LEOSA in CT ?

[basher52]

Greetings and a question,

Just read that CT will qualify a retiree with only ONE (1) gun (for HR 218 purposes) and they give you a special card and or letter or both.

First...is this true AND if so, is anyone in LE in the State of CT familiar with the LAW? I just love the way these different jurisdictions believe they can make up their own rules....That is if its TRUE. Thanks for your time. Rant Over.

[Joeyd6]

LEOSA dictates you must qualify annually...nothing about on a specific gun.....just the active officer course of fire.

States...including CT have taken it to a new level. The CT State Police for example:

1) Give you picture ID card saying you are LEOS qualified and list your make, model, serial number of the handgun you qualed with; AND

2) Restrict what guns you can/cannot qual on:

Pistols: double-action first shot, semi-auto. NO SINGLE-ACTION SEMI-AUTO PISTOLS
Caliber : .380, .40, .45ACP, .357 SIG, 9mm and 10mm

Revolvers:[ double-action revolvers. NO SINGLE ACTION REVOLVERS
Caliber : .38, .357, 9mm and .45ACP

3) And what types of holster: "Holster for the pistol which has a retention device (ie., hammer strap, internal tension device)."

[basher52]

Joey, that's what I had heard. Total BS. It is getting out of hand. So, I gotta ask, what will they do if you carry ...let's say your 1911? Are they indemnifing those they issue cards to? I doubt it.

[Joeyd6]

My understanding is if you carry a gun not on the qual card, they deem you not meeting the criteria of LEOSA and thus, can be charged and arrested for CPW.

I bet the first "collar" has one hell of case and subsequent payday against the state as they can argue HR218 gave them permission and states are not allowed to countermand a federal law. Thus the "collar" could rest their defense on HR218 and the fact they complied with such, and therefore, covered under such and not violating HR218.

[ET109]

Because if it's anyone that can't be trusted with their weapon of choice, it's a professional who has carried and trained with firearms for 20+ years....

[MikeG]

My understanding is if you carry a gun not on the qual card, they deem you not meeting the criteria of LEOSA and thus, can be charged and arrested for CPW.

I bet the first "collar" has one hell of case and subsequent payday against the state as they can argue HR218 gave them permission and states are not allowed to countermand a federal law. Thus the "collar" could rest their defense on HR218 and the fact they complied with such, and therefore, covered under such and not violating HR218.

Not a LEO but I think the wording of the law restricts carry to the "type" of firearm qual'd. Whether "type" means "handgun" or "glock 19 with S/N XXXX in a safariland holster" I have no idea. But I bet there is case law that defines it.

BTW, I know of depts that regulate off-duty carry (and on duty) to the same level alluded above. If your duty Glock 22 weapon breaks, the officer has to qual with the new S/N glock prior to carry on duty. Off-duty carry is same requirement. The penalty is administrative, not legal as the state doesn't care. The fact that departments have varying standards would leave me to believe that the risk of arrest and prosecution is going to be much less thaa the risk of never being qual'd again by the agency. I'd bet getting pinched with the wrong weapon just means they won't ever qual you again.

And actually, unless there was an actual shooting, I'd be more upset with the agency reported that the firearm you were carrying didn't match S/N with what you qual'd with. Maybe getting caught with a S&W 500 revolver when you quald with a semi-auto .380 might be a type issue? Dunno. Seems like "type" might need to be clarified. My layman interpretation is that "type" means either pistol or rifle or shotgun or whatever courses that the POST of the state deems appropriate for the "type" being carried. I can't imagine the "type" requirement would be any more or any less than the the POST requirement. But if Connecticut has a "revolver" type qual and the officer has a "semi-auto" that Connecticutt has a different qual for, I think that could be reasonably seen as problematic. Just my 0.02c from non-leo perspective.

[greg72982]

I bet the first "collar" has one hell of case and subsequent payday against the state as they can argue HR218 gave them permission and states are not allowed to countermand a federal law. Thus the "collar" could rest their defense on HR218 and the fact they complied with such, and therefore, covered under such and not violating HR218.

I always thought state law could be more restrictive than federal law just not less. That's how PA can have such strict search and seizure laws...

[basher52]

The bottom line, CT or any state for that matter cannot usurp federal law. They don't like it, take the Gov't to court. If you are an LEO from CT (or elsewhere) and have a photo ID and a qualification (retired) you are good to go, with whatever "type" firearm you qual'd with. Semi auto or revolver...or both.

