was disarmed last night. im a peace officer

[lrdchivalry]

What about those still active?

[Dvrjon]

In an attempt to clear up a lot of the FUD which has clouded this discussion, please let me offer the following:

1. Are Correctional Officers (COs) “Peace Officers” under California law?
Yes.
PC830.5. “The following persons are peace officers…
(b) A correctional officer employed by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation…”

Don’t quibble over 24/7 LEO or arrest authorities or the rest. The law says they are Peace Officers.

2. Does the CO identification card display legal authorities for their actions?
Yes.
The OP posted a copy of his CDCR ID card clearly indication PC 830.5 authority. http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...&postcount=149

3. Can COs carry weapons concealed off duty?
Yes
PC 830.5(c) “The following persons may carry a firearm while not on duty…a correctional officer … employed by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation…”

3. Are their constraints or conditions on the carry of concealed weapons by COs?
Yes.
PC 830.5(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.”

The language here is interesting. Although there is reference to “persons permitted” to carry firearms, there is no “permit” or “permitting process”, unlike a citizen’s LTC. The statute directly permits COs to carry concealed.

The individual must qualify quarterly with his or her weapon, and a range officer must sign off on the CDC Form 1803, Off-duty Firearm Qualification Certification. (CDCR Department Operating Manual section 32010.19.9; http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/regulations/A...EAN%20COPY.pdf). This is a green card carried by the CO along with the ID.

Finally, the last line is telling in that it discusses sanctions which may be taken to suspend or revoke the person’s “right” to carry firearms off duty. The statute apparently has not only established permission, but put in place a statutory right.

4. Can off-duty weapon qualification be done either at CDCR facilities or at commercial facilities?
Both.
PC830.5(e) “The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation shall allow reasonable access to its ranges for officers and designees of either department to qualify to carry concealable firearms off duty. The time spent on the range for purposes of meeting the qualification requirements shall be the person's own time during the person's off-duty hours.”
Also, CDCR DOM 32010.19.9 and 32010.19.9.1, confirm this.

So don't worry if the OP is getting his quals in behind the Cosco.

5. Are COs P.O.S.T certified?
Yes, to a certain level.

CDCR DOM 32010.14.2 Peace Officer Classifications: [I]"Basic Correctional Officer Academy--sixteen weeks of training as provided by the Basic Peace Officer Institute. This course of study complies with requirements contained in PC 832 and PC 12403."[/I]

PC 832. “(a) Every person described in this chapter as a peace officer shall satisfactorily complete an introductory course of training prescribed by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training. On or after July 1, 1989, satisfactory completion of the course shall be demonstrated by passage of an appropriate examination developed or approved by the commission. Training in the carrying and use of firearms shall not be required of any peace officer whose employing agency prohibits the use of firearms.
(b) (1) Every peace officer described in this chapter, prior to the exercise of the powers of a peace officer, shall have satisfactorily completed the course of training described in subdivision (a).”

PC 12403. “Nothing in this chapter shall prohibit any person who is a peace officer, as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2, from purchasing, possessing, transporting, or using any tear gas or tear gas weapon if the person has satisfactorily completed a course of instruction approved by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training in the use of tear gas.”

A bunch of folks may want to relax, just a bit.

Cheers.

JR

[swruger]

i want correct policy recognized so that im not discriminated against.

and yes, discriminatory lawsuits often result in monetary compensation. an agency having to pay out usually guarantees correct procedure will be followed in the future. of course any money received would be donated to a childrens charity.

a letter of apology would be nice as well.

Thank you for the clarification.

My comments will draw ire from some and probably be identified as off topic, but I find them relevant. I told myself over and over, don't respond, don't respond. Can't help it on this one.

You are using your public agency position to sue another public agency. In other words, lets get with the union, get their attorney to get on the band wagon, and let's spend the tax payers money in litigation, including my tax dollars. MY TAX DOLLARS!

Makes me a little more than sick with this particular topic (I couldn't carry into the fair,), and just leads to giving public employees worse reputations than they already have.

