LEOSA ? on off duty caliber

Yes

Yes...but...LEOSA only covers you when you carry your firearm concealed. If you are in a state without open carry and you open carry LEOSA doesn't do anything for you.

If you are a State or local LEO your agency's authorization regs basically are left behind when you leave the state. Every Federal agency's firearms policy I've read always had the proviso, "nothing in this policy prevents any (agent, officer, etc) from carrying and using firearms IAW state laws" or something to that effect.

Remember you must qualify with the same type of action handgun to be covered by LEOSA. If you qualify with a 442 at work that covers you for any DA revolver. If your agency doesn't allow revolvers you'll need to get someone to qualify you with the qual course of any agency in your state and carry proof of that.

Although LEOSA would give you coverage to carry in your home state I advise you carry what's authorized in your home state. That way you have whatever protections your home state gives you as a LEO.

LEOSA does not require you to qualify with a certain type of action. That is a limitation imposed by department.

Under the Federal Code that covers LEOSA, the definition for firearm “type” means either a handgun or long gun. This means, if you qualify with a handgun under LEOSA, you are covered by LEOSA for any handgun.

However, many states will break down “type” to mean either semi-auto or revolver. To break it down even more, some states will even go as far as different makes, such as my state of PA.

I’ve been doing LEOSA qualifications/certifications for quite a number of years. I asked for a clarification on “type” and the letter they sent me said, a person can qualify with a Glock, and be covered to carry any Glock. But, if they might also want to carry a Sig, because the “controls on a Sig are different from a Glock”, then that person would also have to qualify with the Sig.

And, if the might want to carry a revolver or snub, they need to qualify with that too.

I have to submit a form showing the make and model of the firearm used to qualify, but the card I issue them only has a check mark for semi-auto or revolver.

The NRA had a good FAQ on LEOSA and how states are making officers do things not required by LEOSA.

My understanding of "type" in LEOSA means semi-auto or revolver, not individual weapon or caliber. As a retired officer I qualify with both, and my card so specifies, and I'm good with either anywhere in the country.

The Federal bill does not specify brand as a criteria, and federal law overrules anything a state may want to include regarding LEOSA. For instance, NJ may ban hollow point ammo for carry, but the Federal bill says any ammo not prohibited by Federal law is OK.

HI is always doing everything they can to thwart firearms carry, and is trying to regulate carry under LEOSA. They say unless you're in on duty status, you are not a police officer. They also say you must register with them, and pay a registration fee. These are all the types of things LEOSA was meant to address and prohibit.

So, who wants to be the test case?

As explained in the NRA’s FAQ on LEOSA, firearm “type”

• Does the agency who qualifies me need to make a record of the make, model, caliber, or serial number of the firearm I qualify with?
  
  No. LEOSA does not require the agency to maintain this information. This is a frequent concern given the statute's use of the term "type of firearm." LEOSA authorizes the carrying of a "concealed firearm" of the same "type" the individual receives certification for. As there is no case law interpreting this wording, the word "type" should be read to conform with the dictionary definition; something distinguishable as a variety. Accordingly, "type" of firearm should be read to mean either long gun or hand gun, which would permit you to carry any type of legal long gun or hand gun based on your qualification and not one particular make, model, or caliber. As an action outside of LEOSA requirements, the creation and maintenance of a database may expose the agency to liability, as discussed below.
  

NJ has been restricting HP ammo since day one for retired officers living in NJ. Apparently they refuse to budge on this issue.

Active duty officers from any state and retired officers not living in NJ are good to go for carrying HP ammo in NJ. But, those retired officers living in NJ are still being shafted.

I personally know an officer from NJ who has been battling this issue from day one. He is a well know and respected firearms instructor who frequently writes for several LE magazines. Every time I see him at firearm instructor seminars this topic comes up and he just shakes his head.

Steve in PA said:

NJ has been restricting HP ammo since day one for retired officers living in NJ. Apparently they refuse to budge on this issue.

Active duty officers from any state and retired officers not living in NJ are good to go for carrying HP ammo in NJ. But, those retired officers living in NJ are still being shafted.

I personally know an officer from NJ who has been battling this issue from day one. He is a well know and respected firearms instructor who frequently writes for several LE magazines. Every time I see him at firearm instructor seminars this topic comes up and he just shakes his head.

Click to expand...

LEOSA is on their side, but again, who wants to be the test case?

I agree, but this is from the NJ FAQ on the subject for retired officers living in that crap hole of a state;

4. Can retirees carry hollow point bullets, and does LEOSA provide any additional authority outside of New Jersey law to carry hollow point bullets?

No, New Jersey RLEOs cannot carry hollow point bullets. N.J.S.A. 2C:39-3(f) states that, with very few narrow exceptions (none of which apply to an RLEO), only active law enforcement officers are authorized to carry hollow point bullets. LEOSA does not provide any additional authority for an RLEO residing in New Jersey to carry hollow point bullets because it is impermissible under State law.

They neglect to admit that LEOSA is a federal law and specifically says, ammo not banned by NFA is good to go. But, like you said, who wants to be the test case???

I wonder how many cases there have been of law enforcement hassling other law enforcement over this issue. I could see it coming up if a firearm was used in a shooting, but aside from that I think most cops wouldn't dig too deep into the issue.

shafter said:

I wonder how many cases there have been of law enforcement hassling other law enforcement over this issue. I could see it coming up if a firearm was used in a shooting, but aside from that I think most cops wouldn't dig too deep into the issue.

Click to expand...

There isn't a lot of case law involving the LEOSA and I think that you've correctly identified the reason.

I'm familiar with three trial court decisions involving LEOSA. Two of them involved Coast Guard members whom the arresting officers did not believe to be "Qualified Law Enforcement Officers" as defined in the LEOSA. One involved an Illinois Police Sergeant who was caught with an AR-15 in violation of Illinois state law. The trial courts resolved each of the cases in favor of the LEOSA permitting carry. The Illinois case was kinda unique because the officer was charged with possession of the weapon rather than the concealed carry of the weapon.

RickD427 said:

There isn't a lot of case law involving the LEOSA and I think that you've correctly identified the reason.

I'm familiar with three trial court decisions involving LEOSA. Two of them involved Coast Guard members whom the arresting officers did not believe to be "Qualified Law Enforcement Officers" as defined in the LEOSA. One involved an Illinois Police Sergeant who was caught with an AR-15 in violation of Illinois state law. The trial courts resolved each of the cases in favor of the LEOSA permitting carry. The Illinois case was kinda unique because the officer was charged with possession of the weapon rather than the concealed carry of the weapon.

Click to expand...

There was also a case of a PA Constable arrested carrying in NYC. Thrown out as he was a qualified LEO under LEOSA.

Another was in Sturgis, SD where some out of state officers were arrested after a shooting in a bar. There was no issue with the shooting but the officers were charged with carrying a firearm in a bar in violation of SD law. The judge dismissed that charge as he found LEOSA permits the state to restrict carry on government owned property and the state doesnt own any bars.

Yeah, the Sturgis case involved four Washington state officers involved in a shooting with members of the Hell's Angels. They, and a fireman, were members of a law enforcement motorcycle club, the Iron Pigs.

Concealed weapons charges were dropped against the police officers, unfortunately not on the fireman, because he did not qualify under LEOSA.