18 U.S.C. § 926C

Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified retired law enforcement officers

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified retired 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 retired law enforcement officer” means an individual who—(1) separated from service in good standing from service with a public agency as a law enforcement officer;(2) before such separation, was 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 had statutory powers of arrest or apprehension under section 807(b) of title 10, United States Code (article 7(b) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice);(3)(A) before such separation, served as a law enforcement officer for an aggregate of 10 years or more; or(B) separated from service with such agency, after completing any applicable probationary period of such service, due to a service-connected disability, as determined by such agency;(4) during the most recent 12-month period, has met, at the expense of the individual, the standards for qualification in firearms training for active law enforcement officers, as determined by the former agency of the individual, the State in which the individual resides or, if the State has not established such standards, either a law enforcement agency within the State in which the individual resides or the standards used by a certified firearms instructor that is qualified to conduct a firearms qualification test for active duty officers within that State;(5)(A) has not been officially found by a qualified medical professional employed by the agency to be unqualified for reasons relating to mental health and as a result of this finding will not be issued the photographic identification as described in subsection (d)(1); or(B) has not entered into an agreement with the agency from which the individual is separating from service in which that individual acknowledges he or she is not qualified under this section for reasons relating to mental health and for those reasons will not receive or accept the photographic identification as described in subsection (d)(1);(6) is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance; and(7) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm.(d) The identification required by this subsection is—(1) a photographic identification issued by the agency from which the individual separated from service as a law enforcement officer that identifies the person as having been employed as a police officer or law enforcement officer and indicates that the individual has, not less recently than one year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the agency to meet the active duty standards for qualification in firearms training as established by the agency to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm; or(2)(A) a photographic identification issued by the agency from which the individual separated from service as a law enforcement officer that identifies the person as having been employed as a police officer or law enforcement officer; and(B) a certification issued by the State in which the individual resides or by a certified firearms instructor that is qualified to conduct a firearms qualification test for active duty officers within that State that indicates that the individual has, not less than 1 year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the State or a certified firearms instructor that is qualified to conduct a firearms qualification test for active duty officers within that State to have met—(I) the active duty standards for qualification in firearms training, as established by the State, to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm; or(II) if the State has not established such standards, standards set by any law enforcement agency within that State to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm.(e) As used in this section—(1) the term “firearm”—(A) except as provided in this paragraph, has the same meaning as in section 921 of this title;(B) includes ammunition not expressly prohibited by Federal law or subject to the provisions of the National Firearms Act; and(C) does not include—(i) any machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the National Firearms Act);(ii) any firearm silencer (as defined in section 921 of this title); and(iii) any destructive device (as defined in section 921 of this title); and(2) the term “service with a public agency as a law enforcement officer” includes service as a law enforcement officer of the Amtrak Police Department, service as a law enforcement officer of the Federal Reserve, or service as a law enforcement or police officer of the executive branch of the Federal Government.(Added Pub. L. 108–277, § 3(a), July 22, 2004, 118 Stat. 866; amended Pub. L. 111–272, § 2(c), Oct. 12, 2010, 124 Stat. 2855; Pub. L. 112–239, div. A, title X, § 1089(2), Jan. 2, 2013, 126 Stat. 1971.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The National Firearms Act, referred to in subsec. (e)(1)(B), (C)(i), is classified generally to chapter 53 (§ 5801 et seq.) of Title 26, Internal Revenue Code. See section 5849 of Title 26. Section 5845 of such Act is classified to section 5845 of Title 26.

Amendments

2013—Subsec. (c)(2). Pub. L. 112–239, § 1089(2)(A), inserted “or apprehension under section 807(b) of title 10, United States Code (article 7(b) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice)” after “arrest”.

Subsec. (d)(1). Pub. L. 112–239, § 1089(2)(B)(i), substituted “that identifies the person as having been employed as a police officer or law enforcement officer and indicates” for “that indicates”.

Subsec. (d)(2)(A). Pub. L. 112–239, § 1089(2)(B)(ii), inserted “that identifies the person as having been employed as a police officer or law enforcement officer” after “officer”.

