PDA

View Full Version : CA Off-duty Carry


RolinThundr
06-25-2009, 9:22 PM
I know that most police depts allow off-duty carry, but wanted to make sure of a couple of things:

1- Can a CA LEO of a municipal jurisdiction (city) carry off-duty throughout the state?

2- Can a LEO of another state carry off-duty in CA (while on vacation for instance)?

Ron-Solo
06-25-2009, 9:29 PM
1- Yes
2- Yes, thanks to HR218, active LEO can carry in all 50. Retired must have an HR218 with therir CCW credentials.

Unit74
06-25-2009, 10:35 PM
Yep....

If you are post, and your dept allows OD carry, there are no limitations on where in country you can go.

retired
06-26-2009, 8:23 PM
1- Yes
2- Yes, thanks to HR218, active LEO can carry in all 50. Retired must have an HR218 with therir CCW credentials.

Hey, how come you are talking about me.:p:D

I have one of those things actually. Just renewed in late April in time for the May Area 53 shoot in Nevada. Nevada doesn't accept Ca.'s ccw.

I also have the 5yr. dept. issued one and will not let that lapse.

Rogue187
06-26-2009, 8:30 PM
I wish you would stop quoting HR 218..
HR 218 is no longer correct..

The correct one is 18 USC 926(b) LEOSA Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act.

The number HR 218 is recycled in the House so it now could be assigned to anything else.

Please refer to 18 USC 926 (b) from now on. Otherwise your just giving out disinformation.

Fire in the Hole
06-27-2009, 6:35 AM
I wish you would stop quoting HR 218..
HR 218 is no longer correct..

The correct one is 18 USC 926(b) LEOSA Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act.

The number HR 218 is recycled in the House so it now could be assigned to anything else.

Please refer to 18 USC 926 (b) from now on. Otherwise your just giving out disinformation.


But my newly issued LEO CCW card still refers to HR 218 at the authority to issue and possess. I've never heard of what you cite. I'm not saying it's wrong, but I'm positive LEO's don't know of it. It's too hard to remember and say. The CA DOJ Website adressing this the LEOSA continued to refer to it as HR-218. I think you'll have to accept that it's going to be continued to use for it's simplicity, and ease of understanding.

SVT-40
06-27-2009, 12:56 PM
My agency uses the language :
Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004 Authorized.
Authorization expires: 12/20/2009 (one year from last qualification)

My agency also issues the five year Calif CCW to retired Officers. With unlimited renewals.

Rogue187
06-27-2009, 5:38 PM
Fire in the hole,
It may be in your best interest to let whoever is in charge of the ID's that the law HR 218 has been changed.

Because if you are stopped in some podunk town that you mention HR 218 they may have to look it up..and once they do they find that you have no clue as to what your talking about.

The law is officially known as:

Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act 2004. It is listed in the US Criminal Codes under 18 U.S.C. 926(b)(c)

There are many still referring to it by it bill name of HR218.

You can find it under google as HR 218..but in reading that one it states it was never made into a law yet..It is confusing to people.

But if you use 18USC926(b)(c) you are completely safe.. Most DA's should know about the U.S.C. and under 18 Criminal Section of the United States Codes.

Please don't take this as a slight or anything along those lines..This is just to protect you in the event you have to use your firearm outside of your agency juristictional areas or state.

Please check the code yourself and make yourself aware..as the legal problems you save may be your own.

Liberty1
06-27-2009, 6:14 PM
Yep....

there are no limitations on where in country you can go.

There are many limitations on out of state officers (who use HR 218) when traveling outside of their home state.

For instance HR 218 doesn't exempt one from the 1000' Federal school zone if the individual is not licensed by the state in which that school is found (so I got a non-resident Utah license). We also can't carry in National Parks in our own state let alone in another(this will change in Feb'10). It might not exempt an out of state officer from California's 12031 "loaded ban" in cities or from importing "high caps". What about New Jersey's hollow point ban (I change to ball ammo if in NJ)?

lrdchivalry
06-27-2009, 6:40 PM
There are many limitations on out of state officers (who use HR 218) when traveling outside of their home state.

