# LEOSA (hr218) and Coast Guard



## type911

Hello, first post. I wish I found this place a few years ago. First my intro.

USMC 93-98
USCG 98-03
US Customs 03-05 
USCG 05 to present. (grass isn't always greener)

I like long walks on the beach and Boats. 

A Co worker of mine is adamant about carrying under LEOSA and not paying the state of MA for a LTC. He is a Coast Guard Boarding Officer in good standing having been trained at the Federal LEO training center. I tried persuading him to just get a LTC-A. Hell my town took 4 days to get me mine. Not a big deal. Thanks Chief Llewellyn if your here. 

I think his problem is that he is extremely pro 2A and claims. "why should I pay for a right granted by the Constitution when I don't have to?" My question is.... What do Locals/State want to see when asked for Certs. He carries his Coast Guard ID and a copy of his Boarding officer/Federal Law Enforcement Officer certification. 

Thanks in advance.

Geof


----------



## fra444

Not sure I can answer your question but let me say this,


> I like long walks on the beach and Boats. :grin:


WAY too much information! LMAO!


----------



## OfficerObie59

What does Boats have to say about that???



type911 said:


> He carries his Coast Guard ID and a copy of his Boarding officer/Federal Law Enforcement Officer certification.


I believe it comes down to the wording "Federal law enforcement officer", and whether your agency meets that definition. Sounds like he'd be all set.

Good resource, but may not fully answer your question:
http://www.grandlodgefop.org/legislative/issues/hr218/hr218faq.pdf


----------



## type911

OfficerObie59 said:


> What does Boats have to say about that???
> 
> I believe it comes down to the wording "Federal law enforcement agency", and whether your agency meets that definition.
> 
> Good resource, but may not fully answer your question:
> http://www.grandlodgefop.org/legislative/issues/hr218/hr218faq.pdf


I am Boats LOL. The Coast Guard Does meet the definition. 
14 USC 2 and 14 USC 89

NY judicial system cleared a Coastie from all charges of unlawfully carrying a concealed firearm because he met the standard.

I just need to know what creds/certs locals/and state want to see. The FOP pdf file really seams to be written for retirees.

I just want my guys to be informed.


----------



## Boats

Well this is a little awkard.... 
What is the Coast Guards Policy regarding carrying on the USCG credentials? I was just at the MLEA at FLETC and the disussion about USCG badges came up. They said they were not issuing badges anymore to avoid off-duty issues? I personally agree that a USCG member BO's and BTM certification should meet the requirements of the LEOSA (hr218). But, I don't want to see someone get balled up due to something that could be avoided. Even though the Coastie in NY prevailed I doubt it is something that he would repeat if given the chance to go back in time.


Boats


----------



## type911

Boats said:


> Well this is a little awkard....
> What is the Coast Guards Policy regarding carrying on the USCG credentials? I was just at the MLEA at FLETC and the disussion about USCG badges came up. They said they were not issuing badges anymore to avoid off-duty issues? I personally agree that a USCG member BO's and BTM certification should meet the requirements of the LEOSA (hr218). But, I don't want to see someone get balled up due to something that could be avoided. Even though the Coastie in NY prevailed I doubt it is something that he would repeat if given the chance to go back in time.
> 
> Boats


Exactly. The CG has no policy in place. A call to the D1 legal Rep confirmed this. It would be up to the individual Command at this point. Our Command has no policy in place.


----------



## type911

I guess I need to clarify. When a State/Local Leo stops a Coastie and somehow finds out the Coastie is carrying, what are his/hers next steps, once the Coastie Says "I am carrying under LEOSA, Here is My ID and my Certification letter." 

Geof


----------



## Guest

I would almost never arrest a CG member for carrying under HR 218, but my personal opinion is that any member of the armed forces is not automatically covered under the law....I think it was designed for the various civil (non-military) police agencies. 

Otherwise, any NCO or commissioned officer of any armed forces branch could claim HR 218 protection, since they're authorized by the UCMJ to make arrests (apprehensions) and also to carry firearms by federal law.

Faced with that situation (CG member claiming HR 218 with absolutely no MA LTC), I would probably confiscate the firearm, no criminal charge by me, and then let my chief & the CG's commanding officer work out the details.

However, if I got a CG ID card, boarding pass, or a Captain Stubing license thrust in my face, with an arrogant demand of honoring HR 218, I might make a lawful arrest under 269-10, and let the chips fall where they may.

Attitude is everything.


----------



## OfficerObie59

type911 said:


> He carries his Coast Guard ID and a copy of his Boarding officer/*Federal Law Enforcement Officer* certification.





Delta784 said:


> Otherwise, any NCO or commissioned officer of any armed forces branch could claim HR 218 protection, since they're authorized by the UCMJ to make arrests (apprehensions) and also to carry firearms by federal law.


I would argue the difference between any NCO or officer would not necessarily qualify under the definition as a "local, state, or *federal law enforcement officer*", which would make the MOS of the armed forces member relevent.

That said, I agree with Delat's point on attitude and I would highly recommend pursuing the LTC. And hey, if you can convince the issuing authority you're an LEO, the fee drops to $25.


----------



## type911

The Main Difference between Coast Guard and regular Military is 14 U.S.C. § 2 authorizes the Coast Guard to enforce federal law, which is further defined in 14 U.S.C. § 89. Further, the Coast Guard is exempt from and not subject to the restrictions of the Posse Comitatus Act which restrict the law enforcement activities of the other four military services within United States territory. Meaning CG Boarding Officers have the Authority to Search, Examine , Arrest, Seize, Inspect and make Inquiries on the waters of the US within federal jurisdiction and Land when in hot pursuit. The other armed services do not have the Authority to arrest civilians here at home. So I don't believe the other services fall under LEOSA being that they can only enforce the UCMJ.

I agree that Attitude is everything. When discretion allows I use it on my stops as a CG Boarding officer myself. Believe me I understand and so do the majority of CG Boarding Officers. IE; Someone refuses to Blow and calls me every name in the book. Guess what. I call the State or locals and they get prosecuted by the Fed and state. VS. a Civil penalty by the Fed. So I know where you are comeing from.

By Confiscating the Weapon could it be construed as Viloating HR218.

Believe Me. I have tried to convince him. I was charged $50 for my HSC and $25 for my LTC. Got it in 4 days. Not a big deal at all for the peace of mind. Like I said. He is in love with the 2A. Refuses to pay any money no matter how small. He doesn't have a familly like I do either.


----------



## Guest

type911 said:


> The other armed services do not have the Authority to arrest civilians here at home.


If by "arrest" you mean taking someone into custody and depriving them of their liberty, the various military police forces most certainly can arrest civilians; they just have to be turned over to the civil authorities at the earliest convenience.


----------



## OfficerObie59

Delta784 said:


> If by "arrest" you mean taking someone into custody and depriving them of their liberty, the various military police forces most certainly can arrest civilians; they just have to be turned over to the civil authorities at the earliest convenience.


