Military Personnel Carrying Guns Off Base

[Angry Dragon]

I have watched numerous First Amendment Audit videos lately and in some of them have military personnel confronting civilians on public streets and sidewalks and was wondering how legal that was??

[Not Ruth]

1. Think that these are their personal guns, so totally legal

It would definitely be a problem if it were government property

[Angry Dragon]

2. These are MPs and SPs ....... they are in uniforms and working

[sarisataka]

3. Need more details

What are these military people doing off base armed and why are they confronting the civilians?

[Angry Dragon]

4. Okay more details

Citizens are going around filming(video) federal buildings and military bases from public areas. Military people are coming off base and telling these people that it is against the law to film. The Supreme Court has ruled that if one can see it from a public space it is okay to film. They are detaining them and asking for identification.

Watched one in California where they detained the person on a roadway/highway


need more??

[sarisataka]

6. I think I have the picture...

There are some installations posted that no photography is permitted. I do not know if they are exceptions to the SCOTUS ruling (at first glance I would think that the filming is legal)

I would assume the military personnel are part of a security detail, maybe MPs maybe not. It would be within their authority to question people filming, even if it means going outside the base property. They would be very limited in what they can actually do beyond that.

Unless there is a sign of an immediate threat, asking for id and why the person is filming is about all they can do. Likewise the person may tell them to get bent and walk away. There would be no authority to detain the fillers without probable cause beyond the act of filming and the detention would only be permitted until civil authorities arrive.

[Major Nikon]

9. If they aren't on federal property they have zero authority as LEOs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

[sarisataka]

10. Correct however

If they approach someone observing an installation and it appears the back seat of the car is loaded with dynamite the immediate threat would supercede posse comitas

[Major Nikon]

11. Hard to imagine how someone with a camera could equate to a car bomb

Assuming that's what really happened, if they start demanding ID from civilians off base, they are exceeding their authority and the line of demarcation is where the federal property begins.

[sarisataka]

12. Perhaps you are misunderstanding

I am not saying the camera is a threat. Something in addition would have to be observed to allow them to act. If there is suspicion without any observable evidence then their hands are tied and all they could do is call civilian PD and report a suspicious person.

Anyone can ask for ID; I could meet you on the street and say I want to see your ID. And they you can tell me to GFY, just as the person with the camera can-or simply say no to be less confrontational.

That applies to police interaction as well. Unless you are required to show ID, such as a traffic stop with probable cause, you can refuse to show ID to a LEO.

[Major Nikon]

13. The context of the OP is military police asking for ID off base

The difference between a military police officer and a civilian police officer asking for ID off federal property is one of those two is breaking the law.

[sarisataka]

14. I disagree

As long as the request is related to the security of the installation. Asking for ID is not detention.

There is also the question of concurrent jurisdiction. If there is such an agreement in place, military authorities may have full LEO powers extending beyond the border of the installation.

[Major Nikon]

15. Posse Comitatus Act isn't limited to detention

It even severely limits what constitutes legal surveillance, and the exceptions to it literally take an act of congress.

[sarisataka]

16. You are correct

That it has strict limitations but also Congress has authorized exceptions.

As far as surveillance, I believe we are talking about a person standing across the street with a camera, not the military using a satellite to observe someone miles away.

[Major Nikon]

17. Sounds like you were suggesting if they weren't detaining someone they weren't violating the law

If so, I disagree. The law severely limits what the military can and can't do and it goes far beyond detention. Violations of the law are a criminal act that can result in federal fines and jail time for offenders including individual members of the military. It's just not the same situation as a civilian LEO which makes comparing the two specious.

[sarisataka]

19. Yes it is a very tricky situation

I had TAD in New Orleans and I did see SP patrolling the Quarter with NOPD.

IIRC a few years ago someone used troops for traffic control at a crime scene off base and were disciplined for violating P-C.

As far as someone taking pictures, were I SoG, I'd say let them film. Nothing seriously sensitive would be kept within sight of the perimeter. The only thing I can think of off hand is some bases may have an armory within view from the outside. Of I saw guys with white power tattoos taking pictures I would consider inquiring.

[haele]

20. I've had SP duty on occasion back in the 1980's. Jurisdiction was always tricky.

We were only allowed to get directly involved if it military personnel were in the situation - like removing drunk sailors or marines from bars in town - but we were supposed to stand back and call/hand over the situation to the local authorities if there were no military involved.
Most times we only had a billy club; but there were times we carried sidearms - especially Friday and Saturday nights.

Haele

[Angry Dragon]

21. thank you for your input

[Angry Dragon]

22. thank you for your input

[left-of-center2012]

5. What was the context?

Were they filming outside military buildings, recruiting stations, base entries, etc?

Googling "First Amendment Audits" they appear to be groups who videotape in areas to intentionally provoke confrontations with law enforcement (military and government)
and when confronted, such as "Why are you taping the entrance to the police station, etc"
First Amendment Audit becomes very verbally aggressive and confrontational, taping the confrontation and posting it to Youtube.

So the citizens confronted by armed military may have been filming near a military installation,
and may have become angry, aggressive, confrontational when asked why they were doing it.

Even 'free speech' has it's limitations.

[Angry Dragon]

7. yes to your first sentence

I have watched numerous videos by many different groups
as you say some are confrontational some are not
it is not against the law to film near a military installation
I was asking about military leaving base with weapons

[left-of-center2012]

8. Yes, they can and will

If you are taping the entrance to a military base,
they will come out and confront you,
and they will bring their weapons.

And yes, it is legal.

Bye

[Solly Mack]

18. Military police have a legal right to police a certain distance outside the gate.

It's basically a domestic SOFA agreement wherein the state/city and the military agree to a policing area that includes a certain amount of civilian area.

Military police can also travel from gate to gate outside the military lands. Not policing - but as travel from gate to gate.

Civilian police have a right to get within a certain distance to the gate and in many cases, can traverse - but only traverse - within the military post/base - to travel through and for pick-up of civilians for arrest...usually at a designated civilian liaison site, which is often close to the main gate and sometimes, depending on the circumstance, straight from the PMO.

[Jim Beard]

23. Was it the National Guard that patrols flood areas and keep control of

people in dangerous situations.

[Angry Dragon]

26. NO...........MPs at front gates and National Guard coming onto public property

to harass carrying guns

[linuxman]

24. Not sure what this is about. Link?

[Angry Dragon]

27. here is an example

not the best example this guy is pretty straight forward

[linuxman]

28. They are allowed a small distance off base in line with their duties.

I'm not sure of the specifics, but yeah, a gate guard can totally leave the confines of the actual "base" with a firearm in conjunction with their duties.

[Angry Dragon]

29. okay

[malaise]

25. Wondered the same as I saw this in Key West

Rec