off roster handguns for military

[Kali_M14]

I know this has been posted before, but based on this what gives a police officer more rights to purchase one than military members? they do not buy all of their off roster guns for discharge of their duties and read the paragraph after and the definition in 3200 subd b4:

https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/exemptpo

State Exemptions for Authorized Peace Officers
Non-Roster Handguns (Unsafe Handguns)

The following agencies may purchase non-roster firearms for use in the discharge of their official duties:

Department of Justice
A police department
A sheriff’s official
A marshal’s office
The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
The California Highway Patrol
Any district attorney’s office
Any federal law enforcement agency
The military or naval forces of this state or of the United States (Pen. Code, § 32000, subd. (b)(4).)

Penal Code section 32000 does not prohibit the sale to, or purchase by, sworn members of the above agencies of a handgun.

(Pen. Code, § 32000, subd. (b)(4):
(4) The sale or purchase of any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, if the pistol, revolver, or other firearm is sold to, or purchased by, the Department of Justice, any police department, any sheriff's official, any marshal's office, the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency, the California Highway Patrol, any district attorney's office, or the military or naval forces of this state or of the United States for use in the discharge of their official duties.  Nor shall anything in this section prohibit the sale to, or purchase by, sworn members of these agencies of any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person. - See more at: http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-co....i7I6FZcP.dpuf

It seems members of the CSMR, Guard and federal forces can purchase off roster guns.

Thoughts?

[say12]

interesting!

[Librarian]

FAQ.

You would need a lawsuit, probably brought by the particular service or DOD, to challenge that.

CA legislators tend to believe 'sworn' means PC 830 'peace officers'.

I'm in favor of the Roster just going away. Absent that, the more exemptions the better.

[Kali_M14]

As military members we are sworn in and sign paperwork to that affect. Also remember that PC 832 is for California only and they do differentiate between military and federal. Also they specifically list the military and naval forces of the the state which is really the CSMR and Guard. Furthermore,the national guard doesn't have a naval component but the CSMR does. The next paragraph also specifically states the individual member of the agencies can purchase.

[Hairball]

This post looks familiar. Swearing into the military and be sworn into LE are two entirely different things. I am retired Military and retired LE and one never implied the other. There is also a big difference between PC 830 that Librarian is talking about and PC 832 that you have posted above. 830 is for regular officers while 832 is for reserve officers.

[MotoFahren]

Originally Posted by Librarian

FAQ.

You would need a lawsuit, probably brought by the particular service or DOD, to challenge that.

CA legislators tend to believe 'sworn' means PC 830 'peace officers'.

I'm in favor of the Roster just going away. Absent that, the more exemptions the better.

Will the DROS system or CA DOJ kick back an off roster transaction? What would happen if every FFL started selling off roster guns at the same time? Mass civil disobedience ect. Does DOJ have the man power to process and go after everyone?

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by MotoFahren

Will the DROS system or CA DOJ kick back an off roster transaction? What would happen if every FFL started selling off roster guns at the same time? Mass civil disobedience ect. Does DOJ have the man power to process and go after everyone?

If the FFL cannot put in an exemption into DROS, yes, that DROS would be rejected.

[glockman19]

only in CA...Ask for reassignment to a different base in Free America and buy whatever you want.

[Kali_M14]

Check this out from the CRPA dated 06 APR 2016:

http://crpa.org/sworn-members-peace-...-roster-alert/

The law also “does not prohibit the sale to, or purchase by, sworn members of these agencies of a handgun.” So what constitutes a “sworn member”?

The term “sworn member” is not defined in the law. But any individual who can show proof that they are a “sworn member” of any of the above listed agencies should be exempt from the Roster requirement. This should be true even though they may not qualify as “peace officers,” as that term is defined under California Penal Code section 830. Typically, “peace officers” are “sworn members.” But, “sworn members” may not always be “peace officers.”

Problematically, DOJ has cited several licensed firearm retailers with violations of the law for selling an off-Roster handgun to individuals who are not “peace officers,” even though they are “sworn members” of the exempted agencies. That is wrong. DOJ is conflating the term “sworn member” in the “unsafe handgun” law with specific exceptions for “peace officers” created in other laws that apply when purchasing firearms, such as the “peace officer” exceptions to the 10-day waiting period and Firearm Safety Certificate (FSC).

