Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > SPECIALTY FORUMS > Calguns LEOs
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Calguns LEOs LEOs; chat, kibitz and relax. Non-LEOs; have a questions for a cop? Ask it here, in a CIVIL manner.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-03-2013, 8:57 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 31,473
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default LEOSA - Law Enforcement Officer's Safety Act (H.R. 218, 2004)

This topic is one of the few recurring and relatively complex topics.

Here is the 2004 law as passed by Congress:

H.R.218 -- Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004 (Engrossed in House [Passed House] - EH)

108th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. R. 218

AN ACT

To amend title 18, United States Code, to exempt qualified current and former law enforcement officers from State laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed handguns.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004'.

SEC. 2. EXEMPTION OF QUALIFIED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS FROM STATE LAWS PROHIBITING THE CARRYING OF CONCEALED FIREARMS.

(a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926A the following:

`Sec. 926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law enforcement officers

`(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).

`(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit 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.

`(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.

`(d) The identification required by this subsection is the photographic identification issued by the governmental agency for which the individual is employed as a law enforcement officer.

`(e) As used in this section, the term `firearm' does not include--

`(1) any machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the National Firearms Act);

`(2) any firearm silencer (as defined in section 921 of this title); and

`(3) any destructive device (as defined in section 921 of this title).'.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926A the following:

`926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law enforcement officers.'.

SEC. 3. EXEMPTION OF QUALIFIED RETIRED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS FROM STATE LAWS PROHIBITING THE CARRYING OF CONCEALED FIREARMS.

(a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is further amended by inserting after section 926B the following:

`Sec. 926C. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified retired law enforcement officers

`(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified retired law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).

`(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit 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.

`(c) As used in this section, the term `qualified retired law enforcement officer' means an individual who--

`(1) retired in good standing from service with a public agency as a law enforcement officer, other than for reasons of mental instability;

`(2) before such retirement, was 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 had statutory powers of arrest;

`(3)(A) before such retirement, was regularly employed as a law enforcement officer for an aggregate of 15 years or more; or

`(B) retired from service with such agency, after completing any applicable probationary period of such service, due to a service-connected disability, as determined by such agency;

`(4) has a nonforfeitable right to benefits under the retirement plan of the agency;

`(5) during the most recent 12-month period, has met, at the expense of the individual, the State's standards for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry firearms;

`(6) is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance; and

`(7) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm.

`(d) The identification required by this subsection is--

`(1) a photographic identification issued by the agency from which the individual retired from service as a law enforcement officer 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 agency to meet the standards established by the agency for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm; or

`(2)(A) a photographic identification issued by the agency from which the individual retired from service as a law enforcement officer; and

`(B) a certification issued by the State in which the individual 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.

`(e) As used in this section, the term `firearm' does not include--

`(1) any machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the National Firearms Act);

`(2) any firearm silencer (as defined in section 921 of this title); and

`(3) a destructive device (as defined in section 921 of this title).'.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for such chapter is further amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926B the following:

`926C. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified retired law enforcement officers.'.

Passed the House of Representatives June 23, 2004.

===========
__________________
Calguns Wiki, Magazine Qs, Knife laws

Ask CA law questions in the How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me Forum - most questions that start 'Is it legal ...' go there.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.

Heller was 2008. McDonald was 2010. Things started getting bad with GCA-1968.
It takes time to unwind 40 years of bad law.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-03-2013, 8:57 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 31,473
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Here is the 2010 amendment

S.1132 -- Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act Improvements Act of 2010 (Enrolled Bill [Final as Passed Both House and Senate] - ENR)

--S.1132--

S.1132

One Hundred Eleventh Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the fifth day of January, two thousand and ten


An Act

To amend title 18, United States Code, to improve the provisions relating to the carrying of concealed weapons by law enforcement officers, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act Improvements Act of 2010'.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER SAFETY PROVISIONS OF TITLE 18.

(a) In General- Section 926B of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in subsection (c)(3), by inserting `which could result in suspension or loss of police powers' after `agency'; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

`(f) For the purposes of this section, a law enforcement officer of the Amtrak Police Department, a law enforcement officer of the Federal Reserve, or a law enforcement or police officer of the executive branch of the Federal Government qualifies as an employee of a governmental agency who 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.'.

(b) Active Law Enforcement Officers- Section 926B of title 18, United States Code is amended by striking subsection (e) and inserting the following:

`(e) As used in this section, the term `firearm'--

`(1) except as provided in this subsection, has the same meaning as in section 921 of this title;

`(2) includes ammunition not expressly prohibited by Federal law or subject to the provisions of the National Firearms Act ; and

`(3) does not include--

`(A) any machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the National Firearms Act );

`(B) any firearm silencer (as defined in section 921 of this title); and

`(C) any destructive device (as defined in section 921 of this title).'.

