LEO purchases and transfers

Joined
Jan 31, 2007
Messages
3,555
Likes
438
Feedback: 78 / 3 / 0
I know this question has come up before, but I can't find the thread - an answer or a link to the answer would be appreciated:

What are the rules regarding LEOs and the MA approved roster?

My friend met an LEO who told him that LEOs are exempt from the MA approved rosters, can buy anything they want, and then FTF transfer the gun to a non-LEO.

I know I've heard bits and pieces about this conversation before, but I've never paid attention. Is this 100% true? What are the dirty details he's forgetting?

I know there must be an issue with intent (the LEO can't buy the gun solely with the intent to immediately transfer the gun), but could an LEO buy a new, say, Les Baer 1911 or Springfield XD, 'decide he doesn't like it,' then use one of his 4 FTFs to sell it to my buddy?
 
The biggest issue here is the insinuation of a possible "straw purchase". Remember that theres a nice thick grey line between a straw and a LEO selling you a gun he has no use for anymore, but you probably already knew that. If it's not a straw, then yes, there should be no problem with using an FTF to transfer whatever "it" is, assuming the buyer has the appropriate license. The usual caveat about post-94 "large capacity" mags
also applies of course. (EG, non LEOs cannot possess these mags. )

Anyways, to answer your question directly, generally speaking a LEO can get anything listed on the EOPS roster, presuming the FFL he uses actually
understands the law.

LB's and Springfields are out of the question unless the FFL is one of the few that basically is willing to violate the regs/law for anyone who shows a badge. The false notional of individual LEO sales being exempt from all compliance BS simply isn't the case for individual officer purchases, but some dealers either believe otherwise or simply don't care. The LEO regurgitating this falsehood probably had the benefit of using one of those dealers.... [laugh]

-Mike
 
Last edited:
What drgrant said. Law Enforcement Officers are exempt from the Attorney General's regulations. They are not exempt from the statutory testing requirements. So they cannot buy off list guns, in-state. Law Enforcement is allowed, however, by federal law to purchase such handguns out-of-state. But the suspicion of straw purchases would be likely quite high in that situation.
 
and bring them into MA without going through an FFL?

That's what Ron Glidden has indicated... but I'm starting to think he's sold me down the river on that one, as I'm trying to confirm my statement in the federal laws and haven't been able to do it yet.

[Time passes]

Ok, I found it. 27 CFR 478.134.

"The law enforcement officer purchasing the firearm may purchase a firearm from a licensee in another State, regardless of where the officer resides or where the agency is located."

They must have written permission from their chief, however. Not sure how that doesn't conflict with 18 USC 44 § 922(b)(3), but... there it is.
 
Last edited:
That's what Ron Glidden has indicated... but I'm starting to think he's sold me down the river on that one, as I'm trying to confirm my statement in the federal laws and haven't been able to do it yet.

I'm trying to dig it up, too, but all I can find is some obscure reference to an FFL not having to sell or offer a "gun storage device" to a LEO.

-Mike
 
That's what Ron Glidden has indicated... but I'm starting to think he's sold me down the river on that one, as I'm trying to confirm my statement in the federal laws and haven't been able to do it yet.

[Time passes]

Ok, I found it. 27 CFR 478.134.

"The law enforcement officer purchasing the firearm may purchase a firearm from a licensee in another State, regardless of where the officer resides or where the agency is located."

They must have written permission from their chief, however. Not sure how that doesn't conflict with 18 USC 44 § 922(b)(3), but... there it is.

The full text of that says:

(a) Law enforcement officers purchasing firearms for official use who provide the licensee with a certification on agency letterhead, signed by a person in authority within the agency (other than the officer purchasing the firearm), stating that the officer will use the firearm in official duties and that a records check reveals that the purchasing officer has no convictions for misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence are not required to complete Form 4473 or Form 5300.35. The law enforcement officer purchasing the firearm may purchase a firearm from a licensee in another State, regardless of where the officer resides or where the agency is located.

The connotation of "for official use" seems to preclude a "typical" individual officer purchase. I would wager a guess that most out of state FFLs won't do one of these transfers without letterhead. (as the CFR seems to insinuate is required)

-Mike
 
The connotation of "for official use" seems to preclude an individual officer purchase. I would wager a guess that most out of state FFLs won't do one of these transfers without letterhead.

