Calguns.net

Calguns.net (https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/index.php)
-   Calguns LEOs (https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/forumdisplay.php?f=167)
-   -   LEO Firearm law exemptions. (https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=667686)

LibertyDeath 12-31-2012 12:52 PM

LEO Firearm law exemptions.
 
I am aware that LEO's are exempt from a few firearm law in CA. I am aware of the greater than 10 round magazine laws, the evil black rifle with department approval, carrying concealed off duty and buying off roster firearms. I know they are not exempt from DROS and the waiting period.

Can they carry off duty in more places than someone with a regular permit?
Are there other exemptions or perhaps restrictions?

Librarian 12-31-2012 12:56 PM

I know they get some courtesies not available to non-LEO.

For example, a Calguns LEO member attended one of the Nordyke arguments in SF, and the US Marshals at the courthouse checked his sidearm for him - they do not seem to do that for non-LEO.

P5Ret 12-31-2012 1:23 PM

With a letter from the employing department leo's can bypass the 10 wait for a purchase to be used in the scope of duties. Like a bug or your off duty or duty gun if you don't have to carry the dept issued. Yes there are places that a ccw holder can not carry, but leo's can, court houses and gov't buildings if there for official business. As far as business' with sign's I'm not positive anyone has ever made an issue of it. I can't speak for everyone but for me it was never a 9-5 type job that you turn off when you leave the office.

scootergmc 12-31-2012 2:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by P5Ret (Post 10068443)
With a letter from the employing department leo's can bypass the 10 wait for a purchase to be used in the scope of duties. Like a bug or your off duty or duty gun if you don't have to carry the dept issued. Yes there are places that a ccw holder can not carry, but leo's can, court houses and gov't buildings if there for official business. As far as business' with sign's I'm not positive anyone has ever made an issue of it. I can't speak for everyone but for me it was never a 9-5 type job that you turn off when you leave the office.

The 10 day wait exemption does not have to be for a gun in the scope of their duties. It's a common misconception and many departments will not issue a letter for a non-duty gun.

bc360 12-31-2012 2:26 PM

This has a complex answer. The 10 day exemption is by agency policy but the State has not restirctions on what you purchase. In short if your agency grants you a 10 day waiver then you can use it to purchase any gun or magazine. Some agencies will only grant one for authorized on duty and/or off duty weapons, and some AW.

Ca has a 24/7 on duty provision/assumption which is restricted by agencies and or recommended by legal defense attorneys.

As far as the CCW. Yes LEO get greater latitude under the law on and off duty, however both state and federal courts have issued policies prohibiting LEO entering courts with a firearm for unofficial business, most commonly in bankruptcy and family courts. Ulitmately it's upto the presiding judge on this matter.

Ca does not have a private property/business ban like other states, such as AZ but some business/establishments have practice or policy. Most common locations are Disneyland, Universal, nightclubs where there is some sort of security check in/screening process. Many CA LEO get in trouble with this lack of provision because they get HBD and stupid and somewhere along the line they get in a dispute with someone or in some cases themselves and out comes the Rosco.

This matter is more complex then the summary I provided.

I hope this helps.

LibertyDeath 12-31-2012 2:32 PM

What are HBD and Rosco?

NuGunner 12-31-2012 2:44 PM

Never had a problem carrying concealed in Disneyland. Of course, it's not like I ever advertise that I'm carrying.

NuGunner 12-31-2012 2:44 PM

Never had a problem carrying concealed in Disneyland. Of course, it's not like I ever advertise that I'm carrying.

Librarian 12-31-2012 2:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LibertyDeath (Post 10069116)
What are HBD and Rosco?

Rosco is old slang for a handgun. (Dan Turner? I Did Not Know That.)

HBD, I think, is something like 'Have Badge Disease', something of an over-reliance on LEO status when a behavior might be questioned. Nope, see below. (Obviously, I Did Not Know That, Either!)

Ron-Solo 12-31-2012 3:08 PM

HBD = Has Been Drinking

Librarian 12-31-2012 3:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron-Solo (Post 10069577)
HBD = Has Been Drinking

Ah. I am corrected.

LibertyDeath 12-31-2012 4:43 PM

Oh ok, doesn't CA law prohibit carry under the influence of alcohol.

Librarian 12-31-2012 5:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LibertyDeath (Post 10070493)
Oh ok, doesn't CA law prohibit carry under the influence of alcohol.

No.

I don't think it's wise, but PC is silent about the specific carry + alcohol consumption.

But now drifting into non-LEO territory; any more questions appropriate for this forum?

urbancommando 12-31-2012 5:57 PM

There are places like the staples center and home depot center that ban leos even. I worked off duty on a high risk personal protection government contract with federal credentials and they still would not let us carry in civilian clothes

scootergmc 12-31-2012 7:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bc360 (Post 10069031)
In short if your agency grants you a 10 day waiver then you can use it to purchase any gun or magazine.

There is no letter/waiver requirement for magazine purchases.

Shredicus 12-31-2012 8:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron-Solo (Post 10069577)
HBD = Has Been Drinking

I thought it was "Heavy Badge Disorder" :oji:

Bobby Ricigliano 12-31-2012 8:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LibertyDeath (Post 10068194)

Can they carry off duty in more places than someone with a regular permit?
Are there other exemptions or perhaps restrictions?

The Bear goes everywhere

TripleThreat 12-31-2012 8:51 PM

Rules Don't Always Work As Intended...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by urbancommando (Post 10071217)
There are places like the staples center and home depot center that ban leos even. I worked off duty on a high risk personal protection government contract with federal credentials and they still would not let us carry in civilian clothes

Another great place for a crazy man to have his way.

Bobby Ricigliano 12-31-2012 9:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TripleThreat (Post 10072777)
Another great place for a crazy man to have his way.

Yes. The folly of a 'gun free zone' translates into 'A bunch of soft targets gathered into a slaughter pen with no means to defend themselves'.

Ninety 12-31-2012 9:47 PM

I was just having this conversation, LEO is under the impression that his dept approved black rifle once registered as an Assault Weapon will always be an AW . . . So upon leaving the dept would have to have the rifle destroyed upper and all.. Dept won't force the destroying of said rifle but will make officer sign release form stating that it is a felony to posses said rifle..

I thought you could un-register or atleast remove the upper from the lower .. upper being <16" and at least rebuild the rifle as a pistol .. any one have any more information on this?

socalblue 12-31-2012 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by urbancommando (Post 10071217)
There are places like the staples center and home depot center that ban leos even. I worked off duty on a high risk personal protection government contract with federal credentials and they still would not let us carry in civilian clothes

Federal LEO or federal contract security credentials? Trying to stop a federal LEO with credentials while working = jail time

Bobby Ricigliano 12-31-2012 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ninety (Post 10073277)
I was just having this conversation, LEO is under the impression that his dept approved black rifle once registered as an Assault Weapon will always be an AW . . . So upon leaving the dept would have to have the rifle destroyed upper and all.. Dept won't force the destroying of said rifle but will make officer sign release form stating that it is a felony to posses said rifle..

I thought you could un-register or atleast remove the upper from the lower .. upper being <16" and at least rebuild the rifle as a pistol .. any one have any more information on this?

Yeah... I'm not about to buy an expensive rifle for work and then 'turn it in' when I retire because of the 'opinion' of some hippie government hack.

socalblue 12-31-2012 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ninety (Post 10073277)
I was just having this conversation, LEO is under the impression that his dept approved black rifle once registered as an Assault Weapon will always be an AW . . . So upon leaving the dept would have to have the rifle destroyed upper and all.. Dept won't force the destroying of said rifle but will make officer sign release form stating that it is a felony to posses said rifle..

I thought you could un-register or atleast remove the upper from the lower .. upper being <16" and at least rebuild the rifle as a pistol .. any one have any more information on this?

This is a major point of contention (Many threads on this issue). All that exists today is an AG letter opinion.

Unless the lower is an AW by name it can be put into a compliant form & unregistered.

CALREB 12-31-2012 11:42 PM

I thought they were still fighting that lil gift from JB, as he left.
Anyway once registered as an AW, which it has to be , unless you want other problems, there is no proceedure provided to unregister it or change it to a compliant form, state doesnt care , just another fubared CA, rule/law/opinion, depending on who you get at the CA GOV Firearms Bureau.

Notorious 01-01-2013 1:23 AM

So far, it's a divided debate with half of the agencies in my area saying you have to return it or de-AWB it with BB's and the other half saying screw it, keep it, it's already a RAW which is in your name and there's nothing that addresses otherwise besides Moonbeam's parting shot which holds no weight other than non-precedent persuasive argument for a court that may be too lazy to do their own analysis.

As for other LEO courtesies, everyone has already said their piece which are all correct and while CA does not specifically ban alcohol or being under the influence while carrying, LEOSA does, and LEOSA also talks about government buildings not being subject to LEOSA if there are such rules in place.

It doesn't matter if you are a 24 hour peace officer status LEO in CA carrying on that status, but for limited status LEO's who are not 24 hour but are carrying under LEOSA in state, such as level 1ND or level 2 reserves or LA General Services Police who are prohibited by state law from CCW while off duty, you would have to be mindful of LEOSA restrictions as well as agency restrictions which don't conflict with LEOSA.

TripleThreat 01-01-2013 7:05 AM

That's a New One
 
What Laws says Cal. Reserves can't carry CCW (off-duty).

Triple

Q619 01-01-2013 8:20 AM

Some LEO's can carry on the plane. No CCW can do that. It's nice to bypass tsa, keep my shaving cream and board first.

Notorious 01-01-2013 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TripleThreat (Post 10076120)
What Laws says Cal. Reserves can't carry CCW (off-duty).

Triple

The same laws that define the levels of reserves with level 1-Designated being the only one that is 24 hour status. (P.C. 836, et.al.)

All other levels are not peace officers when not acting in their official capacity (on duty) and need a CCW from the agency under state law to carry off duty, which is in itself kinda superfluous to say, because if you are not peace officer status and you have a CCW, you are carrying like any other civilian with a CCW, just with an ID that says reserve on it.

The conflict comes in with LEOSA stating all qualified officers can carry off duty, as long as they can carry on duty and have statutory arrest powers, which now includes level 1ND and level 2 but not level 3 reserves. Since LEOSA is federal and the language specifically trumps and overrides state law in such situations, it is the controlling law.

Your agency might not like it, and some local ones here sure don't, and still enforce their own version and interpretation, but it is federal law and it is pretty clear on its face what it is supposed to do.

BTW, I hear CA's CRPOA had a huge hand in pushing for some LEOSAIA provisions as well.

TripleThreat 01-01-2013 10:55 AM

So if my understanding is correct. LEOSA says Level 1 & Level 2 Reserves can carry CCW, but some departments don't allow that, unless that Department gives them a CCW, in which case everything is covered at that point.

Triple

Notorious 01-01-2013 10:57 AM

Legally, yes, as well as administratively.

Sacmedic 01-01-2013 12:20 PM

To throw another layer on the heap, California peace officers who do not have authority when off-duty nevertheless have the status of peace officer at all times. I know, an arcane differentiation, but true. That is the basis of the Orange County appeals court ruling located here:

http://law.justia.com/cases/californ...th/14/575.html

And the LA Times article announcing it here has a little more background:

http://articles.latimes.com/1993-03-...peace-officers

While this issue specifically addressed classifications that are not reserve police officers or deputy sheriffs the logic seems to apply to most classifications found below 830.3 in the Penal Code. In essence the issue was solved for most alternative classifications in California prior to LEOSA, but that additional law is helpful as well.

RickD427 01-01-2013 4:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TripleThreat (Post 10077710)
So if my understanding is correct. LEOSAIA says Level 1 & Level 2 Reserves can carry CCW, but some departments don't allow that, unless that Department gives them a CCW, in which case everything is covered at that point.

Triple

That's a pretty good summary, although LEOSA may also extent to Level 3 reserves. There's a language problem involved here. LEOSA applies to officers authorized the carry weapons and that have statutory powers of arrest. Penal Code section section 830.6 defines reserve officers as peace officers. Section 832.6 provides significant limitations on the exercise of those powers by Level 3 reserves, but it still includes them within the definition of "peace officers."

The real rub between state law and the LEOSA is that they're inconsistent, and there is no requirement for consistency. LEOSA is a federal statute, and if a person has authority to carry under LEOSA, a state law prohibition is moot.