(c) Retired Law Enforcement Officers- Section 926C of title 18, United States Code is amended--

(1) in subsection (c)--

(A) in paragraph (1)--

(i) by striking `retired' and inserting `separated from service'; and

(ii) by striking `, other than for reasons of mental instability';

(B) in paragraph (2), by striking `retirement' and inserting `separation';

(C) in paragraph (3)--

(i) in subparagraph (A), by striking `retirement, was regularly employed as a law enforcement officer for an aggregate of 15 years or more' and inserting `separation, served as a law enforcement officer for an aggregate of 10 years or more'; and

(ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking `retired' and inserting `separated';

(D) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:

`(4) during the most recent 12-month period, has met, at the expense of the individual, the standards for qualification in firearms training for active law enforcement officers, as determined by the former agency of the individual, the State in which the individual resides or, if the State has not established such standards, either a law enforcement agency within the State in which the individual resides or the standards used by a certified firearms instructor that is qualified to conduct a firearms qualification test for active duty officers within that State;'; and

(E) by striking paragraph (5) and replacing it with the following:

`(5)(A) has not been officially found by a qualified medical professional employed by the agency to be unqualified for reasons relating to mental health and as a result of this finding will not be issued the photographic identification as described in subsection (d)(1); or

`(B) has not entered into an agreement with the agency from which the individual is separating from service in which that individual acknowledges he or she is not qualified under this section for reasons relating to mental health and for those reasons will not receive or accept the photographic identification as described in subsection (d)(1);';

(2) in subsection (d)--

(A) paragraph (1)--

(i) by striking `retired' and inserting `separated'; and

(ii) by striking `to meet the standards' and all that follows through `concealed firearm' and inserting `to meet the active duty standards for qualification in firearms training as established by the agency to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm';

(B) paragraph (2)--

(i) in subparagraph (A), by striking `retired' and inserting `separated'; and

(ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking `that indicates' and all that follows through the period and inserting `or by a certified firearms instructor that is qualified to conduct a firearms qualification test for active duty officers within that State that indicates that the individual has, not less than 1 year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the State or a certified firearms instructor that is qualified to conduct a firearms qualification test for active duty officers within that State to have met--

`(I) the active duty standards for qualification in firearms training, as established by the State, to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm; or

`(II) if the State has not established such standards, standards set by any law enforcement agency within that State to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm.'; and

(3) by striking subsection (e) and inserting the following:

`(e) As used in this section--

`(1) the term `firearm'--

`(A) except as provided in this paragraph, has the same meaning as in section 921 of this title;

`(B) includes ammunition not expressly prohibited by Federal law or subject to the provisions of the National Firearms Act ; and

`(C) does not include--

`(i) any machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the National Firearms Act );

`(ii) any firearm silencer (as defined in section 921 of this title); and

`(iii) any destructive device (as defined in section 921 of this title); and

`(2) the term `service with a public agency as a law enforcement officer' includes service as a law enforcement officer of the Amtrak Police Department, service as a law enforcement officer of the Federal Reserve, or service as a law enforcement or police officer of the executive branch of the Federal Government.'.
__________________
Calguns Wiki, Magazine Qs, Knife laws

Ask CA law questions in the How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me Forum - most questions that start 'Is it legal ...' go there.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.

Heller was 2008. McDonald was 2010. Things started getting bad with GCA-1968.
It takes time to unwind 40 years of bad law.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-03-2013, 9:00 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 31,473
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Here is a link to 18 USC 926b, the US Code where LEOSA is placed - http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-...44-sec926B.htm - US Government Printing Office is charged with keeping this information current.


Here is California's Attorney General page on LEOSA

http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/leosanew

CA says
Quote:
Regarding the requirement that the individual have the statutory power of arrest to be a “qualified law enforcement officer,” California law allows “a peace officer” to make an arrest. (Pen. Code, § 834.) Penal Code sections 830.1 through 832.6 specify the persons who are peace officers and when and where they may use their authority. No one else is considered a peace officer under California law. (Pen. Code, § 830.)
and
Quote:
Both “qualified law enforcement officers” and “qualified retired law enforcement officers” are required to meet the state’s standards for the “training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry firearms” under the LEOSA. Penal Code Section 832.3 sets forth the initial and continuing training and testing requirements for peace officers in California. The specific curriculum for the training of peace officers is established by the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (P.O.S.T.). However, current California law does not set a statewide standard for the training and qualification of active law enforcement officers after graduation from the academy. Standards are established by individual law enforcement agencies for both active and retired officers in those agencies.
__________________
Calguns Wiki, Magazine Qs, Knife laws

Ask CA law questions in the How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me Forum - most questions that start 'Is it legal ...' go there.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.

Heller was 2008. McDonald was 2010. Things started getting bad with GCA-1968.
It takes time to unwind 40 years of bad law.

Last edited by Librarian; 02-03-2013 at 9:07 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-03-2013, 9:09 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 31,473
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Here is the relevant section of HR 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2013

SEC. 1089. AMENDMENTS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER SAFETY PROVISIONS OF TITLE 18.

Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in section 926B--

(A) in subsection (c)(1), by inserting `or apprehension under section 807(b) of title 10, United States Code (article 7(b) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice)' after `arrest';

(B) in subsection (d), by striking `as a law enforcement officer' and inserting `that identifies the employee as a police officer or law enforcement officer of the agency'; and

(C) in subsection (f), by inserting `or apprehension under section 807(b) of title 10, United States Code (article 7(b) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice)' after `arrest'; and

(2) in section 926C--

(A) in subsection (c)(2), by inserting `or apprehension under section 807(b) of title 10, United States Code (article 7(b) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice)' after `arrest'; and

(B) in subsection (d)--

(i) in paragraph (1), by striking `that indicates' and inserting `that identifies the person as having been employed as a police officer or law enforcement officer and indicates'; and

(ii) in paragraph (2)(A), by inserting `that identifies the person as having been employed as a police officer or law enforcement officer' after `officer'.
__________________
Calguns Wiki, Magazine Qs, Knife laws

Ask CA law questions in the How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me Forum - most questions that start 'Is it legal ...' go there.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.

Heller was 2008. McDonald was 2010. Things started getting bad with GCA-1968.
It takes time to unwind 40 years of bad law.

Last edited by Librarian; 02-06-2013 at 8:56 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-04-2013, 12:41 AM
code33 code33 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 966
iTrader: 54 / 100%
Default Comprehensive legal analysis by the CALIFORNIA RESERVE PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION

An in-depth legal analysis of LEOSA by the CRPOA's legal counsel on how it applies to reserve peace officers in California.

http://www.crpoa.org/pdfs/LEOSA_Update_2012.pdf
http://www.crpoa.org/pdfs/LEOSA_June_2012.pdf
__________________
Disclaimer:
I am not a lawyer. Nothing in my posts should be considered legal advice.

Got ORI?

Front Sight Diamond Member

Last edited by code33; 02-04-2013 at 1:08 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-07-2013, 12:18 AM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 3,593
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

I just received the below message from the Fraternal Order of Police regarding the new laws in New York:
"This alert is to advise members of the Fraternal Order of Police that recent changes to firearms laws in New York may impact active and retired officers visiting the State and carrying concealed firearms under the auspices of the Law Enforcement Officers' Safety Act (LEOSA).

New York State law prohibits the possession of magazines holding more than seven (7) rounds. The exemption provided by the LEOSA from State and local prohibitions on the carriage of concealed firearms does NOT exempt active and retired officers from State or local laws regulating magazines. It is unlawful for out-of-State active or retired law enforcement officers to possess a magazine which is capable of holding more than seven (7) rounds in the State of New York and you could face a criminal charge. It is our understanding that the prohibition on magazines went into effect immediately.

While the National Legislative Office has not done a full legal analysis of the new laws, it is very clear that this provision in the new laws will have an immediate effect on FOP members traveling to or through the State of New York. In addition, retired law enforcement officers living in New York--even those who have retired or separated from their agency in good standing in the State of New York--may also be affected by the ban on magazines capable of holding more than seven (7) rounds.

We urge our members that choose to carry concealed firearms in New York under the auspices of the LEOSA to follow the law and use good judgement. Any questions about the new laws in the State of New York should be directed to the New York State Troopers or Office of the Attorney General of New York."
I've closely reviewed the langauge of LEOSA. It does provide that LEOSA does not trump state laws in two instances: 1) Restrictions on CCW imposed by owners of private property, and 2) Restrictions on CCW on Government Property. The act allow excludes machineguns, silencers and destructive devices (using the federal definition). There is no language in LEOSA allowing the state to restrict magazines as purported in the above correspondence.

Does anyone out there have any greater insight, or better information, on the issue?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-07-2013, 1:43 PM
mej16489 mej16489 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,787
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
I've closely reviewed the langauge of LEOSA. It does provide that LEOSA does not trump state laws in two instances: 1) Restrictions on CCW imposed by owners of private property, and 2) Restrictions on CCW on Government Property. The act allow excludes machineguns, silencers and destructive devices (using the federal definition). There is no language in LEOSA allowing the state to restrict magazines as purported in the above correspondence.

Does anyone out there have any greater insight, or better information, on the issue?
Sadly, neither of the last 2 updates to LEOSA have clarified whether or not they intended to preempt State magazine restrictions.

I believe that LEOSA covers those who import CA-Defined Large Capacity Magazines into CA due to People v Hale declaring that magazines are an essential part of a firearm. However, as with all new territory, I could certainly be wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-08-2013, 10:48 PM
Doc Gunz's Avatar
Doc Gunz Doc Gunz is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Murrieta
Posts: 11
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I believe all military NCOs have authority to apprehend IAW the UCMJ. Does anyone have clarification on this?

http://www.fop.net/legislative/issue...8/hr218faq.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-09-2013, 9:21 AM
AFK9Cop AFK9Cop is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 8
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Gunz View Post
I believe all military NCOs have authority to apprehend IAW the UCMJ. Does anyone have clarification on this?

http://www.fop.net/legislative/issue...8/hr218faq.pdf
Yes, all military NCO's have authority to apprehend, but it applies only to "quell quarrels and frays". I don't think they are covered under LEOSA unless the MOS/Rate/AFSC of the particular NCO is in fact Military Police/ Master at Arms/ Security Forces. But then again, I'm not a lawyer and I didn't write the bill.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-12-2013, 1:08 PM
Psykronik's Avatar
Psykronik Psykronik is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 100
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

I am looking for the opinion of a CA LEO regarding this.

Under 14USC143, "Commissioned, warrant, and petty officers of the Coast Guard are deemed to be officers of the customs".

