Law Enforcement Specialties >> Military Law Enforcement >> Civilian military police

+2

Civilian military police

18,159 Views
66 Replies Flag as inappropriate
Photo_user_blank_big

3 posts

back to top

Posted over 4 years ago

 

Hello everyone,


Here is what i would like to know i will soon be going for the civilian police officer on a marine base. Do they have credentials and if so what kind ? can they conceal carry off duty?

-67 posts

back to top
+1

Rated +1 | Posted over 4 years ago

 

They have no general arrest powers beyond felony/breech of the peace off of military installations/military personnel...they are strictly a civilian police force for the military garrison environment to free up military police for the GWOT optempo. Its a damn good gig to get into though...most of the ones I have ever met were more motivated than the average police officer, almost all were veterans, and its a great way to keep your federal military time towards retirement.


They have the ability to obtain concealed carry off post just like any other state citizen though.

Good-guysjpg-a87be92e015c863e_max50

548 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 4 years ago

 

And the pay and benifits are usually way better starting out too.


R.I.P "Macho Man" Randy Savage

White_shirt_max50

4940 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 4 years ago

 

Why not axe your supervisor?

8494_bozo_pd_max600_max50

608 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 4 years ago

 

The first of your questions can not be answered unless the base you will be working on is identified.  Some of the DoD bases do give you credentials, others do not.  Some make you turn your cred's in at the end of the day.   DoD policy prohibits off duty carry.  If the state you are working in recognizes you as a police officer you will be safe from criminal prosecution under HR 218, however, administratively you will not fare too well.  If S.1132 is passed that may change.  Same thing if HR 675 passes. 


Word to the wise...DoD retirement is horrible. Make sure to opt for at least a 5% contribution to TSP when you are hired on to suppliment your retirement and buy back your military time.  From what I've seen the USMC Civilian Police are the highest paid out of the 4 branches, usually staring out at a GS7.  There is also a special salary rate that goes with the position depending on your location.  Overall though most DOD Officers are paid WAY under what a Local, County, or State Officer is paid.  


PL Mentoring Team Member

-67 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 4 years ago

 

tjlglpd02 says ...



 Overall though most DOD Officers are paid WAY under what a Local, County, or State Officer is paid.  



A big reason why I never applied with them. And the retirement or lack thereof from the DoD police is legendary.....if youre going to go that sort of route, best to look to an agency like VA Police or Federal Protective Service

8494_bozo_pd_max600_max50

608 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 4 years ago

 

VA is still uder the same standard FERS retirement that the DoD is.  Not sure about FPS.  It all may break open soon. FOP has said they are going to push for LEOEA (HR 673).  If that passes we, along with all the other 0083 series officers, get the LEO retirement and can get 50% at 57 YOA or 25 years of service.


PL Mentoring Team Member

-67 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 4 years ago

 

Can VA Police carry off VA property? Are they the same federal restrictions as the Department of the Army Police?

8494_bozo_pd_max600_max50

608 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 4 years ago

 

As far as I know they are covered by HR 218 (18 USC 926 now) where the VA is specifically identified in statute.  I have heard that they are allowed to but are fairly regulated as far as the turn in and storage when on property.  The VA and DA/DoD are run by 2 different groups.  DoD policy does not apply to the VA in most instances.


PL Mentoring Team Member

Photo_user_banned_big

100 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 4 years ago

 

tjlglpd02 says ...



VA is still uder the same standard FERS retirement that the DoD is.  Not sure about FPS.  It all may break open soon. FOP has said they are going to push for LEOEA (HR 673).  If that passes we, along with all the other 0083 series officers, get the LEO retirement and can get 50% at 57 YOA or 25 years of service.



 I heard FPS are very close to getting 6c coverage but don't have it yet.

Photo_user_banned_big

100 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 4 years ago

 

PSD_Team_Leader says ...



Can VA Police carry off VA property? Are they the same federal restrictions as the Department of the Army Police?



VA Police are covered under HR 218. Restriction really depends on the location. I have heard of VA facilities that don't want their Officers doing off-duty carry and I have heard of Army bases that don't restrict their Officers.

