off roster handguns for military

[Kali_M14]

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]

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]

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]

"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:


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.