POs not exempt from Prop 63?

[vairox]

(8) (A) A properly identified sworn peace officer, as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2, or properly identified sworn federal law enforcement officer, who is authorized to carry a firearm in the course and scope of the officer's duties.

(B) (i) Proper identification is defined as verifiable written certification from the head of the agency by which the purchaser or transferee is employed, identifying the purchaser or transferee as a full-time paid peace officer who is authorized to carry a firearm in the course and scope of the officer's duties.

(ii) The certification shall be delivered to the vendor at the time of purchase or transfer and the purchaser or transferee shall provide bona fide evidence of identity to verify that he or she is the person authorized in the certification.

(iii) The vendor shall keep the certification with the record of sale and submit the certification to the department.

(f) The department is authorized to adopt regulations to implement the provisions of this section.

Looks like you will need a written certification from your agency head to buy ammo (probably every single time), your peace officer ID isn't good enough, makes sense in this state.

[RickD427]

Looks like you will need a written certification from your agency head to buy ammo (probably every single time), your peace officer ID isn't good enough, makes sense in this state.

What makes you think that that a Peace Officer ID card is not good enough?

My LEO ID Card (when I was working - I'm retired now) met all of the requirements contained in Penal Code section 30352:

1) It was written and verifiable.

2) It contained a certification from the Sheriff that I was a full-time peace officer.

3) It contained a certification that I was authorized to carry firearms.

[vairox]

What makes you think that that a Peace Officer ID card is not good enough?

My LEO ID Card (when I was working - I'm retired now) met all of the requirements contained in Penal Code section 30352:

1) It was written and verifiable.

2) It contained a certification from the Sheriff that I was a full-time peace officer.

3) It contained a certification that I was authorized to carry firearms.

It reads much like the certification you needed from your agency head to buy an "AW", why wouldn't it just state a peace officer identification? are there LEOs who don't get issued an ID?

[RickD427]

It reads much like the certification you needed from your agency head to buy an "AW", why wouldn't it just state a peace officer identification? are there LEOs who don't get issued an ID?

The AW authorization is different. Approval is discretionary with the agency head. There is no entitlement based solely on peace officer employment. My sheriff, as a policy matter, declined to issue AW purchase letters to his deputies.

[jgarden]

The first section above includes federal law enforcement officers. I assume they did that bc in CA federal LE are not included in the definition of peace officers. Then in the next section when they discuss the id requirements, it only concerns peace officers. Then they go on and say id must be photocopied.

My understanding is federal agents are not allowed to have their id cards photocopied. Assuming that to be correct, due to poor drafting the dealer may not be able to comply with the jaw, which would in effect prevent sales, unless the federal LEO actually had a letter, instead of id, which could be submitted w the sale.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[RickD427]

The first section above includes federal law enforcement officers. I assume they did that bc in CA federal LE are not included in the definition of peace officers. Then in the next section when they discuss the id requirements, it only concerns peace officers. Then they go on and say id must be photocopied.

My understanding is federal agents are not allowed to have their id cards photocopied. Assuming that to be correct, due to poor drafting the dealer may not be able to comply with the jaw, which would in effect prevent sales, unless the federal LEO actually had a letter, instead of id, which could be submitted w the sale.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

There's no problem with the photocopying of federal credentials, just so long as the photocopy is done in accordance with law.

The statute that otherwise prohibits the copying of federal credentials makes a specific exemption for cases where the copying is done in accordance with a law. Please refer to the below text of the federal statute, with special attention to the highlighted text:

Title 18, US Code Part I, Chapter 33, Section 701

"Whoever manufactures, sells, or possesses any badge,
identification card, or other insignia, of the design prescribed by
the head of any department or agency of the United States for use
by any officer or employee thereof, or any colorable imitation
thereof, or photographs, prints, or in any other manner makes or
executes any engraving, photograph, print, or impression in the
likeness of any such badge, identification card, or other insignia,
or any colorable imitation thereof, except as authorized under
regulations made pursuant to law, shall be fined under this title
or imprisoned not more than six months, or both."

[jgarden]

There's no problem with the photocopying of federal credentials, just so long as the photocopy is done in accordance with law.

The statute that otherwise prohibits the copying of federal credentials makes a specific exemption for cases where the copying is done in accordance with a law. Please refer to the below text of the federal statute, with special attention to the highlighted text:

Title 18, US Code Part I, Chapter 33, Section 701

"Whoever manufactures, sells, or possesses any badge,
identification card, or other insignia, of the design prescribed by
the head of any department or agency of the United States for use
by any officer or employee thereof, or any colorable imitation
thereof, or photographs, prints, or in any other manner makes or
executes any engraving, photograph, print, or impression in the
likeness of any such badge, identification card, or other insignia,
or any colorable imitation thereof, except as authorized under
regulations made pursuant to law, shall be fined under this title
or imprisoned not more than six months, or both."

