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 07-05-2012, 7:21 AM
RedFord150 RedFord150 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Eastern LA County
Posts: 5,495
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default Out of state LEO visiting CA

Not an LEO myself, hoping you can answer these questions.
A good friend of ours is an LEO in a southern state and will be visiting CA for a couple of weeks to see his mother.
His off duty weapon is a Glock with 15 round mags. He also wants to bring his AR15 with detachable mags.
Is he OK to bring these guns with him or is he looking for trouble? Obviously, he carries police ID from his dept.
Finally, he wanted to visit an outdoor range with his AR15 while he is here. He will be staying in the SGV. What range in the SGV will be the most accepting of his AR15?
Thanks for the help.
__________________
God Did Not Create All Men Equal, Colonel Colt Did.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-05-2012, 7:42 AM
DEPUTYBILL DEPUTYBILL is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: LODI,CA.
Posts: 693
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

First,if he has the proper info on his ID saying he is in compliance with HR218 rules,he should have no problems with the glock. If the AR is one banned by name in Ca. law,he should leave it at home. If it is a standard like AR,he should have a bullet button installed while in Ca. with 10 round mags. If it is a featureless rifle it might be ok. My opinion only,someone else have a different take?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-05-2012, 7:50 AM
003 003 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,249
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Max 10 round magazine in California for his GLock.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-05-2012, 7:51 AM
003 003 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,249
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Max 10 round magazine in California for his GLock.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-05-2012, 7:56 AM
ls2monaro's Avatar
ls2monaro ls2monaro is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 501
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Both are illegal under state law but both are legal under federal law (hr 218). personally i would leave the rifle at home but bring the handgun.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-05-2012, 7:58 AM
SoCalDep SoCalDep is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 830
iTrader: 22 / 100%
Default

Per the wording of LEOSA he should be able to bring both, but I wouldn't want to be the test case regarding the AR. The 15rd mags should be just fine as they comply with the requirements of LEOSA. 003...Are you sure you have the correct information? It's been a while since I looked up 12020(a) and now it's all changed...Since I'm out of the field I'm not sure if there is an exemption for out of state LEO's, but LEOSA will trump state law anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-05-2012, 9:35 AM
003 003 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,249
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

The penal code exempts out of state ON DUTY LEO's, but not off duty. An out of state off duty LEO can only legally carry a 10 round mag in California. LEOSA allows the firearm, but is silent on magazine capacity.

Now having said that, I cannot imagine under what circumstances it would become an issue, but California law is very clear. The only folks (cop type) that can legally import full capacity magazines are California LEO’s and on duty out of state cops. That of course does not apply to someone that owned a full capacity magazine in California prior to the ban and is bringing it back into the state.

I do believe that LEOSA covers what California calls assault weapons, and therefore an off duty out of state cop should be able to bring in his personally owned AR, (with 10 round magazines) but as stated above, I am not interested in being the test case.

Last edited by 003; 07-05-2012 at 10:11 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-05-2012, 10:02 AM
Desertdog702 Desertdog702 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Las Vegas NV
Posts: 47
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I can not imagine that a CA LEO would arrest an out of state brother in blue for a hi-cap mag in an off duty gun?

Its crazy, all the "LEO Only" stuff in the CA gunshops I can buy here in NV, no big. I can even own NFA stuff with proper ATF background and Taxes.

Its sad to think CA people are not trusted enough to own the same things as LEO's, that other normal people can have in other States.

Last edited by Desertdog702; 07-05-2012 at 10:06 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-05-2012, 10:08 AM
003 003 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,249
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

"I can not imagine that a CA LEO would arrest an out of state brother in blue for a hi-cap mag in an off duty gun?"

I agree completely, but that does not change the law.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-05-2012, 10:08 AM
Ron-Solo's Avatar
Ron-Solo Ron-Solo is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 7,783
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

For the handgun, LEOSA trumps state law. Still unclear re AW issues, an wouldn't want to be the test case.

