|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
Military.com Forums Coast Guard Discussions Maritime Law Enforcement Law Enforcement Concealed Carry LAW|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
|
Basic Training |
The law that you are referring to specifies that the LE agency must issue a ID card to the officer that will carry concealed. Until the USCG does that, the argument is a moot point. Try obtaining a Utah and Florida out of state concealed carry permit. If you obtain these permits, due to reciprocity, you can carry in 30 states and possibly more in the future. In California, both permits are offered at gun shows for $159. Also, the Utah permit class is available for Veterans.
|
|||
|
|
Member |
LEDETOIC,
You don't have to authorize your BOs concealed carry off duty, Congress and the President have already done that, as long as it is a personal firearm. |
|||
|
Member |
Just to clarify. Though these permits and the applicable training are offered in California they are not valid. California does not recognize any other CCW permit from any other state.
|
|||
|
|
Basic Training |
Regardless of the outcome of the debate, kudos to an officer that has the sack to take a stand on his beliefs and the conviction to make an educated, informed command decision while awaiting word from the puzzle palace. I have seen in recent years a few officers like this (including our current Commandant) start popping out of the woodwork. Only good things can come of it. Semper Pi, Sir! v/r BM1 sends |
|||
|
Basic Training |
Way to go LT. Though drillings reserves do not serve in CO billets, I have been approached by enlisted on this issue. As an officer and a SRO at my station I do everything I can to support those who help protect my family. My guidance to any BO/CGPD who wants to carry off-duty is no different than what I have posted here: (1) Get a CWP and use LEOSA as a back up if possible. If assistance is needed, I will assist; (2) if a CWP is impractical, i.e, a $400 cost in NYC for an enlisted with limited funds, then ensure you carry your BO ltr, 3029, and my phone #; (3) get liability insurance, gun safes for the car and home (if you think a car safe is not important, note my car and 4 others burned during ADT last year at SECNY due to an electrical fire in 1 car); (5) carry a weapon identical or similar to what you have been trained on; and (6) do not bring personal firearms onto CG property. For anyone who does not believe I am willing to walk the talk, have a friend read my posts to you very very slowly. As for CG policy, there is UCMJ Article 134 and the MLEM. Neither references LEOSA. Case law on Art 134 from the 1950s forward says "concealed carry" is prohibited unless the mbr has some authorization. That authorization may come from (1) a C.O. (which would be supportable under 18 USC 924 (or maybe 925) and existing CG authority) for specific reasons; (2) a CWP; or (3) other law. LEOSA fills the third. If not, Booth could have been charged under the UCMJ 13 months ago, but has not. Why is Heller important to LEOSA? Here is one reason: Absent recognition of an individual right, what some here and in the CG considered to be only a privilege that could be subject to unreasonable regulation or a complete ban as in D.C. Rights, however, "shall not be infringed." Heller recognized the right to Keep Arms and the right to Bear Arms for all lawful purposes. So far it only identified self-defense in the home and possibly hunting as two lawful purposes. It also suggested that self-defense outside the home would be covered by citing 3xs to a GA SCt decision regarding a ban on both open & concealed carry that struck down one and upheld the other, i.e., we don't need both open & concealed carry for self-defense outside the home, just one or the other. Though that day is not yet here, it is somewhere beyond the horizon and thousands of attys are looking for test cases. Against that backdrop, does anyone expect the CG to become the test case by banning all off-duty carry for non-CGIS mbrs? Also, how would it be applied to active and reserve? Actives are subject to UCMJ, drilling reserves are not except during drill dates and ADT. So, court martial all offending actives and NJP for all offending reserves? As J. Scalia might say, "grotesque." That is not realistic and in my opinion would not survive a challenge in the Court of Military Appeals. Feel free to have a different opinion, the 1st Am authorizes that. For now, off on vacation. Thx to all who support and defend our Constitution and the freedoms it protects from the oppression of mobs and tyrants.  |
|||
|
|
Basic Training |
So wait Jersey Guy I have a question?
