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 05-09-2009, 8:17 PM
sltgunner's Avatar
sltgunner sltgunner is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 178
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default CCW in CA by an Out of State (NV) LE

Howdy all,

I am considering applying to a Nevada law enforcement agency that is within easy driving distance from me. I am not a CA LEO.

As I understand, all CA LEO are allowed to CCW in CA. However, if I were to become a sworn officer in Nevada, would I be able to CCW in CA, which is where I would live.

Thanks in advance.

sltgunner
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-09-2009, 8:29 PM
dro57 dro57 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 86
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Google HR218. It was a federal bill that passed which allowed LEO's to CCW in all states.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-09-2009, 8:37 PM
sltgunner's Avatar
sltgunner sltgunner is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 178
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Thanks, I've heard of HR218. I just wanted to confirm that crazy CA laws didn't interfere with that.

sltgunner
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-09-2009, 8:42 PM
5thstreet@sbcglobal.net's Avatar
5thstreet@sbcglobal.net 5thstreet@sbcglobal.net is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Modesto / Riverbank, CA
Posts: 478
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

if its a federal law CA cant do anything about it (correct me if im wrong). Just like if CA made marijuana legal it is still illegal because there is a federal law against it
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-09-2009, 8:47 PM
CSDGuy CSDGuy is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,749
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

If you're a "Qualified" LEO according to the criteria in the LEOSA, there's not much that California can do about it, in the end. The AG has a memo out that should guide the 58 DA's...
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-09-2009, 9:56 PM
code33 code33 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 967
iTrader: 54 / 100%
Default

http://www.ag.ca.gov/firearms/leosanew.php
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-10-2009, 9:12 AM
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

So long as you are a qualified LEO, and department policy doesn't forbid it, then LEOSA = good to 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
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-10-2009, 11:16 AM
Unit74 Unit74 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Conway, AR via Corona, CA
Posts: 2,044
iTrader: 36 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigDogatPlay View Post
So long as you are a qualified LEO, and department policy doesn't forbid it, then LEOSA = good to go.

Sworn LE from any jurisdiction and authorized to carry OD by the Chief/Sheriff; LEOSA trumps any state laws in regards to carry.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-10-2009, 11:22 AM
AJAX22 AJAX22 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 14,726
iTrader: 111 / 100%
Default

Is there an easy way to become a reserve deputy or other form of sworn LEO in a state in which you do not reside?

I would love to get LEO credentials which would allow me to CCW here in NYC
__________________
Youtube Channel Proto-Ordnance

Subscribe to Proto Ordnance
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-10-2009, 11:23 AM
yzernie's Avatar
yzernie yzernie is offline
Vendor/Retailer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Oak Hills/Hesperia, Ca.
Posts: 5,113
iTrader: 541 / 100%
Default

Just don't get stopped by the CHP in Los Angeles. They recently arrested, booked and siezed the firearm of an Arizona LEO for concealed carry. Stupidity at its best.
__________________
My Commercial Sales Ad >>> http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=257865

TinStarSupply@aol.com

The satisfaction of a job well done is to be the one who has done it
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05-10-2009, 11:25 AM
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 Unit74 View Post
Sworn LE from any jurisdiction and authorized to carry OD by the Chief/Sheriff; LEOSA trumps any state laws in regards to carry.
But does not trump department policy, which I think you are agreeing with?
__________________
-- 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
  #12  
Old 05-10-2009, 11:57 AM
bluestaterebel's Avatar
bluestaterebel bluestaterebel is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Near Downtown Los Angeles
Posts: 3,068
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yzernie View Post
Just don't get stopped by the CHP in Los Angeles. They recently arrested, booked and siezed the firearm of an Arizona LEO for concealed carry. Stupidity at its best.
there has gotta be more to that story
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by 11Z50 View Post
Since your myopic view is in concurrence with your cognizant lifespan on this planet, obviously less than 20 years, I will grant you a dispensation.

Figure that out and exercise your mind.....
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-10-2009, 12:07 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 bluestaterebel View Post
there has gotta be more to that story
X2.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-10-2009, 12:34 PM
yzernie's Avatar
yzernie yzernie is offline
Vendor/Retailer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Oak Hills/Hesperia, Ca.
Posts: 5,113
iTrader: 541 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bluestaterebel View Post
there has gotta be more to that story
I would like to think so too. The version I was told came from the CaDoJ agent that came and did my audit last week. He told me it all resulted from a traffic stop where the driver (LEO) told the CHP officer he had a loaded gun in his glovebox. He said once the higher ups at the CHP found out about it a couple days later they apologized, gave the guy his gun back and never sent the case to the DA. The info came to him via the Atty General's office.

He also told me the buffoons in Sacto (Atty General, et al) have decided that Cali will not honor HR218. He was surprised by that decision because it is a part of the HSA.
__________________
My Commercial Sales Ad >>> http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=257865

TinStarSupply@aol.com

The satisfaction of a job well done is to be the one who has done it
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-10-2009, 2:34 PM
Unit74 Unit74 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Conway, AR via Corona, CA
Posts: 2,044
iTrader: 36 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigDogatPlay View Post
But does not trump department policy, which I think you are agreeing with?
I would agree with that....

If the boss won't let you carry OD, then your SOL. But if they do let you carry, I don't think an in-State only policy would fly if challenged.

You can either carry or not. A wishy washy policy like that would conflict with LEOSA and subject the department to civil action if one was to challenge it Federally. In that case, I would say LEOSA trumps Dept Policy.

I'll tell you this though... If my Chief said not to carry out of state, I wouldn't want to be the one to create new case law on the matter if he found out I did carry.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-10-2009, 2:34 PM
CSDGuy CSDGuy is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,749
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unit74 View Post
Sworn LE from any jurisdiction and authorized to carry OD by the Chief/Sheriff; LEOSA trumps any state laws in regards to carry.
Yep.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigDogatPlay View Post
But does not trump department policy, which I think you are agreeing with?
Actually, according to the AG's office, it actually might. Apparently, there is case law that states that when policy has the effect of law upon those required to abide by that policy, the phrase "Notwithstanding any provision of the law..." will also override policy. It's not directly on point about firearms, but (IIRC) it deals with language that overrides state/local law and department policy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by yzernie View Post
Just don't get stopped by the CHP in Los Angeles. They recently arrested, booked and siezed the firearm of an Arizona LEO for concealed carry. Stupidity at its best.
Sets up something right below...

Quote:
Originally Posted by yzernie View Post
I would like to think so too. The version I was told came from the CaDoJ agent that came and did my audit last week. He told me it all resulted from a traffic stop where the driver (LEO) told the CHP officer he had a loaded gun in his glovebox. He said once the higher ups at the CHP found out about it a couple days later they apologized, gave the guy his gun back and never sent the case to the DA. The info came to him via the Atty General's office.

He also told me the buffoons in Sacto (Atty General, et al) have decided that Cali will not honor HR218. He was surprised by that decision because it is a part of the HSA.
Unless the AG's office pulls the memo, and posts something to the effect that they're not going to honor the LEOSA here: Bureau of Firearms:LEOSA for all to see, I'm going to have to call
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-10-2009, 2:38 PM
Unit74 Unit74 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Conway, AR via Corona, CA
Posts: 2,044
iTrader: 36 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yzernie View Post
He also told me the buffoons in Sacto (Atty General, et al) have decided that Cali will not honor HR218. He was surprised by that decision because it is a part of the HSA.
They don't have a choice.

If a case was filed, such as occurred in South Dakota on the 4 officers at Sturgis, with explicit refusal to honor LEOSA and with knowledge of it, the arresting/prosecuting agency might as well write the check now and wait to fill in the dollar amount when the suit is settled out of court.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-10-2009, 3:46 PM
FLIGHT762's Avatar
FLIGHT762 FLIGHT762 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Northern Calif. / SFO Area
Posts: 2,187
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

I just retired after 28 years. My Chief gave me CCW privileges on my I.D. card for California.
He refuses to allow me to qualify to get the HR 218 endorsement to carry in other states. He asked me "why would you want to carry in another State?"

