With regards to H. 4376, where "Section 131M of said chapter 140, as so appearing, is hereby amended by striking out, in line 12, the words “for purposes of law enforcement"- does anyone have any factual legal information on what Ch. 140/131M defines as a law enforcement officer? Before it was pretty plain and simple, as lets say, a New Hampshire police officer traveling in MA is definitely not using a 15rd magazine for the "purposes of law enforcement". Now with that condition removed, who is considered a law enforcement officer under this law? I would think they would specifically state it has to be a MA certified LEO if that was intended. I know there are threads debating whether LEOSA covers large-cap magazines, and the consensus was it does not, but by reading the new wording of this law, could it be said that any QLEO under LEOSA is allowed to possess a high capacity magazine since it does not require it to be for law enforcement purposes anymore?
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Define Law Enforcement Officer
- Thread starter ma-hole
- Start date
The so-called LE experts on MA gun law (and this includes EOPS Legal Dept) have on numerous occasions stated that LEO for firearms purposes means only municipal, state agency police and maybe Fed LEOs. They regularly deny that "privilege" to COs, deputy sheriffs, constables, harbormasters, animal control officers, etc. even though each of these categories has statutory arrest powers called out in MGLs.
I can also tell you that they are still playing with that wording in the new law and contend that no MA LEO is entitled to purchase any new large-cap mags or AWs, period.
This is a "watch and see what happens" section of law.
I can also tell you that they are still playing with that wording in the new law and contend that no MA LEO is entitled to purchase any new large-cap mags or AWs, period.
This is a "watch and see what happens" section of law.
Not that I'd want to be a test case, but even NYC lost to a PA constable after arresting him for CCWing under LEOSA (People v. Rodriguez, Indictment No. 2917 (2006)). I'd think it would be pretty tough for the state to rule against anyone covered by LEOSA, although I admit it's not yet clear entirely whether some of the other jobs you listed (e.g. Animal Control) are actually covered by LEOSA.
