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
  #81  
Old 02-08-2013, 5:25 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
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
I dont follow.

Why would an MP need a fake badge?

Does the Army not issue MP badges?


Another good point you bring up though -

The required ID for the purpose of LEOSA DOES NOT include a badge. Just photo ID identifying the individual as a Police Officer of the Agency that they work for.
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 02-08-2013, 5:38 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
I dont follow.

Why would an MP need a fake badge?

Does the Army not issue MP badges?


Another good point you bring up though -

The required ID for the purpose of LEOSA DOES NOT include a badge. Just photo ID identifying the individual as a Police Officer of the Agency that they work for.
NO! The army does not issue out badges to its MPs! Unless you are MPI, CID, or AWOL Apps. Are you on active or a reservist/guard? Look in the MP FM show me where the MP badges is brought into light? It's not! Only special assignments and that requires a 03 or higher to issue out the "green" creds to accompany that.
__________________
We need to ban water to stop the poor fat kids from drowning - Ted Nugent

Last edited by Matt1984; 02-08-2013 at 5:44 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 02-08-2013, 5:41 PM
Hornetsnest Hornetsnest is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: SoCal
Posts: 107
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IXIVI View Post
MPs can carry, absolutely. As long as they have proper ID!
Not quite yet. I get the whole "Its federal law now" thing. However, until the policy is done being revised, it is still against DoD (and therefore local agency policy) to exercise leosa unless you are one of the named sub-agencies with statuatory arrest authority.

Wait a minute...what "policy"?
DODI 5525.12 w/ch2 (14Sep2011) which outlines DoD LEOSA implementation and applies to all DoD components including the military branches.

So what...Doesn't trump federal law!
True...however, local agencies can take action against 0083s for an official policy violation, which could result in anything up to termination. Military members could be charged with Art 92 Failure to obey order or regulation (DODI 5525.12) and get NJPed for it. Now 0083s can get the union and lawyers involved afterwards and take it to arbitration or federal court. Military members can request a court martial. Maybe they win and maybe they loose. Yes they have the new federal law on their side, but it doesn't make it a slam dunk for the defense.

Anyone willing to risk their career and be the test case? Maybe individual commanders and police chiefs will do nothing to anyone caught because of the new federal law or maybe they will nit pick and push administrative/punitive action. Who really knows, but again do you want to risk your career and future employment prospects or are you willing to wait until the dust settles and the revised policies are published?
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 02-08-2013, 5:55 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
NO! The army does not issue out badges to its MPs! Unless you are MPI, CID, or AWOL Apps. Are you on active or a reservist/guard? Look in the MP FM show me where the MP badges is brought into light? It's not! Only special assignments and that requires a 03 or higher to issue out the "green" creds to accompany that.
Wow. I had no Idea. Remember a few posts back when I mentioned there is no US Army on my chest?

I honestly thought the Army issued them, JUST LIKE THE REST OF THE MILITARY.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 02-08-2013, 6:00 PM
Notorious's Avatar
Notorious Notorious is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,459
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

You mean this ain't the real deal?

__________________
Guns! More guns! I need more guns!
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 02-08-2013, 6:07 PM
Linh's Avatar
Linh Linh is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,251
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

You should ask this guy that question. His answer may or may not change.

http://www.justanswer.com/military-l...forcement.html
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 02-08-2013, 6:11 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 Notorious View Post
You mean this ain't the real deal?

No lol not issued to every mp only mpi AWOL apps and obviously CID has their own lol that's funny everyone thinks every mp gets one
__________________
We need to ban water to stop the poor fat kids from drowning - Ted Nugent
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 02-08-2013, 6:13 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
Wow. I had no Idea. Remember a few posts back when I mentioned there is no US Army on my chest?

I honestly thought the Army issued them, JUST LIKE THE REST OF THE MILITARY.
No they don't so why the big fuss about MPs I'm guessing you either a DACP/DOD?
__________________
We need to ban water to stop the poor fat kids from drowning - Ted Nugent
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 02-08-2013, 8:34 PM
IXIVI IXIVI is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: West Sacramento
Posts: 49
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornetsnest View Post
Not quite yet. I get the whole "Its federal law now" thing. However, until the policy is done being revised, it is still against DoD (and therefore local agency policy) to exercise leosa unless you are one of the named sub-agencies with statuatory arrest authority.

Wait a minute...what "policy"?
DODI 5525.12 w/ch2 (14Sep2011) which outlines DoD LEOSA implementation and applies to all DoD components including the military branches.

So what...Doesn't trump federal law!
True...however, local agencies can take action against 0083s for an official policy violation, which could result in anything up to termination. Military members could be charged with Art 92 Failure to obey order or regulation (DODI 5525.12) and get NJPed for it. Now 0083s can get the union and lawyers involved afterwards and take it to arbitration or federal court. Military members can request a court martial. Maybe they win and maybe they loose. Yes they have the new federal law on their side, but it doesn't make it a slam dunk for the defense.

Anyone willing to risk their career and be the test case? Maybe individual commanders and police chiefs will do nothing to anyone caught because of the new federal law or maybe they will nit pick and push administrative/punitive action. Who really knows, but again do you want to risk your career and future employment prospects or are you willing to wait until the dust settles and the revised policies are published?

5525.12 sure doesn't clear up the issue with lack of DoD guidance, as it applies to the new amendment.

The original, and latest version of 5525.12 was written expressly to apply to "statutory powers of arrest", of which, an MP has none.

The newest amendment to HR 218 obviously goes a step further than the 2010 amendment (and a step further than statutory arrest) by spelling out UCMJ authority, with the intention of including MPs.

As I have previously mentioned, the latest info on expected updated ID guidance to reflect the inclusion of 7(b) apprehension authority is due no sooner than December. Looks like wait and see.


Edit: I read through your post too fast Hornetsnest, I pretty much said what you just said.

Wait till the dust settles!

Last edited by IXIVI; 02-08-2013 at 8:37 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 02-08-2013, 9:51 PM
Doc Gunz's Avatar
Doc Gunz Doc Gunz is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Murrieta
Posts: 11
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Don't all military NCOs have authority to apprehend IAW the UCMJ?
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 02-08-2013, 9:56 PM
retired retired is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Riverside County
Posts: 9,153
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Some of you need to tone down your comments. Rude remarks that belittle another member are forbidden and may result in you taking a vacation from Calguns. It may also result in a permanent vacation from the leo forum.

Carry on an intelligent discussion, whether you agree with each other or not on how the various laws and policies apply and you are fine. Deviate from that and don't complain that you have not been warned.

Thank you in advance for your complete cooperation.

IXIVI, you might want to contact one of the Calguns Foundation Board members re the refusal by the Yolo County Sheriff of your CCW and advisement as to whether that one year wait to re-apply is legal. They may refer you elsewhere, but it would be a start.

Last edited by retired; 02-08-2013 at 10:01 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 02-08-2013, 9:56 PM
Doc Gunz's Avatar
Doc Gunz Doc Gunz is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Murrieta
Posts: 11
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Article 7 I believe.
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 02-08-2013, 10:03 PM
Doc Gunz's Avatar
Doc Gunz Doc Gunz is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Murrieta
Posts: 11
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

807. ART. 7. APPREHENSION
(a) Apprehension is the taking of a person into custody.
(c) Commissioned officers, warrant officers, petty officers, and noncommissioned officers have authority to quell quarrels, frays, and disorders among persons subject to this chapter and to apprehend persons subject to this chapter who take part therein.


Putting the two of these together, would SEEM to imply that for puropses of HR218, any member of the Armed Forces above the grade of E-4 would be considered a 'Qualified Law Enforcement Officer' and thus be subject to the benefits thereof. Additionally, MP/SP/MAA would seem to be similarly covered. There are other provisions (photo ID issued by a gov't agency, 'regular' training and authority to carry weapons that presumably, most members of the military meet by default. I understand that this was probably not the intent of the law, but whose fault is that?
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 02-08-2013, 10:27 PM
IXIVI IXIVI is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: West Sacramento
Posts: 49
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Gunz View Post
807. ART. 7. APPREHENSION
(a) Apprehension is the taking of a person into custody.
(c) Commissioned officers, warrant officers, petty officers, and noncommissioned officers have authority to quell quarrels, frays, and disorders among persons subject to this chapter and to apprehend persons subject to this chapter who take part therein.


Putting the two of these together, would SEEM to imply that for puropses of HR218, any member of the Armed Forces above the grade of E-4 would be considered a 'Qualified Law Enforcement Officer' and thus be subject to the benefits thereof. Additionally, MP/SP/MAA would seem to be similarly covered. There are other provisions (photo ID issued by a gov't agency, 'regular' training and authority to carry weapons that presumably, most members of the military meet by default. I understand that this was probably not the intent of the law, but whose fault is that?

Its been posted a few times on all 3 pages of this thread thus far.

Photo ID will need to "identify an individual as a law enforcement officer of the agency for which they work for". A regular NCO or Officer is not a Law Enforcement Officer of the Agency.

Also, look up MCM rule 302 (b) for clarification on who may apprehend under UCMJ.....

302

(b ) Who may apprehend. The following officials
may apprehend any person subject to trial by court-
martial:
(1 ) Military law enforcement officials. Security
police, military police, master at arms personnel,
members of the shore patrol
, and persons designated
by proper authorities to perform military criminal
investigative, guard, or police duties, whether subject
to the code or not, when in each of the foregoing
instances, the official making the apprehension
is in the execution of law enforcement duties
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 02-08-2013, 10:35 PM
Doc Gunz's Avatar
Doc Gunz Doc Gunz is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Murrieta
Posts: 11
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The following section covers Officers and NCOs.

(2) Commissioned, warrant, petty, and noncom*
missioned officers. All commissioned, warrant, pet*
ty, and noncommissioned officers on active duty or
inactive duty training;
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 02-08-2013, 10:40 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
Look in the MP FM show me where the MP badges is brought into light? It's not!
Hmm, maybe someone needs to re-read AR 670-1. Try para 27-16....
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 02-08-2013, 10:43 PM
IXIVI IXIVI is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: West Sacramento
Posts: 49
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

So it does. Be that as it may; they still are not a "Law Enforcement Officer of the Agency".
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 02-08-2013, 11:22 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
Hmm, maybe someone needs to re-read AR 670-1. Try para 27-16....
Right that states the wear of the badge during special events for example a military ball, but in fm 19-10 the regs clearly states the issuing of a mp badge to special assignments and that all other MPs will wear a bassard as a symbol of their official law enforcement capacity as a representative of the pmo only when authorized by the provost marshal
__________________
We need to ban water to stop the poor fat kids from drowning - Ted Nugent
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 02-08-2013, 11:29 PM
Matt1984's Avatar
Matt1984 Matt1984 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Chino
Posts: 987
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Also MPs don't wear their class B uniform on shift unless your on a special assignment and at that point you are still not wearing a badge. I believe the army is the only branch of the service that doesn't have a "badge" the Air Force has it sewn on their uniform and wear a Beret as well to identify them as security forces
__________________
We need to ban water to stop the poor fat kids from drowning - Ted Nugent
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 02-09-2013, 9:19 AM
diverwcw's Avatar
diverwcw diverwcw is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,056
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

Matt1984, it's interesting you would say that about MPs. I'm retired civilian law enforcement and my dealings with military people spanned the spectrum. They could be very stand up people who would go to the wall for you and on the other side, don't turn your back on some because they'll stick a knife between your shoulder blades. I shudder to think of some people who would be allowed to CCW under this thinking.
__________________

Front Sight Commander Member www.frontsight.com
NRA Benefactor Life Member www.nra.org
CRPA Life Member www.crpa.org

Last edited by diverwcw; 02-09-2013 at 9:21 AM.. Reason: spelling errors
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 02-09-2013, 8:23 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 diverwcw View Post
Matt1984, it's interesting you would say that about MPs. I'm retired civilian law enforcement and my dealings with military people spanned the spectrum. They could be very stand up people who would go to the wall for you and on the other side, don't turn your back on some because they'll stick a knife between your shoulder blades. I shudder to think of some people who would be allowed to CCW under this thinking.
I respect your viewpoint, but you have to understand I (an mp) know what is actually going on in the corp. I mention these things because during the era of two wars military police where considered the force of choice. They could help train local national police and conduct Maneuver support and combat operations. The only issue is that the mp corp was relatively small. In order to fill voids and support the new concepts of BCTs they waivered a lot of individuals who had criminal past or questionable behavior that where automatic disqualifiers for the mos of 31b. Well as a result a lot of bad apples where brought in to provide law enforcement to military communities. Ultimately this brought issues and questioned the integrity of a lot of MPs due to their behavior. Thank baby Jesus that the mp corp is finally cleaning house. Until this is done I would hold off in incorporating LEOSA to MPs along with implemented regulations. And as a leader and seeing things that I cannot obviously say I would wait till we can better screen our MPs. To put it in perspective would you feel safe if your local law enforcement agency only conducted background investigations on one out of ten officers? Don't you think there might be a breech in the integrity and ethics of your department. That's what happened
__________________
We need to ban water to stop the poor fat kids from drowning - Ted Nugent
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 02-09-2013, 9:23 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
I respect your viewpoint, but you have to understand I (an mp) know what is actually going on in the corp. I mention these things because during the era of two wars military police where considered the force of choice. They could help train local national police and conduct Maneuver support and combat operations. The only issue is that the mp corp was relatively small. In order to fill voids and support the new concepts of BCTs they waivered a lot of individuals who had criminal past or questionable behavior that where automatic disqualifiers for the mos of 31b. Well as a result a lot of bad apples where brought in to provide law enforcement to military communities. Ultimately this brought issues and questioned the integrity of a lot of MPs due to their behavior. Thank baby Jesus that the mp corp is finally cleaning house. Until this is done I would hold off in incorporating LEOSA to MPs along with implemented regulations. And as a leader and seeing things that I cannot obviously say I would wait till we can better screen our MPs. To put it in perspective would you feel safe if your local law enforcement agency only conducted background investigations on one out of ten officers? Don't you think there might be a breech in the integrity and ethics of your department. That's what happened

Matt! We finally agree brother!

Iraq and Afghanistan had put a huge strain on MP/SP career fields. So much so, that the Air Force Offered $60K re-enlistment bonus for their K9 Handlers for 4 straight years at one point. From 2002 to 2012, the retention bonus was no lower than $32K for a 4 year re-up. Thats how bad they needed to retain handlers, who eventually rotate back to regular SF jobs. K9 specifically, because of the augmentation of the Army that occurred in both campaigns, as the AF has many more dogs than the Army, and they all go to the same school. They are expected to perform the same function in combat. And they do.

What it all created though, was a lowering of the standards for admittance. Anyone could become a MP, or in the case of the AF, anyone could become a K9 handler. So I agree with your assessment that there may be quite a few dirtbags that were able to become everyday gun toters, and if the DoD were to comply with the LEOSA law as it stands, there would surely need to be some type of screening beyond standard training.

I do have to point out though, as far as LEOSA is concerned, participants do so solely of their own accord. Even the official DoD policy from way back when, that covered 1811s, CID/OSI/NCIS made that clear. There was and will be no affiliation with DoD (beyond the qualification) if you choose to protect yourself under the law. Something to consider.

I wonder though, whats your reference to one in 10 background checks?
The Air Force and Navy require at least a Secret clearance for nearly every single MP/MA assignment. Even at installations without priority resources like nukes, bombers, awacs.... Army not the same?
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 02-09-2013, 9:54 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
Matt! We finally agree brother!

Iraq and Afghanistan had put a huge strain on MP/SP career fields. So much so, that the Air Force Offered $60K re-enlistment bonus for their K9 Handlers for 4 straight years at one point. From 2002 to 2012, the retention bonus was no lower than $32K for a 4 year re-up. Thats how bad they needed to retain handlers, who eventually rotate back to regular SF jobs. K9 specifically, because of the augmentation of the Army that occurred in both campaigns, as the AF has many more dogs than the Army, and they all go to the same school. They are expected to perform the same function in combat. And they do.

What it all created though, was a lowering of the standards for admittance. Anyone could become a MP, or in the case of the AF, anyone could become a K9 handler. So I agree with your assessment that there may be quite a few dirtbags that were able to become everyday gun toters, and if the DoD were to comply with the LEOSA law as it stands, there would surely need to be some type of screening beyond standard training.

I do have to point out though, as far as LEOSA is concerned, participants do so solely of their own accord. Even the official DoD policy from way back when, that covered 1811s, CID/OSI/NCIS made that clear. There was and will be no affiliation with DoD (beyond the qualification) if you choose to protect yourself under the law. Something to consider.

I wonder though, whats your reference to one in 10 background checks?
The Air Force and Navy require at least a Secret clearance for nearly every single MP/MA assignment. Even at installations without priority resources like nukes, bombers, awacs.... Army not the same?
Lol glad we agree on something, I referenced that because during the waiver process of substandard entries the "waiver" meant that the issue in question could not be taken into consideration during the adjudication process of your clearance. Imagine if law enforcement agencies just turned a blind eye to recent negative behavior and hired officers? We are human and make mistakes/growing pains but some MP recruits had questionable behavior up to the day they enlisted.
__________________
We need to ban water to stop the poor fat kids from drowning - Ted Nugent
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 02-09-2013, 10:00 PM
AFK9Cop AFK9Cop is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 8
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The AF definitely needs to clean house with some of these new SF coming in. And dont get me started on K9 and how everyone and their mom wants to do it just for the bonus.
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 02-20-2013, 5:39 PM
IXIVI IXIVI is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: West Sacramento
Posts: 49
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Stand by to Stand by.

DoD issued guidance this week, to all Direct Reporting Units....

"LEOSA qualifies all active MPs/Civilian MPs, and anyone who is retired or honorably separated after 10 years of service as an MP will be authorized to carry under LEOSA"

"Language is being drafted now, stand by for further info on implementation"
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 02-28-2013, 4:43 PM
retiredAFcop retiredAFcop is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: East Bay
Posts: 1,969
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Info on Air Force cop site I still drop in on every now and then is that for USAF SF and retired SP/SF there is an Air Force policy being set up to determine eligibility, issue IDs, etc. It will be (at least) a number of months (2014?) before the bureaucracy is in place, and then it will be a matter of doing the paperwork, checking off the boxes, and getting the credentials.

For USAF retirees, the word I got is that you must be honorably retired, and have at least 10 years of SP/SF experience, or have been retired early due to service connected/line of duty disability.
__________________
“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter” ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

If you are an American who is not subject to the UCMJ, then you are a civilian. It is disrespectful to our military members to claim otherwise.

Demanding that LEOs be held to a high standard of professional conduct is a show of respect for the LE profession. Let's all be respectful.

Last edited by retiredAFcop; 02-28-2013 at 5:06 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 02-28-2013, 5:05 PM
retiredAFcop retiredAFcop is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: East Bay
Posts: 1,969
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?
Army MPs are not generally issued a badge (others have explained what MPs get badges).

Air Force Security Forces are issued a numbered badge upon graduation from the academy, and are (technically) required to return it to the USAF when they leave the service, unless they are authorized to keep it (letter from commander). It may only be retirees who get to keep their badge, even with a commander's letter - I'm a bit fuzzy on the regs, but had seen it and made sure to look it up and go through the correct process when I retired.
The USAF also has Plain (not numbered) metal badges which are the ones generally worn on your service uniform, and cloth (not numbered) badges worn on utility uniforms like BDUs (yes, I am showing my age with that reference).

The badge number does not correspond to any number on your military ID or unit weapons card.
__________________
“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter” ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

If you are an American who is not subject to the UCMJ, then you are a civilian. It is disrespectful to our military members to claim otherwise.

Demanding that LEOs be held to a high standard of professional conduct is a show of respect for the LE profession. Let's all be respectful.
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 02-28-2013, 6:15 PM
Zekethedog Zekethedog is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 40
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Hello,

As a former MP (Marine) I have some questions. Will MP be allowed to CCW on base? Also, the question about storing weapons in the barracks?

As I remember the Provost Marshal granted me the right to carry a firearm on duty and placed specific limits on that ability.
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 02-28-2013, 8:10 PM
retiredAFcop retiredAFcop is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: East Bay
Posts: 1,969
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zekethedog View Post
Hello,

As a former MP (Marine) I have some questions. Will MP be allowed to CCW on base? Also, the question about storing weapons in the barracks?

As I remember the Provost Marshal granted me the right to carry a firearm on duty and placed specific limits on that ability.
While the LEOSA specifically states that private property owners can prohibit possession on their property, and state and local governments can prohibit carry on government property and installations, a quick scan doesn't seem to indicate anything about federal property.

I'm guessing that installation commanders will retain the authority to establish prohibited places on the installation.
__________________
“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter” ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

If you are an American who is not subject to the UCMJ, then you are a civilian. It is disrespectful to our military members to claim otherwise.

Demanding that LEOs be held to a high standard of professional conduct is a show of respect for the LE profession. Let's all be respectful.
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 03-01-2013, 5:54 AM
tanksoldier tanksoldier is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 202
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mej16489 View Post
Its all going to come down to having proper ID.
Actually, for officers, warrant officers and NCO/POs a military ID card is sufficient:

From LEOSA:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=695756

(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'

From Article 7(b) of the UCMJ:

(b) Any person authorized under regulations governing the armed forces to apprehend persons subject to this chapter or to trial thereunder may do so upon reasonable belief that an offense has been committed and that the person apprehended committed it.

From AR 600-20:

http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r600_20.pdf

4–5. Maintenance of order
Army and Marine Corps military police, Air Force security police, and members of the Navy and Coast Guard shore
patrols are authorized and directed to apprehend Armed Forces members who commit offenses punishable under the
UCMJ. Officers, WOs, NCOs, and petty officers of the Armed Forces are authorized and directed to quell all quarrels,
frays, and disorders among persons subject to military law and to apprehend participants. Those exercising this
authority should do so with judgment and tact. Personnel so apprehended will be returned to the jurisdiction of their
respective Service as soon as practical.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AFK9Cop View Post
Yes, all military NCO's have authority to apprehend, but it applies only to "quell quarrels and frays". I don't think they are covered under LEOSA unless the MOS/Rate/AFSC of the particular NCO is in fact Military Police/ Master at Arms/ Security Forces. But then again, I'm not a lawyer and I didn't write the bill.
Read the language of LEOSA itself:

(1) is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and has statutory powers of arrest;
__________________
"I am a Soldier. I fight were I'm told and I win where I fight." GEN George S. Patton, Jr.

Last edited by tanksoldier; 03-01-2013 at 5:59 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 03-01-2013, 7:11 AM
IXIVI IXIVI is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: West Sacramento
Posts: 49
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tanksoldier View Post
Actually, for officers, warrant officers and NCO/POs a military ID card is sufficient:

From LEOSA:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=695756

(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'

From Article 7(b) of the UCMJ:

(b) Any person authorized under regulations governing the armed forces to apprehend persons subject to this chapter or to trial thereunder may do so upon reasonable belief that an offense has been committed and that the person apprehended committed it.

From AR 600-20:

http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r600_20.pdf

4–5. Maintenance of order
Army and Marine Corps military police, Air Force security police, and members of the Navy and Coast Guard shore
patrols are authorized and directed to apprehend Armed Forces members who commit offenses punishable under the
UCMJ. Officers, WOs, NCOs, and petty officers of the Armed Forces are authorized and directed to quell all quarrels,
frays, and disorders among persons subject to military law and to apprehend participants. Those exercising this
authority should do so with judgment and tact. Personnel so apprehended will be returned to the jurisdiction of their
respective Service as soon as practical.




Read the language of LEOSA itself:

(1) is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and has statutory powers of arrest;
Still a big negative.

Its been mentioned 5 or 6 times in this post alone. To qualify under LEOSA, as SP/MP do, you must have identification that identifies you as a POLICE OFFICER for the agency that you work for. A CAC card does not ID anyone as a Police Officer. The DoD requires specific ID, supplemental to the CAC card, also as outlined earlier in this post.
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 03-01-2013, 8:31 AM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 3,816
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by retiredAFcop View Post
While the LEOSA specifically states that private property owners can prohibit possession on their property, and state and local governments can prohibit carry on government property and installations, a quick scan doesn't seem to indicate anything about federal property.

I'm guessing that installation commanders will retain the authority to establish prohibited places on the installation.
Sir,

I beleive that you're mistaken in the bolded content above. LEOSA allows states to enforce laws that allow private property owners to prohibit possession on their property. Some states have such laws laws, others do not.

LEOSA only grants this power to the state. It does not grant that power to private property owners.
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 03-01-2013, 8:46 AM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 3,816
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IXIVI View Post
Still a big negative.

Its been mentioned 5 or 6 times in this post alone. To qualify under LEOSA, as SP/MP do, you must have identification that identifies you as a POLICE OFFICER for the agency that you work for. A CAC card does not ID anyone as a Police Officer. The DoD requires specific ID, supplemental to the CAC card, also as outlined earlier in this post.
Sir,

The language used in 18 USC 926B does not specifically require the wording "Police Officer" to appear on the ID card. The term used in the statute is "Photographic identification ....that identifies the employee as a police officer or law enforcement officer of the agency."

The lack of a specific wording requirement became an issue regarding Coast Guard folks when LEOSA first came out. The Coast Guard was unique because its members (E-4 and above) possess regular "powers of arrest" and except for a small number of special agents, do not possess a badge or ID other than a CAC. Many argued that the CAC card showing the member was an E-4 or above and a member of the USCG satisfied the "identifies the employee as a law enforcement officer of the agency" since no other conclusion could be reached under the law.

The Coast Guard has since published internal policy recognizing that LEOSA applies to its members who regularly perform LE duties and meet other internal requirements.

Only two CG members that I am aware of have been to court. The above argument was persuasive to both courts. There have been no published cases and other courts could go either way.

My point is please don't read more content into the law than is there.
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 03-01-2013, 9:05 AM
IXIVI IXIVI is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: West Sacramento
Posts: 49
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

You're right. It doesn't require police officer, but does require I'd that specifies law enforcement officer of the agency. A CAC doesn't do this.
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 03-01-2013, 9:14 AM
IXIVI IXIVI is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: West Sacramento
Posts: 49
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Damn.Sorry, didn't read the whole post and I can't edit from my phone...

In any case, the CG members situations took place before the DoD had a policy applying to LEOSA. That policy, which as of now only references criminal investigators, makes it pretty obvious that Only LE MOS will qualify and not the gimmick of any NCO that can apprehend.
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 03-01-2013, 9:20 AM
IXIVI IXIVI is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: West Sacramento
Posts: 49
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I'm reading this post again, and thinking out loud. How the heck can the ID requirement of "identifying as a police officer" be accomplished without mentioning police on the ID?? Kinda just throws out the idea that Police Officer isn't required on the ID right??
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 03-01-2013, 10:51 AM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 3,816
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IXIVI View Post
I'm reading this post again, and thinking out loud. How the heck can the ID requirement of "identifying as a police officer" be accomplished without mentioning police on the ID?? Kinda just throws out the idea that Police Officer isn't required on the ID right??
Don't fall into the trap of expecting laws to make sense. A lot of them do not. The fact that a requirement should exist to facilitate the application of a law does not create such a requirement. As a young Coast Guard boarding officer I was charged with the enforcement of the Magnuson Fisheries Conservation Act. It imposed very significant and specific record keeping requirements on foreign fishing vessels. We would board these vessels and compare the amount of fish product on board with the amount in those detailed records. A lot of thought when into the design of those records, and to ensure they met conservation goals and enforcement practices. I'm sure the congressional staff folks in D.C. were proud of he system they designed. The primary nationalities of the vessels we boarded were Russian, Polish, Japanese and Korean. Did I mention that there was no requirement in the law for those detailed records to be maintained in the English language?

As to your earlier post about the DoD publishing internal policy governing the application of LEOSA to its personnel, please remember that the SecDef can issue orders governing the conduct of DoD personnel, and he can sanction those who violate such orders, but he cannot change the terms of a federal statute.

Last edited by RickD427; 03-01-2013 at 10:57 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 03-01-2013, 11:29 AM
IXIVI IXIVI is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: West Sacramento
Posts: 49
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I agree the DoD can and will comply with the federal law, but it will come with additional requirements, including a photo id that declares the individual a qualified officer law enforcement officer, just as 5512 already requires.
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 03-01-2013, 11:59 AM
retiredAFcop retiredAFcop is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: East Bay
Posts: 1,969
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
Sir,

I beleive that you're mistaken in the bolded content above. LEOSA allows states to enforce laws that allow private property owners to prohibit possession on their property. Some states have such laws laws, others do not.

LEOSA only grants this power to the state. It does not grant that power to private property owners.
Thanks for pointing that out. It is a small, but possibly important difference.
__________________
“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter” ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

If you are an American who is not subject to the UCMJ, then you are a civilian. It is disrespectful to our military members to claim otherwise.

Demanding that LEOs be held to a high standard of professional conduct is a show of respect for the LE profession. Let's all be respectful.
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 03-01-2013, 12:08 PM
retiredAFcop retiredAFcop is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: East Bay
Posts: 1,969
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IXIVI View Post
I'm reading this post again, and thinking out loud. How the heck can the ID requirement of "identifying as a police officer" be accomplished without mentioning police on the ID?? Kinda just throws out the idea that Police Officer isn't required on the ID right??
That is one reason why this will take a while for the military services to implement. They will have to come up with an LE ID that meets LEOSA standards (or decide not to, thus not allowing their cops to participate), and come up with a policy regarding issue to both active and retired members who qualify.

We'll see if the branches cooperate to create a common card, or if each do their own.

Given the history with the USCG, I suspect that their attempts to set a definitive policy are one of the reasons this amendment was introduced - but I could be completely wrong about that (wouldn't be the first time a "makes sense" explanation turned out to be incorrect).
__________________
“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter” ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

If you are an American who is not subject to the UCMJ, then you are a civilian. It is disrespectful to our military members to claim otherwise.

Demanding that LEOs be held to a high standard of professional conduct is a show of respect for the LE profession. Let's all be respectful.
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 6:04 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.