In light of DOJ’s confusion, “sworn members” of the above referenced agencies who want to purchase firearms that are not on the Roster should bring written proof of their “sworn member” status to their local firearm dealer at the time of purchase (even though there is no requirement under California law that a “sworn member” of an agency provide written proof of the member’s status.) This should protect the firearm dealer and the sworn member. Any dealer processing these transactions should keep a copy of the sworn member’s letter along with the other transferee’s paperwork.

[jcourson]

:sigh: You missed the important part:

Originally Posted by Kali_M14

The following agencies may purchase non-roster firearms for use in the discharge of their official duties:

Members of the armed forces are not allowed to use personal firearms in their official duties. The military buys whatever weapons regardless of what CA says and those are what are used.

[Kali_M14]

Originally Posted by jcourson

:sigh: You missed the important part:



Members of the armed forces are not allowed to use personal firearms in their official duties. The military buys whatever weapons regardless of what CA says and those are what are used.

Your confusing what an agency can purchase vs the second part which deals with the individuals owning and purchasing for their own use...your statement is also further proof that military members can purchase off roster...there is nothing in the below verbiage that says official duties...an example is a police department buys gen 4 glocks for duty but an individual officer may buy a Wilson which is also off list but can only use his Glock for duty.

Penal Code section 32000 does not prohibit the sale to, or purchase by, sworn members of the above agencies of a handgun.

[Kali_M14]

Guys think about this....if people think that the key term is for use in the discharge of their duties is inclusive of sworn members within the agencies, then how is it that LEO can buy non-roster gun for personal use...PD are also listed? If so, why separate the section for sworn members...again sworn members not peace officers.

[Che762x39]

Originally Posted by Kali_M14

Guys think about this ...

Kali must be a Lance Corporal ...

... or a sea lawyer.

Semper Fi

[Plain Old Dave]

The military exemption seems to be for units purchasing arms on the local economy. This IS possible under the DFARs (I think). I.E. a Navy Special Boat Unit or SEAL team at Coronado purchasing firearms on the local economy for some reason NOT for BM2 Jones who is assigned to the Special Boat Unit to go buy an off roster firearm for personal use.

Was mentioned upthread, but this is a very good reason for our fictional BM2 to pick orders to shore duty or a DDG at Mayport or Norfolk for his/her next assignment as quickly as CMS/ID will allow.

[Kali_M14]

Originally Posted by dummykid

When I was in the Navy last year, local FFL store didn't sell me off roster guns

Thats because most do not know what is said in the law....showed 2 of mine and both agreed but only one would risk selling.

[Kali_M14]

Originally Posted by dummykid

I showed them the quote, but the store didn't want the risk to sell and wanted me to talked to NCIS and my base law counselor. Then I was like " whatever"

yeah well that is what we are up against....it is written there in plain English and people are still doubting it. I can't really blame them since the DOJ is a bully. heck they can't even answer any questions

[DavidBenedict]

Didn’t mean to resurrect this thread but it being 2021 and the Marine Corps fielding the M18 I think this is important in terms of for use in the discharge of their official duties. I’ve been in the Corps for 19 years and within my own personal collection i own a beretta 9mm. Why did I purchase this gun? Well, it’s what we used in the service and a 3 day pistol range annually will not make me expertly proficient, maybe adequate but not where I want to be. Anyhow, I train with my beretta ad nauseam off duty because I need to garner that level of expert proficiency so that when it comes to qual week I can rest assure I can qualify with the highest score possible (it comes into play in promotions). With the sig p320 being an off roster gun, there has to be some waivers that can justify this as part of official duties… but who knows and I don’t even know where to start…thoughts?

[Snoopy47]

Did this exemption to the roster merely exist long ago before the noose was tightened up?

I thought it use to be Active Duty military with non CA residency while here in CA could buy off roster. I know of a few that bought this way prior to 2011. They were not MP/CID or any such.

Anyway......... we can talk in circles here, but until an FFL processes such exemptions it's all moot.

Every time I think about something off roster and ways to go about getting it it's just cheaper to wait it out and pay the CA PPT premium when it comes up.

