The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 1, 2013, 04:37 PM   #1
Oldjarhead
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 4, 2008
Posts: 430
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?
Oldjarhead is offline  
Old May 1, 2013, 05:01 PM   #2
armoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,763
Call your union - they have the lawyers to address this properly.
__________________
http://czfirearms.us/ same original CZForum, new location.
armoredman is offline  
Old May 1, 2013, 05:21 PM   #3
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,405
If you're not in the union and this was idle curiosity, it depends on the state laws. At least some provided exemptions.
JimDandy is offline  
Old May 1, 2013, 09:43 PM   #4
heyjoe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Posts: 165
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.
heyjoe is offline  
Old May 1, 2013, 09:50 PM   #5
balyon85
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?
balyon85 is online now  
Old May 1, 2013, 11:02 PM   #6
Texshooter
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
Texshooter is offline  
Old May 2, 2013, 12:01 AM   #7
ClydeFrog
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 1, 2010
Posts: 5,798
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
ClydeFrog is offline  
Old May 2, 2013, 01:17 AM   #8
Gaerek
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.
Gaerek is offline  
Old May 2, 2013, 03:18 AM   #9
Brit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 29, 2005
Location: Orlando FL
Posts: 850
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!
Brit is offline  
Old May 2, 2013, 04:12 AM   #10
ClydeFrog
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 1, 2010
Posts: 5,798
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
ClydeFrog is offline  
Old May 2, 2013, 08:34 AM   #11
Alabama Shooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
Quote:
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 repealing the oppressive law in NY.
FTFY
__________________
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.
Alabama Shooter is offline  
Old May 2, 2013, 10:51 AM   #12
kraigwy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 9,416
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 Oct '78
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071
kraigwy is offline  
Old May 2, 2013, 11:43 AM   #13
Gary L. Griffiths
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: AZ, IA, WA
Posts: 1,257
Quote:
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.
IIRC the first revision to the LEOSA specifically exempted qualified personnel from local restrictions on ammunition type, meaning that NJ's prohibition on carrying hollow points is unenforceable. That was a matter of personal interest to me, as my cousin lived in NJ, and I had to switch to EFMJs whenever I went to visit him before the change.

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 personal safety; are miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of those better than themselves. Gary L. Griffiths, Chief Instructor, Advanced Force Tactics, Inc. (Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill)
Gary L. Griffiths is offline  
Old May 2, 2013, 12:43 PM   #14
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
Quote:
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.
I'd agree with that, but that's not what this thread is about. I would encourage you to start another, perhaps more open-ended thread, discussing the merits of "professional courtesy" that states, counties and municipalities extend to current and former LEO's, as well as the philosophical underpinnings of LEOSA itself.
csmsss is offline  
Old May 2, 2013, 01:04 PM   #15
Come and take it.
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.
Come and take it. is offline  
Old May 2, 2013, 01:33 PM   #16
RedBowTies88
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.)
RedBowTies88 is offline  
Old May 2, 2013, 05:02 PM   #17
Yankee Doodle
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 5, 2004
Location: NY state
Posts: 571
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
__________________
God Bless America
Y.D.
Yankee Doodle is offline  
Old May 2, 2013, 07:02 PM   #18
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClydeFrog
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.


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?
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old May 2, 2013, 07:21 PM   #19
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,325
Hmmm --

From the always-reliable Wikipedia:

Quote:
2010 amendment

In 2010, LEOSA was amended by the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act Improvements Act of 2010[2], which specifically extended coverage to include law enforcement officers of the Amtrak Police, Federal Reserve Police, and law enforcement officers of the executive branch of the Federal Government.[2] The provisions for disqualification on mental health grounds and the provisions regarding qualifications to carry a firearm were amended, and the number of aggregate years for retired officers was reduced from fifteen to ten.[2] Coverage was also expanded to include military law enforcement personnel.[2] In addition the definition of a firearm was expanded to include any ammunition not prohibited by the National Firearms Act of 1934. This was done to exempt qualified active and retired law enforcement officers from the prohibitions against carrying hollow-point ammunition that is in force in New Jersey (except for their peace officers and active federal law enforcement officers) and a few other locations.

2013 amendment

In 2013, LEOSA was again amended by the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2013, effective January 2, 2013 after President Obama signed Public Law 112-239 (H.R. 4310).[3] Section 1089 of the NDAA contained language which further clarified that military police officers and civilian police officers employed by the U.S. Government unambiguously met the definitions in the original Act. The definitions of "qualified active" and "qualified retired" law enforcement officer include the term "police officers" and expanded the powers of arrest requirement definition to include those who have or had the authority to "apprehend" suspects under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Senator Patrick Leahy, a key sponsor of the bill, remarked "The Senate has agreed to extend that trust to the law enforcement officers that serve within our military. They are no less deserving or worthy of this privilege and I am very pleased we have acted to equalize their treatment under the federal law". He further stated "The amendment we adopt today will place military police and civilian police officers within the Department of Defense on equal footing with their law enforcement counterparts across the country when it comes to coverage under LEOSA."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enf...ers_Safety_Act
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old May 2, 2013, 08:56 PM   #20
heyjoe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Posts: 165
Quote:
Alabama Shooter Quote:
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 repealing the oppressive law in NY.

FTFY
i agree with you on that and have been doing my part to do just that in NY. calling legislators, writing, demonstrations, contributing to legal efforts to overturn the law.
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.
heyjoe is offline  
Old May 2, 2013, 09:55 PM   #21
ClydeFrog
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 1, 2010
Posts: 5,798
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.
ClydeFrog is offline  
Old May 2, 2013, 10:44 PM   #22
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
The actual link to the State Police information on the LEOSA is http://www.ct.gov/despp/cwp/view.asp...ppNav_GID=2080 . The link you provided is to the home page for the entire state of Connecticut.

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.

Then there's the issue of what the language of the law actually says. Connecticut State Police may say you have to use the same holster you're going to wear when carrying and use the same brand of ammunition you'll be carrying, but I don't think there's anything in the law to support that. Suppose I qualify with a full-size Glock in .40 S&W wearing an OWB scabbard holster, but during the summer months I prefer to carry a Keltec .380 in an IWB holster. I don't believe the language of the LEOSA actually requires me to always carry the specific firearm I used to qualify -- or to force me to qualify with multiple firearms if I wish to have a choice.

Well, I was wrong again. Dang, that's twice this year, and the year's not even half gone. From the law:

Quote:
Originally Posted by LEOSA
‘‘(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.
That's really quite a bummer. Most of the retired officers I know prefer to carry 1911s ...

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
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old May 2, 2013, 11:03 PM   #23
2ndsojourn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 15, 2013
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 622
Is there any language anywhere that precludes someone from training and qualifying with more than one firearm?
2ndsojourn is offline  
Old May 3, 2013, 07:13 AM   #24
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,325
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."
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old May 3, 2013, 09:03 AM   #25
kraigwy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 9,416
The LEOSA notwithstanding, why wouldn't a person qualify with the same gun he carries?
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School Oct '78
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071
kraigwy is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.16525 seconds with 9 queries