-67 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 4 years ago

 

Dont restrict their officers from what?


If Department of the Army police can carry off post and are covered by HR 218, thats the first I have heard of it

8494_bozo_pd_max600_max50

608 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 4 years ago

 

Thats right.  If your state recognizes you in statute...such as California and Illinois, and others I'm sure, then on the criminal level you should be covered.  Administratively you will get bent. With that said, I can't say for certain where there is no case law to back it.  Plain and simple nobody had been arrested and faught it through the courts as of yet. If I'm in error on this please let me know the case citing so I can read it. It would make for some good reading (or at least interesting).  


PL Mentoring Team Member

-67 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 4 years ago

 

yeah not that I think its a bad thing for DoD civilian police to carry off post, Im sure they are just as qualified as civilian police proper, but I think its a bit if a dangerous gamble to take without a concealed handgun license. If I were in that boat, I think I would get the CCL just to "CYA".....I wonder which states recognize the commission? Seems strange since they are not certified through the state licensing and reciprocity through other state certs....

Photo_user_banned_big

100 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 4 years ago

 

Some bases don't tell their Officer's that they can't carry off-duty and don't restrict it (personal weapon of course). Now if they do carry off-duty in a state not like NJ, CA then they run the risk of running into trouble both criminally and administratively (you can always run into trouble administratively) . Personally I think if a DoD cop was hooked for carrying off duty I believe a Judge will rule in the DoD cops favor. Now that's just my opinion and I'm not advising anyone to do it. If you're DoD and you can get a CCW then do it; but if you can't because of state law and you carry anyway to protect yourself and/or family then I can understand. The saying rather be judge by 12 then carried by 6 comes into mind. Just keep in mind you will be all on your own if you do so. 

Photo_user_banned_big

100 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 4 years ago

 

ShockUSMC87 says ...



PSD_Team_Leader says ...



Dont restrict their officers from what?


If Department of the Army police can carry off post and are covered by HR 218, thats the first I have heard of it



Yea, cause the orignal HR-218 doesnt cover any civilian military police officers..........



Well it really isn't the saying as there is no such thing as "civilian military police"; DoD/DA/DON etc. are considered Federal Officers. The problem is the widely debated issue as to whether these Officers have "statutory arrest" authority. I can not answer that as I have heard both sides put up some good arguments and to them having it and not having it. I'm not a judge so I really can't say.

 

Photo_user_banned_big

100 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 4 years ago

 

ShockUSMC87 says ...



navy_cop says ...



ShockUSMC87 says ...



PSD_Team_Leader says ...



Dont restrict their officers from what?


If Department of the Army police can carry off post and are covered by HR 218, thats the first I have heard of it



Yea, cause the orignal HR-218 doesnt cover any civilian military police officers..........



Well it really isn't the saying as there is no such thing as "civilian military police"; DoD/DA/DON etc. are considered Federal Officers. The problem is the widely debated issue as to whether these Officers have "statutory arrest" authority. I can not answer that as I have heard both sides put up some good arguments and to them having it and not having it. I'm not a judge so I really can't say.

 



Naw....its been clearly layed out that it doesnt apply to DoD police....thats never been in question. They have legiaslation in the office right now to extend them rights to carry off duty.



Not really and believe me it has been; if I hadn't seen things laid out from various groups with good arguments behind them I flat out state in my opinion that they are not. There is a bill that would "clarify" HR-218 to include DoD cops. That word alone raises some questions as to if they were included in the bill all along.

8494_bozo_pd_max600_max50

608 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 4 years ago

 



Not really and believe me it has been; if I hadn't seen things laid out from various groups with good arguments behind them I flat out state in my opinion that they are not. There is a bill that would "clarify" HR-218 to include DoD cops. That word alone raises some questions as to if they were included in the bill all along.

The clarification isn't only for DOD police.  There is a lot of ambiguous language in the initial 218 that leaves too much open for interpretation.  My understanding is NY Officers were having a hard time with the law and were one of the driving forces behind the change. I really am not sure what the issues are with the law, but know they exist.