So, a California law would be considered "as authorized under regulations made pursuant to law"?



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[RickD427]

So, a California law would be considered "as authorized under regulations made pursuant to law"?



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

Yes

[rcslotcar]

Just buy ammo from the Police range,, it's cheaper there.

[Patfishandshoot]

Yes

Is this just your personal opinion or established in FEDERAL law (beyond just the verbiage below which is absent of the type of law) by U.S. DOJ or a federal court? I know it says "pursuant to law", however even Cal DOJ's own website says photocopying federal creds is illegal. And it seems the statute is speaking of authorization under federal laws, which not only CA DOJ, but pretty much everywhere is operating under when it comes to photocopying federal credentials. The "authorization" would be along the lines of something such as the DoD allowing CAC cards be photocopied under certain circumstances, not the City of Smallville or State of California saying it is okay...

[RickD427]

Is this just your personal opinion or established in FEDERAL law (beyond just the verbiage below which is absent of the type of law) by U.S. DOJ or a federal court? I know it says "pursuant to law", however even Cal DOJ's own website says photocopying federal creds is illegal. And it seems the statute is speaking of authorization under federal laws, which not only CA DOJ, but pretty much everywhere is operating under when it comes to photocopying federal credentials. The "authorization" would be along the lines of something such as the DoD allowing CAC cards be photocopied under certain circumstances, not the City of Smallville or State of California saying it is okay...

I posted the verbatim text of the federal statute at issue. No opinions contained therein.

You seem to be qualifying the text of the statute by adding "federal" before the word the law. That provision is not contained in the statute.

I haven't seen any "acknowledgement" from DOJ concerning 18USC701. I did see a post from a fellow Calgunner, the last time we discussed this issue where he quoted correspondence from DOJ suggesting that FFLs note the ID number of a federal credential when, if I remember correctly, they were processing a waiting period exempt transaction. Since that did not require a photocopy of the credential by law or regulation, that would seem to be a reasonable position by DOJ. Are you possibly embellishing the meaning of that correspondence?

[jgarden]

I posted the verbatim text of the federal statute at issue. No opinions contained therein.

You seem to be qualifying the text of the statute by adding "federal" before the word the law. That provision is not contained in the statute.

I haven't seen any "acknowledgement" from DOJ concerning 18USC701. I did see a post from a fellow Calgunner, the last time we discussed this issue where he quoted correspondence from DOJ suggesting that FFLs note the ID number of a federal credential when, if I remember correctly, they were processing a waiting period exempt transaction. Since that did not require a photocopy of the credential by law or regulation, that would seem to be a reasonable position by DOJ. Are you possibly embellishing the meaning of that correspondence?

I personally do not agree with your reading/interpretation of the federal law. I haven't done the research on the subject, but still don't think it stands for what you say.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[RickD427]

I personally do not agree with your reading/interpretation of the federal law. I haven't done the research on the subject, but still don't think it stands for what you say.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

OK, that's cool. here's no rule that we all gotta agree here.

But if you're going to disagree, how about adding something to your post to back up your position?

[jgarden]

I indicated I read the law differently than you do. I think when they refer regulations made pursuant to law, they are almost surely referring to federal regulations.

Your reading would suggest California could pass a law that says, in the state of CA all federal id and credentials and badges may be photocopied for any purpose.

Regardless of how silly and unlikely that law may be, it would make it ok to photocopy under your interpretation.

Doesn't make sense for the feds to have a strict rule on photocopying id and then give the state's the power to override it.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[RickD427]

I indicated I read the law differently than you do. I think when they refer regulations made pursuant to law, they are almost surely referring to federal regulations.

Your reading would suggest California could pass a law that says, in the state of CA all federal id and credentials and badges may be photocopied for any purpose.

Regardless of how silly and unlikely that law may be, it would make it ok to photocopy under your interpretation.

Doesn't make sense for the feds to have a strict rule on photocopying id and then give the state's the power to override it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

I see your point, but it's going to survive a "plain reading" review under rules of statutory construction.

No ammunition dealer is going to face prosecution for photocopying federal ID documents as required by California state law (and this one is an opinion).

I do agree with you that the 18 USC 701 could be better written, but that doesn't change the content of that law.