Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 133
  1. #1
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    427

    DOA Police, NY Statute, and HR 218

    I realize that the topic of "DOD" police with regard to HR 218 is a sensitive issue for some, but here I go anyway...

    I noticed today that the NYS Criminal Procedure Law has recently been amended to include "Department of the Army special agents, detectives and police officers" among those federal officers granted peace officer status (CPL 2.15-26) and thus giving them statutory arrest powers and the authority to carry a firearm (both on and off duty) in New York State. My question is, does this have any implications with regard to HR 218?

    As far as I can tell, HR 218 only requires that an officer have statutory arrest authority. It does not say that the statute from which this authority is derived must be from the the same level of government in which the officer is employed. Therefore, a state statute appears to be sufficient even for a federal officer, and HR 218 would seem to apply to Army Police officers in the state of New York.

    Now let's take this one step further. The NY statute includes no language limiting this authority to DOA officers based in NY. To anyone familiar with how NYS law is usually worded, this would mean that any DOA officer, even if based in California for example, would have these powers should they happen to find themselves in NY. Therefore, one could argue that all DOA officers are now covered by HR 218.

    Any thoughts on this?

    BTW, I have no stake in this argument as I already work an HR 218 covered state job. I just thought it was interesting.

  2. #2
    One Night In Bangkok orlandofed5-0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Philly PA
    Posts
    5,396
    The agency can still restrict by policy the carrying of government weapons. More than likely, they would need to apply for a carry permit either through the NYPD (for the Ft. Hamilton guys) or through whatever county Ft. Drum is in.
    I don't work - I merely inflict myself upon the public.

  3. #3
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Washington DC area
    Posts
    1,837
    When I was keeping up with NYS CPL, it was 2.10, and it was very specific, so read how it is worded, it either says, Police Officers from the Dept. of the Army are Peace Officers, which means they can carry, or it says "Police Officers from the DOA, HOWEVER, NOTHING IN THS SECTION SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS AUTHORIZING THEM TO CARRY A FIREARM UNLESS A PERMIT HAS BEEN ISSUED UNDER ARTICLE xxx OF THE NYS PENAL LAW.

    The otherthing is your agency can restrict you from carrying, by their dept. policy, so you might be ok but get administratively jammed later.


    If you really want a DEFINITE answer, get an attorenys opinion, and before you leave, ask them to provide you a letter in writing saying, if you get jammed they will defend you "pro-bono".

  4. #4
    Cant keep it under 100... Unit453's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,410
    Here's the deal since I used to work up at Drum and for the guy who wrote that bill for us.

    It does not cover you under HR218. Drum's policy is that you are not allowed to carry off duty on your badge. It took a couple flaming retards to get that thrown out. One, tried to get on a plane with it and the other was flashing it around at a bar.

    Also, the state law really means nothing because the Army is not gonna cover you in your off time, if you make a "citizens arrest" of some ******bag on the street for whatever crime.

    NYS also has about 6 million different "peace officers" so all thats saying is that they recognize that you wear a uniform and work in a certain type of capacity. The reason why we were never put under "police officers" is because we were federal. We fell under the same category as FBI, ATF, CBP, DEA, and all the other alphabet agencies, and within the penal law we were considered "peace officers." There is a difference. Its just the way NY has it set up. And NYSPL means nothing because inside or outside the gate.

    You wanna carry off duty, get a ccw and if something happens, you are acting as a private citizen.

    The NYSP superintendent said, "we cant stop you from carrying, but we dont want you purchasing on your badges." I guess it was their way to try and continue to regulate the firearm purchasing processes and registration. So, from, the horses mouth, according them, they wouldn't hem us up if you were in possession of a firearm out in town. The Drum leadership on the other hand is still living in the 70's, where MP's drove jeeps, wore chrome helmets, had a big whoopie light and a hand crank siren. Until a certain person retires, thats the way its gonna be, not to mention the complete idiots that they tend to hire and give a uniform to.

    Bottom line, they will not give you a letter to purchase or allow you to carry. The NYSPL means nothing because they're employees of the federal gov't. NYS can call you whatever they want. They dont sign your paycheck or issue you your authority. Your authority comes from the Army, and eventually Department of Defense but ends at the gate.


