MassCops - Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network, A Mass Police Web Portal

Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network

Massachusetts Police News, Information and Discussions on MassCops

Pages: 1

Main Page required LTC?
(Click here to view the original thread on the MassCops Message Board)

Posted by: potatochip

I'm just curious if there are any departments out there that REQUIRE thier PO's to have a license to carry firearms in their Rules & Regs / Policies?

Thanks

Posted by: policelaborlaw.com

Yes. I know of several.

Posted by: 1moreftrleo

I've seen it in the want ads for some departments.

Posted by: OutOfManyOne

Yes, it is a way for Chiefs to get rid of troubled officers. Lose your LTC, lose your job.

Posted by: midwatch

There have been some rumblings about this at our place also. But not yet.

Posted by: drewpopo

Ayer Police recently agreed to make LTC a requirment for all new officers. The proposal was agreed to during contract nego. However it will be part of rules and regs. We implimented a few safety nets in the event an officer gets jamed up, however if they are unable to get the problem resolved with in a set time frame nothing can be done to help them. If you need more info let me know

Posted by: JoninNH

Yes. Two I know for sure.

Posted by: Gil

APD is that way...

Posted by: alphadog1

I think the case law involves a veteran Franklin PD officer who was unable to meet the standards of obtaining a LTC and was subsequently terminated. It was upheld by the courts.

Posted by: Wolfman

MSP has the LTC requirement.

Posted by: pahapoika

talked to a union guy for one department and he said they were trying to get an extra desk assignment for "just in case" one of his guys loses the LTC and can fly a desk until things clear up

Posted by: potatochip

Quote:

Originally Posted by drewpopo

Ayer Police recently agreed to make LTC a requirment for all new officers. The proposal was agreed to during contract nego. However it will be part of rules and regs. We implimented a few safety nets in the event an officer gets jamed up, however if they are unable to get the problem resolved with in a set time frame nothing can be done to help them. If you need more info let me know

Drew, thanks a lot. Can you check your PM's?

Posted by: BartA1

by policy we are required to have a Class A LTC. Subject came up at inservice and the general feeling is most departments are going this way.

Posted by: k9sheriff

Are most departments trying to get rid of the policy of being able to carry under the badge for their department in order to stay away from potential liability problems.I know a police officer who by law is unable to obtain a LTC but carries under the badge for the department he works for.He got in trouble while a police officer abd lost his LTC, but the chief kept him employed.He is a good officer, but just had a streak of bad luck.

Posted by: potatochip

Quote:

Originally Posted by k9sheriff

I know a police officer who by law is unable to obtain a LTC but carries under the badge for the department he works for.He got in trouble while a police officer abd lost his LTC, but the chief kept him employed.He is a good officer, but just had a streak of bad luck.

This is what we are concerned about. There are so many ways to get jammed up with this, so we are trying to work on some "modified" language.

Posted by: Nachtwächter

I think this gives a Chief way to much power. If he does not like an officer he can revoke the officer's LTC problem solved. Also does this mean places like Boston or Worcester where I have heard it is next to impossible to get LTC residents can not become cops?

Posted by: 94c

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nachtwächter

I think this gives a Chief way to much power. If he does not like an officer he can revoke the officer's LTC problem solved. Also does this mean places like Boston or Worcester where I have heard it is next to impossible to get LTC residents can not become cops?

It has nothing to do with granting or revoking licenses at will. It has more to do with officers with say, domestic violence convictions, that are no longer able to have an LTC.

Federal law says anyone with a felony conviction can't have firearms. A federal felony is a 1 yr. prison sentence.
Even though Assault and Battery is only a misdemeanor it still carries 2 1/2 years in a house of correction.
(so even though it's a misdemeanor it's still more than the one year federal standard.)

Posted by: Delta784

Quote:

Originally Posted by 94c

It has nothing to do with granting or revoking licenses at will.

It has everything to do with that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 94c

It has more to do with officers with say, domestic violence convictions, that are no longer able to have an LTC.

If cop has a DV conviction, then it doesn't matter what 41-98 says, because Federal law trumps state law. The bullshit games with an LTC for cops are just that.....bullshit games.

A city or town police officer does not need an LTC to carry his/her duty duty weapon, regardless of whatever a megalomaniacal chief thinks.

Posted by: 94c

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delta784

It has everything to do with that.

If cop has a DV conviction, then it doesn't matter what 41-98 says, because Federal law trumps state law. The bullshit games with an LTC for cops are just that.....bullshit games.

A city or town police officer does not need an LTC to carry his/her duty duty weapon, regardless of whatever a megalomaniacal chief thinks.

so you're saying that a chief can just yank your license at will because he doesn't like you?

The SJC has already ruled that a Chief of Police can require his officers to get an LTC. This is just a CYA for them on domestic violence issues.

Posted by: REILEYDOG

Where does HR218 fit in in all of this Massachusetts silliness?

Posted by: SOT

Long story, do a search it's been debated a lot on the forum.

Posted by: potatochip

On top of worrying about your (our) own chief, you have to worry about all of the chief's in every jurisdiction that your guys live in if the department makes you go to your hometown PD. And it's funny your bring up HR218 because one of my guys just said the same thing last night.

There are so many issues going on with this, but as usual management is so short sighted that they refuse to acknowledge any of them no matter how many examples you point out. They think its just a simple sentence in a book, when in reality it could be someone's livelihood.

Posted by: aleksandreH

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfman

MSP has the LTC requirement.

Are troopers (generic: ie, ALL MSP) Required to carry 24/7? Is there an explicit instruction or implied understanding that they are always "on duty?"

Posted by: fytinirish

all of the above + the months and months it takes to renew the LTC

Posted by: SOT

It's not months anymore. It's like a month max. If it's taking months in your town, that's at the local level. MSP is now very fast with the turn arounds.

Posted by: JoninNH

53 day turn around on my Non-Resident LTC... but that was over the holidays.

Posted by: Irish Wampanoag

If cop has a DV conviction, then it doesn't matter what 41-98 says, because Federal law trumps state law. The bullshit games with an LTC for cops are just that.....bullshit games.

A city or town police officer does not need an LTC to carry his/her duty duty weapon, regardless of whatever a megalomaniacal chief thinks.[/quote]

The employer Chief just places the responsiblity on the resident Cheif of revoking the license to carry of his officer. Its just another chicken shit political passing the buck game!

Posted by: 94c

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irish Wampanoag

The employer Chief just places the responsiblity on the resident Cheif of revoking the license to carry of his officer. Its just another chicken shit political passing the buck game![/quote]

Federal Law does not trump state law. It's vice versa. (Meaning that we can either equal federal law or be more restrictive. Never less.)

The SJC has already ruled that the chief can force his officers to get an LTC regardless of what 41-98 says.

Posted by: SOT

Well let's put it this way...

State and local laws can be stricter than federal laws but not to the point that they countermand federal law.

Posted by: Irish Wampanoag

Quote:

Originally Posted by 94c

The employer Chief just places the responsiblity on the resident Cheif of revoking the license to carry of his officer. Its just another chicken shit political passing the buck game!

Federal Law does not trump state law. It's vice versa. (Meaning that we can either equal federal law or be more restrictive. Never less.)

The SJC has already ruled that the chief can force his officers to get an LTC regardless of what 41-98 says.[/quote]

Yup most I think do. Less head truma for the chief by the unions when said officer get jammed up on something.

Posted by: mpd61

True Chris!

But what happens when you have a eunich chief who won't let one of his officers carry at all until his SSPO warrant comes through?

HA! AFSCME would never let that happen!!!!

Posted by: j809

Woody, nobody could have ever tocuhed you even after you ran over the sergeant with radar trailer!!!

Posted by: Irish Wampanoag

Quote:

Originally Posted by mpd61

True Chris!

But what happens when you have a eunich chief who won't let one of his officers carry at all until his SSPO warrant comes through?

HA! AFSCME would never let that happen!!!!

That because the chief does not know that SSPO license is a peice of garbage to state and community colleges who have their own statue to license police. Mass State Troopers were in Thursday snooping around. They asked me if you intended to run over the Sergeant with the traffic trailer and I said yes!!! "Feel the pain sir"

Posted by: l4t010

Here is the case law alphadog1 was talking about. http://www.socialaw.com/slip.htm?cid=11153

Posted by: Delta784

Quote:

Originally Posted by 94c

Federal Law does not trump state law.

It most certainly does.

For an example you should be familiar with, read the first part of the United States Code, Title 18, Chapter 44, 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).

In other words, it doesn't matter what any state laws say, the Federal government has decided to let off-duty officers carry concealed firearms, and that's that.

Federal law trumps state law.

Posted by: DODK911

Previously someone asked where does HR218 come into play for Mass. HR218 for MA Police Officers only affects them when they are in other states. Prior to HR218 if a MA Police Officer went into RI, CT, NH, and etc... you had to have a LTC from that state. Now that we have HR218 you don't have to have to have an out of state LTC to carry in other states, you can carry on your badge and ID. As a Police Officer in MA you only have to have a MA LTC if you are required by your Dept. or you want to purchase firearms, but you don't have to have one just to carry your duty weapon. Hope this helps.

Posted by: BartA1

After Reading all the rules and regs on firearms and the different statues by state. Wouldnt it be easier to just have a federal system where the Feds issued the rule and you paid for a federal license to carry that was ok in all 50 states. Probably would be a nightmare. Just seems to make sense to have one central unified set of laws governing firearms. I am sure the individual states wouldnt like it.

Posted by: kwflatbed

Quote:

Originally Posted by BartA1

After Reading all the rules and regs on firearms and the different statues by state. Wouldnt it be easier to just have a federal system where the Feds issued the rule and you paid for a federal license to carry that was ok in all 50 states. Probably would be a nightmare. Just seems to make sense to have one central unified set of laws governing firearms. I am sure the individual states wouldnt like it.

The NRA has been trying to do this for years, there is a bill pending now.

Posted by: DODK911

Quote:

Originally Posted by BartA1

I like the idea of Police Officers being able to carry anywhere we go, but do you really want any Tom, Dick, or Harry carrying a firearm where ever they go? I sure don't! Granted there is some shady Cops in some of these back woods states but atleast they have some training unlike the average Joe. So I'm for each state governing there own LTC's.

Posted by: kwflatbed

Quote:

Originally Posted by DODK911

What makes you any different from any trained private citizen who now
has to hold a permit in any state requiring one.
Just a money maker for the states and also no unified laws for carry.
It could make it eaiser on everyone if we had one set of rules and laws
to go by.With no police chiefs setting thier own rules.
The same as the CDL drivers lic. how many people said that would not work?

Posted by: pahapoika

more guns , less crime . it's been proven

only criminals like gun laws , oh and liberals

Posted by: Nachtwächter

Quote:

Originally Posted by pahapoika

only criminals like gun laws , oh and liberals

I thought those were synonyms.

Posted by: DODK911

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwflatbed

Just because I'm a cop does not make me or any other cop better then the average citizen, but lets face the facts; a cop is better trained (firearms and to deal with people) then the average trained citizen is any day. This why "I" feel that COPS should have HR218 and not everyone. Cops are required to have so much training and qualify with there weapons at lleast once a year (my Dept. does it quarterly). Thats a lot more training than the average gun owner. I do agree with you, there are some people that love guns and are probably better trained then the avarage cop, but those people are few and far between across the country. My .02, agree or disagree.

Posted by: JoninNH

ME... $60
NH... $10
MA... $100

That's $170 in fees, never mind the finger printing and other supporting documentation for someone living in NH who wants to carry in his border states as well. (And a MA non-resident LTC is only good for a year... so you're talking $500 over the course of five years just for MA!)

Absent a Supreme Court finding that says concealed carry permits are unconstitutional, I would like to see a federal concealed carry license which would allow concealed carry in all of the fifty states. I doubt I'll ever see it, or if I do it will be in the form of left wing gun control under the Hiliary Clinton Administration. My trust of the ATF extends only so far as them getting the spelling of my name right on my FFL.

Posted by: kwflatbed

Support This Bill

SENATE VERSION OF
NATIONAL RIGHT-TO-CARRY BILL INTRODUCED

U.S. Senator John Thune (R-S.D.) recently introduced S. 388--the Senate version of H.R. 226, a national Right-to-Carry reciprocity bill that would provide national reciprocity for state carry licensees. This legislation would allow any person with a valid carry permit or license issued by a state to carry a concealed firearm in any other state if they meet certain criteria. The bill would not create a federal licensing system; it would simply require the states to recognize each other's carry permits, just as they recognize drivers' licenses.
For more information on these bills, please visit www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=189.
Please be sure to contact your U.S. Senators and Representative and ask them to cosponsor and support S. 388 and H.R. 226! You can call your U.S. Senators at (202) 224-3121, and your U.S. Representative at (202) 225-3121.

