Maryland, DC and the LEOSA.

[BN]

I might be doing some tourist type stuff in Eastern Maryland and DC later this year. Would it be a problem to carry a handgun under LEOSA credentials or would I be better off to leave everything home? I also have a carry permit from Ohio.

[voodoo_man]

I might be doing some tourist type stuff in Eastern Maryland and DC later this year. Would it be a problem to carry a handgun under LEOSA credentials or would I be better off to leave everything home? I also have a carry permit from Ohio.


Don't leave your gun anywhere except in your pants.

MD - no mag limits for out of state, no ammo type restrictions

DC - 10rnd mag restriction, AP ammo restriction.

Whenever I travel to DC I carry a g26 with 10rnd mags loaded with flatnose FMJ (147gr) - because its easier.

Have a badge, ID card and/or creds available IF ASKED.

[GRV]

Why flatnose? I was under the impression that amendments to LEOSA defined weapon to include any not-federally-banned ammo. i.e. hollow point restrictions don't mean squat.

They really need to add OEM magazines to the weapon definition too. It kind of defeats a large portion of the intent of the law if you can't carry your duty gun with the magazine that was designed for it and that it ships with.

[voodoo_man]

Why flatnose? I was under the impression that amendments to LEOSA defined weapon to include any not-federally-banned ammo. i.e. hollow point restrictions don't mean squat.

They really need to add OEM magazines to the weapon definition too. It kind of defeats a large portion of the intent of the law if you can't carry your duty gun with the magazine that was designed for it and that it ships with.

I carry flatnose because it defeats any hollowpoint ideas any uneducated LEO may have. They also work better against barriers (cars/doors) than hollowpoints do.

As for duty gun, most PD's have a simple "do not take your duty gun out of the city" policy, I know we do.

[Le Français]

I have carried in DC (and Maryland) under LEOSA with nary a problem.

This included disclosing the fact that I was carrying at various museums in DC in order to bypass magnetometers. The staff were accommodating and courteous.

I've found that it is best to carry both agency ID and badge.

ETA: It's probably a good idea to be armed in DC. The crime rate is not very low.

[gtmtnbiker98]

LEOSA covers the gun, not magazine capacity or ammo types. This is what I tell those I certify, annually.

[smithjd]

I have carried under LEOSA in DC without issue, complying with the 10 Rd mag limit, including US Archives and other museums. Was told by local LE was not a good idea not to do so. The only place that I disarmed was the Holocaust Museum, which has a unique set of circumstances.

The only federal property I've been where it seems I can't carry (outside a courthouse) is the social security office... About gave the $75k / year security guard a meltdown.

[TGS]

I have carried under LEOSA in DC without issue, complying with the 10 Rd mag limit, including US Archives and other museums. Was told by local LE was not a good idea not to do so. The only place that I disarmed was the Holocaust Museum, which has a unique set of circumstances.

Can you clarify, does the Holocaust Museum not allow off-duty carry?

Not a big deal for me, considering I went there last year and don't really plan on going back. After going through the Holocaust section at the Imperial War Museum in London, I honestly thought the DC Holocaust Museum was......weak.

[BehindBlueI's]

LEOSA covers the gun, not magazine capacity or ammo types. This is what I tell those I certify, annually.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/926B


e) As used in this section, the term “firearm”—
(1) except as provided in this subsection, has the same meaning as in section 921 of this title;
(2) includes ammunition not expressly prohibited by Federal law or subject to the provisions of the National Firearms Act; and
(3) does not include—
(A) any machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the National Firearms Act);
(B) any firearm silencer (as defined in section 921 of this title); and
(C) any destructive device (as defined in section 921 of this title).

[smithjd]

Can you clarify, does the Holocaust Museum not allow off-duty carry?

Not a big deal for me, considering I went there last year and don't really plan on going back. After going through the Holocaust section at the Imperial War Museum in London, I honestly thought the DC Holocaust Museum was......weak.

While very LE friendly, they do not allow weapons of any kind. Can't even carry water as it could be a bottle of acid. They have been a "workplace violence" target in the past and have ALOT of their own security. I infer their target selection process is binary, as in gun w/ our uniform = no shoot; gun w/o our uniform = highly likely to get shot. Not any problems, and they have places for you to secure it.

[LtDave]

If I remember correctly, DC also limits you to carrying 20 rounds total on your person. At least for whatever civilian CCW carriers there are. I was there a few months ago, no problems, just showed ID at the magnetometers at the Smithsonian museums.

[smithjd]

[QUOTE=LtDave;408642]If I remember correctly, DC also limits you to carrying 20 rounds total on your person.

Oops. Would that be 20 rds per gun by chance??? Two Shields with one spare each?

[Kingsfield]

I must confess I find post 9 cryptic. Am I to take it that the assertion is that the definition provided in 18 U.S.C. 926B(e) definitively resolves of the question of whether LEOSA preempts regulations such as magazine capacity limits (and provides a conclusion that there is preemption)?

I should think it somewhat bold to assert, in some definitive way, either conclusion as correct as a legal conclusion, in the absence of additional authority.

[mark7]

18 U.S. Code § 926B (e) was enacted as a fu to the Peoples Republik of New Jersey's hollow point ammo restrictions.

Any current magazine restrictions are not trumped by the LEOSA.

[BehindBlueI's]

I must confess I find post 9 cryptic. Am I to take it that the assertion is that the definition provided in 18 U.S.C. 926B(e) definitively resolves of the question of whether LEOSA preempts regulations such as magazine capacity limits (and provides a conclusion that there is preemption)?

I should think it somewhat bold to assert, in some definitive way, either conclusion as correct as a legal conclusion, in the absence of additional authority.

I don't see anything about magazine size restriction. It's pretty clear it covers ammunition, though.