    Off topic here but when I was working up there as a shift supervisor, we had an armed burglary at a gas station at an intersection which the north side of the road was ours and the south side was the county's. We had 2 units sitting there watching this burglary happen in real time. The county called our dispatch and asked if we could respond that there were no deputies remotely close. Naturally, we couldnt do anything without calling all the way up the chain...And the answer was no, you will not respond to assist that agency. As you an imagine how the county guys looked at us after that.

    Until DoD agencies for all branches actually get some type of 'authority', nothing will change. And this reminds me again of why I left to bigger and better things.
    Last edited by Unit453; 10-22-2009 at 02:20 PM.

  5. #5
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Pooler, Georgia
    Posts
    65
    Unit, you break it down so good, I am so glad I just want my pay check at the end of the day, and not some glory hound....haha Makes me feel like a overpaid mall cop with a fancy dingy...hahah Mall of America, pays like 14hr to start wooohoo

  6. #6
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Washington DC area
    Posts
    1,837
    O.K. I understand all that, but ultimately, if you are a NYS Peace Officer, and the CPL does not say you need a permit to carry, you are authorized under NYS law to carry, whether or not the Army "wants " you to. What I'm getting at is this, recently a USCG "boarding Petty Officer", who really has very little authority off duty, was cleared of firearms charges, because according to a NYS judges interpretation of HR 218, the Coastie, had authority to "make Arrests", and therefor was EXEMPT under the LEOSA.

    So I think the answer is, you would be covered under NYS law, but the Army would not back or indemnify you if it went bad. Also, NYSP Super, not wanting you to buy on your badge is an internal control thing, any tom dick or harry can get a NYS Range or residence permit, outside NYC, and buy a gun. What you do with it after that is your own business. Tons of DOD cops turn in their issue weapons at the end of shift, only to put their personal weapon in a holster off-duty.

    I'm not advocating breaking any laws, but just becasue the Army does not want you to carry, does not mean you do not have authority under LEOSA.

    If you could post the NYS CPL, the bottom line (used to be) that if you were a federal officer/agent acting off-duy, in good faith, and something went wrong, NYS, would indemnifyyou and you were covered for the actions you took. Prior to HR-218 and he LEOSA, our agency only authorized us in wrting to carry in NYC, Long Isand, and like Westchester and Rockland Co, not upstate, that did not stop almost all the officers in NYFO from carrying in Albany, way, way, way, upstate, and why did they not get jammed up ?... Because under NYS CPL, they were Peace Officers. Thats not to say that the Dept. couldn't hem you up if they found out and wanted to, but as you said....


    Dont try to take it on an Airplane, and dont wave the thing in a bar, and you will be OK...


    I'm off now, going to lookup NYS CPL and try to post it is possible.
    Last edited by 2971511; 10-22-2009 at 09:38 PM. Reason: ty

  7. #7
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Washington DC area
    Posts
    1,837
    I think this was a NJ case, but of course you do not want to be wrong, because look what happened to this poor guy, basically same scenrio, a Federal CO thought he could carry, got arrested and charged. This was pre-LEOSA FYI.


    http://books.google.com/books?id=2ip...ficers&f=false

  8. #8
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Washington DC area
    Posts
    1,837
    According to this, DOD Agents do have Peae Officer Status, but nothing about DOA Police,also under NYS Army AG bases officers also do not, I guess you are out of luck, sorry.

