PoliceLink

Lulusgt says ...

Honestly,  think Chris explained it all very clearly and The Sarge explained it quite ...........................bluntly! No need to keep beating a dead horse!

Well they want to keep discussing it. Well I'm reasonable I just wished someone had asked professionaly instead of sending juvenile PMs. It may be easier just to tell some of them that they are covered under HR 218 but that could end up badly.

TBaby says ...

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?

Well, as you can see, it is in "black and white" and the answer is plain.

NOPE, you are not covered under 218. Take a special note to the part of your question where you said "..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..."....

Take that as a little hint....If your not mentioned, then it doesn't aply to you.

You asked a question and then you was pretty rude when you recieved your answer. Thats not cool.

Further, as the thread continued, you received more clarification which shows specifically that MP's, etc are not covered. However, you still dont quite seem to get it.

If carrying concealed off duty is SO important to you, go get a Concealed Carry Permit. Since you are soooo Highly Trained from your "A" school, you should have no problem getting one.

To the next part of your question... "should MP’s, MA’s, and SF’s be covered by HR 218/ LEOSA? "

I say NO. I say NO for several reasons. The first reason is Maturity. I dont think an 18yr old E-1 MP is mature enough to carry a concealed weapon. YES, I know....the 18yr old is mature enough to go to battle and defend his country, but he is not mature enough to carry a firearm down town while off duty.

I was once an 18yr old MP, and I know that neither I nor my buddies were mature enough to carry firearms concealed while OFF DUTY.

If they had allowed us to carry concealed weapons while off duty, Im sure we would have got into some sort of trouble.

Another reason is this. In Civilian Law Enforcement we apply for a job at our local department. In the Military that is not how it works. Yes, you may request a certain MOS but you dont always get what u ask for, and we all know that. I remember guys that got "washed" into the MP's because they couldnt pass whatever career field they were trying to get into. I remember Radio Operators, Air Traffic Controllers, Medics, ETC getting placed into the MP career field just because the government needed a place to put them.

With that said, some of those Knuckle Heads were straight up gang bangers! I could just see them driving downtown with there concealed firearms.

Further, I could just see some of the other Knuckle Heads going CLUBIN with their weapons and getting into fights and killing someone.

Those are some of the reasons I disagree with MP's carrying off duty.

At least when young immature MP's are working, they are supervised..

SOOO, DWJ....I hope I helped answer your questions....which, you should have been able to answer ALL by yourself.

 

 

UH OH! now you've done it, you'll start getting those PMs now

This topic gets discussed every couple months...and the attitude of the person asking the question is usually the same.

He (she) asks about off duty carry. They are told they cant. They get mad and rude when they dont get the answer they like. Then they try to convince everyone that they should be allowed to carry a gun off base, off duty....

TBaby says ...

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?

Well, as you can see, it is in "black and white" and the answer is plain.

NOPE, you are not covered under 218. Take a special note to the part of your question where you said "..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..."....

Take that as a little hint....If your not mentioned, then it doesn't aply to you.

You asked a question and then you was pretty rude when you recieved your answer. Thats not cool.

Further, as the thread continued, you received more clarification which shows specifically that MP's, etc are not covered. However, you still dont quite seem to get it.

If carrying concealed off duty is SO important to you, go get a Concealed Carry Permit. Since you are soooo Highly Trained from your "A" school, you should have no problem getting one.

To the next part of your question... "should MP’s, MA’s, and SF’s be covered by HR 218/ LEOSA? "

I say NO. I say NO for several reasons. The first reason is Maturity. I dont think an 18yr old E-1 MP is mature enough to carry a concealed weapon. YES, I know....the 18yr old is mature enough to go to battle and defend his country, but he is not mature enough to carry a firearm down town while off duty.

I was once an 18yr old MP, and I know that neither I nor my buddies were mature enough to carry firearms concealed while OFF DUTY.

If they had allowed us to carry concealed weapons while off duty, Im sure we would have got into some sort of trouble.

Another reason is this. In Civilian Law Enforcement we apply for a job at our local department. In the Military that is not how it works. Yes, you may request a certain MOS but you dont always get what u ask for, and we all know that. I remember guys that got "washed" into the MP's because they couldnt pass whatever career field they were trying to get into. I remember Radio Operators, Air Traffic Controllers, Medics, ETC getting placed into the MP career field just because the government needed a place to put them.

With that said, some of those Knuckle Heads were straight up gang bangers! I could just see them driving downtown with there concealed firearms.

Further, I could just see some of the other Knuckle Heads going CLUBIN with their weapons and getting into fights and killing someone.

Those are some of the reasons I disagree with MP's carrying off duty.

At least when young immature MP's are working, they are supervised..

SOOO, DWJ....I hope I helped answer your questions....which, you should have been able to answer ALL by yourself.

Tbaby!!!!!! What an Intelligent Response!!!! I'm impressed!!!!!

 

 

KSP494 says ...

For those who were not military, when an MP goes on duty they go to the arms room and draw their weapons they load their mags, at the end of shift they turn the weapon in to the arms room. A military police officer is different than an off duty police officer. An off duty police officer has statutory powers of arrest and can effect an arrest off duty. A military police officer off duty is just a soldier sailor or airman. There is no such animal as an off duty MP. The young man who posted claims that the Navy issued him a photo police ID, I have never seen or heard of that and it would surprise me if it was so. But there is that possibility. But then you still have Posse Comitatus which says the military can not govern over civilians off of an installation unless martial law is declared. If you can not take your issued firearm off of the installation then you would have to have your own firearm (which I don't believe would satisfy HR 218) if you are 18 how do you plan to get a firearm? There are so many reasons that prevent MPs from falling under HR 218. It is not that me or anyone else is against you, it's that we don't want to see your mugs on the news and on the front page of the newspapers.

AND for the Barracks dwellers.....where would you secure that off duty weapon when on duty???

The installation commanders dont even like weapons being carried in cars as it is....do you think they will let you store them in your barracks?

Are you gonna go to the armory and load up everytime you leave your Barracks???

Just wondering???

TBaby says ...

KSP494 says ...

For those who were not military, when an MP goes on duty they go to the arms room and draw their weapons they load their mags, at the end of shift they turn the weapon in to the arms room. A military police officer is different than an off duty police officer. An off duty police officer has statutory powers of arrest and can effect an arrest off duty. A military police officer off duty is just a soldier sailor or airman. There is no such animal as an off duty MP. The young man who posted claims that the Navy issued him a photo police ID, I have never seen or heard of that and it would surprise me if it was so. But there is that possibility. But then you still have Posse Comitatus which says the military can not govern over civilians off of an installation unless martial law is declared. If you can not take your issued firearm off of the installation then you would have to have your own firearm (which I don't believe would satisfy HR 218) if you are 18 how do you plan to get a firearm? There are so many reasons that prevent MPs from falling under HR 218. It is not that me or anyone else is against you, it's that we don't want to see your mugs on the news and on the front page of the newspapers.

AND for the Barracks dwellers.....where would you secure that off duty weapon when on duty???

The installation commanders dont even like weapons being carried in cars as it is....do you think they will let you store them in your barracks?

Are you gonna go to the armory and load up everytime you leave your Barracks???

Just wondering???

For barracks personnel even their personal weapon has to be stored in the arms room or off of the installation. They sign it in and out with the armorer, they have to carry it from the arms room to a shooting range by the most direct route, or off of the installation. They weapon can not be within arms reach it can not be loaded and the ammunition has to be stored separately at least until they get off of the installation. Of course all that is assuming that they could use their personal weapon to carry concealed under HR 218.

The skeptic in me says no matter what I say here it wont change anything though. Because it's not what people want to hear.

you guys asked (well complained) now it's back and you folks aren't stating your case. I will not lock this again but tomorrow is a duty day and I challenge each of our military brothers and sisters to consult their commanders on the issue and/or JAG and then come back and advise us what they said (honor system)

This topic has been beat to death yet, like the proverbial bad penny, it keeps turning up so here is a recap of HR 218:

In order to be covered as a "qualified law enforcement officer," a person must meet each and every one of the following criteria: He or she must be (1) "an employee of a governmental agency"; (2) "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"; (3) has "statutory powers of arrest"; (4) "is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm"; (5) "is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the agency"; (6) "meets standards, if any, established by the agency which require the employee to regularly qualify in the use of a firearm"; and (7) "is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm."

Military personnel (excluding Coast Guard) DO NOT qualify as law enforcement officers AS DEFINED by HR 218. Civilian law enforcement officers are cops 24/7. They are authorized by statute to make arrests regardless of whether they are on or off duty and are authorized (if not required) to carry their sidearm at all times. Military law enforcement personnel, on the other hand, may exercise their law enforcement authority ONLY when they are on duty, when they are off duty they are just another service member. Put another way, military members ARE NOT employed by a law enforcement agency, they are employed by their branch of service and happen to hold an occupational specialty requiring them to perform law enforcement duties on a military installation.

There are many of us on PL who have served in the military as military policemen so we are not unsympathetic and do consider military policemen to be law enforcement officers, however the situation is what it is and will not likely change until legislation is enacted to include military police within the federal definition as law enforcement officers. 

rsteade says ...

This topic has been beat to death yet, like the proverbial bad penny, it keeps turning up so here is a recap of HR 218:

In order to be covered as a "qualified law enforcement officer," a person must meet each and every one of the following criteria: He or she must be (1) "an employee of a governmental agency"; (2) "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"; (3) has "statutory powers of arrest"; (4) "is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm"; (5) "is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the agency"; (6) "meets standards, if any, established by the agency which require the employee to regularly qualify in the use of a firearm"; and (7) "is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm."

Military personnel (excluding Coast Guard) DO NOT qualify as law enforcement officers AS DEFINED by HR 218. Civilian law enforcement officers are cops 24/7. They are authorized by statute to make arrests regardless of whether they are on or off duty and are authorized (if not required) to carry their sidearm at all times. Military law enforcement personnel, on the other hand, may exercise their law enforcement authority ONLY when they are on duty, when they are off duty they are just another service member. Put another way, military members ARE NOT employed by a law enforcement agency, they are employed by their branch of service and happen to hold an occupational specialty requiring them to perform law enforcement duties on a military installation.

There are many of us on PL who have served in the military as military policemen so we are not unsympathetic and do consider military policemen to be law enforcement officers, however the situation is what it is and will not likely change until legislation is enacted to include military police within the federal definition as law enforcement officers. 

 

Bump!!

rsteade says ...

This topic has been beat to death yet, like the proverbial bad penny, it keeps turning up so here is a recap of HR 218:

In order to be covered as a "qualified law enforcement officer," a person must meet each and every one of the following criteria: He or she must be (1) "an employee of a governmental agency"; (2) "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"; (3) has "statutory powers of arrest"; (4) "is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm"; (5) "is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the agency"; (6) "meets standards, if any, established by the agency which require the employee to regularly qualify in the use of a firearm"; and (7) "is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm."

Military personnel (excluding Coast Guard) DO NOT qualify as law enforcement officers AS DEFINED by HR 218. Civilian law enforcement officers are cops 24/7. They are authorized by statute to make arrests regardless of whether they are on or off duty and are authorized (if not required) to carry their sidearm at all times. Military law enforcement personnel, on the other hand, may exercise their law enforcement authority ONLY when they are on duty, when they are off duty they are just another service member. Put another way, military members ARE NOT employed by a law enforcement agency, they are employed by their branch of service and happen to hold an occupational specialty requiring them to perform law enforcement duties on a military installation.

There are many of us on PL who have served in the military as military policemen so we are not unsympathetic and do consider military policemen to be law enforcement officers, however the situation is what it is and will not likely change until legislation is enacted to include military police within the federal definition as law enforcement officers. 

Nicely Put.....

rsteade says ...

This topic has been beat to death yet, like the proverbial bad penny, it keeps turning up so here is a recap of HR 218:

In order to be covered as a "qualified law enforcement officer," a person must meet each and every one of the following criteria: He or she must be (1) "an employee of a governmental agency"; (2) "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"; (3) has "statutory powers of arrest"; (4) "is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm"; (5) "is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the agency"; (6) "meets standards, if any, established by the agency which require the employee to regularly qualify in the use of a firearm"; and (7) "is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm."

Military personnel (excluding Coast Guard) DO NOT qualify as law enforcement officers AS DEFINED by HR 218. Civilian law enforcement officers are cops 24/7. They are authorized by statute to make arrests regardless of whether they are on or off duty and are authorized (if not required) to carry their sidearm at all times. Military law enforcement personnel, on the other hand, may exercise their law enforcement authority ONLY when they are on duty, when they are off duty they are just another service member. Put another way, military members ARE NOT employed by a law enforcement agency, they are employed by their branch of service and happen to hold an occupational specialty requiring them to perform law enforcement duties on a military installation.

There are many of us on PL who have served in the military as military policemen so we are not unsympathetic and do consider military policemen to be law enforcement officers, however the situation is what it is and will not likely change until legislation is enacted to include military police within the federal definition as law enforcement officers. 

Bump!

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?

 

First - KSP never said that the Coast Guard falls under the DOD nor did he say or imply that they are limited by the Posse Comitatus Act;

Second - only Congress can put aside the provisions of the Posse Comitatus Act, not the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, or Air Force;

Third - Military Police can enforce civilian laws assimilated under Title 18 ONLY on military installations or military controlled property

Finally - Military Police are not covered under HR 218 because they do not fall within the definition of a law enforcement offcier because they ARE NOT employed by a law enforcement agency, they are service members who happen to perform law enforcement duties. 

TBaby says ...

snhadley says ...

HR 218?

In my humble opinion, service member Peace Officers should be covered.  I understand their status and the constitutional concerns. They should not have  to worry about carry in the event that engage some shithead out there!   Please don't waste your time and mine with the politics behind it!  I believe what I believe, period!

You said a mouthful right here..... "engage some shithead out there" ....thats the BIGGEST reason the lawmakers will not allow you to carry when your off....because they dont want you engaging anything or anyone when your off!!!

Its not so much about politics as it is Common Sense....

Brian,  So true!  Hell, I'm restricted by what I do as an on duty cop! State stautes and federal law has my back.  I may lose my job for violation of department policy but I won't go to jail.  In Florida an LEO does not need a CCW but I have one anyway! It's the bad guys world, we a squirrels tryin to get a nut!

It seems to me being former military and dealing with MPs that some people need to relize it is a lot easier to get a soilder to comply due to his basic training and orders issued by his unit. It is a different ball game when dealing with a meth head wanting to kill u. They don't give a shit that u are an mp or that I am a cretified Indiana police officer. They just care that they need to get high again and u are trying to stop them from robbing the store to get their next high. But again this is my personal opinoin and if it bothers someone get over it, freedome of speech. The main question I have is when was the last time that an MP had training on dealing with an EDP or a meth head. WE as police officers are trained to do that and I know by Indiana law we are required to receive such training.