# Class A LTC, HR 218, and carrying under the badge ?



## stm4710

Ok I need a clear answer here, cause I have gotten a few polar responses and some not so clear answers from the brass.

I was issuesed a Class A LTC by myhometown with a "No carry concealed" restriction.

So my question is, does the HR 218 and the carrying under the badge over ride the no carrying concealed restrictions imposed by my town.


TIA


----------



## Guest

stm4710 said:


> I was issuesed a Class A LTC by myhometown with a "No carry concealed" restriction.
> 
> So my question is, does the HR 218 and the carrying under the badge over ride the no carrying concealed restrictions imposed by my town.
> TIA


218 covers you under your badge and issued service weapon, or weapons you qualified with at your job that your Chief lets you carry. Nothing to do with a home town license.

I can't believe a town issued a police officer a "No carry concealed" restriction!
What good is it? I would have handed it back and told them to stick it.


----------



## SOT

A small side question how much did you pay for the license? $25 or $100?


----------



## 2-Delta

No carry concealed?! Im assuming that's their way of not allowing you to carry off duty. If you're a cop, I'd be bullshit.


----------



## texdep

Unregistered said:


> I can't believe a town issued a police officer a "No carry concealed" restriction!
> What good is it? I would have handed it back and told them to stick it.


Good question. are you a LE ? As it really does seem to be an unusual restriction to be placed on the LTC.


----------



## SOT

Not in MA, there are a lot of anti-gun CLEO's in MA.


----------



## stm4710

I paid a $100 bucks, I am in LE--a special auxillary in Marblehead and a Harbormaster in Salem both departments are armed, I been to the R/I academy, did the gun training ,got sworn and been on the road/water etc. And both departments were contacted as to my status when my application was being done. So its my understanding I can carry as long as I got my badge, ID and the gun my department carries.



God forbid the police should have guns.... :fire:


----------



## 94c

stm4710 said:


> I paid a $100 bucks, I am in LE--a special auxillary in Marblehead and a Harbormaster in Salem both departments are armed, I been to the R/I academy, did the gun training ,got sworn and been on the road/water etc. And both departments were contacted as to my status when my application was being done. So its my understanding I can carry as long as I got my badge, ID and my the gun my department carries.
> 
> God forbid the police should have guns.... :fire:


Too bad you are NOT POLICE or they would give you a concealed LTC. Don't you get it?


----------



## texdep

SOT_II said:


> Not in MA, there are a lot of anti-gun CLEO's in MA.


I meant an unusual restriction to place on a LEO.


----------



## texdep

stm4710 said:


> I paid a $100 bucks, I am in LE--a special auxillary in Marblehead and a Harbormaster in Salem both departments are armed, I been to the R/I academy, did the gun training ,got sworn and been on the road/water etc. And both departments were contacted as to my status when my application was being done. So its my understanding I can carry as long as I got my badge, ID and the gun my department carries.
> 
> God forbid the police should have guns.... :fire:


I think you are making to big of an assumptions that could get you jammed up. From your message it is apparent the LTC issuing authority does not consider you a LEO off duty....so unless there is a documented written policy at the departments you work for mandating 24/7 carry for individuals in the type of job you're in, you're out of luck.

Give some thought to the worst case scenario. You're involved in an off-duty shooting.(I'm assuming you want to carry because you're planning on using the weapon should the need arise and not just so you can stroke it fondly all day and night long !) You're now at the "wrongful death" trial. The LTC issuing chief is going to testify that the restriction he placed on the LTC was to avoid situations just like that and you were unlawfully carrying the weapon. The departments you work for are going to say you are only to be armed when on duty and you can say you "assumed" anything you want and you're out of luck. MAKE SURE the is WRITTEN Department policy covering Special/auxiliaries.


----------



## SOT

Ohhh I understand, in MA the next town over will not give LTC's for LE that work in other jusrisdictions. It's nuts.

Also read some of the posts here, there are a couple "CLEO's" that post here that don't think cops should be carrying off duty...that citizens shouldn't have that right...bla bla bla.



texdep said:


> I meant an unusual restriction to place on a LEO.


----------



## SOT

That's a big leap and a bit of a straw man argument used often by CLEO's that don't issue.

In MA anyone who passes the background check can get a carry license (Class A ALP)
The liability thing is used by CLEO's that don't want to issue but it's been proven in court that the Town can't be held liable for issuing a ALP to someone that passes the BC.

It would be similar to the RMV issuing a license to a driver then being held liable for that person getting into an accident or for their drunk driving.



texdep said:


> I think you are making to big of an assumptions that could get you jammed up. From your message it is apparent the LTC issuing authority does not consider you a LEO off duty....so unless there is a documented written policy at the departments you work for mandating 24/7 carry for individuals in the type of job you're in, you're out of luck.
> 
> Give some thought to the worst case scenario. You're involved in an off-duty shooting.(I'm assuming you want to carry because you're planning on using the weapon should the need arise and not just so you can stroke it fondly all day and night long !) You're now at the "wrongful death" trial. The LTC issuing chief is going to testify that the restriction he placed on the LTC was to avoid situations just like that and you were unlawfully carrying the weapon. The departments you work for are going to say you are only to be armed when on duty and you can say you "assumed" anything you want and you're out of luck. MAKE SURE the is WRITTEN Department policy covering Special/auxiliaries.


----------



## sureshot

SOT_II said:


> The liability thing is used by CLEO's that don't want to issue but it's been proven in court that the Town can't be held liable for issuing a ALP to someone that passes the BC.


Does anyone have the case law supporting this?


----------



## texdep

SOT_II said:


> That's a big leap and a bit of a straw man argument used often by CLEO's that don't issue.
> 
> In MA anyone who passes the background check can get a carry license (Class A ALP)
> The liability thing is used by CLEO's that don't want to issue but it's been proven in court that the Town can't be held liable for issuing a ALP to someone that passes the BC.
> 
> It would be similar to the RMV issuing a license to a driver then being held liable for that person getting into an accident or for their drunk driving.


SOT_II you're not catching my point. In the scenario I gave, regardless of whether they are right or wrong when all these chiefs are saying STM4710 should not have been armed and he portrayed as a wanker or vigilante do you really believe the jury is going savvy enough to realize what's bs and whats not.

you're giving the wrong analogy. I didn't care about the Town's liability. the similarity is the RMV issuing a DL restricted to daylight hours only and the driver gets into an accident at 1am. The RMV is not liable for anything but.... the driver is for driving when his license was invalid.


----------



## tazoez

Thats ok -- I passed BC and the city where I live stated that "we do not give out ALP, only protection or target/hunting". And that is for Class A. 
My thinking is this, do you think that it criminals will LEGALLY reg their weapons or get a license. and before anyone says it, I am aware that some people after getting an ALP will commit a crime.
The thing I get annoyed at is that "you must show a dire need for a protection license". Ok, from what I gather -- I am supposed to get shot or stabbed before it is necessary. Hope that never happens.


----------



## SOT

I didn't miss the point. I just pointed out that you are saying that by not giving him the ALP, they are somehow reducing their liability. That in many towns, LEO or not doesn't matter, you get ALP. 
As a citizen he should be able to carry concealed if he passes the BC. Simple. If he does something stupid while carrying, that's his problem. Just as if a LEO does something stupid on the job, it's not really an indictment of the whole department, just the officer (well most of the time).
ALP should not just be for police and in fact it was not designed to be and was specifically designed for civilians. Let us pretend this person had no LE affiliation, as long as he passes the BC, meets the state requirements, what is the point of not issuing him an ALP. Every year hundreds of out of state people that apply for ALP and are granted them, no problem. 
Another example: I live in a town, all the towns around me except one issues ALP. The town that continually does not issue ALP has the highest gun crime rate. Now here's the kicker almost to the number every gun crime is committed by a prohibited person that didn't even apply for the license. The CLEO's argument is that if he issues ALP, the Town could be held liable...which is total and utter bullshit. What about the converse liability that he denied a person who was not prohibited from having ALP was left "defenseless" against those who have guns and are not supposed to. 
Lastly, there's nothing to stop me from carrying in the Town legally as I have an ALP from the next town over. So the citizens of town X are treated as second class in their own town. Criminals have the guns and carry, everyone from surrounding towns have guns and can carry...but they can't. They take the same class, they go though the same BC, they pay the same money.

