Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 176

Thread: USCG on the Ferry

  1. #1
    Regular Member Mainsail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Silverdale, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,532

    USCG on the Ferry

    I've noticed a pair of USCG guys walking the car decks on the ferry between Bainbridge and Seattle. I imagine they're on the other runs as well. I don't think they're armed- I see a lot of gear on their belts and some drop-leg pouches, but I can't say I've seen a handgun. This could be just a bad angle though.

    Anyway, I wonder how they'll act if they see us openly carrying, and more importantly, what is their authority?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    US Navy
    Posts
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by Mainsail View Post
    Anyway, I wonder how they'll act if they see us openly carrying, and more importantly, what is their authority?

    Per US Code title 14, Coast Guard members grade E-5 and up are considered federal law enforcement agents (lower ranks may be considered as well depending on training and/or duties assigned). This is one of the big differences between the role of the Coast Guard and the role of the Navy...where the Navy, except in very specific circumstances is barred from acting as law enforcement on US soil and US territorial seas due to DOD regulations, and Title 10 law relating to the Posse Cometatus Act and administrative precedent.

    -Z
    Last edited by Zohan; 05-09-2014 at 11:53 PM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member massivedesign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Olympia, Washington, USA
    Posts
    866
    They were NOT on the 5:30 Kitsap, Bremerton to Seattle yesterday.
    www.WaGuns.org

    Currently mapping locations of Shooting Areas as well as Gun Stores - Let me know what is missing!

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran MSG Laigaie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Philipsburg, Montana
    Posts
    3,138
    What uniform were they wearing? Was this a dress, semi dress or combat (camo) uniform?
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference .When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." -- George Washington

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    691
    Quote Originally Posted by Zohan View Post
    Per US Code title 14, Coast Guard members grade E-5 and up are considered federal law enforcement agents (lower ranks may be considered as well depending on training and/or duties assigned). This is one of the big differences between the role of the Coast Guard and the role of the Navy...where the Navy, except in very specific circumstances is barred from acting as law enforcement on US soil and US territorial seas due to DOD regulations, and Title 10 law relating to the Posse Cometatus Act and administrative precedent.

    -Z
    Can you please site the exact code regarding E-5 and above being officially considered LEOs?

    I have a family member STUCK in Kalifornia with USCG, and this could get them "legal" carrying rights through LEOSA.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff. State View Post
    Can you please site the exact code regarding E-5 and above being officially considered LEOs?

    I have a family member STUCK in Kalifornia with USCG, and this could get them "legal" carrying rights through LEOSA.
    Ahhhh 'equality' for all, but some pigs are more equal than others.

    Last edited by Dave_pro2a; 05-10-2014 at 12:34 PM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    US Navy
    Posts
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff. State View Post
    Can you please site the exact code regarding E-5 and above being officially considered LEOs?

    I have a family member STUCK in Kalifornia with USCG, and this could get them "legal" carrying rights through LEOSA.
    US Code Title 14, Part 1, Chapter 1, § 2, and US Code Tile 14, Part 1, Chapter 5, § 89 "Law Enforcement"

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/te...t-us_code_tabs
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/te...t-us_code_tabs

    These two sections outline the Coast Guards authority as law enforcement.

    The wording includes "Petty Officers" which normally would include E-4s but it is my understanding that the Coast Guard administratively regulates this authority to enlisted members starting at the rank of E-5. I may be wrong about this and they may include E-4s as well, if so my original post should then read "Petty Officers and up", instead of "E-5 and up".


    The area of authority of Coast Guard members as law enforcement personnel is limited to certain defined areas per US Code Title 14, Part 1, Chapter 5, § 99, and US Code Title 46, Subtitle VII, Chapter 701, Subchapter I, § 70101.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/14/99
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/46/70101

    Unfortunately I do not think his status as a member of the Coast Guard nor the CGs law enforcement role will allow your relative to carry in California (or anywhere else for that matter) unless he is carrying specifically in the line of assigned duties.

    -Z

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wa, ,
    Posts
    2,769
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff. State View Post
    Can you please site the exact code regarding E-5 and above being officially considered LEOs?

    I have a family member STUCK in Kalifornia with USCG, and this could get them "legal" carrying rights through LEOSA.
    18U.S.C.section926B(a) is the LEOSA.
    A petty Officer in the Coast Guard has the general authority of the power to arrest and the authority to carry a firearm are also provided within 14 U.S.C. 89(a).

    Although the following cases are not in Washington State, they do relate to Washington as cites.

    Under New York law,there is a presumption that possession of a weapon is evidence of intent to use the weapon unlawfully against another. N.Y. Penal Law §265.15 (4). However,this presumption is questionable in light of plaintiff's arguable entitlement to carry a concealed weapon under federal law. See People v Booth, 20 misc. 3d 549 552 53, 862 N.Y.S.2d 767,770 (N.Y. Co. Ct. 2008) (member of Coast Guard covered by section 926B held to be exempt from prosecution for Criminal Possession of a weapon in the Second Degree.)
    See LaFontaine v City of New York (2009) 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105838, RFJN Exhibit 8; UMF No. 12; ExhibitA, Mack Depo.,pp 26, 54-55; Exhibit B, Diaz Depo. ¶¶2-9, Internal Exhibit 16 [Plaintiff's Coast Guard identification card]. As such, at least one court has found that LEOSA does permit members of the Coast Guard to carry concealed firearms as a matter of law.
    The city of San Fernando Police Department settled with a member of the U.S. Coast Guard, Jose Diaz, in the amount of $44,000.00 after they ignored his right to carry under LEOSA.
    See case of Jose Diaz vs City of San Fernando.
    Last edited by Trigger Dr; 05-10-2014 at 05:33 PM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Grim_Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington
    Posts
    792
    Quote Originally Posted by Trigger Dr View Post
    Under New York law, there is a presumption that possession of a weapon is evidence of intent to use the weapon unlawfully against another. N.Y. Penal Law §265.15
    complete Male Bovine Fecal Matter! They automatically presume that somebody in possession of a firearm is intent on using said firearm in an unlawful manner against another person?? who the hell thinks up this cr@p??
    Armed and annoyingly well informed!

    There are two constants when dealing with liberals:
    1) Liberals never quit until they are satisfied.
    2) Liberals are never satisfied.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Zohan View Post
    US Code Title 14, Part 1, Chapter 1, § 2, and US Code Tile 14, Part 1, Chapter 5, § 89 "Law Enforcement"

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/te...t-us_code_tabs
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/te...t-us_code_tabs

    These two sections outline the Coast Guards authority as law enforcement.

    The wording includes "Petty Officers" which normally would include E-4s but it is my understanding that the Coast Guard administratively regulates this authority to enlisted members starting at the rank of E-5. I may be wrong about this and they may include E-4s as well, if so my original post should then read "Petty Officers and up", instead of "E-5 and up".


    The area of authority of Coast Guard members as law enforcement personnel is limited to certain defined areas per US Code Title 14, Part 1, Chapter 5, § 99, and US Code Title 46, Subtitle VII, Chapter 701, Subchapter I, § 70101.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/14/99
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/46/70101

    Unfortunately I do not think his status as a member of the Coast Guard nor the CGs law enforcement role will allow your relative to carry in California (or anywhere else for that matter) unless he is carrying specifically in the line of assigned duties.

    -Z
    Seems as if they are limited to being "federal" LEO ... and have no right to enforce state/local laws.

    I would recommend confronting them and inquiring as to what they are doing. They may just be thieves looking for an open door to snatch something. Yes, folks in uniform include thieves.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wa, ,
    Posts
    2,769
    Quote Originally Posted by Grim_Night View Post
    complete Male Bovine Fecal Matter! They automatically presume that somebody in possession of a firearm is intent on using said firearm in an unlawful manner against another person?? who the hell thinks up this cr@p??
    Agreed, but this was NY

    Seems as if they are limited to being "federal" LEO ... and have no right to enforce state/local laws.

    True but they can carry under LEOSA.
    Last edited by Trigger Dr; 05-10-2014 at 08:44 PM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Geerolla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    WA, USA
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by Grim_Night View Post
    complete Male Bovine Fecal Matter! They automatically presume that somebody in possession of a firearm is intent on using said firearm in an unlawful manner against another person?? who the hell thinks up this cr@p??
    Liberal, statist logic at its best.


    Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0

  13. #13
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by Trigger Dr View Post
    Under New York law,there is a presumption that possession of a weapon is evidence of intent to use the weapon unlawfully against another.
    I assume there is a law enforcement exemption to that presumption? I know the NYPD kinda scares people, but it would be hilarious if they're actually defined that way by law...

  14. #14
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Quote Originally Posted by Difdi View Post
    I assume there is a law enforcement exemption to that presumption? I know the NYPD kinda scares people, but it would be hilarious if they're actually defined that way by law...
    One could make an argument based upon shot selection and placement that the carry of firearms by the NYPD was a danger to others.
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    3,202
    If they meet the requirements of LESOA then they can carry under that.

    There could be some agency or departmental regulations that tell them they can't.

    But the LESOA set forth the requirements to carry.

    Even if your department policy prohibits it one could still be legal under the LESOA.
    Personal Defensive Solutions professional personal firearms, edge weapons and hands on defensive training and tactics pdsolutions@hotmail.com

    Any and all spelling errors are just to give the spelling Nazis something to do

  16. #16
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Firearms Iinstuctor View Post
    But the LESOA set forth the requirements to carry.
    An undeniable 2 tiered system of Rights.

    So, I hope your Coastie friend can't carry due to LESOA. A law which a lot of idiotic pro-gun people argued would usher in national CCW for everyone. Dupes.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    LEOSA

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  18. #18
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    LEOSA

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    I was going for "Law Enforcement, Sons of Anarchy."
    Last edited by Dave_pro2a; 05-13-2014 at 12:05 PM.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Arlington, WA
    Posts
    81
    More interesting to me than the LEO question is something I had never thought of before. Does the USCG have broad search powers over your car when it is on the water in a ferry? We have almost no 4th Amendment rights in small boats. USCG can search at will. However, I always considered ferries an extension of the highway system.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Arlington, WA
    Posts
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by Dain Bramage View Post
    More interesting to me than the LEO question is something I had never thought of before. Does the USCG have broad search powers over your car when it is on the water in a ferry? We have almost no 4th Amendment rights in small boats. USCG can search at will. However, I always considered ferries an extension of the highway system.
    Reading the WA Ferry website, it looks like WSP is delegated car searches. Hits by explosives-sniffing dogs will result in a search, or refusal to enter the ferry. Don't know if WSP would just let you drive away if one of their dogs detected explosives in your vehicle and you refused consent.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Dain Bramage View Post
    Reading the WA Ferry website, it looks like WSP is delegated car searches. Hits by explosives-sniffing dogs will result in a search, or refusal to enter the ferry. Don't know if WSP would just let you drive away if one of their dogs detected explosives in your vehicle and you refused consent.
    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/0...ines-searches/
    A study of “false positives” involving drug-sniffing police dogs suggests some police forces may be using canines to do an end-run around constitutional protections against search and seizure, and may be profiling racial minorities in the process...

    56 percent of all police searches triggered by a drug-sniffing dog turned nothing up...

    perhaps tellingly, that number jumped to 73 percent when the search involved a Latino subject...

    dog-training experts say the problem stems at least in part from an almost complete lack of standards for police dogs in the US...

    an Auburn University professor who studies police dogs [explains that] handlers can trigger a false positive from a dog by walking it around a car too many times, or too slowly, giving the dog a cue that a certain behavior is expected.
    LEO = no training standards
    LEO = conducting illegal searches
    LEO = institutional racism

    Sad and pathetic, but not surprising or shocking.
    Last edited by Dave_pro2a; 05-13-2014 at 01:09 PM.

  22. #22
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by Mainsail View Post
    I've noticed a pair of USCG guys walking the car decks on the ferry between Bainbridge and Seattle. I imagine they're on the other runs as well. I don't think they're armed- I see a lot of gear on their belts and some drop-leg pouches, but I can't say I've seen a handgun. This could be just a bad angle though.

    Anyway, I wonder how they'll act if they see us openly carrying, and more importantly, what is their authority?
    I saw USCG guys armed on the ferry a few years ago. Not recently.

    Why would they need authority? Open carry is legal in Washington.....
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  23. #23
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by Dain Bramage View Post
    Reading the WA Ferry website, it looks like WSP is delegated car searches. Hits by explosives-sniffing dogs will result in a search, or refusal to enter the ferry. Don't know if WSP would just let you drive away if one of their dogs detected explosives in your vehicle and you refused consent.
    They should, because their search authority on the ferries is exclusively for the safety of the vessel and not criminal. There's all kinds of legal things that an explosives dog will hit on. Fireworks come to mind.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  24. #24
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    I saw USCG guys armed on the ferry a few years ago. Not recently.

    Why would they need authority? Open carry is legal in Washington.....
    Seriously?

  25. #25
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave_pro2a View Post
    Seriously?
    Yes seriously. There is no authority required to carry a handgun openly in Washington. So the only authority the coast guard members would need is from their military authority for the issue of government property. What legal authority can possibly be required if open carry is legal under the laws of Washington? They may need legal authority in New York, but not in Washington. In a legal sense open carry is not illegal under fed law, legal under WA law, and they probably have permission to be armed from their CO. So why would they need authority? Authority is to exempt you from laws, but an exemption isn't needed.
    Last edited by EMNofSeattle; 05-13-2014 at 01:43 PM.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •