Navy Police & HR218 question

[Big D]

Refer to dept policy as that supercedes any law.

Makes sense to me. He's saying that department policies can be more stringent than law. Example: Qualified Law Enforcement officers are permitted by law to carry concealed firearms off duty. However an individual department can have policies that regulate which weapons are carried, or how they are carried.

[ilbob]

Refer to dept policy as that supercedes any law.

No. But he could still be punished by his department if carrying off duty is against their rules. He might not be in violation of the CC laws though.

[AvyDriver]

ST5MF is correct.

Since you are trained at Lackland I am going to venture to guess you have the same policies dictating your LEO rights as I did when I was AF Security Forces. In other words you have rights set forth by your base commander or provost marshal and those rights only extend off the base as the previous entities have an agreement with the locals. As far as your LEO right they only extend to military personel and property, once off base there goes the property therefore no leo rights. The law and the judge MAY rule in your favor but your command will make an example because its against policy.

Also I believe the comment about policy supersedes law I believe they meant can be more strict then law, not go against the law. Which is correct. Short answer is legally not sure, according to the Dept of the Navy, hell no!

Oh a good example would be NCIS, there are two kind. Civilian and enlisted, civilian retirees will get federal law enforcement retiree rights. Meaning right to carry, retiree creds etc., enlisted get nothing in the form of LEO rights. Same as OSI and CID.

[desertram800]

Thanks for all the replies, I wasn't expecting this many this quickly! hahah! Anyhow, as far as the Posse Comm comment, I understand that I have zero LE capabilities off base, however the HR218 was not designed for LEO's to be able to enforce the law off duty. It was designed because LEO's make lots of enemies by the nature of the job. I've personally had instances where I was the primary on a case where a high ranking enlisted individual did something wrong, gets court martialed, kicked out, entire family with kids kicked out of housing, and then I run into them out in town somewhere. I've had to leave the mall because said individual was creating a scene in front of everyone, crying and screaming at me, and starting to get violent. The HR218 is for self defense, hence "Law Enforcement Safety Act".

As far as the command policy superseding law...ummmmmmmm, I don't think that one will hold up in court! Hahah! Anyhow, I've even asked my local JAG, and their response was that they Navy will not protect me if I get into an altercation that requires me to draw and use a CCW, however if I am legally able to CCW that they can't stop me. So pretty much, they were telling me that they didn't know the answer to my question. I understand that my privileges don't extend past the property line, (depending on jurisdiction), but the HR218 is not jurisdiction dependent. An officer from Florida can CCW in CA for instance, even though he's way outside his jurisdiction...

AvyDriver, I wasn't trained in Lackland, or by the AF. I went through training in Little Creek, by civilians, so I don't know if it was even the same curriculum. However, judging by the caliber of the "booters" comming straight from Lackland, I'd say that the course has gone straight downhill. I'd say 99% of the kids comming out of Lackland lately won't even know what the Posse Comitatus Act is, or what the Miranda Rights/Article 31B Rights are. It's a darn shame.

This is discouraging because even after asking the JAG, the local LEO's, and my supervisors, and I can't get an answer with paper to back it up. I've even been eating at IHOP (after a swing shift) with a bunch of local LEO's, and they all started talking about what they were carrying for off duty CCW's, and they were amazed that I wasn't carrying anything!

[sc_expg]

In order to be covered as a "qualified law enforcement officer," a person must meet each and every one of the following criteria: He or she must be (1) "an employee of a governmental agency"; (2) "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"; (3) have "statutory powers of arrest"; (4) "authorized by the agency to carry a firearm"; (5) "not the subject of any disciplinary action by the agency"; (6) "meets standards, if any, established by the agency which require the employee to regularly qualify in the use of a firearm"; and (7) "not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm." In addition, the privilege conferred by the law applies only when the individual "is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance.

[Tminor]

I think Unit74 had it right.

Nobody knows. And no one wants to the subject of case law.

Err on the side of caution and don't do it.

[AvyDriver]

desertram,

Its a darn shame to hear about the guys coming from Lackland. When I was there it was a brand new program for the Navy and was a light version of what we got as a test subject for those classes. Now back to the case at hand.

If you get a CCW to carry off duty, your right there is nothing they can do because your abiding by the law however I still dont think you will be covered under the act but under the teachings of your CCW statutes. Here is something to think about, I am a federal law enforcement officer with the right to carry nationwide. I can legally carry my 1911 if I wanted to however my agencies procedures dictate that we carry one of the three firearms they give us to be covered by them. What does this mean to me? If I was to get in a shooting, I would be on my own even if I was acting legally and under the color of the law. That is basically where you would fall with your CCW so if that is the route you wish to take I highly recommend you get proffesional liability insurance. The CCW will allow you to carry but it wont be because of HR218 so you are sort of side stepping the issue, which is fine. However you wont be able to carry in any old state you want, just where that CCW is accepted.

[scarry scarney]

HR 3752

Check out HR3752, sponsored by Congressman J. Randy Forbes. HR3752 addresses the right to carry a concealed weapon to current and retired law enforcement officers for branches of the Armed Forces.

[AvyDriver]

Egads! While I understand his reasoning and there is a good handful of people in the branch career field that want to be there and have every right to be a Mil LEO there are a whole bunch that dont. As DesertRam himself said, most those guys coming out of Lackland are tools (my wording).

[desertram800]

Scarry, I checked out the HR3752 and I can't find anything real concrete on it. A lot of talk about it, but no actual text, or if it has been passed or not? I did see this:

"Additionally, the bill would extend the right to carry a concealed weapon to current and retired law enforcement officers for a branch of the United States Armed Forces. "

So it sounds positive! Any more info on it?

[desertram800]

Just found this:

"`(f) In this section, the term `service with a public agency as a law enforcement officer' includes service as a law enforcement officer of the Amtrak Police Department, service as a law enforcement officer of the Federal Reserve System, service as a law enforcement officer or in a primarily law enforcement capacity for a branch of the United States Armed Forces, or as a law enforcement or police officer of the executive branch of the Federal Government.'."

Any word if this has passed or not?

[scarry scarney]

HR3752

I read about HR3752 in this weeks Blackwater newsletter. I have not heard that it has passed the house yet. I hope it does. It also clarifies retired concealed carry.

[AvyDriver]

Amtrak doesnt even let Amtrak police carry guns anymore in some areas.

[Mr. Beretta]

First off, thank you for your service to our country!

2nd ...Your current job / position isn't mentioned nor recognized as a "peace officer" in California Penal Sections 830 to 832.17.

Thus no HR218.

Good Luck!

[Big D]

First off, thank you for your service to our country!

2nd ...Your current job / position isn't mentioned nor recognized as a "peace officer" in California Penal Sections 830 to 832.17.

Thus no HR218.

Good Luck!

What does a california penal code that outlines who are california peace officers have to do with a federal law?