LEOSA and P.C. 626 Clarification Requested

[DORINS9956]

I am retired and qualified under 18 U.S.C. ??, 926B, 926C to carry concealed forearms under LEOSA. I have been teaching at the local community college for 5 years and the previous Chiefs of Police at the college have had no problems with me, or active LEOs who also teach, carrying concealed on campus. The current Chief started working earlier this year and will not answer my inquiry to him requesting his thoughts on my continuing to carry on campus.

My question is whether I am subject to get official permission in writing, to lawfully use LEOSA as authority to carry on campus. California P.C. 626 states that a "licensee" (concealed carry weapons permit) cannot carry a loaded firearm on a school campus without written permission from the district superintendent or a duly authorized deputy. I interpret "licensee" as not being LEOSA authorization, since CCW is a state or local issued permission, it is not a federal carry law.

This is confusing and I'd appreciate an informed opinion, preferably from someone experienced in the matter. I do not want to lose my LEOSA H.R. 218 creds over this issue.

Thanks for taking the time to read this and respond. Stay safe!

[ASD1]

The California Gun-Free School Zone Act is actually fairly limited in its application. It allows for a number of exceptions so that “law-abiding gun owners” are not unjustly penalized under this law.11

Some of these exceptions include (but are not limited to):

California Penal Code 25400 PC “concealed weapons” in a vehicle that are properly secured in a locked container or trunk or to other firearms that are otherwise lawfully being transported,12
persons who possess a firearm because they reasonably fear that their life is in “grave danger” in accordance with California’s self-defense laws,13
specific persons who are authorized to carry concealed weapons such as those engaged in the business of selling, manufacturing, etc. firearms and those who are guards, carriers, or messengers for banks or other financial institutions.14 (NOTE: Having a California “carry a concealed weapon CCW permit under Penal Code 26150 and 26155 PC does not exempt you from prosecution if you carry a concealed weapon in a school zone),15
peace officers (whether active or honorably retired),16 and
security guards who are authorized under California Penal Code 25850 PC to carry loaded firearms.17

https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/penal-code/626-9/#:~:text=Penal%20Code%20%C2%A7%20626.9%20PC%20is%20the%20law%20in%20California,a%20public%20or%20private%20school.

[DORINS9956]

Thanks, ASD1 for your help with this. Much appreciated.

[Rustlin’ Jack]

Hold the phone!

The Gun Free School Zone Act is for K-12. Community Colleges are under different laws. I need to take care of something, so time doesn’t permit me to elaborate on the difference at the moment.

Someone will fill the gaps in. Keep researching.

[DORINS9956]

A "school zone" is defined as an entity encompassing grades K-12. It does not mention community college or university as a school zone in the California Gun-Free School Zone Act, P.C. 626.9. Interesting! I wonder if higher than K-12 is covered by a different statute?

[Librarian]

A "school zone" is defined as an entity encompassing grades K-12. It does not mention community college or university as a school zone in the California Gun-Free School Zone Act, P.C. 626.9. Interesting! I wonder if higher than K-12 is covered by a different statute?

A different part of 626.9.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...ctionNum=626.9. See sub-sections (h) and (i).

Is a community college "a public or private university or college"?

[Rustlin’ Jack]

A community college is part of California’s higher education system, so they should be considered to be a college. If you had a California ccw based upon your retired peace officer status, then you would be exempt.

Using only LEOSA might run into problems if the campus has signs that state no firearms are allowed on campus.

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/resources/federal-ccw-law/leosa-hr-218/

State Locations & Laws
LEOSA exempts all qualified active and retired LEOs from state and local laws with respect to the carrying of concealed firearms with a few exceptions. Individuals carrying under LEOSA must obey the laws of any state that:

Permits private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property. Most concealed carry states require such private establishments to post signs at every entrance;
Prohibits or restricts the possession of firearms on any state or local government property, installation, building, base or park (Check the Location Restrictions section for government properties that are off-limits in any state); and
Has enacted magazine restrictions. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has ruled that state and local laws and regulations applying to magazines do apply, and the exemption provided by LEOSA applies only to firearms and ammunition.

[TrailerparkTrash]

Is a community college "a public or private university or college"?

A “community College” is just high school with ashtrays.

[DORINS9956]

There is nothing specific in 626.9 P.C. that I can find that covers any entity outside of K-12. Active and Retired Peace Officers are exempt from restrictions in 626.9. It would seem to me, at least, that restrictions on concealed firearms on community college campuses would be "policy" decisions, not part of any statute codified in CA penal code. If my reasoning is correct, active and retired peace officers, would by precedent under 626.9 P.C., be exempt from restrictions in policy rules. I've sent a request to the CA DOJ's office for a clarification on this issue and I'll post their response (if any) for reference.

[DORINS9956]

OK, so here's the response from the DOJ's office: "California does not recognize LEOSA. Only California Law Enforcement Officers, as defined by 830.1 through 832.6 are considered "Peace Officers" and no one else."
So, they define a Peace Officer in California as a sworn officer with arrest CA authority and if you don't fit under that definition, i.e., you're retired from another state or federal law enforcement, you aren't a peace officer and you aren't exempt from restrictions in 626.9 P.C. So, my question to the DOJ is "is California exempt from federal law, or is Title 18 U.S.C. Section 926C dominant. under the principle of supremacy?"
Sounds like a legal fight coming up. I think this is a bridge too far. LEOSA was meant to apply to all qualified law enforcement officers, as far as i'm aware. Anyone with different information please feel free to comment.

[RickD427]

OK, so here's the response from the DOJ's office: "California does not recognize LEOSA. Only California Law Enforcement Officers, as defined by 830.1 through 832.6 are considered "Peace Officers" and no one else."
So, they define a Peace Officer in California as a sworn officer with arrest CA authority and if you don't fit under that definition, i.e., you're retired from another state or federal law enforcement, you aren't a peace officer and you aren't exempt from restrictions in 626.9 P.C. So, my question to the DOJ is "is California exempt from federal law, or is Title 18 U.S.C. Section 926C dominant. under the principle of supremacy?"
Sounds like a legal fight coming up. I think this is a bridge too far. LEOSA was meant to apply to all qualified law enforcement officers, as far as i'm aware. Anyone with different information please feel free to comment.

I'd first have to ask just where you got the idea that "California does not recognize LEOSA"? Did this come from any official source at DOJ? Please keep in mind that the clerical folks that answer the phones an e-mail are not empowered to make such statements on behalf of the DOJ.

California does, in fact, recognize the LEOSA.

The rub here may well be in understanding what California law provides, and what the the LEOSA provides.

The term "Peace Officer" does not appear in the LEOSA. The LEOSA defines Qualified Law Enforcement Officers and Qualified Retired Law Enforcement Officers.

California Penal Code section 626.9 does use the term "Peace Officer" to refer to folks who are exempt from the provisions of PC 626.9 and it defines those peace officers almost as you have described (please see the PC for the long version).

But there is no conflict between the LEOSA and PC 626.9, so neither statute is 'Dominant", nor is California exempt from the federal law.

Please refer to the following text from the LEOSA (quoted from 18USC922C) that harmonizes the LEOSA with PC 626.9 and removes the conflict that you appear to see:

"This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that?
(1)permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or
(2)prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park."

Because the LEOSA permits states to maintain laws that restrict carry on state and local government property (which would include the Community Colleges), the LEOSA is not violated by the state law restrictions.

[Rustlin’ Jack]

There is nothing specific in 626.9 P.C. that I can find that covers any entity outside of K-12. Active and Retired Peace Officers are exempt from restrictions in 626.9. It would seem to me, at least, that restrictions on concealed firearms on community college campuses would be "policy" decisions, not part of any statute codified in CA penal code. If my reasoning is correct, active and retired peace officers, would by precedent under 626.9 P.C., be exempt from restrictions in policy rules. I've sent a request to the CA DOJ's office for a clarification on this issue and I'll post their response (if any) for reference.

There is one more caveat at play here. The exemption does not apply to someone who qualifies as a retired peace officer, unless they have a CCW issued by an agency under one of the following statutes.

(o) This section does not apply to an honorably retired peace officer authorized to carry a concealed or loaded firearm pursuant to any of the following:
(1) Article 2 (commencing with Section 25450) of Chapter 2 of Division 5 of Title 4 of Part 6.

(2) Section 25650.

(3) Sections 25900 to 25910, inclusive.

(4) Section 26020.

(5) Paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 26300.

[DORINS9956]

I'd first have to ask just where you got the idea that "California does not recognize LEOSA"? Did this come from any official source at DOJ? Please keep in mind that the clerical folks that answer the phones an e-mail are not empowered to make such statements on behalf of the DOJ.

California does, in fact, recognize the LEOSA.

The rub here may well be in understanding what California law provides, and what the the LEOSA provides.

The term "Peace Officer" does not appear in the LEOSA. The LEOSA defines Qualified Law Enforcement Officers and Qualified Retired Law Enforcement Officers.

California Penal Code section 626.9 does use the term "Peace Officer" to refer to folks who are exempt from the provisions of PC 626.9 and it defines those peace officers almost as you have described (please see the PC for the long version).

But there is no conflict between the LEOSA and PC 626.9, so neither statute is 'Dominant", nor is California exempt from the federal law.

Please refer to the following text from the LEOSA (quoted from 18USC922C) that harmonizes the LEOSA with PC 626.9 and removes the conflict that you appear to see:

"This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that?
(1)permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or
(2)prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park."

Because the LEOSA permits states to maintain laws that restrict carry on state and local government property (which would include the Community Colleges), the LEOSA is not violated by the state law restrictions.

The statement that "California does not recognize LEOSA" came in an official response to an online inquiry form on the DOJ website that I submitted last week. The response further defined "Peace Officer" literally as belonging to a class of law enforcement officers that have or had CA arrest authority under the statutes in the CA P.C.

If the DOJ is saying that the State of California decides who is covered under "honorably retired law enforcement officer" in 18 U.S.C. 926C, then is California or the DOJ not saying that their definition of "Peace Officer" is in conflict with the federal definitions as outlined in the LEOSA conditions that apply to retired L.E.s?

I understand the restrictions by the State that do not exempt retired officers under LEOSA definitions. But, I do not understand how the State can say that only CA retired officers are separate from others who qualify under federal law. That appears to violate the principle of supremacy. Is my thinking wrong?

[DORINS9956]

There is one more caveat at play here. The exemption does not apply to someone who qualifies as a retired peace officer, unless they have a CCW issued by an agency under one of the following statutes.

I am qualified under all the sections and codes you listed. I have all the documentation from my federal agency. I understand from the Sheriff's Office in my county that they do not issue CCW permits to retired law enforcement officers because the officer's retired credentials make a CCW unnecessary to legally carry concealed firearms in the State. All the sheriff does is qualify my firearms proficiency under LEOSA once a year as a professional courtesy to me. So, the issue is whether I qualify as a "Peace Officer" under California P.C. and the DOJ says "No". So, I'm confused as to my status in California. Retired officers are not exempt from magazine and firearms restrictions in the DOJ roster, that I understand because it applies to all retired officers. But, the definition of Peace Officer is not consistent with the principle of supremacy in federal law, as far as I understand it.

[RickD427]

The statement that "California does not recognize LEOSA" came in an official response to an online inquiry form on the DOJ website that I submitted last week. The response further defined "Peace Officer" literally as belonging to a class of law enforcement officers that have or had CA arrest authority under the statutes in the CA P.C.

If the DOJ is saying that the State of California decides who is covered under "honorably retired law enforcement officer" in 18 U.S.C. 926C, then is California or the DOJ not saying that their definition of "Peace Officer" is in conflict with the federal definitions as outlined in the LEOSA conditions that apply to retired L.E.s?

I understand the restrictions by the State that do not exempt retired officers under LEOSA definitions. But, I do not understand how the State can say that only CA retired officers are separate from others who qualify under federal law. That appears to violate the principle of supremacy. Is my thinking wrong?

Can you please post the online response that you received? Any statement that California "Does not recognize LEOSA" is clearly in error.

I believe that you're still not grasping the difference between "Qualified Law Enforcement Officer" and "Peace Officer." The terms are not synonymous. There are many "Law Enforcement Officers" who are not "Peace Officers." It sounds like you're one of them. There is nothing that requires California to treat them as the same, and California opts to treat them differently. The crux of your argument seems to be that California is somehow required by the Supremacy Clause to recognize all "Qualified Law Enforcement Officer" as also being "Peace Officers" by reason of the Supremacy Clause. That just isn't the case. Let's look at what the Supremacy Clause provides:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

There is no California law that is contrary to the LEOSA. If Congress desired that all "Qualified Law Enforcement Officers" have the ability to carry in state owned places, they could have authored the LEOSA to so provide. They did not.

There is no issue of federal supremacy because there is no conflict in law that would require one of the statutes to be superior to the other. The Constitution clearly provides the states with the power to enact their own criminal statutes (refer to the Tenth Amendment).

I am qualified under all the sections and codes you listed. I have all the documentation from my federal agency. I understand from the Sheriff's Office in my county that they do not issue CCW permits to retired law enforcement officers because the officer's retired credentials make a CCW unnecessary to legally carry concealed firearms in the State. All the sheriff does is qualify my firearms proficiency under LEOSA once a year as a professional courtesy to me. So, the issue is whether I qualify as a "Peace Officer" under California P.C. and the DOJ says "No". So, I'm confused as to my status in California. Retired officers are not exempt from magazine and firearms restrictions in the DOJ roster, that I understand because it applies to all retired officers. But, the definition of Peace Officer is not consistent with the principle of supremacy in federal law, as far as I understand it.

From all that you've written here, your status appears to be quite clear. You are a "Qualified Retired Law Enforcement Officer" under LEOSA, and are not a Retired Peace Officer under the Penal Code.

Your local Sheriff's determination that you do not need a California CCW Permit because such would be redundant to your LEOSA carry authority is suspect, and for the reasons that you have described. A great many "Qualified Retired Law Enforcement Officers" opt for a locally issued CCW Permit as a redundant source of CCW carry authority.