|
Calguns LEOs LEOs; chat, kibitz and relax. Non-LEOs; have a questions for a cop? Ask it here, in a CIVIL manner. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine/gun regulation Federal LEO
I'm a recent transplant to this state and am a bit confused by the laws here. As far as the roster goes it's pretty simple with 1 exception. I work for the Department of Justice (Feds not state). The penal code specifies who can buy what by agency but federal Department of Justice is not listed. Does this mean Federal LEO are not exempt from the roster?
Also, what about magazines? Can Federal LEO buy standard capacity magazines from private parties? What about gun shops? I have credentials/ID's etc... Help! |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
I am a BP Agent, and haven't had a problem buying magazines here in San Diego. I just have to show my credentials to the shop. I have had gotten a better deal online from DSG than I have at any shops here in SD. I paid $26 for two 30-round magpul mags, including shipping. You just have to register and send them a copy of your creds to verify your LEO status.
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Just so you guys know, for the last 13 years there was a memo from Bill Lockyear that stated, basically, that Federal LEO's were to be considered peace officers for the sake of gun purchases. Kamala Harris in her infinite anti-gun, anti-fed wisdom decided that no one besides California Peace Officers as defined in PC 832 were able to to purchase off roster guns or high capacity magazines. Unfortunately most of the gun laws simply state that peace officers are exempt. There is no mention of federal law enforcement.
Now some good news, SB 363 recently passed which amended the law to specify Federal Agents are exempt from the nonsense safe gun roster. Unfortunately they did not make the same changes to the magazine laws. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...201320140SB363 here is the section of law, but its best to read the bill in it's entirety; (4) The sale or purchase of a handgun, if the handgun is sold to, or purchased by, the Department of Justice, a police department, a sheriff’s official, a marshal’s office, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the California Highway Patrol, any district attorney’s office, any federal law enforcement agency, or the military or naval forces of this state or of the United States for use in the discharge of their official duties. This section does not prohibit the sale to, or purchase by, sworn members of these agencies of a handgun. A person who, under this paragraph, acquires a handgun that is not on the roster required by Section 32015, shall not sell or otherwise transfer ownership of the handgun to a person who is not exempted under this paragraph. Bottom line, while you can probably buy normal magazines, it's actually illegal. Some gun stores are friendly to us, and others could give two f"s...In fact, going by the strict letter of the law, it looks as though federal agents in possession of normal magazines are in violation of California law. I've been going back and forth with my State Representitives, as well as CALDOJ, and even a few attorneys trying to get the straight scoop on this. The last word I got from DOJ was that it is unlikely that the magzine ban will be changed anytime this year. Last edited by will0861; 01-15-2014 at 1:22 PM.. |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
That is true. Federal LEO's are not able to legally purchase standard capacity magazines in CA. I recently bought a glock and they swapped out the mags with 10 round ones. Sucks... So technically all the Federal Agencies operating in CA with standard mags for their duty weapons are in violation of the CA Penal code as I understand it?
Last edited by m1a1driver; 01-15-2014 at 1:45 PM.. |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
M1, possession is not illegal by anyone.
The issue is buying them.
__________________
LASD Retired 1978-2011 NRA Life Member CRPA Life Member NRA Rifle Instructor NRA Shotgun Instructor NRA Range Safety Officer DOJ Certified Instructor |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
On a side note, I don't care about the mags or even the guns all that much. It's the principle. The Federal Government trusts me to fly on commercial aircraft armed, but California can't trust me with anything more than 10 rounds, or a gun that some politician thinks is unsafe? Nevermind the fact that we assist any local agency when when they ask. So, it's ok for police and sheriff's to work the streets with regular mags, but when I work those same streets, going after the same bad guys I can't be trusted? WTF!! Last edited by will0861; 01-15-2014 at 2:25 PM.. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
True, it's not illegal to possess them, however the law prohibts, the importation, sale, transfer, and loaning of any high capacity magazine. So, the mere issuance, or loaning of magazines between Fed's seems to be technically illegal. While I realize that there probably aren't too many police officers that are willing to arrest me for carrying duty magazine, the fact that that possiblity exists is mind blowing.
Last edited by will0861; 01-15-2014 at 2:27 PM.. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
These California Hi-Cap Anti-Fed Agent restrictions also violate LEOSA, HR-218.