We had Had HR 218 covered in our new rules and regs, but, he went in and lined them out.

Per HR 218, retired Officers have to qualify once a year to get the national endorsement. Most Chiefs in our area are on board per HR 218. Mine said he was concerned about "liability issues". What a joke.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-10-2009, 5:18 PM
yzernie's Avatar
yzernie yzernie is offline
Vendor/Retailer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Oak Hills/Hesperia, Ca.
Posts: 5,113
iTrader: 541 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CSDGuy View Post
Unless the AG's office pulls the memo, and posts something to the effect that they're not going to honor the LEOSA here: Bureau of Firearms:LEOSA for all to see, I'm going to have to call
You are preaching to the choir CSDGuy and I'm just relaying what he told me. I asked him how Cali could over-ride the Federal HSA and he said he didn't know but that is how they want it here in Cali. Kind of hard to take the guy to task on that while he is here to conduct an audit of all of my DROS paperwork and checking inventory against my A&D book!!
__________________
My Commercial Sales Ad >>> http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=257865

TinStarSupply@aol.com

The satisfaction of a job well done is to be the one who has done it
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-10-2009, 6:16 PM
Bobshouse's Avatar
Bobshouse Bobshouse is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Lompoc, CA
Posts: 460
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FLIGHT762 View Post
I just retired after 28 years. My Chief gave me CCW privileges on my I.D. card for California.
He refuses to allow me to qualify to get the HR 218 endorsement to carry in other states. He asked me "why would you want to carry in another State?"

We had Had HR 218 covered in our new rules and regs, but, he went in and lined them out.

Per HR 218, retired Officers have to qualify once a year to get the national endorsement. Most Chiefs in our area are on board per HR 218. Mine said he was concerned about "liability issues". What a joke.

You don't have to qualify under your old department to carry under LEOSA. I retired Bureau of Prisons and they refuse to qualify retirees...so I contacted a "State Certified" instructor to come down and qualify all the BOP retirees in the area.

There are no "endorsements". You have an ID card that states you were "law enforcement" and the total number of years served..(has to be over 15 to qualify)

Read HR 218 for the specifics. As long as you have the ID with the required information, a card saying you qualified (anually), 15 years of service and no pending disciplinary/adverse actions against you, your good to go.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 05-10-2009, 6:46 PM
masameet's Avatar
masameet masameet is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,487
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unit74 View Post
They don't have a choice.

If a case was filed, such as occurred in South Dakota on the 4 officers at Sturgis, with explicit refusal to honor LEOSA and with knowledge of it, the arresting/prosecuting agency might as well write the check now and wait to fill in the dollar amount when the suit is settled out of court.
Seems to me that the Sturgis incident set a big precedent for cops.
Quote:
KNBN-TV
updated 9:21 p.m. ET, Tues., Nov. 18, 2008
Sturgis - A judge has ordered the concealed weapons charges be dropped against four off-duty Washington police officers who were charged in a shooting at the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally. The judge says the officers are exempt from prosecution under South Dakota state law because of the federal law enforcement officers safety act. However, a concealed weapons charge against a fellow biker, who is a fireman, can proceed. All five men are members of the Iron Pigs Motorcycle Club. They were arrested at the Loud American Roadhouse after a fight with Hellís Angels. A Hellís Angel was shot in the scuffle. Copyright 2008 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
The Sturgis incident notwithstanding, HR 218 still is the law of the land for traveling cops, current and retired, on- and off-duty.

