LE and selling off-Roster handguns

[Librarian]

PC 32000 is the code in question.

This part has been in the code for a long time:

(b) This section shall not apply to any of the following:

...

(4) 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.

2016's AB 2165 and then 2018's AB 1872 small amendment at (T) added this part to (b)

(6) Subject to the limitations set forth in subdivision (c), the sale or purchase of a handgun, if the handgun is sold to, or purchased by, any of the following entities or sworn members of these entities who have satisfactorily completed the firearms portion of a training course prescribed by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training pursuant to Section 832:

(A) The Department of Parks and Recreation.

(B) The Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control.

(C) The Division of Investigation of the Department of Consumer Affairs.

(D) The Department of Motor Vehicles.

(E) The Fraud Division of the Department of Insurance.

(F) The State Department of State Hospitals.

(G) The Department of Fish and Wildlife.

(H) The State Department of Developmental Services.

(I) The Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.

(J) A county probation department.

(K) The Los Angeles World Airports, as defined in Section 830.15.

(L) A K–12 public school district for use by a school police officer, as described in Section 830.32.

(M) A municipal water district for use by a park ranger, as described in Section 830.34.

(N) A county for use by a welfare fraud investigator or inspector, as described in Section 830.35.

(O) A county for use by the coroner or the deputy coroner, as described in Section 830.35.

(P) The Supreme Court and the courts of appeal for use by marshals of the Supreme Court and bailiffs of the courts of appeal, and coordinators of security for the judicial branch, as described in Section 830.36.

(Q) A fire department or fire protection agency of a county, city, city and county, district, or the state for use by either of the following:

(i) A member of an arson-investigating unit, regularly paid and employed in that capacity pursuant to Section 830.37.

(ii) A member other than a member of an arson-investigating unit, regularly paid and employed in that capacity pursuant to Section 830.37.

(R) The University of California Police Department, or the California State University Police Departments, as described in Section 830.2.

(S) A California Community College police department, as described in Section 830.32.

(T) A harbor or port district or other entity employing peace officers described in subdivision (b) of Section 830.33, the San Diego Unified Port District Harbor Police, and the Harbor Department of the City of Los Angeles.



(c) (1) Notwithstanding Section 26825, a person licensed pursuant to Sections 26700 to 26915, inclusive, shall not process the sale or transfer of an unsafe handgun between a person who has obtained an unsafe handgun pursuant to an exemption specified in paragraph (6) of subdivision (b) and a person who is not exempt from the requirements of this section.

...

Note (c)(1) imposes the enforcement burden on the transferring FFL; how that FFL is supposed to know how the transferor obtained the handgun remains unclear.

However ...

1) This does not apply to rifles or shotguns - it's handguns only.

2) This does not apply to selling ON-Roster handguns.

3) The limitation imposed by (c)(1) applies only to members of agencies listed in (b)(6).

4) all LE may transfer an off-Roster handgun obtained from another CA resident via PPT - that acquisition did not rely on the LE exemption.

5) all LE may transfer an off-Roster handgun obtained via intrafamilial transfer, either instate, using the OPLAW form, or interstate - that acquisition did not rely on the LE exemption.

6) all LE may transfer an off-Roster handgun obtained via inheritance from properly-related family, either instate, using the OPLAW form, or interstate - that acquisition did not rely on the LE exemption.

[Librarian]

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...01920200AB2699

More mods to PC 32000.

Principal interest is the addition of (b)(7) -

(7) (A) Subject to the limitations set forth in subdivision (c), the sale or purchase of a handgun, if the handgun is sold to, or purchased by, any of the following entities for use as a service weapon by the sworn members of these entities who have satisfactorily completed the POST basic course or, before January 1, 2021, have satisfactorily completed the firearms portion of a training course prescribed by the POST pursuant to Section 832, and who, as a condition of carrying that handgun, complete a live-fire qualification prescribed by their employing entity at least once every six months:

(i) The California Horse Racing Board.

(ii) The State Department of Health Care Services.

(iii) The State Department of Public Health.

(iv) The State Department of Social Services.

(v) The Department of Toxic Substances Control.

(vi) The Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development.

(vii) The Public Employees’ Retirement System.