A legit out of state LEO isn't going to have an issue anyway, unless he is doing something really, really, stupid.
__________________
LASD Retired
1978-2011




If You Heard The Shot, You Weren't The Target
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07-05-2012, 10:20 AM
RedFord150 RedFord150 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Eastern LA County
Posts: 5,495
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron-Solo View Post
...A legit out of state LEO isn't going to have an issue anyway, unless he is doing something really, really, stupid.
Thank you, Ron and all of you other officers. I am not well versed in these AW laws and even my buddies in the LAPD seem as confused as I am.
My main concern was that our friend (he is more like one of my nephews) would take the AR to a local rifle range and run into some range employee that felt compelled to make a report. This is where I felt the trouble would come from.
I think I will tell him to forget about the AR and just load 10 rounds into his Glock mags while he is at the range.
This is just a simple case of our Southern friend wanting to take a range trip with all of his Uncles and cousins that are 'gun friendly' and have a little fun. Even though he was born in So Cal and only moved to the South after his stint in the Army, he has trouble realizing how hostile CA is too the guns he uses everyday.
Thank you again for all of your help.
__________________
God Did Not Create All Men Equal, Colonel Colt Did.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-05-2012, 10:29 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

I don't see why the mags will be an issue. He's a qualified LEO.
__________________
"Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest."~M.Twain~
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-05-2012, 10:53 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 Ron-Solo View Post
A legit out of state LEO isn't going to have an issue anyway, unless he is doing something really, really, stupid.
^^^This^^^, with magazines for the off duty carry gun. He's a LEO and pretty much no other LEO is going to care.

The AR I would leave home. Trying to bring it in for a casual visit is way more bother than it's worth IMO. While there is some non-binding decisioning on LEOSA and long arms from other states (Drew Peterson and his SBR, for instance) California law is pretty clear on importation / possession of AW and the LEO exemption is narrowly defined.

Just my two cents, and I wouldn't want to be the test case either.
__________________
-- 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
  #14  
Old 07-05-2012, 11:39 AM
Glockshooter626 Glockshooter626 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 43
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Not sure about the first part, but he could go up to Burros Canyon. All the way up Azusa off the 210 fwy.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-05-2012, 2:44 PM
BoulderTroll BoulderTroll is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Monterey County
Posts: 37
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Desertdog702 View Post
I can not imagine that a CA LEO would arrest an out of state brother in blue for a hi-cap mag in an off duty gun?
And they wouldn't. Besides, I'm not sure I agree with 003 on how the law works regarding "high capacity" magazines. An out of state officer will not have an issue bringing their duty magazines into California. It simply won't happen. I do agree with others about the AR...easier to leave it at home.

Quote:
Its sad to think CA people are not trusted enough to own the same things as LEO's, that other normal people can have in other States.
Feel bad for us CA LEO's while you're at it. It's sad to think that my brother in Utah, who is a historian, can own weapons I can't own as a SWAT officer in CA...sort of takes the whole "Special" out of special weapons and tactics.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-05-2012, 4:35 PM
003 003 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,249
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Guys, I truly wish I was wrong relative to the issue of an off duty out of state LEO brining his full capacity magazines into California. Unfortunately, based on extensive research I am sadly convinced that it is illegal for an off duty out of state LEO to do so. Please read the full original LEOSA HR 218, and the changes made by SB1132. Click the link for a recap of both.

http://www.sddod-fop.org/assets/files/qa_leosa.pdf

Think about it for a moment, the magazine exemptions under California law are so narrowly written that retired California Cops cannot either import of buy full capacity magazines in California.

Nothing in California law exempts an out of state off duty officer relative to the magazine issue. As crazy as it sounds, out of state officers can bring in both armor piercing and tracer ammunition under LEOSA, but not full capacity magazines.

Last edited by 003; 07-05-2012 at 4:48 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-05-2012, 4:48 PM
CSACANNONEER's Avatar
CSACANNONEER CSACANNONEER is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Thousand Oaks
Posts: 39,890
iTrader: 124 / 100%
Blog Entries: 4
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 003 View Post
The penal code exempts out of state ON DUTY LEO's, but not off duty. An out of state off duty LEO can only legally carry a 10 round mag in California. LEOSA allows the firearm, but is silent on magazine capacity.

