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 07-29-2013, 9:54 PM
CalCop CalCop is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sacto Area
Posts: 573
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Sometimes the phone answerers are low level lame-ohs, as you have learned. The DAGs and field agents are generally better. I honestly wouldn't worry about it. Buy from the gun shops who will serve you...screw the others. You are covered by LEOSA, and there is no law against possession of said items...so just buy them from who is willing to sell. Don't worry about Harris's impotent opinion.
__________________
"Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen."
-- Sir Robert Peel

Last edited by CalCop; 07-29-2013 at 9:56 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 07-29-2013, 10:18 PM
will0861 will0861 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 32
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

That was my plan, but CALDOJ is going around telling all the gun stores they can't sell to us. I'm not the one who's going take their license away so I basically get told sorry, there's the door.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 07-30-2013, 7:55 AM
will0861 will0861 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 32
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalCop View Post
I will not argue with you that CA DOJ is biased against most guns and gun owners. I guess that could include cops. But not in my experience. I know some of their agents and have dealt with local investigations regarding off-duty cops, where DOJ DAGs got involved. They actually gave the cops the benefit of the doubt in each instance possible, and the cops were not prosecuted. The DOJ agents I know are as familiar with LEOSA as officers in my agency (which ain't sayin' much). I will admit I have not had experience with the Border Patrol...since I live really far from the border. I think if you carried the print-outs, as you suggest, you will be fine. CA DOJ doesn't run around trying to enforce laws on Federal Agents. They normally have enough to do, dealing with non-cops. Besides, you're only gonna really run into local cops. I've never seen a DOJ agent when I'm off-duty...and only scarcely in my official capacity...what kind of scenario are you worried about?
I've been reading through all of the links you provided, and while I agree that LEO's can carry, the issue I am concerend with is slightly different. No where in any of that legislation does it say we are exempt form the magazine ban, or the off-roster ban. My specific point is that as an active Federal Agent California will not allow me to purchase duty weapons that are "off-roster" or duty magazines that carry more than 10 rounds. So, according to California, Federal Agents are not law enforcement, and thus can not possess or purchase high capacity magazines. Although they do recognize LEOSA, so it puts all ferderal officers in a weird position where we can carry as law enforcement, but we can't purchase as law enforcement. I realize that the chance of a police officer or DOJ Agent arresting a legitimate Federal Agent for carry these items is almost nil, the fact is, the possiblity still exists. That's my specific situation.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 07-30-2013, 7:59 AM
Mr.Matt's Avatar
Mr.Matt Mr.Matt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 484
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Bump. For further research.

Thanks for the original post.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 07-30-2013, 8:14 AM
will0861 will0861 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 32
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This is exactly my point, and why I'm saying be careful...

Can active/retired officers carry large capacity magazines in states that restrict
large capacity magazines? PC 12020(b) exceptions?
It appears that under California law (12020(a)(2) PC), nobody may import large
capacity magazines into California. There does not appear to be an exemption
for law enforcement officers from other states. This may all lead somebody to ask
whether federal law enforcement officers moving or being relocated into this state
are in violation of California law if they bring their large capacity magazines
with them, since such officers are in violation of California law and there is no
exemption for them.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 07-30-2013, 8:54 AM
Heiko's Avatar
Heiko Heiko is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,027
iTrader: 37 / 100%
Default

This is a very confusing area and federal LEO unions need to lobby for a positive change. Another F'd up example was a recent situation I came across where BP agents were dealing with a guy who was basically 148(a) PC. I came to learn that there is no federal law that they could arrest for if someone is resisting, obstructing, or delaying them in carrying out their duties. After talking to a supervising agent, I learned that the AUSA/FBI will not do anything unless it is serious as in a BP agent is seriously injured so agents basically have to take it.

The question arose whether CA Penal Code section 148(a) could apply to federal agents. This lead to the discovery that nowhere in the Penal Code or Government Code is federal LE considered LE in California! 148(a) defines what a peace officer is (not federal agents) and what medical technicians are (H&S Code), but "public officers" is not defined. There is case law to argue that federal LE agents are "public officers" but that is yet to be tested.

I bring this up as relevant because the OP's issue would not be an issue if CA law were amended to include federal LE as "peace officers" or add "federal law enforcement" where needed.

148.
(a) (1) Every person who willfully resists, delays, or obstructs any public officer, peace officer, or an emergency medical technician, as defined in Division 2.5 (commencing with Section 1797) of the Health and Safety Code, in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of his or her office or employment, when no other punishment is prescribed, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 07-30-2013, 9:19 AM
will0861 will0861 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 32
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I bring this up as relevant because the OP's issue would not be an issue if CA law were amended to include federal LE as "peace officers" or add "federal law enforcement" where needed.


Exactly. That was my point also. In the past it was assumed "Peace Officer" included all law enforcement. In fact the previous attorney gerneral signed a memo stating that Federal Officers were considered Peace Officers. However the lovely Kamala Harris rescinded that memo that was in place for almost 14 years. California now only considers POST certified California Offices to be "Peace Officers" which leaves a lot of people in this weird grey area that technically has no legal coverage.

Last edited by will0861; 07-30-2013 at 9:22 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 07-31-2013, 10:16 AM
veeklog's Avatar
veeklog veeklog is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: San Diego
Posts: 826
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by will0861 View Post
I bring this up as relevant because the OP's issue would not be an issue if CA law were amended to include federal LE as "peace officers" or add "federal law enforcement" where needed.


Exactly. That was my point also. In the past it was assumed "Peace Officer" included all law enforcement. In fact the previous attorney gerneral signed a memo stating that Federal Officers were considered Peace Officers. However the lovely Kamala Harris rescinded that memo that was in place for almost 14 years. California now only considers POST certified California Offices to be "Peace Officers" which leaves a lot of people in this weird grey area that technically has no legal coverage.
Kamala Harris is an idiot; does she realize that a LOT of Federal Agencies to include HSI, DEA, and the FBI, perform many arrests under California Penal code and present cases to prosecuted by the County ADA's? We also apply and are affiants for warrants, T-III's, and Pen Register's, so this rescinding puts a lot of our investigations, along with on-duty/off-duty shootings, in a very dark gray zone.

It also puts many of us that have purchased POW's in a bit of a quagmire; I had to purchase my own Glock 17 magazines, and what happens when I can't buy replacement magazines or parts? Prior to the issuing of the letter by then AG Lundgren, I had to order magazines directly from Sig for my POW Sig 229. Now we are going backwards instead of making forward progress?!? I now know that coming back to California will be more of a curse than a blessing.

Last edited by veeklog; 07-31-2013 at 10:26 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 07-31-2013, 7:21 PM
will0861 will0861 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 32
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The real slap in the face is, we're considered law enforcement for the sake of taking criminals of the street in this state. But God forbid we want to own our purchase a firearm for the purpose of enforcing those laws. I'm tempted to start calling locals and asking them to come make my arrests....I'm sorry But Kamala Harris says we can't be considered law enforcement, so can you come do my job for me?
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 07-31-2013, 11:29 PM
Garand1911's Avatar
Garand1911 Garand1911 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Occupied Territory
Posts: 1,074
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by socalblue View Post
One question I would have for the BP folks: If the HK2000 is the primary on/off duty weapon, how are back-up guns (BUG) handled? Is there an authorized list + qualifications? If so, I would argue to the legal eagles upstairs that the BUG qualification should carry over to off duty too.
CBP/BP are not allowed to carry a BUG on duty, there is no list. Your one and only P2000 is all ya got.
ICE guys have always been able to purchase an off duty gun, from a specific list. Its only until recently they have been able to carry a BUG on duty.
They still have to qualify with the BUG, same course as the main duty gun.

I dont know if CBP will ever allow BUGs, they are still slowly moving away from the customer service attitude, and into a law enforcement mode. Things are changing, very slowly, but some things have changed.
Some managers will still try to convince their officers that they are NOT LEOs.

The problem with CBP is national policy, and port policy sometimes dont mesh. Some ports do not want to move towards a law enforcement stance, and have to be pushed (forced) by national policy.
__________________
"I saved your life, AND brought you pizza" -- Me
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 07-31-2013, 11:42 PM
Garand1911's Avatar
Garand1911 Garand1911 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Occupied Territory
Posts: 1,074
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by will0861 View Post
The real slap in the face is, we're considered law enforcement for the sake of taking criminals of the street in this state. But God forbid we want to own our purchase a firearm for the purpose of enforcing those laws. I'm tempted to start calling locals and asking them to come make my arrests....I'm sorry But Kamala Harris says we can't be considered law enforcement, so can you come do my job for me?

Some of the gun guys at my agency are pissed about the recent DOJ decision, including me. Some FFLs will still sell to Fed LEOs, the ones that do not have a AW Sellers Permit to lose, some FFLs wont even sell hi caps either.
Can Cal DOJ take away an FFL License? Isnt that the job of the ATF ? Or would Cal DOJ just issue fines for selling to Fed LEOs ?

Now do i have to worry that my Glock Gen 4 is deemed illegal ? and will i be receiving a letter stating to turn it in? or would the DOJ could come knocking ?


That stupid witch harris has to be dumber than a rock, my agency deals with a lot of stolen autos (among other things), we even have a permanent office for a state LEO to help work those cars. We have found massive auto title fraud, which Calif is losing millions of dollars a year from. We are even getting the DMV to work with us. We sometimes do joint Ops with local PDs. But yet we are not LEOs ???

Maybe this will be a good excuse to try and get a CCW out of LA County.
__________________
"I saved your life, AND brought you pizza" -- Me
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 08-01-2013, 9:47 AM
lrdchivalry lrdchivalry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Diego Area
Posts: 956
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

What I find interesting is that sworn members of the military are not California peace officers yet according to the PC they can buy off roster guns.

The PC states (emphasis mine)

PC 32000(b)(4)
(4) The sale or purchase of any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, if the pistol, revolver, or other firearm is sold to, or purchased by, the Department of Justice, any police department, any sheriff's official, any marshal's office, the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency, the California Highway Patrol, any district attorney's office, or the military or naval forces of this state or of the United States for use in the discharge of their official duties. Nor shall anything in this section prohibit the sale to, or purchase by, sworn members of these agencies of any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.

I find it odd that sworn military members, which are now able to carry under LEOSA are included in the PC but not federal leos. I have already addressed the issue with my state assemblyman.