PL Mentoring Team Member

Me_max50

17 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 4 years ago

 

navy_cop says ...



ShockUSMC87 says ...



navy_cop says ...



ShockUSMC87 says ...



PSD_Team_Leader says ...



Dont restrict their officers from what?


If Department of the Army police can carry off post and are covered by HR 218, thats the first I have heard of it



Yea, cause the orignal HR-218 doesnt cover any civilian military police officers..........



Well it really isn't the saying as there is no such thing as "civilian military police"; DoD/DA/DON etc. are considered Federal Officers. The problem is the widely debated issue as to whether these Officers have "statutory arrest" authority. I can not answer that as I have heard both sides put up some good arguments and to them having it and not having it. I'm not a judge so I really can't say.

 



Naw....its been clearly layed out that it doesnt apply to DoD police....thats never been in question. They have legiaslation in the office right now to extend them rights to carry off duty.



Not really and believe me it has been; if I hadn't seen things laid out from various groups with good arguments behind them I flat out state in my opinion that they are not. There is a bill that would "clarify" HR-218 to include DoD cops. That word alone raises some questions as to if they were included in the bill all along.

Fellas,..I am a Department of the Army Police Chief.  HR 218 hasn't been tested in court yet as far as we're concerned.  Thereby,..it hasn't been approved nor disapproved that HR 218 does or doesn't include us.  However,..We are by OPM description "FEDERAL POLICE OFFICERS"  Aint no getting around that,...even if the DA does try to restrict us from carrying. But after Ft Hood,...things for change are looking positive,...all the way around. Just my 2 cents.

-67 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 4 years ago

 

Youre walking a fine line covering military installation police (even civilian ones) with HR218 because that would basically be equating them with a state certified peace offcer as it is assumed that a federal officer/agent is covered by the basic that is jurisdiction is federal...ie in all states and territories. Its also a fine line because it is what it is, jurisdiction on a militar installation. If military civilian cops are to be armed and have the same police powers off post as they do on post, thats setting quite a precedent.


Me personally, if I saw a DoD police officer in uniform off post, armed, I would leave him alone. If I saw one carrying concealed off post and without a concealed carry license, Id remind him that he is very likely violating Texas state law and ask him the SOP concerning off duty wear by his agency.

8494_bozo_pd_max600_max50

608 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 4 years ago

 

We are walking a very fine line.  Part of the issue is whether the DoD officer is recognized and supported by the state as peace officers.  If they are, then there shouldn't be an issue. If they are not, then there would be the potential for a huge issue.  Administratively (even in state and municipal agencies) there can still be restrictions, but criminally there would not be.  The safety act is exactly what it says. It is for the safety of the officer off duty.  It does not matter where the jurisdiction of the officer is, merely that there can be a threat by a former offender to the officer.  Sadly, as a DoD officer, I have more authority once off the installation than on.  State statute in my state ensures that.  Other states have the same, such as California where the DA rendered an opinion that covered the officers.  Not sure about Texas. NJ has state recognition as well. 


Pathetically the half wits in DC who make the rules up for DoD have probably never been in LE.  They are a bunch of retiree's who's buddies got them jobs, or they are somebody who sells an idea to somebody for big $$ to suppliment their retirement.


I guess all I'm trying to say in reference to this is until HR 675 is passed, or a DoD officer is arrested and a court decision is rendered,  there will always be the gray area.


PL Mentoring Team Member

-67 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 4 years ago

 

Here is the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure regarding who has federal law enforcement recognition in the state of Texas, ie power to make felony arrests and the power of search and seizure-


Art. 2.122. SPECIAL INVESTIGATORS.  (a) The following named

criminal investigators of the United States shall not be deemed

peace officers, but shall have the powers of arrest, search and

seizure as to felony offenses only under the laws of the State of

Texas:

(1)  Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation;                   

(2)  Special Agents of the Secret Service;                                    

(3)  Special Agents of the United States Customs Service;                     

(4)  Special Agents of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms;                         

(5)  Special Agents of Federal Drug Enforcement Agency;                       

(6)  Inspectors of the United States Postal Service;                          

(7)  Special Agents of the Criminal Investigation Division

and Inspectors of the Internal Security Division of the Internal

Revenue Service;

(8)  Civilian Special Agents of the United States Naval

Investigative Service;

(9)  Marshals and Deputy Marshals of the United States

Marshals Service;    

(10)  Special Agents of the United States Immigration and

Naturalization Service;  and

(11)  Special Agents of the United States Department of

State, Bureau of Diplomatic Security.