Since reservist's are only under UCMJ while drilling, do you still have arrest powers while not drilling? You comment lead me to think that while you are off you have no ties to the CG? |
|||
|
Basic Training |
BTDT,
So you want people to steal USCG M9s that are no longer in use to prove off-duty carry under LEOSA is possible? Hmmm. Booth proved it was legal with a personal gun without any off-duty arrest powers because the law does not require off-duty arrest powers no more than a CCW requires it. Either skulls appear to be thickening or some are just intentionally being antagonistic. |
|||
|
Basic Training |
Bravo! Well said! My hat is off to you, LT. The CG needs more officers with a set of stones. And kudos to you for having the moxie to stand up for what you believe in and to sign your name to it, while all of these sour-grapes whiners hide behind false screen names shaking their fists and making generalized threats. "WE" warned you ... "WE" are trying to tell you ... who the heck are this "WE" group who thinks they dominate this discussion board and who are trying to crush anyone whose opinion is not identical to their own? And JerseyGuy signed his real name, too .. but you whiners promptly edited his post to remove his name, didn't you?!? Just like some of you are (allegedly) going around contacting people offline to use your official position to threaten them for posting things you don't agree with! Stop being such sore losers. You are entering the NO COWARDS ZONE!  |
|||
|
|
Basic Training |
Best regards shipmates, fellow LEOs and brothers (and sisters!) in arms.
LT Charlie Gris, USCG CO SRFTC[/QUOTE] Sir, Let me know if you need a BM1 to work for you! |
|||
|
|
Basic Training |
Mega dittos....
 |
|||
|
"Does anyone know where the love of God goes when the waves turn the minutes to hours?" - Gordon Lightfoot |
What the heck are you rambling about with that profile you have? I think many here have simply stated that under the current policy (or lack of one) a USCG boarding officer is risking his or her neck if they think they are covered to carry off duty without a state permit. Most, including myself, have stated they think that USCG BO's should be allowed to carry off duty but the CG needs to put it in writing to make sure the BO's are covered should something happen. "Make it so #1"  Don |
|||
|
|
Basic Training |
http://www.nysun.com/opinion/hellers-kitchen/80928/
Heller's Kitchen By DAVID KOPEL June 30, 2008 When the case of District of Columbia v. Heller was before the Supreme Court, Mayor Bloomberg filed a brief in support of the District's handgun ban, arguing that a militia-only interpretation of the Second Amendment was necessary to keep New York City's gun laws intact. On Thursday, when the Supreme Court ruled against Mr. Bloomberg's position, the mayor claimed that the ruling was a "benefit" and would not affect any New York City laws. His claim was half-right. It is a benefit, but it's unlikely that it will not affect any New York City laws. In most of America, Heller will have little effect on state and local laws, because the vast majority of states already have an individual right to arms in their state constitutions. Illinois and California are two of the states that don't; suits have already been filed challenging the handgun ban in Chicago and the S.F. ban on firearms possession by public housing residents. Those cases will help decide whether the Second Amendment is enforceable against state and local governments or only against the federal government New York's state Constitution has no right to arms, but the Civil Rights Law does. The Civil Rights Law begins with a Bill of Rights. Article 4 declares: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed." It is identical to the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, except that New York follows modern standards for capitalization and punctuation, and says "cannot" instead of "shall not." As a Monroe County court accurately observed in the 1994 case Citizens for a Safer Community v. City of Rochester, "The Courts of this State have concluded that the language of federal law interpreting the Second Amendment (which is identical in its language to Article 2, section 4 of the Civil Rights Law) should be used in interpreting the provisions of this state law." Some New York courts have interpreted the New York right to arms restrictively, but these decisions were explicitly based on misunderstanding of the same language in the Second Amendment. The cases treating the Civil Rights Law as almost meaningless are of dubious validity now that Heller has made is clear that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is a broad and important individual right. The New York City law which most obviously violates the right to arms is the complete ban on air guns. The venerable Daisy Red Ryder BB gun is contraband. Heller and the Supreme Court's previous major Second Amendment precedent, United States v. Miller (1939) forbid the prohibition of arms "typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes." Air guns are ubiquitous almost everywhere except New York City, and are used almost exclusively for law-abiding purposes. Pursuant to Heller, regulation of air guns might be fine, but prohibition of all air guns is not. Unlike firearms, air guns (which shoot small BBs or pellets) can be safely used inside an apartment or house. An old sofa cushion is a safe backstop. In a city where target ranges are few and expensive, air guns offer a practical way for people to practice safely with a gun. The right to arms necessarily includes the right to practice arms safety. New York City bans magazines (ammunition clips) which hold more than 17 rounds. Whether the ban is consistent with Heller is debatable. Clearly inconsistent is the ban on any magazine which protrudes below the grip of the gun. The most common handgun in the United States