    § 2.15 Federal law enforcement officers; powers.
    The following federal law enforcement officers shall have the powers
    set forth in paragraphs (a) (with the exception of the powers provided
    by paragraph (b) of subdivision one and paragraph (b) of subdivision
    three of section 140.25 of this chapter), (b), (c) and (h) of
    subdivision one of section 2.20 of this article:
    1. Federal Bureau of Investigation special agents.
    2. United States Secret Service special agents.
    3. Immigration and Naturalization Service immigration inspectors,
    special agents, patrol officers and deportation officers.
    4. United States Marshals and Marshals Service deputies.
    5. Drug Enforcement Administration special agents.
    6. Federal Protective Officers.
    7. United States Customs Service special agents, inspectors and patrol
    officers.
    8. United States Postal Service police officers and inspectors.
    9. United States park police; provided, however that, notwithstanding
    any provision of this section to the contrary, such park police shall
    also have the powers set forth in paragraph (b) of subdivision one of
    section 140.25 of this chapter and the powers set forth in paragraphs
    (d), (e) and (g) of subdivision one of section 2.20 of this article.
    10. United States probation officers.
    11. United States General Services Administration special agents.
    12. United States Department of Agriculture special agents.
    13. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms special agents.
    14. Internal Revenue Service special agents and inspectors.
    15. Officers of the United States bureau of prisons.
    16. United States Fish and Wildlife special agents.
    17. United States Naval Investigative Service special agents.
    18. United States Department of State special agents.
    19. Special agents of the defense criminal investigative service of
    the United States department of defense.
    20. United States Department of Commerce, Office of Export
    Enforcement, special agents.
    21. United States Department of Veterans Administration police
    officers employed at the Veterans Administration Medical Center in
    Batavia.
    22. Federal Reserve law enforcement officers.
    23. Federal air marshal program special agents.
    * 24. United States department of transportation federal police
    officers and police supervisors assigned to the United States Merchant
    Marine Academy in Kings Point, New York; provided, however that,
    notwithstanding any provision of this section to the contrary, such
    police shall also have the powers set forth in paragraph (b) of
    subdivision one of section 140.25 of this chapter and the powers set
    forth in paragraphs (d), (e) and (g) of subdivision one of section 2.20
    of this article when acting pursuant to their special duties within the
    geographical area of their employment or within one hundred yards of
    such geographical area.
    * NB There are 2 sb 24's
    * 24. United States Coast Guard Investigative Service special agents.
    * NB There are 2 sb 24's
    25. United States Department of Commerce, special agents and
    enforcement officers of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration's Fisheries Office for Law Enforcement.


    Last modified: July 30, 2006




    Supreme Court Cases | Justia Law Firm Web Design

  9. #9
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    427
    Quote Originally Posted by 2971511 View Post
    According to this, DOD Agents do have Peae Officer Status, but nothing about DOA Police,also under NYS Army AG bases officers also do not, I guess you are out of luck, sorry.

    § 2.15 Federal law enforcement officers; powers.
    The following federal law enforcement officers shall have the powers
    set forth in paragraphs (a) (with the exception of the powers provided
    by paragraph (b) of subdivision one and paragraph (b) of subdivision
    three of section 140.25 of this chapter), (b), (c) and (h) of
    subdivision one of section 2.20 of this article:
    1. Federal Bureau of Investigation special agents.
    2. United States Secret Service special agents.
    3. Immigration and Naturalization Service immigration inspectors,
    special agents, patrol officers and deportation officers.
    4. United States Marshals and Marshals Service deputies.
    5. Drug Enforcement Administration special agents.
    6. Federal Protective Officers.
    7. United States Customs Service special agents, inspectors and patrol
    officers.
    8. United States Postal Service police officers and inspectors.
    9. United States park police; provided, however that, notwithstanding
    any provision of this section to the contrary, such park police shall
    also have the powers set forth in paragraph (b) of subdivision one of
    section 140.25 of this chapter and the powers set forth in paragraphs
    (d), (e) and (g) of subdivision one of section 2.20 of this article.
    10. United States probation officers.
    11. United States General Services Administration special agents.
    12. United States Department of Agriculture special agents.
    13. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms special agents.
    14. Internal Revenue Service special agents and inspectors.
    15. Officers of the United States bureau of prisons.
    16. United States Fish and Wildlife special agents.
    17. United States Naval Investigative Service special agents.
    18. United States Department of State special agents.
    19. Special agents of the defense criminal investigative service of
    the United States department of defense.
    20. United States Department of Commerce, Office of Export
    Enforcement, special agents.
    21. United States Department of Veterans Administration police
    officers employed at the Veterans Administration Medical Center in
    Batavia.
    22. Federal Reserve law enforcement officers.
    23. Federal air marshal program special agents.
    * 24. United States department of transportation federal police
    officers and police supervisors assigned to the United States Merchant
    Marine Academy in Kings Point, New York; provided, however that,
    notwithstanding any provision of this section to the contrary, such
    police shall also have the powers set forth in paragraph (b) of
    subdivision one of section 140.25 of this chapter and the powers set
    forth in paragraphs (d), (e) and (g) of subdivision one of section 2.20
    of this article when acting pursuant to their special duties within the
    geographical area of their employment or within one hundred yards of
    such geographical area.
    * NB There are 2 sb 24's
    * 24. United States Coast Guard Investigative Service special agents.
    * NB There are 2 sb 24's
    25. United States Department of Commerce, special agents and
    enforcement officers of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration's Fisheries Office for Law Enforcement.


    Last modified: July 30, 2006




    Supreme Court Cases | Justia Law Firm Web Design
    This is outdated. The new statute reads:

    § 2.15 Federal law enforcement officers; powers.
    The following federal law enforcement officers shall have the
    powers
    set forth in paragraphs (a) (with the exception of the powers
    provided
    by paragraph (b) of subdivision one and paragraph (b) of
    subdivision
    three of section 140.25 of this chapter), (b), (c) and (h)
    of
    subdivision one of section 2.20 of this article:
    1. Federal Bureau of Investigation special agents.
    2. United States Secret Service special agents.
    3. Immigration and Naturalization Service immigration
    inspectors,
    special agents, patrol officers and deportation officers.
    4. United States Marshals and Marshals Service deputies.
    5. Drug Enforcement Administration special agents.
    6. Federal Protective Officers.
    7. United States Customs Service special agents, inspectors and
    patrol
    officers.
    8. United States Postal Service police officers and inspectors.
    9. United States park police; provided, however that,
    notwithstanding
    any provision of this section to the contrary, such park police
    shall
    also have the powers set forth in paragraph (b) of subdivision one
    of
    section 140.25 of this chapter and the powers set forth in
    paragraphs
    (d), (e) and (g) of subdivision one of section 2.20 of this article.
    10. United States probation officers.
    11. United States General Services Administration special agents.
    12. United States Department of Agriculture special agents.
    13. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms special agents.
    14. Internal Revenue Service special agents and inspectors.
    15. Officers of the United States bureau of prisons.
    16. United States Fish and Wildlife special agents.
    17. United States Naval Investigative Service special agents.
    18. United States Department of State special agents.
    19. Special agents of the defense criminal investigative service
    of
    the United States department of defense.
    20. United States Department of Commerce, Office of
    Export
    Enforcement, special agents.
    21. United States Department of Veterans Administration
    police
    officers employed at the Veterans Administration Medical Center
    in
    Batavia.
    22. Federal Reserve law enforcement officers.
    23. Federal air marshal program special agents.
    * 24. United States department of transportation federal
    police
    officers and police supervisors assigned to the United States
    Merchant
    Marine Academy in Kings Point, New York; provided, however
    that,
    notwithstanding any provision of this section to the contrary,
    such
    police shall also have the powers set forth in paragraph (b)
    of
    subdivision one of section 140.25 of this chapter and the powers
    set
    forth in paragraphs (d), (e) and (g) of subdivision one of section
    2.20
    of this article when acting pursuant to their special duties within
    the
    geographical area of their employment or within one hundred yards
    of
    such geographical area.
    * NB There are 2 sb 24's
    * 24. United States Coast Guard Investigative Service special
    agents.
    * NB There are 2 sb 24's
    25. United States Department of Commerce, special agents
    and
    enforcement officers of the National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric
    Administration's Fisheries Office for Law Enforcement.
    26. Department of the Army special agents, detectives and police
    officers.


    27. United States Department of Interior, park rangers with
    law
    enforcement authority.

    Anyway, I'm not out of luck. I'm a state court officer and have no real stake in this. I just thought that it made for interesting discussion. But back to the topic. The above statute does not mention the need for a permit, and therefore Army police are legally authorized to carry a weapon on their creds under NYS law. Whether the army allows them to do so or not is irrelevant from a legal standpoint, although it may be unwise to violate department policy.
    Last edited by Fuerza; 10-22-2009 at 10:19 PM.

  10. #10
    Cant keep it under 100... Unit453's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,410
    This is gonna get turned into yet another DoD (all branches) police authority thread and its been beat to death on this site for years.

    Any and all 0083's working for DoD, no matter the branch, have no authority to carry off duty. Period, plain and simple. It matters not what each individual state says who you are, its the agency that gives you your "power" if you wanna call it that. The gov't far overrules the individual states when it comes to authority so the day that DoD police for all branches get actual arrest authority is the day that cows will jump over the moon and probably the day that they allow their officers to carry off duty.

    If you're employed by any agency within the Defense Department and you decide to carry off duty, you do so as a private citizen and not a police officer. Most people I know went out and got permits to alleviate any issues.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    150
    The Air Force states that if you want to carry a sidearm off duty, you must have a CCW.

    However, there are exceptions within the AF. Bases in different states have different rules. For example, officers in california are covered under this (( http://www.scribd.com/doc/266143/Opi...General-011005 )) which allows them to carry within the state. Not covered under 218, so they cannot cross the state line, but within they are fine.