But before concluding that a reserve peace office can carry irrespective of their agency's requirements - consider this. The reserve officer is bound to follow their agency's policies. If one of those is not to CCW off-duty, the agency may terminate employment for violation of agency policy. When no longer employed, the LEOSA authority goes away. LEOSA does provide a carry authority to some former and retired officers, but only if they are issued an ID card. Nothing in the law requires the agency to issue such a card.

Remember - There is no requirement for consistency between state law, agency policy and LEOSA. It's going to take a while for the whole issue to shake out in court.

TripleThreat 01-01-2013 4:49 PM

Great info. I hope this all get sorted out sooner rather than later.

Triple

rt66paul 01-01-2013 6:28 PM

Maybe I am off base here, but dui and concealed carry ui should have the same standards, but no jail on the first one. The firearm should be taken into custody. Anyone who drinks should have a place to put the weapon first.

Notorious 01-01-2013 8:32 PM

Level 3 reserves who don't carry a firearm on duty and have no statutory arrest authority are not considered "qualified" officers under LEOSA/LEOSAIA.

As for other reserves being stuck, yes, you can do it within legal limits but get screwed by your agency. There was a big fight over this with certain agencies about whether you can take away the statutory rights granted specifically to qualified individuals and some agencies just threw up their hands and said they give up and don't regulate anything and let their guys go under LEOSA and not anything within agency policy.

RickD427 01-01-2013 8:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Notorious (Post 10083091)
Level 3 reserves who don't carry a firearm on duty and have no statutory arrest authority are not considered "qualified" officers under LEOSA/LEOSAIA.

As for other reserves being stuck, yes, you can do it within legal limits but get screwed by your agency. There was a big fight over this with certain agencies about whether you can take away the statutory rights granted specifically to qualified individuals and some agencies just threw up their hands and said they give up and don't regulate anything and let their guys go under LEOSA and not anything within agency policy.

Notorious,

Level 3 reserves do possess statutory powers of arrest. That authority is provided by Penal Code section 830.6 subject to the training requirements of section 832.6. Section 832.6 provides a very restrictive range of duties that Level 3 reserves may perform, and it imposes close supervision requirements, but it does not remove their powers of arrest.

You're quite correct that Level 3's who are not authorized to carry a firearm are not qualified under LEOSA.

However those Level 3's that are authorized to carry do fall under LEOSA.

stormvet 01-01-2013 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NuGunner (Post 10069254)
Never had a problem carrying concealed in Disneyland. Of course, it's not like I ever advertise that I'm carrying.

True, just spent the last three days there(happy new year) with my G27 IWB.

Notorious 01-02-2013 8:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stormvet (Post 10084920)
True, just spent the last three days there(happy new year) with my G27 IWB.

I've been to Disney and I don't advertise and they don't check. However, unless I was forced to, I won't go there voluntarily and support that place.

I would go to Knott's any day of the week over Disney and give them all my support as they give us all the support they can, unabashedly. When they invite cops to go, they don't ask about your weapon because they know for those days where cops go, it's the safest park anywhere on Earth. Smart people, those Knott's.

ap3572001 01-02-2013 8:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LibertyDeath (Post 10068194)
I am aware that LEO's are exempt from a few firearm law in CA. I am aware of the greater than 10 round magazine laws, the evil black rifle with department approval, carrying concealed off duty and buying off roster firearms. I know they are not exempt from DROS and the waiting period.

Can they carry off duty in more places than someone with a regular permit?
Are there other exemptions or perhaps restrictions?

Here is the list:

1). Can buy and use ANY magazines. Can also buy any magazines even for a firearm that can't be used on or off duty.

2). Can get AW's with department letter.

3). Can carry LOADED long guns in a vehicle. (If You want to )

4).Can carry CCW style anywhere in USA (off duty, vacations etc) LEOSA .

5).Can buy ANY handgun that is not on a roster . (As long as it is not an AW). Even if it can't be used on or off duty.

mej16489 01-02-2013 8:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ap3572001 (Post 10086299)
Here is the list:

1). Can buy and use ANY magazines. Can also buy any magazines even for a firearm that can't be used on or off duty.

Be careful with #1. On the surface, it would be illegal to 'manufacture an assault weapon' by inserting a large capacity magazine into a fixed magazine rifle. There is likely some defense under LEOSA, but there isn't clear case law for this in the 9th circuit...yet.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 5:25 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.