This is REALLY pissing me off! NYC lets their Officers carry off-duty for God's sake!

Our Chief seems to think that Dept policy over-rides both State and Fed law. According to our policy, we are NOT allowed to carry outside our city unless on Dept business in uniform. If on Dept business out of uniform, we're NOT allowed to carry.

I contacted the Union rep when Ohio passed CCW and the Chief wouldn't let us carry, even if we went and got a license, and now I can't get ahold of him again to bitch about this! This SUCKS!!!

Bub

Bub,

Your chief sucks.  My department has nothing released on this yet, and most of them seem unaware, which isn't anything new....

All we got was an email an a talk from our legal advisor telling us about the law. There was nothing mentioned about verifying and all that jazz.

bub75-

Your chief sounds like an arrogant, clueless asshole.  Dept policy does not override federal law.  He cannont forbid you to carry, but they can refuse to indemnify you in any civil action from your use of force outside of your juridiction.  I'm sure a very good argument could be made that this policy now violates your civil rights under federal law.  Time for the union to play hardball with this asshole.  

Wave-

Thanks for the post.  I have been waiting for some official memo from our brass as to the passing or an addendum to our GO's to adress it.  Nothing has been put out yet.  Stranger than that is about 90% of my partners have no clue about the issue at all! I'm working on that, tho.

Bub75-

I hope to hell your union will step up to the plate and take care of that bullshit.  Would this be something you could bring up to the city council/board of supervisors as a unit?  Good luck and keep us up to date.

I had a meeting with our DA today about a number of items that aren't related to LEO CCW, however I asked him about it regarding implementation and he had never heard about it. In fairness to him, he was in Canada for a DA's conference for a week, at the DNC for a week and pretty much had been out of touch for general things for a period of ~3 weeks. He handed it off (I gave him a printout from the LEAA site) to a MA State Trooper assigned to the DA's office and the Trooper also seemed unaware of it.

In a quick perusal, the DA said that what he read seemed to indicate to him that MA Law will "over-rule" this Fed law!

Also, on a MA LE restricted eList that I participate in, there seemed to be a feeling from some chiefs and/or firearms licensing officers that MA will do something to challenge the new law! MA Chiefs Assn (MCOPA) was dead set against this law and previously voted accordingly.

Since our chief is anti-RKBA and actually admitted to me that he hates guns, wished that he didn't have to carry one, etc. I expect that he will do what he can to prevent his officers from CCW'g (most wouldn't CCW even locally when off duty, never mind when traveling). I also expect that he'll refuse to issue proper credentials to retirees so that they would be qualified under the law. I know of at least one retired local officer (a close personal friend) who was forceably retired after injuries sustained in an on-duty auto accident (cruiser was rear-ended as he stopped to let someone cross the street, totaled cruiser, radar unit flew off dashboard striking officer in head causing brain injury, etc.), the chief confiscated his LTC (MA CCW permit), his ID/badges, uniforms, etc. and refused to re-issue him a LTC or a retired ID (and this was a number of years ago). BTW, the local union wasn't worth squat in helping him . . . with a 26 person department all union officers are working POs and would incur the wrath of the chief if they stood up to him! Said officer has since moved to a free state (NH) and is finally enjoying his retirement (except for the medical issues he was left with due to injuries).

As for this law, I'm in a precarious position. I served as a sworn Reserve PO for 17 years (now retired), academy certified, used to be semi-annual firearms qualification, etc. but this union-written law doesn't apply since even our paid work (details and shifts) didn't qualify us for any pension rights. For the past 5 years I am a Constable, appointed by the town with full police powers. We are law enforcement but the chief won't issue any IDs since we don't work for him (I actually report to the Town Administrator/Selectmen, same as the Chief). Technically we should qualify under HR 218, but most POs don't recognize Constables (at least in MA) as LEOs so there is likely to be trouble if we operate under HR218!

The NY memo seems to imply that they intend for the officer to confiscate the gun, perhaps detain the visiting LEO and force the visiting LEO to go back to NYPD to retrieve the gun once he is cleared!

Great! This will go a long way to dissuade any visiting LEO from CCW'g in NYC! And if implemented this way, probably result in retribution against visiting NYPD officers by other agencies!

Don't you just love the "brotherhood" . . . at least as envisioned by the brass desk jockeys?

