Glock Talk

Glock Talk (http://glocktalk.com/forums/index.php)
-   Cop Talk (http://glocktalk.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=30)
-   -   New York and LEOSA (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1464866)

nohocop 01-15-2013 14:59

New York and LEOSA
 
New York just passed a new gun control law:
http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=S02230&term=2013

One of the provisions is you can't have more than a 7-round magazine.

Any views on how this affects carry under LEOSA?

I read the text of the law and there was no exception for police officers (in-state or out of state).

Recall LEOSA only supersedes the laws of states regarding concealed carry. It simply says notwithstanding the laws of any state, an LEO "may carry a concealed firearm." It is not specific as to things like number of rounds.

Is there someone in NY who has a take on this?

Steve in PA 01-15-2013 16:15

LEOSA does not address magazine capacity.

Active officers should be fine, however retired officers will most certainly have to follow the 7 round restriction.

nohocop 01-15-2013 17:47

Steve, thanks for the note. Why the distinction between active guys and retired guys? Where is that in LEOSA?

blueiron 01-15-2013 18:30

Keep in mind that State law can not overrule Federal law in the case of concealed carry, due to the Supremacy clause in the Constitution.

NY can't ban LEOSA qualified visitors in New York and Texas can't arrest Federal LE for enforcing Federal law in TX. Proof is the 101st Airborne Division enforcing Federal anti segregation law at Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957, while the Arkansas Army National Guard enforcing the blockade against the 'Little Rock Nine'. President Eisenhower had to federalize the entire Arkansas Air and Army National Guard to prevent an armed showdown.

The case for magazines over seven rounds is going to take a legal ruling to settle the ambiguity.

25pd 01-15-2013 18:33

:dunno:Its the same situation as N.J. and Hollow Point Bullets- Active Officers can now carry HP"s but Retired Officers Cannot carry HP's so in N.Y . we are also restricted to 7 round Mags- for me no problem- I carry a XDs 45 and S&W shield 9mm and both guns are less that 7 round mags but then again why in the hell would I want to go to NY for anything in the 1 st place. HaHa!!!!!

ithaca_deerslayer 01-15-2013 19:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by 25pd (Post 19868869)
:dunno:Its the same situation as N.J. and Hollow Point Bullets- Active Officers can now carry HP"s but Retired Officers Cannot carry HP's so in N.Y . we are also restricted to 7 round Mags- for me no problem- I carry a XDs 45 and S&W shield 9mm and both guns are less that 7 round mags but then again why in the hell would I want to go to NY for anything in the 1 st place. HaHa!!!!!

Come for some Genny Cream Ale. Stay for the wings :)

Wonder if you could have a 10-round mag if it was possesd before the ban. I can, but not sure if you could bring it in state.

CW Mock 01-15-2013 19:13

It's disgusting a law like that was even passed. Be interesting to see how it shakes out.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

Sheepdog689 01-15-2013 19:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by 25pd (Post 19868869)
:dunno:Its the same situation as N.J. and Hollow Point Bullets- Active Officers can now carry HP"s but Retired Officers Cannot carry HP's so in N.Y . we are also restricted to 7 round Mags- for me no problem- I carry a XDs 45 and S&W shield 9mm and both guns are less that 7 round mags but then again why in the hell would I want to go to NY for anything in the 1 st place. HaHa!!!!!

Qualified retirees can carry hollowpoints in NJ. See "as used in this section" definitions. They now include ammunition as part of the firearm. The original LEOSA did not list ammo.

18 U.S.C.
United States Code, 2011 Edition
Title 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 44 - FIREARMS
Sec. 926C - Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified retired law enforcement officers
From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov

§926C. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified retired 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 retired 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.

