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.