Another Fed LEO Question

[Edward]

Hello,

Here's another twist on the Federal LEO question:

I am a sworn Federal LEO. I am only authorized to carry when on duty. Under the terms of my deputation, I am not authorized to carry off duty. However, I am required by the agency to transport my loaded firearm in my vehicle to and from work daily.

In the event that I need to use the firearm to defend life during my round trip to/from work, the agency's position is that I should be treated as a lawfully armed citizen of my state, and would receive no assistance/support from the agency.

I'm not especially comfortable with this arrangement, and feel that my legal status in such a situation is unclear (citizens without CCWs cannot transport loaded firearms, after all). I would like to obtain a CCW to clarify my position.

I'd like your feedback on whether or not this constitutes the basis for a GC argument. I realize that the answer to this question varies based on the county in question, but would appreciate any useful feedback on how to proceed.

V/R
Edward

[Dan M.]

Seems like part of your GC will require a letter from your agency stating that you are indeed required to transport your firearm loaded.

[CalCCW03]

Originally Posted by Dan M.

Seems like part of your GC will require a letter from your agency stating that you are indeed required to transport your firearm loaded.

And based on that the issuing agency may place a restriction on your CCW that you can only carry to and from work.

[Dan M.]

Originally Posted by CalCCW03

And based on that the issuing agency may place a restriction on your CCW that you can only carry to and from work.

And that's about as deep as we'll go on GC here on the forum.

[Spicy McHaggis]

Originally Posted by Edward

Hello,

Here's another twist on the Federal LEO question:

I am a sworn Federal LEO. I am only authorized to carry when on duty. Under the terms of my deputation, I am not authorized to carry off duty. However, I am required by the agency to transport my loaded firearm in my vehicle to and from work daily.

In the event that I need to use the firearm to defend life during my round trip to/from work, the agency's position is that I should be treated as a lawfully armed citizen of my state, and would receive no assistance/support from the agency.

I'm not especially comfortable with this arrangement, and feel that my legal status in such a situation is unclear (citizens without CCWs cannot transport loaded firearms, after all). I would like to obtain a CCW to clarify my position.

I'd like your feedback on whether or not this constitutes the basis for a GC argument. I realize that the answer to this question varies based on the county in question, but would appreciate any useful feedback on how to proceed.

V/R
Edward

If you are not authorized to carry off duty, then you cannot legally transport your weapon while loaded without a CCW license. Even to and from work. Unless you are considered to be on duty during that time. However, I think the LEOSA allows you to carry while off duty, even though your department says you can't. Someone who knows for sure will probably speak up here.

In other states you can carry a loaded firearm in your car even without a CCW, but not in CA.

Also, if you are not allowed to carry while off duty, will they even allow you to get a CCW?

[akulahawk]

Originally Posted by Spicy McHaggis

If you are not authorized to carry off duty, then you cannot legally transport your weapon while loaded without a CCW license. Even to and from work. Unless you are considered to be on duty during that time. However, I think the LEOSA allows you to carry while off duty, even though your department says you can't. Someone who knows for sure will probably speak up here.

In other states you can carry a loaded firearm in your car even without a CCW, but not in CA.

Also, if you are not allowed to carry while off duty, will they even allow you to get a CCW?

Spicy: the $64,000 question that you're getting to is: "Does the LEOSA trump/override agency policy?". Some people say that it does, some say that it doesn't, and there's Congressional history that shows that some text was kept out that would allow agency heads to "opt out" of the LEOSA. Bottom line is that nobody wants to become a test case for this, and it's going to take a court case to determine this. The LEOSA was written very broadly as to "who" it covers, but not specificially enough to answer the question above... Good intentioned law, but it allows agencies to be less than good to their officers, and less so to their retirees.

[Spicy McHaggis]

Originally Posted by akulahawk

Spicy: the $64,000 question that you're getting to is: "Does the LEOSA trump/override agency policy?". Some people say that it does, some say that it doesn't, and there's Congressional history that shows that some text was kept out that would allow agency heads to "opt out" of the LEOSA. Bottom line is that nobody wants to become a test case for this, and it's going to take a court case to determine this. The LEOSA was written very broadly as to "who" it covers, but not specificially enough to answer the question above... Good intentioned law, but it allows agencies to be less than good to their officers, and less so to their retirees.

Exactly, just like my CCW. The state says I can carry, yet the policy at my work says I cannot carry there. My work's policy trumps state law because I like my job and want to keep it.

[CCWInstructor]

Policy can be more restrictive than state / federal law only, not less. We have a federal court case, in the 9th circuit. He is screwed if he uses a gun. He has good cause, will that county issue? I'm not sure.

He needs to take it up with his union rep.

[Edward]

Thanks to all for your replies.

In response to a concern raised above, I have a written copy of my agency's policy which requires the transport of the loaded weapon. I won't get into the specifics, but there is no confusion on this matter--it is required.

I do not believe that LEOSA would provide sufficient justification for off duty carry in the absence of agency authorization, and don't want to be the test case as someone else wisely noted.

Thanks again for your insights. You have given me some things to think about and I appreciate your help.

V/R
Edward

[Poogsdad]

Originally Posted by akulahawk

Spicy: the $64,000 question that you're getting to is: "Does the LEOSA trump/override agency policy?". Some people say that it does, some say that it doesn't, and there's Congressional history that shows that some text was kept out that would allow agency heads to "opt out" of the LEOSA. Bottom line is that nobody wants to become a test case for this, and it's going to take a court case to determine this. The LEOSA was written very broadly as to "who" it covers, but not specificially enough to answer the question above... Good intentioned law, but it allows agencies to be less than good to their officers, and less so to their retirees.

My interpretation has always been that LEOSA trumps/overrides State CCW laws, however it does not trump Agency Policy. My agency permits off-duty concealed carry but does not mandate it.

I carried concealed as a Tribal LEO for about a year under this interpretation until I recieved my CA CCW.

I routinely interacted with local LEOs on and off-duty with no issues.

Is my interpretation correct or was I just very lucky?

Thanks,

[Hoser]

Originally Posted by akulahawk

Spicy: the $64,000 question that you're getting to is: "Does the LEOSA trump/override agency policy?"

California DoJ says it does. But as has been said, your employer could fire you and then you'd have to fight to get your job back...

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/leosiss.pdf

[CCWInstructor]

Edward,

I need to ask a question to better answer you. If I asked the right question, only three people will understand your answer.

Are you suppose to tranport that loaded gun in a locked container?

If yes, I will PM you the proper answer. Because that changes everything.

Greg

Originally Posted by Edward

Thanks to all for your replies.

In response to a concern raised above, I have a written copy of my agency's policy which requires the transport of the loaded weapon. I won't get into the specifics, but there is no confusion on this matter--it is required.

I do not believe that LEOSA would provide sufficient justification for off duty carry in the absence of agency authorization, and don't want to be the test case as someone else wisely noted.

Thanks again for your insights. You have given me some things to think about and I appreciate your help.

V/R
Edward

[OCRancher]

I'm on pins and needles!

[spc]

Originally Posted by OCRancher

I'm on pins and needles!

Me too. X-ffdo may know the answer to that one.

spc

[Edward]

CCWInstructor--PM Sent.

Many thanks,
Edward