Believe me, they've seen it and probably don't care, because IT DOESN'T APPLY. You proved it in your own post:

"It says an officer authorized by law to engage in LE(in our case E4 and up)"

When you are not on duty, YOU ARE NOT AUTHORIZED! That is LAW and COMDT policy! 14USC89(a) doesn't authorize you to do anything outside of official CG operations. Heck, the HLSDM doesn't even get you any closer, and it gives you authority in places the CG didn't have before. I'll go even further, a cop who's a reservist in the CG can't carry his when he puts his CG hat on! Want another one, the COMDT says you won't conduct LE without a CG-issued weapon using CG-issued ammo! Here's another, CG LE isn't to be conducted except as an official CG boarding or inspection team, so the CCW is still not authorized! More? To carry a firearm in the CG on dry land, 1- you have to be engaged in an official CG mission, 2- ya gotta carry a CG firearm (covered it I know, just reiterating), 3- The CG has to have authority (be it based on another agency's request for aid, or organic authority already there). Get a grip fellas, CCWs must still be obtained through the paperwork channels for coasties! The only perk you're gonna get from this is the possibility that you may not have to take the safety course provided you give them documentation. I guarantee you if you carry a firearm and a copy of that law, the cop's gonna say, "yep, nice paper, where's the CCW?" Then he's gonna arrest your dumb a$$ for trying to be a lawyer. The CG will likely release amplifying information due to all the requests for information based on something that doesn't apply to us, anyhow, so watch for the 'official' message to tell you "NO".

...interested in this, 'cause VETS know carrying off-duty is a REAL PAIN IN THE A** most of the times.

Worrying about keeping it concealed, worrying about whether or not some local LEO saw the bulge under your shirt/coat, whether your holster will keep it from falling out, etc.

It's not as COOL as you think!

Well, i'll be packing that's for sure. You read about the coastie that just got shot? Yeah he was leaving a bar but it just as easily could have happened leaving a grocery store, i think.

I don't recall anyone saying or implying that it's COOL to carry. And yes, it probably is more of a PITA than it's worth, but that's not the issue.
This bill doesn't say anything about where the LEO's agency jursidiction is, just that they are authorized by the fact that they are a LEO. I also don't think anyone involved in this conversation was going to go out and conduct LE while off duty. That's a no-brainer
This isn't about engaging in LE, is about carrying a consealed firearm (for personal safety only) just as Joe Shmoe with a CCW does.

Sorry to hear about the shot Coastie, where did this happen at? His condition?

[This message was edited by PO2Willard on Mon, 26 July 2004 at 10:00.]

Damn, I just read the story, what a shame
Hopefully justice will be serviced.

Looks like others are having the same discussion, here's a post I found on Glocktalk.com:

"Actually, Most of the US Coast Guard will be eligible also.

the following is quoted fromtitle 14 US Code

"The Coast Guard may make inquiries, examinations, inspections, searches, seizures, and arrests upon the high seas and waters over which the United States has jurisdiction, for the prevention, detection, and suppression of violations of laws of the United States. For such purposes, commissioned, warrant, and petty officers may at any time go on board of any vessel subject to the jurisdiction, or to the operation of any law, of the United States, address inquiries to those on board, examine the ship's documents and papers, and examine, inspect, and search the vessel and use all necessary force to compel compliance. When from such inquiries, examination, inspection, or search it appears that a breach of the laws of the United States rendering a person liable to arrest is being, or has been committed, by any person, such person shall be arrested or, if escaping to shore, shall be immediately pursued and arrested on shore, or other lawful and appropriate action shall be taken; or, if it shall appear that a breach of the laws of the United States has been committed so as to render such vessel, or the merchandise, or any part thereof, on board of, or brought into the United States by, such vessel, liable to forfeiture, or so as to render such vessel liable to a fine or penalty and if necessary to secure such fine or penalty, such vessel or such merchandise, or both, shall be seized."

interesting...."

you can see the rest of that @ http://www.glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=4e4bbd105e2131790f9fef698bed6fdc&threadid=269090

Looks like there is wide confusion as to who this law applys to.

quote:

---

A cop goes on a trip outside his state of residence/work, comes into the PRK, witnesses a felony in progress. He can now use that concealed firearm to discharge the duties he is rightfully capable of doing. It doesn't apply to Joe Coastie who just got off duty and is out and about in town, witnesses a felony at MacDonalds and is not authorized to conduct LE.

