|By Thomas G Wilson (Tom) on Friday, August 28, 2015 - 04:26 pm: Edit|
Interesting news (at least to me). Per the Defense Consulting Service FB page: "This is the official listing of USAF bases that currently allow those with credentials to carry ON BASE under LEOSA. Some bases listed below are allowing only members actively assigned to the SF units on the associated bases. A more detailed version of the list and the base specific rules has been posted to the HQ AFSFC’s SMARTnet secure domain and will be posted to the public site later this week.
IMPORTANT: THIS IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND I WOULD HIGHLY SUGGEST YOU VERIFY AT EACH BASE PRIOR TO ENTRY.
Grissom ARB, IN
Minn. St. Paul ARS, MN
104 FW/BARNES ANGB, MA
123 AW/LOUISVILLE, KY
129 RQW/MOFFETT FED AFLD, CA
130 AW/McLaughlin ANGB, WV
132 FW/DES MOINES ANGB, IA
134 ARW/McGEE-TYSON ANGB, TN
144 FW/FRESNO ANGB, CA
152 AW/NEVADA ANGB, NV
158 FW/VERMONT ANGB, VT
162 FW/TUCSON ANGB, AZ
166 AW/NEW CASTLE, DE
169 FW/McENTIRE JNGB, SC
173 FW/KINGSLEY FIELD ANGB, OR
CRTC/ALPENA COUNTY REG JAP
CRTC/VOLK FIELD AGB
|By Thomas G Wilson (Tom) on Friday, August 28, 2015 - 04:25 pm: Edit|
William...I just sent you an email on this issue...hope it helps.
|By William Daniel (Wdan) on Wednesday, August 26, 2015 - 12:53 pm: Edit|
I only had 1 yr as a reserve Deputy prior to my 8 yrs in CID. My 1811 time didn't come until after I retired. The way I read, I'm just out of luck.
|By Thomas G Wilson (Tom) on Tuesday, August 25, 2015 - 11:09 pm: Edit|
William...if the 8 years CID was your only law enforcement experience, unfortunately, you are right...you would not qualify. At least, that is my read on it.
|By William Daniel (Wdan) on Tuesday, August 25, 2015 - 07:37 pm: Edit|
So if I read the directive correctly, as a retired Agent under paragraph 5(d), I do not qualify because I only had 8 years as an Agent with CID at the time I retired. However, an Agent who separated from the Army due to a service connected injury would qualify as long as they completed their probationary time (for example-an Agent with 13 months experience)? Does anyone have any experience or information for someone in my situation?
|By Thomas G Wilson (Tom) on Tuesday, August 25, 2015 - 06:43 pm: Edit|
The LEOSA Contract was awarded at 3PM this afternoon (25 Aug) to Defense Consulting Inc. (Same company that supports the USAF).
|By Thomas G Wilson (Tom) on Thursday, January 29, 2015 - 11:25 am: Edit|
In case anyone hasn't seen (or bothered to look for) the Army directive regarding LEOSA, here is a link. http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/ad2015_03.pdf
|By Thomas G Wilson (Tom) on Friday, January 09, 2015 - 12:29 pm: Edit|
On 8 Jan, SecArmy signed Army directive 2015-03 on LEOSA (finally). OPMG must now get a contract signed and begin issuance of credentials. If Army uses the same contractor as does the Air Force, this should happen quickly, but then, we are dealing with the Army, aren't we. If you can't find the directive on line, email me and I will forward a copy.
|By Thomas G Wilson (Tom) on Friday, July 18, 2014 - 10:41 am: Edit|
The following is taken from the FAQ page of the OPMG website: "DODI 5525.12, Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act (LEOSA) Department of Defense implementation was approved 13 FEB 14. The Army Directive and implementation instructions are currently in staffing for Secretary of the Army approval. Concurrently to the staffing of Army guidance, a no-cost to the government, contract is
being developed to centrally implement LEOSA Army wide. Once the Army Directive, Implementation instructions and Contract have been finalized the Link to the Application Web site will be posted on
the OPMG Web site. The Application web site, operated by a contractor, will contain the application process, who is eligible for
credentials, instructions, required documents, electronic application and fees required by the individual. At the present time we anticipate implementation mid 1st Quarter FY15, time line is
dependent on approval of Army Directive and award date of contract."
|By Ed German (Admin) on Saturday, July 05, 2014 - 12:10 pm: Edit|
Because NCIS, AFOSI and USACIDC headquarters are co-located at Quantico, and because all three are tackling the same LEOSA requirement, I would be surprised if USACIDC did not consult with (and maybe go to school on) what the other services are doing to efficiently accomplish the LEOSA task. I could be wrong (as my loving wife often reminds me), but I would not be surprised if the same activity (company) ends up supporting Navy, Air Force and Army LEOSA credentialing activities.
On another note, I hope everyone (especially those interested in constitution and by-laws changes) plans to be at the annual meeting in Missouri. It is always a wonderful event.
|By Walt Yarnall (Yarnallpi) on Thursday, July 03, 2014 - 10:20 pm: Edit|
Craig, I am sorry I missed your calls today to my house and my cell phone. I thought we could be more transparent in discussing this issue in the forum, for all to see but I guess we are back to the old ways. I am still at firstname.lastname@example.org
|By Thomas G Wilson (Tom) on Thursday, July 03, 2014 - 08:51 pm: Edit|
Scott...just my two cents. Your idea has merits; however, the timing is not right. We anticipate USACIDC accepting a bid on a contract before the first of the year. As Carl explained, any change to our constitution and by-laws could not be implemented prior to the Oct 2015 AGM, assuming the proposal would make it thru all the wickets.
|By Scott Sharp (Ssharp777) on Thursday, July 03, 2014 - 10:30 am: Edit|
This was just a thought on how we can better take care of our own. Similar organizations have been successful in ventures similar to this concept. That's pretty much all I have concerning this thread.
|By Walt Yarnall (Yarnallpi) on Wednesday, July 02, 2014 - 07:15 pm: Edit|
Why does this discussion have to be private? It is of every one's concern. It is no wonder CIDAA is losing membership / forum participation with this type of attitude.
|By Carl Craig - Forum Moderator (Ccraig) on Tuesday, July 01, 2014 - 01:08 pm: Edit|
I did not imply that the bye-laws would specifically prohibit this concept? I thoroughly explained the procedures necessary to discern whether or not the membership would vote to amend our constitution, and make the necessary recommendations to accomplish what you are suggesting, in the time frame you alluded to. Mr. Sharp, would you please refer to my name and e mail address on page 18 of the current Gold Book, we can exchange personal e mails, or just click on my name at the left of this entry, we can communicate personally about this. This matter is being dealt with by Major General Quantock,the Provost Marshal General and CG CID Command, his immediate staff and the President of CIDAA. I am not going to publish or respond to anything further about this subject in this thread that would be detrimental to their pending action in this matter.. Thank you.
|By Scott Sharp (Ssharp777) on Monday, June 30, 2014 - 08:22 pm: Edit|
I take it the by-laws specifically prohibit this concept?
|By Carl Craig - Forum Moderator (Ccraig) on Monday, June 30, 2014 - 12:26 pm: Edit|
Mr's Scott and Yarnall, the Constitution and Bye Laws of CIDAA can not just be arbitrarily amended
overnight, at the whim and desire of a few individuals. Motions have to be submitted in writing by individual dues paying members at an official CIDAA annual meeting, which is first considered and voted on by the full Board of Directors present at that meetimg, and then prominently published for every dues paying member to read, then presented for a live hearing to the full membership in attendance at the following year's meeting for their final vote. That means that any amendment to the constitution must take place in Branson, MO at the 2014 fall meeting, and no action would be forthcomimg until the fall meeting in 2015. Been there, done that, and that's the ONLY way it works.