Now having said that, I cannot imagine under what circumstances it would become an issue, but California law is very clear. The only folks (cop type) that can legally import full capacity magazines are California LEO’s and on duty out of state cops. That of course does not apply to someone that owned a full capacity magazine in California prior to the ban and is bringing it back into the state.

I do believe that LEOSA covers what California calls assault weapons, and therefore an off duty out of state cop should be able to bring in his personally owned AR, (with 10 round magazines) but as stated above, I am not interested in being the test case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 003 View Post
Guys, I truly wish I was wrong relative to the issue of an off duty out of state LEO brining his full capacity magazines into California. Unfortunately, based on extensive research I am sadly convinced that it is illegal for an off duty out of state LEO to do so. Please read the full original LEOSA HR 218, and the changes made by SB1132. Click the link for a recap of both.

http://www.sddod-fop.org/assets/files/qa_leosa.pdf


Nothing in California law exempts an out of state off duty officer relative to the magazine issue. As crazy as it sounds, out of state officers can bring in both armor piercing and tracer ammunition under LEOSA, but not full capacity magazines.
See the above highlighted sentence. Fortunately, YOU ARE WRONG! Besides Ca LEOs, there are many other LEOs who can legally import +10 round mags into CA. You only need to do a little (not even "extensive") research to find that there are probably HUNDREDS of different non CA LEAs that can legally import +10 round mags into CA. I'll give you a little hint, think: federal marshals, USF&DA, USPS inspectors, Postal Police, some Indian police, FBI, secret service, federal school cops, and the list goes on and on and on.
__________________
NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun and Metallic Cartridge Reloading Instructor
California DOJ Certified Fingerprint Roller
Ventura County approved CCW Instructor


Offering low cost private basic shooting and reloading classes for calgunners.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 07-05-2012, 5:03 PM
003 003 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,249
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Nothing in California law exempts an out of state off duty officer relative to the magazine issue. Which was the original question posed by the OP. LEOSA does not cover magazines. My oversight not to mention federal LE folks which of course can possess and import full capacity magazines.


CASCANNONEER: Why are you so angry? No need to be insulting. I was responding to the original post, which specifically asked about an off duty out of state local officer visiting California on vacation.

Last edited by 003; 07-05-2012 at 6:14 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 07-05-2012, 7:18 PM
biglou biglou is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,246
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CSACANNONEER View Post
only need to do a little (not even "extensive") research to find that there are probably HUNDREDS of different non CA LEAs that can legally import +10 round mags into CA. I'll give you a little hint, think: federal marshals, USF&DA, USPS inspectors, Postal Police, some Indian police, FBI, secret service, federal school cops, and the list goes on and on and on.
Can they do this visiting while off duty (vacation) or only in the course of their duty ?
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 07-05-2012, 9:28 PM
hitman13's Avatar
hitman13 hitman13 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Pinal County, AZ
Posts: 3,805
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

I bring my SBR AR in all the time, but I drive it. I wouldn't want to deal with BS at the airport....

..... Posting this from Carlsbad with my SBR in suitcase
__________________
“A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.”
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 07-05-2012, 10:24 PM
Quiet's Avatar
Quiet Quiet is offline
short bus driver
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: the 909
Posts: 17,845
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

AFAIK...

Federal & out-of-state LEOs can legally import large capacity magazines into CA. [PC 32400]

Federal & out-of-state LEOs can legally import/possess assault weapons in CA for official duty purposes only. [PC 30625]

Federal & out-of-state LEOs can legally import/possess MachineGuns in CA for official duty purposes only. [PC 32610(b)]

Federal & out-of-state LEOs can legally import/possess Short Barrel Rifles & Short Barrel Shotguns in CA for official duty purposes only. [PC 33220(b)]

Federal & out-of-state LEOs can legally import/possess Noise Suppressors in CA for official duty purposes only. [PC 33415(b)]




Penal Code 32400
Section 32310 does not apply to the sale of, giving of, lending of, importation into this state of, or purchase of, any large-capacity magazine to or by any federal, state, county, city and county, or city agency that is charged with the enforcement of any law, for use by agency employees in the discharge of their official duties, whether on or off duty, and where the use is authorized by the agency and is within the course and scope of their duties.

Penal Code 30625
Sections 30600, 30605, and 30610 shall not apply to the sale to, purchase by, importation of, or possession of assault weapons or a .50 BMG rifle by the Department of Justice, police departments, sheriffs' offices, marshals' offices, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the Department of the California Highway Patrol, district attorneys' offices, the Department of Fish and Game, the Department of Parks and Recreation, or the military or naval forces of this state or of the United States, or any federal law enforcement agency for use in the discharge of their official duties.

Penal Code 32610
Nothing in this chapter shall affect or apply to any of the following:
(b) The possession of machineguns by regular, salaried, full-time peace officer members of a police department, sheriff's office, marshal's office, district attorney's office, the California Highway Patrol, the Department of Justice, or the Department of Corrections for use by the department's Special Emergency Response Teams and Law Enforcement Liaison/Investigations Unit, when on duty and if the use is within the scope of their duties.

Penal Code 33220
Section 33215 does not apply to either of the following:
(b) The possession of short-barreled rifles and short-barreled shotguns by peace officer members of a police department, sheriff's office, marshal's office, the California Highway Patrol, the Department of Justice, or the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, when on duty and the use is authorized by the agency and is within the course and scope of their duties, and the officers have completed a training course in the use of these weapons certified by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training.

Penal Code 33415
Section 33410 shall not apply to, or affect, any of the following:
(b) The possession of silencers by regular, salaried, full-time peace officers who are employed by an agency listed in Section 830.1, or by the military or naval forces of this state or of the United States, when on duty and when the use of silencers is authorized by the agency and is within the course and scope of their duties.
__________________


"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
  #22  
Old 07-06-2012, 8:53 AM
oddjob oddjob is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lodi, California
Posts: 1,843
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

I remember years ago (after the AW ban) I was told out of state folks could bring an "assault weapon" into California for a rifle match. Just couldn't bring the magazines into the state. And yes.....one had to borrow magazines. I was told just to have a rifle match flyer with you to show what match you were shooting.

Here it is the PC section;

Penal Code section 12280(m) provides an exception for out-of-state residents who bring
assault weapons or .50 BMG rifles into the state if attending an organized match or competition conducted on a target range, club, etc., for the purpose of shooting targets.

Forgot to mention....The Glock is OK....doesn't seem the mag is OK though.

Last edited by oddjob; 07-06-2012 at 9:00 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-06-2012, 9:02 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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quiet View Post
AFAIK...

Federal & out-of-state LEOs can legally import large capacity magazines into CA. [PC 32400]

Federal & out-of-state LEOs can legally import/possess assault weapons in CA for official duty purposes only. [PC 30625]

Federal & out-of-state LEOs can legally import/possess MachineGuns in CA for official duty purposes only. [PC 32610(b)]

Federal & out-of-state LEOs can legally import/possess Short Barrel Rifles & Short Barrel Shotguns in CA for official duty purposes only. [PC 33220(b)]

Federal & out-of-state LEOs can legally import/possess Noise Suppressors in CA for official duty purposes only. [PC 33415(b)]




Penal Code 32400
Section 32310 does not apply to the sale of, giving of, lending of, importation into this state of, or purchase of, any large-capacity magazine to or by any federal, state, county, city and county, or city agency that is charged with the enforcement of any law, for use by agency employees in the discharge of their official duties, whether on or off duty, and where the use is authorized by the agency and is within the course and scope of their duties.

Penal Code 30625
Sections 30600, 30605, and 30610 shall not apply to the sale to, purchase by, importation of, or possession of assault weapons or a .50 BMG rifle by the Department of Justice, police departments, sheriffs' offices, marshals' offices, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the Department of the California Highway Patrol, district attorneys' offices, the Department of Fish and Game, the Department of Parks and Recreation, or the military or naval forces of this state or of the United States, or any federal law enforcement agency for use in the discharge of their official duties.

