HR 218 & Military

First off I would recommend you read two recent postings at www .FoPLV. org which is our local Fraternal Order of Police website. On the right hand side there are three links you might find helpful in answering your question.

#1 LEOSA & DoD Retired Personnel which is DoD Instruction Number 5525.12.

#2 LEOSA & DHS Retired Personnel which is DHS Directive 257-01-001. (Pay particular attention to footnote #3 on page 3 of this DHS Intruction. It spells out "The 15-year period includes any time in the U.S. armed forces specifically devoted to training for and full-time service in law enforcement military occupational specialties.")

#3 Click on the link that states HR 218 Legal Coverage. If you are a member in good standing with the Fraternal Order of Police then you qualify for HR 218 legal coverage at $50/year. According to the Hylant Group who represents retired members HR 218 does apply to retired military law enforcement.

As just a little FYI the FoP National Legislative Group is working with Congress to ammend HR 218 to specifically include Military.

I hope this helps.

Charles

RE: HR 218 and Military

I see that this discussion is still ongoing.

After all of the back-and-forth opinions regarding whether DoD LE personnel are or are not covered to CCW under LEOSA, nothing really has changed in the last few years.

Fact:

Only CIVILIAN special agents of the DCIO's (DCIS, Army CID, AFOSI & NCIS) are covered.

Only sworn officers of the PFPA and NSA Police with statutory powers of arrest are covered.

Civilian police officers of the military services and MP's are not covered under LEOSA, and can not legally CCW nationwide. Regardless of UCMJ power to "apprehend." Those officers & personnel fall under state CCW laws, & require a CCW permit to carry legally off duty.

This can only be changed by act of congress.

LEOSA

As you can tell by the first statement you made, the second statement is not a fact. It is your interpretation. Others may agree, and others may disagree, but it is still an interpretation and not a fact.

As good advice, I recommend that MP's not carry under LEOSA until there is a court case or a legal change clarifying things, but my interpretation still says they are covered.

Your opinion is not factual, Steve. Ask DoD.

RE: HR 218 and Military

I find it incredible that any professional law enforcement officers do not understand an issue that is actually quite simple: ONLY certain civilian DoD LE personnel, who are SPECIFICALLY empowered with statutory powers of arrest, have the authority to carry a concealed weapon off duty nationwide. MP's and civilian police officers of the military services are simply not covered at this time.

This position has been confirmed by the Secretary of Defense, the DoD IG, and the SJA's of the military services. Their written edicts are a matter of record, and are available under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

While there are attempts to pass legislation to include all other DoD LE personnel to be covered under LEOSA, this legislation is still in committee, and has not been passed as a federal statute. Unless and until then, LEOSA will not cover MP's and civilian police without statutory powers of arrest.

This is factual, not opinion - someone's opinion in a public forum notwithstanding.

RE: HR 218 and Military

Parkin:

You stated:

"As just a little FYI the FoP National Legislative Group is working with Congress to ammend (SIC) HR 218 to specifically include Military."

If the military were already covered under LEOSA, why would it take another act of Congress to do so?

The answer is: military personnel, LE or not, are not currently covered under LEOSA.

RE: HR 218 and Military

No, my post is very factual. I fully understand that the DOD has taken the position that MP's are not covered under LEOSA. That does not mean they are not so covered. DOD and the SJA may interpret the law any way they so choose. I get to make my own interpretation also. The only way to know for sure will be either a new law changing the current one or a ruling by a court (and it truly takes a court of appeals to set precedent).

No one but the courts gets to make a binding decision on what the wording means. I find it hard to believe any law enforcement professional would not understand that. We all get to make our own interpretations, but the only one that counts is the court. Of course, my interpretation counts if I never make the arrest, and the DA's interpretation counts if I make the arrest and he never prosecutes, but they have no legal authority to bind anyone else.

As for why the law would be changed to specifically cover someone who I think is covered now, it is simple. For the same reason they are specifically going to include AMTRAK police. If there are people that doubt it and the legislators intended for them to be covered, the law gets changed to make it clear. This does not mean the law did not already cover them, just that it was not clear.

This happened in Texas recently. We passed a law making it a defense to be carrying a pistol in your car. Some DA's said for the cops to arrest anyway. So, the next legislative session the law was changed to make it part of the definition of the crime that it was not in a car. It did not change the intent of the first law, just clarified it so everyone had the same understanding.

Last edited @ 5/17/2009 5:51 PM

RE: HR 218 and Military

sorry, double post

Last edited @ 5/17/2009 5:50 PM

RE: HR 218 and Military

Yes, you do get to make your own unique "interpretation" of what the published federal law is. It's a free country.

And you have the right to have an opinion that is contrary to just about every published opinion of DoD attorneys, IG officials, Department of Defense, and Department of Justice staffers, regarding this issue.

And contrary to the intent of Congress, according to the staff of the (now fallen) Duke Cunningham.

"The courts" do not make statutory law. Only the legislature does.

Out here. Time's a wasting.

RE: HR 218 and Military

If I were still on active duty, I'd abide by the rules of my employer rather than depending on the opinion of a local Texas LEO.

Just me.