Why can a CCW license be limited to certain weapons?

[hoffmang]

It boils down to LIABILTY. The SO/PD is approving the CCW, and therefor have a horse in the race of liability. They want to make sure someone is CAPABLE of handling said weapon, so be it.

That's why 40 other states require it? Hint: they do not.

There is 0 liability for the issuer. There may be some political liability, but its not monetary or judicial. The only liability that an issuing authority takes on is not taking the right to bear seriously - that will get his authority a large batch of legal fees under 42 USC 1988.

-Gene

[Kid Stanislaus]

I am an LEO for almost 20 years.
I can only carry handguns that are on my departments list. On and off duty.
I must carry at least on reload ( on and off duty ) .
I must use ONLY factory magazines on and off duty.
I must have a round in the chamber and if my pistol has a manual safety I SHALL NOT use it. I must load my pistol with US made JHP ammo ONLY.
I GET TESTED WITH EVERY HANDGUN I CARRY ON AND OFF DUTY EVERY YEAR . AT LEAST ONCE A YEAR. I am 100% FOR some control of what people with CCW will cary. And that they get tested with those handguns.

LEOs and the rest of us folk have different needs. I can understand the need to have standardization in a PD. The general population does not have that need. If I want to carry a 380 ACP that should be my business. Same thing goes if I want to carry a 44 mag. There's no need for the sheriff to tell me how to blow my nose when I have a cold.

[Andy Taylor]

I am an LEO for almost 20 years.
I can only carry handguns that are on my departments list. On and off duty.
I must carry at least on reload ( on and off duty ) .
I must use ONLY factory magazines on and off duty.
I must have a round in the chamber and if my pistol has a manual safety I SHALL NOT use it.
I must load my pistol with US made JHP ammo ONLY.

I GET TESTED WITH EVERY HANDGUN I CARRY ON AND OFF DUTY EVERY YEAR . AT LEAST ONCE A YEAR.


I am 100% FOR some control of what people with CCW will cary.

And that they get tested with those handguns.

Those are restriction put on you by your employer, not the law. If you break those rules you can be disiplined, up to and including losing your job. You will not be arrested and imprisoned. Legally, as a LEO, you can carry whatever firearm you choose.
There are many legal things I could do that would result in loosing my job, none of which could result in imprisonment.

BTW friends of mine who are Sac county deputies have said they can carry whatever they wish off duty, but if it is not an approved weapon that they qualified with, the department will not help them with any legal fees etc that come from any lawsuits etc following a shoot, justified or not.

[Andy Taylor]

I believe, only Clark County does this in NV.

Clark County is the only NV county that requires registsration. By state law, guns are listed on permits issued by all countys. However, unlike CA, they only list Make, Model, and Cal, not S/N. So if you qualify with a S&W M&P 9mm, you can carry any S&W M&P 9mm.

[dustoff31]

Those regulations are preempted by LEOSA. Any officer who is disciplined for carrying a "unapproved" gun off duty can sue in federal court under LEOSA to have that overturned.

It's my understanding that LEOSA only provides protection from criminal prosecution. Officers can still face discipline for violation of department policy. Not so?

[Andy Taylor]

BUT you DO have to take a test to drive anything other than a "passenger vehicle", (ie comemrcial, A, B, hazmat, air brakes, bus, etc).

When you added your bike, did you not have to test for it? You just didnt walk in and say "add the M now"..right?

Joe Citizen gets his good cause and can get a CCW, but has never shot. Why would I want someone carrying a DE 50 cal when all he can effectivly shoot is a .380 or 9mm?

It boils down to LIABILTY. The SO/PD is approving the CCW, and therefor have a horse in the race of liability. They want to make sure someone is CAPABLE of handling said weapon, so be it.

Perhaps Joe Citizen is used to a 1911, saftey and all, and grabs a glock, not used to having no grip saftey or slide saftey, wouldnt you want them some what knowledgable?

By law, there is no liability for the issuer. Just like my DL. DMV is not responsible if I drive my car into a crowd of 20 people and kill all of them.

It is true I had to test on a M/C, and would have to test if I wanted to add comercial vehicles/Haz-Mat etc.

If DLs were done the way CCWs are, then I would only be allowed to drive that one '83 Ford LTD, by VIN number. No other '83 Ford LTD would have the same VIN therefore I couldn't drive it. We aren't even talking about class of gun when it comes to CA CCW. It is listed by S/N.

It would be an improvement if say I qualified with a 1911, and could then carry any 1911, but not a Glock or revolver, unless I also qualified with them.

Cars are different too. More different than guns. P/S, P/B or not. Automatic or manual trans. Gear sift on the floor or column? (anyone remember the old Chrysler push button transmissions?) E-brake a lever between the seats or a peddal on the floor? I won't even get into headlight, wiper and other switches. I am not even talking about another class of vehicles.

They same holds true for guns. I own two 4" Colt Trooper .357s. They both shoot good, but each is slightly different.
Whether I shoot one of those Troopers, or my 1911, or my Sig P220, they are all different, and yet the fundamentals are all the same.

[Gray Peterson]

It boils down to LIABILTY. The SO/PD is approving the CCW, and therefor have a horse in the race of liability. They want to make sure someone is CAPABLE of handling said weapon, so be it.

There is no reason at all to be concerned about lawsuits against the sheriff. First, the language of Government Code 818.4 immunizes a public agency for any injuries in any way connected to a licensing of anything. Second, Government Code 821.2 immunizes all public employees in a similar fashion.

Cases that extensively discuss this is are as follows:

Nunn v. State of California (1984) 35 Cal.3d 616, 627. State and employees immune from tort liability for discretionary acts, such as not issuing BCIS Exposed Firearms Permit to Mr. Nunn (who perished while there was some form of regulatory mix-up while on patrol at a community college).

People v. Superior Court (Wilson) (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 31, 37-39. State and employees immune from liability for failure to revoke a driver's license.

Colome v. State Athletic Commission (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1444, 1455-1456. State and Employees immune from liability for issuance of boxing license.

Rosenthal v. Vogt (1991) 229 Cal.App.4th 69, 75. State and employees immune from liability for disbarment of an attorney.

West v. State (1986) 181 Cal.App.3rd 753, 760-761. State and employees immune from liability for injuries resulting from issuance of a contractor's license.

Hirsh v. State by and through the DMV (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 252. State and employees immune from negligent issuance of vehicle title and registration by the Department of Motor Vehicles.

As you can see, even though California is known as being extremely litigious, the above cases and statutes protect the sheriff from all liability in state court. In federal court, the only thing that one could be tort liable is a policy which violates the applicant's civil rights under 42USC1983, and that can only come from refusing to issue a CCW, not actually issuing one.

[Liberty1]

It's my understanding that LEOSA only provides protection from criminal prosecution. Officers can still face discipline for violation of department policy. Not so?

Police chiefs and sheriffs derive their authority to promulgate policy from state law. SCOTUS said in Norfolk & Western Railway Co v. American Train Dispatchers (1991) that 'law' includes 'policy and regulations' imposed by the employer. They can control carrying on duty or carrying of the dept.'s weapons but can not nullify the will of congress which protects the carrying of concealed firearms by qualified officers where LEOSA applies, state or political subdivision 'laws' notwithstanding.