(viii) The Department of Housing and Community Development.

(ix) Investigators of the Department of Business Oversight.

(x) The Law Enforcement Branch of the Office of Emergency Services.

(xi) The California State Lottery.

(xii) The Franchise Tax Board.

(B) This paragraph does not authorize the sale to, or purchase by, sworn members of the entities specified in subparagraph (A) in a personal capacity.

(b)(7) adds a third 'tier' of LE

1st 'tier' - (b)(4) - individual LE of the specified agencies may purchase and sell their off-Roster handguns, within the regulations of their agencies

2nd 'tier' - (b)(6) - LE employed by the listed agencies may purchase off-Roster handguns, but may not sell them to non-exempt people

3rd 'tier' - (b)(7) - named LE agencies may purchase off-Roster handguns as duty weapons, but individual agency members may NOT purchase off-Roster handguns (except through the PPT process like other CA residents)

[TrailerparkTrash]

Thank you Librarian.

[RCxRC]

Second tier department members (PC 32000, "section 6") now can only purchase off-rosters specifically for duty use ("service weapon"; department letter now needed), and cannot buy any other off-rosters directly from a dealer without said letter and continue to be unable to re-sell or rid themselves of any off-rosters they purchased using their exemption, except to another LEO.

Several of my co-workers have been turned away at Pro-Force and LAPRAAC (LAPD Academy gun shop) since 1/1/21. Newly posted regs stipulate for "Tier 2" LEO's a department letterhead authorization is now required to purchase off-roster handguns, "for duty use" only.

Our department armorer is currently trying to figure out how to organize the process for requests for department approved letterhead authorizations for off-roster back-up and off-duty handguns through management (presumably it will be similar to the process for individual purchase AR's).

[Spyder]

Originally Posted by RCxRC

Second tier department members (PC 32000, "section 6") now can only purchase off-rosters specifically for duty use ("service weapon"; department letter now needed), and cannot buy any other off-rosters directly from a dealer without said letter and continue to be unable to re-sell or rid themselves of any off-rosters they purchased using their exemption, except to another LEO.

Several of my co-workers have been turned away at Pro-Force and LAPRAAC (LAPD Academy gun shop) since 1/1/21. Newly posted regs stipulate for "Tier 2" LEO's a department letterhead authorization is now required to purchase off-roster handguns, "for duty use" only.

Except...the bolded part is incorrect. Pro-Force and their policies have nothing to do with the law.

Read the law.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...ctionNum=32000.

Nowhere in the legislation does it say that the "section 6" folks need a letter.
It does, however, say that the "section 7". Look at (7)(B). That does not apply to (6).

[RCxRC]

"(6) Subject to the limitations set forth in subdivision (c), the sale or purchase of a handgun for use as a service weapon...."

And how else would an FFL determine if it is specifically to be used as a "service weapon"? Mind reading? How does the FFL know what an individual officer's department authorizes for off-duty, back-up, duty weapon (for "service weapons")? It doesn't leave any wiggle room to purchase just any off-roster willy-nilly. If I tried to win an auction on GB for a 1970 Colt Python, or H&K P7M13, etc, and ship it to my FFL - no go. Before, no problem.

I just skipped bidding on a Browning BDA .380 offered by Retting's (Culver City), presumably purchased by the store (not consignment) b/c it clearly specified "No California Sales", except by a "qualified LEO". Once they look at my ID card, guess what? NOT QUALIFIED any longer. Think an FFL is going to take that chance? Particularly once the "Off-Roster Registry" the law calls to be implemented within a few months goes into effect? Not likely.

I've read the law, more times than I can count, believe me. I've discussed it with Range Staff, FFL's who work within our department, and a DOJ rep (for what that's worth).

I think its time for all of the non-830.1 and .2 agencies that pay into PORAC and their flush LDF fund to think about peeling off and starting their own state association. Clearly the "real" LEO's running the show are only concerned about themselves. Lack of support for presumptive injury consideration by anyone not 830.1 or .2, now this. As I've said many times, if the Chiefs and Sheriffs had not supported this stuff from the beginning, we might not be here.

(I'm the one who's been corresponding with The Librarian that this sticky needed to be updated.)

[Daniel_32]

If FFLs are requiring a letter to ensure the firearm will be used as a service weapon, you would think they would also require a letter for tier 1 officers (pc 32000, paragraph 4) to ensure they are purchasing a firearm to be used “in the discharge of their official duties”.

(4) 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.

[P5Ret]

Originally Posted by Daniel_32

If FFLs are requiring a letter to ensure the firearm will be used as a service weapon, you would think they would also require a letter for tier 1 officers (pc 32000, paragraph 4) to ensure they are purchasing a firearm to be used “in the discharge of their official duties”.

(4) 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.

Why? That is not what the law says.

It does not say, This section does not prohibit the sale to, or purchase by, sworn members of these agencies of a handgun to be used in the discharge of their official duties.

[Daniel_32]

According to what others wrote on this thread, FFLs are requiring tier 2 LEOS, (paragraph 6) to provide a letter from their department to make sure any off roster gun they purchase is for use as a “service weapon.”

However, pc 32000 does not state that a letter is required. FFLs seem to be taking that step on their own.

IF that’s their reason for asking for a letter (to makes sure the firearm will be used as a service weapon), logically, one would think that FFLs would also require a letter for tier 1 LEOS, to ensure the firearm will be used in the “discharge of their official services”.

Pc 32000 does not state that tier 1 or 2 LEOS need a letter to purchase an off roster handgun so I don’t understand why they are requiring that from tier 2 LEOS.

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by Daniel_32

According to what others wrote on this thread, FFLs are requiring tier 2 LEOS, (paragraph 6) to provide a letter from their department to make sure any off roster gun they purchase is for use as a “service weapon.”

However, pc 32000 does not state that a letter is required. FFLs seem to be taking that step on their own.

IF that’s their reason for asking for a letter (to makes sure the firearm will be used as a service weapon), logically, one would think that FFLs would also require a letter for tier 1 LEOS, to ensure the firearm will be used in the “discharge of their official services”.

Pc32000 does not state that tier 1 or 2 LEOS need a letter to purchase an off roster handgun so I don’t understand why they are requiring that from tier 2 LEOS.

32000(b)(4) does not say the individual sworn members are limited to duty weapons. It does say the agencies are to buy for those members for official duties.

Clearly the Legislature knows how to write that restriction for individuals, but it chose not to do that in the original (b)(4) nor any of the bills amending 32000.

[Daniel_32]

I see what you’re saying...

Just wondering, if a tier 2 LEO wants to purchase an off roster handgun to carry off duty via ccw, will that count as a service weapon? I’m guessing it would depend on California’s legal definition of “service weapon”.

[RCxRC]

All excellent points. Certainly a deeper dive than I had initially made...

As far as carrying off-duty / carrying CCW....the vast majority of agencies (but not all) have an "off-duty" firearm policy, including mandating which models of handguns and ammunition types to use, as well as qualification requirements. So in that regard, they essentially become "service weapons", albeit for off-duty use, as they're being regulated by the agency. Perhaps an actual attorney can chime in here on the definition issue... Our agency didn't have a policy until about 20 years ago, and it was "anything goes" for the first half-dozen years I was there. At that time (mid-90's), they didn't even require one to advise the department what they were carrying, what ammo to carry off-duty, or even to qualify with their off-duty / CCW handgun(s). .44 mags, .45 Win Mag, Seecamp .32's, you name it. I am not at that level to know if there currently is any state mandate that an agency have an "off-duty / CCW" policy on what may be carried, but with most agencies being more and more risk / liability-averse and simply piggy-backing off Lexipol's boiler-plated, off-the-shelf plug and play Policy and Procedure manual, most department's policies should be very similar, and that does typically incl off-duty / CCW policies.

How would an FFL know any of that? Some responsibility for legal compliance lies with the FFL, but only up to a point. After that it seems it would be on the officer. Therin lies the simple solution for the FFL to do their "due diligence" of having Tier 2 LEO's provide Letterhead (signed) authorization letters for any purchases (on-duty / off-duty / backup).

[Daniel_32]

It’s just a terrible law.

What if a tier 2 officer wants to purchase the same type of weapon provided by their respective agency to go to a local range and practice shooting on their own. I know for a fact that every agency, feds included, has officers that fail quarterly qualifications and have to remediate. Therefore, a lot of officers purchase the same model issued to them to get more practice time.

While it seems easy to simply say “they can practice at work”, a lot of agencies provide very minimal help. It’s more like, “hurry up and shoot and get back on patrol, etc”.

Ideally, the entire roster needs to be thrown out but that will probably never happen in Cali.

[P5Ret]

Originally Posted by Daniel_32

It’s just a terrible law.

What if a tier 2 officer wants to purchase the same type of weapon provided by their respective agency to go to a local range and practice shooting on their own. I know for a fact that every agency, feds included, has officers that fail quarterly qualifications and have to remediate. Therefore, a lot of officers purchase the same model issued to them to get more practice time.

While it seems easy to simply say “they can practice at work”, a lot of agencies provide very minimal help. It’s more like, “hurry up and shoot and get back on patrol, etc”.

Ideally, the entire roster needs to be thrown out but that will probably never happen in Cali.

What is stopping them from doing that? As has been pointed out the only restriction on "tier two" is not selling off roster handguns obtained through their exemption.

Tier three agency members are the only ones restricted to "duty use" only.

As usual there is a lack of understanding by some FFLs. Now if that comes from their own lack of research, or the complete and total lack of guidance from DOJ, or a combination of both is anyone's guess. I've seen threads by people who were told that due to this amendment to the law that all off roster sales even PPTs between non LE were over and done.

[M1NM]

Some departments have bans or limits on their personnel PPTing off roster handguns to nonLEOs. Not a problem for the buyer but the LEO could run into problems.

[Daniel_32]

Oh wow. I wasn’t aware that some agencies had placed limits/bans of their officers.


A friend of mine, tier 2, went to purchase a Glock, gen 5 at proforce. They told him that due to ab 2699, they will not be selling off roster handguns to individual officers on paragraph 6 of pc 32000.

Crazy...

This will may or may not change once they receive clarity from the DOJ.

[JayTee_IsMe]

CSLEA (California State Law Enforcement Association) is the union that covers most of the Tier 2 and Tier 3 agencies. I'll tell you what, they are hands down the worst union when it comes to political lobbying for the benefit of their members, who often times can not opt out of paying their dues.

I used to be Tier 2 for years, but I left the state and went to work a city. An agency that is now Tier 3 attempted to recruit me back into CA recently, but I opted to stay put for a while.

[RCxRC]

Today I spoke with Edward, compliance person for LAPD LAPRAAC (Los Angeles Police Revolver and Athletic Club) Gun Store, as well as Alan, compliance manager for Allstate Police Eqpt (Pomona).

Both stated that per recent conversations with their CA DOJ Firearms Rep's this past week or two, the Rep's confirmed there has been no formal guidance yet from DOJ FA unit regarding individual sales of off-roster handguns to Tier 2 (PC 32000, section "6") officers. Both stated that they were advised that if they asked the prospective off-roster handgun buyer "is this purchase for use as a 'service weapon' ", per the updated language in PC 32000 (as a result of AB 2699), and if the officer responded affirmatively, then that was sufficient for their purposes to proceed with the sale, at least until further direction comes.

Additionally, Edward at LAPRAAC stated they have conferred with their legal advisors, and as a result they are currently drafting an Affidavit form for the officer to complete, attesting to the purchase being intended for use as a "service weapon". No separate department authorization needed at the moment (ie, no "Letterhead" letter signed by agency head, or designee, etc is specifically needed), but that could change.

So for now, it appears the onus is on the individual officer as to how they respond. Both compliance persons I spoke to stated their opinion, as shared with them by their DOJ Rep's, that it is very likely that when DOJ eventually releases specific guidelines it will require something in writing to be completed attesting to the handgun's purchase for use as a "service weapon". There may likely be changes to the DES (DROS Entry System) that requires an entry by the selling FFL that "flags" the purchase for inclusion in the future "unsafe handgun registry" (besides the current "Exempt Handgun" entry in the "Transaction Type" box on the DROS form).