Yeah, it's pretty clear that they need written permission, but once received it's apparently legal. So the situation of purchasing an off-list duty gun out of state (with official, written department permission) and then deciding to sell it privately is at least theoretically possible.
 
What drgrant said. Law Enforcement Officers are exempt from the Attorney General's regulations. They are not exempt from the statutory testing requirements. So they cannot buy off list guns, in-state. Law Enforcement is allowed, however, by federal law to purchase such handguns out-of-state. But the suspicion of straw purchases would be likely quite high in that situation.

MA LEOs can buy off list guns, dealers cannot transfer them[wink]
 
May be a little OT, but:
Believe it or not, there are known cases when Newton PD issued a RESTRICTED Class A LTC to a state trooper. Go figure [shocked]
 
Yeah, and Boston PD has issued restricted licenses to the area college PDs, despite the fact that many of those officers are both college LEOs (which have the powers of state police while on campus grounds) and sheriff's deputies in Suffolk and Middlesex.
 
May be a little OT, but:
Believe it or not, there are known cases when Newton PD issued a RESTRICTED Class A LTC to a state trooper. Go figure [shocked]

I call BS...

The State Police issue LTC's to their Troopers. They do not get them from the Towns they live.
 
MA LEOs can buy off list guns, dealers cannot transfer them[wink]

It is very nice when you have a pro-gun chief that let's you carry anything you want..it makes almost anything for "official use". And he has no problem signing letters stating such.[smile]
 
It is very nice when you have a pro-gun chief that let's you carry anything you want..it makes almost anything for "official use". And he has no problem signing letters stating such.[smile]

I agree. It might be legal, but highly unlikely that many LEOs are allowed to do this by their chiefs.

My first chief actually did this for me, the last two would never do this for their troops. Of the other chiefs that I personally know, I can only think of one who might do this for his troops.
 
May be a little OT, but:
Believe it or not, there are known cases when Newton PD issued a RESTRICTED Class A LTC to a state trooper. Go figure [shocked]

100% false. The Colonel of the State Police issues all Troopers their Class A LTC, obviously without restriction. This is done to avoid the above situation and has been the case for many years.
 
100% false. The Colonel of the State Police issues all Troopers their Class A LTC, obviously without restriction. This is done to avoid the above situation and has been the case for many years.

I don't know how many years is your "many years", but I quoted the state trooper I personally talked to, and who has been issued the restricted license. I don't believe the guy had any reason lie to me. So I would be a little cautious to post a statement like "100% false" without knowing all the details. And why "is it done to avoid the above situation" if the problem did not exist in the first place?
 
Last edited:
I don't know how many years is your "many years", but I quoted the state trooper I personally talked to, and who has been issued the restricted license. I don't believe the guy had any reason lie to me. So I would be a little cautious to post a statement like "100% false" without knowing all the details. And why "is it done to avoid the above situation" if the problem did not exist in the first place?


The colonel does issue the LTC's to the Troopers. I believe that it has been done for the past few years. I do not think that there is anything preventing a Trooper from obtaining one locally...but shame on them..they are stuck with the consequences.
 
I know many LEO's with a restricted class A license. Doesn't change anything when they're on duty but they aren't supposed to carry concealed off-duty with a restricted license.

As far as LEO purchases and transfers are concerned, it's fully legal unless it can be construed as a straw purchase. A LEO can go and buy a brand new Glock or M&P 45 then transfer it to a civilian on a FA-10 if he/she wants. Provided they follow the normal private transfer rules (4 per calendar year) and it's not a straw purchase, no laws are being broken since the "compliance" in Mass only applies to FFL dealers. Some manufacturers do make you sign a form stating that the handgun is for duty use and won't be sold for a certain time period. I've been told that this is sometimes the case if you qualify for special LEO only pricing.
 
LEOSA 2004.


