Page 1 of 3 123 Last
  1. #1
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    3

    CID and Concealed Carry

    Hello all,

    I've been following issue with military-members of MCIOs not being covered under HR 218 for a while now, and completely understand why we are not covered. I am currently at Fort Leonard Wood attending a CID-related course and have had difficulty convincing my fellow agents that we are taking a gamble every time we leave the installation carrying a weapon without a concealed carry license. Of course, they refuse to believe that LEOSA does not cover us "federal agents", even when provided the law in black and white, and the limitation of our apprehension/arrest authority. The strange thing is that some of them are telling me that their CID Groups are mandating they carry their weapon when conducting investigative duties on or off the installation, as stated in our regulation. I feel that Commanders and Ops at Battalion, Group, and even Command levels are not aware that military agents are not covered under LEOSA, and giving bad guidance. I feel that I will face the same reluctance to accept the truth from people at higher headquarters, that I have faced from my peers. I've thought about getting in contact with Command JAG, but wanted to make sure I got all my ducks in a row before going up the chain with this.

    I also find it ironic that the protective services provided to the SECDEF and his crew are by military agents of CID and other MCIOs since they are not legally allowed to carry concealed with just their B/Cs.

  2. #2
    Gimme Yo Acorns, Sucka!
    QuietPro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North Cackalacky
    Posts
    1,163
    Sticky, sticky issue......The Posse Comitatus Act is the main thing that bites you military guys in the arse.....and don't look for that law to be repealed anytime soon. And the fact that service members lack "statutory power of arrest" is also a major issue.

    I have no problem addressing them as "investigators".....but "Federal Agents"?......Umm, no. They are not any such thing. They are servicemen serving as well-trained investigators......and carrying off-duty while lacking "statutory powers of arrest"......sorry, if DoD CIVILIAN officers aren't granted the privileges, than why should servicemen be?
    Just another squirrel, tryin' to get a nut......

  3. #3
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    4
    DoubleO, I tried to PM you but you have it disabled. I just got to FLW to start the next CIDSAC class. This place really is lost in the woods.

    Back on target, I have been doing some research on this exact subject. I really see it going both ways and only a judge can decide if Active Duty CID Agents fall under LEOSA IMO.

    The biggest issue I believe is the term apprehension/arrest. I honestly don't think there is a difference.

    Another thing is with the amendments President Obama signed in Oct 2010. At the very end it states:

    "(f) For the purposes of this section, a law enforcement officer of the Amtrak Police Department, a law enforcement officer of the Federal Reserve, or a law enforcement or police officer of the executive branch of the Federal Government qualifies as an employee of a governmental agency who is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and has statutory powers of arrest."

    With that being said, DOD and all MCIO's fall under the Executive Branch, which adds more mud to the water.

    I think this can only be cleared up with case law.

  4. #4
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    4
    Here is a post I found on another forum that is discussing this same topic.

    Basic definitions taken from Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bouvier...w_Dictionary):
    Statutory: enacted, created, or regulated by statute
    Statute: The written will of the legislature, solemnly expressed according to the forms prescribed in the constitution; an act of the legislature.
    Arrest: The apprehending or detaining of the person, in order to be forthcoming to answer an alleged or suspected crime.
    Apprehend: The capture or arrest of a person.

    We can agree that the US Code is a listing of statutes, can't we? The UCMJ is codified in 10 USC 47. Section 807 (Article 7) defines apprehension as taking a person into custody; Section 809 (Article 9) defines arrest as imposition of restraint of a person by an order. I can only speak for Army CID, as that's where I hail from. Military CID Agents are empowered by the authority of The Commaning General, USACIDC, and their local Installation Commanders, with standing orders to conduct apprehensions/arrests related to the investigation and prevention of crimes on the installation. Our tests for apprehension/arrest are the same as Civilian LEOs. (I'm not addressing civilian agents, they get their authority nice and in black and white.)

