[Sgt Redsox]

Has any NYS CO's carried out of State under the H R 218 Law? If so, did you have any issues? I'm planning a trip and was going to carry, but while discussing this at work, Some felt we do not qualify while others feel we do. Just looking for other opinions. When I read the law HR 218, I interpet it that we do qualify. Again looking for other opinions.

 

[jh225]

Some felt we do not qualify.

When I read the law HR 218, I interpet it that we do qualify.

You are right, they are wrong, period.

Peace/Police Officer who has been trained and has qualified under NYS guidelines and is authorized to carry a weapon off duty.

Oh, and BTW.....What's up with the RedSox name, you friggin' traitor.:slap:

 

[Sgt Redsox]

Dood, Take it Easy. I'm a transplanted New Englander in NY. I was Born and Raised a Redsox fan. It is just more fun here in NY.
:image035:

:banana::danceban::banana:


:rofl: :wave:

 

[Sgt Redsox]

JH225,

Are you a NYS CO? A Lawyer Etc.?

 

[jh225]

Retired CO (where HR218 takes on a whole new meaning... ie:NYS does not have any requal in place), but the bill specifically mention CO's. No matter what the local Po-Po says, they don't trump the Feds. Just be sure to abide by the other states ammo specifics (NJ in particular).

And if you don't have one, get yourself a NYS permit.

And I still think Boston sucks.

 

[boscobeans]

From the New York State Department of Correctional Services Website:

Legal Power And Authority Of Correction Officers

New York State Correction Officers have Peace Officer status under section 2.10 of the New York State Criminal Procedure Law. This authorizes them to make warrantless arrests, carry and use a concealed/un-concealed firearm, and use physical and deadly physical force. New York State Correction Officers have Peace Officer status while both on duty and off duty.

Looks like you are covered to me.

bosco

 

[LM2024]

HR 218 has been codified into Federal Law and is now 18 US Code 926B and 926C for retired officers.

Title 18 of the U.S. Code, Section 926B

(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;
(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'--
(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).
(f) For the purposes of this section, a law enforcement officer of the Amtrak Police Department or a law enforcement or police officer of the executive branch of the Federal Government qualifies as an employee of a governmental agency who 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.'

Since New York statutes give you status as a law enforcement officer, I would say the 18 USC 926B allows you to carry out of state.

 

[BikerRN]

Ask your legal department.

They will give the agency's opinion on the matter.

FWIW: it looks to me like you do qualify, as you have arrest powers, but I'm not a lawyer. Take care, watch your back, and stay safe.

Biker

 

[jh225]

Ask your legal department.

They will give the agency's opinion on the matter.

Sorry, but that is the LAST thing he wants/needs to do. NY is vehemently anti-gun and that includes 99% of the LEO depts with admin specifically on the top of the list. Even if they did reply, they would either give the "run around" or just say no.

It does not matter what his Dept's legal team says (although they most likely would not even reply) as NYS LAW and Federal law both specifically say he can carry under HR218/Title 18

 

[Sgt Redsox]

Wow. Such a simple question, and so many opinions. I guess this is why we have Lawyers.

I thank everybody who responded.

"Redsox 2009"

 

[Jerseyguy]

NYS Corrections - HR 218

IMHO NYS Corrections are generally covered by HR 218 because they meet the criteria. That does not, however, insluate anyone from false arrest. A NYS C.O. was arrested by NJSP for carrying and the charges were later dropped. As retired LEOs in NY, I am more than willing to do whatever I can to help educate your elected officials as to the need to enact legislation for retired LEOs living in NY. Makes absolutely no sense for them not to do so. Be safe.

 

[Eirerogue]

Hope this helps. I'm a retired DEA Agent, carrying under HR218, sometimes referred to as LEOSA (LEO Safety Act). In my mind, everyone still calls it HR218. It's all OK.

Whether you qualify to carry and actually doing it under LEOSA are two different things. Your former agency can tell you what they are doing (have done) for your retirees.

You'll need a 'retired in good standing' ID from your former agency and some record of you completing training quals for your firearm on an annual basis or whatever is required under State law.

If you've got a retired officers association, they should have this all scoped out by now. Check with them first.

Just qualifying based on FORMER peace officer status will not allow you to carry legally under HR218 without the ID and Qual record for the 'type of firearm' you'll be carrying.

Hope this helps. Many retirees and former officers are confused. There ARE agency's that are dragging there feet on this. Check it out. Stay safe!

 

[HKinNY]

Ok here is a twist My brother work for NYPD for almost 5 years and then switched to FDNY and PD will not issue retired ID because he did not retire fromthe job but made a laterial move to FD. Any suggestions to be covered under HR 218

 

[HKinNY]

"Redsox 2009"

because of the above comment I am forced to say" Correction officers vs. Law Enforcement. The law enforcement are people who enforced the law hence they are in jail. Corrections Officers are the baby sitters!!! Let the Flaming being. J/K :danceban:

 

[TheGreatGonzo]

Ok here is a twist My brother work for NYPD for almost 5 years and then switched to FDNY and PD will not issue retired ID because he did not retire fromthe job but made a laterial move to FD. Any suggestions to be covered under HR 218

He did not retire, so the law does not apply to him. No way around it.
Gonzo

 

[ArmyCop]

Ok, I just finished the Veterans Administration's Federal Police Academy in North Little Rock, AR. The Attorney teaching "Law week" class said any active OR retired LEO - with their active or retired credentials CAN legally carry concealed in any state. With that informatoin, and a printed copy of H.R.218 with my cred's - I choose to save a little $$ and NOT renew my concealed carry permit but instead rely on my cred's for that.

