Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004

[JonJ]

Just to pull this discussion out of the other thread in case anyone wants to continue.


For retiree's this is the language on the qualification requirement.

during the most recent 12-month period, has met, at the expense of the individual, the State's standards for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry firearms;

I'm a MPTC certified firearms instructor. What's to stop me from running any retired Massachusetts LEO through the standard MPTC course of fire for QUAL? There are no other state standards for the LEOSA and it seems pretty clear to me in the above langua

 

[Len-2A Training]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EOPS will have to sign off on any such retired officer training and Ron Glidden/GCAB has had terrible time with past 2 Sec of Public Safety officials on getting their sign-off on anything.

Last Ron told me, don't expect anything in the near future!

We can all hope that the new Sec of PS is a different sort of person, but only time will tell.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Problem Jon is that retirees are required by LEOSA to meet the "state standards" and we have NO "state standards" . . . they are merely recommendations.

In contrast, active LEOs are only supposed to meet "department standards, IF ANY", so for folks like me (Constable) there are no "department standards" and thus I don't need to qualify at all. Crazy but that is how this dumb law was written/passed.

 

[Emoto]

Problem Jon is that retirees are required by LEOSA to meet the "state standards" and we have NO "state standards" . . . they are merely recommendations.

In contrast, active LEOs are only supposed to meet "department standards, IF ANY", so for folks like me (Constable) there are no "department standards" and thus I don't need to qualify at all. Crazy but that is how this dumb law was written/passed.

Forgive me, but constables aren't really police anyway, are they? Isn't that why meeting police standards is unnecessary?

Bob

 

[Len-2A Training]

That's the way I see it. At least until and unless they come up with a state standard for all LEOs . . . which I hope they do.

 

[securityboy]

In contrast, active LEOs are only supposed to meet "department standards, IF ANY", so for folks like me (Constable) there are no "department standards" and thus I don't need to qualify at all.

I beleive EMOTO was trying to be polite in questioning if constables actually are considered LEO's. IE there are no "Department Standards" for you to qualify under, because you don't qualify as a LEO.
I could very well be wrong but if constables qualify as LEO's under this, would they not also qualify as LEO's under the AW ban? If so I'd suggest everyone on this board run down to thier town hall and become a constable, then no more high cap ban or AW ban to worry about, even better no AG pistol regs to worry about...

 

[Len-2A Training]

Regardless of Emoto's intent or not:

- He used the term "police" and that is what I responded to. Constables are NOT "police".

- HR218 was not a law that allowed "police" to carry guns in 50 states, it is also known as LEOSA because it uses the term "LEO" as opposed to "police" in its definitions.

- Under MGLs (other states may differ), Constables have statutory powers of arrest in criminal matters as well as civil matters, are sworn in (whether elected or appointed), etc.

- MA Constables are eligible to buy LE hi-cap mags and guns like Glocks, etc. under the LE exemption. I've done it and will be doing so again shortly. The guns purchased must be suitable for "duty use". So, I can't really justify an M4-configuration LE SAW as Constables carrying rifles/carbines to do their jobs would never fly, as is also the case for many on-the-street police officers (unless the carbine is an authorized weapon for that officer).

- Now if you ask the average police chief if a Constable is a LEO, most will either say "No" off-hand or admit that they really don't know what a Constable is/does. Police chief's main job is to "protect their own turf" and they don't like anyone else stepping in it!

- Many Constables are getting their LTCs at the reduced LE rate of $25. Some chiefs (like mine) say "no way"! And even though we are entitled to it, it's just like the other BS that chiefs pull . . . it's not worth the delay or effort to sue them for $75.00!

- The MA DOR hires Constables all the time to chase down and arrest deadbeat dads. There was a news story on this a week or so ago in Braintree I believe. The pictures showed 2 Constables, armed (OWB) making the arrest. The reason that DOR does this is because "police" are legally prohibited from making civil arrests, that power is given by statute only to Constables and the Civil Division of the Sheriff's Office.

LEOSA was a terrible law, written by FOP (a "police" union) with a focus to protect only it's members. It leaves more unanswered questions than existed before the law took effect.

As for firearms qualification:

- MPTC ONLY sets up qualification "recommendations" and only for "police".

