Veterans won’t hesitate to step in harm’s way

Iam writing to recommend an amendment to the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA), which permits certain retired and separated law enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms nationwide. In light of the two recent mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton, and those that occurred previously, I recommend the LEOSA be amended to include retired and separated veterans of the U.S. military. It should be a voluntary program for willing veterans with honorable discharges.

I am a former U.S. Marine infantryman and federal prosecutor in the District of New Mexico. I assure you, if I am presented with a choice to defend innocents and the vulnerable during such a horrific attack, I would not hesitate to do so. There are countless others who served our nation in the military who would likewise put themselves in harm’s way to protect others. Such an ethos is ingrained in the DNA of our veterans.

All you need to do is look to the actions of at least one active duty soldier and one veteran during the El Paso shooting to understand just how intuitive this care-taking responsibility to others exists in the mind and soul of every member of our military. Private First Class Glendon Oakley Jr. risked his life to protect children during the El Paso shooting. Veteran David Johnson died while shielding his wife and granddaughter, saving their lives. These men did so without hesitation or concern for their own welfare.

With the same or similar training required for separated or retired law enforcement officers, allowing our veterans to also carry concealed firearms nationwide will unambiguously result in better opportunities to disrupt or even prevent the evil we all witnessed last week(end). We put our faith and trust in our service members to protect us in other parts of the world, so why not in our own country?

We need to face reality. Armed citizens can save lives; armed veterans are uniquely qualified to do so instinctively. Although I am fully aware that other strategies for preventing this evil may exist, this simple approach should be an easy, quick and nonpartisan way of inserting highly trained and capable protectors into our communities with the tools necessary to stop a would-be mass shooter in his tracks.

On another note, although I understand the concept, I am suspicious of the so-called “red flag” laws now being discussed locally and in Congress. I am not certain such laws are constitutional, since basic fundamental due process minimally requires advanced notice and an opportunity to be heard before the government can seize a citizen’s property. Such laws do not provide basic due process rights, so they may not hold up in court once challenged. But perhaps there is a way to formulate such a law that protects both due process and prevents those who are an imminent danger to others from possessing a firearm. It is my hope that the due process issue is analyzed with precision while these “red flag” proposals are under consideration.

I have expressed these thoughts with Sen. (Tom) Udall, Sen. (Martin) Heinrich, and Rep. (Deb) Haaland. It is my hope that they at least put this idea on the table as a means to prevent further harm at the hands of the deranged.