# Magazine capacity for off duty LEO's



## Mcgarret (Mar 26, 2018)

So this may or may not be the right forum to post this question, but with regards to LEOSA and Massachusetts cops carrying off duty. Are they restricted to the "10 round limit" with their personal firearms when not "on duty" either in or out of state?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## pahapoika (Nov 5, 2006)

Not sure. Believe leosa covers the capacity issue.
Never heard anyone make mention of it.
Have run errands after work, but the cannon always wound up in the safe until the next shift


----------



## patrol22 (Oct 31, 2015)

Mcgarret said:


> So this may or may not be the right forum to post this question, but with regards to LEOSA and Massachusetts cops carrying off duty. Are they restricted to the "10 round limit" with their personal firearms when not "on duty" either in or out of state?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Someone would have to be a royal dick to jam up another cop for something like that. Unfortunately we all know someone we work with who would do it . . .


----------



## Mcgarret (Mar 26, 2018)

Agreed, that's why I was wondering if there was any written exemption for LEO's.


patrol22 said:


> Someone would have to be a royal dick to jam up another cop for something like that. Unfortunately we all know someone we work with who would do it . . .


Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## pahapoika (Nov 5, 2006)

yeah, there used to be real pecking order here in Mass. Maybe there still is ?

Worked prisoner transport so didn't really qualify as a "real cop". Even though we took our sidearm home always made a habit of locking it up. 

Even after retirement working for an agency part-time just got in the habit of not carrying off duty. Not worth the hassle or possibility of losing your permit.


----------



## USM C-2 (Oct 27, 2010)

So when I move back to Mass. in a few years I should just carry on my LEOSA creds, and take a pass on the LTC?


----------



## MiamiVice (May 2, 2002)

You'll need an ltc to buy ammo etc. The is amag exemption for active and retired LE in MA, I'll get it. 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## MiamiVice (May 2, 2002)

Section 131M. No person shall sell, offer for sale, transfer or possess an assault weapon or a large capacity feeding device that was not otherwise lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994. Whoever not being licensed under the provisions of section 122 violates the provisions of this section shall be punished, for a first offense, by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than ten years, or by both such fine and imprisonment, and for a second offense, by a fine of not less than $5,000 nor more than $15,000 or by imprisonment for not less than five years nor more than 15 years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

The provisions of this section shall not apply to: (i) the possession by a law enforcement officer; or (ii) the possession by an individual who is retired from service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited from receiving such a weapon or feeding device from such agency upon retirement


Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## Mcgarret (Mar 26, 2018)

MiamiVice said:


> Section 131M. No person shall sell, offer for sale, transfer or possess an assault weapon or a large capacity feeding device that was not otherwise lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994. Whoever not being licensed under the provisions of section 122 violates the provisions of this section shall be punished, for a first offense, by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than ten years, or by both such fine and imprisonment, and for a second offense, by a fine of not less than $5,000 nor more than $15,000 or by imprisonment for not less than five years nor more than 15 years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
> 
> The provisions of this section shall not apply to: (i) the possession by a law enforcement officer; or (ii) the possession by an individual who is retired from service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited from receiving such a weapon or feeding device from such agency upon retirement
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


Ahhh yes, thank you. I was looking for something definitive such as this. Good call 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## 02136colonel (Jul 21, 2018)

MiamiVice said:


> Section 131M. No person shall sell, offer for sale, transfer or possess an assault weapon or a large capacity feeding device that was not otherwise lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994. Whoever not being licensed under the provisions of section 122 violates the provisions of this section shall be punished, for a first offense, by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than ten years, or by both such fine and imprisonment, and for a second offense, by a fine of not less than $5,000 nor more than $15,000 or by imprisonment for not less than five years nor more than 15 years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
> 
> The provisions of this section shall not apply to: (i) the possession by a law enforcement officer; or (ii) the possession by an individual who is retired from service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited from receiving such a weapon or feeding device from such agency upon retirement
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


So does this only apply to Police Officers covered by LEOSA? The language surrounding the retired guys sounds like LEOSA, but the provision for active duty POs seems more broadly written. Would an SSPO employed by a private institution be able to carry large-capacity mags under MA law? They are a Police Officer but not LEOSA covered


----------



## MiamiVice (May 2, 2002)

02136colonel said:


> So does this only apply to Police Officers covered by LEOSA? The language surrounding the retired guys sounds like LEOSA, but the provision for active duty POs seems more broadly written. Would an SSPO employed by a private institution be able to carry large-capacity mags under MA law? They are a Police Officer but not LEOSA covered


I'd say they are fine in MA, if they have sspo or sheriff powers. But that's my opinion in my town, some hardo in the people's republic may see it differently

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## mpd61 (Aug 7, 2002)

Whoa! Hold on there................
You have to work for a *gov't entity* and *be authorized by them* to carry and make arrests.