I was thinking/saying that when I read the FINEST message.  Some poor shlub form some Law Enforcement Agency is going to have his ass handed to him, proned out on the ground, cuffed and stuffed until they find out he IS a deputy sherriff.

(edited to add: I don't know if it's a good idea posting our FINEST messages on the WEB, but I'm still a rookie.)

Some poor shlub is going to have his ass handed to him, proned out on the ground, cuffed and stuffed until they find out he IS a law abiding citizen.

Dude...........deal with it like the rest of us......

The federal statute quite clearly says that it overrules state and local law.  As far as anti-gun chiefs refusing to give retired officers ID, not much the feds can do about it- that issue would have to be dealt with locally.  

As far as officers being detained, having their weapons seized, and having to go back and get them, I doubt that will happen all that often.  If the traveling officer is carrying their department-issued ID card as provided by the law, it should only take a telephone call to that officer's agency to confirm that they are indeed an officer in good standing who is authorized to carry a firearm on the job.  Holding an officer and/or their weapon beyond that point would place the holding agency and officer in some civil jeopardy, as there would no longer be PC to detain them as long as they were not in violation of any of the other provisions of the federal law (not intoxicated or in a prohibited place as listed in the federal statute.

Realistically, this should not be a problem except in extremely anti-gun jurisdictions.  I'm sure some of them will try to fuck a few officers over just to prove that they can, but as long as the officer is in compliance with federal law that jurisdiction will most likely get their asses handed to them both civilly and possibly criminally, depending on how far they go.  If you as an officer are doing things correctly, nobody should even know you're armed until you have to use it, just like a non-LEO with a CCW.  And yes, if you use it you will  most likely be proned out and cuffed until the responding officers figure out what's going on.  That's what you would do, right?

Sparky,

Another non-trivial matter relates to small departments like mine. At 5PM ALL admin leave the PD! If you call the PD at 10:30PM to inquire about someone who retired 10 years ago, the dispatcher is VERY unlikely to even be able to recognize the name. She will also have NO access to any of the administrative data to prove that the person is compliant (pension, >15 years, etc.).

I joined our PD as a Reserve PO in 1978 and left it in 1996, less than 1/2 the officers and 3 dispatchers know me (due to retirements, 2 cycles of new officers, etc.). In another 5-10 years the only one who is likely to know me is the chief! And that even considers that I'm a working Constable and still have some small interaction with the PD.

So NYPD makes a call to our PD late some Friday evening asking about retired Officer so-and-so. The dispatcher says "never heard of him"! Now (per the memo) NYPD locks the retired officer up, confiscates the gun, arraigns him on the Sullivan Act, etc. Perhaps on Monday it all gets sorted out, the officer gets "unarrested" and everyone is supposed to be happy?? I say not! I'd think that the home PD dispatcher gets sued along with the former PD, NYPD for false arrest, etc. OBTW, not sure how it works in NY, but in MA an arrest will haunt the person for the rest of their lives. MA does NOT expunge an arrest from someone's record, even if the charges are found to be bogus! [I know someone this happened to. The guy is an asshole that pissed off the PD so they busted him on phony charges (as Joseph Wambaugh called it "contempt of cop") of "criminal trespass" in the police station while he was trying to file a complaint against some officers at the front window.]

nothing announced here...  of course my state already honors all police IDs from other jurisdictions  (from any other state) so nothing changes for us.

Quoted: (edited to add: I don't know if it's a good idea posting our FINEST messages on the WEB, but I'm still a rookie.)

Doesn't appear to have any sensative materal in it.  All it says is that if you're an LEO carrying concealed, and come in contact with NYPD, this is how they'll treat you.  
No big secret.  I imagine most large city departments will have similar policies, while some of the smaller ones will probably let you fly on just creds and a badge.  