2010—Subsec. (c)(1). Pub. L. 111–272, § 2(c)(1)(A), substituted “separated from service” for “retired” and struck out “, other than for reasons of mental instability” after “officer”.

Subsec. (c)(2). Pub. L. 111–272, § 2(c)(1)(B), substituted “separation” for “retirement”.

Subsec. (c)(3)(A). Pub. L. 111–272, § 2(c)(1)(C)(i), substituted “separation, served as a law enforcement officer for an aggregate of 10 years or more” for “retirement, was regularly employed as a law enforcement officer for an aggregate of 15 years or more”.

Subsec. (c)(3)(B). Pub. L. 111–272, § 2(c)(1)(C)(ii), substituted “separated” for “retired”.

Subsec. (c)(4). Pub. L. 111–272, § 2(c)(1)(D), added par. (4) and struck out former par. (4) which read as follows: “has a nonforfeitable right to benefits under the retirement plan of the agency;”.

Subsec. (c)(5). Pub. L. 111–272, § 2(c)(1)(E), added par. (5) and struck out former par. (5) which read as follows: “during the most recent 12-month period, has met, at the expense of the individual, the State’s standards for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry firearms;”.

Subsec. (d)(1). Pub. L. 111–272, § 2(c)(2)(A), substituted “separated” for “retired” and “to meet the active duty standards for qualification in firearms training as established by the agency to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm” for “to meet the standards established by the agency for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm”.

Subsec. (d)(2)(A). Pub. L. 111–272, § 2(c)(2)(B)(i), substituted “separated” for “retired”.

Subsec. (d)(2)(B). Pub. L. 111–272, § 2(c)(2)(B)(ii), substituted “or by a certified firearms instructor that is qualified to conduct a firearms qualification test for active duty officers within that State that indicates that the individual has, not less than 1 year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the State or a certified firearms instructor that is qualified to conduct a firearms qualification test for active duty officers within that State to have met—” for “that indicates that the individual has, not less recently than one year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the State to meet the standards established by the State for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm.” and added cls. (I) and (II).

Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 111–272, § 2(c)(3), added subsec. (e) and struck out former subsec. (e) which read as follows: “As used in this section, the term ‘firearm’ does not include—

“(1) any machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the National Firearms Act);

“(2) any firearm silencer (as defined in section 921 of this title); and

“(3) a destructive device (as defined in section 921 of this title).”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 51 cases (18 in the last 5 years), 2006–2025 · leading case: Duberry v. Dist. of Columbia, 824 F.3d 1046 (D.C. Cir. 2016).
Duberry v. Dist. of Columbia, 824 F.3d 1046 (D.C. Cir. 2016). · cites it 21× “correctional officers appeal the dismissal, for failure to state a claim, of their Section 1983 complaint alleging that the District of Columbia deprived them of their federal right under the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (“the LEOSA”), 18 U.S.C. § 926C, to carry a…”
Frawley v. Police Comm'r of Cambridge, 46 N.E.3d 504 (Mass. 2016). · cites it 6× “865 (2004), codified insofar as relevant here at 18 U.S.C. § 926C (2012). See 501 Code Mass.”
Fed. Law Enf't Officers Ass'n v. Attorney Gen. New Jersey, 93 F.4th 122 (3rd Cir. 2024). · cites it 18× “One is the federal Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004, 18 U.S.C. § 926C (“LEOSA”). The other is New Jersey’s retired police officer permitting law, N.”
Norris Carey, Jr. v. Joanne Throwe, 957 F.3d 468 (4th Cir. 2020). · cites it 4× “18 U.S.C. § 926C. Two of these conditions are that the officer (i) retired in “good standing,” and (ii) currently holds a certain form of state-issued identification (i.”
Henrichs v. Ill. Law Enf't Training & Standards Bd., 306 F. Supp. 3d 1049 (E.D. Ill. 2018). · cites it 7× “§ 1983 , William Henrichs, Myron Alexander, Robert Peluso, Joseph Rizzo, and Jeffrey Spicer-all retired Cook County or DuPage County Sheriff's Deputies-allege that the Illinois Law Enforcement Training and Standards Board and Cook County Sheriff Thomas Dart violated their rights…”
Duberry v. Dist. of Columbia, 924 F.3d 570 (D.C. Cir. 2019). · cites it 8× “18 U.S.C. § 926C(a). Ronald DuBerry, Maurice Curtis, and Robert Smith ("Appellees") formerly served as correctional officers with the Washington, D.”
Camille Burban v. City of Neptune Beach, Florida, 920 F.3d 1274 (11th Cir. 2019). · cites it 3× “In March 2017, Camille Burban sued Neptune Beach, Florida seeking to enforce her individual rights she believes are granted to her by the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, 18 U.S.C. § 926C. LEOSA permits qualified active and retired law enforcement officers who meet certain…”
Duberry v. Dist. of Columbia, 106 F. Supp. 3d 245 (D.D.C. 2015). · cites it 7× “865 , 866-67 (2004), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 926C. Subsection (a) identifies two overarching requirements-status as a “qualified retired law enforcement officer” and possession of certain identification documents: Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or…”
Johnson v. State Dept. of Corr. Servs., 709 F. Supp. 2d 178 (N.D.N.Y. 2010). · cites it 7× “") sue defendants New York State Department of Correctional Services ("DOCS"), New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services ("DCJS"), the State of New York, DOCS Commissioner Brian Fischer, DCJS Commissioner Denise O'Donnell, and New York State Governor David Paterson…”
Duberry v. Dist. of Columbia, 316 F. Supp. 3d 43 (D.C. Cir. 2018). · cites it 8× “ANALYSIS Plaintiffs, three retired DCDOC corrections officers, seek to compel the District of Columbia to acknowledge their status as "law enforcement officers," a prerequisite to Plaintiffs' enjoyment of the federally conferred right to carry a concealed firearm that is…”
Foley v. Godinez, 2016 IL App (1st) 151814 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). · cites it 5× “18 U.S.C. § 926C(a) (2006). ¶6 To be deemed a “qualified retired law enforcement officer” under LEOSA, a person must meet these seven requirements: (i) separation in good standing from service with a public agency as a law enforcement officer; (ii) before separation, having been…”
Commonwealth v. Pennsylvania State Troopers Ass'n, 979 A.2d 442 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2009). · cites it 4× “As support for its argument, the Commonwealth relies upon section 926C of the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004, 18 U.S.C. § 926C, which provides that an individual who retires in good standing from service with a public agency as a law enforcement officer, and who has…”
— 18 U.S.C. § 926C(a) — 20 cases
Fed. Law Enf't Officers Ass'n v. Attorney Gen. New Jersey, 93 F.4th 122 (3rd Cir. 2024). “One is the federal Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004, 18 U.S.C. § 926C (“LEOSA”). The other is New Jersey’s retired police officer permitting law, N.”
Duberry v. Dist. of Columbia, 824 F.3d 1046 (D.C. Cir. 2016). “correctional officers appeal the dismissal, for failure to state a claim, of their Section 1983 complaint alleging that the District of Columbia deprived them of their federal right under the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (“the LEOSA”), 18 U.S.C. § 926C, to carry a…”
Henrichs v. Ill. Law Enf't Training & Standards Bd., 306 F. Supp. 3d 1049 (E.D. Ill. 2018). “§ 1983 , William Henrichs, Myron Alexander, Robert Peluso, Joseph Rizzo, and Jeffrey Spicer-all retired Cook County or DuPage County Sheriff's Deputies-allege that the Illinois Law Enforcement Training and Standards Board and Cook County Sheriff Thomas Dart violated their rights…”
Norris Carey, Jr. v. Joanne Throwe, 957 F.3d 468 (4th Cir. 2020). “18 U.S.C. § 926C. Two of these conditions are that the officer (i) retired in “good standing,” and (ii) currently holds a certain form of state-issued identification (i.”
Lambert v. Fiorentini, 949 F.3d 22 (1st Cir. 2020).
— 18 U.S.C. § 926C(b) — 6 cases
Duberry v. Dist. of Columbia, 824 F.3d 1046 (D.C. Cir. 2016). “correctional officers appeal the dismissal, for failure to state a claim, of their Section 1983 complaint alleging that the District of Columbia deprived them of their federal right under the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (“the LEOSA”), 18 U.S.C. § 926C, to carry a…”
Camille Burban v. City of Neptune Beach, Florida, 920 F.3d 1274 (11th Cir. 2019). “In March 2017, Camille Burban sued Neptune Beach, Florida seeking to enforce her individual rights she believes are granted to her by the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, 18 U.S.C. § 926C. LEOSA permits qualified active and retired law enforcement officers who meet certain…”
Fed. Law Enf't Officers Ass'n v. Attorney Gen. New Jersey, 93 F.4th 122 (3rd Cir. 2024). “One is the federal Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004, 18 U.S.C. § 926C (“LEOSA”). The other is New Jersey’s retired police officer permitting law, N.”
— 18 U.S.C. § 926C(b)(1) — 3 cases
Fed. Law Enf't Officers Ass'n v. Attorney Gen. New Jersey, 93 F.4th 122 (3rd Cir. 2024). “One is the federal Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004, 18 U.S.C. § 926C (“LEOSA”). The other is New Jersey’s retired police officer permitting law, N.”
— 18 U.S.C. § 926C(c) — 8 cases
Duberry v. Dist. of Columbia, 924 F.3d 570 (D.C. Cir. 2019). “18 U.S.C. § 926C(a). Ronald DuBerry, Maurice Curtis, and Robert Smith ("Appellees") formerly served as correctional officers with the Washington, D.”
Fed. Law Enf't Officers Ass'n v. Attorney Gen. New Jersey, 93 F.4th 122 (3rd Cir. 2024). “One is the federal Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004, 18 U.S.C. § 926C (“LEOSA”). The other is New Jersey’s retired police officer permitting law, N.”
Duberry v. Dist. of Columbia, 106 F. Supp. 3d 245 (D.D.C. 2015). “865 , 866-67 (2004), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 926C. Subsection (a) identifies two overarching requirements-status as a “qualified retired law enforcement officer” and possession of certain identification documents: Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or…”
Foley v. Godinez, 2016 IL App (1st) 151814 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). “18 U.S.C. § 926C(a) (2006). ¶6 To be deemed a “qualified retired law enforcement officer” under LEOSA, a person must meet these seven requirements: (i) separation in good standing from service with a public agency as a law enforcement officer; (ii) before separation, having been…”
Duberry v. Dist. of Columbia, 316 F. Supp. 3d 43 (D.C. Cir. 2018). “ANALYSIS Plaintiffs, three retired DCDOC corrections officers, seek to compel the District of Columbia to acknowledge their status as "law enforcement officers," a prerequisite to Plaintiffs' enjoyment of the federally conferred right to carry a concealed firearm that is…”
