Page 1 of 9 1234 ... Last
Like Tree36Likes

Thread: DoD 0083 Police Officers and Military Police now covered under LEOSA

  1. #1
    Forum Member
    TheSentinel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    212

    DoD 0083 Police Officers and Military Police now covered under LEOSA

    This is the thread that the matter has been heavily discussed in. It was signed into law by the President yesterday. Please keep in mind that there are restrictions to carrying on LEOSA.

    http://forums.officer.com/t182951/ (Uh oh....)
    Gunz likes this.

  2. #2
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    103
    I support the DOD 0083s being covered under the LEOSA. They are even issued credentials that identify them as civilian police officers. Now correct me if I am wrong, but don't the active duty MPs, MAs, or SFs only use a Common Access Card as identification? I know the Navy still uses the laminated gun card but I have yet to see an active duty military personnel with police credentials. I am also aware that each base is ran different which adds to the complexities of the nature of the DOD police organizations.
    Last edited by phil 15; 01-04-2013 at 12:34 AM.

  3. #3
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    175
    d) The identification required by this subsection is the photographic identification issued by the governmental agency for which the individual is employed that identifies the employee as a police officer or law enforcement officer of the agency Cac's are a NO go...

  4. #4
    Forum Member
    TheSentinel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    212
    Quote Originally Posted by phil 15 View Post
    I support the DOD 0083s being covered under the LEOSA. They are even issued credentials that identify them as civilian police officers. Now correct me if I am wrong, but don't the active duty MPs, MAs, or SFs only use a Common Access Card as identification? I know the Navy still uses the laminated gun card but I have yet to see an active duty military personnel with police credentials. I am also aware that each base is ran different which adds to the complexities of the nature of the DOD police organizations.
    The Marine Corps issues their MPs/Civilian Officers LE creds.

  5. #5
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    175
    Navy bases also issue LE Creds to civilian 0083's

  6. #6
    Forum Member
    GIOSTORMUSNRET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    West Palm Beach, FL
    Posts
    1,286
    I believe this was addressed in the 2013 defense budget to have all military law enforcement officers (military and civilian) covered under LEOSA.
    GOD IS A NINJA WITH A SNIPER RIFLE, WAITING TO TAKE YOU OUT.

    "For weapons training they told me to play DOOM"

  7. #7
    One Night In Bangkok
    orlandofed5-0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Philly PA
    Posts
    5,511
    Quote Originally Posted by dod299 View Post
    Navy bases also issue LE Creds to civilian 0083's
    Not CNRMA.
    I don't work - I merely inflict myself upon the public.

  8. #8
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    175
    Orlando fed buddy of mine works out of NWS Yorktown and have another buddy out of Hampton roads both have creds crappy looking ones but still have em.

  9. #9
    KJB
    KJB is offline
    Am I free to go?
    KJB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    834
    My ID is typed with a typewriter and laminated with my picture and my info. It looks really cheesy.
    That is all that is required.

  10. #10
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    103
    I know this has been discussed in the past and I am fully aware that the DOD Police 0083 is at the bottom when compared to other fed, state, and local LE agencies in regards to LE functions and capabilities. But it is a plus to get a little recognition for finally defining the rules of arrest and apprehension. I think this is a baby step towards 6c coverage and obtaining federal law enforcement salary and benefits. I am only comparing DOD civilian police to other federal GS 0083 agencies. It may take another 10-20 years but its a start. Any thoughts?

  11. #11
    Forum Member
    TheSentinel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    212
    Well, with budget problems slated for years in the future, I doubt any new benefits will be handed out willfully to 0083s. There have been various bills to give 0083s in DoD statutory powers of arrest, 6c etc. The trick would be to take the same approach with this one, throw it in with a bunch of amendments and sneak it through with not much media. "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it" kind of bill. I can't believe I quoted Nancy Pelosi. I'm going to wash now.

    Anyone read some of the comments when the statutory powers of arrest bill was on the table? "We'll have DoD officers kicking in our doors!" "They'll be Obama's Brownshirts!" Yes, I actually heard that.

    These are at the top of the Fraternal Order of Police's Supported Legislation.

