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 04-07-2012, 4:49 AM
CaptBuzz's Avatar
CaptBuzz CaptBuzz is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 178
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default CHP new issued pistol soon?

I'll keep it short 'n sweet. The 4006 has been out of production for a long while-- Any rumors of switching to anything else? What do you qual with in the academy? What was/were the distance/distances you qualified at? Where was your academy or does that differ from city to city? Do you still allow ride-alongs even though CHP hasn't hired in years?

Thank you in advance.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-07-2012, 7:11 AM
fullrearview's Avatar
fullrearview fullrearview is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Carson Valley, NV
Posts: 9,377
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Not CHP, but I have a very close working relationship with them.

There are always rumors about new weapons. Some say Glock, some say Sig, but most say M&P40. Who knows honestly. The 4006 tsw is not a bad firearm, but it is heavy and limited in capacity.

All CHP go to the same academy which is in West Sacramento.

Don't know their quals, sorry.

Don't know if they do ride a longs... I'm sure it's based on station and assignments.
__________________
"Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest."~M.Twain~
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-07-2012, 7:21 AM
Fatstackz's Avatar
Fatstackz Fatstackz is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Dublin, CA
Posts: 569
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

I know for a fact they still do ridealongs but you will need to get scheduled through a recruiter most likley. My daughter is intrested in CHP as well.
__________________
"Don't make the same mistake twice or you might never get to them all."
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-07-2012, 8:20 AM
Quiet's Avatar
Quiet Quiet is offline
short bus driver
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: the 909
Posts: 19,225
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

In 1991, CHP adopted the S&W Model 4006.

In 2006, CHP replaced the S&W Model 4006 with the S&W Model 4006TSW.


Rumor is CHP is looking at the S&W M&P-40 as a possible replacement for the S&W Model 4006TSW. But due to budgetary concerns, it's not likely to happen for the next decade.
__________________


"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” - Dalai Lama (Seattle Times, 05-15-2001).
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-07-2012, 8:54 AM
Manolito's Avatar
Manolito Manolito is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Milford California Pop. 72
Posts: 2,327
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Budget can't be to big of a concern they just put new smart terminals in their cars and trust me this one isn't cheap.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-09-2012, 12:47 AM
Doheny's Avatar
Doheny Doheny is offline
CalGuns Truth Squad
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 13,754
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

OP, try: CHPforums.com

They can probably answer your questions.

.

Last edited by Doheny; 04-09-2012 at 9:50 AM.. Reason: added hyperlink
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-09-2012, 1:58 PM
BigStiCK's Avatar
BigStiCK BigStiCK is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: ReTard Capital of the World
Posts: 2,559
iTrader: 54 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptBuzz View Post
I'll keep it short 'n sweet. The 4006 has been out of production for a long while-- Any rumors of switching to anything else? What do you qual with in the academy? What was/were the distance/distances you qualified at? Where was your academy or does that differ from city to city? Do you still allow ride-alongs even though CHP hasn't hired in years?

Thank you in advance.
I can answer some of these...Have not heard of any plans to update the 4006 TSW. I'm not a fan and would love a modern pistol with higher capacity, but nothing doing there.

You will qualify with that pistol. It will be issued to you half way through the academy & it will be the same pistol you carry on the road if you are fortunate enough to graduate.

There is only one CHP academy & it is in Sacramento. It is a full time academy (nights & weekends) and it is 6+ months long.

We do give ride-alongs, but lately they've been restricted to folks in the application process only. Contact Your local recruiter (can find their info on the ca.gov website).

Hope that helps.

-Stick
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-09-2012, 2:17 PM
CaptBuzz's Avatar
CaptBuzz CaptBuzz is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 178
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Thank Stick, exactly the information I was looking for.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-09-2012, 3:33 PM
tacticalcity's Avatar
tacticalcity tacticalcity is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Rancho Cordova, California
Posts: 8,813
iTrader: 90 / 100%
Default

You will hear lots of rumors like this all the time for all kinds of different departments. Sometimes they are true, but usually they are not. Guns can be serviced for an extremely long time. The military has ARs that have been in service since vietnam. The CHP could concievably make their existing weapons last a very long time should they choose to do so.

