Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > SPECIALTY FORUMS > Calguns LEOs
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Calguns LEOs LEOs; chat, kibitz and relax. Non-LEOs; have a questions for a cop? Ask it here, in a CIVIL manner.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-09-2013, 7:51 PM
hitman13's Avatar
hitman13 hitman13 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Pinal County, AZ
Posts: 3,805
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default MPs covered under LEOSA now?

Or am I reading this wrong?

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...mber_201669744

Page 339-340


Someone on ARFcom alerted me to the modification / amendment. What say ye? I'm not hip on all the legalese of what is / isn't a MP.....
__________________
“A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.”

Last edited by hitman13; 01-09-2013 at 7:53 PM.. Reason: DYAC
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-09-2013, 8:19 PM
NuGunner NuGunner is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: SGV/LA
Posts: 1,028
iTrader: 32 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hitman13 View Post
Or am I reading this wrong?

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...mber_201669744

Page 339-340


Someone on ARFcom alerted me to the modification / amendment. What say ye? I'm not hip on all the legalese of what is / isn't a MP.....
I hate reading through all that garble...so confusing. I'm no lawyer but based off that language alone, there looks like there may be a chance they are.

Maybe someone who's willing to read through all the referenced sections, or a lawyer can chime in.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-09-2013, 10:50 PM
urbancommando urbancommando is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 879
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

A NY judge ruled i think 2 years ago the a coast guard boarding officer qualified s being covered because he met all the requirements. I dont see why an mp wouldnt
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-10-2013, 6:03 AM
Notorious's Avatar
Notorious Notorious is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,490
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

The coast guard officer did, but there was a very specific fact pattern and holding and not all military positions would qualify based on that ruling... also, I don't believe it has any precedential value as it was a trial level ruling, unless I am mistaken.

Then again, as we all know, LEOSA is one thing, but agencies can do their own thing with policies and it's all up in the air until someone volunteers to be the test case.
__________________
Guns! More guns! I need more guns!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-10-2013, 8:02 AM
urbancommando urbancommando is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 879
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Notorious View Post
The coast guard officer did, but there was a very specific fact pattern and holding and not all military positions would qualify based on that ruling... also, I don't believe it has any precedential value as it was a trial level ruling, unless I am mistaken.

Then again, as we all know, LEOSA is one thing, but agencies can do their own thing with policies and it's all up in the air until someone volunteers to be the test case.
Your right it would probably take an MP as a test case to clarify it, however that case did set precedent even at a low court level and it would take an appeals judge to overturn it, right now it could be used an affirmative defense if an MP was arrested for CCW.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-10-2013, 9:03 AM
kermit315's Avatar
kermit315 kermit315 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Where the truth is valued
Posts: 5,922
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

The way it was explained to me is that if the MP/MA was credentialed, they would be good to go, under the latest revision. How that will parse out in the real world is another story, however.

ETA: Not all bases/commands in the Navy will credential their MA's, so it is quite possible to be an MA and still not be covered under this. Cant speak as to other branches.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by leok20 View Post
To me Law Enforcement are guilty until proven innocent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrage View Post
Over reaction to non-crimes by State loyalists. If they keep up their heavy handed crap, soon it'll be a better gamble to shoot at cops before they even start bothering you considering the amount of time they're willing to put you in prison for if you cooperate.

Seems like that pendulum is about to shift.
Is this your Calguns?

Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-10-2013, 9:08 AM
urbancommando urbancommando is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 879
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

I also know that the navy is even trying to keep their civilian DOD cops from carrying off duty.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-10-2013, 10:21 AM
mej16489 mej16489 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,926
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Its all going to come down to having proper ID.

For the various investigative services (NCIS, AFOSI, etc) I think its a no-brainer that they meet the requirements and have the ID.

For the myriad of civilian security forces used for .mil purposes coverage has been hit and miss and has primarily revolved around photo id requirements - most don't meet that requirement.

The 2013 changes definitely seem to extend that .mil security forces (MPs, SPs, etc) now meet the requirements - but I think it will hinge on the id requirements...I know quite a few AF SPs and I'm pretty sure (but I don't know for certain) that they do not have proper id. I'll see if I can find out.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-10-2013, 1:56 PM
Eric B's Avatar
Eric B Eric B is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: San Jose
Posts: 775
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

I wouldn't do a damn thing that my CoC didn't bless, and bless in written policy. Doing so could be a swift end to a career.

That being said, I can't imagine that there is a single solitary commander that would authorize it.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-10-2013, 2:45 PM
mej16489 mej16489 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,926
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
I wouldn't do a damn thing that my CoC didn't bless, and bless in written policy. Doing so could be a swift end to a career.

That being said, I can't imagine that there is a single solitary commander that would authorize it.
Yes. I find it sad that 99% of the most vehement anti-gunners I know are high-ranking military officers.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01-10-2013, 3:15 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 4,052
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

IANAL - please keep that in mind.

I did read the words contained in the bill and they appear to have that effect.

However, I also checked the current version of the U.S. Code and do note find the changes proposed in this copy of the bill to have been made in the code.

That leads me to believe that this version of the 2013 Defense Funding Bill may not be the latest version.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-11-2013, 6:09 AM
Notorious's Avatar
Notorious Notorious is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,490
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by urbancommando View Post
Your right it would probably take an MP as a test case to clarify it, however that case did set precedent even at a low court level and it would take an appeals judge to overturn it, right now it could be used an affirmative defense if an MP was arrested for CCW.
Not really. That would only work in that exact same District where the Court resides and even then, the judge in the same District can even hold differently if he can distinguish a different set of operating facts.

A trial level court (District court in federal parlance) in another District can hold one way and a trial court here can hold another way. Trial court holdings are persuasive authority, not precedential authority. Only published decisions of appeals courts become precedent.

Even Circuit appeals courts can hold different ways in different Circuits, like how the 9th can make decisions different from all other Circuits, which eventually brings the controversy to the Supreme Court for final clarification and when they make a decision, it brings consistency across the nation.
__________________
Guns! More guns! I need more guns!
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-11-2013, 7:51 AM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 4,052
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Notorious View Post
Not really. That would only work in that exact same District where the Court resides and even then, the judge in the same District can even hold differently if he can distinguish a different set of operating facts.

A trial level court (District court in federal parlance) in another District can hold one way and a trial court here can hold another way. Trial court holdings are persuasive authority, not precedential authority. Only published decisions of appeals courts become precedent.

Even Circuit appeals courts can hold different ways in different Circuits, like how the 9th can make decisions different from all other Circuits, which eventually brings the controversy to the Supreme Court for final clarification and when they make a decision, it brings consistency across the nation.
^^^^^THIS^^^^^^

Additionally, the Coast Guard case was unique in that Coast Guard officers and petty officers possess civilian powers of arrest (as opposed to UCMJ authority).

In the case of Army and Air Force personnel, there is an unresolved question as to whether the Posse Comitatus act would prohibit their personnel from possessing the arrest powers needed to qualify under LEOSA.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-12-2013, 6:35 AM
Alpha S3v3N Alpha S3v3N is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Los alamitos
Posts: 16
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Key words are "security forces" and "apprehension powers" that's what will qualify a military mp to carry concealed. This bill does not give the mp arresting powers nor does is say or imply that the military is going to be used to police civilians. All it does is, allow military personnel who are part of a full time security force, to carry concealed for personal protection.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-12-2013, 6:37 AM
Alpha S3v3N Alpha S3v3N is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Los alamitos
Posts: 16
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I also forgot to include that they have to be in a position in which they enforce UCMJ. Which Security Forces do
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-12-2013, 8:09 AM
mej16489 mej16489 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,926
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mej16489 View Post
The 2013 changes definitely seem to extend that .mil security forces (MPs, SPs, etc) now meet the requirements - but I think it will hinge on the id requirements...I know quite a few AF SPs and I'm pretty sure (but I don't know for certain) that they do not have proper id. I'll see if I can find out.
I spoke with a Lt Col SP yesterday. He says there is not standard from base to base on issuance of credentials. At his current assignment, only officers and senior NCOs are issued them.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-12-2013, 8:21 AM
Larker's Avatar
Larker Larker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Kaiserslautern, Germany
Posts: 130
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Sounds like it authorizes MPs/SFs/etc. Stresses apprehension authority under UCMJ. I can tell you that Army MP's don't get credentials, and whenever I've had to provide proof that I was an MP, it was usually in the form of a memo signed by my commander, which I know of few commanders that would be willing to allow their soldiers (especially the E-4's and below who primarily conduct LE duties) to carry concealed off duty. The other side is what qualifies as a valid credential? My ERB with my MOS and duty position? Memo signed by the CO? An actual cred pack with a badge?

Whereas it may apply to MP/SF/MA's, I think it'll be way too much effort to legitimize it through the respective CoC.

And it comes back more to a discipline issue in the mind frame of the CO. If I were in there shoes, I wouldn't authorize a service member to carry unless they made the effort to get adequate, recognized, and documented training (even if they aren't required to), followed by a written counseling clearly stating left and right limits, more as a CYA. You can only imagine the fallout if one of your Joes gets picked up for doing something stupid with a weapon they concealed on their person and you said it was "Ok". =/

Again, it'll more than likely be written off as too much effort for too much risk by the CoC, and rather much easier for the CO to publish a single policy memo saying something of the effect of "if you don't have a CCW permit, you will not conceal a firearm on your person unless required in the discharge of official duties... etc."
__________________
Assist, Protect, Defend.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-12-2013, 9:00 AM
sleeper2020 sleeper2020 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 57
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

At the base I was at we were issued credentials with our badges we had to go to pass and ID to get the pictures taken. That was back in the 90s so I dont know if they still issue Marine MPs credentials now.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-12-2013, 10:29 AM
Hornetsnest Hornetsnest is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: SoCal
Posts: 107
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larker View Post
The other side is what qualifies as a valid credential? My ERB with my MOS and duty position? Memo signed by the CO? An actual cred pack with a badge?
"(d)The identification required by this subsection is the photographic identification issued by the governmental agency for which the individual is employed that identifies the employee as a police officer or law enforcement officer of the agency"
-Title 18 USC 926B (including amedment from sec 1089 of NDAA 2013)

Basically a photo ID issued from the gov that says you're a LEO of the gov. Don't think a pers/trng record printout or a CO memo is gonna cut it under the newest amendment. I really think the individual bases or regions need to be taken out of the loop on this issue and the individual service branches need to issue standard credentials like the USMC started doing in 2010 with all MPs and Civ POs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sleeper2020 View Post
At the base I was at we were issued credentials with our badges we had to go to pass and ID to get the pictures taken. That was back in the 90s so I dont know if they still issue Marine MPs credentials now.
Can't speak for the 90's but for a while only USMC CID were issued creds. However, seemingly out of the blue, a message came out in April 2010 saying all Marine MPs and CLEOs will be issued creds. It has been implemented and now they are issued professional "fed creds" that are very similar to the new USMC CID creds.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-12-2013, 10:49 AM
Hornetsnest Hornetsnest is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: SoCal
Posts: 107
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
IANAL - please keep that in mind.

I did read the words contained in the bill and they appear to have that effect.

However, I also checked the current version of the U.S. Code and do note find the changes proposed in this copy of the bill to have been made in the code.

That leads me to believe that this version of the 2013 Defense Funding Bill may not be the latest version.
It takes time to update stuff, especially with the gov. Regardless, it is pubic law as of 2-Jan-2013.

Quote:
PRESIDENT SIGNS DoD BILL WITH LEOSA FIX 01/07/2013

Chuck Canterbury, National President of the Fraternal Order of Police, welcomed news that the President had signed into law H.R. 4310, 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).

"Because of the hard work of the FOP, the amendment to the LEOSA which unanimously passed the Senate early last month was retained in the final version of the legislation," Canterbury said. "There is no longer any doubt that civilian law enforcement officers employed by the Defense Department meet the definitions in the Federal statute."

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). The text was crafted with the assistance of Senator Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT), Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, and in consultation with Representative Lamar S. Smith (R-TX), then-Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, as well as the Office of Law Enforcement and Support within the Defense Department. Former Senator James H. Webb, Jr. (D-VA), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, sponsored the amendment, which was unanimously adopted by the Senate.

"We are deeply grateful to Senators Leahy and Webb and to Representative Smith for their strong commitment to see this language retained, especially given the many provisions and differences that had to be worked out in the final days of Congress," Canterbury said. "Their tenacity and perseverance really paid off for our members employed by the DoD."

The President signed the bill on Wednesday, 2 January, at which point the changes became law.
http://www.fop.net/servlet/display/n...ocache=1046254
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 01-12-2013, 5:55 PM
RANDO's Avatar
RANDO RANDO is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Chowchilla, ca
Posts: 2,365
iTrader: 35 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
^^^^^THIS^^^^^^

Additionally, the Coast Guard case was unique in that Coast Guard officers and petty officers possess civilian powers of arrest (as opposed to UCMJ authority).

In the case of Army and Air Force personnel, there is an unresolved question as to whether the Posse Comitatus act would prohibit their personnel from possessing the arrest powers needed to qualify under LEOSA.



Make sure you havent let your quals expire if youre in the CG, also its smart to ask for a carry letter from the CO. Those were the days
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 01-20-2013, 4:20 PM
HOSER0351's Avatar
HOSER0351 HOSER0351 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Corona
Posts: 242
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

I actually work as a Civilian Officer for the USMC. It looks like this change to LEOSA was more for the civilian officers across the DOD spectrum. The base I work at the command has begun to write a policy for this topic and expect to fully address sometime this year. I truly doubt they give MP's conceal carry due to the liability of the young marines that work along side us.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 01-26-2013, 4:10 PM
yep yep is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default MPs are clearly covered under LEOSA

http://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/le...ment-amendment

Please read the above. The only supposed objection that people had about military police using LEOSA was the powers of arrest question. The wording around authority to "apprehend" for violations of UCMJ was inserted to ensure that everyone clearly understands that military police and civilian police as DoD LE are and always have been covered as Senator Patrick Leahy explains in his press release.

Truthfully, I don't understand the resistance with all of this among many in the thread. The law means what it says it does. If you have to read into it over and over to exclude MPs, you are just incorrect in your assessment.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 01-29-2013, 2:25 AM
Nick5811's Avatar
Nick5811 Nick5811 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 190
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
I wouldn't do a damn thing that my CoC didn't bless, and bless in written policy. Doing so could be a swift end to a career.

That being said, I can't imagine that there is a single solitary commander that would authorize it.
+1 I wouldn't want one of my Lance Corporals (or now looking back at it, some Staff Sergeants) having that responsibility.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornetsnest View Post
Can't speak for the 90's but for a while only USMC CID were issued creds. However, seemingly out of the blue, a message came out in April 2010 saying all Marine MPs and CLEOs will be issued creds. It has been implemented and now they are issued professional "fed creds" that are very similar to the new USMC CID creds.
Wow, really!?! This surprises me. We were prohibited from carrying our badges out of uniform or even wearing them when not on official PMO business. I'd love to see what these fed creds look like.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HOSER0351 View Post
I actually work as a Civilian Officer for the USMC. It looks like this change to LEOSA was more for the civilian officers across the DOD spectrum. The base I work at the command has begun to write a policy for this topic and expect to fully address sometime this year. I truly doubt they give MP's conceal carry due to the liability of the young marines that work along side us.
This makes a lot more sense. I have seen the feds at work for quite some time, and I could totally see them denying LEOSA coverage to DOD civilian employees who rated it (just to be dicks), while also denying it to military members as a matter of policy for these exact reasons. There were enough dumbass MP's doing dumbass things to have them toting around concealed handguns out in the civilian world AND on base.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 01-29-2013, 12:51 PM
rcpolynikes rcpolynikes is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Another Wrench!!

Interesting development indeed. Alright, forgive me for throwing a massive wrench in the equation but here goes. First of all I'm a commissioned military officer that is by no means involved in any "daily" law enforcement capacity. However, as some of you may know Article 7b rule 302 of the UCMJ grants "apprehension powers" to commissioned officers, warrant officers, NCO's and petty officers. Now I fully understand that the intent of the latest development to the LEOSA signed into law by the CinC Jan 2 probably wasn't meant for those groups of people. However, that's how it was written and signed. I'm personally going to meet with a JAG this week to verify the legality of coverage for all commissioned officers, warrant officers, and NCO's. I'll be sure to pass on the info but I'm fairly certain he won't have an answer for me right away.

The new law states:
A “qualified active law enforcement officer” is defined as an employee of a government agency
who: 2
 is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation,
prosecution or the incarceration of any person for any violation of law;
 has statutory powers of arrest or apprehension under the Uniform Code of Military Justice;
 is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm;
 is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the agency which could result in suspension
or loss of police powers;
 meets the standards, if any, established by the agency which require the employee to
regularly qualify in the use of a firearm;
 is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or
substance, and
 is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing a firearm.

As far as I can see, even just as a commissioned officer I meet all those criteria. My only concern is the showing the proper credentials. I don't think a CAC card would cut it. Though they do show a service members rank...ie, officer, warrant, NCO. I won't carry until I receive the okay for the legal office. It is a pain in the behind having to apply for different CCW's wherever I get stationed. We really just need someone to set a precedent... any takers? Thoughts?
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 01-29-2013, 7:40 PM
IXIVI IXIVI is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: West Sacramento
Posts: 49
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rcpolynikes View Post
Interesting development indeed. Alright, forgive me for throwing a massive wrench in the equation but here goes. First of all I'm a commissioned military officer that is by no means involved in any "daily" law enforcement capacity. However, as some of you may know Article 7b rule 302 of the UCMJ grants "apprehension powers" to commissioned officers, warrant officers, NCO's and petty officers. Now I fully understand that the intent of the latest development to the LEOSA signed into law by the CinC Jan 2 probably wasn't meant for those groups of people. However, that's how it was written and signed. I'm personally going to meet with a JAG this week to verify the legality of coverage for all commissioned officers, warrant officers, and NCO's. I'll be sure to pass on the info but I'm fairly certain he won't have an answer for me right away.

The new law states:
A “qualified active law enforcement officer” is defined as an employee of a government agency
who: 2
 is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation,
prosecution or the incarceration of any person for any violation of law;
 has statutory powers of arrest or apprehension under the Uniform Code of Military Justice;
 is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm;
 is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the agency which could result in suspension
or loss of police powers;
 meets the standards, if any, established by the agency which require the employee to
regularly qualify in the use of a firearm;
 is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or
substance, and
 is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing a firearm.

As far as I can see, even just as a commissioned officer I meet all those criteria. My only concern is the showing the proper credentials. I don't think a CAC card would cut it. Though they do show a service members rank...ie, officer, warrant, NCO. I won't carry until I receive the okay for the legal office. It is a pain in the behind having to apply for different CCW's wherever I get stationed. We really just need someone to set a precedent... any takers? Thoughts?


Keep reading.

HR 4310, Section 1089 Sub - b

"that identifies the employee as a police officer or law enforcement officer of the agency"



You'll need photo ID that identifies you as Law Enforcement.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 01-31-2013, 7:31 PM
SGTTOM SGTTOM is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: SO CAL
Posts: 100
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

In this state, our law is Military(including MPs) can only carry a loaded firearm in the course of their duties. I wouldn't push it, firearms charges are not worth it. Granted fedral law does in some cases act supreme to state law. Also states can enact stricter regulations just not looser.
__________________
Stay Frosty,
Tom

Alpha Raiders
1st Battalion 4th Marines
0331

Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 01-31-2013, 8:04 PM
hitman13's Avatar
hitman13 hitman13 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Pinal County, AZ
Posts: 3,805
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

LEOSA trumps state law for carrying.
__________________
“A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.”
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 01-31-2013, 9:46 PM
Notorious's Avatar
Notorious Notorious is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,490
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

MP's are covered while in the course of their duty under CA law, but LEOSA might change that if and when any MP wants to try and be the test case here.
__________________
Guns! More guns! I need more guns!
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 02-01-2013, 10:50 AM
rcpolynikes rcpolynikes is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Friends,
I created a very important petition on the White House website that will help reduce gun violence at NO ADDITIONAL TAX PAYER EXPENSE!!! "MILITARY SERVICE MEMBER'S SAFETY ACT"Please review,sign and forward on to all others if you agree with it. I need 100,000 signatures by March 3rd for the White House to respond. Thank you for your support.

http://wh.gov/pi8f

Sincerely,
RC
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 02-01-2013, 8:11 PM
IXIVI IXIVI is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: West Sacramento
Posts: 49
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rcpolynikes View Post
Friends,
I created a very important petition on the White House website that will help reduce gun violence at NO ADDITIONAL TAX PAYER EXPENSE!!! "MILITARY SERVICE MEMBER'S SAFETY ACT"Please review,sign and forward on to all others if you agree with it. I need 100,000 signatures by March 3rd for the White House to respond. Thank you for your support.

http://wh.gov/pi8f

Sincerely,
RC
Signed. I feel safer already!
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 02-01-2013, 10:27 PM
Matt1984's Avatar
Matt1984 Matt1984 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Chino
Posts: 999
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

As a former MP (thank god I reclassed) MP's should never be allowed to carry off duty, and commanders think the same thats why they dont
__________________
We need to ban water to stop the poor fat kids from drowning - Ted Nugent
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 02-02-2013, 9:14 AM
hitman13's Avatar
hitman13 hitman13 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Pinal County, AZ
Posts: 3,805
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt1984 View Post
As a former MP (thank god I reclassed) MP's should never be allowed to carry off duty, and commanders think the same thats why they dont
Everyone in America should be able to carry.
__________________
“A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.”
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 02-02-2013, 9:21 AM
rcpolynikes rcpolynikes is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I agree

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zztaj2AFiy8
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 02-02-2013, 9:25 AM
Matt1984's Avatar
Matt1984 Matt1984 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Chino
Posts: 999
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hitman13 View Post
Everyone in America should be able to carry.
I agree but not in Leo capacity
__________________
We need to ban water to stop the poor fat kids from drowning - Ted Nugent
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 02-02-2013, 9:37 AM
Matt1984's Avatar
Matt1984 Matt1984 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Chino
Posts: 999
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default MPs covered under LEOSA now?

Double
__________________
We need to ban water to stop the poor fat kids from drowning - Ted Nugent
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 02-02-2013, 2:45 PM
Notorious's Avatar
Notorious Notorious is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,490
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt1984 View Post
I agree but not in Leo capacity
Nobody is saying that, I think. I agree all Americans can and should bear arms for their own protection and that has nothing to do with being a LEO, it has to do with being an American.
__________________
Guns! More guns! I need more guns!
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 02-02-2013, 3:03 PM
Matt1984's Avatar
Matt1984 Matt1984 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Chino
Posts: 999
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Notorious View Post
Nobody is saying that, I think. I agree all Americans can and should bear arms for their own protection and that has nothing to do with being a LEO, it has to do with being an American.
This thread does read the headline
__________________
We need to ban water to stop the poor fat kids from drowning - Ted Nugent
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 02-02-2013, 3:05 PM
Notorious's Avatar
Notorious Notorious is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,490
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt1984 View Post
This thread does read the headline
The topic is about MP's and LEOSA, but devolved into all Americans being able to carry. That was what I was responding to.

In addition, carrying under LEOSA while you are out of state does not confer upon you LEO status in that state. You are carrying under LEOSA as a LEO in your home state but you are an exempt civilian non-LEO in the other states.
__________________
Guns! More guns! I need more guns!
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 02-06-2013, 5:00 PM
IXIVI IXIVI is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: West Sacramento
Posts: 49
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The amendment clearly spells out MPs are now covered, and the amendments authors make it more than clear that the idea was to cover DoD civilian Police and Military Police. Albeit, with proper ID.


http://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/le...ment-amendment



Figuring I'm an active duty MP, and now covered by the Federal Law, why wouldn't a County Sheriff coincide with the Federal Law and just issue me a civilian CCW?


I applied with Yolo County, attached the amendment, and received notice today that my application was denied base on "insufficient just cause". "Federal Law does not require Yolo County to issue you a CCW"

Well no sh*t Yolo County. I wasnt inferring you were "required" to issue me a license, only hoping that common sense would prevail, and if I'm a "Qualified Officer" by LEOSA standards, and de facto authorized to carry anyway, why not just collect your outrageous sum of $220 and give me a stamped piece of paper?

Ok. Done venting.

BTW, last sentence of denial letter says I cant re-apply for 1 whole year. Is that even legal??
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 3:00 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.