Penal Code 32610
Nothing in this chapter shall affect or apply to any of the following:
(b) The possession of machineguns by regular, salaried, full-time peace officer members of a police department, sheriff's office, marshal's office, district attorney's office, the California Highway Patrol, the Department of Justice, or the Department of Corrections for use by the department's Special Emergency Response Teams and Law Enforcement Liaison/Investigations Unit, when on duty and if the use is within the scope of their duties.

Penal Code 33220
Section 33215 does not apply to either of the following:
(b) The possession of short-barreled rifles and short-barreled shotguns by peace officer members of a police department, sheriff's office, marshal's office, the California Highway Patrol, the Department of Justice, or the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, when on duty and the use is authorized by the agency and is within the course and scope of their duties, and the officers have completed a training course in the use of these weapons certified by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training.

Penal Code 33415
Section 33410 shall not apply to, or affect, any of the following:
(b) The possession of silencers by regular, salaried, full-time peace officers who are employed by an agency listed in Section 830.1, or by the military or naval forces of this state or of the United States, when on duty and when the use of silencers is authorized by the agency and is within the course and scope of their duties.


__________________
"Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest."~M.Twain~
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-06-2012, 11:16 AM
lrdchivalry lrdchivalry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Diego Area
Posts: 956
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quiet View Post
Penal Code 32400
Section 32310 does not apply to the sale of, giving of, lending of, importation into this state of, or purchase of, any large-capacity magazine to or by any federal, state, county, city and county, or city agency that is charged with the enforcement of any law, for use by agency employees in the discharge of their official duties, whether on or off duty, and where the use is authorized by the agency and is within the course and scope of their duties.
The above PC IMO only covers leo agencies in regards to importation.

PC 32405 should cover an individual officer. It states:

32405. Section 32310 does not apply to the sale to, lending to,
transfer to, purchase by, receipt of, or importation into this state
of, a large-capacity magazine by a sworn peace officer, as defined in
Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2, who
is authorized to carry a firearm in the course and scope of that
officer's duties.

As for the AW issue I think that the judge's ruling (in the Pederson case) that an active leo can have any weapon other than those listed in HR218 was very interesting. HR218 specifically states that active leo's can carry concealed firearms but does not state what type of firearms may be carried only what may not be carried. The only weapons not covered under HR218 are machine guns, silencers, and destructive devices. As others have pointed out, I would not want to be the test case though.
__________________
When it becomes necessary to seek protection from your protectors because they've substituted their judgment for clear, standing principles they've sworn to follow and have done so to the extent of attacking the protected, to characterize their actions as justified in furtherance of some nebulous greater good is to align yourself with and endorse criminal wrongdoing. - Author unknown
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-06-2012, 3:32 PM
Quiet's Avatar
Quiet Quiet is offline
short bus driver
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: the 909
Posts: 17,845
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oddjob View Post
I remember years ago (after the AW ban) I was told out of state folks could bring an "assault weapon" into California for a rifle match. Just couldn't bring the magazines into the state. And yes.....one had to borrow magazines. I was told just to have a rifle match flyer with you to show what match you were shooting.

Here it is the PC section;

Penal Code section 12280(m) provides an exception for out-of-state residents who bring
assault weapons or .50 BMG rifles into the state if attending an organized match or competition conducted on a target range, club, etc., for the purpose of shooting targets.
The "competition" exemption for non-residents. [PC 30665]

In order for that to apply:
1. Must travel directly to and from the competition. [PC 30665(a)]
*So, must go from out-of-state to the competition site and when the competition is over, leave the state.
2. Competition site needs to be at a target range. [PC 30665(b)]
*Actual licensed range.
3. Competition needs to be sponsored/recognized by a LE agency or national/state recognized shooting organization. [PC 30665(c)]
*So, can't be local club or a group of individuals.
4. Assault weapons need to be transported unloaded and in a locked container. [PC 30665(d)]
*Self explanatory.
5. Non-resident needs to be 18 or older. [PC 30665(e)]
*Self explanatory.



