PDA

View Full Version : CCW in CA by an Out of State (NV) LE


sltgunner
05-09-2009, 8:17 PM
Howdy all,

I am considering applying to a Nevada law enforcement agency that is within easy driving distance from me. I am not a CA LEO.

As I understand, all CA LEO are allowed to CCW in CA. However, if I were to become a sworn officer in Nevada, would I be able to CCW in CA, which is where I would live.

Thanks in advance.

sltgunner

dro57
05-09-2009, 8:29 PM
Google HR218. It was a federal bill that passed which allowed LEO's to CCW in all states.

sltgunner
05-09-2009, 8:37 PM
Thanks, I've heard of HR218. I just wanted to confirm that crazy CA laws didn't interfere with that.

sltgunner

5thstreet@sbcglobal.net
05-09-2009, 8:42 PM
if its a federal law CA cant do anything about it (correct me if im wrong). Just like if CA made marijuana legal it is still illegal because there is a federal law against it

CSDGuy
05-09-2009, 8:47 PM
If you're a "Qualified" LEO according to the criteria in the LEOSA, there's not much that California can do about it, in the end. The AG has a memo out that should guide the 58 DA's...

code33
05-09-2009, 9:56 PM
http://www.ag.ca.gov/firearms/leosanew.php

BigDogatPlay
05-10-2009, 9:12 AM
So long as you are a qualified LEO, and department policy doesn't forbid it, then LEOSA = good to go.

Unit74
05-10-2009, 11:16 AM
So long as you are a qualified LEO, and department policy doesn't forbid it, then LEOSA = good to go.


Sworn LE from any jurisdiction and authorized to carry OD by the Chief/Sheriff; LEOSA trumps any state laws in regards to carry.

AJAX22
05-10-2009, 11:22 AM
Is there an easy way to become a reserve deputy or other form of sworn LEO in a state in which you do not reside?

I would love to get LEO credentials which would allow me to CCW here in NYC

yzernie
05-10-2009, 11:23 AM
Just don't get stopped by the CHP in Los Angeles. They recently arrested, booked and siezed the firearm of an Arizona LEO for concealed carry. Stupidity at its best.

BigDogatPlay
05-10-2009, 11:25 AM
Sworn LE from any jurisdiction and authorized to carry OD by the Chief/Sheriff; LEOSA trumps any state laws in regards to carry.

But does not trump department policy, which I think you are agreeing with?

bluestaterebel
05-10-2009, 11:57 AM
Just don't get stopped by the CHP in Los Angeles. They recently arrested, booked and siezed the firearm of an Arizona LEO for concealed carry. Stupidity at its best.

there has gotta be more to that story

CaliTheKid
05-10-2009, 12:07 PM
there has gotta be more to that story

X2.

yzernie
05-10-2009, 12:34 PM
there has gotta be more to that story
I would like to think so too. The version I was told came from the CaDoJ agent that came and did my audit last week. He told me it all resulted from a traffic stop where the driver (LEO) told the CHP officer he had a loaded gun in his glovebox. He said once the higher ups at the CHP found out about it a couple days later they apologized, gave the guy his gun back and never sent the case to the DA. The info came to him via the Atty General's office.

He also told me the buffoons in Sacto (Atty General, et al) have decided that Cali will not honor HR218. He was surprised by that decision because it is a part of the HSA.

Unit74
05-10-2009, 2:34 PM
But does not trump department policy, which I think you are agreeing with?

I would agree with that....

If the boss won't let you carry OD, then your SOL. But if they do let you carry, I don't think an in-State only policy would fly if challenged.

You can either carry or not. A wishy washy policy like that would conflict with LEOSA and subject the department to civil action if one was to challenge it Federally. In that case, I would say LEOSA trumps Dept Policy.

I'll tell you this though... If my Chief said not to carry out of state, I wouldn't want to be the one to create new case law on the matter if he found out I did carry.

CSDGuy
05-10-2009, 2:34 PM
Sworn LE from any jurisdiction and authorized to carry OD by the Chief/Sheriff; LEOSA trumps any state laws in regards to carry.
Yep.
But does not trump department policy, which I think you are agreeing with?
Actually, according to the AG's office, it actually might. Apparently, there is case law that states that when policy has the effect of law upon those required to abide by that policy, the phrase "Notwithstanding any provision of the law..." will also override policy. It's not directly on point about firearms, but (IIRC) it deals with language that overrides state/local law and department policy.
Just don't get stopped by the CHP in Los Angeles. They recently arrested, booked and siezed the firearm of an Arizona LEO for concealed carry. Stupidity at its best.
Sets up something right below...

I would like to think so too. The version I was told came from the CaDoJ agent that came and did my audit last week. He told me it all resulted from a traffic stop where the driver (LEO) told the CHP officer he had a loaded gun in his glovebox. He said once the higher ups at the CHP found out about it a couple days later they apologized, gave the guy his gun back and never sent the case to the DA. The info came to him via the Atty General's office.

He also told me the buffoons in Sacto (Atty General, et al) have decided that Cali will not honor HR218. He was surprised by that decision because it is a part of the HSA.
Unless the AG's office pulls the memo, and posts something to the effect that they're not going to honor the LEOSA here: Bureau of Firearms:LEOSA (http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/leosanew.php) for all to see, I'm going to have to call :bofud:

Unit74
05-10-2009, 2:38 PM
He also told me the buffoons in Sacto (Atty General, et al) have decided that Cali will not honor HR218. He was surprised by that decision because it is a part of the HSA.