Most SSPO's DO NOT qualify, unless you work for a State University or Community College. Remember, You are not employed by the Mass State Police, nor do they issue you your firearm, they issue you a "warrant" with special police powers. Most Boston Specials don't qualify, and 95% of Auxiliaries, etc do NOT qualify under LEOSA either. Sworn means your paycheck needs to be from a Federal, State, County, or municipal entity, and they need to issue you a firearm, and you need powers of arrest while performing that function.

Oh and since it is relevant to the subject;

FUCK SSPO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## patrol22 (Oct 31, 2015)

mpd61 said:


> Whoa! Hold on there................
> You have to work for a *gov't entity* and *be authorized by them* to carry and make arrests.
> 
> Most SSPO's DO NOT qualify, unless you work for a State University or Community College. Remember, You are not employed by the Mass State Police, nor do they issue you your firearm, they issue you a "warrant" with special police powers. Most Boston Specials don't qualify, and 95% of Auxiliaries, etc do NOT qualify under LEOSA either. Sworn means your paycheck needs to be from a Federal, State, County, or municipal entity, and they need to issue you a firearm, and you need powers of arrest while performing that function.
> ...


Doesn't being issued an SSPO warrant count as being authorized by a gov't authority?


----------



## AS4 (Apr 5, 2014)

mpd61 said:


> Whoa! Hold on there................
> You have to work for a *gov't entity* and *be authorized by them* to carry and make arrests.
> 
> Most SSPO's DO NOT qualify, unless you work for a State University or Community College. Remember, You are not employed by the Mass State Police, nor do they issue you your firearm, they issue you a "warrant" with special police powers. Most Boston Specials don't qualify, and 95% of Auxiliaries, etc do NOT qualify under LEOSA either. Sworn means your paycheck needs to be from a Federal, State, County, or municipal entity, and they need to issue you a firearm, and you need powers of arrest while performing that function.
> ...


Agree with all of that as it pertains to being covered under LEOSA, but not when it comes to possessing high cap magazines. I've done a fair amount of research on all of this, and while there is definitely gray area, as long as you are a Law Enforcement Officer with a valid Police ID and the power to make arrests, you are good to carry the high cap magazines it seems. Same when it comes to buying LE only firearms (i.e. glocks)-- any sworn officer with a valid police ID is fine to purchase them. Ironically, that officer can be unarmed at his job (sworn but unarmed campus police) and still be totally fine in purchasing a LE weapon.

Obviously someone like Maura Healey could change all of that by making an example out of someone, but who knows...


----------



## HuskyH-2 (Nov 16, 2008)

Maybe don’t want to advertise that. Just my $0.02


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 38bigblock (Nov 22, 2015)

Don’t we love trying to figure out law written by people who don’t understand what their writing . Who came first? The chicken or the egg?


----------



## mpd61 (Aug 7, 2002)

patrol22 said:


> Doesn't being issued an SSPO warrant count as being authorized by a gov't authority?


Absolutely not. You are NOT employed by, nor issued a weapon by the Mass State Police. That SSPO warrant is worthless in that context. Want Proof? Ask the two Massasoit Police Officers who were left jobless and in limbo by their employing state agency (Massasoit PD) and the Mighty State Police. I am an MSP certified LEOSA Instructor.........Trust me you're stretching.


----------



## mpd61 (Aug 7, 2002)

AS4 said:


> Agree with all of that as it pertains to being covered under LEOSA, but not when it comes to possessing high cap magazines. *I've done a fair amount of research on all of this*, and while there is definitely gray area, as long as you are a Law Enforcement Officer with a valid Police ID and the power to make arrests, you are good to carry the high cap magazines *it seems*. Same when it comes to buying *LE only firearms *(i.e. glocks)-- any sworn officer with a valid police ID is fine to purchase them. *Ironically, that officer can be unarmed at his job (sworn but unarmed campus police) and still be totally fine in purchasing a LE weapon. *
> Obviously someone like *Maura Healey* could change all of that by making an example out of someone, but who knows...