Even as Boarding Team Members and Boarding Officers, we are not issued identification stating that we are Federal LEO's.

Would you honor the USCG military ID under LEOSA? If not, what documentation requirements would you prefer?
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 02-12-2013, 2:37 PM
SVT-40's Avatar
SVT-40 SVT-40 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Az
Posts: 6,988
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

LEOSA identification is very specific and actually lists the (LEOSA) as well as the dates of firearms qualification.

So Unless the ID specifically had that information, AND on the identification that the bearer was a peace officer or retired peace officer I don't thing the LEOSA would appily.
__________________
Poke'm with a stick!


Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
What you believe and what is true in real life in the real world aren't necessarily the same thing. And what you believe doesn't change what is true in real life in the real world.



Last edited by SVT-40; 02-12-2013 at 2:46 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02-12-2013, 2:59 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 3,593
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Psykronik View Post
I am looking for the opinion of a CA LEO regarding this.

Under 14USC143, "Commissioned, warrant, and petty officers of the Coast Guard are deemed to be officers of the customs".

Even as Boarding Team Members and Boarding Officers, we are not issued identification stating that we are Federal LEO's.

Would you honor the USCG military ID under LEOSA? If not, what documentation requirements would you prefer?
Psykronik,

14USC89 is a better reference for the "Powers of Arrest" provision of LEOSA to apply to Coast Guard personnel.

There has been one California trial court case that I know of involving a CG member carrying under the authority of LEOSA. That involved a reserve petty officer who was arrested by San Fernando PD. There was no conviction (I don't know if that was an acquittal, or denied filing) and the reservist received a 40,000 award in the civil trial.

Since that case, the Coast Guard has issued internal policy defining the members it considers as covered by LEOSA. I haven't read the 2013 changes to LEOSA, but summaries of those changes seem to increase the requirements for identification cards. The military CAC met the minimum requirements prior to 2012, I'd check the 2013 version to confirm current requirements.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02-12-2013, 3:07 PM
Psykronik's Avatar
Psykronik Psykronik is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 100
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

I know we are covered under LEOSA, because the Coast Guard released an authorized message, and because we have powers to arrest (under 14USC89) of course under the stipulation that we are current on all of our qualifications, but I'm wondering from a CA LEO's point of view what you would want for verification.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02-12-2013, 4:08 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 3,593
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Psykronik View Post
I know we are covered under LEOSA, because the Coast Guard released an authorized message, and because we have powers to arrest (under 14USC89) of course under the stipulation that we are current on all of our qualifications, but I'm wondering from a CA LEO's point of view what you would want for verification.
I've worn both uniforms, active duty CG 1979-1982 and 2001-2003 (reserve service in between, and as a LEO in Los Angeles County (1982 - Present).

Most of my LEO counterparts would not be accepting of CG members as being fellow LEOs. The main reason is lack of frequent interaction, and the highly compartmentalized functions performed by USCG members.

That's my best guess as to why San Fernando PD hooked up the reservist.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02-14-2013, 10:19 PM
Psykronik's Avatar
Psykronik Psykronik is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 100
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

From what I understand, it wasn't that San Fernando PD hooked him up, but that by the letter of the law we are covered by LEOSA. With that being said, the Coast Guard has placed agency restrictions on this, requiring the member to be a QUALIFIED BTM or BO. If a member is neither, they could (and most likely will) face administrative actions.

As a BTM, I carry, and have encountered local officers who are educated on this, and have accepted my military CAC as being sufficient identification, and I have also encountered local officers who have not accepted it as sufficient identification (I don't fault them for doing their job...better to be safe than sorry). I usually carry my BTM letter with me, but that may as well be as useless as a military CAC.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 02-27-2013, 9:32 PM
retiredAFcop retiredAFcop is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: East Bay
Posts: 1,954
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Through one of the USAF SP/SF boards, I have heard that the military branches (the USAF according to the USAF information, but presumably the other branches as well) are developing a means of identifying personnel who now qualify, and an application process is under development. It seems like this will be done at the branch level (USAF personnel center), at least for retirees.

According to the information I received, it will probably be at least several months before they are ready to process applications.
__________________
“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter” ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

If you are an American who is not subject to the UCMJ, then you are a civilian. It is disrespectful to our military members to claim otherwise.

Demanding that LEOs be held to a high standard of professional conduct is a show of respect for the LE profession. Let's all be respectful.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 03-01-2013, 5:30 PM
retiredAFcop retiredAFcop is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: East Bay
Posts: 1,954
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Cross-posting regarding NCOs, WOs, and COs "Apprehension Powers"

I'm cross posting this from the non-sticky thread, because there is some confusion about whether LEOSA now applies to ALL NCOs, WOs, and Officers. It clearly does not apply to military members and retirees not in a military LE career field (Military Police, Security Forces, Master of Arms, etc.).

It seems like the source of confusion is that there are general powers of apprehension under the UCMJ granted to military LE in section 807(b) art 7(b), and specific powers of apprehension granted to NCOs, WOs, and Officers in section 807(b) art 7(c).

The LEOSA, as amended to 2013 reads (in part):

Quote:
`Sec. 926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law enforcement officers

`(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).

...

`(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 or apprehension under section 807(b) of title 10, United States Code (article 7(b) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice);

`(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.
art 7(b) is in green (good to go)
art 7(c) is in red (stop, no cookie for you today)

Quote:
US Code - Section 807: Art. 7. Apprehension
(a) Apprehension is the taking of a person into custody. (b) Any person authorized under regulations governing the armed forces to apprehend persons subject to this chapter or to trial thereunder may do so upon reasonable belief that an offense has been committed and that the person apprehended committed it. (c) Commissioned officers, warrant officers, petty officers, and noncommissioned officers have authority to quell quarrels, frays, and disorders among persons subject to this chapter and to apprehend persons subject to this chapter who take part therein. - See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/1....8DgrBeXw.dpuf
Also, don't forget this part, which states a requirement that the person by employed as an LEO (i.e. MP, SP/SF, MoA, ACID, AFOSI, NCIS, etc.)

Quote:
The identification required by this subsection is the photographic identification issued by the governmental agency for which the individual is employed as a law enforcement officer.
Section 807 art 7 (c) is pretty much the military equivalent to a "citizen's arrest" in the civilian world. Citizen's in most/all (Probably all, since the concept comes from English common law) states have limited powers of arrest, but that does not make them LEOs.


Quote:
California Penal Code Section 837 states, "A private person may arrest another: (1) For a public offense committed or attempted in his presence. (2) When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in his presence. (3) When a felony has been in fact committed, and he has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it." A Public Offense is a felony, misdemeanor or infraction. (PC Sec. 16). In other words, a person in California who is not a law official or police officer can make what is commonly called a "citizen's arrest" if he or she witnesses a crime.
CA PC 837 does not make every citizen an LEO, cop, or Peace Officer, even though it specifies that all citizens do have specific and limited powers of arrest.

Hope this helps to clear up any confusion.
__________________
“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter” ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

If you are an American who is not subject to the UCMJ, then you are a civilian. It is disrespectful to our military members to claim otherwise.

Demanding that LEOs be held to a high standard of professional conduct is a show of respect for the LE profession. Let's all be respectful.

Last edited by retiredAFcop; 03-03-2013 at 1:12 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 03-11-2013, 9:29 PM
gblacksmith gblacksmith is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 148
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Cert. under LEOSA

Does anyone here know of any entity that can certify retired feds as having met the appropriate qualification standard?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 03-11-2013, 9:30 PM
Notorious's Avatar
Notorious Notorious is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,459
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

I know the county sheriff is the one that usually issues CCW to retired federal agents around here. What county are you in?
__________________
Guns! More guns! I need more guns!
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 03-15-2013, 6:31 PM
eltee's Avatar
eltee eltee is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: West of the Rockies, USA
Posts: 833
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

I've been representing cops as a labor rep and I have some familiarity with LEOSA. Having cruised this sticky, I would like to note:

1. You need not be a "peace officer" to qualify, you only need to meet the LEOSA standards as a "qualified law enforcement officer." There are folks who are Law Enforcement Officers per the fed statute but are not Peace Officers.

2. Any LE agency "can" qualify a retired qualified law enforcement officer, and many "will" do so. The law was written to accommodate retirees who move out of state and need to requal. This way a retired CHP living in Florida does not need to fly back annually. I retired out of California, but took my latest LEOSA requal in Nevada. Check with the local LE agencies in the area you live in as you will probably find one that will do this.

3. The qualification card can be, and in every one that I've seen is, separate from the retiree's department issued ID card. In one instance, the requal card was a shrunken and laminated copy of the requal certificate.

4. If, for some reason, a retired officer chooses to not carry under LEOSA, he can carry within California under current penal code provisions. One difference is annual LEOSA requals vs. 3 or 5 years with the agency.

5. PORAC and other cop organizations are dealing with some retiree problems which include:
- Agencies that have been disbanded or absorbed by a new agency, and the former employees have nowhere to go for an I.D. card
- Agencies that choose NOT to give retirees I.D. cards as a way of avoiding "liability" or as a way of opposing retiree CCW nationwide
- Agencies who will not issue an I.D. card to a former employee who resigned (vs. retired) but otherwise met LEOSA conditions
- Agencies who claim an officer "resigned" but did so in lieu of or prior to termination proceedings
- Retired officers (unable to get an I.D. card) using an expired, old active duty I.D. card in lieu of an official "retiree" ID card or using a pension check photocopy to establish their being a retired LEO. They also get a requal cert from an LE agency. This workaround has not been put to the legal test.

Not legal advice.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 03-15-2013, 9:38 PM
Notorious's Avatar
Notorious Notorious is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,459
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eltee View Post
4. If, for some reason, a retired officer chooses to not carry under LEOSA, he can carry within California under current penal code provisions. One difference is annual LEOSA requals vs. 3 or 5 years with the agency.
I assume if you qual'ed once for LEOSA, you are also good for the instate requirement... but if LEOSA overrides state, then if you are deemed to be "qualified" for nationwide carry, then the state requirements don't matter.
__________________
Guns! More guns! I need more guns!
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 03-15-2013, 10:04 PM
Bobby Ricigliano's Avatar
Bobby Ricigliano Bobby Ricigliano is offline
Mit Gott und Mauser
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: The People's Glorious Republik of Southern Kalifornistan
Posts: 12,499
iTrader: 283 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Psykronik View Post
I know we are covered under LEOSA, because the Coast Guard released an authorized message, and because we have powers to arrest (under 14USC89) of course under the stipulation that we are current on all of our qualifications, but I'm wondering from a CA LEO's point of view what you would want for verification.
Well I will give you my point of view as a sworn California LEO: Having previously served in the U.S. Army, I don't make a habit of jamming up and detaining members of the military, so it would probably never be an issue for me.

