Brainstorming an idea

There are laws in place to allow retired LEOs to carry across jurisdictions. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enforcement_Officers_Safety_Act

There is also this law that was passed. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Flight_Deck_Officer

 
What about if we found a few lawmakers to introduce a bill about allowing Distinguished Pistol Shots to carry in a similar manner?  If done correctly, this could have bipartisan support.  I would wager that there are few groups in the country more patriotic, more capable, and with a higher regard for safety.  I understand that the legislation listed above is very specific and limited.  However, the current number of Distinguished Pistol Shots is small in number per capita.  It may be the type of thing that would initially be able to remain low profile. 

If the proposed legislation passed or gained national attention, it could be an idea that greatly increases the number of people trying to achieve the distinction of Distinguished.  We have a large list of guns on the approved list, and we have cut scores in place.  The nature of the badge itself and its history would be maintained.   

We should not need additional pieces of legislation to enjoy our rights, but this could be a good option that might pass or at least generate more interest in our sport. 

Thoughts?

I disagree, being a DPS demonstrates nothing more than an accurate shooter...

James, thanks for the feedback.  Could you expand?  

With so many of us having carry permits and lesser accurate shooters carrying now, what troubles you about the idea of the more accurate shooters carrying in more places?

I agree with James above. Furthermore, most of the agencies covered in the LEOSA (mine included) were pretty quick to come out and say they wouldn't support their members in this manner. I'm talking about the non-retired LEO folks covered under LEOSA, specifically the federal agencies. The standard answer was that the individuals should seek carry permits in their respective states if they want to carry.

I don't hesitate to say that the average competition shooter will blow away most even above average (for department standards) LEOs and military in competition because they practice more often than the LEO/mil does. Qualifying once every 6 months does not make an expert shooter. In a CCW gunfight situation, I'd still prefer a LEO/mil to watch my back over the best civilian target shooter out there.

There's a big difference in being able to shoot accurately and having the right mindset for how/when/why to employ a weapon in a defensive/offensive manner.

Edit: Dewey are you thinking about Distinguished not needing carry permits at all, or meaning that a Distinguished's permit be good in all states?

IMHO the best idea is to push for a federal carry license. Accurate shooting and common sense don't necessarily go hand in hand.

Besides I really don't think that it would increase the numbers like you think. Most CCW license holders could give a rats behind about shooting sports and competition.

I agree with Regular Guy, I've seen LEO's shoot. The advantage the LEO does have is knowing the laws and having the proper training when the feces hits the fan unlike the DP or CCW holder



Virgil

Dewey, basically what Rich(regular_guy) said.

I'd love to have my permit recognized everywhere. Ideally, good people should be able to carry pretty much anywhere. 

I see more freedom as a good thing. I am surprised that people here wouldn't want such accurate shooters to be able to carry in more places. All 50 states now have laws on the books allowing certain people to carry in certain places. 

If there were to be a Paris style attack in Manhattan on Black Friday while Brian Zins or Judy Tant were there, I'd want them armed if they wanted to be. 

I'm not talking about these guys becoming door kickers, but in a world where LEOs cannot be everywhere, why not have a few more good shooters armed? Many are licensed to carry in their home state. Many are former military or LE. I've had training by Awerbuck and others. I bet others would get more training if they had more incentive. 

Many legislative acts incrementally build toward an ideal. Good guys being able to carry in more places is an ideal. This could be a step in that direction. 

The proposed bill could start with a draft crafted here. What needs to be in there?

This had been in the works for some time..President Bush signed the legislation against the wishes of The International Assoc. of Chiefs of Police. They feared liability claims.
LE's own were against us. Many agencies refused, initially to participate in the Bill.. I was on the forefront. In charge of administering the qualification program(s). My own agency, stalled but proceeded to carry out the mandates. It requires yearly qualifications, which not only include score, but the safe, proficient handling of the weapon. Most officers are not great marksman..Although the overwhelming majority are sufficiently proficient. ALSO and very important. They do receive a significant amount of annual and in many cases semi annual use of force training. This use of deadly force training, includes crisis decision making scenarios, and this is what separates them from the civilian CCW.

I'm all for more guns in the hands of capable individuals, and think that some sort of federal permit system is a great idea. The original thought of being certified to carry nation wide based on marksmanship skill is a good start but I'm not sure how the general public would react to it. I'd rather see the original idea of LEOSA fully implemented without agencies being able to neuter their folks from carrying off duty.

While we're at it, having competent military members be able to carry US-wide and on base after taking a certification course should be added to the list. It has never made sense to me that we are trusted with arms from PDWs to those that can level a house, but aren't responsible enough to have a gun on base.

If you're talking more guns in the hands of more competent people, I see military and those already covered under LEOSA who aren't authorized to be a bigger advantage to public safety than the small number of distinguished pistol shooters. John Q Public is going to get more of a warm fuzzy feeling knowing that nearly 2 million competent/certified active duty and reserve members are potentially carrying, over 1,000 or so target shooters.

How many mil folks I would actually trust with a gun like that is a different story though  .

Let me emphasize, that  LEOSA covers Nationwide Carry.. Nearly all officers, active or retired are authorized to carry in their home states. They are also authorized in reciprocal states, the same as CCW holders are. A list of reciprocal states can be googled up.

It seems to me that the less federal power involved with concealed carry the better it is. By that I mean I prefer the reciprical agreements and nonresident licenses (such as the Utah license) over any federal one. I just stay out of IL as much as possible. 

Then again, we all know how safe its strict laws have made Chicago.

It is one thing to shoot at targets with one hand in competition. It is quite a different thing to train for fighting situations. It is apples and oranges.

I've always been ambivalent about the permit. For yrs we fought regulations and anti gun laws then suddenly we were asking for permits. Was regulation conceded or can it be used so one day?

