty Bear says:

        Scumbags fear private citizens, but private citizens fear cops. My fear of the cops is why I don’t carry. Now the scumbags have no reason to fear me. Ergo, cops enable scumbags.

        Aloha, btw. This state sucks.

    3. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Great story, not so great references. I’ve been hearing that story for 50 years now, where is the proof? Do you have a graph showing how many out of state vacationing LEOs were attacked vs out of state tourists? I didn’t think so, it’s bullshit excuse and you know it. Has as much validity as “gunfight at the OK corral”, or “rivers of blood in the streets” claims for “shall issue” CC, just crap tossed out there like somebody studied it instead of made it up. If it happens, there are records. Where are they?

    4. avatar Xaun Loc says:

      LEOSA was totally unnecessary and grossly inappropriate.

      Yes, off duty police officers do have an increased risk of running into some criminal who might have a grudge. But that risk is almost exclusively within their own jurisdiction — if there own state or their own city/county doesn’t trust them to be armed off duty, why should we?

      While we are discussing that “increased risk of running into some criminal who might have a grudge” let’s face the fact that this risk is MUCH greater for corrections officers than for law enforcement officers; but LEOSA doesn’t cover most corrections officers.

      For that matter, bouncers at many bars have a greater of running into some criminal who might have a grudge than most police officers.

      Bottom line: LEOSA was (and is) just one more instance of making the police into an elite that are above the laws they are supposed to be sworn to enforce.

      1. avatar ChanceMcCall says:

        Hawaii is a vacation spot. Some crooks do take vacations to Hawaii. It is not even inconceivable that a crook might follow a current or retired LEO to Hawaii. Some LEOs are federal and have enemies all over the country.

        I don’t agree that the only reason that LEOSA was created was for the reasons above. I also believe it was a easier step in extending the concealed carry goal as a first step. As evidence of that, the act has been extended to many members of the military as well as well.

        1. avatar Julio says:

          Nope—only MPs. Military live with the same restrictions as everyone else. In states like Kalifornistan, we’re supposed to be exempt from bans on so-called “high capacity” (standard) magazines that hold 10+ rounds…but it seems subjective to the enforcement by the particular officer that’s pulled you over. (Referring to a situation where a young Marine was pulled over and had assorted gear, flak, and M4 mags in backseat/plain view.) I’m sure they cannot actually get that charge to stick in court, but glad to avoid being a test case. And perfectly content with being stationed elsewhere at the moment.

    5. avatar rosignol says:

      In their jurisdiction and adjacent geographical areas, sure.

      While vacationing in Hawaii? Seems pretty damn unlikely. Got any examples of it happening?

  6. avatar Porkchop says:

    This is pretty basic constitutional law:

    This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

    U.S. Constitution Art. VI.

    States do not get to override federal law, period. That has been the law for 200 years. See Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1 (1824); McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819). That being said, it is not surprising that Hawaii is trying to do so. It will probably lose eventually, but in the meantime there will be a lot of opportunities for political posturing

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Really? Are you sure you are not hallucinating? 2A says **ALL** those laws are unconstitutional, how respected has that been for the past 200+ years?

      1. avatar RMS1911 says:

        Logic

    2. avatar Missouri_Mule says:

      So what about all those sanctuary cities and “medical” pot havens?

  7. avatar GunnyGene says:

    Yet another assault by lefties. Expect more in the coming year. This and the other 2 media reports are just the beginning of an all out frontal assault on gun rights by the left.

  8. avatar Enuf says:

    Only State law should control how each state regards the authority of police officers from another state. The Federal government should have no say in the matter.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Nor does the constitution grant them any such authority.

    2. avatar Clark Kent says:

      Ever heard of ‘full faith and credit’? Look it up before you post more crapola.

      1. avatar Xaun Loc says:

        So, Clark, you feel that “full faith and credit” applies to you — but not to me?

        And you believe that “full faith and credit” means that the federal government should give you get special privileges that aren’t even granted by a state to its own officers?

        Sorry, Clark, you struck out again — LEOSA purports to give off duty LEOs greater privileges out of state than they have in their home state.

      2. avatar rosignol says:

        Yeah, I’ve heard of it.

        Somehow, it obliges every other state to honor my driver’s license, and if I was married, the marriage license, but for some reason it doesn’t oblige any other state to honor my state-issued license to carry a concealed pistol.

