LEOSA and the NYPD [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : LEOSA and the NYPD


Sippo
08-23-2011, 08:28
To our GT friends in the NYPD:

I've read of the court case concerning a Pennsylvania Constable arrested (and later acquitted) for possession of a firearm while serving warrants in the Greater NYC area. He was lawfully carrying concealed on-duty when he was arrested for possession (no other charges were filed). That was few years ago.

I am wondering what is the climate toward off-duty LEO's from other states carrying concealed under LEOSA in NYC (as a tourist)? Would my LEO credentials be met with hostility by an officer there if asked to see my carry permit?

Yes, I know technically it is lawful to do so, but I'm not interested in making a statement on a family vacation. I do appreciate the right to carry off-duty for personal defense.

I'd appreciate your advice.
__________________

Hack
08-23-2011, 08:34
I'm DOJ LEO through the BOP. For us although it is legal to do so, sometimes from what I have heard it has been met with mixed views concerning BOP LEOS carrying in NYC. However, with municipal and state police and those federal that are readily recognized as being LE it has not really been a problem, and for that matter there are those who may even help you find some good places to go to.

I myself have gone to upstate NY armed, but those areas are different than the NYC laws and mindset.

Ajon412
08-23-2011, 09:43
I believe the NYPD got slapped for that one. You shouldn't have a problem, as most coppers there are pro LE and gun. There are some members here that will chime in that can attest to the current atmosphere, but I believe that the members have been updated on this legislation. I once called a LEO from out of state inquiring about carrying in their jurisdiction prior to LEOSA. I'll never forget his statement, "If I don't have a problem there (NYC) then you won't have a problem here"....:whistling:....We exchanged contact info and I never heard from him again....I guess enjoyed his visit.....:rofl:

nohocop
08-23-2011, 12:28
I declared my firearm at La Guardia and was met by 2 Port Police officers. I had my credentials out and was treated just fine. No issues.

seanmac45
08-23-2011, 12:39
I have said it before and will state it again.


NYPD gave professional courtesy long before HR 218/LEOSA and we still continue to do so to this day.

As long as you aren't drunk, armed and causing a stink you are good to go.

Of course, Statue of Liberty and Empire State Building are issues, but everywhere else is fine. Concealed means concealed.

Come, relax, enjoy, and don't worry about it.

OldCurlyWolf
08-23-2011, 12:53
I have said it before and will state it again.


NYPD gave professional courtesy long before HR 218/LEOSA and we still continue to do so to this day.

As long as you aren't drunk, armed and causing a stink you are good to go.

Of course, Statue of Liberty and Empire State Building are issues, but everywhere else is fine. Concealed means concealed.

Come, relax, enjoy, and don't worry about it.

Since the Statue and Liberty Island are NPS, the only problem would be the ferry to the Island. What is the problem with the Empire State Building? The private ownership doesn't like concealed carry licensees?

seanmac45
08-23-2011, 13:02
Since the Statue and Liberty Island are NPS, the only problem would be the ferry to the Island. What is the problem with the Empire State Building? The private ownership doesn't like concealed carry licensees?

You'll get in eventually, but their security team has a reputation of being a pain in the ass. Remember they are not NYPD. We won't take the hit for them:rofl:

Ajon412
08-23-2011, 13:05
I have said it before and will state it again.


NYPD gave professional courtesy long before HR 218/LEOSA and we still continue to do so to this day.

As long as you aren't drunk, armed and causing a stink you are good to go.

Of course, Statue of Liberty and Empire State Building are issues, but everywhere else is fine. Concealed means concealed.

Come, relax, enjoy, and don't worry about it.

NO problem at the Statute. Just approach and ID yourself, with creds, to the US Park Police at the screening station. You'll be required to secure your weapon and pick it up on the way out.....:wavey:

seanmac45
08-23-2011, 14:36
Eh, to me that is a problem but I guess you are right.

fla2760
08-23-2011, 17:17
i have said it before and will state it again.


Nypd gave professional courtesy long before hr 218/leosa and we still continue to do so to this day.

As long as you aren't drunk, armed and causing a stink you are good to go.

Of course, statue of liberty and empire state building are issues, but everywhere else is fine. Concealed means concealed.

Come, relax, enjoy, and don't worry about it.

This.

Glockwork Orange
08-23-2011, 18:04
I can only speak for my own experiences while on NYPD...several times BEFORE LEOSA was in effect, I came across LEO's from other Departments who were on vacation...those LEO's always told me they were armed and they showed their badge/credentials...if those credentials/badge matched their license, they were given a friendly "have a nice day"...now I can't say the same if you encounter an overzealous rookie who's looking for a "look at me" arrest...I've flew back and forth from XXXXXXX to NYC several times since I left with one or two pistols for CCW and have never had a problem...If you are an LEO then print out and carry a copy of the LEOSA and keep it on your person...if your encounter does not go exactly as I described, then have the officer call for a Patrol Supervisor and/or request he check your credentials through the Operations Division (a system is set up to contact your Department and verify you as an LEO)...If you are an LEO and you have your credentials then carry confidently and be very careful that your CCW does not print and stays concealed...NYC is VERY anti-gun and the sheep get spooked VERY easily when it comes to firearms...NYPD is very friendly to members of other Departments, don't let one or two "stories" deter you...

P.S. as of me leaving NYPD there was NO training given about LEOSA, so many officers were not aware of it or what it allowed...that might have changed in the last few years though...Good Luck!

Glockwork Orange
08-23-2011, 18:05
I have said it before and will state it again.


NYPD gave professional courtesy long before HR 218/LEOSA and we still continue to do so to this day.

As long as you aren't drunk, armed and causing a stink you are good to go.

Of course, Statue of Liberty and Empire State Building are issues, but everywhere else is fine. Concealed means concealed.

Come, relax, enjoy, and don't worry about it.



+1, that too!

Glockwork Orange
08-23-2011, 18:08
I declared my firearm at La Guardia and was met by 2 Port Police officers. I had my credentials out and was treated just fine. No issues.




My experiences also, except it was always one PA cop...they just escort you from counter to TSA where they check everything before they put your bag on...

3Speedyfish3
08-23-2011, 18:13
Same experience at JFK. Port Authority PO was friendly after seeing my identification. He offered to jump us up in the security line. Nice guy.

Sippo
08-24-2011, 06:18
OK, Guys. So just to make it more interesting... I'm a Federal Healthcare Provider for the Federal BOP. I meet all of the qualifications (including the authority to arrest provisions) of LEOSA in order to carry off-duty. I requalify annually with firearms and I am certified to carry on duty if circumstances would dictate. I have a memo from the director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons stating this fact.

I don't carry a badge but I have BOP credentials. The problem I anticipate is LEO's aren't used to dealing with a healthcare provider as an LEO.

Any thoughts?

buddah
08-24-2011, 06:24
Just remember 2 things in NYC (or anywhere for that matter):
1) Professional courtesy stops when you become unprofessional
2) Concealed means concealed.

For the record the U.S Park Police at Statue of Liberty are very LEO friendly. Just discreetly approached one of the Park cops and discreetly showed him my creds. and asked if they could assist you with expediting the long line. :whistling:

CJStudent
08-24-2011, 07:15
OK, Guys. So just to make it more interesting... I'm a Federal Healthcare Provider for the Federal BOP. I meet all of the qualifications (including the authority to arrest provisions) of LEOSA in order to carry off-duty. I requalify annually with firearms and I am certified to carry on duty if circumstances would dictate. I have a memo from the director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons stating this fact.

I don't carry a badge but I have BOP credentials. The problem I anticipate is LEO's aren't used to dealing with a healthcare provider as an LEO.

Any thoughts?

Keep a copy of the LEOSA stuff they issue during IF, and maybe get one of the credential cases that has the badge-like medallion on the outside (like from AD Meyers or Sally's).

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Hack
08-24-2011, 10:16
OK, Guys. So just to make it more interesting... I'm a Federal Healthcare Provider for the Federal BOP. I meet all of the qualifications (including the authority to arrest provisions) of LEOSA in order to carry off-duty. I requalify annually with firearms and I am certified to carry on duty if circumstances would dictate. I have a memo from the director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons stating this fact.

I don't carry a badge but I have BOP credentials. The problem I anticipate is LEO's aren't used to dealing with a healthcare provider as an LEO.

Any thoughts?

Go to the Sallyport Archives, look up the LEOSA information on there.

Here is a little help.
http://www.prisonofficer.org/attachments/f100/f73/20d1183648515-federal-bureau-prisons-leosa-leosa_1.pdf

Hack
08-24-2011, 10:17
Not meaning to thread jack, but there is a valid question on here that I thought I would address for a fellow BOP staff member. I am going to paste a few things here to help the person out.

1 Management and the Union could not come to a resolution on the matter
of personal weapon storage for staff on BOP property.
2 The law should not be interpreted as granting any benefits other than
the exemption to State and local prohibitions on the carrying of a concealed
firearm. State and local jurisdictions regulate an individual's ability to
obtain a firearms permit or purchase a firearm in a variety of ways. For
example, at least one jurisdiction has imposed a requirement that an
individual's employer verify the employee's need to carry a firearm off duty
as a condition of his or her employment. Bureau staff are not required to
carry a firearm off duty as a condition of employment, and, therefore, the
Bureau is not responsible for providing a letter of necessity or statement to
this effect.
U.S. Department of Justice
Federal Bureau of Prisons
Office of the Director Washington, D.C. 20534
February 27, 2006
MEMORANDUM FOR ALL STAFF
FROM: Harley G. Lappin, Director
SUBJECT: Guidance Regarding the Law Enforcement Officers
Safety Act (LEOSA)
This memorandum provides updated guidance regarding the Law
Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-277; 18 U.S.C.
§§ 926B and 926C; July 22, 2004) (LEOSA) as it pertains to Bureau
of Prisons (Bureau) staff. My March 14, 2005, memorandum to all
staff titled “Information on Implementation of the Law Enforcement
Officers Safety Act” is hereby rescinded. Management and the
Union met in April 2005 over the implementation of LEOSA. All
matters that were agreed upon between the parties are incorporated
in this memorandum.1 The President of the Council of Prison
Locals received a copy of this memorandum prior to issuance.
LEOSA exempts qualified current and retired law enforcement
officers from State and local laws that prohibit carrying
concealed firearms2 (a copy of LEOSA is included with this
memorandum as an attachment). On January 31, 2005, the
3 LEOSA defines a qualified current law enforcement officer as an
employee who (1) is 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 has statutory powers of arrest;
(2) is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm; (3) is not the subject of
any disciplinary action by the agency; (4) meets standards, if any,
established by the agency which require the employee to regularly qualify in
the use of a firearm; (5) is not under the influence of alcohol or another
intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance; and (6) is not prohibited by
Federal law from receiving a firearm.
4 The Department’s guidance makes clear that individuals who meet the
definition of a qualified law enforcement officer under LEOSA may or may not
meet the definition of a law enforcement officer under the Civil Service
Retirement System or the Federal Employees Employee Retirement System.
(Emphasis added.)
- 2 -
Department of Justice (Department) issued guidance to all
components regarding application of LEOSA to current and retired
Department law enforcement officers (a copy of the Department’s
guidance is included with this memorandum as an attachment).3
Most BOP staff who have primary or secondary law enforcement
status are “law enforcement” officers as defined in LEOSA,
because most of these staff are “authorized by the agency to
carry a firearm,” as required by the law (see 18 U.S.C. § 926B
(c)(2)). But, certain staff who qualify as “law enforcement
officers” for retirement purposes are NOT “authorized by the
agency to carry a firearm,” (for example, Chaplains, as discussed
below). A staff member’s retirement system status (i.e., law
enforcement status) is a necessary condition but not a sufficient
condition to determine eligibility under LEOSA.4
This memorandum should not be construed as the Bureau of Prisons
encouraging any staff member to take any particular action with
regard to LEOSA. Staff must continue to abide by Bureau policies
and/or procedures regarding personal firearms that:
(1) prohibit staff from carrying or using a personal firearm
while on duty;
(2) prohibit personal firearms from being brought into an
institution or on the grounds of any Federal prison (except
for personal firearms to be used on an institution firing
range as authorized by the Warden, where constant possession
and control of the firearm is maintained);
5 On April 7, 2005, Management and the Executive Board of the Council of
Prison Locals agreed that “local supplemental agreements or MOUs negotiated
under the current Master Agreement remain in effect under the terms of the
current Master Agreement and are not affected by this guidance unless they are
contrary to or are in violation of law (statute) or regulation.”
- 3 -
(3) prohibit storing personal firearms in Bureau facilities5 or
in vehicles parked on Bureau property; and
(4) require personal firearms that are owned by staff in
reservation housing to be stored in a specified secure area
other than residences.
Personal Responsibility of Off-Duty Employees for Carrying/Using
Concealed Personal Firearms Under LEOSA
The carrying of concealed personal firearms by off-duty staff
pursuant to LEOSA is not an extension of official Bureau duties.
Any actions taken by off-duty staff involving personal firearms
will not be considered actions within the scope of Bureau
employment, but rather will be considered actions taken as
private citizens. Off-duty staff will be individually and
personally responsible for any event that may relate to the
carrying or use of a concealed personal firearm under LEOSA.
Arrest and law enforcement authorities for Bureau employees are
governed by statute (18 U.S.C. § 3050) (attached), Federal
regulations (28 C.F.R. §§ 511.10-511.16) (attached), the
Department of Justice Policy Statement on the Use of Deadly Force
(attached), and Bureau policy (Program Statement No. 5510.09,
Searching, Detaining, or Arresting Persons Other than Inmates;
and Chapter 7 of Program Statement No. 5500.12, Correctional
Services Procedures Manual on “Firearms and Badges”). These
authorities may be exercised only in furtherance of official
Bureau duties as explained in the statute, regulations, and
program statements. LEOSA does not, within the Act itself, give
off-duty staff any arrest authority or law enforcement authority.
Additionally, LEOSA exempts qualified current and retired law
enforcement officers from State and local laws that prohibit
“carrying” concealed firearms. LEOSA’s language does not include
exemptions from State and local laws for any other firearmsrelated
activities, for example, purchasing, registering,
licensing, or the permissible use of firearms. It is, therefore,
incumbent upon off-duty staff to be aware of the laws,
ordinances, regulations, etc., within their jurisdiction that may
impact any aspect of their ability to obtain, carry, or use a
personal firearm under LEOSA.
- 4 -
Use of Bureau of Prisons Identification for LEOSA Purposes
Following Union negotiations, the Bureau has decided to approve
staff use of Bureau identification cards or credentials for LEOSA
purposes. Consequently, the Bureau will no longer issue specific
LEOSA identification cards. Staff who received a LEOSA
identification card pursuant to the March 14, 2005, guidance must
return it to the Employee Services Department within two weeks of
the date of this memorandum.
Bureau identification cards or credentials may always be used by
staff to verify Bureau employment to any entity. This includes,
but is not limited to, presenting your Bureau identification card
or credentials, when necessary, to another Federal, State, or
local law enforcement officer for purposes of explaining your
eligibility to carry a concealed personal firearm in public under
LEOSA. This situation could arise during a routine traffic stop,
while shopping in public, or in other situations.
In these type situations, it is important that off-duty staff not
misrepresent that they are acting in furtherance of their
official Bureau duties. There should never be a time when offduty
staff claim to be carrying a concealed personal firearm as
part of their Bureau employment or in furtherance of their
official Bureau duties.
LEOSA does not alter the Bureau’s policy which allows the use of
Bureau credentials to obtain permissible discounts offered to a
broad class of Government employees (see Bureau Program Statement
No. 3420.09, Standards of Employee Conduct, Section 17.c).
Neither does LEOSA change the Bureau’s policy regarding badges.
Official Bureau identification badges will be issued to staff
only when they are assigned to duties that require the carrying
of a firearm (see Bureau Program Statement No. 5500.12,
Correctional Services Procedures Manual, Section 705).
Outside Employment
The Bureau rescinds its categorical prohibition on outside
employment which requires the use of a firearm (see Bureau
Program Statement No. 3420.09, Standards of Employee Conduct,
Section 18). The Program Statement will be amended to reflect
this change.
Employees are reminded that pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 3801.106(b)(ii)
they are still prohibited from engaging in outside employment
that involves criminal matters. “Criminal matters,” for this
purpose, includes involvement with a Federal, State, or local law
enforcement agency, or with inmates as defined in the Standards
of Conduct, or with State and local inmates. In addition, the
6 See Bureau Program Statement No. 3420.09, Standards of Employee
Conduct, for a review of what is considered to be disciplinary action by the
Bureau.
- 5 -
prohibition covers outside employment that requires being
deputized, granted police powers or arrest authority, or
involvement with the courts. All requests for outside employment
that require the carrying of a firearm must be reviewed and
approved by the staff member’s immediate supervisor, CEO, and the
Ethics Office prior to beginning the outside employment.
Specific examples of prohibited outside employment may include,
but are not limited to: auxiliary, reserve, or regular police
officers; sheriffs or deputy sheriffs; and other positions that
provide police or arrest powers to enforce criminal laws.
Specific examples of permissible outside employment may include,
but are not limited to: a property repossessor charged with
recovering property on behalf of a financial institution, a store
security guard, positions involving search and rescue operations,
and other positions that do not require the use of police powers
or arrest authority, but may allow the carrying of a firearm.
Disciplinary Action
To be a qualified law enforcement officer for purposes of LEOSA,
an employee must not be “the subject of any disciplinary action
by the agency.”6 For this purpose, the Bureau considers an
employee to be the subject of “any disciplinary action” when the
decision letter is issued to the employee (meaning, disciplinary
action begins). Disciplinary action ends when all sanctions that
were issued are completed. “Disciplinary action” includes both
disciplinary and adverse actions as stated in the Master
Agreement and Title 5 C.F.R. Part 3801. For demotion actions and
letters of reprimand, the sanction is deemed completed on the
date the letter rendering the demotion action or the letter of
reprimand is issued.
Public Health Service Officers
Public Health Service (PHS) officers detailed to the Bureau do
not have the statutory powers of arrest conferred upon Bureau
staff by 18 U.S.C. § 3050 (see 28 C.F.R. § 511.10(b)).
Consequently, these PHS officers do not meet one of the necessary
criteria in the LEOSA definition of a “qualified law enforcement
officer,” and do not qualify to carry a concealed personal
firearm pursuant to LEOSA.
- 6 -
Chaplains
Bureau Program Statement No. 3939.07, Chaplains’ Employment,
Responsibilities, and Endorsements, expressly prohibits chaplains
from participating in firearms training, which likewise prohibits
them from being issued firearms to perform official Bureau
duties. Consequently, because chaplains are not “authorized by
the agency to carry a firearm,” they do not meet one of the
necessary criteria to be a “qualified law enforcement officer”
for LEOSA purposes, and do not qualify to carry a concealed
personal firearm pursuant to LEOSA.
Employees For Whom Firearms Qualification is Optional
Employees in non-institution, primary or secondary law
enforcement status (e.g., Central Office and Regional staff), may
choose to complete the Bureau’s firearms qualification program in
order to remain authorized to be issued a firearm as part of
official Bureau duties. Such staff should consult with their
Employee Services Department to determine the most appropriate
method for qualifying. Most likely, the Employee Services
Department will have to coordinate with a Bureau facility that
provides firearms qualification to determine a suitable time for
non-institution staff.
Retired Law Enforcement Officers
Some Bureau retirees who were law enforcement officers will wish
to take advantage of this law. The guidance from the Department
requires that a retiree’s identification include the name of
the individual, the individual’s photograph, an identification
number traceable to the bearer, the date the employee retired
in good standing, and the phrase “Retired Law Enforcement
Officer.” Guidance regarding the issuing of the required
identification cards to retirees is contained in a March 30,
2005, memorandum from W. Elaine Chapman, Acting Assistant
Director, Human Resource Management Division, to Employee
Services Administrators and Managers titled “Additional Guidance
and Procedures for Bureau Retirees to Obtain a Law Enforcement
Officers Safety Act Identification Card.”
The Bureau will not be responsible for training or qualifying
retirees to carry a concealed personal firearm under LEOSA. In
order to be authorized under LEOSA to carry a firearm, a Bureau
retiree must qualify in accordance with State standards for
active law enforcement officers, as provided in LEOSA (18 U.S.C.
§ 926C(d)(2)(B)), and the guidance from the Department.
Copies of LEOSA to Employees
All Bureau employees will be provided a copy of this guidance
memorandum and its attachments and are required to sign to
acknowledge receipt of these documents.
Attachments
Acknowledgment of Receipt of Guidance Materials
Regarding the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004
I have received a copy of the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act
(P.L. 108-277); the Bureau of Prisons February 27, 2006,
memorandum titled “Guidance Regarding the Law Enforcement
Officers Safety Act (LEOSA);” the Department of Justice’s January
31, 2005, memorandum titled “Guidance on the Application of the
Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004 to Current and
Retired Department of Justice Law Enforcement Officers,” title 18
U.S.C. § 3050; 28 C.F.R. §§ 511.10-511.16, and the Department of
Justice Policy Statement on the Use of Deadly Force.
Staff Member Printed Name
Staff Member Signature
Date Signed
Place this form on the left side of the employee’s Official
Personnel Folder
Title 18, United States Code
§ 3050. Bureau of Prisons employees’ powers
An officer or employee of the Bureau of Prisons may—
(1) make arrests on or off of Bureau of Prisons property without warrant for violations of
the following provisions regardless of where the violation may occur: sections 111
(assaulting officers), 751 (escape), and 752 (assisting escape) of title 18, United States
Code, and section 1826 (c) (escape) of title 28, United States Code;
(2) make arrests on Bureau of Prisons premises or reservation land of a penal, detention,
or correctional facility without warrant for violations occurring thereon of the following
provisions: sections 661 (theft), 1361 (depredation of property), 1363 (destruction of
property), 1791 (contraband), 1792 (mutiny and riot), and 1793 (trespass) of title 18,
United States Code; and
(3) arrest without warrant for any other offense described in title 18 or 21 of the United
States Code, if committed on the premises or reservation of a penal or correctional
facility of the Bureau of Prisons if necessary to safeguard security, good order, or
government property;
if such officer or employee has reasonable grounds to believe that the arrested person is guilty of
such offense, and if there is likelihood of such person’s escaping before an arrest warrant can be
obtained. If the arrested person is a fugitive from custody, such prisoner shall be returned to
custody. Officers and employees of the said Bureau of Prisons may carry firearms under such
rules and regulations as the Attorney General may prescribe.

