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 08-12-2013, 9:12 PM
Tripper's Avatar
Tripper Tripper is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Central Coast-Salinas
Posts: 6,866
iTrader: 93 / 100%
Default

Correct me if I'm wrong of course
I don't think an 'opinion' of the AG is binding, it's simply an opinion, sort if like he's not willing to back a prosecution of such a law. I don't think he can outright make such an exemption with the stroke of a pen. Nor would I count on the AG, to back up LEO in fed court, look at the marijuana laws, which the AG will not testify as to CA law in fed court (might be he's not allowed to) either way he's not fighting for the ability to do so
__________________
WTT/S Sig P220
WTB Glock 23
KZ1000 Police Motorcycle
Movado His/Her Watches
Front Sight 4-Day Handgun $99
PM about Front Sight Lifetime Memberships or Training Certificates
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 08-12-2013, 10:44 PM
4Defense 4Defense is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 756
iTrader: 11 / 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?
On duty, standard capacity magazines. Off duty, switch out to neutered 10 rounders.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 08-12-2013, 10:55 PM
oddjob oddjob is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lodi, California
Posts: 1,863
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lrdchivalry View Post
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.
Whats interesting is this "opinion" is just that. How does this "opinion" compare with the "opinion" regarding a LEO who acquires an "assault weapon" then retires and has to turn it in??

In other words its "opinion vs "opinion". What weight does the "opinion" carry? My guess is there is no way a federal LEO can be prosecuted (hi cap mag violation). All the defense would have to do is subpoena the previous AG as a defense witness.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 08-13-2013, 6:13 AM
Tripper's Avatar
Tripper Tripper is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Central Coast-Salinas
Posts: 6,866
iTrader: 93 / 100%
Default

The AG can't be subpoena'd apparently, that's what happened in the marihuana fed cases
__________________
WTT/S Sig P220
WTB Glock 23
KZ1000 Police Motorcycle
Movado His/Her Watches
Front Sight 4-Day Handgun $99
PM about Front Sight Lifetime Memberships or Training Certificates
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 08-13-2013, 8:26 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 oddjob View Post
Whats interesting is this "opinion" is just that. How does this "opinion" compare with the "opinion" regarding a LEO who acquires an "assault weapon" then retires and has to turn it in??
Apparently opinions from the AG carry a lot of weight. California PC doesn't allow for federal leo's to buy off roster guns or standard capacity magazines because they are not state peace officers. It was an "opinion" of a previous state AG that granted federal leo's the same exemptions as state leo's for 13 years. The current AG has decided that the PC will be followed and that federal leo's will no longer receive the exemptions, technically, that is called following the law and not an "opinion".

Quote:
Originally Posted by oddjob View Post
In other words its "opinion vs "opinion". What weight does the "opinion" carry? My guess is there is no way a federal LEO can be prosecuted (hi cap mag violation). All the defense would have to do is subpoena the previous AG as a defense witness.
Remember, possession is not illegal in this state, however, a federal leo from out of state, entering the state with standard capacity magazines is illegally importing and in violation of California law, and LEOSA wouldn't help.
__________________
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
  #46  
Old 08-13-2013, 10:09 AM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 3,919
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lrdchivalry View Post
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.
Sir,

I'm maintaining the law is unsettled on the question. Nobody will know for sure until the there is either a court case addressing magazines, or the LEOSA is amended to specifically address magazines.

The NRA material you've quoted is pretty much in line with the federal DOJ material referenced in my post. Please remember, these are only informational pieces stating the conclusion of their authors (Refering to the language about magazines. The portion refering to prohibited areas is in LEOSA). Their content does not appear in the law, nor in any case decision that I'm aware of.

I'll do some research and see if I can find the case concerning magazines.

Postscript - Please refer to the dicta in People v Hale. It makes the argument that the magazine is a constituent part of the firearm. That should make the LEOSA provisions governing firearms applicable to magazines. Please note my use of the "weasel word" (should). It's only an argument until a court issues a published decision.