There are lots of dirtbags out there for me to focus on without making life hard on our service members.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-27-2013, 12:55 PM
kermit315's Avatar
kermit315 kermit315 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Where the truth is valued
Posts: 5,922
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SVT-40 View Post
LEOSA identification is very specific and actually lists the (LEOSA) as well as the dates of firearms qualification.So Unless the ID specifically had that information, AND on the identification that the bearer was a peace officer or retired peace officer I don't thing the LEOSA would appily.
Question on the bolded: Are there actually agencies that put LEOSA on thei ID cards and dates of quals? My agency ID doesnt say jack about LEOSA or when I qaulified last. Neither does my commision card.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by leok20 View Post
To me Law Enforcement are guilty until proven innocent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrage View Post
Over reaction to non-crimes by State loyalists. If they keep up their heavy handed crap, soon it'll be a better gamble to shoot at cops before they even start bothering you considering the amount of time they're willing to put you in prison for if you cooperate.

Seems like that pendulum is about to shift.
Is this your Calguns?

Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-27-2013, 5:04 PM
SVT-40's Avatar
SVT-40 SVT-40 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Az
Posts: 6,988
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kermit315 View Post
Question on the bolded: Are there actually agencies that put LEOSA on thei ID cards and dates of quals? My agency ID doesnt say jack about LEOSA or when I qaulified last. Neither does my commision card.
Yup, mine does.... Maybe because I'm retired though It has the date of qualification, and says " LEOSA Qualified one year from the date above. So each year I get a new ID after qualifying.
__________________
Poke'm with a stick!


Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
What you believe and what is true in real life in the real world aren't necessarily the same thing. And what you believe doesn't change what is true in real life in the real world.


Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-27-2013, 5:16 PM
kermit315's Avatar
kermit315 kermit315 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Where the truth is valued
Posts: 5,922
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SVT-40 View Post
Yup, mine does.... Maybe because I'm retired though It has the date of qualification, and says " LEOSA Qualified one year from the date above. So each year I get a new ID after qualifying.
Thanks for the response. I would say that you are right, its because you are retired. My ID is good for the term of the Sheriff, same with the commission card.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by leok20 View Post
To me Law Enforcement are guilty until proven innocent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrage View Post
Over reaction to non-crimes by State loyalists. If they keep up their heavy handed crap, soon it'll be a better gamble to shoot at cops before they even start bothering you considering the amount of time they're willing to put you in prison for if you cooperate.

Seems like that pendulum is about to shift.
Is this your Calguns?

Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 04-27-2013, 6:40 PM
Notorious's Avatar
Notorious Notorious is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,459
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kermit315 View Post
Question on the bolded: Are there actually agencies that put LEOSA on thei ID cards and dates of quals? My agency ID doesnt say jack about LEOSA or when I qaulified last. Neither does my commision card.
Nope, no need for LEOSA language anywhere on the ID nor does it have to have qual dates on it. A lot of agencies do put LEOSA stuff on it, or still refer to it as HR218 to identify you are qualified under the Act but LEOSA itself doesn't require any specific language on the ID.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SVT-40 View Post
Yup, mine does.... Maybe because I'm retired though It has the date of qualification, and says " LEOSA Qualified one year from the date above. So each year I get a new ID after qualifying.
Even for retirees, the ID doesn't need to say jack diddly squat about LEOSA either. You only need the official ID that says you are a retired peace officer and that covers you for this state. Then if you want to carry under LEOSA, you have to carry proof of qualifications which you have to renew every year. Those two are separate things and the ID does not have to have a qual date on it to be LEOSA compliant.

My buddy who's retired, carries his retirement ID that just has the regular stuff on it and a separate piece of paper from the range that has the rangemaster signature and date of qualification. He shoots every year and carries that piece of paper around for LEOSA purposes, but for in state only purposes, there isn't even a state law requiring any quals. The department may require quals, but that's a policy issue.
__________________
Guns! More guns! I need more guns!

Last edited by Notorious; 04-27-2013 at 6:42 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 01-10-2014, 6:53 PM
GlockedAndLoaded's Avatar
GlockedAndLoaded GlockedAndLoaded is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 410
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Do CA correction officers fall into requirements?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 01-11-2014, 8:39 PM
GlockedAndLoaded's Avatar
GlockedAndLoaded GlockedAndLoaded is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 410
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GlockedAndLoaded View Post
Do CA correction officers fall into requirements?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Anybody??.......