[DMF13]

LEOSA covers the gun, not magazine capacity or ammo types. This is what I tell those I certify, annually.Then you've been getting it wrong for about 5 years, as the Act was amended to include ammunition.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/926B

18USC926B(e)(2) states, "As used in this section, the term “firearm” . . . includes ammunition not expressly prohibited by Federal law or subject to the provisions of the National Firearms Act . . ."

[Kingsfield]

I don't see anything about magazine size restriction. It's pretty clear it covers ammunition, though.


... Any current magazine restrictions are not trumped by the LEOSA.

I confess I still do not understand what we seem to be saying about magazine capacity.

18 USC 926B(e)(3) excludes from the definition of firearm covered by LEOSA certain arms (firearms, silencers and destructive devices). There is a canon of construction of statutes, expressio unius, under which the expression of some items on a list may cause a court to conclude something omitted from the list is not to be treated in the same fashion as the listed items. So, under that canon, one could assert that by excluding fully automatic weapons, the statue contemplates a State cannot ban a firearm having certain other features, e.g., a large-capacity magazine.

And there is a "rule of lenity", under which statutes giving rise to criminal liability may be restrictively construed (though I confess I've never encountered an issue of an attempt to apply it to expansively construe a Federal exculpation from a State criminal statute--I suppose there may be authority on that).

But those rules of construction are not always followed. And a court could say that what a state is doing is banning something that is not a firearm, because 18 U.S.C. 921 has a definition of "firearm" that does not include a mere magazine, so that 921(e) does not prevent shipment of a magazine alone.

I would respectfully submit that ascertaining what this statute means as to whether it exempts from State magazine limits a covered person is not merely a simple deduction from the fact that the statute makes no reference to a magazine or magazine limit. I should think that, to express with some level of certainty an opinion on what it means, one would need actual authority.

Now, I am not saying there is not authority that clarifies the issue. This particular aspect of firearms law is not one with which I am intimately familiar. I can say I have seen internet sources making reference to authority addressing this kind of matter. But they have done so in a way that I have not found credible (i.e., a reference to the name of an evidently unreported case without a reference to the case docket number--which is highly suspect).

[GRV]

You make a good point, Kingsfield. I imagine one would probably get banged up for it, but might stand a chance to win in court with a good lawyer. If a cop did get hit for this, and lost in court, I also imagine it'd probably lead to the law being amended again.

An angle worth thinking about for those who like playing these legal brain games: is the magazine not just a part of the firearm? How would LEOSA apply to, say, banned triggers or other parts? Under that analysis, I think there's something to be said for the mags.

[MD7305]

I spent some time in MD and DC this past October. I had no issues, when in DC I discretely informed security that I was an LEO before I went through the metal detectors. I was nervous about this but every instance was uneventful. The officers would wave me through like it happened a thousand times a day, they barely looked at my creds. The only place I visited that was an issue was the National Archives. The LT there explained they previously had lock boxes for LEOs but no longer did. They were very courteous, offered to allow me to lock it up in my car/hotel and skip to the head of the line when I returned. I declined because I rode the train in and had no where to lock my pistol up. I carried my Glock 43, a pocket reload, all loaded with GDHPs. I did use a Raven Pocketshield so I wasn't advertising knife pocket clips to avoid extra attention.

[BehindBlueI's]

I confess I still do not understand what we seem to be saying about magazine capacity.

18 USC 926B(e)(3) excludes from the definition of firearm covered by LEOSA certain arms (firearms, silencers and destructive devices). There is a canon of construction of statutes, expressio unius, under which the expression of some items on a list may cause a court to conclude something omitted from the list is not to be treated in the same fashion as the listed items. So, under that canon, one could assert that by excluding fully automatic weapons, the statue contemplates a State cannot ban a firearm having certain other features, e.g., a large-capacity magazine.

And there is a "rule of lenity", under which statutes giving rise to criminal liability may be restrictively construed (though I confess I've never encountered an issue of an attempt to apply it to expansively construe a Federal exculpation from a State criminal statute--I suppose there may be authority on that).

But those rules of construction are not always followed. And a court could say that what a state is doing is banning something that is not a firearm, because 18 U.S.C. 921 has a definition of "firearm" that does not include a mere magazine, so that 921(e) does not prevent shipment of a magazine alone.

I would respectfully submit that ascertaining what this statute means as to whether it exempts from State magazine limits a covered person is not merely a simple deduction from the fact that the statute makes no reference to a magazine or magazine limit. I should think that, to express with some level of certainty an opinion on what it means, one would need actual authority.

Now, I am not saying there is not authority that clarifies the issue. This particular aspect of firearms law is not one with which I am intimately familiar. I can say I have seen internet sources making reference to authority addressing this kind of matter. But they have done so in a way that I have not found credible (i.e., a reference to the name of an evidently unreported case without a reference to the case docket number--which is highly suspect).

Yeah...I see you're breaking out big words and Latin. You can get as deep into it as you like. I'm still going with "it's real clear ammunition is addressed. I don't see anything about magazines."

[jondoe297]

Yeah...I see you're breaking out big words and Latin. You can get as deep into it as you like. I'm still going with "it's real clear ammunition is addressed. I don't see anything about magazines."

You pretty much said exactly what I was thinking.

[jondoe297]

I have carried in DC (and Maryland) under LEOSA with nary a problem.

This included disclosing the fact that I was carrying at various museums in DC in order to bypass magnetometers. The staff were accommodating and courteous.

I've found that it is best to carry both agency ID and badge.

ETA: It's probably a good idea to be armed in DC. The crime rate is not very low.

This has been my experience as well. At the Smithsonian, we waited our turn in line and as we got to the front, I presented my badge/ID to the guard and was waved through. At the Smithsonian Museum of American History I had to sign a log book, with my name, department name, and time of arrival.

[LtDave]

This has been my experience as well. At the Smithsonian, we waited our turn in line and as we got to the front, I presented my badge/ID to the guard and was waved through. At the Smithsonian Museum of American History I had to sign a log book, with my name, department name, and time of arrival.

I had the same experience.

[Kingsfield]

Yeah...I see you're breaking out big words and Latin. You can get as deep into it as you like. I'm still going with "it's real clear ammunition is addressed. I don't see anything about magazines."

Well, as it turns out, I was just yesterday sharing with my law students a section of the Uniform a Commercial Code (2-316) that has been interpreted by courts in a way that is directly at odds with the statutory language itself.

I would agree that legal principles often are expressed in terms that are unfamiliar to those unschooled in the law. I did not use the Latin phrase to obscure the content. Rather, that simply is the term.

There are, of course, treatises describing how courts go about interpreting statutes. One by Sutherland is multi-volume. Interpreting a statute is much more complicated than your brief remark.

I am not sure unfamiliarity with rudimentary legal principles--ones generally introduced in the first year of law school--adds to the persuasive force of your conclusory remarks. But perhaps some will find unfamiliarity to commend a view.

[BehindBlueI's]

Well, as it turns out, I was just yesterday sharing with my law students a section of the Uniform a Commercial Code (2-316) that has been interpreted by courts in a way that is directly at odds with the statutory language itself.

I would agree that legal principles often are expressed in terms that are unfamiliar to those unschooled in the law. I did not use the Latin phrase to obscure the content. Rather, that simply is the term.

There are, of course, treatises describing how courts go about interpreting statutes. One by Sutherland is multi-volume. Interpreting a statute is much more complicated than your brief remark.

I am not sure unfamiliarity with rudimentary legal principles--ones generally introduced in the first year of law school--adds to the persuasive force of your conclusory remarks. But perhaps some will find unfamiliarity to commend a view.

Yeah, I'm pretty unfamiliar with rudimentary legal principles. Here's one I do understand, though. Are you willing to risk YOUR ass in jail and YOUR wrists in cuffs and YOUR criminal record on your treatise of hypothesizing about what a court may decide to interpret the law as? My ass, wrists, and criminal record aren't running the risk and will carry a single stack pistol when venturing into magazine ban states. Despite my lack of lofty treatises, I'm pretty deep in my LEO career and wouldn't want to screw my job and my pension over with a potential arrest. I'm not real interested in what a bunch of eggheads with no skin in the game decide might or might not be written in invisible ink in the relevant statute.

So, again, I'll say "it's real clear ammunition is addressed. I don't see anything about magazines."

[GRV]

Question for the LEOs here. Do you keep track of which states with AWBs also have an exemption from it for LEOs, and when traveling in those states do you carry full capacity magazines?

[BehindBlueI's]

Question for the LEOs here. Do you keep track of which states with AWBs also have an exemption from it for LEOs, and when traveling in those states do you carry full capacity magazines?

When I travel out of state I carry a single stack .45 and an LCR. Both are within magazine capacity rules for any state.

[Flea]

Question for the LEOs here. Do you keep track of which states with AWBs also have an exemption from it for LEOs, and when traveling in those states do you carry full capacity magazines?

When heading out of state I just revert back to my hk45c with a couple 8 round mags and a j-frame. This satisfies capacity requirements across the country.

[smithjd]

Question for the LEOs here. Do you keep track of which states with AWBs also have an exemption from it for LEOs, and when traveling in those states do you carry full capacity magazines?

I'm not as smart as a first year law student and don't know Latin. I read the statutes and reliable interpretations thereof. I work for a building full of those smart enough to pass the bar. Our policy regarding LEOSA reads that when off duty and out of state under LEOSA, one must comply with local laws regarding concealed carry in a common sense / reasonable effort to avoid getting arrested. As far as we know, magazine restrictions apply to us when off duty. On duty is a different story. It is the individuals responsibility to comply with the law and policy, "big boy rules" and all...

[Kingsfield]

Yeah...I see you're breaking out big words and Latin. You can get as deep into it as you like. I'm still going with "it's real clear ammunition is addressed. I don't see anything about magazines."

I suppose whether the words I use are “big” depends on the stature of the beholder. I should have thought not, when used in a forum close to a thread titled, “Towards a Taxonomy of Some Types of the Gun Culture”—I normally define “taxonomy” for my students when I first use it in class.


Yeah, I'm pretty unfamiliar with rudimentary legal principles. Here's one I do understand, though. Are you willing to risk YOUR ass in jail and YOUR wrists in cuffs and YOUR criminal record on your treatise of hypothesizing about what a court may decide to interpret the law as? My ass, wrists, and criminal record aren't running the risk and will carry a single stack pistol when venturing into magazine ban states. Despite my lack of lofty treatises, I'm pretty deep in my LEO career and wouldn't want to screw my job and my pension over with a potential arrest. I'm not real interested in what a bunch of eggheads with no skin in the game decide might or might not be written in invisible ink in the relevant statute.

So, again, I'll say "it's real clear ammunition is addressed. I don't see anything about magazines."

As I wrote in post 13:

"I should think it somewhat bold to assert, in some definitive way, either conclusion as correct as a legal conclusion, in the absence of additional authority."

In response to which you wrote:

“I don't see anything about magazine size restriction.”

Whether you “see anything about magazine size restrictions” is, of course, not dispositive as to what the operative legal principles are.

The 2002 edition of Sutherland’s Statutory Construction, a treatise on how courts go about construing statutes, runs to 8 thick volumes. I would suppose the mere volume of text that has been devoted in a single work to attempting to detail how courts go about construing contracts should illuminate that your observation, quoted above, is not particularly informative. But, in case one is interested, it goes on in section 46:07 for over 11 pages (pp. 194-205 of the volume) merely under the heading “Limits of Literalism”. Statutes simply are not construed in the manner/procedure your posts suggest applies.