They don't have a choice.:rant:

If a case was filed, such as occurred in South Dakota on the 4 officers at Sturgis, with explicit refusal to honor LEOSA and with knowledge of it, the arresting/prosecuting agency might as well write the check now and wait to fill in the dollar amount when the suit is settled out of court.

FLIGHT762
05-10-2009, 3:46 PM
I just retired after 28 years. My Chief gave me CCW privileges on my I.D. card for California.
He refuses to allow me to qualify to get the HR 218 endorsement to carry in other states. He asked me "why would you want to carry in another State?"

We had Had HR 218 covered in our new rules and regs, but, he went in and lined them out.

Per HR 218, retired Officers have to qualify once a year to get the national endorsement. Most Chiefs in our area are on board per HR 218. Mine said he was concerned about "liability issues". What a joke.

yzernie
05-10-2009, 5:18 PM
Unless the AG's office pulls the memo, and posts something to the effect that they're not going to honor the LEOSA here: Bureau of Firearms:LEOSA (http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/leosanew.php) for all to see, I'm going to have to call :bofud:
You are preaching to the choir CSDGuy and I'm just relaying what he told me. I asked him how Cali could over-ride the Federal HSA and he said he didn't know but that is how they want it here in Cali. Kind of hard to take the guy to task on that while he is here to conduct an audit of all of my DROS paperwork and checking inventory against my A&D book!!

Bobshouse
05-10-2009, 6:16 PM
I just retired after 28 years. My Chief gave me CCW privileges on my I.D. card for California.
He refuses to allow me to qualify to get the HR 218 endorsement to carry in other states. He asked me "why would you want to carry in another State?"

We had Had HR 218 covered in our new rules and regs, but, he went in and lined them out.

Per HR 218, retired Officers have to qualify once a year to get the national endorsement. Most Chiefs in our area are on board per HR 218. Mine said he was concerned about "liability issues". What a joke.


You don't have to qualify under your old department to carry under LEOSA. I retired Bureau of Prisons and they refuse to qualify retirees...so I contacted a "State Certified" instructor to come down and qualify all the BOP retirees in the area.

There are no "endorsements". You have an ID card that states you were "law enforcement" and the total number of years served..(has to be over 15 to qualify)

Read HR 218 for the specifics. As long as you have the ID with the required information, a card saying you qualified (anually), 15 years of service and no pending disciplinary/adverse actions against you, your good to go.

masameet
05-10-2009, 6:46 PM
They don't have a choice.:rant:

If a case was filed, such as occurred in South Dakota on the 4 officers at Sturgis, with explicit refusal to honor LEOSA and with knowledge of it, the arresting/prosecuting agency might as well write the check now and wait to fill in the dollar amount when the suit is settled out of court.

Seems to me that the Sturgis incident set a big precedent for cops.
KNBN-TV
updated 9:21 p.m. ET, Tues., Nov. 18, 2008
Sturgis - A judge has ordered the concealed weapons charges be dropped against four off-duty Washington police officers who were charged in a shooting at the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally. The judge says the officers are exempt from prosecution under South Dakota state law because of the federal law enforcement officers safety act. However, a concealed weapons charge against a fellow biker, who is a fireman, can proceed. All five men are members of the Iron Pigs Motorcycle Club. They were arrested at the Loud American Roadhouse after a fight with Hellís Angels. A Hellís Angel was shot in the scuffle. Copyright 2008 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.

The Sturgis incident notwithstanding, HR 218 still is the law of the land for traveling cops, current and retired, on- and off-duty.

And I seem to recall that President Obama is not popular among Calgunners. lol Still I believe he has signed several pieces of legislation that have been favorable to cops. Maybe his AG could be urged to beef up HR 218. Esp. since the Fed DOJ's Guidance as to 70 Fed. Reg. 10673 (http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:W1gekqlOfEwJ:edocket.access.gpo.gov/2005/pdf/05-4282.pdf) says HR 218 does not supersede laws regarding private entities/businesses prohibiting CCW firearms or cover LEOs who are under the influence.

FLIGHT762
05-10-2009, 7:23 PM
You don't have to qualify under your old department to carry under LEOSA. I retired Bureau of Prisons and they refuse to qualify retirees...so I contacted a "State Certified" instructor to come down and qualify all the BOP retirees in the area.

There are no "endorsements". You have an ID card that states you were "law enforcement" and the total number of years served..(has to be over 15 to qualify)

Read HR 218 for the specifics. As long as you have the ID with the required information, a card saying you qualified (anually), 15 years of service and no pending disciplinary/adverse actions against you, your good to go.

My I.D. card has none of the information as to years of service and having qualified. I will likely have to find a "State Certified" instructor. Thanks for the information. I was a certified Rangemaster at my department for 26 years. I don't know why some Chiefs make this so difficult.

CSDGuy
05-10-2009, 7:45 PM
My I.D. card has none of the information as to years of service and having qualified. I will likely have to find a "State Certified" instructor. Thanks for the information. I was a certified Rangemaster at my department for 26 years. I don't know why some Chiefs make this so difficult.
All you need to prove is that you're a Qualified Retired LEO. Where would you have to look to verify your years of service independently of your former agency??? Are you drawing retirement??? Theoretically, as long as you meet ALL those criteria, you don't even need the endorsement... but that endorsement does remove certain constraints that someone carrying under just the LEOSA would have. In other words, if you're a QRLEO, your Chief really doesn't have a whole lot of authority in the matter. There was an amendment that would have allowed Chief LEOs to opt their agency out... and that amedment was soundly defeated. The LEOSA is what it is...