CIDAA President Charlie Cooper's original posting here profoundly reflects that this matter should be resolved by October - November 2014. We all have our individual opinions and they are respected, however, I would respectfully urge everyone to let this matter take its course as posted by CIDAA President Charlie Cooper. Thanks for your interest in this matter and your input.
|By Scott Sharp (Ssharp777) on Sunday, June 29, 2014 - 02:14 am: Edit|
As a member of another tax exempt organization which has done this sort of thing, I know it can be done. It may require adjusting a By-law or two.
|By Walt Yarnall (Yarnallpi) on Saturday, June 28, 2014 - 09:25 pm: Edit|
If CIDAA can generate revenue for the purpose of donating it to a charity cause, how can CIDAA lose it's charter? Just asking....
|By Carl Craig - Forum Moderator (Ccraig) on Saturday, June 28, 2014 - 12:47 am: Edit|
Re: Mr. Scott's posting. Good food for thought but I believe CIDAA's Charter places us in a eleemosynary capacity and as such, CIDAA can not delve into any activity for the sole purpose of making a profit, lest we forfeit our charter.
Suggest the Constitution and Bye Laws be consulted
on this. Don't think Eleemosynary/Tax Exempt Organizations can form a "Corporation" within themselves "for profit", regardless of the intent
of use of the funds they might generate or who they give it to. Mr. Parliamentarian and/or Membership Chairperson, what does our charter say?
|By Scott Sharp (Ssharp777) on Tuesday, June 24, 2014 - 02:44 pm: Edit|
If Command will have to contract w/ a company to handle the issuance of the LEOSA permit, then I'd like to suggest CIDAA explore the POSSIBILITY of developing a corporation to accomplish this task. It would generate a revenue stream and encourage retired SA's to join CIDAA. The profits of such corporation could go to help fallen agent's families and/or education for retired and former SA's children, or whatever.
|By Thomas G Wilson (Tom) on Friday, June 20, 2014 - 05:55 pm: Edit|
From and office of the CIDAA President, Charles Cooper: (Posted by Tom Willson, Moderator)
On May 29, 2014, accompanied by Mr. Steve Okolovitch (CW5 RET), I met with Major General David Quantock, Commanding General, US Army Criminal Investigation Command (USACIDC). The purpose of the meeting was to discuss:
1) Command support of the Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act (LEOSA) for retired agents (primary discussion as recommended by the board); andOther attendees were: Colonel Rosendo Guieby (CG Executive Officer), CW5 John Welch (Command Chief Warrant Officer) and Captain Daniel Shalchi (Aide-de-Camp).
2) Ways to encourage active duty CID agents to join CIDAA.
|By Thomas G Wilson (Tom) on Tuesday, March 25, 2014 - 09:29 pm: Edit|
This is the lastest information on LEOSA from USACIDC:
Effective 13 Feb 14, DoD published its LEOSA policy in DODI 5525.12. At this time, all three Services are drafting their own implementation policies and procedures. CID will have to await the approval of the Army's policy before initiating its own implementing guidance. A projected publication date for the Army policy is not available at this time; thus, the
implementation of any CID policy is also not available.
(The current status of the LEOSA credentials is located on the CID website at http://www.cid.army.mil/, FAQ's.)
|By Philip W. Lindley (Phil_lindley) on Friday, March 07, 2014 - 08:58 am: Edit|
Let me begin by saying "I don't have a dog in this fight" because I carry under state LEO status - and I'm not saying Dept of the Army and/or USACIDC is right:
The operative phrase in the updated DoD pub for retired/former LEOs carrying appears to be "Carries photographic identification issued by the DoD Component from which the individual separated from service as a law enforcement officer..." Component may be interpreted to mean HQDA or an organization within, such as USACIDC.
I suspect there are a lot of issues in play right now whether the "DoD component" will be HQs Dept of the Army, or USACIDC. The intersting thing to me, is that they have brought back the old position of PMG and there is a unity of command with the CG USACIDC which logically (I know - don't laugh) would make USACIDC the proper authority to isse the carry permits. BUT I suspect - another entity with DA is being looked at (PERSOM???) to be tasked w/ carrying out the function. I don't think any Army activity will be up and running anytime soon, as DA deals with assignment of the responsiblity. A quick (and again logical - I know) the solution would be to have USACIDC issue former retired agents the ID - but Congress added all the MPs to the mix and if agents get theirs first, the MP lobby will be in a position to raise h377. As much as politics slows things down, HQDA will be trying to avoid a firestorm and will move slowly.
If you need a permit quickly, see "Your Local Sheriff" as any state LE agency can accept your proof of service and issue you with a HR 214 ID that is good througout the US. You got to pay for your own ammo and have your own weapon, but they will do this for retired federal agents.
My two cents - and it probably ain't worth a penny.
|By Thomas G Wilson (Tom) on Wednesday, March 05, 2014 - 09:18 pm: Edit|
Posted by Denny Powers (Unregistered Guest)
Moved here by Tom Wilson
Posted From: 220.127.116.11
Posted on Wednesday, March 05, 2014 - 03:21 pm:
I have the DOD Instruction 13 Feb, 2014. Seems clear to me but does anyone know what's next and when?
|By Carl Craig - Forum Moderator (Ccraig) on Thursday, February 27, 2014 - 07:23 pm: Edit|
Posted by Carleton A. Nevin. Moved here by Forum Moderator
Noted the post in forum. Also noted the many comments in the past. Now I note no comments. I wonder what our CID contact has found out about the procedure for obtaining the required application from CID Command. I have qualified on the range and have my DD 214s in order.
|By Pricen (Unregistered Guest) on Thursday, February 20, 2014 - 11:00 am: Edit|
Just got sent this. I haven't read it yet so I don't know if there is anything new or useful.
Department of Defense
February 13, 2014
|By Myron R. Pickering (Picknet) on Friday, September 06, 2013 - 01:21 pm: Edit|
Aloha...References Mark's comment about California's CCW permits being issued by Chiefs of Police and Sheriffs, Hawaii is also very strict on this subject as well. Here on Oahu, ONLY the HPD Chief of Police issues a CCW permit. I'm assuming it is the same for the other islands as they have their own independent Police Departments and Chiefs. Basically, one has to justify his/her request and convince the Chief that his/her life has been threatened, etc. The last time I checked with HPD [a few years ago], they were at odds with the LEOSA to say the least. A recent shooting incident here in Honolulu involving a State Department Special Agent (Bureau of Diplomatic Security) has not helped either. The Agent was here for the Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation conference in Honolulu in Novemebr 2011 and got into a confrontion with a local in a MacDonalds after a night on the town (drinking) and during a struggle, shot and killed the individual. His second degree murder trial ended in a hung jury last month. Click on the link below if you wish to read more about this incident. Aloha!
|By Robert L. (Unregistered Guest) on Monday, September 02, 2013 - 12:10 pm: Edit|
The Part time investigators model, practiced by CID for at least the past 30 years, substantiates civilian law enforcement argument that CID Agents are not considered. Of course California, New York, Illinois and a few other states believe only their "law enforcement" should be allowed to carry. I live in Texas and have a State CCW License. All the states I care to visit have "carry" agreements with Texas. I agree with Carl Bandy. Do not wait for DOD/CID to do much except drag their feet on this. Obtaining and maintaining a valid CCW (at least in Texas)is the way to go if you want to "carry". By the way; why are some of you repeatedly being stopped by the police?????
|By Mark D Sands (Markdsands) on Sunday, September 01, 2013 - 06:16 pm: Edit|
I find myself looking at this topic in our forum every few days since its great to see so many of us banding together based upon our individual experiences, both good and bad, while in CID. It seems like I have two things working against me when it comes to CCW laws; California is THE toughest state to get a CCW permit because they leave issuance up to Police Chiefs and Sheriffs. I've applied to both and each stated that soldiers in the Army were not Law Enforcement Officers, whereby if I was former FBI or ATF they would have no problem issuing a CCW permit to me. I did not retire from CID therefore have no retired credentials. I merely separated after 11 years. It does seem as though many states issue permits without a hitch, but don't bring it to California because they don't recognize any out of state permits, only Federal ones. There are many former agents here on the left coast and it seems as though we are playing the waiting game with OMB, DOD, and USACIDC. Carl, I don't think I'll bet against you on this one........
|By William Daniel (Wdan) on Sunday, September 01, 2013 - 09:47 am: Edit|
Well put Carl. That's been my point all along. We should not be relying on Command to do anything for any Agent, especially us retired folks! We are (as we were back then) on our own. Command will continue to do what it always has, look out for Command, not for the Agents. My suggestion has been the same, get a CCW or carry open if your State allows it. Otherwise, like road rage, you will only be stressing yourself out hoping the other person will change.
|By Carl A. Bandy (Carl_bandy) on Saturday, August 31, 2013 - 06:39 pm: Edit|
I'm lost. Why are we concerned with Command and what they do or do not do? If someone thinks that command cares one way or the other about retired agents, apparently I missed those years. Hell, they didn't even care that much about the active agents back when. I carry a weapon with me everywhere I go and I have a Texas CCL license. Before I leave the state, I checked to see what states I'm going through. If a state that doesn't accept TX CC license, I keep my mouth shut if stopped. If I get stopped, I produce a holder with my TX CC lic, my creds and my retired badge. Never had a problem after that. If I ever do have a problem, see you in court and if necessary, will accept B & B for a night or two. Command reminds me of 1978 when I was scheduled to leave Germany. (WO Assignments: "Where did I want to go?" My answer was "I didn't care as long as West of the Mississippi"). Amazed when orders came down for Ft Bragg! Called 3rd Region and was willing to accept an opening at Ft Polk. Next day, was told they didn't know who I off at command (I did) but I was going to Bragg like it or not. Went and I loved the assignment. Would have stayed but retired when less than 18 mos later, I was informed I was going back to Germany. Nope, 22 years shot to hell. Why do we expect more now??
|By Carl Craig - Forum Moderator (Ccraig) on Friday, August 30, 2013 - 12:59 pm: Edit|
USACIDC, will not act on this matter until OSD, DOD and OMB have their say and direct their final decisions down the chain of command to the PMG/CG USACIDC.
Case Law: Booth V New York,
Copy/Paste below in your browser.
Pardon me, I don't see the relevancy!
|By Scott Sharp (Ssharp777) on Friday, August 30, 2013 - 01:28 am: Edit|
My question concerns the "adjudication" at DoD. Since this is not a judicial court, is it then an agency opinion? My understanding of a successful Mandamus Petition before a judicial court will compel an agency to follow statutory requirements. There is a 2008 case (NY V. Booth) that may be of interest.
|By Carl Craig - Forum Moderator (Ccraig) on Wednesday, August 28, 2013 - 11:41 pm: Edit|
Mr. Sharp: In layman terms, I don't think a Mandamus Petition directed at USACIDC would be honored while this matter is being reviewed by OSD, Federal Register posting and adjudication, and OMB final approval. Please see below.
Here is the latest information posted on the USACID Command Official Website as of this date.
Q. What is CID's position on the issue of credentials in reference to the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act?
A. Updated June 26, 2013: Washington Headquarters Services, Office of the Secretary of Defense, has advised that because the issuance of the LEOSA credentials directly impacts the general public (retirees and separated law enforcement officers) the issuance must be published in the Federal Register. Therefore, the public must have the opportunity to comment, and those comments have to be adjudicated. Everything then goes to the Office of Management and Budget to publish a final ruling. Both of these actions need to be completed before the revised Department of Defense Instruction can be finalized. The internal DoD process will continue to move along as quickly as possible; however, an estimated publication date for the DoD Instruction is not available at this time.
What could go wrong?
Mandatory posting on The Federal Register?
Public scrutiny, comments and adjudication?
Final approval by Office of Management and Budget
Final decision will be sent by OMB to USACIDC!
Any bets on what that decision will be?
|By Scott Sharp (Ssharp777) on Wednesday, August 28, 2013 - 01:04 pm: Edit|
The law seems pretty clear. Would a Mandamus petition apply to this situation?
|By Myron R. Pickering (Picknet) on Monday, August 26, 2013 - 08:50 pm: Edit|
Aloha Carl...Excellent read and right on point!
I retired some 35 plus years ago...and I do not see this being resolved in my life time.
The only way I will be able to conceal carry is by having my wife insert my paddle holster in my waist band before they close the casket!
Aloha! Mike P.
|By Carl Craig - Forum Moderator (Ccraig) on Sunday, August 25, 2013 - 12:41 pm: Edit|
No offense to anyone posting here; that's your privilege. Our opinions are our own, however, they differ about this ongoing concealed carry debacle, which seems to be going nowhere. We all should get the message by now; there seems to be stonewalling and continuing delays by CID Command's failure to implement the law as far as issuing a ID CARD. Do you wonder why? OSD, DoD and OMB have very strong influence over this matter too. Their combined fear is that CID Command will issue a Concealed Carry ID Card to a Retired or Former US Army CID Agent who, after retirement, or leaving service, might have a criminal record. I'm not insinuating that there are a large number of former and retired CID Agent's with a criminal record, but just ONE is enough for the politically correct bunch to jump on it like a dog on a bone). My personal opinion is, without a "Background" check, before CID Command's issuance of a ID Card that will ultimately allow that individual to "conceal" carry, I strongly suspect that none of us will see that card in the mail any time soon. God forbid, that a card is issued to a convicted felon, in which a firearm was used,(with no background check on that individual), who by Federal Law CAN NOT even possess a firearm. Like many of you posting here, I retired a second time, from my State Police system and I'm still active in Law Enforcement. I have a concealed carry permit as a Criminal Investigator for the Cold Case Homicide Unit, Richland County Sheriff's Office, Columbia, SC which I founded in 1997, and also have a permanent "State" Concealed carry ID Card. I have an annual firearms qualification and that's it. I retired from CID 44 years ago and needless to say I will not be applying for a USACIDC issued card! I doubt very seriously if my name is on any records at CID Command. At that time (1969) you were considered an idiot or out of your mind if you even thought about keeping your badge and credentials upon retirement. I would have liked to have kept my OPMG Badge #5, as a keepsake but that was not to be. I later learned that all the OPMG badges (real gold clad) were turned over to PDO and sold as scrap. At least everyone that I know of retiring from CID now receives their Badge and Credentials, denoting "Retired". The question is: How would they go about running background checks on me or others, who retired from or served in CID more than 20-30-40 years ago?
I thoroughly understand the plight of those of you that didn't pursue a second career in law enforcement after CID, who at this juncture and these turbulent times, need to be able to legally carry a weapon under existing Federal and State laws. I know for a fact that most South Carolina State and Local police agencies recognize retired or former CID Agents and will allow them to obtain a permit after registering for a short course on range safety and qualifying with the SAME weapon, by serial number, they used on the firing range.
My suggestion to all of you who have attempted to get a concealed carry permit: Shop around, take your final DD Form 214 and your retired badge and credentials with you and visit as many state and local police agencies as you can, until you find one who is willing to assist you
in your quest. Don't give up until you succeed or get your final NO!
Some of you say that it's a shame we have to go about it this way and from outward appearances CID Command has turned their back on us and no longer care after we retire. In reality, their hands are tied by OSD,DOD, OMB and the higher command fear mongers who believe they must use every ounce of caution before they put a gun in the hand of the WRONG person. To me that spells some kind of background check, and there's no money in the Sequestration Till to pay for it.
That's my take folks. Please don't shoot the messenger....and lets not hold our breath while waiting for our Concealed Carry ID Card.
Carl Craig, CIDAA Forum Moderator
|By Kenneth W. Minton (Ken_minton) on Saturday, August 24, 2013 - 01:24 pm: Edit|
Tom is right about a credential issued by CIDAA would probably have no legal standing. However, your CID retired credential would probably be excepted. It was an official credential, mine of which just has retired acrossed it. It is no different than my retired deputy sheriff credentials, which also say retired across it. Most states should have agency (in Florida it is FDLE, I suspect it is SLED in South Carolina, etc) which issues a card - at the time you qualify at the range each year - stating that you have qualified on the range in accordance with the Law Enforcement Safe Act of 2004. I would suggest retired agents check with local sheriffs' offices and see if you can fire the course at their range and be issued the card.
|By Thomas G Wilson (Tom) on Saturday, August 24, 2013 - 11:56 am: Edit|
A "credential" issued by the association would have no more legality than using our current command issued retired box tops. Per HR 218, the credential must be issued by the ageny from which the LEO retired or separated. Use of anything else might allow you to get qualified by your local sheriff's office or pd, but you stand the chance of being arrested by any cop who is familiar with the wording of the law.
|By Mark D Sands (Markdsands) on Saturday, August 24, 2013 - 11:45 am: Edit|
In looking through the archives on this, it appears that our association could have a credential made in accordance with the act, with a passport type photo, about 3"x5", and valid when carried with a current range card. We are only as strong as we desire to be. If it were legal for CIDAA to do this we could have the card made by Unisys for a reasonable cost and not have to keep going back and forth with HQ. If by chance we could not legally do this, well at least we would get the point across that we are not going to let this fade away. It's a law enacted to protect US as former Special Agents, NOT to protect our command structure.
|By William E. Daniel (Wdan) on Friday, August 23, 2013 - 01:58 pm: Edit|
Ray and Frank (and all you other NCO's, WO's and CWO's that protected your Agents: thanks for your support, you are few and far in between from what I witnessed in my 10 years with CID. By USACIDC, I'm referring to the Agents and RLO's that served in the golden palace that used to occupy Ft. Belvoir (and is now down in Quantico). I'll just say that in my time with CID, I had the pleasure of working for/with a lot of good Agents (both enlisted and warrant). Unfortunately, I also had the displeasure of working with those that would step out of the line of fire without hesitation, when it came to protecting their people; as well as those that seemed untouchable, no matter what they did-and pity the fool that would actually try to do something about it. Politics does make strange bedfellows. My statement wasn't made as an attack against anyone, but just my opinion based on my experience.
|By Michael J Valentine (Judge_v) on Friday, August 23, 2013 - 01:07 pm: Edit|
It is not constructive to blame Command. They are doing what they think is in their best interest both as an institution and as a group of commissioned officers. THEY ARE NOT AGENTS.
But we are a group of over a thousand retirees who do not, as one organization, act on behalf of our fellow agents, active, reserve and retired. As long as we do not speak in an advocative manner as an association we are just a bunch of gripers. It is not that our gripes are not accurate. Can we do anything about it?
As long as our members cannot vote on anything involving our Association unless we are present at the annual conference we will continue to be ineffective. And any changes to that have to take place at the Conference...the veritable Catch 22.
|By Frank M. Woods (Unregistered Guest) on Friday, August 23, 2013 - 08:45 am: Edit|
Have to agree with Ray on this one. I have placed my butt on the line many times in support of my agents. At times, my boses did not agree, but they supported me in my efforts to make CID a better place to work.
|By Kenneth W. Minton (Ken_minton) on Friday, August 23, 2013 - 08:02 am: Edit|
One thing that may work for agents who have their retired credentials. In Hillsborough County (Tampa), Florida, retired law enforcement officers can go to the range the first Friday of each month. There they fire a static qualification with their own provided weapon and ammunition. The department then issues a Florida (FDLE) card that shows you have qualified under the law to carry as a retired law enforcement officer. While most of the people who go the monthly qualification are retired deputies, I've seen various state and federal agents show up and show retired credentials and shoot and obtain the card. I don't think the range officer will discriminate against CID agent credentials, any more than DEA, FBI, ATF, etc. The card is issued for free.
In addition, some private shooting ranges issue the same card, upon proof of service and qualification on their range. Here there would be a fee for use of their range and the range officer.
I suspect other states have similar procedures.
(I'm a retired deputy so I haven't tried to use my retired CID credentials, but I suspect a federal credential is a federal credential when it comes to most local agencies.)
I hope the above information is useful. Hope to see many of you at the San Antonio meeting, where I'm sure this topic will be discussed.
|By Alan F Boehm (Afboehm) on Friday, August 23, 2013 - 07:38 am: Edit|
Sorry, not seeing the upload. I will try one more time.
|FOP Journal Article (August 2013)|
FOP Journal Article.pdf (197.8 k)
|By Alan F Boehm (Afboehm) on Friday, August 23, 2013 - 07:35 am: Edit|
I've attached an interesting article on this topic that was in the current issue of the FOP Journal. It gives a little detail of what is going on and how the FOP is trying to assist in moving this along. I hope the upload worked.
|By Ray Kangas (Cw5retray) on Thursday, August 22, 2013 - 07:09 pm: Edit|
Mr Daniel: I would like to know WHO this person called USACIDC is. I never met him/her while I served. All I know is that a lot of us went to bat for our people at every opportunity. It is unfortunate that you were not able to bring the organization up to your standards before you bailed out.
|By William E. Daniel (Wdan) on Thursday, August 22, 2013 - 02:11 pm: Edit|
I think the question is...Has USACIDC ever supported its' Agents? I think history answers that. If they ever did, it would have been very few and very far between. I think USACIDC is more worried about culpability in case something was to happen, as opposed to worried about it's Agents (both current and former). Granted, I don't have the 20-30+ years devoted to USACIDC that many of you have, but I believe I was in long enough to know that USACIDC would rather hang an Agent out to dry, than do anything that would have the smallest appearance of actually supporting any of it's Agents in anything that may be controversial.
|By Mark D Sands (Markdsands) on Friday, August 16, 2013 - 05:57 pm: Edit|
Michael, David, Walt, Don, Ken or any of you other posters to this thread: Have any of you heard back from the Congresspersons or Senators you wrote to about CID Command's failure to comply with LEOSA? I wrote to my Senator and have heard nothing back from her office in San Francisco. I guess this is becoming another dead issue and I'm sure DoD, as well as USACIDC are hoping we'll just stop talking about it and it will be quietly swept under the rug. Its just so sad that former SA's whom have done so much to create, develop, nurture, and maintain the highest of standards within an Agency are not supported when asking for something so simple as an identification card stating we are former Special Agents qualified under the act to carry concealed weapons (when accompanied by a range qualification card). Its not even a matter of whether you are going to carry a weapon or not; its a matter of principle. Does the Agency in which you have invested a good portion of your life and always did what had to be done at whatever costs, support you when you have departed? I was proud to be a Chief Warrant Officer in the US Army, but I was truly honored to be a Special Agent with the Army CID and serve with such an elite group of men and women.
|By Michael J Valentine (Judge_v) on Sunday, August 04, 2013 - 12:58 pm: Edit|
You might consider sending the same letter to Senator Patrick Leahy whose Judiciary Committee authored the most recent amendment. Or Congressman Carl Issa from California who is on the House Armed Services Committee and likes it when DOD follows the law.
|By David Sander (David) on Sunday, August 04, 2013 - 11:14 am: Edit|
I have just sent a letter to both Sen. Rand Paul (KY) and Sen. Mitch McConnell (KY) asking them to query CID HQ as to why they(CID)do not want to be compliant with Federal Law. I’m not sure they will do anything but I asked for the look see. If, and when I get a reply and will post to the web site.
Be persistent, we will still do what has to be done.
|By Walt Yarnall (Yarnallpi) on Saturday, August 03, 2013 - 09:40 am: Edit|
I don't know if this was posted before. But, from Senator Leahy:
“This law, which has been in place since 2004, gives our law enforcement officers, should they choose, the peace of mind that they are protected wherever they may be,” Leahy said. “The Senate has agreed to extend that trust to the law enforcement officers that serve within our military. They are no less deserving or worthy of this privilege and I am very pleased we have acted to equalize their treatment under the federal law.”
|By Donald L. Keller (Don_keller) on Friday, August 02, 2013 - 07:39 pm: Edit|
The below information was received from a retired Agent that has diligently worked on the “LEO retiree identification cards” for us (CID retirees). I know at least 130 other CID retirees received this email message from the author. I have removed one name(*** *******) and the message author’s name. I believe this information should be shared with our CIDAA Leadership and members. I encourage the leadership and any member attending the annual meeting in SATX to ensure this issue is addressed at that meeting. We need a united front to encourage Command to take positive action in favor of CID retirees. It’s time Command and CIDAA favorably support CID retirees that have for years supported them. That support is long overdue.
“*** ****** just let me know that CID has now posted their intention to publish to the Federal Register before implementing the LEOSA changes for the retiree cards. They justify this by saying it
affects the public... the public they identify is the retirees. This should give us all a good idea of just how supportive they are of retired agents. I should note that the FBI played the same game before
they ultimately issued their retiree credential. I don't know how many people read the Federal Register but I believe that even if they try to define the eligible pool (those who qualify for retiree credentials
based on military service) as every MP commissioned officer retiree, every MP NCO retiree, every ...well you get the idea....even if they do that I doubt any groundswell of opposition will be forthcoming.
However some of our group have opined that the game plan is to suggest that implementation of the act for military retirees will require: 1. background checks on each applicant (not required), 2. annual
update on the credential (not true) and coordination between the range qualification agency and the CID (also not true). They even suggest a face to face admonition to each applicant about the restrictions and limitations written into the law (also not true). The law was well written and makes it very easy for each agency to issue a credential with a minimum of effort and no background check...that is the purpose of the applicants affidavit. It also completely shields the agency from any liability. What has our leaders (or their lawyers) concerned is that any action that is taken that generates bad publicity
will also generate the bad publicity for the agency. This is something that every single non DOD agency has been (albeit reluctantly in some cases) willing to bear. And after thousands of retiree credentials being issued to retirees in other LE agencies how many times have you heard of an aberration? I can only remember one, a retired ATF agent in an accidental shooting in NY. ATF survived.
There is also concern among some in CID that there will either need to be two sets of retiree creds, one for those who are eligible but did not retire as an agent, presumably marked "Separated" and one for those to be marked "Retired". I do hope I can speak for all of us in stating I don't give a if they issue a credential that says "Retired/Separated" and skip any heartburn they have ove that.
I know that our officers in the CIDAA are elected by a small number of our total group because only those who can get to the annual meeting can vote. I do wish all members could vote by absentee ballot but for some reason no one in control wants to let the entire membership be eligible. Not too many associations have such a rule. Anyway for those of you that will be in San Antonio and those of you in contact with those in San Antonio, let me leave you (for a while) with this thought...the FBI continued to refuse to issue a retiree credential until their agents' association got active as a body and threatened to issue their own credential. At this stage we will never know what pressure our association can exert on Command because it refuses to advocate on behalf of its membership.
Oh, and one more thing...please....the retiree credential should not be referred to as a "CID concealed carry card". It is not a CID concealed carry card.
It is simply a card that identifies the bearer as a retired LEO. Nothing more, nothing less. Please. It is the gun thing that has gotten so many knickers twisted. If you have ten years accredited as an agent
and you have no intervening convictions or restrictions Congress already authorized you to concealed carry AFTER you get a range qualification from a range that certifies you meet the qualifications of the LE standards of your state of residence. The card we are trying to get is simply a card that identifies you as someone who meets the criteria under LEOSA. Let me see if I can explain it this way...let's say
someone stole into Command and cranked out their own credential....if they do not meet the factual criteria already mentioned the credential does not give them that status. Likewise, if one of you
is prosecuted for a concealed carry violation you will successfully defend IF you have a range qualification already described and can prove FACTUALLY that you meet the LEO criteria. All
we are asking Command for is a card that says we are retired (separated is fine) federal law enforcement officers. End of lecture...”
|By John Dunaway (John_dunaway) on Thursday, July 25, 2013 - 08:02 am: Edit|
Anyone seen this?
Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act Allows Military Police to Concealed Carry in 50 States
|By Kenneth W. Minton (Ken_minton) on Tuesday, July 23, 2013 - 08:33 am: Edit|
It seems to vary in different jurisdictions how local police/sheriff's look at CID service. That said, can you get a state concealed weapons permit? I'm not sure about California, but Florida will give them to anyone who hasn't been convicted of certain crimes, been served a domestic violence injunction, or been taken into custody for mental issues. While I have a law enforcement permit because of my civilian law enforcement time, I also have a state issued permit. State permits are honored in most other states.
|By M. D. Sands (Unregistered Guest) on Monday, July 22, 2013 - 09:57 pm: Edit|
I think the message from Mrs. Godin makes it perfectly clear. Those of us over 50 will not see any LEOSA creds in our lifetimes, and even IF it happens, what about us who didn't retire from CID, but were agents for 11 years (6 active, 5 reserve)? I had been reading about all of this last year, and really hadn't put much thought into it until this past February when I took my folks shopping in our local Safeway. I was approached by a guy that I had apprehended for an Aggravated Assault/Rape 32 YEARS AGO when I was a Probationary SA at Fort Sill, OK!!! He had done 30 years and returned to Stockton (the crime capital of CA), which is about 10 miles South of Woodbridge, where I live. I remembered him (my first BIG case), but didn't even recognize him.....BUT he darn sure recognized me! That "gangsta drawl" Special Agent Sands, "ju memma me?" I said, "not really, should I?" I just pushed the cart as my 80 year old Mom asked if he was a friend of mine. My heart was POUNDING until we were driving out of the parking lot. What were the odds of that? I can't be the only one that's happened to. I applied for a CCW the next day to the local Police Chief and explained what happened. Well, long story short, CID Agents aren't recognized as LEO's in California (we are merely former soldiers in the Army) as it was explained to me. Yep, it's a great step in the right direction, but I don't think that USACIDC has changed that much since I was in. I seem to remember MG Timmerburg's policy of not signing credential's of newly graduated agents who had mustaches (June '80). We were soldiers! And proud of it! I'll bet a lot of you remember back to that time and I hope you're smiling.....I am! We had worked so hard to get through that school and to graduate and leave without our " B's and C's" in our pockets was heartbreaking......and now to wait on a new set of credentials just so we can lawfully carry a firearm to protect ourselves and our families.
|By William E. Daniel (Wdan) on Tuesday, April 30, 2013 - 02:57 pm: Edit|
Well, we all know USACIDC HQ has been doing everything within its' power to keep this from happening. My best advice is to just go out and get a CCW, unless you can find a local law enforcement entity that will sponsor you based on your CID experience. I don't think we will ever see any LEOSA credentials from USACIDC in our lifetime.
|By David G.Ownby (Derdegen) on Sunday, April 28, 2013 - 10:29 am: Edit|
The legal begeals don't live by Nike's motto "just do it", or "gitter done". The Peter Principal is alive and well at command and DOD -everyone rises to their own level of incompetence.
|By Walt Yarnall (Yarnallpi) on Saturday, April 27, 2013 - 08:56 pm: Edit|
" Policy based on law requires extensive coordination and legal review"...in plain English fellow retired agents we won't see this from USACIDC in our life time.
|By Carl Craig - Forum Moderator (Ccraig) on Friday, April 26, 2013 - 11:16 pm: Edit|
CIDAA President Billy H. BASS, received the following message from Mrs. Marianne K. Godin, Chief, Special Agent, Accreditation Division, US Army Criminal Investigation Command. Pres. Bass has some computer problms at the moment and asked that I post this to our website. Carl - Forum Moderator.
"On 2 Jan 13, the FY13 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was signed by the President. The NDAA included language that modified Chapter 44 of Title 18 USC; what is often referred to as HR 218 and/or the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA). The specific modification inserted "or apprehension under section 807(b) of title 10, United States Code (article 7(b) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice)'' after ''arrest'' and
replaced "law enforcement officer" with "police officer or law enforcement officer" in both sections 926B and 926C.
The Department of Defense (DoD) Inspector General has begun the process to revise DoD Instruction (DoDI) 5525.12, "Implementation of the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004" to incorporate the amendments to LEOSA and has provided the following interim guidance:
1) Policy based on law requires extensive coordination and legal review.
2) DoD Policy is valid until it has been replaced or changed; the FY13 NDAA
does not change the existing policy.
HQUSACIDC will not make any internal changes to existing policy or procedures regarding the
issue of the LEOSA credentials until the new law is implemented via an updated DoDI. Periodic updates will be posted as this progresses."
Marianne K. Godin
Chief, Special Agent, Accreditation Division,
US Army Criminal Investigation Command.
|By Carl Craig - Forum Moderator (Ccraig) on Tuesday, March 19, 2013 - 04:32 pm: Edit|
Posted by Jesse Harris on 3/19/13. Added here by Moderator
I ran the directive by a few of the local Chiefs of Police here and they all said, as far as they were concerned, a CID Agent is covered by the directive. All said they would issue a retired Police Officer card to them and facilitate their annual arms qualification. Others viewing this may want to check with their local Chief's of Police or Sheriff's for their opinion...
Jesse Harris resides in Up-State (NW), SC and can be contacted at email@example.com
|By John Brown (John_brown) on Thursday, March 07, 2013 - 01:12 pm: Edit|
My interpretation based upon my experience at HQ
DoDIG has already started the process to change DoDI 5525.12, “Implementation of the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004.” However, DoDIG supplied the following:
1) Policy based on law requires extensive coordination and legal review. (You all are gonna wait a long time)
2) The policy process always takes longer than anyone wants and especially if the policy is co-written by two components (5525.12 is a joint OIG/USD instruction) (Joint really confuses everyone)
3) The existing DoD 5525.12 is and will be the current policy until a new one is issued; FY13 NDAA does not change our existing policy/regulation until DoD policy is revised. (Until we get done reviewing this to death you ain't allowed to do nothing)
4) The new law will be implemented via a DoD Instruction, at which time there will be further review at the HQ, CID. (After DOD reviews it to death then HQ CID will review it until it smells bad)
5) The new policy does not address funding. (And the best part.....there wasn't any money devoted for this and we ain't going to look for any so don't look for this to happen)
|By Tony McAnally (Unregistered Guest) on Thursday, March 07, 2013 - 08:56 am: Edit|
Is there a projected date on when the review and
implementation of the policy will take effect? I am assuming the steps needed to secure the concealed weapons permit will be outlined in the policy, would this be correct?
|By William F. "Doc" Sautter (Doc) on Wednesday, February 20, 2013 - 02:07 pm: Edit|
Many thanks to all who have been working to clarify the concealed carry permit issue. It seems there may indeed be some hope for a favorable resolution. I fully support the idea and will lend whatever assistnce I can to the cause.
|By Carl Craig - Forum Moderator (Ccraig) on Friday, February 15, 2013 - 06:52 pm: Edit|
Posted 0n 15 Feb 13 by Denny Powers in a separate thread. Moved here by Forum Moderator
I made inquiry to the PAO at command and received the below. Not sure if this clarifies anything at this point.
We are well aware of the verbiage and changes to the Law Enforcement Officer's Safety Act, Law Enforcement Officer's Safety Act Improvements Act and the National Defense Authorization Act. It is imperative that we ensure our Soldier/ Agents not only understand this law but the regulatory and DoD policy restrictions which currently exist in regards to their ability to carry off-duty or in a non-duty status. It must be made clear that this is US law so it does not apply in Germany, Korea, Japan, etc. We are awaiting the DoD Policy decision prior to making any policy changes internally. We have received the following from both DoDIG and the OUSD Law Enforcement Policy and Support:
The FY13 NDAA signed by the President including language that modified Chapter 44 of title 18 USC; what is often referred to as HR 218 and/or the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA). The specific modification inserted “or apprehension" under section 807(b) of title 10, United States Code (article 7(b) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice) after "arrest" in both section 926B and 926C.
DoDIG has already started the process to change DoDI 5525.12, “Implementation of the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004.” However, DoDIG supplied the following:
1) Policy based on law requires extensive coordination and legal review.
2) The policy process always takes longer than anyone wants and especially if the policy is co-written by two components (5525.12 is a joint OIG/USD instruction)
3) The existing DoD 5525.12 is and will be the current policy until a new one is issued; FY13 NDAA does not change our existing policy/regulation until DoD policy is revised.
4) The new law will be implemented via a DoD Instruction, at which time there will be further review at the HQ, CID.
5) The new policy does not address funding.
The answer to your second portion of the question CIDR 195-1, does not allow for the use of a privately owned weapon during the performance of official duties
CIDR 195-1, 17-5. Authorized and Prohibited Weapons and Ammunition:
a. Privately-owned. The carrying or use of privately owned weapons and ammunition while performing official duties is prohibited.
|By Philip W. Lindley (Phil_lindley) on Monday, February 11, 2013 - 08:10 am: Edit|
Pages 11 & 12 of the DoD Inst 5525.12 (see link, below) show a sample of the ID card that LEOs look for when someone claims to have authority to carry under the LEOSA. USACIDC is tasked under the DoD Inst to issue these IDs to retired and separated SAs. The DoD Inst will have to be updated IAW the new changes to the LEOSA. Once updated the Instruction will control and USACIDC will be required to issue them.
|By Jeff Holder (Unregistered Guest) on Saturday, February 09, 2013 - 08:10 pm: Edit|
Here is a suggestion. Why doesn't someone from this board write a letter to the Attorney General's Office and get an official decision on where we stand.
|By Jearl E. Ballow (Je_buck_ballow) on Thursday, February 07, 2013 - 01:29 pm: Edit|
I applied for a concealed carry permit with the State of Illinois. After much discussion with the authorities and explaining in great detail the organization and function of the CID and discussion of the two words apprehension and arrest, I only had to range qualifiy and they issued me a permit.
|By Philip W. Lindley (Phil_lindley) on Thursday, February 07, 2013 - 08:36 am: Edit|
I too, urge a little caution in relying on retired CID creds until somebody with authority to bind DoD adopt that position.
I left DoD IG in 2009 and have been out of federal circles for awhile. But, there is a DoD Directive that covers this issue. The Directive has been updated since I left. I would expect that with the new change to the law, an update will soon be released...
See: www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/552512p.pdf. I submit per the DoD Dir., Para 18.104.22.168 that the ID include the words "qualified law enforcement officer ....". The DoD Directive also imposes the obligation on CID Command to issue the LEOSA IDs.
I am currently employed as a state LEO and I offer the suggestion that retired CID creds may not get you past a stop by LEO (although they will get you some courtesy), given that they don't say qualified retired, etc. In firearms friendly states, you may get by, in states with strict gun control, I suspect you will not be in compliance with the LEOSA and therefore subject to a hassle.
|By Frank M. Woods (Unregistered Guest) on Tuesday, February 05, 2013 - 10:05 am: Edit|
Thanks Craig. Your post was very informative, and a great amount of information that will be very helpful in this matter. Again, thank you very much.
|By Robert (Unregistered Guest) on Tuesday, February 05, 2013 - 02:03 pm: Edit|
I believe the requiremnt for "issued photographic ID" has been met. Just pry those creds off the wall or piece of paper, obtain your yearly certified qualification letter, and you are good to go! I wouldn't want to test the new law out in NY or IL but then I wouldn't have any reason to be in those States. I have a special TX CCW and all the states I travel in have agreements with TX to honor the CCW. I do not believe I will test this "new authorization" to carry; I will wait for the success stories first!
|By Tom Wilson (Thogwil) on Tuesday, February 05, 2013 - 09:52 pm: Edit|
|By Dennis John West (Djwest) on Tuesday, February 05, 2013 - 08:03 am: Edit|
So, this would mean Command would be required to issue A CID Retired Agent identification card, yet to be developed, upon retirement in addition to their stamped/voided active duty creds. Interesting. Would be also interesting if Command would be willing to host (at the cost of the individual) an annual qualification. What a great time that would be. CIDAA could work this in with a meeting!
|By Carl Craig - Forum Moderator (Ccraig) on Monday, February 04, 2013 - 06:59 pm: Edit|
Lets see if I can paste the whole ball of wax here. It's long but perhaps you can derive all the answers you are looking for about this Bill. NOTE: This is not to be construed as OFFICIAL nor sanctioned by this website. It is INFORMATION ONLY. Log on to the NRA and FOP Websites for further clarity on this subject.
H.R. 218, the “Law Enforcement Officers’ Safety Act” and S. 1132, the “Law Enforcement Officers’ Safety Act Improvements Act” and H.R. 4310, the “National Defense Authorization Act”.
On 22 July 2004, President George W. Bush signed H.R. 218, the “Law Enforcement Officers’ Safety
Act,” into law. The Act, now Public Law 108-277, went into effect immediately.
The bill exempts qualified active and retired law enforcement officers from local and State
prohibitions on the carrying of concealed firearms.
On 12 October 2010, President Barack H. Obama II signed S. 1132, the “Law Enforcement
Officers’ Safety Act Improvements Act,” into law. The Act, now Public Law 111-272, went into
The bill improves the ability of retired officers to comply with the documents required by existing Federal law when carrying a firearm under 18 USC 926C and makes other modifications to existing law.
On 2 January 2013, President Barack H. Obama II signed H.R. 4310, the “National Defense
Authorization Act,” into law. The Act, now Public Law 112-239, went into effect immediately.
The Law Enforcement Officers’ Safety Act (LEOSA) as amended can be cited as 18 USC 926B
(for active duty law enforcement officers) and 18 USC 926C (for retired or separated officers).
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about LEOSA:
Who is eligible to carry concealed firearms under this legislation? Qualified law enforcement officers employed by or retired from a local, State or Federal law enforcement agency.
1. 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.
The law also defines law enforcement officers employed by the Amtrak Police Department and the
Federal Reserve Police Department to be “qualified active law enforcement officers” even though these are not employees of a governmental agency. Further, any “law enforcement or police officer of the executive branch of the Federal Government” is also included in the definition.
The most recent amendment to LEOSA further clarifies that law enforcement officers employed
by the U.S. Department of Defense who may not be deemed as having “statutory powers of arrest,”
but who did have the authority, under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), to apprehend suspects, meet the definition of “qualified law enforcement officer.” (I translate that to include Retired and Former CID Agents) Qualified active law enforcement officers must carry the photographic identification issued by the agency for which they are employed. If you are an active duty law enforcement officer with any local, State or Federal governmental agency and you meet all of the requirements above, you may carry a concealed firearm under the provisions set out in the law. A “qualified retired law enforcement officer” is defined as an individual who: has 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; was authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation,
prosecution or the incarceration of any person for any violation of law; had statutory powers of arrest or apprehension under the Uniform Code of Military Justice; 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. The law also defines law enforcement officers formerly employed by the Amtrak Police
Department and the Federal Reserve Police Department to be “qualified active law enforcement officers” even though these were not employees of a governmental agency. Further, any former “law enforcement or police officer of the executive branch of the Federal Government” is also included in the definition. 3. The most recent amendment to LEOSA further clarifies that former law enforcement officers employed by the U.S. Department of Defense who may not have been deemed as having “statutory powers of arrest,” but who do have the authority, under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), to apprehend suspects, meet the definition of “qualified law enforcement officer.” Qualified retired law enforcement officers must carry the photographic identification issued by the agency for which they were employed and have now separated.
An officer separating from service with his agency who has been officially found by a qualified medical professional employed by the agency, to be unqualified for continued service for reasons related to mental health, and for that reason is not issued the photographic identification described above and in the statute, is not a qualified retired law enforcement officer as described in 18 USC
926C. Similarly, an officer who has entered into an agreement with the agency from which he is
separating which acknowledges that the officer is not qualified under 18 USC 926C for reasons
related to mental health and for these reasons will not receive or accept the photographic
identification described above is not a qualified retired law enforcement officer as described in 18 USC 926C. In addition to carrying the photographic identification issued by the agency for which they were employed or were separated, the qualified retired law enforcement officer must also carry documentation which certifies that they have met, within the most recent twelve month period, the active duty law enforcement standards for qualification for a firearm of the same type as the one they intend to carry. The standard the qualified retired law enforcement officer must meet is that of his former agency,that of the State in which he resides, or in the absence of State standards—or the recognition thereof—the standards of any law enforcement agency in the State in which the qualified retired law enforcement officer and the certified firearms instructor resides. This document which certifies that the qualified retired law enforcement officer has met the standards described above must be issued by the retired officer’s former agency, by the State in
which he lives, or by a certified firearms instructor that is qualified to conduct a firearms qualification test for active duty officers within that State.