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 01-11-2014, 10:29 PM
CaptMike CaptMike is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 998
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

If they are classified as peace officers then yes. CDCR correctional officers are sworn peace officers so they are covered. Local city or county correctiinal officers may be sworn or may be civilian employees. It is up to the department to decide to make them sworn. LA county custody assistants complete the adult corrections officer academy but are civilian employees, therefore they are not covered by leosa.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 01-11-2014, 10:51 PM
GlockedAndLoaded's Avatar
GlockedAndLoaded GlockedAndLoaded is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 410
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptMike View Post
If they are classified as peace officers then yes. CDCR correctional officers are sworn peace officers so they are covered. Local city or county correctiinal officers may be sworn or may be civilian employees. It is up to the department to decide to make them sworn. LA county custody assistants complete the adult corrections officer academy but are civilian employees, therefore they are not covered by leosa.
Thanks!.............


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 01-11-2014, 11:01 PM
P5Ret P5Ret is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: SF Ebay
Posts: 2,462
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GlockedAndLoaded View Post
Thanks!.............


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There is also a requirement that the agency authorizes you to carry a firearm. I've heard back and forth that they do and don't, it seems to be more don't than do though. So it really isn't a sure thing, if the agency says no.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 01-12-2014, 11:28 AM
Sacmedic Sacmedic is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: No. California
Posts: 198
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

For LEOSA to apply you must carry a firearm at work and meet the other requirements. For CCW, within California only, you need not carry a firearm at work. You simply need peace officer status. I believe there are several probation departments who do not arm their PO's. They come to work, disarm, work their shift and re-arm when they leave.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 02-12-2014, 11:29 PM
SwampdonkeY's Avatar
SwampdonkeY SwampdonkeY is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Smog Central
Posts: 12
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Now that the CA AG has decided that FLEO are not peace officers as recognized by the state, as we can no longer purchase off roster handguns and magazines with +10 rds, it will be interesting to see if the AG recognizes us under LEOSA.

Federal preemption would supercede and state statute regarding its application but sorting that out might ruin your weekend if you come into contact with the wrong agency, ie; SFPD.
__________________
Care about your gun rights? Visit: LP.org and stop contributing to the problem of the two party system.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 02-13-2014, 12:55 AM
Funtimes's Avatar
Funtimes Funtimes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 947
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SwampdonkeY View Post
Now that the CA AG has decided that FLEO are not peace officers as recognized by the state, as we can no longer purchase off roster handguns and magazines with +10 rds, it will be interesting to see if the AG recognizes us under LEOSA.

Federal preemption would supercede and state statute regarding its application but sorting that out might ruin your weekend if you come into contact with the wrong agency, ie; SFPD.
I don't think so at all. They already have memos regarding LEOSA on paper from CA. As far as the other two items, there are many Feds here buying both of those items from gun shops.
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor.
Sig Certified Handgun / Active Shooter Instructor.

2L Student. Nothing is legal advice, just simply my 2 cents worth of opinions.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 02-17-2014, 12:40 AM
SwampdonkeY's Avatar
SwampdonkeY SwampdonkeY is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Smog Central
Posts: 12
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Funtimes View Post
I don't think so at all. They already have memos regarding LEOSA on paper from CA. As far as the other two items, there are many Feds here buying both of those items from gun shops.
Maybe you missed this...
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/in...un-rights.aspx
__________________
Care about your gun rights? Visit: LP.org and stop contributing to the problem of the two party system.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 03-22-2014, 5:09 PM
FL Expat FL Expat is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 2
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SwampdonkeY View Post
Thanks for posting this, Swampdonkey! I'm getting a bit worried - I'm looking seriously at moving out to Cali in order to continue federal employment. I'd be covered by LEOSA after hiring on permanently with my current agency, but I'm hesitant to move if I have to leave my "normal" guns behind. I'd accepted the whole AR15 modification ridiculousness, but now I can't even bring my regular capacity pistols?

This new AG seems to have a different interpretation of Peace Officer and Official Duties from that previously issued. http://ag.ca.gov/opinions/pdfs/01-1005.pdf Has there been an official opinion issued that contradicts the previous one?

I understand the idea that Cali can restrict SALE within their borders, but can they restrict what weapons are carried under LEOSA? In other words, if someone carries a non-NFA firearm as described in LEOSA (including 15-round magazine, which is considered a necessary part of the firearm) across the Cali line while carrying under LEOSA, is that illegal importation?

I guess what confuses me is this: LEOSA is pretty specific that you can carry concealable, non-NFA firearms. They didn't originally specify ammunition (which is not part of a firearm) but fixed that. Again, that was a loophole allowing restrictions by NJ on hollowpoints because ammunition is NOT part of the firearm, so it required a fix. However, it seems Cali is acting as if a magazine (an integral part of the firearm) is not part of the firearm. Extending their rationale, Cali could ban all magazines... or better yet, restrict LEOSA-covered officers' firearms to single-shot .17 caliber rimfire pistols only. I fail to understand how this complies with LEOSA, which clearly states that a firearm can be carried, and then clearly describes what a firearm is and is not. A magazine is a necessary, integral part, without which most concealed firearms will not function in their designed fashion. Since LEOSA says that the states cannot restrict covered individuals from carrying a "firearm" (as defined by federal, not state, statute), I fail to see how the magazine restriction can be applied to a LEOSA-covered officer bringing a magazine, inserted into a non-NFA firearm and carried concealed as allowed for by federal law, into the state. Buying? Sure. Importing or selling separately? Sure. But preventing an officer from driving in with a firearm (as defined in federal statute) concealed on their hip? Doesn't that place Cali on the wrong side of Federal law?

