CA DFW Wardens no longer roster exempt?

[John Browning]

I have a good buddy who is a warden and he is under the impression that he is no longer roster exempt. He is POST certified and does a live fire qualification.

I believe the law says he is no longer allowed to TRANSFER off roster guns down the line, but that he can still buy an off roster gun for his own use. Is this correct? Was there some big change in the law in 2021 that I missed?

[k1dude]

He probably just doesn't want to fill your request.

[Librarian]

DFW personnel are what is becoming known as 'tier 2'

(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:
....
G) The Department of Fish and Wildlife.

(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.

They can buy off-Roster, but not transfer to non-Roster-exempt buyers.

As always, they can buy PPT or receive intra-familial transfers or inheritances of off-Roster handguns, and they can sell those to any other CA resident.

[John Browning]

Good one, but I get all my off roster stuff from Leland Yee. I just send him money for mail order Glocks and rocket launchers. Gavin Newsom traded me a P365 and 1,000 small pistol primers to stay silent on what I know about him and fish sticks.

My buddy really just isn't sure, and I would hate for him to screw himself out of the little permissions the king provides. The FUD has (possibly) even gotten into LE circles.

[SkyHawk]

It looks like they have changed the words to the effect of 'exempt if buying it as a service weapon' for Tier 2 but there are so many commas in this world's longest run-on legal sentence that it is hard to say if that applies to the entities or the sworn members or both. To me it seems that it has to be a service weapon now. So he may need a letter from the brass, depending on the FFL. I have heard of some FFLs asking for exactly that.


Read it yourself, and good luck making sense of it

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=32000.&lawCode=PEN

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

(6) Subject to the limitations set forth in subdivision (c), the sale or purchase of a handgun for use as a service weapon, if the handgun is sold to, or purchased by, any of the following entities for use by, or sold to or purchased by, 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 Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (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:

(G) The Department of Fish and Wildlife.

The part about 'for use as a service weapon' is a recent change

[Librarian]

It looks like they have changed the words to the effect of 'exempt if buying it as a service weapon' for Tier 2 but there are so many commas in this world's longest run-on legal sentence that it is hard to say if that applies to the entities or the sworn members or both. To me it seems that it has to be a service weapon now. So he may need a letter from the brass, depending on the FFL. I have heard of some FFLs asking for exactly that.


Read it yourself, and good luck making sense of it

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=32000.&lawCode=PEN

The part about 'for use as a service weapon' is a recent change

Urk - yes - I lifted the text I used from an older spot.

Mea culpa.

[BrokerB]

Haha...they should all be made safe by the " safe gun roster". Some pigs are more equal than other pigs "- Animal Farm

[nedro]

Nobody should be exempt from the safe gun roster.
Why should cops be forced to use unsafe guns?

[drclark]

I would have thought departments issuing guns not on the "safe" roster would have higher liability exposure in officer involved shootings...

[Dan_Eastvale]

So, DFW no longer the super "cops" they thought they were?

[nedro]

So, DFW no longer the super "cops" they thought they were?

In other words, they are the Paul Blart of the policing community.

[benjamin101677]

Slowly they will make other law enforcement officers non exempt I think too many of them brought and re sold for massive profits.

If we ever have a chance of getting rid of the rooster we need the big police unions to be with us as they carry so much political weight as they give so much money