LE and selling off-Roster handguns

[Librarian]

PC 32000 is the code in question.

This part has been in the code for a long time:

(b) This section shall not apply to any of the following:

...

(4) The sale or purchase of a handgun, if the handgun is sold to, or purchased by,
the Department of Justice,
a police department,
a sheriff’s official,
a marshal’s office,
the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation,
the Department of the California Highway Patrol,
any district attorney’s office,
any federal law enforcement agency, or
the military or naval forces of this state or of the United States
for use in the discharge of their official duties.

This section does not prohibit the sale to, or purchase by, sworn members of these agencies of a handgun.

2016's AB 2165 and then 2018's AB 1872 small amendment at (T) added this part to (b)

(6) Subject to the limitations set forth in subdivision (c), the sale or purchase of a handgun, if the handgun is sold to, or purchased by, any of the following entities or sworn members of these entities who have satisfactorily completed the firearms portion of a training course prescribed by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training pursuant to Section 832:

(A) The Department of Parks and Recreation.

(B) The Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control.

(C) The Division of Investigation of the Department of Consumer Affairs.

(D) The Department of Motor Vehicles.

(E) The Fraud Division of the Department of Insurance.

(F) The State Department of State Hospitals.

(G) The Department of Fish and Wildlife.

(H) The State Department of Developmental Services.

(I) The Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.

(J) A county probation department.

(K) The Los Angeles World Airports, as defined in Section 830.15.

(L) A K–12 public school district for use by a school police officer, as described in Section 830.32.

(M) A municipal water district for use by a park ranger, as described in Section 830.34.

(N) A county for use by a welfare fraud investigator or inspector, as described in Section 830.35.

(O) A county for use by the coroner or the deputy coroner, as described in Section 830.35.

(P) The Supreme Court and the courts of appeal for use by marshals of the Supreme Court and bailiffs of the courts of appeal, and coordinators of security for the judicial branch, as described in Section 830.36.

(Q) A fire department or fire protection agency of a county, city, city and county, district, or the state for use by either of the following:

(i) A member of an arson-investigating unit, regularly paid and employed in that capacity pursuant to Section 830.37.

(ii) A member other than a member of an arson-investigating unit, regularly paid and employed in that capacity pursuant to Section 830.37.

(R) The University of California Police Department, or the California State University Police Departments, as described in Section 830.2.

(S) A California Community College police department, as described in Section 830.32.

(T) A harbor or port district or other entity employing peace officers described in subdivision (b) of Section 830.33, the San Diego Unified Port District Harbor Police, and the Harbor Department of the City of Los Angeles.



(c) (1) Notwithstanding Section 26825, a person licensed pursuant to Sections 26700 to 26915, inclusive, shall not process the sale or transfer of an unsafe handgun between a person who has obtained an unsafe handgun pursuant to an exemption specified in paragraph (6) of subdivision (b) and a person who is not exempt from the requirements of this section.

...

Note (c)(1) imposes the enforcement burden on the transferring FFL; how that FFL is supposed to know how the transferor obtained the handgun remains unclear.

However ...

1) This does not apply to rifles or shotguns - it's handguns only.

2) This does not apply to selling ON-Roster handguns.

3) The limitation imposed by (c)(1) applies only to members of agencies listed in (b)(6).

4) all LE may transfer an off-Roster handgun obtained from another CA resident via PPT - that acquisition did not rely on the LE exemption.

5) all LE may transfer an off-Roster handgun obtained via intrafamilial transfer, either instate, using the OPLAW form, or interstate - that acquisition did not rely on the LE exemption.

6) all LE may transfer an off-Roster handgun obtained via inheritance from properly-related family, either instate, using the OPLAW form, or interstate - that acquisition did not rely on the LE exemption.

[Librarian]

And now, 2020's AB 2699

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB2699

More mods to PC 32000.

Principal interest is the addition of (b)(7) -

(7) (A) Subject to the limitations set forth in subdivision (c), the sale or purchase of a handgun, if the handgun is sold to, or purchased by, any of the following entities for use as a service weapon by the sworn members of these entities who have satisfactorily completed the POST basic course or, before January 1, 2021, have satisfactorily completed the firearms portion of a training course prescribed by the POST pursuant to Section 832, and who, as a condition of carrying that handgun, complete a live-fire qualification prescribed by their employing entity at least once every six months:

(i) The California Horse Racing Board.

(ii) The State Department of Health Care Services.

(iii) The State Department of Public Health.

(iv) The State Department of Social Services.

(v) The Department of Toxic Substances Control.

(vi) The Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development.

(vii) The Public Employees’ Retirement System.

(viii) The Department of Housing and Community Development.

(ix) Investigators of the Department of Business Oversight.

(x) The Law Enforcement Branch of the Office of Emergency Services.

(xi) The California State Lottery.

(xii) The Franchise Tax Board.

(B) This paragraph does not authorize the sale to, or purchase by, sworn members of the entities specified in subparagraph (A) in a personal capacity.

(b)(7) adds a third 'tier' of LE

1st 'tier' - (b)(4) - individual LE of the specified agencies may purchase and sell their off-Roster handguns, within the regulations of their agencies

2nd 'tier' - (b)(6) - LE employed by the listed agencies may purchase off-Roster handguns, but may not sell them to non-exempt people

3rd 'tier' - (b)(7) - named LE agencies may purchase off-Roster handguns as duty weapons, but individual agency members may NOT purchase off-Roster handguns (except through the PPT process like other CA residents)

[TrailerparkTrash]

Thank you Librarian.

[RCxRC]

Second tier department members (PC 32000, "section 6") now can only purchase off-rosters specifically for duty use ("service weapon"; department letter now needed), and cannot buy any other off-rosters directly from a dealer without said letter and continue to be unable to re-sell or rid themselves of any off-rosters they purchased using their exemption, except to another LEO.

Several of my co-workers have been turned away at Pro-Force and LAPRAAC (LAPD Academy gun shop) since 1/1/21. Newly posted regs stipulate for "Tier 2" LEO's a department letterhead authorization is now required to purchase off-roster handguns, "for duty use" only.

Our department armorer is currently trying to figure out how to organize the process for requests for department approved letterhead authorizations for off-roster back-up and off-duty handguns through management (presumably it will be similar to the process for individual purchase AR's).

[Spyder]

Second tier department members (PC 32000, "section 6") now can only purchase off-rosters specifically for duty use ("service weapon"; department letter now needed), and cannot buy any other off-rosters directly from a dealer without said letter and continue to be unable to re-sell or rid themselves of any off-rosters they purchased using their exemption, except to another LEO.

Several of my co-workers have been turned away at Pro-Force and LAPRAAC (LAPD Academy gun shop) since 1/1/21. Newly posted regs stipulate for "Tier 2" LEO's a department letterhead authorization is now required to purchase off-roster handguns, "for duty use" only.

Except...the bolded part is incorrect. Pro-Force and their policies have nothing to do with the law.

Read the law.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...ctionNum=32000.

Nowhere in the legislation does it say that the "section 6" folks need a letter.
It does, however, say that the "section 7". Look at (7)(B). That does not apply to (6).

[RCxRC]

"(6) Subject to the limitations set forth in subdivision (c), the sale or purchase of a handgun for use as a service weapon...."

And how else would an FFL determine if it is specifically to be used as a "service weapon"? Mind reading? How does the FFL know what an individual officer's department authorizes for off-duty, back-up, duty weapon (for "service weapons")? It doesn't leave any wiggle room to purchase just any off-roster willy-nilly. If I tried to win an auction on GB for a 1970 Colt Python, or H&K P7M13, etc, and ship it to my FFL - no go. Before, no problem.

I just skipped bidding on a Browning BDA .380 offered by Retting's (Culver City), presumably purchased by the store (not consignment) b/c it clearly specified "No California Sales", except by a "qualified LEO". Once they look at my ID card, guess what? NOT QUALIFIED any longer. Think an FFL is going to take that chance? Particularly once the "Off-Roster Registry" the law calls to be implemented within a few months goes into effect? Not likely.

I've read the law, more times than I can count, believe me. I've discussed it with Range Staff, FFL's who work within our department, and a DOJ rep (for what that's worth).

I think its time for all of the non-830.1 and .2 agencies that pay into PORAC and their flush LDF fund to think about peeling off and starting their own state association. Clearly the "real" LEO's running the show are only concerned about themselves. Lack of support for presumptive injury consideration by anyone not 830.1 or .2, now this. As I've said many times, if the Chiefs and Sheriffs had not supported this stuff from the beginning, we might not be here.

(I'm the one who's been corresponding with The Librarian that this sticky needed to be updated.)