If you think you can easily purchase L.E. Glocks with your "unarmed campus police" or Boston Special ID then please have fun doing that. Atlantic Tactical and most of the rest of the L.E. dealers have recently succumbed to pressure from the Agenda General Maura, and require Department Letterhead certifying duty related purchase for Glocks or Non-compliant high cap pistols. As far as your "fair amount of research" which relates to "gray areas" and "it seems" conclusions, again good luck.

Any unarmed campus person carrying a SIG 226 or Smith M&P with high cap mags is relying on their Class A LTC PLUS some professional courtesy, more than LEOSA or state statutes

As stated above by Husky, it's foolish to identify this in public forum. Fight club rules apply


----------



## 38bigblock (Nov 22, 2015)

mpd61 said:


> If you think you can easily purchase L.E. Glocks with your "unarmed campus police" or Boston Special ID then please have fun doing that. Atlantic Tactical and most of the rest of the L.E. dealers have recently succumbed to pressure from the Agenda General Maura, and require Department Letterhead certifying duty related purchase for Glocks or Non-compliant high cap pistols. As far as your "fair amount of research" which relates to "gray areas" and "it seems" conclusions, again good luck.
> 
> Any unarmed campus person carrying a SIG 226 or Smith M&P with high cap mags is relying on their Class A LTC PLUS some professional courtesy, more than LEOSA or state statutes
> 
> As stated above by Husky, it's foolish to identify this in public forum. Fight club rules apply


100% correct. Unless you are FULL-TIME with a FULL-TIME ID, they won't sell you anything without permission from a Chief or highest ranked member of that agency (Atlantic Tactical) some may not like my next comment but.... I think that's how it should be. I say that because I was an unarmed campus cop, and I worked for free as an auxiliary officer. During my short time in those positions, I met and saw many who shouldn't be able to have those perks. I've also met many who would be the perfect person for those perks, either way, I think I'm starting to get off topic


----------



## AS4 (Apr 5, 2014)

mpd61 said:


> If you think you can easily purchase L.E. Glocks with your "unarmed campus police" or Boston Special ID then please have fun doing that. Atlantic Tactical and most of the rest of the L.E. dealers have recently succumbed to pressure from the Agenda General Maura, and require Department Letterhead certifying duty related purchase for Glocks or Non-compliant high cap pistols. As far as your "fair amount of research" which relates to "gray areas" and "it seems" conclusions, again good luck.
> 
> Any unarmed campus person carrying a SIG 226 or Smith M&P with high cap mags is relying on their Class A LTC PLUS some professional courtesy, more than LEOSA or state statutes
> 
> As stated above by Husky, it's foolish to identify this in public forum. Fight club rules apply





mpd61 said:


> If you think you can easily purchase L.E. Glocks with your "unarmed campus police" or Boston Special ID then please have fun doing that. Atlantic Tactical and most of the rest of the L.E. dealers have recently succumbed to pressure from the Agenda General Maura, and require Department Letterhead certifying duty related purchase for Glocks or Non-compliant high cap pistols. As far as your "fair amount of research" which relates to "gray areas" and "it seems" conclusions, again good luck.
> 
> Any unarmed campus person carrying a SIG 226 or Smith M&P with high cap mags is relying on their Class A LTC PLUS some professional courtesy, more than LEOSA or state statutes
> 
> As stated above by Husky, it's foolish to identify this in public forum. Fight club rules apply


Never said a Boston Special would be able to-- I was talking about an officer who was sworn with a valid police ID. But agree to disagree, and agree on the advertising thing too. I would just say that it's not too hard to call around and see what the various dealers say in regards to this; they make their policies fairly well known/clear


----------



## mpd61 (Aug 7, 2002)

AS4 said:


> I would just say that it's not too hard for *Maura's Minions* to call around and see what the various dealers say in regards to this; they make their policies fairly well known/clear


Reap what you sow dude!


----------



## pahapoika (Nov 5, 2006)

Just wish the state issued the retired LEOSA ID's. Some agencies refuse to hand them out.


----------



## 02136colonel (Jul 21, 2018)

Let's do what we can do to make things better this November... Home

Spread this far and wide, make sure you vote and make sure your conservative family and friends vote. I think there is hope this year


----------



## pahapoika (Nov 5, 2006)

Obviously he has my vote. Be nice to see voters clean house , but it is still Massachusetts


----------



## Mcgarret (Mar 26, 2018)

+1 He's got mine as well.


pahapoika said:


> Obviously he has my vote. Be nice to see voters clean house , but it is still Massachusetts


Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Joe1231913 (Jun 5, 2007)

LEOSA and 131M are totally different animals, you can be exempt under 131M and still not have LEOSA Apply. Perfect example would be a private university police officer.