Really a lot older than LEOSA. It's been almost 30 years since Mas Ayoob told me about this law:

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/140-131g.htm

Chapter 140: Section 131G. Carrying of firearms by non-residents; conditions


Section 131G. Any person who is not a resident of the commonwealth may carry a pistol or revolver in or through the commonwealth for the purpose of taking part in a pistol or revolver competition or attending any meeting or exhibition of any organized group of firearm collectors or for the purpose of hunting; provided, that such person is a resident of the United States and has a permit or license to carry firearms issued under the laws of any state, district or territory thereof which has licensing requirements which prohibit the issuance of permits or licenses to persons who have been convicted of a felony or who have been convicted of the unlawful use, possession or sale of narcotic or harmful drugs; provided, further, that in the case of a person traveling in or through the commonwealth for the purpose of hunting, he has on his person a hunting or sporting license issued by the commonwealth or by the state of his destination. Police officers and other peace officers of any state, territory or jurisdiction within the United States duly authorized to possess firearms by the laws thereof shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to have a permit or license to carry firearms as described in this section.
 
Really a lot older than LEOSA. It's been almost 30 years since Mas Ayoob told me about this law

But a MA LEO without an unrestricted LTC and off duty is not "authorized to possess firearms by the laws [of their state]", so I'm afraid 131G wouldn't apply in this situation. LEOSA would, though.
 
But a MA LEO without an unrestricted LTC and off duty is not "authorized to possess firearms by the laws [of their state]", so I'm afraid 131G wouldn't apply in this situation. LEOSA would, though.

I do not believe that your interpretation is correct, but I'll let the legal beagles clarify this question.
 
I do not believe that your interpretation is correct, but I'll let the legal beagles clarify this question.

The paragraph isn't even intended for MA officers anyway, as 131G concerns non-residents. Glidden also interprets the paragraph to only apply to non-resident police officers, and only for the restricted uses listed in the first paragraph of 131G (competition, hunting, and collecting) but not for self defense.
 
But a MA LEO without an unrestricted LTC and off duty is not "authorized to possess firearms by the laws [of their state]", so I'm afraid 131G wouldn't apply in this situation. LEOSA would, though.

I wouldn't want to be the guy busted in Mass for carrying on a restricted permit anyway LEOSA or not.
 
The paragraph isn't even intended for MA officers anyway, as 131G concerns non-residents. Glidden also interprets the paragraph to only apply to non-resident police officers, and only for the restricted uses listed in the first paragraph of 131G (competition, hunting, and collecting) but not for self defense.

IANAL, so I'll let the legal beagles interpret this, but will say the following:

- Years ago, most of the LEOs that I worked with REFUSED to get LTCs! Our chief begged them and offered them for free to his troops and they still refused.

- Officers carried off-duty w/o LTCs. Some even carried personally owned firearms. Nobody blinked or thought twice about it. It's commonly known as "carrying on the badge". Was it legal? Don't know, but most assumed that it was and no officer was going to question another officer beyond ID'g that said person was indeed a real LEO. [It was generally assumed that a legit officer could carry a gun and that a chief could not legally restrict WHERE that officer carried (e.g. off-duty issues) . . . a simple "1 or 0" issue (all or nothing). Again, assumption might be correct or wrong, but many operated in that mode and nobody questioned them.]

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/41-98.htm

Chapter 41: Section 98. Powers and duties

Section 98. The chief and other police officers of all cities and towns shall have all the powers and duties of constables except serving and executing civil process. They shall suppress and prevent all disturbances and disorder. They may carry within the commonwealth such weapons as the chief of police or the board or officer having control of the police in a city or town shall determine; provided, that any law enforcement officer of another state or territory of the United States may, while on official business within the commonwealth, carry such weapons as are authorized by his appointing authority.
 
I wouldn't want to be the guy busted in Mass for carrying on a restricted permit anyway LEOSA or not.

Getting busted is "gonna cost ya", win or lose.

However there have been two documented cases wrt LEOSA to date:

- NYC - NYPD arrested a PA Constable for carrying. Judge ruled LEOSA covered the Constable and dismissed the case.

- USCG officer was arrested. Judge found he was covered under LEOSA due to LE functions of USCG. Don't recall where this happened.

Neither case is a guarantee of how a new case may be found.
 
Back
Top Bottom