How about running it through the formal channels of the organizations and trying to get it resolved that way? Novel concept, huh? How about going through your Assemblyman or Senator, request clarification on the laws, and then try and move it forward that way? Nope, let's litigate, it is the California way you know. How about your Warden (I apologize if that is the wrong term) contact the Chief of Police/County Sheriff of the organization that made the decision to not let you on the property? Novel concept actually expecting a public sector employee to do their job, no matter what level. Isn't that his or her role, to ensure that the employees are able to live within the confines of state law as given to them in this particular case?

Oh that's right, no monetary damages in these approaches.

Oh, did I forget to tell you those monetary damages are my tax dollars if your litigation is successful? MY TAX DOLLARS. All because I couldn't carry into the fair? YHGTBFKM?

And we wonder why our court system is in shambles; this is not the only reason, but these types of cases, without taking any other course or actions to try and resolve the original issue, definitely lead to what we have today. Overloaded courts, court closures, court employee layoffs, yes again, public sector employees losing their jobs, and..........

As the Courts are funded by the state, combined with many other issues, we will now have reductions in force for public agencies; we now have reduced benefit levels for public employees, including those in law enforcement. We have layoffs in public agencies, including public safety of law enforcement and fire. We have hiring freezes. Would you like me to go on?

I can't believe I am going to say there needs to be another law in California, but...

This type of suit (if you move forward) should be prohibited by law. The Department Administrators (State, City, County) should be held responsible for resolution. If they don't, they should be terminated. If they violate the law intentionally,( ie: with malice, knowing what the law says and with knowledge, ignoring the law) they should be terminated, arrested, and jailed. I know, accountability for public sector employees, another novel concept. If the law is not clear, the State Legislature should address it.

You sir, IMHO, aren't owed a dime or an apology. My suggestion is be happy you have a job that affords you good pay, medical benefits, retirement, short term disability, long term disability, vacation, sick leave, and the ability to protect your family that is above and beyond that available to the typical resident of the Communist Country of Kalifornia.

And step up to the table and try and effect change without litigation. That is called leadership.

And yes, public sector administrator of 25+ years speaking.


(PS: I would go into your decision making process about leaving the firearm in your car vs. the kids being let down, again, fear for one's safety being the key factor, but that is too far off topic. Hint, let the kids down next time if you are really concerned about safety, you can make up for it real quickly, and use it as an educational tool. Just an opinion. (64 kid years experience of raising kids, but just an opinion).

And BTW, everything you type and say on this site will be a part of the record in the court process.

Soap box is over, sorry, but this one, like I said above, YHGTBFKM

[Zedrek]

Thank you for the clarification.

My comments will draw ire from some and probably be identified as off topic, but I find them relevant. I told myself over and over, don't respond, don't respond. Can't help it on this one.

You are using your public agency position to sue another public agency. In other words, lets get with the union, get their attorney to get on the band wagon, and let's spend the tax payers money in litigation, including my tax dollars. MY TAX DOLLARS!

Makes me a little more than sick with this particular topic (I couldn't carry into the fair,), and just leads to giving public employees worse reputations than they already have.

How about running it through the formal channels of the organizations and trying to get it resolved that way? Novel concept, huh? How about going through your Assemblyman or Senator, request clarification on the laws, and then try and move it forward that way? Nope, let's litigate, it is the California way you know. How about your Warden (I apologize if that is the wrong term) contact the Chief of Police/County Sheriff of the organization that made the decision to not let you on the property? Novel concept actually expecting a public sector employee to do their job, no matter what level. Isn't that his or her role, to ensure that the employees are able to live within the confines of state law as given to them in this particular case?

Oh that's right, no monetary damages in these approaches.

Oh, did I forget to tell you those monetary damages are my tax dollars if your litigation is successful? MY TAX DOLLARS. All because I couldn't carry into the fair? YHGTBFKM?

And we wonder why our court system is in shambles; this is not the only reason, but these types of cases, without taking any other course or actions to try and resolve the original issue, definitely lead to what we have today. Overloaded courts, court closures, court employee layoffs, yes again, public sector employees losing their jobs, and..........

As the Courts are funded by the state, combined with many other issues, we will now have reductions in force for public agencies; we now have reduced benefit levels for public employees, including those in law enforcement. We have layoffs in public agencies, including public safety of law enforcement and fire. We have hiring freezes. Would you like me to go on?

I can't believe I am going to say there needs to be another law in California, but...

This type of suit (if you move forward) should be prohibited by law. The Department Administrators (State, City, County) should be held responsible for resolution. If they don't, they should be terminated. If they violate the law intentionally,( ie: with malice, knowing what the law says and with knowledge, ignoring the law) they should be terminated, arrested, and jailed. I know, accountability for public sector employees, another novel concept. If the law is not clear, the State Legislature should address it.

You sir, IMHO, aren't owed a dime or an apology. My suggestion is be happy you have a job that affords you good pay, medical benefits, retirement, short term disability, long term disability, vacation, sick leave, and the ability to protect your family that is above and beyond that available to the typical resident of the Communist Country of Kalifornia.

And step up to the table and try and effect change without litigation. That is called leadership.

And yes, public sector administrator of 25+ years speaking.


(PS: I would go into your decision making process about leaving the firearm in your car vs. the kids being let down, again, fear for one's safety being the key factor, but that is too far off topic. Hint, let the kids down next time if you are really concerned about safety, you can make up for it real quickly, and use it as an educational tool. Just an opinion. (64 kid years experience of raising kids, but just an opinion).

And BTW, everything you type and say on this site will be a part of the record in the court process.

Soap box is over, sorry, but this one, like I said above, YHGTBFKM

You really don't want to take a look at the stupid lawsuits the inmates do then.

[swruger]

Woops, oh yea, you also have life insurance and probably survivor's benefits in the overall benefit package.

And you want us TAXPAYERS to pay. YHGTBFKM

And you come to us taxpayers on this web site for free advice?

[swruger]

@Zedrek, oh, I have seen/read about them. But I expect better from public agencies and their employees. Maybe I am a Polly Anna and my expectations are too high for the year 2013 in Kalifornia, and they probably are.

My wife's uncle is an officer at Pelican Bay.

[Dvrjon]

Woops, oh yea, you also have life insurance and probably survivor's benefits in the overall benefit package.

And you want us TAXPAYERS to pay. YHGTBFKM

And you come to us taxpayers on this web site for free advice?

As another long time public administrator, I share your dislike of the OP's demeanor.

At the same time, I know The OP is young and not well-informed. Cooler heads will prevail. If there are grounds for action, a lawsuit won't be needed, and if anything is done, it will be done quietly and with little fanfare.

If there are no grounds it will be explained to the OP by the union.

[Veggie]

Private property = your credentials mean nothing off duty.

[JDay]

You do realize you have no LEO powers outside of a correctional facility right?

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

[Spaceghost]

/thread

Much of the "hating" and saying that C/Os are not LE in this thread has actually been coming from other LEOs.

Get the facts straight.

Most of the ordinary citizen responses have been along the lines of "welcome to our sucky world", which is hardly showing any hate to you, just sympathy from people who are in the same, disarmed, boat.

[Mr.Matt]

My .02.
I would give it to you but I'm part of the govt furloughs so I'm broke.

[Like gandhi but better]

swruger,

at this point we all know there is no $ here.

as i said before, even if there were it would be donated to a childrens charity.

you mentioned tax dollars....

are you aware that your tax dollars are currently funding the booby farm being run in cdc? thats right. any inmate that decides they want to release their inner woman, can begin hormone treatment to grow breasts. $1000 for the shot. one shot a week. indefinitely.

and yes, there are MANY inmates growing boobs.

and this is the tip of the iceburg folks. i only wish your fury would be echoed by the public regarding the outrageous waste of taxpayer $ in the prisons.

[Like gandhi but better]

and benjamin, do u frequently exchange private emails with members and then post about those emails?

wow.

you'd make a great partner!

[Like gandhi but better]

veggie. its not private party. call the fair and ask em. i did. they stated they are state run and state owned public property

[biglou]

^ Dude I thought you were done. Let it go.