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 08-09-2013, 10:57 PM
m1a1driver's Avatar
m1a1driver m1a1driver is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Buena Park, CA
Posts: 959
iTrader: 99 / 100%
Default feds and hi caps are a nogo...

Apparently there was a recent change here in CA that I was not aware of.. I tried to purchase some PMAGS and was told that the state AG and DOJ are no longer allowing any federal LEO's to buy off roster pistols or hi cap magazines... There was an FBI and DEA agent in the store with me who were furious. A call to the DOJ confirmed this, they said it is a recent change.. Does anyone have any more information about this?
__________________
OIF III, OIF 08-09
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-09-2013, 11:21 PM
nick nick is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 18,135
iTrader: 137 / 100%
Default

Yep. DOJ recently opined that these exemptions don't apply to federal LEOs.
__________________
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson
"Thou shalt not interfere with the Second Amendment rights of "law-abiding" citizens who want AK-47s only to protect hearth and home." - Paul Helmke finally gets it :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJgunguy24 View Post
Some people are so open minded, their brains have fallen out.


WTB: Saiga .223 bolt; HK G3 bolt; Chinese AK pistol grips; milled AK cut receiver pieces and stubs.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-09-2013, 11:35 PM
m1a1driver's Avatar
m1a1driver m1a1driver is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Buena Park, CA
Posts: 959
iTrader: 99 / 100%
Default

Wow..this is really bad..
__________________
OIF III, OIF 08-09
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-10-2013, 7:33 AM
desertexplore desertexplore is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,284
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Isn't there law of change coming on the federal level to fix this?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-10-2013, 10:40 AM
mirage2887 mirage2887 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 226
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Order online
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-10-2013, 1:42 PM
CaptMike CaptMike is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 1,053
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Unfortunately, the AG and DOJ are using every little method they can to make it difficult for officers to prepare themselves for the job. Even though the AG is supposed to be the highest ranking state law enforcement officer, she has no idea what it means to be an officer at any level. She does not understand that we as peace officers purchase these magazines for every weapon we own so that we can train and prepare to defend the people of this state. whether we are city, county, state or federal law enforcement officers, we prepare every day to protect the people. This is what happens when people don't get off their butts and get involved in the political system.

And to the rest of the little children that responded to this thread with teasing or needling comments, go back to the kindergarden playground in the off topic section. There are rules for this forum, you need to read them. They are at the top of this forum.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-10-2013, 2:29 PM
Eric B's Avatar
Eric B Eric B is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: San Jose
Posts: 764
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Ridiculous. I guess the AG doesn't trust their backgrounds.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-10-2013, 5:49 PM
veeklog's Avatar
veeklog veeklog is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: San Diego
Posts: 833
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by m1a1driver View Post
Apparently there was a recent change here in CA that I was not aware of.. I tried to purchase some PMAGS and was told that the state AG and DOJ are no longer allowing any federal LEO's to buy off roster pistols or hi cap magazines... There was an FBI and DEA agent in the store with me who were furious. A call to the DOJ confirmed this, they said it is a recent change.. Does anyone have any more information about this?
The off-roster handguns don't bother me too much, but the magazines do. Both of my duty pistols are POW's since I hate the issued Sig. I also buy my own P-Mags for my issued M-4. I haven't returned back to Cali yet and am already regretting it!
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-10-2013, 5:58 PM
Poohgyrr Poohgyrr is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sutter's Fort - behind the cannons!
Posts: 282
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

That sucks but isn't surprising. My apologies.

Welcome to a State that keeps re-electing the same kind of politicians, who then appoint like minded individuals.

If it helps, those people are on record as saying they want CA Cops' guns and mags too. They aren't prejudiced or profiling: they hate all guns.

Our population can change the laws, but has decided not to; so here we are.
__________________
John
"Life brings us joys and sorrows alike. It is what a man does with them - not what they do to him - that is the test of his mettle.". T. Roosevelt
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-10-2013, 7:03 PM
oddjob oddjob is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lodi, California
Posts: 1,878
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Here is the other question (at least with me) the AG has brought up by issuing that opinion. A lot of the Federal LEO's transfer to California from other states. When the AG says Federal LEO's can't legally buy hi-cap mags then they cannot import them to California either when they transfer here. I'm excluding dept issued equipment. Or can they?
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 08-10-2013, 7:30 PM
Ericb760 Ericb760 is offline
Banned
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 421
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I was under the impression that a letter from your CO indicating that they are needed for duty and that you have explicit permission to possess them would make you exempt?
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-10-2013, 7:48 PM
sfbay's Avatar
sfbay sfbay is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,647
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

this is ridiculous. fed cops should be able to have the tools they need.
__________________
You get what you get and you don't get upset !
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-10-2013, 7:52 PM
oddjob oddjob is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lodi, California
Posts: 1,878
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ericb760 View Post
I was under the impression that a letter from your CO indicating that they are needed for duty and that you have explicit permission to possess them would make you exempt?
I fully understand what your saying, but I don't think the penal code allows for that.

Whats sad is I shoot competition with some Feds and they are as pro gun as anyone. Nice folks too!
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-10-2013, 8:08 PM
BigStiCK's Avatar
BigStiCK BigStiCK is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: ReTard Capital of the World
Posts: 2,377
iTrader: 49 / 100%
Default

There is no logic or even basic thought involved here. Pure ignorance & stupidity by those creating the laws. They are placing LEOs in danger, and it sickens me.

These tards care NOTHING about public safety, and everything about pushing an agenda that gives them power over all.
__________________

Last edited by retired; 08-12-2013 at 12:21 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-10-2013, 8:16 PM
lrdchivalry lrdchivalry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Diego Area
Posts: 957
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by benjamin101677 View Post
It would seem why do the feds need hi capacity magazines when there off duty? Seems like any thing needed on duty would issued by the employer. So why off duty should they get large capacity magazines
For the same reasons the state and locals need them.
__________________
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
  #16  
Old 08-10-2013, 8:54 PM
6172crew's Avatar
6172crew 6172crew is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord CA
Posts: 6,275
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

If you had a post in this thread and its gone and want to know why you can read the rules in this sub-forum for your answer.

This is a forum to ask LE questions without doing it on the street.
__________________

HMM-161 Westpac 1994
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-10-2013, 9:49 PM
MAC USMC MAC USMC is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,023
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

The absolute lunacy in the liberal politicians' legislation is mind boggling. The shame of it all is we elected these idiots into their offices where they do so much harm to society. Time after time dangerous felons have been better armed, better equipped with armor and go against police officers armed with handguns. Why? Because the politicians controlling the budget prefer to fund their own personal projects rather than purchase what cops on the street need. They fund numerous "social welfare and assistance" projects while cutting police necessities such as training, enhanced body armor, state of the art weapondry, lighting devices, chemical agents, night vision optics, etc.

Shame on those who make such ludicrous decisions to further their own agenda.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-10-2013, 9:50 PM
CSACANNONEER's Avatar
CSACANNONEER CSACANNONEER is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Thousand Oaks
Posts: 40,182
iTrader: 125 / 100%
Blog Entries: 4
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nick View Post
Yep. DOJ recently opined that these exemptions don't apply to federal LEOs.
So, every federal officer who enter CA with +10 round mags is a felon for importing high cap mags? I can't wait for CA to waste money trying to defend this stance in court.
__________________
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
  #19  
Old 08-11-2013, 12:02 AM
m1a1driver's Avatar
m1a1driver m1a1driver is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Buena Park, CA
Posts: 959
iTrader: 99 / 100%
Default