I remember them drilling it into our heads that "MP's Don't Arrest!! They 'detain' civilians and 'apprehend' military personnel (those subject to UCMJ)." I've never been able to discover the reason for the emphasis on the distiction.

That said, when I "detained" an Army wife for a suspended license, it sure felt like an arrest to me. This was before DOD police about 6 years ago; she was booked by MP's, given a date to be arraigned in front of federal magistrate and released.


----------



## Guest

OfficerObie59 said:


> That said, when I "detained" an Army wife for a suspended license, it sure felt like an arrest to me. This was before DOD police about 6 years ago; she was booked by MP's, given a date to be arraigned in front of federal magistrate and released.


Dusting off the cobwebs, I believe that military dependents are subject to the UCMJ.


----------



## OfficerObie59

Delta784 said:


> Dusting off the cobwebs, I believe that military dependents are subject to the UCMJ.


Negative. That would mean, for example, an army wife could be charged for disrespect to a commissioned officer (Art 89). Might you be thinking of military retirees?

That said, I went through MP School in '02, so I don't know what it was prior to then.
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/ucmjsubject.htm


----------



## Guest

OfficerObie59 said:


> Negative. That would mean, for example, an army wife could be charged for disrespect to a commissioned officer (Art 89). Might you be thinking of military retirees?
> 
> That said, I went through MP School in '02, so I don't know what it was prior to then.
> http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/ucmjsubject.htm


I could have sworn I was taught that dependents were subject, but that was over 20 years ago, so who knows.


----------



## HELPMe

BOATS AND HOES, BOATS AND HOES, GOTTA HAVE ME SOME BOATS AND HOES!-step brothers


----------



## Killjoy

This is tricky ground. While the coast guard does enforce federal law on the water, they certainly are not federal agents in the sense they are not the equivalent of an FBI, Secret Service, DEA, etc. They can't enforce federal law on dry land, nor are they allowed to carry on commercial airlines like actual federal agents. I have a friend in the FBI I'll ask about how exactly does the Coast Guard fit into the pecking order of federal agents.

But, like the others have said, attitude is everything. The fact your friend outright refuses to protect his own ass with a little LTC insurance speaks volumes. Before HR 218, I was full-time state police officer, and I still got a CT and NH LTC's, _just in case!_


----------



## Guest

Killjoy said:


> Before HR 218, I was full-time state police officer, and I still got a CT and NH LTC's, _just in case!_


What were you after HR 218 KJ?

Just kidding...


----------



## type911

Killjoy said:


> This is tricky ground. While the coast guard does enforce federal law on the water, they certainly are not federal agents in the sense they are not the equivalent of an FBI, Secret Service, DEA, etc. They can't enforce federal law on dry land, nor are they allowed to carry on commercial airlines like actual federal agents. I have a friend in the FBI I'll ask about how exactly does the Coast Guard fit into the pecking order of federal agents.
> 
> But, like the others have said, attitude is everything. The fact your friend outright refuses to protect his own ass with a little LTC insurance speaks volumes. Before HR 218, I was full-time state police officer, and I still got a CT and NH LTC's, _just in case!_


First I thank you all for taking the time to read and respond.

Second. To the Above. What does having the ability to carry on airlines have to do with any of this? State/locals can't either. Just to educate those that may not know, Boarding officers certified ashore can and do enforce Fed law on dry land. And We can and have been deputized deportation officers, flying people out of the country on commercial airlines. And yes we are armed. You are 100% right. 1811 special agent positions are different and the Coast guard does have 1811 series Special Agents as well, made up of civilian, enlisted and officers. But the Coast Guard can and does enforce Federal law ashore on a daily basis. Who do you think inspects all the port terminals. LEOSA does not specify special agent or where federal/state law is enforced. It gives criteria which must be met. Coast Guard Bording officers meet all the criteria. US Customs and Border protection officers also fall under LEOSA. They are our shoreside civilian counterparts. We have the same Authority they do.

As far as other military police forces are concerned. I have never heard of an MP enforcing federal law, off post, on the regular civilian population outside of marshal law being declared or some other extenuating cirumstance. Maybe I am wrong. I thought their jurisdiction ended just outside the base perimeter or when picking up those subject to the UCMJ. I just don't see them going around pulling over civilians for violations of federal law off post.


----------



## Guest

The text of HR 218 definition of law enforcement officer states;

_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._

There's no mention of what types of law; federal, state, local, or UCMJ.

You've been given the consensus of those here, representing hundreds of years of combined law enforcement experience, that your friend is playing a very dangerous game by relying on his Coast Guard status.

However, it seems like you're more concerned with justifying you job. You have to ask yourself if you're willing to risk a felony conviction to prove your point, because not all cops are as easy-going as the people here.


----------



## Killjoy

Do whatever you want. Jam a Beretta in your pants and parade into a federal building with your CG skipper's license taped to your forehead. 

Your day in court comes months, perhaps years after your potential felony arrest for illegally carrying handgun. This means a stay in jail, followed by money shelled out for bail. Pre-trial hearings and motions. Jury or judge trial. Appeals. All which could take years, while you're waiting see how your life turns out. Now, try to get a job, especially a law-enforcement job, with felony arrest on your record.

An LTC seems like such a small thing when weighed in comparison.


----------



## type911

Delta784 said:


> The text of HR 218 definition of law enforcement officer states;
> 
> _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._
> 
> There's no mention of what types of law; federal, state, local, or UCMJ.
> 
> You've been given the consensus of those here, representing hundreds of years of combined law enforcement experience, that your friend is playing a very dangerous game by relying on his Coast Guard status.
> 
> However, it seems like you're more concerned with justifying you job. You have to ask yourself if you're willing to risk a felony conviction to prove your point, because not all cops are as easy-going as the people here.


I agree. However I don't need to justify my job I am quite satisfied with it. Heck just re-enlisted for 6 more years. The thread turned when the one person on page 1 (yourself actually ) answered my question then proceeded to degrade what we do... with your Captain Stubin, boarding pass comments and such. I let it slide off my shoulders and figured I am new here so watch what I type. The rest of the "attitude goes a long way comments" I am well aware. Been doing this for a little while now. But it seams like many in this thread do not know exactly what we do out there. I figured I would take a minute to let them know while waiting for others that might want to chime in on what they would want to see to let the Coastie go about his day. I didn't realize people were taking my tone of type as argumentative. Like I have said. I agree that a LTC is the way to go. Not worth the hassles from those that might not know, who or what agencies are covered by HR218.

Anyways I thank you for responding to my original question.



Killjoy said:


> Do whatever you want. Jam a Beretta in your pants and parade into a federal building with your CG skipper's license taped to your forehead.
> 
> Your day in court comes months, perhaps years after your potential felony arrest for illegally carrying handgun. This means a stay in jail, followed by money shelled out for bail. Pre-trial hearings and motions. Jury or judge trial. Appeals. All which could take years, while you're waiting see how your life turns out. Now, try to get a job, especially a law-enforcement job, with felony arrest on your record.
> 
> An LTC seems like such a small thing when weighed in comparison.