Quoted: Quoted: The NY memo seems to imply that they intend for the officer to confiscate the gun, perhaps detain the visiting LEO and force the visiting LEO to go back to NYPD to retrieve the gun once he is cleared! Great! This will go a long way to dissuade any visiting LEO from CCW'g in NYC! And if implemented this way, probably result in retribution against visiting NYPD officers by other agencies! Don't you just love the "brotherhood" . . . at least as envisioned by the brass desk jockeys? Any police officer who thinks that Los Angeles, New York, Detroit, DC etc isn't going to try to do SOMETHING to discourage you from carrying there is niave, I think. As far as I know this statute provides no protection for carrying hi cap leo mags where not allowed (a felony in all of NY state) or hollow points where not allowed (I think that's a misdemeanor in Jersey and NYC). And thinking that "brothers in arms" will protect you--well all it will take is a memo saying that anyone not following the rules will lose a day or two seniority, some guys will still try to do the right thing, but a lot won't. Edit I didn';t know about the requirement that retired guys continue to meet state qualification requirements. How many guys are going to do that?

I used to live outside Detroit, don't think it's gonna be an issue there.  It really wasn't an issue before this law passed.  NY, LA, maybe.  I can definitely see an anti-gun jurisdiction trying to jam an officer up for carrying hi-caps or hollowpoints were they are illegal.  The solution to that, as I see it, is to be aware of such restrictions wherever you are carrying and obey them.  My out of state CCW gun is going to be a very lightly customized Springfield Armory Mil-spec with a couple of spare 8-round mags.  That way I'll never have to worry about mag restrictions, and if I go to NJ or anywhere else there's a hollowpoint ban I'll just run ball ammo.  I won't make any modifications I can't easily defend in court, and it's not a spendy custom gun so I won't cry if it gets put into evidence for a decade or so.  However, being given authority by the feds to carry a concealed weapon also implies the authority to possess said weapon in spite of local laws.  Magazines and ammunition are part of the weapon, and I think a sharp attorney could make an argument that local restrictions on hi-cap mags or hollowpoints also don't apply under this law.  And no, I don't want to be the test case.

I think some of you guys are trying to 'what if' this thing to death.  Here's how I see it:  cops carry guns.  I can't think of any agency that issues non-gun-carrying non-LE people ID cards that say "Joe Snuffy is a police officer for the XYZ PD".  Mine, for example, lists my department name at the top, then has my photo and says "This is to certify that (Sparky315) is a duly commissioned and sworn Police Officer".  On the back it lists my date of employment, birth date, sex, height, weight, eye and hair color.  This card indicates to me, and I think to any thinking adult, that I'm a sworn police officer who is authorized to carry a gun.  If I weren't, the card would say "Janitor" or "Civil process server" or something like that.  If I get suspended (become 'the subject of disciplinary action'), they take my ID and badge.  Likewise, if I fail to qualify with my sidearm.  I think that's pretty standard.  Hence, if I have my badge and ID, I'm probably not on suspension or carrying a rubber gun.  Hence, my ID is pretty much prima facia evidence that I'm a gun-carrying law enforcement officer.  I'm only required to carry my department-issued ID when carrying out of state- not a letter from the chief or anyone else that I'm in good standing or currently qualified with my weapon.  The possession of the ID card implies both, and another agency is going to have a very hard time justifying detaining me while they try to get ahold of my agency to determine the last time I qualified with my pistol.  If they want to over my objections, fine- I can file a 1983 suit just as well as any con.


As far as the retirees, again having an ID card that lists you as a retiree from XYZ PD is good evidence that you are honorably retired.  The card should list your dates of service, which takes care of the 15-year requirement.  If it doesn't, that's easy to change.  People who don't honorably retire or retire for reasons of mental instability generally don't get retirement ID cards.  If you are carrying a retirement ID card that shows you had 15+ years in and have a certificate proving you qualified with your handgun within the last year, that is all the law requires and you should be good to go.  Again, an agency that stretched this and detained an officer overnight until they could get someone on the horn from your previous agency to verify your ID would be looking at a pretty good lawsuit.  Especially if there is a memo directing officers to do this with retired or out of state LEO's- I'd LOVE to give a copy of that to my attorney.  They'd be renaming the town "Sparkyville" by the time we were done.

As far as you guys whose chiefs are anti-gun or against this legislation and won't give you the necessary retirement ID, can't help ya.  The feds won't (can't) force them to- you're gonna have to deal with it through your unions or your attorneys.

Just to futher knit pick, IF you belong to a Dept. that requires you to carry your issue weapon with issued duty ammunition (JHP), how would capacity/hollow point bans affect H.R.218?

.