  9. avatar Ardent says:

    I’m not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, given the 2A, and the 14A incorporation of the states under the BoR, I’d like to say that HI has no authority to tell any citizen whether or not they can carry, with a few possible limitations which could be argued (ie convicted felons), all of which would come after application of due process.
    On the other hand, the very notion that some citizens have more rights and privilages than others is antithetical to spirit of the BoR. It is difficult to imagine a compelling argument for an off duty police officer who is outside their jurisdiction on personal business having rights and privilages barred to other citizens, period. Add to this the inequity created by such a situation and there is a compelling argument not to allow it to exist.

    Then there is the states rights question, and I can’t in good faith apply the principle only when states do things I approve of, then again I don’t know if I approve if this or not. I’m no constitutional scholar of note, nor do I have a law degree, but this looks to me like a slam dunk for the Feds. I simply can’t see how HI can ignore the supremacy of federal law in such a blatant way and get away with it. Then again, since this is the jurisdiction of the 9th circuit, the only surety is that the opinion will have a severe progressive bias.

    I think there are interesting points and questions raised by this, such as does the HI AG have such a problem with off duty, out of state and or retired cops breaking the law and endangering the public with their arms as to constitute a compelling need to lead the state into a head on confrontation with the federal government? I find that concept utterly unbelievable, which then raises it’s own question; what is the point of this opinion? What, or whos interest does it serve?

    I suppose from my POV the best outcome is some sweeping SC decision that smacks HI down hard, while schooling the 9th circus on whatever idiocy they opine regarding this when it gets to them, and then in a surprise twist finds not only is LEOSA totally unconstitutional but simultaneously holding that it’s null anyway since the only constitutionally satisfactory position is that constitutional carry is the law of the land and all laws baring or restricting tje keeping and bearing of arms are therefore void.

    Hey, it’s Christmas eve…a guy can dream.

    1. avatar Some dude says:

      It’s a good dream and may well be reality in the multiverse just a couple bubbles away. I’m gonna try to dream my way there tonight… This shit, here, is getting into nightmare territory!

  10. avatar Gregolas says:

    LEOSA is good for concealed carriers. It has proven over many years (since 2005?) that current a retired law enforcement can carry anywhere in the US without problems. Since we licensed carriers are more law-abiding than cops, we have a present experiment showing that no harm will come from National Reciprocity.
    Hawaii should be slapped down good and hard. The debate over it will only help our cause.

  11. avatar Newshawk says:

    Well, there goes half the plots of Hawaii Five-0… Unless they’re living in an alternative universe.

    1. avatar TomC says:

      Everything about Hawaii Five-O is in an alternate universe. Starting with the Governor giving a police agency an exemption from the US Constitution as well as federal and state law.

      Not one single “criminal” apprehended by the clowns at Five O would ever have a conviction stand up on appeal (if they could even get a conviction in the first place with their illegally obtained evidence, warrantless searches, and illegal interrogations, etc.)

  12. avatar Dave Lewis says:

    The last time I was in Hawaii we carried pretty much in the open – 8″ and 5″ guns on the main deck, Ma Deuce for local defense, 1911s backed up by M-1 carbines for the quarterdeck watch. Of course we were in a federal installation (Pearl Harbor) so I guess that everything was okay.

    LEOSA has been effect for almost 15 years and the states consistently lose when its challenged. I understand that the law upsets lots of folks but right now it is federal law which over rides the states. What would people say if a state outlawed a church or tried to prohibit a certain race from voting? The Hawaii case is just one more stupid politician wasting time and somebody else’s money to fight a battle that he can’t win.

  13. avatar Tom says:

    If you support gun rights, then you must fight any infringement on any gun owner, end of story. The reason is, the left is trying to remove the concept of gun ownership, and gun culture from our society. They are trying to make gun ownership as difficult as possible, in as many jurisdictions as possible. The idea is that rights are easier to take away from people who never knew they had them in the first place. Their model is how England removed guns from their society over several generations. If you study gun ownership in England, you will see many parallels to what is happening today in the United States.

    I do agree somewhat that by refusing to allow law enforcement to have special cut-outs, it may force some of these groups to support equal gun rights across the board.

    1. avatar GunnyGene says:

      Precisely. It doesn’t matter who the specific target is. The objective is to disarm everyone who doesn’t kiss their collective ass. And while I’m at it, it’s not just firearms. It’s every Right, and our entire form of government as described by the Constitution. Remember what Obama said: Fundamentally transform America. They are still working that agenda.

