Prop 63 and retired LE

[Redwoodm4]

I was reading prop 63 and couldn't find an exception for retired LE and possession of high cap mags.
Did I miss it?

[mschn99]

According to a friend of mine that is a LEO, Prop 63 has no LEO exemption for personal use. If it is not department issued, there is no exemption.

[Redwoodm4]

I just found a different version that has PC 32406 which allows retired LE to possess. Don't know which one is most current

[Rogue187]

Prop 63 hasn't passed yet..So you use your best judgement.
If PC32406 allows..then you follow that.

[003]

Prop 63 has an exemption for retired cops.

Stop passing around bad information.

The following is a direct cut and paste from the official language.

SEC. 6. Possession of Large-Capacity Magazines.
Section 32406 is hereby added to the Penal Code; Sections 32310, 32400, 32405, 32410,
32425, 32435, and 32450 of the Penal Code are hereby amended, and Section 32420 of the
Penal Code is hereby repealed.

32400. Section 32310 does not apply to the sale of, giving of, lending of, possession of,
importation into this state of, or purchase of, any large-capacity magazine to or by any federal,
state, county, city and county, or city agency that is charged with the enforcement of any law, for
use by agency employees in the discharge of their official duties, whether on or off duty, and
where the use is authorized by the agency and is within the course and scope of their duties.

Section 32405 of the Penal Code is amended to read:

32405. Section 32310 does not apply to the sale to, lending to, transfer to, purchase by, receipt
of, possession of, or importation into this state of, a large-capacity magazine by a sworn peace
officer, as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2, or sworn
federal law enforcement officer, who is authorized to carry a firearm in the course and scope of
that officer's duties.

Section 32406 of the Penal Code is added to the Penal Code, to read:

32406. Section 3231 O(c) does not apply to an honorably retired sworn peace officer, as defined
in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2, or honorably retired sworn
federal law enforcement officer, who was authorized to carry a firearm in the course and scope
of that officer's duties. "Honorably retired" shall have the same meaning as provided in
Section 16690.

[Cokebottle]

Prop 63 has an exemption for retired cops. Stop passing around bad information.

Correct.

Not sure where that came from then... there has been some discussion of a "movement" for gun owners to support 63 because it would put LE on even footing with non-LE and force them to fight together.

Perhaps other portions of 63 are not exempt, but you are correct, the magazine exemption continues.

[Marauder2003]

Vote NO on SB 63 anyway. For the people you used to Serve and Protect.

[baranski]

Of course it has an exemption.

[003]

I strongly encourage everyone I know to vote no on prop 63. It is horrible law and a significant infringement on our 2nd amendment rights.

[gogohopper]

Vote NO on SB 63 anyway. For the people you used to Serve and Protect.

No Zhlt. Be very careful not to insult the "more equals", they'll use it as rational for screwing you even more.

[BajaJames83]

There should be no exemptions all or no one.
These laws exempting certain people just drive that wedge deeper to divide us.

[gogohopper]

I was reading prop 63 and couldn't find an exception for retired LE and possession of high cap mags.
Did I miss it?

..........and that would have influenced the way you vote on it?

Otherwise why ask...........

[Cokebottle]

There should be no exemptions all or no one.
These laws exempting certain people just drive that wedge deeper to divide us.

Agreed, but wishing for the passage of a measure that imposes restrictions on ANYONE is going the wrong way.

I'm not in favor of special exemptions.
I am not in favor of the law that created the need for the exemption in the first place.

Ya... it's us vs them... but the "us vs them" is not LE vs non-sworn, it is free Americans vs tyrants.

Any infighting among free Americans plays into the hand of the tyrants and distracts focus from the true fight.

Way too much of that on Calguns, and we wonder why we can't win.

[gogohopper]

There should be no exemptions all or no one.
These laws exempting certain people just drive that wedge deeper to divide us.

Agreed, but wishing for the passage of a measure that imposes restrictions on ANYONE is going the wrong way.

I'm not in favor of special exemptions.
I am not in favor of the law that created the need for the exemption in the first place.

Ya... it's us vs them... but the "us vs them" is not LE vs non-sworn, it is free Americans vs tyrants.

Any infighting among free Americans plays into the hand of the tyrants and distracts focus from the true fight.

Way too much of that on Calguns, and we wonder why we can't win.

Where did he "wishing for the passage of a measure that imposes restrictions on ANYONE". Your argument is false.

Yes, it's "free Americans vs tyrants", but who does the enforcing for the tyrants? << real question BTW

It's not infighting in regards to LEO that ask for and get the exemptions. They're not "us" once they get exempted. AKA their rights PRESERVED while ours are REDUCED.

Here's a thought. If the LEO weren't getting the exemptions, do you think they'd be supporting the anti 2a laws? Do you think they'd be working against the anti 2a laws? Yes, they do support them via their unions and management.

The more LEO exemptions, the more LEO become THEM. Can't you see that ?

[Country_Jim]

No Zhlt. Be very careful not to insult the "more equals", they'll use it as rational for screwing you even more.

Go back to Off Topic, the adults are talking.