|
REPLY 31 - 40 of 59
|
|
7/4/2008 1:05 PM
|
#31
|
exfed2002
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 19
|
Lousy decision for LEOSA
Quote:
Original post by jaycspencer I gather that one of the reasons that And as you see in the Coast Guard enlisted example where a guy who had powers of arrest (boarding parties) and was authorized to carry a gun was exonerated by a judge. And I wouldn't hesitate to bring the California example up if I didn't get support from my department...
Number one, the powers of arrest which the PERP claimed he had were Title 14 powers, not UCMJ.
Also noted is that he is facing federal firearms charges stemming from his acquisition of the weapon in question. It is not clear, but I assume these charges followed the arrest that led to this decision, or he would not have had the weapon in his possession.
Look at the circumstances of the arrest and the way he conducted himself like a PERP.
This is a crappy decision to use to support LEOSA and it does not help us.
Last edited @ 7/4/2008 1:08 PM
|
|
|
7/4/2008 3:30 PM
|
#32
|
jaycspencer
Join Date: July 2008
Posts: 5
|
Ignorance doesn't mean you are a perp
...I don't think so. The story says that federal charges are still pending in "Brooklyn". New york I guess. And they don't like guns and have draconian laws. One of the stories that I read said that he was transporting a Coast Guard gun. I believe from the firing range. Another story just said that it was being questioned how he had obtained the gun. That is the federal violation in question. So it sounds like his difficulty at this point may be that he wasn't carrying his own gun.
Title 14, UCMJ. Whatever. I think the barriers are just being tested and broken down one at a time. And I'm not sure he behaved like a perp. Don't know how that conclusion is reached. He likely is one of the broader "us" under federal law but didn't understand the law to invoke it when he was arrested. But his lawyer knew and the judge agreed.
|
|
|
7/4/2008 6:36 PM
|
#33
|
exfed2002
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 19
|
If it acts like a PERP.......................
Quote:
Original post by jaycspencer ... And I'm not sure he behaved like a perp. Don't know how that conclusion is reached. .
Well, let's see, he acted like a PERP. He did not conduct himself like an LEO when he was stopped. He did not identify himself as an LEO when it might be appropriate to do so. He had an active warrant. He lied to the A/O and did not reveal there was a weapon in the vehicle when he was asked by the A/O if there was anything in the vehicle of which he should be aware.
He was not authorized to possess the weapon at the time in a manner that would exempt him from NYS PL265.
The weapon apparently was obtained in an interstate sale from Massachusetts in violation of Federal law. (BTW, LEOSA does not provide an exemptions for the ownership of personal weapons where there may be state restrictions.)
This is Federal law, not Brooklyn law. FEDERAL LAW.
So yeah, I'm pretty sure he behaved like a PERP.
|
|
|
7/4/2008 7:47 PM
|
#34
|
jaycspencer
Join Date: July 2008
Posts: 5
|
I'll look for the synopsis of the legal results
...you could be right. I'll be looking for the explanation of the final ruling.
|
|
|
8/30/2008 11:39 AM
|
#35
|
rngdoc
Join Date: August 2008
Posts: 2
|
great post
Things have changed since this post has started and it is still cloudy what the final out come is. I am a retired Special Agent US Army Inteligance, retired military ID card, retired Bage and Credentials and stay current with our local police dept on fire arms training. As aresting powers the military word is Aprehention Athority, granted this is designed for crimes under the UCMJ and employees and family that are under the DOD. I purley want the right to be able to carry across state lines if traveling and this is free. I do not have to apply/pay for out of state permits. Sorry new user while reserching subject found this extensive post and wanted to join in. Brian
|
|
|
8/30/2008 6:49 PM
|
#36
|
Steve Rothstein
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 275
|
RE: HR 218 and Military
Brian,
Welcome to the forums. I agree with you that you are covered under LEOSA as a retired military LEO. Many people disagree with me. I can certainly see some of their arguments, but the key is going to be what the courts say.
I have no idea how the courts will rule if it ever comes up. I hope the issue never comes up for you since I think you will most likely be in other troubles if it does, like a shooting.
|
|
|
9/14/2008 11:16 AM
|
#37
|
SWATCybercop
Join Date: September 2008
Posts: 7
|
RE: HR 218 and Military
2820.
The issue of whether military law enforcement personnel are covered under LEOSA (formerly HR218) or not, has been discussed and researched to death.
The ONLY DoD law enforcement personnel who are covered under LEOSA are the following:
1. CIVILIAN special agents of the DCIO's (Army CID, Air Force OSI, Navy and Marine Corps NCIS, and DoD DCIS). Military special agents of the above are not covered. Neither are special agents of the DoD intelligence services.
2. Sworn officers of the Pentagon Force Protection Agency, and the NSA police, who have statutory powers of arrest under the U.S. Code.
Again, NO military personnel are covered under LEOSA, no matter whether or not they perform law enforcement or investigative duties, or no matter whether they are issued a badge or credentials.
And NO civilian base police officers working for the military services (sometimes called DoD police) are covered, since they do not have statutory powers of arrest either. They have the same authority to "apprehend" as MP's and posted sentries.
No statutory powers of arrest = no LEOSA. The ability to "apprehend" military personnel under the UCMJ, and deliver them to their commanding officer, does not qualify. Every E-1 or civilian security guard posted around an armory or walking around a motor pool has the UCMJ ability to "apprehend."
Sorry to disappoint the honorable LE persons in the military or working for the military, but the above is the truth, under federal law, DoD and service regulations.
More info also at this forum:
http://forums.officer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=92234&page=8
Last edited @ 9/14/2008 11:22 AM
|
|
|
9/14/2008 11:34 AM
|
#38
|
Steve Rothstein
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 275
|
RE: HR 218 and Military
I would not make any flat out statements on whether or not MP's are covered under LEOSA or not. I think the issue will only be resolved by the courts or the further acts of the legislature. The way I read the law, they are covered, whether or not the Congress intended it that way.I do not agree with people who think that because they are in the military and the military uses the term apprehend instead of arrest they are not covered. When I was an MP I arrested people within the definition of arrest provided by the SCOTUS.
All active duty military personnel are covered by regulations from the DOD and their respective branches. They may be forbidden to carry under those regulations. This would NOT affect the application of LEOSA any more than a requirement from my department would affect it. My department can fire me for violating its regulations and the military can take action for violating its regulations. In neither case would it affect the way a local jurisdiction could arrest me for carrying.
Based on my desire not to be the test case, I will advise military personnel to not carry off duty until there is further action. But, by the same token, my desire to survive means I will tell people to do what they need to do to survive and worry about the courts later.
In either case, I do not think there can be any absolute statement that military are or are not covered by LEOSA at this time.
|
|
|
9/14/2008 1:40 PM
|
#39
|
SWATCybercop
Join Date: September 2008
Posts: 7
|
LEOSA - Military
Quote:
Original post by Steve Rothstein I would not make any flat out statements on whether or not MP's are covered under LEOSA or not. I think the issue will only be resolved by the courts or the further acts of the legislature. The way I read the law, they are covered, whether or not the Congress intended it that way.I do not agree with people who think that because they are in the military and the military uses the term apprehend instead of arrest they are not covered. When I was an MP I arrested people within the definition of arrest provided by the SCOTUS.
All active duty military personnel are covered by regulations from the DOD and their respective branches. They may be forbidden to carry under those regulations. This would NOT affect the application of LEOSA any more than a requirement from my department would affect it. My department can fire me for violating its regulations and the military can take action for violating its regulations. In neither case would it affect the way a local jurisdiction could arrest me for carrying.
Based on my desire not to be the test case, I will advise military personnel to not carry off duty until there is further action. But, by the same token, my desire to survive means I will tell people to do what they need to do to survive and worry about the courts later.
In either case, I do not think there can be any absolute statement that military are or are not covered by LEOSA at this time. I would, and I certainly will.
The Secretary of Defense has stated that military personnel are PROHIBITED from carrying concealed weapons off duty under the authority of DoD. This does not prevent military personnel from obtaining a state concealed weapons permit, just like any other citizen. But NO military or civilian employees (except those stated above) have been granted the authority to carry a concealed weapon off duty solely by their status as military personnel or military employees, no matter whether or not they happen to perform law enforcement duties.
You are free to disagree with the Attorney General of the United States, the Secretary of Defense and his Undersecretary, the Judge Advocate General of the DoD and the military services, the Inspector General of the DoD and the military services, and the chief law enforcement officers of the military services, who have all "chopped" the subject matter, and issued regulations and legal opinions on the issue.
Any military personnel who carry a concealed weapon without a state CCW permit do so at their peril, and are subject to administrative punishment under Art. 15, UCMJ, or court martial.
Any civilian DoD employees who carry a concealed weapon without a state CCW permit do so at their peril, and are subject to administrative punishment or loss of employment.
Any of the above categories may also be prosecuted for any violations of state CCW law.
I would recommend that any military LE person who professes a "military apprehension" is statutorily the same as a criminal "arrest," return to be re-trained on the limits of their authority.
You can call a pig a jackass, but at the end of the day, it still squeaks.
|
|
|
9/14/2008 1:47 PM
|
#40
|
SWATCybercop
Join Date: September 2008
Posts: 7
|
Intelligence?
Quote:
Original post by rngdoc Things have changed since this post has started and it is still cloudy what the final out come is. I am a retired Special Agent US Army Inteligance, retired military ID card, retired Bage and Credentials and stay current with our local police dept on fire arms training. As aresting powers the military word is Aprehention Athority, granted this is designed for crimes under the UCMJ and employees and family that are under the DOD. I purley want the right to be able to carry across state lines if traveling and this is free. I do not have to apply/pay for out of state permits. Sorry new user while reserching subject found this extensive post and wanted to join in. Brian Please tell me how a retired Army Intelligence specialist somehow becomes a law enforcement officer?
|
|