LEOSA should it cover MP'S as well

This is a discussion on LEOSA should it cover MP'S as well within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by SIXTO no....

View Poll Results: LEOSA should it apply to MP'S of all branches?

Voters
43. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes

    22 51.16%
  • no

    21 48.84%
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 31

Thread: LEOSA should it cover MP'S as well

  1. #16
    Member Array Damion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cottonwood AZ
    Posts
    94
    Quote Originally Posted by SIXTO View Post
    no.
    S&W M&P 45c sold
    HK USPc 45 sold
    Glock 36M CC

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    25,740
    Quote Originally Posted by CopperKnight View Post
    I, personally, think a law like LEOSA should apply to all citizens, not just law enforcement officers.
    I'm with you ... sort of.

    An armed citizen is safer than an unarmed one. An armed neighborhood of citizens is safer for the people there than if they were unarmed or disarmed. An armed citizenry is safer for those citizens, overall, as well. Wherever there is a patchwork, all we end up with is bureaucracy that gets in the way of that simple fact.

    The places without statutes that muddle this don't have blood running in the streets due to a huge jump in crime due to citizens going around armed. Quite the opposite.

    Until all the silly, ineffective statutes are eliminated in favor of a generally-armed citizenry, we'll have some groups paying for the privilege of such bureaucracy with their lives (via being legally branded "criminals" for daring to be armed, or via being taken out due to having been disarmed by political hacks).
    Last edited by ccw9mm; November 9th, 2009 at 07:19 PM.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  4. #18
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,525

    Why? for Sixto

    Quote Originally Posted by SIXTO View Post
    no.
    Haven't voted yet. Was going to vote yes. Would like to hear why you think the answer should be no.

    Please explain.

    Thanks.

  5. #19
    Administrator
    Array SIXTO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    19,620
    Because the military or federal gub'ment would not back up the MP's should they get into a shooting off duty or otherwise outside the perimeters of their duty. They have no legal representation other than what they purchase on their own. They also have a very limited scope of law enforcement duty in comparision to their civilian counterparts.

    One only has to look at the reason LEOSA is LEOSA. It exists because a law enforcement officer is bonded by the governmental agency that carries his certification. That agency sees this person on a regular basis, qualifies them on their range, they carry an umbrella insurance and provide on going training. That persons credentials could be yanked at the drop of a hat. It boils down to the old saying; with privilege comes responsibility.

    Do you really think the somebody under that served 4 years should still be covered under LEOSA 20 years later? Legal updates come out every week. Who would oversee that this person is still credable, sane and capable? My badge was earned, at its earned over and over on a daily basis. Its not a one time and I'm good for life type of deal.

    Using the logic presented so far, then everybody that has served in the military should be covered under LEOSA. While of the surface that doesn't sound bad, when you think of all other stuff that goes with LEOSA, it really isn't that smart of a move. The government would be extending a huge voucher to a whole lot of people, and that voucher is one they could not possibly pay for. The military couldn't possibly allow past members to qualify on their ranges to their standards in order for that MP to maintain his credentials. For a police agency, that would is a lot easier. They are dealing with much smaller numbers. For example, my PD maintains 5 retired guys for LEOSA. How many would the Army alone have? Thousands.

    I say, if they have received equivalent training from the military, let them get a CCW like everyone else. The rules already allow qualifying members or retired military personnel to skip CCW "training".
    "Just blame Sixto"

  6. #20
    Member Array Damion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cottonwood AZ
    Posts
    94
    Quote Originally Posted by SIXTO View Post
    Because the military or federal gub'ment would not back up the MP's should they get into a shooting off duty or otherwise outside the perimeters of their duty. They have no legal representation other than what they purchase on their own. They also have a very limited scope of law enforcement duty in comparision to their civilian counterparts.

    One only has to look at the reason LEOSA is LEOSA. It exists because a law enforcement officer is bonded by the governmental agency that carries his certification. That agency sees this person on a regular basis, qualifies them on their range, they carry an umbrella insurance and provide on going training. That persons credentials could be yanked at the drop of a hat. It boils down to the old saying; with privilege comes responsibility.

    Do you really think the somebody under that served 4 years should still be covered under LEOSA 20 years later? Legal updates come out every week. Who would oversee that this person is still credable, sane and capable? My badge was earned, at its earned over and over on a daily basis. Its not a one time and I'm good for life type of deal.

    Using the logic presented so far, then everybody that has served in the military should be covered under LEOSA. While of the surface that doesn't sound bad, when you think of all other stuff that goes with LEOSA, it really isn't that smart of a move. The government would be extending a huge voucher to a whole lot of people, and that voucher is one they could not possibly pay for. The military couldn't possibly allow past members to qualify on their ranges to their standards in order for that MP to maintain his credentials. For a police agency, that would is a lot easier. They are dealing with much smaller numbers. For example, my PD maintains 5 retired guys for LEOSA. How many would the Army alone have? Thousands.

    I say, if they have received equivalent training from the military, let them get a CCW like everyone else. The rules already allow qualifying members or retired military personnel to skip CCW "training".
    i agree with this and it has helped me to show this guy here that there are to many liability's with making EVERY mp covered under LEOSA the DOD says the only people covered under LEOSA is CID,NCIS,and the AF'S ver. of the two i think thats good but i do beleave that they should STRONGLY recomend MP's (21 and over ) to get there ccw to protect them selfs from criminals they apprehend i know as an MP i have appreheded civilans onpost for thing like DUI/DWI under state code as well as warrents some of these people where really bad guys with really bad records my life has been threaten more than once for as they said "arresting them" ,i got my ccw because i dont need someone i apprehended coming after me when am not on post or not on post with my wife and to very young boys (ages 3 and 1 yesturday was the 1 year olds b-day) now if am correct am covered as a civilan is covered when not on duty and in CDU'S(civilan dress unifrom) i am deff. not covered by the military off post in anyway if something like this went down ......it might be a good what if to discuse like what if you are an MP of duty not in uniform and you do have to draw what could be the legal problems with that if any?
    S&W M&P 45c sold
    HK USPc 45 sold
    Glock 36M CC

  7. #21
    Administrator
    Array SIXTO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    19,620
    Quote Originally Posted by Damion View Post
    it might be a good what if to discuse like what if you are an MP of duty not in uniform and you do have to draw what could be the legal problems with that if any?
    Legal problems could be endless, like with anyone else.

    Now, here is a question for you;

    Lets say I'm out visiting Ft. Lewis. I'm (a civilian) on post and blazing down the road well above the posted limit.
    You stop me, and its obvious that I'm intoxicated. You pull me out of the car and handcuff me.

    Now here is the question... at that point are you arresting me or detaining me?

    If you are arresting me, what court will here my case? Would it be county court? Do you cite under state code? If I need to be jailed, where am I housed?

    Or are you simply detaining me and a civilian agency takes over the case?
    "Just blame Sixto"

  8. #22
    Member Array M203Sniper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    238
    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: (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; (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." Subsection (d) defines identification as photographic identification issued by the governmental agency which employs the individual as a law enforcement officer.

    remeber apprehend is the military trem for arrest
    This is where we are going to disagree. Military police are not authorized to carry firearms under color of law, they operate under military orders and regulations.
    MP's do not have any statutory power of arrest, they apprehend subjects because they can not arrest them, and a federal magistrate is not exactly the same as a judge.

    I agree with the nose under the tent idea because I don't think anyone should be denied their rights, however if you arm the military members under color of law (HR218) then you are violating the posse Comitatus act and destroying the intent of the entire second amendment.

    It would be better to recognize carry permits in the way we do drivers licenses so that individuals may choose to be armed.
    "Words can be as lethal as bullets; Choose them carefully, Aim them well & Use them sparingly."

  9. #23
    Member Array Damion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cottonwood AZ
    Posts
    94
    Quote Originally Posted by SIXTO View Post
    Legal problems could be endless, like with anyone else.

    Now, here is a question for you;

    Lets say I'm out visiting Ft. Lewis. I'm (a civilian) on post and blazing down the road well above the posted limit.
    You stop me, and its obvious that I'm intoxicated. You pull me out of the car and handcuff me.

    Now here is the question... at that point are you arresting me or detaining me?

    If you are arresting me, what court will here my case? Would it be county court? Do you cite under state code? If I need to be jailed, where am I housed?

    o yea as well as get an 1805 under RCW 9A.36.050 if you where WELL over the speed limit

    Or are you simply detaining me and a civilian agency takes over the case?
    well first you are cited under RCW 46.61.502
    yes you are being apprehended
    you would have to go to the federal magistrate court or county court you could also face state fines and penalty's based on the bac reading at the Provost Marshall's office (MP station) (bac is state certified as are the mp's who use it ) reading must be above .08
    you would be jailed at the Provost's Marshall's office in are drunk tank untill deemed sober in which you will be takin off post in an mp car and droped off by a pay phone( O yea your car will be impounded and takin to the state impound lot where you will have to wait untill we prosess the state dui forms and submit the to the state for prosessing
    Yes i will be in court on your court date the PM(Provost Marshall) does set time aside for us to go to are court dates and it is mandatory that we attend per are chain of command .

