# BOSTON PD Acceptance of LEOSA???



## Captain38 (Jun 14, 2005)

I'm a retired out-of-state State Police Captain, a graduate of the FBI National Academy, etc. and now into my third year as a fully certified AND DOCUMENTED "qualified retired law enforcement officer" as defined under Title 18 United States Code Chapter 44 Section 926C, Public Law 108-277, otherwise known as HR 218 or the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004.

My wife and I and another couple will be flying into Logan soon for a four day visit to the Back Bay area of you city. Once on the ground, I will be carrying a concealed handgun as authorized under the federal law mentioned above. 

Please recommend any particular things which I should try to do to insure we have the most pleasant and interesting visit possible.


----------



## HousingCop (May 14, 2004)

*Hey Cap'n.*
*Just keep it concealed, no alcohol while carrying, and stay away from the tall grass in the Fens / Fenway area and you should be fine. *


----------



## Guest (Aug 10, 2007)

mikemac64 said:


> Most large venues search/screen (ie Fenway Park, Gillette Stadium, Garden, etc) for weapons, legal or ilegal. Be aware of this if you plan on attending a game of some type.


Yup....I got searched at Fenway for the first time this year.

Just use common sense; besides the good advice of Housing Cop, mention the fact you're carrying should you be stopped for a traffic violation. Besides officer safety, that's a good introduction to the fact you're a retired police officer, and I think you'll find we treat our brother & sister officers (retired or active) very well in these parts.


----------



## soxrock75 (Jul 26, 2004)

HousingCop said:


> *stay away from the tall grass in the Fens / Fenway area and you should be fine. *


:L:


----------



## MPD119 (May 25, 2006)

Tall grass?..lol do you see any holes? If you turn on the siren, those tall grass will move..lol


----------



## Captain38 (Jun 14, 2005)

Thanks, guys. I'm a teetotaler and don't plan to do anything ungentlemanly while I'm a guest in your city.


----------



## SOT (Jul 30, 2004)

Leave the gun at home. It's the best advice you are ever gonna get.


----------



## Captain38 (Jun 14, 2005)

SOT,

I suspect your "Thread Killa" motto is something you're always trying to live up to. My BS meter is STILL working and I accordingly choose to totally disregard your advise in this instance.


----------



## Killjoy (Jun 23, 2003)

> Just use common sense; besides the good advice of Housing Cop, mention the fact you're carrying should you be stopped for a traffic violation. Besides officer safety, that's a good introduction to the fact you're a retired police officer, and I think you'll find we treat our brother & sister officers (retired or active) very well in these parts.


+1


----------



## SOT (Jul 30, 2004)

You can choose to ignore the advice, won't matter to me...but here's how I see it. 

1. MA is a sucky gun state, now most of the folks here are decent folks who enjoy a gun or two and won't hassle you...BUT that's not to say ALL police in MA are that same way. In fact where you are going, they are decidedly NOT gun friendly.

2. Although the law is pretty clear, MA seems to ignore much of federal law when it comes to firearms (police or not)...and again especially where you are going. For example: Many officers in the Boston area can't get concealed carry licenses in their home town. There are CLEO's in the Boston area and all across MA that don't even want active police officers carrying their guns off duty.

3. The MA Gov, the MA AG are particularly nasty towards guns as is the Boston Mayor. Now ostensibly you being a retired LEO, you're going to come to MA, you won't have a license to possess, and you may have no problem, or you may have lots of problems. You're problems may start at the airport or they may start should someone stop you or complain on down the line. 

Now you say, "Well HR 218 will protect me!"...I assert that in the end it may but it may also cost you a good chunk of change and may ruin your vacation trying to assert that "right". 

Your choice...but there isn't one person here that can guarantee that you will not have problems, but if in the end you just want to here what you want to here...that's fine too. If you spend some time searching the boards you will see some of the fine examples of how the "thin blue line" is pretty thin around some parts of this state. But again 95% of the people are really good egg's here...but there's a lot more assholes in MA than you might imagine...as some are in LE (and a lot are not)...but god help you if you run up against the wrong one....it's gonna cost.



PS it's adviCe not adviSe.


----------



## Guest (Aug 11, 2007)

SOT said:


> Now you say, "Well HR 218 will protect me!"...I assert that in the end it may but it may also cost you a good chunk of change and may ruin your vacation trying to assert that "right".


The resulting civil suit for false arrest will cost an even bigger chunk of change to the police department that's foolish enough to violate federal law. Of the a-hole cops I've come across in all my years (and there haven't been many), I can't think of a single one stupid enough to arrest someone who is complying with the LEOSA.

Rights are like vacation days.....use them, or lose them.


----------



## SOT (Jul 30, 2004)

I will give you a very clear and concise example, leaving out the department to protect the innocent:
6 SWAT team members came up for training, say about May/June. Flew into the same airport, and got jacked pretty hard. Now these aren't retired cops on vacation, these are active police, coming to a training event, scheduled here, authorized by an agency in MA.
They fly in, get jacked, all declared weapons are confiscated, TSA and another agency held them for like 5 hours. They were finally told they could leave but leave the weapons with TSA and pick them up on their way out of MA.

Big whoops sorry at the end of the day...no lawsuits, just a real PITA because they were going to use their guns for the training.

For the record, I'm not trying to bust stones here...I'm just saying that I have seen VERY different...and not all LE in MA are as in turn with the reality of firearms as most here.


----------



## Killjoy (Jun 23, 2003)

> I will give you a very clear and concise example, leaving out the department to protect the innocent:
> 6 SWAT team members came up for training, say about May/June. Flew into the same airport, and got jacked pretty hard. Now these aren't retired cops on vacation, these are active police, coming to a training event, scheduled here, authorized by an agency in MA.
> They fly in, get jacked, all declared weapons are confiscated, TSA and another agency held them for like 5 hours. They were finally told they could leave but leave the weapons with TSA and pick them up on their way out of MA.


Were they _carrying weapons_ or had weapons _checked into their luggage_? Big difference...HR 218 grants no specific powers for police to carry on a commercial airliner. The FAA grants carry powers only to federal agents or _specifically authorized_ state and local officers. This means the officer has attended a federal agent aircraft carry course, and has some specific reason to be carrying on a commercial aircraft (i.e. transporting a prisoner, actively working with fed task force, etc.) When I travel, I check my piece with my luggage, and I haven't had a hiccup yet in any airport from Logan to San Diego, and many places in between.

If there weapons were checked and declared, as per federal regulations, I would being calling an attorney with a false arrest civil lawsuit versus whatever department confined or delayed me. Departments can be as anti-gun in their attitude as they want, but they can't break the law in their zeal, no more than I could put someone in jail for having a broken taillight.


----------



## SOT (Jul 30, 2004)

The weapons were checked, when they landed they waited for their declared and checked guns at the baggage area, they never came. The immediately went to lost luggage and were then told that their guns had arrived, but they could not take possession of them in MA. Bla bla bla...training...bla bla bla LE...bla bla bla...authorized training....bla bla bla...no dice. As a courtesy, the guns would be held until they were ready to leave and would be checked back onto an outgoing flight.


----------



## OutOfManyOne (Mar 2, 2006)

Again it goes to show you that Massachusetts is different and could care less about federal laws. Remember that states can supersede federal law by allowing their citizens more protections via state laws. State can argue that their stricter gun laws offer a greater protection to its citizens and that's it.State's arguement would be weak in this case, obviously these are LEOs going for training but you are taking a chance with HR218 as a shield against state laws. I found that people can sue for whatever and whoever they want, but how many actually win and at what cost. Not worth it.


----------



## USMCTrooper (Oct 23, 2003)

I might have missed it but the Captain did say he was _flying_ into Logan. How was he planning on getting into the airport and on the plane? I would think the first hurdle is the airline, followed by the TSA, then the Police.

I concur, it seems like a pain. I'd leave it home.


----------



## SOT (Jul 30, 2004)

I think there's actually preemption language in HR218, states can't negate it. If they do it would be one hell of a court battle. But more to the point, while on vacation, do you want to be the test case? Maybe he does, and kudos to him...somebody's got to do it.


----------



## Guest (Aug 13, 2007)

SOT said:


> The weapons were checked, when they landed they waited for their declared and checked guns at the baggage area, they never came. The immediately went to lost luggage and were then told that their guns had arrived, but they could not take possession of them in MA. Bla bla bla...training...bla bla bla LE...bla bla bla...authorized training....bla bla bla...no dice. As a courtesy, the guns would be held until they were ready to leave and would be checked back onto an outgoing flight.


Who kept the weapons, TSA or a police agency?


----------



## Captain38 (Jun 14, 2005)

Yes, I agree that there are NO guarantees in life ,and YES, I pay my nickle and take my chances! I've done this LEOSA bit in NYC and Chicago and I can't THINK Boston will pose any more hurtles than either of those. "Leave it at home"? Not an option! Ready or not, HERE I COME!

Knowing exactly all along what I was going to do, why DID I ask in the first place? In hind sight, that's a GOOD question!


----------



## SOT (Jul 30, 2004)

I think TSA kept them as the other agency involved wanted nothing to do with the situation. Which sort of put TSA out in front of enforcing a state law...but I'd really have to check as to who initiated the issue. I do know for a fact the receipt for the equipment was from the TSA. I figured that on the outside chance I could have had them transfered to me but no such luck.



Delta784 said:


> Who kept the weapons, TSA or a police agency?


I'd be interested in seeing what happens. Good luck! Report back when you get the chance...as many details as possible.
My guess (besides on the road) is that you would have your problems right in the airport.



Captain38 said:


> Yes, I agree that there are NO guarantees in life ,and YES, I pay my nickle and take my chances! I've done this LEOSA bit in NYC and Chicago and I can't THINK Boston will pose any more hurtles than either of those. "Leave it at home"? Not an option! Ready or not, HERE I COME!
> 
> Knowing exactly all along what I was going to do, why DID I ask in the first place? In hind sight, that's a GOOD question!


----------



## OutOfManyOne (Mar 2, 2006)

SOT, were the weapons full-auto,3 shot burst etc. That could be why they would not allow them in MA.


----------



## SOT (Jul 30, 2004)

There were a smattering of everything but the handguns where checked by each officer coming here, and nothing was allowed in.


----------



## justanotherparatrooper (Aug 27, 2006)

Ya'll gotta get rid of those assholes in your state Govt' and their anti civil rights stance!


----------



## Guest (Aug 13, 2007)

SOT said:


> I think TSA kept them as the other agency involved wanted nothing to do with the situation.


That explains a lot. Have you ever dealt with TSA screeners? 

TSA has no jurisdiction or business deciding who can possess weapons in Massachusetts or any other state. If they want to ban all firearms on commercial planes, then good luck to them.

What they did in this case would be like Massachusetts setting-up a checkpoint at the New Hampshire border and telling everyone to leave their guns in Massachusetts. It makes no sense whatsoever.

I hope those officers speak to a good attorney.


----------



## cj3441 (Oct 14, 2004)

What is the old saying..... better to beg for forgiveness than ask for permission.


----------



## Captain38 (Jun 14, 2005)

SOT said:


> I'd be interested in seeing what happens. Good luck! Report back when you get the chance...as many details as possible.
> My guess (besides on the road) is that you would have your problems right in the airport.


That's the least I can do. My telephone conversation with a Sergeant assigned to the Massachusetts State Police detail at Logan was encouraging.


----------



## Captain38 (Jun 14, 2005)

My visit went VERY WELL, just as expected. I flew into and out of Logan via American Airlines with a declared firearm in my checked baggage without any problems. Unfortunately, I did NOT have the opportunity to make contact with any members of the Massachusetts State Police detail there but did talk with one young member of the Boston Police and a retired Newton LEO while in the city. 

As authorized under LEOSA, I successfully carried a concealed firearm throughout my stay in the city and look forward to future visits to Beantown. 

I wish the Bosox the best in the playoffs beginning tonight!


----------



## PearlOnyx (Jun 28, 2002)

Captain,

That's good to hear. I'm flying home in November, and I have a lot of the same concerns, with Massachusetts being the way it is.


----------

