Question on new federal law

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

duck_god827

Member
Joined
May 6, 2005
Messages
25
Location
IOWA
This may seem like a dumb question, but here goes. The new law passed stated that LEOs were able to carry concealed wepons while off duty. With out having a CCW. If they were able to prove that they were actual LEOs. I have heard that this may apply to active military and also reservist personal in the military. Can anyone clear up this for me. I still plan on checking with the local sheriff's office to be sure. I am not doing anything wrong.



Thanks
duck_god827
 
It does not include active duty and reserve military personnel. Those can only carry firearms when issued by their command for official use.
 
So if I can convince the local sheriff to make me a deputy, that means I can carry on the streets of New York? Awesome. I didnt think the law would actually pass.
 
Better read the law, Slurp. It's not quite that easy.

Don't recall the specifics, but you have to be a sworn officer who is authorized to carry in the line of duty (for example, as I understand it, dispatchers or LEOs whose job descriptions don't require/allow firearms are not covered), and I believe you have to pass the departmental qualification however frequently the department requires requalification, ... and I think there may be a couple of other hoops to jump through as well.
 
This is Florida, the land of bribertunity. I'm sure I can make it happen. :D Partly joking.

But it would be nice if I could carry in NYC when I visit my parents.
 
It most definitely does NOT cover military personnel, even MPs, Security Forces, and Masters of Arms.
 
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.
Click to expand...
It looks like this federal preemption puts the states are in a pretty tight box.
 
I believe that I've read that NYC will not allow out of state LEO's to carry unless they are on duty while in NYC and not just visiting.
Click to expand...
I have two words for NYC:

Federal. Preemption.

That's right, Mr. Bloomberg, just like FOPA's peaceable journey provisions, you can't do anything about it. Oh, you can try, but the federal law will be a nice club with which to spank you in court.
 
Sam said:
Also have to have served for 15 or more years and be drawing a pension.
Click to expand...
That's for retired. The law also covers LEOs who are currently working as LEOs, and you don't have to have 15 years of service before you are covered.

And it certainly appears that NY cannot refuse to recognize the law. I believe what NY is doing is refusing to authorize their own officers to take advantage of the law, by not issuing them the requisite identification or some mumbo-jumbo like that. Probably a blatant violation of the law (certainly a violation of the intent of the law) but I don't believe they have been called on it as yet.
 
gc70, you neglected to quote a relevant portion of the law which may allow the agency to restrict what it's LEOs can do under this law:

http://www.leaa.org/218/218text.html
. . . (2) is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm . . .
Click to expand...
Well it hasn't been tested in the courts, but I'd be willing to bet many would interpret that to mean if your agency says you can't carry at certain times, then at those times you are NOT protected by this law. Do you want to be the test case?

I used to work for an agency that would not authorize carry while on vacation. 24/7 nationwide as long as you weren't on vacation, but take a half day to go to the doctor's office, and you weren't allowed to carry until you reported back to work. Now some folks in that agency have the attitude that this law supersedes that, however the lawyers disagree. Again, I feel sorry for the one that ends up being the test case.

Also, it's interesting to note what the AG said about this policy within his department, DOJ:
It is important to note that the Act does not supersede existing agency regulations or policies limiting, restricting, conditioning, or otherwise affecting the carrying of concealed firearms.
Click to expand...
www.usdoj.gov/olp/agmemo01312005.pdf
 
It most definitely does NOT cover military personnel, even MPs, Security Forces, and Masters of Arms.
Click to expand...

Source?

You are probably right in regard to most MPs, SPs, etc., but Army CID Special Agents, Air Force OSI Special Agents and Naval Criminal Investigative Service Special Agents are all federal law enforcement officers. I'm retired CID and just recently qualified with my home county under the provision of a retired officer qualifying under state LEO standards.

FWIW, I doubt NYC can charge retired or off-duty LEOs with CCW, inasmuch as the federal law clearly specifies that such officers, once qualified, are exempt from state and local laws prohibiting carrying of concealed weapons.
 
gc70, you neglected to quote a relevant portion of the law which may allow the agency to restrict what it's LEOs can do under this law:
Click to expand...
Absolutely correct, DMF. I was focusing on the federal preemption aspects of the law rather than on the federal restrictions aspect.

Even with the general federal preemption, Section 926B(b)(2) gives states a lot of wiggle room. For instance, I could see how Section 926B(b)(2) could be interpreted to allow NY/NYC to bar CCW at the airports (government property or facilities) in the NYC area.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top