Quoted: Some poor shlub is going to have his ass handed to him, proned out on the ground, cuffed and stuffed until they find out he IS a law abiding citizen. Dude...........deal with it like the rest of us......

Don't paraphrase my statements and take them out of context.  This was a discussion of the effects of the Nationwide LE Concealed Carry.

My experience is you often run into leos from your own state with creds you don't recognize but if the creds look good and the guy sounds ok there is no further action.  If the guy acts like an asshole or doesn't seem legit than further investigation is warranted.  

I cannot believe the NYPD seroiusly expects its officers to take custody of weapons and then to verify every out of state leo they come accross.  Those bullitons are cya departmental protocals that are unlikely to be followed.

Sounds very New Yorkish.
Welcome to Arizona, where all are welcome to carry a gun.

Jay

Quoted: My experience is you often run into leos from your own state with creds you don't recognize but if the creds look good and the guy sounds ok there is no further action.  If the guy acts like an asshole or doesn't seem legit than further investigation is warranted.   I cannot believe the NYPD seroiusly expects its officers to take custody of weapons and then to verify every out of state leo they come accross.  Those bullitons are cya departmental protocals that are unlikely to be followed.

The directives were probably mandated from suites above the brass that are stuck in the big city mindset that still believes "guns cause crime" regardless of who has them.  

Thank for starting this thread Wave. I'm following this very closely. A friend and student of mine is running for Constable. Here in AZ that qualifies as a peace officer with power of arrest. If he wins he is going to appoint me as a deputy. My primary reason for doing this is for the ability to carry nation wide. It looks like if coming to N.Y. it would be a good idea to make sure there is someone availabe 24/7 to verify status. I also am very curious about CA. I have heard that while off duty, officers in CA have to turn in hi-cap mags and carry post ban mags in order to avoid commiting a felony. It also looks like some cities will not honor P.L.108-277 at all. I guess the bottom line is to check with the jurisdiction you plan to travel to. It's too bad they didn't make P.L.108-277 supercede local and state laws. As usual the places with the highest crime rates seem to be the hardest on legal cary.

Wave and the rest that asked,

Yes, the Chief is a fat, opinionated, lazy, procrastinating, anti-gun, left-leaning assclown. He's almost been fired a couple times because of his mentality and laziness and he's only been Chief for about 2 1/2 years. It's his opinion that just because he's never felt the need for a weapon while off-duty that no one that works for him needs one, either. While he was a patrolman, he screwed off for his entire 10 hour shift and, in the 4 or 5 years he was a Patrolman, I think he only arrested 2 or 3 people. The rest of us usually arrest 3 or 4 people a month (small town, not much goes on) and routinely see our arrestees while off-duty. A few of them are capable of violence if their mind is set on it, I'm sure you guys know what I mean. Policy hasn't come down yet about the Fed law, but I'm betting it will say that any armed off-duty Officers we come across will have to be disarmed and the weapon locked up till our Chief has a chance to talk to the other Officer's Chief, which could take days, the way our Chief is.

As an example of how bad things are, one of our Officers had recent, documentable training not given by our Dept and applied for an Ohio CCW permit. According to the Chief and the head Firearms Instructor, he's not allowed to carry outside the City while off-duty, even with the permit. They say that Dept policy over-rides State and Fed law, dontcha know. The Admin won't allow us to use our bi-annual qualifications to bypass the training requirement for the Ohio CCW permit process, either. They won't issue a letter stating that we had the training so the training never occurred from the State's viewpoint, meaning that we now have to shell out $150-$200 for the training for a permit that we're not allowed to use anyway. I'd hoped that, with the advent of the Fed law, this would go away, but no. According to the Admin, Dept police over-rides Fed law, as well. They won't listen, getting angry and telling us to drop it when we try to bring it up. As I said above, I've tried to contact the Union rep and he won't return phone calls, the assclown.

Also, according to Ohio's CCW law, as a State-Certified revolver, semi-auto pistol and shotgun instructor, I'm qualified to teach the CCW course. However, according to the Admin, since the Dept paid for all the training, the Dept has a right to say if I can teach the coure or not and they expressly forbid it. I have to get written permission from the Admin before instructing anyone but our Officers. I've offered to reimburse the City for the training, hoping that this would release me from this restriction, to no avail. The Admin feels that they have sole possession of the info in my head and my signature! Again, the Union rep won't return phone calls about this, either.