why should a state law enforcement officer be exempt and not a federal one? Its just dumb. I hope this changes, soon.
__________________
OIF III, OIF 08-09
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-11-2013, 1:09 AM
Germz's Avatar
Germz Germz is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 4,894
iTrader: 106 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by m1a1driver View Post
why should a state law enforcement officer be exempt and not a federal one? Its just dumb. I hope this changes, soon.
by change I hope you mean everyone gets the privilege of standard caps back. I think its ridiculous that (in the current state of the law) military doesnt warrant exemption.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 08-11-2013, 1:50 AM
Q619 Q619 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: San Diego.
Posts: 1,212
iTrader: 27 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by penguinofsleep View Post
this. bs aside though, i'm surprised they didn't make this personal weapons only and that this includes duty weapons.

as for same laws applying, i realize it isn't safe or ideal for anyone to have untrained or unequipped law enforcement running around, but in principle i also see no reason why any gov law enforcement officer (at any level of gov) is inherently more valuable to be allowed to run around with anything they want just because they are an officer if the people can't.
Think about it this way, how many dangerous people does a construction worker deal with as a part of their job. Same goes for an accountant, a teacher, a janitor, a car salesman, a banker: you name it. When you make a living dealing with a certain element, you don't exactly make friends. When you're out with your family, that gang member you took in on a warrant a couple years ago might recognize his arresting officer or an equally unsavory friend of the defendant you testified against in court after you caught him with a quarter million in meth spots you in a crowd and decides it's time for some payback. You don't think it's reasonable to carry a weapon with more than 10 rounds in it off duty? Really? Law enforcement isn't a hat you take off after your shift when you're off duty, it's a way of life. Saying their needs are no different than those that don't carry a badge and a gun for a living is ridiculous.

Local, State or Fed: all run the same risks inherent to the job.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-11-2013, 4:34 AM
becxltoo984's Avatar
becxltoo984 becxltoo984 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 536
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

44mag.com sells them
not sure about the legalities you might be an importer and that's a felony .
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-11-2013, 4:55 AM
NulodPBall NulodPBall is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 197
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default Yes: People have been targeted because of their jobs

Quote:
Originally Posted by five.five-six View Post
Outside of Hollywood movies, I have never heard of that happening. We do read about "joe public" being targeted all the time...
I am going to reference not just Federal Officers but anyone in Law Enforcement and the Judicial branch:

Are you serious?

With what's been going on lately can you honestly say that people have not targeted LE or their families?

SERIOUSLY?

I know this link is Wikepedia but I won't do all of your homework for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...lled_in_office

Can I say Dorner? He shot the daughter of the investigator he blamed for his problems, and special details were dispatched to protect other People of Interest.

At Gabby Giffords shooting (2011) Judge Roll was probably not the main target but...

Judge Wood in 1979 was shot essentially be a drug dealer...guess what kind of people he tended to successfully prosecute?

I'm not going to even touch the regular LEO that has the possibility of the rough assignment and retaliation...oh well, maybe I will mention the two officers that were ambushed last month (or was it June) as one of them were trying to open the gate for his vehicle to enter their station area in the LA area?

SERIOUSLY???


And isn't the justification for Concealed Carry for offduty LE the idea that the LEO has taken an oath and civic responsibility the continues even while off duty?

I think I know what you're trying to say: That the common non-LEO should have the same basic rights that should be guaranteed by the US Constitution but...
__________________
Ray

From The Codex Kalachnikova: "He who would have you surrender your arms does so because he wishes to do something you could prevent by their usage."

Why is the idea of an unarmed elementary school principal lunging at an armed shooter and dying in the process heroic... but the idea of that same principal armed and stopping the armed shooter with her own gun... crazy? –from screen name “Voiceofreason”
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-11-2013, 10:24 AM
lrdchivalry lrdchivalry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Diego Area
Posts: 957
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by five.five-six View Post
Outside of Hollywood movies, I have never heard of that happening. We do read about "joe public" being targeted all the time.
Then you have never read federal intel briefs about cartels targeting federal agents/officer so it does happen outside of Hollywood, or the fact that federal agents/officers, myself included also get recognized by people they have dealt with in a professional capacity outside of work. My canine and I have kept millions of dollars of someone's illegal product from entering the country, therefore, we also have cause for concern.

Do I like the fact I can no longer buy standard capacity magazines? No, however, until the law is changed or the exemption is reinstated (the current AG being vehemently anti-gun, I doubt it will happen), I will have to adapt and suffer along with the citizens who also cannot buy them as well.

I personally don't believe in magazine capacity restrictions and think all law abiding citizens should be able to purchase and use standard capacity magazines. Just my opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by five.five-six View Post
The spitit of SB23 is to keep law abiding people from obtaining standard capacity magazines regardless of intended use.
Doesn't SB23 cover assault weapons? I don't remember prohibitions on magazine capacity being in that law except to identify an AW.
__________________
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 08-11-2013, 3:37 PM
veeklog's Avatar
veeklog veeklog is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: San Diego
Posts: 833
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

As a Native of California, I remember going to B&B guns in Westminster and being able to buy anything, from AW's to standard capacity magazines. Times have changed in California, and not for the better.

The fact that we are arguing about being able to purchase/own standard capacity magazines in California is nuts. Do I believe any citizen should be able to purchase standard capacity magazines? Absolutely! The original poster is frustrated because he, like many LEO's, have to purchase a lot of our equipment to include magazines because quite frankly, Government Agencies do a piss poor job in buying the right equipment to fit our needs. For example, I have purchased a Glock 17 for work because the Sig that was issued sucks! So, along with the gun and magazines, I have to buy holsters, mag holders, etc, and all is expensive. The fact that he or anyother LEO can't purchase magazines for his work equipment because Kamela Harris is a self righteous blowhard is quite upsetting.

I have many OLL's, and if standard capacity magazines were legal for everyone, I would be able to shoot those magazines in my rifles without fear of repercussion. If I or any other LEO got caught shooting standard magazines from OLL's the DA's office would drop the hammer on us because in their minds, LEO's should have known better! The only place that I or the any ordinary citizen can shoot standard capacity magazines is if I drive to another state.

Next month I move back to California for work; to be honest I am not looking forward to paying higher taxes, bringing in less than I make now, paying more for less in housing, leaving behind my five NFA toys back east until I get property in Nevada, and a more hostile attitude towards everything than when I left in 2009. As a Native Californian, there is no place like it anywhere, and it will always be my home. However, that sense of elitism has really crushed California and created a "us v them" mentality that is quite evident on the hostility just in this thread alone.

Jusy my .02 cents
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 08-11-2013, 3:47 PM
geeknow geeknow is offline
Lifetime Contributor #1
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: N/A
Posts: 3,168
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

So, with this law, how are Fed LE from outside CA supposed to comply, when they cross into CA while "on the job"?

Serious question.

I assume that they do cross state lines, on assignment, transporting detainees, etc.

With that, are they supposed to swap mags at the border?

If so, this is just another reason that this law is ridonkulous, and liable to get LE killed. Imagine spending your time training with 15 or 17 rd mags. You build that muscle memory, and get a "feel" for how many rounds are still available.

To Fed LE out there, I would advocate working up your mag changes now, and do so with varying numbers of rounds to start.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 08-11-2013, 7:59 PM
micro911's Avatar
micro911 micro911 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Posts: 1,540
iTrader: 60 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by benjamin101677 View Post
I think that you totally wrong here. When on duty or with your duty equipment I have no issues with law enforcement have high capacity magazines etc, but when purchasing for off duty usage and stuff peace officers should be held to the same standard as the citizens. What makes a off peace officer with a non duty weapon any more special then let's say the jewerly dealer who has to carry cash and jewerly around to support his family? I will give you anything you need for on duty work, from handguns to tanks but at a certain point the line for off duty and this special exempt and stuff goes to far.