Nice.


----------



## new guy

type911 said:


> I am Boats LOL. The Coast Guard Does meet the definition.
> 14 USC 2 and 14 USC 89
> 
> NY judicial system cleared a Coastie from all charges of unlawfully carrying a concealed firearm because he met the standard.
> 
> I just need to know what creds/certs locals/and state want to see. The FOP pdf file really seams to be written for retirees.
> 
> I just want my guys to be informed.


Assuming that members of the Coast Gaurd qualify, in order to carry without an LTC under the LEOSA you would need to;
1) Have a department issued photo ID card on your person
2) Be authorized to carry a firearm while on duty
3) Be in good standing with your department (you can't be on the rubber gun squad).
4) Meet all of your agencies firearm qualification standards
5) Not be under the influence of drugs and alcohol

You still need an LTC to purchase a firearm or ammo even if you qualify under the LEOSA. Atleast in Mass.


----------



## Goose

type911 said:


> Second. To the Above. What does having the ability to carry on airlines have to do with any of this? State/locals can't either.


Sure they can. They just need to take the required class and have a need to do so while on official travel.

http://www.tsa.gov/lawenforcement/programs/traveling_with_guns.shtm


----------



## type911

frank said:


> Sure they can. They just need to take the required class and have a need to do so while on official travel.
> 
> http://www.tsa.gov/lawenforcement/programs/traveling_with_guns.shtm


Thanks, I realized I was wrong about that about 10 minutes ago. I forgot one of the Reservist who is a Local was complaining about TSA while traveling to a training event. I flew armed once with CBP and TSA still made me take off my shoes. LOL. I chalked it up to setting an example for the rest so they didn't complain about seeing a passenger not take off his shoes.


----------



## Crvtte65

type911 said:


> By Confiscating the Weapon could it be construed as Viloating HR218.


The recent court decision in South Dakota with the officers being arrested, it says that arresting/confiscation is not a violation. HR218 is just an affirmative defense, something like self-defense when you have been arrested for murder (from "Law Officer" magazine). One of the elements is that the person isn't under disciplinary action, so that may not be immediately verified you know?


----------



## mpd61

I would like to point out that your friend is an ASS for not having an LTC. The LEOSA is primarily for protection in out-of-state cases of carry. You should have an LTC to provide a basis of protection under LEOSA. 
Anybody who relies on the single case of a Coast Guard person having his case dismissed by a single judge in a state court is on thin ice.

Anybody who looks at the *facts* of the case would understand that this "Leo" was driving suspended, had an active warrant, and lied to the police officer during his search incident phase.

The People of the State of New York
against
Benjamin L. Booth, Jr., Defendant.
2007-940

Hon. Francis D. Phillips, II, Esq.

District Attorney of Orange County

County Government Center

Goshen, New York l0924

William J. Wolfe, Esq.

100 Egbertson Road, Suite 7

Campbell Hall, New York 10916

Robert H. Freehill, J.

Defendant is charged in this indictment with the crime of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree.

In his omnibus motion, defendant's moved to dismiss the indictment claiming that he is exempt from prosecution for Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree by the application of the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003 (LEOSA). To establish that a particular person is exempt from prosecution pursuant to LEOSA, it must be shown that the person is a qualified law enforcement officer and that proper identification was carried with the weapon. In addition, defendant argued that the seizure of the weapon was improper.

Pursuant to the Decision and Order of the court, a hearing was held on May 8, 2008 to determine the lawfulness of the seizure of the handgun from defendant's car and to determine whether the defendant was exempt from prosecution pursuant to LEOSA.

FACTS:

At the hearing facts were presented relating to the stop of defendant's vehicle and facts relating to defendant's status as a qualified law enforcement officer.

A. Stop and Search / Statements

On May 16, 2007, City of Newburgh Police Officer Kevin Lahar was on patrol in the City of Newburgh at 12:27 a.m. At that time he observed a four door dark colored Lexus traveling westbound on Broadway as he was driving eastbound on Broadway. He estimated that the defendant's vehicle was traveling at a rate of 40 m.p.h. in a 30 m.p.h. zone.

Officer Lahar turned around and stopped the vehicle and approached. Because the windows were tinted, he could not see how many occupants were in the vehicle until he approached the driver's window which was down. From the driver's window he noticed that there were two occupants inside the defendant's vehicle. He learned that the driver was defendant Benjamin Booth and the passenger was Cornelius Stubbs.

Officer Lahar asked defendant for his license and registration. Defendant provided a New York State Identification card and the vehicle registration. After a radio check of the documentation, *Officer Lahar learned that there was a pending warrant for defendant out of the City of Newburgh and that defendant's license was suspended. *A backup officer arrived at the scene and learned that the passenger, Cornelius Stubbs, did not have a valid license.

Officer Lahar requested a tow for the vehicle and *asked if there was anything in the [*2]vehicle that he should be made aware of. The defendant said "no." Officer Lahar then began to inventory the contents of the car. During the inventory, he found a loaded Glock 23 handgun under the driver's seat in a pull out compartment. *The magazine contained 12 rounds and there was an additional round in the chamber. *Officer Lahar had another conversation with defendant during which the defendant stated that he did not have a license to possess a firearm.* Officer Lahar also recovered two identification cards on the defendant's person. The defendant did not tell the officers that he had identification on his person before it was seized. The defendant was then transported to the police station.

Defendant was brought into a booking room and was advised of his Miranda rights. The defendant signed off on the warnings and agreed to speak with the police officers without counsel present. During the conversation, defendant stated that he received a waiver from the Coast Guard to use the firearm to practice and that he had recently used the gun at the range.

B. Status as Qualified Law Enforcement

Lieutenant Benjamin William Stevenson of the United States Coast Guard testified credibly regarding the scope and nature of the duties of the defendant as a member of the United States Coast Guard. According to Lt. Stevenson, defendant was permitted to carry a weapon when conducting operations for the Coast Guard. In addition, defendant was required to be in uniform, to use a badge and to carry an identification card when conducting operations. Subject to numerous regulations and rules, the defendant was authorized to make arrests and generally take part in law enforcement duties as part of his duties as a boarding officer with the Coast Guard. _His authority to carry a weapon did *not* extend beyond his role as a uniformed member of the Coast Guard and he was *not *permitted to carry a concealed weapon while out of uniform*.

*_CONCLUSIONS:

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.

Based upon the testimony at the hearing, it is evident that defendant, Benjamin Booth is a qualified law enforcement officer as set forth in Chapter 44 Section 926B of the United States Code. He is authorized to carry a firearm while engaged in his duties as a boarding officer. These duties were defined as the prevention, detection, investigation of violations of the law and defendant has the authority and duty to arrest violators. He is qualified to carry a firearm and at the time of his arrest, he was not under the influence of alcohol or any other drug. In addition, at the time he was found to be in possession of a handgun in the City of Newburgh, he carried two [*3]forms of photographic identification issued by the Coast Guard.

Based upon a 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.

Issues surrounding the defendant's claims that the search and seizure was improper need not be decided in light of the finding that the defendant is exempt from prosecution.

The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of the Court.

Dated:Goshen, New York

May _____, 2008

Enter:

________________________________

Hon. Robert H. Freehill

County Court Judge









This guy was LUCKY! Another Judge in another Jurisdiction might not interpret this situation the same!
Bottom line is ANY law abiding person, LEO or otherwise, should have an LTC to provide an instant base of legitimacy regarding concealed carry.


----------



## OfficerObie59

This case bolsters the boarding officers argument of *NOT* needing an LTC. Sure, it's only one case, but the law's been in effect for not quite 5 years--and this case deals with the very position (USCG boarding officer) that is in question.

This case is right on point with the specifics in a state known to have guns laws near the same realm of strictness as Massachusetts. In addition, the defendant was a knucklehead, a liar, and criminal with an outstanding warrant as opposed to the more likely benign scenario that would most likely result if type911's friend has any common sense whatsoever. While the case certainly isn't binding, it's persuasive as all hell.

IMHO, I believe his friend is probably okay due to his apparent cerification as a "federal law enfocement officer", the identical language the statute uses.

With all that said, until it's clarified further in cases and with USCG policy, he's really got no common sense if he's willing to risk everything to stand on his "principles" of the 2nd AMD and HR 218.

A few weeks and $25 to remove all doubt and concern sounds like a good deal to me.


----------



## type911

Great Info Guys thanks,

One point. The part about Petty Officer Booth not being able to take his weapon home is Unit policy. Not Coast Guard Policy. Many Units allow the member to take their weapons home. Booth is stationed in NY. NY commands are pretty strict with take home policy due to NY city's strict gun laws. Authority does not extend into off duty time which is not mentioned in HR218 anyways.

But all the great points have convinced him to get his LTC. I opened up the thread for him to read. 

What I think alot of people don't understand is. We do a job that very often puts us in harms way just like our civilian counter parts. When a Coast Guard BO siezes the vessel of a fisherman or his catch it pisses off the whole fishing community. Try going into any store in Gloucester MA after doing that to someone in their community. In effect taking ones ability to put food on the table. Then tell me you feel safe considering how many violent fellons work as fishermen. A LTC is the way to go in this state. It just feals like alot of local/state LEO's do not feel that the CG BO rates as a LEO and there for shouldn't be covered under the same protections as local/state guys. (from the cander of some in this thread)

At anyrate You guys have helped convince My co worker, and I thank you for that. He is not happy about it but agrees he has too much time in service to give it up over what will probably be less than a night out on the town in Boston. I plan to stick around this site. Looks like some good folks reside here. I will do my best to contribute as constructively as possible.


----------



## type911

mikemac64 said:


> Agreed. However, that does not mean you can assign yourself HR218 authority.
> 
> The guy needs to be smart, because in my opinion, he rolling the dice. As I stated earlier, one of the key components is that your employer assigns you a weapon/proper qual/etc.
> 
> If your are sworn federal as you say, HR218 doeesn't matter since it is only for state/county/local guys. Feds can carry nation swide within their agency policy. Right?
> 
> By the wording, HR218 does not cover Corrections either.
> 
> Not trying to be a jerk, but you guys need to look at it from all angles, and in the end, the HR218 authority comes from you Agency.


I agree. However there is no distinction between Fed/state within LEOSA The exact wording is Govt. Agcy. It is open to interpretation. more precedent will have to be set by the judicial system. Back when it was a bill I remember the Fed talking about taking it out of State and Agency hands by adopting HR218 into law. So yes some Coast Guard Units allow members to take their duty weapons home. Some do not. However one could look at the face of it and say "it protects the person regardless of agency policy or state law" We need more judicial review and precedent. It also does not state the person must carry his assigned duty weapon. So yet another vague portion of the law. We can go back and forth. Unfortunately or maybe fortunately it is not up to us, But rather our Judicial system. Hence why I will argue that the LTC is the way to go here in MA. 
I came here looking to see what the LEOs of Mass. wanted to see for creds, Not to argue as to the status of the CG Boarding Officer. My Certifaction calls me a Federal Maritime Law Enforcement Officer. My Jurisdiction has Boundries like everyone elses.

We all wear blue and I am thankfull to all the staties and locals that have backed me up when called. I know they feel the same. When things are getting hairy just seeing blue lights on the horizon can help get that fuzzy feeling back. Regardless of Agency.


----------



## Trifecta

As far as jurisdiction concerns on the land. Coast Guard does not have this authority. If you are speaking about inspections i.e. LNG HIV ect. the vessel itself is in the water. Thus CG's jusdiction. No enforcement action can be where a violation occurs on land.

Just clarifying one point. Does LEOSA specify what weapon an officer will carry?


----------



## Killjoy

> Just clarifying one point. Does LEOSA specify what weapon an officer will carry?


No, only that they are "qualified" with it.


----------



## Trifecta

Thats what I thought. I would love to know the CO that allows his men to carry a military issued weapon in public. Weapons are issued before the mission and collected at the conclusion. O.O.D. may carry for the entire duty period however securing the weapon upon taps.

I am willing to bet this hammerhead is carrying a personal SA.


----------



## sh460

Gotta put my .02 cents also...
1st: I would have to agree with most on this post that if your going to carry under LEOSA you should definetely cover your A_ _ by having a state issued LTC. Spend the dough to avoid any potential isues.
2nd: I would also disagree with what the individual stated...


mikemac64 said:


> By the wording, HR218 does not cover Corrections either.
> 
> 
> 
> Although HR218 may not cover all C/O's accross the nation, in Massachusetts "IT DOES". Although some may not agree, according to the Department of Public Safety-State Corrections Officers ARE Law Enforcement. C/O's in Massachusetts meet all the eligibility requirements under HR218 if the individual has recieved their "Special State Police" commission. If the C/O does not have their commission I would say that in my opinion, I would be very careful.
> 3rd: After serving over 14 years in the military I would have to agree that a Military Police (MP) officer or USCG would not fall under HR218. In my opinion once an MP or USCG is off post or off duty and out of uniform he/she is a civilian. If the individual is CID that would be different as they are "Special Agents". No disrespect to the men and woman whom i have served with but it is what it is!!
> That said.....no matter what your job title is or whom your employer is please be safe, with the economy the way it is being in Law Enforcement is becoming even more dangerous!!!
Click to expand...


----------



## OfficerObie59

mikemac64 said:


> By the wording, HR218 does not cover Corrections either.





sh460 said:


> Although HR218 may not cover all C/O's accross the nation, in Massachusetts "IT DOES". Although some may not agree, according to the Department of Public Safety-State Corrections Officers ARE Law Enforcement. C/O's in Massachusetts meet all the eligibility requirements under HR218 if the individual has recieved their "Special State Police" commission. If the C/O does not have their commission I would say that in my opinion, I would be very careful.


By all means please don't take this as an opinion that I think in any way you guys should be prohibited from 218 protection (hell, some of the stories I hear about CO's running into ex-cons post-release pale in comparison of danger to some of the cop/sh*tbag run-in stories w/ which I am familiar), I always thought #2 would limit you as you SSPO commission is limited to very specific circumstances like prisoner transports...I would be curious if those limitations have any bearing.

Nonetheless, the wording "incarcertaion" in condition #1 seems to specifically placed in there to cover CO's. Like I said, I'm just concerned how your ROA as an SSPO would be interpreted by a court.


> A qualified active law enforcement officer is defined as an employee of a government agency who 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;
> ​
> [*]is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm;
> ​
> [*]is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the agency;
> ​
> [*]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.​


----------



## Smokie

USCG has come out with its LEOSA policy. After speaking with our legal department we tell our guys that want to carry under LEOSA to carry there designation letters and and small arms carry letter issued from the CO with them. Here is the policy.
R 091840Z NOV 10

ALCOAST 549/10
COMDTNOTE 16200
SUBJ: LIMITATIONS AND RISKS TO COAST GUARD PERSONNEL UNDER THE LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS SAFETY ACT (LEOSA)
A. U.S. COAST GUARD INVESTIGATIONS MANUAL, COMDTINST M5527.1 (SERIES)
B. 6 C.F.R. PART 5, DISCLOSURE OF RECORDS AND INFORMATION
C. U.S. COAST GUARD MARITIME LAW ENFORCEMENT MANUAL, COMDTINST
M16247.1 (SERIES)
D. ORDNANCE MANUAL, COMDTINST M8000.2 (SERIES)
E. UNITED STATES COAST GUARD REGULATIONS 1992, COMDTINST M5000.3
(SERIES)
1. Summary: the Law Enforcement Officers safety act (LEOSA) confers a very limited immunity to a restricted class of Coast Guard personnel from certain state and local laws that prohibit or restrict carriage of concealed firearms. Uniformed Coast Guard members who choose to rely on the LEOSA do so at their own personal risk. The risks to relying on LEOSA as a defense to state and local firearms carriage laws are substantial. LEOSA provides no immunity from prosecution for Coast Guard personnel who carry concealed firearms in violation of state laws that prohibit carriage of firearms on private property. LEOSA provides no immunity from state or local laws that prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any state or local government property, installation, building, base, or park. LEOSA applies only to state and local concealed firearm carriage laws and provides no immunity from any other laws dealing with the possession of firearms or other weapons. LEOSA provides no immunity from or otherwise affects any federal laws and regulations, including federal weapons carriage laws and the UCMJ. To be covered by LEOSA, Coast Guard personnel must meet all the requirements set forth below in para. 5.
Primarily, potential LEOSA coverage is limited to Coast Guard personnel who hold a current, effective, and properly issued command designation letter as a boarding officer or boarding team member. Failure to meet any of these requirements means LEOSA is not applicable to that individual. Given these severe restrictions and risks, Coast Guard personnel should use extreme caution before making their personal decision whether or not to rely on LEOSA immunity in the carriage of firearms in their personal capacity. If in doubt as to whether covered by LEOSA, service members are encouraged to take the prudent action of complying with all state and local permitting requirements.
2. Purpose and applicability: this ALCOAST explains how the LEOSA applies to uniformed active duty and reserve Coast Guard members. Reference (a) provides concealed carriage policy for Coast Guard investigative service (CGIS) special agents (civilian and military). Civilian employees of the USCG and members of the Auxiliary are not covered by the LEOSA unless they are CGIS special agents or otherwise meet the LEOSA definition of "Qualified Law Enforcement Officer" (described below) through their affiliation with another agency.
Although some USCG retirees may meet some of the legal requirements for coverage by LEOSA by virtue of their USCG service, the USCG does not have the infrastructure in place to issue and track the requisite credentials. Hence, this ALCOAST does not apply to uniformed retirees. Director, CGIS will provide separate guidance concerning the application of LEOSA to retired CGIS special agents.
3. Background: on July 22, 2004, President Bush signed Public Law 108-277, which included the LEOSA. Two classes of persons are covered by the LEOSA: the "Qualified Law Enforcement Officer" codified at 18 U.S. Code 926b, and the "Qualified Retired Law Enforcement Officer" codified at 18 U.S. Code 926c. Subject to certain important exceptions, persons covered by the LEOSA may carry a concealed firearm in any jurisdiction in the United States, regardless of any state or local law that prohibits or restricts concealed firearms carriage (with or without a license or permit).
4. Scope: the LEOSA confers a very limited immunity to state and local laws that prohibit or restrict carriage of concealed firearms. If a person is covered by the LEOSA, the person may carry a concealed firearm in any state, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and U.S. possessions even if a state or local law would otherwise prohibit
that carriage or restrict that carriage by requiring a permit or license. There are, however, very important limitations to the scope of the LEOSA.
A. The LEOSA does not confer immunity from state or local laws that permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property. Consequently, a person covered by LEOSA must obey whatever state laws apply under these circumstances. For example, if state law allows private persons to prohibit the possession of a concealed firearm on their property and the private person has properly done so, then LEOSA provides no immunity from prosecution for persons who carry a concealed firearm in violation of the prohibition.
B. The LEOSA does not confer immunity from state or local laws that prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any state or local government property, installation, building, base, or park. Accordingly, a person covered by the LEOSA must obey whatever state laws govern the carriage of concealed firearms on private, state, or local government property.
C. The LEOSA applies only to state and local concealed firearm carriage laws. It provides no immunity from any other laws dealing with the regulation or possession of firearms or other weapons. Stated another way, except for concealed firearm carriage laws, any other state and local law is unaffected by the LEOSA.
D. The LEOSA does not confer immunity from or otherwise affect any federal laws and regulations, including federal weapons carriage laws and the UCMJ. A person covered by the LEOSA must nevertheless obey all federal laws and regulations. This includes federal laws and regulations that restrict the carriage of certain types of firearms or methods of carriage, as well as those laws that restrict the carriage of firearms or other weapons in federal buildings, on federal property, and in areas where prohibited or restricted by federal law (e.g. airports).
5. Persons covered by the LEOSA:
A. A "Qualified Law Enforcement Officer" for purposes of the LEOSA is a person who meets all of the following requirements and conditions:
(1) be an employee of a government agency
(2) be 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) be authorized by the agency to carry a firearm
(5) meet standards established by the agency, which require the employee to regularly qualify in the use of a firearm
(6) not be the subject of any disciplinary action by the agency
(7) not be prohibited by federal law from receiving a firearm
(8) not be under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance and
(9) carry their properly issued and valid common access card (CAC).
B. In a state criminal case in which a defendant asserts the LEOSA as a defense to a concealed firearm carriage violation of state law, a state court will determine whether the person is a "Qualified Law Enforcement Officer" for purposes of the LEOSA. While courts and parties to litigation may seek the views of, or evidence from, the USCG on this matter, the ultimate determination lies with the state court, not the USCG. Testimony in state court by any USCG member and production of documentary evidence for matters arising from official
duties will only be provided in accordance with reference (b). Notwithstanding any other USCG policy or regulation, no USCG Attorney or Judge Advocate may enter an appearance in any state prosecution related to the LEOSA without the express authorization of the Judge Advocate General.
C. Provided they meet all the conditions in paragraph 5.a. At the time of firearm concealed carriage, the USCG considers the below described uniformed USCG personnel to fall within the LEOSA definition of "Qualified Law Enforcement Officer".
(1) Commissioned, Warrant, and Petty Officers, including reservists covered by chapter 3.c.1.b.3 of reference (c), who hold a current, effective, and properly issued command designation letter as a boarding officer or boarding team member in accordance with chapter 3.c.1.b.1 of reference (c).
(2) LEOSA extends the definition of qualified Law Enforcement Officer to those authorized to supervise law enforcement activity provided all other criteria are satisfied. Although state court determinations will govern individual cases, the USCG interprets this to mean those personnel who are in the direct operational chain of
command and would include: commanding officers and officers-in-charge of units supervising at least one full-time boarding team as that term is defined in reference (c), Chiefs of Response of areas, districts, and sectors, Chiefs of Law Enforcement of areas, districts, and sectors, Area Commanders, CG-DCO, District Commanders, Dog Commander, COMDT (cg-5), COMDT (cg-53), COMDT (cg-531), and Dog (DG-3) provided such persons are, at the time of concealed firearm carriage, authorized to carry a government issued personal defense weapon (GI-PDW) in accordance with reference (d) and appendix h of reference (c).
6. Additional cautionary note: as expressly stated above, the LEOSA confers a limited immunity to state and local laws dealing with concealed firearms, and no immunity to any other state or federal laws and regulations. Accordingly, uniformed members of the service who choose to rely on the LEOSA do so at their own risk and should carefully consider the following points before choosing to carry concealed firearms without obtaining a concealed firearm carriage permit, license or training required by state or local law.
A. Appendix h.18.a of reference (c) prohibits the carriage of the GI-PDW in a concealed manner. Reference (d) prohibits the carriage of a GI-PDW when not in the performance of official duties. In addition, chapter 3.c.1.d.2 of reference (c) prohibits the carriage of personal or privately owned firearms or ammunition in the performance of law enforcement duties. Some examples of conduct prohibited by these policies include carriage of a GI-PDW in a concealed ankle holster during a boarding, carriage of a GI-PDW in a personal automobile when not under orders, and carriage by a boarding team member of a personally owned firearm in any manner during a boarding.
B. Likewise, article 8-2-1(16) of reference (e) prohibits USCG personnel from carrying, among other things, concealed weapons in any USCG unit without proper authority (the LEOSA does not provide this authority). Similarly, federal laws and regulations typically prohibit concealed carriage of firearms on most federal installations and lands. Violation of these prohibitions, and other federal firearms laws, is subject to the uniform Code of Military Justice or federal prosecution for which the LEOSA provides no immunity. Examples of the prohibited conduct include carrying a concealed firearm on a USCG station without the express authorization of the Commanding Officer.
C. The USCG does not provide training in off-duty firearms safety and security to uniformed members of the service because such carriage is not generally required for the performance of official duties. Accordingly, members choosing to carry firearms off-duty, especially concealed firearms, should obtain appropriate firearms
safety and security education.
D. The LEOSA does not confer any law enforcement powers. USCG law enforcement powers ashore are limited and, in some circumstances, non-existent. Consequently, it is imperative that uniformed members relying on the LEOSA to carry a concealed personal firearm while not in the performance of official duties understand that authority to use such a firearm (as distinguished from authority to carry it in a concealed manner without a state or local permit) will be highly fact-specific and may largely depend on state law. Activity involving use of concealed firearms while not in the performance of official duties will likely be outside the members scope of employment (a
decision made by the U.S. department of justice (DOJ), not the USCG) thereby placing the costs of legal defense solely on the member. Additionally, neither the USCG nor DOJ will normally provide representation in state court for criminal charges.
7. Questions: members and field commands may pose questions related to the LEOSA and this ALCOAST to their servicing legal offices. Staff Judge Advocates may contact the operations law group, COMDT (cg-09412) as necessary for further guidance.
8. RADM T. F. Atkin, Acting Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety, Security and Stewardship, sends
9. Internet release authorized