---

I think the key of the entire law is that it allows more people who are "capable" and "knowledgable" of performing law enforcement. Because I disagree with you, Joe Police Officer from X state in Y state is just like Joe Coastie in any state, they have the capability and training (in some cases), but neither has any jurisdiction. Both would be a citizen interjecting to stop a felony in progress, which any citizen can do, although probably is'nt recommended. Only difference between an average citizen and our Joe Coastie or Joe Police Officer is the vehicle which allows them to carry concealed.

quote:

---

The nature and design of the law is to allow peace officers, who are always on duty whether on the clock or not, to carry a firearm without administrative action necessary in each state they travel to.

---

I disagree again, Police Officers who are traveling in a state where they are not certified peace officers are not "on duty" as they have no jurisdiction or powers of arrest. The nature of this law, is to have more persons who are law enforcement trained who can respond to crimes in progress, without having to jump through the hoops of getting a CCW. A pefect example of this is the fact it applies to retired LEO's, who obviously have no "law enforecement powers", but do have law enforcement training and knowledge.

TXCG, I couldn't agree more!

I think the main point of the law was to protect LEO's, while off duty, or on the road traveling, or whatever. Hence the name "Law Enforcement Officer's Safety Act 2004"
Having the extra trained and able bodies on the street is an added bonus!

In addition to the CG, I also see this law applying to other federal agencies such as; Border Patrol, Customs, National Park Service, obviously the FBI, and anyone else with arresting authority.

[This message was edited by PO2Willard on Mon, 26 July 2004 at 15:37.]

I guess the best test would be to go to your local sheriff and find out! Tell em who you are, show em your law, and see how fast he tells you to get the hell out of his office, and pick up a proper CCW permit application on the way out!

Look at it this way, just because you're an E4 makes you a Federal Officer, BUT, the COMDT says you're not authorized to carry a firearm unless you meet the requirements (UOF, JPC, APPC) etc. THEREFORE, unless you're a QUALIFIED person (as stated in the original post with the transcript), you wouldn't even qualify for the exemption. Moreover, the CG qualifies you on the M9, and that wouldn't buy you off as far as the state's concerned for any other weapon. Just because you can shoot at the range with the M9 doesn't mean the state's gonna let you carry a USPc!
Everyone's so fired up to carry a firearm, but what it really means is you can't go many places in most states. Alot of the places you'd like to be carrying (bar, club, restaurant) won't even let you bring it in anyway. Especially if you're in CA, there's really strict laws concerning CCW by LEOs. Discharge within the vicinity of children, schools, churches, etc. is only the beginning. I can't see how putting this law into effect has so many people fired up to have a firearm on them at all times! If you were truly interested, you'd have gone to the sheriff a long time ago and gotten your permit with little to no trouble. If this law is what you're buying your case on, then maybe you should re-evaluate your decision to jeopardize your safety and that of others. Criminals frequently pick out the people with guns and target them for robberies, because they have a lesser-aware mentality due to a firearm on their side. It's also an easy way to get a weapon for free for them. One smack to the back of the head, and they've got a weapon, rather than trying to save crack money and actually buy one from the black market. Countless stories abound about those things happening. If you had to go through the normal channels, you'd likely have to take the class and they'd tell you all sorts of gruesome stuff and show you pictures of how people with CCWs had theirs stolen and then were killed with them.

I'll stand firm on this one, it doesn't apply to you, unless some DA or sheriff's office is unsavvy enough to buy off on it. If you get caught and busted, good luck with it, it'll be a felony and then ALL your weapons ownership rights go out the window FOREVER.

If you look at the Law Enforcement Alliance of America website... the group that pushed for the law to be passed, it says in there the purpose of the law is for the protection of law enforcement officers, corrections officers, and such while off duty. As txcg stated a LEO traveling outside of his state has no LE authority anyway unless he is a federal officer. Most states already allow off duty officers in that state to carry concealed. The law is for personal protection, while in another state, where before the law the LEO could not carry his weapon. It is not to carry the weapon in an "official capacity, or in performance of official duties", it is to carry the weapon for personal protection. I agree with those of you who say it is a pain in the rear to carry a handgun... I have had a permit for the past 4 years. What I do like about the law is, if indeed it does apply, is now if I am traveling across state lines I can still cary my handgun without having to worry about each states handgun laws, and in some states the law can change between city or county. And if you research the law.... that is the point of the law, while out of your normal area, ie.. in a different state you can easily CCW for the purpose of protection.

glocktalk.com says I can carry off duty, so I will be checking a PDW out tomorrow. if i get stopped by a police officer, i will refer him/her to glocktalk.com as they are a recognized expert in all legal fields.


COME ON PEOPLE!!!!!

I am not surprised that this became a topic here at all. I know people that shouldn't be trusted with a potato gun, let alone a 9mm.