[Daniel_32]

If FFLs are requiring a letter to ensure the firearm will be used as a service weapon, you would think they would also require a letter for tier 1 officers (pc 32000, paragraph 4) to ensure they are purchasing a firearm to be used “in the discharge of their official duties”.

(4) The sale or purchase of a handgun, if the handgun is sold to, or purchased by, the Department of Justice, a police department, a sheriff’s official, a marshal’s office, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the Department of the California Highway Patrol, any district attorney’s office, any federal law enforcement agency, or the military or naval forces of this state or of the United States for use in the discharge of their official duties. This section does not prohibit the sale to, or purchase by, sworn members of these agencies of a handgun.

[P5Ret]

This section does not prohibit the sale to, or purchase by, sworn members of these agencies of a handgun.

Why? That is not what the law says.

It does not say, This section does not prohibit the sale to, or purchase by, sworn members of these agencies of a handgun to be used in the discharge of their official duties.

[Daniel_32]

According to what others wrote on this thread, FFLs are requiring tier 2 LEOS, (paragraph 6) to provide a letter from their department to make sure any off roster gun they purchase is for use as a “service weapon.”

However, pc 32000 does not state that a letter is required. FFLs seem to be taking that step on their own.

IF that’s their reason for asking for a letter (to makes sure the firearm will be used as a service weapon), logically, one would think that FFLs would also require a letter for tier 1 LEOS, to ensure the firearm will be used in the “discharge of their official services”.

Pc 32000 does not state that tier 1 or 2 LEOS need a letter to purchase an off roster handgun so I don’t understand why they are requiring that from tier 2 LEOS.

[Librarian]

32000(b)(4) does not say the individual sworn members are limited to duty weapons. It does say the agencies are to buy for those members for official duties.

Clearly the Legislature knows how to write that restriction for individuals, but it chose not to do that in the original (b)(4) nor any of the bills amending 32000.

[Daniel_32]

I see what you’re saying...

Just wondering, if a tier 2 LEO wants to purchase an off roster handgun to carry off duty via ccw, will that count as a service weapon? I’m guessing it would depend on California’s legal definition of “service weapon”.

[RCxRC]

All excellent points. Certainly a deeper dive than I had initially made...

As far as carrying off-duty / carrying CCW....the vast majority of agencies (but not all) have an "off-duty" firearm policy, including mandating which models of handguns and ammunition types to use, as well as qualification requirements. So in that regard, they essentially become "service weapons", albeit for off-duty use, as they're being regulated by the agency. Perhaps an actual attorney can chime in here on the definition issue... Our agency didn't have a policy until about 20 years ago, and it was "anything goes" for the first half-dozen years I was there. At that time (mid-90's), they didn't even require one to advise the department what they were carrying, what ammo to carry off-duty, or even to qualify with their off-duty / CCW handgun(s). .44 mags, .45 Win Mag, Seecamp .32's, you name it. I am not at that level to know if there currently is any state mandate that an agency have an "off-duty / CCW" policy on what may be carried, but with most agencies being more and more risk / liability-averse and simply piggy-backing off Lexipol's boiler-plated, off-the-shelf plug and play Policy and Procedure manual, most department's policies should be very similar, and that does typically incl off-duty / CCW policies.

How would an FFL know any of that? Some responsibility for legal compliance lies with the FFL, but only up to a point. After that it seems it would be on the officer. Therin lies the simple solution for the FFL to do their "due diligence" of having Tier 2 LEO's provide Letterhead (signed) authorization letters for any purchases (on-duty / off-duty / backup).

[Daniel_32]

[P5Ret]

What if a tier 2 officer wants to purchase the same type of weapon provided by their respective agency to go to a local range and practice shooting on their own. I know for a fact that every agency, feds included, has officers that fail quarterly qualifications and have to remediate. Therefore, a lot of officers purchase the same model issued to them to get more practice time.

What is stopping them from doing that? As has been pointed out the only restriction on "tier two" is not selling off roster handguns obtained through their exemption.

Tier three agency members are the only ones restricted to "duty use" only.

As usual there is a lack of understanding by some FFLs. Now if that comes from their own lack of research, or the complete and total lack of guidance from DOJ, or a combination of both is anyone's guess. I've seen threads by people who were told that due to this amendment to the law that all off roster sales even PPTs between non LE were over and done.

[M1NM]

Some departments have bans or limits on their personnel PPTing off roster handguns to nonLEOs. Not a problem for the buyer but the LEO could run into problems.