Do I need a concealed carry permit from my State or any other documentation to carry lawfully?
No. Qualified active and retired law enforcement officers do not need any additional concealed
carry permits or licenses. Federal law exempts them from local and State prohibitions on the
carriage of concealed firearms. A qualified law enforcement officer needs to carry his photographic identification issued to him by
his agency. A retired law enforcement officer needs to carry his photographic identification issued to him by the agency from which he has separated and a document that certifies that he has met, within the most recent twelve month period, the active duty law enforcement standards for qualification for a firearm of the same type as the one he intends to carry. See above for more information on the standards a qualified retired officer must meet and what entities can issue this certification document.
Can I carry any type of firearm or ammunition under this law? No. The exemption provided under this Federal law applies to the carriage of concealed firearms only. The definition of “firearm” in this statute specifically excludes machine guns, silencers, explosives or other destructive devices as these terms are defined in Federal law. However, the Federal law does extend the exemption to allow the carriage of ammunition “not expressly prohibited by Federal law or subject to the provisions of the National Firearms Act.”This means that qualified active and retired law enforcement officers may carry ammunition in States which may have prohibited the possession of certain ammunition by persons not actively serving in law enforcement within that State.
Am I also exempt from State laws prohibiting the possession or use of “high capacity” magazines?
No. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has ruled that State and local laws and regulations applying to magazines do apply and the exemption provided by LEOSA
applies only to firearms and ammunition.
Is the exemption provided by the law total—can I now carry anywhere at any time? No. The new law exempts all qualified active and retired law enforcement officers from State and local laws with respect to the carrying of concealed firearms. These officers are not exempt from
Federal law or regulation, which governs the carriage of firearms onto aircraft or other “common carriers,” Federal buildings, Federal property, or national parks.
In addition, State (not local) laws which prohibit the carriage of firearms onto State or local government property and State (not local) laws which allow private entities to prohibit firearms on their private property would still apply to qualified active and retired law enforcement officers.
The law says I am exempt from the laws of “any State or any political subdivision thereof.” Does this mean the law is not effective in Washington, D.C., PuertoRico, or other U.S. territories? No. The law applies in these places as well. The term “State” is defined in Chapter 44 of Title 18,which is the portion of the U.S. Code that the Law Enforcement Officers’ Safety Act amends, and the one that applies when interpreting this Act.
Section 921, Chapter 44 of Title 18 reads: “The term ‘State’ includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone).”
My agency has a policy that does not allow me to carry my firearm while I am off-duty. Does this mean that this legislation will not benefit me? If you are a qualified active law enforcement officer, you are legally able to carry a firearm under 18 USC 926B. There may be agencies which enforce or adopt policies, rules, regulations, or employment conditions which discourage or punish officers which choose to carry while off-duty, but such actions do not mean that the officer cannot carry lawfully under the provisions of this statute.
Your agency, however, can prohibit you from carrying your agency-issued weapon, which is the
property of the governmental entity. I work for a civilian law enforcement agency with the U.S. Department of Defense. My superiors, which include active military personnel, have told me that I do not meet the definitions of 18 USC 926B because I do not have statutory arrest authority, despite the fact that my agency can and does make arrests. Am I eligible to carry or not? Yes, you are. Recent amendments to the Federal law clarified that law enforcement personnel who have apprehension authority derived from the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) meet the definitions of qualified active and qualified retired law enforcement officer.
I was injured in the line of duty and was separated from service or forced to retire
as a result of the injury. As a result, I do not have ten (10) years aggregated experience as a law enforcement officer. Am I excluded from carrying under the provisions of this new law?
No. Officers who are injured on the job and retired from active service as a result of that injury are included in the bill, as per Section 926C(b)(3)(B). These retired officers are eligible to carry under the law, provided that they have completed their probationary term of service. Note that these officers must still qualify with the weapon that they intend to carry every twelve months and are not exempt from the documentation requirements described above.
I am a fully-sworn law enforcement officer with statutory law enforcement authority but I work for a railroad, a private university, or other
non-governmental employer. I attended the same police academy, received the same training and meet the same qualifications as my law enforcement colleagues in my State. Am I able to carry under the statute as amended? Unless you are an employee of the Amtrak or Federal Reserve Police Departments, which are entities controlled by the Federal government but are not technically government entities, you must be an employee of a local, State or Federal governmental agency to carry a firearm under the
statute as amended. 6. Does this bill allow me to carry a firearm on an aircraft, train or cruise ship? No. This legislation exempts qualified active and retired law enforcement officers from State and local laws regarding the carrying of concealed firearms. The carriage of firearms on aircraft and other “common carriers” is regulated by other Federal statutes and carrier policy.
I hope ALL of that was clearer than MUD!
Carl Craig - Forum Moderator
|By Carl Craig - Forum Moderator (Ccraig) on Monday, February 04, 2013 - 06:25 pm: Edit|
Posted by Rick Hinson on Monday, February 04, 2013 - 05:47 P.M. Moved here by Moderator
The Law Enforcement Safety Act has been in place for several years, primarily to authorized retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons, if they qualify annually under their agency or by a qualified State firearms instructor. DOD agencies did not qualify under the old law, per a DOD IG ruling,
I think. I recently pulled up the new law and reviewed it. The amendments to the (LESA) now include persons with arrest or apprehension authority under the UCMJ. Here is my opinion on the effects of these admendments:
1. Retired CID Agents qualify under the UCMJ provisions. MPs too! (assuming you had 10 years or more service) The law uses "powers of arrest or apprehension" and specifically cites the UCMJ.
2. Retired CID Agents qualify WITHOUT approval of CID Command. The language says: "during the most recent 12-month period, has met, at the expense of the individual, the standards for qualification in firearms training for active law enforcement officers, as determined by the former agency of the individual, the State in which the individual resides or, if the State has not established such standards, either a law enforcement agency within the State in which the individual resides or the standards used by a certified firearms instructor that is qualified to conduct a firearms qualification test for active duty officers within that State";
I think that makes the requirement optional, so if you meet the state requirements you are good. I would also opine (haven't used that word in few years) that this paragraph does not require CID Command to authorize, approve or sanction anything if you currently possess your retired CID credentials. I would also go so far as to say that you could choose to use the current CID Firearms Qualification Test if administered by a state certified firearms instructor.
3. Our retired credentials also meet the photographic identification requirement IF you also pass a firearms qualification test (annually) given by your States certified firearms instructor.
I checked with my cousin, an esteemed Tennessee attorney. He was pretty sure that he could successfully defend me in any concealed carry arrest. You can find the law easily on the NRA website.
I hear that CID Command is reviewing the requirements of the new law. Suspect we can see some "retired photo IDs" come from them in the future. Not sure they have a choice. It's the law. Hope this helps.
Moved to this thread by Moderator
|By John Brown (John_brown) on Monday, February 04, 2013 - 01:25 pm: Edit|
If you have access to facebook there is a Retired CID Agent group and volumes of stuff about this. Check it out. Plus there is other funny stuff and a bunch of old .
|By RICHARDTHOMPSON1943 (Unregistered Guest) on Saturday, February 02, 2013 - 04:25 pm: Edit|
Denny, I have a Georgia gun permit and the Probate Judge told me that there are regulations pertaining to retired Federal Law Enforcement Agents and if I wanted a new license, I could apply for that special license. This was last year.
|By Denny Powers (Unregistered Guest) on Saturday, February 02, 2013 - 11:05 am: Edit|
I hear rumor this policy might change, anyone have an update. firstname.lastname@example.org