— 18 U.S.C. § 926C(c)(1) — 1 case
Duberry v. Dist. of Columbia, 824 F.3d 1046 (D.C. Cir. 2016). “correctional officers appeal the dismissal, for failure to state a claim, of their Section 1983 complaint alleging that the District of Columbia deprived them of their federal right under the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (“the LEOSA”), 18 U.S.C. § 926C, to carry a…”
— 18 U.S.C. § 926C(c)(2) — 8 cases
Duberry v. Dist. of Columbia, 824 F.3d 1046 (D.C. Cir. 2016). “correctional officers appeal the dismissal, for failure to state a claim, of their Section 1983 complaint alleging that the District of Columbia deprived them of their federal right under the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (“the LEOSA”), 18 U.S.C. § 926C, to carry a…”
Duberry v. Dist. of Columbia, 924 F.3d 570 (D.C. Cir. 2019). “18 U.S.C. § 926C(a). Ronald DuBerry, Maurice Curtis, and Robert Smith ("Appellees") formerly served as correctional officers with the Washington, D.”
Norris Carey, Jr. v. Joanne Throwe, 957 F.3d 468 (4th Cir. 2020). “18 U.S.C. § 926C. Two of these conditions are that the officer (i) retired in “good standing,” and (ii) currently holds a certain form of state-issued identification (i.”
Henrichs v. Ill. Law Enf't Training & Standards Bd., 306 F. Supp. 3d 1049 (E.D. Ill. 2018). “§ 1983 , William Henrichs, Myron Alexander, Robert Peluso, Joseph Rizzo, and Jeffrey Spicer-all retired Cook County or DuPage County Sheriff's Deputies-allege that the Illinois Law Enforcement Training and Standards Board and Cook County Sheriff Thomas Dart violated their rights…”
Duberry v. Dist. of Columbia, 316 F. Supp. 3d 43 (D.C. Cir. 2018). “ANALYSIS Plaintiffs, three retired DCDOC corrections officers, seek to compel the District of Columbia to acknowledge their status as "law enforcement officers," a prerequisite to Plaintiffs' enjoyment of the federally conferred right to carry a concealed firearm that is…”
— 18 U.S.C. § 926C(c)(3) — 2 cases
Duberry v. Dist. of Columbia, 316 F. Supp. 3d 43 (D.C. Cir. 2018). “ANALYSIS Plaintiffs, three retired DCDOC corrections officers, seek to compel the District of Columbia to acknowledge their status as "law enforcement officers," a prerequisite to Plaintiffs' enjoyment of the federally conferred right to carry a concealed firearm that is…”
— 18 U.S.C. § 926C(c)(3)(A) — 1 case
Duberry v. Dist. of Columbia, 316 F. Supp. 3d 43 (D.C. Cir. 2018). “ANALYSIS Plaintiffs, three retired DCDOC corrections officers, seek to compel the District of Columbia to acknowledge their status as "law enforcement officers," a prerequisite to Plaintiffs' enjoyment of the federally conferred right to carry a concealed firearm that is…”
— 18 U.S.C. § 926C(c)(4) — 2 cases
Fed. Law Enf't Officers Ass'n v. Attorney Gen. New Jersey, 93 F.4th 122 (3rd Cir. 2024). “One is the federal Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004, 18 U.S.C. § 926C (“LEOSA”). The other is New Jersey’s retired police officer permitting law, N.”
— 18 U.S.C. § 926C(c)(5) — 4 cases
Duberry v. Dist. of Columbia, 824 F.3d 1046 (D.C. Cir. 2016). “correctional officers appeal the dismissal, for failure to state a claim, of their Section 1983 complaint alleging that the District of Columbia deprived them of their federal right under the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (“the LEOSA”), 18 U.S.C. § 926C, to carry a…”
Cole v. Monroe Cnty., 359 F. Supp. 3d 526 (E.D. Mich. 2019).
Untitled Texas Attorney Gen. Opinion (Tex. Att'y Gen. 2006).
— 18 U.S.C. § 926C(c)(5)(A) — 1 case
— 18 U.S.C. § 926C(c)(l) — 1 case
Duberry v. Dist. of Columbia, 824 F.3d 1046 (D.C. Cir. 2016). “correctional officers appeal the dismissal, for failure to state a claim, of their Section 1983 complaint alleging that the District of Columbia deprived them of their federal right under the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (“the LEOSA”), 18 U.S.C. § 926C, to carry a…”
— 18 U.S.C. § 926C(d) — 14 cases
Duberry v. Dist. of Columbia, 824 F.3d 1046 (D.C. Cir. 2016). “correctional officers appeal the dismissal, for failure to state a claim, of their Section 1983 complaint alleging that the District of Columbia deprived them of their federal right under the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (“the LEOSA”), 18 U.S.C. § 926C, to carry a…”
Duberry v. Dist. of Columbia, 924 F.3d 570 (D.C. Cir. 2019). “18 U.S.C. § 926C(a). Ronald DuBerry, Maurice Curtis, and Robert Smith ("Appellees") formerly served as correctional officers with the Washington, D.”
Fed. Law Enf't Officers Ass'n v. Attorney Gen. New Jersey, 93 F.4th 122 (3rd Cir. 2024). “One is the federal Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004, 18 U.S.C. § 926C (“LEOSA”). The other is New Jersey’s retired police officer permitting law, N.”
Johnson v. State Dept. of Corr. Servs., 709 F. Supp. 2d 178 (N.D.N.Y. 2010). “") sue defendants New York State Department of Correctional Services ("DOCS"), New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services ("DCJS"), the State of New York, DOCS Commissioner Brian Fischer, DCJS Commissioner Denise O'Donnell, and New York State Governor David Paterson…”
Emanuel Nikolaos Mpras v. Dist. of Columbia, 74 F. Supp. 3d 265 (D.D.C. 2014).
— 18 U.S.C. § 926C(d)(1) — 5 cases
Norris Carey, Jr. v. Joanne Throwe, 957 F.3d 468 (4th Cir. 2020). “18 U.S.C. § 926C. Two of these conditions are that the officer (i) retired in “good standing,” and (ii) currently holds a certain form of state-issued identification (i.”
Fed. Law Enf't Officers Ass'n v. Attorney Gen. New Jersey, 93 F.4th 122 (3rd Cir. 2024). “One is the federal Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004, 18 U.S.C. § 926C (“LEOSA”). The other is New Jersey’s retired police officer permitting law, N.”
Foley v. Godinez, 2016 IL App (1st) 151814 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). “18 U.S.C. § 926C(a) (2006). ¶6 To be deemed a “qualified retired law enforcement officer” under LEOSA, a person must meet these seven requirements: (i) separation in good standing from service with a public agency as a law enforcement officer; (ii) before separation, having been…”
— 18 U.S.C. § 926C(d)(2) — 1 case
Tesler v. Cacace, 607 F. App'x 87 (2d Cir. 2015).
— 18 U.S.C. § 926C(d)(2)(B) — 1 case
Foley v. Godinez, 2016 IL App (1st) 151814 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). “18 U.S.C. § 926C(a) (2006). ¶6 To be deemed a “qualified retired law enforcement officer” under LEOSA, a person must meet these seven requirements: (i) separation in good standing from service with a public agency as a law enforcement officer; (ii) before separation, having been…”
— 18 U.S.C. § 926C(d)(2)(B)(1) — 1 case
— 18 U.S.C. § 926C(d)(2)(B)(I) — 2 cases
Henrichs v. Ill. Law Enf't Training & Standards Bd., 306 F. Supp. 3d 1049 (E.D. Ill. 2018). “§ 1983 , William Henrichs, Myron Alexander, Robert Peluso, Joseph Rizzo, and Jeffrey Spicer-all retired Cook County or DuPage County Sheriff's Deputies-allege that the Illinois Law Enforcement Training and Standards Board and Cook County Sheriff Thomas Dart violated their rights…”
— 18 U.S.C. § 926C(d)(l) — 1 case
Untitled Texas Attorney Gen. Opinion (Tex. Att'y Gen. 2007).
— 18 U.S.C. § 926C(dA)(1) — 1 case
— 18 U.S.C. § 926C(e) — 2 cases
Fed. Law Enf't Officers Ass'n v. Attorney Gen. New Jersey, 93 F.4th 122 (3rd Cir. 2024). “One is the federal Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004, 18 U.S.C. § 926C (“LEOSA”). The other is New Jersey’s retired police officer permitting law, N.”
— 18 U.S.C. § 926C(e)(1) — 2 cases
Fed. Law Enf't Officers Ass'n v. Attorney Gen. New Jersey, 93 F.4th 122 (3rd Cir. 2024). “One is the federal Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004, 18 U.S.C. § 926C (“LEOSA”). The other is New Jersey’s retired police officer permitting law, N.”
— 18 U.S.C. § 926C(e)(2) — 1 case
Duberry v. Dist. of Columbia, 824 F.3d 1046 (D.C. Cir. 2016). “correctional officers appeal the dismissal, for failure to state a claim, of their Section 1983 complaint alleging that the District of Columbia deprived them of their federal right under the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (“the LEOSA”), 18 U.S.C. § 926C, to carry a…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.