Now, Ct agency's could mandate active LEO's on what they can carry, but would open the door for indemification of the officer or retiree for that matter. That doesn't stop an active officer from carrying out of state any weapon he or she chooses, provided they have current phot ID from their respective dept. If they screw up they (we) are on our own.

I have said this many times befor..LEOSA is very ambiguous, thankfully in our favor.

[MikeG]

I always thought state law could be more restrictive than federal law just not less. That's how PA can have such strict search and seizure laws...

Way, way , way more nuanced than that. It depends on whether it's a right that is covered by the 14th amendment or whether it's a law a that criminalizes behavior not considered a right, A state for example can abolish the death penalty but can't have a literacy test for for voting, The freedom from a poll tax is covered by the 14th amendment which extends a federal right to the states. It also is related to whether the feds "cover the entire field" of the law.

LEOSA seems to allow "right to carry" in every state but lets each state define what "type" of firearm they authorize. Seems no different than what a department specifies. Some are very specific, some are not.

It seems silly as we have events where weapons are banned for civilians but LEOS are allowed to carry (e.g. a NFL game.) A LEO verifiies the creds of the person claiming to be a LEO and lets them into the event. The weapon the LEO carries is not really an issue or even checked (although I suspect "bazooka" might generate some questions). The practical matter is if the officer takes an action that falls under a "duty", the department is going to look at it. If they only authorize Glock 27 with certain ammo, and the officer used a .45 ACP - the DA isn't going to care, the officer that admitted him to the game isn't going to care - it's either justified or not. The dept, though, may have an issue with it. I would suspect the agencies offering to qualify retired officers might have the same issues. There are more than a few justified shootings that have still cost an officer their commission so arrest and prosecution won't be the issue, it's the permanent DQ from being LEOSA qualified by that department. And I think the feds (under Obama at least) are going to care less about officers not getting a retired LEOSA cred.

The argument that state law can't be more restictive is when the feds cover the entire field. Arizona has more restrictive laws than the feds against those that run illegal immigrants (i.e. coyotes) because the feds don't cover the entire field of kidnapping or drugs (even though a coyote is carrying willing occupants and would appear to be breaking only federal law, the feds consider it "okay" to have a law against human smuggling). However, the fed argue that Arizona can't enforce immigration law because immigration enforcement is entirely covered by the feds. It's a stupid angels dancing on the head of a pin argument and it's really whether the feds want a law enforced or not, but that's how they technically defend their nuttery. Allowing and encouraging arizona LEOs to stop those that are driving illegal aliens and at the same time refusing them the ability to actually detain/identify the illegal aliens is crazy. CCW and state police powers would be something not entirely within the fed domain so I suspect local regulations would be allowed.

[MikeG]

BTW, snother question that I am not sure has been resolved is magazine capacity. can a leosa qualified officer transport a 16 rnd magazine into california with his weapon? Common sense would say so but I wouldn't bet my freedom on a san Francisco judge.

[ET109]

...or the question of hollow point bullets in NJ. I wouldn't be surprised if a state decided that guns are covered under 218 but that it doesn't say anything about bullets...

[basher52]

BTW, snother question that I am not sure has been resolved is magazine capacity. can a leosa qualified officer transport a 16 rnd magazine into california with his weapon? Common sense would say so but I wouldn't bet my freedom on a san Francisco judge.

I would venture to say, for active on duty Yes, if it's their service pistol. Retiree or off duty from out of state, NO!

[basher52]

...or the question of hollow point bullets in NJ. I wouldn't be surprised if a state decided that guns are covered under 218 but that it doesn't say anything about bullets...

Bullets were addressed in LEOSA's last revision, signed by Obama in 2009. Hollow points can be carried in NJ and any other state that has excluded them. However, this does not mean that NJ will not arrest you. The AG has said nothing and refuses to address the situation. So, they could arrest you, but you would never be convicted and would probably have a nice payday.

[mobrien316]

I'm sure you know, but...

You don't have to go to the Connecticut State Police. You can go to the police department where you live and get the permit from them. There's a retired guy in western Connecticut who is POST certified and who runs retirees through the requirements all the time. I think he charges either $25 or $50. If anyone wants his name please PM me.

[retdetsgt]

The guy that qualifies me told me that to carry a revolver, you have to qualify with that, same with a semi-automatic. I shoot twice and qualify with both so I can carry either.

Here's mine: