LEOSA and the Military...

[Indy_Guy_77]

Seeking OPINIONS on this...

LEOSA = Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act

Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Specifically, the section titled "Qualified Law Enforcement Officers"

A casual reading of those who are qualified would lead me to believe that my buddy, who is an MP in the ING can carry under LEOSA?

That would mean that he'd (generally) be legal to carry in IL and OH (he already has an IN LTCH) without needing extra permits/licenses?

I can't find anything anywhere it stipulates that someone be "working" or "on duty".

Thoughts? Opinions?

I think there's been a few instances of some Coasties getting jammed up by local LEO for having a gun in their car - and that caused the USCG to tighten up their own regs, but I think those guys (ultimately) weren't charged

 

[Denny347]

http://www.fop.net/legislative/issues/hr218/hr218faq.pdf


Qualified law enforcement officers employed by or retired from a local, State or Federal law
enforcement agency.
A “qualified active law enforcement officer” is defined as an employee of a government agency
who: 2
 is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation,
prosecution or the incarceration of any person for any violation of law;
 has statutory powers of arrest or apprehension under the Uniform Code of Military Justice;
 is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm;
 is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the agency which could result in suspension
or loss of police powers;
 meets the standards, if any, established by the agency which require the employee to
regularly qualify in the use of a firearm;
 is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or
substance, and
 is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing a firearm

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Does he have a photographic identification card that identifies him as a police officer? (I don't know if the new cards have your MOS on them or not, mine didn't.)

§ 926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law enforcement officers

(a) 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)

(D) reads:

The identification required by this subsection is the photographic identification issued by the governmental agency for which the individual is employed that identifies the employee as a police officer or law enforcement officer of the agency.

Since the amendment earlier this year, USMJ enforcement authority does allow one to qualify under LEOSA. Active duty MPs are now covered for sure. I think it can be questionable if a reservist or guardsman not on call up would be covered. My *guess* would be that if he has the ID as required above than he would be ok, but that's just a guess based on my reading of LEOSA.

 

[Indy_Guy_77]

He has a photo ID, for sure. I am NOT sure if the MOS is on the photo ID badge. He also has his MP badge / badge wallet.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

He has a photo ID, for sure. I am NOT sure if the MOS is on the photo ID badge. He also has his MP badge / badge wallet.

That's the catch. Per LEOSA the photo ID has to say he's a law enforcement officer. My military ID didn't say what my MOS was. The CAC cards didn't either. I haven't been around the military since '05, so maybe the new ones do. Without that specific type of photo ID the law looks like it would exclude him from LEOSA protection even if he otherwise qualified.

The full text of the law is here:

18 USC § 926B - Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law enforcement officers | Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

It is very clear that it covers only someone carrying the correct ID. (D) is very clear that the ID must identify you as a law enforcement officer. An ID that simply identifies you as a soldier wouldn't meet that requirement. A badge is not a photo ID, and is irrelevant. When I was in, MPs didn't even get a badge, just the thing that went around their arm that said "MP".

 

[92ThoStro]

Based upon reading of Chapter 44 of Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 926B(a) and applying the facts brought forth at the hearing, the court finds that the defendant is exempt from prosecution under New York State Law as a result of LEOSA.   None of the arguments put forth by the People supply any proof that defendant was not protected from criminal prosecution by this act.   Although the proof at the hearing indicates that the defendant engaged in a violation of rules, regulations and policies of the United States Coast Guard by possessing a handgun for which he had no license, these violations do not act to lessen the scope of LEOSA as it is applied in this instance.   When distilled to the salient facts, the evidence presented at the hearing showed that the defendant was a qualified law enforcement officer who possessed photographic identification issued by the Coast Guard.   Accordingly, he is exempt from prosecution and the indictment must be dismissed

ETA: If you are wanting opinions only, then IMHO you friend is covered. He certainly fits into the spirit of the law. The ID definition might be a sketchy, but it seems like the courts have your back in any case. I would certainly carry deep concealed per LEOSA without printing and where it could never see the light of day to avoid any issues, because it seems like states like NY/IL/CA are going to arrest, charge, and throw you in jail first, and ask questions later. Seems like an awful big hassle.

You should contact someone and find out what they say, like the AG, the FOP, his CO on base, something. But what are his policies as an MP, do they allow him to carry off-duty off-base, without a license per LEOSA? He might not break the law, but what kind of trouble can he get into with the military for doing so?

 

[Indy_Guy_77]

Just heard back from my buddy.

Neither MOS alpha-numeric designation nor job title is enumerated on his military ID.

I would have to presume that all military ID's are created equal, right? At least as far as within each branch?

I also need to clarify a bit: My buddy is in the US Army Reserve, not the ING.

So, if a .Mil ID doesn't list a job title / MOS... Then wouldn't that exclude all .Mil folks from LEOSA?

 

[92ThoStro]

Here it is, instead of searching for court cases, I just typed your question in Google.

6. I am active duty or retired military/DoD police. Does LEOSA apply to me?

Yes. On January 2nd, 2013 LEOSA was amended to specifically allow for active and "retired" (as defined by LEOSA) military and DoD police and law enforcement officers with UCMJ apprehension authority to qualify for the statute; however, the DoD has not amended its own policy on LEOSA, DODI 5525.12, resulting in an inability for many that are now able to qualify to obtain the requisite photographic identification card. A standard CAC or blue retiree card will not work for LEOSA purposes as the photographic ID must identify the individual as either being actively or having once been employed as a police or law enforcement officer of the agency.

NRA Law Enforcement Division|Frequently Asked Questions

From what I was reading in another link on officer.com budget problems are what is preventing the military from getting the correct credentials.

Maybe in the case above that I quoted two posts up, the Coast Guard issues different IDs that are honored by LEOSA?

So, BehindBI's is correct. Your buddy certainly fits the definition, but the military has not updated their credentials to fit the requirements.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

So, if a .Mil ID doesn't list a job title / MOS... Then wouldn't that exclude all .Mil folks from LEOSA?

IIRC, certain .mil police did have photo IDs specific to their job in addition to the standard military ID. CID, NCIS, civilian DoD police, etc. Run of the mill MPs did not. They would now be covered under LEOSA as they meet the requirements AND have the requisite ID.

 

[Indy_Guy_77]

So, BehindBI's is correct. Your buddy certainly fits the definition, but the military has not updated their credentials to fit the requirements.

IIRC, certain .mil police did have photo IDs specific to their job in addition to the standard military ID. CID, NCIS, civilian DoD police, etc. Run of the mill MPs did not. They would now be covered under LEOSA as they meet the requirements AND have the requisite ID.

Ah ha... NOW it all makes sense!

Thanks for helping me "talk this out" as it were.

-J-

 

[IMPD31323]

When I was an active duty airforce police officer I had a military issued concealed carry ID. You might see if that is something he can get issued. The other hang up I see is that it states "active" and "retired". If he is not on orders is he considered "active"?

 

[Indy_Guy_77]

The other hang up I see is that it states "active" and "retired". If he is not on orders is he considered "active"?

I figured I'd cross that mental bridge if I got to that point!

MY WAY of thinking () would be that it's similar to that of a typical sworn LEO - that, even though they may not be working at the moment, they're still a LEO - and can act in that capacity should they need to.

I honestly have no idea how it is with the US Army / Army Reserve. Wouldn't surprise me if "nothing counts unless you're at drill or activated" isn't the rule.

And here I am just going these mental gymnastics in the hopes I could let my buddy in on a little info that may come in useful to him regarding Illinois and Ohio. *Sigh*

-J-