JUST WHO DO OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS REPRESENT?

Forget for a moment that anti-gun mayors Michael Bloomberg of New York City, Thomas Menino of Boston, and Adrian Fenty of Washington, D.C., all represent cities with highly restrictive gun laws and high levels of crime. Let's try, if only for a second, to ignore the fact that their prescriptions to reduce gun violence in their cities will not affect criminals one iota, but will certainly negatively impact their law-abiding gun owners. Briefly set aside your offense over them blaming gun crimes in their cities on the actions, not of criminals, but of citizens from outside their jurisdictions. Excuse, if you will, their ignorance on the "Tiahrt Amendment" that seems to be the prime target of the mayors' ire. (The "Tiahrt Amendment" prohibits the release of firearm trace data to any entity except a law enforcement agency conducting a bona fide criminal investigation involving the firearm. It ensures politically-motivated lawsuits, such as those being promoted by Bloomberg, don't misuse this data to try and bankrupt the lawful firearm industry through reckless litigation. As NRA and numerous law enforcement officers and agencies have continuously pointed out, release of this information also jeopardizes ongoing criminal investigations and the lives of law enforcement personnel involved with them.)
Instead, let's focus on the egomaniacal nature of Hizzoner Bloomberg and his crusade to foist upon citizens outside of New York City, New York City-style gun laws. In a press conference on Tuesday featuring more than 50 mayors, Bloomberg accused any lawmaker who supports the "Tiahrt Amendment" of "voting to put guns in the hands of criminals." The Mayor vowed further he would "remind every one of their constituents, particularly two years from now when they have an election."
Not surprisingly, the mayors won't have to go it alone, as with Congress under new, anti-Second Amendment leadership, an anti-gun task force has been created to ensure the mayors' water will be carried in Washington, D.C. Task force members include: Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.; F-rated by NRA-PVF); Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.; F-rated by NRA-PVF); and Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich; F-rated by NRA-PVF).
While Mayor Bloomberg is contemplating spending hundreds of millions of his personal fortune to run for president, thankfully, he is NOT currently the President! We would recommend Bloomberg focus on taking care of his own backyard and enforcing existing laws against his city's criminals, rather than trying to spread failed gun policies across the nation.
Rest assured, the Mayor doesn't have to worry about reminding constituents about their elected officials' views on gun control; NRA will continue to do that--just as we will with those anti-gun officials who harbor their own personal White House ambitions!
For a list of mayors who have signed on to this anti-freedom effort, along with their contact information, please click here: http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=2533.

Harry
NRA Life Endowment Member

Posted by: DODK911

[quote=kwflatbed]Support This Bill

SENATE VERSION OF
NATIONAL RIGHT-TO-CARRY BILL INTRODUCED

U.S. Senator John Thune (R-S.D.) recently introduced S. 388--the Senate version of H.R. 226, a national Right-to-Carry reciprocity bill that would provide national reciprocity for state carry licensees. This legislation would allow any person with a valid carry permit or license issued by a state to carry a concealed firearm in any other state if they meet certain criteria. The bill would not create a federal licensing system; it would simply require the states to recognize each other's carry permits, just as they recognize drivers' licenses.
For more information on these bills, please visit www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=189.

I'm all for something like this, but just for any gun owner to carry in all 50 states; I can't see that. There has to be some kind of accountability.

Posted by: coldsteel

I currently have LTC A in MA I really dont see the need right now for me to be allowed to carry conceald in other states.... Just my .02

Posted by: kwflatbed

coldsteel I guess that you don't travel much into high crime areas like
Bridgeport,CT or Hartford, CT or NYC. just to name a few.

DODK911 the accountability will be there, it's not the responsible gun owner you have to worry about.
Remember criminals will always have guns the laws do not pertain to them.They are the ones you need to worry about.

People living on state border lines like myself 1 1/2 miles from the RI line and I travel
through the state of RI going from one place in Ma to another in MA now I need both
RI and MA LTC.

There is one section of my town were I have to travel through a section of RI to get there.

Also I have not even touched on the problem with the many chiefs in MA who
think that they make their own laws when it comes to issuing LTC's.
Quincy for one, Boston's restricted permits and the list goes on forever.

Posted by: DODK911

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwflatbed

coldsteel I guess that you don't travel much into high crime areas like
Bridgeport,CT or Hartford, CT or NYC. just to name a few.

DODK911 the accountability will be there, it's not the responsible gun owner you have to worry about.
Remember criminals will always have guns the laws do not pertain to them.They are the ones you need to worry about.

People living on state border lines like myself 1 1/2 miles from the RI line and I travel
through the state of RI going from one place in Ma to another in MA now I need both
RI and MA LTC.

There is one section of my town were I have to travel through a section of RI to get there.

Also I have not even touched on the problem with the many chiefs in MA who
think that they make their own laws when it comes to issuing LTC's.
Quincy for one, Boston's restricted permits and the list goes on forever.

I know exactly what your talking about and I agree with you. Being a Cop I carry 95% of the time off duty and I too live on the MA / RI border with CT not too far away, so before HR218 I had to have 2-3 LTC's as well. I know bad guys out gun us any day of the week, but at the same time there are still way too many yah-hoo's (legitimate gun owners) to allow everyone out there to carry in all 50 states like cops (some states don't require an LTC). I'm all for other states allowing another states ID to be valid in there state as long as State A is going to do background checks and etc... for yahoo 1 to get X states LTC. Sorry to carry on so much. Bottom line I agree that every non criminal, trained, and firearm educated American should be able to carry in the U.S.

Posted by: coldsteel

Nah no need to travel to those cities Kwflatbed when there is so much fun to be had in good old "Taxahchusetts". But I do agree it almost took an act of god for me to get my LTC A.

My first round with my Police Chief to obtain my LTC he told me and I quote "was not a suitable candidate" and I asked why and he had no reason I told him I'll see you in court. Second round was in court and after a Judges review I got my LTC and that same Police Cheif told the Judge the reason why he didnt issue me my LTC was because he being the Cheif "already issued to many that year to date" thats what he told the Judge. I almost died laughing in court.... Way to much controll is given to these Chiefs that really has to stop.

Posted by: SOT

What town?

Posted by: coldsteel

Belmont

Posted by: pahapoika

the LTC laws are a nightmare here in Mass.

correct me if i'm wrong , but didn't the state law makers have to write a addendum to the new domestic violence law because it went retro indefinitely and allot of cops with old charges were in danger of losing their jobs ?

i know we have officers that can carry while working , but not off duty. this seems a bit strange.

living in Boston i can tell you from first hand experience that correction officers , local and city police have all denied pistol permits and only after a lawyer is hired do they issue one , but with some sort of BS restriction.

even in the small towns the Chief now has the power to deny anyone for any reason.

i know cops like to think they should only have guns , but beware , there might be a day when everybody has to leave their sidearm at the station

they already do it in Canada.

Posted by: JoninNH

Quote:

but beware , there might be a day when everybody has to leave their sidearm at the station

That's a scary thought.

ma police, boston ma police, massachusetts police, massachusetts police, mass state police, mass police, ma, mass, massachusetts, massachusetts, massachutes, massachusetts law, massachusetts polece, police, officer, police officer, cops, police gear, law enforcement, police duty gear, state police, sheriff, law, police supply, police agency directory, police agency, police department, traffic officer, police dept, state trooper, dispatcher, massachusetts county sheriff, massachusetts sheriff, massachusetts department of corrections, ma doc, doc, dept of corrections, police information, civil service, ma civil service, massachusetts crime, police training, police academy, ma police academy, massachusetts officers, masscop, masscops, mpa, bpa, ibpoa, police association, massachusetts police news, massachusetts crime news, mass most wanted, police career information, police patrol, police administration, police books, crime scene training, police discussion, crime discussions, cops

About MassCops, the home for Massachusetts law enforcement.

The Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network opened in 1998 and is now a part of the New England Police Network The site is a pro-police discussion forum intended for sworn police officers and civilian law enforcement officials as well as those interested in pursuing a career in law enforcement here in Massachusetts.

The goal of The Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network is to provide an informal network of law enforcement officials here in Massachusetts for educational and informational purposes.

The forum covers many topics such as Police Related News Articles, Agency & Profession Discussions, Police Training as well as Law Enforcement Career Information.

The Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network and The New England Police Network (NEPN) and it's network sites are privately owned websites/domains and are not affiliated with or endorsed by any government association or agency.

MassCops (masscops.com) and (masscop.com) are privately owned are not affiliated with or endorsed by the Massachusetts Coalition of Police (masscop.org)

3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 49 50 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108