All in all, this Dept just plain SUCKS! We've gone from 9 full-timers 2 1/2 years ago when I got hired full-time to 6, including the Chief. Part-timers fill all the shifts that used to be filled by full-timers. He won't stand up for us in City Council, simply taking what they say or give him, or take away from him, meekly and not protesting. He then bitches to us about how hard he has it and how easy we have it. When I got hired full-time, I would have stormed the gates of Hell with a bucket of warm spit for him. Now, I wouldn't cross the street to piss on him if he were on fire. The rest of the Officers feel the same way. Needless to say, Dept morale is non-existant.

I keep trying once or twice a week to contact the Union rep, with no luck. I hope he calls back soon. I'm carrying off-duty anyway and would like this problem resolved soon, before I end up getting busted and fired.

Sorry for the rant, guys. I just needed to vent a little. I wish all those that don't have an assclown for a Chief good luck. Oh, and if anyone knows of any small towns either in Ohio or that will accept Ohio Peace Officer certification and are hiring full-time, regardless of location, I'd really like to hear about it. God knows I'm fed up with this place! I just want to do my job without a whole lot of politics and interference by the Admin!

Bub

Quoted: Wave and the rest that asked, Yes, the Chief is a fat, opinionated, lazy, procrastinating, anti-gun, left-leaning assclown. He's almost been fired a couple times because of his mentality and laziness and he's only been Chief for about 2 1/2 years. It's his opinion that just because he's never felt the need for a weapon while off-duty that no one that works for him needs one, either. While he was a patrolman, he screwed off for his entire 10 hour shift and, in the 4 or 5 years he was a Patrolman, I think he only arrested 2 or 3 people. The rest of us usually arrest 3 or 4 people a month (small town, not much goes on) and routinely see our arrestees while off-duty. A few of them are capable of violence if their mind is set on it, I'm sure you guys know what I mean. Policy hasn't come down yet about the Fed law, but I'm betting it will say that any armed off-duty Officers we come across will have to be disarmed and the weapon locked up till our Chief has a chance to talk to the other Officer's Chief, which could take days, the way our Chief is. As an example of how bad things are, one of our Officers had recent, documentable training not given by our Dept and applied for an Ohio CCW permit. According to the Chief and the head Firearms Instructor, he's not allowed to carry outside the City while off-duty, even with the permit. They say that Dept policy over-rides State and Fed law, dontcha know. The Admin won't allow us to use our bi-annual qualifications to bypass the training requirement for the Ohio CCW permit process, either. They won't issue a letter stating that we had the training so the training never occurred from the State's viewpoint, meaning that we now have to shell out $150-$200 for the training for a permit that we're not allowed to use anyway. I'd hoped that, with the advent of the Fed law, this would go away, but no. According to the Admin, Dept police over-rides Fed law, as well. They won't listen, getting angry and telling us to drop it when we try to bring it up. As I said above, I've tried to contact the Union rep and he won't return phone calls, the assclown. Also, according to Ohio's CCW law, as a State-Certified revolver, semi-auto pistol and shotgun instructor, I'm qualified to teach the CCW course. However, according to the Admin, since the Dept paid for all the training, the Dept has a right to say if I can teach the coure or not and they expressly forbid it. I have to get written permission from the Admin before instructing anyone but our Officers. I've offered to reimburse the City for the training, hoping that this would release me from this restriction, to no avail. The Admin feels that they have sole possession of the info in my head and my signature! Again, the Union rep won't return phone calls about this, either. All in all, this Dept just plain SUCKS! We've gone from 9 full-timers 2 1/2 years ago when I got hired full-time to 6, including the Chief. Part-timers fill all the shifts that used to be filled by full-timers. He won't stand up for us in City Council, simply taking what they say or give him, or take away from him, meekly and not protesting. He then bitches to us about how hard he has it and how easy we have it. When I got hired full-time, I would have stormed the gates of Hell with a bucket of warm spit for him. Now, I wouldn't cross the street to piss on him if he were on fire. The rest of the Officers feel the same way. Needless to say, Dept morale is non-existant. I keep trying once or twice a week to contact the Union rep, with no luck. I hope he calls back soon. I'm carrying off-duty anyway and would like this problem resolved soon, before I end up getting busted and fired. Sorry for the rant, guys. I just needed to vent a little. I wish all those that don't have an assclown for a Chief good luck. Oh, and if anyone knows of any small towns either in Ohio or that will accept Ohio Peace Officer certification and are hiring full-time, regardless of location, I'd really like to hear about it. God knows I'm fed up with this place! I just want to do my job without a whole lot of politics and interference by the Admin! Bub

Sounds like you need to become the union rep.  No I'm not kidding.  If things are as bad as you say, you should have no trouble getting yourself elected.  Go for it.  Then you will have the ability to make change w/out becoming the Chief.

Quoted: Thank for starting this thread Wave. I'm following this very closely. A friend and student of mine is running for Constable. Here in AZ that qualifies as a peace officer with power of arrest. If he wins he is going to appoint me as a deputy. My primary reason for doing this is for the ability to carry nation wide. It looks like if coming to N.Y. it would be a good idea to make sure there is someone availabe 24/7 to verify status. I also am very curious about CA. I have heard that while off duty, officers in CA have to turn in hi-cap mags and carry post ban mags in order to avoid commiting a felony. It also looks like some cities will not honor P.L.108-277 at all. I guess the bottom line is to check with the jurisdiction you plan to travel to. It's too bad they didn't make P.L.108-277 supercede local and state laws. As usual the places with the highest crime rates seem to be the hardest on legal cary.

It DOES supercede state and local laws- that's the whole point.  You DO NOT need permission from the jurisdictions you are visiting to carry, and they DO NOT have the authority to not honor it.  

Sparky you are right, the Federal law does supersede local and state laws therefore the officer can carry off duty as this is his right however he does not have a right to be a LEO.  This is the excuse that Departments use to enforce administrative issues which are more restrictive than applicable laws and ordinances.  As a consequence, he cannot be arrested for his exercise of federal rights, he can however be reprimanded for his refusal to follow directives. Catch 22

True, but the argument can be made that the department is violating the officer's civil rights by disciplining him for exercising the privilege granted by federal law.  I bet a number of departments will end up getting sued by their officers and/or unions over this issue.

Another potential tactic for officers in agencies that put up roadblocks to their carrying under this law is to contact the LEAA and the congress folks who sponsored the bill. Those agencies could conceivably find themselves ineligible for accreditation or in jeopardy of losing theirs if they already have it. Likewise, federal grant money could be tied to not restricting officers' ability to carry. Would take work, but it's certainly within the realm of possibility.

According to my supervisor he was told that IL. Dept. of Corrections does not believe it's correctional officers and Parole Agents are covered by this. I believe they are wront especially for Parole Agents but what can a guy do. Agents are required to carry whenever on duty and have arrest powers over parolees, inmates and escapees but they have never been authorized to carry off duty.  Any advice would be appreciated.

They don't have to be authorized by their agency to carry off duty.  If they are authorized by their agency to carry on duty and can investigate and make arrests, I think they'll be covered.  The law DOES NOT require that the individual be authorized to carry OFF DUTY by their agency.

In the e-mail "memo" from my chief he states that he is against the new law.

He further states that he considers the law to be more of a hazard than a benefit, since there is no minimum standard for training, qualification, background, physical health, mental health, etc...

He says that our officers should not expect any "immunity" associated with being a police officer if they become involved in a situation outside of our state (I think he means immunity as in carrying in locations that would otherwise be prohibited to non-LEO's in that state).

As for dealing with officers from other states, he says to take no action for anything relating to mere concealment if we think their creds are valid and for any other weapons violations where there is no immediate danger we should get a warrant.

For retired LEO's from agencies that are outside the state, they can be qualified on our range with prior approval by the brass.

In a quick perusal, the DA said that what he read seemed to indicate to him that MA Law will "over-rule" this Fed law!


It's going to be interesting watching all of this get hammered out.  MA is a funny place.  I remember a couple of years ago when some MA cops arrested an on duty DEA agent for carrying his service weapon while in a government vehicle on government business.  

They let him go after they got to the station and someone explained to them what a federal agent was, but sheesh, what a place.

I'll bet it was the part that says this federal law supercedes all state/local laws regarding CCW except the ones listed that threw him .  Someone from Texas posted on another board that out of state LEO's can't CCW in their cars in TX, as the roads are 'government property'.  Amazing how many different ways people are trying to interpret this law.