Sippo
08-24-2011, 10:18
Thanks, Hack.

Hack
08-24-2011, 10:19
PUBLIC LAW 108–277—JULY 22, 2004 118 STAT. 865
Public Law 108–277
108th Congress
An Act
To amend title 18, United States Code, to exempt qualified current and former
law enforcement officers from State laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed
handguns.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Law Enforcement Officers Safety
Act of 2004’’.
SEC. 2. EXEMPTION OF QUALIFIED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
FROM STATE LAWS PROHIBITING THE CARRYING OF
CONCEALED FIREARMS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code,
is amended by inserting after section 926A the following:
‘‘§ 926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified 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 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 law enforcement
officer’ means an employee of a governmental agency who—
‘‘(1) is 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 has
statutory powers of arrest;
‘‘(2) is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm;
‘‘(3) is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the
agency;
‘‘(4) meets standards, if any, established by the agency
which require the employee to regularly qualify in the use
of a firearm;
Law Enforcement
Officers Safety
Act of 2004.
18 USC 921 note.
July 22, 2004
[H.R. 218]
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:46 Jul 23, 2004 Jkt 029139 PO 00277 Frm 00001 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL277.108 APPS06 PsN: PUBL277
118 STAT. 866 PUBLIC LAW 108–277—JULY 22, 2004
‘‘(5) is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating
or hallucinatory drug or substance; and
‘‘(6) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a
firearm.
‘‘(d) The identification required by this subsection is the photographic
identification issued by the governmental agency for which
the individual is employed as a law enforcement officer.
‘‘(e) 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) any destructive device (as defined in section 921 of
this title).’’.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections for such
chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section
926A the following:
‘‘926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law enforcement officers.’’.
SEC. 3. EXEMPTION OF QUALIFIED RETIRED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
FROM STATE LAWS PROHIBITING THE CARRYING
OF CONCEALED FIREARMS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code,
is further amended by inserting after section 926B the following:
‘‘§ 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) retired in good standing from service with a public
agency as a law enforcement officer, other than for reasons
of mental instability;
‘‘(2) before such retirement, 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 retirement, was regularly employed as
a law enforcement officer for an aggregate of 15 years or more;
or
‘‘(B) retired 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) has a nonforfeitable right to benefits under the retirement
plan of the agency;
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:46 Jul 23, 2004 Jkt 029139 PO 00277 Frm 00002 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL277.108 APPS06 PsN: PUBL277
PUBLIC LAW 108–277—JULY 22, 2004 118 STAT. 867
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 218 (S. 253):
HOUSE REPORTS: No. 108–560 (Comm. on the Judiciary).
SENATE REPORTS: No. 108–29 accompanying S. 253 (Comm. on the Judiciary).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 150 (2004):
June 23, considered and passed House.
July 7, considered and passed Senate.
Æ
‘‘(5) 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;
‘‘(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 retired 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 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; or
‘‘(2)(A) a photographic identification issued by the agency
from which the individual retired from service as a law enforcement
officer; and
‘‘(B) a certification issued by the State in which the individual
resides 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.
‘‘(e) 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).’’.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections for such
chapter is further amended by inserting after the item relating
to section 926B the following:
‘‘926C. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified retired law enforcement officers.’’.
Approved July 22, 2004.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:46 Jul 23, 2004 Jkt 029139 PO 00277 Frm 00003 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6580 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL277.108 APPS06 PsN: PUBL277
526
§ 506.1 28 CFR Ch. V (7–1–05 Edition)
§ 506.1 What is the purpose of individual
inmate commissary accounts?
The purpose of individual inmate
commissary accounts is to allow the
Bureau to maintain inmates’ monies
while they are incarcerated. Family,
friends, or other sources may deposit
funds into these accounts.
§ 506.2 How may family, friends, or
other sources deposit funds into an
inmate commissary account?
(a) Family and friends must mail deposits
to the centralized inmate commissary
account at the address we provide.
(1) The deposit envelope must not
contain any enclosures intended for delivery
to the inmate. We may dispose
of any enclosure.
(2) The deposit must be in the form of
a money order made out to the inmate’s
full name and complete register
number. We will return checks to the
sender provided the check contains an
adequate return address.
(b) Other sources, (such as tax refunds,
dividends from stocks, or state
benefits) must be forwarded for deposit
to the centralized inmate commissary
account.
PART 511—GENERAL
MANAGEMENT POLICY
Subpart A [Reserved]
Subpart B—Searching and Detaining or
Arresting Persons Other Than Inmates
Sec.
511.10 Purpose and scope.
511.11 Definitions.
511.12 Procedures for searching visitors.
511.13 Controlled visiting—denying visits.
511.14 Right of refusal/termination of a
visit.
511.15 Detaining visitors.
511.16 Use of arrest authority.
AUTHORITY: 5 U.S.C. 301; 18 U.S.C. 751, 752,
1791, 1792, 1793, 3050, 3621, 3622, 3624, 4001, 4012,
4042, 4081, 4082 (Repealed as to offenses committed
on or after November 1, 1987), 5006–
5024 (Repealed October 12, 1984 as to offenses
committed after that date), 5039; 28 U.S.C.
509, 510; 28 CFR 0.95–0.99, 6.1.
SOURCE: 49 FR 44057, Nov. 1, 1984, unless
otherwise noted.
Subpart A [Reserved]
Subpart B—Searching and Detaining
or Arresting Persons Other
Than Inmates
§ 511.10 Purpose and scope.
(a) In an effort to prevent the introduction
of contraband (such prohibited
objects as defined in § 511.11(c)) into an
institution, Bureau of Prisons staff
may subject all persons entering an institution,
or during their presence in
an institution, to a search of their persons
and effects.
(b) Title 18, United States Code, section
3050 authorizes Bureau of Prisons
employees (does not include United
States Public Health Service employees)—
(1) To make an arrest on or off Bureau
of Prisons premises without warrant
for violation of the following provisions
regardless of where the violation
may occur: section 111 (assaulting
officers), section 751 (escape), section
752 (assisting escape) of title 18, United
States Code, and section 1826(c) (escape)
of title 28, United States Code;
(2) To make an arrest on Bureau of
Prisons premises or reservation land of
a penal, detention, or correctional facility
without warrant for violation occurring
thereon of the following provisions:
section 661 (theft), section 1361
(depredation of property), section 1363
(destruction of property), section 1791
(contraband), section 1792 (mutiny and
riot), and section 1793 (trespass) of title
18, United States Code, and
(3) To arrest without warrant for any
other offense described in title 18 or 21
of the United States Code, if committed
on the premises or reservation
of a penal or correctional facility of
the Bureau of Prisons if necessary to
safeguard security, good order, or government
property. Bureau policy provides
that such an arrest may be made
when staff has probable cause to believe
that a person has committed one
of these offenses and when there is
likelihood of the person escaping before
a warrant can be obtained.
[59 FR 5924, Feb. 8, 1994]
VerDate Aug<04>2004 12:51 Aug 11, 2005 Jkt 205106 PO 00000 Frm 00536 Fmt 8010 Sfmt 8010 Y:\SGML\205106.XXX 205106
527
Bureau of Prisons, Justice § 511.13
§ 511.11 Definitions.
(a) Reasonable suspicion. As used in
this rule, reasonable suspicion exists if
the facts and circumstances that are
known to the Warden warrant rational
inferences by a person with correctional
experience that a person is engaged,
or attempting or about to engage,
in criminal or other prohibited
behavior. A reasonable suspicion may
be based on reliable information, even
if that information is confidential; on a
positive reading of a metal detector; or
when contraband or an indicia of contraband
is found during search of a
visitor’s personal effects.
(b) Probable cause. As used in this
rule, probable cause exists if the facts
and circumstances that are known to
the Warden would warrant a person of
reasonable caution to believe that an
offense has been committed.
(c) Prohibited object. A firearm or destructive
device; ammunition; a weapon
or an object that is designed or intended
to be used as a weapon or to facilitate
escape from a prison; a narcotic
drug, lysergic acid diethylamide,
or phencyclidine; a controlled substance
or alcoholic beverage; any
United States or foreign currency; and
any other object that threatens the
order, discipline, or security of a prison,
or the life, health, or safety of an
individual.
[59 FR 5924, Feb. 8, 1994]
§ 511.12 Procedures for searching visitors.
(a) The Warden shall post a notice
outside the institution’s secure perimeter
advising all persons that it is a
Federal crime to bring upon the institution
grounds any weapons, intoxicants,
drugs, or other contraband, and
that all persons, property (including
vehicles), and packages are subject to
search. A person may not use either a
camera or recording equipment on institution
grounds without the written
consent of the Warden.
(b) The Warden may require visitors
entering the institution from outside
the secure perimeter to submit to a
search:
(1) By electronic means (for example,
walk-through and/or hand-held metal
detector).
(2) Of personal effects. The institution
ordinarily provides locker space
for personal effects not taken into the
visiting room.
(c) The Warden may authorize a pat
search of a visitor as a prerequisite to
a visit when there is reasonable suspicion
that the visitor possesses contraband,
or is introducing or attempting
to introduce contraband into the
institution.
(d) The Warden may authorize a visual
search (visual inspection of all
body surfaces and cavities) of a visitor
as a prerequisite to a visit to an inmate
in a low and above security level
institution, or administrative institution,
or in a pretrial or in a jail (detention)
unit within any security level institution
when there is reasonable suspicion
that the visitor possesses contraband
or is introducing or attempting
to introduce contraband into the
institution.
(e) The Warden may authorize a
breathalyzer or urine surveillance test
or other comparable test of a visitor as
a prerequisite to a visit to an inmate
when there is reasonable suspicion that
the visitor is under the influence of a
narcotic, drug, or intoxicant. As stated
in § 511.14, the visitor may refuse to
take the test, but the visit will not be
allowed.
(f) A pat search, visual search, or
urine surveillance test is to be conducted
by a person of the same sex as
the visitor. A pat search, visual search,
urine surveillance, or breathalyzer test
shall be conducted out of the view of
other visitors and inmates.
[49 FR 44057, Nov. 1, 1984, as amended at 51
FR 26126, July 18, 1986; 56 FR 4159, Feb. 1,
1991; 59 FR 5925, Feb. 8, 1994; 63 FR 11818, Mar.
10, 1998]
§ 511.13 Controlled visiting—denying
visits.
(a) The Warden may restrict visiting
to controlled situations or to more
closely supervised visits when there is
any suspicion that the visitor is introducing
or attempting to introduce contraband,
or when there has been a prior
incident of such introduction or attempted
introduction, or when there is
VerDate Aug<04>2004 12:51 Aug 11, 2005 Jkt 205106 PO 00000 Frm 00537 Fmt 8010 Sfmt 8010 Y:\SGML\205106.XXX 205106
528
§ 511.14 28 CFR Ch. V (7–1–05 Edition)
any concern, based upon sound correctional
judgment, about the visitor presenting
a risk to the orderly running of
the visiting room or area.
(b) The Warden may deny visiting
privileges when a controlled or closely
supervised visit is not possible.
(c) Staff shall deny admission to the
institution to a visitor who refuses to
be screened by a metal detector or who
refuses to undergo a search of person
and/or effects as dictated by these
rules.
§ 511.14 Right of refusal/termination of
a visit.
(a) A visitor who objects to any of
the search or test or entrance procedures
has the option of refusing and
leaving the institution property, unless
there is reason to detain and/or arrest.
(b) Staff may terminate a visit upon
determining that a visitor is in possession
of, or is passing or attempting to
pass contraband not previously detected
during the search process, or is
engaged in any conduct or behavior
which poses a threat to the orderly or
secure running of the institution, or to
the safety of any person in the institution.
The staff member terminating the
visit is to prepare written documentation
describing the basis for this action.
§ 511.15 Detaining visitors.
(a) Staff may detain a visitor or any
person who is found to be introducing
or attempting to introduce such contraband
as narcotics, intoxicants, lethal
or poisonous chemicals or gases,
guns, knives, or other weapons, or who
is engaged in any other conduct which
is a violation of law (including, but not
limited to, actions which assist escape,
such as possession of escape paraphernalia,
or which induce riots), pending
notification and arrival of appropriate
law enforcement officials. The
standard for such detention is a finding,
based on probable cause, that the
person has engaged in such a violation.
Institution staff should not interrogate
suspects unless immediate questioning
is necessary to protect the security of
the institution or the life or safety of
any person.
(b) Staff shall employ only the minimum
amount of force necessary to detain
the individual. Visitors will be detained
in an area away from the sight
of, and where there can be no contact
with, other visitors and inmates.
§ 511.16 Use of arrest authority.
To effect an arrest under any of the
cited sections in § 511.10(b) of this part,
or under any future arrest authorization
statute that may be approved by
the Congress of the United States, staff
shall have probable cause that the suspected
individual is violating the law.
Whenever possible, the Warden or designee
shall make the determination as
to whether an arrest should occur.
PART 512—RESEARCH
Subpart A [Reserved]
Subpart B—Research
Sec.
512.10 Purpose and scope.
512.11 Requirements for research projects
and researchers.
512.12 Content of research proposal.
512.13 Institutional Review Board.
512.14 Submission and processing of proposal.
512.15 Access to Bureau of Prisons records.
512.16 Informed consent.
512.17 Monitoring approved research
projects.
512.18 Termination or suspension.
512.19 Reports.
512.20 Publication of results of research
project.
512.21 Copyright provisions.
AUTHORITY: 5 U.S.C. 301; 18 U.S.C. 3621, 3622,
3624, 4001, 4042, 4081, 4082 (Repealed in part as
to offenses committed on or after November
1, 1987), 5006–5024 (Repealed October 12, 1984
as to offenses committed after that date),
5039; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510; 28 CFR 0.95–0.99.
Subpart A [Reserved]
Subpart B—Research
SOURCE: 59 FR 13860, Mar. 23, 1994, unless
otherwise noted.
§ 512.10 Purpose and scope.
General provisions for the protection
of human subjects during the conduct
of research are contained in 28 CFR
part 46. The provisions of this subpart
B specify additional requirements for
VerDate Aug<04>2004 12:51 Aug 11, 2005 Jkt 205106 PO 00000 Frm 00538 Fmt 8010 Sfmt 8010 Y:\SGML\205106.XXX 205106
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
POLICY STATEMENT ON THE USE OF DEADLY FORCE
(Approved July 1, 2004)
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
I. Law enforcement officers and correctional officers of the
Department of Justice may use deadly force only when
necessary, that is, when the officer has a reasonable belief
that the subject of such force poses an imminent danger of
death or serious physical injury to the officer or to
another person.
A. Deadly force may not be used solely to prevent the
escape of a fleeing suspect.
B. Firearms may not be fired solely to disable moving
vehicles.
C. If feasible and if to do so would not increase the
danger to the officer or others, a verbal warning to
submit to the authority of the officer shall be given
prior to the use of deadly force.
D. Warning shots are not permitted outside of the prison
context.
E. Officers will be trained in alternative methods and
tactics for handling resisting subjects which must be
used when the use of deadly force is not authorized by
this policy.
CUSTODIAL SITUATIONS
II. Unless force other than deadly force appears to be
sufficient, deadly force may be used to prevent the escape
of a prisoner committed to the custody of the Attorney
General or the Bureau of Prisons
A. if the prisoner is effecting his or her escape in a
manner that poses an imminent danger to the safety of
the officer or another person; or
B. if the prisoner is escaping from a secure facility or
is escaping while in transit to or from a secure
facility.
III. If the subject is in a non-secure facility, deadly force may
be used only when the subject poses an imminent danger of
death or serious physical injury to the officer or another
person.
- 2 -
IV. If the subject is in transit to or from a non-secure
facility and is not accompanied by a person who is in
transit to or from a secure facility, deadly force may be
used only when the subject poses an imminent danger of death
or serious physical injury to the officer or to another
person.
V. After an escape from a facility or vehicle and its immediate
environs has been effected, officers attempting to apprehend
the escaped prisoner may use deadly force only when the
escaped prisoner poses an imminent danger of death or
serious physical injury to the officer or another person.
VI. Deadly force may be used to maintain or restore control of a
prison or correctional facility when the officer reasonably
believes that the intended subject of the deadly force is
participating in a disturbance in a manner that threatens
the safety of the officer or another person.
VII. In the prison context, warning shots may be fired within or
in the immediate environs of a secure facility if there is
no apparent danger to innocent persons: (A) If reasonably
necessary to deter or prevent the subject from escaping from
a secure facility; or (B) if reasonably necessary to deter
or prevent the subject’s use of deadly force or force likely
to cause serious physical injury.
APPLICATION OF THE POLICY
VIII. This Policy is not intended to, and does not, create any
right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at
law or in equity, against the United States, its
departments, agencies, or other entities, its officers or
employees, or any other person.

