|
Calguns LEOs LEOs; chat, kibitz and relax. Non-LEOs; have a questions for a cop? Ask it here, in a CIVIL manner. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
I agree, the latest amendment opened the door for legal carry for tons of people. The problem for 99% of the new additions is going to be credentials.
|
#42
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
To pull the pvt move and ask for an open door policy and want to cry why? The you'll get the big *** dod directive why MP's/Dacp (dod police) can't carry and then you'll be like hmmm maybe it's a good idea I can't carry (atleast in a Leo fashion) civilian carry I am for
__________________
We need to ban water to stop the poor fat kids from drowning - Ted Nugent |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
What a Jabroni. Who is asking to carry in a LEO capacity? I already do that, in uniform and out when on duty. Chain of Command, all way to HQ is aware of the Amendment. They will comply with the Law as required, but no sooner than December 2013. I'm not asking for an open door policy, or "crying why". Only questioning a decision by a local Sheriff to deny a civilian CCW if Federal Law qualifies me for the same. Last edited by IXIVI; 02-06-2013 at 6:15 PM.. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
I just submitted my Rhode Island application today. Technically... it's a shall issue state, BUT you have to show "show proper need" in an essay... ridiculous. So I'll let you all know how that turns out. If it works though, I'll be pretty much the first service member I'm aware of that has successfully gotten through the red tape in this state
|
#45
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
We need to ban water to stop the poor fat kids from drowning - Ted Nugent |
#46
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
|
#47
|
||||
|
||||
Your cac card doesn't say your unit and your arms room card does, but every unit had individuals that are attached to them with different mos. when I did AWOL apps I was issued actual federal law enforcement creds not every mp gets that only special assignments
__________________
We need to ban water to stop the poor fat kids from drowning - Ted Nugent |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Bottom line is, LEOSA now covers MPs. Damn us all to hell, YOU'RE INCLUDED too. Whether you can put a coherent sentence together, or not. Regardless of Field Manuals, DA regulations, or LACK of DoD guidance, Federal Law qualifies you and me both to carry a personal weapons off duty. No off duty carry memo required. I suggest YOU read Title 18 USC, sec 926b, as amended by HR 4310 sec 1089. |
#49
|
||||
|
||||
Yeah I know what MP creds look like, for PSD or MPI, etc. However, nothing in the statute requires that your ID state your unit or even that you are an LEO. It says "the photographic identification issued by the governmental agency for which the individual is employed as a law enforcement officer". For MPs that would be the CAC. Now I think it would be a good idea to carry the arms room ID also so you can prove you are an MP, but the statute does not require it. The existence of MP creds being out there does not change any of this.
|
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
So no, CAC wont qualify unless they start putting MOS on the CAC. |
#51
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
And if you want to go ahead a question my professionalism go ahead an pm me ill give you my number and we can talk offline high speed.
__________________
We need to ban water to stop the poor fat kids from drowning - Ted Nugent |
#52
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
So the way I see it, unless your CoC has issued orders to the contrary you can carry off post. I don't see what the big issue is for you. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Also, though I have on multiple occasions seen combat with, and even supervised an entire detachment of Soldiers, my left chest does not say US Army. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Look Matt, like Tincon mentions, there is no barracks lawyer here. Just FEDERAL LAW that now qualifies MPs under LEOSA. No permission from your Commander needed.
In all seriousness, have you even read the law? |
#55
|
||||
|
||||
Well if it doesn't say us army then do what you will. Like I always tell the joe's do what your rank can handle.
__________________
We need to ban water to stop the poor fat kids from drowning - Ted Nugent |
#56
|
||||
|
||||
Don't confuse your rank with my authority.
|
#57
|
||||
|
||||
MPs covered under LEOSA now?