 

[Jerseyguy]

ArmyCop,

Bad move. Having dual authority to carry is like having a belt and suspenders. Each is good, both are better. I have had VA cops in my HR 218 seminars. HR 218 will, for example, legally cover you if you carry in a restaurant with a bar (so long as the bar owner does not prohibit guns) in South Dakota, whereas a CCW will not. But, a valid CCW will exempt you from fed law while carrying through a school zone, but LEOSA will not. So, don't be cheap, keep both authorities and get training or talk with an educated attorney about where and when both work for max coverage. I carry under HR 218-LEOSA, but keep my NJ and FL CCWs for these very reasons.

 

[cockedlocked01]

Interesting thread. From what I understand of the OP, he's a currently active CO, correct? Each state has their different rulings on whether a CO is considered LE. In CA., it's basically whether they have powers of arrest (Not specialized powers, but anywhere throughout the state), which certain COs (In CA) don't. It sounds like NYS considers their COs to have it & therefore it'll be on your ID stating that you can CC.

As for going on a trip, you should be fine. Make sure you that you have your ID with you when you carry.

For retired LE, it's a little different. If you're still around your old Dept, you can qualify annually there & be good to go. Again, make sure you carry your ID stating you can CC when you carry. If you live out of state from, or quite a ways away your old Dept, you have 2 choices. Plan an annual trip to your old Dept & qualify or contact the local Dept or SO & see what they can provide for you. Some areas work with retirees in their area & will qualify you for a fee.

Another thing to keep in mind for retirees is that, unless medically retired, they have to have 15 yrs total in LE in order to qualify. If you put in 5, 10, or whatever yrs (Less than 15), you don't qualify. That is unless you're medically retired, then you're fine, provided your Dept. cleared you to CC after they medically retired you.

"HITCH KING", your brother doesn't qualify on 2 accounts. If he did retire & then went to his new job as a fireman, he doesn't have enough yrs & if he didn't actually retire, then he can't on those grounds, too.

Some states obviously handle things differently. "Army Cop" mentions going under the LEOSA & not having to have a CCW. That would be fine in CA, but apparently a CCW might allow you something in another state that the LEOSA doesn't? In CA, I don't think that's the case, but might be elsewhere.

Also, to the OP, where (Or what state) are you going to? I imagine if you're staying in NY, NJ, or another "anti-gun" state, local LE "might" cause you a temporary problem...maybe. BTW, CA would not be considered one of the anti-gun states, at least not for active/retired LE.

Hope that helps.

 

[jh225]

The Attorney teaching "Law week" class said any active OR retired LEO - with their active or retired credentials CAN legally carry concealed in any state. With that informatoin, and a printed copy of H.R.218 with my cred's - I choose to save a little $$ and NOT renew my concealed carry permit but instead rely on my cred's for that.

WRONG & WRONG

Firstly, the attorney teaching the "Law week" class is wrong and very easy to point it out why. IF he told you what you quoted he is blatantly wrong in the fact that any retired LEO with credentials can legally carry in any state. The law SPECIFICALLY states that you must have credentials AND annually pass a course set forth by your Dept or the state. Credentials alone without annual requal will land you in a heap of trouble. If you quoted the attorney wrong, you need to pay a little more attention to details.

Secondly, the fact that you say you will give up your permit to save a few bucks is VERY poor thinking. Not only for the reasons others have mentioned, but for a very important reason that has not been stated and most people overlook.

Any handgun you possess should not only be purchased on your permit (rather than your shield), but should be co-owned by your spouse (who has her own permit, doesn't she?). You do realize that any weapon that is on your shield and not on a permit WILL be taken from you if you run into trouble on the job, right? If they are on your permit, your Dept. has no legal basis to take them. If the Dept. somehow gets a local judge to side with them (to seize them) and they are also co-owned by your spouse, they are still out of luck. You have to cover all your bases because once they are seized, good luck getting them back.

Too much worrying over nothing? Keep telling yourself that.

*I am not specifically singling you out, just hoping to get some LEO members to realize things like this do happen*

 

[jh225]

Whether you qualify to carry and actually doing it under LEOSA are two different things. Your former agency can tell you what they are doing (have done) for your retirees.

You'll need a 'retired in good standing' ID from your former agency and some record of you completing training quals for your firearm on an annual basis or whatever is required under State law.

If you've got a retired officers association, they should have this all scoped out by now. Check with them first.

Just qualifying based on FORMER peace officer status will not allow you to carry legally under HR218 without the ID and Qual record for the 'type of firearm' you'll be carrying.

Hope this helps. Many retirees and former officers are confused. There ARE agency's that are dragging there feet on this. Check it out. Stay safe!

You are 100% correct, but I must point out something that is going on in NY and I am sure elsewhere.

The law is clear and that is fine. Problem is that MANY NYS Dept's (including NYSP unless very recently changed) have absolutely zero interest in their retired officers. They refuse to requal retirees, and don't even wish to discuss it. If I asked my former Dept HQ to allow me to requal, they would throw me off the property.

The law also states that a state (NY in this case) may also set up requal parameters. NYS has chosen to ignore this and no one is going to change their mind.

In no way whatsoever does HR218 force Depts or States to act on the law, and for that one reason alone, the law is a joke for thousands and thousands of retired officers around the country.

I could go on and on, but it just get me more and more annoyed.