It's the right analogy, If issuing an UNRESTRICTED license, the RMV is not liable for damage done by a citizen driving, then similarly a town issuing an UNRESTRICTED license for carry, is not liable for the after effects. As long as the issuing authority issued the license within the scope of the law.



texdep said:


> SOT_II you're not catching my point. In the scenario I gave, regardless of whether they are right or wrong when all these chiefs are saying STM4710 should not have been armed and he portrayed as a wanker or vigilante do you really believe the jury is going savvy enough to realize what's bs and whats not.
> 
> you're giving the wrong analogy. I didn't care about the Town's liability. the similarity is the RMV issuing a DL restricted to daylight hours only and the driver gets into an accident at 1am. The RMV is not liable for anything but.... the driver is for driving when his license was invalid.


----------



## bluesamurai22

The law is actually very simple. If you meet the broad definition of an LEO in the statute (employee of gov't agency w/powers of arrest) and you comply with all of the other requirements (ex: authorized to carry on duty, qualified under department standards & carry an ID card) then you are covered. Just keep in mind that you are not covered on school campuses in Massachusetts (MGL C. 269 S. 10J), secured areas of airports, military bases or any private place that prohibits firearms on their property.

I think Massachusetts police officers get all hung up on this because the laws are so strict and complicated here. There is also a lack of understanding when it comes to police powers - some people don't understand that part-time or special police officers *are* police officers. There are a few good Mass. SJC cases on extra-jurisdictional arrests that repeatedly point out that being a special in a city or town gives Ch 90 and arrest powers to that person while they are in that city or town.

If I were to encounter someone carrying under this statute I would call and confirm their employment status, make sure they are sober and complying with all other provisions and then send them on their way. Some officers with overactive imaginations will worry about the liability of letting someone walk away with a gun and no Mass. LTC or a restricted Mass. LTC but the law is very clear.

LEO + gun + full compliance with Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004 (AKA: HR 218) = legal.

MGL gives us a lot of leeway to confiscate and temporarily hold firearms but if anyone is stupid enough to arrest another LEO (in compliance with the law) because they are carrying here they would be making a false arrest.

Also - The subject of who does and doesn't get the LE discount often comes up on the firearms list. It tends to be discretionary on the part of a chief but generally anyone who carries on duty and has arrest powers gets it from most places.

*This is what I posted about HR 218 on the Mass. Firearms Yahoo group a while ago:*

Don't overthink the law:

The intent of the law was to let active-duty police officers and officers who retired in good standing legally carry their weapons nearly anywhere in the U.S. On the last two questions I would say the law is pretty straight forward -

There is absolutely no mention of in-state licenses. LEO's don't need an LTC from their home state to carry under the law. They *do* need to meet their department qualifications - So if they are an active LEO they are covered. The easiest way to check if they are covered under the law is to call the employing agency.

Campus police officers working for a "*governmental agency*" would be covered but private campus officers wouldn't be. It looks like Congress forgot the people working for places like HUPD or MITPD.

"...(c) As used in this section, the term `qualified law enforcement officer' means an employee of a

*governmental agency*

who--..."

Here's the full text:

http://www.leaa.org/218/218text.html

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004'.

SEC. 2. EXEMPTION OF QUALIFIED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS FROM STATE LAWS PROHIBITING THE CARRYING OF CONCEALED FIREARMS.

(a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926A the following:

`*Sec. 926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law enforcement officers*

`(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).

`(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that--

`(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or

`(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.

`(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;

`(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.

`(d) The identification required by this subsection is the photographic identification issued by the governmental agency for which the individual is employed as a law enforcement officer.

`(e) As used in this section, the term `firearm' does not include--

`(1) any machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the National Firearms Act);

`(2) any firearm silencer (as defined in section 921 of this title); and

`(3) any destructive device (as defined in section 921 of this title).'.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926A the following:

`926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law enforcement officers.'.

SEC. 3. EXEMPTION OF QUALIFIED RETIRED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS FROM
STATE LAWS PROHIBITING THE CARRYING OF CONCEALED FIREARMS.

(a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is further amended by inserting after section 926B the following:

`Sec. 926C. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified retired law enforcement officers

`(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified retired law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).

`(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that--

`(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or

`(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.

`(c) As used in this section, the term `qualified retired law enforcement officer' means an individual who--

`(1) retired in good standing from service with a public agency as a law enforcement officer, other than for reasons of mental instability;

`(2) before such retirement, was 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 had statutory powers of arrest;

`(3)(A) before such retirement, was regularly employed as a law enforcement officer for an aggregate of 15 years or more; or

`(B) retired from service with such agency, after completing any applicable probationary period of such service, due to a service-connected disability, as determined by such agency;

`(4) has a nonforfeitable right to benefits under the retirement plan of the agency;

`(5) during the most recent 12-month period, has met, at the expense of the individual, the State's standards for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry firearms;

`(6) is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance; and

`(7) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm.

`(d) The identification required by this subsection is--

`(1) a photographic identification issued by the agency from which the individual retired from service as a law enforcement officer 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 agency to meet the standards established by the agency for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm; or

`(2)(A) a photographic identification issued by the agency from which the individual retired from service as a law enforcement officer; and

`(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.

`(e) As used in this section, the term `firearm' does not include--

`(1) any machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the National Firearms Act);

`(2) any firearm silencer (as defined in section 921 of this title); and

`(3) a destructive device (as defined in section 921 of this title).'.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for such chapter is further amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926B the following:

`926C. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified retired law enforcement officers.'.


----------



## texdep

SOT_II said:


> I didn't miss the point. I just pointed out that you are saying that by not giving him the ALP, they are somehow reducing their liability. .


SOT_II yes you did. I was not saying any thing about the Towns liability and for the purposes of this thread don't care. MY POINT was that the issuing authority was signiicantly increasing the liability even if just perceived for stm4710 by putting the restriction on his LTC should he decide to ignore the restriction and carry concealed anyway.

For the record I agree that the retrictions have no impact on the Towns liability.


----------



## Killjoy

There is established case law stating that CLEO's cannot place restrictions on LTC's; they can either issue them or not issue them, but cannot put restrictions on them. It arises from a MSP case of a guy carrying a gun with a Class A LTC with a "target shooting only" restriction...the court decided that CLEO's cannot place restrictions on the license. I can't remember the name the case thought..any help from you legal eagles?


----------



## sureshot

Doesnt MGL state the CLEOs can place restrictions on class A's, and that any violation of a restriction is reason enough to suspend/revoke one's LTC?


----------



## bluesamurai22

With HR 218 an LTC is not even an issue for qualified LEO's, but this is from Chief Glidden on 10/26/2005:

"They can and have appealed for this reason, but I have never heard a case where the judge went against the chief as it is clearly within the description of the chief to place restrictions if he thinks it appropriate. The lead case is Ruggiero v. Police Commissioner of Boston, 18 Mass. App. Ct. 256 (1984).
Applicant was limited to purposes of target practice, hunting and sporting. Commissioner refused to grant a new license to carry for self-protection. Ruggiero challenged the commissioner's authority to issue a license for limited purposes. The Court upheld the Commissioner."



Killjoy said:


> There is established case law stating that CLEO's cannot place restrictions on LTC's; they can either issue them or not issue them, but cannot put restrictions on them. It arises from a MSP case of a guy carrying a gun with a Class A LTC with a "target shooting only" restriction...the court decided that CLEO's cannot place restrictions on the license. I can't remember the name the case thought..any help from you legal eagles?