I have researched this topic, and all my answers have come from the FRB with explanations. I moonlight as an FFL.


----------



## mpd61 (Aug 7, 2002)

Joe1231913 said:


> LEOSA and 131M are totally different animals, you can be exempt under 131M and still not have LEOSA Apply. Perfect example would be a private university police officer.
> 
> I have researched this topic, and all my answers have come from the FRB with explanations. I moonlight as an FFL.


Federally Licensed Dealer + LEOSA instructor ......................
Still, they only hear what they want to hear


----------



## Joe1231913 (Jun 5, 2007)

mpd61 said:


> Federally Licensed Dealer + LEOSA instructor ......................
> Still, they only hear what they want to hear


Oh, and as my Chief once said...fuck sspo.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## msw (Jul 19, 2004)

There is nothing in LEOSA that would allow a "out of state" LEO or QRLEO (qualified retired law enforcement officer) to carry high capacity mags in a state that doesn't otherwise allow it. I am a retired LEO from a Calif Sheriffs Dept, and I regularly travel to see friends and family in MA, NY, and NJ. I take an 8 shot S&W 9mm when I do so because I don't want to run afoul of high cap mag restrictions in states that restrict them. For those of you who might say I'd be exempt per MA law, I'm not so sure: does the MA law exemption for cops cover out of state cops/retired cops? Simpler to just take an 8 shot gun (or even a revolver) and not worry about it. (CA also has a high cap mag prohibition; my advice to LEO's and QRLEO's traveling to CA is similar: don't take the chance of traveling here with high cap mags. Once upon a time, "professional courtesy" might have reigned supreme....... and maybe you'd still be ok, but I'm not so sure anymore, with the New Breed Of Millenial Cops!

There is legislation pending in Congress to amend LEOSA so that state high cap mag restrictions would not apply to LEO's and QRLEO's but I believe it is still stalled in committee.


----------



## HoneyBadger1 (Aug 24, 2012)

38bigblock said:


> 100% correct. Unless you are FULL-TIME with a FULL-TIME ID, they won't sell you anything without permission from a Chief or highest ranked member of that agency (Atlantic Tactical) some may not like my next comment but.... I think that's how it should be. I say that because I was an unarmed campus cop, and I worked for free as an auxiliary officer. During my short time in those positions, I met and saw many who shouldn't be able to have those perks. I've also met many who would be the perfect person for those perks, either way, I think I'm starting to get off topic


Old thread but was talking about LEOSA today.. I don't see how anyone on here supports 2A restrictions in general. I'm sorry but the lack of provisions for campus cops is crazy, tell the campus cops who work in Boston or worked with Collier that they somehow don't qualify as police officers even though they probably make more arrests than my first local department.. The fact remains; armed campus cops and unarmed campus cops are lumped together under the law so I don't care where you work, if you have police powers then you should be exempt from all these senseless restrictions. Civilian 2A rights are trampled in this state and many others so yes I'm fully in favor of allowing anyone a chance at getting past these restrictions whether it be unarmed or armed campus cops.

As for LEOSA, that needs some serious work, Hopefully it's fixed by the time I retire haha because the LEOSA qualifications each year and it's failure to address magazine capacity in clear language is going to be a nightmare if I carry out of state as a retired PO.


----------



## Hush (Feb 1, 2009)

Pandemic, State of Emergency, closures and travel restrictions....the time to worry about how many bullets fit in a magazine has passed. Carry on accordingly.


----------



## Roy Fehler (Jun 15, 2010)

USM C-2 said:


> So when I move back to Mass. in a few years I should just carry on my LEOSA creds, and take a pass on the LTC?


Get the LTC.


----------



## mpd61 (Aug 7, 2002)

*HoneyBadger1 stated:*
_"The fact remains; armed campus cops and unarmed campus cops are lumped together *under the law* so I don't care where you work, if you have police powers then *you should be *exempt from all these senseless restrictions."_

Don't believe ANYBODY here ever stated any anti-2A sentiments or interpretations. if you are referring to LEOSA when you state being "lumped together under the law". that is simply not true. Congress has initially written, and made two(2) distinct revisions (2010 &2013) that somewhat expanded and clarified definition of a qualified LEO under the law. Yes, you are a legitimate cop if you have credentials and make arrests, Hospital, School, Harbor Master, Special, etc.