is the Colt 1911 pistol, and the variants made by many other companies. The pistol's magazine holds 7 rounds. Some after-market magazine companies make slightly larger ones, which hold 8 or 9 rounds. These magazines extend a half-inch or less below the grip. There's no public safety benefit to allowing guns with 17 rounds stored within the grip, but banning guns with 8 rounds because of a quarter-inch protrusion below the grip. Regarding gun carrying, Heller might, arguably, mean that New York City would have to follow a similar policy to Connecticut (and 39 other states): issue permits to carry a concealed handgun for lawful defense if the applicant is over 21, and passes a fingerprint-based background check and a safety class. At the least, Heller indicates that gun carry licensing may not be "enforced in an arbitrary and capricious manner." This is a problem for New York State's carry licensing law, as Suzanne Novak detailed in a 1998 article in the Fordham Urban Law Journal. New York state law sets essentially no standards to guide local officials in deciding whether to issue carry permits. The problem is acute in New York City. Celebrities, the ultra-wealthy, and the politically influential get carry permits. But many of the people who need them the most — such as stalking victims, or crime witnesses who have been threatened by the criminal's friends — often do not. Even if New York City is not required to go as far as Connecticut, the City does need much less favoritism and much more objectivity in its administration of carry permits. Mr. Kopel is an associate policy analyst with the Cato Institute, in Washington, D.C., and has taught the "Gun Control and Gun Rights" course at New York University Law School. He was part of the team of four lawyers presenting the oral argument to the Supreme Court in Heller. |
|||
|
|
Basic Training |
QUOTE FROM JERSEYGUY: "My guidance to any BO/CGPD who wants to carry off-duty is no different than what I have posted here: (1) Get a CWP and use LEOSA as a back up if possible. If assistance is needed, I will assist; (2) if a CWP is impractical, i.e, a $400 cost in NYC for an enlisted with limited funds, then ensure you carry your BO ltr, 3029, and my phone #; (3) get liability insurance, gun safes for the car and home (if you think a car safe is not important, note my car and 4 others burned during ADT last year at SECNY due to an electrical fire in 1 car); (5) carry a weapon identical or similar to what you have been trained on; and (6) do not bring personal firearms onto CG property."
Sir, Do you know of any Coasties obtaining a CCW permit in NY or NYC? If so, would you be able to send the information on how it can be done? Thank you for your assistance. |
|||
|
|
Basic Training |
I know of civillians who have NY CCWs. NYC is harder to crack but not impossible. Contact me direct off line if you would like assistance.
Meanwhile, appears that at least some 1811 types are happy about the Booth decision: See http://www.att-tactical.com/blog/?p=69 « NO MORE BULLETSNew York’s Handgun licensing requirements take a LEGAL hit! The following was sent in a .pdf format directly from the Orange Co. New York Court. I have rewritten it so that search engines can pick it out. Now that there is a New York Court-set precedent, with regard to the application of the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003, upon those who are recognized as being “qualified law enforcement officer”, the argument over the status of federal Special Agents and their unlicensed possession of handguns is over. NYS-based federal Special Agents and federal police officers working and/or living in New York should print out the ruling and keep it with them anytime they are in possession of their personal firearms. 05/29/2008 17:05 ORANGE COUNTY COURT→ 4973330 NO.051 006 COUNTY COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF ORANGE —————————————————————–X THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Indictment No. 2007-940 -against- Index No. 11027/2007 BENJAMIN L. BOOTH, JR. DECISION AND ORDER Defendant. —————————————————————–X FREEHILL, ROBERT H. J.C.C. Defendant is charged in this indictment with the crime of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree. In his omnibus motion, defendant’s moved to dismiss the indictment claiming that he is exempt from prosecution for Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree by the application of the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003 (LEOSA). To establish that a particular person is exempt from prosecution pursuant to LEOSA, it must be shown that the person is a qualified law enforcement officer and that proper identification was carried with the weapon. In addition, defendant argued that the seizure of the weapon was improper. Pursuant to the Decision and Order of the court, a hearing was held on May 8, 2008 to determine the lawfulness of the seizure of the handgun from the defendant’s car and to determine whether the defendant was exempt from prosecution pursuant to LEOSA. FACTS: At the hearing facts were presented relating to the stop of defendant’s vehicle and facts relating to defendant’s status as a qualified law enforcement officer. Stop and Search / Statements On May 16, 2007, City of Newburgh Police Officer Kevin Lahar was on patrol in the city of Newburgh at 12:27 a.m. At that time he observed a four door dark colored Lexus traveling westbound on Broadway as he was driving eastbound on Broadway. He estimated that the defendant’s vehicle was traveling at a rate of 40 m.p.h. in a 30 m.p.h. zone. Officer Lahar turned around and stopped the vehicle and approached. Because the windows were tinted, he could not see how many occupants were in the vehicle until he approached the driver’s window which was down. From the driver’s window he noticed that there were two occupants inside the defendant’s vehicle. He