    OK is similar - the state recognizes us as peace officers and permits us to carry within the state off uty that same as any officer provided we have our credentials. But thats the rub since we havent got any credentials yet.

    I have a CCW anyway - I recommended all dod police officers have one if you plan on carrying, just in case you get stopped and the unit in question is unfamiliar with you or your agency or the state law. saves you alot of headache

  12. #12
    Hustler irishlad2nv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Time Zone
    Posts
    6,282
    Quote Originally Posted by YankeeWhite View Post
    I have a CCW anyway - I recommended all dod police officers have one if you plan on carrying, just in case you get stopped and the unit in question is unfamiliar with you or your agency or the state law. saves you alot of headache
    There should not be any "headache" or confusion anyway since DOA, DON, Air Force and Marines Civilian Police do not have any authority off-duty anyway. All you can do is get a CCW and that's it. Don't go out there and get stopped and flash your badge/ID with your gun. 9 out of 10 times the local or state or even Fed will give you some courtesy, but that 1 time will jam you up. Simple solution. If you have a CCW, leave your "0083 police" ID/Badge at home.
    "An excuse is worse and more terrible than a lie, for an excuse is a lie guarded."

  13. #13
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Washington DC area
    Posts
    1,837
    Fureza, thanks for posting the new CPL, I knew that DOI Rangers were added to the list, but did not see it....

  14. #14
    all around nice guy
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by Fuerza View Post
    This is outdated. The new statute reads:

    § 2.15 Federal law enforcement officers; powers.
    The following federal law enforcement officers shall have the
    powers set forth ...
    26. Department of the Army special agents, detectives and police
    officers
    .
    Fascinating thread. It's interesting to note that the New York statute doesn't distinguish between military police officers and Army civilian police officers. It just says Army police officers.

  15. #15
    LEO Woofdog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Wilmington, North Carolina
    Posts
    1,131
    Fuerza,

    The sovereign state of New York can empower anyone to carry a concealed weapon within the state that they want to. Similarly, the states of Vermont and Alaska don't even prohibit ANYONE from carrying a concealed handgun, I'm told.

    That having been said, it has nothing to do with nationwide carry under LEOSA.

    So if NY law says a DoD base police officer can carry concealed, they can't be prosecuted in state court for doing it, provided they follow the other provisions.

    But if DoD regs specifically prohibit CCW off duty under DoD creds, a base cop may not be prosecuted under state law, but may still get in trouble with their employer. Conditions of employment. Silly, and maybe unConstitutional, but who will fight the battle?

    In order to be included under LEOSA, an officer must work for a public agency, and have statutory powers of arrest.

    Base uniformed DoD police don't have statutory powers of arrest. Neither do military special agents of the CID, NCIS or AFOSI.

    Only civilian special agents, GS-1811's, of CID, NCIS and AFOSI have statutory powers of arrest under federal law.
    Politically Correct? No.

    Truthful? Yes!

  16. #16
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    427
    Quote Originally Posted by Woofdog View Post
    Fuerza,

    The sovereign state of New York can empower anyone to carry a concealed weapon within the state that they want to. Similarly, the states of Vermont and Alaska don't even prohibit ANYONE from carrying a concealed handgun, I'm told.

    That having been said, it has nothing to do with nationwide carry under LEOSA.

    So if NY law says a DoD base police officer can carry concealed, they can't be prosecuted in state court for doing it, provided they follow the other provisions.

    But if DoD regs specifically prohibit CCW off duty under DoD creds, a base cop may not be prosecuted under state law, but may still get in trouble with their employer. Conditions of employment. Silly, and maybe unConstitutional, but who will fight the battle?

    In order to be included under LEOSA, an officer must work for a public agency, and have statutory powers of arrest.

    Base uniformed DoD police don't have statutory powers of arrest. Neither do military special agents of the CID, NCIS or AFOSI.

    Only civilian special agents, GS-1811's, of CID, NCIS and AFOSI have statutory powers of arrest under federal law.
    The bolded portion of your post is what I initially intended to be the primary focus of this thread. With this addition to the NYS CPL, Department of the Army special agents, detectives, and police officers do have statutory powers of arrest in New York State. HR 218 never says that the statute from which the arrest powers are derived must be from the same level of government which employs the officer. Therefore, it would at least initially seem that a state statute could be sufficient to meet the statutory authority requirement even for a federal officer. And since NYS law does not limit this authority to Army police officers based in NY, it could be argued that all DA police fall under the statute. Do you see what I'm saying? I'm not trying to prove one way or the other. I'm simply saying that due to the vagueness of LEOSA, one could make a very strong argument for DA police coverage under it.

    If this were the case, whether or not Army policy allows base police officers to carry off duty would not matter. Under those circumstances, an officer could be administratively penalized by the agency for carrying without a permit (although it could be challenged legally), but could not be prosecuted criminally.

  17. #17
    LEO Woofdog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Wilmington, North Carolina
    Posts
    1,131
    I think you're right. If a state grants independent state powers of arrest to a certain class of officer, even if that officer is normally employed by the federal government, it would seem that the basics of the LEOSA would be met.

    At least as a defense from criminal prosecution.

    However, DoD regulations do strictly regulate "deputation" of federal employees by states and local governments. So what remains questionable is whether DoD officers could even take advantage of the arrest powers granted by the state.

    The federal Posse Comitatus Act, as you know, prohibits the use of military personnel, and employees of military personnel (like civilian DoD cops) from acting as a posse comitatus, i.e., exercising state powers of arrest.
    Politically Correct? No.

    Truthful? Yes!

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    150
    Hopefully that will change under Shah Barack the First. The only thing I am hoping he will do (having botched the rest.) Separate the DOD police agencies from under the military chain of command and make them a unified and separate agency for law enforcement, answerable to the DOD instead of garrison commanders, thus ensuring objectivity on bases rather than favoritism based on a commander's pleasure.

  19. #19
    LEO Woofdog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Wilmington, North Carolina
    Posts
    1,131
    Good luck. I'm not holding my breath.

    He'll screw that one up, too!
    Politically Correct? No.

    Truthful? Yes!

  20. #20
    Forum Member Re-Birth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    National Capital Region
    Posts
    297
    Fuerza

    I believe that your opinion is probably correct, most DACP's have been indoctrinated to believe the Army's legal opinion, and they have taken that opinion, no matter how flawed it is, to be established law. The current dogmatic opinion of the DoA was rendered by an individual high up the Army's food chain. However, this opinion has yet to stand up to judicial scrunity, and until there is established case law on the subject, no legal opinion is more or less authoritative than any other. There are compelling counter arguments to the Army's position and you just mentioned one among a few.

    The fact is, the Army doesnt really have a say on whether or not a State wants to recognize Army civilian law enforcement personnel as such, thus allowing them to exercise all the professional privileges given to any other LEO in the State. Military personnel are a different story, SCOTUS and the inferior courts has always given deference to Congress's constitutional role of regulating and disciplining Military conduct and will, almost never intervene in matters of the UCMJ. Therefore, even if there is a local law to the contary, UCMJ will always trump. But for civilian LEO's, unless there is local law or a contractual collective bargaining agreement disallowing off duty carry, there is little the Army can do. There is no Army regulation governing off duty carry, except for a sentence in AR 190-56 that says Army weapons and ammunition may not be used while off duty. That sentence can actually be interpreted as an implication that the Army recognizes that it does not have any authority to regulate the off duty carry of privately owned weapons by civilians.

    A key argument that I hear against DACP's carrying under LEOSA, is that we are private citizens when we're off duty, and in off duty status, we have no jurisdiction whatsoever. However, LEOSA is not a jurisdictional act, its a SAFETY act, it does not purport to give the off duty LEO anymore jurisdiction than what is already granted by statute or common law. Im not saying that my opinion is correct either, but one thing most can agree on is that there is ambiguity in the law pertaining to the law enforcement status of civilian DoD officers and until there is a LEOSA test case that brings forth some clarity we will always be having these conversations in the realm of the hypothetical.
    Last edited by Re-Birth; 10-25-2009 at 12:51 AM. Reason: edit
    Never ask a man if he served in the Marine Corps! If he earned the title "Marine" he will tell you, if he didn't, there is no need to embarrass him.

  21. #21
    all around nice guy
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    295
    I personally believe that DoD, DoA and DoN officers are currently eligible to carry under the LEOSA. Having said that...

    By policy, a law enforcement employer can restrict the off-duty carrying of firearms by its employed officers. However, if an officer obtains a CCW permit, then he is free to carry a firearm, but it's under the authority of the CCW permit and not under the authority of his employer's credentials.

