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
  #41  
Old 02-06-2013, 5:19 PM
mej16489 mej16489 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,909
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IXIVI View Post
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.
I agree, the latest amendment opened the door for legal carry for tons of people. The problem for 99% of the new additions is going to be credentials.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 02-06-2013, 5:24 PM
Matt1984's Avatar
Matt1984 Matt1984 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Chino
Posts: 987
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IXIVI View Post
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??
This is a straight something a pvt would do, go to your coc and tell them your covered under leosa, there going to laugh and then your going to get all pist and ask
To pull the pvt move and ask for an open door policy and want to cry why? The you'll get the big *** dod directive why MP's/Dacp (dod police) can't carry and then you'll be like hmmm maybe it's a good idea I can't carry (atleast in a Leo fashion) civilian carry I am for
__________________
We need to ban water to stop the poor fat kids from drowning - Ted Nugent
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 02-06-2013, 5:30 PM
IXIVI IXIVI is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: West Sacramento
Posts: 49
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt1984 View Post
This is a straight something a pvt would do, go to your coc and tell them your covered under leosa, there going to laugh and then your going to get all pist and ask
To pull the pvt move and ask for an open door policy and want to cry why? The you'll get the big *** dod directive why MP's/Dacp (dod police) can't carry and then you'll be like hmmm maybe it's a good idea I can't carry (atleast in a Leo fashion) civilian carry I am for

What a Jabroni. Who is asking to carry in a LEO capacity? I already do that, in uniform and out when on duty.

Chain of Command, all way to HQ is aware of the Amendment. They will comply with the Law as required, but no sooner than December 2013.

I'm not asking for an open door policy, or "crying why". Only questioning a decision by a local Sheriff to deny a civilian CCW if Federal Law qualifies me for the same.

Last edited by IXIVI; 02-06-2013 at 6:15 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 02-06-2013, 5:36 PM
rcpolynikes rcpolynikes is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I just submitted my Rhode Island application today. Technically... it's a shall issue state, BUT you have to show "show proper need" in an essay... ridiculous. So I'll let you all know how that turns out. If it works though, I'll be pretty much the first service member I'm aware of that has successfully gotten through the red tape in this state
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 02-06-2013, 5:45 PM
Matt1984's Avatar
Matt1984 Matt1984 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Chino
Posts: 987
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IXIVI View Post
What a Jabroni. Who is asking to carry in a LEO capacity? I already do that, in uniform and out when on on duty.

Chain of Command, all way to HQ is aware of the Amendment. They will comply with the Law as required, but no sooner than December 2013.

