Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12
  1. #1
    INGOer #483 Indy_Guy_77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    15,692

    LEOSA and the Military...

    Seeking OPINIONS on this...

    LEOSA = Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act

    Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Specifically, the section titled "Qualified Law Enforcement Officers"

    A casual reading of those who are qualified would lead me to believe that my buddy, who is an MP in the ING can carry under LEOSA?

    That would mean that he'd (generally) be legal to carry in IL and OH (he already has an IN LTCH) without needing extra permits/licenses?

    I can't find anything anywhere it stipulates that someone be "working" or "on duty".

    Thoughts? Opinions?

    I think there's been a few instances of some Coasties getting jammed up by local LEO for having a gun in their car - and that caused the USCG to tighten up their own regs, but I think those guys (ultimately) weren't charged

  2. #2
    Grandmaster Denny347's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    All up in ya.
    Posts
    6,658
    http://www.fop.net/legislative/issue...8/hr218faq.pdf


    Qualified law enforcement officers employed by or retired from a local, State or Federal law
    enforcement agency.
    A “qualified active law enforcement officer” is defined as an employee of a government agency
    who: 2
     is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation,
    prosecution or the incarceration of any person for any violation of law;
     has statutory powers of arrest or apprehension under the Uniform Code of Military Justice;
     is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm;
     is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the agency which could result in suspension
    or loss of police powers;
     meets the standards, if any, established by the agency which require the employee to
    regularly qualify in the use of a firearm;
     is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or
    substance, and
     is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing a firearm
    "Strong people are harder to kill than weak people, and are more useful in general." Rippetoe

  3. #3
    Grandmaster BehindBlueI's's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    5,269
    Does he have a photographic identification card that identifies him as a police officer? (I don't know if the new cards have your MOS on them or not, mine didn't.)

    926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law enforcement officers

    (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d)
    (D) reads:
    The identification required by this subsection is the photographic identification issued by the governmental agency for which the individual is employed that identifies the employee as a police officer or law enforcement officer of the agency.
    Since the amendment earlier this year, USMJ enforcement authority does allow one to qualify under LEOSA. Active duty MPs are now covered for sure. I think it can be questionable if a reservist or guardsman not on call up would be covered. My *guess* would be that if he has the ID as required above than he would be ok, but that's just a guess based on my reading of LEOSA.

  4. #4
    INGOer #483 Indy_Guy_77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    15,692
    He has a photo ID, for sure. I am NOT sure if the MOS is on the photo ID badge. He also has his MP badge / badge wallet.

  5. #5
    Grandmaster BehindBlueI's's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    5,269
    Quote Originally Posted by Indy_Guy_77 View Post
    He has a photo ID, for sure. I am NOT sure if the MOS is on the photo ID badge. He also has his MP badge / badge wallet.
    That's the catch. Per LEOSA the photo ID has to say he's a law enforcement officer. My military ID didn't say what my MOS was. The CAC cards didn't either. I haven't been around the military since '05, so maybe the new ones do. Without that specific type of photo ID the law looks like it would exclude him from LEOSA protection even if he otherwise qualified.

    The full text of the law is here:

    18 USC 926B - Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law enforcement officers | Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

    It is very clear that it covers only someone carrying the correct ID. (D) is very clear that the ID must identify you as a law enforcement officer. An ID that simply identifies you as a soldier wouldn't meet that requirement. A badge is not a photo ID, and is irrelevant. When I was in, MPs didn't even get a badge, just the thing that went around their arm that said "MP".

  6. #6
    Expert 92ThoStro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    1,622

    Based upon reading of Chapter 44 of Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 926B(a) and applying the facts brought forth at the hearing, the court finds that the defendant is exempt from prosecution under New York State Law as a result of LEOSA.   None of the arguments put forth by the People supply any proof that defendant was not protected from criminal prosecution by this act.   Although the proof at the hearing indicates that the defendant engaged in a violation of rules, regulations and policies of the United States Coast Guard by possessing a handgun for which he had no license, these violations do not act to lessen the scope of LEOSA as it is applied in this instance.   When distilled to the salient facts, the evidence presented at the hearing showed that the defendant was a qualified law enforcement officer who possessed photographic identification issued by the Coast Guard.   Accordingly, he is exempt from prosecution and the indictment must be dismissed


    ETA: If you are wanting opinions only, then IMHO you friend is covered. He certainly fits into the spirit of the law. The ID definition might be a sketchy, but it seems like the courts have your back in any case. I would certainly carry deep concealed per LEOSA without printing and where it could never see the light of day to avoid any issues, because it seems like states like NY/IL/CA are going to arrest, charge, and throw you in jail first, and ask questions later. Seems like an awful big hassle.

    You should contact someone and find out what they say, like the AG, the FOP, his CO on base, something. But what are his policies as an MP, do they allow him to carry off-duty off-base, without a license per LEOSA? He might not break the law, but what kind of trouble can he get into with the military for doing so?
    Last edited by 92ThoStro; 06-06-2013 at 13:24.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sean Ryan
    I dont expect some ****ing hick from Indiana to get how the civilized world actually works, but you go ahead and keep thinking more guns will solve the issue.

  7. #7
    INGOer #483 Indy_Guy_77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    15,692
    Just heard back from my buddy.

    Neither MOS alpha-numeric designation nor job title is enumerated on his military ID.

    I would have to presume that all military ID's are created equal, right? At least as far as within each branch?

    I also need to clarify a bit: My buddy is in the US Army Reserve, not the ING.

    So, if a .Mil ID doesn't list a job title / MOS... Then wouldn't that exclude all .Mil folks from LEOSA?

  8. #8
    Expert 92ThoStro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    1,622
    Here it is, instead of searching for court cases, I just typed your question in Google.


    6. I am active duty or retired military/DoD police. Does LEOSA apply to me?

    Yes. On January 2nd, 2013 LEOSA was amended to specifically allow for active and "retired" (as defined by LEOSA) military and DoD police and law enforcement officers with UCMJ apprehension authority to qualify for the statute; however, the DoD has not amended its own policy on LEOSA, DODI 5525.12, resulting in an inability for many that are now able to qualify to obtain the requisite photographic identification card. A standard CAC or blue retiree card will not work for LEOSA purposes as the photographic ID must identify the individual as either being actively or having once been employed as a police or law enforcement officer of the agency.
    NRA Law Enforcement Division|Frequently Asked Questions

    From what I was reading in another link on officer.com budget problems are what is preventing the military from getting the correct credentials.

    Maybe in the case above that I quoted two posts up, the Coast Guard issues different IDs that are honored by LEOSA?

    So, BehindBI's is correct. Your buddy certainly fits the definition, but the military has not updated their credentials to fit the requirements.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sean Ryan
    I dont expect some ****ing hick from Indiana to get how the civilized world actually works, but you go ahead and keep thinking more guns will solve the issue.

  9. #9
    Grandmaster BehindBlueI's's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    5,269
    Quote Originally Posted by Indy_Guy_77 View Post

    So, if a .Mil ID doesn't list a job title / MOS... Then wouldn't that exclude all .Mil folks from LEOSA?
    IIRC, certain .mil police did have photo IDs specific to their job in addition to the standard military ID. CID, NCIS, civilian DoD police, etc. Run of the mill MPs did not. They would now be covered under LEOSA as they meet the requirements AND have the requisite ID.

  10. #10
    INGOer #483 Indy_Guy_77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    15,692
    Quote Originally Posted by 92ThoStro View Post
    So, BehindBI's is correct. Your buddy certainly fits the definition, but the military has not updated their credentials to fit the requirements.
    Quote Originally Posted by BehindBlueI's View Post
    IIRC, certain .mil police did have photo IDs specific to their job in addition to the standard military ID. CID, NCIS, civilian DoD police, etc. Run of the mill MPs did not. They would now be covered under LEOSA as they meet the requirements AND have the requisite ID.
    Ah ha... NOW it all makes sense!

    Thanks for helping me "talk this out" as it were.

    -J-

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •