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

[CaliTheKid]

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. //

Stop with your FUD. They do have police powers 24/7.

http://www.post.ca.gov/Training/Reserve_Peace_Officer_Program/pdf/RPOP-summary.pdf

[scootergmc]

830.5 officer.... not 24/7 either. Covered under LEOSA? Yes.

[Tallship]

Right at the bottom of the page:

Agencies may appoint a Level I Reserve Officer (who has completed the POST Regular Basic Course) to full 830.1 PC powers and duties (24 hour) by authority of a city/county ordinance/resolution (830.6 (a) (2) PC).

An L1 reserve may, but does not automatically have 24/7 police powers.

[Ron-Solo]

FYI, although HR218 allows peace officers to carry nationwide, there are some states that forbid the carry of hollow point ammunition. I can't quote the states, but a couple of New England states were among them. Make sure of the local ammo regs, since HR218 doesn't address them yet. When my partner retired, he got a list from the rangemaster on states with ammo restrictions. If I can get a copy, I'll post it.

Can't think of too many street cops who would hassle an out of state cop for this, but I'm sure there's a few out there.


Also, as far as CCW holders being exempt from the 171 series of penal code sections, don't try it in an LA County Courthouse. Pursuant to an order of the Superior Court, CCW holders and retired peace officers are not allowed to carry in the courthouse. They must ID themselves and check their weapons before entering. The courthouses have gun lockers set up for this. The same applies to cops appearing on personal cases such as divorce, child custody and non work related small claims or civil cases.

[CSDGuy]

Nobody here said that a Level 1 Reserve had 24/7 powers. They don't. Having those 24/7 powers is not necessary for purposes of the LEOSA. At least two here have said that Designated Level 1 Reserves have 24/7 powers.

[CSDGuy]

FYI, although HR218 allows peace officers to carry nationwide, there are some states that forbid the carry of hollow point ammunition. I can't quote the states, but a couple of New England states were among them. Make sure of the local ammo regs, since HR218 doesn't address them yet. Whne my partner retired, he got a list from the rangemaster on states with ammo restrictions. If I can get a copy, I'll post it.

Can't think of too many street cops who would hassle an out of state cop for this, but I'm sure there's a few out there.


Also, as far as CCW holders being exempt from the 171 series of penal code sections, don't try it in an LA County Courthouse. Pursuant to an order of the Superior Court, CCW holders and retired peace officers are not allowed to carry in the courthouse. They must ID themselves and check their weapons before entering. The courthouses have gun lockers set up for this. The same applies to cops appearing on personal cases such as divorce, child custody and non work related small claims or civil cases.

That exemption doesn't cover the lawful orders of the court... just the Penal Code 171 series. There is a difference.
Furthermore, while the LEOSA authorizes off-duty CCW, (and therefore authorizes those firearms being in a functional state) it does not delve into exactly what ammunition must be loaded into said firearm. Presumably, whatever ammunition will function in that firearm and is legal in that jurisdiction... however, specifying blank ammunition wouldn't fly...

[Tallship]

Nobody here said that a Level 1 Reserve had 24/7 powers. They don't.....

Sorry, jargon fault on my part. We are in agreement.

[Doheny]

Another example are FD arson investigators (830.37). The AJ has issued an opinion that HR218 does apply to them.

http://ag.ca.gov/opinions/pdfs/96-904.pdf#xml=http://search.doj.ca.gov:8004/AGSearch/isysquery/df4aa882-0c28-4222-9686-daadfdcaacfc/8/hilite/

[scootergmc]

Another example are FD arson investigators (830.37). The AJ has issued an opinion that HR218 does apply to them.

http://ag.ca.gov/opinions/pdfs/96-90...acfc/8/hilite/

That opinion doesn't have anything to do with HR218 (LEOSA). It came out in 1997. It has everything to do with CCW for retired arson investigators. LEOSA came out years later.

[CSDGuy]

Yep. That opinion came out several years before the LEOSA came about. The issue in question is whether or not retired arson investigators can get a retired LEO CCW endorsement.

[donstarr]

** "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.

"Notwithstanding" means just the opposite. In this context, it literally means "in spite of" or "without prevention or obstruction from or by" (Webster's).

"Notwithstanding the rain, I'll take a walk" has precisely the same meaning as "I'll take a walk, the rain notwithstanding". The former does not mean that I'll only take a walk if it's not raining. Both forms mean that I'll be taking a walk, even though it might be raining.