Questions with regards to Auxiliary and Firearms

[jcucinot]

So say your looking into getting on to the auxiliary PD and you have a restricted license for target and hunting, could the issuing department take off the restrictions if you proved and provided that you were a auxiliary police officer

thanks

 

[ochmude]

The issuing department could take the restrictions off at any time and for any reason. That doesn't mean they will.

 

[drgrant]

You'd have to ask the issuing PD in question. It's strictly up to them. They might still say "no" and they are within their rights to do that. It depends on how "red" the issuing authority is. Some red and yellow towns will unrestrict for LEOs, some will treat non town LEOs like any other "peon" in their town.

-Mike

 

[ochmude]

Just to give you an idea of what you might be up against, I was in a gun shop in South Hadley once, just hanging out, and there was a South Hadley cop that was a Chicopee resident. Chicopee restricted his LTC to T&H because he wasn't a Chicopee cop. I saw it with my own eyes. This was a full-time officer, not reserve, aux, or SPO.

 

[Mikel131]

You'd have to ask the issuing PD in question. It's strictly up to them. They might still say "no" and they are within their rights to do that. It depends on how "red" the issuing authority is. Some red and yellow towns will unrestrict for LEOs, some will treat non town LEOs like any other "peon" in their town.

-Mike

I Think all of US "peon's" should be treated the same (US as in all American Citizens of the USA)

 

[GSG]

Just to give you an idea of what you might be up against, I was in a gun shop in South Hadley once, just hanging out, and there was a South Hadley cop that was a Chicopee resident. Chicopee restricted his LTC to T&H because he wasn't a Chicopee cop. I saw it with my own eyes. This was a full-time officer, not reserve, aux, or SPO.

I personally know of other FT muni cops in the same boat, some with restricted LTC's issued by their own agency; these are cops who're covered by LEOSA anyway, so the restriction is just a middle finger to them. An aux., reserve, CO, etc. job might help sway the licensing officer, but I wouldn't bet on it.

 

[Deleted member 12999]

http://www.leaa.org/218/218text.html

If you are an Aux for a Municipal PD, are current on your training, and have a department issued ID.... See link. edit: I know I was talking about interstate carry below, but I don't know any cop who would jam you up if you had your badge and ID on you.

On a side note, because I work for a University PD (which is not a state agency), I get screwed. 5 years on the job, and an MPTC firearms instructor to boot. F.U. gun laws. haha

edit: I have my class A anyhow, but I'm not going to be THAT guy to test case law by carrying in another state.

 

[GSG]

If you are an Aux for a Municipal PD, are current on your training, and have a department issued ID.... See link. edit: I know I was talking about interstate carry below, but I don't know any cop who would jam you up if you had your badge and ID on you.

The Aux. would still have to be in compliance with every aspect of the law. But even if they're not covered under the blanket of LEOSA, many states have their own laws that allow other LE to carry there, so if they did enough research, they could still carry on their badge in some places, just under a different set of laws.

Also, LEOSA doesn't just cover you in the areas of the US that you're a non-resident in, it also covers you in your home state. So if you're covered by the law, you're good to go in your hometown. Obviously you could get into work trouble if they had a policy that prohibited or limited off duty carry, but legally you're good to go.

On a side note, because I work for a University PD (which is not a state agency), I get screwed. 5 years on the job, and an MPTC firearms instructor to boot. F.U. gun laws. haha

edit: I have my class A anyhow, but I'm not going to be THAT guy to test case law by carrying in another state.

Actually, I think you're covered by LEOSA.

18 USC 926B requires that you be an employee of a "governmental agency," not a state agency. But there's two pieces of caselaw on LEOSA that dig into that definition.

http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/agopinions/NYCtLEOSARulingPeoplevsRodriguez.PDF

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-dc-circuit/1498827.html

The first is the PA constable case (pages 10-13 get into his employer status). Based on that case, ask yourself two questions. Do you recieve a paycheck from the government? And who are you performing your LE duties for in the course of your employment? My guess is you get a paycheck from the state, and you're enforcing laws on the behalf of a state funded facility. Based on those standards, you should be covered.

However, this case is only legally binding in New York, since it was a NY Supreme Court decision. But there is very little caselaw on LEOSA, and it's common for courts all across the country to rely on the findings of other state courts, especially when it comes to definitions in gun cases.

The second case is one that should carry more weight for the purposes of this discussion. It's a case from the U.S. Court of Appeals (D.C. Circuit). It's a fairly lengthy decision that focuses on a lot of issues not really related to employment status, but some of the stated facts are very important.

The guy involved is Robert Ord, owner of a security company, and sworn in Virginia as a Special Conservator of the Peace. If you read into the background of a SCOP in VA, you'll see that they're very similar to SPO's in Mass. As a security guard, this guy was clearly not paid by a governmental agency. However, SCOP's are appointed through a Circuit Court in VA, which is how they derive their authority. This is similar to PA constables, who have authority through the court, but unlike those constables, SCOP's are paid by whichever entity they work for. From everything I've read, while the source of pay is a helpful indicator, the important factor in determining governmental employment is the source of their legal authority. Make sense?

