Originally Posted by younggunz4life
If he is not authorized by his agency and position to carry a weapon, the LEOSA doesn't do anything to override that.
I used NJ as an example...you mentioned it wasn't brought up. Either way I believe this quote was used for federal example but it encompasses every leosa qualifier:
your statement is erroneous. The high courts have determined...without fail and without disrespecting leosa one time...that even if an agency doesn't cover it/allow the use of off-duty firearms, and so-on, leosa protects said individual and is protected and legal within the eyes & scope of the law.
The statement that you quoted was not referring to off-duty carry, it was referring to police (and other agency) personnel who are not authorized by their agency to carry firearms in the course of their duties. (And, of course, if the agency doesn't authorize them to carry on duty, it certainly doesn't authorize them to carry off duty.)
Here's the statutory language:
Originally Posted by 18USC926B
18 USC § 926B - Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law enforcement officers
(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 which could result in suspension or loss of police powers;
(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.
Based on the above, any law enforcement officer who is not authorized by his agency to carry a firearm (on or off duty) is not covered by the LEOSA. One example (based on paragraph (c)(4) above) would be an officer who failed his/her annual/semi-annual requalification. Until that officer can successfully requalify, he or she is not covered by the LEOSA. Another example would be an officer who, for whatever reason, is assigned to desk duty and has his/her authorization to carry on duty suspended. Unless and until the suspension is lifted, he or she is not covered by the LEOSA.
The section of the LEOSA I quoted above is the statement of what qualifiers an LEO must satisfy to be covered by the law. Note that (5) ends with "and" -- meaning that this is not a case of "pick any one and go." An LEO must satisfy ALL of these requirements before he or she is covered by the law.