    No civilan agency does not pick you up for the violation on post unless this where to acurre under interstate 5 in between main post and north fort as we share jurisdiction there and will give it to WSP ( Washington State Patrol) where they will prosess you at the PM office and then take you to there jail,but with in are gates you deal with me

    is that what you where asking ????
    Last edited by Damion; November 9th, 2009 at 07:30 PM. Reason: forgot something
    S&W M&P 45c sold
    HK USPc 45 sold
    Glock 36M CC

  10. #24
    Member Array Damion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cottonwood AZ
    Posts
    94
    Quote Originally Posted by M203Sniper View Post
    This is where we are going to disagree. Military police are not authorized to carry firearms under color of law, they operate under military orders and regulations.
    MP's do not have any statutory power of arrest, they apprehend subjects because they can not arrest them, and a federal magistrate is not exactly the same as a judge.

    I agree with the nose under the tent idea because I don't think anyone should be denied their rights, however if you arm the military members under color of law (HR218) then you are violating the posse Comitatus act and destroying the intent of the entire second amendment.

    It would be better to recognize carry permits in the way we do drivers licenses so that individuals may choose to be armed.
    not aggreeing or dis aggreeing but i pulled this off fm19-10 chapter 5 (there is alot moer to it but this sums it up:

    Military Jurisdiction

    Military jurisdiction is exercised through the application of military law, the law of war, military government, martial law, and military orders and regulations--


    Military law regulates the entire military establishment of the US.

    Law of war is that segment of treaty and customary international law applicable to warfare.

    Military government is the administration by which an occupying power exercises executive, legislative, and judicial authority over occupied territory.

    Martial law or martial rule is the temporary exercise of control over domestic territory by a military commander as authorized by the President.

    Military orders and regulations are used in a military organization for its internal direction.
    Military jurisdiction extends to military personnel whether or not they are in an area under military control. The military has exclusive jurisdiction to try persons subject to the UCMJ for offenses purely military in nature, such as unauthorized absences. The Supreme Court has abandoned the requirement of showing a "service connection" for off-post offenses before a service member can be tried. A service member may now be tried in a court-martial regardless of any service connection. It is Army policy that a service member will not ordinarily be prosecuted under civil jurisdiction and later under military jurisdiction for the same offense. The military rarely has jurisdiction to try civilians.

    Civil Jurisdiction

    Civil jurisdiction is exercised through the application of state and federal law. Under the Constitution the states retain the right to regulate conduct of persons within their boundaries. Penal laws, which declare certain acts to be unlawful, are defined and enforced by state, county, and local governments and their regulatory agencies. For example, traffic regulations, liquor laws, and closing hours are usually set by local law. Some penal laws pertain to specific matters or areas within the civil jurisdiction of the federal government. Such federal law, like customs regulations and counterfeiting laws, is enforced by federal agencies.
    S&W M&P 45c sold
    HK USPc 45 sold
    Glock 36M CC

  11. #25
    Member Array LM2024's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    249
    No. Their jurisdiction is strictly limited to their base. What's military is military, what's civilian is civilian.

  12. #26
    Member Array Damion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cottonwood AZ
    Posts
    94
    Quote Originally Posted by SIXTO View Post
    Legal problems could be endless, like with anyone else.

    Now, here is a question for you;

    Lets say I'm out visiting Ft. Lewis. I'm (a civilian) on post and blazing down the road well above the posted limit.
    You stop me, and its obvious that I'm intoxicated. You pull me out of the car and handcuff me.

    Now here is the question... at that point are you arresting me or detaining me?

    If you are arresting me, what court will here my case? Would it be county court? Do you cite under state code? If I need to be jailed, where am I housed?

    Or are you simply detaining me and a civilian agency takes over the case?


    Quote Originally Posted by Damion View Post
    well first you are cited under RCW 46.61.502
    yes you are being apprehended
    you would have to go to the federal magistrate court or county court you could also face state fines and penalty's based on the bac reading at the Provost Marshall's office (MP station) (bac is state certified as are the mp's who use it ) reading must be above .08
    you would be jailed at the Provost's Marshall's office in are drunk tank untill deemed sober in which you will be takin off post in an mp car and droped off by a pay phone( O yea your car will be impounded and takin to the state impound lot where you will have to wait untill we prosess the state dui forms and submit the to the state for prosessing
    Yes i will be in court on your court date the PM(Provost Marshall) does set time aside for us to go to are court dates and it is mandatory that we attend per are chain of command .

    No civilan agency does not pick you up for the violation on post unless this where to acurre under interstate 5 in between main post and north fort as we share jurisdiction there and will give it to WSP ( Washington State Patrol) where they will prosess you at the PM office and then take you to there jail,but with in are gates you deal with me

    is that what you where asking ????
    Quote Originally Posted by LM2024 View Post
    No. Their jurisdiction is strictly limited to their base.
    thats what we where talking about please read above thank you
    S&W M&P 45c sold
    HK USPc 45 sold
    Glock 36M CC

  13. #27
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,525
    O.K. I thought LEOSA was primarily intended to find a way for RETIRED police officers to obtain the right to carry throughout the US. That a requirement was qualification with their department within a year prior to getting the "national permit," or whatever it deemed or named.

