LEOSA Question

Joined
Apr 6, 2010
Messages
343
Likes
362
Location
MASS
Feedback: 27 / 0 / 0
So, Ive been debating with other Officers at work. Does LEOSA restrict the type of firearm you can carry off duty? Some Officers say your only allowed to carry your duty weapon, others say it can be your personal weapon. I can not find anything referencing this in the law. As I read it, you can carry anything described as a firearm in the context of the law. Any help? Thanks.
 
Neither interpretation is really correct.

Having not read the part about active officers lately, I'll defer on that part.

The law requires that retired officers qualify with the same type of firearm that they will carry (this part I read last week). So a qualification with a revolver only allows them to carry any revolver. Qualification with a semi-auto allows them to carry any semi-auto. The retiree could qualify with a .38Spl, 10" bbl, target sights and trigger and then carry a 2.5" S&W 500 with EC's nuclear hand-loads (700gr bullets . . . I'm not kidding) under LEOSA.

A modification to LEOSA (major) was signed into law by the Big O on October 12, 2010. I just sent a copy of that new law to Jason Guida (he was unaware of the law change) and we'll have to see how/when/if MA accommodates those changes.
 
So, Ive been debating with other Officers at work. Does LEOSA restrict the type of firearm you can carry off duty? Some Officers say your only allowed to carry your duty weapon, others say it can be your personal weapon. I can not find anything referencing this in the law. As I read it, you can carry anything described as a firearm in the context of the law. Any help? Thanks.

No, LEOSA does not restrict what you can carry as an active duty LEO except:
‘‘(e) As used in this section, the term ‘firearm’ does not include—
‘‘(1) any machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the
National Firearms Act);
‘‘(2) any firearm silencer (as defined in section 921 of this
title); and
‘‘(3) any destructive device (as defined in section 921 of
this title).’’.
Also, the new changes to the law free us from ammunition restrictions such as the "no hollowpoint" law in NJ.

For retired LEOs they must have qualified with the type of firearm they're carrying:
‘‘(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
.
‘‘(e) As used in this section, the term ‘firearm’ does not include—
‘‘(1) any machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the
National Firearms Act);
‘‘(2) any firearm silencer (as defined in section 921 of this
title); and
‘‘(3) a destructive device (as defined in section 921 of this
title).’’.

I always qualify with my back up and off duty guns in addition to my duty piece so that, God forbid, anything should happen there's a record of me being qualified with the gun I'm carrying. Of course, there are times when I carry something other than those three particular guns but because my BUG is a revolver and the others autos, I figure I can cite the "firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm" clause if there is any question about my competency with the gun in question.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the input guys. Long story short, a fellow Officer (active sworn) I work with went to get his Class A LTC from.....well, town will remain nameless for now, and they restricted him to target and hunting. He questioned the restriction, citing LEOSA. The licensing Officer stated he could only carry his duty firearm under LEOSA. This sparked the debate in my department. I didnt see anything governing active officers besides no machineguns, silencers etc. I guess its just an example of one person being misinformed snowballing into others getting it wrong too. Thanks.
 
The problem with LEOSA is that so many officers are ignorant about what it actually allows and restricts. I am not a lawyer, but from what I have been taught, an active police officer can carry whatever he wants (except those stated above) as long as he has qualified with his duty weapon.

Too many guys are looking too hard at this law in order to basically screw over other officers. Here is how it SHOULD go according to LEOSA:
1. An officer sees that you are carrying concealed. Maybe your shirt rode up, whatever.
2. He challenges you on it.
3. You produce your department ID
4. He says "have a nice day sir."
5. For whatever reason, if the officer has doubts about the validity of your ID, he can of course call and confirm your employment. Then go back to #4

Notice that there was no questions about whether or not XYZ police department were covered under LEOSA, or if he was a full or part time officer. No questions about the capacity of the magazines, or if they were hydro shock. Anything above and beyond the above posted 5 steps lets you know that you are dealing with a dickhead that is trying to jam you up.
 
Last edited:
I am not a lawyer, but from what I have been taught, an active police officer can carry whatever he wants (except those stated above) as long as he has qualified with his duty weapon.

If you read the text of the law (which is really pretty short and simple) it doesn't say anything about what firearm you have to qualify with. In fact it says very little about firearms at all. The law is about the act of carrying, not what you're carrying (aside from what I posted above). Obviously when it was written it was understood that there are as many qualification policies as there are agencies and was made purposefully vague in order to allow for those policy variations. -

‘‘(2) is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm;

‘‘(4) meets standards, if any, established by the agency
which require the employee to regularly qualify in the use
of a firearm;
 
So, Ive been debating with other Officers at work. Does LEOSA restrict the type of firearm you can carry off duty?

No, not if you're active. Agency policy may restrict it though. Some require you to carry your duty weapon, others issue you a handgun safe and require you to lockup the duty weapon as soon as you get home from work and not use it outside of work hours, others let you carry anything, etc. It's different everywhere. But there's PD's in Mass. who are covered under LEOSA, armed on duty, etc. who's department requires them to unload and lock up the gun at the station at the end of every shift, and there's LEOSA compliant correctional facilities where they're only allowed to check out guns for specific purposes like prisoner transport.

Read your agency policy very carefully. You won't get in legal trouble if you violate it, but you may lose your job for it.

they restricted him to target and hunting. He questioned the restriction, citing LEOSA.

He's not the first cop in Mass. who's in that boat. That could make a very interesting test case if they tried to jam him up for off duty carry though.

Anything above and beyond the above posted 5 steps lets you know that you are dealing with a dickhead that is trying to jam you up.

Which is why if at all possible you should backup LEOSA coverage with a state issued permit if at all possible, and keep a low profile. I posted in another thread recently about a guy who was covered by LEOSA getting charged in court for carrying in Mass., it does happen.
 
GSG,

Thanks for the advice.

Just to clarify............I am a Federal LEO, my co-worker (also a Fed. LEO) applied for a class A through a North Shore City, and they restricted him, not his employing agency. We lock up our guns at the end of shift and dont take them home, thats why he was worried. He was under the impression from the city Licensing Officer that LEOSA only covered his duty weapon, thus rendering LEOSA useless to him since we leave our guns at work. Ive heard horror stories about LEOSA, and how people can get jammed up because an arresting Officer doesnt fully comprehend the law. As for me, I carry a folded copy in my wallet behind my badge, and have an unrestricted class A. But then again...............I live in a town that gives LEO's unrestricted CCW's. Thanks again guys, good insight.
 
Joe,

MCOPA, et al were 100% AGAINST LEOSA. As a result they dragged their feet for 4 years post-passage before implementing CMRs to implement it. The draft CMRs would have disenfranchised anyone not a MA municipal or MSP retiree. Myself and a few others testified against those CMRs and as a result I see that they made some significant changes for the better.

As of now, the MA CMRs do NOT comply with the current status of the law (new changes signed into law in October) and who knows how long before MA will address them.

For current active LEOs, it's a different ballgame. But not everyone is issued a proper ID, language on the ID may not be clearly LEOSA compliant, qualifications by department may not comply (frequency, etc.).

In any case, LEOs were NOT informed about LEOSA I thru proper channels, intentionally. No idea when/if they will be informed of LEOSA II.
 
GSG,

Thanks for the advice.

Just to clarify............I am a Federal LEO, my co-worker (also a Fed. LEO) applied for a class A through a North Shore City, and they restricted him, not his employing agency. We lock up our guns at the end of shift and dont take them home, thats why he was worried. He was under the impression from the city Licensing Officer that LEOSA only covered his duty weapon, thus rendering LEOSA useless to him since we leave our guns at work. Ive heard horror stories about LEOSA, and how people can get jammed up because an arresting Officer doesnt fully comprehend the law. As for me, I carry a folded copy in my wallet behind my badge, and have an unrestricted class A. But then again...............I live in a town that gives LEO's unrestricted CCW's. Thanks again guys, good insight.

I have a buddy that works for a federal agency that was specifically named in the October ammendment. They also turn on their duty weapons at the end of shift. His chain of command still maintains that they are NOT covered even though Obama says they are. They of course all recognize the fact that your boss's opinion of federal law does not change facts, but they are still worried about administrative fallout if something happens. Nobody wants to be the test case.
 
I'm not and never have been a LEO. I've been following this thread and can't believe what c-f'k this is. There's no reason in hell for this issue to be so complicated. The law should be crystal clear and all these Nazis with their power trips should STFU.
 
I'm not and never have been a LEO. I've been following this thread and can't believe what c-f'k this is. There's no reason in hell for this issue to be so complicated. The law should be crystal clear and all these Nazis with their power trips should STFU.
IMO the law IS crystal clear. It was worded very clearly and the intent was to simply state that if you are a cop or do a job where you have police powers (arrest, detention, whatever) that you are covered and don't even need a state LTC in order to carry concealed. This was explained by the head of the FOP who worked closely with the politicos who wrote HR 218. There was some language in the bill that was meant to clarify who was covered, but some departments (feds especially) used this wording to try and exclude their officers.

I believe that everyone and not just cops should have this protection. State's rights and the second ammendment are 2 seperate things much like the first ammendment and should NOT BE INFRINGED but one thing at a time.

The only people that are trying to split legal hairs with LEOSA are chiefs or administrators that are cowards and want to micromanage thier officers. This mentality has trickled down in some part to some of the more dickheadish officers in the ranks. Just for instance like a cocky trooper that looks down his nose at transit cops or locals. Those are the kind of guys that want other officers to be excluded. The only reason for it is the "my badge is bigger than yours" mentality. Believe me when I say that there are guys like that out there.
 
I have a buddy that works for a federal agency that was specifically named in the October ammendment. They also turn on their duty weapons at the end of shift. His chain of command still maintains that they are NOT covered even though Obama says they are. They of course all recognize the fact that your boss's opinion of federal law does not change facts, but they are still worried about administrative fallout if something happens. Nobody wants to be the test case.

Post #11 in the below thread explained an incident similar to what you're talking about:

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/97409-LEOSA-issues-in-Hawaii/page2

While their opinion certainly doesn't change facts, if a guy like that answers the phone and says "No, he's definitely not covered by LEOSA" when LE in an anti-gun jurisdiction calls to check your status, things could get quite interesting. I think ultimately it's similar to FOPA...if your ducks are in a row you'll avoid a conviction, but arrest, prosecution and general population are still a possibility until it all gets sorted out.
 
I have a buddy that works for a federal agency that was specifically named in the October ammendment. They also turn on their duty weapons at the end of shift. His chain of command still maintains that they are NOT covered even though Obama says they are. They of course all recognize the fact that your boss's opinion of federal law does not change facts, but they are still worried about administrative fallout if something happens. Nobody wants to be the test case.

As an MPTC firearms instructor, I have an opinion. We qualify and re-certify every couple of years to instruct POLICE Pistol/Shotgun/Patrol Rifle. MPTC still certifies you for Revolver as an option. Some agencies still issue revolvers and detectives/UC's still carry them routinely. We instruct in TYPE of firearm. I can qualify a retired P.O. to MPTC standards in any TYPE (class) of firearm. A P.O. who qualifies to pistol standard can carry a pistol. I (we) have never been told qualification is limited to the duty gun.

As far as some Fed agencies like VA Police and Dod, they leave weapons at work. However they are named now by the revision to LEOSA (executive branch P.O.'s) and this law relates to OFF-DUTY Carry. If you work for these agencies, have credentials, and lawfully carry a firearm off-duty, then H.R. 218 applies period.
 
What a surprise, the MA Chiefs of Tyranny Association was/is against LEOSA. This LEOSA issue is ridiculous, it is a simple issue being clouded up by People like MCOPA, and politicians like Menino and Bloomberg who want to stuff their anti second amendment ideology down our throats, another example of liberals being allowed to ignore federal law with no consequence. Funny but I don't see Eric Holder jumping down their throats any time soon.
 
Active duty can carry ANY NON NFA FIREARM. They can carry any handgun or long gun concealed as long as they meet the criteria spelled out in section (b) of LEOSA.
If you are retired (seperated) you must qualify with the action type, so to carry any firearm, you would need to qualify with a pistol, revolver, rifle, and shotgun.
 
GSG,

Thanks for the advice.

Just to clarify............I am a Federal LEO, my co-worker (also a Fed. LEO) applied for a class A through a North Shore City, and they restricted him, not his employing agency. We lock up our guns at the end of shift and dont take them home, thats why he was worried. He was under the impression from the city Licensing Officer that LEOSA only covered his duty weapon, thus rendering LEOSA useless to him since we leave our guns at work. Ive heard horror stories about LEOSA, and how people can get jammed up because an arresting Officer doesnt fully comprehend the law. As for me, I carry a folded copy in my wallet behind my badge, and have an unrestricted class A. But then again...............I live in a town that gives LEO's unrestricted CCW's. Thanks again guys, good insight.


Hey Joe.. I was at four seasons one sat morning and they refused to sell a Former Fed LEO ammo on her ID.. They checked with manager and they said they don't even sell ammo to the State Police or Woburn Police on there badges alone. Must have a LTC for ammo.. I thought that was strange myself. I wonder if it's a law or some kind of stay out of trouble store policy.
 
Hey Joe.. I was at four seasons one sat morning and they refused to sell a Former Fed LEO ammo on her ID.. They checked with manager and they said they don't even sell ammo to the State Police or Woburn Police on there badges alone. Must have a LTC for ammo.. I thought that was strange myself. I wonder if it's a law or some kind of stay out of trouble store policy.