[tigerpan]

For military you can just buy at your home states. I did that when I was in the Corp.

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by tigerpan

For military you can just buy at your home states. I did that when I was in the Corp.

Probably shouldn't.

ATF says military are residents where their PCS orders place them, for gun buying purposes. See http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/in...y_requirements

You might get away with it - if you maintain your home state DL and actually have an address there, you might deceive an FFL or a private seller in places where intra-state sales are legal without an FFL (as things should be).

Since that can be punished as a Federal felony for both buyer and seller, doesn't seem like a good idea. See the sticky, http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=503873

[rero360]

Well, just weeks before retiring I was able to purchase a Glock 43X from a somewhat lgs (hour or so drive) with no problems. They had me sign a form that I assume all LEOs sign as well in addition to the normal paperwork. They said that they sell off roster to military all the time.

[jaywalker9611@gmail.com]

Originally Posted by Kali_M14

It seems members of the CSMR, Guard and federal forces can purchase off roster guns.

Thoughts?

"the military or naval forces of this state or of the United States for use in the discharge of their official duties."

I believe the key verbiage is "for use in the discharge of their official duties" which in my humble opinion is the key wording here, as it points to "official duty" as bluntly interpreted, it directly applies to those select Tier 1 Operators who gets to choose their choice of arms for use in their "Official Duties" which doesn't apply to 99% of us in the Service.

Believe me, I am not part of that 1% in the service, and wish it blanket applied to all of us... however it does not as far as my ignorant uneducated self can decipher...

[RickD427]

Originally Posted by jaywalker9611@gmail.com

"the military or naval forces of this state or of the United States for use in the discharge of their official duties."

I believe the key verbiage is "for use in the discharge of their official duties" which in my humble opinion is the key wording here, as it points to "official duty" as bluntly interpreted, it directly applies to those select Tier 1 Operators who gets to choose their choice of arms for use in their "Official Duties" which doesn't apply to 99% of us in the Service.

Believe me, I am not part of that 1% in the service, and wish it blanket applied to all of us... however it does not as far as my ignorant uneducated self can decipher...

The exemption provision of PC 32000(b)(4) actually has two separate clauses. Here is the exact text of that statute:

(listing exemptions)..."The sale or purchase of a handgun, if the handgun is sold to, or purchased by, the Department of Justice, a police department, a sheriff’s official, a marshal’s office, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the Department of the California Highway Patrol, any district attorney’s office, any federal law enforcement agency, or the military or naval forces of this state or of the United States for use in the discharge of their official duties. This section does not prohibit the sale to, or purchase by, sworn members of these agencies of a handgun."

The first sentence permits the sale to the listed agencies of off-roster handguns and it contains a requirement that the off-roster handguns be for use in official duties.

The second sentence permits sales to individual sworn members of the listed agencies. This sentence does not contain a requirement that the off-roster handguns be used in official duties.

Military members do swear an oath upon enlistment/commissioning. It is possible to read PC 32000(b)(4) as permitting such sales based on this reading of "sworn."

But one of the canons of statutory construction is that laws are read in a manner as to facilitate the purpose for which they were enacted.

It's also possible to read "sworn" in the context that it used in other places in the Penal Code as to indicate a person who has taken a law enforcement oath. That reading would not include general duty military personnel who have taken a different oath.

DOJ appears to have subscribed to the second reading of the term "Oath."

[tenpercentfirearms]

So any dealers notice that "military or naval forces of this state or of the United States" is now on the DROS roster exemption menu? We should call and ask.

I was going to post a screen shot but I am over my file attachment quota.

[The Wingnut]

Active duty military members in California are exempt from the felony attached to concealed carry of a switchblade.

Concealed carry of a firearm without a permit is a misdemeanor. Yet, a switchblade is a felony.

I've always been baffled at the asymmetric treatment of the two issues, other than a cynical outlook that the law is a mess on purpose, or neglect.

If military members are exempt from that felony charge, why not extend that courtesy to a similar issue that carries misdemeanor charges?

Working from that presumption, one could argue that the roster should have an exemption, as well. Otherwise, what's the point of the carve-out for switchblades? It's essentially an admission that military members can be trusted with the responsibility.