Special Operations Veterans Could Get Nationwide Concealed Carry

A retired police officer who meets federal requirements can carry a concealed firearm across state lines under a law that has been on the books for more than two decades.

A retired Navy SEAL or Green Beret generally can’t claim that same federal privilege based solely on military service, regardless of how many years they spent training with and carrying weapons.

New legislation in Congress would change that for some of the military’s most highly trained veterans.

Sen. Tim Sheehy, R-Mont., a former Navy SEAL, introduced the Special Operations Forces Concealed Carry Act this month, a Senate proposal that would allow qualified former special operators to carry concealed firearms nationwide under a framework similar to one already available to qualified retired law enforcement officers.

Rep. Pat Harrigan, R-N.C., a former Army Green Beret, introduced a House version of the legislation in April.

The proposals would represent a significant change for eligible special operations veterans who currently must navigate different state and local concealed-carry laws as they travel around the country.

They also raise a broader question: Why should a former SEAL or Green Beret receive a federal concealed-carry privilege unavailable to other veterans, including those who may have spent careers in infantry, military police or other jobs involving extensive firearms training?

The House and Senate proposals also differ in important ways, including who would qualify and what firearms training would be required.

Our Special Operations Forces spend their careers protecting the American people with unmatched discipline, judgment, and professionalism, Sheehy said in announcing his legislation. This bill honors that reality by giving qualified special operators the same nationwide concealed carry privileges already afforded to retired law enforcement officers.

What Would Change for Special Operations Veterans

Both proposals build on the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, or LEOSA, enacted in 2004.

The federal law generally allows qualified active and retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms across state lines despite many state or local restrictions, provided they meet the law’s requirements.

The proposals would amend federal law to extend similar protections to certain special operators.

The authority would not be unlimited. The legislation would not give veterans law enforcement powers or exempt them from federal laws prohibiting them from possessing firearms. Restrictions involving private property and certain government property would also continue to apply.

“Federal law already trusts retired police officers to carry concealed nationwide,” Harrigan said when he introduced his legislation. “That makes sense. But it makes no sense that a retired SEAL or Green Beret, someone who spent a career mastering firearms under the most demanding conditions in the world, has no equivalent recognition under federal law.”

Who Would Qualify?

Harrigan’s House proposal specifically identifies military occupations and units that would be eligible.

They include Army Special Forces, the 75th Ranger Regiment and Delta Force; Navy SEALs; Marine Raiders and reconnaissance personnel; and several Air Force special warfare specialties, including combat controllers, pararescuemen, tactical air control party airmen and special reconnaissance personnel.

The House legislation generally covers service members in pay grades E-5 through E-9, W-1 through W-5 and O-1 through O-10 who meet its other requirements. Former service members would have to have been honorably discharged.

Sheehy’s Senate proposal defines eligibility differently. It would generally require a former service member to have successfully completed special operations assessment and selection and qualification training and to have held a special warfare or special operations military occupational specialty recognized by U.S. Special Operations Command.

That distinction means simply having served within the broader special operations enterprise would not necessarily make someone eligible.

U.S. Special Operations Command currently has nearly 70,000 personnel, according to the command, but that figure includes operators, support personnel and civilians and should not be considered an estimate of how many people would qualify for the proposed concealed-carry authority.

The House and Senate Bills Have a Major Difference

One of the biggest differences between the proposals involves what happens after an operator leaves the military.

Harrigan’s House bill would provide permanent eligibility to qualified former operators without requiring annual firearms requalification.

Sheehy’s Senate legislation would require qualified special operations veterans to meet, at their own expense, the firearms qualification standards for active-duty law enforcement officers established by the state where they live. Veterans would have to have qualified within the previous 12 months.

The Senate bill would also require completion of a Justice Department-certified concealed-carry use-of-force course.

Those requirements make the Senate proposal closer in some respects to the existing rules for retired law enforcement officers, who generally must demonstrate firearms proficiency annually to receive LEOSA protections.

Why Special Operators and Not Other Veterans?

Supporters argue that special operators’ selection, weapons training and operational experience distinguish them from the broader military population.

Our elite warfighters never stop serving, and this bill ensures the law reflects the trust they’ve earned through a lifetime of sacrifice, Sheehy said.

But limiting the legislation to special operators would draw a new distinction among veterans.

A former Army infantryman or Marine rifleman could have spent years carrying weapons and deployed multiple times to combat zones. Military police and security forces veterans may have spent much of their careers performing armed security or law enforcement duties.

Those veterans would not automatically receive the same federal concealed-carry protection under the proposals.

That could make one of the central questions surrounding the legislation not whether former special operators are sufficiently trained to carry concealed firearms, but why Congress should extend the privilege to them while excluding other veterans with extensive firearms experience.

The Senate’s additional training requirements also acknowledge a distinction between military weapons proficiency and carrying a firearm as a civilian, where laws governing self-defense and the use of deadly force can differ significantly.

Harrigan’s proposal takes a different approach, largely relying on the training and experience operators received during their military careers.

What Happens Next

Neither proposal is close to becoming law.

Harrigan introduced H.R. 8332 on April 16. It was referred to the House Judiciary, Armed Services and Veterans’ Affairs committees, with the Veterans’ Affairs Committee subsequently referring it to a subcommittee.

Sheehy’s Senate legislation, S. 5208, was introduced Aug. 3 and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

For now, special operations veterans remain subject to the existing patchwork of state and federal concealed-carry laws.

But legislation now introduced in both chambers puts a larger question before Congress: whether the extraordinary firearms training received by America’s special operators should translate into a nationwide concealed-carry privilege after they leave the military, and whether that privilege should stop with them.