It IS the LAW in MA!

Rumor (couple of different sources) told me that Wal-Mart in N. Attleboro lost their state license to sell ammo for 3 years because they sold a MSP Trooper in uniform ammo strictly on her being present in a police uniform. Won't swear that it is true or not, but if true it smells like it was a sting operation.

Carl is very strict wrt MGLs to keep his shop out of trouble and avoids these situations.
 
Hey Joe.. I was at four seasons one sat morning and they refused to sell a Former Fed LEO ammo on her ID.. They checked with manager and they said they don't even sell ammo to the State Police or Woburn Police on there badges alone. Must have a LTC for ammo.. I thought that was strange myself. I wonder if it's a law or some kind of stay out of trouble store policy.

Like Len states, it is the law. There is no LE exemption for buying stuff in MA- the LEO must still have an LTC. This is very similar to the situation regarding nonresidents. Even though the person might have a non res LTC, it's worthless in MA for purchasing ammo.

IIRC the law only allows sales to individuals holding an MA -RESIDENT- based FID or LTC.

-Mike
 
Hey Joe.. I was at four seasons one sat morning and they refused to sell a Former Fed LEO ammo on her ID.. They checked with manager and they said they don't even sell ammo to the State Police or Woburn Police on there badges alone. Must have a LTC for ammo.. I thought that was strange myself. I wonder if it's a law or some kind of stay out of trouble store policy.

As Len and Mike stated, a resident FID or LTC is needed to purchase ammo...

M.G.L. c.140 s.123

...no delivery of a firearm shall be made to any person not having a license to carry firearms issued under the provisions of section one hundred and thirty-one nor shall any delivery of a rifle or shotgun or ammunition be made to any minor nor to any person not having a license to carry firearms issued under the provisions of section one hundred and thirty-one or a firearm identification card issued under the provisions of section one hundred and twenty-nine B...
 
Ya that's what I figured given Carl's knowledge of the MGL's . It was a funny moment though the woman looked like she was slapped in the face.. but who knows like other poster said maybe it was a sting like the wal-mart uniforms MSP trooper incident.
 
Keep in mind, non-resident LE and business owners are eligible for those licenses as well.

Of course the fun is figuring out whether those still effectively "count" as nonresidents or not as far as "simons rock" is concerned. Another curious question is, if someone has a business LTC, is their home address on it, or is the business address listed on it instead? If it's the latter, then I doubt a shop would scoff at it, but if an out of state address is on it, the shop would probably just reject it like they reject non resident LTC's.

-Mike
 
Of course the fun is figuring out whether those still effectively "count" as nonresidents or not as far as "simons rock" is concerned.

That bill changed (well, mangled is a more accurate description, since it edited some paragraphs but not others) the dealer laws to require a certain type of FID or LTC to buy guns, ammo, mags etc. from an FFL. Those fall into that category.

Mass. doesn't differentiate between residency in it's licenses; what we commonly call a "non-resident" LTC can legally be issued to Mass. residents, and as I just pointed out, what we commonly call "resident" licenses can be issued to non-residents. LenS said it best when he referred to the Mass. legal "daffynitions." [laugh]

Another curious question is, if someone has a business LTC, is their home address on it, or is the business address listed on it instead? If it's the latter, then I doubt a shop would scoff at it, but if an out of state address is on it, the shop would probably just reject it like they reject non resident LTC's.

I don't know. MGL doesn't specify anything other than "address," and I've never seen one of these loophole licenses in person. A certain someone on NES could probably tell us the answer to that question though. [grin]

Actually, I have a friend in Mass. who has an LTC issued by the town he owns a business in, not the town he lives in. He's a resident of Mass., but it'd still be interesting to see what address they put on it.
 
Ya that's what I figured given Carl's knowledge of the MGL's . It was a funny moment though the woman looked like she was slapped in the face.. but who knows like other poster said maybe it was a sting like the wal-mart uniforms MSP trooper incident.

Love four seasons the few times ive been there, but anyone else hear that they had like over 300 violations in a current audit by the ATF?
 
Love four seasons the few times ive been there, but anyone else hear that they had like over 300 violations in a current audit by the ATF?

I didn't hear that. Of course, define "violation". Some of the BATFE types are so absurd if one tiny thing is out of place on a 4473, they probably call that an "error". [thinking]

FWIW a lot of MA and NH shops were pulling their hair out during the last cycle of audits, so this doesn't surprise me.

-Mike
 
Back
Top Bottom