Last edited by RickD427; 08-13-2013 at 10:14 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 08-13-2013, 10:27 AM
oddjob oddjob is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lodi, California
Posts: 1,863
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tripper View Post
The AG can't be subpoena'd apparently, that's what happened in the marihuana fed cases
One might be able to subpoena the Deputy AG who actually did the research and was the author of the opinion.

lrdchivalry,

I'm in agreement with you. My point is if one AG opinion is "yes" and the other is "no" on this or any matter then I just don't see how a Federal LEO can ever be prosecuted. Kinda reminds me of the "past practices" case law in labor issues.

I will still guess the law will be simply changed to include feds.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 08-13-2013, 4:03 PM
ke6guj's Avatar
ke6guj ke6guj is offline
Moderator
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: 909
Posts: 23,091
iTrader: 42 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post

Postscript - Please refer to the dicta in People v Hale. It makes the argument that the magazine is a constituent part of the firearm. That should make the LEOSA provisions governing firearms applicable to magazines. Please note my use of the "weasel word" (should). It's only an argument until a court issues a published decision.
right, but does LEOSA allow for an LEO to go to another state and buy a firearm not otherwise legal to sell in that state? Does LEOSA override state law that determines who that dealer may sell to? Remember, it is the dealer who is violating the law by making the sale of the magazine, not the LEO by buying it.
__________________
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
  #49  
Old 08-13-2013, 4:25 PM
thmpr's Avatar
thmpr thmpr is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 3,683
iTrader: 82 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sfbay View Post
this is ridiculous. fed cops should be able to have the tools they need.
I believe every willing body who can legally posses a firearm should be able to own hi-cap mags.
__________________
NRA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 08-13-2013, 4:34 PM
StuckInTheP.R.O.Ca's Avatar
StuckInTheP.R.O.Ca StuckInTheP.R.O.Ca is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Ca
Posts: 2,171
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oddjob View Post
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?
Nope.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 08-13-2013, 4:42 PM
StuckInTheP.R.O.Ca's Avatar
StuckInTheP.R.O.Ca StuckInTheP.R.O.Ca is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Ca
Posts: 2,171
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Defense View Post
On duty, standard capacity magazines. Off duty, switch out to neutered 10 rounders.
If they are already legally possessed then no problem at least until 2014. Who likes carrying a full or mid-size offduty in Ca . I prefer slim lines so I never carry anything that has more than 10 rds anyways. The laws here are still ridiculous.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 08-13-2013, 6:44 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 3,919
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ke6guj View Post
right, but does LEOSA allow for an LEO to go to another state and buy a firearm not otherwise legal to sell in that state? Does LEOSA override state law that determines who that dealer may sell to? Remember, it is the dealer who is violating the law by making the sale of the magazine, not the LEO by buying it.
Sir,

LEOSA provides an exemption from state laws concerning the carrying of weapons. The point I was making is that the law is unsettled as to an officer's ability to carry a weapon containing a large-capacity magazine. I'm aware that the federal DOJ believes that states can regulate the magazines as something separate from the weapon. That opinion has also been reported by the NRA and FOP. My belief, yet to be tested in court, is that any state law regulating magazine capacity would be trumped by LEOSA as a "state law concerning the carrying of weapons" and supported by the Hale case holding the magazine to be part of the weapon.

This is an issue where your assumptions dictate the outcome. If you believe the magazine is part of the weapon, then Hale and LEOSA hold the LEO exempt.

If you belive the magazine is something separate from the weapon, then LEOSA doesn't apply and the state law governs.

LEOSA does not provide the LEO with any special privileges to purchase a weapon (either in their home state or another state), nor does it provide any special privilege to purchase magazines.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 08-13-2013, 6:50 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 3,919
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by StuckInTheP.R.O.Ca View Post
Nope.
Sir,

I actually think this is the same issue presented in my post above.

If you hold the position that the magazine is a part of the weapon, then LEOSA applies, and the federal agent is free to import the large-capacity magazines into the state.