    Therefore, by definition, statutory arrest powers exist for Military CID Agents (as well as others, but I'm not addressing that in this posting), passing that test. Some will argue this doesn't count as true statutory powers of arrest because its focus is limited and "ends at the gate." To that, I would argue that actually, the UCMJ is applicable worldwide, unlike any state's penal code. If I see someone anywhere, whom I believe to be a service member, and have probable cause to believe that person has committed a crime cognizable under the UCMJ, I can apprehend/arrest him/her. However, I'd rather just be a good witness, and phone the locals.

    Military CID Agents have photographic credentials allowing them to carry concealed. For purposes of the LEOSA, it doesn't matter for what purpose that credential authorizes carry. LEOSA only requires that credential identify that Agent as a LEO, be current and in the individuals possession. Sure, the head-shed may have regulations and operational memos limiting (or a total vaccumm regarding) the carry of personally owned weapons in an off-duty situation. In the event an Agent was carrying their own weapon under LEOSA, and needed to defend him or herself in an off-duty situation, without state authorized CCL, they would probably be wrong in the eyes of their command. But, they will be alive, and be vindicated by SCOTUS (if it goes that far), as this is the obvious intent and spirit of the law.

  5. #5
    Forum Member
    AZDesertRat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    The Western Desert
    Posts
    252
    While conducting an investigation of a crime within the CID's nexus, you will be covered while carrying off the installation. Case law on that issue is very clear, as long as you stay within your scope and don't arrest/apprehend individuals not within your jurisdiction (subject to the UCMJ, unless you have some other authority ie deputy sheriff ect.)

    Off duty, you as a military member, are not covered under LEOSA. That is point blank and simple. While some jurisdictions may honor the badge and not take issue with it, you are taking a huge chance. Get the CCW, and be free of the concern. To say that, as your quoted text implies "be vindicated by SCOTUS (if it goes that far)" is perhaps the dumbest thing we in law enforcement can say. NEVER believe you know the way a court decision will go without clear and established case law and an official opinion of your USA, AUSA, SAUSA or JAG. Even then if you have been in LE as long as many of us here have, you will know that when a case gets to SCOTUS, all bets are OFF!

  6. #6
    One man Wolfpack
    M-11's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    The Sand Dune...
    Posts
    4,231
    Does your credentials say something different than mine?


    UNITED STATES AIR FORCE
    This is to certify that

    **M-11**
    Whose signature and photograph appear
    below is a SPECIAL AGENT of the

    AIR FORCE
    OFFICE OF SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS

    And as such is a Federal Agent authorized to
    investigate violations of the laws of the United
    States.authorized to carry firearms even if
    concealed, and authorized to perform other
    duties as may be of interest to the United States
    Air Force and entrusted to this agent.

    I am asking because I am not familiar with CID's processes. I always assumed their scope of operations was similar to ours/NCIS.

    M-11
    “All men dream...... But not equally..
    Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find it is vanity;
    but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men,
    for they act their dreams with open eyes to make it possible.....”

    TE Lawrence

  7. #7
    One man Wolfpack
    M-11's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    The Sand Dune...
    Posts
    4,231
    I have no problem addressing them as "investigators".....but "Federal Agents"?......Umm, no. They are not any such thing. They are servicemen serving as well-trained investigators......and carrying off-duty while lacking "statutory powers of arrest"......sorry, if DoD CIVILIAN officers aren't granted the privileges, than why should servicemen be?

    You Sure?

    M-11
    “All men dream...... But not equally..
    Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find it is vanity;
    but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men,
    for they act their dreams with open eyes to make it possible.....”

    TE Lawrence

  8. #8
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    3
    Colombianito1021, I've enabled PMs.

    AZDesertRat, can you please specify what case law you are referring to? I'd like to do some research. Also, we are encouraged to take our weapons home at the end of the day, do you feel that we would still be covered under the case law you are referring to, when traveling between work and home? The point of my post was not to clarify whether we are authorized to carry off-duty, because I agree with you that it's pretty clear we are not.

    M-11, unfortunately, our regulation prohibits us from carrying our B/Cs when in a training status, so I can't verify exactly what's written on my them at this moment. I do believe that military members of MCIOs are Federal Agents in title, however, USACIDC and the Army do all that they can to make sure we don't ever feel like one. Case in point, the fact that I am not even authorized to carry my B/Cs or weapon during training. From a story I was told, CID held a conference recently, and the only one in attendance carrying their duty weapon was an AFOSI agent.

  9. #9
    Tinfoil Hat Engineer
    sgt jon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Under the Radar
    Posts
    2,771
    Quote Originally Posted by DoubleO View Post
    Hello all,

    I've been following issue with military-members of MCIOs not being covered under HR 218 for a while now, and completely understand why we are not covered. I am currently at Fort Leonard Wood attending a CID-related course and have had difficulty convincing my fellow agents that we are taking a gamble every time we leave the installation carrying a weapon without a concealed carry license.
    The matter of being covered by LEOSA has been beaten to death time and time again. Some say that it has been settled while others continue to debate the semantics of it…all for naut. At present the opinions vary and even when clear guidance is issued the debates will continue. This is nothing new and stems from the original confusion when LEOSA (18 USC 926B and 926C) were passed. This was further compounded when the LEOSA Improvement Act was recently passed.

    While the recent update to DODI 5525.15 does not specifically address uniformed service members, there is a technical amendment to 18 USC 926B and 926C that will correct the apparent “confusion” and make clear that the term apprehension is applied to the law; thus ending the matter once and for all. All of this has nothing to do with DoD personnel who are on-duty and engaged in official duties as they are already covered by provisions of Titles 5 and 10 to carry a firearm while working; regardless of location.

    Quote Originally Posted by DoubleO View Post
    … The strange thing is that some of them are telling me that their CID Groups are mandating they carry their weapon when conducting investigative duties on or off the installation, as stated in our regulation. I feel that Commanders and Ops at Battalion, Group, and even Command levels are not aware that military agents are not covered under LEOSA, and giving bad guidance.
    While in the performance of official duties, regardless of CONUS location a member of the Armed Forces is authorized to carry a firearm. This is codified in US Code and there is no question that a member of CID (Military or Civilian Agent) is covered by the law. Just as any other authorized individual with any other federal entity who is authorized to carry a firearm may do so without requiring a permit to do so may. Of course OCONUS is a different matter entirely, but for the purpose of this discussion we shall limit it to CONUS.

    FWIW they are giving correct guidance for the reasons already identified.

    Quote Originally Posted by DoubleO View Post
    I feel that I will face the same reluctance to accept the truth from people at higher headquarters, that I have faced from my peers. I've thought about getting in contact with Command JAG, but wanted to make sure I got all my ducks in a row before going up the chain with this.
    What reluctance? While the matter of coverage under LEOSA may be subject to “debate” while in a non-duty status, while on-duty there is no requirement that an authorized individual have a permit, be they on or off their respective installation.

    Quote Originally Posted by DoubleO View Post
    I also find it ironic that the protective services provided to the SECDEF and his crew are by military agents of CID and other MCIOs since they are not legally allowed to carry concealed with just their B/Cs.
    This is not correct. While Army CID does provide support to the protection mission for the SECDEF and other designated DoD personnel, they are covered by appropriate provisions of US Code, Service Regulations and Policy to carry firearms in the conduct of these duties. I would suggest a complete review of DODD 5210.56 and referenced authorities under Titles 5 and 10 of the US Code before you start down a path of assuming you’re somehow more versed in the matter than those in command.
    Quote Originally Posted by SSD View Post
    It has long been the tradition on this forum and as well as professionally not to second guess or Monday morning QB the officer's who were actually on-scene and had to make the decision. That being said, I don't think that your discussion will go very far on this board.
    Quote Originally Posted by Iowa #1603 View Post
    And now you are arguing about not arguing..................

  10. #10
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    3
    Thanks for the clarification sgt jon. I wasn't aware of the existence of DODD 5210.56 and am familiarizing myself with Titles 5 and 10. I posed the questions that I did because I was unfamiliar with all the legalities of MICOs and our authorization to carry off-installation. Unfortunately, this information was not provided to me before given a gun and told to do good things.

  11. #11
    Hustler
    irishlad2nv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Time Zone
    Posts
    6,282
    Are you a Federal Agent DoubleO?

    Do you have statutory powers of arrest?

    I see where you would be cautious about leaving a base with the weapon, however most LEO's would not have an issue if you came into contact, however my suggestion is if there are 1811 Special Agents at your Army CID, talk to them or your COC.

    This issue about HR 218 has been beaten more then a dead horse and risen from the dead almost daily in here.

    You are issued or handed a gun...my advice, before doing anything. Ask what you are allowed to do...CYA...just my .02.
    "An excuse is worse and more terrible than a lie, for an excuse is a lie guarded."

  12. #12
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    4
    Here are a couple things I took from AR 195-2 dated 15 May 2009. It is public information and unclassified.

    Section IV

    U.S. Army Criminal Investigations Command Special Agents

    3–19. General
    a. All USACIDC special agents are authorized to enforce the criminal laws of the United States concerning any offense over which the Army has investigative authority. Nothing in this regulation purports to authorize any action that would constitute a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act (18 USC 1385).

    b.
    All USACIDC special agents (military and civilian) are recognized as Federal agents (law enforcement) under Title 28 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 60.3a(2) (28 CFR 60.3a(2)).
    3–21. Authority to apprehend or detain
    a. Pursuant to Rules for Courts-Martial (R.C.M) 302, MCM, U.S., UCMJ, and Article 7 (10 USC 807); USACIDC special agents are authorized to apprehend any person subject to the UCMJ, regardless of location, if there is probable cause to believe that person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a criminal offense punishable by courts-martial. In affecting apprehensions, such force as may be reasonably necessary, as specified in AR 190–14, chapter 3, may be used. Apprehensions to be made in private dwellings, on or off a military installation, will be accomplished in accordance with the procedures specified in R.C. M. 302 (e)(2). All USACIDC special agents are also authorized to conduct investigative stops of any person subject to the UCMJ, regardless of location, if there is an intelligible and reasonable belief the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a criminal offense.

    b.
    All USACIDC special agents are authorized to apprehend civilian personnel on military installations, facilities, National defense areas (50 USC 797), or areas under military administration when there is probable cause to believe that person has committed an offense cognizable under the criminal laws of the United States to include offenses assimilated from State law, in areas of exclusive Federal, concurrent Federal-state or proprietary Federal jurisdiction. Such persons will be held only until they can be released to an appropriate Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency, or to civilian authorities in accordance with local procedures.

    c.
    No military USACIDC special agents, in their official capacity, have authority to arrest, with or without an arrest warrant, civilians outside the limits of a military installation. When such an arrest is necessary in the conduct of a USACIDC investigation, an arrest warrant must be obtained and executed by a civil law enforcement officer with statutory arrest authority or a civilian USACIDC Special Agent. The USACIDC special agents may accompany the arresting civil law enforcement official for purposes of identifying the person to be arrested and providing backup assistance.

    d.
    In accordance with 10 USC 4027, the Secretary of the Army, in conjunction with the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General, has granted USACIDC civilian special agents statutory arrest authority enabling them to execute and serve arrest warrants, and arrest any person without a warrant off DOD Controlled Property in the United States under specified circumstances. This authority will be exercised under the guidelines that the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General approved in November 2005.

    e.
    The USACIDC military and civilian special agents are authorized to make arrests under the MEJA, outside the United States for offenses subject to prosecution under the MEJA (18 USC 3261 and DODI 5525.11).

  13. #13
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    At Large
    Posts
    348
    M-11 - Our creds are pretty close to each others, ours are just way more outdated looking (they still have the old War Department seal on them. We never updated when it changed to the Department of Defense)

    DoubleO - Maybe its just because its late, but I am having trouble understanding the specific question. Are you talking about on duty or off duty?

    On duty, we would be covered. We can carry concealed on or off the installation. LEOSA doesn't even come into it.

    Off Duty, I am pretty confident we wouldn't run into a problem with civilian agencies, since we have specific law enforcement credentials. (though I don't know anyone jumping to be a test case) The real issues you would run into would be in our own organization. You aren't authorized to carry anything but your duty weapon on your creds, and you aren't authorized to carry your duty weapon off duty. If the person who you were dealing with wanted to contact the organization, you would probably be screwed within our own org.

