MPs covered under LEOSA now?

[retiredAFcop]

Actually, for officers, warrant officers and NCO/POs a military ID card is sufficient:

Not quite. Read it again, focus on the part that I've made bold, and read the LEOSA quoate with the amendment added (in green).

From LEOSA:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.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 or apprehension under section 807(b) of title 10, United States Code (article 7(b) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice)

LEOSA then continues with these additional qualifications:

(2) is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm;

`(3) is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the agency;

`(4) meets standards, if any, established by the agency which require the employee to regularly qualify in the use of a firearm;

`(5) is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance; and

`(6) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm.

`(d) The identification required by this subsection is the photographic identification issued by the governmental agency for which the individual is employed as a law enforcement officer.

It seems like the source of confusion is that there are general powers of apprehension under the UCMJ granted to military LE in section 807(b) art 7(b), and specific powers of apprehension (under service regulations? Have to check the UCMJ/MCM for specifics) granted to NCOs, WOs, and Officers in section 807(b) art 7(c).


art 7(b) is in green (good to go)
art 7(c) is in red (stop, no cookie for you today)

US Code - Section 807: Art. 7. Apprehension
(a) Apprehension is the taking of a person into custody. (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. (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. - See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/1....8DgrBeXw.dpuf

Also, don't forget this part, which states a requirement that the person by employed as an LEO (i.e. MP, SP/SF, MoA, ACID, AFOSI, NCIS, etc.)

The identification required by this subsection is the photographic identification issued by the governmental agency for which the individual is employed as a law enforcement officer.

Section 807 art 7 (c) is pretty much the military equivalent to a "citizen's arrest" in the civilian world. Citizen's in most/all (Probably all, since the concept comes from English common law) states have limited powers of arrest, but that does not make them LEOs.

California Penal Code Section 837 states, "A private person may arrest another: (1) For a public offense committed or attempted in his presence. (2) When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in his presence. (3) When a felony has been in fact committed, and he has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it." A Public Offense is a felony, misdemeanor or infraction. (PC Sec. 16). In other words, a person in California who is not a law official or police officer can make what is commonly called a "citizen's arrest" if he or she witnesses a crime.

CA PC 837 does not make every citizen an LEO, cop, or Peace Officer, even though it specifies that all citizens do have specific and limited powers of arrest.

[IXIVI]

I can't find it right now, but when I get home this afternoon I will share the link to the official press release on the amendment that covers MPs... the senator that introduced the text clearly states the purpose of the amendment is to put military LEOs on equal footing with their civilian counterparts as was intended with the initial 2004 LEOSA ( but not clarified until now)

[RickD427]

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.

That's quite correct. My point is that if DoD personnel violate those "additional requirements", all that is violated is the DoD requirement. LEOSA itself would not be violated.

[IXIVI]

The Webb-Leahy amendment would allow Department of Defense law enforcement officers to meet the criteria necessary to be eligible for coverage under LEOSA, the 2004 law that permits active and qualified retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms across state lines. Senator Leahy was a lead author of the original LEOSA bill, and the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act Improvements Act in 2010 that made it more flexible for active and qualified retired officers and providing more uniform standards for eligibility. This measure continues to build on that effort.

“This law, which has been in place since 2004, gives our law enforcement officers, should they choose, the peace of mind that they are protected wherever they may be,” Leahy said. “The Senate has agreed to extend that trust to the law enforcement officers that serve within our military. They are no less deserving or worthy of this privilege and I am very pleased we have acted to equalize their treatment under the federal law.” I was very pleased that the Senate adopted last night an amendment to improve the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA). I was pleased to join Senator Webb, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, as a cosponsor to strengthen a policy that is important to our nation’s law enforcement community. I thank Chairman Levin and Senator Webb for their efforts.

The amendment we adopt today will place military police and civilian police officers within the Department of Defense on equal footing with their law enforcement counterparts across the country when it comes to coverage under LEOSA. The LEOSA law permits active and qualified retired law enforcement officers to carry a concealed firearm across state lines. This law, which has been in place since 2004, gives our law enforcement officers, should they choose, the peace of mind that they are protected wherever they may be.

One of the qualifications required of active or retired officers to be covered by the LEOSA law is that they must have “statutory arrest authority”. Some law enforcement personnel within the Department of Defense do have such statutory arrest authority. Others do not. For example, civilian police officers that conduct law enforcement activities on military bases or installations derive their authority from the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This authority, while statutory, is “apprehension” authority. Due to that difference between the LEOSA law’s specific enumerated requirements, and the authority pursuant to which civilian police in the military operate, these law enforcement officers have not been able to obtain the law’s benefits.