As long as the Mags are not federally restricted and you're carrying pursuant to LEOSA you're GTG. I'm just waiting for a Fed, (either active or retired), to get arrested and a subsequent 1983 fed case to be filed, won and civil damages paid for violating "federally protected rights." Just Sayin' |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. --Cesare, Marquis of Beccaria, "On Crimes and Punishment" |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The federal DOJ has published guidance that LEOSA does not apply to magazines and to ammunition. They maintain these items may be restricted by the states. The LEOSA exempts (with some exceptions) qualified persons from state laws restricting the carrying of concealed weapons. California case law (refer to People v Hale) has held that a magazine is a constituent part of a firearm. Therefore, at least in California, LEOSA would trump the California restrictions on large-capacity magazines. The argument is that the magazine is part of the firearm, and that laws governing the firearm are trumped by LEOSA. Please note the argument only works for California because Hale was a California state case. Also please note this is argument only. I'm not aware of any case ruling on the LEOSA-Magazine issue. |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Can active/retired officers carry large capacity magazines in states that restrict large capacity magazines? PC 12020(b) exceptions? It appears that under California law (12020(a)(2) PC), nobody may import large capacity magazines into California. There does not appear to be an exemption for law enforcement officers from other states. This may all lead somebody to ask whether federal law enforcement officers moving or being relocated into this state are in violation of California law if they bring their large capacity magazines with them, since such officers are in violation of California law and there is no exemption for them. IMO Hale would not apply, if that were the case, federal leo's would be able to buy "hi-cap mags" because they would be an "integral" part of the firearm. Where a hole gets punched into your argument is that a 10 round magazine, will function just as well as a 15 round magazine, and as such, California's magazine ban wouldn't be denying an "integral" part of a firearm only the capacity that part holds, unless your argument (which I doubt) was that a active/retired leo's gun will only function with "hi-capacity" magazines. The post I was responding to made the claim that LEOSA trumps a state's right to restrict magazine capacity and it does not, there was enough of a concern in regards to ammo that Obama signed a revised version of LEOSA to include ammo, however, magazines were never addressed and not expressly mentioned in the law.
__________________
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. --Cesare, Marquis of Beccaria, "On Crimes and Punishment" Last edited by lrdchivalry; 02-15-2014 at 7:58 AM.. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Welcome to California. Where if it doesn't make sense, it's going to happen! |
#15
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
You're quite correct that my assessment of Hale would allow a federal LEO to purchase, or manufacture, a large-capacity magazine because LEOSA would make Penal Code section 32310 inapplicable to the officer. I don't see the "hole" that you're referring to with regard to the magazine capacity. Under Hale, a 10-round magazine is part of the firearm and a 15 round magazine is also part of the firearm. As long as it's part of the firearm, LEOSA controls and 32310 goes out the window. If you're maintaining that California can regulate the capacity of a firearm part (the magazine), then any such law would be a regulation of the firearm (including its parts) and any such law would be inapplicable under LEOSA. I agree the firearm would work just fine with a legal-standard capacity magazine of 10 rounds, but it would probably serve the officer's needs better with a large-capacity magazine and, so long as the magazine is part of the firearm, it's the officer's choice. But we still need an officer to volunteer to sit behind the "Defendant's" sign in a test case to know any of this for sure. Last edited by RickD427; 02-15-2014 at 11:57 AM.. |
#16
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And that is the crux of the problem.
__________________
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. --Cesare, Marquis of Beccaria, "On Crimes and Punishment" Last edited by lrdchivalry; 02-15-2014 at 3:14 PM.. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
When you are legally carrying, under LEOSA, a handgun that came from the factory with a factory magazine that holds more than 10 rounds you're in compliance with LEOSA and the Federal Supremacy Clause will take precedence. There are several LEO Advocacy Groups just waiting for the first CA PC arrest and or filing to rebut the arrest with a transference of the State case into Federal Court and a concurrent 1983 filing. I pity the CA LEO who tries to PC arrest a LEOSA card carrier for a CA. Hi-Cap violation. He/She and their Sgt. better have professional liability insurance. Just Sayin' |
#18
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Possession of hi-cap mags is not illegal in the state, however, importation is illegal unless your a California leo or have an exemption, which out of state leo's and federal leo's do not, per the PC. HR218 does not mention magazines at all, the original law didn't even mention ammo, and there was enough of a concern that an enhancement to the law was added to keep leo's from being prosecuted in states, like NJ, that have hollow point ammo bans, magazines still have not been mentioned in the federal law, therefore leaving it up to the states. I think RickD's assessment of people vs. Hale would be a viable defense at least in California. Quote:
Quote:
If people vs. Hale is successful it would only apply in California since HR 218 by itself doesn't protect magazines, only the carrying of firearms and ammo.
__________________
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. --Cesare, Marquis of Beccaria, "On Crimes and Punishment" |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
To M1. The California magazine and weapons bans do not apply to Federal agencies, their official purchases or equipment issued to their employees. Note here it applies to U.S. government property and employees in their official capacity.
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|