    I do not see a reason why someone who has perhaps served 20 years in the military as an MP, an investigator, or in a similar position, should not be granted the same carry rights as their civilian counterpart.

    I don't see how rights of arrest, detainment, military control over civilian on base, or anything of the sort pertain to the conversation.

    So, my vote is yes with respect to extending the benefit of LEOSA to retired MPs--but I am still conflicted with respect to younger folks who left the military at lower rank and with little experience.

  14. #28
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,816
    I have neglected to respond because when I read the question, I wasn't quite sure what to think of it.

    Now that I've had a few days to ponder on it, here are my thoughts.

    Times are changing. What many radical Muslims consider to be the "3rd Jihad" is taking place around the world whether we believe it or not. These radicals have one goal and one goal only, and that is to eliminate any religion which they deem to be false, which is pretty much all of them except theirs.

    If we don't adjust with the changing times, there will come a time when we will be overwhelmed. We have a Presidential Administration that gives comfort and aid to our sworn enemies, while completely ignoring traditional American values and this will only serve to embolden those that seek to stomp us out...one way or the other.

    So, in light of the above, I will say "YES". If MP's or any other military LEO's want to carry under LEOSA and they meet the criteria, then in my way of thinking the more people we have that can stop or reduce a threat like we saw at Ft.Hood the other day, the better off we are.

    I realize that there are a lot of differences between civilian LEO's and military LEO's but the end result is pretty much the same...to catch and put away the bad guys. We have some well qualified people that can arm themselves and in the event of another terrorist attack, every good guy with a gun will be a welcome addition to the fight to stop whatever it is that is going on.

    This crap about our military bases being target rich environments where no one can tote or own a gun has got to stop. As already mentioned, we have alot of bases here and around the world that are no different than city's with all the crime that goes with them. It makes no sense to me to allow a guy to serve in Iraq or Afghanistan or whatever the hotspot may be at the moment, yet deny his right to self protection while he is state side or even on a base.

    We see how well that worked at Ft. Hood.

    Terrorists only understand and respect one thing...and that is power. The more guns on the street that are ready, willing and able to shoot them on the spot when they present a threat the better off we'll all be.

    Let the sheep and people that are to stupid to understand huddle up in fetal positions on the floor when the bullets start flying and let the good guys take care of their sorry butts by ending the threat.

    We've got lots of good men and women in the military, all branches. Lets give them the tools to be able to participate in these little local wars...because that is exactly what it is...a WAR, and whether you believe it or not makes no difference when the lead is flying and people are dying.
    The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it...- George Orwell

    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  15. #29
    Member Array Damion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cottonwood AZ
    Posts
    94
    amen HotGuns i now think i kinda agree
    S&W M&P 45c sold
    HK USPc 45 sold
    Glock 36M CC

  16. #30
    Administrator
    Array SIXTO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    19,620
    I agree with HotGuns 110%... However the question was "covered under LEOSA".

    Retired MP's have no checks and balances as do retired police officers with the current system and law in place. There is nobody to make sure that they maintain eligibility like there is with a PD.
    There would need to be a specific law addressing retired military personnel and a system in place to maintain certification and qualification. Also, we would need to change the military position on just what their MP's can and cannot do. They are not allowed to carry outside of their scope of duty now; why would they allow it after separation?

    I honestly dont see the military ever taking on the responsibility of its retired personnel and what they do after seperation.
    "Just blame Sixto"

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. from fitted firm trigger cover vs. soft vs. no specific trigger cover
    By jimtem in forum Defensive Carry Holsters & Carry Options
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: December 27th, 2009, 10:38 PM
  2. Differential Cover test - The Great Diff Cover Shootout
    By Janq in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: May 6th, 2009, 01:51 PM
  3. LEOSA qualification for non-LEO?
    By press1280 in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: January 10th, 2009, 01:23 PM
  4. LEOSA
    By HKinNY in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: August 14th, 2008, 09:32 PM
  5. LEOSA
    By BikerRN in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: March 6th, 2007, 07:39 PM

Search tags for this page

are army military police covered under leosa
,
are military police covered under leosa
,
are retired military police covered by leosa
,

can a retired army m.p. apply leosa

,

does leosa apply to mp

,
leosa & retired army military police
,
leosa amendment include puerto rico
,

leosa army

,

leosa mp

,
military police and leosa
,

military police covered under leosa

,
mps covered under leosa
Click on a term to search for related topics.