Departments can not regulate off duty firearm possession

[bluestaterebel]

The lists calls them approved as back-up, plain clothes, and off duty handguns.

Right but its a little misleading cause of course all on duty guns are authorized off duty, but it doesnt mention anything about being able to carry what ever we want off duty.

But it also doesnt say we cant. Interesting

[tyrist]

Right but its a little misleading cause of course all on duty guns are authorized off duty, but it doesnt mention anything about being able to carry what ever we want off duty.

But it also doesnt say we cant. Interesting

From talking to the firearms instructors it has to be on the approved list and registered with the armory.

[scootergmc]

Y'all need to get that issue resolved.

[bluestaterebel]

From talking to the firearms instructors it has to be on the approved list and registered with the armory.

Of course they would say that, I dont think they know any better. Everyone in the LAPD thinks that. But, it just might not be the case. I do not want to be the test case though.

[retired]

Of course they would say that, I dont think they know any better. Everyone in the LAPD thinks that. But, it just might not be the case. I do not want to be the test case though.

Oh come on now, you should do it for the troops...........and the children.

[18sam2011]

This case has nothing to do with full time peace officers. IE: Deputy Sheriff's and Municipal city Police Officers.

This case was brought about by the Sheriff's Special Officers and Deputy Coroners in Orange County, California. These positions are not FULL TIME PEACE OFFICERS. I know this because I was a Sheriff's Special Officer with OCSD before I became a Deputy.

An SSO and Deputy Coroner have no official capacity to act as a Peace Officer on behalf of OCSD off duty. Only on Duty.

SSO's and DC's weren't allowed to carry a gun off duty for quite some time. They sued the county and won.

[Ron-Solo]

LASD has an approved on & off duty weapons list. Additionally, you have to have had dept training on each optional gun you carry.

While you wouldn't be in trouble for CA law violations, you could be in deep for policy violations and exposed to more civil liability for an unauthorized gun.

[Liberty1]

This case has nothing to do with full time peace officers. IE: Deputy Sheriff's and Municipal city Police Officers.

Specifically in this case yes.

But full time Peace Officers of counties and municipalities (830.1) enjoy the same classification privileges/duties as cited in that Case Law and AG memos.

Our departments can not restrict our privileges/duties when off duty POs as that comes from the legislature through the PC (concerning off duty weapon possession for example). It would be as if the dept. ordered us not to enforce the ABC or to not accept a citizens arrest off duty (none of us do it but the dept doesn't have the power to order that as we are "state" officers charged with that enforcement).

And we also retain the same 2nd A. rights as non leo citizens (what ever that turns out to be after it is litigated). The dept. can't prohibit us from lawfully bearing our own private arms just as they can't prohibit our off duty 1st Amendment Rights or make us off duty give up our 4th A. Rights.

[Liberty1]

LASD has an approved on & off duty weapons list. Additionally, you have to have had dept training on each optional gun you carry.

While you wouldn't be in trouble for CA law violations, you could be in deep for policy violations and exposed to more civil liability for an unauthorized gun.

LT.,

LEOSA trumps dept. policy when off duty - (IMHO and according to my association attorney who will remain nameless as will I )

[retired]

LT.,

LEOSA trumps dept. policy when off duty - (IMHO and according to my association attorney who will remain nameless as will I )

Liberty, that may be so, but it really isn't worth it to be put thru the ringer for a year or two while they are conducting the investigation. Any transfer or promotion would be put on hold while you are trying to fight the IA investigation.

In many cases, a deputy has his badge taken and is given civilian credentials while working in medical records or a similar position alongside non sworn personnel. This is while the IA is going on.

A person willing to be the test case and go thru that grinder will then, if/when they win a year or two later, know they probably won't be promoted or transferred to a unit they want in the future. The dept. has a long memory.

The 3 who ran against the present Sheriff can certainly attest to that memory.

Just my 2 cents.

[Liberty1]

Liberty, that may be so, but...

Points are well made. I am letter of the law for the sake of discussion and it does, I believe, give us a better understanding of the interplay of laws. Some day one of us may be in the sights of over reaching unlawful policy and I want all to know, whether or not they willingly went there, that they have a defense.

It also helps educate Admin. types on their limitations and to avoid costing their departments expensive fights when they violated the rights of their employees by causing them hardships over BS policies which should be repealed to avoid these fights.

There will always be a test case without which there would never be case law. I want that brother/sister to come out on top in the end.

[retired]

I want that brother/sister to come out on top in the end.

As of course, do I. Are you volunteering to be that test case. j/k

[Ron-Solo]

LT.,

LEOSA trumps dept. policy when off duty - (IMHO and according to my association attorney who will remain nameless as will I )

Maybe....maybe not. But the second you ID yourself as a peace officer, you become 'on-duty' and are covered by workers comp for any injuries sustained, so you would also be 'on-duty' for weapons policy violations. "Catch 22"

Also, if you use an "unauthorized" gun the department can wash theri hands of you in a civil suit. They may face civil liability also, but they will do everything they can to lay the blame squarely on you. That alone makes it not worth the risk in my personal view.

There are too many excellent handguns out there that are authorized to merit taking the unnecessary risk. If they said the only thing we could carry off duty was a single shot .22 derringer, I'd have a different viewpoint. Why carry an unauthorized Glock .40 cal when I have several 9mm and .45ACP options with S&W, SIG, H&K,etc just because I like Glocks?

Just my $0.02.........

[retired]

just because I like Glocks?

Oh my gosh, you like Glocks. Well, I guess I'll have to re-evaluate my opinion of you.

[Ron-Solo]

Oh my gosh, you like Glocks. Well, I guess I'll have to re-evaluate my opinion of you.

Easy Big Fella.............I was just using Glocks as an example. I don't own one, but they're not a bad firearm.