Talk:Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Law Enforcement

	Law portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Application to the military

I removed a posting regarding application of LEOSA to military police. This information was clearly opinion, erroneous, and failed to cite any authority to support it. Slyjackalope (talk) 00:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Related State regulations

It's worth noting that related state regulations regarding concealed carry permits issued by a state do not seem to be governed by LEOSA. i.e. Washington state has a five day waiting period on purchases of firearms in Washington state. This is a requirement that is waved if a person holds a concealed carry permit issued by the state of Washington. The fact the LEOSA exempts a person from "Concealed carry requirements" doesn't seem to matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.180.123 (talk) 02:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tag

Tagged because of issues in "Qualified law enforcement officers" section:

"On-duty status determines LEOSA-eligibility." - seems over-broad! I don't see anything in the statute to support that whether the officer is on-duty or off duty matters, and the Booth case seems to argue against it too.
"“qualified law enforcement officer” definition is nonsensical; as written it refers only to those "authorized under regulations governing the armed forces", because of the two "and"s in § 926B(c).

--Elvey^(t•c) 19:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding

: Initial remedy implemented: adding {{dubious}}.
: but this nonsensical language is in the language of the statute - § 926B(c). I think the statute has an error; the first "and" (the one in § 926B(c)(1) ) should be an "or" and an erratum is needed. Initial remedy implemented: adding {{sic|?|and}}.

--Elvey^(t•c) 19:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's specifically for reserve/auxiliary officers who are not always subject to the same off-duty guidelines and such as full-time officers, but can be called to "On-duty/full-time" status. I've amended it to include this clarification. Creeper Ninja (talk) 04:33, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And seeing as you've been banned I'll be removing the tag for you. Creeper Ninja (talk) 04:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120323081710/http://www.philadelphiaarcheryandgunclub.com/HR218.pdf to http://www.philadelphiaarcheryandgunclub.com/HR218.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 23 is dead

Can someone who knows their stuff remove 23 and its inlines? It's a dead link atm because it was archived behind a CG login portal. Creeper Ninja (talk) 04:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]