Page:  / 2
Next Page  
Author
Message
cjroman
Member
Offline
Posts: 355
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 2/25/2013 3:33:52 PM EST
Originally Posted By in625shooter:
Here is a little bit from the updated LEOSA bill from Jan 2013. Sorry Military MP members you are not covered.

The President had signed into law H.R. 4310, on Wednesday, 2 January 2013, at which point the changes became law. The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), Section 1089 of the bill, now law, contains language which clarifies that civilian law enforcement officers employed by the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) unambiguously meet the definitions in the Law Enforcement Officers' Safety Act (LEOSA). The language in Section 1089 clarifies the definitions of "qualified active" and "qualified retired" law enforcement officer to include officers who have or had the authority to apprehend suspects under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).


I wouldn't necessarily agree with your statement...Your qote is from the FOP press release.
The Congressman who drafted the legislation (Pat Lehay) has been quoted to say it includes military police, as it was his intent to include them.

"The amendment we adopt today will place military police and civilian police officers within the Department of Defense on equal footing with their law enforcement counterparts across the country when it comes to coverage under LEOSA. The LEOSA law permits active and qualified retired law enforcement officers to carry a concealed firearm across state lines. This law, which has been in place since 2004, gives our law enforcement officers, should they choose, the peace of mind that they are protected wherever they may be.

One of the qualifications required of active or retired officers to be covered by the LEOSA law is that they must have “statutory arrest authority”. Some law enforcement personnel within the Department of Defense do have such statutory arrest authority. Others do not. For example, civilian police officers that conduct law enforcement activities on military bases or installations derive their authority from the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This authority, while statutory, is “apprehension” authority. Due to that difference between the LEOSA law’s specific enumerated requirements, and the authority pursuant to which civilian police in the military operate, these law enforcement officers have not been able to obtain the law’s benefits.

To remedy this, the amendment we have adopted will expressly include within the LEOSA statute currently non-covered civilian police officers and military police. It will do so by adding a statutory citation within Title 18 of the United States Code to the relevant portion of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This will provide legal certainty for the Department of Defense, and will provide the needed LEOSA coverage for currently non-covered law enforcement personnel within the military."


The USAF Top Cop has issued a memo stating the law applies to both military and DoD Civilian Police and to stand by (don't carry citing LEOSA) until the DoD instruction is updated. I seriously doubt this was not looked at by legal before the memo was issued.
The DoD instruction which implements LEOSA ( DoDI 5525.12) is being revised and that will be how LEOSA is implemented in the DoD.
The current DoDI 5525.12 has policy/procedures to issue the photographic ID that is required by the law, and the law only actually has a few lines (the Art 7b UCMJ info) added in four places.
Not much to do but figure out how to verify some one with the 10+ years in the proper MOS/AFSC/Rate and issue the ID card...
Warlord43B
Military
Offline
Posts: 129
Feedback: 100% (5)
Link To This Post
Posted: 2/25/2013 4:03:22 PM EST
So I am 10 years in 31b and being MEB...so how do I get in on this?
in625shooter
Offline
Posts: 55
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 2/27/2013 8:57:34 AM EST
Originally Posted By cjroman:
Originally Posted By in625shooter:
Here is a little bit from the updated LEOSA bill from Jan 2013. Sorry Military MP members you are not covered.

The President had signed into law H.R. 4310, on Wednesday, 2 January 2013, at which point the changes became law. The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), Section 1089 of the bill, now law, contains language which clarifies that civilian law enforcement officers employed by the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) unambiguously meet the definitions in the Law Enforcement Officers' Safety Act (LEOSA). The language in Section 1089 clarifies the definitions of "qualified active" and "qualified retired" law enforcement officer to include officers who have or had the authority to apprehend suspects under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).


I wouldn't necessarily agree with your statement...Your qote is from the FOP press release.
The Congressman who drafted the legislation (Pat Lehay) has been quoted to say it includes military police, as it was his intent to include them.

"The amendment we adopt today will place military police and civilian police officers within the Department of Defense on equal footing with their law enforcement counterparts across the country when it comes to coverage under LEOSA. The LEOSA law permits active and qualified retired law enforcement officers to carry a concealed firearm across state lines. This law, which has been in place since 2004, gives our law enforcement officers, should they choose, the peace of mind that they are protected wherever they may be.

One of the qualifications required of active or retired officers to be covered by the LEOSA law is that they must have “statutory arrest authority”. Some law enforcement personnel within the Department of Defense do have such statutory arrest authority. Others do not. For example, civilian police officers that conduct law enforcement activities on military bases or installations derive their authority from the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This authority, while statutory, is “apprehension” authority. Due to that difference between the LEOSA law’s specific enumerated requirements, and the authority pursuant to which civilian police in the military operate, these law enforcement officers have not been able to obtain the law’s benefits.

To remedy this, the amendment we have adopted will expressly include within the LEOSA statute currently non-covered civilian police officers and military police. It will do so by adding a statutory citation within Title 18 of the United States Code to the relevant portion of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This will provide legal certainty for the Department of Defense, and will provide the needed LEOSA coverage for currently non-covered law enforcement personnel within the military."


The USAF Top Cop has issued a memo stating the law applies to both military and DoD Civilian Police and to stand by (don't carry citing LEOSA) until the DoD instruction is updated. I seriously doubt this was not looked at by legal before the memo was issued.
The DoD instruction which implements LEOSA ( DoDI 5525.12) is being revised and that will be how LEOSA is implemented in the DoD.
The current DoDI 5525.12 has policy/procedures to issue the photographic ID that is required by the law, and the law only actually has a few lines (the Art 7b UCMJ info) added in four places.
Not much to do but figure out how to verify some one with the 10+ years in the proper MOS/AFSC/Rate and issue the ID card...


While anything could be ruled on, I posted the breif narative on the updated LEOSA for DOD which stated civilian DOD police specifically.which at face value looks like the Military members will not be included.That being said I will be very surprised if they grant a blanket pass for Military Personal to be included. I am retired ANG Security Forces with prior active duty so I have mixed feelings on the Military members and this will be unpopular but, feel it will be the downfall of DOD having a LEOSA as a whole if the military members are included. LEOSA isn't about anykind of enforcement powers off duty just allows you to carry a firearm. If a Military member can not shift gears and ends up violating someones civil rights is the individual liable or the Government? In all probability the individual just as for the agencies (BOP is one) that have no arrest authority off duty or requirement by the agency to carry so they act on their own The only thing the agency will do is step in if an LEO or agency trys to charge/arrest you. I suspect DOD will face the same issues adressed before a ruling comes down.

We will see.
Warlord43B
Military
Offline
Posts: 135
Feedback: 100% (5)
Link To This Post
Posted: 2/27/2013 12:48:09 PM EST
Well I honestly have no hope for us MP's or SF's to ever get a real look at being called a real cop. Although I have been taught by CLEO's and have een certified by CLEO. So I guess I am screwed when I go back to missouri. I have arrested and put in jail a good number of people (civlians). So, guess I will have to wait for my CCW requirements until then I will go t very few places other than work the range and home. Not that I don't trust people, but I don't trust people, and I know how long it will take a LEO to respond to any 911 calls shots fired or not.
Yankee-Carpet-Bagger
Offline
Posts: 673
Feedback: 100% (20)
Link To This Post
Posted: 2/27/2013 2:05:42 PM EST
LEOSA needs to be amended again Ala 2010 when they provided an exemption for hollow point ammunition to get around New Jersey's asinine laws. This time it should give a nationwide exemption to counter NY's bullshit for off duty LEO/ retirees for standard capacity magazines for the firearms they qualify with, that do not extend more than a few inches out of the grip. This would keep some yahoo from rolling around with a 33 rnd Glock 18 mag hanging out of their Glock 26. As for Military Police I think the deciding factor should be whether or not they went through an accredited school like FLETC. JMHO
SRT_312
Member
Offline
Posts: 2912
Feedback: 100% (4)
Link To This Post
Posted: 2/27/2013 3:13:03 PM EST
Originally Posted By Yankee-Carpet-Bagger:
LEOSA needs to be amended again Ala 2010 when they provided an exemption for hollow point ammunition to get around New Jersey's asinine laws. This time it should give a nationwide exemption to counter NY's bullshit for off duty LEO/ retirees for standard capacity magazines for the firearms they qualify with, that do not extend more than a few inches out of the grip. This would keep some yahoo from rolling around with a 33 rnd Glock 18 mag hanging out of their Glock 26. As for Military Police I think the deciding factor should be whether or not they went through an accredited school like FLETC. JMHO


How about they just get rid of the NY laws?
Warlord43B
Military
Offline
Posts: 138
Feedback: 100% (5)
Link To This Post
Posted: 2/28/2013 3:13:33 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/28/2013 5:19:18 PM EST by Warlord43B]
,,.
Camaro822
Offline
Posts: 845
Feedback: 100% (1)
Link To This Post
Posted: 3/5/2013 5:42:38 AM EST
Originally Posted By BAR92M4:
The LEOSA, also known as H.R. 218, allows current and former law enforcement officers (LEOs) to carry concealed firearms throughout the United States, regardless of individual State concealed carry laws would this also include any OLD or new NYS laws that limit the amount of rounds that any retired LEO’S can carry?

The reason I ask as a retired NYC LEO our ccw says full carry occupation RET. POLICE OFFICER in NYS we have to follow the 1994 ban on mags pre-ban ok or 10 rds. On any new firearm unless you have pre-ban mags for the new firearm this might change thanks to our governor to 7 rds. And HR218 does not say anything about the amount OF RDS. A retired Leo can carry unless I am reading this wrong any help would be appreciated and thanks in advance


HR 218 does NOT pre-empt any state or local laws that regulate magazine capacity, ammunition type, etc. It ONLY states that LEOs and retired LEOs can carry their weapon concealed. NY specifically had to modify their law after they passed it to make it clear that LEOs can carry more than the 7-round limit.
Camaro822
Offline
Posts: 846
Feedback: 100% (1)
Link To This Post
Posted: 3/5/2013 5:43:48 AM EST
Originally Posted By Gilly:
Originally Posted By SPOII:
I'm glad there is some help for DOD personnel. I'd think that some sort of credentials would need to be issued to retirees. Sadly while I carried firearms and protected nukes for the Dept of Energy and we had arrest powers for certain federal crimes, my brothers and I are considered just guards. Even though we had yearly physical qualifications to make, yearly psychiatric exams, yearly financial investigations, five year reinvestigations on our Q Clearances, quarterly weapons quals. on handgun and rifle, semi annual quals. on heavy weapons, eighty hours a year for training and work weeks averaging at least 55hrs, in the end we were guards. Only twenty-six years doing this. My site has now converted to DOD security and maybe if I can stay for another 19yrs eventually we may fall under this. I do have plenty of new brothers that retired as USAF cops who should be eligible for this amendment. Thanks for the information, I'll pass this on to them


What's your series? if you're an 0083 you're covered.


You may be covered under HR218, but your individual installation and department policy may still get you in an administrative bind.
Norge1956
BERSERKIR (most fearsome and fearless of warriors)
Offline
Posts: 3088
Feedback: 100% (15)
Link To This Post
Posted: 3/5/2013 6:04:04 AM EST
Life's tough, it's even tougher if you're stupid. .

Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools talk because they have to say something.
Camaro822
Offline
Posts: 847
Feedback: 100% (1)
Link To This Post
Posted: 3/5/2013 6:06:34 AM EST
Originally Posted By Norge1956:
FOP view on law

http://www.fop.net/legislative/issues/hr218/hr218faq.pdf


best guidance...use this.
RenegadeX
Member
Online
Posts: 24158
Feedback: 100% (13)
Link To This Post
Posted: 3/5/2013 6:11:38 AM EST
Law has been revised twice now and they still have not fixed the Gun Free School Zone Act Issue....
Warlord43B
Military
Offline
Posts: 148
Feedback: 100% (5)
Link To This Post
Posted: 3/15/2013 1:43:01 PM EST
My Fellow MP's need not to worry you will be covered. The MP schools is Fleta certified now. Look Here

Plus I talk to USAMP's here is what I got in response

Good Morning,

Military Police are now covered by the LEOSA HR 218 bill. With that said, we are currently working with DOD to outline and define the process for DOD and US Army LE folks. DOD will put out an instruction in the near future and that will be the basis for all military services to build from. I cannot give you a timeline or process just yet as policy and processes are still being designed and vetted. The LEOSA ID card or credential will come from the military service of the separated or retired LE officer. In this case, the US Army will be providing this ID card.

Sorry, I cannot tell you more, but we are working the process now.

Best Regards,

Ray (Ron) Mullihan
Chief, NFC Training Development
Manager, USAMPS Accreditation Programs
US Army Military Police School



When I get more information I will pass it along.
Page:  / 2
Next Page