Coast Guard

Coast Guard comes under DHS, not DOD.

If you go back thru the Congressional record where HR218 was discussed in committee over the 12 years the bill was in Congress you'll find the military was discussed and the Congressional intent of the bill was not to include the military.

You'll also find that military ID does not comply with "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." Your military ID does not identify you as a LEO. An MP's ID looks no different from the the military member's ID who works in CE, mechanic, etc.

Additionally, a judge's ruling has no bearing whatsoever on any other judge or for that matter even the same judge. Don't place any hope that a lone judge's ruling anywhere will impact a ruling even in the same court let alone in another court.

Any military member who decides it upon himself to carry thinking LEOSA will be his protection is risking his career. Even if the person doesn't intend to make the military their career the resulting military action will follow them their entire lives. Additionally, do you really want to risk a possible felony conviction? There will be no question then if a person can carry.

Military is not LE no more than LE is military. Don't confuse the 2.

Can *retired* military get proper credentials

I'm looking at this from a little different perspective. If a retired military person could get item (1) from the military then they would I believe be golden. I'll bet no branch of the military is set up to do that.

But item (2)(A) is the military retired ID card. And item (2)(B) can apparently be issued by any state that believes that you are entitled after verifying your credentials. So you take your ID card to the state and say please test me. Then you carry whatever documentation you get from that.

(2)(A) also implies that when you retired in one state and move that you can just go to the new state and get it done. Of course they have to be somewhat cooperative I'm sure.

Any opinions?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

`(d) The identification required by this subsection is--

`(1) a photographic identification issued by the agency from which the individual retired from service as a law enforcement officer that indicates that the individual has, not less recently than one year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the agency to meet the standards established by the agency for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm; or

`(2)(A) a photographic identification issued by the agency from which the individual retired from service as a law enforcement officer; and

`(B) a certification issued by the State in which the individual resides that indicates that the individual has, not less recently than one year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the State to meet the standards established by the State for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm.

More of the same

RE: HR 218 and Military

Exfed, you have just added something in that has never been part of the law. It does not say civilian statutory authority, just statutory authority. The UCMJ is a federal statute and can be debated to meet that requirement.

And there is no word civilian in the definition of LEO or retired LEO either.

This is why I think there is room for debate on this and the MP's would be covered. I will freely admit that the lack of proper ID is what does keep them from being covered though. I don't think a military ID that does not specify their MOS would be good enough.

There is definitely room to debate if a commissioned officer in the military meets the requirements with his ID. He clearly has the statutory authority to arrest and to apprehend.

But this is all an academic debate and I hope no one takes either your side or my side as legal advice. I never recommend being the test case on fuzzy areas like this. There is an old saying about people on the cutting edge of the law usually bleed like stuck pigs.

What makes military commissioned officers special?

Could you amplify on why you think a commissioned officer in the military (unlike enlisted) ?

RE: HR 218 and Military

Every commissioned officer in the military has the power to arrest service members, as specifically defined in the UCMJ. In this case, arrest means to order a person into confinement such as when we say under house arrest.

One of the arguments that says enlisted members are not eligible is the use of the term apprehension instead of arrest for taking a military member into custody. I think this would still apply since the term is not relevant to the legal act of arrest, as defined by SCOTUS (to deny the person freedom of movement). But if you go with the exact wording of the law, statutory authority to arrest is granted to all commissioned officers.

military not LEO

Placing someone "under house arrest" is a far cry from arresting someone. Not at all the same definition of "arrest".

Go back thru the congressional records and you will find discussion concerning inclusion of military members. The record shows military was not included in LEOSA. They are 2 different jobs. Military is not LEO no matter how much a person wants to stretch the definitions.

RE: HR 218 and Military

ISPCapt,

As I pointed out, the term arrest is defined differently, but it is also the only way the word arrest is defiend anywher ein federal statute. As any experienced officer knows, the only time the intent of the legislators comes into play in court is if the wording of the law is so vague as to not be clear. If we look at those debates, I can also show you the introduction of the modification of LEOSA which clearly makes MP's covered, including the debate which says they already are and the change is unnecessary.

And, we can each have our own interpretation of the law. I always considered myself an LEO when I was an MP, more so than i did when i worked corrections.

And, also as I said, this is just an academic point for discussion since the only way to know for sure is to get to the appeals court level. The only way I will be involved in the case would be as a witness since I am not in the military. I don't suggest anyone in the military put themself in this position, because they lose their career even ifthey win the case.

I do suggest we all get with our representatives and senators to push the changes through next session. Lets make it clear that MP's are covered (or are not if you really think they should not be). I like clear laws with no room for questioning the meaning or who it applies to.

LEOSA

You are correct that legislative intent is used when the law is not clear. Apparently it is not clear, at least to some. So therefore, if you go back to the early years when LEOSA was introduced in the early 1990s and look at the congressional record you'll find where military was discussed and excluded because they were not considered to be LEOs. There were amendments proposed to LEOSA which included the military but during those discussions it is on record that military was not to be included.

When I was an MP and an SP, including a squadron commander, I knew I was not a LEO. I was a military enlisted and then officer assigned to perform MP and SP duties but I knew the difference between being a LEO and being a military member assigned as an MP and SP. I also knew as an officer that my role was in no way shape or form anywhere newar that of a LEO. And when I was a civilian LEO the differences were even more clear.

Also, if you do your research you'll find that DOD JAG has already ruled that military members, regardless of assignment, are not covered by LEOSA. That was put out to all JAGs in late 2004 or early 2005.

I for one am not in favor of including military in LEOSA, be it MP, SP, or whatever. The roles are not the same. Military LE is not the same as civilian LE. 2 entirely different jobs and responsibilities.

Last edited @ 7/3/2008 3:21 PM

What Navy JAG says isn't relative (except for support)

I gather that one of the reasons that Randy "Duke" Cunningham (jailbird) helped pass this was that some states (like California) didn't want it's officers carrying off duty *in* their own state. And they made them get CCWs to carry. And when someone has to sign on the dotted line they are on the hook. So many officers couldn't carry off duty. So ironically if you were not LEO and had a CCW in California you could carry (for instance) at a school and cops could not unless they were on duty. I happen to be a CCW instructor for Utah, Nevada, and California. And when H.R. 218 began California didn't really *want* to get with the program. So what the Navy JAG wants is not the pivot point. It's what the federal law is. 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...