I'm not asking for an open door policy, or "crying why". Only questioning a decision by a local Sheriff to deny a civilian CCW if Federal Law qualifies me for the same.
Once again PVT (now i am really assuming this with the wrestling lingo Jabroni? who says that anymore) you attachment to yolo county about MP's being included in LEOSA made it seem you where attempting to obtain a ccw because of your law enforcement background as a MP, not because you where a civilian wanting to carry. They probably looked into it, even probably looked for some type of off duty carry memorandum, which we all know that doesnt exist. So they probably denied you because if something where to happen it could fall back on them. And trust me I am telling you this stuff because I know what the hell is up. As an NCO MP I would sit in staff calls and hear DACP whine and cry about why they cannot carry off duty and in summary it was plain and simply. There is no DOD/DA reg or FM (which you will learn private is reg's and FM's are the commandments of the military) concerning off duty carry. I suggest you get looking into them regs/fm especially FM 19-10
__________________
We need to ban water to stop the poor fat kids from drowning - Ted Nugent
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 02-06-2013, 5:55 PM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,067
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mej16489 View Post
I agree, the latest amendment opened the door for legal carry for tons of people. The problem for 99% of the new additions is going to be credentials.
Can you explain how military ID (CAC), particularly with an accompanying arms room ID card or some such, would not be:
Quote:
The identification required by this subsection is the photographic identification issued by the governmental agency for which the individual is employed as a law enforcement officer.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 02-06-2013, 5:58 PM
Matt1984's Avatar
Matt1984 Matt1984 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Chino
Posts: 987
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
Can you explain how military ID (CAC), particularly with an accompanying arms room ID card or some such, would not be:
Your cac card doesn't say your unit and your arms room card does, but every unit had individuals that are attached to them with different mos. when I did AWOL apps I was issued actual federal law enforcement creds not every mp gets that only special assignments
__________________
We need to ban water to stop the poor fat kids from drowning - Ted Nugent
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 02-06-2013, 6:06 PM
IXIVI IXIVI is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: West Sacramento
Posts: 49
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt1984 View Post
Once again PVT (now i am really assuming this with the wrestling lingo Jabroni? who says that anymore) you attachment to yolo county about MP's being included in LEOSA made it seem you where attempting to obtain a ccw because of your law enforcement background as a MP, not because you where a civilian wanting to carry. They probably looked into it, even probably looked for some type of off duty carry memorandum, which we all know that doesnt exist. So they probably denied you because if something where to happen it could fall back on them. And trust me I am telling you this stuff because I know what the hell is up. As an NCO MP I would sit in staff calls and hear DACP whine and cry about why they cannot carry off duty and in summary it was plain and simply. There is no DOD/DA reg or FM (which you will learn private is reg's and FM's are the commandments of the military) concerning off duty carry. I suggest you get looking into them regs/fm especially FM 19-10
Ok Bud. Army MP NCO you are. I can tell based on all your professional grammar and proper spelling.

Bottom line is, LEOSA now covers MPs. Damn us all to hell, YOU'RE INCLUDED too. Whether you can put a coherent sentence together, or not.

Regardless of Field Manuals, DA regulations, or LACK of DoD guidance, Federal Law qualifies you and me both to carry a personal weapons off duty. No off duty carry memo required. I suggest YOU read Title 18 USC, sec 926b, as amended by HR 4310 sec 1089.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 02-06-2013, 6:06 PM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,067
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt1984 View Post
Your cac card doesn't say your unit and your arms room card does, but every unit had individuals that are attached to them with different mos. when I did AWOL apps I was issued actual federal law enforcement creds not every mp gets that only special assignments
Yeah I know what MP creds look like, for PSD or MPI, etc. However, nothing in the statute requires that your ID state your unit or even that you are an LEO. It says "the photographic identification issued by the governmental agency for which the individual is employed as a law enforcement officer". For MPs that would be the CAC. Now I think it would be a good idea to carry the arms room ID also so you can prove you are an MP, but the statute does not require it. The existence of MP creds being out there does not change any of this.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 02-06-2013, 6:14 PM
IXIVI IXIVI is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: West Sacramento
Posts: 49
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
Yeah I know what MP creds look like, for PSD or MPI, etc. However, nothing in the statute requires that your ID state your unit or even that you are an LEO. It says "the photographic identification issued by the governmental agency for which the individual is employed as a law enforcement officer". For MPs that would be the CAC. Now I think it would be a good idea to carry the arms room ID also so you can prove you are an MP, but the statute does not require it. The existence of MP creds being out there does not change any of this.
The latest amendment clarifies the ID requirement by inserting that identifies the employee as a police officer or law enforcement officer of the agency that they work for

So no, CAC wont qualify unless they start putting MOS on the CAC.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 02-06-2013, 6:17 PM
Matt1984's Avatar
Matt1984 Matt1984 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Chino
Posts: 987
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IXIVI View Post
Ok Bud. Army MP NCO you are. I can tell based on all your professional grammar and proper spelling.

Bottom line is, LEOSA now covers MPs. Damn us all to hell, YOU'RE INCLUDED too. Whether you can put a coherent sentence together, or not.

Regardless of Field Manuals, DA regulations, or LACK of DoD guidance, Federal Law qualifies you and me both to carry a personal weapons off duty. No off duty carry memo required. I suggest YOU read Title 18 USC, sec 926b, as amended by HR 4310 sec 1089.
Damn grammar police you try typing all that out on a phone and no all that crap will not fly. Go ahead put that on your commanders desk and tell him your going to do what you believe. Last time I checked your left chest says us army and that's the final straw. You guys need to stop playing barracks lawyer this was brought up in 2010 and I know the Commandant of the mp corp addressed this before

And if you want to go ahead a question my professionalism go ahead an pm me ill give you my number and we can talk offline high speed.
__________________
We need to ban water to stop the poor fat kids from drowning - Ted Nugent
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 02-06-2013, 6:23 PM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,067
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt1984 View Post
Damn grammar police you try typing all that out on a phone and no all that crap will not fly. Go ahead put that on your commanders desk and tell him your going to do what you believe. Last time I checked your left chest says us army and that's the final straw. You guys need to stop playing barracks lawyer this was brought up in 2010 and I know the Commandant of the mp corp addressed this before
This law wasn't around in 2010 as it is now. Also, I don't think anyone is suggesting taking this with your CO. Why would you? Congress and the President outrank him/her by a bit don't you think? Also, I don't think the LEOSA applies on post although it would take a real Blue Falcon to be running around trying to enforce it).

So the way I see it, unless your CoC has issued orders to the contrary you can carry off post. I don't see what the big issue is for you.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 02-06-2013, 6:23 PM
IXIVI IXIVI is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: West Sacramento
Posts: 49
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt1984 View Post
Damn grammar police you try typing all that out on a phone and no all that crap will not fly. Go ahead put that on your commanders desk and tell him your going to do what you believe. Last time I checked your left chest says us army and that's the final straw. You guys need to stop playing barracks lawyer this was brought up in 2010 and I know the Commandant of the mp corp addressed this before

And if you want to go ahead a question my professionalism go ahead an pm me ill give you my number and we can talk offline high speed.
I'm not questioning your professionalism, only poking fun at your un-unprofessional grammar.


Also, though I have on multiple occasions seen combat with, and even supervised an entire detachment of Soldiers, my left chest does not say US Army.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 02-06-2013, 6:26 PM
IXIVI IXIVI is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: West Sacramento
Posts: 49
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Look Matt, like Tincon mentions, there is no barracks lawyer here. Just FEDERAL LAW that now qualifies MPs under LEOSA. No permission from your Commander needed.

In all seriousness, have you even read the law?
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 02-06-2013, 6:28 PM
Matt1984's Avatar
Matt1984 Matt1984 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Chino
Posts: 987
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IXIVI View Post
I'm not questioning your professionalism, only poking fun at your un-unprofessional grammar.


Also, though I have on multiple occasions seen combat with, and even supervised an entire detachment of Soldiers, my left chest does not say US Army.
Well if it doesn't say us army then do what you will. Like I always tell the joe's do what your rank can handle.
__________________
We need to ban water to stop the poor fat kids from drowning - Ted Nugent
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 02-06-2013, 6:30 PM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,067
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt1984 View Post
Well if it doesn't say us army then do what you will. Like I always tell the joe's do what your rank can handle.
Don't confuse your rank with my authority.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 02-06-2013, 6:38 PM
Matt1984's Avatar
Matt1984 Matt1984 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Chino
Posts: 987
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default MPs covered under LEOSA now?

Quote:
Originally Posted by IXIVI View Post
Look Matt, like Tincon mentions, there is no barracks lawyer here. Just FEDERAL LAW that now qualifies MPs under LEOSA. No permission from your Commander needed.

In all seriousness, have you even read the law?
Yea I have, I actually had to read it in depth because I was also supporting this up hill battle, but how it was broken down to me makes complete sense. There just can't be a "unit" memo on off duty carry policy, because if something where to happen they wouldn't be ultimately liable it would be the dod in whole. Just like (dont know if you guys know this) some base commanders are issuing general orders that no permanent party members who have a ccw will carry out of uniform. The law is clear and cut on the federal side, I have read it but it is to be implied with parameters, and the dod has not established them. I do know they are working on the Dacp off duty carry policy back at leonard wood. I do not know what the status of that is yet.
__________________
We need to ban water to stop the poor fat kids from drowning - Ted Nugent
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 02-06-2013, 6:40 PM
Matt1984's Avatar
Matt1984 Matt1984 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Chino
Posts: 987
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
Don't confuse your rank with my authority.
That is the worst thing anyone could say lol. Automatic negative counseling statement lol
__________________
We need to ban water to stop the poor fat kids from drowning - Ted Nugent
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 02-06-2013, 6:45 PM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,067
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt1984 View Post
That is the worst thing anyone could say lol. Automatic negative counseling statement lol
Yeah I know we aren't allowed to say that anymore, just kidding. When I joined though we were allowed to say it, and I'm not sure I saw a negative counseling statement for years. We had... other kinds of corrective action. Those were the days.

Anyway I do agree that command can have a more restrictive policy than LEOSA allows. Just as for anything. But absent some such order LEOSA allows you to carry off post. DOD liability is a non-issue, this was passed by congress and signed by the president.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 02-06-2013, 6:47 PM
IXIVI IXIVI is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: West Sacramento
Posts: 49
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Base commander issuing orders preventing members from carrying with a civilian issued CCW? Beyond a shadow of a doubt, that cannot be a legal order off of the installation.

Coming full circle on a similar issue, years ago when CA open carry was legal, a local Commander issued an order to his troops stating that they would not open carry or face non-judicial punishment.

Staff Judge Advocate stepped in and squashed him on the same day the memo was issued. He cant supersede local or Federal Law because he doesn't want to be embarrassed.

Eventually DoD will come around with their own guidance on the law as it applies to MPs, but as mentioned, no sooner than December 2013....
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 02-06-2013, 6:52 PM
IXIVI IXIVI is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: West Sacramento
Posts: 49
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
Yeah I know we aren't allowed to say that anymore, just kidding. When I joined though we were allowed to say it, and I'm not sure I saw a negative counseling statement for years. We had... other kinds of corrective action. Those were the days.

Anyway I do agree that command can have a more restrictive policy than LEOSA allows. Just as for anything. But absent some such order LEOSA allows you to carry off post. DOD liability is a non-issue, this was passed by congress and signed by the president.

Agreed. Passed by congress and signed by the president. The easiest way for the DoD to deal with the new law, unfortunately, is to just refuse to issue a photo ID confirming LE affiliation and wipe their hands of the situation.

Guess its just wait and see.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 02-06-2013, 6:56 PM
Matt1984's Avatar
Matt1984 Matt1984 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Chino
Posts: 987
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IXIVI View Post
Base commander issuing orders preventing members from carrying with a civilian issued CCW? Beyond a shadow of a doubt, that cannot be a legal order off of the installation.

Coming full circle on a similar issue, years ago when CA open carry was legal, a local Commander issued an order to his troops stating that they would not open carry or face non-judicial punishment.

Staff Judge Advocate stepped in and squashed him on the same day the memo was issued. He cant supersede local or Federal Law because he doesn't want to be embarrassed.

Eventually DoD will come around with their own guidance on the law as it applies to MPs, but as mentioned, no sooner than December 2013....

I honestly don't think you get it. If you are given an order you have to follow it, regardless if your inside or outside uniform. 3 criteria s for an order. It has to be ethical, moral, and legal. And as for the no CCW off post out of uniform, I don't remember what base it is, and agreed that is some bull.
__________________
We need to ban water to stop the poor fat kids from drowning - Ted Nugent
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 02-06-2013, 6:59 PM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,067
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Also it's worth nothing that whatever issues you might have with UCMJ, it seems like you probably won't be getting charged locally.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 02-06-2013, 7:06 PM
IXIVI IXIVI is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: West Sacramento
Posts: 49
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

It has to be ethical, moral, and legal.

BAM. LEGAL.

Can a Commander issue an order, preventing you from exercising a constitutional right?

NO. NOT LEGAL.

You cant exercise "Free Speech" in uniform. (just like you cant carry concealed in uniform) But you can (enlisted) exercise Free Speech on your own time in civilian clothes. (as long as you aren't a Commissioned Officer)

Trying to prevent CCW Off post out of Uniform is beyond bull. It cannot be legal.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 02-06-2013, 8:10 PM
Linh's Avatar
Linh Linh is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,251
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Fill out this form http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom....9/attach_1.pdf

and route it through your chain of command. If they still deny you then go to JAG and an attorney will help you out.

Last edited by Linh; 02-06-2013 at 8:14 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 02-06-2013, 8:13 PM
Linh's Avatar
Linh Linh is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,251
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IXIVI View Post
It has to be ethical, moral, and legal.

BAM. LEGAL.

Can a Commander issue an order, preventing you from exercising a constitutional right?

NO. NOT LEGAL.

You cant exercise "Free Speech" in uniform. (just like you cant carry concealed in uniform) But you can (enlisted) exercise Free Speech on your own time in civilian clothes. (as long as you aren't a Commissioned Officer)

Trying to prevent CCW Off post out of Uniform is beyond bull. It cannot be legal.

A. Are you even in the military? If not then you'll never understand the military lifestyle.

B. If you are in the military then is today your first day one the job or something?

What's next?

overtime for working more than 8 hours?

Sue the military?
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 02-06-2013, 8:41 PM
IXIVI IXIVI is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: West Sacramento
Posts: 49
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

You must be Soldier too. Culture of Obedience I see. Disregard the fact that if you are a citizen of this Country, the constitution affords you rights that not even an almighty Army Lt. Col can keep from you. Just do it and obey. Legal or not.

Lets get real here. The Military can (and does) implement all manner of restrictions on its people. But each of those restrictions is conducted while complying with the United States Constitution.

If a restriction does not comply with the constitution, or other Federal Laws, it is therefore not a legal restriction. See my example as posted earlier. A Commander in California tried to restrict his personnel from participating in Open Carry meetings. SJA was contacted, and he was told to stand down. He was prevented from punishing his people for exercising their right as afforded by a State or Federal Law. Why in the name of Zeus's butthole would a Commander be allowed to prevent civilian concealed carry, if he cant prevent civilian open carry??????


How about we leave this discussion for another thread? Or just PM me, we can debate it some more elsewhere.....





The OP brought to the attention of Calguns, that MPs are now explicitly covered by the LEOSA.

I attempted to parlay my qualifications under LEOSA, into a civilian CCW with a county Sheriff that is notoriously anti-2A, and in doing so was informed that they dont care what Federal Law states. They also told me that I have the option to re-apply, no sooner than 1 whole year from date of denial.

I posted here to ask a legal opinion within the calguns LEO forum. Is a once a year application for CCW, or to refuse to take a CCW application, even legal??

Last edited by IXIVI; 02-06-2013 at 8:46 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 02-06-2013, 8:44 PM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,067
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

You can apply whenever you want, but unfortunately the policy of discretionary issue still persists.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 02-06-2013, 8:51 PM
Matt1984's Avatar
Matt1984 Matt1984 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Chino
Posts: 987
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IXIVI View Post
You must be Soldier too. Culture of Obedience I see. Disregard the fact that if you are a citizen of this Country, the constitution affords you rights that not even an almighty Army Lt. Col can keep from you. Just do it and obey. Legal or not.

Lets get real here. The Military can (and does) implement all manner of restrictions on its people. But each of those restrictions is conducted while complying with the United States Constitution.

If a restriction does not comply with the constitution, or other Federal Laws, it is therefore not a legal restriction. See my example as posted earlier. A Commander in California tried to restrict his personnel from participating in Open Carry meetings. SJA was contacted, and he was told to stand down. He was prevented from punishing his people for exercising their right as afforded by a State or Federal Law. Why in the name of Zeus's butthole would a Commander be allowed to prevent civilian concealed carry, if he cant prevent civilian open carry??????


How about we leave this discussion for another thread? Or just PM me, we can debate it some more elsewhere.....





The OP brought to the attention of Calguns, that MPs are now explicitly covered by the LEOSA.

I attempted to parlay my qualifications under LEOSA, into a civilian CCW with a county Sheriff that is notoriously anti-2A, and in doing so was informed that they dont care what Federal Law states. They also told me that I have the option to re-apply, no sooner than 1 whole year from date of denial.

I posted here to ask a legal opinion within the calguns LEO forum. Is a once a year application for CCW, or to refuse to take a CCW application, even legal??
Fight it then we will find out...case law be that example.
__________________
We need to ban water to stop the poor fat kids from drowning - Ted Nugent
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 02-06-2013, 8:57 PM
IXIVI IXIVI is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: West Sacramento
Posts: 49
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

It may be worth fighting, but then again, it may rendered moot if DoD issues some type of policy effectively circumventing the law. Or if they issue policy allowing compliance with the law too. DoD will come around with one thing or another, far sooner than a court would I'm sure!
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 02-07-2013, 1:16 PM
mej16489 mej16489 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,909
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
Can you explain how military ID (CAC), particularly with an accompanying arms room ID card or some such, would not be:
As mentioned by IXIVI below, a CAC isn't specific enough. Adding MOS onto the card would probably qualify, but I would still see many LEOs not believing you until someone tells them what the myriad of potential codes are.

The follow-on question also becomes, would that be 'Using a CAC in an authorized manner'

Quote:
Originally Posted by IXIVI View Post
The latest amendment clarifies the ID requirement by inserting that identifies the employee as a police officer or law enforcement officer of the agency that they work for

So no, CAC wont qualify unless they start putting MOS on the CAC.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 02-07-2013, 8:13 PM
IXIVI IXIVI is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: West Sacramento
Posts: 49
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
Can you explain how military ID (CAC), particularly with an accompanying arms room ID card or some such, would not be:
Just to follow up on this some more, It hit me today.... I've worked with a group of MPs that utilized a joint-service armory, and a specific Branch that borrowed armory space were issued weapons cards (arms room ID card) that contained a polaroid picture cutout sandwiched in between the laminated M9 or M4 card.

The purpose of the card was obviously for issue and turn in, but contained the individuals Unit name/rank/quals and nevertheless IDENTIFIED them as MPs. Under the requirements of the new amendment, absent a directive NOT to use this same card as ID for LEOSA, the weapons card would absolutely meet the qualifications for ID.

Sure, you would have some explaining to do if approached by a civilian LEO. Might even spend some time in restraints, but by the letter (and spirit) of the law, you would be exonerated.


In the end, using the weapons card would seem a bit desperate, maybe even looking for trouble. If you're one of those individuals who has a weapons card that contains a photo, I wouldn't recommend running around town with your off duty weapon just yet.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 02-07-2013, 8:34 PM
Linh's Avatar
Linh Linh is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,251
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Aren't you guys issued a badge? Oh but you don't have an ID that correspond with your badge? Let me guess the weapons card doesn't have your photo?

If you wanna play around then go ahead and be the test subject then when you get an article 15 go ahead and turn that down for a court martial.

We can talk about this all day. If you're in the "legal" zone then why are you on here asking questions.

There is a reason why the military doesn't issue you a weapon to take home, and they do for CID but not for MP. I'm pretty sure they have a reason for it.

If you wanna play with your career then bring it.

Oh with or without a directive/policy, I already got an article 15 in mind for you. I've typed thousands of those when I was in. Not going to hurt my feelings if you turn it down.

Last edited by Linh; 02-07-2013 at 8:38 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 02-07-2013, 9:02 PM
IXIVI IXIVI is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: West Sacramento
Posts: 49
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linh View Post
Aren't you guys issued a badge? Oh but you don't have an ID that correspond with your badge? Let me guess the weapons card doesn't have your photo?

If you wanna play around then go ahead and be the test subject then when you get an article 15 go ahead and turn that down for a court martial.

We can talk about this all day. If you're in the "legal" zone then why are you on here asking questions.

There is a reason why the military doesn't issue you a weapon to take home, and they do for CID but not for MP. I'm pretty sure they have a reason for it.

If you wanna play with your career then bring it.

Oh with or without a directive/policy, I already got an article 15 in mind for you. I've typed thousands of those when I was in. Not going to hurt my feelings if you turn it down.



I did not say that I want to play around and be a test subject. I was referring to another's post about weapons cards, and in fact warning against it.

You have twice now, berated like a tool for no reason. Its pretty obvious to me that you dance around with your fancy signature and gleaming AAMs because you want someone like me to believe that you were accomplished.

I would like to thank you for your service. Thank you for when you "were" in. Just know that I'm grateful you no longer serve.


And for the record, I do have a badge, and I do have an ID that corresponds with it.

For the sake of this thread, lets move on and share some productive information?
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 02-07-2013, 9:34 PM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,067
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mej16489 View Post
As mentioned by IXIVI below, a CAC isn't specific enough. Adding MOS onto the card would probably qualify, but I would still see many LEOs not believing you until someone tells them what the myriad of potential codes are.
The law reads
Quote:
The identification required by this subsection is the photographic identification issued by the governmental agency for which the individual is employed as a law enforcement officer.
Quote:
You seem to be under the impression that the law reads something like: The identification required by this subsection is the photographic identification issued by the governmental agency for which the individual is employed as a law enforcement officer which also identifies the bearer as a law enforcement officer under this section
That just isn't what the statute says. You are adding words to it that are not there. Let's break down what the requirements actually are, as per the statute:

1. The identification must be photographic. Check.
2. The identification must be issued by the governmental agency for which the individual is employed as a law enforcement officer. Check.
3. There is no 3. That's it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mej16489 View Post
The follow-on question also becomes, would that be 'Using a CAC in an authorized manner'
Show me the regulation that would be violated by using your CAC to identify yourself to a law enforcement officer as required by federal law.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linh View Post
Oh with or without a directive/policy, I already got an article 15 in mind for you.
Ok, what is the basis in the UCMJ for this article 15 you have in mind?
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 02-08-2013, 7:54 AM
Hornetsnest Hornetsnest is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: SoCal
Posts: 107
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
The law reads...



That just isn't what the statute says. You are adding words to it that are not there. Let's break down what the requirements actually are, as per the statute:

1. The identification must be photographic. Check.
2. The identification must be issued by the governmental agency for which the individual is employed as a law enforcement officer. Check.
3. There is no 3. That's it.
The law used to read that, which made it too broad. That issue was also addressed with the recent change to LEOSA. The law now reads...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornetsnest View Post
"(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)
Funny how so many are reading the new part about apprehension authority and the UCMJ and are completely ignoring the other parts of Sec 1089 of NDAA 2013.

Quote:
SEC. 1089. AMENDMENTS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER SAFETY PROVISIONS OF TITLE 18.

Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in section 926B--

(A) in subsection (c)(1), by inserting ‘or apprehension under section 807(b) of title 10, United States Code (article 7(b) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice)’ after ‘arrest’;

(B) in subsection (d), by striking ‘as a law enforcement officer’ and inserting ‘that identifies the employee as a police officer or law enforcement officer of the agency’; and

(C) in subsection (f), by inserting ‘or apprehension under section 807(b) of title 10, United States Code (article 7(b) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice)’ after ‘arrest’; and

(2) in section 926C--

(A) in subsection (c)(2), by inserting ‘or apprehension under section 807(b) of title 10, United States Code (article 7(b) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice)’ after ‘arrest’; and

(B) in subsection (d)--

(i) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘that indicates’ and inserting ‘that identifies the person as having been employed as a police officer or law enforcement officer and indicates’; and

(ii) in paragraph (2)(A), by inserting ‘that identifies the person as having been employed as a police officer or law enforcement officer’ after ‘officer’.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 02-08-2013, 10:45 AM
mej16489 mej16489 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,909
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
The law reads

That just isn't what the statute says. You are adding words to it that are not there. Let's break down what the requirements actually are, as per the statute:

1. The identification must be photographic. Check.
2. The identification must be issued by the governmental agency for which the individual is employed as a law enforcement officer. Check.
3. There is no 3. That's it.
The id requirements changed with the 2013 update - Covered by Hornetsnest already.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
Show me the regulation that would be violated by using your CAC to identify yourself to a law enforcement officer as required by federal law.
I actually don't have anything particular in mind - I was putting the question out there for the sake of discussion.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 02-08-2013, 3:17 PM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,067
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Ah yeah you are correct. I was focused on the UCMJ part, and when I looked up the actual law for the ID portion, westlaw was not updated. Well that's stupid, they included MPs but made the law so that MPs can't carry??
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 02-08-2013, 4:54 PM
IXIVI IXIVI is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: West Sacramento
Posts: 49
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
Ah yeah you are correct. I was focused on the UCMJ part, and when I looked up the actual law for the ID portion, westlaw was not updated. Well that's stupid, they included MPs but made the law so that MPs can't carry??

MPs can carry, absolutely. As long as they have proper ID!

As far as we all know, the Army, Air Force, and Navy, do not issue photo ID on a service level (why would they). But there are PLENTY of Units that issue their Military MPs and civilian 0083 DoD Police some type of photo ID to accompany their badge. PLENTY of them. I know firsthand....


The whole idea of Senator Leahy including MPs in the newest amendment, could not have been born with the knowledge (or LACK thereof) that DoD has no policy in place dealing with MP photo ID. It seems more likely that all the lawmakers that voted for the amendment (UNANIMOUS I might ad) just agreed to afford MPs the same protection under LEOSA, assuming that whatever stipulations they included, would be met and every intended person would have the right to carry.

It will be interesting to see how the individual services choose to deal with the issue, because it is after all, FEDERAL LAW.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 02-08-2013, 5:12 PM
Matt1984's Avatar
Matt1984 Matt1984 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Chino
Posts: 987
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IXIVI View Post
MPs can carry, absolutely. As long as they have proper ID!

As far as we all know, the Army, Air Force, and Navy, do not issue photo ID on a service level (why would they). But there are PLENTY of Units that issue their Military MPs and civilian 0083 DoD Police some type of photo ID to accompany their badge. PLENTY of them. I know firsthand....


The whole idea of Senator Leahy including MPs in the newest amendment, could not have been born with the knowledge (or LACK thereof) that DoD has no policy in place dealing with MP photo ID. It seems more likely that all the lawmakers that voted for the amendment (UNANIMOUS I might ad) just agreed to afford MPs the same protection under LEOSA, assuming that whatever stipulations they included, would be met and every intended person would have the right to carry.

It will be interesting to see how the individual services choose to deal with the issue, because it is after all, FEDERAL LAW.
You have to be that MP who had to buy that fake Mickey Mouse MP badge , just dying for something to make you feel like the strong Richard of the law
__________________
We need to ban water to stop the poor fat kids from drowning - Ted Nugent
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 12:52 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.