[Damion]

just a question to ask to slove a debate here in iraq a reason would be great thank you

 

[M203Sniper]

Two reasons.

1. It is a horrible law that should never have been written. Setting a group of civilians above another because of their job is idiotic and a direct violation of the second amendment. How about "only garbage men can carry in all 50 states" does that make any sense?

2. MP's are not the police. The UCMJ and The Posse Comitatus Act dictate that they not be as well as every military reg dictating the use of force/powers of arrest and carrying of a firearm in an official capacity for the DOD.

 

[Damion]

Two reasons.

1. It is a horrible law that should never have been written. Setting a group of civilians above another because of their job is idiotic and a direct violation of the second amendment. How about "only garbage men can carry in all 50 states" does that make any sense?

2. MP's are not the police. The UCMJ and The Posse Comitatus Act dictate that they not be as well as every military reg dictating the use of force/powers of arrest and carrying of a firearm in an official capacity for the DOD.

thats a good point i will have to add that to my defence the next time i speak to these poeple thanks

 

[buckeye .45]

I went with no. Because MP's generally use the UCMJ and base orders as their guidelines, and those don't really apply to people not in the military. Also, Posse Comitatus prevents the military from being used as police against civilians.

FWIW, here are the requirements from wikipedia:

Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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) "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) have "statutory powers of arrest"; (4) "authorized by the agency to carry a firearm"; (5) "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) "not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm." In addition, the privilege conferred by the law applies only when the individual "is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance.

 

[cuban11182]

Get out of your branch come into the Coast Guard and become a boarding officer! Click me for info

 

[CCWINNC]

Two reasons.

1. It is a horrible law that should never have been written. Setting a group of civilians above another because of their job is idiotic and a direct violation of the second amendment. How about "only garbage men can carry in all 50 states" does that make any sense?

2. MP's are not the police. The UCMJ and The Posse Comitatus Act dictate that they not be as well as every military reg dictating the use of force/powers of arrest and carrying of a firearm in an official capacity for the DOD.

I agree that the law is not favorable to the majority, however if it allows more good guys to carry weapons in areas that are sheep herding grounds then I am for it. The more trained good guys out their the better overall. Along that same lines I am sure that the MP's are much more proficient at there weapons than a large segment of the civilian law enforcement officers.

On your point number 2. As far as on military installations (ie fort Hood) they are the Police. And hold full jurisdiction with said position. And seeing that many of the military installation in the US are larger then the surrounding city they do hold quite of bit if authority.

Now there jurisdiction ends at the gate but the crime does not.

 

[Damion]

Get out of your branch come into the Coast Guard and become a boarding officer! Click me for info

why ?????

 

[CopperKnight]

I threw a yes in. As I understand LEOSA, it is not about arresting people or exercising other Law Enforcement duties, it is about allowing people to carry concealed weapons without getting a patchwork of permits. I, personally, think a law like LEOSA should apply to all citizens, not just law enforcement officers.

With that premise in mind, I think as many "types" of people as possible should be included in such legislation.

 

[A1C Lickey]

I guess I'm the only yes so far.....
The way I see it MP's (and Security Forces, and whatever the Navy calls theirs') do provide law enforcement functions on base for military personnel. Why shouldn't they be covered under this law?

Secondly, it's a way for the camel to get his nose under the tent. Start with MP's, then maybe we can push to all military. If that happens we've just increased the number of people who will carry nationwide. That will be just one more thing on our side to fight for nationwide carry; "...well LEO's and military can do it and we haven't seen blood in the streets yet..."

Now for the legalese, correct me if I'm wrong, but while I was studying the PDG last night I saw something about NCO's having the ability to make arrests if necessary. And I know we can take part in the incarceration of personnel.

 

[Damion]

what about this my friend sent it to me with a small quote of define the mp's job and then read this:
Chapter 44 of Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 926B(a) states in relevant part that "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 be shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce..." Subdivision (c) states that a 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: (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

ap·pre·hend (pr-hnd)
v. ap·pre·hend·ed, ap·pre·hend·ing, ap·pre·hends
v.tr.
1. To take into custody; arrest: apprehended the murderer.
2. To grasp mentally; understand: a candidate who apprehends the significance of geopolitical issues.
3. To become conscious of, as through the emotions or senses; perceive.
v.intr.
To understand something.

ar·rest (-rst)
v. ar·rest·ed, ar·rest·ing, ar·rests
v.tr.
1. To stop; check: a brake that automatically arrests motion; arrested the growth of the tumor.
2. To seize and hold under the authority of law.
3. To capture and hold briefly (the attention, for example); engage.
v.intr.
To undergo cardiac arrest: The patient arrested en route to the hospital.
n.
1.
a. The act of detaining in legal custody: the arrest of a criminal suspect.
b. The state of being so detained: a criminal under arrest.
2. A device for stopping motion, especially of a moving part.
3. The act of stopping or the condition of being stopped.

 

[cuban11182]

why ?????

why do we have the ability to? 14USC89 we also have Custom's Authority from time to time. We have the ability to arrest if a Federal Crime has been commited.

Why come into the Coast Guard? it's better :danceban: JK

 

[BikerRN]

I threw a yes in. As I understand LEOSA, it is not about arresting people or exercising other Law Enforcement duties, it is about allowing people to carry concealed weapons without getting a patchwork of permits. I, personally, think a law like LEOSA should apply to all citizens, not just law enforcement officers.

With that premise in mind, I think as many "types" of people as possible should be included in such legislation.

I concur.

See the part in bold if you have trouble understanding the true intent of the law.

Biker

 

[Damion]

^^ also good point i might just have my friend read whats posted here but am still winning the poll lmao

 

[SIXTO]

no.

 

[Treo]

Sure, anything that put more guns in private, law abiding citizen's hands I am all for.

 

[Damion]

no.

:rofl:

 

[ccw9mm]

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).

 

[Hopyard]

Why? for Sixto

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.

 

[SIXTO]

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".

 

[Damion]

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?