To remedy this, the amendment we have adopted will expressly include within the LEOSA statute currently non-covered civilian police officers and military police. It will do so by adding a statutory citation within Title 18 of the United States Code to the relevant portion of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This will provide legal certainty for the Department of Defense, and will provide the needed LEOSA coverage for currently non-covered law enforcement personnel within the military.

The Senate has agreed unanimously to extend LEOSA to the law enforcement officers that serve within our military who are currently not eligible for coverage under LEOSA. They are no less deserving or worthy of this privilege and I am very pleased we have acted to equalize their treatment under the federal law. Given the productive discussions we have had with the Department of Defense Office of Law Enforcement Policy and Support, and with Chairman Levin in developing this amendment, I expect that it will be will be implemented without delay so that those intended to be covered may gain the law’s benefit quickly. These police officers, who largely perform the same duties as their counterparts elsewhere in the Federal Government and at the state and local level, deserve the equal treatment this amendment will provide.

http://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/leahy-hails-senate-action-on-law-enforcement-amendment

[tanksoldier]

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.

The law doesn't say that. It is exactly as I quoted above. ANY PERSON authorized to arrest or apprehend for ANY OFFENSE. An NCO may be subject to UCMJ action afterward, but isn't breaking civilian law by carrying.

Jose Diaz didn't get off because he was a boarding officer, he wasn't a boarding officer, he got off because he was a Petty Officer... and he got a nice paycheck out if it, too.

The term used in the statute is "Photographic identification ....that identifies the employee as a police officer or law enforcement officer of the agency."

An officer, warrant officer or non-commissioned officer is a law enforcement officer. It is an integral part of their duties... as has already been proven in court.

If a game warden not coveredvif his ID doesn't say "police officer" or "law enforcement officer" on it? A state parks lifeguard? A CHP officer?

[IXIVI]

The law doesn't say that. It is exactly as I quoted above. ANY PERSON authorized to arrest or apprehend for ANY OFFENSE. An NCO may be subject to UCMJ action afterward, but isn't breaking civilian law by carrying.

Jose Diaz didn't get off because he was a boarding officer, he wasn't a boarding officer, he got off because he was a Petty Officer... and he got a nice paycheck out if it, too.



An officer, warrant officer or non-commissioned officer is a law enforcement officer. It is an integral part of their duties... as has already been proven in court.

If a game warden not coveredvif his ID doesn't say "police officer" or "law enforcement officer" on it? A state parks lifeguard? A CHP officer?

Not really even worth arguing. Pretty ridiculous explanation in fact. I agree, an NCO or Officer may be able to "enforce standards" and apprehend based on violation of said standards, but if a subject is to be charged after apprehension, where do they go? Back to the Sergeant's Office? Nope. He will be turned over to LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL.

RetiredAFcop made a pretty good point when he said "Section 807 art 7 (c) is pretty much the military equivalent to a "citizen's arrest" in the civilian world. Citizen's in most/all (Probably all, since the concept comes from English common law) states have limited powers of arrest, but that does not make them LEOs.

If a citizen can make an arrest for a violation, are they to considered Law Enforcement?

Bottom line is, we all know damn well that the Law applies to actual Cops. Civilian Cops. Military Cops. Police Officers. There is no reason to stretch the truth. If you disagree, just stand by until the Services begin issuing the required ID for the purpose of LEOSA. Then we'll see how many Tank Soldier NCOs, Helicopter Flying Warrant Officers, or Burger Flipping Air Force E-7s get carry creds....

[retiredAFcop]

Jose Diaz didn't get off because he was a boarding officer, he wasn't a boarding officer, he got off because he was a Petty Officer... and he got a nice paycheck out if it, too.

There was some confusion over whether all Coastguardsmen were to be considered LEOs, since the USCG has the odd distinction of sometimes being an LEA and sometimes being a military branch (and sometimes both).

The USCG has now set specific policy guidelines to determine who is qualified under the LEOSA.

[RazorMP]

Just for clarification, see response below from USAMPS (United States Army Military Police School):
Good Morning,

Military Police are now covered by the LEOSA HR 218 bill. With that said, we are currently working with DOD to outline and define the process for DOD and US Army LE folks. DOD will put out an instruction in the near future and that will be the basis for all military services to build from. I cannot give you a timeline or process just yet as policy and processes are still being designed and vetted. The LEOSA ID card or credential will come from the military service of the separated or retired LE officer. In this case, the US Army will be providing this ID card.

Sorry, I cannot tell you more, but we are working the process now.

Best Regards,

Ray (Ron) Mullihan
Chief, NFC Training Development
Manager, USAMPS Accreditation Programs
US Army Military Police School

[Notorious]

Another example of bureaucracy making something simple into something complicated. The law is what it is, very simple requirements. The department now says MP's are covered. Well, what's the holdup? Issue ID's which take 3 minutes to make at most, follow the same rules as outlined in LEOSA and SOP for conduct that is expected... sheesh.

[Matt1984]

My buddy is a supervisor for a DACP department out here. They are trying to implement this still. But some higher up are holding this up for them. Almost like an inaction. As for actual mp's I still have a lot of friends working at the school house (Leonard wood) and they said for mp's it still looks like a far fetched idea due to any implications of policy have yet to be made

[Jaxster3129]

Not to revive an old thread, but it seems to have gotten a lot of attention some time ago and it's been awhile since this change occurred. Wanted to see if anyone had some new input or speculation as to what is going to happen. This thread/site had the most activity I could find on Google.

Here is some AF related literature... nothing being pushed as of yet, but hopefully soon.

http://www.usafdefenders.com/Newsletter/2013/VOL01No2Pg2.htm

It seems the biggest issue has been proper identification. While this hasn't exactly been remedied, I wanted to get some thought on my situation.

I'm an Ohio ANG member, and my base just to happens to issue restricted area badges that we maintain off duty. These badges include a physical description, photo, name, last 6 of SSN, unit/organization, and badge number. There is no expiration date (not sure if that is an issue - if so perhaps CAC can be used in combination with). Maybe even carry around the metal uniform badge along with training credentials.

COULD something like this qualify as proper credentials to be able to utilize this law without being hemmed up by local LE? Also, I never saw any age restrictions regarding this... does this really mean some 17 year old kid fresh out of AIT would be able to carry?

Attached my ID so you guys could get an idea...

[ldsnet]

Another example of bureaucracy making something simple into something complicated. The law is what it is, very simple requirements. The department now says MP's are covered. Well, what's the holdup? Issue ID's which take 3 minutes to make at most, follow the same rules as outlined in LEOSA and SOP for conduct that is expected... sheesh.

The military brass is NOTORIOUS of depriving servicemembers of our rights. Been doing so for the last 25 years that I know of. Now they are being "forced" to grant an identification to allow trained members of the military to carry a weapon beyond the Senior Officer's control; they don't like that.

I am currently deployed to an overseas location; though not in active conflict, we are in a location where there is a credible threat of violence. My security force has to check their weapons into the armory every night, and draw them again the next morning. That is the level of control the Senior Officers are happy with.

This ID process goes against everything.

[IXIVI]

Not to revive an old thread, but it seems to have gotten a lot of attention some time ago and it's been awhile since this change occurred. Wanted to see if anyone had some new input or speculation as to what is going to happen. This thread/site had the most activity I could find on Google.

Here is some AF related literature... nothing being pushed as of yet, but hopefully soon.

http://www.usafdefenders.com/Newsletter/2013/VOL01No2Pg2.htm

It seems the biggest issue has been proper identification. While this hasn't exactly been remedied, I wanted to get some thought on my situation.

I'm an Ohio ANG member, and my base just to happens to issue restricted area badges that we maintain off duty. These badges include a physical description, photo, name, last 6 of SSN, unit/organization, and badge number. There is no expiration date (not sure if that is an issue - if so perhaps CAC can be used in combination with). Maybe even carry around the metal uniform badge along with training credentials, just in case some cop wants to really be a jackoff.

COULD something like this qualify as proper credentials to be able to utilize this law without being hemmed up by local LE? Also, I never saw any age restrictions regarding this... does this really mean some 17 year old kid fresh out of AIT would be able to carry?

Attached my ID so you guys could get an idea...

If it were only that simple.

The latest from DoD is that the implentation of the new law WILL NOT require public review, so once the DoDI is published the Army, Air Force and Navy can issue their own interim instructions that bring everyone into compliance with the law.

The DoDI will require the ID issued to clearly state that the individual is a "qualified officer under H.R. 218", otherwise a restricted area badge might have fit the bill.

[IXIVI]

Also, 17 y/o fresh out of training won't qualify. Minimum age will be 21 and have initial on the job training complete (probation/upgrade/5-level).

[CalCop]

"In 2013, LEOSA was again amended by the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2013, effective January 2, 2013 after President Obama signed Public Law 112-239 (H.R. 4310). Section 1089 of the NDAA contained language which further clarified that military police officers and civilian police officers employed by the U.S. Government unambiguously met the definitions in the original Act. The definitions of "qualified active" and "qualified retired" law enforcement officer include the term "police officers" and expanded the powers of arrest requirement definition to include those who have or had the authority to "apprehend" suspects under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Senator Patrick Leahy, a key sponsor of the bill, remarked 'The Senate has agreed to extend that trust to the law enforcement officers that serve within our military. They are no less deserving or worthy of this privilege and I am very pleased we have acted to equalize their treatment under the federal law.' He further stated, 'The amendment we adopt today will place military police and civilian police officers within the Department of Defense on equal footing with their law enforcement counterparts across the country when it comes to coverage under LEOSA.'"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enforcement_Officers_Safety_Act