Yea I have, I actually had to read it in depth because I was also supporting this up hill battle, but how it was broken down to me makes complete sense. There just can't be a "unit" memo on off duty carry policy, because if something where to happen they wouldn't be ultimately liable it would be the dod in whole. Just like (dont know if you guys know this) some base commanders are issuing general orders that no permanent party members who have a ccw will carry out of uniform. The law is clear and cut on the federal side, I have read it but it is to be implied with parameters, and the dod has not established them. I do know they are working on the Dacp off duty carry policy back at leonard wood. I do not know what the status of that is yet.
__________________
We need to ban water to stop the poor fat kids from drowning - Ted Nugent |
#58
|
||||
|
||||
That is the worst thing anyone could say lol. Automatic negative counseling statement lol
__________________
We need to ban water to stop the poor fat kids from drowning - Ted Nugent |
#59
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Anyway I do agree that command can have a more restrictive policy than LEOSA allows. Just as for anything. But absent some such order LEOSA allows you to carry off post. DOD liability is a non-issue, this was passed by congress and signed by the president. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Base commander issuing orders preventing members from carrying with a civilian issued CCW? Beyond a shadow of a doubt, that cannot be a legal order off of the installation.
Coming full circle on a similar issue, years ago when CA open carry was legal, a local Commander issued an order to his troops stating that they would not open carry or face non-judicial punishment. Staff Judge Advocate stepped in and squashed him on the same day the memo was issued. He cant supersede local or Federal Law because he doesn't want to be embarrassed. Eventually DoD will come around with their own guidance on the law as it applies to MPs, but as mentioned, no sooner than December 2013.... |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Agreed. Passed by congress and signed by the president. The easiest way for the DoD to deal with the new law, unfortunately, is to just refuse to issue a photo ID confirming LE affiliation and wipe their hands of the situation. Guess its just wait and see. |
#62
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I honestly don't think you get it. If you are given an order you have to follow it, regardless if your inside or outside uniform. 3 criteria s for an order. It has to be ethical, moral, and legal. And as for the no CCW off post out of uniform, I don't remember what base it is, and agreed that is some bull.
__________________
We need to ban water to stop the poor fat kids from drowning - Ted Nugent |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
It has to be ethical, moral, and legal.
BAM. LEGAL. Can a Commander issue an order, preventing you from exercising a constitutional right? NO. NOT LEGAL. You cant exercise "Free Speech" in uniform. (just like you cant carry concealed in uniform) But you can (enlisted) exercise Free Speech on your own time in civilian clothes. (as long as you aren't a Commissioned Officer) Trying to prevent CCW Off post out of Uniform is beyond bull. It cannot be legal. |
#65
|
||||
|
||||
Fill out this form http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom....9/attach_1.pdf
and route it through your chain of command. If they still deny you then go to JAG and an attorney will help you out. Last edited by Linh; 02-06-2013 at 8:14 PM.. |
#66
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
A. Are you even in the military? If not then you'll never understand the military lifestyle. B. If you are in the military then is today your first day one the job or something? What's next? overtime for working more than 8 hours? Sue the military? |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
You must be Soldier too. Culture of Obedience I see. Disregard the fact that if you are a citizen of this Country, the constitution affords you rights that not even an almighty Army Lt. Col can keep from you. Just do it and obey. Legal or not.
Lets get real here. The Military can (and does) implement all manner of restrictions on its people. But each of those restrictions is conducted while complying with the United States Constitution. If a restriction does not comply with the constitution, or other Federal Laws, it is therefore not a legal restriction. See my example as posted earlier. A Commander in California tried to restrict his personnel from participating in Open Carry meetings. SJA was contacted, and he was told to stand down. He was prevented from punishing his people for exercising their right as afforded by a State or Federal Law. Why in the name of Zeus's butthole would a Commander be allowed to prevent civilian concealed carry, if he cant prevent civilian open carry?????? How about we leave this discussion for another thread? Or just PM me, we can debate it some more elsewhere..... The OP brought to the attention of Calguns, that MPs are now explicitly covered by the LEOSA. I attempted to parlay my qualifications under LEOSA, into a civilian CCW with a county Sheriff that is notoriously anti-2A, and in doing so was informed that they dont care what Federal Law states. They also told me that I have the option to re-apply, no sooner than 1 whole year from date of denial. I posted here to ask a legal opinion within the calguns LEO forum. Is a once a year application for CCW, or to refuse to take a CCW application, even legal?? Last edited by IXIVI; 02-06-2013 at 8:46 PM.. |
#69
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
We need to ban water to stop the poor fat kids from drowning - Ted Nugent |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
It may be worth fighting, but then again, it may rendered moot if DoD issues some type of policy effectively circumventing the law. Or if they issue policy allowing compliance with the law too. DoD will come around with one thing or another, far sooner than a court would I'm sure!