    If an employer prohibits an employee from carrying a firearm under the authority of his issued police credentials -- and if the employee does it anyways -- then the employer may terminate the officer, contingent upon applicable:
    1. SOPs
    2. Union contract

    This is a can of worms that is best left untouched i.e. potential legislative issues that are best left alone.
    Last edited by me_again; 10-24-2009 at 07:37 PM.

  22. #22
    Forum Member Re-Birth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    National Capital Region
    Posts
    297
    Quote Originally Posted by me_again View Post
    I personally believe that DoD, DoA and DoN officers are currently eligible to carry under the LEOSA. Having said that...

    By policy, a law enforcement employer can restrict the off-duty carrying of firearms by its employed officers. However, if an officer obtains a CCW permit, then he is free to carry a firearm, but it's under the authority of the CCW permit and not under the authority of his employer's credentials.

    If an employer prohibits an employee from carrying a firearm under the authority of his issued police credentials -- and if the employee does it anyways -- then the employer may terminate the officer, contingent upon applicable:
    1. SOPs
    2. Union contract

    This is a can of worms that is best left untouched i.e. potential legislative issues that are best left alone.
    The employer can restrict the means of "off duty" carry but not the action. Meaning they can restrict what firearms you carry in some circmstances but, if the officer meets the qualifications as set forth by LEOSA, they cannot prevent that officer from carrying. According to an opine by the California Attorney General, the legislative intent of LEOSA was precisely to strip that power away from the chief administrator.

    As far as carrying on your LE credentials, you may be correct in the sense that they are the property of that dept, or in the Army (the Commanding officer) who can therefore regulate its manner of useage, but in addition to Police Creds, DACP's also have thier Armed Forces ID Card, which according to the 2nd Circuit Court decision of NY v. Booth, is sufficient for the purposes of LEOSA. Being that AFID Cards are not issued under the guidance of the Commanding Officer, but under the guidance of an under-secretary, i dont think utilizing the ID card would subject them to termination. If it did, that termination may be deemed wrongful, especially if that officer was using it for purposes which was statutorily granted to him by an act of Congress.
    Last edited by Re-Birth; 10-24-2009 at 08:23 PM. Reason: edit
    Never ask a man if he served in the Marine Corps! If he earned the title "Marine" he will tell you, if he didn't, there is no need to embarrass him.

  23. #23
    LEO Woofdog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Wilmington, North Carolina
    Posts
    1,131
    Quote Originally Posted by me_again View Post
    I personally believe that DoD, DoA and DoN officers are currently eligible to carry under the LEOSA.

    ...
    You're just as wrong now as you were 6 years ago.
    Politically Correct? No.

    Truthful? Yes!

  24. #24
    LEO Woofdog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Wilmington, North Carolina
    Posts
    1,131
    Bottom line is, the ONLY uniformed police agencies working for DoD who have statutory powers of arrest, per federal statute, are the Pentagon Police (PFPA) and the NSA Police.

    All other civilian police officers working for DoD don't have statutory powers of arrest, and are therefore not covered under LEOSA.

    Wasn't this already discussed and resolved years ago? Didn't US DOJ, SecDef, all service JAGS, and just about everybody else with any kind of lawful authority already render edicts about that?

    Thought so.
    Politically Correct? No.

    Truthful? Yes!

  25. #25
    all around nice guy
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by Re-Birth View Post
    The employer can restrict the means of "off duty" carry but not the action. Meaning they can restrict what firearms you carry in some circmstances but, if the officer meets the qualifications as set forth by LEOSA, they cannot prevent that officer from carrying. According to an opine by the California Attorney General, the legislative intent of LEOSA was precisely to strip that power away from the chief administrator.

    As far as carrying on your LE credentials, you may be correct in the sense that they are the property of that dept, or in the Army (the Commanding officer) who can therefore regulate its manner of useage, but in addition to Police Creds, DACP's also have thier Armed Forces ID Card, which according to the 2nd Circuit Court decision of NY v. Booth, is sufficient for the purposes of LEOSA. Being that AFID Cards are not issued under the guidance of the Commanding Officer, but under the guidance of an under-secretary, i dont think utilizing the ID card would subject them to termination. If it did, that termination may be deemed wrongful, especially if that officer was using it for purposes which was statutorily granted to him by an act of Congress.
    Do you acknowledge that if a DoD officer carries an off-duty firearm, against the policies of his employer and without a CCW permit, then his employer can terminate his employment?

Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 ... 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
  •