# How lame is Mass?



## Barbrady (Aug 5, 2004)

Why does Massachusetts not have any reciprocity with any other states? Should I have even asked? The only one in New England that honors MA is VT.

http://www.packing.org/state/index.jsp/massachusetts

I just got my NC permit and its good in all of the bordering states and 20+ others to include VT and NH. 
Thanks for letting me vent.


----------



## BlackOps (Dec 29, 2004)

You can carry in any state with your police ID and dept qualified weapon. HR218 :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:


----------



## Channy1984 (Jul 24, 2004)

Most LE officers here probably wont give a crap. especially with that new HR 214 law.


----------



## LenS (Nov 9, 2004)

Minor nit: It is HR218 and there are requirements to enable same.

MA has NO desire to allow anyone else (or even it's own citizens, if it can delay/make it difficult/deny on "suitability" with no criteria for same) to carry here, therefore "tit for tat" applies. Other states don't usually recognize a MA LTC because of this. The law actually allows the AG to make reciprocal agreements, but I don't expect to see one in my lifetime.

Largely you will find almost no reciprocity with most Northeast region carry permits.


----------



## BlackOps (Dec 29, 2004)

Show me exact legislature that prohibits HR218 in Ma................. 8)


----------



## Dan H (Sep 22, 2004)

Channy1984";p="68345 said:


> Most LE officers here probably wont give a crap. especially with that new HR 214 law.


I searched for HR 214, why will the "deployment of and investment in advanced Internet communications services" affect a LEO carrying state to state? What am I missing?

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-214


----------



## LenS (Nov 9, 2004)

Dan H";p="68407 said:


> I searched for HR 214, why will the "deployment of and investment in advanced Internet communications services" affect a LEO carrying state to state? What am I missing?
> 
> http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-214


Dan you are missing my correction. It is HR218, NOT 214 as was originally posted. Better read it very carefully, as there are some real gotchas in it. I'll lightly touch on them in my next reply to BlackOps.


----------



## LenS (Nov 9, 2004)

BlackOps";p="68365 said:


> Show me exact legislature that prohibits HR218 in Ma................. 8)


If the MA Legislature could prohibit HR218, they would do it in a heartbeat. I heard grumblings that MA might challenge the law . . . no idea if it was anything more than bitching about it. MCOPA was dead set against the law.

I'll agree that MOST fellow LEOs will not bust a brother/sister on nits in this law, but most departments have at least one officer who "will follow the law no matter what"!

Requirements:
- Active PO is covered as long as s/he has proper ID (defined in law), has qualified within past year (not sure how you provide proof).
- Retired PO - MUST be pension qualified with 15 years. I am aware of some small communities that did away with pensions for their officers . . . these guys/gals are "toast" re HR218. I was a Special/Reserve PO for ~18 years, but no pension therefore I'm not covered. MUST be issued a Retired ID and carry proof of qualification to "state requirements" within past year. I am aware of one PD who does NOT issue Retired IDs to all retired officers . . . toast! MA position (as told to us by Chief Ron Glidden at May 1st seminar and elsewhere) is that EOPS/AG have determined that since MA (MPTC) does NOT have "standards" only "recommendations", thus NO RETIRED PO LIVING IN MA is covered by HR218 . . . toast!
- Who is a LEO? Well in MA the position of EOPS/CHSB/my local chief seems to be that ONLY Municipal/State Police are LE! As far as they are concerned most Sheriffs Deputies, all COs, and all Constables are NOT LE! I suspect (but never asked) that college/hospital POs would not be considered LE by them, even if SSPOs. Even those of us who are sworn and have full arrest powers under MGL.
- Further gotchas: Seems to be that only duty approved firearm (at least for MA LEOs due to wording that was in Ch. 180 of Acts of 1998) can be carried under the badge and therefore this would probably extend to HR218 (Caution: IANAL and this is NOT legal advice) . . . many such guns are not easily concealable comfortably when folks are on vacation. When out-of-state, even LEOs are REQUIRED by HR218 to abide by CIVILIAN carry restrictions of the state/municipality you are visiting. MA is easy, as LE you can carry ANYWHERE (in state) and the worst that can happen is security at a building/site may require that you lock it up with them. MANY other more "gun friendly states" MANDATE (by laws that make it a crime to disobey) that you can NOT carry in "areas that the public congregate" (e.g. shopping malls, sports fields, etc.), public buildings (e.g. AZ - not even in the Public Library!), places that are posted (signs may have to meet some legal definitions to be valid), police stations, places that serve or sell alcohol, ad nauseum.

Keep in mind that this law was written by a particular union with a focus on THEIR union members, not really to cover all LEOs in all circumstances! MA does NOT even have a chapter of this union within our borders.

Different cities/states have weird takes on this law. NYPD issued a "Directive" (I've seen the Email version) that "Mandated" that visiting officers be disarmed and detained until their legal status could be determined by HQ! My take on this is that in small MA towns, the dispatcher may not have a list of all retirees or know of their existence and thus on a Friday night (when all admin are gone until Monday morning) it could get ugly for the poor visiting officer! As I stated above, MOST officers will not pay attention to this "armchair general tripe" . . . but what if you encounter that one jerk who is "going to play by the rules"?