(b)  A person designated as a special policeman by the

Federal Protective Services division of the General Services

Administration under 40 U.S.C. Section 318 or 318d is not a peace

officer but has the powers of arrest and search and seizure as to

any offense under the laws of this state.

(c)  A customs inspector of the United States Customs Service

or a border patrolman or immigration officer of the United States

Department of Justice is not a peace officer under the laws of this

state but, on the premises of a port facility designated by the

commissioner of the United States Immigration and Naturalization

Service as a port of entry for arrival in the United States by land

transportation from the United Mexican States into the State of

Texas or at a permanent established border patrol traffic check

point, has the authority to detain a person pending transfer

without unnecessary delay to a peace officer if the inspector,

patrolman, or officer has probable cause to believe that the person

has engaged in conduct that is a violation of Section 49.02, 49.04,

49.07, or 49.08, Penal Code, regardless of whether the violation

may be disposed of in a criminal proceeding or a juvenile justice

proceeding.

(d)  A commissioned law enforcement officer of the National

Park Service is not a peace officer under the laws of this state,

except that the officer has the powers of arrest, search, and

seizure as to any offense under the laws of this state committed

within the boundaries of a national park or national recreation

area.  In this subsection, "national park or national recreation

area" means a national park or national recreation area included in

the National Park System as defined by 16 U.S.C. Section 1c(a).

(e)  A Special Agent or Law Enforcement Officer of the United

States Forest Service is not a peace officer under the laws of this

state, except that the agent or officer has the powers of arrest,

search, and seizure as to any offense under the laws of this state

committed within the National Forest System.  In this subsection,

"National Forest System" has the meaning assigned by 16 U.S.C.

Section 1609.

(f)  Security personnel working at a commercial nuclear

power plant, including contract security personnel, trained and

qualified under a security plan approved by the United States

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, are not peace officers under the

laws of this state, except that such personnel have the powers of

arrest, search, and seizure, including the powers under Section

9.51, Penal Code, while in the performance of their duties on the

premises of a commercial nuclear power plant site or under

agreements entered into with local law enforcement regarding areas

surrounding the plant site.

(g)  In addition to the powers of arrest, search, and seizure

under Subsection (a), a Special Agent of the Secret Service

protecting a person described by 18 U.S.C. Section 3056(a) or

investigating a threat against a person described by 18 U.S.C.

Section 3056(a) has the powers of arrest, search, and seizure as to:

(1)  misdemeanor offenses under the laws of this state;  and                  

(2)  any criminal offense under federal law.   


 

0 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 4 years ago

 

HR-218 Covers Deparment of the Army Police, Coast Guard CIS, NCIS,CID, Secret Service, FBI, USMS,FPS,Capitol Police, VA Police. the reason is most if not all of Department of the Army Police Go through Civilian Police Academys before they are hired. HR218 is being changed because DA Police use the word apprehend instead of arrest. so they are going to change the wording to cover that as well. Secret Service fall under Department of Homeland Security FBI and USMS fall under Department of Justice. AFT and DEA can also carry off duty as long as they have their bages and ID card with them. and also if you are a MA or MP you can also carry off duty as long as you are Active NOT reserve or National Guard. there have been several cases in courts that have upheld HR 218 in NY and CA inreguards to HR218 and PSD_Team_Leader Texas Code of Criminal Procedures DOES NOT affect the FBI or any other federal Agent as they are covered under USC. and the last time i checked USC overrides state laws. MP's go through the same training as regular Police Officers but we also cover more laws then regular police officers. as the fact we have to enforce state, federal, local, and military law where most police officers only enfore state and local law.

8494_bozo_pd_max600_max50

608 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 4 years ago

 

DACP has run into the same issues as DoN, Marines, and AF police.  Never has there been any overall clarification of whether those agencies are covered or not.  NCIS, OIS, and CID are covered where they are 1811's, but the 0083's are most likely not.  There is nothing in 18USC926 that says anything about statutory authority to arrest as far as I'm aware.   Although I agree that DoD police should be covered, I wouldn't bet my house on it just yet.  Congress did say that they didn't intentionally leave out DoD and that it was an oversight on their part, but that doesn't change the fact that the top brass in all 5 of the armed forces (I'm including Coast Guard in this) have said we are not covered.  S.1132 was passed, and last I heard was on the Presidents desk for signature.  There was much more to it than adding arrest or apprehension and the bill wasn't introduced to accomodate the DoD alone.  Times in service are different as well as other language within the law.


If there are court rulings regarding DoD being covered I would like to know the case citings. 


As far as I'm aware DACP has the same standards of training as the other branches of the DoD.  The primary focus is on AR 190-56.  The only civilian academy they are required to go to is the one in Leonard Wood or New Mexico.  Most don't even do that due to cost. Standardization of training was supposed to be mandated throughout DoD with the Army spearheading it, but fell short.  CPOL never requires civilian police academy attendance in their job descriptions, and as far as what I know, most of the DACP officers are former military members with an MP or MAA background.


What PSD and I were discussing is the state recognition of DOD Officers.  PSD was kind enough to post Texas Law which shows there is nothing identifying DOD as Police Officers, unlike CA, IL, and various other states. 


Bottom line here is that LEOSA (18USC926) is not an extention of authority, but a means to keep ALL LE's safe during their off time.  None of us deal with "nice" people, and for once Congress got it right in an attempt to let us protect ourselves while off duty.


Seems as though your post is rather condecending towards the discussion group.  Perhaps I am reading it wrong, but thats what I'm getting from it.  I think its OK to have an opinion, but we are all professionals here, and opinions are shared to provide different insight into topics posted.  I think eah contributor on this forum are aware that federal law supercedes state statutes.  I think most are also aware that each of the states provides the federal government with the language used in federal law, referring to the ACA. 


PL Mentoring Team Member

0 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 4 years ago

 

DOD Cops make my life so much eaiser- at least most of them

-67 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 4 years ago

 

tjlglpd02 says ...



DACP has run into the same issues as DoN, Marines, and AF police.  Never has there been any overall clarification of whether those agencies are covered or not.  NCIS, OIS, and CID are covered where they are 1811's, but the 0083's are most likely not.  There is nothing in 18USC926 that says anything about statutory authority to arrest as far as I'm aware.   Although I agree that DoD police should be covered, I wouldn't bet my house on it just yet.  Congress did say that they didn't intentionally leave out DoD and that it was an oversight on their part, but that doesn't change the fact that the top brass in all 5 of the armed forces (I'm including Coast Guard in this) have said we are not covered.  S.1132 was passed, and last I heard was on the Presidents desk for signature.  There was much more to it than adding arrest or apprehension and the bill wasn't introduced to accomodate the DoD alone.  Times in service are different as well as other language within the law.


If there are court rulings regarding DoD being covered I would like to know the case citings. 


As far as I'm aware DACP has the same standards of training as the other branches of the DoD.  The primary focus is on AR 190-56.  The only civilian academy they are required to go to is the one in Leonard Wood or New Mexico.  Most don't even do that due to cost. Standardization of training was supposed to be mandated throughout DoD with the Army spearheading it, but fell short.  CPOL never requires civilian police academy attendance in their job descriptions, and as far as what I know, most of the DACP officers are former military members with an MP or MAA background.


What PSD and I were discussing is the state recognition of DOD Officers.  PSD was kind enough to post Texas Law which shows there is nothing identifying DOD as Police Officers, unlike CA, IL, and various other states. 


Bottom line here is that LEOSA (18USC926) is not an extention of authority, but a means to keep ALL LE's safe during their off time.  None of us deal with "nice" people, and for once Congress got it right in an attempt to let us protect ourselves while off duty.


Seems as though your post is rather condecending towards the discussion group.  Perhaps I am reading it wrong, but thats what I'm getting from it.  I think its OK to have an opinion, but we are all professionals here, and opinions are shared to provide different insight into topics posted.  I think eah contributor on this forum are aware that federal law supercedes state statutes.  I think most are also aware that each of the states provides the federal government with the language used in federal law, referring to the ACA. 



Right, I think he completely missed the point of the Texas CCP posting. DoD civilian officers are police officers, regardless of jurisdiction. MPs (which I am) are Soldiers first..or whatever branch they come from. A Soldier's job is first and foremost as a rifleman. Not the same with DoD LEOs


 

Photo_user_blank_big

11 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 4 years ago

 

marine101 says ...



Hello everyone,


Here is what i would like to know i will soon be going for the civilian police officer on a marine base. Do they have credentials and if so what kind ? can they conceal carry off duty?



Actually, DOD Police in Virginia are written into Virginia State Law, Section 19.2-12 to have full state powers of arrest. Additionally, those at Norfolk Naval Station transport offenders to the Norfolk City Jail and utilize the Norfolk Court system. And with Senate bill S 1132 passing September 29th, when the President signs it they will have full concealed carry rights nationwide like any other Federal, State or local officers, without a permit. I know we as DOD cops have always been the bastard child of the military, but at Naval Station Norfolk, DOD police partol while most military security force members stand gates, with the exception of a few MA's. This bill passing is a giant step towards the 20 year LEO retirement. Even before the S 1132 bill passed DOD police have had nationwide carry rights, and in reality the bill was passed to force the Navy to recognize it. You guys and girls take care and be safe.

07_tahoe_max50

21 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 4 years ago

 

Read today's news letter from the FOP grand lodge.  Looks like the new bill was signed into law which recognizes DOD GS 83 series as peace officers under LEOSA

Photo_user_blank_big

11 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 4 years ago

 

fredrod3 says ...



Read today's news letter from the FOP grand lodge.  Looks like the new bill was signed into law which recognizes DOD GS 83 series as peace officers under LEOSA



YES, ON 12 OCTOBER 10 PRESIDENT OBAMA SIGNED THE BILL S;1132 INTO LAW. THAT NOW PLACES ALL DOD POLICE (ARMY, NAVY, MARINE CORPS, AND AIR FORCE) ON THE LIST OF "QUALIFIED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS" FOR THE PURPOSE OF NATIONAL CONCEALED CARRY WITHOUT  A PERMIT. THE NAVY, ARMY, MARINE CORP AND AIR FORCE CAN NOT CHANGE THE LAW TO PREVENT THEM FROM THIS RIGHT EITHER, ASS A MATTER OF FACT THEY WILL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH IT. THIS IS A HUGE STEP TOWARDS THE BILL HR 675, THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS EQUITY ACT, WHICH WILL INCREASE PAY AND RETIREMENT BENEFITS FOR DOD POLICE. THEY ALL NEED TO EMAIL THE ENTIRE HOUSE AND SENATE TO THANK THEM FOR PASSING THIS LONG OVERDUE LAW, AND TO REMIND THEM TO RECONSIDER THE HR 675 NOW.

Photo_user_blank_big

11 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 4 years ago

 

PSD_Team_Leader says ...



They have no general arrest powers beyond felony/breech of the peace off of military installations/military personnel...they are strictly a civilian police force for the military garrison environment to free up military police for the GWOT optempo. Its a damn good gig to get into though...most of the ones I have ever met were more motivated than the average police officer, almost all were veterans, and its a great way to keep your federal military time towards retirement.


They have the ability to obtain concealed carry off post just like any other state citizen though.



ACTUALLY.....We can now carry concealed nationwide off duty with NO concealed carry permit since the passing of S 1132. This is a full carry right without regard to state or local prohibition. Just like any other federal officers. We are now, by definition, "Qulaified Law Enforcement Officers" under Federal Law. The law was signed by the President on the first of October.

Next Page >