    TOP PRIORITY H.R. 324 (Filner, D-CA), legislation which would grant statutory arrest authority to law enforcement officers employed by the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD);
    TOP PRIORITY H.R. 327 (Filner, D-CA), the "Law Enforcement Officers Equity Act," would provide 6 (c) benefits to approximately 30,000 Federal law enforcement officers who currently do not have them;

    We've lost Bob Filner too, he's left the House of Representatives and is now Mayor of San Diego. I hope someone else will take up our cause like he did.
    Last edited by TheSentinel; 01-05-2013 at 12:26 AM.

  12. #12
    Forum Member
    AZDesertRat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    The Western Desert
    Posts
    252
    This is what used to pass for a "credential" in CNRMA. I sure hope they have changed, or will change it for 0083's now. The only difference between MA's and 0083's was that the "position" for MA's was "Naval Security Forces." Management had tried to have all 0083's turn in cards that read Police Officer, but were quickly shot down by the union.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    sgt jon likes this.

  13. #13
    Gimme Yo Acorns, Sucka!
    QuietPro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North Cackalacky
    Posts
    1,163
    Wow, you're picture looks even uglier on your I.D.!

    Seriously, my old department had creds that looked like library cards before I left. Yours is not too shabby; it seems to pass fine.......
    Just another squirrel, tryin' to get a nut......

  14. #14
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Melbourne, Fl
    Posts
    5
    Hello Sentinel, I am a 0083. Do you know where I can find the documentation stating this new law? Thanks!

  15. #15
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    103
    Quote Originally Posted by carmelohern View Post
    Hello Sentinel, I am a 0083. Do you know where I can find the documentation stating this new law? Thanks!
    Carmel,

    You are not going to find this in black and white or advertised because it is still new and none of the present laws have been amended. Below is what was signed:

    H. R. 4310
    SEC. 1089. AMENDMENTS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER SAFETY
    PROVISIONS OF TITLE 18.

    SEC. 1089. 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) 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’’.



    Now apply SEC 1089 to Title 18 USC Section 926B (as I did below in quotations) and now you have DOD Police GS-0083 coverage under LEOSA due to powers of statutory apprehension under UCMJ:

    18 USC Sec. 926B 01/03/2012 (112-90)


    TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
    PART I - CRIMES
    CHAPTER 44 - FIREARMS

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

    -STATUTE-

    (c) As used in this section, the term qualified law enforcement officer means an employee of a governmental agency who -
    (1) 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 “or apprehension under section 807(b) of title 10, United States Code (article
    7(b) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice).


    …(d) The identification required by this subsection is the photographic identification issued by the governmental agency for which the individual is employed (remove - as a law enforcement officer) and add that identifies the employee as a police officer or law enforcement officer of the agency.”

    (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 [I]“or apprehension under section 807(b) of title 10, United States Code (article
    7(b) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice)
    .”[/I]

    …(c) As used in this section, the term qualified retired law enforcement officer means an individual who -
    (1) separated from service in good standing from service with a public agency as a law enforcement officer;
    (2) before such separation, was 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 had statutory powers of arrest [I]“or apprehension under section 807(b) of title 10, United States Code (article 7(b) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice).”[/I]

    …(d) The identification required by this subsection is -
    (1) a photographic identification issued by the agency from which the individual separated from service as a law enforcement officer (remove - that indicates) and add “ that identifies the person as having been employed as a police officer or law enforcement officer and indicates"that the individual has, not less recently than one year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the agency to meet the active duty standards for qualification in firearms training as established by the agency to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm; or
    (2)(A) a photographic identification issued by the agency from which the individual separated from service as a law enforcement officer that identifies the person as having been employed as a police officer or law enforcement officer.”

    I hope the above helps.
    Last edited by phil 15; 01-06-2013 at 06:43 PM.
    TheSentinel and bkaas like this.

  16. #16
    Tinfoil Hat Engineer
    sgt jon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Under the Radar
    Posts
    2,771
    Quote Originally Posted by AZDesertRat View Post
    This is what used to pass for a "credential" in CNRMA. I sure hope they have changed, or will change it for 0083's now. The only difference between MA's and 0083's was that the "position" for MA's was "Naval Security Forces." Management had tried to have all 0083's turn in cards that read Police Officer, but were quickly shot down by the union.
    Thats is so hot. No matter how bad, it is what it is.
    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..................

  17. #17
    One Night In Bangkok
    orlandofed5-0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Philly PA
    Posts
    5,511
    Quote Originally Posted by dod299 View Post
    Orlando fed buddy of mine works out of NWS Yorktown and have another buddy out of Hampton roads both have creds crappy looking ones but still have em.
    The guys who had the decent ones such as NETC Newport and Philly had theirs taken away. I havent seen the new ones yet, I will have to ask.
    I don't work - I merely inflict myself upon the public.

  18. #18
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by QuietPro View Post
    Wow, you're picture looks even uglier on your I.D.!

    Seriously, my old department had creds that looked like library cards before I left. Yours is not too shabby; it seems to pass fine.......
    Well, that is no longer the case!! They now issue creds that are professional and a badge. You have been gone for a long time my man!!!

  19. #19
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    436
    The PM and DPM spoke to us today. Pretty much said they tried to find a way to not allow this to take effect but that they have no choice. They say we cant do it yet until there is an official policy on how it is implemented, but there will be CCW coming in some form....

  20. #20
    Forum Member
    TheSentinel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    212
    Quote Originally Posted by Marine0083 View Post
    The PM and DPM spoke to us today. Pretty much said they tried to find a way to not allow this to take effect but that they have no choice. They say we cant do it yet until there is an official policy on how it is implemented, but there will be CCW coming in some form....
    Actually, DPM said "be patient", I don't recall him saying we can't do it yet, he didn't go that far. He said DoD is killing trees and having lawyers weigh in on this. Official DoD policy is being rewritten with the passage, so we could wait, but chances are that DoD will do the hands off approach like the Coast Guard did. Seems a lot of the things I brought up requires us to "be patient"...we've already waited years for these things.

  21. #21
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    socal
    Posts
    6
    I spoke to one of the deputy chiefs and he told me that we were good to go he has our back 100%. As far as the security manager who happens to be a ******bag says we aren't DOD so it doesn't apply to us. His answer is he wants us to go to the sheriff and apply for CCW. He tells us "you are all DON not DOD so you aren't covered" obviously he's to stupid to read the actual law.

  22. #22
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    175
    Arson33rd, He is wrong.... WH.jpg

  23. #23
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    103
    Quote Originally Posted by dod299 View Post
    Arson33rd, He is wrong.... WH.jpg
    dod299,

    I'm interested in what the memo states. Please repost...the file is blurry and even the download is too small to read. Thank you.
    Rome-bstwdod likes this.

  24. #24
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    socal
    Posts
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by dod299 View Post
    Arson33rd, He is wrong.... WH.jpg
    Trust me we all know hes wrong this guy is the most anti-law enforcement person i've ever seen. Hes got that i'm a "retired officer" mentality. He is all about saving the Navy money not keeping the people who protect him and others safe.
    Last edited by arson33rd; 01-08-2013 at 11:30 PM. Reason: spelling error

  25. #25
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    175
    WH344.jpgTried to make larger, My Buddy sent this to me he wrote the letter while back.Try saving guys this site shrinks id down.This is what the response says.I redacted some as my buddy did not want his info out.

    Naval Weapon-Station Seal Beach
    700 Ammunition Road
    Building 41
    Fallbrook, CA 92028
    Dear
    Thank you for your recent letter to President Barack Obama concerning the passage of H.R. 324, "To amend title 10, United States Code, to provide police officers, criminal Investigators, and game law enforcement officers of the Department of Defense with authority to execute warrants,make arrests and carry firearms."

    Unfortunately~ H.R. 324 was never reported out of the House Armed Services Committee for a floor vote during the just finished 1121th Congress. As a ~ a new bill would have to be
    - introduced by another member in the 113th Congress.
    In spite of the negative outcome for H.R. 324, the Department of Defense Fiscal Year(FY) 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)included-an amendment to the Law Enforcement Officer's Safety Act (LEOSA) of 2004 which broadens the scope of LEOSA to
    include "law enforcement and police officers" and all law enforcement and police officers who perform duties with "statutory apprehension" authority. This will cover all civilian police in the Department of Defense under LEOSA for concealed weapons carry. The President signed the FYI3 NDAA on January 3rd. The Department's LEOSA implementing policy will now be updated to include the new language providing coverage for all law enforcement and police officers in the Department under LEOSA. _ -
    I hope this provides sufficient information mto reply .to your inquiry.
    Sincerely,
    Sharon R. Cooper
    Director
    Last edited by dod299; 01-09-2013 at 12:23 AM.
    bkaas likes this.

Page 1 of 9 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