-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
LEO Restricted LTC
- Thread starter Doctordrew
- Start date
Is this something you're dealing with?
If he would move to America (from Mass.) this wouldn't be an issue.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2007
- Messages
- 1,864
- Likes
- 69
Its federal law, The law enforcement officer safety act, and NYC cannot choose to ignore federal law. sworn law enforcement and qualified retired officers can carry in all 50 under LEOSA
I think they need to have a CCW, unless its "for department business" that they are in the other state for
I maybe wrong
Nope, hollewud7 is right. LEOSA allows LEOs and retired LEOs to carry in all 50 states without a state CCW, with no "for department business" type clause. There have been rumors that certain places (NYC, NJ, Chicago) don't honor LEOSA and will arrest you anyway, but I haven't ever found solid evidence of that actually happening.
I don't believe that's true jdubois. Federal law or not, in Massachusetts you must have a LTC to BUY a gun or AMMO. Yeah, maybe through some twist of laws, you could carry the gun, but without ammo, it wouldn't be much good.
Often times States rights overrule Federal laws, until someone takes the test cases to court.
I think they local police who DO NOT have LTC, call it "Carrying on the Badge", and I don't think there is any way in Mass to carry without a permit unless you are active Military or Police.
I may be proved wrong, often I am.
Often times States rights overrule Federal laws, until someone takes the test cases to court.
I think they local police who DO NOT have LTC, call it "Carrying on the Badge", and I don't think there is any way in Mass to carry without a permit unless you are active Military or Police.
I may be proved wrong, often I am.
Your first point only applies if the LEO lives in MA. If he is from RI visiting MA without a MA permit he can carry the gun and ammo he bought in RI.
hillman
NES Member
You have to be paid LEO or retired paid LEO for LEOSA to apply, at least that's what I've been told, so many auxiliaries don't qualify (at least here in Mass... but that's a whole can of worms I don't want to get in to). They are sometimes issued LTCs restricted to employment so they can draw firearms from the department for whatever it is that they are needed.
When I first joined my department, I did not yet have an LTC (having just moved from Vermont). I was given my badge and while waiting for my LTC to arrive, I carried "on the badge", but I could not buy guns or ammo. I could possess and carry them, but not buy. I had to "purchase" a gun and ammo through an FFL on my department, the gun was titled to the department, and then lent to me, until my LTC A arrived.
Stupid stupid system.
When I first joined my department, I did not yet have an LTC (having just moved from Vermont). I was given my badge and while waiting for my LTC to arrive, I carried "on the badge", but I could not buy guns or ammo. I could possess and carry them, but not buy. I had to "purchase" a gun and ammo through an FFL on my department, the gun was titled to the department, and then lent to me, until my LTC A arrived.
Stupid stupid system.
You're right, I remember reading that now, but as I recall the judge basically laughed it out of court. Let me see if I can find the follow up with that info.
[Time passes]
Here's the decision dismissing the case: http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/agopinions/NYCtLEOSARulingPeoplevsRodriguez.PDF
Last edited:
Even if the LEO lived in MA, they could carry their duty weapon and the ammo given by the department. As to the chief trying to stop that from happening, there was initially an amendment proposed to H.R. 218 that specifically allowed chiefs to tell their officers they weren't allowed to carry off duty. The amendment didn't get passed because, it was noted, allowing that would destroy the entire point of the law.
Also, the LEOSA specifically says that state laws cannot trump it, and a state law disallowing possession of ammo would certainly trump it.
(Btw, here is the text of the law in question)
Last edited:
Yeah, I knew I'd read about it somewhere. It's BS, and it got laughed out of court, but I'd rather not get arrested unless it meant that there'd be some favorable case law on the books about something like that in the future, know what I mean?
I'd probably be ticked if I got arrested for carrying in a bar in Mass. or for carrying mags that a confused cop couldn't tell were pre-ban, but it'd sure be nice to clear some of the fog.
ETA:I know bar carry's not illegal, I'm just saying...well, you know.