    Our higher ups however, know full well we are carrying on our creds. Right now we have a lot of RLO's in our command functions who do not have a law enforcement mindset, and basically don't want us armed or having creds off duty. Due to the realities of the job though, the best they can get away with is taking our creds when we step away from the agent role for even a short period of time. There has been a huge push across command to make sure we don't have our creds when we are not on investigative or protective duties. There was even a recent deployment where all creds were confiscated and held on a daily basis, only issued out when necessary for duty and then returned. The proponent for this policy is now at our highest level of command.
    Last edited by LandGuppy; 02-15-2012 at 01:04 AM.

  14. #14
    Gimme Yo Acorns, Sucka!
    QuietPro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North Cackalacky
    Posts
    1,163
    Quote Originally Posted by m-11 View Post
    i have no problem addressing them as "investigators".....but "federal agents"?......umm, no. They are not any such thing. they are servicemen serving as well-trained investigators......and carrying off-duty while lacking "statutory powers of arrest"......sorry, if dod civilian officers aren't granted the privileges, than why should servicemen be?

    You sure?

    m11- if cid, osi, and ncis military (not their civilian counterparts) servicemen carry the designation of "1811", then i owe you an apology. If not, then my answer is "i meant what i said."

    m-11
    Just another squirrel, tryin' to get a nut......

  15. #15
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    557
    Quote Originally Posted by QuietPro View Post
    [/font][/b]
    i
    have no problem addressing them as "investigators".....but "federal agents"?......umm, no. They are not any such thing. they are servicemen serving as well-trained investigators......and carrying off-duty while lacking "statutory powers of arrest"......sorry, if dod civilian officers aren't granted the privileges, than why should servicemen be?

    You sure?

    m11- if cid, osi, and ncis military (not their civilian counterparts) servicemen carry the designation of "1811", then i owe you an apology. If not, then my answer is "i meant what i said."
    You are aware that there are many job series in the Federal Government that are NOT 1811's that still carry the title of Federal Agent.

    FB

  16. #16
    One man Wolfpack
    M-11's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    The Sand Dune...
    Posts
    4,231
    Quote Originally Posted by QuietPro View Post
    [/font][/b]
    Ok...

    If this was this simple, I would imagine there would be no LEOSA discussion.

    M-11
    “All men dream...... But not equally..
    Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find it is vanity;
    but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men,
    for they act their dreams with open eyes to make it possible.....”

    TE Lawrence

  17. #17
    Hustler
    irishlad2nv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Time Zone
    Posts
    6,282
    Quote Originally Posted by LandGuppy View Post
    M-11 - Our creds are pretty close to each others, ours are just way more outdated looking (they still have the old War Department seal on them. We never updated when it changed to the Department of Defense)

    DoubleO - Maybe its just because its late, but I am having trouble understanding the specific question. Are you talking about on duty or off duty?

    On duty, we would be covered. We can carry concealed on or off the installation. LEOSA doesn't even come into it.

    Off Duty, I am pretty confident we wouldn't run into a problem with civilian agencies, since we have specific law enforcement credentials. (though I don't know anyone jumping to be a test case) The real issues you would run into would be in our own organization. You aren't authorized to carry anything but your duty weapon on your creds, and you aren't authorized to carry your duty weapon off duty. If the person who you were dealing with wanted to contact the organization, you would probably be screwed within our own org.

    Our higher ups however, know full well we are carrying on our creds. Right now we have a lot of RLO's in our command functions who do not have a law enforcement mindset, and basically don't want us armed or having creds off duty. Due to the realities of the job though, the best they can get away with is taking our creds when we step away from the agent role for even a short period of time. There has been a huge push across command to make sure we don't have our creds when we are not on investigative or protective duties. There was even a recent deployment where all creds were confiscated and held on a daily basis, only issued out when necessary for duty and then returned. The proponent for this policy is now at our highest level of command.
    ...you are an actual 1811 correct? Then I have no beef...

    The OP...and their military counterparts being assigned to CID...think they can carry off-duty per LESOA...

    Military Special Agents have no statutory arrest authority over civilians. Civilian special agents are authorized to arrest civilians with and without warrant, on or off a military installation, for violations of federal law. Big difference there.
    "An excuse is worse and more terrible than a lie, for an excuse is a lie guarded."