Come on Ed, that's was only to prove the point that this law is also stirring up confusion elsewhere, not to say the guys on that board are some kind of authority If you have any constructive input you'd like to share, I'm all ears.

Phalanx: It was stated early in this conversation that E-4 and up would only be authorized under this law if they were qualified (UFC, JPC, APPC,BO/BTM etc., etc.)by their agency to carry a firearm. We're not talking about every E-4 and up in the CG, only those who have been trained, and hold current weapons quals. The bill, which I understand is now 18 USC 926B, doesn't say anything about what caliber or make the firearm must be, nor that you'd be required to carry that type of firearm if you were to carry consealed.

I think we've beaten the jurisdiction issue to death, obviously the bill was never designed to enable LEO's to conduct LE while off duty, in another state, or with their personally owned firearms. It was designed for officer safety, and to make it easier for qualified LEO's to carry consealed, without jumping through hoops or being hassled if they travel to another state.

As for your suggestion about going down to the local Sherriff. I think it's a good one and I plan on doing that long before I will pack heat, if in fact thats something I feel I need to do.

IMO, carrying all the documentation to prove to another LEO you're legal(14USC to prove authority, current range scores, etc. ) would make this more pain than it's worth. I guess unless you're being carjacked or mugged...

quote:

---

As for your suggestion about going down to the local Sherriff (sic). I think it's a good one and I plan on doing that long before I will pack heat, if in fact thats something I feel I need to do.

---

Illinois is one of only 4 states that DO NOT have a CCW law for its citizens.

A recent bill was introduced to allow retired civilian & military police officers (with at least ten years experience) to carry concealed in the State, but Governor Blagojevich threatened to veto it because he felt it would lead to a CCW law in the State of Illinois (something Mayor Daley in Chicago is DEADSET against). Welcome to Illinois/Chicago politics!

According to this law you are required to have photographic cridentials, among the other things, to carry under this law. Then a post by Willard conceaded that only qualed E-4 and above fall under this law. But every coastie carries the same military ID card which says NOTHING about being a qualified LEO. It isn't even signed. My Federal creds state in part, "this is to certify that (members name) whose signature and photograph appear below, is a law enforcement officer of the United States authorized to carry firearms, execute and serve warrants, search, seize, make arrests, and perform such duties as are authorized by law." So what differentiates a Qualed LEO from, say a PERSRU SK2 on the ID card?? I have a REAL hard time believing that your military ID is concidered "cridentials" no matter what legle says. I would think that the CG would now have to issue actual cridentials to coasties who qualify, to be legal under this new law.
What do MP's carry as creds? Is it just thier military ID card, or are they given something else?

Makes sense a47mlb. CGIS has theirs, FBI has theirs, BICE has theirs (not CBP), DEA, USMS, all those federal agencies who are known by most all to be fed LEOs have proper 'credentials'. Also, by standards set forth in most states, your military ID is not a credential, it's a form of governmental identification, just like a driver's license or library card. Even some 14USC89a card laminated in a CG office doesn't qualify for anything other than a reference for the BO to cite when someone questions his authority.
There should be little to no confusion on this, if the CG knew it's people were to fall under this addendum to the USC, they'd likely have promulgated an update or ALCOAST that addressed it and specifically told everyone about it. Some things they're real slow on, but when it comes to their members potentially becoming felonious (above and beyond what some already do!), I feel they'd have been a little more proactive. Hell it wasn't until recently that they finally released official traffic on the LE ashore stuff!

"The bill, which I understand is now 18 USC 926B, doesn't say anything about what caliber or make the firearm must be, nor that you'd be required to carry that type of firearm if you were to carry consealed."

No, but your states' regulations (outside of the 4 that don't have it), likely does. It likely says you're authorized to carry any firearm your department deems authorized for carry while on duty. So, in theory, if this did indeed fall true for us, that state law would apply. This one only allows states with NO CCW provisions to extend those courtesies normally afforded to their civil peace officers to the federal and otherwise LEOs. Even if the law stated clearly that the Coast Guard's MLE force was authorized to carry a gun concealed, the state's concealed carry laws apply to the members, notwithstanding federal overrule. In CA, you can't carry what you haven't trained on. You have to take the class, prove your worth, and show that you can qualify on the weapon you're gonna use. I don't know jack about many other states, except MO which is almost 100% the same. Point being, check your state's laws, they could be more stringent on the process. If not, then you better know federal laws, because they'll bite you just the same.

I have no doubt that most people are taking this with a grain of salt. In the off chance that a newly rated person was surfing here and read this, then ended up with a gun in his waistband at a party with minors, got the cops called and they found his piece, so he goes to jail, gets felony posession of a firearm. Or worse, they shoot him for gang related suspicion. That would truly suck to read about, then think about what information was being passed here, be it inadvertent or not.

People should be more concerned with being able to shoot the weapons proficiently before they start asking if they will be able to CCW.

14USC89a says I can can arrest someone. does that mean I can just do it? No, I need to have a little something called probable cause.

Lets get really good at doing the basics(again, the potato gun thing) before we start asking for CCW permits (which we in the CG don't need).

This has been quite fun sitting back and reading all the posts back and forth on all this, I truly love the spirited posts from the good and bad sea lawyers.

IMHO I believe we (CG members)fortunately/unfortunately fall under the provisions of this newly signed law - I am sure it will be raising quite the stink thru-out agencies and communities (Chicago) alike for a while to come. Hopefully in all of this our people will check with their respective District or MLC LANT/PAC Legal on this issue and let them take their round turns on it. Whose to say if they can correctly figure it out as well. It's all in how you interpret it - isnt it? At least that's what I've been told, regardless if it's black or white -- somebody always reads between the lines to benefit themselves. It's the CG way - I read it how I read it - You read it how you read it. DEAL WITH IT.

Anyway if it does'nt work out for the members that would like to carry under this particular law they could simply go down to the local S.D. and apply for the CCW permit (Oregon $65.00 - and no class to take just show them your firearm quals signed from the GM *not crappin ya either) and you can make it right that way.

IF one, really wanted to F&*% with the nay sayers here just for ****s & giggles of course - The personnel manual has been changed, allowing CG Active members to serve as Reserve Deputies or Police officers in their respective communities - SO they could go join up with the local P.D. or SD and then you got them fellas by the short-hairs and then nobody with the exception of the states that have a NO CCW law (Illinois) can say **** to you in regards to this newly aquired law.

Oops, did I start another questionable arguement - Most everyone already knows this new provision that allows us Active duty folks (with your Command's approval - of course) to apply and serve as reserve LEO's within your duty station's community.

Willard, I believe you and a few others (Interpret this law correctly) but I'm sorry to say we will have to wait and see from the mistakes that WILL be made
on these assumptions.

And this was not a trolling event - I honestly would like to have the option under this law to carry if I chose to - Alot of the posts here simply just pissed me off on what I felt was blatant BS interpretations by those that like to twist the crap their way - BUT alas so do I - so - I now have to grin and bear it and remember that even if this is not(The law)to be for us under it's current writing, IT can still be covered by the personnel manual on the reserve LEO issue. Enjoy!

yeah, because it's so much easier to become a cop than it would be to just go get a CCW! hehe, that's hilarious!

Then there's the other caveat to being a civil LEO and in the CG: dual prosecution. If one were to get into trouble using said weapon, one would not only be crucified at the public's table, but also on the military (UCMJ).

There's many ways to skew the interpretation, yes. However, if the legal eagles of the CG were to interpret this as full blown auth. for CG LEOs to carry, then the DA in your county says otherwise, whose paying the price? You are, my friend. Said DA will prosecute your sorry a$$ and let CG legal work out the details, and they're so good at sticking behind their people when it comes to it!

Thanks TC,
In regard to the identification issue, I would say our military ID's while they meet the description of the bare minimum, there should be a better document.

IMO, I think there should have been another requirement for this law. That being all LEO's who think they full under this law shall provide their credentials to a governing body (don't really know who, FBI maybe, but I'm sure they have enough to do) who would then issue them an ID/permit to CCW. This would eliminate any confusion when Joe Officer pulls over Joe Coastie, or Joe Customs, etc. they would then show their LEO CCW ID/Permit and would be covered. I realize this would be a heavy lift, but if they wanted to do it right and eliminate confusion and potentional felony arrest/court cases this would one way to do that.

I agree, it's best to stand by and see what the CG legal folks have to say. In the mean time, for those looking for more info about carrying in your state, www.packing.org is a great site dedicated to CCW. It has all the state laws, cost of fees and even downloadable forms needed to apply for a permit in your state.

IMHO even if we do fall under this law, it wouldn't hurt to have a state issued permit as a CYA, and they aren't hard to get.

I spoke with D17 legal today... They said the way the law reads now, its very unclear. Doesnt specify enough for them to say 100% it applies and gives us authority to carry off duty. They reccomended me passing this up the chain. They did say however that at this point they wouldnt reccommend relying on it for carry, that if you were charged it would make a great defense.... Probably would get you off the hook. I agree with a lot of you on here, this has been an interesting conversation on here. As I said before Im really not worried about it since pretty much anyone can carry concealed up here in AK, but it was a great debate! haha Im just hoping there is further guidance on this before i travel cross country next summer...