Please go to www.FoPLV.org and look at the right hand list of links.
Read the LEOSA & DHS Retired Officer - Department of Homeland Security DHS Directives System Instruction number: 257-01-001.
Page 3, foot note #3. The 15-year period includes any time in the U.S. armed forces specifically devoted to training for and full-time service in law enforcement military occupational specialties. Signed by Stewart A Baker, Assistant Secretary, Office of Policy.
DHS is not the DoD. The DoD has official policy out which disagrees with this interpretation.
Easy way to check;
1) are you an MP? If yes, go to #2, if no go to #4.
2) are you POST certified? If yes go to #3, if no go to #4.
3) you are covered by the statute.
4) you are not covered by the stature.
Ok lets make this clear, IF YOU ARE AN MP YOU WILL NOT CARRY OFF DUTY UNDER LEOSHA. Provost Marshall General said you can not. Every post commander says you cannot. Army Regulation says you cannot. If you have a state CCW then by all means CCW in that state, but not on post. On post you need permission from the post commander. Every post commander says CID, MPI and PSD only can carry concealed while ON DUTY. Violate this rule and I WILL bring you up on charges for making MPs look like IDIOTS.
|"Ride the Lightning"|
I am happy this was never an issue in my day. We were happy to shed the weapons and pull on jeans to relax in. I still hate pistol belts today. Can't wait to pull off all the crap and be normal.
Good news boys and girls. Army OPMG and CID Command will issue retired creds to retired military MP and agent with 10 on the job at TOR.
Got a source for this? The lady that does all the creds at CID has no idea what you are talking about. Heck, our budget has been so tight we just got the money to start printing our new creds for active agents.
|Highly Experienced Member|
I just read thru the three pages of posts in this thread and it's been interesting to say the least.
First things first, every State of the Union except the People's Republic of Illinois issues some type of carry permit.
So unless you're Stationed in the PRI, you can get a permit to carry a weapon to protect yourself off post regardless of being an MP or not.
The law does not discuss "enforcement/arrest powers" just the ability to carry a weapon outside of your jurisdiction for protection, so that is not an issue.
On post, it's pretty cut and dry, while a Post Commander or PM "could" allow it, 99.999% of they are not only going to say NO but HE LL NO!
So what it will come down to is an off duty MP, carrying a privately owned weapon, off post, without a carry permit, will need to get arrested, and then argue in a court of law that he/she is covered under this act and "hope" (and pray) that the OP is correct that the judge reads the law the way he does.
You'll need CASE LAW to back up this theory.
The only way you get CASE LAW is there to be arrests and court cases to develope it.
Personally, I'd love for this to happen and get all the way to the SCOTUS and get a ruling that MPs are Law Enforcement, with everything that comes with that title, I just don't see it happening anytime soon.
Nor do I want to be the test case.
maybe the OP can be it.
One small note regarding PRI; retired LEOs in Illinois can get an Illinois Retired Officers Concealed Carry Permit-good anywhere in the U.S. Renewable once a year provided the officer shoots the standard police course. Joe Citizen is SOL here, but trying to change for the better. Chicago is the problem- rest of the state is for it.
|Highly Experienced Member|
I live in NWI, my Reserve unit is in the PRI so I hear you brother.
I'm south of I-64; even the Democrat representatives here are NRA members, but they are not able to get concealed carry through- so far. But they keep trying. Non-LEO friends have Florida or Utah permits for when they travel. It's a shame the hoods have more clout with our state than honest citizens.
FOR MILITARY PERSONNEL: The LEOSA does NOT apply to active or retired Military members. It is specifically for Civilian OO83's (Law Enforcement Officers). You guys can not and will not enforce any laws outside of your military jurisdiction, period. Don't get offended or mad at the facts. Some of you are playing around with words to fit yourself into the category. That's not going to work. I'm prior military, prior Deputy Sheriff and now a DoD civilian 0083 Police working on a Navy Installation. The worst region of them all (Mid-Atlantic Region). If you need confirmation on this, simply pull up the original LEOSA signed by Bush, the prior amendment signed by Obama, and now the current one passed or signed. First of all, All Navy MA's (not MPs) are primarily for Force Protection (at least in Mid-Atlantic). That's why the base have Civilian Police there. We are not under the UCMJ, but we can enforce it. We are not under Posse C...Act (restrictions on Military not to step over into civilian jurisdiction). That's the purpose of having civilian DoD Police. No disrespect to the Military, I'm a veteran. The LEOSA is for DOD CIVILIANS only. Look it up. Don't be a test dummy for a civil law suit. Martial Law is the only acception
This Post is awfully wrong. You do not have to be an MP to be under the statute. As of matter of fact, most DoD CIVILIAN Agencies are covered EXCEPT MILITARY (keyword) personnel. Your powers are restricted to your base commander and Posse C Act. Look at what you put: If you are not an MP, go to 4 in other words. It's post like this that give creditable MPs, MA's a bad name.
Let's use common sense. There are alot of Gun ho, cocky military members out their that will do anything to prove themselves worthy of being deemed," Law Enforcement Officers" by LEOSA definition. Those are the ones that gave the Military a reason to come up with the Posse C. Act. I suggest you look it up, research it and take it with a grain of salt. For the record, the LEOSA only applies to CIVILIANS (active or retired in Law Enforcement). It was specifically designed for DOD series 0083's (civilian term, not military). The problem originally was that Big Navy was trying to water down their Police Officers to glorified security guards. When the first amendment came out, including DoD Civilian 0083's, Big Navy tried to word play and tell their Police Officers that they weren't DoD, but DON. That's why the bill was amended again to clarify all sub components of DoD (Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force) specifically. Nice try Navy Mid Atlantic Region, but this time Obama made it clear. Disregard it if you want to. lol! Anyway, Much Love & Peace 2 all doing whatever they have to do to keep America safe. Just stay in your own lane, and things will be alright.
Jeez Captainofk, you seem to be going really hard at convincing people that the very specific text in Subtitle H, Section 1089 amendment means something other that what it VERY CLEARLY says.....
Bottom line is, it reads, "or apprehension under section 807(b) of title 10 USC (article 7(b) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice"),
Now refer directly to the UCMJ:
Article 7(b) Who may apprehend. The following officials may apprehend any person subject to trial by court martial: (1) Military Law enforcement official. SECURITY POLICE, MILITARY POLICE, Master at Arms, members of the shore patrol, and persons designated to perform military criminal investigative, guard, or police duties....
Nowhere in the original HR 218, nor either of the 2 amendments now signed into law does it mention you (A CIVILIAN who apparently left active duty to be a gate guard and now wants to be covered by the new law) or an active duty MP, only that the persons authorized to apprehend under 7(b) UCMJ are now included in the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act. No bending words, no intentional omissions, only VERY, VERY specifically including 7(b) authority.
What gives you (a CIVILIAN) the authority to apprehend whilst employed by DoD? Do you draw it from the UCMJ? Did your Civilian Union officials type up a contract with the DoD that states while ON DUTY you can apprehend someone subject to UCMJ? I invite you to attempt to apprehend a Soldier or Sailor while you are off duty, by flashing your CIVILIAN contractor ID card. An Active Duty NCO would have much better results, based on the fact alone that they are NOT a civilian.
The Air Force and Army are already drawing up plans to deal with this change, by implementing their own restrictions while not circumventing the law.
There is no way around what the Bill ACTUALLY says, and it ACTUALLY says absolutely NOTHING about 0083 or Active Duty.
Do agree MP's NOT covered. Nor have I ever read 0083's position description.
In bill any verbiage such as "armed, arrest authority, maintain custody of, etc?
The original HR 218 Exempts "Qualified Law Enforcement Officers" from state laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons. It then states that a "qualified law enforcement officer"
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, OR APPREHENSION UNDER 807(b) of TITLE 10 USC OR ARTICLE 7(b) UCMJ.
The qualifications go on to include not subject to disciplinary action at the time, not under the influence of drugs or alcohol etc....
Read it out loud, and ask again how are MPs not covered? The new amendment covers anyone with the power to apprehend under 7(b) UCMJ. Anyone that is in doubt, go look up 7(b)..... or just read what was posted above. Its the exact verbiage.
There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY AROUND WHAT THE BILL ACTUALLY SAYS AND IT ACTUALLY SAYS THAT MPs AND THEIR CIVILIAN COUNTERPARTS (0083) ARE COVERED!
Its no longer up for debate guys. The Army and the Air Force have sent this through JAG, unless there is a new amendment striking 7(b) authority from "Qualified Officer", both services will implement a plan to restrict their personnel's carry without breaking the law. Its already in the works.
Also I have to point out, that someone went through ALOT of trouble to get an amendment so specific attached to this bill. It isnt vague like the original 218, or the last amendment.
It very specifically includes Uniform Code of Military Justice auhtority. Spelled out, not abbreviated UCMJ.
Whoever included 7(b)authority, beyond a shadow of doubt, did it to include MPs. Because there is no one else (not already covered) that is directly effected by 7(b).
Interesting...,& honestly did NOT read reg cited.
Just thinking out loud this meant maybe for CID types?
CID/OSI/NCIS and 1811 (civilian agents) are already covered by CFR Title 28, 60.3a, recognizing their status as Federal Law enforcement.
|Powered by Social Strata||Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7|