LEOSA Question

yeah thats what i was thinking too, and i know that they give them for the stupidest things.

The old 4473 forms had blank spaces to write "Yes" or "No" in. I understand that it is a violation if the BATFE found only a "Y" or a "N" in that space. With ~13 questions, 10 "bad forms" can equal 130 violations!

I wouldn't take those kind of stories too much to heart (unless I was an FFL).
 
I looked around online but could not find a definative answer to this one. Does LEOSA negate the need to find pre-ban rifle mags? I assume that you would be fine, but what do you guys think?

Directly from the text of the recently updated law:

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).

The law was drafted to allow nationwide concealed carry (but see also the Drew Peterson case, where the courts added an interesting spin to LEOSA unrelated to CCW).

What's important to me is the legislative intent; more text from LEOSA 2.

(e) As used in this section, the term `firearm'--
...
(2) includes ammunition not expressly prohibited by Federal law or subject to the provisions of the National Firearms Act; and

Keep in mind this is an update to the original draft of the law. In a middle finger to ban states, they specifically exempted ammo here, likely due to concerns involving JHP in NJ and microstamping bills being proposed in other states. Interestingly, they didn't exempt high cap mags in this update, although that's definitely an issue in some states, moreso than ammo.

What's really important to remember is that while LEOSA is a federal law, almost every "test case" that's come down the pipe so far have been in state level courts. Like FOPA it's only a defense to charges, not Superman's chest emblem. [laugh] The official stance on AWB stuff in Mass. is that the LE exemption only applies to guns used for LE purposes, like duty guns and potentially approved off duty guns. As far as I know there's less than a dozen cases of AWB prosecutions in MA, but I have a nagging feeling that one of the cases in particular involved a municipal cop in a gun friendly town in MA being charged by his own agency...we've hashed this out in other threads, I can pull up links if you want.

My belief is that the answer to your question is no, unless of course you're referring to mags for a patrol rifle. There's no higher court cases in MA involving the AWB so I can't give you anything more definitive than my opinion. It's a total crapshoot with the higher courts in MA, especially in gun cases, and including those that involve cops. It's not the kind of fire I'd want to play with if I still lived in that state.
 
The official stance on AWB stuff in Mass. is that the LE exemption only applies to guns used for LE purposes, like duty guns and potentially approved off duty guns. As far as I know there's less than a dozen cases of AWB prosecutions in MA, but I have a nagging feeling that one of the cases in particular involved a municipal cop in a gun friendly town in MA being charged by his own agency...we've hashed this out in other threads, I can pull up links if you want.

Doesn't the exemption also include retired police officers as well?
 
Doesn't the exemption also include retired police officers as well?

According to Ron/EOPS, only "some" retired LEOs. As for mags, their position is that they must have been "gifted" by the retiree's department, not personally owned/bought by the LEO . . . etc., etc. It's actually worse than that, but you get the idea.
 
According to Ron/EOPS, only "some" retired LEOs. As for mags, their position is that they must have been "gifted" by the retiree's department, not personally owned/bought by the LEO . . . etc., etc. It's actually worse than that, but you get the idea.

I do believe that's a correct interpretation of the law. They made a lot of bad assumptions when they wrote it though.
 
Sorry for the thread ressurection, but I have a LEOSA question. I read a few of the LEOSA threads and couldn't find an answer.

Does LEOSA allow a qualified officer to carry post ban PISTOL high cap mags? (more than 10 rounds) I believe that post ban rifle mags are still a no go, But for some reason I though that pistol mags were ok. Is there any case law or legal opinions on this?
 
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.

Jesus H Christ, you have got to be kidding me. The whole purpose of LEOSA was to give certain sworn officers the ability to protect themselves off duty. Ya it is a nice perk for you LEO's, but for another department to do that to a fellow officer is beyond belief.
 
Sorry for the thread ressurection, but I have a LEOSA question. I read a few of the LEOSA threads and couldn't find an answer.

Does LEOSA allow a qualified officer to carry post ban PISTOL high cap mags? (more than 10 rounds) I believe that post ban rifle mags are still a no go, But for some reason I though that pistol mags were ok. Is there any case law or legal opinions on this?

Depends on whether you think 1) the MA AWB applies to an officer's off duty carry, and if it does wheher you think 2) LEOSA federally preempts the MA AWB. There's no definitive answer, only legal arguments.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Sorry for the thread ressurection, but I have a LEOSA question. I read a few of the LEOSA threads and couldn't find an answer.

Does LEOSA allow a qualified officer to carry post ban PISTOL high cap mags? (more than 10 rounds) I believe that post ban rifle mags are still a no go, But for some reason I though that pistol mags were ok. Is there any case law or legal opinions on this?

Hmm, interesting question. I'm curious if it makes a difference if you're carrying your duty weapon or a privately owned off-duty/BUG. Per agency policy I'm only authorized to carry my duty weapon anytime I carry off-duty on my creds. Duty weapon=post ban high caps, obviously.
 
Well it is an interesting question. If an out of state LEO were to be arrested for possession of a post ban mag, AND convicted, that makes him a felon, no? Aka bye-bye job.
 
Well it is an interesting question. If an out of state LEO were to be arrested for possession of a post ban mag, AND convicted, that makes him a felon, no? Aka bye-bye job.
The out of state question leads me to believe that there would be no magazine restrictions under LEOSA because that is massachusetts thing and even lowly civilians can carry high cap mags most other places. I was more thinking about MA cops, but since LEOSA trumps any state laws, I guess it is probably ok. I searched online for a definitive answer but could not find anything, so I figured one of the great legal minds here might know.
 
LEOSA does NOT address magazines at all . . .

The latest revision addresses ammo as NJ was being a PITA about it.

How you'd fare in court (MA) wrt post-ban mags is anyone's guess. EOPS wants DAs to prosecute LEOs, but I'm only aware of one such prosecution and it involved rifle mags, not pistol mags.
 
LEOSA does NOT address magazines at all . . .

The latest revision addresses ammo as NJ was being a PITA about it.

How you'd fare in court (MA) wrt post-ban mags is anyone's guess. EOPS wants DAs to prosecute LEOs, but I'm only aware of one such prosecution and it involved rifle mags, not pistol mags.
WHat was the outcome of the prosecution? Do you have a link?
 
But if you carry your duty weapon, then I believe there is NO magazine issue as far as the AWB. Or am I wrong?
 
There are those that are preaching that when your shift ends that you MUST leave the hi-cap handgun mags at the PD and only carry low-cap mags and if you bought your own hi-cap pistol or rifle mags, you are a felon in their eyes. Many of us disagree, but it takes one Ahole ADA and your typical agenda-driven judge to make a ruling that could destroy good people!
 
There are those that are preaching that when your shift ends that you MUST leave the hi-cap handgun mags at the PD and only carry low-cap mags and if you bought your own hi-cap pistol or rifle mags, you are a felon in their eyes. Many of us disagree, but it takes one Ahole ADA and your typical agenda-driven judge to make a ruling that could destroy good people!

Seriously? That's a bit ridiculous. What if that's against department/agency policy? By that I mean what if you can only use issued mags in your issued firearm?
 
Seriously? That's a bit ridiculous. What if that's against department/agency policy? By that I mean what if you can only use issued mags in your issued firearm?

Do you really think that the morons who came up with this "interpretation" really care?

The whole thing is ridiculous and a massive "extension" of what was actually passed as law and interpreted as such from back in 1998.
 
Seriously? That's a bit ridiculous. What if that's against department/agency policy? By that I mean what if you can only use issued mags in your issued firearm?

yep. Really, who is going to change out there department issued high cap mags for ten round mags to carry off duty? No one. Thats beyond paranoid. and like ochmude stated, it would most likely put them in violation of policy.
 
yep. Really, who is going to change out there department issued high cap mags for ten round mags to carry off duty? No one. Thats beyond paranoid. and like ochmude stated, it would most likely put them in violation of policy.

Although I agree, the MCOPA cut a deal with the devil that makes the anti-2A chiefs happy, but likely will NOT make the troops happy, and it still allows prosecution of LEOs by those that wish to do so. In plain English, it sucks!

Only if some "working officers" unions got behind GOAL's bill to do away with the AWB penalties do we stand a prayer of a chance in cleaning this up . . . and I don't see that happening in my lifetime.
 
Back
Top Bottom