Carrying duty weapons off duty?

[Stock weld]

I'm having an disagreement with someone I know. Carrying firearms bought personally by you under the exemption of being a LEO. Example, my agency allows us to carry personally bought and owned Glock 19's for detail use once it has been inspected by our armorer and is in compliance with department policy. My question,.... say one goes out buys a gen 4 glock 19 under the exemption of being a LEO and gets its approved for on duty use, Can one also carry that weapon for off duty protection? Also, the same person argues the 15 round mags that I bought for on duty cant be used if I were allowed to off duty carrying that weapon, I would have to use only 10 rounders....can someone better my knowledge in this area.

 

[JCV]

.

 

[crazymjb]

The gun is fine, the mags are a gray area... the law provides a mag exemption for LE acting "in the scope of his duties." If I were LE Id argue I'm always a cop and carry them. Are you legally obligated to act in certain situations when "off duty?"

Mike

Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...

 

[Len-2A Training]

As Mike says.

Latest "edict" out of EOPS Legal Dept's ass is that no LEO can OWN any post-ban large-cap mags, that they must all be owned by the PD AND that they should leave all their large-cap mags at the PD at the end of every shift (yes, even the issued mags) and carry only 10 rd mags out of the station. Many high-ranking LEOs that I've talked with about this use some colorful language to explain their department's position about this.

 

[JCV]

As Mike says.

Latest "edict" out of EOPS Legal Dept's ass is that no LEO can OWN any post-ban large-cap mags, that they must all be owned by the PD AND that they should leave all their large-cap mags at the PD at the end of every shift (yes, even the issued mags) and carry only 10 rd mags out of the station. Many high-ranking LEOs that I've talked with about this use some colorful language to explain their department's position about this.

LenS isn't there wording that also exempts RETIRED LEO'S? They obviously don't have duty mags anymore but aren't they exempt?

 

[Len-2A Training]

LenS isn't there wording that also exempts RETIRED LEO'S? They obviously don't have duty mags anymore but aren't they exempt?

Yes, but ONLY if the mags were OWNED by the PD and GIFTED to them upon retirement. Retirees would be REQUIRED to always carry documentation of said gift with them if questioned! NOT very practical.

When I was a PT PO, we bought ALL our own gear including guns, no uniform allowance, etc. As a Constable we have statutory arrest and LE powers, but we actually are independent business people (like Marshals, Constables, etc. were in the early days of this Country) and thus "should" fall under the same rules as regular police wrt ownership of guns (new Glocks), and mags. However, when EOPS started to turn the heat up on FT POs, I decided it was more prudent to advise other Constables that it would probably be unwise to carry/possess any post-ban large cap mags to avoid a potentially expensive legal battle if someone wanted to make an issue out of it.

 

[warwickben]

How long should a cop wait to sell new glocks ? ....

 

[browncoat]

How long should a cop wait to sell new glocks ? ....

If bought with the intention to sell, wouldn't that always be a straw purchase, even if sold years later? If bought with intention to use, and upon a sudden discovery of contempt for new firearm, sold the next or even the same day, wouldn't that be fine? It's things like this that make some laws so obviously stupid.

 

[warwickben]

If bought with the intention to sell, wouldn't that always be a straw purchase, even if sold years later? If bought with intention to use, and upon a sudden discovery of contempt for new firearm, sold the next or even the same day, wouldn't that be fine? It's things like this that make some laws so obviously stupid.

I was half joking I have a bunch of cop family members lol
I had a friend buy a gun then 2 days later sold it cause he hated the recoil.
There's def gray areas . Like how you can buy a crate of mosins and sell them all but the best one.

 

[Len-2A Training]

How long should a cop wait to sell new glocks ? ....

If they get them at the true LE discount ($398.20 for most models) thru a Glock LE Dealer (everyone claims this status but few are), they are contractually obligated to Glock NOT to sell it for 1 year. This is to prevent cops from undercutting retail dealer sales (they pay approx. the same amount wholesale as a LEO pays).

If bought with the intention to sell, wouldn't that always be a straw purchase, even if sold years later? If bought with intention to use, and upon a sudden discovery of contempt for new firearm, sold the next or even the same day, wouldn't that be fine? It's things like this that make some laws so obviously stupid.

If bought with the intent to resell, yes BATFE looks at this as a straw sale. If you buy something then discover it's not for you, that is legit. But see the contractual (you can be sued and lose) noted above.

 

[browncoat]

If bought with the intent to resell, yes BATFE looks at this as a straw sale. If you buy something then discover it's not for you, that is legit. But see the contractual (you can be sued and lose) noted above.

The point I was trying to make is that a law that depends merely on you intending or not intending to do something with your own property is kind of dumb.

 

[Stock weld]

If they get them at the true LE discount ($398.20 for most models) thru a Glock LE Dealer (everyone claims this status but few are), they are contractually obligated to Glock NOT to sell it for 1 year. This is to prevent cops from undercutting retail dealer sales (they pay approx. the same amount wholesale as a LEO pays).




If bought with the intent to resell, yes BATFE looks at this as a straw sale. If you buy something then discover it's not for you, that is legit. But see the contractual (you can be sued and lose) noted above.

So let me get this straight one can sell their LEO attained firearm to a civilian and they can carry it legally even if its post-ban? Second question any idea where can I get a Glock-19 for the above mentioned price of 398?

 

[JCV]

Yes any properly licensed civilian can own any firearms on "the list" (as long as they're ban compliant) the list regulates what a dealer can sell/transfer to you. I can own gen4 , it's just a matter of paying a premium for them.

 

[Len-2A Training]

So let me get this straight one can sell their LEO attained firearm to a civilian and they can carry it legally even if its post-ban? Second question any idea where can I get a Glock-19 for the above mentioned price of 398?

Short of so-called "AWs", there are NO HANDGUNS THAT ARE POST-BAN or BANNED at all!! Possession and private transfers are perfectly legal.

Mags are another story altogether! So-called AWs are banned from private possession outright if made in "AW configuration" after 9/13/1994.

You need to be3 a LEO with proper credentials and buy from the handful of Glock LE Dealers in MA to get that pricing.

Yes any properly licensed civilian can own any firearms [STRIKE=undefined]on "the list"[/STRIKE] (as long as they're ban compliant) the list regulates what a dealer can sell/transfer to you. I can own gen4 , it's just a matter of paying a premium for them.

Lists have NOTHING to do with ownership and legality. Merely restricts what a MA Dealer may transfer, nothing more than that. I think that you knew that but phrased it poorly.

 

[Stock weld]

Ok, so anyone can own a brand new Gen 4 Glock however , you just can't buy it from a mass dealer and the only way to obtain it would be private sale?
I was not aware such handguns were not statutory banned, so there only banned from sale but not possession am I correct?

So back to my original question, I'm fine to carry my glock 19 off duty when I buy it as long as I use 10 round mags? and Yes I am law enforcement can you point me in the right direction to one of those dealers?

 

[ACB84]

That would be correct. You can own any glock you want. Some dealers have new glocks for sale some dont. But either way through a dealer or private party, if you buy it your good to go to carry it. The mag question i think Lens answered it perfectly.

 

[Enzo]

Ok, so anyone can own a brand new Gen 4 Glock however , you just can't buy it from a mass dealer and the only way to obtain it would be private sale?
I was not aware such handguns were not statutory banned, so there only banned from sale but not possession am I correct?

So back to my original question, I'm fine to carry my glock 19 off duty when I buy it as long as I use 10 round mags? and Yes I am law enforcement can you point me in the right direction to one of those dealers?

Not surprising that with Mass convolutted gun laws even LEO's aren't sure what's allowed or not..........

 

[Len-2A Training]

To help clarify:

- MGL makes NO exceptions for LEOs, so legally they can only purchase (from DEALERS) guns that are on the EOPS List of tested/approved guns.
- AG Regs has an EXEMPTION for LEOs that allows them to bypass the AG BS (10# trigger pull, LCI, etc.).
- Agencies can purchase anything they want but they must be bought and paid for by the agency itself.
- Anyone with a LTC-A (we are typically dealing with large-cap handguns here, that's why I specify Class A) can purchase any handgun that is sold by any other LTC-A holder who is resident of MA, regardless of how the current owner obtained the gun, whether it was ever "registered" in MA or not.
- Possession of any post-ban (made after 9/13/1994) large-cap mags and post-ban so-called AWs (e.g. AR/AK pistols, etc.) is a felony. EOPS has stated that this is true for LEOs even if the guns/mags are used for duty-only purposes if they are personally owned and not department property. Yes, I am aware of one case where a LEO was charged (no idea of outcome).
- EOPS has also stated that at the end of each shift it is illegal for a LEO to take their issued large-cap post-ban mags home with them. I am unaware of any department giving credence to this "pronouncement" by the morons in EOPS Legal Dept, but it is what it is.

 

[Stock weld]

To help clarify:

- MGL makes NO exceptions for LEOs, so legally they can only purchase (from DEALERS) guns that are on the EOPS List of tested/approved guns.
- AG Regs has an EXEMPTION for LEOs that allows them to bypass the AG BS (10# trigger pull, LCI, etc.).
- Agencies can purchase anything they want but they must be bought and paid for by the agency itself.
- Anyone with a LTC-A (we are typically dealing with large-cap handguns here, that's why I specify Class A) can purchase any handgun that is sold by any other LTC-A holder who is resident of MA, regardless of how the current owner obtained the gun, whether it was ever "registered" in MA or not.
- Possession of any post-ban (made after 9/13/1994) large-cap mags and post-ban so-called AWs (e.g. AR/AK pistols, etc.) is a felony. EOPS has stated that this is true for LEOs even if the guns/mags are used for duty-only purposes if they are personally owned and not department property. Yes, I am aware of one case where a LEO was charged (no idea of outcome).
- EOPS has also stated that at the end of each shift it is illegal for a LEO to take their issued large-cap post-ban mags home with them. I am unaware of any department giving credence to this "pronouncement" by the morons in EOPS Legal Dept, but it is what it is.

LenS is there any written orders from EOPS out there regarding this that I could find?

 

[rjh200]

LenS is there any written orders from EOPS out there regarding this that I could find?

Honest question. In what situation would you be worried that someone is going to check the ban compliance of your magazine when off duty?

 

[M1911]

Honest question. In what situation would you be worried that someone is going to check the ban compliance of your magazine when off duty?

Cop from department A is off duty in town B when some bad crap happens. The PD in town B thinks the cop is in the wrong, so the ADA throws all the charges they can against the wall to see what sticks. Said cop was carrying his duty gun and post ban duty mags. The facts concerning the rest of the charges may been debatable, but if the cop is carrying gen 4 large cap Glock mags (for example), there is no debate about the facts, only about the law.

Whether or not those charges would stick is the issue in question. EOPS claims they would. I'm not a LEO so I haven't studied the LEO exception, so I have no opinion.

 

[Len-2A Training]

LenS is there any written orders from EOPS out there regarding this that I could find?

It was pure hell trying to find this info on the current GOAL website, but here is what I could find as public info:

Go to the bottom of this page first, DL the 2 pages at the absolute bottom, they are the unsigned/undated EOPS memo that started this BS and is referred to throughout the other Links I'll post.

http://www.goal.org/newspages/eops_error_letter_to_ffl.html

next:

http://blog.goal.org/2011/07/13/government-turns-on-itself.aspx
http://www.goal.org/newspages/letter-to-governor-patrick-magazines-eops-march-2013.html

There is some other stuff out there but I can't divulge it due to the source where I got it, furthermore it would be huge task to even find that info in my archives.

 

[OnTheRoad]

HR218. State law is irrelevant.

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

"If a person meets the criteria, then "notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof", he or she may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any state or political subdivision thereof...
...Furthermore, LEOSA's legislative history indicates that its framers intended LEOSA to supersede all states' laws, including the home state of the individual claiming its exemption."

 

[Len-2A Training]

HR218. State law is irrelevant.

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

"If a person meets the criteria, then "notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof", he or she may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any state or political subdivision thereof...
...Furthermore, LEOSA's legislative history indicates that its framers intended LEOSA to supersede all states' laws, including the home state of the individual claiming its exemption."

I'm not so sure of this!

• I don't think LEOSA has ever been tested in a MA court.
• I am of the belief that LEOSA did NOT circumvent your home state's laws, only those that you were visiting (the Interstate Commerce aspect of the law).
• I know that MCOPA, etc. lobbied hard AGAINST this law, and after it passed EOPS dragged their feet for 4 years prior to codifying it in a CMR, which was INTENTIONALLY drafted to circumvent a lot of what LEOSA was intended to do (I was at the hearings and testified).
• Even to this day, a few revisions later, LEOSA fails to address mag capacity issues. It is mute on the subject putting visiting officers at risk in some states (e.g. NJ, CA, MA, NY).
• I seriously doubt that an activist (Marsupial) MA judge would agree with your assessment.
• Clarification wrt MGLs is definitely needed. Anyone wanting to be a test case, please step up?

 

[browncoat]

HR218. State law is irrelevant.

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

"If a person meets the criteria, then "notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof", he or she may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any state or political subdivision thereof...
...Furthermore, LEOSA's legislative history indicates that its framers intended LEOSA to supersede all states' laws, including the home state of the individual claiming its exemption."

It seems to me that LEOSA would only cover the firearm and not the magazine.

 

[Neuro]

Are you legally obligated to act in certain situations when "off duty?"

According to the SCOTUS, the answer to this is no. There is no legal president for officers to act on the behalf of the public good, even when on duty.

 

[browncoat]

According to the SCOTUS, the answer to this is no. There is no legal president for officers to act on the behalf of the public good, even when on duty.

Which immensely confusing, because it begs the question of what the job of police officers is? It must then be to enforce the law. Ostensibly though, the law is written for the good of the people by the representatives of the people, so there should be an implied duty for officers to act in the public good.

 

[In God We Trust]

It seems to me that LEOSA would only cover the firearm and not the magazine.

This is also the opinion of the FOP. The union advises it's members to know the laws of states they will be visiting to avoid getting jammed up. I also don't know a single cop that would jam someone up (cop or not) for having post ban mags as long as they were otherwise legal.

 

[Len-2A Training]

This is also the opinion of the FOP. The union advises it's members to know the laws of states they will be visiting to avoid getting jammed up. I also don't know a single cop that would jam someone up (cop or not) for having post ban mags as long as they were otherwise legal.

Well I know that it has already happened here in MA! Not related to LEOSA, but none-the-less, every PD has at least one a-hole officer on the force.

 

[MisterHappy]

Which immensely confusing, because it begs the question of what the job of police officers is? It must then be to enforce the law. Ostensibly though, the law is written for the good of the people by the representatives of the people, so there should be an implied duty for officers to act in the public good.

As usual The Simpsons has it covered:

Marge: I thought you said the law was powerless.

Chief Wiggum: Powerless to *help* you, not punish you.