LEOSA case in New York

[wolf223]

So is all military law enforcement covered under this law?

no

unless you are carrying an "issued" weapon......in performance of your official duties..... but again, not sure how it applies to people like U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command or Coast Guard......

 

[Kevlar]

...

 

[GSG]

Who was that MA dealer that got busted for selling in MA without a license? Or was that selling to people who didn't have licenses? Might have been that if the timing works.

Do you have a link to this, or remember any other details? I'm definitely interested in seeing if it's one and the same.

I worked with ben in NY. Yes we are covered under LEOSA as federal law enforcment officers. He is still in and got cleared of all charges ya dumb for not ID him self but hide site 20-20. We fall under all of the requirments of the law so. I hold a ma LTC but carry to other states as well being covered and the word is getting out that QUALIFIED Coast Guard Bording officers and QUALIFIED petty officers are covered. As for the person that sold the gun i do not know anything about that. There was an up stur about it in the CG at the HQ level but FED law covers it they say you carry off duty at your own risk but we can do it and we do.

So he was cleared on the federal charges as well? I haven't been able to find anything on his federal case other than what I posted. It wouldn't surprise me if ATF just started slapping charges on him to keep up with the Jones'es, or if they had a gun that he bought online from a Mass. dealer and had transferred somewhere else where it was legal but the feds didn't bother investigating or searching for a 4473 (much like with Michael Lara).

If you don't want to post it publicly you can PM me if you want.

Am I alone in wondering if perhaps he didn't know he would be covered under LEOSA (or more to the point, did not believe he was)?

I know its fun to line up with torches and pitchforks, but this one has a whiff of the PSGWSP.

Agreed. It seemed likely to me that he got arrested, but then his lawyer had a "Ding ding ding!" moment and realized "Hey there's this new federal law that might cover you!" This is much less clear cut than say the PA constable who was arrested on duty in uniform & a marked cruiser while serving a warrant in NYC, or the biker cops arrested for carrying after shooting a Hells Angel member in Sturgis, which were both obviously done with some kind of malice and ignorance of the LEO status of those involved, IMHO.

By not issuing a policy, they do not openly encourage it, but remain in compliance with the law by not forbidding it.

Well if their jobs in the CG don't pan out, it sounds like they have a promising future in Mass. politics. How conniving of them.

DWB

The thought flashed through my head too. Two black guys driving a Lexus late at night in the city, the cop passed them going the other way, then pulled in behind and lit them up before all the fun started. But based on the other details of the case it seems like after the stop nothing appeared on the up and up to the cops, with the warrant and suspended license, plus the un-mentioned gun stashed under the front seat. It's hard to draw neat conclusions with nothing other than one court document and all those uber-reliable AP news stories though.

i.e. IF he's covered by LEOSA, why would he omit the fact that he is USCG? also, not sure how LEOSA reads towards USCG vs. Title 10 U.S.C, but it's usually "in performance of official duties" ...???? right? -but again, with the USCG falling under DHS (post-9-11) i'm not sure.

either way, it reeks of stupidity. were they "issued" weapons? how does LEOSA apply to the USCG vs issued vs personally owned weapons?

I did some extensive reading on the subject while searching for more info on the Mass. gun issue of his, and it would appear that you dont have to be authorized to carry off duty by your agency or be using an issued gun, just that you have arrest powers, qualify annually, etc. etc. In fact, if you meet the LEOSA standards, your agency can't legally prevent you from carrying under LEOSA, unless of course they want to make it so you only qual every other year or something stupid like that. There's some LE agencies that don't allow off duty carry at all, or others that only allow off duty carry of the duty gun, or other similar restrictions, but in those cases the LEO involved can only get in trouble for violating agency policy, but nothing criminally that they're exempt from with LEOSA.

So is all military law enforcement covered under this law?

No, since "military law enforcement" is a broad term. Some are, some aren't, it depends on how the agencies powers stack up against the regs laid out in LEOSA. This means a lot of reading, especially if the agency in question does what the Coast Guard apparently does and keeps their mouth shut on it officially.

 

[Coastie2010]

Coast Guard members have an easier time justifying falling under LEOSA, since Congress specifically designated law enforcement as one of our primary roles, and 14 USC 143 designates all Coast Guard petty officers, warrant officers, and commissioned officers as customs officers and therefore federal LEOs.

Other branches MPs are much more limited in jurisdiction since their primary purpose is not enforcing federal civil code but the UCMJ and maintaining good order and discipline among the ranks

 

[pdm]

Do you have a link to this, or remember any other details? I'm definitely interested in seeing if it's one and the same.

I read it here, but haven't been able to find it.

edit: Searched on a couple of terms, but I can't remember the name of the dealer, so I got nothing.

 

[CHAM12]

Ya i know was doing it quick.

Mfennell, next to the "m" key is the comma button and then next to THAT is the period button. Don't be afraid of them.

 

[CHAM12]

This is the link to the HR 218 Lawhttp://www.leaa.org/218/218text.html not sure what your looking for. I may also get in touch with ben and ask more ? and see what he can tell me.

I read it here, but haven't been able to find it.

edit: Searched on a couple of terms, but I can't remember the name of the dealer, so I got nothing.

 

[Half Cocked]

The case was open and shut. Fed officer with police powers is covered under HR218. Shame on the NY police agency and AG's office. It's a shame, but no one will get fired.

Could you please elaborate why you feel someone should be fired?

 

[GSG]

I read it here, but haven't been able to find it.

edit: Searched on a couple of terms, but I can't remember the name of the dealer, so I got nothing.

