PDA

View Full Version : Correctional Officer = Peace Officer?


gdr_11
05-01-2009, 3:43 PM
Ok, so I did the thread search thing and didn't find my answer. Is a California Correctional Officer eligible to purchase a handgun that is not on the CA DOJ approved list?

Just met someone but I didn't want to ask until I knew for sure

NiteQwill
05-01-2009, 4:10 PM
Yes, AFAIK, if it is a state correctional officer who completed POST, they can. All CO I work with at Metro State Hospital carry off duty.

HowardW56
05-01-2009, 4:13 PM
830.5. The following persons are peace officers whose authority
extends to any place in the state while engaged in the performance of
the duties of their respective employment and for the purpose of
carrying out the primary function of their employment or as required
under Sections 8597, 8598, and 8617 of the Government Code. Except
as specified in this section, these peace officers may carry firearms
only if authorized and under those terms and conditions specified by
their employing agency:
(a) A parole officer of the Department of Corrections or the
Department of the Youth Authority, probation officer, deputy
probation officer, or a board coordinating parole agent employed by
the Youthful Offender Parole Board. Except as otherwise provided in
this subdivision, the authority of these parole or probation officers
shall extend only as follows:
(1) To conditions of parole or of probation by any person in this
state on parole or probation.
(2) To the escape of any inmate or ward from a state or local
institution.
(3) To the transportation of persons on parole or probation.
(4) To violations of any penal provisions of law which are
discovered while performing the usual or authorized duties of his or
her employment.
(5) To the rendering of mutual aid to any other law enforcement
agency.
For the purposes of this subdivision, "parole agent" shall have
the same meaning as parole officer of the Department of Corrections
or of the Department of the Youth Authority.
Any parole officer of the Department of Corrections, the
Department of the Youth Authority, or the Youthful Offender Parole
Board is authorized to carry firearms, but only as determined by the
director on a case-by-case or unit-by-unit basis and only under those
terms and conditions specified by the director or chairperson. The
Department of the Youth Authority shall develop a policy for arming
peace officers of the Department of the Youth Authority who comprise
"high-risk transportation details" or "high-risk escape details" no
later than June 30, 1995. This policy shall be implemented no later
than December 31, 1995.
The Department of the Youth Authority shall train and arm those
peace officers who comprise tactical teams at each facility for use
during "high-risk escape details."
(b) A correctional officer employed by the Department of
Corrections or any employee of the Department of the Youth Authority
having custody of wards or the Inspector General of the Youth and
Adult Correctional Agency or any internal affairs investigator under
the authority of the Inspector General or any employee of the
Department of Corrections designated by the Director of Corrections
or any correctional counselor series employee of the Department of
Corrections or any medical technical assistant series employee
designated by the Director of Corrections or designated by the
Director of Corrections and employed by the State Department of
Mental Health or employee of the Board of Prison Terms designated by
the Secretary of the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency or employee
of the Department of the Youth Authority designated by the Director
of the Youth Authority or any superintendent, supervisor, or employee
having custodial responsibilities in an institution operated by a
probation department, or any transportation officer of a probation
department.
(c) The following persons may carry a firearm while not on duty:
a parole officer of the Department of Corrections or the Department
of the Youth Authority, a correctional officer or correctional
counselor employed by the Department of Corrections or any employee
of the Department of the Youth Authority having custody of wards or
any employee of the Department of Corrections designated by the
Director of Corrections. A parole officer of the Youthful Offender
Parole Board may carry a firearm while not on duty only when so
authorized by the chairperson of the board and only under the terms
and conditions specified by the chairperson. Nothing in this section
shall be interpreted to require licensure pursuant to Section 12025.
The director or chairperson may deny, suspend, or revoke for good
cause a person's right to carry a firearm under this subdivision.
That person shall, upon request, receive a hearing, as provided for
in the negotiated grievance procedure between the exclusive employee
representative and the Department of Corrections, the Department of
the Youth Authority, or the Youthful Offender Parole Board, to review
the director's or the chairperson's decision.
(d) Persons permitted to carry firearms pursuant to this section,
either on or off duty, shall meet the training requirements of
Section 832 and shall qualify with the firearm at least quarterly.
It is the responsibility of the individual officer or designee to
maintain his or her eligibility to carry concealable firearms off
duty. Failure to maintain quarterly qualifications by an officer or
designee with any concealable firearms carried off duty shall
constitute good cause to suspend or revoke that person's right to
carry firearms off duty.

gdr_11
05-01-2009, 4:14 PM
Thanks, I met my wife's cousin's b/f and he and I hit it right off. I wanted to ask him, but thought I would wait and see if I could find out.