|
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
The follow-on question also becomes, would that be 'Using a CAC in an authorized manner' |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
The purpose of the card was obviously for issue and turn in, but contained the individuals Unit name/rank/quals and nevertheless IDENTIFIED them as MPs. Under the requirements of the new amendment, absent a directive NOT to use this same card as ID for LEOSA, the weapons card would absolutely meet the qualifications for ID. Sure, you would have some explaining to do if approached by a civilian LEO. Might even spend some time in restraints, but by the letter (and spirit) of the law, you would be exonerated. In the end, using the weapons card would seem a bit desperate, maybe even looking for trouble. If you're one of those individuals who has a weapons card that contains a photo, I wouldn't recommend running around town with your off duty weapon just yet. |
#73
|
||||
|
||||
Aren't you guys issued a badge? Oh but you don't have an ID that correspond with your badge? Let me guess the weapons card doesn't have your photo?
If you wanna play around then go ahead and be the test subject then when you get an article 15 go ahead and turn that down for a court martial. We can talk about this all day. If you're in the "legal" zone then why are you on here asking questions. There is a reason why the military doesn't issue you a weapon to take home, and they do for CID but not for MP. I'm pretty sure they have a reason for it. If you wanna play with your career then bring it. Oh with or without a directive/policy, I already got an article 15 in mind for you. I've typed thousands of those when I was in. Not going to hurt my feelings if you turn it down. Last edited by Linh; 02-07-2013 at 8:38 PM.. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I did not say that I want to play around and be a test subject. I was referring to another's post about weapons cards, and in fact warning against it. You have twice now, berated like a tool for no reason. Its pretty obvious to me that you dance around with your fancy signature and gleaming AAMs because you want someone like me to believe that you were accomplished. I would like to thank you for your service. Thank you for when you "were" in. Just know that I'm grateful you no longer serve. And for the record, I do have a badge, and I do have an ID that corresponds with it. For the sake of this thread, lets move on and share some productive information? |
#75
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
1. The identification must be photographic. Check. 2. The identification must be issued by the governmental agency for which the individual is employed as a law enforcement officer. Check. 3. There is no 3. That's it. Quote:
Ok, what is the basis in the UCMJ for this article 15 you have in mind? |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I actually don't have anything particular in mind - I was putting the question out there for the sake of discussion. |
#78
|
||||
|
||||
Ah yeah you are correct. I was focused on the UCMJ part, and when I looked up the actual law for the ID portion, westlaw was not updated. Well that's stupid, they included MPs but made the law so that MPs can't carry??
|
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
MPs can carry, absolutely. As long as they have proper ID! As far as we all know, the Army, Air Force, and Navy, do not issue photo ID on a service level (why would they). But there are PLENTY of Units that issue their Military MPs and civilian 0083 DoD Police some type of photo ID to accompany their badge. PLENTY of them. I know firsthand.... The whole idea of Senator Leahy including MPs in the newest amendment, could not have been born with the knowledge (or LACK thereof) that DoD has no policy in place dealing with MP photo ID. It seems more likely that all the lawmakers that voted for the amendment (UNANIMOUS I might ad) just agreed to afford MPs the same protection under LEOSA, assuming that whatever stipulations they included, would be met and every intended person would have the right to carry. It will be interesting to see how the individual services choose to deal with the issue, because it is after all, FEDERAL LAW. |
#80
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
We need to ban water to stop the poor fat kids from drowning - Ted Nugent |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|