learned that the driver was defendant Benjamin Booth and the passenger was Cornelius Stubbs. Officer Lahar asked defendant for his license and registration. Defendant provided a New York State Identification card and he vehicle registration. After a radio check of the documentation, Officer Lahar learned that there was a pending warrant for defendant out of the City of Newburghand that defendant’s license was suspended. A backuo officer arrived at the scene and learned that the passenger, Cornelius Stubbs, did not have a valid license. Officer Lahar requested a tow for the vehicle and asked if there was anything in the vehicle that he should be made aware of. The defendant said “no.” Officer Lahar then began to inventory the contents of the car. During inventory, he found a loaded Glock 23 handgun under the driver’s seat in a pull out compartment. The magazine contained 12 rounds and there was an additional round in the chamber. Officer Lahar had another conversation with defendant during which the defendant stated that he did not have a license to possess a firearm. Officer Lahar also recovered two identification cards on the defendant’s person. The defendant did not tell the officers that he had identification on his person before it was seized. The defendant was then transported to the police station. Defendant was brought into a booking room and was advised of his Miranda rights. The defendant signed off on the warnings and agreed to speak with the police officers without counsel present. During the conversation, defendant stated that he received a waiver from the Coast Guard to use the firearm to practice and that he recently used the gun at the range. Status as Qualified Law Enforcement Lieutenant Benjamin Stevenson of the United States Coast Guard testified credibly regarding the scope and nature of the duties of the defendant as a member of the United States Coast Guard. According to Lt. Stevenson, defendant was permitted to carry a weapon when conducting operations for the Coast Guard. In addition, defendant was required to be in uniform, to use a badge and to carry an identification card when conducting operations. Subject to numerous regulations and rules, the defendant was authorized to make arrests and generally take part in law enforcement duties as part of his duties as a boarding officer with the Coast Guard. His authority to carry a weapon did not extend beyond his role as a uniformed member of the Coast Guard and he was not permitted to carry a concealed weapon while out of uniform. CONCLUSIONS: Chapter 44 of Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 962B(a) states in relevant part that “notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any state or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is 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…” Subdivision (c) states that a 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.” Subsection (d) defines identification as photographic identification issued by the governmental agency which employs the individual as a law enforcement officer. Based upon testimony at the hearing, it is evident that defendant, Benjamin Booth is a qualified law enforcement officer as set forth in Chapter 44 Section 926B of the United States Code. He is authorized to carry a firearm while engaged in his duties as a boarding officer. These duties were defined as the prevention, detection, investigation of violations of the law and defendant has the authority and duty to arrest violators. He is qualified to carry a firearm and at the time of his arrest, he was not under the influence of alcohol or any other drug. In addition, at the time he was found to be in possession of a handgun in the City of Newburgh, he carried two forms of photographic identification issued by the Coast Guard. Based upon a reading of Chapter 44 of Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 926B(a) and applying the facts brought forth at the hearing, the court finds that the defendant is exempt from prosecution under New York State Law as a result of LEOSA. None of the arguments put forth by the People supply any proof that defendant was not protected from criminal prosecution by the act. Although the proof at the hearing indicated that the defendant engaged in a violation of rules, regulations and policies of the United States Coast Guard by possessing a handgun for which he had no license, these violations do not act to lessen the scope of LEOSA as it is applied in this instance. When distilled to the salient facts, the evidence presented at the hearing showed that the defendant was a qualified law enforcement officer who possessed photographic identification issued by the Coast Guard. Accordingly, he is exempt from prosecution and the indictment must be dismissed. Issues surrounding the defendant’s claim that the search and seizure was improper need not be decided in light of the finding that the defendant is exempt from prosecution. The forgoing constitutes the decision and order of the Court. Dated: Goshen, New York May 29th, 2008 ENTER HON. ROBERT H. FREEHILL County Court Judge |
|||
|
|
Basic Training |
Sir,
I sent you an email at your CG email addy. Is this good or should I contact you on the number on global? Thank you for your assistance! V/r JJV |
|||
|
|
Member |
You don't need a license to carry a firearm under LEOSA. IMHO, LEOSA is the license to carry. USCG Boarding Officers are FLEOs and can carry under LEOSA.
|
|||
|
|
CG Forums Moderator Mom never liked you, you son of a...  |
As long as the CG concurs.
|
|||
|
|
Member |
CG does not have a policy on LEOSA. CG does not trump federal law. The Booth case determined a BO can carry under LEOSA. Why are some people so adverse to BOs carry under LEOSA?
|
|||
|
Member |
We're not averse, and the CG is not trumping federal law by applying an internal policy to its own members. Any more questions?
|
|||
|