Could a law be passed "requiring" the CCW to own a pistol? Only a pistol listed on the application/permit?

Ron Habegger

"It seems to me that the less federal power involved with concealed carry the better it is" 

AMEN

any regulation tends to be a slippery slope..  yes the world has changed, but thankfully our Constitution has not for the most part..

I simply grateful that I live in a state that supports an individual right to carry even if I do have to get a carry license for some instances.

BE Mike wrote:It is one thing to shoot at targets with one hand in competition. It is quite a different thing to train for fighting situations. It is apples and oranges.

It is quite different but one should not assume that one handed match shooters are not competent with the fighting pistol or that the fighting pistol is not a viable weapon when it is all one has. 

http://yarchive.net/gun/politics/pistol_vietnam.html

"A Navy SEAL Team was returning from a mission over North Vietnam in a chopper
when it got hit pretty bad. The pilot and one crew member were killed and
the copilot was wounded. Going into autorotation, the copilot managed to set
the chopper down in a clearing. After landing, a few rounds of enemy fire
were starting to come in. Seems the M60s were also damaged beyond use by
the crash landing and initial RPG hit, the only M16 fell out on the way down.
The only firearms left was M1911s.

The remaining crew member was carrying a match conditioned M1911 and had a
few boxes of ammo. As more enemy small arms fire started comming in, the
copilot and crew member also noted that the VC were comming out of the jungle
and approaching them; shooting as they came. The crew member took out his .45
and took careful aim as he shot at each attacking VC. About 30 minutes later
it was all over. Between reloading magazines and radioing for rescue, the
copilot was pretty busy, but a rescue chopper finally arrived on the scene.

As the rescue chopper came in and landed, its crew noticed a lot of dead VC
laying around. The downed helo's remaining crew were picked up and on their
way out, they counted the dead VC; 37 in all. Their distances from the downed
helo were from 3 to about 150 yards; all shot by the crew member with his
M1911 .45 ACP. About 80 rounds were fired by Petty Officer R.J. Thomas, a
member of the USN Rifle and Pistol Team.

Petty Officer Thomas was recommended for the Congressional Medal of Honor, but
by the time the recommendation got all the way up through the chain of
command, the recognition was reduced to the Navy Cross."

For 48 states iirc, permits are the way it works. If this could be a start to more rights being exercised, so be it. I don't like Fed involvement, but the states shouldn't be limiting a fundamental right. 

I was at Quantico a few years back. There was an ammo drop box. It was for anonymous turn in of ammo if you happened to later find a cartridge. It was one of the saddest things I've ever seen. 

I'm all for military folks being able to carry. That's a lot of folks. My proposal would get some of them. It would initially affect very few people. That makes it more possible to pass. 

There could be stipulations of additional training perhaps. I hate the idea of becoming a potential criminal if I ride through DC, Maryland, or Jersey to get to a match. Just stopping for gas or staying in a hotel is grey area or over the line entirely. That shouldn't be. 

If people here cannot rally behind a proposal for more people to be able to bear their arms, what stipulations should be added?  Special interests write bills all the time. They then seek sponsors. I'm trying to think beyond what exists now. The goal is to have more capable people carrying in more places.

Dewey, I am for the idea of universal ccw. I just am not for the idea of federal laws that allow me to engage in a right.

Keep this discussion non-political or I will shut it down.

jmdavis wrote:

BE Mike wrote:It is one thing to shoot at targets with one hand in competition. It is quite a different thing to train for fighting situations. It is apples and oranges.

It is quite different but one should not assume that one handed match shooters are not competent with the fighting pistol or that the fighting pistol is not a viable weapon when it is all one has. 

http://yarchive.net/gun/politics/pistol_vietnam.html

Great story and my hat is off to Petty Officer Thomas. No doubt that match shooting, even bullseye pistol shooting, is a good foundation for any shooting situation, and if that's all one has then he or she has a leg up on the average person. I'm also pretty sure that Petty Officer Thomas received more firearms training from the Navy besides bullseye match shooting. I still don't think that a distinguished pistol shot badge (on its own) is evidence of superior gun handling in a self-defense situation, especially since the pistols involved may be very dissimilar. Training has evolved over the years after studying "after action reports". When things get dicey, one resorts to training.

I think if states or the Feds are going to have a training or proficiency requirement for concealed carry it ought to apply to EVERYONE.  

I am not special because I am former military, (you should hear my nightmare story about running the range at Bernbach for a medical unit that had to go out and qualify) nor would I be special just because  I had once been an LEO.  (Which I have not been). 


I think special rights and privileges  for LEO's and politicians regardless of their training or qualifications, is one of the biggest things that is wrong with our government.  

I'm also not too thrilled with the idea, that someone who fifty years ago, managed to hammer out a distinguished pistol badge in a military competition, should now, at the age of 85 be granted the privilege of national concealed carry because, he or she at one time, in the distant past was an adequate shooter.

Why draw the line at Distinguished shooters? Why not include High Masters? Or Masters? Or Experts? Or Sharpshooters? Or Marksman?

I'd like to know how the Israelis handle it.

Rob Kovach wrote:Keep this discussion non-political or I will shut it down.

What's wrong with a political discussion as long as it is respectful and offers intelligent thought and conversation? Politics happen to be a big part of our sport.

Joel

This discussion is legislative and not political in nature.

What's wrong with a political discussion as long as it is respectful and offers intelligent thought and conversation? Politics happen to be a big part of our sport

Political chatter is what facebook is for.  This forum is for the benefit of our sport and for the benefit of shooters trying to join our sport, and competitors and match directors who are seeking information and process improvement opinions about our sport.

We will not clog up the forum with political chatter that really doesn't have anything to do with our sport.