I want to order a XDm

jmzhwells
05-01-2009, 4:14 PM
Im pretty sure they only have the LEO powers while on duty or at their facility, unless they become parole officers, but then they take the POST class. I do know they are only allowed to purchase full cap mags for the gun listed on their CCW. Dont know about the list though.

Sam1
05-01-2009, 5:17 PM
Thanks, I met my wife's cousin's b/f and he and I hit it right off. I wanted to ask him, but thought I would wait and see if I could find out.

I want to order a XDm

straw purchase = illegal :rolleyes:

jasilva
05-01-2009, 5:28 PM
straw purchase = illegal :rolleyes:

FUD:rolleyes:

Straw purchase DOES NOT apply to the roster, only if someone is ineligible to own ANY gun is it a straw purchase to buy for them.

223Dude
05-01-2009, 7:22 PM
One of my buddies is a CO and he gets anything (Off list/Hi Caps) just like any other LEO. Oh and can Carry Concealed too! One of my best friends is also a LEO and I could never ask him to get something I couldn't. Now if he already had it and wanted to sell it, that's a different story.

paintballergb
05-01-2009, 7:34 PM
Im pretty sure they only have the LEO powers while on duty or at their facility, unless they become parole officers, but then they take the POST class. I do know they are only allowed to purchase full cap mags for the gun listed on their CCW. Dont know about the list though.

A peace officer is a peace officer. No matter what their hours are they are still peace officers.

dennis1979gm
05-01-2009, 7:51 PM
C.O.'s state and federal can buy off roster handguns, high cap mags and carry off duty as per LEOSA (h.r. 218) we still have to wait 10 days inless we get a letter. but are not limited to 1 handgun every 30 days.

Trader Jack
05-01-2009, 8:32 PM
FUD:rolleyes:

Straw purchase DOES NOT apply to the roster, only if someone is ineligible to own ANY gun is it a straw purchase to buy for them.

I doubt you would a "straw purchase" from a bale of hay.
Under the context descried by the poster, it is indeed a straw purchase in the eyes of the ATF. He is asking a peace officer to purchase a firearm for him because he CAN NOT purchase that same firearm. That is a straw purchase.:mad:

Warhawk014
05-01-2009, 9:10 PM
I doubt you would a "straw purchase" from a bale of hay.
Under the context descried by the poster, it is indeed a straw purchase in the eyes of the ATF. He is asking a peace officer to purchase a firearm for him because he CAN NOT purchase that same firearm. That is a straw purchase.:mad:

^this is true. straw purchase.

but if he asked you for advice on what handgun to purchase next, then tell him to buy the xdm because its such a great gun. and then when he finds out that he doesent like it, you can suggest that he let you take it off his hands. bada bing. you got yourself a xdm.

jasilva
05-01-2009, 9:24 PM
I doubt you would a "straw purchase" from a bale of hay.
Under the context descried by the poster, it is indeed a straw purchase in the eyes of the ATF. He is asking a peace officer to purchase a firearm for him because he CAN NOT purchase that same firearm. That is a straw purchase.:mad:

Nice reach but the straw purchase law is federal and the roster is state of Ca, the feds don't enforce Ca law. The roster DOES NOT say you can't own a specific gun it says you can't BUY IT from a DEALER.

Rukus
05-02-2009, 3:21 PM
Nice reach but the straw purchase law is federal and the roster is state of Ca, the feds don't enforce Ca law. The roster DOES NOT say you can't own a specific gun it says you can't BUY IT from a DEALER.

I don't think thats the point being argued here, the point is that the the gun would be purchased by someone FOR someone else. Like it was stated before, if the Correctional Officer happens to purchase an XDM and then doesnt like it or whatever, he can then choose to PPT it to whomever can legally purchase it. However if he buys it with the intent of selling it thats a straw purchase.

asgalindez
05-02-2009, 3:43 PM
Stating that you're using your wife's cousin's CO b/f to purchase an XDm because you cannot import it into CA yourself = STRAW PURCHASE!:kest::nono:

Purchasing, via PPT, your wife's cousin's CO b/f's XDm he just bought because he decided he didn't like it after all = OKAY!:yes::thumbsup:

Knowing to shut your mouth after your question has been answered = PRICELESS!:tt2::smilielol5:

leitung
05-02-2009, 6:11 PM
the key here is intent if you co buddy buys you an off list gun with your money thats a straw buy. if he bought it for himself then for any number of reasons decides to ppt it to you then its legal

gdr_11
05-02-2009, 7:53 PM
Why of course we are talking about advising someone to buy an XDm because they are great guns. If by chance he does not like the look or feel of it I would feel obliged to take it off his hands via PPT since it was my fault he bought it in the first place.

Straw is for horse bedding, not firearms transactions.

BigDogatPlay
05-03-2009, 8:18 AM
C.O.'s state and federal can buy off roster handguns, high cap mags and carry off duty as per LEOSA (h.r. 218) we still have to wait 10 days inless we get a letter. but are not limited to 1 handgun every 30 days.

The correctional peace officer may only carry off duty with the permission of his/her employing agency, according to the penal code. If that officer does not have that permission, then LEOSA does not extend it to them, AFAIK.

As to all peace officers being peace officers... when you get into some of the other classifications of peace officers, not all are legislatively authorized to carry firearms. If they are not so authorized, and their agency doesn't authorize them, then by a common sense interpretation of the law, they don't get to do those things that most peace officers get to do.

J-cat
05-03-2009, 8:31 AM
The correctional peace officer may only carry off duty with the permission of his/her employing agency, according to the penal code

Wrong.

Z ME FLY
05-03-2009, 8:39 AM
Thanks, I met my wife's cousin's b/f and he and I hit it right off. I wanted to ask him, but thought I would wait and see if I could find out.

I want to order a XDm

You might wanna change this around since you are talking about a straw purchase, saying you want to order a XDm might not be the best idea.

J-cat
05-03-2009, 8:43 AM
As to all peace officers being peace officers... when you get into some of the other classifications of peace officers, not all are legislatively authorized to carry firearms. If they are not so authorized, and their agency doesn't authorize them, then by a common sense interpretation of the law, they don't get to do those things that most peace officers get to do.

Correctional officers working for CDC are legislatively authorized to carry firearms on duty and off. CDC correctional officers are mandated by policy to qualify with firearms on a quarterly basis. They, therefore, fall under the unbrella of HR218.

jasilva
05-03-2009, 9:06 AM
I don't think thats the point being argued here, the point is that the the gun would be purchased by someone FOR someone else. Like it was stated before, if the Correctional Officer happens to purchase an XDM and then doesnt like it or whatever, he can then choose to PPT it to whomever can legally purchase it. However if he buys it with the intent of selling it thats a straw purchase.


That is exactly the point. The roster law even has an exemption that allows peace officers to buy and sell 5 off roster guns per year. A straw purchase is DEFINED by BATF. It is the purchase of a gun by a non prohibited individual for a prohibited individual. Civilians ARE NOT prohibited from owning non roster guns they are only prohibited from buying them from DEALERS IN CALIFORNIA. Before you spout the straw purchase FUD SHOW ME THE LAW THAT SUPPORTS YOU.

jasilva
05-03-2009, 9:10 AM
You might wanna change this around since you are talking about a straw purchase, saying you want to order a XDm might not be the best idea.

Cite the law.:rolleyes:

BigDogatPlay
05-03-2009, 9:53 AM
Correctional officers working for CDC are legislatively authorized to carry firearms on duty and off. CDC correctional officers are mandated by policy to qualify with firearms on a quarterly basis. They, therefore, fall under the unbrella of HR218.

While I appreciate your clarification, and not to quibble, but you extracted a portion of my post that has nothing to do with CDCR and then discuss CDCR.

The mandated qualification concerns use of firearms while on duty, no? 830.5 describes that CDCR correctional officers may carry off duty, if they meet POST training requirements and if they qualify quarterly. It also says that the department may suspend or revoke the privilege. So long as the employee continues to meet those standards, then they may carry and LEOSA applies (assuming department policy does not say anything about carrying our of state). The minute they do not, they can't.

Does the CDCR department ID card say on it "authorized to carry a firearm"?

asgalindez
05-03-2009, 9:59 AM
The roster law even has an exemption that allows peace officers to buy and sell 5 off roster guns per year.

Why do you think they limit it to 5 per year? Could it be so that LEOs aren't used as middlemen firearms importers?


My understanding of a "Straw Purchase" is someone buying a firearm for someone who cannot acquire it on their own. Forget 'Federal' and 'State'.
A straw purchase is DEFINED by BATF. It is the purchase of a gun by a non prohibited individual for a prohibited individual.
I believe we see eye to eye in this regard.


The OP asked his original question because he wanted someone else to order and import a firearm he could not get himself. By your own definition, the LEO (non prohibited individual) buying the XDm for the OP (prohibited individual) would be a straw purchase, no?

If it isn't wrong to do, why isn't everyone doing it? Seems like such an easy way around the 'safe roster' BS. Why aren't LEOs on Calguns offering their import services to Calgunners to acquire firearms they cannot get themselves?

Could it be that blatantly saying that you're using a LEO to get around CA laws is considered bad form?