There are thus numerous ways in which statutes are not construed in a merely literal fashion. In light of that fact, one would have expected a person providing cogent observations as to how one might envision a framework provided by a statute not having directly on-point language to have avoided expressing an observation uninformed by any attempt at investigation. Instead, you have only referenced the vague statutory language itself.

Notwithstanding your provocative tone, I have never advised Mr. Nesbitt, or anyone else on this forum, how they should act in light of this particular statute. Nor am I inclined to now. Rather, I simply noted I was unaware of a construction of the statute in this context (without excluding the possibility that additional search might yield something pertinent), and noted that one could certainly make arguments in favor of differing interpretations—referencing a rudimentary principle of construction of statutes and another.

It had been my experience that this forum did not exalt conscious ignorance of information relevant to a discussion.

As to your statement, "Yeah, I'm pretty unfamiliar with rudimentary legal principles," indeed it would appear so.

Although I cannot immediately note when law students typically encounter rule of lenity—it may well be in the first year class in criminal law, which I do not teach— expressio unius is commonly encountered by first-year law students. It is a principle applicable to construction of statutes as well as contracts. It is referenced in a casebook that is required to be obtained by all the first-year law students at the law school where I teach—a commonly used casebook. It is also discussed in more detail in the casebook in my office for the upper-level class in Legislation (the class devoted to the study of principles governing construction of contracts).

To have confirmed the meaning of the term expressio unius, one would only have to make a brief detour to The Free Dictionary, at:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Expressio+unius+est+exclusio+alterius

Or, one could read more detail in the Sutherland treatise in sections 47:23, 4:24 & 47:25.

Again, as noted above, I will decline to express any opinion on how Mr. Nesbitt should proceed.

Now, were someone more studied in firearms law, one might have encountered the principle of expressio unius as discussed by a court in Maryland, in connection with taking a restrictive construction of a statute criminalizing certain acts involving firearms in:

Chow v. State, 903 A.2d 388 (Md. Ct. App. 2006)—see note 17—available at: http://www.leagle.com/decision/20061291903A2d388_11288/CHOW%20v.%20STATE
Indeed that case is included in the only law school casebook of which I am aware for the subject of firearms law, Johnson et al., Firearms Law and the Second Amendment (2012) (albeit in edited form that omits discussion pertinent to the circumstances at hand). That casebook, unsurprisingly, also includes a case applying the rule of lenity (there, in a U.S. Supreme Court opinion).

***

Were one inclined thoughtfully to investigate the larger context as to how one might consider proceeding, I suppose one would assess additional principles and possible consequences, such as those illuminated by Rodriguez v. City of New York, 649 F. Supp. 2d 301 (S.D.N.Y. 2009), available at

http://www.leagle.com/decision/2009950649pfsupp2d301_1935/RODRIGUEZ%20v.%20CITY%20OF%20NEW%20YORK; and

Ramirez v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, No. 1:2015cv03225 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2015), available at:

http://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2015cv03225/441418/69/0.pdf?ts=1451385111

I should expect there are many other relevant principles, though I am not inclined to check. But, as noted above, I will decline to express any view at all as to how Mr. Nesbitt should proceed.

[BehindBlueI's]

Are you willing to put your ass on the line to make case law or no?

[mark7]

FWIW here's what I have from the Hon. Steve Manion, U.S. Magistrate Judge for the District of New Jersey, who still does the Sheepdog Academy on a part-time basis. This is from his '13 LEOSA seminar:


LEOSA does not expressly address magazine capacity for carry, however, state magazine bans that preclude range qualification are arguably preempted.
For e.g., State or agency X requires active LEOs to use a 15 rd mag to qualify. The same State bans mags above 7 rds. That ban unlawfully precludes RLEOs from qualifying under LEOSA.


“States” with 10 round magazine limits: D.C., California, Hawaii and Massachusetts. LEOSA does not preempt these magazine restrictions when carrying. See D.C. Official Code § 7- 2506.01; Cal. Penal Code § 12020(a)(2), (b); Haw. Rev. Stat. § 134-8(c); and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140, § 121). Note that various cities around the nation also ban magazines above ten rounds.

States with 15 round magazine limits: New Jersey. N.J.S.A. 2C:39-1y.

N.Y. Penal Law § 265.00(23) was amended in 2013. “Section 38 of the bill amends Penal Law 265.00(23) to ban all large capacity magazines that have the capacity to hold more than ten rounds of ammunition including those that were grandfathered in under the original assault weapons ban and creates a new ban on magazines that hold more than seven rounds of ammunition. Magazines that can hold more than seven rounds but not more than ten rounds and are currently possessed will be grandfathered in, but may only contain seven rounds of ammunition.
Exceptions are made for large capacity magazines that are curios or relics.”

So, if you have a pre-ban 10-round mag you can carry 7 rounds in it. The law does not prohibit topping off with one round in the chamber.

If carrying in CA, D.C., HI, or MA carry no more than 10 round magazine(s). If in NY, carry a 7 round mag or pre-ban 10 round mag with 7 rounds in the mag.

If carrying in New Jersey carry up to 15 round magazine(s).



Although dated, some of the LEOSA cases are discussed here:

http://hr218leosa.com/?page=news

[Kingsfield]

Are you willing to put your ass on the line to make case law or no?

I'm not entirely sure what you mean. I don't know whether you are referencing bringing some declaratory judgment action where, after full research, the pertinent law remained unclear or otherwise necessitated litigation.

I am not, and have never been, a LEO. So, it would be highly unlikely I could be in a position to litigate this issue. That is because it would be very unlikely I would ever have standing in any declaratory judgment action. So, this question, frankly, is quite difficult to follow.