And the fact that there's not a whole lot of case law only means that people just do NOT want to become a test case.

It's possible for your Chief LEO to revoke your California CCW privileges and you could still carry under the LEOSA...

Because you'd carry under this portion:
‘‘(2)(A) a photographic identification issued by the agency
from which the individual retired from service as a law enforce-
ment officer; and
‘‘(B) a certification issued by the State in which the indi-
vidual resides that indicates that the individual has, not less
recently than one year before the date the individual is carrying
the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the
State to meet the standards established by the State for
training and qualification for active law enforcement officers
to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm.

FLIGHT762
05-10-2009, 8:34 PM
More than one way to skin the cat. I believe in our rules and regs, a retiree can qualify every year. I'll go shoot and get a note from the head Rangemaster that I shot and qualified. I just would feel more comfortable having something, even a note on the back of a business card when I carry in another State.

I do get your point.

Thanks

CaliTheKid
05-10-2009, 9:10 PM
So much boils down to the individual officer you are dealing with. The Chippy that beefed that Az cop is a punk for doing that. I'd never beef another cop over that (or an armed citizen with the right creds for that matter).

7222 Hawker
05-10-2009, 11:55 PM
Howdy all,

I am considering applying to a Nevada law enforcement agency that is within easy driving distance from me. I am not a CA LEO.

As I understand, all CA LEO are allowed to CCW in CA. However, if I were to become a sworn officer in Nevada, would I be able to CCW in CA, which is where I would live.

Thanks in advance.

sltgunner

My Department advised that one is all. If you are a sworn LEO in any state of the union, then welcome brother to carry in CA - as well it should be.

7222 Hawker
05-10-2009, 11:59 PM
Just don't get stopped by the CHP in Los Angeles. They recently arrested, booked and siezed the firearm of an Arizona LEO for concealed carry. Stupidity at its best.

Must have been a brand new guy looking to make a name for himself. Nobody I know would have done the same.

Jared1981
05-12-2009, 5:55 AM
I just retired after 28 years. My Chief gave me CCW privileges on my I.D. card for California.
He refuses to allow me to qualify to get the HR 218 endorsement to carry in other states. He asked me "why would you want to carry in another State?"

We had Had HR 218 covered in our new rules and regs, but, he went in and lined them out.

Per HR 218, retired Officers have to qualify once a year to get the national endorsement. Most Chiefs in our area are on board per HR 218. Mine said he was concerned about "liability issues". What a joke.

Here is what I recommend for you. Where you live, having a state carry license is much better than LEOSA; why? because you can carry almost anywhere in CA with a carry license. Same with Oregon and Nevada. WHat I would do if I were you is the following.

1. Carry in CA on your retirement CCW authorization. It's MUCH better than carrying under LEOSA.

2. Take a couple of days and drive up to a friendly county in Oregon and get a CHL.

3. Get a Utah permit... now you are covered in Nevada, and Washington.

4. When you travel to a state that one of your permits is not good for( ie. HI, NY, NJ, MD, CO, MA, DC) or you are traveling to a state where the permit is useless (ie. OH, NC, SC, TN, AK, LA.) stop by any PD in CA or any "state certified" person and do your annual qual.

If you think about it, how many times are you going to travel outside of OR, WA, CA, NV, or ID? Probably less than once a year. With your CA, OR, and UT permit, you have better coverage than LEOSA (as far as places off-limits).

Jared1981
05-12-2009, 6:11 AM
But does not trump department policy, which I think you are agreeing with?


Not true. This is incorrect and if disciplined, you would prevail in a lawsuit. The Supreme Court said in the Norfolk Railroad case that the word law includes policy and regulations.

IF an agency has a "policy", then according to SCOTUS, that falls under law. LEOSA says notwithstanding "state or local law".

Jared1981
05-12-2009, 6:22 AM
So much boils down to the individual officer you are dealing with. The Chippy that beefed that Az cop is a punk for doing that. I'd never beef another cop over that (or an armed citizen with the right creds for that matter).

I hope this guy was fired and/or facing 42 USC 1983 charges. We had a Border Patrol Agent that was 19 in SoCAL. He was on duty, he was arrested by CHP for carrying as a person under 21 years of age. First off, there is no CA law that says you must be 21 to carry firearm and even if CA did, Federal law authorizes BP to carry any firearm anywhere in the U.S.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. It simply is not, it has been ruled not to be in court and there is zero justification for doing so.

Regarding this CHP officer that arrested this BPA... he was fired.

Jared1981
05-12-2009, 6:30 AM
Seems to me that the Sturgis incident set a big precedent for cops.


The Sturgis incident notwithstanding, HR 218 still is the law of the land for traveling cops, current and retired, on- and off-duty.

And I seem to recall that President Obama is not popular among Calgunners. lol Still I believe he has signed several pieces of legislation that have been favorable to cops. Maybe his AG could be urged to beef up HR 218. Esp. since the Fed DOJ's Guidance as to 70 Fed. Reg. 10673 (http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:W1gekqlOfEwJ:edocket.access.gpo.gov/2005/pdf/05-4282.pdf) says HR 218 does not supersede laws regarding private entities/businesses prohibiting CCW firearms or cover LEOs who are under the influence.