Didin't know what a federal agent was, huh?  Geez.  Where I grew up, some DEA guys got drunk after work, shot out streetlights with their duty pistols, then eluded the locals in their G-rides.  Nobody got charged, and the only guy who got fired was the one on probation.  Everyone else got 30 days on the hook.  Big difference!

Didin't know what a federal agent was, huh? Geez. Where I grew up, some DEA guys got drunk after work, shot out streetlights with their duty pistols, then eluded the locals in their G-rides. Nobody got charged, and the only guy who got fired was the one on probation. Everyone else got 30 days on the hook. Big difference!


Yep, those were the days.  PS, Was that Detroit where that happened by any chance?

Yep, the good old Motor City.

Quoted: I also am very curious about CA. I have heard that while off duty, officers in CA have to turn in hi-cap mags and carry post ban mags in order to avoid commiting a felony.

Larry,

That is not true about us having to turn in our hi-cap mags when we go off duty and switch to the post ban 10 rounders (could be an individual department policy somewhere and that would not suprise me!). We are exempt from the hi-cap mag prohibition. We do need dpeartment letterhead to purchase hi-cap mags though. We can also privately purchase Patrol rifles ("Assault rifles") for duty use (again with department letterhead) and we can keep them after we retire.

I like Texas.  The qualification dates for retirees is already on the range schedule.

Quoted: I'll bet it was the part that says this federal law supercedes all state/local laws regarding CCW except the ones listed that threw him hinking.gif.  Someone from Texas posted on another board that out of state LEO's can't CCW in their cars in TX, as the roads are 'government property'.  Amazing how many different ways people are trying to interpret this law. Didin't know what a federal agent was, huh?  Geez.  Where I grew up, some DEA guys got drunk after work, shot out streetlights with their duty pistols, then eluded the locals in their G-rides.  Nobody got charged, and the only guy who got fired was the one on probation.  Everyone else got 30 days on the hook.  Big difference!

I may have quoted the wrong post, as I am rather drunk--but here's my answer:

We ahve been told nothing official about 218, but I don't know anyone who would care about an out of state officer carrying anyway.
As far as the Texas thing--I read that on another board as well, but if Texas DPS let me carry in their auto theft classes in '01 and '02, and all they asked was that when I went to the DPS bar in Austin was that I locked my sidearm in a locker while I was drinking, then I suspect that whoever posted that (I'm pretty sure I know the board in question and saw the same post) is full of shit.
I've carried in TX many times, and carried with the knowledge of TX LEOs, prior to 218, so I doubt rather seriously that they are now gonna arrest out of state LEOs for CCW in vehicles on TX highways.

Actually, I go beyond "doubt very seriously" to flat don't fucking believe.

As far as anti-gun jurisdictions............................well, I hope they have the $$$$ ready for when they get their asses sued.




edited for some spelling, but might have missed some.
And to add, my dept. is notoriously behind the times anyway:
It was 2000.
That's 2000.
The end of the 20th century.
Before our computer system was reprogrammed to accept "B" as a race designation when running names.  Seriously.   There are still officers, white and black, who give descriptions as "Negro" male, etc., because it wasn't until *2000* that our dept. stopped using that as the official way of referring to an African-American.  Heck, even our report forms had "N" as the race designator until '99.

Scotch,

I agree with you that any thinking LEO is unlikely to hassle a visiting LEO as long as the visitor does not act like an asshole.

Since the bureaucrats make "policy" and notify the troops (or not) of law/policy changes, a lot of LEOs will only know what they are TOLD (and oftentimes from folks that would disarm their own troops if they could get away with it)!

This came home to me when my DA handed a copy of HR 218 (a few weeks after it became law) to one of his State Troopers (assigned to prosecute cases for the DA) and the Trooper had never ever heard of the law (or even the bill)! Likewise, many of our local officers have NOT been told anything about it and thus do not know it is law.

I expect a policy from our local chief (small town) and MCJTC (our state POST) that they will NOT qualify retired LEOs, probably citing cost and liability issues. I just spent a week's vacation with a good friend, retired LEO and range instructor/armorer/MCJTC certified instructor, and he has had NO communications about his status or any qualification program (not from the PD and not from the union).

With that said however, there is always an officer or two in every department is angling for brownie points and would cite his mother for jaywalking! My recommendation is that ALL LEOs make a copy of the law and carry it with them (at least in the car), to avoid a potential problem with anyone who is unaware of the law.

US PL 108-277 HR 218 LE CCW Law (in PDF format from the Govt Printing Office)
frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ277.108.pdf

LenS-
I'm in a similar situation here in MA as you.  I was formerly on the PD as a part-time, Teamster-represented officer, but I had to resign due to off-duty injuries.  I still work for the town as a Constable, and like you said, I have full police powers, so I can carry under HR218.  Although not required to, I qualify annually with the PD with every handgun I may carry.  Luckily for me, I have to pay into a retirement and will be eligable to collect a pension, so I will still be legal under HR218 after retirement (quite a ways off) after the minumum 15 years of service mandated by the law.

But, verification of the credentials would be an issue at night or on weekends here, too.  I was required to get an ID, but per MA law, a Constable works for the town government (Selectmen in my case) and cannot work for the police dept.  So, they could reach the Selectmen's Office during regular business hours, but I'd be screwed after hours.

The last time I was in NYC was during junior high school, and I don't plan on going back anyway, but I still feel if I did want to go, I should be able to without being harassed.  In the small dept I formerly worked for, and still work closely with, a copy of HR218 was distributed to all officers and their rights, and other officers rights under the law were explained to them.  Everyone on the PD feels MA gun laws are BS, confusing, and 99% of them don't understand them at all.  I still get calls at home with questions when a situation arises and they do not know what is legal and what is not.  But, I am very happy to say, the officers won't jump at the first sign of a gun and look for reasons to make an arrest.

Yup, if you know MA at all, I'm sure you can guess it-I'm NOWHERE near Boston.  I'm in W. Mass, which should be split from E. Mass and become part of VT.  Then I would really feel at home.  

I spoke to a Texas trooper last night and he advised they have been givin a memo from Austin over the carry bill. He advised that it just stated that it had passed with a brief note as to what bill was over. I have an ex-trooper working for me now and he states troopers are told in the academy NOT to harrass or give any problems to out of state officers with propper IDs' and such. As long as they are not being an a--hole.

I carry everywhere, even in disneyworld this summer. I had no problems, but then again I carry in a way so no one knows I'm carrying.

Working on the LA border, it is common to run into out of state officers, I have IH-10 running through my city.

If your every in Orange, TX, your welcome to carry.

ScubaTexas

I think that all MA, NY, and other similar states will succeed in doing is making it easier for LEOs on vacation to avoid their states. If you go there on business, plan accordingly.

Bub, speaking from experience it ain't worth it. I put up with a horses ass chief for the last four years of an 11 year stint with a small Texas agency. Figured I'd outlast him and didn't want to give up all that time. Finally had enough to the point that I did resign. In fact, hated the situation so bad I had no intention of ever putting on the shield again.

After I quit, I resumed life and found that the world was a fun place. Took almost 2 years before I did go back on the job (even smaller Texas agency), and then only as a reserve to keep my certification active. After 1 1/2 years went full time paid as a school resource officer. Still so soured by those four years that if the Chief called tonite and said the SRO job was out, you'll be back on the  streets Monday, I'd say sorry Chief, you have my resignation, put me on the reserve list again.

Sounds like you are in the same kind of shit I was 5+ years ago. Like I said, it ain't worth it. Find another department where the job is at least tolerable. There are too many departments to keep yourself tied to a shit head chief. If you throw out the argument that you have a family and don't want to drag them away from an established life, that doesn't work either. If you are miserable, so are they.

Besides, do you have any idea how much fun it is to walk in to that idiot's office and tell him to take the job and shove it?

Quoted: According to my supervisor he was told that IL. Dept. of Corrections does not believe it's correctional officers and Parole Agents are covered by this. I believe they are wront especially for Parole Agents but what can a guy do. Agents are required to carry whenever on duty and have arrest powers over parolees, inmates and escapees but they have never been authorized to carry off duty.  Any advice would be appreciated.

In Texas, we have a section of the Code of Criminal Procedure that defines "Who are police officers". Check and see if your state's codes also do this. If so, and that job is listed, it doesn't matter what an agency supervisor says, the state legislature says otherwise.