  14. avatar Michael says:

    Just sell Hawaii, their government is already lost to the communists. A bidding war between China and Japan would generate enough cash to settle the national debt, build the Wall and substantially reduce the power of the irs. Any takers? -30-

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Damn! What a fun concept for discussion! Start with, why the hell not? Discussions would go on for a decade at least, proposals and counterproposals for pricing each hotel, each corporation, and toward the end the population would start to figure that they were being sold into slavery, without a vote of their own. God, what fun!

    2. avatar frank speak says:

      haven for homosexuals?…certainly seem to be a lot of them out there…

  15. avatar arc says:

    Glad I’m not in Hawaii anymore, shitty state full of gangs and litter.

  16. avatar Wowser says:

    This coming from the same state that is trying to over turn the Young v. Hawaii Open Carry win.

  17. avatar tdiinva says:

    FYI: Few retired LEOs take advantage of LEOSA. It has very onerous terms. It’s one gun with the serial number registered with the Feds and an annual qualification. You are also prohibited from getting a CHL. The officers who take advantage of it are those who lose their right to carry when they retire and don’t live in shall issue states

    1. avatar Clark Kent says:

      WRONG on all counts. PLENTY of retired officers ‘take advantage’ of LEOSA. And one DOES NOT lose their CHL with LEOSA. How old are you, twelve?

    2. avatar New Continental Army says:

      What!? I’m pretty sure nothing in LEOSA prevents them from getting a CHL. I’m pretty sure a know a couple retired LEOs that do both. I’d like to see some hard evidence on that one.

      1. avatar Chiefton says:

        I currently hold both just in case there is a delay in getting my qualification done in time. Also, you are not required to provide a serial number of the firearm.

    3. avatar Dave R says:

      As someone who falls under LEOSA and has a father who falls under LEOSA as a retiree I can state for a fact that a singular gun is not attached to your LEOSA status. The rules are that you must successfully qualify annually both active or retired and you are able to carry within all 50 states concealed as long as you follow the local states statutes, as a previous reader stated that means obeying magazine restrictions in some states and no hollows in Jersey. I have had no issues traveling with multiple different personal firearms concealed throughout Jersey, NYC, even Cali. I just research the local laws before going there. And the CPL exception is wrong as well as I have a Connecticut State CCL as well. I like LEOSA because it applies to me and Im able to carry my firearm throughout the states but I would prefer the passing of a universal permit system modeled after our drivers licenses. I do get the ideal of LEOSA however impractical it actually is. Rather than hire more Leos throughout the country just arm them all off duty and you in effect have more first responders everywhere you go. For those of you who hate it you should look up the new FIRST NET cell phone service by ATT. Its basically LEOSA for cell phones. A first responder only cell service that allows all the members of its network priority when making calls or texts as to give them an advantage in an emergency scenario. Yes it is true that elitist status is alive and well and that’s coming from someone who takes advantage of it.

      1. avatar Anymouse says:

        I have no problem with First Net. Having been through disasters, I.know the communications networks get messed up and jammed. There aren’t many Hams left, and cell is the way to get in touch. Updating Facebook or telling Aunt Sally in another state that I’m ok should have less priority than getting an off duty responder to come in, or coordinating between different emergency departments. Emergency services already has carve outs of dedicated spectrum for their service radios, so this is really just an extension of it.

      2. avatar Bill Will says:

        The NJ hollow point ban was the reason they added that exemption to the last LEOSA revision. Its not relevant anymore. The next revision will eliminate the mag limit….

  18. avatar GS650G says:

    Bravo. Welcome to the party, guys.
    Islands get away with shit like this all the time. They become totalitarian states in due time.

  19. avatar Greg says:

    Way it should be. Cops aren’t special and should be treated like anyone else off duty.

    1. avatar Clark Kent says:

      ‘Cops aren’t special’? Then why don’t YOU become a police officer and show us all how it SHOULD be done? Put up or shut up.

      1. avatar Specialist38 says:

        And a retired cop sure ain’t doing any police work…no more rights than anyone else.

        Same as an active cop in another state. No special rights.

  20. avatar George D. Venable says:

    The annual qualification is problematic for some retired LEO. In my area the local Sheriff has no problem accomodating this, but some places, not so much !

  21. avatar RV6Driver says:

    Hawaii was a sovereign kingdom seized by the US to be a military staging ground. It’s no mystery they don’t want an armed populace, especially natives.

    As for disarming out of state cops… That’s just a combination of the new progressive ideal with the old antigun guard…..

    1. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

      Or, siezed at the behest of the same sugar industry that spent decades using the government to blame fat intake to distract attention from the obesity epidemic their product was causing.

  22. avatar possum says:

    Gun rights for all,;;;; siren !!! Whoop whoop!!! Cop, ” you got any firearms?” other cop” “sure do. “” ,Cop “okay, drive safe and have a nice day.”…… To support the Constitution of the United States.

  23. avatar Craig Foster says:

    The police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
    ~Sir Robert Peel, Father of modern policing.

    There should be no reason for any law abiding citizen to be restricted in the use of arms!

    1. avatar tdiinva says:

      Those are fine words but I suspect that the TTAG cop haters would find an excuse not to fulfill their citizen’s duty to supplement the full time officers if such a requirement existed.

  24. avatar strych9 says:

    “The Hawaii Revised Statutes will be applied to you as if you were a “civilian” with no law enforcement powers”

    Apparently cops are not considered civilians by the Hawaii AG… I’m not sure which is scarier, that cops are not considered civilians or that civilians has quotes around it as if it’s a codeword for something else.

    Telling.

  25. avatar Roger Pemberton says:

    Federal law dictates interstate commerce and law enforcement officer traveling to another state outside of professional reasons should fall under the same. That would mean that the host state would also have to honor the LEOS Act whether they want to or not. The LEOS Act was implemented for this vary reason. So law enforcement officials whether active or retired as long as they meet the qualifications could carry a firearm for the safety of the public where ever they may be at the time. It is a prime example of more eyes more guns faster response to an emergency. The Supreme Court needs to tell Hawaii and California both to get bent where the second amendment is concerned.

    1. avatar Anymouse says:

      A retired LEO or an out of jurisdiction officer has no more duties or powers than any other citizen. More guns in the hands of good guys is better, but allowing all CCWers would be more effective because of the greater numbers.
      This seems more of a preemptive strike against Young v. Hawaii being extended for CCW. If they can say nobody off duty can CCW, then it’s ok not to issue or honor CCWs.

  26. avatar Chiefton says:

    To all of the 2A folks who believe that LEOSA is not just I want you to take a moment to think with a clear mind. Did you ever consider at all that this law is the start to a Federal CCW permit for all? You see, any gain, or loss, that is made in regards to the 2nd A is a gain or loss for us all. Instead of agreeing with ANY law that attacks the 2A, you should realize that you are only encouraging more laws attacking the 2A. Stop shooting yourself in your own foot and condemn ALL laws created to attack the 2A. If we do not stand firm, together, then rest assured, we will all be under a dictatorship before you know it.

    1. avatar Xaun Loc says:

      No, Chiefton, it is NOT!

      LEOSA is not (and never was) the start of CCW for all.

      LEOSA is the continuation of Special Privileges for an Elite who are above the laws that mere mortals (called “civilians” by the Elite) have to follow.

      How about you take your FOP plaque off your car, leave your retired badge home, and try driving like a “civilian” for a while before preaching to us.

      1. avatar guitars says:

        I’m not an expert on LEOSA but as far as it supposedly gives right for cops and former cops to carry arms in any state, to me is redundant. As that right already exists which the 2nd amendment protects for them (concealed or otherwise) as it does for civilians. There are laws that have ignored this intentionally or not , with dishonest reasoning even perhaps some with very good intentions. That doesn’t change that they violate the protected right and thus should be struck down as unconstitutional.

        For those that don’t like it and want to limits the right the bear/carry then although i don’t recommend it, move and support amending the amendment. Pretending it doesn’t exist, twisting words dishonestly is not the way.

  27. avatar HEGEMON says:

    I have absolutely NO reason, whatsoever, to go there. Hawaii is expensive, overrated and hostile to outsiders. I have no qualms with selling it to the Japanese.

  28. avatar Mitch says:

    I am not a Cop , but I now do not want to go to Hawaii anymore.

    1. avatar Broke_It says:

      I wouldn’t go in the first place. I may not have a permit in every state but the exact nothing that stopped me with no ill intent from crossing into a connected state is doing sweet fuck all to stop someone else that has ill intent and chaos on the mind from crossing. If I have to cross a border or fly it most likely won’t happen.

  29. avatar guitars says:

    To me the out of state cops fall under the 2nd amendment which allows then to Keep and “BEAR” arms. Such law barring them is them for out of state cops is clearly unconstitutional. Bear” in context literally means carry, as in carry on your person. How could it mean anything else? There is so much dishonesty floating around on this. If you want to infringe it, then work towards amending it (i wouldn’t recommend it though) to add in limitations. At least take the honest approach.

    Also note, the 2nd doesn’t indicate its only for concealed or non concealing bearing/carrying, it implies both are protected. In general, I think concealed carry is way better then open carry but am not going to pretend or twist words dishonestly to say the 2nd amendment only protects concealed carry.

    1. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

      Well, restricting carry to only open or concealed would be a limitation on the right to bear the arms, which would be an ‘infringement.’ So yeah.

    2. avatar Al says:

      “out of state cops fall under the 2nd amendment” would seem to imply that the Second Amendment only applies to cops? Hopefully that isn’t your intent.

      1. avatar guitars says:

        Certainly not my intent top imply that. Nothing to do with them being cops or former cops. Any other laws that similarly violate other citizens rights to bear/carry arms are just as much unconstitutional.

  30. avatar MLee says:

    Post a pic of Hogg or Shannon Watts and lets get this hate party started!!

  31. avatar Al says:

    What’s truly amazing here is the comments that essentially condone this interpretation. I guess there are few left who understand the Founder’s meaning of the Bill of Rights (NOT “wants”) and the Second Amendment. It wasn’t for hunting and black powder rifles, and “shall not be infringed” should be fairly clear.

    Cambridge Dictionary:

    infringe verb [ I/T ]
    us ​ /ɪnˈfrɪndʒ/

    to act in a way that is against a law or that limits someone’s rights or freedom:
    [ T ] Copying videos infringes copyright law.
    [ I always + adv/prep ] The senator is opposed to any laws that infringe on a citizen’s right to free speech.

  32. avatar guitars says:

    The ideal situation is there to be a suit and it get to Supreme court who rules that LEOSA is irrelevant for cop’s or not, as citizens of the United States the 2nd amendment already protects their right “BEAR”/carry arms concealed on their person in any of the states which includes Hawaii.

  33. avatar Dick Throbbin says:

    The Hawaii AG can suck a fat baby’s d*ck as far as I’m concerned. I carried while working at the Federal Detention Center Honolulu and would carry if I travel back to Oahu.
    Like everyone tells visitors, any town starting with a “W” can be trouble crime wise !

  34. avatar ZippZ says:

    This article is fake news and out of state LE are allowed to carry in Hawaii. The quoted section applies to all state/county LE across the nation unless allowed by state law. State and county LE lose their law enforcement powers at their state’s borders. A Texas Sheriff is like anyone else when going to Hawaii and cannot enforce Texas law there. Same is true that a Hawaii Sheriff in Texas cannot enforce Hawaii laws there.
    What the quoted section means is LE can carry in Hawaii as if they have a regular carry permit for the public. LEOSA does not override other state laws like registration and magazine limits in any state.

    We have very restrictive laws here which I am against, but this article is deceiving.

  35. avatar piper says:

    The stupid will continue until democrat city and state politicians are getting arrested when they refuse to obey Constitutional Law.

  36. avatar MIO says:

    Good luck on trying to take mine or me cause your gonna lose a few

  37. avatar DrDKW says:

    The point should be all the states or cities that already violate various Federal laws at will, apparently without consequenses (so far)!

  38. avatar tdiinva says:

    So all of you who are good with this will be ok if reciprocity gets passed and Hawaii refuses to accept the law. Got it.

  39. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    Each state is going in different directions. That is a good thing. Let California be California. And let Kentucky be Kentucky. This is the freedom we have to choose to be a slave or choose to be a free man.

    I will not work to force a slave to be free when they have chosen to be a slave. There are many people who like being a slave, because this means they will be taken care of.

  40. avatar Ed Schrade says:

    Hawaii is sounding more like Japan all the time.

    1. avatar Widdler says:

      It’s the peoples republic of Asia, Japanese, Chinese, Korean, from the Philippines whatever. It’s weird if your a local and not Asian, more acceptable not being Hawaiian. Whites own it, Japanese run it.

  41. avatar Joseph says:

    Where it’s this or sanctuary cities, when the states start deciding they are not going to follow federal law, things are getting dangerous.

  42. avatar Pg2 says:

    Hawaii is overtly racist, anti white. Even vacationing there is marginal.

  43. avatar Busterdog says:

    As much as I disagree with the draconian gun laws of places like Hawaii. I applaud the fact that as a sovereign state they write the rules for their state and basically say F/U to the rest of the states including the Federal government. It’s all about getting back to “Home Rule”, and a time before the Federal government became to big and powerful.

  44. avatar Rudolf says:

    All off-duty LEO carve outs are bullshit… end of story… LEOs looking for and expecting carve outs outside of their jurisdictions and even outside of their states are just pathetic. Work at protecting 2A rights for all citizens.

    Don’t need to be sheepdogged… just need to be left alone to protect ourselves.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email