Perhaps, if you actually care about this, and if you would have standing and the relevant jurisdiction has effective processes, you can engage a lawyer to ascertain pertinent law and provide legal advice. The author of the following article might be in a position to put you in-touch with a lawyer who could assist you:

James M. Baranowski, Esq., Does the LEOSA Carry Law Apply to You?, at: https://www.nraila.org/articles/20140117/does-the-leosa-carry-law-apply-to-you

The note to the article describes the author as "Manager of External Affairs" and goes on to state: James M. Baranowski is Associate Litigation Counsel at the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action and a member of the International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association (ILEETA). He is a decorated combat veteran, having served in the United States Marine Corps both as an officer with 1st Reconnaissance Battalion and as a judge advocate.

Now, I have not independently checked the accuracy of what that author writes. But it might provide a starting-off point for a discussion with any counsel you select.

Now, for a variety of reasons, I am not inclined otherwise to entertain from you, or respond to, personal questions on this forum.

[Dagga Boy]

This is pretty simple. I don't ever want to see a citation on a case that looks like "City of San Francisco vs. nyeti". I don't ever want to invest the time, money, loss of freedom, or publicity to make a point. I was never well liked by the City management where I worked and don't want to depend on them to stand behind me for some perceived digression. Hell, my own former agency is not following the law on LEOSA ID's, and they don't care, so why would I expect them to support me in a LEOSA fight. This is simple, I carry an HK45 or 45C when I travel. HK does not even make a magazine of more than ten rounds for it. The P2000SK would also be another great option. If I am ammo restricted, I also like the .45. Of course, my revolvers are also a great option, and is likely "the answer" for a place like NY. I am hyper sensitive to various states laws, as anywhere worried about an LEO with a magazine or ammunition is the same place with LEO Executives and Prosecutors who would have no issue with my head on a pike for some perceived violation. It isn't worth it.
Of course all this comes with a trade off on my end....that is totally counter to the entire premiss of LEOSA. My mental attitude in places like California (a place where I spent my entire adult life putting animals in cages to protect the citizens) is "screw you" to the citizenry. If I cannot arm myself in a manner to efficiently protect the public, then sorry, it is all about me. Until my llife, or my family is in jeopardy I am going to think very hard before getting involved with a situation where I am not properly equipped to deal with that situation because an area does not trust me, or their citizens with the tools necessary for intervening in a criminal or terrorist attack. If the citizen elect folks who do not trust them or the police.....who am I to argue with their will, or lift a finger for their protection.

[KeeFus]

I'm with BBI on this issue. I tell my guys regularly to stay away from the North East if at all possible because some jurisdictions are too eager to make an example out of LEO's.

While I do not consider correction's officials LEO's (not trying to start a pissing contest as they do a job I could not and would not do) some do have powers of arrest, which may allow them to fall under LEOSA. I found this on my FB feed this morning.

https://www.nranews.com/series/ginny-simone-reporting/video/ginny-simone-reporting-new-jersey-justice-again/episode/ginny-simone-reporting-season-7-episode-2-new-jersey-justice-again

[BehindBlueI's]

This is pretty simple. I don't ever want to see a citation on a case that looks like "City of San Francisco vs. nyeti". I don't ever want to invest the time, money, loss of freedom, or publicity to make a point.

Yup. You way want to run it through a thesaurus and throw some Latin in there, though, so Prof. Tweed can understand it.


I'm not entirely sure what you mean.

That's been apparent from the start. It's been fun jerking your tail feathers and watching you squawk, but you're arguing against things I never said. Well, I suppose what you are doing is reading things into what I said that I didn't say and then arguing with them to try and show you're the smartest kid in class. Relax, Poindexter, if you're smart people will notice. No reason to try so hard.

I responded to someone who said ammo wasn't covered. I pointed out ammo was covered but I didn't see anything about magazines. You'll note there's nothing to see about magazines. It's like I said I don't see any cows and then you launched into a dissertation about how cows do, in fact, exist. Uh...well, yeah, but I don't see any right now.

Nyeti gets it. It's real simple and you don't have to comb through a library of treatises to understand this rudimentary legal principal. There is no established case law that says magazines are covered. The statute itself does not say it's covered. Thus, if you decide to carry a 15 round magazine in a state that outlaws them, there is probable cause for your arrest. At the end of the day, and it'll probably be a long and expensive day, the courts may see it your way and you walk. That's how new case law is made. All your blathering about what could and might happen and how to read the invisible ink in statutes is irrelevant until you get arrested.

So, if you get time away from the community college today (Please tell me you ride a Vespa around the quad at least once each day, preferably in a tweed jacket with those patches on the elbows), take this little quiz. I figure it's the best format for you to perhaps actually understand what's written.

T or F : If you carry a 15 round magazine in a state with a magazine capacity limit in effect, you face arrest.
T or F : There is no established case law that would support the idea that magazines, while not specifically listed in LEOSA, are actually covered.
T or F : Tweed goes with about anything.

Essay question:

Discuss how the concept of "Qualified Immunity" would shield the arresting officer and department from civil liability should that officer arrest someone for carrying a 15 round magazine in a magazine capacity limited state.

__________________________________________________ ________
__________________________________________________ ________
__________________________________________________ ________
__________________________________________________ ________

One of the issues facing Academia is taking small, simple, issues and making them needlessly complicated. This is exacerbated by introducing answers to questions nobody asked in an attempt to look like the smartest guy in the room. A reasonable solution to this would be:

__________________________________________________ ___________
__________________________________________________ ___________
__________________________________________________ ___________
__________________________________________________ ___________
__________________________________________________ ___________

Vintage Vespas are superior to new production Vespas because:

__________________________________________________ _____________
__________________________________________________ _____________
__________________________________________________ _____________
__________________________________________________ _____________

[Hambo]

FWIW here's what I have from the Hon. Steve Manion, U.S. Magistrate Judge for the District of New Jersey, who still does the Sheepdog Academy on a part-time basis. This is from his '13 LEOSA seminar:



Although dated, some of the LEOSA cases are discussed here:

http://hr218leosa.com/?page=news

What I get from this is that Hambo is persona non grata in NY, NJ, MA, HI, CA, and DC. That's all the Latin I need to know. :cool:

[mark7]

Ooopps wrong thread.

