Any MPs or DOD cops interested?

[AFK9Cop]

I saw a memorandum (applies to AF Security Forces) that says until the DOD and the Department of the Air Force drafts language and requirements for implementation, Security Forces and DAF Police are prohibited from exercising LEOSA privileges. So I created a petition to help expedite the DoDs process of implementing LEOSA if anyone here is interested here is the link to the petition.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/expedite-dod-process-drafting-language-and-requirements-military-police-concealed-carry-iaw-leosa/nRMC54GR

[Tacit Blue]

I feel bad for DAF or any component of the DOD police services. I know they play games with issuing credentials, it's unfortunate.

[Unit74]

Can a DoD policy usurp law? Me thinks this is an issue that should be brought to light.

[RickD427]

Can a DoD policy usurp law? Me thinks this is an issue that should be brought to light.

If the DoD policy does exist in the manner described by the OP, it would not "usurp" the law (LEOSA).

There are two different things involved here: 1) LEOSA creates an exemption from most state laws governing the carrying of concealed weapons by qualified LEOs. 2) The DoD policy creates an agency policy (presumably with sanctions for violation) that directs it personnel not to exercise the prerogatives granted to them by LEOSA.

It's pretty well established that government agencies can impose restrictive personnel polices on their members where sufficient cause exists. There would probably be a fair question if the "sufficient cause" criteria were met by the proposed directive, but that's still not "usurping" the law.

Or look at it another way. The Constitution give me the right of free speech. But if I opt to use that right to speak disrespectfully to a motorist while I'm issuing a citation, then the Sheriff is going to give me some time off and that would not be in violation of my Constitutional right of free speech.

[retiredAFcop]

LEOSA has certain requirements for credentials and proof of training that some agencies - both military and civilian - do not currently meet. LEOs from those organizations cannot enjoy the benefits of LEOSA without the proper documentation. LEOSA does not require agencies to provide such documentation - it merely states what the minimum requirements are for LEOSA to apply in cases where agencies do choose to provide such documentation. Agencies may even choose not to grant such credentials to individuals who seem to meet the guidelines (iirc), based on considerations about the individuals (as a possible example: a retired cop who has become an out of control alcoholic who has regular blackouts probably shouldn't be carrying a concealed firearm).

In order to meet LEOSA guidelines, LEOs and retired LEOs need to have agency provided IDs with certain information on them regarding LE status (also firearms qualifications). I am aware of several cities near me that have closed their police departments in recent years, and shifted to a contract with the county SD, or a neighboring city's PD. Retirees from such departments are also waiting for a means for themselves to prove status for LEOSA.

The military does not currently use an ID that identifies LE personnel as such, using instead uniform devices such as badges/shields, or brassards to identify LE personnel when in uniform. CID, OSI, and NIS investigators are more likely to have ID that meets LEOSA requirements. This means that a military cop who tries to claim LEOSA privileges is subjecting themselves to arrest for illegally carrying a firearm - because they simply do not have the proper documentation to easily prove that they are covered by LEOSA.


As was brought up by another Calgunner:

LEOSA identification is very specific and actually lists the (LEOSA) as well as the dates of firearms qualification.

So Unless the ID specifically had that information, AND on the identification that the bearer was a peace officer or retired peace officer I don't thing the LEOSA would appily.

The DOD and branches say that they are currently working on creating credentials and policies that will meet the LEOSA requirements - but they are large bureaucratic organizations, so it will take some time before they are ready to implement them, and more time for military LE personnel to be processed through whatever system is created.

LEOSA also provides for some places and circumstances where even seemingly "qualified" LEOSA persons cannot exercise their LEOSA privilege, including (iirc) designated "sensitive areas". It is arguable that a military installation qualifies as a "sensitive area", and the installation commander would therefore be able to set a policy that denies any LEOSA carry on the installation.

Hope that helps to clear the air.

[HOSER0351]

The marine corp issued credentials to all civilian officers and MP's that identifies them as law enforcement officers.

[eltee]

LEOSA does not require "peace officer" status. There are many cop shops across the nation that meet the LEOSA "Qualified LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER" criteria but may not be considered "peace officers" in that particular jurisdiction.

Some officers retired from agencies that would not issue a retired ID card have decided to risk it and carry an expired ID, a copy of a pension check, and copy of their range qual. You can qualify at any LE range or range authorized, you do not have to qualify with your employing / formerly employing agency.

Some LE labor organizations are looking into a generic ID for those retirees whose agencies have closed or merged. For Californian, PORAC is working on this.