CCW in CA by an Out of State (NV) LE

[CSDGuy]

Wouldn't work for two reasons. One, almost every jurisdiction wants reserves to live within that jurisdiction. Two, and more important, HR218 only apllies to full-time sworn LEOs. So unless you became a full-time officer in NJ, you couldn't reasonably live in NY and carry.

Where does the LEOSA mention anything about Full Time, or for that matter, Sworn status?

[Tallship]

The operative word is "employee". A reserve is a volunteer, who, while he may be reimbursed by the department for his service, is not an actual employee. I know of no departments that have part-time "regular" officers. If you know of one that does (and it would have to be in a state other than California because POST makes this a clear delineation) then I could be mistaken. Also (c) (1) is the definition of "sworn".

[CSDGuy]

Is there an easy way to become a reserve deputy or other form of sworn LEO in a state in which you do not reside?

I would love to get LEO credentials which would allow me to CCW here in NYC

AJAX22 - if you were an active Level 2 Reserve in California, that would definitely fit the bill. A Level 3 with firearms authorization would theoretically work for LEOSA purposes too.

Big Caveat: you have to be an active LEO for this to work. That standard would be set by either the agency or POST... one or the other.

[CSDGuy]

The operative word is "employee". A reserve is a volunteer, who, while he may be reimbursed by the department for his service, is not an actual employee. I know of no departments that have part-time "regular" officers. If you know of one that does (and it would have to be in a state other than California because POST makes this a clear delineation) then I could be mistaken. Also (c) (1) is the definition of "sworn".

If you're a reserve and you are injured while "working" for the agency, are you covered by their workman's comp insurance or are you SOL? All the LEOSA cares about is that you meet the qualifications. Full-time and Sworn isn't in the legislation.

(c) As used in this section, the term “qualified law enforcement officer” means an employee of a governmental agency who—
(1) is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and has statutory powers of arrest;
(2) is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm;
(3) is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the agency;
(4) meets standards, if any, established by the agency which require the employee to regularly qualify in the use of a firearm;
(5) is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance; and
(6) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm.

I'm aware of persons who meet all those qualifications and aren't sworn LEO... They don't carry under the LEOSA because they don't want to be the test case. These people do NOT have off-duty CCW authorization under CA law either (PC 12027). Think about it...

[Tallship]

CSDGuy- you are correct that the word "sworn" is not in the legislation, however sworn is usually defined as being a "peace officer" as specified in PC 830 that has the powers of arrest specified in PC 835 and 836. If you read those sections, you will see that they meet the definition of (c) (1) of HR 218. Therefore, in California (and this may be different in other states) anyone "authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and has statutory powers of arrest" under 830, 835 and 836 is a peace officer ("sworn"). The people you are talking about are not peace officers in California and therefore do not fall under 218.

[CSDGuy]

CSDGuy- you are correct that the word "sworn" is not in the legislation, however sworn is usually defined as being a "peace officer" as specified in PC 830 that has the powers of arrest specified in PC 835 and 836. If you read those sections, you will see that they meet the definition of (c) (1) of HR 218. Therefore, in California (and this may be different in other states) anyone "authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and has statutory powers of arrest" under 830, 835 and 836 is a peace officer ("sworn"). The people you are talking about are not peace officers in California and therefore do not fall under 218.

The key word here is "usually". You will also find that reserves, although not 830.1, fit the bill under 830.6. They're employees of their agencies. They're part-time... they're covered by the LEOSA. You should also be aware that there are other types of governmental employees that aren't 830.1 - 830.6(ish) that have statutory power of arrest and can enforce Federal, State, and County laws. Are animal control officers covered if they are authorized by their agencies to carry firearms? They're not Peace Officers... the PC says so right in 830.9... What about custodial officers? They're Public Officers... and they can be authorized by their agency to carry firearms...

What about other types of Public Officers??? Peace Officers are pretty well defined in the Penal Code. Public Officers are NOT.

