A co worker of mine(Federal CO) went to purchase a handgun this evening. He doesn't have a HQL and I told him he doesn't need it because we are exempt since we are considered LEOs and covered under LEOSA(please save your opinion on whether you believe we are or not...that horse gets beat continuously.) Anyway, the dealer told him that the Attorney General sent out a letter about a month ago saying that Federal COs weren't exempt because we don't have the same kind of arrest powers as a police officer. Anyone know about this? What next, they'll reinterpret something else and try to say they don't recognize us being covered under LEOSA?
FSA2013 HQL exemptions "re interpreted?
- Thread starter Doobie
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
redeemed.man
Ultimate Member
redeemed.man
Ultimate Member
Maybe it is just a dealer that doesn't know better.
Correct. All oag opinions are available to read here: https://www.oag.state.md.us/Opinions/
but only ”special people” can request a new one be issued
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
A buddy of mine who posts here sent an email to Cpl Edwards as well as to the AG to see what their response is...which who knows.
A different gun dealer was contacted and he isn't aware of any change. Upon further questioning of the dealer who told the initial story, he's saying that he called MSP and was told that. The call was made after a Federal CO bought a Glock in April being HQL exempt and then came back later to trade it for a Shield and was denied...MSP told the dealer that the guy now needed a HQL.
A different gun dealer was contacted and he isn't aware of any change. Upon further questioning of the dealer who told the initial story, he's saying that he called MSP and was told that. The call was made after a Federal CO bought a Glock in April being HQL exempt and then came back later to trade it for a Shield and was denied...MSP told the dealer that the guy now needed a HQL.
June of this year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Washington D.C. Circuit held that Retired DC corrections officers could carry concealed guns.
The court rejected D.C.s argument that the Leosa law does not apply to corrections officers because they lack arresting authority.
I could see Frosh jumping on this an trying to start some crap. DC is in a different Circuit than MD.. who knows for sure.
Another Lawsuit might be necessary
The court rejected D.C.s argument that the Leosa law does not apply to corrections officers because they lack arresting authority.
I could see Frosh jumping on this an trying to start some crap. DC is in a different Circuit than MD.. who knows for sure.
Another Lawsuit might be necessary
Well everyone, here's the reply from Cpl Edwards at MSP handgun licensing division in response to my buddy's inquiry:
"Upon further review by the Division and the AG assigned to Licensing Division it was determined that the BOP is not HQL exempt."
Just when I thought I couldn't hate MD anymore. It doesn't really affect me since I got my HQL before I went to the Feds, but I can't help but think that it's a total crock of horse shit. So how long before they review HBARs, AR and AK pistols etc and come out with a different determination and not tell anyone?
"Upon further review by the Division and the AG assigned to Licensing Division it was determined that the BOP is not HQL exempt."
Just when I thought I couldn't hate MD anymore. It doesn't really affect me since I got my HQL before I went to the Feds, but I can't help but think that it's a total crock of horse shit. So how long before they review HBARs, AR and AK pistols etc and come out with a different determination and not tell anyone?
Title 18, United States Code 3050 gives BOP COs limited arrest powers on or off BOP property without a warrant. That's how we are covered under LEOSA and why we are considered law enforcement.
Interested where this goes sounds like another attack on law enforcement. Of course they probably look at it like their own co's of the state no law enforcements credentials for them even though they are held at high standards in weapons training. Also can carry a gun for the state when qualified. Crazy state laws people good luck.
I'm curious as to what made someone go fishing for this re-interpretation in the first place.
Exactly. And furthermore, not mention anything about it. My buddy called Hafer's and they hadn't heard anything about it. I'd like to get full clarification on this as to why and how. Emails have been sent to the AG and the handgun licensing division(as you already know and see the reply from the division). The reply from the division explains nothing. Any advice or help on getting further clarification on this would be greatly appreciated.
I was a MD CO for 4 years who was weapons qualified...the training was very good and the qualifications weren't anything to sneeze at. I saw several people(some who had 10 or more years in)walked off the range for either not scoring high enough, shooting someone else's target, or shooting into the dirt. There was zero toleration for any of those as well as any unsafe firearms handling. I always thought it BS that at the state we couldn't carry off duty. They wouldn't even let me use my weapons training to be training exempt for my HQL...but I could use my WV hunters safety card from when I was in the 5th grade.
While on that subject, my buddy who was denied the LEO exemption was told that he was training exempt for the HQL due to being LEO.
redeemed.man
Ultimate Member
The AAG assigned to the LD should have an opinion posted at the link I gave but he does not. MSP is making the rules up as they go as usual. No formal AG opinion was given and even it were it conflicts with the specific intent of federal law. Ridiculous
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
handgun permit review board
Biggfoot44
Ultimate Member
- Aug 2, 2009
- 33,137
HPRB doesn't have jurisdiction on HQL.
You are correct sir...he does not give an opinion there. I find it interesting that this "review" and determination was made and not a word was mentioned to anyone until a Federal CO tries to legally purchase a firearm using LEO exemption for HQL. Something doesn't smell right
redeemed.man
Ultimate Member
MSP did not request a formal opinion. If they did it would be posted on the AG's website. So that goes back to my original statement they are making it up as they go.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
So what course do I take now to get clarification/rectification in this matter. I know MD would prefer I be a good little rape victim and just bend over and take it with no lube. But I'm not. I'm real sick and tired of their BS laws and interpretations.
I would start with a certified letter to the Secretary of the State Police . Then I would lawyer up. I don't see losing this one.
Users who are viewing this thread
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
Hair-trigger posting... please include more than just the "headline" (7 Viewers)- Started by Mr H
- Replies: 6
-
-
-
(Duplicate - mods please close) MoCo trans student arrested for threatening school- Started by Lafayette
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