I understand your position on this arguement - There's nothing wrong with a LEO buying a gun and then PPTing it to a civilian. I believe I stated this myself previously.

What everyone's problem is, is that the OP stated that he was using a LEO to bypass CA laws that restricted him from purchasing the firearm himself.

I don't have the legal knowledge to cite specific laws defending my position. I just use my common sense. Saying you're having a LEO import a firearm you can't get yourself on a public forum that DOJ/BOF/ATF might frequent is just a bad idea.

J-cat
05-03-2009, 11:27 AM
While I appreciate your clarification, and not to quibble, but you extracted a portion of my post that has nothing to do with CDCR and then discuss CDCR.

The mandated qualification concerns use of firearms while on duty, no? 830.5 describes that CDCR correctional officers may carry off duty, if they meet POST training requirements and if they qualify quarterly. It also says that the department may suspend or revoke the privilege. So long as the employee continues to meet those standards, then they may carry and LEOSA applies (assuming department policy does not say anything about carrying our of state). The minute they do not, they can't.

Does the CDCR department ID card say on it "authorized to carry a firearm"?

CDC Correctional Officers do meet POST requirements. CDC off-duty policy is rather short and to the point: One must qualify with the firearm quarterly and keep the proof on his person while carrying.

LEOSA does not require one to have departmental authorization to carry off duty. It says that as long as you carry a firearm on duty, you can carry it off duty.

BigDogatPlay
05-03-2009, 5:59 PM
CDCR correctional officers don't go through a full POST academy, do they? I thought they went through a corrections focused academy that includes 832 PC training so that they can act with the authority of a peace officer.

So you are saying that regardless of what your agency policy might or might not be, LEOSA gives you the authority to carry?

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004’.

SEC. 2. EXEMPTION OF QUALIFIED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS FROM STATE LAWS PROHIBITING THE CARRYING OF CONCEALED FIREARMS.

(a) IN GENERAL--Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926A the following:

‘Sec. 926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law enforcement officers

‘(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).

‘(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that--

‘(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or

‘(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.

‘(c) As used in this section, the term ‘qualified law enforcement officer’ means an employee of a governmental agency who--

‘(1) is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and has statutory powers of arrest;

‘(2) is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm;

‘(3) is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the agency;

‘(4) meets standards, if any, established by the agency which require the employee to regularly qualify in the use of a firearm; and

‘(5) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm.

‘(d) The identification required by this subsection is the photographic identification issued by the governmental agency for which the individual is, or was, employed as a law enforcement officer.

LEOSA can not and does not trump department policy. If the employing agency does not allow it's officers to carry when they are travelling, then LEOSA can not trump that. If you assume that it does and your department finds out you are carrying when they don't want you to, you're going to be in trouble. It amounts to just how much your agency is willing to indemnify your actions off duty.

I'll give you that CDCR correctional peace officers who have keep their qualifications current may carry under the Penal Code, and would be covered by LEOSA out of state assuming no department policy otherwise. But trying to make a blanket statement about LEOSA as above is not correct, IMO.

J-cat
05-03-2009, 7:11 PM
It is.

CDC correctional officers must qualify quarterly or they lose their job. CDC correctional officers, therefore, fall under LEOSA by virtue of their employment.

Doheny
05-03-2009, 7:15 PM
You might wanna change this around since you are talking about a straw purchase, saying you want to order a XDm might not be the best idea.

The CO buying an off-list gun, then selling via PPT is not a straw purchase. He can sell the gun to whomever he wants via PPT.

J-cat
05-03-2009, 7:48 PM
CDCR correctional officers don't go through a full POST academy, do they? I thought they went through a corrections focused academy that includes 832 PC training so that they can act with the authority of a peace officer.

So you are saying that regardless of what your agency policy might or might not be, LEOSA gives you the authority to carry?

Yes.

If you are authorized to carry a firearm, and all CDC CO's are, LEOSA allows you to carry off duty. Read the Penal Code for crying outloud! It is PC 830.5 that allows CDC CO's to carry off duty, not CDC. CDC has the right to revoke the privilege FOR GOOD CAUSE, but CDC does not grant the privilege. CDC cannot decide that CDC employees are not allowed to carry off duty.

Warhawk014
05-03-2009, 10:29 PM
California Penal Code sections pertaining to off-duty concealed carry by CDCR Peace Officers

171b-does not pertain to CDCR peace officers [see (b)(2)(A)&(b)(3)]
171c-does not pertain to CDCR peace officers
171d-does not pertain to CDCR peace officers
171e-definition of “loaded firearm” [allowed by CDCR peace officers - see 12031(b)(1)]
197 -definition of “justifiable homicide” (applies to defense of any person…not only self-defense)
198- “bare fear” definition (bare fear alone not sufficient for justifiable homicide)
198.5-homicide presumed justifiable in your home if someone unlawfully and forcibly enters
246-don’t shoot at things that you shouldn’t
417 thru 417.8-brandishing, etc. (brandishing from a vehicle is a felony)
830.5-you hold peace officer “authority” while on-duty (peace officer “status” remains even off-duty)*
830.5(c)-authorization for CDCR peace officers to carry concealed off-duty
830.5(d)-you must qualify at least quarterly [every 3 calendar months (memo Pliler 11/4/04)]
4574-don’t bring weapons onto prison property
12000 thru 12034-don’t commit felonies with your weapon
12590-carrying concealed while picketing for a work stoppage (strike) is a misdemeanor

D.O.M. 55050.34-“Employees who elect to carry a privately owned firearm while off duty are totally responsible and liable for their actions.”
D.O.M. 55050.34-anytime you discharge your off-duty weapon, other than target practice or lawful recreational purposes, you must inform an ISU supervisor as soon as possible.

D.O.M. 32010.19.9-"Pursuant to PC 830.5 and 12031, carrying a concealed loaded firearm without maintaining the quarterly qualification is prosecutable and the employee may be subject to adverse personnel action."

D.O.M. 32010.19.9- “The conditions stipulated in these rules shall apply to them when utilizing a CDC firing range.”
-range shall be available for off-duty qualifying at least 2 days per month at pre-determined times
-only .22 to .45 caliber concealable handguns on CDC ranges
-Single action revolvers prohibited. Single action pistols allowed (memo Alameida 07/19/01)
-only factory loaded ammo allowed (no personal re-loads)
-must bring strong-side hip holster
-must sign form CDC 1798 acknowledging that you have read and understand all PC sections relating to
off-duty weapons, and that the weapon you are using has not be modified except handgrips and sights
-the approved handgun course of fire, as specified in DOM 32010.19.6.3, shall be used.
(You can also qualify on private ranges per this D.O.M. section)

*-see Attorney General Opinion #89-505, Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen.

_________________



maybe this will glear things up a little as far as ccw is concerned.

BigDogatPlay
05-04-2009, 6:22 AM
Yes.

If you are authorized to carry a firearm, and all CDC CO's are, LEOSA allows you to carry off duty. Read the Penal Code for crying outloud!

I did, and I read and posted LEOSA as well. While your argument may be correct under a situation where no department policy exists limiting the employee, it is completely false given any departmental restrictions. I am not saying that CDCR has such restrictions, and thanks to [b]Warhawk014 for posting the salient department policy. I am saying that if those restrictions exist then your earlier statement that LEOSA trumps them is an incorrect statement.

It is PC 830.5 that allows CDC CO's to carry off duty, not CDC. CDC has the right to revoke the privilege FOR GOOD CAUSE, but CDC does not grant the privilege. CDC cannot decide that CDC employees are not allowed to carry off duty.

830.5 grants authority to the employees of the agency, however your statement infers that the agency has absolutely no control. The agency can decide to withdraw off duty firearms unilaterally, regardless of what the Penal Code says. I'm not saying that the agency would or should... I am saying that it can. This particular section of policy should jump off the page at you...

D.O.M. 55050.34-“Employees who elect to carry a privately owned firearm while off duty are totally responsible and liable for their actions.”

That means the department is saying up front that it will not indemnify your off duty actions. Where I've worked the department indemnified for peace officer actions taken off duty so long as those actions were lawful and within department policy.

I'm not trying to pick fights here. What I am trying to point out is that an utter reliance on LEOSA as an end all, beat all authority to carry is a fallacious reliance.

J-cat
05-04-2009, 7:53 AM
Wrong. CDC CANNOT unilaterally withdraw the authority to carry off duty. CDC can withdraw the authority from a particular officer FOR GOOD CAUSE, like being mentally unfit, etc.

CCPOA (CO's union) got this law passed in the late 1970's because CDC would not allow CO's to carry off duty. The penal code grants this privilege, NOT the agency. CDC cannot circumvent the penal code.

BigDogatPlay
05-04-2009, 7:51 PM
I get your point. Again, I am not trying to quibble. But I would point out that agency policy can and does trump state law at times. I think that it is an unsafe assumption to believe that things can't be changed. Please refer back to 830.5 and notice that pesky word "may" directly associated with carrying off duty. That CCPOA was successful in getting such minutea into the Penal Code when the two principal peace officer authority sections (830.1 and 830.2) have no such strictures is good on them.