The California Supreme Court does that for us:

"A public office is ordinarily and generally defined to be the right, authority, and duty, created and conferred by law, the tenure of which is not transient, occasional, or incidental, by which for a given period an individual is invested with power to perform a public function for the benefit of the public . . . . The most general characteristic of a public officer, which distinguishes him from a mere employee, is that a public duty is delegated and entrusted to him, as agent, the performance of which is an exercise of a part of the governmental functions of the particular political unit for which he, as agent, is acting. . . ."

Randy Dibb v. County of San Diego

Public Officers are an odd type of law enforcement officer. They're not sworn, they're not mere employees... and they can enforce the law. And some are even armed with approval of their agencies...

And just for argument's sake, where in the Penal Code is it spelled out that a Police Officer can do: prevention, detection, investigation... You know, stuff other than arresting people for violations of the law???

[CSDGuy]

Incidentally, since LEOs don't want to become the test case for carrying under the LEOSA and that would be especially true for non-sworn LEOs... I expect that we might actually end up with nation-wide carry rights before there's a test case that seeks to specifically define meaning of 18 USC 926B(c)(1).

That would (eventually) moot much of the reason behind the LEOSA... Something to hope for.

[scootergmc]

The operative word is "employee". A reserve is a volunteer, who, while he may be reimbursed by the department for his service, is not an actual employee. I know of no departments that have part-time "regular" officers. If you know of one that does (and it would have to be in a state other than California because POST makes this a clear delineation) then I could be mistaken. Also (c) (1) is the definition of "sworn".

Let's just get this out of the way. Full time employment is not a requirement. Overreading into what sworn is or isn't doesn't matter. Government agency? check. Armed? Check. Statutory powers? Check. LEOSA? Check.

[BigDogatPlay]

Not true. This is incorrect and if disciplined, you would prevail in a lawsuit. The Supreme Court said in the Norfolk Railroad case that the word law includes policy and regulations.

IF an agency has a "policy", then according to SCOTUS, that falls under law. LEOSA says notwithstanding "state or local law".

Call me crazy but you are making my point.

** The SCOTUS said that the word law includes policy and regulation. If the employing CLEO says he does not want you carrying out of state, for instance, thats department policy, hence law by your citation.

** "Notwithstanding" placed before "state or local law" means that if there are specific state or local laws, or in this case policy and regulation as you have presented, then LEOSA presumably has to yield to them.

** There is plenty of case law going back years that department policy can forbid an officer to do what state law might otherwise empower them to do.

Of course there is also the aspect of LEOSA relative to Amendment Ten and equal protection... it's not like off duty cops travelling on vacation are engaged in interstate commerce after all, hence the Congress didn't really have the authority to do LEOSA in the first place, but that's another thread.



Again, I am not trying to pick fights over this. I am simply trying to point out that thinking of LEOSA as an end all, beat all, trumps all is not necessarily a winning argument. I would never rack a brother's chestnuts on the street, unless I found out he wasn't really a brother... which again becomes another matter. I'm simply pointing out that not all LEOs are created and endowed equally.

As posted elsewhere in the thread, I wouldn't want to be the guy whose CLEO said no out of state carry and was unfortunate enough to get into a scrape in another state.

[CSDGuy]

Call me crazy but you are making my point.

** The SCOTUS said that the word law includes policy and regulation. If the employing CLEO says he does not want you carrying out of state, for instance, thats department policy, hence law by your citation.

** "Notwithstanding" placed before "state or local law" means that if there are specific state or local laws, or in this case policy and regulation as you have presented, then LEOSA presumably has to yield to them.

** There is plenty of case law going back years that department policy can forbid an officer to do what state law might otherwise empower them to do.

Of course there is also the aspect of LEOSA relative to Amendment Ten and equal protection... it's not like off duty cops travelling on vacation are engaged in interstate commerce after all, hence the Congress didn't really have the authority to do LEOSA in the first place, but that's another thread.



Again, I am not trying to pick fights over this. I am simply trying to point out that thinking of LEOSA as an end all, beat all, trumps all is not necessarily a winning argument. I would never rack a brother's chestnuts on the street, unless I found out he wasn't really a brother... which again becomes another matter. I'm simply pointing out that not all LEOs are created and endowed equally.

As posted elsewhere in the thread, I wouldn't want to be the guy whose CLEO said no out of state carry and was unfortunate enough to get into a scrape in another state.

That Northern Railroad case was the one I was thinking of earlier... and that allows the language of the LEOSA to override agency policy. As to the vacationing LEO... it isn't them that is in interstate commerce... it's that their firearm is in or affects interstate commerce...

Also, the LEOSA does NOT override certain portions of the law that California's 12050 creates exemptions for... most notably in the PC 171 range... (Buildings, Bases, Parks...) A CCW holder would have exemptions for those places. So, it could be said that a California CCW holder could carry in more places than an out-of-state Off-Duty vacationing LEO could...

[Tallship]

Let's just get this out of the way. Full time employment is not a requirement. Overreading into what sworn is or isn't doesn't matter. Government agency? check. Armed? Check. Statutory powers? Check. LEOSA? Check.

This may be the nexus of the test court case, "statutory powers". Reserves only have statutory powers while they are on assignment, while full time LEOs are 24/7. So does a reserve fall under LEOSA while he is not on assignment? I would contend that he doesn't.

[CaliTheKid]

Level 1D reserves have the power 24/7.

[Tallship]

Level 1D reserves have the power 24/7.

Not true:

830.6. (a) (1) Whenever any qualified person is deputized or
appointed by the proper authority as a reserve or auxiliary sheriff
or city police officer, a reserve deputy sheriff, a reserve deputy
marshal, a reserve police officer of a regional park district or of a
transit district, a reserve park ranger,......., the
person is a peace officer, if the person qualifies as set forth in
Section 832.6. The authority of a person designated as a peace
officer pursuant to this paragraph extends only for the duration of
the person's specific assignment. //

[CSDGuy]

This may be the nexus of the test court case, "statutory powers". Reserves only have statutory powers while they are on assignment, while full time LEOs are 24/7. So does a reserve fall under LEOSA while he is not on assignment? I would contend that he doesn't.

Actually, I doubt that will be an issue of a test case. The LEOSA does not specify that you must have statutory powers of arrest specifically on or off duty... just that you have that power. Here's why that won't be an issue. If you go to another non-neighboring state (because neighboring states often have agreements giving powers of arrest to their neighbors under certain circumstances), you would no longer have statutory power of arrest in that state. Your statutory power of arrest only extends to any place in the state... YOUR HOME STATE... so under your assertion that you no longer have statutory power of arrest because you're off-duty as a reserve doesn't fly.

Level 1D reserves have the power 24/7.

And that's the other reason. Designated Level 1 Reserves have 24/7 statutory power of arrest just like their Full Time Paid counterparts.

There's something else in (c)(1) that might be the nexus of a test case. I suspect that given the intent of the legislation... it'll be broadly interpreted rather than narrowly so.

[CSDGuy]

Not true:

830.6. (a) (1) Whenever any qualified person is deputized or
appointed by the proper authority as a reserve or auxiliary sheriff
or city police officer, a reserve deputy sheriff, a reserve deputy
marshal, a reserve police officer of a regional park district or of a
transit district, a reserve park ranger,......., the
person is a peace officer, if the person qualifies as set forth in
Section 832.6. The authority of a person designated as a peace
officer pursuant to this paragraph extends only for the duration of
the person's specific assignment. //

Read further down that specific Penal Code section - you have much to learn about reserves.

830.6 (a)(2)
Whenever any qualified person is deputized or appointed by...
and is so designated by local ordinance
or, if the local agency is not authorized to act by ordinance, by
resolution, either individually or by class, and is assigned to the
prevention and detection of crime and the general enforcement of the
laws of this state by that authority, the person is a peace officer,
if the person qualifies as set forth in paragraph (1) of subdivision
(a) of Section 832.6. The authority of a person designated as a peace
officer pursuant to this paragraph includes the full powers and
duties of a peace officer as provided by Section 830.1.

That is 24/7 duties and powers of arrest just as an 830.1 officer. That is your Designated Level 1 Reserve. You could also check out some of the files over at California POST... in their Reserves section... it might prove enlightening about Reserves.