----------



## 263FPD

Correct me if I am wrong but I thought that HR218 only covers those of us that are full time, sworn LEO's or the retirees that maintain proficiency and training via qualifying with their weapons. I just think that if you travel outside of your state with your weapon to say... New York City, as a reserve or an Auxiliary officer you may find yourself getting jammed up for unlawfully carrying. But then again like I said, correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## bluesamurai22

Read the statute. It doesn't say "full-time", "part-time" or any-time.

I supervise 24 Specials right now - they have the exact same police powers that I do as a F/T Sgt.



263FPD said:


> Correct me if I am wrong but I thought that HR218 only covers those of us that are full time, sworn LEO's or the retirees that maintain proficiency and training via qualifying with their weapons. I just think that if you travel outside of your state with your weapon to say... New York City, as a reserve or an Auxiliary officer you may find yourself getting jammed up for unlawfully carrying. But then again like I said, correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## sureshot

I know HR 218 specifies that you "must be authorized by your department to carry a firearm." 

Does this mean that if you don't qualify with your off-duty gun with your agency, you are not covered under the law? 

For instance, I carry a glock 17 at work and a glock 26 off-duty via LTC (never qualified with the department for the 26) . Does this mean that I am only permitted to carry my 17 out of state and not my 26?


----------



## SOT

That case law is now obsolete as that was regarding the language of the license in question which read "reason for issuance" new legislation changed the reason line to RESTRICTION line, thereby making any new license able to be restricted.



Killjoy said:


> There is established case law stating that CLEO's cannot place restrictions on LTC's; they can either issue them or not issue them, but cannot put restrictions on them. It arises from a MSP case of a guy carrying a gun with a Class A LTC with a "target shooting only" restriction...the court decided that CLEO's cannot place restrictions on the license. I can't remember the name the case thought..any help from you legal eagles?


----------



## Curious EMT

Killjoy said:


> There is established case law stating that CLEO's cannot place restrictions on LTC's; they can either issue them or not issue them, but cannot put restrictions on them. It arises from a MSP case of a guy carrying a gun with a Class A LTC with a "target shooting only" restriction...the court decided that CLEO's cannot place restrictions on the license. I can't remember the name the case thought..any help from you legal eagles?


Isnt that also obsolete becasue at the time of that arrest, "Reason for issue" was the wording on the license and in MGL, but has since changed to "restriction"? Court said "no restriction because that isnt what "T+H" meant, its just why they got it, but there is no restrictions in MGL" But the law has since changed to allowing CLEO's to add a restriction as they see fit, and it is worded as "restriction" on the back of the license?


----------



## id1811xecj

You also have to be "employed" by the government agency. I don't think any auxilliaries and some specials meet that.


----------



## 263FPD

Do you have a policyin your department that states this? My department wants us to qualify with what ever gun that we plan to carry, but at the same time they strongly suggest that the gun and the ammo that we use is what we are issued or they will not readily cover us in an off-duty incident. The chief also has his own rule that in order for us to carry a gun even during working hours, we must have a valid LTC. We had people taken off the road because their LTC expired andthey failed to renew it. They had to work inside minus the gun until such time as the new LTC was issued.



sureshot said:


> I know HR 218 specifies that you "must be authorized by your department to carry a firearm."
> 
> Does this mean that if you don't qualify with your off-duty gun with your agency, you are not covered under the law?
> 
> For instance, I carry a glock 17 at work and a glock 26 off-duty via LTC (never qualified with the department for the 26) . Does this mean that I am only permitted to carry my 17 out of state and not my 26?


----------



## bluesamurai22

It's splitting hairs but the law mentions meeting standards and qualifying with "...a firearm" I would say you should be qualified with whatever gun you carry just to avoid confusing people. If you run into someone who is going to check this far into the issue you have either done something screwy or you are dealing with a real dickhead.

The intent of the law was to allow LEO's to carry nationwide and not have to worry. If every officer just follows the law in it's most simple terms then we will all benefit. As far as I'm concerned any police officer carrying any gun through my town is all set unless he or she is doing something stupid.



sureshot said:


> I know HR 218 specifies that you "must be authorized by your department to carry a firearm."
> 
> Does this mean that if you don't qualify with your off-duty gun with your agency, you are not covered under the law?
> 
> For instance, I carry a glock 17 at work and a glock 26 off-duty via LTC (never qualified with the department for the 26) . Does this mean that I am only permitted to carry my 17 out of state and not my 26?


