MPs covered under LEOSA now?

[hitman13]

Or am I reading this wrong?

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr4310enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr4310enr.pdf?goback=.gde_4755348_member_201669744

Page 339-340


Someone on ARFcom alerted me to the modification / amendment. What say ye? I'm not hip on all the legalese of what is / isn't a MP.....

[NuGunner]

Or am I reading this wrong?

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr4310enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr4310enr.pdf?goback=.gde_4755348_member_201669744

Page 339-340


Someone on ARFcom alerted me to the modification / amendment. What say ye? I'm not hip on all the legalese of what is / isn't a MP.....

I hate reading through all that garble...so confusing. I'm no lawyer but based off that language alone, there looks like there may be a chance they are.

Maybe someone who's willing to read through all the referenced sections, or a lawyer can chime in.

[urbancommando]

A NY judge ruled i think 2 years ago the a coast guard boarding officer qualified s being covered because he met all the requirements. I dont see why an mp wouldnt

[Notorious]

The coast guard officer did, but there was a very specific fact pattern and holding and not all military positions would qualify based on that ruling... also, I don't believe it has any precedential value as it was a trial level ruling, unless I am mistaken.

Then again, as we all know, LEOSA is one thing, but agencies can do their own thing with policies and it's all up in the air until someone volunteers to be the test case.

[urbancommando]

The coast guard officer did, but there was a very specific fact pattern and holding and not all military positions would qualify based on that ruling... also, I don't believe it has any precedential value as it was a trial level ruling, unless I am mistaken.

Then again, as we all know, LEOSA is one thing, but agencies can do their own thing with policies and it's all up in the air until someone volunteers to be the test case.

Your right it would probably take an MP as a test case to clarify it, however that case did set precedent even at a low court level and it would take an appeals judge to overturn it, right now it could be used an affirmative defense if an MP was arrested for CCW.

[kermit315]

The way it was explained to me is that if the MP/MA was credentialed, they would be good to go, under the latest revision. How that will parse out in the real world is another story, however.

ETA: Not all bases/commands in the Navy will credential their MA's, so it is quite possible to be an MA and still not be covered under this. Cant speak as to other branches.

[urbancommando]

I also know that the navy is even trying to keep their civilian DOD cops from carrying off duty.

[mej16489]

Its all going to come down to having proper ID.

For the various investigative services (NCIS, AFOSI, etc) I think its a no-brainer that they meet the requirements and have the ID.

For the myriad of civilian security forces used for .mil purposes coverage has been hit and miss and has primarily revolved around photo id requirements - most don't meet that requirement.

The 2013 changes definitely seem to extend that .mil security forces (MPs, SPs, etc) now meet the requirements - but I think it will hinge on the id requirements...I know quite a few AF SPs and I'm pretty sure (but I don't know for certain) that they do not have proper id. I'll see if I can find out.

[Eric B]

I wouldn't do a damn thing that my CoC didn't bless, and bless in written policy. Doing so could be a swift end to a career.

That being said, I can't imagine that there is a single solitary commander that would authorize it.

[mej16489]

I wouldn't do a damn thing that my CoC didn't bless, and bless in written policy. Doing so could be a swift end to a career.

That being said, I can't imagine that there is a single solitary commander that would authorize it.

Yes. I find it sad that 99% of the most vehement anti-gunners I know are high-ranking military officers.

[RickD427]

IANAL - please keep that in mind.

I did read the words contained in the bill and they appear to have that effect.

However, I also checked the current version of the U.S. Code and do note find the changes proposed in this copy of the bill to have been made in the code.

That leads me to believe that this version of the 2013 Defense Funding Bill may not be the latest version.

[Notorious]

Your right it would probably take an MP as a test case to clarify it, however that case did set precedent even at a low court level and it would take an appeals judge to overturn it, right now it could be used an affirmative defense if an MP was arrested for CCW.

Not really. That would only work in that exact same District where the Court resides and even then, the judge in the same District can even hold differently if he can distinguish a different set of operating facts.

A trial level court (District court in federal parlance) in another District can hold one way and a trial court here can hold another way. Trial court holdings are persuasive authority, not precedential authority. Only published decisions of appeals courts become precedent.

Even Circuit appeals courts can hold different ways in different Circuits, like how the 9th can make decisions different from all other Circuits, which eventually brings the controversy to the Supreme Court for final clarification and when they make a decision, it brings consistency across the nation.

[RickD427]

Not really. That would only work in that exact same District where the Court resides and even then, the judge in the same District can even hold differently if he can distinguish a different set of operating facts.

A trial level court (District court in federal parlance) in another District can hold one way and a trial court here can hold another way. Trial court holdings are persuasive authority, not precedential authority. Only published decisions of appeals courts become precedent.

Even Circuit appeals courts can hold different ways in different Circuits, like how the 9th can make decisions different from all other Circuits, which eventually brings the controversy to the Supreme Court for final clarification and when they make a decision, it brings consistency across the nation.

^^^^^THIS^^^^^^

Additionally, the Coast Guard case was unique in that Coast Guard officers and petty officers possess civilian powers of arrest (as opposed to UCMJ authority).

In the case of Army and Air Force personnel, there is an unresolved question as to whether the Posse Comitatus act would prohibit their personnel from possessing the arrest powers needed to qualify under LEOSA.

[Alpha S3v3N]

Key words are "security forces" and "apprehension powers" that's what will qualify a military mp to carry concealed. This bill does not give the mp arresting powers nor does is say or imply that the military is going to be used to police civilians. All it does is, allow military personnel who are part of a full time security force, to carry concealed for personal protection.

[Alpha S3v3N]

I also forgot to include that they have to be in a position in which they enforce UCMJ. Which Security Forces do