Again, gross misconduct on the prosecutor and local LEO's in Sturgis. (firefighter excluded).

1. One guy arrested is a CBPO. Similar to the Border Patrol, ATF, DEA, FBI, and many other agencies and classes of people. Federal law authorizes them to carry any firearm anywhere in the U.S. (better than LEOSA)

2. LEOSA does infact cover them. The tricky thing is what is "under the influence". I have found no case that says 1 drink is "under the influence" appears to have a higher standard than just simply consuming alcohol. They did come out on top on this one, assuming they even were drinking in the first place.

3. This whole thing could have been avoided, if they simply had their pistols in plain site. The South Dakota prohibition on carrying in establishments that derive over 50% of their sales from serving alcohol only applies to concealed firearms. Similar to how Virginia's ban on carrying in ABC establishments only applies to concealed pistols, not unconcealed. If they carried in this manner, they would not need LEOSA protection( appropriate federal law for FEDS) as there would have been no crime in the first place. Whether they would have been asked to leave for carrying in open view is another question. The section of SD law is 23-7-8.1

scr83jp
05-12-2009, 7:00 AM
I would like to think so too. The version I was told came from the CaDoJ agent that came and did my audit last week. He told me it all resulted from a traffic stop where the driver (LEO) told the CHP officer he had a loaded gun in his glovebox. He said once the higher ups at the CHP found out about it a couple days later they apologized, gave the guy his gun back and never sent the case to the DA. The info came to him via the Atty General's office.

He also told me the buffoons in Sacto (Atty General, et al) have decided that Cali will not honor HR218. He was surprised by that decision because it is a part of the HSA. Doesn't surprise me I remember CA with Brown as the governor for 2 terms of nightmare ,death penalty dumped by rosey & the supremes all of us in le cringed at the decisions! He wants to be gov again;8yrs of him was too much.

Jared1981
05-12-2009, 7:47 AM
Doesn't surprise me I remember CA with Brown as the governor for 2 terms of nightmare ,death penalty dumped by rosey & the supremes all of us in le cringed at the decisions! He wants to be gov again;8yrs of him was too much.

I don't think so. The CA DOJ put out a detailed memo explaining LEOSA. It's even more detailed than what most states did. They made good intentions with LEOSA.

As far as not honoring. They don't have to per se, but if they violate federal law they could face conspiracy charges and or civil lawsuits under 42 USC 1983.

Kind of like when the Arizona LEO was arrested, federal law withstands regardless of whether the CHP guy knew about it or even if he was advised to ignore it (which I'm sure he wasn't), he still would making an illegal arrest.

eltee
05-12-2009, 4:07 PM
I advise my guys to get a multi-state CCW in addition to being able to carry based on LEO or RetLEO status. There are many possible reasons for carrying or even brandishing (in a legal manner) a firearm unrelated to police work, esp. if out of jurisdiction. Also, there are often advantages to having people near an incident where your gun is involved to simply think of you as a private citizen with a permit vs. being a cop. Lastly, there are instances where you might not want a local agency to make a casual call to your employing agency. Not saying to hide your ID as a cop, but what does being a cop while on vacation in Moosejaw have to do with anything when a CCW will give you carry privileges without fear of someone "calling home" (to your Chief or Sheriff)?

Officer discretion should be exercised, you decide when to play out-of-jurisdiction-off-duty cop vs. citizen with a CCW. Some incidents will dictate that you ID yourself, others will not.

There are a number of agencies that object to HR218. They use a variety of means to prevent members from implementing it. Some departments now won't give retirees a retired ID card or badge, so the retirees sometimes carry their most recent, expired active card. Some departments won't requal retirees annually, only once every three to permit the in-state CCW stamp. In these circumstances, a retiree may be packing illegally on the 366th day after requals if out of state. The LEOSA/HR218 has provisions for out of state requals for retirees. The intent was to not force a retiree living, for example, in Florida to fly back to California every year to requal. He can be requal'd in Florida.

It is interesting that some who have retired in California from a non-friendly (to HR218) agency have to seek out a private instructor to qualify them. Anyone who has had to deal with this or knows of an instructor who has done this and knows the laws, please PM me. I get alot of questions asked of me re. HR218 from people all over the state.

I kept hearing over the years that they were going to close some of the loopholes in HR218 (to cops' benefit) but under the current DC climate, I don't know if that will happen.

Jared1981
05-13-2009, 4:35 AM
I advise my guys to get a multi-state CCW in addition to being able to carry based on LEO or RetLEO status. There are many possible reasons for carrying or even brandishing (in a legal manner) a firearm unrelated to police work, esp. if out of jurisdiction. Also, there are often advantages to having people near an incident where your gun is involved to simply think of you as a private citizen with a permit vs. being a cop. Lastly, there are instances where you might not want a local agency to make a casual call to your employing agency. Not saying to hide your ID as a cop, but what does being a cop while on vacation in Moosejaw have to do with anything when a CCW will give you carry privileges without fear of someone "calling home" (to your Chief or Sheriff)?

Officer discretion should be exercised, you decide when to play out-of-jurisdiction-off-duty cop vs. citizen with a CCW. Some incidents will dictate that you ID yourself, others will not.



I could not possibly agree with you more. I tell my co-workers to do this as well. I usually get the "I got federal creds" speech. I tell them the same things you do and I mention what if they are ever under investigation for anything and they pull their creds. Now they can't carry squat. If I ever worked or ever transfer to California, I would definately try to get a LTC under 12050 for the exact reasons you mentioned.

bluestaterebel
05-13-2009, 8:38 AM
ever heard of California LEOs getting a CCW in California?

eltee
05-13-2009, 11:11 AM
ever heard of California LEOs getting a CCW in California?


Yes, for a variety of reasons. Mostly they were for LE agencies that did not have "peace officer" status within the state, and there are many such agencies. Or, the agency had status, but the issue of arming personnel was deleted or made discretionay by statute. Also, some reserve LE agencies issue their reservists CCW's if their status doesn't permit off-duty carry. There are other circumstances as well.

ilbob
05-13-2009, 11:18 AM
He also told me the buffoons in Sacto (Atty General, et al) have decided that Cali will not honor HR218. He was surprised by that decision because it is a part of the HSA.

HR218 is grossly unconstitutional. No where in the constitution is the federal government given the power to force states to allow CC for a privileged few.

Fire in the Hole
05-13-2009, 3:42 PM
Just don't get stopped by the CHP in Los Angeles. They recently arrested, booked and siezed the firearm of an Arizona LEO for concealed carry. Stupidity at its best.



I've heard this, I checked the news media blogs, but I can't find a news story or report about it. Sounds rather disconcerting on its face. I'd like to read the particulars. Can you refer me to a source?

yzernie
05-13-2009, 4:50 PM
All I have is the word of mouth from the CaDoJ agent. I also searched but didn't find anything. I'm convinced the CHP would not want that kind of fugly media exposure and never issued a press release on the arrest.

bluestaterebel
05-13-2009, 4:58 PM
Yes, for a variety of reasons. Mostly they were for LE agencies that did not have "peace officer" status within the state, and there are many such agencies. Or, the agency had status, but the issue of arming personnel was deleted or made discretionay by statute. Also, some reserve LE agencies issue their reservists CCW's if their status doesn't permit off-duty carry. There are other circumstances as well.

well i ask because, i want more options to carry other guns that are not authorized off duty.

Although if i put in an application for ccw, they would probably think i was crazy

bluestaterebel
05-13-2009, 5:00 PM
All I have is the word of mouth from the CaDoJ agent. I also searched but didn't find anything. I'm convinced the CHP would not want that kind of fugly media exposure and never issued a press release on the arrest.

Suburban legend?

Fire in the Hole
05-13-2009, 5:00 PM
The CHP wouldn't, but the AZ cop and his attorney would to the media.

Tallship
05-16-2009, 1:03 PM
Is there an easy way to become a reserve deputy or other form of sworn LEO in a state in which you do not reside?

I would love to get LEO credentials which would allow me to CCW here in NYC

Wouldn't work for two reasons. One, almost every jurisdiction wants reserves to live within that jurisdiction. Two, and more important, HR218 only apllies to full-time sworn LEOs. So unless you became a full-time officer in NJ, you couldn't reasonably live in NY and carry.

scootergmc
05-16-2009, 1:57 PM
Two, and more important, HR218 only apllies to full-time sworn LEOs

Really? Where does it say that? :confused:


(c) As used in this section, the term “qualified law enforcement officer” means an employee of a governmental agency who—
(1) is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and has statutory powers of arrest;
(2) is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm;
(3) is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the agency;
(4) meets standards, if any, established by the agency which require the employee to regularly qualify in the use of a firearm;
(5) is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance; and
(6) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm.

CSDGuy
05-16-2009, 2:53 PM
Wouldn't work for two reasons. One, almost every jurisdiction wants reserves to live within that jurisdiction. Two, and more important, HR218 only apllies to full-time sworn LEOs. So unless you became a full-time officer in NJ, you couldn't reasonably live in NY and carry.
Where does the LEOSA mention anything about Full Time, or for that matter, Sworn status?

Tallship
05-16-2009, 2:55 PM
The operative word is "employee". A reserve is a volunteer, who, while he may be reimbursed by the department for his service, is not an actual employee. I know of no departments that have part-time "regular" officers. If you know of one that does (and it would have to be in a state other than California because POST makes this a clear delineation) then I could be mistaken. Also (c) (1) is the definition of "sworn".

CSDGuy
05-16-2009, 2:57 PM
Is there an easy way to become a reserve deputy or other form of sworn LEO in a state in which you do not reside?

I would love to get LEO credentials which would allow me to CCW here in NYC
AJAX22 - if you were an active Level 2 Reserve in California, that would definitely fit the bill. A Level 3 with firearms authorization would theoretically work for LEOSA purposes too.

Big Caveat: you have to be an active LEO for this to work. That standard would be set by either the agency or POST... one or the other.

CSDGuy
05-16-2009, 3:11 PM
The operative word is "employee". A reserve is a volunteer, who, while he may be reimbursed by the department for his service, is not an actual employee. I know of no departments that have part-time "regular" officers. If you know of one that does (and it would have to be in a state other than California because POST makes this a clear delineation) then I could be mistaken. Also (c) (1) is the definition of "sworn".
If you're a reserve and you are injured while "working" for the agency, are you covered by their workman's comp insurance or are you SOL? All the LEOSA cares about is that you meet the qualifications. Full-time and Sworn isn't in the legislation.

