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/Pioneer Valley Arms February Giveaway ***Smith & Wesson SD9VE 9MM***

Reply to thread

Message

It is clear that magazine capacity is NOT currently covered under LEOSA. LEOs have been and will continue to be jammed up over that. There are several stories out there of LEOs being charged for the possession of a magazine capable of carrying more than the legal limit.

However, ammunition, unless prohibited by some other FEDERAL law, is covered [18 USC 926c(e)(1)(B)]. Supposedly LEOSA was amended some years back based on NJ laws.

I understand how states can make LEOSA problematic, but the general idea is that state laws are mostly irrelevant, other than what's in 18 USC 926C(b)(1)&(2). Improper arrests have resulted in successful tort claims against the arresting agencies.

There are supposedly LEOSA amendments being further considered. But that has stalled for various reasons. The magazine capacity issue in among the proposed amendments.

<blockquote data-quote="TomMalthus" data-source="post: 6980204" data-attributes="member: 53403">It is clear that magazine capacity is NOT currently covered under LEOSA.&nbsp; LEOs have been and will continue to be jammed up over that.&nbsp; There are several stories out there of LEOs being charged for the possession of a magazine capable of carrying more than the legal limit. However, ammunition, unless prohibited by some other FEDERAL law, is covered [18 USC 926c(e)(1)(B)].&nbsp; Supposedly LEOSA was amended some years back based on NJ laws.I understand how states can make LEOSA problematic, but the general idea is that state laws are mostly irrelevant, other than what&#039;s in 18 USC 926C(b)(1)&amp;(2).&nbsp; Improper arrests have resulted in successful tort claims against the arresting agencies. There are supposedly LEOSA amendments being further considered.&nbsp; But that has stalled for various reasons.&nbsp; The magazine capacity issue in among the proposed amendments.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TomMalthus, post: 6980204, member: 53403"] It is clear that magazine capacity is NOT currently covered under LEOSA. LEOs have been and will continue to be jammed up over that. There are several stories out there of LEOs being charged for the possession of a magazine capable of carrying more than the legal limit. However, ammunition, unless prohibited by some other FEDERAL law, is covered [18 USC 926c(e)(1)(B)]. Supposedly LEOSA was amended some years back based on NJ laws. I understand how states can make LEOSA problematic, but the general idea is that state laws are mostly irrelevant, other than what's in 18 USC 926C(b)(1)&(2). Improper arrests have resulted in successful tort claims against the arresting agencies. There are supposedly LEOSA amendments being further considered. But that has stalled for various reasons. The magazine capacity issue in among the proposed amendments. [/QUOTE]

Verification