Gun Free zones and off duty cops carrying?

[joefrank64k]

Guns and alcohol don't mix.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Testify, TPT!!

I can handle my business just fine. To each, their own.

[1911david]

Gun free zone

Read HR 2513 it has to be authorized For off duty

[P5Ret]

Read HR 2513 it has to be authorized For off duty

Has nothing to do with 626.9 (L) which is existing Ca law. HR 2513 is a proposed amendment to LEOSA, and the federal GFSZ law. As has already been quoted several times there is already exemption's built into CA's GFSZ act.

[eta34]

your fault is that you expect CA law to be logical. The written law does not lie. Retired LEOS issued CCW per PC 25650 can carry on school property. I'm still waiting for the PC allowing active, off duty to do the same. Tic toc, tic toc.

626.9 PC. The poster before you already showed you. Look at subsection (L). I have quoted it below.

(l) This section does not apply to a duly appointed peace officer as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2, a full-time paid peace officer of another state or the federal government who is carrying out official duties while in California, any person summoned by any of these officers to assist in making arrests or preserving the peace while he or she is actually engaged in assisting the officer, a member of the military forces of this state or of the United States who is engaged in the performance of his or her duties, or an armored vehicle guard, engaged in the performance of his or her duties, as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 7582.1 of the Business and Professions Code.

[eta34]

Please cite the applicable section indicating only on-duty officers may carry in these locations.

Whatevs09...You still didn't answer this question. Feel free to give us more of your expertise.

[Yodaman]

Popcorn please!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[P5Ret]

your fault is that you expect CA law to be logical. The written law does not lie. Retired LEOS issued CCW per PC 25650 can carry on school property. I'm still waiting for the PC allowing active, off duty to do the same. Tic toc, tic toc.

So I'll ask again where in 626.9 does it state that it only applies to on duty, we're waiting because I'm not the first to ask you this same question. I don't think you are able to read and accurately interpret what the section actually says.

Let's see once again you have demonstrated complete lack of understanding of the law. If you had bothered to read 25650 PC you'd have noticed that it applies to retired federal law enforcement.

Retired LEO's do not have a CCW, most are issued an ID by their agency, authorizing carry of concealed weapons under 25905(a) PC.

Maybe it's just time to stop thinking you have the answer's, because honestly you don't. Your inability to read and properly interpret the laws as written, both in this thread and the one concerning LEOSA, tend to lead to one conclusion, I'll let you figure that one out on your own.

[esy]

Whatevs, TSA is NOT a federal LEO regardless what they may have told you. Stop hiding behind that plastic badge and blue jacket. It’s ok. We won’t judge you. Much.

[eta34]

[eta34]

Also, this forum is for current and retired LEO. It is clear you are neither. Please refrain from posting. You are embarassing yourself.

[esy]

Yes.

[SarcoBlaster]

"who is carrying out official duties" means ON DUTY. It doesn't get more plain than that.

This is why you don't shake babies.

[esy]

Commas help to split up multiple ideas and pauses in a sentence. Here's an example:

I like many different brands of firearms like Glock, Remington, Mossberg, CZ, Colt, etc., etc.

Similarly applied to PC 626.9(l).

(l) This section does not apply to:

a duly appointed peace officer as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2, <----

a full-time paid peace officer of another state or the federal government who is carrying out official duties while in California, <----

any person summoned by any of these officers to assist in making arrests or preserving the peace while he or she is actually engaged in assisting the officer, <----

a member of the military forces of this state or of the United States who is engaged in the performance of his or her duties, <----

or an armored vehicle guard, engaged in the performance of his or her duties, as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 7582.1 of the Business and Professions Code.

And, yes, I said TSA. You still haven't told us what federal agency that has afforded you an unobtainable CA law enforcement pass when you have such a clear misunderstanding of rather simple law. The longer you wait, the longer we're allowed to speculate. You could even PM the original person that asked you the question and they could then tell us that your story is legit. Until then, we get to speculate and call you out because it's really fun!

[GizmoSD]

[hmvan]

Commas help to split up multiple ideas and pauses in a sentence. Here's an example:

I like many different brands of firearms like Glock, Remington, Mossberg, CZ, Colt, etc., etc.

Similarly applied to PC 626.9(l).

(l) This section does not apply to:

a duly appointed peace officer as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2, <----

a full-time paid peace officer of another state or the federal government who is carrying out official duties while in California, <----

any person summoned by any of these officers to assist in making arrests or preserving the peace while he or she is actually engaged in assisting the officer, <----

a member of the military forces of this state or of the United States who is engaged in the performance of his or her duties, <----

or an armored vehicle guard, engaged in the performance of his or her duties, as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 7582.1 of the Business and Professions Code.

And, yes, I said TSA. You still haven't told us what federal agency that has afforded you an unobtainable CA law enforcement pass when you have such a clear misunderstanding of rather simple law. The longer you wait, the longer we're allowed to speculate. You could even PM the original person that asked you the question and they could then tell us that your story is legit. Until then, we get to speculate and call you out because it's really fun!

This is far too obvious and logical. Oh well...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk