• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

USCG on the Ferry

Mainsail

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
1,533
Location
Silverdale, Washington, USA
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?
 

Zohan

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2012
Messages
34
Location
US Navy
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:

Jeff. State

Banned
Joined
Aug 29, 2012
Messages
650
Location
usa
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.
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
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.

animal_farm-some-animals-are-more-equal-than-others.jpg
 
Last edited:

Zohan

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2012
Messages
34
Location
US Navy
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/text/14/2?qt-us_code_tabs=0#qt-us_code_tabs
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/14/89?qt-us_code_tabs=0#qt-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
 

Trigger Dr

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
2,760
Location
Wa, ,
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:

Grim_Night

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2012
Messages
776
Location
Pierce County, Washington
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??
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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/text/14/2?qt-us_code_tabs=0#qt-us_code_tabs
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/14/89?qt-us_code_tabs=0#qt-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.
 

Trigger Dr

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
2,760
Location
Wa, ,
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:banghead:

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:

Geerolla

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
114
Location
WA, USA
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
 

Difdi

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
987
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
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...
 

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
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.
 

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,428
Location
northern wis
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.
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
But the LESOA set forth [strike]the requirements to carry.[/strike]
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.
 

Dain Bramage

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2010
Messages
83
Location
Arlington, WA
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.
 

Dain Bramage

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2010
Messages
83
Location
Arlington, WA
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.
 
Top