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
  #41  
Old 06-18-2017, 6:47 PM
9M62 9M62 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,363
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

The LEOSA act supercedes state laws regarding carrying. It flat out says, "not-withstanding."

I can appreciate the process just to be safe and sure, but the bottom line is LEO can carry in any state in the country if they meet the LEOSA guidelines... so if Hawaii tried to jam you up and say that you were in violation of their state law on carrying or possessing a firearm when you were following LEOSA, you would have no issues.

This, of course, doesn't change the fact that you'd have to actually go to court and present that DEFENSE, but that is exactly what the LEOSA act is for.

California could say "No cop from any other state, effective immediately, can carry within the State of California" and a week later a Nevada cop could show up carrying his firearm under LEOSA and be completely safe and free from fear of conviction. Not fear of prosecution, but conviction.

Anyhow, old thread, carry on
__________________
Warning: Nothing on the Internet is true, including this post.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 06-18-2017, 8:01 PM
esy esy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: NorCal
Posts: 516
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 9M62 View Post
The LEOSA act supercedes state laws regarding carrying. It flat out says, "not-withstanding."

I can appreciate the process just to be safe and sure, but the bottom line is LEO can carry in any state in the country if they meet the LEOSA guidelines... so if Hawaii tried to jam you up and say that you were in violation of their state law on carrying or possessing a firearm when you were following LEOSA, you would have no issues.

This, of course, doesn't change the fact that you'd have to actually go to court and present that DEFENSE, but that is exactly what the LEOSA act is for.

California could say "No cop from any other state, effective immediately, can carry within the State of California" and a week later a Nevada cop could show up carrying his firearm under LEOSA and be completely safe and free from fear of conviction. Not fear of prosecution, but conviction.

Anyhow, old thread, carry on
So, would you also be implying that since Marijuana is still a misdemeanor under Federal Law, I can charge it as such?

Sale of marijuana <50kg is still a felony. Can I charge someone with that as well?

Suffice it to say, that we still have to abide by differing state laws unless they state otherwise.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 06-18-2017, 9:20 PM
CinnamonBear723 CinnamonBear723 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Orange County
Posts: 1,228
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by esy View Post
So, would you also be implying that since Marijuana is still a misdemeanor under Federal Law, I can charge it as such?

Sale of marijuana <50kg is still a felony. Can I charge someone with that as well?

Suffice it to say, that we still have to abide by differing state laws unless they state otherwise.
The difference is you are talking about enforcing a federal law vs the protections offered to you by federal law. Supremacy clause in Article VI, Clause 2 establishes the supreme law of the land over state courts.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 06-19-2017, 1:07 PM
wazafuzz's Avatar
wazafuzz wazafuzz is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: The Big Valley
Posts: 113
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

[QUOTE=9M62;20253854]The LEOSA act supercedes state laws regarding carrying. It flat out says, "not-withstanding."

I can appreciate the process just to be safe and sure, but the bottom line is LEO can carry in any state in the country if they meet the LEOSA guidelines... so if Hawaii tried to jam you up and say that you were in violation of their state law on carrying or possessing a firearm when you were following LEOSA, you would have no issues.

This, of course, doesn't change the fact that you'd have to actually go to court and present that DEFENSE, but that is exactly what the LEOSA act is for.


It's not the carrying that Hawaii is trying to regulate. They're more insidious than that. It's the registration, which as we know already in this state has been given a pass by the courts. So, you go to Hawaii with your gun and somehow come to the attention of the DA there, you are going to be charged with possession of an unregistered firearm. Maybe you'll win the case, but I guarantee it's going to be time consuming and expensive.
I haven't heard of any LEO's charged with this yet, but I'm sure the Hawaii DA is itching for a test case.
As I stated earlier, if you register a gun, then you can bring it with you on subsequent trips.
I personally have no choice, I have to go to see my kids/grandkids so I'll jump through the hoops.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 06-19-2017, 6:14 PM
9M62 9M62 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,363
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

[QUOTE=wazafuzz;20256965]
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9M62 View Post
The LEOSA act supercedes state laws regarding carrying. It flat out says, "not-withstanding."

I can appreciate the process just to be safe and sure, but the bottom line is LEO can carry in any state in the country if they meet the LEOSA guidelines... so if Hawaii tried to jam you up and say that you were in violation of their state law on carrying or possessing a firearm when you were following LEOSA, you would have no issues.

This, of course, doesn't change the fact that you'd have to actually go to court and present that DEFENSE, but that is exactly what the LEOSA act is for.


It's not the carrying that Hawaii is trying to regulate. They're more insidious than that. It's the registration, which as we know already in this state has been given a pass by the courts. So, you go to Hawaii with your gun and somehow come to the attention of the DA there, you are going to be charged with possession of an unregistered firearm. Maybe you'll win the case, but I guarantee it's going to be time consuming and expensive.
I haven't heard of any LEO's charged with this yet, but I'm sure the Hawaii DA is itching for a test case.
As I stated earlier, if you register a gun, then you can bring it with you on subsequent trips.
I personally have no choice, I have to go to see my kids/grandkids so I'll jump through the hoops.
Yes I know, but in terms of LEOSA it is specific to allow Officers to carry firearms, concealed, in all States of the union - regardless of state laws. This, in and of itself, obviously includes the ability of that Officer to enter the state without any regard for state laws regarding the importation of that firearm - so long as they are in fact carrying the firearm in a concealed manner.

I get what you're saying and there's no harm in going the extra mile - but the LEOSA act does prevent you from needing to do so.

New York City, New Jersey and other states are very similar in their draconian requirements to even enter the state with a firearm, and all are bypassed by LEOSA.
__________________
Warning: Nothing on the Internet is true, including this post.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 10-14-2017, 4:57 PM
Jared1981 Jared1981 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 271
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 9M62 View Post
The LEOSA act supercedes state laws regarding carrying. It flat out says, "not-withstanding."

I can appreciate the process just to be safe and sure, but the bottom line is LEO can carry in any state in the country if they meet the LEOSA guidelines... so if Hawaii tried to jam you up and say that you were in violation of their state law on carrying or possessing a firearm when you were following LEOSA, you would have no issues.

This, of course, doesn't change the fact that you'd have to actually go to court and present that DEFENSE, but that is exactly what the LEOSA act is for.

California could say "No cop from any other state, effective immediately, can carry within the State of California" and a week later a Nevada cop could show up carrying his firearm under LEOSA and be completely safe and free from fear of conviction. Not fear of prosecution, but conviction.

Anyhow, old thread, carry on
Correct, Hawaii’s registration is preempted just as New York’s registration is.

Many people don’t understand federal preemption. There are LEOSA qualified people who are prohibited from Hawaii law from possessing a firearm, they can still carry.

Any state charge against a LEOSA qualified LEO should be moved to federal court immediately.

The nonsense that a LEOSA qualified individual must register in hawaii came from former AG Mark Bennett who took a “crack” at explaining the law, he also added to the text of 18 USC 926b to say you must not be prohibited by state law as well... which is. 100% false.

DC, NY, and all territories require registration, preempted by LEOSA.

American Samoa bans handguns... preempted by LEOSA.

Guam requires an FID card before bringing a handgun to the island... preempted by LEOSA.

CA bans the Judge... preempted by LEOSA.

CA bans “assault weapons”... preempted by LEOSA since it’s not a Machinegun, silencer, or destructive device.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 10-14-2017, 5:40 PM
Rogue187 Rogue187 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Behind Enemy Lines
Posts: 822
iTrader: 43 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jared1981 View Post
Correct, Hawaii’s registration is preempted just as New York’s registration is.

Many people don’t understand federal preemption. There are LEOSA qualified people who are prohibited from Hawaii law from possessing a firearm, they can still carry.

Any state charge against a LEOSA qualified LEO should be moved to federal court immediately.

The nonsense that a LEOSA qualified individual must register in hawaii came from former AG Mark Bennett who took a “crack” at explaining the law, he also added to the text of 18 USC 926b to say you must not be prohibited by state law as well... which is. 100% false.

DC, NY, and all territories require registration, preempted by LEOSA.

American Samoa bans handguns... preempted by LEOSA.

Guam requires an FID card before bringing a handgun to the island... preempted by LEOSA.

CA bans the Judge... preempted by LEOSA.

CA bans “assault weapons”... preempted by LEOSA since it’s not a Machinegun, silencer, or destructive device.

