Page 1 of 7 1234 ... Last
Like Tree55Likes

Thread: Uh oh....

  1. #1
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    175

    Uh oh....

    fop.net/servlet/display/news_article?id=5057&XSL=xsl_pages%2Fpublic_news_i ndividual.xsl&nocache=2932549


    SENATE AMENDS DoD BILL WITH LEOSA FIX 12/04/2012

    Chuck Canterbury, National President of the Fraternal Order of Police, hailed the unanimous passage of an amendment to S. 3254, the "National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)," which clarifies that civilian law enforcement officers employed by the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) unambiguously meet the definitions in the Law Enforcement Officers' Safety Act (LEOSA).

    "The FOP has always maintained that existing language in the LEOSA clearly included civilian law enforcement officers employed by the Defense Department," Canterbury said. "With the amendment adopted by the Senate last night, there is no longer any question at all."

    Senator James H. Webb, Jr. (D-VA) introduced S. Amdt. 2943, which was cosponsored by the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT). The language clarifies the definitions of "qualified active" and "qualified retired" law enforcement officer to include officers who have or had the authority to apprehend suspects under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and was crafted in consultation with the Office of Law Enforcement and Support with the Defense Department.

    "We are deeply grateful to Senators Leahy and Webb for their strong commitment to see this amendment through, especially given the enormous number of amendments competing for floor time on the underlying bill," Canterbury said. "Their tenacity and perseverance really paid off for our members employed by the DoD."

    The Senate continues its consideration of S. 3254 today and a final vote on the bill could be held before the end of the week. Assuming the Senate passes the legislation, the bill would still be subject to a House-Senate conference committee to reconcile S. 3254 with the previously-passed House version, H.R. 4310. The FOP is working, along with our Senate allies, to make sure the provision is retained in the final legislation.

  2. #2
    Solo is how I roll
    statebear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Behind you
    Posts
    1,659
    Hope the senate passes it and you guys can finally be "real police."

    Becuase we all know, only the real police can pack off-duty on creds....
    Bel_Biv_CA likes this.

  3. #3
    Gimme Yo Acorns, Sucka!
    QuietPro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North Cackalacky
    Posts
    1,163
    They'll probably make you guys do it "V.A. Police" style; making you lock up your off-duty, personal firearm before issuing you guys your duty firearm. Then you would pick up your personal weapon on your way out the door after turning in your duty firearm. I doubt very much they will let you guys take home a govt. issued M9.....Knowing DoD, they'll probably attach some stupid rule amendment telling you guys that even though you have LEOSA, you still can't come on base while packing your firearm while you're off duty, too......Even though you frickin' work there. Wait and see......
    Just another squirrel, tryin' to get a nut......

  4. #4
    Forum Member
    HI629's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UT
    Posts
    1,955
    Quote Originally Posted by QuietPro View Post
    They'll probably make you guys do it "V.A. Police" style; making you lock up your off-duty, personal firearm before issuing you guys your duty firearm. Then you would pick up your personal weapon on your way out the door after turning in your duty firearm. I doubt very much they will let you guys take home a govt. issued M9.....Knowing DoD, they'll probably attach some stupid rule amendment telling you guys that even though you have LEOSA, you still can't come on base while packing your firearm while you're off duty, too......Even though you frickin' work there. Wait and see......
    Just as well. I'd hate to have to CC a M9!
    KJB likes this.

  5. #5
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    175
    At current that's excatly how we do it on my base, Our POW's are secured in the RFI room while on duty.
    Last edited by dod299; 12-05-2012 at 02:30 AM.

  6. #6
    Gimme Yo Acorns, Sucka!
    QuietPro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North Cackalacky
    Posts
    1,163
    ^^??? How? There's only one military base that I know of that permits off-duty carry to their 0083 officers. Are you out in California, by chance?
    Just another squirrel, tryin' to get a nut......

  7. #7
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    175
    No Quietpro I'm not, however I did work in California few years back. Our ability to carry on post changes with wind, someone does something stupid, we're all punished. Then after they are done treating us like children, they throw us a bone til the next time someone does something stupid.
    QuietPro likes this.

  8. #8
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Varies
    Posts
    392
    Quote Originally Posted by QuietPro View Post
    ^^??? How? There's only one military base that I know of that permits off-duty carry to their 0083 officers. Are you out in California, by chance?
    If the base commander authorizes it any person with a valid state CCW can carry on the post. Even if DOD is granted full LEOSA coverage a base commander can restrict officers ability to carry on the base as they see fit since LEOSA does not cover federal installations.

  9. #9
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    175
    SECTION 1099C. AMENDMENTS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER SAFETY PROVISIONS OF TITLE 18.

    Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--(1) in section 926B--(A) in subsection (c)(1), by inserting `or apprehension under section 807(b) of title 10, United States Code (article 7(b) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice)' after `arrest';(B) in subsection (d), by striking `as a law enforcement officer' and inserting `that identifies the employee as a police officer or law enforcement officer of the agency'; and(C) in subsection (f), by inserting `or apprehension under section 807(b) of title 10, United States Code (article 7(b) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice)' after `arrest'; and(2) in section 926C--(A) in subsection (c)(2), by inserting `or apprehension under section 807(b) of title 10, United States Code (article 7(b) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice)' after `arrest'; and(B)
    "Proposed New wording requirement for ID"
    in subsection (d)--(i) in paragraph (1), by striking `that indicates' and inserting `that identifies the person as having been employed as a police officer or law enforcement officer and indicates'; and(ii) in paragraph (2)(A), by inserting `that identifies the person as having been employed as a police officer or law enforcement officer' after `officer'.

  10. #10
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Varies
    Posts
    392
    Soooo... With that wording is it just me or does it appear that MPs could be covered? Now OBVIOUSLY the military would never allow them to utilize LEOSA but wouldn't it be nice if at least it applied to retired MPs.

  11. #11
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Kenosha, WI
    Posts
    41
    I guess that's part of the intent:

    Leahy Hails Senate Action On Law Enforcement Amendment
    December 4, 2012


    WASHINGTON (Tuesday, December 4, 2012) –An amendment sponsored by Senator Jim Webb (D-Va.) and Judiciary Committee Chairman Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) to make improvements to the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) was added to the defense authorization bill Monday night, improving its chances of becoming law this year.

    The Webb-Leahy amendment would allow Department of Defense law enforcement officers to meet the criteria necessary to be eligible for coverage under LEOSA, the 2004 law that permits active and qualified retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms across state lines. Senator Leahy was a lead author of the original LEOSA bill, and the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act Improvements Act in 2010 that made it more flexible for active and qualified retired officers and providing more uniform standards for eligibility. This measure continues to build on that effort.

    “This law, which has been in place since 2004, gives our law enforcement officers, should they choose, the peace of mind that they are protected wherever they may be,” Leahy said. “The Senate has agreed to extend that trust to the law enforcement officers that serve within our military. They are no less deserving or worthy of this privilege and I am very pleased we have acted to equalize their treatment under the federal law.”

    #####



    Statement of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.),

    On the Adoption of Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act

    December 3, 2012



    I was very pleased that the Senate adopted last night an amendment to improve the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA). I was pleased to join Senator Webb, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, as a cosponsor to strengthen a policy that is important to our nation’s law enforcement community. I thank Chairman Levin and Senator Webb for their efforts.

    The amendment we adopt today will place military police and civilian police officers within the Department of Defense on equal footing with their law enforcement counterparts across the country when it comes to coverage under LEOSA. The LEOSA law permits active and qualified retired law enforcement officers to carry a concealed firearm across state lines. This law, which has been in place since 2004, gives our law enforcement officers, should they choose, the peace of mind that they are protected wherever they may be.

    One of the qualifications required of active or retired officers to be covered by the LEOSA law is that they must have “statutory arrest authority”. Some law enforcement personnel within the Department of Defense do have such statutory arrest authority. Others do not. For example, civilian police officers that conduct law enforcement activities on military bases or installations derive their authority from the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This authority, while statutory, is “apprehension” authority. Due to that difference between the LEOSA law’s specific enumerated requirements, and the authority pursuant to which civilian police in the military operate, these law enforcement officers have not been able to obtain the law’s benefits.

    To remedy this, the amendment we have adopted will expressly include within the LEOSA statute currently non-covered civilian police officers and military police. It will do so by adding a statutory citation within Title 18 of the United States Code to the relevant portion of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This will provide legal certainty for the Department of Defense, and will provide the needed LEOSA coverage for currently non-covered law enforcement personnel within the military.

    The Senate has agreed unanimously to extend LEOSA to the law enforcement officers that serve within our military who are currently not eligible for coverage under LEOSA. They are no less deserving or worthy of this privilege and I am very pleased we have acted to equalize their treatment under the federal law. Given the productive discussions we have had with the Department of Defense Office of Law Enforcement Policy and Support, and with Chairman Levin in developing this amendment, I expect that it will be will be implemented without delay so that those intended to be covered may gain the law’s benefit quickly. These police officers, who largely perform the same duties as their counterparts elsewhere in the Federal Government and at the state and local level, deserve the equal treatment this amendment will provide.

