Blog - DoD Supercops 
DoD Supercops
June 29, 2009 - by Donny ShawWe’re seeing a little surge of interest on OpenCongress in a relatively unnoticed piece of pending legislation, H.R. 675. It doesn’t have a short/informal title, but the official summary explains it’s a bill “To amend title 10, United States Code, to provide police officers, criminal investigators, and game law enforcement officers of the Department of Defense with authority to execute warrants, make arrests, and carry firearms.”
All the recent interest in the bill seems to be coming from this post on Infowars:
H.R. 675: Building Obama’s Civilian National Security Force
In January, without any recognizable corporate media coverage, Rep. Bob Filner, a California Democrat, introduced H.R. 675. The bill would amend title 10 of the United States Code and extend to civilian employees of the Department of Defense the authority to execute warrants, make arrests, and carry firearms. The bill was referred to the Armed Services Committee on January 26, 2009.
Filner’s bill would amend the United States code with the following: “Sec. 1585b. Law enforcement officers of the Department of Defense: authority to execute warrants, make arrests, and carry firearms… for any offense against the United States.” (Emphasis added.)
The Posse Comitatus Act, passed on June 18, 1878 after the end of Reconstruction, limits the powers of the federal government to use the military for law enforcement. The Act prohibits members of the federal uniformed services from exercising nominally state law enforcement, police, or peace officer powers that maintain “law and order” on non-federal property within the United States.
H.R. 675 sidesteps Posse Comitatus by defining “law enforcement officer of the Department of Defense” as “a civilian employee of the Department of Defense,” including federal police officers, detectives, criminal investigators, special agents, and game law enforcement officers classified by the Office of Personnel Management Occupational Series 0083 (the United States Office of Personnel Management is described as an “independent agency” of the U.S. government that manages the civil service of the federal government).
The bill hasn’t attracted a single co-sponsor and it hasn’t seen any action in the legislative process.
Subscribe to Blog Updates
Want to get each blog update sent to you by email?
Send Us a Tip
-
Proposed Bill HR-2674 Prote...
Submitted by Mary on Jun 16
-
Amendment No. 601 to the Om...
Submitted by Winifred on Mar 3
-
I noticed the Rep. John Con...
Submitted by Pamela Kemp on Jan 14
You can submit a tip anonymously, or attributed to your own name and e-mail, whichever you prefer. Read more about submitting a tip.
Recent Posts
- Senate Bill Requires Members of Congress to Buy Insurance Through the Exchange, November 19, 2009
- Read the Senate Health Care Bill , November 19, 2009
- Senate Health Care Bill Released!, November 18, 2009
- Nelson Seems Willing to Let a Health Care Debate Happen, November 18, 2009
- Omnibus Budget Bill Looking More Likely, November 18, 2009
Archives
See All ArchivesBlogroll
- The Baseline Scenario
- Capital Eye
- Capitol Briefing
- The Caucus
- CBO Director's Blog
- Congress Matters
- The Corner
- Crooks and Liars
- FiveThirtyEight
- Glenn Greenwald
- Hot Air
- Huffington Post
- Instapundit
- Ezra Klein
- Little Sis
- Megan McArdle
- The Moderate Voice
- My DD
- The Next Right
- OMB Watch
- Open House Project
- Open Left
- The Page
- Party Time
- Plum Line
- Political Animal
- Political Wire
- ProPublica
- Real Clear Politics
- Real Time Investigations
- RedState
- Senatus
- Andrew Sullivan
- Sunlight Foundation Blog
- Talking Points Memo
- Glenn Thrush
- The Treatment
- The Washington Independent
- The Weekly Standard
- Wonk Room
- Matthew Yglesias
Sort By
Comments ?
What's this?
OpenCongress comment boards are an open forum for discussion. Let's build public knowledge about Congress together, so please keep the discussion civil -- no harsh language, subject to our community Comment Policy. Do not post any information here (for example, your name or email) that you do not wish to be public.
Filter Comments to a Rating of at least
What's this?
The Ratings Filter allows you to determine how many user comments to view on pages here on OpenCongress. Setting the filter higher (towards 10) allows you to see only the comments rated "most helpful" by users, while setting the filter lower (towards 0) allows you to see more comments on a page.
There are hundreds of off-duty DoD police officers travel to-and-from work 24/7 all over our great nation. But their hands are tied when a tragic incident occurs in front of them for lack of police authority outside military bases or jurisdiction. I hope you're not the one who'll need help someday and all DoD police officer can do is be a good witness. Support H.R. 675 if you want DoD police officers do what they are trained to do to help you and not be your witness.
One of the main reasons we (DoD) want H.R. 675 to pass is that we are not authorized to carry firearms off-duty. We do the same as local cops and they can protect themselves from the people they arrest by able to carry their firearms off-duty. DoD turned in their firearms at the end of the day. And not authorize to carry personal firearm. We've been threatened to die by the people we arrest just like local cops.
Moderated Comment
Since, we have an abundance of law enforcement on every level. the only other reason to implement something like this is if Obama is trying to be sure he can avert a takeover of his administration. Isn't that why he and his cohorts are trying to have legislation changed so there are no limitations on how long he can stay in office?
It seems like all the lawsuits against him and his eligibility hasn't done any good because everyone that would have to serve him papers works for him. Can he be impeached? Doesn't that take someone in Congress?
The worst thing about HR 675 is the language near the bottom (pay attention to the phrase 'unlawful assemblies':
`(b) Persons To Have Authority- Subsection (a) applies to any law enforcement officer of the Department of Defense whose duties include--
`(1) enforcing laws enacted for the protection of persons and property;
`(2) preventing breaches of the peace and suppressing affrays or unlawful assemblies;'.
It's fairly obvious why no co-sponsors. Everyone understands that we already have plenty of qualified people to make arrests and execute warrants. There is absolutely no reason to add more people that would need to be watched very closely as we already have enough of those. If you DoD folks need to make arrests, talk to the state and local officials and get your arrests made.
+1,000,000
Why no co-sponsors? it needs to be passed. we as DOD law enforcement, need the protection that this bill offers. it only clarifies our position as law enforcement officers. I am no supporter of Obama and this bill has nothing to do with his police force.