(c) As used in this section, the term “qualified law enforcement officer” means an employee of a governmental agency who—
(1) is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and has statutory powers of arrest;
(2) is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm;
(3) is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the agency;
(4) meets standards, if any, established by the agency which require the employee to regularly qualify in the use of a firearm;
(5) is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance; and
(6) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm.I'm aware of persons who meet all those qualifications and aren't sworn LEO... They don't carry under the LEOSA because they don't want to be the test case. These people do NOT have off-duty CCW authorization under CA law either (PC 12027). Think about it...

Tallship
05-16-2009, 4:30 PM
CSDGuy- you are correct that the word "sworn" is not in the legislation, however sworn is usually defined as being a "peace officer" as specified in PC 830 that has the powers of arrest specified in PC 835 and 836. If you read those sections, you will see that they meet the definition of (c) (1) of HR 218. Therefore, in California (and this may be different in other states) anyone "authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and has statutory powers of arrest" under 830, 835 and 836 is a peace officer ("sworn"). The people you are talking about are not peace officers in California and therefore do not fall under 218.

CSDGuy
05-16-2009, 5:38 PM
CSDGuy- you are correct that the word "sworn" is not in the legislation, however sworn is usually defined as being a "peace officer" as specified in PC 830 that has the powers of arrest specified in PC 835 and 836. If you read those sections, you will see that they meet the definition of (c) (1) of HR 218. Therefore, in California (and this may be different in other states) anyone "authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and has statutory powers of arrest" under 830, 835 and 836 is a peace officer ("sworn"). The people you are talking about are not peace officers in California and therefore do not fall under 218.
The key word here is "usually". You will also find that reserves, although not 830.1, fit the bill under 830.6. They're employees of their agencies. They're part-time... they're covered by the LEOSA. You should also be aware that there are other types of governmental employees that aren't 830.1 - 830.6(ish) that have statutory power of arrest and can enforce Federal, State, and County laws. Are animal control officers covered if they are authorized by their agencies to carry firearms? They're not Peace Officers... the PC says so right in 830.9... What about custodial officers? They're Public Officers... and they can be authorized by their agency to carry firearms...

What about other types of Public Officers??? Peace Officers are pretty well defined in the Penal Code. Public Officers are NOT.

The California Supreme Court does that for us:

"A public office is ordinarily and generally defined to be the right, authority, and duty, created and conferred by law, the tenure of which is not transient, occasional, or incidental, by which for a given period an individual is invested with power to perform a public function for the benefit of the public . . . . The most general characteristic of a public officer, which distinguishes him from a mere employee, is that a public duty is delegated and entrusted to him, as agent, the performance of which is an exercise of a part of the governmental functions of the particular political unit for which he, as agent, is acting. . . ."
Randy Dibb v. County of San Diego

Public Officers are an odd type of law enforcement officer. They're not sworn, they're not mere employees... and they can enforce the law. And some are even armed with approval of their agencies...

And just for argument's sake, where in the Penal Code is it spelled out that a Police Officer can do: prevention, detection, investigation... You know, stuff other than arresting people for violations of the law???

CSDGuy
05-16-2009, 5:58 PM
Incidentally, since LEOs don't want to become the test case for carrying under the LEOSA and that would be especially true for non-sworn LEOs... I expect that we might actually end up with nation-wide carry rights before there's a test case that seeks to specifically define meaning of 18 USC 926B(c)(1).

That would (eventually) moot much of the reason behind the LEOSA... Something to hope for.

scootergmc
05-16-2009, 6:07 PM
The operative word is "employee". A reserve is a volunteer, who, while he may be reimbursed by the department for his service, is not an actual employee. I know of no departments that have part-time "regular" officers. If you know of one that does (and it would have to be in a state other than California because POST makes this a clear delineation) then I could be mistaken. Also (c) (1) is the definition of "sworn".


Let's just get this out of the way. Full time employment is not a requirement. Overreading into what sworn is or isn't doesn't matter. Government agency? check. Armed? Check. Statutory powers? Check. LEOSA? Check.

BigDogatPlay
05-16-2009, 7:11 PM
Not true. This is incorrect and if disciplined, you would prevail in a lawsuit. The Supreme Court said in the Norfolk Railroad case that the word law includes policy and regulations.

IF an agency has a "policy", then according to SCOTUS, that falls under law. LEOSA says notwithstanding "state or local law".

Call me crazy but you are making my point.

** The SCOTUS said that the word law includes policy and regulation. If the employing CLEO says he does not want you carrying out of state, for instance, thats department policy, hence law by your citation.

** "Notwithstanding" placed before "state or local law" means that if there are specific state or local laws, or in this case policy and regulation as you have presented, then LEOSA presumably has to yield to them.

** There is plenty of case law going back years that department policy can forbid an officer to do what state law might otherwise empower them to do.

Of course there is also the aspect of LEOSA relative to Amendment Ten and equal protection... it's not like off duty cops travelling on vacation are engaged in interstate commerce after all, hence the Congress didn't really have the authority to do LEOSA in the first place, but that's another thread.

:D

Again, I am not trying to pick fights over this. I am simply trying to point out that thinking of LEOSA as an end all, beat all, trumps all is not necessarily a winning argument. I would never rack a brother's chestnuts on the street, unless I found out he wasn't really a brother... which again becomes another matter. I'm simply pointing out that not all LEOs are created and endowed equally.

As posted elsewhere in the thread, I wouldn't want to be the guy whose CLEO said no out of state carry and was unfortunate enough to get into a scrape in another state.