As for LEOSA, I think it has a lot of unintentional flaws that could land an leo/retiree in jail, such as so-called hi-cap mag bans, federal gun free school zones.
__________________
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

Last edited by lrdchivalry; 08-01-2013 at 9:56 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 08-01-2013, 2:27 PM
will0861 will0861 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 32
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

And to make it worse.....

PC 32400 states that we can possess hi cap mags. PC32405 only specifically states peace officers as defined by pc 830 are allowed to purchase mags.

It makes it worse that the PC's have been reorganized. I've had several people quote me the old codes as the reason for their opinions.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 08-16-2013, 4:11 PM
Jared1981 Jared1981 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 266
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NineteenElev3n View Post
Per LEOSA and California's gun laws, just make sure you don't carry any handguns in California that are banned under CA's version of the AWB; I.E., Taurus Judge, etc.
This is incorrect LEOSA defines what firearms can not be carried under LEOSA

California AW's and Taurus judges are firearms under federal law and they are not silencers, machine guns, or destructive devices; therefore, they can be carried under LEOSA.

That's why it's called preemption, CA's AW and Judge nonsense is null and void as it is preempted by LEOSA.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 08-16-2013, 4:15 PM
Jared1981 Jared1981 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 266
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by allquieton View Post
Does anyone know where to find this information?

From what I understand federal agents can legally buy and own firearms banned in CA as long as they are legal under federal law.

But can they carry them off duty?

And do they need a ccw permit to carry off duty? Or are they covered under the LEO Safety Act?
Border Patrol Agents meet LEOSA guidelines.

If you are carrying a firearm that you are explicitly authorized by the agency to carry, you can carry that firearm, magazines, and related equipment anywhere in the U.S. without restriction. No state law can regulate or prohibit any aspect of this.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 08-16-2013, 5:11 PM
lrdchivalry lrdchivalry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Diego Area
Posts: 956
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jared1981 View Post
Border Patrol Agents meet LEOSA guidelines.

If you are carrying a firearm that you are explicitly authorized by the agency to carry, you can carry that firearm, magazines, and related equipment anywhere in the U.S. without restriction. No state law can regulate or prohibit any aspect of this.
Actually, you are wrong. There are restrictions, even when carrying your issued firearm, for example, you cannot carry in a federal courthouse, if off duty you would be in violation of the federal gun free school zone act for coming within a 1000' of a school, regardless if you were carrying your service weapon. LEOSA also doesn't trump state/local laws for state government buildings/property that have firearm restrictions. A BPA is still governed by federal law and some state laws when carrying his service weapon or under LEOSA.
__________________
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
  #57  
Old 08-16-2013, 8:41 PM
Jared1981 Jared1981 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 266
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lrdchivalry View Post
Actually, you are wrong. There are restrictions, even when carrying your issued firearm, for example, you cannot carry in a federal courthouse, if off duty you would be in violation of the federal gun free school zone act for coming within a 1000' of a school, regardless if you were carrying your service weapon. LEOSA also doesn't trump state/local laws for state government buildings/property that have firearm restrictions. A BPA is still governed by federal law and some state laws when carrying his service weapon or under LEOSA.
This is absolute nonsense. First off, LEOSA doesn't apply in the case of a Federal LEO carrying under agency policy/law.

A BPA can carry a firearm that they are authorized to by the agency anywhere in the United States on or off duty. The 1000' school rule does not apply in this case. 8 USC 1357a gives the authority to carry as do the applicable regulations.

LEOSA doesn't mean squat when it comes to this. How else do you think Federal LEO's carry on airplanes with 10+ round magazines. I just did from San Diego less than a month ago. In fact, I had 3 "high cap" mags.

Federal Courts (most) will make federal LEO's lock guns in the locker but this is a separation of power/contempt of court thing.

Federal LEO's have been carrying authorized guns without restrictions long before LEOSA and still continue to do so in places that LEOSA doesn't cover (ie. Post offices, airplanes, schools, etc).

In fact some Federal Agencies have polices (including BP) that state that an authorized firearm can not be turned over to a state or local LEO without agency permission.

You are confusing Feds with state/locals, they must abide by all federal laws even with their service weapon. Feds it's a different story and always has been.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 08-17-2013, 7:54 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 Jared1981 View Post
This is absolute nonsense. First off, LEOSA doesn't apply in the case of a Federal LEO carrying under agency policy/law.
I stand by my statement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jared1981 View Post
A BPA can carry a firearm that they are authorized to by the agency anywhere in the United States on or off duty. The 1000' school rule does not apply in this case. 8 USC 1357a gives the authority to carry as do the applicable regulations.
Did you know that 18 USC 922(q)(2)(b)(vi), the federal gun free zone act, only gives an exemption for leo's on official duty? You would be in violation of that law regardless if you were carrying a service weapon under 8 USC 1357a, which by the way doesn't state your authority to carry is absolute. Anywhere in the US you say? Can you carry in Disneyland, a private residence/business whose owner forbids it? No you cannot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jared1981 View Post
LEOSA doesn't mean squat when it comes to this. How else do you think Federal LEO's carry on airplanes with 10+ round magazines. I just did from San Diego less than a month ago. In fact, I had 3 "high cap" mags.
Your ability to fly armed on or off duty is codified in the USC under a different law and is seperate from 8 USC 1357a. If it wasn't codified in that separate law, 8 USC 1357a wouldn't allow you to fly armed either on duty or off. Edit: Something I forgot, you cannot carry on an aircraft whether on duty or off without a ufam number, and second, the captain has the final say whether you get on board his/her aircraft, the captain can refuse to let you board and 8 USC 1357a will not help you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jared1981 View Post
Federal Courts (most) will make federal LEO's lock guns in the locker but this is a separation of power/contempt of court thing.
Therefore, you cannot carry anywhere in the US with your service weapon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jared1981 View Post
Federal LEO's have been carrying authorized guns without restrictions long before LEOSA and still continue to do so in places that LEOSA doesn't cover (ie. Post offices, airplanes, schools, etc).
That maybe so, however, you still cannot carry anywhere in the US. See the examples I listed above for reference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jared1981 View Post
In fact some Federal Agencies have polices (including BP) that state that an authorized firearm can not be turned over to a state or local LEO without agency permission.
If your being arrested you will not have a choice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jared1981 View Post
You are confusing Feds with state/locals, they must abide by all federal laws even with their service weapon. Feds it's a different story and always has been.
No, you just think that being a federal leo somehow gives you carte blanche to carry anywhere at any time, and that is not the case.
__________________
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

Last edited by lrdchivalry; 08-17-2013 at 8:13 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 08-17-2013, 10:05 AM
Jared1981 Jared1981 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 266
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lrdchivalry View Post
I stand by my statement.



Did you know that 18 USC 922(q)(2)(b)(vi), the federal gun free zone act, only gives an exemption for leo's on official duty? You would be in violation of that law regardless if you were carrying a service weapon under 8 USC 1357a, which by the way doesn't state your authority to carry is absolute. Anywhere in the US you say? Can you carry in Disneyland, a private residence/business whose owner forbids it? No you cannot.



Your ability to fly armed on or off duty is codified in the USC under a different law and is seperate from 8 USC 1357a. If it wasn't codified in that separate law, 8 USC 1357a wouldn't allow you to fly armed either on duty or off. Edit: Something I forgot, you cannot carry on an aircraft whether on duty or off without a ufam number, and second, the captain has the final say whether you get on board his/her aircraft, the captain can refuse to let you board and 8 USC 1357a will not help you.



Therefore, you cannot carry anywhere in the US with your service weapon.



That maybe so, however, you still cannot carry anywhere in the US. See the examples I listed above for reference.



If your being arrested you will not have a choice.



No, you just think that being a federal LEO somehow gives you carte blanche to carry anywhere at any time, and that is not the case.
Well aware of private property, and yes if you are being arrested you have no choice but if a resisting charge comes from it it would be nullified because federal policy trumps state law. You can be arrested for anything, I remember when some idiot in the Highway Patrol arrested a BPA because he was under 21 and carrying, not only was that idiot fired but the BPA got a nice lump sum.

As far as the school zone act, it's not applicable because it's in conflict with federal law/policy that explicitly permits carry. It's not in conflict with state or local LEO's because of the supremacy clause.

If your assessment is correct (which it isn't about schools) then how come not a single lawyer, government attorney, or firearms instructor has said anything?

Regarding flying, airplanes are private property and they can say no as you mentioned; however the laws for flying armed are different because Title 49 of U.S.C. and CFR both explicity lay out the rules for doing so.

I never said it gives carte blanche to carry, its just that since LEOSA was created, a lot of people think that is how every leo carries now, all LEOSA did for Federal LEO's was give them the chance to carry "unauthorized" firearms under LEOSA; however, each agency's original carry authority was not somehow mitigated because of LEOSA.

Last edited by Jared1981; 08-17-2013 at 10:11 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 08-17-2013, 1:00 PM
lrdchivalry lrdchivalry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Diego Area
Posts: 956
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jared1981 View Post
and yes if you are being arrested you have no choice but if a resisting charge comes from it it would be nullified because federal policy trumps state law.
If you think that federal policy/law gives you the authority to forcibly resist being disarmed while in the process of being arrested your kidding yourself and likely to get yourself shot.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jared1981 View Post
As far as the school zone act, it's not applicable because it's in conflict with federal law/policy that explicitly permits carry. It's not in conflict with state or local LEO's because of the supremacy clause.
You do know that the federal gun free school zone is a federal law, therefore, the supremacy clause isn't applicable? Per 18 USC 922(q)(2)(b)(vi) the only exemption is for on duty leos. Let me give you the exact quote.

(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.

(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—

"(vi) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity" (emphasis mine)

Per the actual law you are in violation even if you are carrying your service weapon off duty through that federal gun free zone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jared1981 View Post
If your assessment is correct (which it isn't about schools) then how come not a single lawyer, government attorney, or firearms instructor has said anything?
Ask them, since I can't speak for them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jared1981 View Post
Regarding flying, airplanes are private property and they can say no as you mentioned; however the laws for flying armed are different because Title 49 of U.S.C. and CFR both explicity lay out the rules for doing so.
If the Captain says your not flying, you are not flying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jared1981 View Post
I never said it gives carte blanche to carry,
Really?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jared1981 View Post
A BPA can carry a firearm that they are authorized to by the agency anywhere in the United States on or off duty
Those were your words correct? Use of the word anywhere implies that you have no restrictions on where you can carry, and that simply is not the case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jared1981 View Post
however, each agency's original carry authority was not somehow mitigated because of LEOSA.
You are still bound by federal law and some state/local laws, an example would be the capitol building in Sacramento, if they have a no gun policy, federal law does not over ride that, on the federal side, if you were visiting the white house, they can also ban you from entering while armed.

So, your idea that you can carry, as you stated "anywhere in the United States on or off duty" is simply false.
__________________
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
  #61  
Old 08-17-2013, 2:15 PM
Jared1981 Jared1981 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 266
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lrdchivalry View Post
If you think that federal policy/law gives you the authority to forcibly resist being disarmed while in the process of being arrested your kidding yourself and likely to get yourself shot.




You do know that the federal gun free school zone is a federal law, therefore, the supremacy clause isn't applicable? Per 18 USC 922(q)(2)(b)(vi) the only exemption is for on duty leos. Let me give you the exact quote.

(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.

(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—

"(vi) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity" (emphasis mine)

Per the actual law you are in violation even if you are carrying your service weapon off duty through that federal gun free zone.



Ask them, since I can't speak for them.



If the Captain says your not flying, you are not flying.



Really?



Those were your words correct? Use of the word anywhere implies that you have no restrictions on where you can carry, and that simply is not the case.



You are still bound by federal law and some state/local laws, an example would be the capitol building in Sacramento, if they have a no gun policy, federal law does not over ride that, on the federal side, if you were visiting the white house, they can also ban you from entering while armed.

So, your idea that you can carry, as you stated "anywhere in the United States on or off duty" is simply false.
Sacramento can not keep a federal officer out of the capitol building when outsiders are allowed in, state and local law is irrelevant, it has nothing to do with LEOSA.

You misread my gun free school zone statement. I brought up the supremacy clause in context with STATE OR LOCAL LEO's, not federal.

The reason the GFSZA doesn't apply to federal officers carrying under federal policy is because the laws are in conflict with each other and the policies supersede GFSZA for a number of reasons including but not limited to that many of the federal carry rules and laws were re-written and passed AFTER GFSZA was passed.

I will continue to carry my "authorized" pistol within 1000 feet of a school and within schools with impunity as I am explicitly authorized to by law and by policy. Policy is important because it's born from a permissive law (federal carry authority). Normally laws dictate what is illegal, not what is legal. The fact that most federal agencies have explicit carry authority carries significant weight and what policy says operates as a matter of law. Congress would not have passed carry authority for nothing if it was just assumed feds could carry and they certainly are not null and void because a law dealing with off duty/retired carriage of personal weapons passed back in 2004.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 08-17-2013, 2:57 PM
lrdchivalry lrdchivalry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Diego Area
Posts: 956
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jared1981 View Post
Sacramento can not keep a federal officer out of the capitol building when outsiders are allowed in, state and local law is irrelevant, it has nothing to do with LEOSA.
Actually they can. If that building is a gun free zone, federal law and your credentials do not trump their ability to restrict guns in their buildings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jared1981 View Post
You misread my gun free school zone statement. I brought up the supremacy clause in context with STATE OR LOCAL LEO's, not federal.
Did I? You stated that you are exempt from that law, however, the law states you are not, regardless of what you carry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jared1981 View Post
The reason the GFSZA doesn't apply to federal officers carrying under federal policy is because the laws are in conflict with each other and the policies supersede GFSZA for a number of reasons including but not limited to that many of the federal carry rules and laws were re-written and passed AFTER GFSZA was passed.
Really? Can you show me where it states that it doesn't apply to federal law enforcement? I have shown you that it does apply to you and any leo. Just because we carry our service weapons and are federal law enforcement, and have off duty carry does not mean that federal laws no longer apply to us. Can you carry in a federal courthouse? Let me know what the US Marshall's response is when you tell them that your authority to carry under 8 USC 1357a trumps their no gun policy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jared1981 View Post
I will continue to carry my "authorized" pistol within 1000 feet of a school and within schools with impunity as I am explicitly authorized to by law and by policy.
That's your choice, I think it's a stupid law and don't follow it myself, however, that doesn't mean you have the authority to carry through that school zone or on the campus off duty or are not subject to federal and some state/local laws.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jared1981 View Post
Policy is important because it's born from a permissive law (federal carry authority). Normally laws dictate what is illegal, not what is legal. The fact that most federal agencies have explicit carry authority carries significant weight and what policy says operates as a matter of law. Congress would not have passed carry authority for nothing if it was just assumed feds could carry and they certainly are not null and void because a law dealing with off duty/retired carriage of personal weapons passed back in 2004.
And you seem to forget that your ability to carry under 8 USC 1357a is not absolute. I have a curiosity question for you. How many years have you been with BP?
__________________
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

Last edited by lrdchivalry; 08-17-2013 at 3:23 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 08-17-2013, 5:52 PM
Jared1981 Jared1981 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 266
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lrdchivalry View Post
Actually they can. If that building is a gun free zone, federal law and your credentials do not trump their ability to restrict guns in their buildings.