Penal Code 30665
Sections 30600, 30605, and 30610 shall not apply to the possession and importation of an assault weapon or a .50 BMG rifle into this state by a nonresident if all of the following conditions are met:
(a) The person is attending or going directly to or coming directly from an organized competitive match or league competition that involves the use of an assault weapon or a .50 BMG rifle.
(b) The competition or match is conducted on the premises of one of the following:
(1) A target range that holds a regulatory or business license for the purpose of practicing shooting at that target range.
(2) A target range of a public or private club or organization that is organized for the purpose of practicing shooting at targets.
(c) The match or competition is sponsored by, conducted under the auspices of, or approved by, a law enforcement agency or a nationally or state recognized entity that fosters proficiency in, or promotes education about, firearms.
(d) The assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle is transported in accordance with Section 25610 or Article 3 (commencing with Section 25505) of Chapter 2 of Division 5.
(e) The person is 18 years of age or over and is not in a class of persons prohibited from possessing firearms by virtue of Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 29800) or Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 29900) of Division 9 of this code or Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
__________________


"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
  #26  
Old 07-06-2012, 7:32 PM
CalCop CalCop is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sacto Area
Posts: 573
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

LEOSA does not explicitly state that it trumps local laws against high cap mags. But in my opinion, it is implied, since any firearm other than a machine gun is covered by LEOSA, it stands to reason that any magazine accepted by those firearms are also covered. It is also very instructive that since LEOSA was implemented in 2004, not a single officer has ever been convicted for a carrying a full capacity magazine. I could only locate one case where an officer was even charged with illegally carrying a full capacity magazine. When LEOSA was argued, the full cap mag charges were dropped...

Plymouth, MA Police Officer Kevin Coakley was off-duty at home when he was arrested and charged with unlawful possession of a personal high capacity Glock handgun and unlawful discharge in violation of state law. Coakley fired at a coyote in self-defense. LEOSA was argued and the Court dismissed the possession charge. (People of Massachusetts v. Kevin Coakley, March 2009).
__________________
"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
  #27  
Old 07-06-2012, 7:42 PM
CalCop CalCop is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sacto Area
Posts: 573
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Yes, LEOSA protects qualified officers from prosecution for violating the CA assault weapons ban. However, the vast majority of officers I have discussed the issue with convey the sentiment that they would feel much more confident after a CA case has set precedent. The problem with that is that there will likely not be a test case. I doubt a DA would charge an otherwise law-abiding officer with violating the CA assault weapons ban to begin with. If he did, he would drop it when LEOSA was argued....hence, no precedent will be set. If you have a cop go off the deep end and commit 5 felonies with said assault weapon....the DA would not complicate his prosecution with the LEOSA issue, he would drop the AW charge, and move forward with the other 4 felonies....again, no precedent will be set. So, those of you waiting for a precedent setting LEOSA AW case......it ain't going to happen. Unless a cop with one month to retire begs his ADA to charge him with simple possession so he can plead LEOSA......yeah, right......

Here is why I say LEOSA protects cops from the CA AWB.......