Law enforcement as gotten a lot of bad raps and I know police officers that have done this for buying off roster guns and other stuff and re-selling for a higher price.

As far as the political systems law enforcement associations give out lots of money each year to political campaigns. So why didn't these law enforcement associations back candiates or put money into people that would back the right to have guns with little restriction. I have seen very little caring from these associations about the citizens, until it might be affecting them.

I am a totally 100% law enforcement supporter in general, but until we can get some things worked out with the system things like law enforcement exempt for off duty stuff just really sucks. What makes your family more important than others so that you get to protect them with a non duty weapon that holds 20 rounds?
LEOs in California is a peace officer in the state for 24 hours, on and off duty. If an LEO buys a pistol for an off duty use, he or she should have the same right as buying a duty firearm. I just simply carry an issued pistol that has 17 round magazine. they issued me 5 magazines. I am good there.

I just hope they don't limit us to 7 round magazines on or off duty like New York.

And, OP, I wish you don't generalize all the LEOs buying and selling off roster guns for profit.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 08-11-2013, 11:08 PM
Cool Custard's Avatar
Cool Custard Cool Custard is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Madera
Posts: 3,149
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

I thought possession wasn't illegal in CA, just manufacturing, selling or importing? If somebody got caught with a standard cap, how could it be proved if they manufactured or imported it? Plenty of threads here explaining possession and use. Stay safe out there, it may not always seem like it on this forum but your work is appreciated.
__________________
Stay Low, Go Fast, Take Chances
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 08-12-2013, 12:39 AM
retired retired is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Riverside County
Posts: 9,180
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2
Default

To reiterate what another mod stated after deleting numerous threads, if your posts after the ones he deleted were also deleted, then you need to read the rules for this specialty forum. They are in the sticky near the top of the forum.

If you insist on posting similar comments (not the members who quoted the anti leo ones; they were just deleted for clean up since the quoted posts were deleted), you will be banned from the leo forum. You won't be able to view/post anything in this forum.

Read the rules and realize if you are a non leo, you can ask a question of a leo in a civil manner. You cannot come in here and post comments indicating your biases against leos. I don't believe I can make it any clearer and obviously my fellow moderator's comments were ignored.

We do not want to ban anyone from any forum on this site, so I will ask you one last time, please don't not post these type of comments again.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 08-12-2013, 2:45 PM
m1a1driver's Avatar
m1a1driver m1a1driver is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Buena Park, CA
Posts: 959
iTrader: 99 / 100%
Default

Got a call from the doj today. She said the way the penal code was written it does not exempt federal leo's. So basically every hi cap sale to a federal leo has been illegal in this state...
__________________
OIF III, OIF 08-09
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 08-12-2013, 3:19 PM
Jed Meyers Jed Meyers is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 196
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

It's not like Federal LEOs are gonna need those mags, as all criminals in CA will only have 10 bullets because they also comply with this restriction.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 08-12-2013, 3:54 PM
Tacobandit Tacobandit is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 916
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by m1a1driver View Post
Got a call from the doj today. She said the way the penal code was written it does not exempt federal leo's. So basically every hi cap sale to a federal leo has been illegal in this state...
Doesnt HR218 trump CA state law? Or does the doj think CA law is exempt from federal laws?
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 08-12-2013, 4:08 PM
Sacmedic Sacmedic is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: No. California
Posts: 198
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

LEOSA doesn't apply to sales of magazines. It is strictly about the carrying of the firearm. Two separate issues.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 08-12-2013, 4:27 PM
ke6guj's Avatar
ke6guj ke6guj is offline
Moderator
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: 909
Posts: 23,274
iTrader: 42 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tacobandit View Post
Doesnt HR218 trump CA state law? Or does the doj think CA law is exempt from federal laws?
just because it might not be illegal for that federal LEO to carry the magazine doesn't mean that LEOSA says that a CA dealer can violate CA law to sell him a magazine. remember, the violation is with the sale of the magazine by the FFL unless there is an exemption and I don't see where LEOSA creates an exemption for that law.
__________________
Jack



Do you want an AOW or C&R SBS/SBR in CA?