  18. #18
    Gimme Yo Acorns, Sucka!
    QuietPro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North Cackalacky
    Posts
    1,163
    ^^ Irish has better clarified what I meant by my earlier reply to M11; I agree with him.

    I am not trying to start fights with the service-member investigators of this forum. But I repeat: you are not "Federal agents". You are soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen assigned or volunteered for law enforcement investigative duties.

    I didn't say "You are less."

    I AM saying "You aren't Federal Agents."
    Just another squirrel, tryin' to get a nut......

  19. #19
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2
    I am not sure if there is any way to persuade civilian LEOs that they are incorrect, but I did not want my military agent brothers to rely on them as gospel, particularly when they are really shooting from the hip (no pun intended). First, accredited CID agents are authorized to carry concealed 24/7 by virtue of their authority under Title 10. Same as OSI, USMC CID and other active duty accredited agents. I am not sure how many hats you want to hang on the designation "Federal". CID agents are accredited and sworn, they are not MP's who go on duty and off duty and leave their guns behind.
    Now, let's talk about LEOSA. Initially all LE management opposed this LEOSA. IACP, Major Cities, etc. none of them wanted retirees carrying guns...risk of liability, bad publicity, etc etc. The FOP had the political clout of the rank and file and Congress passed it. DODIG was requested to give an opinion at the initial stages of whether LEOSA would apply to CID agents. Well, of course it would, we are trained, sworn, have TS clearances (how many civilian LEO's can make that claim?} train with our M11s as often as civilian LEOs. Well, DoD did not like that answer and so they got a legal opinion that made a distinction between arrest and apprehension. This is a complete red herring. There is no difference. Look at the CID website FAQ's...even they admit there is no difference between arrest and apprehend. But they are hanging on to that to the end to deny retirees credentials. But you active guys and gals don't need to worry about LEOSA. You are Federal agents whether some civilian likes it or not. Yes I am a lawyer. And had 32 years as an agent and 21 in Protective Services. There is a de facto pecking order in LE and the FBI is at the top and those on the bottom want to find someone else below them so they pick Army CID. You are a Federal Agent.
    Posse Comitatus does not apply as our arrest authority is limited to non posse cases.
    Colonel Tufts created this agency a long time ago and hundreds of agents have been in every state and most every country long before the school house was in Leonard Wood. And they carry on duty and off duty. Just don't do something to bring any discredit to yourself or the agency and stop worrying about getting arrest for a CCW beef. Yes, that means NY, Mass, NJ, Chicago...all of them.
    Do What Has To Be Done.... Saying you are not a Federal Agent is simply not true. You are. Do military doctors write prescriptions? Do military pilots fly airplanes? Do military lawyers practice law?
    Being a CID agent is not being an MP. We don't do anything else. Read that credential again. And good luck. And hopefully Sen Leahy will add "and or apprehend" to LEOSA this year and end this discrimination against military agents.

  20. #20
    Gimme Yo Acorns, Sucka!
    QuietPro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North Cackalacky
    Posts
    1,163
    ^^ Not impressed at all; despite your credentials, "Counselor". You'll forgive me for being so skeptical, considering all this info on your first post. Soon, I expect you'll be pushing sales of your new book or pamphlet. News flash: That's been tried here, and offenders are promptly banned.

    If you're so sure of yourself, go ahead and head to D.C. and fight to give all DoD 0083's the same privileges you are preaching that CID and the other agencies enjoy. Pull that off, and I'll give you all the props in the world. But I expect that won't happen for a long, long time......like I expect you are full of hot air, also.
    Just another squirrel, tryin' to get a nut......

  21. #21
    One man Wolfpack
    M-11's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    The Sand Dune...
    Posts
    4,231
    Just seems weird...

    I train and certify Federal Agents.

    I have sat on review boards to hire Federal Agents.

    I write feedbacks and appraisals for Federal Agents.

    My creds even say it and stuff.

    But I'm not one.

    I suddenly feel so dirty and fake...

    M-11
    “All men dream...... But not equally..
    Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find it is vanity;
    but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men,
    for they act their dreams with open eyes to make it possible.....”

    TE Lawrence

  22. #22
    One man Wolfpack
    M-11's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    The Sand Dune...
    Posts
    4,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Gavel View Post
    I am not sure if there is any way to persuade civilian LEOs that they are incorrect, but I did not want my military agent brothers to rely on them as gospel, particularly when they are really shooting from the hip (no pun intended). First, accredited CID agents are authorized to carry concealed 24/7 by virtue of their authority under Title 10. Same as OSI, USMC CID and other active duty accredited agents. I am not sure how many hats you want to hang on the designation "Federal". CID agents are accredited and sworn, they are not MP's who go on duty and off duty and leave their guns behind.
    Now, let's talk about LEOSA. Initially all LE management opposed this LEOSA. IACP, Major Cities, etc. none of them wanted retirees carrying guns...risk of liability, bad publicity, etc etc. The FOP had the political clout of the rank and file and Congress passed it. DODIG was requested to give an opinion at the initial stages of whether LEOSA would apply to CID agents. Well, of course it would, we are trained, sworn, have TS clearances (how many civilian LEO's can make that claim?} train with our M11s as often as civilian LEOs. Well, DoD did not like that answer and so they got a legal opinion that made a distinction between arrest and apprehension. This is a complete red herring. There is no difference. Look at the CID website FAQ's...even they admit there is no difference between arrest and apprehend. But they are hanging on to that to the end to deny retirees credentials. But you active guys and gals don't need to worry about LEOSA. You are Federal agents whether some civilian likes it or not. Yes I am a lawyer. And had 32 years as an agent and 21 in Protective Services. There is a de facto pecking order in LE and the FBI is at the top and those on the bottom want to find someone else below them so they pick Army CID. You are a Federal Agent.
    Posse Comitatus does not apply as our arrest authority is limited to non posse cases.
    Colonel Tufts created this agency a long time ago and hundreds of agents have been in every state and most every country long before the school house was in Leonard Wood. And they carry on duty and off duty. Just don't do something to bring any discredit to yourself or the agency and stop worrying about getting arrest for a CCW beef. Yes, that means NY, Mass, NJ, Chicago...all of them.
    Do What Has To Be Done.... Saying you are not a Federal Agent is simply not true. You are. Do military doctors write prescriptions? Do military pilots fly airplanes? Do military lawyers practice law?
    Being a CID agent is not being an MP. We don't do anything else. Read that credential again. And good luck. And hopefully Sen Leahy will add "and or apprehend" to LEOSA this year and end this discrimination against military agents.
    I don't know why but I get the feeling I don't want you arguing my side.

    Please, don't help.

    M-11
    “All men dream...... But not equally..
    Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find it is vanity;
    but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men,
    for they act their dreams with open eyes to make it possible.....”

    TE Lawrence

  23. #23
    Gimme Yo Acorns, Sucka!
    QuietPro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North Cackalacky
    Posts
    1,163
    ^^ lol!
    Just another squirrel, tryin' to get a nut......

  24. #24
    One man Wolfpack
    M-11's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    The Sand Dune...
    Posts
    4,231
    Quote Originally Posted by M-11 View Post
    Just seems weird...

    I train and certify Federal Agents.

    I have sat on review boards to hire Federal Agents.

    I write feedbacks and appraisals for Federal Agents.

    My creds even say it and stuff.

    But I'm not one.

    I suddenly feel so dirty and fake...

    M-11
    And to clarify:

    I actually like feeling dirty so it's no big deal.

    M-11
    “All men dream...... But not equally..
    Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find it is vanity;
    but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men,
    for they act their dreams with open eyes to make it possible.....”

    TE Lawrence

  25. #25
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2
    Well, like I said, I was not sure I wanted to get in QuietPro's crosshairs. Anything but quiet and your criticisms border on unprofessional but well, I guess I expected that. Oh, no book, no pamphlet, no training course, just my first and second and most likely last contribution. Your view of the 1st Amendment could use some fine tuning. Differing opinions in a civilized society are to be embraced.
    Hot air, indeed.

Page 1 of 3 123 Last

Posting Permissions

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

Log in

Click here to log in or register