thats a good point i will have to add that to my defence the next time i speak to these poeple thanksTwo 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.
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.
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.
why ?????Get out of your branch come into the Coast Guard and become a boarding officer! Click me for info
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 ?????
I concur.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.
:rofl:
I'm with you ... sort of.I, personally, think a law like LEOSA should apply to all citizens, not just law enforcement officers.
Haven't voted yet. Was going to vote yes. Would like to hear why you think the answer should be no.
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?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".