Federal Law Enforcement Question

[socalblue]

USAF contract security police are all 0085 status. At work they have essentially the same powers as regular Military Police (Not AFIS/CID). If a contractor handles any areas that are off a federal reserve they are also required to have a CA BSIS card w/firearm authority.

DOD could fix this easily but don't as it would cost them quite a bit more $$ if the these folks were certified as federal LEO status.

[Tacobandit]

USAF contract security police are all 0085 status. At work they have essentially the same powers as regular Military Police (Not AFIS/CID). If a contractor handles any areas that are off a federal reserve they are also required to have a CA BSIS card w/firearm authority.

DOD could fix this easily but don't as it would cost them quite a bit more $$ if the these folks were certified as federal LEO status.

Thats the answer then, if the op is an 0085 then he is not a federal LEO and does not fall under HR218.

[BigDogatPlay]

Actually individual Federal LE officers and agents can legitimately get a RAW if they meet the criteria. I know people who have them but they are Federal Agents (1811 series Special Agents) with 24 hour carry (regardless of HR218) and the legal right (*and* agency backing) to take action off duty as an agent (vs those carrying under HR218 who basically must act as a private citizen).

Criminal investigators in the 1811 series are a different animal in the federal system than uniformed law enforcement. They get way more latitude and authority through their employment, although California treats both classes pretty much the same as relates to authority.

And I'd wager, for the most part, that their weapons are issued to them. Given the tumble of the bureacracy, could a local SAC sign a RAW letter to CaDoJ? Or would that have to come from the agency head in D.C.? Given the politics of it all, I can imagine not too many agency heads would, but I don't really know.

[lrdchivalry]

Actually individual Federal LE officers and agents can legitimately get a RAW if they meet the criteria. I know people who have them but they are Federal Agents (1811 series Special Agents)

More than likely those weapons are issued. As a federal officer I know quite a few agents and none that I know have personal AW's, all are issued. Federal agencies are not required to write a letter to authorize an individual agent/officer to purchase a personal AW.

with 24 hour carry (regardless of HR218) and the legal right (*and* agency backing) to take action off duty as an agent.

First they wouldn't have a "right" to take action but possibly the authority to take action. I know when I was at FLETC, we were taught that federal agents and officers are not recognized as peace officers in the state of California, however, they could make arrest for state offenses if they had 832 type of training.

So what your agency sees you as (federal leo or just a security guard) can make a difference from the standpoint of part of what an agency head must affirm on a signed letterhead.

If your a security guard forget it happening and if your a federal leo, it depends on your agency, there is no requirement for an agency to write a letter and I know mine wouldn't.

[kw91364]

More than likely those weapons are issued. As a federal officer I know quite a few agents and none that I know have personal AW's, all are issued. Federal agencies are not required to write a letter to authorize an individual agent/officer to purchase a personal AW.

deleted

[lrdchivalry]

I'm 100% positive there are some 1811's with personally owned AR's purchased via a letterhead signed by their SAC (who do have the authority per CA DoJ).

I am sure there are, however, I do not know any.

Federal agents in California do need a letter to purchase a named assault weapon and can't purchase on their creds alone (which I think the previous poster agrees upon).

Huh? I never said that they didn't need a letter and can purchase with just their creds.

Will a SAC sign the letter? Many SAC's will sign the letter.

I never said they wouldn't, only that they are not required to provide a letter.

The other stuff was more geared toward HR218. The 'being able to act' was again geared around the agency blessing them to do it,

As I pointed out in my last post, federal agents and officers are not recognized as peace officers in the State of California and can only arrest for state crimes if they have PC 832 training. HR218 doesn't grant any authority other than carrying a concealed firearm

There are some uniformed folks who had 24 hour carry pre HR218, but I know at least one agency that REALLY restricts when they may act (with the agency's blessing) to be considered scoped.

And that agency is? I want to see if it's the one I am thinking about. If it's the same one, alot has changed.

But for those federal LEO's whose sole basis to be able to carry off duty is only HR218, they do so at their own risk in terms of any action they choose to take is on their own as a private citizen (i.e. agency is under no obligation to back you).

It can be debated whether an agency has to back an agent/officer who is carrying under HR218, however, generally I think carrying under HR218 is the same as carrying under a CCW, the agency is not obligated to back you under either law. An example would be an agency who only authorizes the carrying of their duty weapon off duty. The agent/officer still has 24 hour carry outside of HR218, however, if the federal agent/officer decides to carry another weapon under HR218 then they are on their own if sued, just as they would be if they had a CCW (as I have said, this is debatable).

[jimx]

My title is "guard" though we are cops.

So you are a guard....

[jeep7081]

So you are a guard....

[jeep7081]

Some reading for you:

http://ag.ca.gov/opinions/pdfs/97-505.pdf

http://ag.ca.gov/opinions/pdfs/01-1005.pdf

I haven't looked closely enough recently enough to have an opinion about your status at this time...

-Gene

This topic was brought up recently by my older daughter. Her husband is a LEO for the air force base. She stated he could carry a CCW while in California. Your links shows this to be true.

Thanks!

[kmrtnsn]

The OP is also not covered, as described below,

http://law.justia.com/codes/california/2010/pen/830-832.17.html