[Poconnor]

Back in 2009 I visited DC and I had no problem visiting museums. I just showed my badge to security and signed in. The marine Corp museum made me put my spyderco in my truck. I just went to northern DC this past weekend and was talking to a a secret service uniform; he told me that DC is now filled with zones with prohibited carry even for Leosa. I don't know; now that I'm retired I don't need any trouble. I really wish they had written the law in plain language and that it over rode local laws kind of like the travel law. If it's legal were I live or I qualified with it it's good to go. But I know that's not the case.

[Kingsfield]

Well, BBI, re your post 36:

Understanding that, unlike some forums, this one ordinarily values revelation of the absence of expertise of one who opines, and does not revel in uninformed musings, I thought forum members might be interested in, for example:

a. Your making observations on an issue of statutory construction, as to an issue of some note, when you are not aware of the rudiments of statutory construction.

b. The fact that a person facing lack of clarity as to a pertinent legal issue of some importance is not faced with simply a choice between doing nothing or "putting one's ass on the line," whatever that means, but, rather, one might follow the lawful path of getting assistance from counsel, which might involve a declaratory judgment action--it also might be done through interface with executive branch officials, were one interested and in a jurisdiction where that latter interface provided an appropriate level of assurance.

[For those unfamiliar: A declaratory judgment action is simply one where one has a court ascertain rights in advance (before enforcement in the criminal context). So, not surprisingly, for example, that is the procedure by which magazine limits were challenged in Colorado Outfitters Ass'n v. Hickenlooper, 24 F. Supp. 3d 1050 (D. Colo. 2014). So, the style at trial would not be State v. BBI but, rather, BBI v. State or San Fran. or whatever.]

As I noted initially, I have not fully researched interpretation of LEOSA. I am not inclined to express a legal opinion in an internet forum, and am not doing so here--anyone who wants personal legal advice should get his or her own lawyer. For unclear reason, your posts would curiously suggest you think it suitable to comment on construction of a statute without having actually researched the issue.

Your most recent post has now revealed more about the substance behind your posts. Somewhat ironically, your satirical quiz actually poses a question that one of the cases I posted (in Post 30) about 12 hours before you posted the quiz: Ramirez v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, No. 1:2015cv03225 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2015), bears on. It is available at:

http://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2015cv03225/441418/69/0.pdf?ts=1451385111

And the case actually addresses an even broader question than the one that you posed, and one I should think might be of interest to Mr. Nesbitt. (Of course, it is only the outcome in a particular jurisdiction at a particular time, and I am not expressing any opinion on the extent to which it might be followed elsewhere.)

In addition, the article from NRAILA, to which I linked, in discussing application of LEOSA to arms raising a different issue, but a potentially comparable one, suggests that the issues are, in fact, more complicated than you have grasped. Perhaps you are going to share your understanding of the relevant implications of the case described in the article of "People v. Peterson out of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit, Will County, Ill." -- or whether its analysis is focused on specific aspects of the firearm characteristics at issue there that are distinguishable from issues involving larger-capacity magazines. Had you been thoughtfully discussing the issues, you would have already done that before you wrote your satirical exam, one supposes.

Now, I have not myself sought to research the issues. Perhaps had I done so I would would reach different conclusions from those expressed in that NRAILA article, or I might conclude that the issues are not analogous. But the article might be something that a forum member would consider in deciding whether to engage legal counsel of choice to pursue the matter further. And the article might well militate against the conclusion one deciding whether to engage counsel would reach merely by relying on your posts.

Now, as noted above, I am not in a position to express an opinion as to a legal conclusion without having properly researched the issue, and I am not inclined to express a legal conclusion in an internet forum. So I am in all events declining to express any opinion on what the pertinent law is. Mr. Nesbitt, or anyone else interested in this issue, should obtain his own attorney.

[BehindBlueI's]

So I am in all events declining to express any opinion on what the pertinent law is. Mr. Nesbitt, or anyone else interested in this issue, should obtain his own attorney.

You talk a lot to say you aren't going to say anything to answer the OP's question.

Howsabout answering the quiz questions? At least the one about if probable cause would exist.

[GRV]

If Tom were here, he'd say something like "Remember, only 207 (http://datecountdown.com/?&d=9%2f14%2f2016+12%3a00+AM&t=PFestivus+2016#timer1) days left til PFestivus!" :rolleyes:

[Kingsfield]

You talk a lot to say you aren't going to say anything to answer the OP's question.

Howsabout answering the quiz questions? At least the one about if probable cause would exist.

You have now:
a. demonstrated an inability to incorporate, in observations you make, relevant legal information placed directly before you;
b. provided an illustration of an exceedingly poor way to frame a question, so that an answer to the question asked is likely to be highly misleading; and
c. demonstrated a misunderstanding of the basic aspects of the law.

Where to begin?
a: In post 30, I provided a link to a legal opinion that states in part: "Neither Ramirez nor his girlfriend had a license to carry a firearm in New York, and even if Ramirez was protected by LEOSA, the PAPD officers had probable cause to arrest him."

So, then in post 41--11 posts later, and your second post after post 30--in specific terms (previously framed in a different way by you in post 36)--you ask ... wait for it ... whether there would be probable cause to arrest someone possessing a firearm, where the possession might well not be protected by LEOSA.

So, before you asked the question, I had provided a opinion whose answer subsumed the thrust of the question you posed. And you repeated your inquiry, eliminating all doubt as to whether you were in a position to understand the court opinion previously provided.

Now, the nature of the law is that different courts reach different conclusions. And an opinion can be reversed on appeal (that particular case is only 2 months old).

In addition, a jurisdiction would be free to impose prohibitions on its officers' actions that are not imposed elsewhere. So, the answer that court provides may well not apply in another context.

And assorted circumstances, including the nature of the arm and knowledge and training of various persons, can influence the result.

(I'm going to put aside the issue of legal fees and lawsuits seeking declaratory relief.)

b: As to how a question framed by one not knowledgeable can produce a misleading result: You framed the question in terms of a firearm that might be inconsistent with state magazine capacity limits. Of course, had someone only addressed that issue, it would have left a grossly misleading impression that compliance with LEOSA with a firearm having a low capacity eliminates the possibility of probable cause for an arrest. See Mr. Ramirez's result.

Either you are willing to provide misleading information to forum readers about this serious topic, or you are not sufficiently informed of the law to understand why information conveyed in direct response to your inquiry or statement may be misleading.

Your reference to the absence of "magazine" in the text of LEOSA is similarly misleading.

c. In post 36, you framed the question in terms of civil liability and qualified immunity. Of course, a particular jurisdiction, whether a State or a municipality, is entirely free to impose obligations on its employees beyond what is imposed by Federal law. I have some suspicion you may well not be aware of that.

I suspect you have a snippet from some abridged teaching materials for non-lawyers. I cannot say whatever document you have referenced omitted to state the statute it was referencing (likely 42 USC 1983), simply to make the information more understandable, or whether it identified the statute and you simply omitted it from your question. Let's say what your authority references is 42 USC 1983. The existence of qualified immunity under 42 USC 1983 for an act does not prevent a state or a state subdivision from imposing liability for those acts. So, actually to answer the question you framed--which was not limited to a specific act (such as 42 USC 1983)--one would need to investigate the law in every state and municipality, to ascertain whether they had increased the scope of liability. I frankly suspect no one has ever done that and then kept it up-to-date, but I suppose it is possible someone has.

Have courts ever held that qualified immunity being available under 42 U.S.C. 1983 does not necessitate qualified immunity be available to protect against a claim under state law? Sure, e.g., D'Aguanno v. Gallagher, 50 F.3d 877, 879 (11th Cir. 1995) ("Because qualified immunity is a defense only to federal claims, we hold that the district court erred in concluding that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the claims for violations of state law.").

Unless one does the research currently, in the jurisdiction or jurisdiction that is pertinent, one cannot conclude what the state of the law is. Your question, without the qualifiers necessary to make answering the question practicable, indicates an absence of understanding of the law.

I'm not inclined to do legal research for you. Were you in a position to express a cogent opinion on the subject, you would have the skills to do it yourself, would you not?

***

Your making uninformed observations concerning the law are likely to mislead the reader, potentially to his significant detriment. Your observations may put someone in a circumstance in which he, although complying with the law, might be subject to probable cause for arrest, where he clearly sought to avoid that.

As to what LEOSA permits, you first reference the absence of a particular word. Of course, its application to LEO possession in a particular state could easily be illuminated by either state statute or state administrative rule expressly allowing the possession. And some assurance of what is or is not permitted could be expanded-upon by other executive branch actions. So, to understand what is permitted, in a particular context, requires research into much more than what you referenced: mere case law. So, your reference to absence of a particular word from a statute provides a misleading observation.

Moreover, your observations as to whether I would put my "ass on the line" reflect a basic misunderstanding that one who does not have standing cannot challenge the validity of threatened activity. It also may reflect a failure to understand that one with standing may be able to challenge threatened activity in a declaratory judgment action.

***

Of course, you still have not expressed any understanding of how the article of the lawyer affiliated with NRAILA bears on or informs the topic at hand. And you have not expressed how a case that lawyer references, "People v. Peterson out of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit, Will County, Ill." informs the relevant circumstances. Now, I noted in post 33 I had not independently checked the accuracy of that article.

The latter was something of a test. Someone who knew the basics of citation to legal authorities would note that the citation that lawyer provided is not to a reported case. And the citation omits the docket number, which makes it more difficult to locate. And, with a little checking, the case does not appear in one of the basic databases for cases. Someone familiar with the basics of case citations--something I suspect is taught in schools for paralegals--would have said something about the case not being reported, which limits the ability to check what it says. (See, for example, National Paralegal College, which includes "proper case citation, cite checking and the proper method of case reporting, shepardizing" in their a class in their 24-credit certificate program.) But you did not note that basic information about the cite that article provides.

Reference to that article was also designed to provide a possible avenue for any interested reader either to better inform himself before meeting, or considering to meet, with counsel. And it provided a lead to a lawyer who might provide a reference / contact for a reader inclined to engage a lawyer. I note, however, that your observations continue to fail to reflect any processing of the content of that article (whose accuracy I have not sought independently to verify).

***

So, to keep a running track of some:

a. Although willing to speak to interpretation of a statute, you are unaware of rudimentary principles of statutory interpretation.

b. You fail to understand the nature of remedies available to one who may face an allegedly unlawful governmental action, by inquiring whether one not having standing would maintain some litigation.

c. In discussing possible courses of action for one concerned, you omit proper courses of action and sources of law or authority that could alter the understanding of problems one might encounter in a particular state when seeking to proceed as potentially contemplated by LEOSA (omitting referencing administrative rules; seeking declaratory judgment actions or seeking other executive branch relief). These omissions are misleading, and, if uncorrected, could tend to cause one who otherwise might seek a remedy through counsel not to contact a lawyer.

d. In focusing on non-determinative components of legal issues, either you are willing to provide misleading information to forum readers about this serious topic, or you are not sufficiently informed of the law to understand why information on which you focus may be misleading to a reader.

e. You fail to reflect in your discussion legal information, and an answer to a question you posed, put directly before you, manifesting an indifference to being informed as to these serious topics you seek to address or an inability to process the information.