Please cite where you got your information from.. I'm sure LEOSA individuals will be interested in knowing.

The Judge is considered a Sawed Off Shotgun here in the State of California. But I would like to see where your got that opinion and if it was a legal source.

As for the Assault Weapons section I would like to also see where you got that information.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 10-14-2017, 7:29 PM
wazafuzz's Avatar
wazafuzz wazafuzz is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: The Big Valley
Posts: 113
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Wink

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jared1981 View Post
Correct, Hawaii’s registration is preempted just as New York’s registration is.

Many people don’t understand federal preemption. There are LEOSA qualified people who are prohibited from Hawaii law from possessing a firearm, they can still carry.

Any state charge against a LEOSA qualified LEO should be moved to federal court immediately.

The nonsense that a LEOSA qualified individual must register in hawaii came from former AG Mark Bennett who took a “crack” at explaining the law, he also added to the text of 18 USC 926b to say you must not be prohibited by state law as well... which is. 100% false.

DC, NY, and all territories require registration, preempted by LEOSA.

American Samoa bans handguns... preempted by LEOSA.

Guam requires an FID card before bringing a handgun to the island... preempted by LEOSA.

CA bans the Judge... preempted by LEOSA.

CA bans “assault weapons”... preempted by LEOSA since it’s not a Machinegun, silencer, or destructive device.
Well, you may be right. So please, fly to Hawaii, notify them that you are bringing a handgun and you refuse to register it.
We need a test case. Just think of the service you will be doing for all of us.
it may cost you a bit in bail, attorneys, air fare back and forth for court, but it will be for the greater good if you win.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 10-15-2017, 11:45 AM
Jared1981 Jared1981 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 271
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogue187 View Post
Please cite where you got your information from.. I'm sure LEOSA individuals will be interested in knowing.

The Judge is considered a Sawed Off Shotgun here in the State of California. But I would like to see where your got that opinion and if it was a legal source.

As for the Assault Weapons section I would like to also see where you got that information.
Simple, by actually reading 18 USC 921 and 18 USC 926b and c. Never rely on any state agency or state bureaucrat to read federal statute. Especially if it preempts state law. Watching the NYPD Licensing Division slowly back off their "interpretations" was funny. They finally admitted retirees don't need a Pistol License as long as they maintain active LEOSA certification.

Types of firearms are defined in 18 USC 921, LEOSA does not default to state definitions. Federal law does NOT incorporate state definitions or meanings unless specifically enumerated in the statute. An example of this are schools in 18 USC 921(a)(26) which reads “The term “school” means a school which provides elementary or secondary education, as determined under State law.”

Unless there has been a change to LEOSA to say “this statute does not preempt California assault weapons” then the law and its preemption is clear. Federal law, so federal definitions are controlling, not state or territorial.

A Judge is a “handgun” 18 USC 921(a)(29)
An AR-15 is a “semiautomatic rifle” 18 USC 921(a)(28)

California can call them nerf guns, bombs, or child killers, it doesn’t matter, federal law and federal definitions are controlling.

No one thinks twice about bringing a handgun into NY under LEOSA when NY bans handguns for everyone without a pistol license, just as California bans “assault weapons” for those without a Dangerous Weapons Permit.
No one though twice about bringing a handgun into DC under LEOSA between 2004-2008 when handguns were illegal in DC.

So why people think handgun bans are preempted by LEOSA but not rifle bans makes no sense. Both are "firearms" as explained below.

The LEOSA learning curve is still lacking as so many people still think LEOSA only covers “pistols” (or semi-auto) and “revolvers” ... neither of which are legal terms under 18 USC 921. All one has to do is look at subsection e of 18 USC 926b,

(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).

I figured the registration and state banned arguments (contrary to the law anyway) were put to rest after the Barbusin case.

Last edited by Jared1981; 10-15-2017 at 12:41 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 10-15-2017, 11:46 AM
Jared1981 Jared1981 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 271
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wazafuzz View Post
Well, you may be right. So please, fly to Hawaii, notify them that you are bringing a handgun and you refuse to register it.
We need a test case. Just think of the service you will be doing for all of us.
it may cost you a bit in bail, attorneys, air fare back and forth for court, but it will be for the greater good if you win.
Well, that childish banter puts everything into perspective...
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 10-15-2017, 12:10 PM
wazafuzz's Avatar
wazafuzz wazafuzz is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: The Big Valley
Posts: 113
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jared1981 View Post
Well, that childish banter puts everything into perspective...
OOhhh what a comeback.
Are you a lawyer? You sure seem free giving out legal advice on YOUR interpretation of the law.

You're so sure of yourself, my "banter" was instead of telling everyone what they should be doing, You go first. Fight that battle.

When you do, start a gofundme, I'll kick in a few bucks for your defense.
I know for a fact that the state of Hawaii is waiting for a good test case.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 10-15-2017, 2:13 PM
Rogue187 Rogue187 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Behind Enemy Lines
Posts: 822
iTrader: 43 / 100%
Default

Thanks for the information.
However I believe you are mistaken.
These are Federal Regulations and Laws.

When you are in this state and the local police pop you for carrying an illegal firearm I would love to see you argue your point that it is allowed under federal law. But since you may be arrested by a local city with it's laws. How are you going challenge that you want this moved to federal court.

Since state law is what you violated. And you are a guest of the State Penal System.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jared1981 View Post
Simple, by actually reading 18 USC 921 and 18 USC 926b and c. Never rely on any state agency or state bureaucrat to read federal statute. Especially if it preempts state law. Watching the NYPD Licensing Division slowly back off their "interpretations" was funny. They finally admitted retirees don't need a Pistol License as long as they maintain active LEOSA certification.

Types of firearms are defined in 18 USC 921, LEOSA does not default to state definitions. Federal law does NOT incorporate state definitions or meanings unless specifically enumerated in the statute. An example of this are schools in 18 USC 921(a)(26) which reads “The term “school” means a school which provides elementary or secondary education, as determined under State law.”

Unless there has been a change to LEOSA to say “this statute does not preempt California assault weapons” then the law and its preemption is clear. Federal law, so federal definitions are controlling, not state or territorial.

A Judge is a “handgun” 18 USC 921(a)(29)
An AR-15 is a “semiautomatic rifle” 18 USC 921(a)(28)

California can call them nerf guns, bombs, or child killers, it doesn’t matter, federal law and federal definitions are controlling.

No one thinks twice about bringing a handgun into NY under LEOSA when NY bans handguns for everyone without a pistol license, just as California bans “assault weapons” for those without a Dangerous Weapons Permit.
No one though twice about bringing a handgun into DC under LEOSA between 2004-2008 when handguns were illegal in DC.

So why people think handgun bans are preempted by LEOSA but not rifle bans makes no sense. Both are "firearms" as explained below.

The LEOSA learning curve is still lacking as so many people still think LEOSA only covers “pistols” (or semi-auto) and “revolvers” ... neither of which are legal terms under 18 USC 921. All one has to do is look at subsection e of 18 USC 926b,

(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).

I figured the registration and state banned arguments (contrary to the law anyway) were put to rest after the Barbusin case.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 10-15-2017, 3:17 PM
Jared1981 Jared1981 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 271
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogue187 View Post
Thanks for the information.
However I believe you are mistaken.
These are Federal Regulations and Laws.

When you are in this state and the local police pop you for carrying an illegal firearm I would love to see you argue your point that it is allowed under federal law. But since you may be arrested by a local city with it's laws. How are you going challenge that you want this moved to federal court.

Since state law is what you violated. And you are a guest of the State Penal System.
The case wouldn't even be in state court or under the purview of the state penal system if moved to federal court. Anyone carrying under LEOSA is entitled to file a 1443 petition to move it to federal court pursuant to 28 USC 1443/1446. Therefore, the local or state prosecutor would have to walk into federal court and tell a federal judge how California law is special and exempt from the supremacy clause AND the "notwithstanding" language of LEOSA.

This is exactly how Steve Mannion beat New Jersey into submission on LEOSA. The federal court will determine line by line if the individual was covered under LEOSA. Since the Duberry case, there is now a "federal right" according to the US courts to LEOSA if you qualify, so state and local LEO's should be aware that they can now be held personally liable under a 1983 claim.

Last edited by Jared1981; 10-15-2017 at 3:57 PM..
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 7:24 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, 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.