---------- Post added at 15:13 ---------- Previous post was at 14:34 ----------

Case law

Another case law. $44,000 hard lesson for San Fernando CA.

The Southern California city of San Fernando and its Police Department will pay $44,000 for negligence because an officer did not know the rules and regulations for individuals or law enforcement officers to lawfully carrying a firearm.

The City of San Fernando agreed to pay approximately $44,000 to San Fernando former Coast Guard Reserve maritime law enforcement Officer Jose Diaz. The city must also implement new policies and procedures for the improper arrest and seizure of Coast Guard Reserve Diaz, according to the San Fernando Police Department. The police department also agreed to a "Finding of Factual Innocence."

Diaz contends that a police department contest was a driving factor in this case.

"The San Fernando Police Department give's out awards to officer's that 'achieve benchmarks in firearm confiscations,(YouTube video)" said Jason Davis an attorney for Calguns. "But this contest encourages the illegal confiscation of lawfully possessed firearms by officers who do not understand the laws themselves."

The monetary settlement wasn't the only thing the plaintiff was after, Calguns, a state and national gun rights advocacy group, says the lawsuit also sought to ensure San Fernando properly trains its officers to deal with law-abiding gun owners.

In November of 2007, then Reserve Coast Guard maritime law enforcement Officer Diaz was driving to a shooting range when he was stopped by San Fernando Police Officer Marshall Mack to determine if Diaz had the proper vehicle registration, according to a statement released by Davis.

"Upon approaching Diaz's vehicle, Officer Mack observed a firearms case in the back seat with a firearm cable lock entangled around the handle of the case. Officer Mack was able to open the case without a key," says Davis. "The case contained two loaded magazines and a Glock with no magazine in the well of the firearm and no cartridge in the chamber."

The plaintiffs claimed the cable lock that entangled around the gun was a "lock container" however Officer Mack disagreed. The police officer also took issue with the fact that a Coast Guard reserve maritime law enforcement officer was permitted to carry pursuant to the Federal Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act, which allows police officers to carry firearms off duty.

"I showed Officer Mack my Coast Guard ID and informed the officer that the LEOSA permitted me to carry a firearm as a Coast Guard maritime law enforcement reserve officer," said Diaz. "I also informed Officer Mack that I was carrying the firearm lawfully - unloaded and in a locked container."

Unbeknownst to Coast Guard Reserve Diaz, Police Officer Mack falsely subscribed to the fact that California law required firearms be stored separate from the ammunition. Mack arrested Diaz for unlawful possession of a loaded firearm because a loaded magazine was touching the firearm within the case. The police officer hauled Diaz to jail where he was booked and spent one day and night in jail.

