|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
May 1, 2013, 04:37 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 4, 2008
Posts: 508
|
LEOSA subject to to state magazine capacity laws
For any retired LEOs out there. If you are concealed carry approved under the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, are you bound by state laws on magazine capacity?
|
May 1, 2013, 05:01 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,297
|
Call your union - they have the lawyers to address this properly.
|
May 1, 2013, 05:21 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
If you're not in the union and this was idle curiosity, it depends on the state laws. At least some provided exemptions.
|
May 1, 2013, 09:43 PM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Posts: 438
|
yes it does unless there is an exemption in the state law. The NY Safe Act does not have an exemption for retired law enforcement so the 7 round limit in magazines applies to LEOSA. This is something that needs to be addressed by an amendment to LEOSA.
|
May 1, 2013, 09:50 PM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 13, 2013
Location: Lochbuie, CO
Posts: 140
|
Re: LEOSA subject to to state magazine capacity laws
Considering LEOSA doesn't exempt you from local carry restrictions, I'd think magazine limits would still be governed by locality. But why risk it?
|
May 1, 2013, 11:02 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 17, 2006
Posts: 261
|
So
should retired LEOs' have more rights than honest citizens?
I don't think LEOs', active or not, should be able to carry more than what honest citizens can. JMO |
May 2, 2013, 12:01 AM | #7 |
Junior member
Join Date: May 1, 2010
Posts: 5,797
|
David Wong, Esq...
The best source for correct(re; "errornet" ) details may be atty; David Wong. Wong wrote a few trade industry articles about the LEOSA & the 2010 updated version signed into law by President Obama.
To my knowledge(not a sworn or retired LE officer), magazine limits are NOT a issue if you meet LEOSA standards & re-quals. The Federal LE Officers Assoc, www.FLEOA.org or maybe the IACP, www.IACP.org could provide information. I'll post David Wong's website if I can later on. ClydeFrog |
May 2, 2013, 01:17 AM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 3, 2012
Location: Arizona
Posts: 939
|
I don't have experience with this personally, but Massad Ayoob briefly mentions it in one of his books. He's covered in LEOSA, but when he travels, and those travels include or may include mag restricted states (I think he mentioned California specifically) he leaves the Glocks at home, and takes a wheelgun and/or 1911.
|
May 2, 2013, 03:18 AM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 29, 2005
Location: Orlando FL
Posts: 1,934
|
I was asked to pick Massad Ayoob up from Harrisburg Airport one time, he had not traveled with firearms, I was given a Chief Special (and ammo) to give him.
I thought that was strange, he was just as paranoid as I was! |
May 2, 2013, 04:12 AM | #10 |
Junior member
Join Date: May 1, 2010
Posts: 5,797
|
Good guy letters...
Author & legal use of force expert, Massad Ayoob wrote a few recent gun press items about how cops & sworn personnel travel in CONUS with weapons.
He wrote about going to New York City & having his PD cut a "good guy" letter for official business. Ayoob said the young NYPD officer at the JFK office was dejected for not being able to snag Ayoob as a gun collar. FWIW, I posted on the forum before how CT's public safety agency is very strict about LEOSA firearm standards, they do not allow any CT law enforcement to use any SAO type pistols. No P35s no 1911a1s no SAAs. ClydeFrog |
May 2, 2013, 08:34 AM | #11 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
|
Quote:
__________________
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday. |
|
May 2, 2013, 10:51 AM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 11,061
|
I carry per the LEOSA. I'm no lawyer so I defer to the Sheepdog Academy, which is a group of lawyers, prosecutors, and LE officers, who train Retired and Active LEO's, Local prosecutors 'n such in HR218.
Not just so we know what we can and cannot do per the LEOSA, but to keep local departments, cities, and states from getting sued for the violation of or ignoring the LEOSA. I haven't studied the material in a while (since this part doesn't affect me) but in places like New Jersey and their "no hollow points" those carrying per the LEOSA where NOT exempt, meaning if we go to NJ we can't carry hollow points. Again I'm not a lawyer, but I would think if this is true (about the hollow points) then it would be true regarding magazine capacity. I never really looked into this because I carry a S&W 642 with LSWC's (non-hollow points). Which would mean that I don't have to worry about NJ's hollow point prohibitions or NYs magazine limits. If I carried a high cap mag or hollow points, I would so some research with the Sheepdog Academy.
__________________
Kraig Stuart CPT USAR Ret USAMU Sniper School Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071 |
May 2, 2013, 11:43 AM | #13 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: AZ, WA
Posts: 1,466
|
Quote:
I'm not sure if the same clause would exempt a qualified person from the NY 7-rd limit, though, especially inasmuch as on-duty NY LEOs aren't exempted. It doesn't matter to me, anyway, as I carry an XDS with a 5-rd magazine.
__________________
Violence is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and valorous feeling which believes that nothing is worth violence is much worse. Those who have nothing for which they are willing to fight; nothing they care about more than their own craven apathy; are miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the valor of those better than themselves. Gary L. Griffiths (Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill) |
|
May 2, 2013, 12:43 PM | #14 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
Quote:
|
|
May 2, 2013, 01:04 PM | #15 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 16, 2009
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 999
|
Law enforcement should not be exempt so long as the state feels that an individual does not require more than that amount to defend themselves. It may actually prevent bystanders getting hit as often. Follow Cuomo's advice and start using revolvers using the two shot than assess tactic.
|
May 2, 2013, 01:33 PM | #16 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 18, 2011
Location: 609 NJ
Posts: 705
|
in NJ retired officers are bound by the mag limit and the hollow point restrictions... They have to carry FMJ's...
__________________
"...with liberty and justice for all." (Must be 21. Void where prohibited. Some restrictions may apply. Not available in all states.) |
May 2, 2013, 05:02 PM | #17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 5, 2004
Posts: 619
|
Although I feel that the New York Safe Act is an abomination in the eyes of the Lord, and should be repealed at once, it really doesn't affect me personnaly at this time. Being selfish about the matter, I have been forced to change my every day carry piece from a 9mm SIG 226 to a .45 acp SIG 220.
Somehow, silly me, except for the size and weght difference, I don't feel at all handicapped. I truly feel sorry for those that don't have something else to fall back on, but I see a rapid return to major popularity of J & K frame Smiths. 125 gr. .357s are nothing to sneeze at. So, as I see it, NY has three things it must do in the immediate future. 1. Get rid of the SAFE act 2. Throw those idiots in Albany out of office 3. GET RID OF CUOMO |
May 2, 2013, 07:02 PM | #18 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,459
|
Quote:
Connecticut, last I knew, had a state police department and 169 municipalities, most of which had their own police departments that do not report to the State Police. So I don't see how the State Police could in any way dictate what officers from the municipal departments can or can't do. Secondly, I don't recall that there were any "firearm standards" in the LEOSA. Got a citation? |
|
May 2, 2013, 07:21 PM | #19 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,459
|
Hmmm --
From the always-reliable Wikipedia: Quote:
|
|
May 2, 2013, 08:56 PM | #20 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Posts: 438
|
Quote:
my sentance was poorly written. the fix that is needed in LEOSA isnt specific to ny but for the many states that have limited their magazine capacities with ny the most egregious example of that so far with 7. |
|
May 2, 2013, 09:55 PM | #21 |
Junior member
Join Date: May 1, 2010
Posts: 5,797
|
State of CT; LEOSA...
The state website is www.CT.gov . The state agency is DESPP.
I'll check around for more specific information re: LEOSA training standards for CT area retired police officers & former LE. ClydeFrog UPDATE; I just checked the CT Dept of Emergency Services & Public Protection. The state LEOSA standards & requirements are in the information bulletin for new applicants. NO single action autos(like a 1911a1 or Hi Power), no cowboy SAAs, no reloaded ammunition or hand-loads, only certain handgun calibers; .380acp, .38spl, .40S&W, .357sig, 10mm, .45acp, .357magnum, etc etc. Last edited by ClydeFrog; May 2, 2013 at 10:13 PM. |
May 2, 2013, 10:44 PM | #22 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,459
|
Quote:
The link to the first-time applicants information you provided is http://www.ct.gov/despp/cwp/view.asp...ppNav_GID=2080 . But this applies ONLY to Connecticut State Police retirees and to out-of-state retirees who now reside in Connecticut and who choose to do their annual requalification through the CT State Police rather than through a local police department or through the department/agency from which they retired. Which means that the firearms limitation does not, as you indicated in post #10, mean that "they do not allow any CT law enforcement to use any SAO type pistols." As I commented, Connecticut has 169 individual municipalities, most of which have their own police departments. Retirees from those departments would be subject to the State Police criteria only if for some reason they go to the state for requalification rather than to the agency/department from which they retired. Well, I was wrong again. Dang, that's twice this year, and the year's not even half gone. From the law: Quote:
The law does not, however, appear to support Connecticut's limitation on brand of ammunition, or even holster. Last edited by Aguila Blanca; May 4, 2013 at 06:15 AM. Reason: Typo |
||
May 2, 2013, 11:03 PM | #23 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 15, 2013
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 1,416
|
Is there any language anywhere that precludes someone from training and qualifying with more than one firearm?
|
May 3, 2013, 07:13 AM | #24 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,459
|
Now that it's morning and I'm semi-awake, a re-reading of the section of the law I cited two posts above says "of the same type as the concealed firearm." That most likely means just "revolver" or "semi-automatic." I doubt very much it means "of the same make, model and caliber, and firing the same brand, weight and construction bullets."
|
May 3, 2013, 09:03 AM | #25 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 11,061
|
The LEOSA notwithstanding, why wouldn't a person qualify with the same gun he carries?
__________________
Kraig Stuart CPT USAR Ret USAMU Sniper School Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071 |
|
|