Did I? You stated that you are exempt from that law, however, the law states you are not, regardless of what you carry.



Really? Can you show me where it states that it doesn't apply to federal law enforcement? I have shown you that it does apply to you and any leo. Just because we carry our service weapons and are federal law enforcement, and have off duty carry does not mean that federal laws no longer apply to us. Can you carry in a federal courthouse? Let me know what the US Marshall's response is when you tell them that your authority to carry under 8 USC 1357a trumps their no gun policy.



That's your choice, I think it's a stupid law and don't follow it myself, however, that doesn't mean you have the authority to carry through that school zone or on the campus off duty or are not subject to federal and some state/local laws.



And you seem to forget that your ability to carry under 8 USC 1357a is not absolute. I have a curiosity question for you. How many years have you been with BP?
I have demonstrated it to you. Some federal laws conflict, the latter and/or more explicit trumps.

I would like to see how some state restriction trumps federal carry authority. (Outside of LEOSA)

I suppose everyone in Air and Marine is a felon as switchblades are standard issue, even though there is no exception in the federal switchblade act for possession in the territories or for interstate transport.

How long have YOU been with the BP? FYI, I was with the BP when they still had Beretta's as standard issue.

Last edited by Jared1981; 08-17-2013 at 6:07 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 08-17-2013, 6:25 PM
lrdchivalry lrdchivalry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Diego Area
Posts: 956
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jared1981 View Post
I have demonstrated it to you. Some federal laws conflict, the latter and/or more explicit trumps.
No you haven't, all you have demonstrated is a misguided belief that because you are a federal agent that federal laws and some state/local laws do not apply to you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jared1981 View Post
I would like to see how some state restriction trumps federal carry authority. (Outside of LEOSA)
From the Superior Court of California (emphasis mine)
FIREARMS POLICY – LAW ENFORCEMENT

By General Order of the Presiding Judge , all persons other than
(1) an on-duty, uniformed, law enforcement officer, or (2) an officer designated by the prosecution as the investigating officer in a hearing pending before the court, are prohibited from carrying a firearm in the courthouse. Gun lockers are provided for on-duty law enforcement officers, who are not in uniform at the court on official business.
Off-duty law enforcement officers and persons permitted to carry a concealed weapon MAY NOT USE the gun lockers and must store their firearms in their vehicles before entering the courthouse.


Good luck telling the Deputies manning the security checkpoint that your a fed and federal law trumps state law. I am going to hazard a guess that you wont be entering the courthouse and if you argue and attempt to by pass the check point will be met with armed resistance. I will also hazard a guess that IA and your superiors will be notified while your in jail, and I predict that 8 USC 1357a wont save you when it goes to court.

Let me know how it goes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jared1981 View Post
How long have YOU been with the BP? FYI, I was with the BP when they still had Beretta's as standard issue.
I have over 15 years in federal law enforcement.
__________________
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
  #65  
Old 08-17-2013, 8:02 PM
Jared1981 Jared1981 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 266
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lrdchivalry View Post
No you haven't, all you have demonstrated is a misguided belief that because you are a federal agent that federal laws and some state/local laws do not apply to you.



From the Superior Court of California (emphasis mine)
FIREARMS POLICY – LAW ENFORCEMENT

By General Order of the Presiding Judge , all persons other than
(1) an on-duty, uniformed, law enforcement officer, or (2) an officer designated by the prosecution as the investigating officer in a hearing pending before the court, are prohibited from carrying a firearm in the courthouse. Gun lockers are provided for on-duty law enforcement officers, who are not in uniform at the court on official business.
Off-duty law enforcement officers and persons permitted to carry a concealed weapon MAY NOT USE the gun lockers and must store their firearms in their vehicles before entering the courthouse.


Good luck telling the Deputies manning the security checkpoint that your a fed and federal law trumps state law. I am going to hazard a guess that you wont be entering the courthouse and if you argue and attempt to by pass the check point will be met with armed resistance. I will also hazard a guess that IA and your superiors will be notified while your in jail, and I predict that 8 USC 1357a wont save you when it goes to court.

Let me know how it goes.



I have over 15 years in federal law enforcement.
15 years in federal law enforcement and you don't understand how federal law trumps state?

If I ran into an uneducated local, id simply talk to his or her superior, and get my upper management involved if necessary. Anytime I've had issue at a state court, I simply asked to speak to a superior and I explained the law and how federal trumps state law, they agreed and allowed entry.

So everyone in Air and Marine is a felon then, right? In case you forgot, the switchblade act has no applicable exceptions yet are somehow able to possess, transport, and carry them.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 08-17-2013, 9:03 PM
lrdchivalry lrdchivalry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Diego Area
Posts: 956
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jared1981 View Post
15 years in federal law enforcement and you don't understand how federal law trumps state?
What I understand is that federal law does not give carte blanche to carry "anywhere in the United Sates" as you claim.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jared1981 View Post
If I ran into an uneducated local, id simply talk to his or her superior, and get my upper management involved if necessary. Anytime I've had issue at a state court, I simply asked to speak to a superior and I explained the law and how federal trumps state law, they agreed and allowed entry.
Why do I find that hard to believe? Oh, because I doubt it's true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jared1981 View Post
So everyone in Air and Marine is a felon then, right? In case you forgot, the switchblade act has no applicable exceptions yet are somehow able to possess, transport, and carry them.
The only thing I have found is 15 USC 1243 which states;

Manufacture, sale, or possession within specific jurisdictions; penalty Whoever, within any Territory or possession of the United States, within Indian country (as defined in section 1151 of title 18), or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States (as defined in section 7 of title 18), manufactures, sells, or possesses any switchblade knife, shall be fined not more than $2,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.