The problem is that no court, that I'm aware of, has published an opinion directly on the question. People v Hale is about as close as I have seen. There needs to be a test case, and a test defendant, and the consequences of losing the test case would be a felony conviction, which would incur a lifetime firearms disability.

IANAL, I'd be interested to hear what the J.D.'s on this forum think.

I don't see a test case coming anytime soon.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 08-14-2013, 2:33 PM
Nefarious's Avatar
Nefarious Nefarious is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,016
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

I dont even know what to say
seriously just sitting here staring at my screen - speechless
__________________

**** Insert Disclaimer here for any past, present, and future posts. Dont get butt hurt, offended, or complain about an innocent mistake, information that is not 100% accurate, or sillyness mistaken for anything other that that ****
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 08-14-2013, 3:18 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 RickD427 View Post
Sir,
The problem is that no court, that I'm aware of, has published an opinion directly on the question. People v Hale is about as close as I have seen. There needs to be a test case, and a test defendant, and the consequences of losing the test case would be a felony conviction, which would incur a lifetime firearms disability.
Based on what you wrote above the following question pops up.

If a magazine is an integral part of the firearm, LEOSA does not specify standard capacity magazine vs. reduced capacity magazine and since a 10 round magazine will function just as well as a 15 round magazine, how would People vs Hale exempt standard capacity magazine bans under LEOSA? Federal Officers/Agents are not being denied an integral part of the firearm only the amount of bullets that part holds.
__________________
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
  #56  
Old 08-14-2013, 8:41 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 3,919
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lrdchivalry View Post
Based on what you wrote above the following question pops up.

If a magazine is an integral part of the firearm, LEOSA does not specify standard capacity magazine vs. reduced capacity magazine and since a 10 round magazine will function just as well as a 15 round magazine, how would People vs Hale exempt standard capacity magazine bans under LEOSA? Federal Officers/Agents are not being denied an integral part of the firearm only the amount of bullets that part holds.
Sir,

Here's the way it goes. LEOSA trumps state laws governing the carrying of firearms by LEOs (active and retired). If the magazine (and the cartridges in the magazine) are part of the firearm, then any state law restricting them is trumped.

Its not a question of how well the magazine would function, its a question of whether the state law is trumped by LEOSA. LEOSA doesn't have to specify the magazine if its included as part of the firearm. For that matter LEOSA doesn't specifically authorize a 2" barrel, or rubber handgrips either.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 08-14-2013, 8:58 PM
five.five-six's Avatar
five.five-six five.five-six is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 27,994
iTrader: 52 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
Sir,

Here's the way it goes. LEOSA trumps state laws governing the carrying of firearms by LEOs (active and retired). If the magazine (and the cartridges in the magazine) are part of the firearm, then any state law restricting them is trumped.

Its not a question of how well the magazine would function, its a question of whether the state law is trumped by LEOSA. LEOSA doesn't have to specify the magazine if its included as part of the firearm. For that matter LEOSA doesn't specifically authorize a 2" barrel, or rubber handgrips either.
Are all the magazines part of the firearm or just the one in the firearm?

For instance, if I have an AK with 10 imported parts and a chineese magazine setting next to it, would that be a 922r violation or only if the magazine is in the gun?

Last edited by five.five-six; 08-14-2013 at 9:01 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 08-14-2013, 9:31 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 3,919
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by five.five-six View Post
Are all the magazines part of the firearm or just the one in the firearm?