Based on some things that I've read, it apears that Ord is also a retired LEO, which would cover him under LEOSA. But in that case, the courts said that he's covered under the section of USC that applies to active LEO's, not retired LEO's, so it's a moot point (in other words, they're definitely saying he's covered as an SCOP, not as a retiree from another agency).

One more important thing. I'm not a lawyer, so this is just the e-legal opinion of some guy you don't know. Remember that LEOSA coverage is something you have to show on your own in court, and your agency may not back you on it, intentionally or by mistake. This is still a young area of law, so the boundaries are still somewhat up in the air. It'll take a few more test cases for certain details to be hammered out. Do yourself a favor and don't be the hammer case used to flatten out details. Read the Ord case, and you'll see that some LE agencies take the "whose badge is better" pissing contest very far. If you're travelling and some good old boy doesn't think there's enough blue in your britches, you could be in for a painful experience, even if you're eventually cleared in court.

Good luck, and let me know if you think I'm wrong.

 

[TheCamel]

Worked 3 years as a reserve officer. After ending employment I asked them if I could apply for a LTC (lived in same town at the time). Wouldn't allow me to even apply.

Moral of story: Don't expect to be able to exercise your constitutional rights in MA.

 

[securityboy]

Worked 3 years as a reserve officer. After ending employment I asked them if I could apply for a LTC (lived in same town at the time). Wouldn't allow me to even apply.

Moral of story: Don't expect to be able to exercise your constitutional rights in MA.

WHAT???? I have to be honest I have NO CLUE what you are trying to say...what do you mean you "asked if you could apply for a LTC" anf they said no??? It wasn't that you applied and were denied, but they wouldn't allow you to apply at all??? That doesn't exactly make sense to me, regardless of if you were a reserve officer or not (well unless your "employment" with them ended for some reason that they knew you couldn't get an LTC, and they were trying to be "nice" and save you the $100 only to be denied)...

PS. GSG I "think" you are assuming 5-0 works at "state" University, if he works at one of the many private universities here, to say he is covered by LEOSA by his SSPO status is a grey area at best...I know there have been some federal changes to LEOSA, so maybe its less grey than it once was...but I'd still be careful relying only on SSPO (or boston special) status, if you don't get your check from .gov....

 

[GSG]

WHAT???? I have to be honest I have NO CLUE what you are trying to say...what do you mean you "asked if you could apply for a LTC" anf they said no??? It wasn't that you applied and were denied, but they wouldn't allow you to apply at all??? That doesn't exactly make sense to me, regardless of if you were a reserve officer or not (well unless your "employment" with them ended for some reason that they knew you couldn't get an LTC, and they were trying to be "nice" and save you the $100 only to be denied)...

Have you ever heard of Don Schwarz? The guy was arrested when the police refused to even process a denial of his LTC application (so that he couldn't appeal it in court).

http://billstclair.com/LindaHamilton/DonSchwarz.html

Also, the pending Hightower case in Boston sounds similar to what TheCamel is describing.

PS. GSG I "think" you are assuming 5-0 works at "state" University, if he works at one of the many private universities here, to say he is covered by LEOSA by his SSPO status is a grey area at best...I know there have been some federal changes to LEOSA, so maybe its less grey than it once was...but I'd still be careful relying only on SSPO (or boston special) status, if you don't get your check from .gov....

The update to LEOSA didn't change the aspect of the employer status that we're talking about. But if you read the Ord case (I linked to it above) his LE status in Virginia was very similar to an SSPO in Mass.; he worked for a private security company with arrest powers coming from the state. The court plainly stated that he was covered as an employee.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Have you ever heard of Don Schwarz? The guy was arrested when the police refused to even process a denial of his LTC application (so that he couldn't appeal it in court).

Sort of - Don states " When I requested a lawful denial of the applications in writing, I was then threatened with arrest for TRESPASS, if I didn't fill out new forms according to the Licensing Authority". Requiring forms of the PDs choosing, rather than the applicants choosing (even if the applicant is using the correct form and the PD is not) is a bit different from a "refusal to accept an application".

Another lesson - if you are planning on suing a PD over a trivial arrest for a charge that will be dismissed or CWOFed, SHUT THE F UP until the case has been tried or settled. You do not increase your leverage in the process by boldling telling people who have state paid attorneys at their disposal, and financial indemnification for almost any judgement you could get against them, that you are going to sue them. They will not be impressed.

 

[csauce777]

So say your looking into getting on to the auxiliary PD and you have a restricted license for target and hunting, could the issuing department take off the restrictions if you proved and provided that you were a auxiliary police officer

thanks

I got my LTC when I was 18 (back when it was the required age). Due to my age, and the licensing authority's stance on LTC's, I was issued a restricted LTC for target/hunting. When I turned 20, I was hired as a seasonal police officer, and I brought a letter from my employer to the Chief in my town. They in turn issued me a letter allowing me to carry a firearm for work, and to and from work. They would NOT however, change it to personal protection/any lawful purpose. This was years ago, but thats how my situation went.

 

[jcucinot]

I ended up getting my restrictions taken off and now it says none