I didn't see a law enforcement exemption in section 1244, care to cite a source to back your claim that it's legal? California law only allows possession as long as the blade is under 2 inches.
__________________
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
  #67  
Old 08-17-2013, 9:31 PM
Jared1981 Jared1981 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 266
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lrdchivalry View Post
What I understand is that federal law does not give carte blanche to carry "anywhere in the United Sates" as you claim.



Why do I find that hard to believe? Oh, because I doubt it's true.



The only thing I have found is 15 USC 1243 which states;

Manufacture, sale, or possession within specific jurisdictions; penalty Whoever, within any Territory or possession of the United States, within Indian country (as defined in section 1151 of title 18), or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States (as defined in section 7 of title 18), manufactures, sells, or possesses any switchblade knife, shall be fined not more than $2,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.


I didn't see a law enforcement exemption in section 1244, care to cite a source to back your claim that it's legal? California law only allows possession as long as the blade is under 2 inches.
That's my point!!!! There is no switchblade exception yet CBP Office of Air and marine ISSUE switchblade knives to marine units. So by your logic, they are all felons.

If you really are in law enforcement, you can check with an Air and Marine officer and ask them. If you feel they are wrong then feel free to arrest them for a federal felony

The reason they have switchblades is because their federal policy allows for it, and it trumps the switchblade act.
Believe what you want about court. I'm telling you my experience from 2 states, both which have strict court rules about firearms.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 08-17-2013, 10:15 PM
lrdchivalry lrdchivalry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Diego Area
Posts: 956
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jared1981 View Post
That's my point!!!! There is no switchblade exception yet CBP Office of Air and marine ISSUE switchblade knives to marine units. So by your logic, they are all felons.
No. Federal law states they are in violation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jared1981 View Post
If you really are in law enforcement, you can check with an Air and Marine officer and ask them. If you feel they are wrong then feel free to arrest them for a federal felony
Next time my canine and I see them, I will ask under what authority do they carry switchblades.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jared1981 View Post
The reason they have switchblades is because their federal policy allows for it, and it trumps the switchblade act.
Wow! I have heard of agencies being more restrictive than federal law, however, that's quite an assertion that agency policy now trumps federal law. So if BP decided to make it a policy that no off duty carry is now policy, would you still have the authority to carry off duty? By your statement above you would not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jared1981 View Post
Believe what you want about court. I'm telling you my experience from 2 states, both which have strict court rules about firearms.
I don't.
__________________
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
  #69  
Old 08-17-2013, 10:23 PM
Jared1981 Jared1981 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 266
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lrdchivalry View Post
No. Federal law states they are in violation.



Next time my canine and I see them, I will ask under what authority do they carry switchblades.



Wow! I have heard of agencies being more restrictive than federal law, however, that's quite an assertion that agency policy now trumps federal law. So if BP decided to make it a policy that no off duty carry is now policy, would you still have the authority to carry off duty? By your statement above you would not.



I don't.
If Border Patrol policy restricted off duty carry then there would be no federal authority to carry off duty per Title 8. The only option would be for the carriage of personal guns under LEOSA, which is much more restrictive than Title 8 carry.

What you believe is irrelevant. You believe that it's a felony to carry off duty a 1000 feet from a school and you admit that you regulary do so on the Internet. In otherwords, you admit that you commit federal felonies but you don't care. So it's on to commit what you believe to be federal felonies and at the same time work a dog at the POE in search of federal felonies...

Because of your integrity issues it matters not what you believe.

Last edited by Jared1981; 08-17-2013 at 10:32 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 08-17-2013, 10:40 PM
lrdchivalry lrdchivalry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Diego Area
Posts: 956
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jared1981 View Post
If Border Patrol policy restricted off duty carry then there would be no federal authority to carry off duty per Title 8. The only option would be for the carriage of personal guns under LEOSA, which is much more restrictive than Title 8 carry.
Per your statement in the previous post, you wouldn't be able to carry under LEOSA due to your assertion that agency policy trumps federal law.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jared1981 View Post
What you believe is irrelevant. You believe that it's a felony to carry off duty a 1000 feet from a school and you admit that you regulary do so on the Internet. In otherwords, you admit that you commit federal felonies but you don't care. So it's on to commit what you believe to be federal felonies and at the same time work a dog at the POE in search of federal felonies...

Because of your integrity issues it matters not what you believe.
The same can be said for you as well since you also admit to carrying within the GFSZA in violation of federal law.
__________________
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
  #71  
Old 08-17-2013, 11:16 PM
Jared1981 Jared1981 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 266
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lrdchivalry View Post
Per your statement in the previous post, you wouldn't be able to carry under LEOSA due to your assertion that agency policy trumps federal law.




The same can be said for you as well since you also admit to carrying within the GFSZA in violation of federal law.
Negative, Federal policy counts on Title 8 authority because the law says so, it's independent and unrelated to LEOSA. One deals with official government carry and what they allow through that flow via the appropriate section of law (Title 8) and the other deals with off duty and retired carry of personal firearms unrelated to an agency.

And I never said I violate the GFSZA because carrying under Title 8 trumps that. You are the one who erroneously thinks so but at the same time you are the arbiter of what felonies are okay to commit and which ones are not. If you feel that it's a felony then call the JIC or OIG, and while your at it, arrest every Marine Officer you see with a switchblade. Let me know how THAT goes. In fact, call the JIC on the Office of Air and Marine and explain that they issue switchblades with no lawful authority.

Last edited by Jared1981; 08-17-2013 at 11:21 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 08-17-2013, 11:38 PM
socalblue socalblue is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 743
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

[QUOTE=lrdchivalry;11965533]What I find interesting is that sworn members of the military are not California peace officers yet according to the PC they can buy off roster guns.

The PC states (emphasis mine)

PC 32000(b)(4)
(4) The sale or purchase of any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, if the pistol, revolver, or other firearm is sold to, or purchased by, the Department of Justice, any police department, any sheriff's official, any marshal's office, the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency, the California Highway Patrol, any district attorney's office, or the military or naval forces of this state or of the United States for use in the discharge of their official duties. Nor shall anything in this section prohibit the sale to, or purchase by, sworn members of these agencies of any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.

I find it odd that sworn military members, which are now able to carry under LEOSA are included in the PC but not federal leos. I have already addressed the issue with my state assemblyman.

As for LEOSA, I think it has a lot of unintentional flaws that could land an leo/retiree in jail, such as so-called hi-cap mag bans, federal gun free school zones.
[/QUOTE

PC 32000(b)(4) pertains to agencies, not individuals. Authorized agencies are allowed to purchase & issue pretty much anything they wish. Not so with individual members of said agencies.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 08-18-2013, 8:45 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 socalblue View Post
PC 32000(b)(4)
(4) The sale or purchase of any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, if the pistol, revolver, or other firearm is sold to, or purchased by, the Department of Justice, any police department, any sheriff's official, any marshal's office, the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency, the California Highway Patrol, any district attorney's office, or the military or naval forces of this state or of the United States for use in the discharge of their official duties. Nor shall anything in this section prohibit the sale to, or purchase by, sworn members of these agencies of any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.

PC 32000(b)(4) pertains to agencies, not individuals. Authorized agencies are allowed to purchase & issue pretty much anything they wish. Not so with individual members of said agencies.
If you look at what the actual PC states, there are two sections, the first authorizes agencies to buy off roster guns for official duties, the second section in bold pertains to individual members of agencies, hence the phrase "sworn members of these agencies" that is why state/local leos can buy off roster guns. If you believe that it only pertains to agencies, can you cite the PC that allows for individual sales of off roster guns?
__________________
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
  #74  
Old 08-18-2013, 8:53 AM
264Grendel 264Grendel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 257
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

[/B]
Quote:
Originally Posted by paul0660 View Post
Why do you ask?
Probably trolling for one of the cartels.

Last edited by 264Grendel; 08-18-2013 at 8:56 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 08-18-2013, 11:45 AM
lrdchivalry lrdchivalry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Diego Area
Posts: 956
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Just wanted to apologize for jacking the thread and to Jared for baiting him into and argument, I agree with what he was saying but because I was in a foul mood I was just picking a fight. Stay safe everyone.
__________________
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
  #76  
Old 08-18-2013, 2:29 PM
Jared1981 Jared1981 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 266
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lrdchivalry View Post
Just wanted to apologize for jacking the thread and to Jared for baiting him into and argument, I agree with what he was saying but because I was in a foul mood I was just picking a fight. Stay safe everyone.
Thanks for the apology, but no thanks for wasting everyone's time. Calguns used to be an accurate and great website, but with supposed "15 year veterans in law enforcement" baiting people and spreading misinformation.

The OP asked about Border Patrol and carrying. Being that I have experience in this exact area, I'm trying to help the guy.... And no offense, but a Customs officer has little to no understanding about firearms and/or use of force.... Especially when many ports require a supervisors permission to put handcuffs on someone.

If we wanted that crap, we'd go to a Justin Bieber fan page.

I don't post often on here and I remember why.... Too many immature and childish clowns on here.

Next time anyone has a question, hire an attorney and don't waste the time of knowledgeable people.

Last edited by Jared1981; 08-18-2013 at 2:41 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 09-04-2013, 12:17 PM
captainkelp captainkelp is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 33
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default UPDATE

If you have not seen the memo dated Aug 13, 2013 from the Commish, message me, I will verify who you are, and send it to your gov mail. It basically says that we can now carry whatever we want off-duty under HR218. I will not get into the legal matters about gun free zones, as I am no lawyer. Looks like finally a win for us, but I have always thought under 218 we could carry anything we want, within reason (it does mention no suppressors, machine guns, etc in the memo) and have always carried my Glock 27 off-duty. The Burrito was just too big for off-duty carry!
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 09-04-2013, 6:47 PM
Big D's Avatar
Big D Big D is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: so cal
Posts: 882
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

What's up captain kelp!
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 6:22 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.