Crap. Well if anyone else on NES can remember, please let me know, my curiosity is piqued now.

I may also get in touch with ben and ask more ? and see what he can tell me.

That would be awesome if you could. I'm definitely interested in hearing his side of things.

Could you please elaborate why you feel someone should be fired?

I originally posted this a very long time ago, so chances are he won't be watching this thread still.

 

[drgrant]

Do you have a link to this, or remember any other details? I'm definitely interested in seeing if it's one and the same.

He's probably referring to that guy that owned "We Are Guns" out of Norton that got busted awhile back. His license was expired or revoked (forget which) but he kept selling guns, and eventually got convicted of one or more federal felonies.

-Mike

 

[pdm]

He's probably referring to that guy that owned "We Are Guns" out of Norton that got busted awhile back. His license was expired or revoked (forget which) but he kept selling guns, and eventually got convicted of one or more federal felonies.

-Mike

Bingo.

 

[GSG]

He's probably referring to that guy that owned "We Are Guns" out of Norton that got busted awhile back. His license was expired or revoked (forget which) but he kept selling guns, and eventually got convicted of one or more federal felonies.

-Mike

Aha! Found it. http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showthread.php/7355-We-Are-Guns-Status

The time frame does fit. He was arrested in 2007, and the guy in Norton was busted in early 2006, so I suppose he could've bought a gun from him before then. Either way I'll wait to hear back from the guys who knows him.

 

[CHAM12]

After talking with ben 18 months of hell and BS with the CG but did not looses his job. The warrant was for an unpaid speeding ticket and the gun shop was in boston...... He is doing well and still with the CG.

 

[wolf223]

After talking with ben 18 months of hell and BS with the CG but did not looses his job. The warrant was for an unpaid speeding ticket and the gun shop was in boston...... He is doing well and still with the CG.

question: so does the CG let you guys carry "duty" weapons off-duty???? i.e - draw it for your arms room for an indefinate amount of time?

 

[Coastie2010]

Negative, ghostrider.

IANAL, but my interpretation is that LEOSA technically applies, but the CG doesn't acknowledge it, off-duty carry is with a personal weapon, and you sure as hell better not do it on base.

And don't expect the command to back you in court.

 

[wolf223]

Negative, ghostrider.

IANAL, but my interpretation is that LEOSA technically applies, but the CG doesn't acknowledge it, off-duty carry is with a personal weapon, and you sure as hell better not do it on base.

And don't expect the command to back you in court.

rrrrroger. that's pretty much what i thought. as i posted before (i.e. Military Police, Criminal Investigation ect.).... they MAY be covered, but the "duty" weapons are usually secured off-duty.... so it goes back to DWB and whatever firearms he (allegidly) had at the time

 

[GSG]

After talking with ben 18 months of hell and BS with the CG but did not looses his job. The warrant was for an unpaid speeding ticket and the gun shop was in boston...... He is doing well and still with the CG.

Do you know what the result of the federal case was? Charges dismissed, found not guilty, etc.? I haven't been able to find anything on it anywhere.

rrrrroger. that's pretty much what i thought. as i posted before (i.e. Military Police, Criminal Investigation ect.).... they MAY be covered, but the "duty" weapons are usually secured off-duty.... so it goes back to DWB and whatever firearms he (allegidly) had at the time

Just to be clear, LEOSA doesn't only apply to duty weapons.

 

[GLOCK.Perfection]

Just to be clear, LEOSA doesn't only apply to duty weapons.

true, you ahve to qualify with the weapon to be covered. What are the chances CG guys get to qualify with personal weapons..

 

[GSG]

true, you ahve to qualify with the weapon to be covered. What are the chances CG guys get to qualify with personal weapons..

Yeah, they don't exactly sound "pro-gun."

It also occurred to me after posting what I did above that most military guys aren't allowed to own/carry personally owned firearms on base, so if they were living on base they wouldn't generally have a legal means to carry when off of the base, which might have been what chetD was getting at.

 

[Len-2A Training]

true, you have to qualify with the weapon to be covered. What are the chances CG guys get to qualify with personal weapons..

Would you please quote the exact text in LEOSA that requires that anyone covered can ONLY carry the gun they qualified with?

 

[RFWAVELENGTH]

After talking with ben 18 months of hell and BS with the CG but did not looses his job. The warrant was for an unpaid speeding ticket and the gun shop was in boston...... He is doing well and still with the CG.

He has an arrest record now. Regardless of the outcome of cases, the arrests always remain on the books. Hopefully, this won't come back to haunt him when the opportunity for promotion comes up. Also, if he ever has to obtain/renew a security clearance, he will have to declare the arrest when he completes the questionnaire. If he ever becomes a MA resident, he will have to disclose the arrest if he applies for a LTC or FID. Same with NY, if he lives there after leaving the CG. NY and NYC gun permit applications ask whether you have ever been arrested/defendant in a criminal case. He will have to answer "yes" or possibly be charged with making a false statement.

 

[Speedway]

Lower NY is good for one thing only. Inexpensive beer available on Sundays. That's about it.

 

[GLOCK.Perfection]

Would you please quote the exact text in LEOSA that requires that anyone covered can ONLY carry the gun they qualified with?

OK I stand corrected...

‘‘(4) meets standards, if any, established by the agency
which require the employee to regularly qualify in the use of a firearm;

I made the assumption from the qualifying requirement.

 

[cekim]

Lower NY is good for one thing only. Inexpensive beer available on Sundays. That's about it.

I've seen (and stepped over), the people who believe that cheap alcohol can balance out the "downside" of New York...

No thanks...