Yes. I know of several.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Yes. Two I know for sure.

 

APD is that way...

 

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.

 

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

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.)

 

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

It has everything to do with that.

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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?"

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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!