The unlawful arrest and gun charges were later dismissed.

Diaz's subsequent civil lawsuit for battery, false arrest, and federal civil rights violations languished until Calguns got involved.

"While we cannot financially support every firearms case, we have a stake in many of them," said Gene Hoffman, Chairman for The Calguns Foundation. "We recommended that Diaz use an attorney knowledgeable in firearm laws and offered informational support."

Diaz retained his Calguns attorney Davis who orchestrated a settlement with the San Fernando Police Department. The terms of the settlement include educational policies on assault weapons; carry permits, open carry and LEOSA rules.

"Public safety is of the utmost importance... and that includes safety from infringement of our constitutional rights under the color of law," said Davis. "With this settlement, and the policies implemented as a result of the agreement, it is my hope that law enforcement throughout the state will get the message that California's gun owners insist on their rights."


----------



## kav

I would rather spank my monkey than read all that horse shit.


----------



## 47turksinajar

Great, if only this thread wasn't 2 years old... Go noob somewhere else and next time give us the link don't copy and paste the shit here.


----------



## Smokie

kav said:


> I would rather spank my monkey than read all that horse shit.


 KAV
Thats what they have given us.


----------



## Smokie

What threads cant be re opened? I have worked many many hours with differant MA police departments NOOBING I am not I am trying to get the case laws out so departments know the laws. Yes i have a MA CCW permit and carry every day on duty and off. Some of you have forgotten 9/11 i guess and and one of the reasons for 218 to be put into effect.


----------



## Hush

Hey there have been worst first posts. Granted its an old thread, but he posted relevant information. Of course, Im too lazy to reread the first 4 pages but Id say hes GTG.


----------



## kav

I'm not blue as you may have thought in a PM.


----------



## EMTFORHIRE

Smokie said:


> What threads cant be re opened? I have worked many many hours with differant MA police departments NOOBING I am not I am trying to get the case laws out so departments know the laws. Yes i have a MA CCW permit and carry every day on duty and off. *Some of you have forgotten 9/11 i guess* and and one of the reasons for 218 to be put into effect.



I guarantee you no one has forgotten 9/11!!!


----------



## niteowl1970

Smokie said:


> Some of you have forgotten 9/11 i guess


Go sell that bullshit on privateofficer.com I assure you that the membership on this site remember that day quite clearly.


----------



## Hush

With the exception of a few, (those on here, LEO's(most), .MIL members (most), and the victims families) it seems most of the country have forgotten the significance of 9-11, our government included. I blame brainwashing by the media and the apologist left, but the fact that we havent given a fair trial, then executed those responsible, and even seriously entertained building a mosque in the shadow of the Twin Towers tells me that we as a country, a society, and a people, are completely fucked.

Now I will sit back and watch a once productive thread devolve into a 9 years past 9/11 debate.


----------



## Inspector71

Since the Amendment that was recently signed now includes "all police officers in the executive branch" as being covered, and even Coast Guard _Reserve_ personnel are covered, I guess the DoD and VA cops are worry free now.


----------



## Smokie

kav said:


> I'm not blue as you may have thought in a PM.


Ok what do you do then?


----------



## kav

Smokie said:


> Ok what do you do then?


None of your fucking business.


----------



## Goose

Hush said:


> Hey there have been worst first posts. Granted its an old thread, but he posted relevant information. Of course, Im too lazy to reread the first 4 pages but Id say hes GTG.


x2.

I'm not going to run into too many coasties in my current AO, but my only question is - if they are certified as a boarding officer/law enforcement, does it state so on their military ID, or are they required to carry one of those rating letters around from their command?


----------



## Smokie

Id is not marked most of us carry our letters as well.


----------



## Smokie

Ok so it seems KAV has issues so I sent him a PM my as well put it up before he goes off the deep end.
Are you really that much of an arrogant [email protected]#^K? I am trying to help other LEO'S understand the these laws and who is covered as I am an instructor for the good state of MA for leosa and small arms instructor. my posts are to help other departments prevent any embarrassment and money for any wrongful arrests. Have a nice day and please keep your stupid comments to your self.

Thank you
Smokie


----------



## kav

You left out the best parts!

No issue here.


----------



## niteowl1970

The sexual tension is so think in here you can see it....


----------



## armsmaster270

As background I have 4 years CG & was a Boarding Officer 16 years as an Army M.P, and 18years as a Sacramento P.D. Officer Retiring with a disability & the Silver Medal of Valor. Coasties that are Boarding officer are federal Law Enforcement Officers that has been established in earlier posts. M.P.'s cannot arrest they detain, their officer of the watch arrests. therefore they do not meet the parameters for 218. Coasties do not have to observe actions on their station to act. M.P.'s cannot initiate action on a civilian off base for an action not military related, Coasties can if they are a boarding officer. Coasties do not carry badges.


----------



## Killjoy

I just talked to a Coastie Special Agent (like CID or NCIS), and he mentioned it is specifically mentioned in regulations that Coast Guard personnel, even the boarding party types are not authorized to be armed off duty under the aegis of being agents of the Department of Homeland Security. Settles this burning question!


----------



## firefighter39

http://www.uscg.mil/announcements/alcoast/549-10_alcoast.txt


----------



## Guest

mtc said:


> Oh Gawd - I need ANOTHER acronym dictionary !!


The "FBI's" of the armed forces;

CID = Criminal Investigation Division (now called Criminal Investigation Command). The chief criminal investigative branch of the US Army.

OSI = Office of Special Investigations. Air Force version of CID.

NCIS = Naval Criminal Investigative Service. Unlike CID or OSI, NCIS Agents are strictly civilians; they cover the Navy and Marine Corps.


----------



## CJIS

This thread again?


----------



## Guest

Q5-TPR said:


> Also forgot CGIS- Coast Guard Investigative Service.


I said "armed forces".....hahaha, just kidding! :yellowcarded:


----------



## Smokie

Armsmaster Please refer to 14USC89 and get back to me.


----------



## Macop

As far as i'm concerned if I ever come across a coastie or any type of L.E Officer carrying a firearm and he/she has credentials, he/she is good to fucking go, period! I will treat him/her as if he/she were a cop on my own P.D. The idea that a cop in NY actually charged him is ridiculous to me. I have read a few cases about NYPD Officers doing this.


----------



## Smokie

Thats how it should be We do the same thing. Were all on the same team and do the same job.


----------



## Killjoy

> Thats how it should be We do the same thing. Were all on the same team and do the same job.


Well, good sentiment, but there's actually a world of difference between civilian law enforcement and being on a coast guard boarding party. Just saying....


----------



## mpd61

Look Seriously...HR.218 relates to *OFF-DUTY CARRY *to include inter-state travel. It Covers State/County/Municipal Cops. As originally written it also covers 99.9% of "less traditional" Cops like State campus cops, game enforcement, liquor enforcement, maritime, ranger, etc. As long as you're sworn, employed, appointed, warranted, commissioned etc. by a *Governmental Body*. In addition to States/Counties/municipalities and the like, This would include agencies, boards, commissions, committees, yada, yada, yada.

Next the damn thing was amended to specify the Amtrak cops and include anybody who is employed by agencies of the "Executive Branch" of the Federal Government, who perform L.E. functions like GS-0083 police officers.
Finally there was the case law in which a Federal Judge applied the above Law to cover a Coastie (the New York case) regarding his OFF-DUTY possession of a handgun, discovered during a traffic stop.

Now the Congress and our President have made this the law of the land. that means it applies and should be recognized by all L.E. Jurisdictions. Now the problem arises when some agencies try to restrict, by *Policy*, their personnel from exercising the authority granted them by the LAW, to carry OFF-DUTY. 
The Commandant of the Coast Guard put out an CMDNOTE basically saying "Ghee I don't authorize you to do this". And the Army is all trying to figure out how to tell their civilian cops it's verboten too. Poor fools don't realize they have no say in what you do _lawfully_ off-duty. The saga continues...


----------



## armsmaster270

Smokie said:


> Armsmaster Please refer to 14USC89 and get back to me.


That is pretty much what I posted about the CG but I was off a bit on the Detain/apprehension on M.P.s I can't help it i'm old and Sentinel M.P.s don't get senile they get sentinel.


----------



## Smokie

Killjoy said:


> Well, good sentiment, but there's actually a world of difference between civilian law enforcement and being on a coast guard boarding party. Just saying....


Law enforcement is law enforcement but your right there is some difference your enforcing state and local law were enforcing federal law. Were also vetting foreign nationals coming into the country searching the vessels coming from far off lands that don't like us. Keeping the waterways safe and secure. Along with working with state local and federal agencies to keep out the people that want to KILL us and threaten our freedom and way of life. Were in crap seas getting our asses kicked up all hours of the night no set schedules sometime away from home 300-345 days a year from our home port and families. But hey just saying


----------



## Hush

I don't see a problem with more TRAINED armed people out and about, especially in light of the threats yhese days fromoff terrorism (think Mumbai or Belsan) and active shooters. Seems the people who have a problem wig the semantics or wording of responsibilities fall into the "nobody should have a gun but me" crowd. Im a proponent of CCW and there are jackasses who shouldn't have gins on both sides of the badge but if someone is trained and permitted to carry a firearm in the course of their duties, what's the problem with them carrying when not on the clock? Some countries require police officers to turn in their guns at the end of the shift (some nasty places too) thats just plain retarded. Policy like that and the restrictions in this country over the divverences between reserve, aux, full time etc are just part of the anti gun hysteria. I bet there's more than a few guys on big delta that see more working 2 days a month then some Podunk full timers see in a career. I don't think a Coastie is going to be running around making citizens arrests because he is covered under 218, but if he was grabbing a slurpee at 7-11 in Woburn yesterday, it would have been nice to have an armed trained shooter close by.


----------



## Smokie

Hush said:


> I don't see a problem with more TRAINED armed people out and about, especially in light of the threats yhese days fromoff terrorism (think Mumbai or Belsan) and active shooters. Seems the people who have a problem wig the semantics or wording of responsibilities fall into the "nobody should have a gun but me" crowd. Im a proponent of CCW and there are jackasses who shouldn't have gins on both sides of the badge but if someone is trained and permitted to carry a firearm in the course of their duties, what's the problem with them carrying when not on the clock? Some countries require police officers to turn in their guns at the end of the shift (some nasty places too) thats just plain retarded. Policy like that and the restrictions in this country over the divverences between reserve, aux, full time etc are just part of the anti gun hysteria. I bet there's more than a few guys on big delta that see more working 2 days a month then some Podunk full timers see in a career. I don't think a Coastie is going to be running around making citizens arrests because he is covered under 218, but if he was grabbing a slurpee at 7-11 in Woburn yesterday, it would have been nice to have an armed trained shooter close by.


Amen to that I carry every day for that same reason. 218 does not cover arrest you must have arrest power to be covered but it gives no jurisdiction to anyone. It is for self defense and defense of others.


----------



## Killjoy

> Law enforcement is law enforcement but your right there is some difference your enforcing state and local law were enforcing federal law. Were also vetting foreign nationals coming into the country searching the vessels coming from far off lands that don't like us. Keeping the waterways safe and secure. Along with working with state local and federal agencies to keep out the people that want to KILL us and threaten our freedom and way of life. Were in crap seas getting our asses kicked up all hours of the night no set schedules sometime away from home 300-345 days a year from our home port and families. But hey just saying


I'm not going to get into a dick measuring contest with you jackass. I was in military as well, a Gulf War veteran and did my time in the AOR and overseas, so don't hand me the coast guard recruiter brochure. I also have several friends and co-workers who are in the Coast Guard and they have told me how different it is from civilian police work. How many crimes you investigate? How many V's you write? How many domestics you been do? Ever help a victim do an emergency restraining order? How many M/V crashes? Death notifications? Bank robberies? K-9 tracks? Ever testify at a criminal trial? Work a narcotics case? Do a felony stop? Work undercover? Roll around with some drunk on the side of the road? How many courses the Coast Guard teach you in off duty/plainclothes carry? You haven't done these things any more than I've done the things you do in your job. No one is saying your job is easy, but it is far different from civilian law enforcement.


----------



## firefighter39

As much as I hate quoting anything French: I think this argument can be summed up by George Clemenceaus's quote "Military justice is to justice what military music is to music"


----------



## Inspector71

firefighter39 said:


> As much as I hate quoting anything French: I think this argument can be summed up by George Clemenceaus's quote "Military justice is to justice what military music is to music"


Quite well put hose-jockey!


----------



## Smokie

Killjoy said:


> I'm not going to get into a dick measuring contest with you jackass. I was in military as well, a Gulf War veteran and did my time in the AOR and overseas, so don't hand me the coast guard recruiter brochure. I also have several friends and co-workers who are in the Coast Guard and they have told me how different it is from civilian police work. How many crimes you investigate? How many V's you write? How many domestics you been do? Ever help a victim do an emergency restraining order? How many M/V crashes? Death notifications? Bank robberies? K-9 tracks? Ever testify at a criminal trial? Work a narcotics case? Do a felony stop? Work undercover? Roll around with some drunk on the side of the road? How many courses the Coast Guard teach you in off duty/plainclothes carry? You haven't done these things any more than I've done the things you do in your job. No one is saying your job is easy, but it is far different from civilian law enforcement.


With 9 years in Special missions yes i have done most of the things above. but hey were just gonna keep running in circles so lets call it quits and shake hands and carry on.


----------



## Guest

Smokie said:


> With 9 years in Special missions yes i have done most of the things above. but hey were just gonna keep running in circles so lets call it quits and shake hands and carry on.


That's interesting, since the former Coasties I know said they did almost none of the things above.

Concede the point and move on....as Killjoy said, no one said either job is better, they're just different.


----------



## Guest

Ugh.... now I need to cancel my USCG enlistment.


----------