And I seem to recall that President Obama is not popular among Calgunners. lol Still I believe he has signed several pieces of legislation that have been favorable to cops. Maybe his AG could be urged to beef up HR 218. Esp. since the Fed DOJ's Guidance as to 70 Fed. Reg. 10673 says HR 218 does not supersede laws regarding private entities/businesses prohibiting CCW firearms or cover LEOs who are under the influence.
__________________
x

"Let those find fault whose wit's so very small,
They've need to show that they can think at all;
Errors, like straws, upon the surface flow;
He who would search for pearls, must dive below." -- John Dryden
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 05-10-2009, 7:23 PM
FLIGHT762's Avatar
FLIGHT762 FLIGHT762 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Northern Calif. / SFO Area
Posts: 2,187
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobshouse View Post
You don't have to qualify under your old department to carry under LEOSA. I retired Bureau of Prisons and they refuse to qualify retirees...so I contacted a "State Certified" instructor to come down and qualify all the BOP retirees in the area.

There are no "endorsements". You have an ID card that states you were "law enforcement" and the total number of years served..(has to be over 15 to qualify)

Read HR 218 for the specifics. As long as you have the ID with the required information, a card saying you qualified (anually), 15 years of service and no pending disciplinary/adverse actions against you, your good to go.
My I.D. card has none of the information as to years of service and having qualified. I will likely have to find a "State Certified" instructor. Thanks for the information. I was a certified Rangemaster at my department for 26 years. I don't know why some Chiefs make this so difficult.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 05-10-2009, 7:45 PM
CSDGuy CSDGuy is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,749
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FLIGHT762 View Post
My I.D. card has none of the information as to years of service and having qualified. I will likely have to find a "State Certified" instructor. Thanks for the information. I was a certified Rangemaster at my department for 26 years. I don't know why some Chiefs make this so difficult.
All you need to prove is that you're a Qualified Retired LEO. Where would you have to look to verify your years of service independently of your former agency??? Are you drawing retirement??? Theoretically, as long as you meet ALL those criteria, you don't even need the endorsement... but that endorsement does remove certain constraints that someone carrying under just the LEOSA would have. In other words, if you're a QRLEO, your Chief really doesn't have a whole lot of authority in the matter. There was an amendment that would have allowed Chief LEOs to opt their agency out... and that amedment was soundly defeated. The LEOSA is what it is...

And the fact that there's not a whole lot of case law only means that people just do NOT want to become a test case.

It's possible for your Chief LEO to revoke your California CCW privileges and you could still carry under the LEOSA...

Because you'd carry under this portion:
Quote:
‘‘(2)(A) a photographic identification issued by the agency
from which the individual retired from service as a law enforce-
ment officer; and
‘‘(B) a certification issued by the State in which the indi-
vidual 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.

Last edited by CSDGuy; 05-10-2009 at 7:51 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 05-10-2009, 8:34 PM
FLIGHT762's Avatar
FLIGHT762 FLIGHT762 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Northern Calif. / SFO Area
Posts: 2,187
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

More than one way to skin the cat. I believe in our rules and regs, a retiree can qualify every year. I'll go shoot and get a note from the head Rangemaster that I shot and qualified. I just would feel more comfortable having something, even a note on the back of a business card when I carry in another State.

I do get your point.

Thanks
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 05-10-2009, 9:10 PM
CaliTheKid's Avatar
CaliTheKid CaliTheKid is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 548
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

So much boils down to the individual officer you are dealing with. The Chippy that beefed that Az cop is a punk for doing that. I'd never beef another cop over that (or an armed citizen with the right creds for that matter).
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 05-10-2009, 11:55 PM
7222 Hawker's Avatar
7222 Hawker 7222 Hawker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 393
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sltgunner View Post
Howdy all,

I am considering applying to a Nevada law enforcement agency that is within easy driving distance from me. I am not a CA LEO.

As I understand, all CA LEO are allowed to CCW in CA. However, if I were to become a sworn officer in Nevada, would I be able to CCW in CA, which is where I would live.

Thanks in advance.

sltgunner
My Department advised that one is all. If you are a sworn LEO in any state of the union, then welcome brother to carry in CA - as well it should be.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 05-10-2009, 11:59 PM
7222 Hawker's Avatar
7222 Hawker 7222 Hawker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 393
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yzernie View Post
Just don't get stopped by the CHP in Los Angeles. They recently arrested, booked and siezed the firearm of an Arizona LEO for concealed carry. Stupidity at its best.
Must have been a brand new guy looking to make a name for himself. Nobody I know would have done the same.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 05-12-2009, 5:55 AM
Jared1981 Jared1981 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 266
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FLIGHT762 View Post
I just retired after 28 years. My Chief gave me CCW privileges on my I.D. card for California.
He refuses to allow me to qualify to get the HR 218 endorsement to carry in other states. He asked me "why would you want to carry in another State?"

We had Had HR 218 covered in our new rules and regs, but, he went in and lined them out.

Per HR 218, retired Officers have to qualify once a year to get the national endorsement. Most Chiefs in our area are on board per HR 218. Mine said he was concerned about "liability issues". What a joke.
Here is what I recommend for you. Where you live, having a state carry license is much better than LEOSA; why? because you can carry almost anywhere in CA with a carry license. Same with Oregon and Nevada. WHat I would do if I were you is the following.

1. Carry in CA on your retirement CCW authorization. It's MUCH better than carrying under LEOSA.

2. Take a couple of days and drive up to a friendly county in Oregon and get a CHL.

3. Get a Utah permit... now you are covered in Nevada, and Washington.

4. When you travel to a state that one of your permits is not good for( ie. HI, NY, NJ, MD, CO, MA, DC) or you are traveling to a state where the permit is useless (ie. OH, NC, SC, TN, AK, LA.) stop by any PD in CA or any "state certified" person and do your annual qual.

If you think about it, how many times are you going to travel outside of OR, WA, CA, NV, or ID? Probably less than once a year. With your CA, OR, and UT permit, you have better coverage than LEOSA (as far as places off-limits).
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 05-12-2009, 6:11 AM
Jared1981 Jared1981 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 266
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigDogatPlay View Post
But does not trump department policy, which I think you are agreeing with?

Not true. This is incorrect and if disciplined, you would prevail in a lawsuit. The Supreme Court said in the Norfolk Railroad case that the word law includes policy and regulations.

IF an agency has a "policy", then according to SCOTUS, that falls under law. LEOSA says notwithstanding "state or local law".
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 05-12-2009, 6:22 AM
Jared1981 Jared1981 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 266
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliTheKid View Post
So much boils down to the individual officer you are dealing with. The Chippy that beefed that Az cop is a punk for doing that. I'd never beef another cop over that (or an armed citizen with the right creds for that matter).
I hope this guy was fired and/or facing 42 USC 1983 charges. We had a Border Patrol Agent that was 19 in SoCAL. He was on duty, he was arrested by CHP for carrying as a person under 21 years of age. First off, there is no CA law that says you must be 21 to carry firearm and even if CA did, Federal law authorizes BP to carry any firearm anywhere in the U.S.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. It simply is not, it has been ruled not to be in court and there is zero justification for doing so.

Regarding this CHP officer that arrested this BPA... he was fired.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 05-12-2009, 6:30 AM
Jared1981 Jared1981 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 266
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by masameet View Post
Seems to me that the Sturgis incident set a big precedent for cops.


The Sturgis incident notwithstanding, HR 218 still is the law of the land for traveling cops, current and retired, on- and off-duty.

And I seem to recall that President Obama is not popular among Calgunners. lol Still I believe he has signed several pieces of legislation that have been favorable to cops. Maybe his AG could be urged to beef up HR 218. Esp. since the Fed DOJ's Guidance as to 70 Fed. Reg. 10673 says HR 218 does not supersede laws regarding private entities/businesses prohibiting CCW firearms or cover LEOs who are under the influence.
Again, gross misconduct on the prosecutor and local LEO's in Sturgis. (firefighter excluded).

1. One guy arrested is a CBPO. Similar to the Border Patrol, ATF, DEA, FBI, and many other agencies and classes of people. Federal law authorizes them to carry any firearm anywhere in the U.S. (better than LEOSA)

2. LEOSA does infact cover them. The tricky thing is what is "under the influence". I have found no case that says 1 drink is "under the influence" appears to have a higher standard than just simply consuming alcohol. They did come out on top on this one, assuming they even were drinking in the first place.

