PoliceLink

The reason I bring this subject up is that I recently received a message from a PL member that was sent out to the members of a group that was restricted to LEO’s only. In this message this person stated that military police where not covered under HR 218 also known as LEOSA, now I have looked up HR 218/ LEOSA and it does not specifically state that military police are exempt from it, but it also does not state that we are covered under it as well. My interpretation of HR 218 is that because I received my diploma from the Navy Master-At-Arms “A” school which makes me a LEO, and that I qualify with my firearms every six months, I have a photo ID, and a badge, that I am covered.  So what I am asking is what does the PL community think about this subject?

If you had researched the threads you would have found this topic. Coast guard and I believe, your CID, NIS, NSA are covered but MP's are not. You are not allowed to carry your duty weapon outside of work and that is the weapon you are required to carry under HR218. Civilian LEOs do not get their weapons and turn them in at arms rooms they stay with us 24/7.Then you have the whole Posse Comitatus rule that says you can not govern over civilians, Coast Guard has the authority to govern civilians and they are included in HR 218.

The issue of whether military law enforcement personnel are covered under LEOSA (formerly HR218) or not, has been discussed and researched to death.



The ONLY DoD law enforcement personnel who are covered under LEOSA are the following:



1. CIVILIAN special agents of the DCIO's (Army CID, Air Force OSI, Navy and Marine Corps NCIS, and DoD DCIS). Military special agents of the above are not covered. Neither are special agents of the DoD intelligence services.



2. Sworn officers of the Pentagon Force Protection Agency, and the NSA police, who have statutory powers of arrest under the U.S. Code.



Again, NO military personnel are covered under LEOSA, no matter whether or not they perform law enforcement or investigative duties, or no matter whether they are issued a badge or credentials.



And NO civilian base police officers working for the military services (sometimes called DoD police) are covered, since they do not have statutory powers of arrest either. They have the same authority to "apprehend" as MP's and posted sentries.



No statutory powers of arrest = no LEOSA. The ability to "apprehend" military personnel under the UCMJ, and deliver them to their commanding officer, does not qualify. Every E-1 or civilian security guard posted around an armory or walking around a motor pool has the UCMJ ability to "apprehend."



Sorry to disappoint the honorable LE persons in the military or working for the military, but the above is the truth, under federal law, DoD and service regulations.

SEC. 2. EXEMPTION OF QUALIFIED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS FROM STATE LAWS PROHIBITING THE CARRYING OF CONCEALED FIREARMS.

(a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926A the following:

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

`(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).

`(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that--

`(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or

`(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.

`(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;

(which military does not have off duty, and the military does not have powers of arrest, they detain)

`(2) is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm;

`(3) is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the agency;

`(4) meets standards, if any, established by the agency which require the employee to regularly qualify in the use of a firearm; (qualification is with assigned weapon, which you can not carry off the installation)

`(5) is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance; and

`(6) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm.

`(d) The identification required by this subsection is the photographic identification issued by the governmental agency for which the individual is employed as a law enforcement officer.     (Military does not issue)

`(e) As used in this section, the term `firearm' does not include--

`(1) any machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the National Firearms Act);

`(2) any firearm silencer (as defined in section 921 of this title); and

`(3) any destructive device (as defined in section 921 of this title).'.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926A the following:

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

As a former Military Police, platoon sergeant, in the other threads on this site that I responded to, I also made the point that military police are not police while off duty, they are simply soldiers and sailors. UCMJ does not give them police powers when not acting in their official capacity. Civilian LEOs have full powers on and off duty and are able to and usually required to carry their duty weapon off duty.

DJW739 says ...

The reason I bring this subject up is that I recently received a message from a PL member that was sent out to the members of a group that was restricted to LEO’s only. In this message this person stated that military police where not covered under HR 218 also known as LEOSA, now I have looked up HR 218/ LEOSA and it does not specifically state that military police are exempt from it, but it also does not state that we are covered under it as well. My interpretation of HR 218 is that because I received my diploma from the Navy Master-At-Arms “A” school which makes me a LEO, and that I qualify with my firearms every six months, I have a photo ID, and a badge, that I am covered.  So what I am asking is what does the PL community think about this subject?

.

KSP494 says ...

I'm done with this thread. I wish you folks the best of luck if you choose to excercise HR 218 as MP's. Hey here is an idea go ask your commanders and see what they say about it.

 

I'm out, I will be back shortly to lock this.

I agree that any MP should ask their command staff or military legal staff.  I don't agree with locking a thread just because no one agrees with you on the interpretation of HR 218.  It is still being tested and this is a good debate.

jdso403 and HCGale are correct. The simple answer is NO. This is not a reflection or comment on Military Police in any way, it is simply a fact of law. There is talk of amending HR218 to include certain members of the Military Police. They cannot and will not make it blanket for MP's or SP's or AP's for the simple reason that many members of the Armed Forces are assigned to these duties on a TAD basis plus the laws between civilians and military are very different and the military can do much more to their people then they can to civilians and they can do nothing to civilians off a military reservation except as a civilian themselves. You can argue until the cows come home but if you are armed while you are off-duty in civilian clothing and do not have a State Issued CCW permit, you will be arrested for CCW, it is the law and unless or until they change it, we will have to live with it.

DJW739 says ...

KSP494 says ...

If you had researched the threads you would have found this topic. Coast guard and I believe, your CID, NIS, NSA are covered but MP's are not. You are not allowed to carry your duty weapon outside of work and that is the weapon you are required to carry under HR218. Civilian LEOs do not get their weapons and turn them in at arms rooms they stay with us 24/7.Then you have the whole Posse Comitatus rule that says you can not govern over civilians, Coast Guard has the authority to govern civilians and they are included in HR 218.

 

I looked and did not find any info on PL in regards to HR 218 and military police.  Now let me correct you on some information you posted.  One the Coast Guard is not part of the Department Of Defense; they are Homeland Security and are not covered under the Posse Comitatus Act.  And two HR218 does not state that the firearm has to be department issued.  Three the Posse Comitatus Act states that the Army and Air Force cannot be used to enforce civilian laws outside of there jurisdiction, and the Secretary of the Navy has put the same restriction on the Navy and Marine Corps but has the authority to make exceptions, military police do enforce civilian laws within there jurisdiction on civilian thanks to title 18 USC and the Assimilative Crime Act, which gives the DOD the power to adopt local and state laws as there own turning them into federal laws on federal property. Now my questions still stands are military police in accordance with HR218 covered to carry concealed off duty?

 

 

NO, they are NOT covered under HR218. It's been discussed before.

http://policelink.monster.com/topics/16612-hr-218-leo-safety-act-of-2004-check-the-update-pg-5/posts

KSP494 says ...

If you had researched the threads you would have found this topic. Coast guard and I believe, your CID, NIS, NSA are covered but MP's are not. You are not allowed to carry your duty weapon outside of work and that is the weapon you are required to carry under HR218. Civilian LEOs do not get their weapons and turn them in at arms rooms they stay with us 24/7.Then you have the whole Posse Comitatus rule that says you can not govern over civilians, Coast Guard has the authority to govern civilians and they are included in HR 218.

KSP is correct- day to day MP's are NOT covered under HR 218...how ever because of a court ruling the coast Guard is. I would not want to be the MP that has to challenge this in a court- because I think that you would lose. SO again...MP's are not covered under HR 218 as it reads and stands today.

Ok now that we have beaten the horse to death, let me ask this question. The ideals behind HR218 where to allow Law Enforcement Officers to conceal carry off duty outside of there jurisdiction and across state lines to protect themselves and others if and when a situation occurred that would require them to use deadly force. Now many Army and Marine Corps Military Police, Navy Master-At-Arms, and Air Force Security Forces, conduct traditional LEO duties and are not TAD to that duty, they have gone through the technical/ “A” schools, they have extensive training, and are extremely qualified, putting aside that they cannot enforce law over civilians when off base, the question is should MP’s, MA’s, and SF’s be covered by HR 218/ LEOSA? 

http://www.leaa.org/218/218text.html

Paul I read the link and I didn't see anything stating that the HR 218 is available for on duty or retired military personal, I do have a HR 218 given to me by the State of Florida some years ago, it's a CCW nothing to different from a civilian CCW, I'm not going to agree or disagree my point is, What's the point!

P.S. As my PM to you if I'm wrong since being out of the loop over 17 years, I'll amend my post a.s.a.p.

Your Bud!!!

Despite all the people who asked me to lock this as well as my own belief that it has run it's course I got some pretty heated PM's about my locking it so lets just open it back up for a bit and see if we can learn anything new that hasn't already been stated. I am currently in the process of speaking with a JAG attorney about the matter since those of us Military and civilian LEOs can't give an adequate answer. I'm sure TheSarge will make a comment again on the matter.

TBaby says ...

I wish I would have read this thread yesterday....I would have commented....but, i thought it was the same ole topic thats been brought up before...

I hope its not locked yet...I wanna read everything and maybe coment.

Go for it

KSP494 says ...

TBaby says ...

I wish I would have read this thread yesterday....I would have commented....but, i thought it was the same ole topic thats been brought up before...

I hope its not locked yet...I wanna read everything and maybe coment.

Go for it

Thank you KSP...Im reviewing replies now