• During LEOSA legislation, Rep. Scott offered an amendment to limit the weapons an officer could carry in other States to exclude semiautomatic assault weapons. This amendment was defeated by a vote of 13 yeas to 19 nays.
(H.R. Rep. No. 560, 108th Cong., 2nd Sess. 2004 pg. 64-67)
• “If Congress enacts this legislation (LEOSA), police chiefs will be stripped of their authority to tell their own officers, for example, that they cannot bring guns into bars while off-duty; that they cannot carry…certain shotguns, rifles, or handguns….” (H.R. Rep. No. 560, 108th Cong., 2nd Sess. 2004 p. 85.)
• CA DOJ says, “An active officer can qualify with a pistol and carry an assault weapon. Doing so may violate departmental policy, though. http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/leosiss.pdf
• In the case of People v. Drew Peterson, Case No. 08 CF 1169 (Oct. 1, 2010), by Judge Richard Schoenstedt of the 12th Judicial Circuit of the State of Illinois. Question: Whether or not the defendant, a police officer, could be charged with felony unlawful use of a weapon given the implications of the Federal LEOSA legislation passed into law in 2004. Will County prosecutors in May of 2008 had charged Mr. Peterson with felony unlawful use of a weapon, contending he had illegally modified the rifle by shortening the barrel. Judge Schoenstedt said LEOSA precluded charging the defendant with the felony weapons charge. In his opinion, the judge wrote that:
“The defense argues simply that "LEOSA" applies to any firearm not specifically excluded (by LEOSA) whether or not that firearm is illegal by State law. The State's position is that "LEOSA" only applies to firearms that are legal by state law. The State argued that factors including concealed carry; possession; privately owned vs. department issued; and illegal firearms are not covered by "LEOSA" and are important considerations in their favor…[The judge found that] the intent of LEOSA is to allow qualified law enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms, so that if the need arises, such an officer may unconceal; show; and ultimately use his weapon. LEOSA does not provide definitions as to the issue of carry or concealment, including whether it is permissible to have the weapon in a case, holster, waistband, and so forth. Similarly, LEOSA does not indicate that the size of the weapon is a factor in determining whether it can be concealed and carried. In fact, machine guns are typically larger than handguns and the machine gun is the only true firearm excepted from LEOSA…Under LEOSA, there is no distinction found by this Court that would treat a qualified law enforcement officer differently whether he possessed a firearm while on duty or off duty. 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; or to arrange to have that weapon issued by his department…The State is essentially requesting this Court to assume or infer that the drafters intended to provide immunity only for State sanctioned weapons. In fact, it is possible to assume or infer the opposite in part because the evidence here shows that under different circumstances the officers of the Bolingbrook Police Department would have been able to possess and conceal carry this very weapon…Regardless, at trial it is the State's burden to prove each element of the offense charged. By these findings, it would be impossible for the State to do so. The defense's renewed motion to dismiss is granted.” http://www.policelawblog.com/blog/20...ns-charge.html
(The weapon was a modified Colt Sporter AR-w/ a barrel less than 16 inches in length)
__________________
"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
  #28  
Old 07-07-2012, 12:15 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

And here in lies the problem with CA... Look at how many of us are reading the same text and getting completely different pinions from it.

Same can be said for 2A or any A for that matter.

OP: Bring the glock and the standard mags. Leave the AR to be safe.
__________________
"Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest."~M.Twain~
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 07-07-2012, 12:53 AM
Notorious's Avatar
Notorious Notorious is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,459
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

No ranges in SGV worth the trouble. Burro staff can be ammo Nazis and actually confiscate your ammo if they don't think it's the right type.

We don't have many good ranges. People like the Angeles Middle Shooting Grounds and maybe Lyttle Creek out in the Inland Empire.

Not sure what other outdoor ranges are there, really. My favorite, Fish Canyon, closed a long time ago.
__________________
Guns! More guns! I need more guns!
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 07-07-2012, 3:08 AM
retired retired is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Riverside County
Posts: 9,153
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

If you intend to go to Lytle Creek Firing Line, I would advise that you call them to ascertain if you can even bring your standard capacity Glock mags there. They were telling people to leave if they had them. For over a decade they permitted them and we had 3 large Calgun shooting events there.

Last year things changed for an unknown reason. The staff stated it was a new prohibition promulgated by the new local ranger (National Forest Land and it's leased). The staff said they had to follow the new rule or possibly lose their lease. After some research and a lot of time, I discovered they were lying to people since the Commander for that forest advised me they had nothing to do with it and it was a Lytle Creek instigated rule.

I say call first to check, because I was advised by the ranger some months ago that it was changing back to allowing standard capacity mags. They do have a a large range; some of which is shaded. You can also bring a canopy of your own if you don't get one of the shaded areas.

Bring plenty of water and food as they really don't have much.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 07-07-2012, 7:36 AM
Notorious's Avatar
Notorious Notorious is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,459
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Oh, I heard good things about "A Place To Shoot" out in Newhall or something. It's a drive but then again, everything is a drive in SoCal.