FrontSight Training Course certificates available $25, PM for details on them and other options.
No posts of mine are to be construed as legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 08-12-2013, 4:55 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 3,990
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sacmedic View Post
LEOSA doesn't apply to sales of magazines. It is strictly about the carrying of the firearm. Two separate issues.
Sacmedic,

This is really an unsettled area of the law. I know at one time, the federal DOJ published a LEOSA guide that was consistent with your opinion.

I also recall seeing, but don't have the case citation available, a California case that held the magazine to be part of the firearm, in which case LEOSA would apply.

The above poster also has a good point LEOSA only allows the officer to carry the gear. It doesn't require a merchant to sell him/her the gear.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 08-12-2013, 8:29 PM
lrdchivalry lrdchivalry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Diego Area
Posts: 957
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by m1a1driver View Post
Got a call from the doj today. She said the way the penal code was written it does not exempt federal leo's. So basically every hi cap sale to a federal leo has been illegal in this state...
No it wasn't. Back in 2000, then AG Bill Lockyer, issued an official bulletin after the off roster law went into affect, stating that federal leos were to receive the same exemptions as state peace officers, therefore, anything purchased during that time was legally acquired.
__________________
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
  #37  
Old 08-12-2013, 8:41 PM
lrdchivalry lrdchivalry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Diego Area
Posts: 957
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sacmedic View Post
LEOSA doesn't apply to sales of magazines. It is strictly about the carrying of the firearm. Two separate issues.
Correct. LEOSA only applies to carrying of a firearm and per the law, ammunition is also classified as a firearm, however, magazines are not covered under LEOSA. Remember, possession is not illegal, therefore, any standard capacity magazine acquired legally, even after the ban can still be carried by federal leos in California. I could be wrong but I think the pc also allows legally aquired magazines owned by Californians to legally be re-imported if they left the state. Any standard capacity magazines acquired outside of California would be illegally importing if brought into California by a federal leo, regardless of 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
  #38  
Old 08-12-2013, 8:44 PM
hellayella's Avatar
hellayella hellayella is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: every big urban city
Posts: 4,670
iTrader: 58 / 100%
Default

hi cap ok for on-duty use, but off-duty no..that's what i'm taking from this piece?
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 08-12-2013, 8:51 PM
lrdchivalry lrdchivalry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Diego Area
Posts: 957
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post

I also recall seeing, but don't have the case citation available, a California case that held the magazine to be part of the firearm, in which case LEOSA would apply.
Are you sure? Per the NRA Law Enforcement website:
[1] LEOSA does not exempt individuals carrying under the privilege it affords from laws prohibiting the possession of firearms on private property, Federal buildings (or parts thereof), installations and parklands, Gun Free School Zones and any State or local government property installation, building, base or park. The law also does not supersede state or local laws regulating magazine capacities. (emphasis mine)

Per the above statement a leo carrying under LEOSA can be prosecuted for being in possession, importing, manufacturing magazines above the legal capacity limit. Although, possession is not illegal in California, going to states that have bans on possession can land any leo in jail for possession and importation.
__________________
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
  #40  
Old 08-12-2013, 8:57 PM
lrdchivalry lrdchivalry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Diego Area
Posts: 957
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hellayella View Post
hi cap ok for on-duty use, but off-duty no..that's what i'm taking from this piece?
That is not what I am getting from this piece. IMO, what has happened was that the pc doesn't allow for federal leo's to buy off roster guns and standard capacity magazines because we are not state peace officers, however, AG Lockyer extended the exemptions to federal law enforcement in 2000, now in 2013, the current AG has apparently rescinded that courtesy and we are no longer allowed to buy off roster guns and standard capacity magazines. Nothing more, nothing less.
__________________
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
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 10:55 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.