If you are not authorized to carry and qualified/issued a weapon by your government employer.............NO LEOSA umbrella.
Congress has NOT seen fit to expand FEDERAL LTC-like authorization to thousands of unarmed, and therefore non-trained,
personnel. Not my fault


----------



## Goose (Dec 1, 2004)

Roy Fehler said:


> Get the LTC.


Hell, get a FID too. If you accidentally let your LTC expire or your issuing authority gets a hair across their ass, at least you won't be defenseless in your home.


----------



## Roy Fehler (Jun 15, 2010)

mpd61 said:


> The fact remains; armed campus cops and unarmed campus cops are lumped together *under the law* so I don't care where you work, if you have police powers then *you should be *exempt from all these senseless restrictions.


I disagree.

I've seen MANY auxiliary/reserve/special "police", as well as MANY deputy sheriffs (who got their badge by making a generous campaign contribution to the sheriff) who have police powers, but I wouldn't trust them with sharp scissors, never mind nationwide CCW.

I'm not equating campus police with them, just pointing out the flaw of such a blanket statement.


----------



## AB7 (Feb 12, 2019)

Listen guys I know what I’m talking about, alright.

If you ever get into a situation where the officer is tempering whether your 17 round magazine is legal, all you’ve got to tell him is you know your rights. It’s that simple!


----------



## kdk240 (Nov 7, 2002)

Hush said:


> Pandemic, State of Emergency, closures and travel restrictions....the time to worry about how many bullets fit in a magazine has passed. Carry on accordingly.


I just placed an order for some play ammo, was just told everything was backordered for 10 days. Wtf.


----------



## Hush (Feb 1, 2009)

The time to stock up was a long time ago. The regular places have all extended their wait times, supply has dried up in the popular calibers. One thing I'm glad I stacked deep before I needed it. 

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk


----------



## Hush (Feb 1, 2009)

I am laughing at all the liberals in restrictive states who want to go buy guns and finding out that it's not as easy as they think it should be. Oh well 

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk


----------



## kdk240 (Nov 7, 2002)

Roy Fehler said:


> I disagree.
> 
> I've seen MANY auxiliary/reserve/special "police", as well as MANY deputy sheriffs (who got their badge by making a generous campaign contribution to the sheriff) who have police powers, but I wouldn't trust them with sharp scissors, never mind nationwide CCW.
> 
> I'm not equating campus police with them, just pointing out the flaw of such a blanket statement.


No offense I don't care where you work, full-time, part-time, campus, Sheriff, state, doesn't matter we've all seen some that are quite frightening,. I just came back from a training it was some scary ass people there. Just saying... then again there are those who do work in all the above depth and are on their game


----------



## kdk240 (Nov 7, 2002)

Hush said:


> The time to stock up was a long time ago. The regular places have all extended their wait times, supply has dried up in the popular calibers. One thing I'm glad I stacked deep before I needed it.
> 
> Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk


Yeah well silly me. Still yelling at myself even though I wanted to just to blow some steam.. well I can wait I got plenty of good stuff


----------



## Hush (Feb 1, 2009)

kdk240 said:


> Yeah well silly me. Still yelling at myself even though I wanted to just to play.. well I can wait I got plenty of good stuff


There is no such thing as "enough". But dry fire is good practice, tools like the mantis help. I wish I had more defensive ammo, but by the time I need that it's gotta be pretty bad ammo will be the least of my problems.

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk


----------



## Hush (Feb 1, 2009)

Off topic, but this crisis will revive the .40, plenty of that still around. 

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk


----------



## kdk240 (Nov 7, 2002)

Hush said:


> Off topic, but this crisis will revive the .40, plenty of that still around.
> 
> Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk


I still like the .40.


----------



## Roy Fehler (Jun 15, 2010)

Hush said:


> Off topic, but this crisis will revive the .40, plenty of that still around.
> 
> Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk


The only 40's I like are the ones you drink.


----------



## BxDetSgt (Jun 1, 2012)

AB7 said:


> Listen guys I know what I'm talking about, alright.
> 
> If you ever get into a situation where the officer is tempering whether your 17 round magazine is legal, all you've got to tell him is you know your rights. It's that simple!


If your in that position chances are you have already made some pretty bad life choices and the LEOSA interpretation is the least of your worries.


----------



## kdk240 (Nov 7, 2002)

Roy Fehler said:


> The only 40's I like are the ones you drink.


----------