(c) As used in this section, the term “qualified retired law enforcement officer” means an individual who—
(1) separated from service in good standing from service with a public agency as a law enforcement officer;
(2) before such separation, was authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and had statutory powers of arrest;
(3)(A) before such separation, served as a law enforcement officer for an aggregate of 10 years or more; or
(B) separated from service with such agency, after completing any applicable probationary period of such service, due to a service-connected disability, as determined by such agency;
(4) during the most recent 12-month period, has met, at the expense of the individual, the standards for qualification in firearms training for active law enforcement officers, as determined by the former agency of the individual, the State in which the individual resides or, if the State has not established such standards, either a law enforcement agency within the State in which the individual resides or the standards used by a certified firearms instructor that is qualified to conduct a firearms qualification test for active duty officers within that State;
(5)(A) has not been officially found by a qualified medical professional employed by the agency to be unqualified for reasons relating to mental health and as a result of this finding will not be issued the photographic identification as described in subsection (d)(1); or
(B) has not entered into an agreement with the agency from which the individual is separating from service in which that individual acknowledges he or she is not qualified under this section for reasons relating to mental health and for those reasons will not receive or accept the photographic identification as described in subsection (d)(1);
(6) is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance; and
(7) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm.

(d) The identification required by this subsection is—
(1) a photographic identification issued by the agency from which the individual separated from service as a law enforcement officer that indicates that the individual has, not less recently than one year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the agency to meet the active duty standards for qualification in firearms training as established by the agency to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm; or
(2)(A) a photographic identification issued by the agency from which the individual separated from service as a law enforcement officer; and
(B) a certification issued by the State in which the individual resides or by a certified firearms instructor that is qualified to conduct a firearms qualification test for active duty officers within that State that indicates that the individual has, not less than 1 year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the State or a certified firearms instructor that is qualified to conduct a firearms qualification test for active duty officers within that State to have met—
(I) the active duty standards for qualification in firearms training, as established by the State, to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm; or
(II) if the State has not established such standards, standards set by any law enforcement agency within that State to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm.

(e) As used in this section—
(1) the term “firearm”—

(A) except as provided in this paragraph, has the same meaning as in section 921 of this title;
(B) includes ammunition not expressly prohibited by Federal law or subject to the provisions of the National Firearms Act; and
(C) does not include—
(i) any machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the National Firearms Act);
(ii) any firearm silencer (as defined in section 921 of this title); and
(iii) any destructive device (as defined in section 921 of this title); and

(2) the term “service with a public agency as a law enforcement officer” includes service as a law enforcement officer of the Amtrak Police Department, service as a law enforcement officer of the Federal Reserve, or service as a law enforcement or police officer of the executive branch of the Federal Government.
(Added Pub. L. 108–277, §3(a), July 22, 2004, 118 Stat. 866; amended Pub. L. 111–272, §2(c), Oct. 12, 2010, 124 Stat. 2855.)
References in Text
The National Firearms Act, referred to in subsec. (e)(1)(B), (C)(i), is classified generally to chapter 53 (§5801 et seq.) of Title 26, Internal Revenue Code. See section 5849 of Title 26. Section 5845 of such Act is classified to section 5845 of Title 26.
Amendments
2010—Subsec. (c)(1). Pub. L. 111–272, §2(c)(1)(A), substituted “separated from service” for “retired” and struck out “, other than for reasons of mental instability” after “officer”.
Subsec. (c)(2). Pub. L. 111–272, §2(c)(1)(B), substituted “separation” for “retirement”.
Subsec. (c)(3)(A). Pub. L. 111–272, §2(c)(1)(C)(i), substituted “separation, served as a law enforcement officer for an aggregate of 10 years or more” for “retirement, was regularly employed as a law enforcement officer for an aggregate of 15 years or more”.
Subsec. (c)(3)(B). Pub. L. 111–272, §2(c)(1)(C)(ii), substituted “separated” for “retired”.
Subsec. (c)(4). Pub. L. 111–272, §2(c)(1)(D), added par. (4) and struck out former par. (4) which read as follows: “has a nonforfeitable right to benefits under the retirement plan of the agency;”.
Subsec. (c)(5). Pub. L. 111–272, §2(c)(1)(E), added par. (5) and struck out former par. (5) which read as follows: “during the most recent 12-month period, has met, at the expense of the individual, the State's standards for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry firearms;”.
Subsec. (d)(1). Pub. L. 111–272, §2(c)(2)(A), substituted “separated” for “retired” and “to meet the active duty standards for qualification in firearms training as established by the agency to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm” for “to meet the standards established by the agency for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm”.
Subsec. (d)(2)(A). Pub. L. 111–272, §2(c)(2)(B)(i), substituted “separated” for “retired”.
Subsec. (d)(2)(B). Pub. L. 111–272, §2(c)(2)(B)(ii), substituted “or by a certified firearms instructor that is qualified to conduct a firearms qualification test for active duty officers within that State that indicates that the individual has, not less than 1 year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the State or a certified firearms instructor that is qualified to conduct a firearms qualification test for active duty officers within that State to have met—” for “that indicates that the individual has, not less recently than one year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the State to meet the standards established by the State for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm.” and added cls. (I) and (II).
Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 111–272, §2(c)(3), added subsec. (e) and struck out former subsec. (e) which read as follows: “As used in this section, the term ‘firearm’ does not include—
“(1) any machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the National Firearms Act);
“(2) any firearm silencer (as defined in section 921 of this title); and
“(3) a destructive device (as defined in section 921 of this title).”

WT 01-15-2013 19:43

Yes, but I think NJ retirees cannot carry HPs within NJ.

BLACK Z 01-15-2013 20:44

SO I wonder if Current or Retired LEO's in NY can posses Hi Cap mags for other guns besides Duty weapons? Do LEO's Have to get rid of all there Hi Caps for there Personnel guns?

Walter Bishop 01-15-2013 20:53

Active officers would be exempt from the 7 round limit when on duty and most likely if they are carrying their issued weapon when off duty. If they were carrying a personal weapon off duty they would probably have to obey the 7 round limit.

BLACK Z 01-15-2013 21:00

So all of our Hi Cap mags we will have to get rid of, That is crazy, Even carrying our off duty we would be limited to 7, that is complete BS I hope this gets fought and overturned.

igor 01-16-2013 03:36

well that certainly rules out going to my sisters place in the hamptons

steveksux 01-16-2013 05:15

Nobody else had a mag limit before now? CA? Maybe call, write before you go. If they think it's legal, AG, State police, and you have an email to that effect, hard to see someone on the street jamming you up. Are NY officers exempt? If not, they'll think you're not either.

At this point, it's not whether it'a legal, since nobody knows for sure yet. It's are you likely to have to go to court to find out.

Wonder why 7 rounds, also, rather than 10? Is it because there might be 10 round masha out there for a lot of pistols, so by saying 7 is the limit they've effectively banned the majority of semi-autos until someone bothers making 7 round msgs for 1 state (which may never be with their while to manufacture unless 7 rounds becomes a national limit)?

No grandfather clause either, hope that ism't the case nationally when the dust clears.

Randy



posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

BLACK Z 01-16-2013 05:22

I wonder if anyone will try and start a petition or something this is nuts. What if you have a odd ball gun that is not even made anymore, you will then never be able to get a mag, I can't believe that this would get passed.

Steve in PA 01-16-2013 06:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by WT (Post 19869240)
Yes, but I think NJ retirees cannot carry HPs within NJ.

Not if they are qualified under LEOSA. LEOSA trumps NJ State law. LEOSA clearly states that if you meet LEOSA criteria, then the carrying of HP ammo is allowed.

Retired NJ officers who choose not to get LEOSA qualified would not be allowed to carry them.

CAcop 01-16-2013 06:33

I seem to recall LEOSA and associated case law essentially states if your home state/department alllows it you can carry it anywhere except NFA items and AP rounds.

I have heard of no one being arrested in CA for carrying under LEOSA. If any place would jam them up it would be SF and that is a giant tourist trap. Some officer by now has had contact with SFPD.

ithaca_deerslayer 01-16-2013 07:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by steveksux (Post 19870524)
Nobody else had a mag limit before now? CA? Maybe call, write before you go. If they think it's legal, AG, State police, and you have an email to that effect, hard to see someone on the street jamming you up. Are NY officers exempt? If not, they'll think you're not either.

At this point, it's not whether it'a legal, since nobody knows for sure yet. It's are you likely to have to go to court to find out.

Wonder why 7 rounds, also, rather than 10? Is it because there might be 10 round masha out there for a lot of pistols, so by saying 7 is the limit they've effectively banned the majority of semi-autos until someone bothers making 7 round msgs for 1 state (which may never be with their while to manufacture unless 7 rounds becomes a national limit)?

No grandfather clause either, hope that ism't the case nationally when the dust clears.

