rscalzo, with due respect my sources are deep (and deeply involved) in MCOPA. They did vote to NOT support HR218. Their attorney parrots their positions well. NOTE well the implied "out" whereby MCOPA Counsel alludes to the fact that nothing requires a chief to issue a "retired ID" (or any ID to active LEOs either for that matter).
But all that said, the officer in the street is unlikely to jam up a Brother/Sister just because his/her chief has a hard-on for anyone carrying a gun on the chief's turf!
But as Scriv and myself has stated, "visitations" (HR218) and living here are two distinctly different animals.
Lots of changes need to be made to HR218's current law (sorry, I never memorized the PL number), but HR218 itself took ~15 years to pass. Any changes are likely to take another 10-15 years . . . and the end result may or may not improve the situation.
But all that said, the officer in the street is unlikely to jam up a Brother/Sister just because his/her chief has a hard-on for anyone carrying a gun on the chief's turf!
But as Scriv and myself has stated, "visitations" (HR218) and living here are two distinctly different animals.
Lots of changes need to be made to HR218's current law (sorry, I never memorized the PL number), but HR218 itself took ~15 years to pass. Any changes are likely to take another 10-15 years . . . and the end result may or may not improve the situation.