-
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
The MBTA is a "quasi-government agency". I don't believe LEOSA applies.
LEOSA might apply to Deputy Sheriffs who are actually employed by the Sheriff and drawing a paycheck. The questions arises, now that counties have been abolished by the legislature, are Sheriff's office's government agencies? I suspect so, but I don't really know.
There are lots of Deputy Sheriffs who are just appointed and do not really have a job with the Sheriff's office. LEOSA does not apply to them.
I've seen many LEO's that get restricted class A's from their town. Usually it's when the chief wants to be a dink and enforce a no concealed license mandate. Normally it doesn't matter since LEOSA will apply anyway once they qualify with the firearm, are sworn in and get their ID.
Mass law does allow a sworn law enforcement officer employed by the local or state government to carry an issued firearm with issued ammunition anywhere in the state, open or concealed. The LTC is only needed to purchase other firearms or ammuntion.
Also LEOSA doesn't mention that you have to be paid at all unless you are retired. It also makes no mention of full-time, part-time or intermittent employment by a department.
Mass law does allow a sworn law enforcement officer employed by the local or state government to carry an issued firearm with issued ammunition anywhere in the state, open or concealed. The LTC is only needed to purchase other firearms or ammuntion.
Also LEOSA doesn't mention that you have to be paid at all unless you are retired. It also makes no mention of full-time, part-time or intermittent employment by a department.
That's what it says..
(c) As used in this section, the term "qualified law enforcement officer" means an employee of a governmental agency who--
(1) is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or
prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and has statutory
powers of arrest;
(2) is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm;
(3) is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the agency;
(4) meets standards, if any, established by the agency which require the employee to regularly
qualify in the use of a firearm;
(5) is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or
substance; and
(6) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm.
(d) The identification required by this subsection is the photographic identification issued by the governmental agency for which the individual is employed as a law enforcement officer.
I was trying to figure out whether they would or not, and was having a hard time. The MBTA was created by the legislature as a political subdivision of the state, which would support the claim the LEOSA would apply. But their workers were specifically defined as not 'public employees' which would support the claim that LEOSA wouldn't apply. But that statute seems to have been repealed. It got so confusing trying to follow the path that I gave up.
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2007
- Messages
- 427
- Likes
- 20
Based on the text of the Code, I don't believe so.
Having a badge is not a requirement for this, the ID issued by the governmental agency is
YMMV![[grin]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/041.gif "Grin [grin]")
Right. However, PA is exactly like MA except that the local department does issue photographic ID to the elected Constable. NY let the guy off CCW charges. I think that the language is not strictly interpreted as you might think.
Employment is a loose concept. Elected officials are considered employees in many cases regardless of drawing pay.
Bill