Randy



posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

There is a grandfather for the 10-rounders. But they eliminated the grandfather for the pre-ban (1994) 11+ mags.

ithaca_deerslayer 01-16-2013 07:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by BLACK Z (Post 19870544)
I wonder if anyone will try and start a petition or something this is nuts. What if you have a odd ball gun that is not even made anymore, you will then never be able to get a mag, I can't believe that this would get passed.

Good people here are trying to fight it.

Bad people who passed the law don't care about rights or freedom. It really is that simple.

meeko 01-16-2013 07:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve in PA (Post 19870635)
Not if they are qualified under LEOSA. LEOSA trumps NJ State law. LEOSA clearly states that if you meet LEOSA criteria, then the carrying of HP ammo is allowed.

Retired NJ officers who choose not to get LEOSA qualified would not be allowed to carry them.

+1 All the hollow point bullet controversy was addressed in the updated LEOSA in I believe 2010

WT 01-16-2013 08:05

Why would LEOSA apply to retired NJ cops within NJ?

I thought LEOSA addressed interstate travel of retired and active police officers. Since retired NJ cops living in NJ obviously is not an interstate travel thing I don't see where the federal law applies.

That said, I cannot believe a retired NJ cop carrying his NJ concealed carry permit is going to get jammed up for carrying HPs.

Maybe a Garden State cop could chime in with his understandings?

Ducowti 01-16-2013 08:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by BLACK Z (Post 19870544)
I wonder if anyone will try and start a petition or something this is nuts. What if you have a odd ball gun that is not even made anymore, you will then never be able to get a mag, I can't believe that this would get passed.

If you have hardware you want but is now illegal, send it to a relative or trusted friend out of state or hide it until this nonsense is repealed when the impending control of the legislature shifts back to R.

One of the female NY sens., I think maybe Marchione?, has a petition on her .gov site.

None of us can believe and are literally sick over it. All of my LE cronies and friends have spent the last week calling and emailing the reps here obviously to no avail. The ban and mag cap components of this trash are so painfully misdirected and ill-conceived by this shmuck of unrivaled caliber (Gov) it frustrates me to the point of pain.

Do a youtube search for Sen. Greg Ball's comments at the session Monday - made me proud to be in his district. Same guy who is leading the charge against the Journal News' publishing of the permit holder map.


ETA: Sen. Marchione's petition for repeal http://www.nysenate.gov/webform/stan...leen-marchione

Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

WT 01-16-2013 08:17

Looking at some NJ websites.

From the NJSP website
"It should also be noted that, as civilians, retired officers cannot legally carry hollow-point ammunition or utilize high-capacity ammunition magazines (capable of holding more than 15 rounds of ammunition) in the handgun they are carrying."


Other websites state that they are looking for some NJ retiree to step up and be a test case. Any volunteers?

meeko 01-16-2013 08:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by WT (Post 19871044)
Looking at some NJ websites.

From the NJSP website
"It should also be noted that, as civilians, retired officers cannot legally carry hollow-point ammunition or utilize high-capacity ammunition magazines (capable of holding more than 15 rounds of ammunition) in the handgun they are carrying."


Other websites state that they are looking for some NJ retiree to step up and be a test case. Any volunteers?

You don't need to have a test case. Just present a case legislativley. Have all the facts on the retired LEO's training, the fact that HP's are more effective and less likely to pass through the suspect and injuring an innocent person.

Besides I can't speak for everyone but when I'm off duty I am a civillian!

Bill Lumberg 01-16-2013 09:31

Because that's part of what it does. It governs off duty, off reservation, and retired carry. For federal law enforcement, it doesn't give them anything they don't already have until retirement.
Quote:

Originally Posted by WT (Post 19871005)
Why would LEOSA apply to retired NJ cops within NJ?

I thought LEOSA addressed interstate travel of retired and active police officers. Since retired NJ cops living in NJ obviously is not an interstate travel thing I don't see where the federal law applies.

That said, I cannot believe a retired NJ cop carrying his NJ concealed carry permit is going to get jammed up for carrying HPs.

Maybe a Garden State cop could chime in with his understandings?



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:44.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright ©2013, Glock Talk, All Rights Reserved.