Departments routinely evaluate new guns, this more than anything leads to rumors of an upcoming change. Sometimes they actually plan on making a change, usually they are just going thru the motions in order to meet some legal requirment before continuing with their existing contracts - not possible on a discontinued weapon but you get my meaning. The procurement process for a State or Federal organziation is a nightmare, and they have to jump through hoops or they get sued. THey have to make it look like they are at least looking and giving gun companies a chance. They also occassionally will add a gun to their roster for use by a specialized unit. When they do the manufacturer of that gun natuarally wants to brag about that new relationship in the hopes it will boost sales. More often than not, the nature of that relationship gets exadurated. Pretty soon a 15 gun purchase for a swat team or bomb squad becomes a department wide change.

This is expecially true of the military, but I've heard these kinds of stories with all kinds of departments like the LAPD, CHP, and even local Sheriff departments before. Best not to consider it true until it actually happens.

I cannot tell you how many times I have read stories about how the military is replacing the M4 with this or that weapon system. Never ends up being true. Just some yahoo taking the testing process out of context, or looking at a small purchase for a specific unit and blowing it out of proportion. Most likely the story you heard is something along those lines.

Last edited by tacticalcity; 04-09-2012 at 3:44 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-09-2012, 3:45 PM
BigDogatPlay's Avatar
BigDogatPlay BigDogatPlay is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Beautiful progressive Sonoma County
Posts: 7,387
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

CHP is still in the middle of their deal with S&W for almost 10K units of 4006 TSW. I doubt they'll be looking to replace them anytime soon since they got, in some cases, 15 years or more out of some of the initial series guns. The oldest of the most recent contract are at worst going on 5 years in service so they have plenty of road left. Kids going through the academy now are almost certainly getting issued a brand new gun that's been sitting on a shelf for a couple of years waiting for them.

Besides, S&W would be happy to fire up a line to make more 4006 TSW if CHP writes them a big enough check.

FWIW, State Parks piggy backed CHP for many years and bought 4006s for issue. They went to 100% M&P 40 last year and are very happy with them from what I am told. I doubt that would have any bearing on what CHP might someday do, but there you go.
__________________
-- Rifle, Pistol, Shotgun

Not a lawyer, just a former LEO proud to have served.

Quote:
Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. -- James Madison

Last edited by BigDogatPlay; 04-09-2012 at 3:47 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04-09-2012, 8:40 PM
CaliTheKid's Avatar
CaliTheKid CaliTheKid is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 548
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

I would think that if CHP wanted to switch to the M&P .40 in mid 4006TSW contract that it would not be out of the question for S&W to want to do that.

It's an interesting gun policy at CHP. Can only carry one on-duty gun but they have a pretty big list of off duty options.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-03-2012, 8:11 PM
CalCop CalCop is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sacto Area
Posts: 573
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliTheKid View Post
It's an interesting gun policy at CHP. Can only carry one on-duty gun but they have a pretty big list of off duty options.
Due to the passage of LEOSA, it is irrelevant what the CHP allows for off-duty carry. A qualified LEO can carry any semi auto firearm he wants off duty, regardless of agency policy.

Myth – Only LEOs with agency permission can carry off-duty under LEOSA.
• September 2007: Federal corrections officer prosecuted on disciplinary charges by the Bureau of Prisons for carrying a handgun off-duty without permission and for misusing his agency identification. Administrative Judge dismissed both charges. Court found that the officer did not need agency approval to carry under LEOSA. It also found that the officer only used the identification, but not to secure privileges unavailable to the general public. (Davis v. Dept of Justice, 2007 Merit System Protection Board Lexis 5609)
• Representative Scott proposed a provision that LEOSA shall not be construed to supersede or limit the rules, regulations, policies, or practices of any State or local law enforcement agency. This amendment was defeated by a vote of 11 yeas to 21 nays. (H.R. Rep. No. 560, 108th Cong, 2nd Sess. 2004 p. 7)
• An officer trained only to use a firearm in a correctional setting but not trained to carry one on-duty, and not allowed to carry off-duty, is still covered by LEOSA if they meet all requirements of LEOSA. (H.R. Rep. No. 560, 108th Cong., 2nd Sess. 2004 p. 58)
• “The protection provided by LEOSA is simply not reduced or eliminated because an otherwise qualified officer fails to obtain permission from his department to use the weapon; (People v. Drew Peterson)
• CA DOJ says, “On-duty restrictions placed by the department appear to be permissible. Off-duty restrictions appear to be superceded by this Act.” http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/leosiss.pdf
__________________
"Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen."
-- Sir Robert Peel
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-03-2012, 8:16 PM
bballwizard05's Avatar
bballwizard05 bballwizard05 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Prescott- Freedomsville!!
Posts: 3,002
iTrader: 65 / 100%
Default

