Greetings:

We have a four-year-old 75-page discussion on the Coast Guard Law Enforcement discussion board regarding the Law Enforcement Officer's Safety Act (LEOSA) and whether or not CG Boarding Officers (BO's) and Boarding Team Members (BTM's) are covered under this Act.

A Coastie was recently arrested in NY for CCW and a judge ruled he was covered under the LEOSA. There are still other charges pending in the case.

Have your folks addressed this yet? I'm assuming Posse Comitatus rears it's ugly head when it comes to Army.

How are Army MP's and CID considered under the LEOSA?

I can not answer for MPs, or Active CID because it has been too long since I looked at the CID Regulation. I'm sure though with the Woosification of certain aspects of CID they would have a heart attack and string up the Agent who was so stupid as to be carrying and then get into trouble with local Law Enforcement.

I never had a problem when I was CID with carrying a concealed weapon because we carried on or off duty, and our credentials were sufficient. Most of the Agents, I know are professional enough not to get themselves in a bind while carrying anyway.

The problem is not if we are covered by LEOSA it is what are you doing when you are carrying a concealed weapon? Are you acting like an idiot? Are you drinking when you should not be? In almost every case I have ever heard of where an Officer/Agent, Civilian or Military, has gotten themselves into trouble while carrying a concealed weapon, there has been some sort of misconduct on the part of the Officer/Agent. If you are going to carry, you have an OBLIGATION, to act in a professional manner, as if you were on duty, because you are. I will guarantee you when you act the fool, and you are approached by Law Enforcement the first thing you will do, is say, "I'm a Police Officer." or you pull out your Badge and Credentials and Identify yourself as such.

I get really tired of hearing about Officers/Agents who get drunk or Act stupid while carrying and then get themselves into trouble, suddenly now they want the protection of their Law Enforcement Status.

Sorry, this may not be the case in this instance, so, I'll get off my soap box. You mentioned "Other charges pending", and it just made me think of these things.

Hope everything works out.

CID is not covered under this, while they are considered quasi Federal Agents, they do not enjoy the status of their civilian counterparts adn governed under the Dept. of the Army. According to CID regs: If you are on leave (vacation) or attending training, your assigned firearm must be turned in and you will not enforce laws off the installation.

While civilian police officers are encouraged to carry off duty and have enforcement powers on or off duty (at least in Texas, where I am a LEO)

MP's would certainly not be covered under this, though you will have some that say they do.

JerryG, are CG SA's covered under this and issued retired SA credentials to allow carry?

We still miss you here in CTI bigd1970 and talk of you often, we are on the three month slope to going home

This message has been edited. Last edited by: KrautCop,

quote:

Originally posted by bigd1970:

I get really tired of hearing about Officers/Agents who get drunk or Act stupid while carrying and then get themselves into trouble, suddenly now they want the protection of their Law Enforcement Status.

I know a Tucson Police Officer who was on vacation in the People's Republik of Kalifornia. He had a flat tire and a CHP pulled up behind him. The CHP looked in the window, on the front seat was the TPD Officer's Pistol, holstered with his BADGE PINNED TO THE HOLSTER. The CHP arrested and booked him!!!

About time a law was passed to stop that crap.

How long ago did this happen? It must have been before HR 218 was passed at the Federal Level. Now Sworn Peace Officers can carry anywhere in the Nation, Of course it would help to know the Concealed Weapons Laws of the States you are visiting, because I doubt the Tucson Police Officer was in California for Law Enforcement Business. Therefore he was not acting in an official capacity. If I were not acting in an official capacity I would probably not have my weapon out, or I would comply with the rules of the state in which I am visiting.

Not having the weapon loaded, storing the ammunition in a seperate area of the vehicle from the weapon itself and not having the weapon within arms reach. Further, If the individual would have seen the CHP Officer, and told him he was a Police Officer, and that he had a weapon in the vehicle but it was within the laws of the State he was visiting, I can not speak for the CHP Officer, but I'm sure he would have given him a little more leeway.

And lastly, attitude goes a long way with the CHP or any other Law Enforcement Agency, but especially the CHP.

quote:

JerryG, are CG SA's covered under this and issued retired SA credentials to allow carry?

Remember, CGIS agents (and the USCG as a whole) fall under DHS, not DoD. No Posse Commitatis constraints, we arrest civilians for violation of laws related to the maritime realm.