For instance HR 218 doesn't exempt one from the 1000' Federal school zone if the individual is not licensed by the state in which that school is found (so I got a non-resident Utah license).

Curious. If California does not recognize another states CCW how would you not be in violation of the federal law by aquiring an out of state ccw?

retired
06-27-2009, 6:46 PM
I just looked at mine (lasd) and tho it has the name of the act as stated, preceding those words it says "HR 218." I carry a copy of the pertinent law in my wallet with both my county and "HR" ccws in case it is needed (which I hope it never is).

IIRC, I read sometime ago the NY City Police Commissioner prohibits their active and retired officers from carrying out of state. As to the active, that means when they are off duty. I don't know if that has changed or not.

Liberty1
06-27-2009, 6:57 PM
Curious. If California does not recognize another states CCW how would you not be in violation of the federal law by aquiring an out of state ccw?

In Ca. my Peace Officer status is the "license". The Utah is for when I'm in other states (which recognize it). But I don't know any other cop who has gotten an out of state ccw as most believe HR 218 protects them from all CCW prosecution (which it doesn't, but they're counting on and will probably receive a brass pass courtesy pass in most non shoot situations)

lrdchivalry
06-27-2009, 7:02 PM
IIRC, I read sometime ago the NY City Police Commissioner prohibits their active and retired officers from carrying out of state. As to the active, that means when they are off duty. I don't know if that has changed or not.

The agency cannot prohibit their officers from carrying off duty. They can only prohibit their officers from carrying an issued firearm off duty. One of the purposes of HR218 was eliminate such restrictions that cost Washington D.C. police officer Oliver Smith his life. Officer Smith was not allowed to carry concealed off duty outside of the D.C. area and lost his life when he was ambushed by three armed men, you also had agencies that did not authorize off duty carry. HR218 changed that.

lrdchivalry
06-27-2009, 7:22 PM
In Ca. my Peace Officer status is the "license". The Utah is for when I'm in other states (which recognize it). But I don't know any other cop who has gotten an out of state ccw as most believe HR 218 protects them from all CCW prosecution (which it doesn't, but they're counting on and will probably receive a brass pass courtesy pass in most non shoot situations)

According to HR218 the only 2 state laws that are not over-ridden by HR218 is:

`(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or
`(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.

So unless the officer is violating a federal law in regards to concealed carry the states can only prosecute for the above violations.

Even wikipedia has the following in the article on HR218:

If a person is covered by the LEOSA, then "notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof," he or she may carry a concealed firearm in any state or political subdivision thereof. See Title 18, USC, Section 921, which defines "state" to also include the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and U.S. Possessions. Thus, the LEOSA-qualified person does not generally require a state-issued permit for carrying concealed firearms.
However, there are two types of state laws that are not overridden by the federal law, these being "the laws of any State that (1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or (2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park." This does not mean that LEOSA-qualified persons are prohibited from carrying concealed firearms in such areas, but only that they must obey whatever state laws apply on those two points. They are free to disregard all other state and local laws that govern the carrying of concealed firearms.
The LEOSA overrides state and local laws, but not other federal laws. Thus, LEOSA-qualified individuals must continue to obey federal laws and agency policies that restrict the carrying of concealed firearms in certain federal buildings and lands.
Whether or not a person is covered by the LEOSA depends entirely on whether or not he or she meets the definitions in the federal law for either "qualified law enforcement officer" or "qualified retired law enforcement officer." It does not matter whether or not a given individual is defined as a "law enforcement officer" under the law of his state; only the definition in the federal law applies.

IMHO they are more protected under the law then you think.

Fire in the Hole
06-27-2009, 7:27 PM
Prior to 2004 my active CA LEO status allowed me to carry 24/7/365 within CA only. On my own time and expense, I was issued NV, FL, OR, and UT CCW's. Since the passage of HR 218 this practice and expense became redundant. Now as a retired LEO, I do have CCW priveledges in all 50 states. I exercise them. I've never been to NJ, and don't have any plans to go. But yes, I did buy a box of Hornady solid nosed bullets just in case the desire to visit the garden state arises.


I just copied and pasted the LEOSA information page from the most recent update of the CA Attorney Gernerals Information Office. They do not reference any US Codes: Below is the chapter heading verbatum.

Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) of 2004 - HR218
On July 22, 2004, the Law Enforcement Safety Act of 2004 (HR 218 [PDF 40 kb / 3 pg] ) became law. This federal law provides for the carrying of concealed firearms by law enforcement officers (both active and retired) nationwide upon meeting certain criteria.

lrdchivalry
06-27-2009, 7:36 PM
Prior to 2004 my active CA LEO status allowed me to carry 24/7/365 within CA only. On my own time and expense, I was issued NV, FL, OR, and UT CCW's. Since the passage of HR 218 this practice and expense became redundant. Now as a retired LEO, I do have CCW priveledges in all 50 states. I exercise them. I've never been to NJ, and don't have any plans to go. But yes, I did buy a box of Hornady solid nosed bullets just in case the desire to visit the garden state arises.

Some people might disagree with me, however, when I hear of officers that I know talking about getting CCW's in other states I ask them why would you want to spend money to get and maintain an out of state or even an instate CCW when you already have a national CCW that is free?

Fire in the Hole
06-27-2009, 7:40 PM
Some people might disagree with me, however, when I hear of officers that I know talking about getting CCW's in other states I ask them why would you want to spend money to get and maintain an out of state or even an instate CCW when you already have a national CCW that is free?

Because as I said, prior to HR 218; I did not have a free out of state or a national CCW. The CCW's that I held prior to HR 218, I let expire, and now operate on my retired HR 218 card.

lrdchivalry
06-27-2009, 7:44 PM
I just copied and pasted the LEOSA information page from the most recent update of the CA Attorney Gernerals Information Office. They do not reference any US Codes: Below is the chapter heading verbatum.

Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) of 2004 - HR218
On July 22, 2004, the Law Enforcement Safety Act of 2004 (HR 218 [PDF 40 kb / 3 pg] ) became law. This federal law provides for the carrying of concealed firearms by law enforcement officers (both active and retired) nationwide upon meeting certain criteria.

If I am reading your post correctly I think you have a good point.

With the exception of the 2 areas I covered above as not being covered under HR218 this law even applies to federal law. I have not seen in the full text of the law any federal law that is exempt. Good luck though trying to take your weapon into a federal courtroom regardless if your on duty or not.

lrdchivalry
06-27-2009, 7:48 PM
Because as I said, prior to HR 218; I did not have a free out of state or a national CCW. The CCW's that I held prior to HR 218, I let expire, and now operate on my retired HR 218 card.

I got you on your original post. My point was that, although leo's have nationwide ccw there are alot who still want to waste the money and get a state ccw when it's not required and could be more restrictive.

Fire in the Hole
06-27-2009, 8:03 PM
I got you on your original post. My point was that, although leo's have nationwide ccw there are alot who still want to waste the money and get a state ccw when it's not required and could be more restrictive.

Here's an example I can give you. It's a matter of simple economics and logistics. I have to re-certify annually through my old dept. I still live in CA, so it's not a big deal. However I plan to move outta here within two years. I'm allowed to petition a LE Dept. in another state to re-certify me according to my old CA Dept's course of fire. Then mail this proof of competence to my old CA LE Dept. and wait and wait for the HR 218 card to come in the mail, then lather and repeat every single year that I'm alive. Dept's are allowed to certify out of state retired LEO's, but they are not required to. Hypothetically lets say I move to ME. I can't find a ME LE agency willing to certify me. I'd have to call my old CA LE agency, make an appointment, then fly or drive at my own expense cross country round trip every year to maintain my CA issued HR 218 card. Or if I'm just a homebody, I can get a ME CCW just like any other ME resident, (My wife has a ME Non-resident CCW), and carry on that without the muss, fuss, and expense of returning to CA annually.

Liberty1
06-27-2009, 8:08 PM
According to HR218 the only 2 state laws that are not over-ridden by HR218...

I agree as to state law. We are not however exempt from the Fed. GFZ, National Park or Fed. Gov. Buildings prohibitions.

And LEOSA over rides laws which would prevent the "concealed" carrying of "firearms" but would that shield us against the NJ Hollow Point ban or the carrying of spare "high cap" mags in CA by out of state officers? And what about our CA loaded ban. Are visiting officers required to carry concealed with separate loaded mags in obedience to 12031 as LEOSA doesn't specifically address these laws.

lrdchivalry
06-27-2009, 8:17 PM
Here's an example I can give you. It's a matter of simple economics and logistics. I have to re-certify annually through my old dept. I still live in CA, so it's not a big deal. However I plan to move outta here within two years. I'm allowed to petition a LE Dept. in another state to re-certify me according to my old CA Dept's course of fire. Then mail this proof of competence to my old CA LE Dept. and wait and wait for the HR 218 card to come in the mail, then lather and repeat every single year that I'm alive. Dept's are allowed to certify out of state retired LEO's, but they are not required to. Hypothetically lets say I move to ME. I can't find a ME LE agency willing to certify me. I'd have to call my old CA LE agency, make an appointment, then fly or drive at my own expense cross country round trip every year to maintain my CA issued HR 218 card. Or if I'm just a homebody, I can get a ME CCW just like any other ME resident, (My wife has a ME Non-resident CCW), and carry on that without the muss, fuss, and expense of returning to CA annually.

I can see why you would do that in the situation you presented above and it would be economically more feasible to do so, however, you have officers still here and working in California who think they need to go out and spend the money to get an out of state ccw in order to carry outside of California when they do not.

I just ask them why they want to waste money to get something they don't need.

BigDogatPlay
06-27-2009, 8:23 PM
The agency cannot prohibit their officers from carrying off duty. They can only prohibit their officers from carrying an issued firearm off duty.

This assumes then that the federal government is going to indemnify your actions in an out of state scrape, no? Because I have to think that is the logical end game if your department, in a liability worry, writes a reg that even though LEOSA says you can, the department will not indemnify you for any action you take outside the state. They could do that and about the time some of our active brothers and sisters get into scrapes I would wager some bean counter will consider it. A retiree would be solely on their own as it is, their prior agency would have no obligation at all to indemnify their actions at all now or in the future.

This is, I think, where LEOSA, in and of itself a good tool, will ultimately fail a smell test for constitutionality under Amendment 10. The federal government can not force local authority to indemnify actions outside of the agencies control, IMO.

lrdchivalry
06-27-2009, 9:34 PM
I agree as to state law. We are not however exempt from the Fed. GFZ, National Park or Fed. Gov. Buildings prohibitions.

I believe you are right, although not specifically mentioned according to the wikipedia article, federal law still applies.

And LEOSA over rides laws which would prevent the "concealed" carrying of "firearms" but would that shield us against the NJ Hollow Point ban

A good question for the NJ AG office.

or the carrying of spare "high cap" mags in CA by out of state officers?

I believe California law already allows for the importation and carrying of high cap mags under 12020(a)(20) by qualified leo's.


And what about our CA loaded ban. Are visiting officers required to carry concealed with separate loaded mags in obedience to 12031 as LEOSA doesn't specifically address these laws.

LEOSA would override that section of the PC.

lrdchivalry
06-27-2009, 9:43 PM
This is, I think, where LEOSA, in and of itself a good tool, will ultimately fail a smell test for constitutionality under Amendment 10. The federal government can not force local authority to indemnify actions outside of the agencies control, IMO.

Very interesting viewpoint. Makes you think.

Rogue187
06-28-2009, 7:18 AM
LEOSA does not protect you should you take action..it just allows you to CCW.
If you ccw and you use your firearm, you are still subject to charges but the charge of unlawful carry.
All other incidents associated with the use of the firearms will have to be hashed out in a court of law.

Most recent case were the 2 LE and 1 firefighter who CCW in Stergis..they got into a gunfight with the Hells Angels..
The local DA wanted to charge them for CCW..The DA didn't care about LEOSA. It was fought in court and the charges against the LE for the guns were dropped because they qualified under LEOSA. The firefighter is a whole different story..since he wasn't LE.

The 2 LE still had to deal with a department actions against them for the issue but it was mostly for violating agency policy but it was for ccw the department weapons and not personal ones.

Ron-Solo
06-28-2009, 10:16 AM
If I am reading your post correctly I think you have a good point.

With the exception of the 2 areas I covered above as not being covered under HR218 this law even applies to federal law. I have not seen in the full text of the law any federal law that is exempt. Good luck though trying to take your weapon into a federal courtroom regardless if your on duty or not.

Retired officers and private individuals with CCW are not allowed to carry in state courts in LA County either. Most LA courts have gun lockers near the entrances to secure guns while in the building. Don't leave in your car unless absolutely necesssary

Ron-Solo
06-28-2009, 10:19 AM
This is a relatively new piece of legislation and I think more and more departments will smooth out the re-cert process over time.

retired
06-28-2009, 11:07 AM
I pay no money (other than the money for 30 rounds of Winfree to qualify) to renew my 5yr. dept. ccw. That is it.

Tho the dept. says if I have the HR218 ccw I don't have to maintain the dept. one, I do for one simple reason. Forgetfulness. The HR218 is for one year and after I get it, I put it in my wallet with my dept. ccw. I have gone beyond the expiration date on it a couple of times, so it is a good thing I have my dept. one.

Now, when I was getting ready to go to the Area 53 shoot, I checked to ensure that it was still valid. It wasn't and Nevada doesn't recognize a Ca. ccw. I had enough time to make an appt. at the range and renew it prior to the trip.

For that reason, and one or two others, I will keep my dept. issued one as long as they are willing to issue it in addition to the HR one.

cousinkix1953
06-28-2009, 11:14 AM
There are many limitations on out of state officers (who use HR 218) when traveling outside of their home state.

For instance HR 218 doesn't exempt one from the 1000' Federal school zone if the individual is not licensed by the state in which that school is found (so I got a non-resident Utah license). We also can't carry in National Parks in our own state let alone in another(this will change in Feb'10). It might not exempt an out of state officer from California's 12031 "loaded ban" in cities or from importing "high caps". What about New Jersey's hollow point ban (I change to ball ammo if in NJ)?
The local anti-gun DA busted a vacationing Utah state trooper who packed his pistol in Sacramento county a few years ago. He was staying at motel and used it to prevent a crime if I remember right.

If Kommiefornia doesn't accept CCW permits from other states; then they deserve the same kind of treatment in return...

Ron-Solo
06-28-2009, 9:29 PM
The local anti-gun DA busted a vacationing Utah state trooper who packed his pistol in Sacramento county a few years ago. He was staying at motel and used it to prevent a crime if I remember right.


This legislation probably wasn't in effect then. It is fairly new.

Liberty1
06-29-2009, 1:28 AM
The local anti-gun DA busted a vacationing Utah state trooper who packed his pistol in Sacramento county a few years ago. He was staying at motel and used it to prevent a crime if I remember right.

If Kommiefornia doesn't accept CCW permits from other states; then the deserve the same kind of treatment in return...

Since Californian's can possess a loaded firearm in their motel rooms and use it when making an arrest I'm guessing that he didn't perhaps exactly use it lawfully. Can't brandish unless in self defense etc.. otherwise it should remain holstered during the arrest.

If there was a crime of violence then I would even expect a non leo Californian to be exempt from 12031 / 417. If you can find the news paper link I'd love to read the details.

LEOSA passed in 2004.

cousinkix1953
06-29-2009, 9:19 PM
Since Californian's can possess a loaded firearm in their motel rooms and use it when making an arrest I'm guessing that he didn't perhaps exactly use it lawfully. Can't brandish unless in self defense etc.. otherwise it should remain holstered during the arrest.

If there was a crime of violence then I would even expect a non leo Californian to be exempt from 12031 / 417. If you can find the news paper link I'd love to read the details.

LEOSA passed in 2004.
He was a LEO and not just some hot headed tourist packing his handgun. In that case, you'd think that he'd have an idea about how and when to use a firearm. Kommiefornia's anti-gun DAs just don't wanna recognize out of state CCW permits...