my friend who has been CHP for just about 2 years used an M&P40 in training I believe.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-03-2012, 9:40 PM
oldmotor oldmotor is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 106
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bballwizard05 View Post
my friend who has been CHP for just about 2 years used an M&P40 in training I believe.
No he/she didn't. He/she was issued the 4006 TSW at the academy that he/she graduated with. Cadets train with a 4006 TSW. There is no other handgun used by cadets or used by road patrol officers.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-03-2012, 10:01 PM
CaliTheKid's Avatar
CaliTheKid CaliTheKid is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 548
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalCop View Post
Due to the passage of LEOSA, it is irrelevant what the CHP allows for off-duty carry. A qualified LEO can carry any semi auto firearm he wants off duty, regardless of agency policy.

Myth – Only LEOs with agency permission can carry off-duty under LEOSA.
• September 2007: Federal corrections officer prosecuted on disciplinary charges by the Bureau of Prisons for carrying a handgun off-duty without permission and for misusing his agency identification. Administrative Judge dismissed both charges. Court found that the officer did not need agency approval to carry under LEOSA. It also found that the officer only used the identification, but not to secure privileges unavailable to the general public. (Davis v. Dept of Justice, 2007 Merit System Protection Board Lexis 5609)
• Representative Scott proposed a provision that LEOSA shall not be construed to supersede or limit the rules, regulations, policies, or practices of any State or local law enforcement agency. This amendment was defeated by a vote of 11 yeas to 21 nays. (H.R. Rep. No. 560, 108th Cong, 2nd Sess. 2004 p. 7)
• An officer trained only to use a firearm in a correctional setting but not trained to carry one on-duty, and not allowed to carry off-duty, is still covered by LEOSA if they meet all requirements of LEOSA. (H.R. Rep. No. 560, 108th Cong., 2nd Sess. 2004 p. 58)
• “The protection provided by LEOSA is simply not reduced or eliminated because an otherwise qualified officer fails to obtain permission from his department to use the weapon; (People v. Drew Peterson)
• CA DOJ says, “On-duty restrictions placed by the department appear to be permissible. Off-duty restrictions appear to be superceded by this Act.” http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/leosiss.pdf
My department asks we stick to our approved firearm list and take a class with that firearm.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 06-03-2012, 10:04 PM
bballwizard05's Avatar
bballwizard05 bballwizard05 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Prescott- Freedomsville!!
Posts: 3,002
iTrader: 65 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldmotor View Post
No he/she didn't. He/she was issued the 4006 TSW at the academy that he/she graduated with. Cadets train with a 4006 TSW. There is no other handgun used by cadets or used by road patrol officers.
good thing I said "I believe" at the end of my sentence so I left room for being wrong, haha. I could have sworn he said either an M&P or a S&W that is specifically a CHP model.... must be mistooooken! My bad


btw: very correct of you to go "he/she". Don't often see that attention to detail on forums!
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 06-04-2012, 12:01 PM
BigDogatPlay's Avatar
BigDogatPlay BigDogatPlay is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Beautiful progressive Sonoma County
Posts: 7,387
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bballwizard05 View Post
I could have sworn he said either an M&P or a S&W that is specifically a CHP model
And for the last several years the 4006TSW that CHP issues is specifically a CHP model, so in that sense you're not all that wrong. The 2006 contract guns are not standard 4006TSW internally, there are some minor differences that CHP ordered specifically.

Here's a thread that outlines and discusses the variation at the S&W Forum
__________________
-- Rifle, Pistol, Shotgun

Not a lawyer, just a former LEO proud to have served.

Quote:
Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. -- James Madison
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 06-04-2012, 6:04 PM
CalCop CalCop is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sacto Area
Posts: 573
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliTheKid View Post
My department asks we stick to our approved firearm list and take a class with that firearm.
They can ask and you can comply if you wish. But, you don't have to. LEOSA made it so you don't need agency permission to carry any semi auto firearm when you are off duty...whether they like it or not.
__________________
"Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen."
-- Sir Robert Peel
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 06-04-2012, 6:07 PM
CalCop CalCop is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sacto Area
Posts: 573
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldmotor View Post
No he/she didn't. He/she was issued the 4006 TSW at the academy that he/she graduated with. Cadets train with a 4006 TSW. There is no other handgun used by cadets or used by road patrol officers.
The state has made him/her politically correct.
__________________
"Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen."
-- Sir Robert Peel
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 06-04-2012, 7:54 PM
M&P40FAN M&P40FAN is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,121
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalCop View Post
They can ask and you can comply if you wish. But, you don't have to. LEOSA made it so you don't need agency permission to carry any semi auto firearm when you are off duty...whether they like it or not.
This may be true, but the department may still take adverse action against you for doing so.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 06-04-2012, 8:10 PM
oldmotor oldmotor is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 106
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bballwizard05 View Post
good thing I said "I believe" at the end of my sentence so I left room for being wrong, haha. I could have sworn he said either an M&P or a S&W that is specifically a CHP model.... must be mistooooken! My bad


btw: very correct of you to go "he/she". Don't often see that attention to detail on forums!
I caught your "I believe". As far as the, "he/she" goes, I'm not really that PC, but I got called on it once.

I would rather have a M&P, but we got what we got. I say, "he/she"didn't say he/she
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 06-04-2012, 8:17 PM
CalCop CalCop is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sacto Area
Posts: 573
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M&P40FAN View Post
This may be true, but the department may still take adverse action against you for doing so.
They may, you are right. But, they should be swiftly spanked for doing so. Consider the following:

Myth – Only LEOs with agency permission can carry off-duty under LEOSA.
• September 2007: Federal corrections officer prosecuted on disciplinary charges by the Bureau of Prisons for carrying a handgun off-duty without permission and for misusing his agency identification. Administrative Judge dismissed both charges. Court found that the officer did not need agency approval to carry under LEOSA. It also found that the officer only used the identification, but not to secure privileges unavailable to the general public. (Davis v. Dept of Justice, 2007 Merit System Protection Board Lexis 5609)
• Representative Scott proposed a provision that LEOSA shall not be construed to supersede or limit the rules, regulations, policies, or practices of any State or local law enforcement agency. This amendment was defeated by a vote of 11 yeas to 21 nays. (H.R. Rep. No. 560, 108th Cong, 2nd Sess. 2004 p. 7)
• An officer trained only to use a firearm in a correctional setting but not trained to carry one on-duty, and not allowed to carry off-duty, is still covered by LEOSA if they meet all requirements of LEOSA. (H.R. Rep. No. 560, 108th Cong., 2nd Sess. 2004 p. 58)
• “The protection provided by LEOSA is simply not reduced or eliminated because an otherwise qualified officer fails to obtain permission from his department to use the weapon; (People v. Drew Peterson)
CA DOJ says, “On-duty restrictions placed by the department appear to be permissible. Off-duty restrictions appear to be superceded by this Act.http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/leosiss.pdf
__________________
"Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen."
-- Sir Robert Peel

Last edited by CalCop; 06-04-2012 at 8:21 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 06-04-2012, 8:34 PM
Anti-Hero's Avatar
Anti-Hero Anti-Hero is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,573
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

All the new boots are still issued the 4006, after they graduate from their blue gun.
__________________
IPSO FACTO
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 06-04-2012, 9:20 PM
AdiosKali's Avatar
AdiosKali AdiosKali is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Done Bounced Out!
Posts: 1,075
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

They would be well served with the M&P.
__________________
Looking to acquire a Marlin 1895 LTD III or Marlin 1895 Cowboy rifle in 45-70. Hit me up if you are contemplating getting rid of one.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 06-04-2012, 9:21 PM
brianinca brianinca is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 562
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

...