The only ranges in SGV, being Burro (still a drive in the canyons), or Triple B which is for skeet, trap and sporting clays only, but it's actually very fun and it's very close to the SGV, only 5 minutes on the 60 freeway.
__________________
Guns! More guns! I need more guns!
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 07-07-2012, 10:12 AM
nickbackouris's Avatar
nickbackouris nickbackouris is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 201
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

My .02 as a so cal LE:

"Oh, you're a cop from Anytown, USA? Cool! (insert ten random questions about their laws) You need any directions while you're here? Have fun!" (insert obligatory wave to the family)
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 07-07-2012, 10:27 AM
Notorious's Avatar
Notorious Notorious is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,459
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Bring some department patches and trinkets to trade. While Socal cops aren't as big on stuff as the NYPD guys, w still appreciate collectibles.
__________________
Guns! More guns! I need more guns!
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 07-07-2012, 12:50 PM
CalCop CalCop is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sacto Area
Posts: 573
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

My point is this........LEOSA has been in effect since 2004. Since its implementation, not a single LEOSA-qualified officer has ever been convicted in CA for violating the AWB or full cap mag restriction. That is not just happenstance. It would be asinine to believe on-duty CA cops have not encountered out of state cops with such weapons/mags at least several time already. Therefore, you ain't gonna get charged for it....and even if you did, LEOSA will protect you. Sheesh people, stop the FUD and scaring our out of state LEO brothers!!
__________________
"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
  #35  
Old 07-07-2012, 1:09 PM
Bobby Ricigliano's Avatar
Bobby Ricigliano Bobby Ricigliano is offline
Mit Gott und Mauser
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: The People's Glorious Republik of Southern Kalifornistan
Posts: 12,782
iTrader: 285 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedFord150 View Post
Not an LEO myself, hoping you can answer these questions.
A good friend of ours is an LEO in a southern state and will be visiting CA for a couple of weeks to see his mother.
His off duty weapon is a Glock with 15 round mags. He also wants to bring his AR15 with detachable mags.
Is he OK to bring these guns with him or is he looking for trouble? Obviously, he carries police ID from his dept.
Finally, he wanted to visit an outdoor range with his AR15 while he is here. He will be staying in the SGV. What range in the SGV will be the most accepting of his AR15?
Thanks for the help.
I'm not going to sweat a fellow LEO brother no matter what, but I'd probably leave the long gun at home.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 07-07-2012, 1:10 PM
Bobby Ricigliano's Avatar
Bobby Ricigliano Bobby Ricigliano is offline
Mit Gott und Mauser
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: The People's Glorious Republik of Southern Kalifornistan
Posts: 12,782
iTrader: 285 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalCop View Post
My point is this........LEOSA has been in effect since 2004. Since its implementation, not a single LEOSA-qualified officer has ever been convicted in CA for violating the AWB or full cap mag restriction. That is not just happenstance. It would be asinine to believe on-duty CA cops have not encountered out of state cops with such weapons/mags at least several time already. Therefore, you ain't gonna get charged for it....and even if you did, LEOSA will protect you. Sheesh people, stop the FUD and scaring our out of state LEO brothers!!
I believe you 100% to be correct, but as others have mentioned, nobody wants to be the first guinea pig.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 07-07-2012, 1:25 PM
CalCop CalCop is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sacto Area
Posts: 573
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby Ricigliano View Post
I believe you 100% to be correct, but as others have mentioned, nobody wants to be the first guinea pig.
I pledge to you today, that if precedent is not set by the year I retire.....I will be the test case 6 months before my out date.
__________________
"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
  #38  
Old 07-08-2012, 9:31 AM
Notorious's Avatar
Notorious Notorious is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,459
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalCop View Post
I pledge to you today, that if precedent is not set by the year I retire.....I will be the test case 6 months before my out date.
I'll volunteer to be your co-counsel for the defense.
__________________
Guns! More guns! I need more guns!
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 07-08-2012, 10:35 AM
CalCop CalCop is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sacto Area
Posts: 573
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Notorious View Post
I'll volunteer to be your co-counsel for the defense.
Why not lead counsel?
__________________
"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
  #40  
Old 07-08-2012, 10:37 AM
Notorious's Avatar
Notorious Notorious is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,459
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalCop View Post
Why not lead counsel?
Because I can't really do criminal defense... and I don't trust myself to be lead in your case. I would rather assist your lead so he can do a better job for you.
__________________
Guns! More guns! I need more guns!
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 11:38 PM.




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.