For instance, if I have an AK with 10 imported parts and a chineese magazine setting next to it, would that be a 922r violation or only if the magazine is in the gun?
That's a good question. I'm not very knowledgeable on 922r stuff. I've never had to deal with it. But after looking at the elements of 922r, I don't see an issue. 922r prohibits the manufacture of the weapon with imported parts. There's nothing in there prohibiting the possession of such a weapon. Here is the text of 922r:
"(r) It shall be unlawful for any person to assemble from imported
parts any semiautomatic rifle or any shotgun which is identical to
any rifle or shotgun prohibited from importation under section
925(d)(3) of this chapter as not being particularly suitable for or
readily adaptable to sporting purposes except that this subsection
shall not apply to -
(1) the assembly of any such rifle or shotgun for sale or
distribution by a licensed manufacturer to the United States or
any department or agency thereof or to any State or any
department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or
(2) the assembly of any such rifle or shotgun for the purposes
of testing or experimentation authorized by the Attorney General."
But it would also be good to hear from some experts on 922r.

I'll just note that 922r stuff is different from LEOSA and this is THREAD DRIFT....
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 08-14-2013, 9:51 PM
five.five-six's Avatar
five.five-six five.five-six is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 27,994
iTrader: 52 / 100%
Default

You are only allowed 10 imported "evil" parts. If you have more than 7 imported parts in your AK, it becomes a 922r violation once you insert the magazine because the magazine (3 parts) is now part of the gun. A lot of people build AKs with 9 or 10 imported parts to save money and just use USA magazines, the imported magazines for SHTF in the safe next to the gun don't count as part of the gun.


The pertinent part to this thread is what’s part of the gun and what is not part of a gun on a federal level.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 08-14-2013, 10:10 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 RickD427 View Post
Sir,

Here's the way it goes. LEOSA trumps state laws governing the carrying of firearms by LEOs (active and retired). If the magazine (and the cartridges in the magazine) are part of the firearm, then any state law restricting them is trumped.
I agree that a magazine is an integral part of the weapon, however, where I disagree with you and think you are wrong is in regards to ammunition capacity. A state that has a ban on possession of standard capacity magazines is not restricting an leo from an integral part of the firearm, i.e. a 10 round magazine, it is restricting the capacity of that integral part of the firearm, i.e. a +10 round magazine, therefore, LEOSA would not trump state law on that issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
Its not a question of how well the magazine would function, its a question of whether the state law is trumped by LEOSA.
Would a Glock 17 fail to function with a 10 round magazine? Highly unlikely. Would that same gun fail to function with a 15 round magazine? Also highly unlikely. As I stated above an leo is not denied an integral part of the firearm, only how much that part can hold, in that regard LEOSA doesn't trump state laws on possession of standard capacity magazines.
__________________
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 08-14-2013, 11:28 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 3,919
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lrdchivalry View Post
I agree that a magazine is an integral part of the weapon, however, where I disagree with you and think you are wrong is in regards to ammunition capacity. A state that has a ban on possession of standard capacity magazines is not restricting an leo from an integral part of the firearm, i.e. a 10 round magazine, it is restricting the capacity of that integral part of the firearm, i.e. a +10 round magazine, therefore, LEOSA would not trump state law on that issue.



Would a Glock 17 fail to function with a 10 round magazine? Highly unlikely. Would that same gun fail to function with a 15 round magazine? Also highly unlikely. As I stated above an leo is not denied an integral part of the firearm, only how much that part can hold, in that regard LEOSA doesn't trump state laws on possession of standard capacity magazines.
Without a controlling case, we're really just arguing personal opinions. We can do that until the proverbial cows come home. It's just not going to be settled until a court publishes an opinion.

My view remains that any state law addressing the carrying of a concealable firearm by a LEO is trumped by LEOSA. If the state law addresses how many rounds the magazine can hold, and the magazine is part of the weapon, then the state law is addressing the weapon - and therefore is trumped by LEOSA.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 08-14-2013, 11:54 PM
five.five-six's Avatar
five.five-six five.five-six is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 27,994
iTrader: 52 / 100%
Default

State law does not address possession of hicap mags, it addresses sales importation and manufacturing of hicap magazines.
No one is taking away your legally obtained magazines, you juat can't buy build or import any more.