Now, do you get my point concerning LEOSA? I am not saying that it doesn't apply to CDCR correctional officers, but I am saying that an agency can put limits on what it's officers can do, LEOSA aside. If you are a CDCR peace officer, your qualification is current and you aren't restricted by anything in department policy from out of state carry, then good on you. Knowing, of course, that your agency will not indemnify your actions in any case might be a little disconcerting, but better to have it and run a massive personal financial risk than to not have it all in this day and age.

Not all peace officers are so fortunate, as their agencies won't allow them out of state (and in some cases I'm familiar with out of county) off duty carry. It's simply not right to insist that LEOSA trumps in such a situation because I seriously doubt the federal government is going to indemnify a local agency for the actions of an officer out of his own state... particularly when department policy doesn't allow it.

J-cat
05-04-2009, 9:22 PM
Our AG's office used to have an opinion posted on it's website reference LEOSA. They took it down, but it basically said LEOSA threw an monkeywrench into the system.

Consider that a LE agency cannot forbid conduct that is legal and short of unbecoming of a peace officer. If Federal Law allows me to carry a firearm outside the jurisdiction of my local agency, how can my agency forbid it? CCW is not conduct unbecoming if it is legal. So is driving a red Chevy pickup. Do you thing an agency can forbid it's officers from driving red Chevy pickups?

American_pride
05-08-2009, 5:01 PM
The CO buying an off-list gun, then selling via PPT is not a straw purchase. He can sell the gun to whomever he wants via PPT.

+1. If the LEO buys it, then sells it via PPT it is a legal transaction. Whether he owns it 10 years or 1 min. Do you guys really think that the LEO is going to just give it to him :rolleyes: The way I see it is the OP is going to loan "X" amount of $$$$$ to the LEO. The LEO is then going to "give" Via PPT, a brand new pistol to fulfill his debt.:thumbsup:

lorax3
05-08-2009, 11:19 PM
My understanding of a "Straw Purchase" is someone buying a firearm for someone who cannot acquire it on their own.

Not necessarily. There are two issues here regarding the legality of the purchase. The first being a straw purchase and the second being perjury on the 4473.

A straw purchase is when a person buys a firearm for another person who is prohibited from owning or possessing that firearm.

Example: A father buys a handgun to gift to his 18 year old son. Someone in CA is not prohibited from owning a handgun as long as they are 18. So although an 18 year old cannot buy a handgun, he can still own one. Since straw purchases only come into play when the end owner is prohibited from owning that firearm this example would not be a straw purchase.


The second issue is perjury on the 4473.

Example from Page 3 of a 4473


1. For purposes of this form, you are the actual buyer if you are purchasing the firearm for yourself or otherwise acquiring the firearm for yourself (for example, redeeming the firearm from pawn/retrieving it from consignment). You are also the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm as a legitimate gift for a third party.
ACTUAL BUYER EXAMPLES: Mr. Smith asks Mr. Jones to purchase a firearm for Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith gives Mr. Jones the money for the firearm. Mr. Jones is NOT the actual buyer of the firearm and must answer “no “ to question 12a. The licensee may not transfer the firearm to Mr. Jones. However, if Mr. Brown goes to buy a firearm with his own money to give to Mr. Black as a present, Mr. Brown is the actual buyer of the firearm and should answer “yes” to question 12a.


If you gave your friend the money and had him buy you a gun, then it would not be a straw purchase as you are legally allowed to own a firearm; it would however be perjury on the 4473 as the friend was not the actual buyer of this firearm.

If the LEO bought the weapon with his own money for himself and the next week he decided he wanted to transfer it to a friend that nothing unlawful would have went on.

That would be legal to the letter of the law, what the DA could prove is another matter.

-lorax

JohnnyG
05-09-2009, 8:00 AM
BigDog,
I think the issue here is that agencies may issue whatever policy they want to, but that has nothing to do with the legality of carry under LEOSA. If you meet the requirements as written in HR218 (regardless of department policy), then you can carry in other states under HR218. However, you would be very unwise to do so if it violates dept policy, since your dept can do whatever they want to your employment status upon hearing about you carrying under HR218 against their policy.

Therefore, no law has been broken unless your peace officer / on duty carry priveleges have been revoked by your department and you continue to carry under HR218.

Just like any other employer, an LEO Agency can write almost whatever policy they want for their employees (so long as it doesn't violate equal protection stuff) and threaten civil (not criminal) penalties for violating the policy, up to and including termination of employment.

The funniest thing (to me) about HR218 is that it likely allows an HR218 qualified peace officer to carry IN THEIR OWN STATE regardless of agency policy, so long as no state laws are broken in doing so.

I'm a fan of HR218 any way you slice it since it enables quite a few qualified individuals to carry all over the country, which is good for everyone whether or not they realize it.

John

Warhawk014
05-09-2009, 8:39 AM
BigDog,
I think the issue here is that agencies may issue whatever policy they want to, but that has nothing to do with the legality of carry under LEOSA. If you meet the requirements as written in HR218 (regardless of department policy), then you can carry in other states under HR218. However, you would be very unwise to do so if it violates dept policy, since your dept can do whatever they want to your employment status upon hearing about you carrying under HR218 against their policy.

Therefore, no law has been broken unless your peace officer / on duty carry priveleges have been revoked by your department and you continue to carry under HR218.

Just like any other employer, an LEO Agency can write almost whatever policy they want for their employees (so long as it doesn't violate equal protection stuff) and threaten civil (not criminal) penalties for violating the policy, up to and including termination of employment.

John


in cdc if you have done something that warrants the suspension of your ability to carry or use a firearm in the course of your duties, this means you are under investigation. therefore you cannot carry under leosa. but the department cannot take away your ability to carry ccw. unless what you did is in its self a criminal act. then your peace officer status would be suspended and you no longer can carry ccw. which means you cannot perform your duties as a peace officer because you cant carry a firearm at work.

penal code<---DOM<---title 15.

penal code is the law of the land. dom is the law of cdcr. the DOM tells us what we can and cannot do while on duty. the penal code tells us what we can and cannot do both on and off duty. hope this clears things up.

JohnnyG
05-09-2009, 9:04 AM
in cdc if you have done something that warrants the suspension of your ability to carry or use a firearm in the course of your duties, this means you are under investigation. therefore you cannot carry under leosa. but the department cannot take away your ability to carry ccw. unless what you did is in its self a criminal act. then your peace officer status would be suspended and you no longer can carry ccw. which means you cannot perform your duties as a peace officer because you cant carry a firearm at work.

penal code<---DOM<---title 15.

penal code is the law of the land. dom is the law of cdcr. the DOM tells us what we can and cannot do while on duty. the penal code tells us what we can and cannot do both on and off duty. hope this clears things up.

And HR218 tells you when and where you can carry out of state based on it's own qualifying factors (carry on duty, qualifications, etc...), so long as no other state laws are broken (hence your comments on the penal code, DOM). This makes complete sense to me. Again, department policy doesn't really play much of a role in the legality of LEOSA carry except that it can affect the qualifying factors outlined in HR218.

John

Warhawk014
05-09-2009, 9:44 AM
And HR218 tells you when and where you can carry out of state based on it's own qualifying factors (carry on duty, qualifications, etc...), so long as no other state laws are broken (hence your comments on the penal code, DOM). This makes complete sense to me. Again, department policy doesn't really play much of a role in the legality of LEOSA carry except that it can affect the qualifying factors outlined in HR218.

John

yes that is correct.

CalCop
12-04-2009, 8:59 PM
CASE ALERT MEMORANDUM
December 2, 2008
Prepared by the firm of
JONES & MAYER
3777 North Harbor Boulevard,Fullerton, CA 92835
(714) 446-1400 F: (714) 446-1448 • Website: www.Jones-Mayer.com
California Peace Officers’ Association

To: All Police Chiefs and Sheriffs
From: Martin Mayer, The Law Firm of Jones & Mayer
HR 218 TRUMPS LOCAL LAWS
Recently, an article appeared in the Rapid City (South Dakota) Journal, stating that law enforcement officers could
not rely upon the passage of the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004, otherwise known as HR 218. That
law basically exempted currently employed “qualified law enforcement officers” (and certain retired officers)
from state and local laws which prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons in their jurisdictions. According to
the newspaper article, since the U.S. Attorney General’s office had not “implemented” HR 218 after it was signed
into law, it hadn’t taken effect. That information is incorrect.
Incident in Sturgis, South Dakota
A number of off duty Washington police officers, law enforcement officers with U.S. Customs, and one federal
firefighter, were all part of a motorcycle club called the “Iron Pigs” and were attending a motorcycle rally in Sturgis.
The off duty officers were carrying concealed weapons pursuant to HR 218 and the firefighter had a concealed
weapons permit from Colorado, which has a reciprocity agreement with South Dakota.
They were at the Loud American Roadhouse bar when members of the Hells Angels started a fight with one of
the officers, resulting in the officer shooting and wounding one of the attackers, Joseph McGuire of Imperial
Beach, CA. McGuire was subsequently charged with assault and is free on bond. The officer was also charged
with assault, as well, but that charge was dismissed following an investigation by the county grand jury.
However, the newspaper article reported that the officer was indicted by the grand jury for bringing a gun into
the bar. The grand jury held that HR 218 did not authorize him to have a concealed weapon in South Dakota.
The article stated that the officer could not rely on the federal law since, according to the public information
officer in the Denver office of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, “the legislation was never
implemented by
its rule making agency - the U.S. Attorney General’s office....” The other officers, and the firefighter, were also
indicted on concealed weapon permit violations.
Validity of HR 218
Following this incident, and the reporting of it, e-mails apparently “flew” across the country with officers expressing
concern about the validity of HR 218 permits which they had secured. To be eligible for such a permit, and
therefore be able to carry a concealed weapon in any city or state, despite their local prohibitions, one must be
a qualified law enforcement officer, as defined in the Act. To be “qualified,” among other things, one must be
authorized by his or her employing agency to carry a firearm, not be subject to pending disciplinary actions, and
not be under the influence of alcohol. The officer must also have identification with him or her stating that the
officer is qualified under HR 218 to possess a weapon.
A “qualified retired officer” is one who, among other things, was honorably retired, not based on a psychological
or mental condition, and who, within the past year, had been certified by his or her agency that he/she met the
standards required by that agency for their current officers to be armed, or has met the standards of the state in
which he/she resides for active law enforcement officers to carry firearms in that state.
The Act creates an affirmative defense to criminal prosecution brought by state or local authorities for an alleged
violation of their concealed weapons statutes. Therefore, the burden falls on the law enforcement officer to
prove that he or she is a “qualified” officer, entitled to the protections of HR 218.
Clarification by U.S. Department of Justice
As a result of the charges against these officers, the news article which gained national attention, and the
concerns expressed by numerous law enforcement associations, including the Fraternal Order of Police, a letter
was circulated by an Assistant Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives clarifying the
status of the law and apologizing for the misinformation.
The letter stated that “to implement the Act, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) established a working group to
develop uniform guidelines for DOJ agencies.” Those guidelines were published on March 5, 2005 in the Federal
Register, 70 Fed. Reg. 10673, “so that other Federal agencies and State and local law enforcement agencies could
review DOJ’s guidance before establishing their own.” (Emphasis added.) Finally, the Assistant Director states that,
“DOJ did not issue regulations concerning the Act because the Act did not establish any Federal program.”
Recently, and one might assume based on this clarification from DOJ, charges were dismissed against the officers
by a circuit judge in South Dakota. The judge wrote, in his opinion, that “while states retain the right (pursuant
to HR 218) to prohibit the possession of firearms on government property and to permit private persons and entities to prohibit the possession of firearms on their property, they cannot restrict qualified law enforcement officers in any other manner.”
The charge against the firefighter will apparently proceed since, even with a legitimate CCW permit from Colorado
(which does have reciprocity with South Dakota), he was not permitted to bring the weapon into a bar under
South Dakota law.
HOW THIS AFFECTS YOUR AGENCY
As stated in the letter from the U.S. Department of Justice, HR 218 is the law of the land. If one is a qualified
law enforcement officer, he or she is exempt from the state and local laws which otherwise prohibit carrying a concealed weapon in their jurisdictions, except for the restrictions stated in the law.
Basically, the federal law“trumps” the local law, however, each law enforcement agency must establish its own guidelines and can use the
federal guidelines as a reference.
It is imperative to remember, that the rules for retired law enforcement officers are different, under HR 218, than
they are for currently active officers. The retired officer has additional obligations which must be met in order to
be “qualified.” As such, it is most important that all law enforcement officers, and their agencies, receive advice
and guidance from their own agency’s legal counsel before relying on the protections of HR 218. If nothing else,
this situation in Sturgis shows that not all are clear about the provisions of HR 218.

CalCop
12-04-2009, 9:15 PM
Not all peace officers are so fortunate, as their agencies won't allow them out of state (and in some cases I'm familiar with out of county) off duty carry. It's simply not right to insist that LEOSA trumps in such a situation because I seriously doubt the federal government is going to indemnify a local agency for the actions of an officer out of his own state... particularly when department policy doesn't allow it.

BigDogatPlay,
Even if your agency does not allow you to carry off-duty, HR 218 trumps your agency, and you CAN carry under HR 218.

Consider the Arizona Department of Public Safety's opinion to be more compelling than yours:
My agency has a policy that does not allow me to carry my firearm while I am off-duty. Does this mean that this legislation will not benefit me?

If you are a qualified active law enforcement officer, you will legally be able to carry a firearm under the provisions of H.R. 218. There may be agencies which enforce or adopt policies, rules, regulations, or employment conditions which discourage or punish officers which choose to carry while off-duty, but such actions do not mean that the officer cannot carry under the provisions of the bill.
http://ccw.azdps.gov/leosa.asp