***

I am not going to provide an opinion as to what LEOSA means in the relevant regards. Determining the law would require reference to, in addition to the statute itself, all constructions of it by courts (including that obliquely identified in the NRAILA article), the legislative history (something the article references), the relevant state statutes that might be preempted and all pertinent executive branch pronouncements.

I am currently a professor; I am not currently engaged in the private practice of law. Anyone who has a legitimate question about these kinds of issues should seek his own counsel. I am not also going to recommend a course of action that someone should take in lieu of getting legal advice from a lawyer of his or her own choosing.

I do not understand you to have advanced, but rather to have retarded, dissemination of an understanding suitable to one making an informed decision as to whether one should get legal advice. In one of the many turns of your observations, you suggested you were simply commenting her for amusement, referencing in post 36: "It's been fun jerking your tail feathers...."

The subject of this thread is of moment. It not something mundane, such as the relative merits of firearms from two different, respected manufacturers.

At the beginning of this thread, someone might have taken your observations as being from someone informed. I believe the subject to be quite serious, and your uninformed musings made for amusement could be quite detrimental to someone--whether one who in reliance opted not to get legal counsel or something else.

Experience suggests you will not be able to process the information provided above. I suspect you would be inclined to disparage the amount of information provided. Of course, one's inability to process information does not mean the issues presented are in fact quite complex and necessitate expression in some detail. But that kind of comment as to the depth of information conveyed,in lieu of detailed engagement of the substance, would indicate a mere inability to process the presented information.

I should think this post, and my prior ones, should be enough for any reader to assess the extent to which your observations on these subjects are informed. I will take under advisement Dove's suggestion, and consider leaving at this my observations on the cogency of your observations. And if the forum moderators themselves think there is no merit to further discussion, they can PM me, and I'm pleased to oblige.

On the other hand, the last time I provided some observations in a forum thread about someone who seemed completely outside his lane in discussing the law, the feedback I received from the forum owner did not suggest my correcting in detail misstatements of legal principles was unwelcome, but, rather, more leaning the other way. So, if those running the forum wish to have additional commentary from me--find it potentially educational--they also can PM me, I shall see if I can oblige in due course.

[BehindBlueI's]

I am not going to provide an opinion as to what LEOSA means in the relevant regards.

Once again, you talk a lot to not say anything.

Yes, I'm still just jerking your tail feathers to watch you squawk. The best part is showing your posts to our prosecutors when I screen cases. It beats talking sports and weather.

[joshs]

Once again, you talk a lot to not say anything.

Yes, I'm still just jerking your tail feathers to watch you squawk. The best part is showing your posts to our prosecutors when I screen cases. It beats talking sports and weather.

I still don't see what Kingfisher said that is wrong. If your argument is that a person carrying under LEOSA could be arrested and charged for not complying with a local magazine restriction, that's a risk that anyone who relies on LEOSA (just like FOPA) to violate a state or local law takes. If you're really worried with pointing out the bad information in this thread, I would think the implication that it is ok to carry into the Smithsonian would be a good place to start. LEOSA doesn't apply to federal prohibitions and the exceptions to 18 U.S.C. S 930 do not exempt retired(or off-duty state) LEOs.

[tanner]

I have visited DC at least 10 times since LEOSA was passed. Nobody has ever asked to see my gun or my bullets when I told them I was carrying concealed as an off duty LEO. I certainly violated the law open carrying my duty weapon when in uniform, but that was during Police Week. They would be kinda busy if they chose that point in time to make a point...

Having said that, I would consider it wise to comply with ammo and mag bans, perceived or otherwise.

I imagine that for all practical purposes, it would only come into play if you shot someone. Just adding to the things to worry about in that scenario if you aren't in compliance.

[BN]

Don't leave your gun anywhere except in your pants.

MD - no mag limits for out of state, no ammo type restrictions

DC - 10rnd mag restriction, AP ammo restriction.

Whenever I travel to DC I carry a g26 with 10rnd mags loaded with flatnose FMJ (147gr) - because its easier.

Have a badge, ID card and/or creds available IF ASKED.

I recently got back from my trip. I did what Voodoo_man suggested and everything went very smoothly. Thanks for the help everyone. :) I also rode the Metro for the first time. ;)

[11B10]

Quite a while ago, I asked P-F for advice on my now imminent (Tuesday) trip from Pa. to Florida. Based on that, I'd like to ask if anyone knows if the following is still gtg. Here's what I plan to do: I will leave the guns in the trunk till Va. as it's a brief trip. Va. - guns out/concealed till South Carolina - back in trunk till Ga., where they "come out" for the last time. Almost forgot - I am NOT LEO.

[voodoo_man]

I recently got back from my trip. I did what Voodoo_man suggested and everything went very smoothly. Thanks for the help everyone. :) I also rode the Metro for the first time. ;)

Metro, I see you too like to live dangerously.

[BN]

Quite a while ago, I asked P-F for advice on my now imminent (Tuesday) trip from Pa. to Florida. Based on that, I'd like to ask if anyone knows if the following is still gtg. Here's what I plan to do: I will leave the guns in the trunk till Va. as it's a brief trip. Va. - guns out/concealed till South Carolina - back in trunk till Ga., where they "come out" for the last time. Almost forgot - I am NOT LEO.

Go to http://www.handgunlaw.us/ and use this: http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/USRVCarCarry-1.pdf Hope this will help.

[11B10]

Go to http://www.handgunlaw.us/ and use this: http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/USRVCarCarry-1.pdf Hope this will help.



Thanks, Bill - I already did that and it most certainly did help. I had been cautioned as these laws change so quickly, there could be something even handgunlaw might not have posted yet - so, for the latest, where do I come? P-F, of course! This is going to sound pretty damn selfish, but it's going to feel good NOT to play "take the guns to your BIL's house/pretend they don't exist" for the next three weekends! You know - normal. There's a good chance I'll actually get to shoot them - not finalized yet.