Both agreed it could be risky for an officer to play games with attesting to the off-roster handgun's purchase for use as a "service weapon" if it in fact is not, especially considering the eventual formation and use of an "off-roster handgun registry" and department involvement in the purchase and re-sale of off-roster handguns some of the other new provisions entail. It is not clear at this time how that would work, but in the future it "could" be problematic.

I spoke with my Range Sgt, who said it would "hypothetically" be within the "realm of possibility" (ie, a defensible / plausible explanation) that one could purchase an "off-roster" handgun with the "stated intent" of eventually presenting it to the department, qualifying with it and getting department approval to carry it on-duty as a "service weapon" (or as a back-up or for off-duty carry), and be technically "ok" as long as it was a make / model / caliber among those already approved for on-duty use (or off-duty use) by the department. Purchase something not already department approved and you're on your own.

This of course presumes DOJ FA actually gets caught up with their current serious backlog, actually gets a functioning off-roster handgun registry going, and actually makes the effort to go back to the 1st of this year and audit all off-roster purchases by specific individuals. Just sayin'...

Caveat Emptor.

Footnote (1/26/21): I just spoke with another local FFL dealer who deals with LEO's quite frequently. His interpretation is that until DOJ comes out with a specific definition of "service weapon", or elaborating on any of the other changes made to PC 32000 by AB 2699, he's just going to continue with business as usual. He'll continue to sell off-rosters to Tier 2 LEO's without grilling the purchaser, or signing an affidavit, or getting a "letterhead" letter (all three options having been taken by three different dealers in response to the change in the law). And that seems to be what Spyder and Daniel 32 alluded to earlier: without specific guidance from DOJ on heretofore unspecified definitions (such as, for example, "service weapon"), without specific processes proscribed by DOJ to enforce said law changes, and without any other guidance on exactly what actions an FFL should or should not take to be "compliant" with any law changes, each dealer is left on their own to "interpret" the new law change and how it might impact them and their operations. Depending on the FFL you choose, YMMV.

[buds1]

It's all crazy. Honestly they just need to get rid of the roster period.

[bridgeway]

After reviewing this thread and the law, I have a question (probably a dumb one).

PC 32000 (a) prohibits any person within the state from offering or exposing an "unsafe handgun" for sale and goes on to state that this egregious crime (sarcasm) is a misdemeanor.

Subdivision (b) of PC 32000 provides a list of exceptions.

Nowhere in the list of exceptions in subdivision (b) is there a statement about a person who obtained an "unsafe handgun" via PPT legally selling it. Nor is there a statement about a peace officer who legally bought an "unsafe handgun" selling it. The LE exception portions of 32000 (b) (4), (6), and (7) only discuss the purchase or sale to a peace officer, not the subsequent sale by the peace officer to another person via PPT.

However, when you go to subdivision (c) it clearly contemplates peace officers subsequently selling off-roster guns via PPT because of the restrictions mentioned for the "Tier 2" and "Tier 3" peace officers.

PC 32000 (a) appears to ban all PPTs of off-roster handguns that we are contemplating here, because after all, how can a person (peace officer or not) legally PPT a gun without "offering it for sale?" Unless of course, they are just giving it away for no money.

Maybe I am missing something here, but I did a search and could not find a definition of "offers for sale" elsewhere in the code... Based upon my layperson's understanding "offers for sale" sounds like it is a misdemeanor to put an off-roster gun up on Armslist or tell a friend "hey I have a Gen5 Glock for sale." Is there another code section that provides further detail? Like, I said, probably a dumb question...but I am curious

[Just-in]

Bridgeway,

I do not think your question is stupid at all, I have the same one.

[bridgeway]

Originally Posted by Just-in

Bridgeway,

I do not think your question is stupid at all, I have the same one.

Thanks. What is interesting is that PPTs of off-roster guns continue by both LE and non-LE. So regardless of my/our confusion, everyone else seems much less confused and they feel comfortable "offering them for sale" and charging very very high prices for them in some cases.

[Librarian]

You're missing the Penal Code for PPTs.

Here's PPT

27545.

Where neither party to the transaction holds a dealer’s license issued pursuant to Sections 26700 to 26915, inclusive, the parties to the transaction shall complete the sale, loan, or transfer of that firearm through a licensed firearms dealer pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 28050).
Definition of terms

Here is the exemption from the Roster nonsense.

32110.

Article 4 (commencing with Section 31900) and Article 5 (commencing with Section 32000) shall not apply to any of the following:
(a) The sale, loan, or transfer of any firearm pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 28050) of Division 6 in order to comply with Section 27545.

[bridgeway]

Awesome! Thanks for clarifying, Librarian!

The roster is arbitrary and capricious and should be overturned.

Most curiously, under this system, a Special Agent with the National Science Foundation Office of Inspector General (or similar obscure federal LE outfit) who performs a mix of civil and criminal investigations relating to research grant fraud from a desk is treated the same as an LAPD patrol cop working the midnight shift out of Rampart Division. But a BART cop working in East Oakland is somehow "Tier 2" and less deserving of access to "unsafe handguns." No disrespect to NSF-OIG, I like it when fraudsters who steal from gov't grant programs are punished, my point here is only to give an example that undercuts the rationale for the tiers.

[throwaway22]

Using a disposable/pseudonymous account for hopefully obvious reasons. I am just trying to clarify/determine whether there has been any scuttlebutt regarding so-called “tier one” members, not peace officers.

My reading of the statue is that any district attorney may buy for personal unofficial use an off-roster handgun because they are sworn, inasmuch as they swear to preserve protect and defend the constitution when they assume office. Noting, of course, they are NOT peace officers. And again, as far as I can tell, there is no agency letter required by law.

My question: is that consistent with everyone else’s understanding and that nothing has changed in that regard and that a DDA can walk into a LGS and buy an off roster handgun without stepping in it.

The latest I can find on this from CRPA is from 2016. https://crpa.org/news/crpa/sworn-mem...-roster-alert/

[bridgeway]

Originally Posted by throwaway22

My question: is that consistent with everyone else’s understanding and that nothing has changed in that regard and that a DDA can walk into a LGS and buy an off roster handgun without stepping in it.

When I read that portion of PC 32000 I assumed it applied only to District Attorney Investigators (PC 830.1), not the lawyers. That said, the CRPA post you link to appears to highlight ambiguity in the law. Good info. I have never heard of a "sworn member" who is not a peace officer, but it seems like a unique situation and I don't work for CA DOJ BOF (there's a lot I don't know). Regarding a letter from your agency, I only have experience with providing one that waives the 10-day waiting period. Nothing in PC 32000 that I can see refers to a letter being required to simply make a purchase. I've never heard of someone needing a letter just to purchase. However, different gun stores may have policies stricter than state law.

If a gun store sold a DDA an off-roster gun that they weren't supposed to, that would be the gun store's fault, not the DDA's. Just call around, explain the situation, state you have credentials proving you are a "sworn member," and see what they say. The worst they can do is say "no."

As always, the roster = legislative stupidity. I hope it is overturned.

[gumby]

I'm in group 1 but would consult my FFL.

[RCxRC]

According to the same letter I just received, yes, that's exactly what it says (last sentence):

"Also note, sworn members of Group 2 entities may only resell or transfer a non-roster handgun to sworn members of Group 1, Group 2 or Group 3 entities."

As I've said earlier in this convo thread & others, Tier 1 ("Group 1") carved out another set-aside, or as some have told me, they've just "corrected" what they left out of the original legislation / DOJ decision.

Group 1: "These sworn members may purchase non-roster handguns for personal use and may generally sell or transfer the non-roster handgun to any firearm eligible purchaser at a licensed dealer."

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

[HAVOC5150]

Originally Posted by RCxRC

According to the same letter I just received, yes, that's exactly what it says (last sentence):

"Also note, sworn members of Group 2 entities may only resell or transfer a non-roster handgun to sworn members of Group 1, Group 2 or Group 3 entities."

As I've said earlier in this convo thread & others, Tier 1 ("Group 1") carved out another set-aside, or as some have told me, they've just "corrected" what they left out of the original legislation / DOJ decision.

Group 1: "These sworn members may purchase non-roster handguns for personal use and may generally sell or transfer the non-roster handgun to any firearm eligible purchaser at a licensed dealer."

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Got the same letter, guess they’re sending it to all LE current and former in Ca.

[RCxRC]

As in a different dept, that isn't listed? Or non-LEO whatsoever?

I vaguely remember reading in the legislation that persons purchasing an off-roster from someone else who had originally used their "LEO exemption" would also get the letters. Sort of a warning notice...

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

[socalbeachbum]

Why did I get mailed this letter? Is it because I have done a few non-roster transfers in past couple years?

Most of the letter lists who they see as LE officials, but the opening sentence is the only statement that caught my attention:

"Criminal penalties may attach to persons who sell, purchase, give, or otherwise transfer a non-roster handgun."

Am I about to be raided or investigated?

copy is attached as a jpg file of page 1 and 2, the entire mailing.

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by socalbeachbum

Why di I get mailed this letter? Is it because I have done a few non-roster transfers in past couple years?

Most of the letter lists who they see as LE officails, but the opening sentence is the only statement that caught my attention:

"Criminal penalties may attach to persons who sell, purchase, give, or otherwise transfer a non-roster handgun.

Am I about to be raided or investigated?

copy is attached as a jpg file of page 1 and 2, the entire mailing.

See this thread - http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1724679

[socalbeachbum]

ok, so either POST certs or the X81 exemption triggered the mailings, got it thanks.

But what about the opening statement? Criminal penalties for those who sell or
purchase non-roster? Thousands of buyers and sellers are transferring non-rosters.

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by socalbeachbum

ok, so either POST certs or the X81 exemption triggered the mailings, got it thanks.

But what about the opening statement? Criminal penalties for those who sell or
purchase non-roster? Thousands of buyers and sellers are transferring non-rosters.

Statement applies only to CA LE as described in the letter.

[socalbeachbum]

oh ok that makes more sense I suppose thanks

[RCxRC]

In reading the original legislation for the updated chapter that PC 32000 is in, it mentions that not only will the Dept & LEO receive "notification" of the law (including possible penalties), buyers of off-roster handguns would also receive notice. It is simply advisory.

[BoulderTroll]

Sorry to be "that guy" who wants to be spoonfed answers, but in this case, I'm him. Long week at work, starting a divorce, and my head is on information overload, so please help out the moron...

Due to said divorce, I'm going to be selling some guns. I'm a full-time deputy sheriff in CA. If my agency has no policy against it, can I sell off-roster guns that I bought under the exemption to non-LEO's in a PPT? I've done it before with no issues, just wondering if a law has changed in the last year or two that now says I can't. And before anyone says it, I'm aware of the 2 month between purchase and sale red flag stuff...I've owned all these for years so I think I'm good there as far as showing no intent for resale at time of purchase.

Thanks in advance!

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by BoulderTroll

Sorry to be "that guy" who wants to be spoonfed answers, but in this case, I'm him. Long week at work, starting a divorce, and my head is on information overload, so please help out the moron...

Due to said divorce, I'm going to be selling some guns. I'm a full-time deputy sheriff in CA. If my agency has no policy against it, can I sell off-roster guns that I bought under the exemption to non-LEO's in a PPT? I've done it before with no issues, just wondering if a law has changed in the last year or two that now says I can't. And before anyone says it, I'm aware of the 2 month between purchase and sale red flag stuff...I've owned all these for years so I think I'm good there as far as showing no intent for resale at time of purchase.

Thanks in advance!

As a Deputy, you are 'tier one' and not restricted from resale by law. Your employer may have its own opinion, as you note.

[BoulderTroll]

Originally Posted by Librarian

As a Deputy, you are 'tier one' and not restricted from resale by law. Your employer may have its own opinion, as you note.

Thank you, Sir!

[Yogi5811]

Has there been any update to LEO’s doing PPT of an off roster to non LEO? I attempted to do a PPT yesterday but the FFL said he wasn’t able to do it since the other party wasn’t LEO. I have some other off rosters that was I considering to sell or trade but want to know if I will be able to. The pistol was purchase by my LEO exemption in 2018 and I believe I fall under category 1 being employed as a police officer for a federal agency.