3. This whole thing could have been avoided, if they simply had their pistols in plain site. The South Dakota prohibition on carrying in establishments that derive over 50% of their sales from serving alcohol only applies to concealed firearms. Similar to how Virginia's ban on carrying in ABC establishments only applies to concealed pistols, not unconcealed. If they carried in this manner, they would not need LEOSA protection( appropriate federal law for FEDS) as there would have been no crime in the first place. Whether they would have been asked to leave for carrying in open view is another question. The section of SD law is 23-7-8.1

Last edited by Jared1981; 05-12-2009 at 6:38 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 05-12-2009, 7:00 AM
scr83jp scr83jp is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: S.Cal
Posts: 679
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yzernie View Post
I would like to think so too. The version I was told came from the CaDoJ agent that came and did my audit last week. He told me it all resulted from a traffic stop where the driver (LEO) told the CHP officer he had a loaded gun in his glovebox. He said once the higher ups at the CHP found out about it a couple days later they apologized, gave the guy his gun back and never sent the case to the DA. The info came to him via the Atty General's office.

He also told me the buffoons in Sacto (Atty General, et al) have decided that Cali will not honor HR218. He was surprised by that decision because it is a part of the HSA.
Doesn't surprise me I remember CA with Brown as the governor for 2 terms of nightmare ,death penalty dumped by rosey & the supremes all of us in le cringed at the decisions! He wants to be gov again;8yrs of him was too much.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 05-12-2009, 7:47 AM
Jared1981 Jared1981 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 266
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scr83jp View Post
Doesn't surprise me I remember CA with Brown as the governor for 2 terms of nightmare ,death penalty dumped by rosey & the supremes all of us in le cringed at the decisions! He wants to be gov again;8yrs of him was too much.
I don't think so. The CA DOJ put out a detailed memo explaining LEOSA. It's even more detailed than what most states did. They made good intentions with LEOSA.

As far as not honoring. They don't have to per se, but if they violate federal law they could face conspiracy charges and or civil lawsuits under 42 USC 1983.

Kind of like when the Arizona LEO was arrested, federal law withstands regardless of whether the CHP guy knew about it or even if he was advised to ignore it (which I'm sure he wasn't), he still would making an illegal arrest.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 05-12-2009, 4:07 PM
eltee's Avatar
eltee eltee is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: West of the Rockies, USA
Posts: 837
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

I advise my guys to get a multi-state CCW in addition to being able to carry based on LEO or RetLEO status. There are many possible reasons for carrying or even brandishing (in a legal manner) a firearm unrelated to police work, esp. if out of jurisdiction. Also, there are often advantages to having people near an incident where your gun is involved to simply think of you as a private citizen with a permit vs. being a cop. Lastly, there are instances where you might not want a local agency to make a casual call to your employing agency. Not saying to hide your ID as a cop, but what does being a cop while on vacation in Moosejaw have to do with anything when a CCW will give you carry privileges without fear of someone "calling home" (to your Chief or Sheriff)?

Officer discretion should be exercised, you decide when to play out-of-jurisdiction-off-duty cop vs. citizen with a CCW. Some incidents will dictate that you ID yourself, others will not.

There are a number of agencies that object to HR218. They use a variety of means to prevent members from implementing it. Some departments now won't give retirees a retired ID card or badge, so the retirees sometimes carry their most recent, expired active card. Some departments won't requal retirees annually, only once every three to permit the in-state CCW stamp. In these circumstances, a retiree may be packing illegally on the 366th day after requals if out of state. The LEOSA/HR218 has provisions for out of state requals for retirees. The intent was to not force a retiree living, for example, in Florida to fly back to California every year to requal. He can be requal'd in Florida.

It is interesting that some who have retired in California from a non-friendly (to HR218) agency have to seek out a private instructor to qualify them. Anyone who has had to deal with this or knows of an instructor who has done this and knows the laws, please PM me. I get alot of questions asked of me re. HR218 from people all over the state.

I kept hearing over the years that they were going to close some of the loopholes in HR218 (to cops' benefit) but under the current DC climate, I don't know if that will happen.

Last edited by eltee; 05-12-2009 at 4:20 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 05-13-2009, 4:35 AM
Jared1981 Jared1981 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 266
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eltee View Post
I advise my guys to get a multi-state CCW in addition to being able to carry based on LEO or RetLEO status. There are many possible reasons for carrying or even brandishing (in a legal manner) a firearm unrelated to police work, esp. if out of jurisdiction. Also, there are often advantages to having people near an incident where your gun is involved to simply think of you as a private citizen with a permit vs. being a cop. Lastly, there are instances where you might not want a local agency to make a casual call to your employing agency. Not saying to hide your ID as a cop, but what does being a cop while on vacation in Moosejaw have to do with anything when a CCW will give you carry privileges without fear of someone "calling home" (to your Chief or Sheriff)?

Officer discretion should be exercised, you decide when to play out-of-jurisdiction-off-duty cop vs. citizen with a CCW. Some incidents will dictate that you ID yourself, others will not.
I could not possibly agree with you more. I tell my co-workers to do this as well. I usually get the "I got federal creds" speech. I tell them the same things you do and I mention what if they are ever under investigation for anything and they pull their creds. Now they can't carry squat. If I ever worked or ever transfer to California, I would definately try to get a LTC under 12050 for the exact reasons you mentioned.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 05-13-2009, 8:38 AM
bluestaterebel's Avatar
bluestaterebel bluestaterebel is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Near Downtown Los Angeles
Posts: 3,068
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

ever heard of California LEOs getting a CCW in California?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by 11Z50 View Post
Since your myopic view is in concurrence with your cognizant lifespan on this planet, obviously less than 20 years, I will grant you a dispensation.

Figure that out and exercise your mind.....
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 05-13-2009, 11:11 AM
eltee's Avatar
eltee eltee is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: West of the Rockies, USA
Posts: 837
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bluestaterebel View Post
ever heard of California LEOs getting a CCW in California?

Yes, for a variety of reasons. Mostly they were for LE agencies that did not have "peace officer" status within the state, and there are many such agencies. Or, the agency had status, but the issue of arming personnel was deleted or made discretionay by statute. Also, some reserve LE agencies issue their reservists CCW's if their status doesn't permit off-duty carry. There are other circumstances as well.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 05-13-2009, 11:18 AM
ilbob ilbob is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Illinois
Posts: 1,780
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yzernie View Post
He also told me the buffoons in Sacto (Atty General, et al) have decided that Cali will not honor HR218. He was surprised by that decision because it is a part of the HSA.
HR218 is grossly unconstitutional. No where in the constitution is the federal government given the power to force states to allow CC for a privileged few.
__________________
bob

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 05-13-2009, 3:42 PM
Fire in the Hole's Avatar
Fire in the Hole Fire in the Hole is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Tuolumne County
Posts: 1,563
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yzernie View Post
Just don't get stopped by the CHP in Los Angeles. They recently arrested, booked and siezed the firearm of an Arizona LEO for concealed carry. Stupidity at its best.


I've heard this, I checked the news media blogs, but I can't find a news story or report about it. Sounds rather disconcerting on its face. I'd like to read the particulars. Can you refer me to a source?
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 05-13-2009, 4:50 PM
yzernie's Avatar
yzernie yzernie is offline
Vendor/Retailer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Oak Hills/Hesperia, Ca.
Posts: 5,113
iTrader: 541 / 100%
Default

All I have is the word of mouth from the CaDoJ agent. I also searched but didn't find anything. I'm convinced the CHP would not want that kind of fugly media exposure and never issued a press release on the arrest.
__________________
My Commercial Sales Ad >>> http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=257865

TinStarSupply@aol.com

The satisfaction of a job well done is to be the one who has done it
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 7:52 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.