922r does set precedent that a magazine is only a part of a gun if it is affixed in the gun.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I437 using Tapatalk 2

Last edited by five.five-six; 08-14-2013 at 11:57 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 08-15-2013, 2:37 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 RickD427 View Post
Without a controlling case, we're really just arguing personal opinions. We can do that until the proverbial cows come home. It's just not going to be settled until a court publishes an opinion.

My view remains that any state law addressing the carrying of a concealable firearm by a LEO is trumped by LEOSA. If the state law addresses how many rounds the magazine can hold, and the magazine is part of the weapon, then the state law is addressing the weapon - and therefore is trumped by LEOSA.
Apparently the NRA, the BATFE, the Fraternal Oder of Police and the California AG also disagree with you.

From the Fraternal Oder of Police FAQ on HR218:
Am I also exempt from State laws prohibiting the possession or use of “high capacity” magazines?
No. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has ruled that State and
local laws and regulations applying to magazines do apply and the exemption provided by LEOSA
applies only to firearms and ammunition.

From the CA AG FAQ on HR218:
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.

From the NRA Law Enforcement Division Website (emphasis mine):
[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.
__________________
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
  #64  
Old 08-15-2013, 2:51 PM
PolishMike's Avatar
PolishMike PolishMike is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Tracy
Posts: 5,685
iTrader: 24 / 96%
Default

Does anyone have something on paper from DOJ/AG about Fed's not being able to buy high caps and not being roster exempt?
__________________
Tracy Rifle and Pistol
7601 W 11th St
Tracy Ca 95304
209 833-9100
For sales Questions please email Sales@tracyrifleandpistol.com
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 08-15-2013, 3:11 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 PolishMike View Post
Does anyone have something on paper from DOJ/AG about Fed's not being able to buy high caps and not being roster exempt?
It is in the Penal Code. 32405 for magazines and 3200(a)(4) for off roster.
__________________
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
  #66  
Old 08-15-2013, 9:05 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 3,919
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lrdchivalry View Post
Apparently the NRA, the BATFE, the Fraternal Oder of Police and the California AG also disagree with you.

From the Fraternal Oder of Police FAQ on HR218:
Am I also exempt from State laws prohibiting the possession or use of “high capacity” magazines?
No. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has ruled that State and
local laws and regulations applying to magazines do apply and the exemption provided by LEOSA
applies only to firearms and ammunition.

From the CA AG FAQ on HR218:
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.

From the NRA Law Enforcement Division Website (emphasis mine):
[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.
We're starting to go in circles here. You're right about the NRA, and Federal DOJ positions. I pointed those out in Post #52 of this thread. You haven't bought out anything new. In addition, the FOP has also posted the same. All of those materials seem to have their root in the initial DOJ posting. Please note that when one piece of info is repeated by many folks, it doesn't gain any more factual basis. It's still "single-source" material. The point is that conclusion is not stated in the LEOSA, nor does it appear in any case law. It's the reasoned interpretation of the law by the authoring DOJ official. BTW, these are the same folks who, prior to DC v Heller, stated the 2nd Amendment did not apply to individuals.

The California DOJ posting does not support your conclusion. It says nothing about magazines contained in weapons. It does correctly state the law concerning the acquisition of large-capacity magazines.

Also please note the federal agencies give no consideration to the Hale case, nor should they. People v Hale was a California case and it's effect is limited to California.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 08-15-2013, 9:35 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 RickD427 View Post
We're starting to go in circles here. You're right about the NRA, and Federal DOJ positions. I pointed those out in Post #52 of this thread. You haven't bought out anything new. In addition, the FOP has also posted the same. All of those materials seem to have their root in the initial DOJ posting. Please note that when one piece of info is repeated by many folks, it doesn't gain any more factual basis. It's still "single-source" material. The point is that conclusion is not stated in the LEOSA, nor does it appear in any case law. It's the reasoned interpretation of the law by the authoring DOJ official. BTW, these are the same folks who, prior to DC v Heller, stated the 2nd Amendment did not apply to individuals.

The California DOJ posting does not support your conclusion. It says nothing about magazines contained in weapons. It does correctly state the law concerning the acquisition of large-capacity magazines.