Hack
08-24-2011, 10:21
For the monitors, if what I posted was a little too much, if you would leave the link that I posted in this thread from Prison Officer, as it has the information for all BOP Staff concerning our responsibilities concerning LEOSA.

Hack
08-24-2011, 10:31
Thanks, Hack.
You're welcome.

Hack
08-24-2011, 10:37
Keep a copy of the LEOSA stuff they issue during IF, and maybe get one of the credential cases that has the badge-like medallion on the outside (like from AD Meyers or Sally's).

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Main thing concerning the badge like medallion, don't use it as some sort of off duty authority, rather use it as a help in identification only. Off duty and by administrative policy we are pretty much on our own concerning weapons carry. I would also advise getting liability insurance for work that includes policy coverage concerning LEOSA related incidents.

I use this: http://www.massbenefits.com/. Just copy and paste, and this is for federal employees only, to my knowledge. Not spam, in that I am helping out a fellow staff member. You may PM if you like for my groupwise.

Bill Lumberg
08-24-2011, 13:36
It'd be a close thing. In many areas, corrections isn't considered LE. I won't even start to opine on a "federal healthcare provider". Either you're actually a cop or you're not. Doesn't matter what flavor. Even where it is (corrections-considered LE) (and rightfully so), they're often viewed as restricted to the res- permit required for off duty or off res. What does your agency tell you?

CJStudent
08-24-2011, 14:28
Main thing concerning the badge like medallion, don't use it as some sort of off duty authority, rather use it as a help in identification only. Off duty and by administrative policy we are pretty much on our own concerning weapons carry. I would also advise getting liability insurance for work that includes policy coverage concerning LEOSA related incidents.

I use this: http://www.massbenefits.com/. Just copy and paste, and this is for federal employees only, to my knowledge. Not spam, in that I am helping out a fellow staff member. You may PM if you like for my groupwise.

Fully agreed on the medallion usage; just thinking about something you said about it in the NYC area. It seems to be much more recognizable.

It'd be a close thing. In many areas, corrections isn't considered LE. I won't even start to opine on a "federal healthcare provider". Either you're actually a cop or you're not. Doesn't matter what flavor. Even where it is (corrections-considered LE) (and rightfully so), they're often viewed as restricted to the res- permit required for off duty or off res. What does your agency tell you?

Hack pretty much posted the agency's LEOSA guidance. That's identical to what I received.

Hack
08-24-2011, 20:55
It'd be a close thing. In many areas, corrections isn't considered LE. I won't even start to opine on a "federal healthcare provider". Either you're actually a cop or you're not. Doesn't matter what flavor. Even where it is (corrections-considered LE) (and rightfully so), they're often viewed as restricted to the res- permit required for off duty or off res. What does your agency tell you?

Hi Bill Lumberg. What I posted was a copy and paste of our agency guidelines, policy and law concerning LEOSA. If you read through there it will tell you everything they see concerning that, and it is what we use when off duty for carrying on our credentials. You will also see that they placed within that a copy of LEOSA as per title 18USC926B and 926C, although they may have not posted the revised LEOSA law as per the last amendment to the law, which differs for us concerning how much time is needed to serve as LEO in order to be covered under LEOSA for when a person is through with serving as a LEO.

When I worked with Missouri as a corrections officer our agency did not back us for off duty carry, and restricted our carry to on duty only, although by the law it was not as restrictive, even before LEOSA. Now, unless they get the agency to change they still are restricted to the carry law as per under CCW, and need the permit to carry concealed. Many law enforcement agencies in Missouri do not look at them as commissioned law enforcement, and tend to go by the MODOC guidelines when it comes to what is authorised carry of a handgun. Unfortunately because of the guidelines that they go by concerning off duty carry for MODOC there are those who have a tendency to want to try to apply the same standards to BOP employees authorised to carry off duty regardless of our lawful coverage to carry under LEOSA guidelines, as well as current agency policy. This is one of the major reasons that I have liability insurance that includes within the policy premium coverage some protection concerning carrying under LEOSA. Most law enforcement agencies within the immediate area in Missour, St. Joseph; Kansas City, MO; Kansas City; KS other small cities within Clay County, MO; Jackson County, MO; Wyandotte County, KS; Johnson County, KS have not had any issues with us carrying off duty, although there has been the occasional officer who has tried making a fuss, but after their department is notified and provided evidence of our law enforcement status the handgun is given back to our officer.

As to myself, I have carried discreetly without issues through states in the Midwest, and the Northeast without incident during my travels.

Sippo
08-25-2011, 05:13
It'd be a close thing. In many areas, corrections isn't considered LE. I won't even start to opine on a "federal healthcare provider". Either you're actually a cop or you're not. Doesn't matter what flavor. Even where it is (corrections-considered LE) (and rightfully so), they're often viewed as restricted to the res- permit required for off duty or off res. What does your agency tell you?

To make matters more interesting, my BOP ID lists me as a Federal Dental Officer. I am a GS (not a PHS) healthcare provider who qualifies voluntarily annually on firearms. Region and local legal have advised me I have that option and that it is proper to ID myself as a sworn federal officer. I couldn't get that word "dental" removed from my ID though, thinking the word dental would just raise irrelevant questions by other LEO's.