I'd probably be ticked if I got arrested for carrying in a bar in Mass. or for carrying mags that a confused cop couldn't tell were pre-ban, but it'd sure be nice to clear some of the fog.
ETA:I know bar carry's not illegal, I'm just saying...well, you know.
Yup, I know exactly what you mean. Getting arrested, even if the case gets thrown out, is an expensive hassle and leaves a mark on your record. You always have to weigh that against your desire to do something which while legal may raise your likelihood of getting arrested. Annoying and unfair, but true.
Total BS. NY, NY and the other 48 states follow the Federal legislation.
Military were not covered under the LEOSA for the most part. That was already heard in court as was the ammo question. Military were not covered and ammo was covered under the act during Federal hearing on the act. The only exception is NJ and the HP question which is not under review.
What isn't posted is the fact that this issue with the Constable is far from over. It is being revisited as many Constable's do not fit the guidelines of the law as written. In many states, they have no powers of arrest. Even this one from PA has much more to it than has been posted.
Last edited:
Employment - Restricts possession to business owner engaged in business activities, or to an employee while engaged in work related activities, and maintaining proficiency, where the employer requires carrying of a firearm (i.e. armored car, security guard, etc.). Includes travel to and from activity location.
Some people believe in these definitions, some don't. It looks like target practice is allowed, but not hunting or collecting or sporting.
It's stupid to put this restriction on a FT police officer because LEOSA should cover him throughout MA, and the states that recognize MA probably abide by LEOSA.
Some people believe in these definitions, some don't. It looks like target practice is allowed, but not hunting or collecting or sporting.
It's stupid to put this restriction on a FT police officer because LEOSA should cover him throughout MA, and the states that recognize MA probably abide by LEOSA.
Last edited:
Most CLEOs don't really know or understand HR218. The april MCPOA newsletter had an article about how ID cards were going to change (which I thought was incorrect, but who am I) and how LEOSA firearm instructors were going to be certifed.
So, its not surprise that most are behind the 8 ball...
![[thinking]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/010.gif "Thinking [thinking]")
Incorrect information. First off, it isn't HR218 and hasn't been for years.. Referring to that bill number gets you information on a medical bill of some sort. It is the LEOSA.
The act specifically states that departments are under no mandate to supply ID cards at all. So that won't be changing. Law Enforcement Firearm's Instructors do not have to qualify these individuals. Only someone who is certified by a law enforcement certification agency. I'm certified to do it in NJ as I still retain my NJ Police Training Commission certification. Most of the instructors doing certifications in NJ are not law enforcement officers at this time.
Where this might come in would be some part time LE do not have the power of arrest unless on duty. Nor do they have the right to carry a firearm except in the limited scope of their duties while working for the municipality. I'm not aware of any that work for free except for OEM or possibly the Auxiliaries in some states.
In addition..
Employee tends to denote payment in my mind.
Police in MA need a class A like the rest of us.
This also ends up excluding all kinds of LEOs that do not work for government agencies, like campus police at private institutions, Amtrak Police, and probably the MBTA Transit Police. Once when I was in that line of work, I was told by the PD in the city where I lived that if I renewed there they would issue a restricted LTC. So, I renewed in the city where I worked without any issues.
Not so. MGL Chapter 41: Section 98, specifying the powers and duties of police officers in cities, towns, and districts, says "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".
Last edited:
My understanding, and this anecdotal, that Chicago has prevented its own retired officers from carrying a gun. Apparently, in order to carry under LEOSA the City of Chicago requires that the retired officer qualify with the weapon. The problem is that the Chicago PD offers retired officers no opportunity to qualify.
Mark L.
Mark L.
Last edited:
Hmmm...you raise a good point, but I know that some LEO's who do not work for government agencies hold MSP Special State Police status. I wonder if they can get their LTC's from the MSP (which has the same licensing authority as any town, BTW and could but won't issue licenses to civilians except non-res)?
Mark L.