- Legally their requirements probably do not apply to the Sheriff's Depts. or MSP either . . . both of whom probably can set their own standards.

As for Training:

- Regrettably, there is NO state training available for Constables at all! A number of years ago, I met privately with Jane Perlin when she was Sec. of Public Safety to discuss the idea of MCJTC (now MPTC) setting up some training program and making it mandatory for Constables. Due to her concern with budgetary issues and the fact that had anyone in the Mass Bay Constables Assn (officers) found out what I had proposed, I would probably have been expelled from the organization, I never pursued it further. It is still something that I'd like to pursue and I know belong to another Constables Assn that probably wouldn't care if I did that. I am a very strong believer in training, lots of it! [I also thoroughly enjoyed my time in the MCJTC R/I Police Academy back when I was a Reserve PO.]

- One can become a Constable with no training, before or after appointment! However, you do so at your own peril, as the penalties for screwing up can be very costly and severe! And I've been asked to do illegal things by many attorneys as well as some pro-se litigants!

As for getting appointed as a Constable, good luck! Running down and filing an application isn't likely to get you anywhere in almost any town in MA! Regrettably the process is usually that you must be politically connected to get appointed, the town can limit the number of Constables and frequently do so, you must buy a bond and file it with the town, you must file a report MONTHLY and PAY the town 25% of your REVENUE for Services (thank you Gov. Romney) . . . this is in addition to an annual Report that must be filed with the County Treasurer. Then you have to solicit your own business, not an easy task! My town has told me that they get an average of 40 requests/year to get appointed as a Constable and they totally ignore the letters (don't even respond). I am politically connected but it still took me 6-7 years to get appointed after I first applied!

 

[KMaurer]

I think the questions regarding the exact status of constables have muddied the waters a bit. Len's original point was in no way specific to either him or to constables in general, but to all Massachusetts LEOs. The point was that, due to the absence of any official MA state training standards, only "recommendations" and department mandated standards. As a result, no retired Massachusetts, regardless of their department, qualify for nation-wide CCW under the provisions of LEOSA. Since there are no state standards, nobody could possibly meet them, regardless of their level of training.

Ken

 

[Jaxon]

I think the questions regarding the exact status of constables have muddied the waters a bit. Len's original point was in no way specific to either him or to constables in general, but to all Massachusetts LEOs. The point was that, due to the absence of any official MA state training standards, only "recommendations" and department mandated standards. As a result, no retired Massachusetts, regardless of their department, qualify for nation-wide CCW under the provisions of LEOSA. Since there are no state standards, nobody could possibly meet them, regardless of their level of training.

Ken

I disagree. The way its written, I believe that officers would qualify with their departments, who would issue the required ID card saying they had met the standards of the department.

RJ

 

[Jaxon]

(d) The identification required by this subsection is--

`(1) a photographic identification (emphasis added) issued by the agency from which the individual retired from service as a law enforcement officer that indicates that the individual has, not less recently than one year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the agency to meet the standards established by the agency for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm; (emphasis added) or

RJ

 

[Jaxon]

Good for another year.

Shot my qual today for another ceritication year of CCW for Public Law 108-277, or HR218, LEOSA04.

And I got to visit my kids and grandkids in Ohio.

But I wish MA would its collective head out of its ass and create some verbage to deal with state requirements.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Congrats Jaxon.

Don't expect any changes re LEOSA during the current administration in MA.

Last week I met with someone who has been running one of the police academies for >20 years. That person had never even heard of this law. I also confirmed that any training curriculum must be approved by MCOPA, which is still dead set against this law.

So, regrettably we know where we stand!

 

[Jaxon]

Congrats Jaxon.

Don't expect any changes re LEOSA during the current administration in MA.

Last week I met with someone who has been running one of the police academies for >20 years. That person had never even heard of this law. I also confirmed that any training curriculum must be approved by MCOPA, which is still dead set against this law.

So, regrettably we know where we stand!

Yes, I had spoken to someone at one of the academies last year as well, and they were nearly clueless. That's unforgiveable, but just reflects the apparently prevasive lase fair attitude of the LEOs in state.

So, I'll be going to Ohio (I do anyway) to see the old gang.