----------



## BlackOps (Dec 29, 2004)

Very true, LenS. I know a few guys who would jam an out of state officer in a heartbeat.


----------



## Dan H (Sep 22, 2004)

LenS";p="68409 said:


> Dan H";p="68407 said:
> 
> 
> > I searched for HR 214, why will the "deployment of and investment in advanced Internet communications services" affect a LEO carrying state to state? What am I missing?
> ...


Well Black Ops mentioned 218, then Channy mentioned 214. Thank you for elaborating on the particulars of the law. It never fails to shock me how rediculous MA can be; Federal government gives you and inch and its down to 1/4" by the time MA is done
with it.


----------



## LenS (Nov 9, 2004)

Dan, BlackOps cheated :twisted: He actually posted HR214 first, then after I posted a correction he went in and edited his post to HR218. Just a nit. 

Actually I take more issue with the Feds than MA on this one!

- Why do you need a pension to qualify to carry?
- Why 15 years and not 10?
- Why does a retired officer need to qualify annually when a normal LTC carrying citizen does NOT? [It's a good idea for all to practice often, but why make it a legal requirement?]
- Why not spell out any qualification requirements at the Fed level so you don't allow the states to drag their feet or set ridiculous "suitability" standards?
- Why not allow LEOs to carry anywhere and only have to abide by the LE carry restrictions (if any) of the state they are carrying in?
- Why not define in the Fed law, who is a qualified LEO (i.e. power of arrest, etc.)? Why allow the states to determine that one color uniform is good to go but another isn't?

What I'm really saying is: Why did the Fed law allow each state/municipality to have "wiggle room" to essentially void the Fed law?

[BTW: FL's AG was the first one to declare that retirees didn't qualify for HR218 since the state doesn't have "one standard" for firearms qualification. MA just followed in FL's footsteps. And everyone is convinced that FL is "gun friendly"???]

I think that I know the answer, and it isn't pretty!

Most likely they didn't want to grant LEOs or anyone else power to carry, but felt political pressure to do it (to get re-elected), so they did it with terms and conditions that would basically cut the legs off under the law.


----------



## cj3441 (Oct 14, 2004)

LenS,

From what I have read on HR218 the requirement is to be an employee of a governmental agency, therefore any Federal Cop in MA can carry under 218. Massachusetts does not have the right to limit the law to Municipal/State Police. The real interesting question would be for State College PD's are they Governmental employees? I am just waiting for a good court case on this issue!


----------



## Dan H (Sep 22, 2004)

LenS";p="68426 said:


> Dan, BlackOps cheated :twisted: He actually posted HR214 first, then after I posted a correction he went in and edited his post to HR218. Just a nit.


Ah ha, the truth comes out! :wink:

>>>>What I'm really saying is: Why did the Fed law allow each state/municipality to have "wiggle room" to essentially void the Fed law?

That I agree with.. The feds should make it crystal clear so there *can* be be a standard across the board and states can't impose BS laws to further limit what is given by the feds.

"[/quote] 
Most likely they didn't want to grant LEOs or anyone else power to carry, but felt political pressure to do it (to get re-elected), so they did it with terms and conditions that would basically cut the legs off under the law.[/quote]

Of all the people to limit, you would think that even liberals wouldn't worry about LEO's being armed.


----------



## VTCOP (May 2, 2002)

Just so everyone knows, if you already did not, Vermont you do not have to have a permit to carry, period!. Just thought i'd share that for you all as BarBrady brought up the reciprocity stuff.


----------



## BlackOps (Dec 29, 2004)

Ok, ok, ok you guys caught me, I corrected my erroneous posting. I have a little case of OCD and it was bothering the shit out of me


----------



## LenS (Nov 9, 2004)

Dan, then you should have a discussion with Fat Boy Teddy Kennedy or Chuckie Schumer!

This Bill was "in the works" for ~15 years. Kennedy and others like him kept it bottled up going nowhere. I wouldn't be surprised if the end result wasn't some compromise that they gen'd up to gut the Bill in actual practice.

I worked for 8 or 9 years as an Aux PO at Boston College PD (working dorms on weekend nights and football games) and a good friend of mine is one of the senior ranking officers (FT) at BCPD. He told me that they had a hell of a time fighting to be armed. Kennedy sits on the Board of Trustees for the college and was dead set against arming their police. BTW, from what I've been told their firearms training is second to no muni PD in the state! They have tons of $$ and they don't mind spending it on training, unlike every local PD that I know of!

As most of you folks know, BCPD is a very squared away operation!


----------



## MVS (Jul 2, 2003)

BlackOps";p="68468 said:


> .....I have a little case of OCD and it was bothering the shit out of me


This includes labeling his name on everything he owns with yellow labels... :lol:


----------



## BlackOps (Dec 29, 2004)

It's on RPD931..................... :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:


----------



## MVS (Jul 2, 2003)

I'll buy you a couple Beers Saturday night...


----------