Also please note the federal agencies give no consideration to the Hale case, nor should they. People v Hale was a California case and it's effect is limited to California.
What I mentioned is the prevailing believe that LEOSA does not trump state law in regards to magazine capacity, therefore, an leo carrying under LEOSA enters a state such as Maryland or New York (both have bans on standard capacity magazines), could be prosecuted for possession. People vs. Hale is a moot point since possession and use of standard capacity magazines in California is not illegal under most circumstances, however, importation is illegal in California regardless if its "contained in" the weapon, and as CA DOJ points out there is no exemption for out of state or federal leos.
__________________
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
  #68  
Old 08-15-2013, 9:35 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 3,919
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lrdchivalry View Post
It is in the Penal Code. 32405 for magazines and 3200(a)(4) for off roster.
We had a very lively discussion on this subject in a different thread a few weeks ago. I hate to admit it, but the current AG appears to on solid ground. The above penal code sections (actually 32000(a)(4)) simply don't provide a basis for individual federal agents to purchase these items.

LEOSA permits them to possess the items, but provides no authority to acquire them.

Several commentors in the previous thread tried to claim that federal agents fell within the definition of "peace officer", but that reasoning got pretty much exploded by Penal Code section 830.8 which specifically states they're not.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 08-15-2013, 10:11 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 RickD427 View Post
but the current AG appears to on solid ground. The above penal code sections (actually 32000(a)(4)) simply don't provide a basis for individual federal agents to purchase these items.
Agreed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
LEOSA permits them to possess the items, but provides no authority to acquire them.
I disagree, for reasons already stated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
Several commentors in the previous thread tried to claim that federal agents fell within the definition of "peace officer", but that reasoning got pretty much exploded by Penal Code section 830.8 which specifically states they're not.
Agreed.
__________________
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
  #70  
Old 08-21-2013, 9:57 AM
pooberto pooberto is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: San Diego
Posts: 145
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

GARBAGE.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 08-21-2013, 11:21 AM
TeddyBallgame's Avatar
TeddyBallgame TeddyBallgame is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Under the Dome
Posts: 5,693
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

so, you guys gonna be going around arresting each other? bring lots of handcuffs

seems like some pretty stupid in-house discrepancies going on...I, for one, have no problem understanding your need, at any level of LE...I don't know who pissed in your AG's cornflakes, but, someone needs to step up and get it right
__________________

"We want food, medicine, and one of those cows" - Daryl Dixon TWD
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 09-11-2013, 11:54 PM
Tac380's Avatar
Tac380 Tac380 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: North Highlands (Sacramento), CA
Posts: 390
iTrader: 0 / 0%
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.
This is BS If a CA LEO can buy then a FEDERAL LEO should be allowed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by geeknow View Post
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.
Here again our lawmakers have there heads up their butts. Fed LEO are just that... LEOs.

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...
Perfect example of why CA loses jobs and good people to other states. Our lawmakers have no clue as to what they are doing.
__________________
Keep in mind If you get stopped by a game warden or other LEO and you say "well so and so on CalGuns said that this was ok and legal" That warden or LEO is gonna laugh at you and cite you.
Advice here is mostly good advice but its best to familiarize yourself with the laws & if needed contact DFW. or local Law Enforcement

Always confirm it for yourself. Ignorance is no excuse.

Contact the Governor now
http://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 09-12-2013, 3:31 AM
Best sale's Avatar
Best sale Best sale is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Alamurder county, Krackerfornia
Posts: 1,145
iTrader: 27 / 97%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tac380 View Post



Here again our lawmakers have there heads up their butts.
Apparently their final goal will be ....
Attachment 264518

BRITISH STYLE
__________________

Last edited by Best sale; 07-10-2015 at 8:11 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 09-12-2013, 9:36 AM
mcisniper's Avatar
mcisniper mcisniper is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Chula Vista, CA
Posts: 475
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Are they going to correct DROS to eliminate the Federal option X32 and X35?

Stoopid. Guess I'm going to have a lot of upset ICE/CBP/NCIS/DOJ customers.
__________________

01 FFL, Chula Vista, CA
www.westcoastsurvivalarms.com
info@westcoastsurvivalarms.com
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 09-14-2013, 3:21 AM
Garand1911's Avatar
Garand1911 Garand1911 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Occupied Territory
Posts: 1,097
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The problem is the poorly written law. As a broad general term for "LEO", the stupid politician wrote "peace officer".
I dont believe there was any intention to exclude Fed LEOs, or they would of wrote that in law to begin with.
If the law read all "sworn law enforcement" were exempt, Feds would be free to buy their tools of the trade.

FEDs are not "peace officers" everyone agrees on that, we do not enforce Ca law 24/7. But the definition says they are when they are basically performing their job on duty.
How many times do Feds fall under sections 2 and 3 ?

830.8. (a) Federal criminal investigators and law enforcement
officers are not California peace officers, but may exercise the
powers of arrest of a peace officer in any of the following
circumstances:
(1) Any circumstances specified in Section 836 of this code or
Section 5150 of the Welfare and Institutions Code for violations of
state or local laws.
(2) When these investigators and law enforcement officers are
engaged in the enforcement of federal criminal laws and exercise the
arrest powers only incidental to the performance of these duties.
(3) When requested by a California law enforcement agency to be
involved in a joint task force or criminal investigation.
(4) When probable cause exists to believe that a public offense
that involves immediate danger to persons or property has just
occurred or is being committed.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The past two AGs, Lockyer and Brown gave Feds the exemption. Why did AG harris change it? what brought it to her attention? what Fed pissed in her wheaties ?

The bigger issue i see here is in regards to self defense, some laws exempt peace officers, but since Feds are NOT peace officers, they could in theory be arrested and prosecuted for doing something that a peace officer could do legally.

Of course all this could change with a new AG.
__________________
"I saved your life, AND brought you pizza" -- Me

Last edited by Garand1911; 09-14-2013 at 11:54 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 09-14-2013, 4:17 AM
Rogue187 Rogue187 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Behind Enemy Lines
Posts: 674
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

The exemption code you mentioned is in lieu of the HSC..The X number is only to provide that you have received training..as with the HSC..
It does not provide any exemption to the law..only that you don't need to have a HSC..
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 09-14-2013, 8:04 AM
Big D's Avatar
Big D Big D is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: so cal
Posts: 889
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

garand1911. I think she's pissed off about the marijuana issue. That's just an opinion
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 09-15-2013, 12:17 AM
Tac380's Avatar
Tac380 Tac380 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: North Highlands (Sacramento), CA
Posts: 390
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Whether you are state of federal LEO, you should all be treated the same and allowed to buy the stuff.
__________________
Keep in mind If you get stopped by a game warden or other LEO and you say "well so and so on CalGuns said that this was ok and legal" That warden or LEO is gonna laugh at you and cite you.
Advice here is mostly good advice but its best to familiarize yourself with the laws & if needed contact DFW. or local Law Enforcement

Always confirm it for yourself. Ignorance is no excuse.

Contact the Governor now
http://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 09-15-2013, 12:21 AM
Garand1911's Avatar
Garand1911 Garand1911 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Occupied Territory
Posts: 1,097
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

If SB-53 had passed, bans sale of online ammo.
Ca. Peace officers are exempt from section 30312, but a Fed LEO is not and could, in theory, be arrested for it.
A law needs to be passed giving Fed LEOs some exemptions related to self defense, that state peace officers receive.
__________________
"I saved your life, AND brought you pizza" -- Me
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 09-18-2013, 5:08 PM
Q619 Q619 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: San Diego.
Posts: 1,212
iTrader: 27 / 100%
Default

Meant to post this a while ago, the law is going to be amended. When it's going to take effect is another question......


http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/...ed_asm_v94.pdf
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 1:56 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.