Carrying duty weapons off duty?

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

At the risk of deconstructing to the point of minutiae, if the officer is issued, specifically trained and carries a particular gun with a particular magazine utilizing particular ammunition in the performance of his duties, any alteration to such a configuration would be outside the scope of employment and exclusive of his role as a police officer. Therefore, if the officer's duty configuration includes a P226 with a 12 round magazine filled with JHP's, and that is the way the officer is trained and with which he is required to qualify then it would stand to reason that carrying off duty in that exact configuration is in compliance with HR218. A firearm without a magazine is useless and contrary to the intent of the legislation.

Although a specific amendment addressing hollow point ammo (to address NJ regulations) was added to the law, magazines are not excluded from the definition by statute as are machine guns, destructive devices and the like. Considering the laws in existence regulating magazine capacity in several states, perhaps this should be addressed in a future amendment.
 
At the risk of deconstructing to the point of minutiae, if the officer is issued, specifically trained and carries a particular gun with a particular magazine utilizing particular ammunition in the performance of his duties, any alteration to such a configuration would be outside the scope of employment and exclusive of his role as a police officer. Therefore, if the officer's duty configuration includes a P226 with a 12 round magazine filled with JHP's, and that is the way the officer is trained and with which he is required to qualify then it would stand to reason that carrying off duty in that exact configuration is in compliance with HR218. A firearm without a magazine is useless and contrary to the intent of the legislation.

Although a specific amendment addressing hollow point ammo (to address NJ regulations) was added to the law, magazines are not excluded from the definition by statute as are machine guns, destructive devices and the like. Considering the laws in existence regulating magazine capacity in several states, perhaps this should be addressed in a future amendment.

First it is NOT HR218 (any more), it is LEOSA which has had a few revisions and hence other "HR" numbers in the process.

Second, LEOSA does NOT authorize anyone to act as a LEO. It merely allows any so-certified LEO to CCW where others can't. Any action they take is that of a mere peon (citizen) and not as a LEO.

Therefore, your argument that since they practice and are issued 12 rd mags, that anything else isn't "issue gear" doesn't and won't hold water in a MA courtroom.

A revision to LEOSA specifically addressed ammo as NJ was threatening arrest and prosecution for carrying JHP ammo and the lawyers in Congress as well as FOP were in agreement that LEOSA didn't cover that. Now that states are threatening LEOSA carriers wrt mag capacity, they will have to further revise LEOSA to exempt them from those state laws too . . . but that has not been done yet and thus any LEO relying on LEOSA is skating on thin ice in those states.
 
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.
They serve and protect the shit out of you.
 
Honest question. In what situation would you be worried that someone is going to check the ban compliance of your magazine when off duty?

Someone breaks into your house with the intent of doing harm to you and/or your family. You use said duty weapon/mags to stop the threat. First thing they do is take the gun as is and the mags....now YOU are the test case. I was told that if it is in your policies and procedures it circumvents the whole bs eops crap, which is exactly why I specifically added it in. As for cops jamming up cops, I heard of a case in NJ where a trooper jammed up an off duty guy going home because he was carrying hollow points which you can only do on duty there. There are *******s everywhere....on and off the job.
 
I am so lad I left state. Len, The EPO's don't have station as such and take all their stuff home, Just like the State Police do, But they (SP) do have stations (Barracks) that they work out of for their assigned shift. So that means that according to that EOPS decree, those officers are in violation of the law.

Yup, and I'm sure that they are shaking in their boots over it too! [laugh]
 
That of course assumes that anyone actually cares about the fecal boluses coming out of EOPS. Without solid case law they might as well be toilet paper from the bureaucrat moonbats that work there.

-Mike
 
^i agree with Mike on that point!

I also do not gaf what magazine a citizen or off duty LW has or is carrying. If the person has a LTCA with no criminal record of violence (which would exclude them from a LTCA for "suitability") and I see a G19 I'm not asking any questions. I know a whole lot of LEOs that feel the same way about the BS laws here. It is only going to come to light when that firearm w said mags is used in an event that is investigated by the police. EVEN SO the agency or specific investigating body chooses which charges it seeks. The issue? A DAs office can get involved and move for an indictment. DAs offices are political animals so if it is going to happen, that is a weak point.

And yes, every agency has a robot that acts w/o discretion. Lots of black and white guys entering the field...always a because I can thing vs a when I should thing. Avoid them!!
 
Back
Top Bottom