----------



## texdep

bluesamurai22 said:


> It's splitting hairs but the law mentions meeting standards and qualifying with "...a firearm" I would say you should be qualified with whatever gun you carry just to avoid confusing people. If you run into someone who is going to check this far into the issue you have either done something screwy or you are dealing with a real dickhead.
> 
> The intent of the law was to allow LEO's to carry nationwide and not have to worry. If every officer just follows the law in it's most simple terms then we will all benefit. As far as I'm concerned any police officer carrying any gun through my town is all set unless he or she is doing something stupid.


You seem to have a reasonable attitude about this and I think most feel the same way regarding FULL TIME Police offices. The issue to me is the specials or auxiliaries that are trying to apply these laws to them. stm4710 who started this thread is a good example. His home town chief apparently doesn't consider him a LEO. The chiefs of the departments he works for apparently do not support his off duty carry desire, so he's turning to "carry under the badge"and HR218 to supersede them so he can carry. One of these days he's going to get stopped on the pike or in some city where the officer doesn't consider auxiliaries as PO's, (reading the post's on the board here, you know that there are plenty that feel that way). I would expect that the officer is going to take some action and I don't think the officer is wrong for doing so. Three chiefs have already indicated they do not support his off duty carry and to be blunt I would lean to their feelings on the matter rather then the feeling of an auxiliary who wants to carry his gun 24/7 for reasons he hasn't shared yet.


----------



## extremesgs

I've never seen a state so hung up on Full Time/Part-time/Municipal/Sheriff/State/C.O./Special/College and University/STATE College and University/Auxillary and whatever else is out there....

Granted, part of it goes back to the academies- if the academies are different, those who graduate from them will all be different. 

Some departments are primarily run with part-time officers. Some colleges are much busier than some towns. Then there are colleges that do less than some auxillary guys. Some auxillary officers direct traffic for church on Sundays, some work every weekend and go to calls. Its tough throwing a blanket over the name, when they are all so drasatically different. 

According to a lot of LEO's in this state, a college cop or part time cop is not a cop, even though they lock up more guys than a small town cop. 

Personally, I treat a badge as a badge... unless I find out that they're just "playing cop". I've met college/part-time/auxillary/Sheriff/Specials guys who I'd rather have at my back than some local cops.... 

Who you work for doesn't make you who you are. (but i'm safe! ;-)


----------



## bluesamurai22

I barely have feelings - I like facts.  Funny thing is - I don't even carry off-duty.

I agree that the cards are stacked against the original poster as far as how various chiefs feel about the issue. They might not be right and they might not be too smart but he might be better off just dropping it.

The fact is, despite how anyone feels - if you are employed as an LEO for a gov't agency and you comply with the requirements then you can carry under the law. Period.

If an officer were to arrest someone that they should know is carrying legally under this statute then they open themself and their agency up to a lawsuit. If someone has their panties wadded up over a part-time officer carrying off-duty then they better know the law very well so they don't get themselves jammed up for a false arrest.

I would tell any Chief that if he or she doesn't want his or her part-time officers to be treated like professional police officers then *eliminate them*. Hire them, train them, hold them accountable and treat them like professionals or *get rid of them*. Simple

Also - Just my opinion: Any full-time police officer who doesn't treat a part-time officer (_or a dispatcher, crime analyst, ACO, clerk, firefighter, EMT, or any type of person we commonly work with..._) like a professional doesn't deserve any respect from anyone.



texdep said:


> You seem to have a reasonable attitude about this and I think most feel the same way regarding FULL TIME Police offices. The issue to me is the specials or auxiliaries that are trying to apply these laws to them. stm4710 who started this thread is a good example. His home town chief apparently doesn't consider him a LEO. The chiefs of the departments he works for apparently do not support his off duty carry desire, so he's turning to "carry under the badge"and HR218 to supersede them so he can carry. One of these days he's going to get stopped on the pike or in some city where the officer doesn't consider auxiliaries as PO's, (reading the post's on the board here, you know that there are plenty that feel that way). I would expect that the officer is going to take some action and I don't think the officer is wrong for doing so. Three chiefs have already indicated they do not support his off duty carry and to be blunt I would lean to their feelings on the matter rather then the feeling of an auxiliary who wants to carry his gun 24/7 for reasons he hasn't shared yet.


----------



## texdep

In my posts I was in particular speaking about auxiliaries. I agree with your comments reqarding parttime officers.
Auxiliaries are a differant animal. read the laws. They are only empowerd during a state of emergency or when assigned to a designated training assignment by the chief of police and then only with the powers designated by the chief of police.
Being employed as required by HR218 is also a strectch as again by law Auxiliaries may not be compensated.(in other words cannot be paid.)


----------



## 94c

states can make and interpret laws in a more restrictive sense.

HR218 can say what it wants. But if the Chief says you need a LTC then you need a LTC.


----------



## 94c

another interesting question is what if the chief says to you,
"that weapon you are authorized to carry is property of xyz police department and I do not want you taking it out of state."

now what?


----------



## bluesamurai22

If they aren't employed they aren't covered.

Again, if someone can't be trusted to carry a gun and referred to as a police officer then they should be *eliminated*. Make them a reserve or a special and let them work details or if you only need volunteers pay them a dollar per year. If you don't want them to behave like police officers or call them police officers then make them unarmed security guards or cadets.

I don't know what laws you are talking about because we don't deal with auxilliaries but if it's true that they _can't_ be paid then it seems that some departments better re-think who they allow to work paid details. I'm actually not even sure that any municipal department actually appoints true auxiliary officers any more and I can't find much in the MGL about them (just reference to training and civil defense). Even though some departments still use the incorrect term "Auxiliary" they are actually appointing and swearing in "R*eserve"* or "Special" officers for legal purposes. At least this is what the people at the state accreditation meetings & the MPI lawyers have figured out.



texdep said:


> In my posts I was in particular speaking about auxiliaries. I agree with your comments reqarding parttime officers.
> Auxiliaries are a differant animal. read the laws. They are only empowerd during a state of emergency or when assigned to a designated training assignment by the chief of police and then only with the powers designated by the chief of police.
> Being employed as required by HR218 is also a strectch as again by law Auxiliaries may not be compensated.(in other words cannot be paid.)


----------



## bluesamurai22

Simple, you better follow your chiefs orders or you are subject to discipline.

If their chief really sucks the carrying officer might have a problem with the 3rd subsection but common sense would tell you that the intent was to exclude officers that are currently suspended or facing termination:

_`(3) is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the agency;_

If a chief orders his or her officers to not carry off duty and someone violates that order it should be an issue for unions, disciplinary boards, civil service commissions, labor lawyers and judges to fight over. Besides being arbitrary and capricious, a lot of people would think it's a pretty stupid order that lacks common sense. It could even be argued that it places officers in danger and violates their rights.

As far as violating the criminal law goes while carrying - violating a chiefs orders is a seperate issue. Chiefs might have their own crazy and bizarre ways of interpreting the law but ultimately most police officers have discretion and a judge and jury have the final say.

FWIW:

If another officer is carrying in my jurisdiction - I'm not going to arrest anyone based solely on another chiefs likes and dislikes. If the other chief wants his gun back I will take it but that's all I'm going to do. I'm not going to worry if the officer gets suspended on the spot while I'm there talking to him or her. I would relay the message and take the gun. The disciplinary aspect is going to be their problem to work out. If the officer used his or her gun for a lawful purpose any liability issue is going to be their problem to work out too.

I think we have enough problems with people out there trying to hurt the police. We don't need to be going out of our way to screw each other.

-Just my 2 cents...



94c said:


> another interesting question is what if the chief says to you,
> "that weapon you are authorized to carry is property of xyz police department and I do not want you taking it out of state."
> 
> now what?


----------



## csauce777

texdep said:


> You seem to have a reasonable attitude about this and I think most feel the same way regarding FULL TIME Police offices. The issue to me is the specials or auxiliaries that are trying to apply these laws to them. stm4710 who started this thread is a good example. His home town chief apparently doesn't consider him a LEO. The chiefs of the departments he works for apparently do not support his off duty carry desire, so he's turning to "carry under the badge"and HR218 to supersede them so he can carry. One of these days he's going to get stopped on the pike or in some city where the officer doesn't consider auxiliaries as PO's, (reading the post's on the board here, you know that there are plenty that feel that way). I would expect that the officer is going to take some action and I don't think the officer is wrong for doing so. Three chiefs have already indicated they do not support his off duty carry and to be blunt I would lean to their feelings on the matter rather then the feeling of an auxiliary who wants to carry his gun 24/7 for reasons he hasn't shared yet.


Ok, how about this...I am a part time patrolman in a Non-CS town. I am a member of the patrolmans union, covered by the contract, I am scheduled with the FT guys for regular shifts, sometimes 40 hours a week. For those who are nitpickers, my ID simply says patrolman. My appointed title is part-time patrolman. I am not an auxiliary, wannabe, wacker, etc. Additionally we are issued a firearm and the firearm issue form says on it that the gun is issued for on and off duty use. Do I not qualify for HR218? Mind you, I almost never carry off duty, and I dont plan on traveling with a glock on my hip, I'm just offering this up for conversation. Oh, I also have a Class A ALP LTC.


----------



## SOT

I would say you would meet the requirements of HR218, the Class A LTC is a non starter, in reading the text of the law...it says states can not be more restrictive than HR218 (meaning requiring anything else). SO the fact that you are a police officer issued a badge, gun, and can perform duties as a police officer...you are good to go.

http://www.leaa.org/218/218text.html


----------



## texdep

csauce777 said:


> Ok, how about this...I am a part time patrolman in a Non-CS town. I am a member of the patrolmans union, covered by the contract, I am scheduled with the FT guys for regular shifts, sometimes 40 hours a week. For those who are nitpickers, my ID simply says patrolman. My appointed title is part-time patrolman. I am not an auxiliary, wannabe, wacker, etc. Additionally we are issued a firearm and the firearm issue form says on it that the gun is issued for on and off duty use. Do I not qualify for HR218? Mind you, I almost never carry off duty, and I dont plan on traveling with a glock on my hip, I'm just offering this up for conversation. Oh, I also have a Class A ALP LTC.


I agree with SOT II, I think you're good to go.


----------



## csauce777

csauce777 said:


> Ok, how about this...I am a part time patrolman in a Non-CS town. I am a member of the patrolmans union, covered by the contract, *I am scheduled with the FT guys for regular shifts, sometimes 40 hours a week. *For those who are nitpickers, my ID simply says patrolman. My appointed title is part-time patrolman. I am not an auxiliary, wannabe, wacker, etc. Additionally we are issued a firearm and the firearm issue form says on it that the gun is issued for on and off duty use. Do I not qualify for HR218? Mind you, I almost never carry off duty, and I dont plan on traveling with a glock on my hip, I'm just offering this up for conversation. Oh, I also have a Class A ALP LTC.


I should elaborate...I am not scheduled to work with a FT, what I meant is that the 5 full time guys get their 40 hours (4 & 2) and we are scheduled for everything else.


----------



## sureshot

you get a paycheck... you're fine


----------



## Curious EMT

If the consensus is "If you cary a badge, you're covered under HR218" then what is the mindset in regards to Assaut Weapons?

Are these reserves / auxilaries that are sworn also exempt from the state's AWB?


----------



## Tango16

stm4710 said:


> I paid a $100 bucks, I am in LE--a special auxillary in Marblehead and a Harbormaster in Salem both departments are armed, I been to the R/I academy, did the gun training ,got sworn and been on the road/water etc. And both departments were contacted as to my status when my application was being done. So its my understanding I can carry as long as I got my badge, ID and the gun my department carries.
> 
> God forbid the police should have guns.... :fire:


My department makes part-timers keep their weapons in their lockers. And they spot check.


----------