Last edited by brianinca; 06-05-2012 at 10:35 AM.. Reason: Realized topic drift from OP
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 06-05-2012, 9:14 AM
34marine's Avatar
34marine 34marine is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 116
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I really don't mind the 4006 TSW. That being said, I would entertain another option, which if we went with something different I could see it being a m&p. I would really enjoy moving up to 45ACP though, but the 4006 is a nice firearm for the interim.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 06-05-2012, 9:40 AM
TheExpertish's Avatar
TheExpertish TheExpertish is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NCSD, PRK
Posts: 3,445
iTrader: 49 / 96%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalCop View Post
They may, you are right. But, they should be swiftly spanked for doing so. Consider the following:

Myth – Only LEOs with agency permission can carry off-duty under LEOSA.
• September 2007: Federal corrections officer prosecuted on disciplinary charges by the Bureau of Prisons for carrying a handgun off-duty without permission and for misusing his agency identification. Administrative Judge dismissed both charges. Court found that the officer did not need agency approval to carry under LEOSA. It also found that the officer only used the identification, but not to secure privileges unavailable to the general public. (Davis v. Dept of Justice, 2007 Merit System Protection Board Lexis 5609)
• Representative Scott proposed a provision that LEOSA shall not be construed to supersede or limit the rules, regulations, policies, or practices of any State or local law enforcement agency. This amendment was defeated by a vote of 11 yeas to 21 nays. (H.R. Rep. No. 560, 108th Cong, 2nd Sess. 2004 p. 7)
• An officer trained only to use a firearm in a correctional setting but not trained to carry one on-duty, and not allowed to carry off-duty, is still covered by LEOSA if they meet all requirements of LEOSA. (H.R. Rep. No. 560, 108th Cong., 2nd Sess. 2004 p. 58)
• “The protection provided by LEOSA is simply not reduced or eliminated because an otherwise qualified officer fails to obtain permission from his department to use the weapon; (People v. Drew Peterson)
• CA DOJ says, “On-duty restrictions placed by the department appear to be permissible. Off-duty restrictions appear to be superceded by this Act.” http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/leosiss.pdf
Would be nice, but I don't know of many guys willing to set outside of P&P and risk an off-duty OIS with an "unauthorized" carry. Just the thought of being hung out to dry even temporarily isn't a fight most are willing to take. It's easier to follow P&P, and most departments have an amicable list to choose from so that most everyone is happy.
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by starsnuffer
It's an HK, I could lube it with sand and superglue and it'd work just fine.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 06-05-2012, 4:47 PM
CalCop CalCop is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sacto Area
Posts: 573
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheExpertish View Post
Would be nice, but I don't know of many guys willing to set outside of P&P and risk an off-duty OIS with an "unauthorized" carry. Just the thought of being hung out to dry even temporarily isn't a fight most are willing to take. It's easier to follow P&P, and most departments have an amicable list to choose from so that most everyone is happy.
I hear you. I can't wait until a precedent setting decision takes place in CA so agencies stop trying to control something they have no legal right to control anymore.
__________________
"Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen."
-- Sir Robert Peel
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 06-18-2012, 1:29 PM
Turbinator's Avatar
Turbinator Turbinator is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 11,262
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fullrearview View Post
All CHP go to the same academy which is in West Sacramento.
Yup - and man, I am jealous. I've spent a lot of time in the area and always hear cars screeching around the track, full auto fire, and handgun fire at their range. They're spending MY tax dollars on fun stuff. I'm envious!!

Turby
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 06-18-2012, 2:06 PM
beb's Avatar
beb beb is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Orange County
Posts: 438
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptBuzz View Post
Do you still allow ride-alongs even though CHP hasn't hired in years?
Theyre hiring again. My friend finished his application process and began academy almost a month or two ago!
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 06-18-2012, 2:26 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 34,277
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Turbinator View Post
Yup - and man, I am jealous. I've spent a lot of time in the area and always hear cars screeching around the track, full auto fire, and handgun fire at their range. They're spending MY tax dollars on fun stuff. I'm envious!!

Turby
Used to do National Guard things at a site just across the fence from the Academy.

One summer night, watched the instructors teach the students why they should be careful with traffic stops: Student-CHP car pulls over instructor car; students do all the usual things OK, I guess; student says 'open the trunk' and walks back there; trunk opens, another instructor comes out shooting (blanks).

S'prise!
__________________
Calguns Wiki, Magazine Qs, Knife laws

Unless there is some way to amend a bill so you would support it,
the details do not matter until the Governor signs or allows the bill to become law.

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.


Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 06-18-2012, 5:50 PM
CALREB CALREB is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 81
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

I know its legalese but , I dont see where the LEOSA implies that you can carry anything you want off duty. I think it means you can carry off duty if you want, regardless of dept regulations.
The first section on the DOJ's info says, an officer is still subject to Dept's policies and conditions of employment , and that the Dept can set the policies for qualification.
So if the gun isnt allowed/approved by your Dept ,how can you qualify or be qualified with it, and remain within Dept policy .
The biggest factor, like stated before, is no, or little backing if your weapon is outside policy. Although the Dept would probably still defend you because of their deep pocket problem, and within scope or not.
Again most have more than adequate weapons approved anyway. IMO.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 06-20-2012, 5:02 PM
Bobby Ricigliano's Avatar
Bobby Ricigliano Bobby Ricigliano is online now
Mit Gott und Mauser
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: The People's Glorious Republik of Southern Kalifornistan
Posts: 13,895
iTrader: 303 / 100%
Default

My department still issues the Beretta 92FS, but is slowly transitioning to the M&P 9mm. To the department's credit, there is an array of other approved on duty weapons available to use, at the officer's own expense of course.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 06-20-2012, 5:17 PM
tacticalcity's Avatar
tacticalcity tacticalcity is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Rancho Cordova, California
Posts: 8,813
iTrader: 90 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bballwizard05 View Post
good thing I said "I believe" at the end of my sentence so I left room for being wrong, haha. I could have sworn he said either an M&P or a S&W that is specifically a CHP model.... must be mistooooken! My bad


btw: very correct of you to go "he/she". Don't often see that attention to detail on forums!
Just miss understood. The gun the CHP uses is made by S&W, but just not the M&P. He might have used his personal M&P to train on his own before entering the academy. A lot of people get professional training before deciding to become a police officer. So who knows what was said or what your buddy meant.

The he/she while politically correct is actually bad english (not that I am a grammar nazi as I screw up all the time). Back in the 90s the Army was pushing the use of "he/she" and "sir/mam" when gender is unknown, such as when answering a phone or describing a suspect. Oddly enough the Air Force stressed that it not be used, at least by the time I joined.

Last edited by tacticalcity; 06-20-2012 at 5:20 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 06-24-2012, 8:19 AM
ap3572001 ap3572001 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco/East Bay
Posts: 5,143
iTrader: 46 / 96%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalCop View Post
They can ask and you can comply if you wish. But, you don't have to. LEOSA made it so you don't need agency permission to carry any semi auto firearm when you are off duty...whether they like it or not.
I don't understand.....

I work the range . We have a list of firearms that we can carry ON DUTY and OFF DUTY. We also need to qualify with EVERY handgun we carry ON or OFF.

We are ALSO told HOW we can carry , ammo we can use etc.

Its in the policy.

Has anything changed?
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 06-24-2012, 11:33 AM
CalCop CalCop is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sacto Area
Posts: 573
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Due to the passage of LEOSA, it is irrelevant what your policy says regarding off-duty carry. A qualified LEO who qualifies with A duty gun can carry ANY off-duty gun, other than a machine gun. Refer to the following:

Myth – Only LEOs with agency permission can carry off-duty under LEOSA.
• September 2007: Federal corrections officer prosecuted on disciplinary charges by the Bureau of Prisons for carrying a handgun off-duty without permission and for misusing his agency identification. Administrative Judge dismissed both charges. Court found that the officer did not need agency approval to carry under LEOSA. It also found that the officer only used the identification, but not to secure privileges unavailable to the general public. (Davis v. Dept of Justice, 2007 Merit System Protection Board Lexis 5609)
• During LEOSA drafting, Representative Scott proposed a provision that LEOSA shall not be construed to supersede or limit the rules, regulations, policies, or practices of any State or local law enforcement agency. This amendment was defeated by a vote of 11 yeas to 21 nays. (H.R. Rep. No. 560, 108th Cong, 2nd Sess. 2004 p. 7)
• An officer trained only to use a firearm in a correctional setting but not trained to carry one on-duty, and not allowed to carry off-duty, is still covered by LEOSA if they meet all requirements of LEOSA. (H.R. Rep. No. 560, 108th Cong., 2nd Sess. 2004 p. 58)
• “The protection provided by LEOSA is simply not reduced or eliminated because an otherwise qualified officer fails to obtain permission from his department to use the weapon." (People v. Drew Peterson)
• CA DOJ says, “On-duty restrictions placed by the department appear to be permissible. Off-duty restrictions appear to be superceded by this Act.” http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/leosiss.pdf
__________________
__________________
"Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen."
-- Sir Robert Peel
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 10:39 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.