  12. #12
    Solo is how I roll
    statebear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Behind you
    Posts
    1,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul554 View Post
    Soooo... With that wording is it just me or does it appear that MPs could be covered?

  13. #13
    Gimme Yo Acorns, Sucka!
    QuietPro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North Cackalacky
    Posts
    1,163
    Paul554- Impossible............ The Posse Commitatus Act will prevent that from ever happening.
    Just another squirrel, tryin' to get a nut......

  14. #14
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Varies
    Posts
    392
    Quote Originally Posted by QuietPro View Post
    Paul554- Impossible............ The Posse Commitatus Act will prevent that from ever happening.
    Can we arrest people? No, Posse Commitatus. Can we hold people? No, Posse Commitatus. Can we do PT on our own? No, Posse Commitatus.

    ......I do not think this word means what you think it means!

  15. #15
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Varies
    Posts
    392
    An interesting thing though i was thinking about, most of us are former military. With LEOSA you have to have 10 years of covered service when you separate to qualify as "retired". I wonder if you could combine your years, say 3 as an MP on active duty and 7 as a local cop, to reach that 10 years? Just a thought.

  16. #16
    Gimme Yo Acorns, Sucka!
    QuietPro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North Cackalacky
    Posts
    1,163
    Paul554- I was a DoD officer before coming to V.A. I have been briefed extensively on Posse Commitatus, and know EXACTLY what it means, thank you. And if you think uniformed, active duty MP's will get LEOSA, you're high as a kite.......
    HI629 likes this.
    Just another squirrel, tryin' to get a nut......

  17. #17
    Operator
    Bearcat357's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Stuttgart, Germany
    Posts
    18,347
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul554 View Post
    wouldn't it be nice if at least it applied to retired MPs.
    Errr....LEOSA already covers retired Military LEOs.... Have to have at least 15 years in service as a Military LEO.

    Problem is finding someone to support that....as in issuing you an ID Card/Qualifing you.

    I do know 2-3 guys that have used their 15 years plus a few years as LEOs to qualify.....and supported by a local agency for the rest of the requirements.

  18. #18
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    South Texas
    Posts
    74
    I don't know how Posse Comitatus would really have an affect on the LEOSA. If it did then I don't think that OSI or CID would be able to carry off base. It's not like LEOSA gives you statutory arrest powers, but it just allows you to carry in plain clothes to defend yourself without having to go through whatever you state's licensing process is and puts another sheep dog out in the world.

  19. #19
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Varies
    Posts
    392
    Quote Originally Posted by QuietPro View Post
    Paul554- I was a DoD officer before coming to V.A. I have been briefed extensively on Posse Commitatus, and know EXACTLY what it means, thank you. And if you think uniformed, active duty MP's will get LEOSA, you're high as a kite.......
    I was being facetious about active duty MP's carrying under LEOSA, I know it is very very unlikely to ever happen. I did not know that retired MP's could, good info to know Bearcat! I figured in the end it would come down to simply no one giving them the necessary materials or support needed, kinda sad.

    Now then QuietPro, I am curious since you say you know so much about Posse Commitatus from being a DOD Cop, how would it impact Active Duty Army MPs if it was implemented?

  20. #20
    Gimme Yo Acorns, Sucka!
    QuietPro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North Cackalacky
    Posts
    1,163
    ^^ Because when I went through the MCCLEP Academy, Posse Commitatus is covered in it; and it was one of the cowardly reasons why DoD civilians wern't allowed to carry- Base JAG's advised commanders and found it easy to hide behind the PCA as an excuse.

    PCA was explicitly aimed at the armed forces. DoD civilians are not members of the armed forces. Hence they wouldn't fall under PCA, but MP's most certainly would. PCA explicitly says the armed forces will not conduct law enforcement duties with/for/against the civilian population. Period. This argument you are trying to raise for MP's carrying under LEOSA has been done time and time again, and been shot down time and time again.
    Just another squirrel, tryin' to get a nut......

  21. #21
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Varies
    Posts
    392
    Quote Originally Posted by QuietPro View Post
    ^^ Because when I went through the MCCLEP Academy, Posse Commitatus is covered in it; and it was one of the cowardly reasons why DoD civilians wern't allowed to carry- Base JAG's advised commanders and found it easy to hide behind the PCA as an excuse.

    PCA was explicitly aimed at the armed forces. DoD civilians are not members of the armed forces. Hence they wouldn't fall under PCA, but MP's most certainly would. PCA explicitly says the armed forces will not conduct law enforcement duties with/for/against the civilian population. Period. This argument you are trying to raise for MP's carrying under LEOSA has been done time and time again, and been shot down time and time again.
    Uhmmmmm WAT?!? That reasoning would also prevent any military member from carrying a concealed weapons permit. LEOSA implies NO authority of arrest or apprehension, it simply allows you to carry concealed without a permit in all states. DOD has never denied people from exercising LEOSA privileges due to PCA, they have though argued that LEOSA does not apply due to the wording of the law.
    Also PCA does not prohibit law enforcement functions by DOD against civilians, it simply LIMITS it and applies certain conditions as well.
    bkaas likes this.

  22. #22
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Varies
    Posts
    392
    Quote Originally Posted by QuietPro View Post
    ^^ Because when I went through the MCCLEP Academy, Posse Commitatus is covered in it; and it was one of the cowardly reasons why DoD civilians wern't allowed to carry- Base JAG's advised commanders and found it easy to hide behind the PCA as an excuse.
    Also just for further note, the Navy and Marine Corp are not covered by the PCA, it only applies to the Army and Air Force.

  23. #23
    Gimme Yo Acorns, Sucka!
    QuietPro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North Cackalacky
    Posts
    1,163
    Umm, yeah, whatever. I guess those words that came out of my PM's mouth, and my entire chain of command's mouth, were just nothing but psychedelic drug fantasies running through my head.

    You know what, guy? Go ahead and carry off duty as much as you want, on and off base. Knock yourself out............Because I'm sick to death of arguing with those who won't listen to what's already been put down, time and time again. We're done.

    BTW, high-speed..... It DOES apply to the NAVY and MC as well. Why don't you ask your base JAG?........
    Just another squirrel, tryin' to get a nut......

  24. #24
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    California
    Posts
    85
    Quote Originally Posted by QuietPro View Post
    Umm, yeah, whatever. I guess those words that came out of my PM's mouth, and my entire chain of command's mouth, were just nothing but psychedelic drug fantasies running through my head.
    I'm sure that's what they told you and they probably believe it, but it doesn't mean they are right. Anyone who does/has worked for the DoD should know that just because the chain of command/management says something, doesn't mean they are right.

    Quote Originally Posted by QuietPro View Post
    You know what, guy? Go ahead and carry off duty as much as you want, on and off base. Knock yourself out............Because I'm sick to death of arguing with those who won't listen to what's already been put down, time and time again. We're done.
    This whole thread is talking about the new senate amendment, and hopefully the new law and subsequent DoD policy change. I don't think anyone else here is trying to rehash the same old "DoD is covered under LEOSA 2010" argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by QuietPro View Post
    BTW, high-speed..... It DOES apply to the NAVY and MC as well. Why don't you ask your base JAG?........
    Actually, Paul554 is right. The PCA itself (Title 18 USC 1385) does not specifically apply to the Navy and Marine Corps. However, the courts have considered them covered under self-regulation via DoD Directive 5525.5, which addresses DoD involvement with civilian law enforcement.
    Last edited by 5149.5; 12-14-2012 at 11:25 AM.

  25. #25
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    California
    Posts
    85
    Quote Originally Posted by QuietPro View Post
    PCA was explicitly aimed at the armed forces. DoD civilians are not members of the armed forces. Hence they wouldn't fall under PCA, but MP's most certainly would.
    Yes civilian employees don't specifically fall under PCA, but they are covered under DoD Directive.
    (E.4.2. Exceptions based on status) "A civilian employee of the Department of Defense. If the civilian employee is under the direct command and control of a military officer, assistance will
    not be provided
    unless it would be permitted under section E4.3."
    Ref: DoD Directive 5525.5 Sec E.4.2.3.

    Quote Originally Posted by QuietPro View Post
    PCA explicitly says the armed forces will not conduct law enforcement duties with/for/against the civilian population. Period.
    Technically yes because Title 18 UCS 1385 is so short with no clarifications. However, this has since been addressed by the courts and the DoD Directive which have outlined numerous exceptions in which the military may directly and/or indirectly support civilian law enforcement.

    Quote Originally Posted by QuietPro View Post
    This argument you are trying to raise for MP's carrying under LEOSA has been done time and time again, and been shot down time and time again.
    I completely agree under the current laws and policies. However, if POTUS signs the NDAA 2013 with the LEOSA amendment written as is, it looks like MPs will be covered under the law. Does that mean they will be allowed to carry? No, because the military could easily do 2 things to shut them down completely. (1) Take their creds away. (2) Issue order prohibiting off-duty carry under LEOSA and prosecute under UCMJ Art 92. Obviously, the DoD could do the same to its civilian officers as well by taking away creds and leaving current "no off-duty carry" policy in place and punish folks underthe guise of "policy violation".

Page 1 of 7 1234 ... 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