14 USC 89 grants federal LE authority to USCG Petty Officers, Warrant Officers, and Officers.

14 USC 95 grants CGIS authority to agents. By policy, CGIS agents are allowed to carry issued firearms on duty and off duty. Personal weapons are allowed on duty and off duty if authorized in writing.

There's 75 pages of debate right now as to whether or not USCG Boarding Officers (BO) and/or Boarding Team Members (BTM) fall under the LEOSA.

Retired agents are given retired credentials. I haven't heard of the USCG providing annual firearms training for retirees, but many states are offering the training for retirees. I'll have to look into it.

Additional Info on Carrying concealed by LEO's, which is covered by this penal code for the Great State of California.

12027. Section 12025 does not apply to, or affect, any of the
following:
(a) (1) (A) Any peace officer, listed in Section 830.1 or 830.2,
or subdivision (a) of Section 830.33, whether active or honorably
retired, other duly appointed peace officers, honorably retired peace
officers listed in subdivision (c) of Section 830.5, other honorably
retired peace officers who during the course and scope of their
employment as peace officers were authorized to, and did, carry
firearms, full-time paid peace officers of other states and the
federal government who are carrying out official duties while in
California, or any person summoned by any of these officers to assist
in making arrests or preserving the peace while he or she is
actually engaged in assisting that officer. Any peace officer
described in this paragraph who has been honorably retired shall be
issued an identification certificate by the law enforcement agency
from which the officer has retired. The issuing agency may charge a
fee necessary to cover any reasonable expenses incurred by the agency
in issuing certificates pursuant to this subdivision. As used in
this section and Section 12031, the term "honorably retired" includes
all peace officers who have qualified for, and have accepted, a
service or disability retirement. For purposes of this section and
Section 12031, the term "honorably retired" does not include an
officer who has agreed to a service retirement in lieu of
termination.
(B) Any officer, except an officer listed in Section 830.1 or
830.2, subdivision (a) of Section 830.33, or subdivision (c) of
Section 830.5 who retired prior to January 1, 1981, shall have an
endorsement on the identification certificate stating that the
issuing agency approves the officer's carrying of a concealed
firearm.



California Community College Police departments fall under this penal code.


830.32. The following persons are peace officers whose authority
extends to any place in the state for the purpose of performing their
primary duty or when making an arrest pursuant to Section 836 as to
any public offense with respect to which there is immediate danger to
person or property, or of the escape of the perpetrator of that
offense, or pursuant to Section 8597 or 8598 of the Government Code.
Those peace officers may carry firearms only if authorized and under
terms and conditions specified by their employing agency.
(a) Members of a California Community College police department
appointed pursuant to Section 72330 of the Education Code, if the
primary duty of the police officer is the enforcement of the law as
prescribed in Section 72330 of the Education Code.
(b) Persons employed as members of a police department of a school
district pursuant to Section 38000 of the Education Code, if the
primary duty of the police officer is the enforcement of the law as
prescribed in Section 38000 of the Education Code.
(c) Any peace officer employed by a K-12 public school district or
California Community College district who has completed training as
prescribed by subdivision (f) of Section 832.3 shall be designated a
school police officer.


The agency determines wether or not they carry on duty and if I read correctly they are not automatically allowed to CCW off duty based on their LEO status since it specifies which type of LEO is exempt from 12025. It doesnt make a whole lot of sense but maybe there is a statute I'm missing.

Sorry about the last part. It goes to a different blog. But you get the idea.

And here is the rest of the story....

H.R.218: The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004
(Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)

One Hundred Eighth Congress of the United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, the twentieth day of January, two thousand and four

An Act

To amend title 18, United States Code, to exempt qualified current and former law enforcement officers from State laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed handguns.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004'.



SEC. 2. EXEMPTION OF QUALIFIED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS FROM STATE LAWS PROHIBITING THE CARRYING OF CONCEALED FIREARMS.

(a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926A the following:

`Sec. 926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law enforcement officers

`(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).

`(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 law enforcement officer' means an employee of a governmental agency who--

`(1) is 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 has statutory powers of arrest;

`(2) is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm;

`(3) is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the agency;

`(4) meets standards, if any, established by the agency which require the employee to regularly qualify in the use of a firearm;

`(5) is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance; and

`(6) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm.

`(d) The identification required by this subsection is the photographic identification issued by the governmental agency for which the individual is employed as a law enforcement officer.

`(e) 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) any destructive device (as defined in section 921 of this title).'.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926A the following:

`926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law enforcement officers.'.