Bill Lumberg
08-25-2011, 09:12
I wish you the best of luck- go as far as you can. From your own descriptions though, it doesn't sound as if you are intended to carry on or off duty, and sounds a great deal like a moot point.

DaBigBR
08-25-2011, 10:42
To make matters more interesting, my BOP ID lists me as a Federal Dental Officer. I am a GS (not a PHS) healthcare provider who qualifies voluntarily annually on firearms. Region and local legal have advised me I have that option and that it is proper to ID myself as a sworn federal officer. I couldn't get that word "dental" removed from my ID though, thinking the word dental would just raise irrelevant questions by other LEO's.

Honestly, with a lot of cops out there you could probably tell them that "dental" was short for "detention" and be on your way, especially on a BOP ID.

And I are one, by the way.

Sippo
08-25-2011, 11:03
I wish you the best of luck- go as far as you can. From your own descriptions though, it doesn't sound as if you are intended to carry on or off duty, and sounds a great deal like a moot point.

No BOP CO's "carry on-duty" unless it's tower duty or escort duty (or special circumstances). I'm authorized to employ lethal force should certain conditions dictate "on-duty" regardess of whether I'm carrying at the time or not. I don't believe LEOSA makes a qualification as to whether you carry on-duty or not. However, every qualification listed in the law is met in my circumstance.

My concern is most people would do a double-take when the LEO carrying happens to be a dentist....

Hack
08-25-2011, 11:15
I wish you the best of luck- go as far as you can. From your own descriptions though, it doesn't sound as if you are intended to carry on or off duty, and sounds a great deal like a moot point.

Although in the normal course of duties a medical person may not be required to carry on duty, if they among BOP federal law enforcement officers who have qualified at the firearms range each year they are definitely covered under LEOSA; and may be required to in an emergency situation be armed on duty.

The PHS officers belong to a different agency and work with assorted different agencies, and are not considered qualified law enforcement concerning firearms any longer. It used to be however that they were required to qualify when working under the BOP.

Now as to credentials, as long as they have the US Attorney General authorised and BOP authorised credentials or an ID card as BOP staff, and are qualified law enforcement officers for the purposes using a firearm whilst on duty; meaning that they qualify at the range each year, and otherwise meet the specifications as per agency policy then they are allowed to carry off duty under LEOSA. This is regardless of the position title that is on the credential or ID card. To wit all staff who are authorised may have anything concerning their position whether it says officer or not on the ID. For example, we have secretaries, supervisors in different fields, inmate supervisors in different fields, safety specialists, and more who do may not have the word officer on their ID. All are considered correctional officers because of the position that they hold in the BOP with the exception of PHS personnel. PHS work primarily for the PHS, although they may work under the BOP.

So to summarize with the exception of very few positions, are all eligible to carry a firearm off duty, which guidelines and laws are covered in what I have posted; also that information being available through the URL that I posted. If you need more information PM me your work address and I will be glad to forward to you concerning that what I am authorised to forward to you from my own work address, verification of identity included. The PM box is a little full but I will try to make some room for any incoming PM's in a few days.

nohocop
08-25-2011, 12:04
LEOSA simply requires that the individual "is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm."
Very simple. On duty, off duty are completely irrelevant.

Bill Lumberg
08-25-2011, 13:22
If youre a sworn leo, the dentist thing shouldn't be a problem. Unless they have an innate fear of dentists.........I see your dilemma. No BOP CO's "carry on-duty" unless it's tower duty or escort duty (or special circumstances). I'm authorized to employ lethal force should certain conditions dictate "on-duty" regardess of whether I'm carrying at the time or not. I don't believe LEOSA makes a qualification as to whether you carry on-duty or not. However, every qualification listed in the law is met in my circumstance.

My concern is most people would do a double-take when the LEO carrying happens to be a dentist....

isp2605
08-25-2011, 15:55
Just being able to carry a firearm on or off duty is not enough to be covered under LEOSA.
Do you meet ALL of the criteria in the definition of a qualified LEO?
‘‘(c) As used in this section, the term ‘qualified law enforcement officer’ means an employee of a governmental agency who—
‘‘(1) is 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 has statutory powers of arrest;
‘‘(2) is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm;
‘‘(3) is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the agency;
‘‘(4) meets standards, if any, established by the agency which require the employee to regularly qualify in the use of a firearm;"

Read the last part of (1) above "and has statutory powers of arrest". Do you have that? If not then LEOSA does not apply. In many states COs do not have statutory powers of arrest. It's not a grocery list where a person gets to pick and choose which ones they want to apply. They all have to apply to be covered.
Being authorized to use lethal force has nothing to do with LEOSA.

Patchman
08-25-2011, 17:41
To make matters more interesting, my BOP ID lists me as a Federal Dental Officer. I couldn't get that word "dental" removed from my ID though, thinking the word dental would just raise irrelevant questions by other LEO's.


My concern is most people would do a double-take when the LEO carrying happens to be a dentist....


Any LEO familiar with the movie Marathon Man would have you proned on the ground. Especially if you say something like:

"Oh please, don't worry. I'm not going into that cavity. That nerve's already dying. A live, freshly-cut nerve is infinitely more sensitive. So I'll just drill into a healthy tooth until I reach the pulp... unless of course you agree I'm covered by LEOSA." :whistling:

jhooten
08-25-2011, 18:44
and has statutory powers of arrest[/U]". Do you have that? If not then LEOSA does not apply. In many states COs do not have statutory powers of arrest. It's not a grocery list where a person gets to pick and choose which ones they want to apply. They all have to apply to be covered.
Being authorized to use lethal force has nothing to do with LEOSA.

In case you didn't take that time to read the entire post Hack made on page one, there was a quote from Title 18 USC in that post that list the BOP arrest authority.

Here, I'll make it easier for you:" Title 18 United States Code § 3050. Bureau of Prisons employees’ powers
An officer or employee of the Bureau of Prisons may—
(1) make arrests on or off of Bureau of Prisons property without warrant for violations of
the following provisions regardless of where the violation may occur: sections 111
(assaulting officers), 751 (escape), and 752 (assisting escape) of title 18, United States
Code, and section 1826 (c) (escape) of title 28, United States Code;
(2) make arrests on Bureau of Prisons premises or reservation land of a penal, detention,
or correctional facility without warrant for violations occurring thereon of the following
provisions: sections 661 (theft), 1361 (depredation of property), 1363 (destruction of
property), 1791 (contraband), 1792 (mutiny and riot), and 1793 (trespass) of title 18,
United States Code; and
(3) arrest without warrant for any other offense described in title 18 or 21 of the United
States Code, if committed on the premises or reservation of a penal or correctional
facility of the Bureau of Prisons if necessary to safeguard security, good order, or
government property;"

There in plain legal speak is the statutory power of arrest spelled out for you.

My credential is quite clear. It says Telecommunications Specialist under the word RETIRED which is under the words Law Enforcement Officer in red.

Now if I could just get TCLOSE to issued me a retired qual card instead of carrying around a 8X11" folded up paper signed by the firearms instructor my cred holder wold be a lot neater and more credible. But that is a discussion for another thread.

isp2605
08-25-2011, 20:26
In case you didn't take that time to read the entire post Hack made on page one, there was a quote from Title 18 USC in that post that list the BOP arrest authority.
.

Yeah, I did read what Hack posted. And if you read what I posted I made the answer very clear for the OP. All he has to do is answer whether he has statutory power of arrest along with all the other requirements in LEOSA. Apparently he doesn't know if he has all of those requirements or he wouldn't be asking the question. So in "plain speak" it's spelled out in LEOSA statute which apparently either the OP hasn't read, or he doesn't understand, or he doesn't know if he meets those requirements. Once he figures out if he meets those requirements or once he understands what's written in LEOSA statute then he might know whether he's covered.
I also clarified that he made the comment that he's "authorized to employ lethal force". Being authorized to use lethal force has nothing at all to do with LEOSA.
Tell the OP to understand "plain speak". He's the one who asked the question and can't figure out "plain speak" of LEOSA.

Sippo
08-26-2011, 04:53
If youre a sworn leo, the dentist thing shouldn't be a problem. Unless they have an innate fear of dentists.........I see your dilemma.

Bill, I like that :)

Sippo
08-26-2011, 05:14
Yeah, I did read what Hack posted. And if you read what I posted I made the answer very clear for the OP. All he has to do is answer whether he has statutory power of arrest along with all the other requirements in LEOSA. Apparently he doesn't know if he has all of those requirements or he wouldn't be asking the question. So in "plain speak" it's spelled out in LEOSA statute which apparently either the OP hasn't read, or he doesn't understand, or he doesn't know if he meets those requirements. Once he figures out if he meets those requirements or once he understands what's written in LEOSA statute then he might know whether he's covered.
I also clarified that he made the comment that he's "authorized to employ lethal force". Being authorized to use lethal force has nothing at all to do with LEOSA.
Tell the OP to understand "plain speak". He's the one who asked the question and can't figure out "plain speak" of LEOSA.


Hi, ISP, OP here. (Nice pistol in your avatar) Thanks for your concern. After reading your response I had to go back and re-read my OP. I happen to know the contents of LEOSA and the criterion to qualify. I also know the difference between "employment of lethal force on the job" and "off-duty carry". You've made good points. But I think you may have misunderstood my intentions.

I'm concerned about these issues precisely because I have one of those duty titles on my ID few people would associate with law enforcement (let alone off-duty carry under LEOSA)

BTW, I think any cop in the NYPD would think a Pennsylvania Constable (referring to my OP) on-duty would fit LEOSA criteria, yet that same constable ended up in jail and eventually before a judge... and he was on duty while he was carrying.

So the real issue isn't whether I qualify under LEOSA or not (although it made interesting discussion) but what perceptions any cop on-scene (specifically in the NYPD) might have.

DaBigBR
08-26-2011, 13:01
BTW, I think any cop in the NYPD would think a Pennsylvania Constable (referring to my OP) on-duty would fit LEOSA criteria, yet that same constable ended up in jail and eventually before a judge... and he was on duty while he was carrying.

Do you know anything about constables in PA? While I agree that they should have probably just let the guy be, the PA state constable is a little bit unusual in comparison with "most" LE jobs.

nohocop
08-26-2011, 13:13
DaBigBR, before coming to your conclusions about the legal status of constables, you should be familiar with the law. Read the court's decision and pay attention to the legal analysis on page 7 of the opinion. Per that opinion, a Pennsylvania constable meets all the requirements of LEOSA.

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

meeko
08-26-2011, 16:03
Yeah, I did read what Hack posted. And if you read what I posted I made the answer very clear for the OP. All he has to do is answer whether he has statutory power of arrest along with all the other requirements in LEOSA. Apparently he doesn't know if he has all of those requirements or he wouldn't be asking the question. So in "plain speak" it's spelled out in LEOSA statute which apparently either the OP hasn't read, or he doesn't understand, or he doesn't know if he meets those requirements. Once he figures out if he meets those requirements or once he understands what's written in LEOSA statute then he might know whether he's covered.
I also clarified that he made the comment that he's "authorized to employ lethal force". Being authorized to use lethal force has nothing at all to do with LEOSA.
Tell the OP to understand "plain speak". He's the one who asked the question and can't figure out "plain speak" of LEOSA.

The problem with BOP is the lawyers in Central Office try to keep everyone dumb. Not to mention self serving administrators worring about the next promotion. So that naturally trickles down to most staff. I am a lead firearms instructor and former SORT member for BOP. There are a lot of folks in BOP that are clueless on the fact that BOP employees do have powers of arrest. As an instructor it drives me crazy that a lot (not all) want to run around saying FED LE this or that but are so clueless. Even though the arrest powers are "on duty only" that is one of the things that qualifies BOP staff to carry off duty.

It is listed in P.S. 5510.12 Detaining and arresting visitors to Bureau grounds and facilities. Every SORT team is tested on it at annual certification. If they are BPT qualified they should know that. Even though no one knows the last time a BOP employee arrested someone it is in there!

Hack
08-26-2011, 20:47
The problem with BOP is the lawyers in Central Office try to keep everyone dumb. Not to mention self serving administrators worring about the next promotion. So that naturally trickles down to most staff. I am a lead firearms instructor and former SORT member for BOP. There are a lot of folks in BOP that are clueless on the fact that BOP employees do have powers of arrest. As an instructor it drives me crazy that a lot (not all) want to run around saying FED LE this or that but are so clueless. Even though the arrest powers are "on duty only" that is one of the things that qualifies BOP staff to carry off duty.

It is listed in P.S. 5510.12 Detaining and arresting visitors to Bureau grounds and facilities. Every SORT team is tested on it at annual certification. If they are BPT qualified they should know that. Even though no one knows the last time a BOP employee arrested someone it is in there!

All true. I run into it at my facility, the various ignorances that abound are astounding. I have pointed some who are knuckle-heads concerning these issues to P.S., US Code, sometimes case precedent, (like what happened in Hawaii a while back). What sticks in my crawl is the fact that there are those who were so glad to see LEOSA pass, but now think that the BOP admin and higher ups are purposely keeping hands off of it altogether. They posted in Sallyport about the new amendments to LEOSA, they keep a copy of the documents that may be necessary to have access to concerning LEOSA and BOP staff concealed carry of a handgun. Other than that they just need to be familiarized with the law, keep their wits about themselves, and I always suggest having liability insurance just in case someone is out somewhere and the SHTF with one having to defend one's self with a firearm, or other firearm related incident.

meeko
08-27-2011, 05:58
All true. I run into it at my facility, the various ignorances that abound are astounding. I have pointed some who are knuckle-heads concerning these issues to P.S., US Code, sometimes case precedent, (like what happened in Hawaii a while back). What sticks in my crawl is the fact that there are those who were so glad to see LEOSA pass, but now think that the BOP admin and higher ups are purposely keeping hands off of it altogether. They posted in Sallyport about the new amendments to LEOSA, they keep a copy of the documents that may be necessary to have access to concerning LEOSA and BOP staff concealed carry of a handgun. Other than that they just need to be familiarized with the law, keep their wits about themselves, and I always suggest having liability insurance just in case someone is out somewhere and the SHTF with one having to defend one's self with a firearm, or other firearm related incident.

You are right on as well. What also concerns me is who they appoint as the next BOP Director (since they posted a dirctor position on USAjobs.gov that closed on 7 July whats that tell you) Hopefully it's someone with some sense.

nyapo
08-28-2011, 15:56
All state and local correction officers are authorized to carry off duty in New York by law. NYC dept of corrections has 10000 officers many of who carry off duty in the city everyday so the cops are used seeing COs with guns. I would be more afraid of carrying in place where COs do not Law Enforcement powers.

DaBigBR
08-28-2011, 16:02
DaBigBR, before coming to your conclusions about the legal status of constables, you should be familiar with the law. Read the court's decision and pay attention to the legal analysis on page 7 of the opinion. Per that opinion, a Pennsylvania constable meets all the requirements of LEOSA.

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

I agree that they meet the requirements under LEOSA, and I was not drawing any conclusions, other than that the office of PA constable is somewhat unusual in the way that it is oragnized and funded. We have a regular poster here who IS a PA constable (actually haven't seen him in a while) and has explained the position at length in the past.

nohocop
08-28-2011, 16:43
Roger that DaBigBR. I perhaps mis-read your post to imply that somehow they weren't qualified under LEOSA. When you said they should just "let the guy be" I thought you meant that PA constables were not LEOSA-qualified but were close enough that they should have gotten courtesy. They are good to go under LEOSA so by not "letting him be" the LEOs who arrested him made a huge mistake, perhaps even incurring legal exposure for false arrest, etc.

Anyway, we are good.

Patchman
08-28-2011, 16:54
When this PA Constable event happen?

Let's step back from this particular tree and look at the forrest. Since that time, I'm sure many on-duty LEOs have visited NYC, and many 0ff-duty LEOS have also visited NYC with their CCW guns. And to my knowledge, there hasn't been a problem.

This is also how I know LEOSA seems to be working throughout the country. No unusual news stories from anywhere about problems with visiting off-duty LEOs and their CCWing guns.

nohocop
08-28-2011, 17:23
PA Constable thing happened April 12, 2006.

Sippo
08-29-2011, 05:34
The problem with BOP is the lawyers in Central Office try to keep everyone dumb. Not to mention self serving administrators worring about the next promotion. So that naturally trickles down to most staff. I am a lead firearms instructor and former SORT member for BOP. There are a lot of folks in BOP that are clueless on the fact that BOP employees do have powers of arrest. As an instructor it drives me crazy that a lot (not all) want to run around saying FED LE this or that but are so clueless. Even though the arrest powers are "on duty only" that is one of the things that qualifies BOP staff to carry off duty.

It is listed in P.S. 5510.12 Detaining and arresting visitors to Bureau grounds and facilities. Every SORT team is tested on it at annual certification. If they are BPT qualified they should know that. Even though no one knows the last time a BOP employee arrested someone it is in there!

Hi, Meeko, I know you weren't referring to me personally as being "dumb" or "self-serving". I am familiar with USC Title 18 §3050. You were referring to Chapter 7 of P.S. 5510.12 also, weren't you.

BTW, thanks for your service in SORT!

meeko
08-29-2011, 06:56
Hi, Meeko, I know you weren't referring to me personally as being "dumb" or "self-serving". I am familiar with USC Title 18 §3050. You were referring to Chapter 7 of P.S. 5510.12 also, weren't you.

BTW, thanks for your service in SORT!

Hey Sippo, former AF here also. You are good to go in my book from what you posted. Not to rant here but, My main problem is with the way the admin at all levels just dumb BOP down. Also with some of the most senior custody staff. Some are borderline shooters every year or fail and want me to give up my lunch to get them "qualified" for easy overtime $$. I tell them to get with thye EDM and get rescheduled, it's more than about extra money. Firearms is one of the few types of training in BOP where you coulld get killed. Not to mention they don't fatham we are issued the firearms for a REASON. an instructor won't be with them on the street on a med trip.

I was refering to all of 5510.12 and how some of the same ones want to say Federal LE this or that but the don't act like it. What other agency is so confused about their arrest powers and when they can and can't use deadly force? (wish I could find a new home sometimes it gets old) That I blame both the line staff that are just going along with the bad info from the seniority above them years ago and the other half on the administration at the local and national level that don't seem to mind keeping everyone in the dark (they sure don't try to correct the behaivior).

Now new shooters that listen and are honostly trying I will stay all day and help them. The lazy ones we deal with year in year out have nothing coming from me except I do my best so they get to go home safe.

Sorry for the rant. Stay safe

Sippo
08-29-2011, 07:18
Meeko,

I was on mobility status most of my AF career. I was never one of those medics with the attitude of "I'm not a real officer, I'm just a doctor" types. I qualified expert on the M4 and 9mm every year and loved it!

When I got to Glynco they tried to talk me out of firearms training (Deja vu all over again; I suspect they had some bad experiences in the past with "medical types") I told them if I had a problem being around firearms I would have figured it out after 24 years in the military. (I doubt the guy telling me I shouldn’t fire spent a day in the military) Never gave me a straight answer as to why. Anyway, I shot expert and graduated Glynco with honors. I figured if I was going to work in a penitentiary I ought to get checked out with some of the local equipment, right (?)

I hear what you’re saying about the BOP dumbing things down. Sometimes I get the feeling they don’t trust the rank-and-file to do the right thing and act responsibly on the street. They seem to reinforce the perception we’re just “prison guards”…

Hack
08-29-2011, 09:42
Meeko,

I was on mobility status most of my AF career. I was never one of those medics with the attitude of "I'm not a real officer, I'm just a doctor" types. I qualified expert on the M4 and 9mm every year and loved it!

When I got to Glynco they tried to talk me out of firearms training (Deja vu all over again; I suspect they had some bad experiences in the past with "medical types") I told them if I had a problem being around firearms I would have figured it out after 24 years in the military. (I doubt the guy telling me I shouldn’t fire spent a day in the military) Never gave me a straight answer as to why. Anyway, I shot expert and graduated Glynco with honors. I figured if I was going to work in a penitentiary I ought to get checked out with some of the local equipment, right (?)

I hear what you’re saying about the BOP dumbing things down. Sometimes I get the feeling they don’t trust the rank-and-file to do the right thing and act responsibly on the street. They seem to reinforce the perception we’re just “prison guards”…

Sippo I am part of the rank and file, and have been for awhile. I hate to say so in a public forum, but will; that I have heard of some who were not acting responsibly on the street. From what I have heard from some of the older heads, (there are a number with some years on me, lol), it used to be that each officer had a badge, (possibly as far back as the sixties), but it was done away with because of lack of acting responsibly.

Then LEOSA is passed into law. There are officers, including other staff who have the best of intentions when carrying off duty, including myself. Unfortunately the minority of DA amongst us make it hard for others of us who are not that way concerning the carrying of firearms. When there are those who continue to get away with being a DA on the street, whether causing a raucous somewhere, receiving a DUI/DWI/OWI, and yet others who just drive bat dookie crazy it is no wonder that trouble comes up in some quarters for all of us. We get it here at times, although most of the locals know that we're not all that way. But, because of the few who are as I mentioned, (concerning their behaviour off duty), they are those who aren't going to know just by looking at our creds whether we are good guys, (although we should be exemplary).

Therefore with that in mind, any time I travel with a handgun it is concealed as discreetly as possible. If others do not see it, it does not become a matter of concern for anyone in their areas, wherever we may be at, at that time, (in the USA or its territories).

scosgt
05-22-2012, 21:29
Sorry to bump an old thread, but here goes:

The biggest problem with the "dentist" is whether he has a Law Enforcement" ID. That is absolutely required under LEOSA. It does not matter if he can use "deadly force", the standard is Statutory Powers of Arrest AND Department authorization to carry firearms.

That being said, NYPD will not break your chops if you have proper ID and a HR218 annual requalification card if you are retired.

A few people even got cute, like the PA Constable and Coastguardsman, and it still got upheld. The PA case was a pretty close call. The Law was intended to cover actual Law Enforcement Officers, and there are some job titles out there, many of which are part time, which are questionable at best.

Hack
05-22-2012, 22:05
Sorry to bump an old thread, but here goes:

The biggest problem with the "dentist" is whether he has a Law Enforcement" ID. That is absolutely required under LEOSA. It does not matter if he can use "deadly force", the standard is Statutory Powers of Arrest AND Department authorization to carry firearms.

That being said, NYPD will not break your chops if you have proper ID and a HR218 annual requalification card if you are retired.

A few people even got cute, like the PA Constable and Coastguardsman, and it still got upheld. The PA case was a pretty close call. The Law was intended to cover actual Law Enforcement Officers, and there are some job titles out there, many of which are part time, which are questionable at best.

First, the Search feature is a good thing to use. You will find all kinds of information on LEOSA, and strange titles.

As you may be aware there are all kinds of federal LE with interesting titles, Doctor, and Dentist being possibly a couple of those. Look at the agency that they come from; call where they are working at if need be. For example in the BOP we are correctional workers first, meaning that we all have what law enforcement authority there is with the office, according to Title 18 USC Sect. 3050. It was deemed enough for the agency to say that we are covered under LEOSA to carry.

Are there exceptions? Public Health Service is under their own organization umbrella and not covered by BOP for off duty carry. Anyone else you're concerned about, just look up BOP LEOSA in the search engine, or email someone within the agency. They should be able to get all of the information that is required for the public to see concerning their participation in LEOSA.

Keep in mind that many of us also have lawyers that will say that we can carry, along with case precedent already being out there.

Good day.

CJStudent
05-23-2012, 00:16
The problem with BOP is the lawyers in Central Office try to keep everyone dumb. Not to mention self serving administrators worring about the next promotion. So that naturally trickles down to most staff. I am a lead firearms instructor and former SORT member for BOP. There are a lot of folks in BOP that are clueless on the fact that BOP employees do have powers of arrest. As an instructor it drives me crazy that a lot (not all) want to run around saying FED LE this or that but are so clueless. Even though the arrest powers are "on duty only" that is one of the things that qualifies BOP staff to carry off duty.

It is listed in P.S. 5510.12 Detaining and arresting visitors to Bureau grounds and facilities. Every SORT team is tested on it at annual certification. If they are BPT qualified they should know that. Even though no one knows the last time a BOP employee arrested someone it is in there!

Ain't that the truth. I had a BOP lawyer (Special Asst. US attorney, at that) at Glynco tell my class that under LEOSA, you had to follow ALL state CCW laws, to the extent that your gun had to be unloaded in your trunk when in certain states (Illinois was the example used). You can tell that all DC thinks about is "liability".

Hack
05-23-2012, 07:27
Ain't that the truth. I had a BOP lawyer (Special Asst. US attorney, at that) at Glynco tell my class that under LEOSA, you had to follow ALL state CCW laws, to the extent that your gun had to be unloaded in your trunk when in certain states (Illinois was the example used). You can tell that all DC thinks about is "liability".

I used to have an LT who thought that way, and there are still several people who think that way. Willingly dumb to it in spite of the glaring facts

CJStudent
05-23-2012, 08:33
I used to have an LT who thought that way, and there are still several people who think that way. Willingly dumb to it in spite of the glaring facts

You know, I'd expect it at the institution, but this was a freakin' burro lawyer at Glynco! You'd think he would know better, or would at least teach the LAW, as opposed to what the burro would LIKE the law to say.

seanmac45
05-23-2012, 08:37
I am retired and qualify yearly as per LEOSA. I keep that qualification card tucked in nicely behind my retired ID.

However, I also maintain my NY, PA, and Fla CWP's just in case I come across a PO / DA who does not know about or support LEOSA.

Call me a belt and suspenders type of guy.

Hack
05-23-2012, 15:21
You know, I'd expect it at the institution, but this was a freakin' burro lawyer at Glynco! You'd think he would know better, or would at least teach the LAW, as opposed to what the burro would LIKE the law to say.

Well supposedly cream rises to the top. So do other things.:whistling:

Hack
05-23-2012, 15:23
I am retired and qualify yearly as per LEOSA. I keep that qualification card tucked in nicely behind my retired ID.

However, I also maintain my NY, PA, and Fla CWP's just in case I come across a PO / DA who does not know about or support LEOSA.

Call me a belt and suspenders type of guy.

OK. You're a belt and suspenders kind of guy.:supergrin:









Yeah me too. KS CCW, and the creds all kept together.

Sgt127
05-23-2012, 15:44
I am retired and qualify yearly as per LEOSA. I keep that qualification card tucked in nicely behind my retired ID.

However, I also maintain my NY, PA, and Fla CWP's just in case I come across a PO / DA who does not know about or support LEOSA.

Call me a belt and suspenders type of guy.

I wonder if that could hurt you in the long run. You are in a business that serves alcohol (51% establishment in Texas) for example. A CHL holder could not carry there. An LEO could. Are you carrying under your LEO status or under your CHL status?

One, would be illegal, the other, you are good.

Hack
05-23-2012, 16:32
I wonder if that could hurt you in the long run. You are in a business that serves alcohol (51% establishment in Texas) for example. A CHL holder could not carry there. An LEO could. Are you carrying under your LEO status or under your CHL status?

One, would be illegal, the other, you are good.

If he is retired it is by the laws of the LEOSA first. It pre-empts state law. The interesting thing is if he is retired he is not an active law enforcement officer, rather a retired law enforcement officer, but still carrying on LEOSA. I would have to think that law pre-empts such restrictions.

seanmac45
05-23-2012, 17:32
I wonder if that could hurt you in the long run. You are in a business that serves alcohol (51% establishment in Texas) for example. A CHL holder could not carry there. An LEO could. Are you carrying under your LEO status or under your CHL status?

One, would be illegal, the other, you are good.


I never thought of that one! I believe Hack is correct. This stuff does get complex at times.

fla2760
05-23-2012, 18:25
I am retired and qualify yearly as per LEOSA. I keep that qualification card tucked in nicely behind my retired ID.

However, I also maintain my NY, PA, and Fla CWP's just in case I come across a PO / DA who does not know about or support LEOSA.

Call me a belt and suspenders type of guy.


I do the same Sean, LEOSA current, FL Concealed Weapon's permit and PA non resident license to carry firearms. It would nice if NYS had a provision for non resident carry permits that were issued by NYC for retired MOS. Bloomberg is missing an opportunity for more funds for the city. I would get one as would most of the members of my 1013 club.

DaBigBR
05-23-2012, 18:59
One can never have too many lawful reasons to carry. I am authorized by state law, have LEOSA compliant creds, and a state-issued carry permit.

jhooten
05-23-2012, 19:22
Sorry to bump an old thread, but here goes:

The biggest problem with the "dentist" is whether he has a Law Enforcement" ID. That is absolutely required under LEOSA. It does not matter if he can use "deadly force", the standard is Statutory Powers of Arrest AND Department authorization to carry firearms.

That being said, NYPD will not break your chops if you have proper ID and a HR218 annual requalification card if you are retired.

A few people even got cute, like the PA Constable and Coastguardsman, and it still got upheld. The PA case was a pretty close call. The Law was intended to cover actual Law Enforcement Officers, and there are some job titles out there, many of which are part time, which are questionable at best.


I'll use my retired BOP cred as an example. On the line "POSITION AT THE TIME OF RETIREMENT" it says "Telecommunications Specialist"

At the top it says:
Law Enforcement Officer
RETIRED

Good enough?

sgtlmj
05-24-2012, 15:06
The BOP allows all of its staff to be covered under LEOSA because they consider every staff member a "Correctional Officer first." Any member of the staff can be tasked to fill a post at any time, including an armed post.

CJStudent
05-25-2012, 00:39
The BOP allows all of its staff to be covered under LEOSA because they consider every staff member a "Correctional Officer first." Any member of the staff can be tasked to fill a post at any time, including an armed post.

With the exception of Chaplains, PHS officers, and some (most) doctors and dentists.

Mayhem like Me
05-25-2012, 09:02
Call me crazy but in 30 years of carrying a gun off duty everywhere I go , I have never had a problem..

It's amazing what a polite and professional attutude will do for you along with a business card and a "look me up if you ever get in my AO " does....

But, hey I also remember the days when we did not go out of our way to write each other tickets...... or be a badge heavy ******** when stopped in another jurisdiction

Oh well maybe maturity and sanity will work it's way back into the profession,,, or better yet rise back to the top where it should be leading and shaping the new guys.

CJStudent
05-25-2012, 09:13
Call me crazy but in 30 years of carrying a gun off duty everywhere I go , I have never had a problem..

It's amazing what a polite and professional attutude will do for you along with a business card and a "look me up if you ever get in my AO " does....

But, hey I also remember the days when we did not go out of our way to write each other tickets...... or be a badge heavy ******** when stopped in another jurisdiction

Oh well maybe maturity and sanity will work it's way back into the profession,,, or better yet rise back to the top where it should be leading and shaping the new guys.

Let me know if you ever see that again. It's still there, but it's fewer and further between. I will say it's more common here out in the country, though, and LMPD has always been pretty cool to me. There's always a few tools, though.

seanmac45
05-25-2012, 09:51
Call me crazy but in 30 years of carrying a gun off duty everywhere I go , I have never had a problem..

It's amazing what a polite and professional attutude will do for you along with a business card and a "look me up if you ever get in my AO " does....

But, hey I also remember the days when we did not go out of our way to write each other tickets...... or be a badge heavy ******** when stopped in another jurisdiction

Oh well maybe maturity and sanity will work it's way back into the profession,,, or better yet rise back to the top where it should be leading and shaping the new guys.


You are correct, of course. However in the interest of being accurate in our discussion let me state that I have been carrying for 30 years as well and have always encountered professional courtesy wherever I have roamed in this country.

The certifications and licenses that I maintain are in place in case I ever get involved in a shooting. NEVER have I had to produce a license or HR 218 cert to a fellow officer once I have properly identified myself.

My caution is in place to protect me more against overzealous prosecutors than it is due to my fellow officers.

isp2605
05-25-2012, 10:54
You have to look a little deeper at the consequences than just "professional courtesy" for the past 30 yrs. Had you ever had to use the firearm during those 30 yrs while outside your jurisdiction you would have soon learned that "professional courtesy" doesn't apply when others are involved. Just being stopped carrying a firearm is minor to what occurs when actually having to use your firearm. Carrying illegally outside your jurisdiction opened a person up to all kinds of criminal and civil liability that is way outside "professional courtesy". What LEOSA does is gives a person legal standing for legally carrying where they carry. Thinking that you're going to rely on someone's good graces and luck is very short sighted and lack of fully understanding the consequences.

Mayhem like Me
05-25-2012, 11:04
You are correct, of course. However in the interest of being accurate in our discussion let me state that I have been carrying for 30 years as well and have always encountered professional courtesy wherever I have roamed in this country.

The certifications and licenses that I maintain are in place in case I ever get involved in a shooting. NEVER have I had to produce a license or HR 218 cert to a fellow officer once I have properly identified myself.

My caution is in place to protect me more against overzealous prosecutors than it is due to my fellow officers.

you are correct sir and I was in no way addressing your concerns with my post .just a general observation on some of the crazy things happening in and among our profession

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Mayhem like Me
05-25-2012, 11:09
You have to look a little deeper at the consequences than just "professional courtesy" for the past 30 yrs. Had you ever had to use the firearm during those 30 yrs while outside your jurisdiction you would have soon learned that "professional courtesy" doesn't apply when others are involved. Just being stopped carrying a firearm is minor to what occurs when actually having to use your firearm. Carrying illegally outside your jurisdiction opened a person up to all kinds of criminal and civil liability that is way outside "professional courtesy". What LEOSA does is gives a person legal standing for legally carrying where they carry. Thinking that you're going to rely on someone's good graces and luck is very short sighted and lack of fully understanding the consequences.

exactly what are you talking about here .this is an l e o s a question is it not exactly what point are you trying to address
are you saying you should not be professionally courteous to others or are you saying my point is somehow moot?

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

DaBigBR
05-25-2012, 12:29
exactly what are you talking about here .this is an l e o s a question is it not exactly what point are you trying to address
are you saying you should not be professionally courteous to others or are you saying my point is somehow moot?

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

He's saying you don't carry the gun for decoration, you carry in case you have to shoot somebody. If you carry it illegaly, and shoot somebody, it won't be a police officer, but a prosecutor or grand jury that will make decisions, which will almost certainly result in criminal charges.

isp2605
05-25-2012, 13:14
exactly what are you talking about here .this is an l e o s a question is it not exactly what point are you trying to address
are you saying you should not be professionally courteous to others or are you saying my point is somehow moot?
Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
DaBigBR understands and explained it pretty well. It's pretty simple.
What I am saying is if you are outside your jurisdiction and have to use your firearm isn't it better to rely on LEOSA than just thinking "professional courtesy" is going to protect you? "Professional courtesy" isn't going to do a thing for you when others are involved in a shooting situation. The situation will have risen far above the level to expect the thin blue line is going to protect you and look the other way.
To put it in even simpler terms. You are in another state on vacation, far outside your jurisdiction. You become involved in a shooting situation with someone who was trying to rob you. Completely justified. But you happen to miss with 1 rd and it hits an innocent bystander killing them. Without LEOSA or an applicable state law you were not legal carrying in that jurisdiction. So what are you looking at? Unlawful use of a weapon (maybe a felony) and maybe a resulting homicide charge for the innocent bystander because you were carrying illegally. No "professional courtesy" is going to come to your rescue. However at least with LEOSA in such a situation you were legally carrying in that situation.
Now think about the resulting civil suit. You're carrying illeglly outside your jurisdiction when you kill an innocent. You're toast.
Or to put it even more simply, without LEOSA, you get caught illegally carrying a firearm and charged, quite possibly with a felony. The prosecutor doesn't believe in "professional courtesy" an now you have a felony conviction. So where's your next job going to be? It won't be in LE. Now think that you're 2 yrs from retirement when all this happens and your retirement just went out the window.
Understand now?

Mayhem like Me
05-25-2012, 13:20
He's saying you don't carry the gun for decoration, you carry in case you have to shoot somebody. If you carry it illegaly, and shoot somebody, it won't be a police officer, but a prosecutor or grand jury that will make decisions, which will almost certainly result in criminal charges.

I've been a police officer for 30 years I've used my gun on an off duty I pretty much understand the way it works .what does that have to do with professional courtesy and acting like an adult when you carry a gun .

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Mayhem like Me
05-25-2012, 13:21
DaBigBR understands and explained it pretty well. It's pretty simple.
What I am saying is if you are outside your jurisdiction and have to use your firearm isn't it better to rely on LEOSA than just thinking "professional courtesy" is going to protect you? "Professional courtesy" isn't going to do a thing for you when others are involved in a shooting situation. The situation will have risen far above the level to expect the thin blue line is going to protect you and look the other way.
To put it in even simpler terms. You are in another state on vacation, far outside your jurisdiction. You become involved in a shooting situation with someone who was trying to rob you. Completely justified. But you happen to miss with 1 rd and it hits an innocent bystander killing them. Without LEOSA or an applicable state law you were not legal carrying in that jurisdiction. So what are you looking at? Unlawful use of a weapon (maybe a felony) and maybe a resulting homicide charge for the innocent bystander because you were carrying illegally. No "professional courtesy" is going to come to your rescue. However at least with LEOSA in such a situation you were legally carrying in that situation.
Now think about the resulting civil suit. You're carrying illeglly outside your jurisdiction when you kill an innocent. You're toast.
Or to put it even more simply, without LEOSA, you get caught illegally carrying a firearm and charged, quite possibly with a felony. The prosecutor doesn't believe in "professional courtesy" an now you have a felony conviction. So where's your next job going to be? It won't be in LE. Now think that you're 2 yrs from retirement when all this happens and your retirement just went out the window.
Understand now?
would you please show me anywhere I said thin blue line would protect me .
understand it now?

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

isp2605
05-25-2012, 13:46
would you please show me anywhere I said thin blue line would protect me .
understand it now?
Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
Try to follow along. It makes it easier for all of us.
You obviously didn't understand my post, either the 1st one or the 2nd. Frankly, what you're talking about doesn't make a lot of sense but takes some decyphering.
Your post #76 is a clear example that you're not grasping it.

Pre-LEOSA discussion follows:
Do you understand about carrying illegally outside your jurisdiction?
Do you understand the repercussions of using a firearm while carrying illegally?
Do you understand that prior to LEOSA if you used your firearm outside of your jurisdiction that you could be charged with unlawful use of a weapon which could be a felony?
Do you understand that once you use your weapon outside your jurisdiction that no amount of "professional courtesy" is going to come to your aid?

Relying on "professional courtesy" to keep you from getting jammed up is taking a huge gamble that obviously you don't fully comprehend.

Let me refresh your memory what you wrote:
"Call me crazy but in 30 years of carrying a gun off duty everywhere I go , I have never had a problem.."
Whatever state you're from, doesn't matter, you had gone to another state outside your jurisdiction for a visit. You get caught carrying and the LEO gives you a break and renders "professional courtesy". No problem, we give breaks to all kinds of people every day. But if he hadn't?
But the situation is you have to use your firearm while out of your jurisdiction and a bystander gets injured/killed. You do realize it won't be the LEO on the scene making the decisions any more whether to look the other way? You're carrying illegally and an innocent is shot. Kiss your retirement and your job goodbye because you just bought yourself a felony charge.
To address your quote above - so you carried for 30 yrs. If you relied entirely on the hoped-for good graces of the fellow LEO then you risked more than you realize. Your personal opinion doesn't really matter. If you don't look at the reality then you're just living in a make believe world hoping that things will always go the way you want things to be. Sorry, life doesn't happen that way.

DaBigBR
05-25-2012, 16:29
I've been a police officer for 30 years I've used my gun on an off duty I pretty much understand the way it works .what does that have to do with professional courtesy and acting like an adult when you carry a gun .

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Nothing. My point, and isp2605's, remains as follows: carrying the gun and using the gun are entirely different things. Anybody choosing to carry a gun illegaly, regardless of how "fair" or "unfair" it is, or how trained and experienced they are, needs to fully realize the difference between the two. If you carry illegaly, I would bet very strongly on "professional courtesy" being extended and everything working out. If you use the gun while carrying it illegaly, I woul bet very strongly on a highly publicized arrest, potential loss of employment, potential loss of pension, and potential felony conviction. I respect what you are saying, and fortunately it's almost a complete non-issue with LEOSA on the books, but the fact remains that getting jammed up for merely carrying the gun is entirely different than using it.

This type of thing has been coming up an awful lot around here lately. Somebody makes a statement about their beliefs as they relate to carrying and/or using a gun, particularly while in a different state, and when somebody tries to explain some of the potentially life-changing aspects of choosing to do so, they end up all butt-hurt and defensive.

Let me be really clear on my position: I have no issue with law abiding folks carrying guns anywhere they damned well please (only with very few exceptions), and I generally support any effort to support and expand that right. HOWEVER, neither my opinion, nor that of anybody else on here, matters for squat, particularly in a shooting scenario when the street cops are out of the equation and it's the suits and juries making the decision. "I'd rather be tried by twelve than carried by six" are tall words for most folks, who likely do not appreciate just what an impact choosing to carry in what are, at best, questionable circumstances, will have on them.

And I'll add to what isp2605 recently said about using the gun and having an "innocent" shot: don't think you wouldn't be charged even if only the bad guy was shot. Look at the Sturgis incident.

GLK19
05-25-2012, 17:19
You'll get in eventually, but their security team has a reputation of being a pain in the ass. Remember they are not NYPD. We won't take the hit for them:rofl:

Hey Sean long time no see, hope u are doing well, anyway I actually worked as a security supervisor at the empire state building last year for about 6 month (part time)

All the security officers are square badges but all the supervisors are retired LEO's (NYPD & NYDOC)

The ESP policy is that only NY State and Federal active and retired LEO's will be allowed entrance while carrying.

I have personally dealt with many off duty and retired LEO's w/o any problems. I asked them for their creds and waved them through.

seanmac45
05-25-2012, 18:08
That's great to hear!

No insult intended was intended, brother. I plead guilty to spreading what I heard on the errornet.

Believe it or not I have never been in the Empire State Building. Practically grew up in the WTC, but never made it to King Kong's place. I'll have to visit there one day just to check it off the bucket list.

Does ESP offer firearms storage for out of state LEO's? I am sure many on the board would like to know.

GLK19
05-26-2012, 04:36
That's great to hear!

No insult intended was intended, brother. I plead guilty to spreading what I heard on the errornet.

Believe it or not I have never been in the Empire State Building. Practically grew up in the WTC, but never made it to King Kong's place. I'll have to visit there one day just to check it off the bucket list.

Does ESP offer firearms storage for out of state LEO's? I am sure many on the board would like to know.

The building management are real *******s and deserve the reputation they have.

They do not offer any weapons storage for out of town LEO's , to be honest I let everyone through who had proper credentials lol and I let them skip the line (which can sometimes be up to 2-3 hrs)

Some of the ret leo's that work there are cool but don't appreaciate the importance of LEO fraternity so they toe the line.

For out of state leo's I would recommend securing the weapon in their hotel room, the screening process the square badges run is top notch and they will catch even the smallest things.

take care

CJStudent
05-26-2012, 09:08
Hey Sean long time no see, hope u are doing well, anyway I actually worked as a security supervisor at the empire state building last year for about 6 month (part time)

All the security officers are square badges but all the supervisors are retired LEO's (NYPD & NYDOC)

The ESP policy is that only NY State and Federal active and retired LEO's will be allowed entrance while carrying.

I have personally dealt with many off duty and retired LEO's w/o any problems. I asked them for their creds and waved them through.

I have to ask, but would they give any guff to federal corrections officers? We're sworn federal law enforcement, but some don't want to seem to acknowledge it.

GLK19
05-26-2012, 13:00
I have to ask, but would they give any guff to federal corrections officers? We're sworn federal law enforcement, but some don't want to seem to acknowledge it.

I don't see why they would give you a hard time in NY State C.O.'s are LEO's Just show your creds to the security supervisor on duty