LEO Restricted LTC

[depicts]

Police in MA need a class A like the rest of us.

Kurtz, as several LEO's have stated in this thread, they do NOT have to have a LTC, but rather, they carry "On the Badge".

 

[rscalzo]

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.

It had been a problem in several areas. Slowly many areas now have made provisions. NJ was actually one of the first on board due to their NJ Retired Carry Permit satisfied all of the qualification standards. This changes weekly and is really a work in progress.

 

[GSG]

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.

Yeah, I'd imagine there's more to it than what's posted there, my point is just that it isn't blanket coverage for any LEO, and that even as a LEO, one could still be arrested.

But thanks for the input, you seem to have a lot more firsthand knowledge of this than many of us.

 

[hillman]

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.

That's what I was referring to. I was told by my chief that it only covers paid LEOs, and retired officers who are recieving a pension of some sort from their time as a LEO. So retired part timers wouldn't count, even if they have 40 years on the job. I was also told, again by my chief, that campus police don't count unless they work for a state school, railroad police don't count, and he said sheriff's deputies don't count.

 

[jdubois]

I was also told, again by my chief, that campus police don't count unless they work for a state school, railroad police don't count, and he said sheriff's deputies don't count.

Sounds like he's making stuff up to me. Just as an instance, Boston College police officers are granted the same police authorities and powers as other local and state police in MA, and so they would definitely qualify. I've no doubt that is the same at other private schools as well.

But then if we're talking about the Millbury chief, he also puts "All Lawful Purposes" as a restriction on LTCs . So I wouldn't rely on him as an authority on firearms related issues.

 

[ztp]

Sounds like he's making stuff up to me. Just as an instance, Boston College police officers are granted the same police authorities and powers as other local and state police in MA, and so they would definitely qualify. I've no doubt that is the same at other private schools as well.

But then if we're talking about the Millbury chief, he also puts "All Lawful Purposes" as a restriction on LTCs . So I wouldn't rely on him as an authority on firearms related issues.

Boston College police do not work for the "government" and therefore do not qualify for LEOSA. The are employees of a private college who receive special state police powers via Chapter 22C of Massachusetts General Laws. They do not have the same police powers. For instance, they can not enforce Chapter 90, motor vehicle law.

 

[jdubois]

Boston College police do not work for the "government" and therefore do not qualify for LEOSA.

You're right. Missed the "governmental agency" language.

 

[vellnueve]

Correct, many campus PDs have full police powers. They don't get the books for moving violations so they don't pull people over, but other than that they have the same arrest powers towards criminal violations as your typical city or state police. They don't have powers over civil matters (like moving violations) but that doesn't really matter.

Important, of course, to distinguish campus PDs from armed security guards. I know both private universities I've been at have like a dozen cruisers apiece, bikes, and roughly fifty sworn full time officers.

There is a culture of superiority among the city and state police that campus, sheriffs, and transit police aren't real police, but they are. I think you'll also find that some of them are better trained and equipped than the local city police. TUPD switched over to the M&P this year and got new cruisers, and BCPD has picked up a couple of the new Chargers (they're still using the Sig, though). Harvard PD, MIT PD, BUPD all have their own full (and armed) departments as do most of the other schools in the immediate Boston area (although some are more heavily staffed and better funded than others)

Powers derive from this section of MGL: http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/22c-63.htm

So their official powers are as "special state police officers"

And like was just mentioned, campus PDs don't qualify under LEOSA, but they do have most of the powers of the state police. I have heard that a lot of the sworn campus police officers from the various Boston area universities have serious problems trying to get ALP licenses from the city.

 

[ztp]

There is a culture of superiority among the city and state police that campus, sheriffs, and transit police aren't real police, but they are.
So their official powers are as "special state police officers"

A lot of the "culture of superiority" has to do with the actions of different campus police departments. Some stick to their own property and only take action off campus when they get calls, turning them over to the local or state authority when they arrive. Others take police action whenever and wherever they want to the extent of even jumping on other departments calls. It's these departments that cause most of the bad blood.

And like was just mentioned, campus PDs don't qualify under LEOSA, but they do have most of the powers of the state police. I have heard that a lot of the sworn campus police officers from the various Boston area universities have serious problems trying to get ALP licenses from the city.

Because the special state powers only provide authority on property, "owned, used, or leased" by the college, several of the larger departments also have deputy sheriff powers in their counties, which cover them in the streets around the campus.

I have heard that Boston is a problem as far as ALP licenses. I know that Cambridge is not.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Sounds like he's making stuff up to me. Just as an instance, Boston College police officers are granted the same police authorities and powers as other local and state police in MA, and so they would definitely qualify. I've no doubt that is the same at other private schools as well.

It also depends on their retirement benefit. If they have a 403B (the non profit sector equivalent of a 401K) rather than a "pension", they do not meet the definition set forth in the LEOSA.

 

[Jaxon]

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.

I disagree, and its only BEEN 4 years since it was enacted by Congress and signed into law by the President. GOOGLE it, and the entire first page are links to various sites about HR218. It is also variously known as LEOSA and LEOSA04. And to be REALLY technical "18 USC 926B and 926C"

The act specifically states that departments are under no mandate to supply ID cards at all. So that won't be changing.

The Code SPECIFICALLY states otherwise. 18 USC 926B states:

(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.

18 USC 926C states:

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified retired law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d)

and

(d) The identification required by this subsection is--
(1) a photographic identification 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; or

(2)(A) a photographic identification issued by the agency from which the individual retired from service as a law enforcement officer; and

(B) a certification issued by the State in which the individual resides 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 State to meet the standards established by the State for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm.

That says there is ID required and what the ID must be, and who issues it.

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.

We do agree on that. The Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association is saying otherwise AND including a number of items they say must be on the ID Card that is required by the Federal Code. I disagreed with that also.

 

[Jaxon]

It also depends on their retirement benefit. If they have a 403B (the non profit sector equivalent of a 401K) rather than a "pension", they do not meet the definition set forth in the LEOSA.

I'm not sure the Code makes that distinction;

(4) has a nonforfeitable right to benefits under the retirement plan of the agency;

 

[bostonasphalt2]

jaxon, I fail to see where your argument t hat states are required to give out these IDs holds water:

"(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."

it says nothing about it being required to be issued. Just that such an ID is needed.

In my humble opinion anyways,....

 

[Coyote33]

Police in MA need a class A like the rest of us.

Actually, I wonder if they could just do a Class B, since they openly carry anyhow, and high capacity might not always apply. Just silly, this state.

...But then if we're talking about the Millbury chief, he also puts "All Lawful Purposes" as a restriction on LTCs . ....

I thought that was the recommended and preferred designation. ALP covers everything, I thought. See this thread, and its final conclusion on the thread linked in the last post there.

 

[Jaxon]

jaxon, I fail to see where your argument t hat states are required to give out these IDs holds water:

"(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."

it says nothing about it being required to be issued. Just that such an ID is needed.

In my humble opinion anyways,....

Not the State, but the government agency the LEO worked for. Okay, I see your point. The ID is required, but not necessarily mandating the agency to issue one.

 

[jdubois]

I thought that was the recommended and preferred designation. ALP covers everything, I thought. See this thread, and its final conclusion on the thread linked in the last post there.

No, ALP is what you put down for the reason you want the LTC. But The restriction field on LTCs is now supposed to read "none". How is "ALP" a restriction? GOAL worked hard to get this changed.

 

[Scrivener]

GOAL worked hard to get this changed.

The mountain labored and brought forth a mouse.

As has been discussed here, at length, many times before.

Putting "All Lawful Purposes" in the "Reason For Issuance" block was desirable and correct. Putting in a block labeled "Restrictions" is not quite correct - "None" is correct - but it does get the point across.

The use of "ALP" in that block is probably a function of habit.

 

[jdubois]

Putting "All Lawful Purposes" in the "Reason For Issuance" block was desirable and correct. Putting in a block labeled "Restrictions" is not quite correct - "None" is correct - but it does get the point across.

Hey, I don't make the rules, I just poorly attempt to follow them. If I was making the rules, my firearms laws would be:


Rule 1: If you break any criminal law while utilizing a firearm... see the other law.
Rule 2: There is no rule 2.

 

[rscalzo]

HR218

is the House bill that it was being considered under. It stopped being H.R. 218 when it was signed. I guess the difference between a magazine and a clip is immaterial too. At time I'm a stickler for correct terminology. True, many, mostly in the LE arena refer to the legislation as H.R. 218 but it isn't correct. As this effort was ongoing for years, it probably had other designations before that one.

[

I]110th CONGRESS

ST Session

H. R. 218
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow taxpayers to designate income tax overpayment's as contributions to the United States Library Trust Fund. [/I]​

The reference to ID was made for retired personnel, not current personnel. This has been an issue since day one. It has been established that a department is not mandated to issue a retired ID as you no longer have any police powers. Most do issue one as a courtesy.

 

[Coyote33]

No, ALP is what you put down for the reason you want the LTC. But The restriction field on LTCs is now supposed to read "none". How is "ALP" a restriction? GOAL worked hard to get this changed.

You're right, as was I in the referenced post. The reply you are answering was late at night, and I was a little "off".

I guess I bowed when I should have curtsied. This state has one jump through so many different, yet similar, hoops, it gets tough keeping track without a scorecard.

 

[jdubois]

You're right, as was I in the referenced post. The reply you are answering was late at night, and I was a little "off".

No sweat, I boned the first part of the post you were quoting so I've got plenty of crow on my face.

This state has one jump through so many different, yet similar, hoops, it gets tough keeping track without a scorecard.

Ain't that the truth.

 

[Doctordrew]

Is this something you're dealing with?

no, mine is "LTC A NONE"

but an officer came in to buy a firearm from me with a restricted LTC.

 

[the_doctor]

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.

Considering that Constables running around Massachusetts have power to enforce game laws, stop blasphemy, perform civil process, and execute arrests for civil and criminal matters, are they able to buy themselves a badge and CCW in all 50 states?

bill

 

[WayneWong]

Considering that Constables running around Massachusetts have power to enforce game laws, stop blasphemy, perform civil process, and execute arrests for civil and criminal matters, are they able to buy themselves a badge and CCW in all 50 states?

bill

God %$!@ it, I don't know.

 

[the_doctor]

God %$!@ it, I don't know.

It is worrying, isn't it? Have you seen some of those guys?

Bill

 

[Jaxon]

Considering that Constables running around Massachusetts have power to enforce game laws, stop blasphemy, perform civil process, and execute arrests for civil and criminal matters, are they able to buy themselves a badge and CCW in all 50 states?

bill

Based on the text of the Code, I don't believe so.

(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.

Having a badge is not a requirement for this, the ID issued by the governmental agency is
YMMV

 

[vellnueve]

Aren't Constables elected though?

 

[M1911]

Aren't Constables elected though?

The law allows them to be appointed. I suspect most all are appointed now, not elected.

 

[Jaxon]

The law allows them to be appointed. I suspect most all are appointed now, not elected.

It depends on the town. I did one tour as a Constable here in Watertown and was appointed. And yes, I had the opportunity to meet several of my "peers" and was underwhelmed by most.

I found the duties really negative for the most part and bad karma.

 

[Carguy]

First I can't believe the waste of time in the NY court case. Just the manpower to research and type the brief that I read never mind that a Grand Jury heard the case and it was forwarded for trial until the jidge dismissed it. Because the NYPD didn't believe his ID was real! Cant' they tell the difference between a real and "fake" warrant?!?! Yeah I'm gonna print up some fake warrants to "punk" my friends...what morons.

How about deputy sheriffs in MA? Where do they seem to fall in this craziness? Somewhere it seems they were lumped in with campus or MBTA police. It seems they are employed by the local government (county) and are charged with the supervision and detention of law breakers...they seem to fall right into the mix.