The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old March 1, 2013, 03:07 PM   #1
Likeapuma
Junior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2012
Posts: 8
Updated HR214/LEOSA?

Updated HR214/LEOSA?s updated to include military law enforcement, such as MP's, active & retired. Obviously, active duty has to comply with unit/duty station regs, but my question is regarding retired, or discharged soldiers

A bunch of my fellow MP friends are claiming that the only requirement to carry concealed is military paperwork (erb/dd214) stating they were former MP's & received training for the job.

The requirements of "Retired" are that they:
"separated from service in good standing with a government agency as a law enforcement officer for an aggregate of ten (10) years or more or separated from such an agency due to a service-connected disability after completing any applicable probationary period of such service"

Most of the guys trying to use this, that is know, we're only enlisted for 5 years, so this wouldn't apply to them, correct? I just want to know, trying to look out for my brothers in arms. If they are covered, even better news!

I've contacted the resident state trooper here in CT, but he was pretty clueless, since it was only updated a few weeks ago
Likeapuma is offline  
Old March 1, 2013, 03:21 PM   #2
Willie Sutton
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 26, 2012
Posts: 1,066
I don't think you are going to find much support for this here, and in fact my belief is that the RKBA community ought to lobby against it. What's good for the citizen is good for the other citizen.

Special rights for one class of citizen is an injustice to the others. I hate to be contrary, but this is a legislative way to divide and conquer, and it's not what the RKBA fight is all about.



Willie

.
Willie Sutton is offline  
Old March 1, 2013, 03:32 PM   #3
Likeapuma
Junior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2012
Posts: 8
Honest responses are welcomed either way. I tend to agree that this bill is far from perfect. I was just trying to find information on it, to better inform others. I agree that this bill is divisive, but if it's there, it'd save them the few dollars it takes to get a concealed permit.
Likeapuma is offline  
Old March 1, 2013, 04:15 PM   #4
Willie Sutton
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 26, 2012
Posts: 1,066
The bill should be opposed by anyone seriously interested in the constitutional aspects of the RKBA debate. It's not one that is good for the cause. Let every man who wants to carry apply for a permit. If you cannot get one, due to living in a state that refuses to issue them (like NJ), join the fight.


No special classes of citizens should exist.



"All animals are equal, but Some animals are more equal than others".




Willie

.

Last edited by Willie Sutton; March 1, 2013 at 04:21 PM.
Willie Sutton is offline  
Old March 1, 2013, 04:22 PM   #5
Fishing_Cabin
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 10, 2010
Posts: 713
The only thing I have really noticed about it is here:

http://le.nra.org/leosa/leosa-welcom...-military.aspx

http://le.nra.org/leosa.aspx

A couple of excerpts...

Quote:
Originally Posted by NRA.org link above
...Hidden within the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act an amendment to LEOSA was enacted allowing military and DoD police and law enforcement officers with UCMJ apprehension authority to qualify for the statute. Although the change has been welcomed with open arms by the military and DoD community, the DoD has yet to amend its own policy on LEOSA, DODI 5525.12, resulting in an inability for those that qualify to obtain the requisite photographic identification cards...
Unsure of who you would need to speak with in your chain of command to find out the legal view on your particular unit, but it would be interesting to know more when you find out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NRA.org link above
...This problem is only compounded by the fact that LEOSA does not bestow either an explicit right to obtain the required photographic ID or a federal remedy for an agency's failure to issue one...
Not to get to deep into LEOSA vs a shall issue CCW... The above is the main difficulty with LEOSA. There is no requirement to issue required ID, or a penalty for not issuing the required ID. So LEOSA can be extremely selective depending on department/unit viewpoints, because they can simply refuse to issue a required ID with no penalty or remedy(federally speaking). It's effectively "may issue" if you care to use that term.

Hope that helps.

Last edited by Fishing_Cabin; March 1, 2013 at 04:35 PM.
Fishing_Cabin is offline  
Old March 2, 2013, 01:38 PM   #6
heyjoe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Posts: 165
unless they are retired on a disability then 10 years of service would apply.
heyjoe is offline  
Old March 2, 2013, 03:24 PM   #7
ClydeFrog
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 1, 2010
Posts: 5,798
Of the troops, for the troops...

I'd check here; www.MilitaryPolice.com .
They may have more details on the forum.

MPs(31B) & CIDC agents should get LEOSA status. They earned it!

The same goes for the USAF OSI(Office of Special Investigstions) & the SF(Security Forces).

ClydeFrog

PS; I'm considering buying a 1911a1 & having it treated with green & gold to honor the upcoming 75th anniversary. www.Bearcoat.com
ClydeFrog is offline  
Old March 4, 2013, 12:22 PM   #8
kraigwy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 9,413
Just throwing this out there:

How about a retired Military ID card w/your 214 giving your the MP MOS?
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School Oct '78
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071
kraigwy is offline  
Old March 4, 2013, 01:56 PM   #9
Willie Sutton
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 26, 2012
Posts: 1,066
MPs(31B) & CIDC agents should get LEOSA status. They earned it!The same goes for the USAF OSI(Office of Special Investigstions) & the SF(Security Forces).



They should enjoy the *exact same privileges* that every other citizen enjoys. No more, and no less.


Willie

.
Willie Sutton is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.07596 seconds with 9 queries