CSDGuy
05-16-2009, 7:24 PM
Call me crazy but you are making my point.

** The SCOTUS said that the word law includes policy and regulation. If the employing CLEO says he does not want you carrying out of state, for instance, thats department policy, hence law by your citation.

** "Notwithstanding" placed before "state or local law" means that if there are specific state or local laws, or in this case policy and regulation as you have presented, then LEOSA presumably has to yield to them.

** There is plenty of case law going back years that department policy can forbid an officer to do what state law might otherwise empower them to do.

Of course there is also the aspect of LEOSA relative to Amendment Ten and equal protection... it's not like off duty cops travelling on vacation are engaged in interstate commerce after all, hence the Congress didn't really have the authority to do LEOSA in the first place, but that's another thread.

:D

Again, I am not trying to pick fights over this. I am simply trying to point out that thinking of LEOSA as an end all, beat all, trumps all is not necessarily a winning argument. I would never rack a brother's chestnuts on the street, unless I found out he wasn't really a brother... which again becomes another matter. I'm simply pointing out that not all LEOs are created and endowed equally.

As posted elsewhere in the thread, I wouldn't want to be the guy whose CLEO said no out of state carry and was unfortunate enough to get into a scrape in another state.
That Northern Railroad case was the one I was thinking of earlier... and that allows the language of the LEOSA to override agency policy. As to the vacationing LEO... it isn't them that is in interstate commerce... it's that their firearm is in or affects interstate commerce...

Also, the LEOSA does NOT override certain portions of the law that California's 12050 creates exemptions for... most notably in the PC 171 range... (Buildings, Bases, Parks...) A CCW holder would have exemptions for those places. So, it could be said that a California CCW holder could carry in more places than an out-of-state Off-Duty vacationing LEO could... ;)

Tallship
05-17-2009, 6:53 AM
Let's just get this out of the way. Full time employment is not a requirement. Overreading into what sworn is or isn't doesn't matter. Government agency? check. Armed? Check. Statutory powers? Check. LEOSA? Check.

This may be the nexus of the test court case, "statutory powers". Reserves only have statutory powers while they are on assignment, while full time LEOs are 24/7. So does a reserve fall under LEOSA while he is not on assignment? I would contend that he doesn't.

CaliTheKid
05-17-2009, 8:39 AM
Level 1D reserves have the power 24/7.

Tallship
05-17-2009, 9:14 AM
Level 1D reserves have the power 24/7.

Not true:

830.6. (a) (1) Whenever any qualified person is deputized or
appointed by the proper authority as a reserve or auxiliary sheriff
or city police officer, a reserve deputy sheriff, a reserve deputy
marshal, a reserve police officer of a regional park district or of a
transit district, a reserve park ranger,......., the
person is a peace officer, if the person qualifies as set forth in
Section 832.6. The authority of a person designated as a peace
officer pursuant to this paragraph extends only for the duration of
the person's specific assignment. //

CSDGuy
05-17-2009, 9:21 AM
This may be the nexus of the test court case, "statutory powers". Reserves only have statutory powers while they are on assignment, while full time LEOs are 24/7. So does a reserve fall under LEOSA while he is not on assignment? I would contend that he doesn't.
Actually, I doubt that will be an issue of a test case. The LEOSA does not specify that you must have statutory powers of arrest specifically on or off duty... just that you have that power. Here's why that won't be an issue. If you go to another non-neighboring state (because neighboring states often have agreements giving powers of arrest to their neighbors under certain circumstances), you would no longer have statutory power of arrest in that state. Your statutory power of arrest only extends to any place in the state... YOUR HOME STATE... so under your assertion that you no longer have statutory power of arrest because you're off-duty as a reserve doesn't fly.
Level 1D reserves have the power 24/7.
And that's the other reason. Designated Level 1 Reserves have 24/7 statutory power of arrest just like their Full Time Paid counterparts.

There's something else in (c)(1) that might be the nexus of a test case. I suspect that given the intent of the legislation... it'll be broadly interpreted rather than narrowly so.

CSDGuy
05-17-2009, 9:26 AM
Not true:

830.6. (a) (1) Whenever any qualified person is deputized or
appointed by the proper authority as a reserve or auxiliary sheriff
or city police officer, a reserve deputy sheriff, a reserve deputy
marshal, a reserve police officer of a regional park district or of a
transit district, a reserve park ranger,......., the
person is a peace officer, if the person qualifies as set forth in
Section 832.6. The authority of a person designated as a peace
officer pursuant to this paragraph extends only for the duration of
the person's specific assignment. //
Read further down that specific Penal Code section - you have much to learn about reserves.

830.6 (a)(2)
Whenever any qualified person is deputized or appointed by...
and is so designated by local ordinance
or, if the local agency is not authorized to act by ordinance, by
resolution, either individually or by class, and is assigned to the
prevention and detection of crime and the general enforcement of the
laws of this state by that authority, the person is a peace officer,
if the person qualifies as set forth in paragraph (1) of subdivision
(a) of Section 832.6. The authority of a person designated as a peace
officer pursuant to this paragraph includes the full powers and
duties of a peace officer as provided by Section 830.1.That is 24/7 duties and powers of arrest just as an 830.1 officer. That is your Designated Level 1 Reserve. You could also check out some of the files over at California POST... in their Reserves section... it might prove enlightening about Reserves.

CaliTheKid
05-17-2009, 10:59 AM
Not true:

830.6. (a) (1) Whenever any qualified person is deputized or
appointed by the proper authority as a reserve or auxiliary sheriff
or city police officer, a reserve deputy sheriff, a reserve deputy
marshal, a reserve police officer of a regional park district or of a
transit district, a reserve park ranger,......., the
person is a peace officer, if the person qualifies as set forth in
Section 832.6. The authority of a person designated as a peace
officer pursuant to this paragraph extends only for the duration of
the person's specific assignment. //

Stop with your FUD. They do have police powers 24/7.

http://www.post.ca.gov/Training/Reserve_Peace_Officer_Program/pdf/RPOP-summary.pdf

scootergmc
05-17-2009, 1:07 PM
830.5 officer.... not 24/7 either. Covered under LEOSA? Yes.

Tallship
05-17-2009, 2:52 PM
Right at the bottom of the page:

Agencies may appoint a Level I Reserve Officer (who has completed the POST Regular Basic Course) to full 830.1 PC powers and duties (24 hour) by authority of a city/county ordinance/resolution (830.6 (a) (2) PC).

An L1 reserve may, but does not automatically have 24/7 police powers.

Ron-Solo
05-17-2009, 3:16 PM
FYI, although HR218 allows peace officers to carry nationwide, there are some states that forbid the carry of hollow point ammunition. I can't quote the states, but a couple of New England states were among them. Make sure of the local ammo regs, since HR218 doesn't address them yet. When my partner retired, he got a list from the rangemaster on states with ammo restrictions. If I can get a copy, I'll post it.

Can't think of too many street cops who would hassle an out of state cop for this, but I'm sure there's a few out there.


Also, as far as CCW holders being exempt from the 171 series of penal code sections, don't try it in an LA County Courthouse. Pursuant to an order of the Superior Court, CCW holders and retired peace officers are not allowed to carry in the courthouse. They must ID themselves and check their weapons before entering. The courthouses have gun lockers set up for this. The same applies to cops appearing on personal cases such as divorce, child custody and non work related small claims or civil cases.

CSDGuy
05-17-2009, 3:19 PM
Nobody here said that a Level 1 Reserve had 24/7 powers. They don't. Having those 24/7 powers is not necessary for purposes of the LEOSA. At least two here have said that Designated Level 1 Reserves have 24/7 powers.

CSDGuy
05-17-2009, 3:27 PM
FYI, although HR218 allows peace officers to carry nationwide, there are some states that forbid the carry of hollow point ammunition. I can't quote the states, but a couple of New England states were among them. Make sure of the local ammo regs, since HR218 doesn't address them yet. Whne my partner retired, he got a list from the rangemaster on states with ammo restrictions. If I can get a copy, I'll post it.

Can't think of too many street cops who would hassle an out of state cop for this, but I'm sure there's a few out there.


Also, as far as CCW holders being exempt from the 171 series of penal code sections, don't try it in an LA County Courthouse. Pursuant to an order of the Superior Court, CCW holders and retired peace officers are not allowed to carry in the courthouse. They must ID themselves and check their weapons before entering. The courthouses have gun lockers set up for this. The same applies to cops appearing on personal cases such as divorce, child custody and non work related small claims or civil cases.That exemption doesn't cover the lawful orders of the court... just the Penal Code 171 series. There is a difference.
Furthermore, while the LEOSA authorizes off-duty CCW, (and therefore authorizes those firearms being in a functional state) it does not delve into exactly what ammunition must be loaded into said firearm. Presumably, whatever ammunition will function in that firearm and is legal in that jurisdiction... however, specifying blank ammunition wouldn't fly...

Tallship
05-17-2009, 3:36 PM
Nobody here said that a Level 1 Reserve had 24/7 powers. They don't.....

Sorry, jargon fault on my part. We are in agreement.

Doheny
05-17-2009, 3:42 PM
Another example are FD arson investigators (830.37). The AJ has issued an opinion that HR218 does apply to them.

http://ag.ca.gov/opinions/pdfs/96-904.pdf#xml=http://search.doj.ca.gov:8004/AGSearch/isysquery/df4aa882-0c28-4222-9686-daadfdcaacfc/8/hilite/

scootergmc
05-17-2009, 3:49 PM
Another example are FD arson investigators (830.37). The AJ has issued an opinion that HR218 does apply to them.

http://ag.ca.gov/opinions/pdfs/96-904.pdf#xml=http://search.doj.ca.gov:8004/AGSearch/isysquery/df4aa882-0c28-4222-9686-daadfdcaacfc/8/hilite/

That opinion doesn't have anything to do with HR218 (LEOSA). It came out in 1997. It has everything to do with CCW for retired arson investigators. LEOSA came out years later.

CSDGuy
05-17-2009, 3:56 PM
Yep. That opinion came out several years before the LEOSA came about. The issue in question is whether or not retired arson investigators can get a retired LEO CCW endorsement.

donstarr
05-20-2009, 9:01 AM
** "Notwithstanding" placed before "state or local law" means that if there are specific state or local laws, or in this case policy and regulation as you have presented, then LEOSA presumably has to yield to them.

"Notwithstanding" means just the opposite. In this context, it literally means "in spite of" or "without prevention or obstruction from or by" (Webster's).

"Notwithstanding the rain, I'll take a walk" has precisely the same meaning as "I'll take a walk, the rain notwithstanding". The former does not mean that I'll only take a walk if it's not raining. Both forms mean that I'll be taking a walk, even though it might be raining.