Of course, I don't want to be the test-case
Just trying to understand the bizarre logic before I decide whether it's worth living out there.

Last edited by FL Expat; 03-22-2014 at 8:43 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 03-23-2014, 10:31 AM
Wataman Wataman is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 45
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

The Police Mag article is pretty good. It is the only article ive seen that highlights cases that have regarded LEOSA. A few of them were in California too.

http://www.policemag.com/channel/wea...ly-to-you.aspx

I also like the NRA link. LEOSA has been amended several times to clarify it limits the States powers. Seems like the only thing the state can dictate for LEOSA is the "Where", I.e. Gun Free Zones...

http://le.nra.org/leosa.aspx
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 03-23-2014, 12:09 PM
FL Expat FL Expat is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 2
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wataman View Post
The Police Mag article is pretty good. It is the only article ive seen that highlights cases that have regarded LEOSA. A few of them were in California too.

http://www.policemag.com/channel/wea...ly-to-you.aspx

I also like the NRA link. LEOSA has been amended several times to clarify it limits the States powers. Seems like the only thing the state can dictate for LEOSA is the "Where", I.e. Gun Free Zones...

http://le.nra.org/leosa.aspx
Thanks for those links - that first article is probably the best I've seen. This forum has been a great way to get a crash course on the unique aspects of the state. Ironically, Ted Kennedy apparently made the point I was making earlier about no restrictions on type of weapon by the states (although he clearly had a hissy fit about it).

"Furthermore, in his dissenting view of the equivalent Senate bill, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) made clear that this Act is not limited only to the possession of handguns, noting: 'It is equally clear, however, that off-duty and retired officers do not need to carry concealed shotguns, sniper rifles, or other weapons that their own police departments have not authorized them to carry. The Committee's failure to limit the bill to authorized police weapons—or even to handguns, as New Jersey law provides—will further undermine the safety of American communities.'"

Thus, I don't see how the Cali AG's office can prevent an officer from crossing into Cali with a pistol loaded with a 15 rd mag carried in accordance with LEOSA. Plenty of states don't allow concealed carry of shotguns/rifles, but LEOSA clearly trumps state law even on something as dramatic as rifle vs. shotgun vs pistol. How can the AG dictate how one single part of a pistol is designed (10 vs 15 rd mag), if they can't even legally dictate whether a shotgun or pistol is carried? Heck, according to LEOSA, you should be able to legally enter the state with an AR15 pistol under your jacket, just like you could enter Chicago with a handgun prior to their rule changes to accommodate LEOSA and later McDonald.

I think Cali's taxpayers will eventually pay the mortgage for an out-of-state LEO's lawyer on this one. The likelihood that a federal court will rule that a magazine is not a part of a firearm under federal law is ridiculously low, and that's ultimately the only argument that the AG can make to justify the position. Same would go for San Fran on their magazine bans. The interpretation that LEOSA only applies to the frame of a pistol or receiver of a rifle, and doesn't include the various parts necessary for its normal functioning, is too preposterous for even the most anti-gun court to accept. If that were the case, then states could allow "pistols," but ban barrels, since they are not generally part of the serialized frame. I'd like to see how that would go over for the AG in court Obviously, none of the federal agencies would be supportive of their employees challenging the states in court, but that has nothing to do with the legality/illegality of the AG's position.

I'm hoping the AG backs off on this... not too worried about buying mag's in Cali, just want to be able carry what I already own. Even the FAQ's from the CA AG reference the "any gun" except NFA criteria... plenty of guns out there don't even have 10 round mag's available, especially when they're brand new. I know the PPQ didn't have those initially...
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/leosiss.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 04-08-2014, 1:45 PM
cooper669's Avatar
cooper669 cooper669 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: California.....Upper East
Posts: 232
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

I am currently employed with CDCR Corrections, which is a "qualifying law enforcement officer" under LEOSA. As far as qualifying under LEOSA, does my annual firearms qualification meet the requirements? Is my annual qualification card and peace officer identification sufficient and since we are issued 20-30 rd magazines for work does that mean we can use them under LEOSA? What training and/or direction, if any, are CHP, County Sheriffs, and local PD's given from their departments regarding LEOSA? Any input from local law enforcement or CHP would be appreciated.

Last edited by cooper669; 04-08-2014 at 1:57 PM.. Reason: more questions
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 04-08-2014, 1:55 PM
GlockedAndLoaded's Avatar
GlockedAndLoaded GlockedAndLoaded is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 410
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cooper669 View Post
I am currently employed with CDCR Corrections, which is a "qualifying law enforcement officer" under LEOSA. As far as qualifying under LEOSA, does my annual firearms qualification meet the requirements? Is my annual qualification card and peace officer identification sufficient and since we are issued 20-30 rd magazines for work does that mean we can use them under LEOSA?
It's my understanding you should. Can't you lawfully purchase standard capacity mags and off roster firearms from any LGS?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 8:21 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.