Tweet
If I'm a Master at Arms (Navy Police), has the authority to apprehend, enforce laws, has an issued picture ID that identifies me as a Navy Police Officer, do I fall under the HR218? I've read through the HR218, and cannot find anything that would make me not applicable. I've asked a few local LEO's and got back mixed results, ranging from, "Sure, you fall under HR218, why wouldn't you?", to, "Ummm, nope, and neither do the rent-a-cops at the mall". I've worked side by side with the local LEO's, FBI, NCIS on many situations, and they all seem to have different answers, so if anyone can help me out with the truth, I'd appreciate it. Thanks.
-
sigpic -
Would you like to be case law?
The answer right now is....
Nobody knows. There isn't any judicial notice on it yet. -
The CA DOJ Website states that if a person needs further information to find out if they qualify for HR-218 status, that they are to contact their employing agency for advice. Could JAG help you out with this one?Comment
-
I think this was brought up in court at least once in the case of a coastguardmen who was carrying under this dubious legislation.
IIRC, the court dismissed the charges against him but the CG punished him for violating their rules.bob
Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.Comment
-
Do you have credentials? If so then what do they say on them regarding the carrying of firearms?Comment
-
Refer to dept policy as that supercedes any law.NRA LIFE MEMBER
CRPA LIFE MEMBERComment
-
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
--Cesare, Marquis of Beccaria, "On Crimes and Punishment"Comment
-
I don't know but it must be pretty potent.
Exaggerated Policy:
Chief to troops: Effectively immediately all homeless and vagrants will be shot on sight.
Troops to Chief: But Chief isn't that against the law?
Chief to troops: Normally it would be, but since I've made it official department policy, it's not. And I have it on good authority that "dept. policy supercedes any law.Comment
-
Come on guys, let's not go down that road. We don't need the, "what are you smoking" and similar comments. Someone can just explain it doesn't work that way and leave it at that.
Thanks.
Comment
-
I dug back (way back) into my files and found my "Small Arms Hand Receipt", with which I drew my service weapon from the armory when assigned TAD to the former NAS Alameda Police in the mid-80's. On the back, two of the provisions might be on point for the OP's question:
2. Will use this weapon and ammunition in the performance of assigned duties in accordance with the provision of OPNAVINST 5510.45B.
3. Will return this weapon and ammunition to the appropriate weapons room upon completion of assigned duties.
OPNAVINST 5510.45B was (and I think still is) the Navy Physical Security Manual. That might be a good place for the OP to start. I'd be willing to bet that there is a good chance that somewhere in that instruction he will find that personnel are only authorized continuous possession of a weapon under specific circumstances. No authorization would seem to preclude any resort to the LEOSA (calling it HR218 is a misnomer as that is a bill designator; the body of law is entitled "Law Enforcement Officers' Safety Act" and designated 18 USC 926B regarding active officers, 18 USC 926C for retired officers).
If hand receipts are still used for weapons issue, and the language of provision 3 above appears on them, the OP is probably out of luck also. That language is even more specific.
Base Police had, at one time, authority off base if if there were an area in which concurrent jurisdiction has been agreed upon between military and civil authority (and in CA, the military personnel comply with PC 832). The off-base housing area of the former NAS Alameda was an example. I don't know if that arrangement existed elsewhere or if such arrangements are in existence now. Also at the same point in time, some military personnel assigned to the NAS Alameda Police worked in Investigations, in civilian clothing with weapons concealed. Don't know if that happens any more, either. At that time, those functions were separate from the MAA office, which concerned itself solely with enforcement of regulations on base.Last edited by Grumpyoldretiredcop; 10-25-2009, 6:31 PM.I'm retired. That's right, retired. I don't want to hear about the cop who stopped you today or how you didn't think you should get a ticket. That just makes me grumpy!Comment
-
I think one of the problems with the LEOSA is how broadly written it is. Based on your description of duties, I would say you qualify. It is irrelevant, with regard to LEOSA, where your powers of arrest begin and end geographically. To paraphrase the law, if you have statutory powers of arrest and are authorized to carry a firearm, you meet the definition of Qualified Officer. There is no cut and dry "this person qualifies, and this person doesn't".
I've seen discussions where people even claim that the LEOSA trumps department policy restricting officers from carrying off duty. The phrasing "any other provision of the law of any
State or any political subdivision thereof" appears in the text of the LEOSA. The rationale is that most LE agencies are a political subdivision of the state. This wouldn't apply to you because you work for the Navy, and not a state or local police department.Comment
-
I believe the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 would prevent you. The coast guard guy probably got off because there is an exception to the coast guard during peace time.Comment
There are currently 5458 users online. 181 members and 5277 guests.
Most users ever online was 65,177 at 7:20 PM on 09-21-2024.
Comment