SEC. 3. EXEMPTION OF QUALIFIED RETIRED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS FROM STATE LAWS PROHIBITING THE CARRYING OF CONCEALED FIREARMS.

(a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is further amended by inserting after section 926B the following:

`Sec. 926C. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified retired law enforcement officers

`(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) retired in good standing from service with a public agency as a law enforcement officer, other than for reasons of mental instability;

`(2) before such retirement, 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;

`(3)(A) before such retirement, was regularly employed as a law enforcement officer for an aggregate of 15 years or more; or

`(B) retired 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) has a nonforfeitable right to benefits under the retirement plan of the agency;

`(5) 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;

`(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 retired from service as a law enforcement officer 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 agency 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; or

`(2)(A) a photographic identification issued by the agency from which the individual retired from service as a law enforcement officer; and

`(B) a certification issued by the State in which the individual resides 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.

`(e) 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).'.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for such chapter is further amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926B the following:

`926C. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified retired law enforcement officers.'.



Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and President of the Senate.

quote:

Originally posted by bigd1970:
How long ago did this happen? It must have been before HR 218 was passed at the Federal Level. Now Sworn Peace Officers can carry anywhere in the Nation, Of course it would help to know the Concealed Weapons Laws of the States you are visiting, because I doubt the Tucson Police Officer was in California for Law Enforcement Business. Therefore he was not acting in an official capacity. If I were not acting in an official capacity I would probably not have my weapon out, or I would comply with the rules of the state in which I am visiting.

Not having the weapon loaded, storing the ammunition in a seperate area of the vehicle from the weapon itself and not having the weapon within arms reach. Further, If the individual would have seen the CHP Officer, and told him he was a Police Officer, and that he had a weapon in the vehicle but it was within the laws of the State he was visiting, I can not speak for the CHP Officer, but I'm sure he would have given him a little more leeway.

And lastly, attitude goes a long way with the CHP or any other Law Enforcement Agency, but especially the CHP.

Ever heard of professional courtesy? The pistol was in plain view, on the front seat of the car. The guys badge was pinned to the holster. The CHP knew he was dealing with another Police Officer.

My understanding of the law is that LEOSA applies to officers that are full time and / or have full time arrest authority. A crucial point, at least with MP's or CID (military members) is the term "Arrest". As I recall, MP's and CID agents have the authority to Apprehend, not Arrest. Now, I agree, this is primarily a matter of semantics, in that when you put the cuffs on someone, they are in custody, but the military, for some reason, doesn't see it that way. But, if you do not have the full time authority to make "Arrests", then the law doesn't cover you.

JerryG,

Thanks for the answer.

Du bist wilcommen.

Jerry G

GUMBY, Yes, I have heard of Pofessional Curtesy, and so have the CHP. Do you know how many times a CHP officer is asked to extend professional courtesy? I don't either, but having several friends who are CHP Officers, I can tell you it is a lot. I go back to my original answer, Attitude is everything. Professional Courtesy is something that is given by an Officer if he so desires. Last I checked, I was not issued a Professional Courtesy card with my badge and credentials.

I've never cited another officer. I've lso never had an off duty officer get nasty with me, or commit an offense worse than a traffic violation, or carrying out of state.

I've never gotten a cite from another officer, though, I know offficers that have. Our state patrol has a few guys that are sticklers, and will write another cop, as well as lecture him.

I heard of an incident once, where a state patrol guy stopped an off duty city guy for speediing. The state guy was being an arse, and when the city guy saw he was getting a cite, and said something, the trooper replied with something like, "What's the difference between you and a citizen?". The city guy said, "When you're on the side of the road, fighting with someone, I'll stop and help...". No ticket.

You have the discretion to give verbal warnings to Joe Citizen. There's no reason to jam up a cop.

I agree!

quote:

Originally posted by bigd1970:
GUMBY, Yes, I have heard of Pofessional Curtesy, and so have the CHP. Do you know how many times a CHP officer is asked to extend professional courtesy? I don't either, but having several friends who are CHP Officers, I can tell you it is a lot. I go back to my original answer, Attitude is everything. Professional Courtesy is something that is given by an Officer if he so desires. Last I checked, I was not issued a Professional Courtesy card with my badge and credentials.

What in my original post makes you ASSUME my friend copped an attitude? Is it possible the CHP was just being a prick?

I called my buddy this weekend, hadn't talked to him in quite a while.

He'd gone to San Diego for a Pursuit Driving Instructor Seminar. He drove his pov. On his way home, on I-8, he had a flat tire and pulled over.

As he was changing the tire, a CHP unit pulled up behind him. The CHP walked up and asked if he was okay. After some small talk, the CHP walked up to the front of the car, looked in the window and saw his Dept issued pistol on the front seat, holstered, with the TPD badge pinned to the holster.

He came back and made some more small talk, asked where my friend was a Police Officer. My friend told him Tucson.

After he was done changing his tire, the CHP placed him under arrest.

Where was the attitude?

I have cited another Officer. I stopped him for expired license plates. Three years expired!! I didn't know he was a Police Officer when I stopped him.
He told me about four different stories about the car, why it was expired, why he didn't have insurance and why his license had a Phoenix address instead of a local one. THEN, he copped the attitude. I wrote him one citation, for no proof of insurance. All he had to do was take his proof of insurance to court, the Judge would dismiss it. He blew it off. The court suspended his license. THEN, he was involved in a hit & run, in an unmarked car, off duty, while DUI.
He went and got another license, in a different name (switched around his first and middle names) then was arrested by his own PD for DUI and Criminal Speeding (100+ in a 55 zone). The guy was a dirtbag.

quote:

He'd gone to San Diego for a Pursuit Driving Instructor Seminar. He drove his pov. On his way home, on I-8, he had a flat tire and pulled over.

As he was changing the tire, a CHP unit pulled up behind him. The CHP walked up and asked if he was okay. After some small talk, the CHP walked up to the front of the car, looked in the window and saw his Dept issued pistol on the front seat, holstered, with the TPD badge pinned to the holster.

Interesting. I don't kow how it is in Kalifornia, but, in a lot of states, pre-LEOSA, an officer on official business (including LE training) was authorized to carry a concealed sidearm. This particular case should be even more-so, since it was his issued duty weapon.... I do know that there are a large number of officers in various jurisdictions that are woefully ignorant of their own laws. Perhaps this is the case with the CHP guy.

Police Officers in AZ are permitted, under State law, to carry concealed weapons. But, at one time, our local Sheriff's Office ordered their Officers not to carry concealed, off duty. If they wanted to carry off duty, they had to get a CCW. It was the way the SO read the law.

Many Police Admisistrators are very anti-gun. They try to pass it on to their Officers. There was that one Chief in Kalifornia who would appear, in uniform, with the Bradys and all the other antigunners. But, when one of his Officers appeared in a NRA ad, the Officer was suspended. ( I think it was San Jose and the Chief's name was McNamara)

I was in Butt County years ago for the penalty phase of a murder trial.

The day I was leaving, the County Attorney's Investigators and S.O. were gearing up for a search warrant.

I asked what was going on. They told me they were going to search a ranch for an "unregistered assault rifle."

The rancher had confronted some trespassers on his property and told them them to leave. The trespassers had called the S.O. to report the rancher had an SKS in the rifle rack of his truck. The S.O. checked and found the rancher didn't have an SKS registered in his name.

He didn't yell, scream, shout, spit or threaten these people in any way, by their own admission. He simply had a rifle in a rack in his truck. Was it an SKS? Who knows? It could have been a Daisy Air Rifle. Was there really a rifle at all?

But, based on the word of a couple admitted trespassers, they were going to go search his ranch for a rifle that may or may not even exist.

Oops. What I meant to impart was, out of state officers can carry in a duty/training capacity. My state allows off duty carry by officers. In fact, my agency used to require it. It recently changed. I'm not aware of any state that does not allow an off duty officer to carry. ??

quote:

Originally posted by GeneSchubeck:

quote:

He'd gone to San Diego for a Pursuit Driving Instructor Seminar. He drove his pov. On his way home, on I-8, he had a flat tire and pulled over.

As he was changing the tire, a CHP unit pulled up behind him. The CHP walked up and asked if he was okay. After some small talk, the CHP walked up to the front of the car, looked in the window and saw his Dept issued pistol on the front seat, holstered, with the TPD badge pinned to the holster.

Interesting. I don't kow how it is in Kalifornia, but, in a lot of states, pre-LEOSA, an officer on official business (including LE training) was authorized to carry a concealed sidearm. This particular case should be even more-so, since it was his issued duty weapon.... I do know that there are a large number of officers in various jurisdictions that are woefully ignorant of their own laws. Perhaps this is the case with the CHP guy.