Tweet
Is LEOSA carry the same as a regular CCW regarding SB2 prohibited locations for retired LEO?
-
-
Is 'qualified law enforcement' addressed in SB2?
Not legal advice, but it is my understanding that LEOSA 'trumps' state and local laws, and this CA AG page addresses LEOSA.
"On July 22, 2004, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) of 2004, also commonly called ?HR 218,? became law. (18 U.S.C. ??, 926B, 926C.) This federal law allows ?a qualified law enforcement officer? or ?a qualified retired law enforcement officer? with identification that meets specified criteria to carry a concealed firearm anywhere in the nation, notwithstanding most other state and local laws which restrict the possession of concealed weapons."
Please chime in if I'm mistaken... -
LEOSA allows qualified individuals to carry concealed in any state even if they do not have a CCW that is recognized in that state. However you still have to follow all CCW (ex: sensitive places) and firearm restrictions (ex: mag capacity) in that state.
From your first link:
"LEOSA does not supercede all state laws regarding the possession of concealed firearms"SF Bay Area firearm training
www.gunkraft.comComment
-
I believe the link says a person can restrict CCW on their property, i.e. "no guns" sign. Gov can restrict in parks, buildings, etc. A blanket prohibition is not included, IMHO.Comment
-
Yes, LEOSA does not trump state restrictions for "sensitive areas", nor does it trump restrictions on magazine size. So don't go carrying those 15 rounders in CA."We got too many gangsters doin' dirty deeds, too much corruption and crime in the streets. It's time the long arm of the law put a few more in the ground...."Comment
-
Federal law is superior to state law.
And the LEOUSA violates the 14th amendments equal protection clause. Everyone should be treated equally under the law.10/15/2022 - Called to get on the list
2/18/2023 - Interview set
4/27/2023 - Class
4/30/2023 - Live Scan
5/9/2023 - Interview
6/26/2023 - Approval Letter
8/1/2023 - IssuedComment
-
(c) (1) Subdivision (b) shall not apply to, or affect, any of the following:
(A) A duly appointed peace officer as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2.
(B) A retired peace officer with authorization to carry concealed weapons as described in Article 2 (commencing with Section 25450) of Chapter 2 of Division 5 of Title 4 of Part 6.
(C) A full-time paid peace officer of another state or the federal government who is carrying out official duties while in California.
(D) A qualified law enforcement officer of another state or the federal government, as permitted under the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act pursuant to Section 926B or 926C of Title 18 of the United States Code.best troll thread in calguns history
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=406739
burn the circus down cuz the world is full of clownsComment
-
Not quite true. There is nothing in the LEOSA that requires qualified LEOs and Qualified Retired LEOs to follow state law CCW restrictions.
There is however the following provision in the LEOSA:
"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."
State law restrictions that meet either of these two conditions still apply to Qualified LEOs and Qualified Retired LEOs.
Please note that a number of SB's restrictions do not comply with the above langauge.
Close, but not quite. If the state law provides a person with the right to ban CCW on their property, and makes it a criminal violation for a person to then carry on that property, then the LEOSA does not permit carry. The LEOSA does not permit the state to make this decision on part of a private property owner.
The LEO does "Trump" all state laws with regard to carry, with the two exceptions quoted above. Neither of those exceptions broad enough to cover all "sensitive areas." The LEOSA is untested (to the best of my knowledge) with regard to magazine capacity. The LEOSA is silent on the question. The NRA and other advocacy groups have opined that the LEOSA does not cover magazines. The key reason is that a magazine can be viewed as a separate object from the weapon. However, in California, we have existing case law that holds a magazine to be a part of the weapon (refer to People v Hale). That supports the argument that magazine is a component part of the weapon and that the weapon is covered by LEOSA, therefore the magazine is covered by LEOSA (Please note this is argument only).If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life.Comment
-
Thanks, Rick. Onfurther reading, the "new" location prohibitions apply to persons carrying under 26150, etc. Those are CCW permit sections, not retired LEO ( if I'm reading it correctly). After rereading the whole SB2, it really is a ponderous 2nd Amendment violation. Their reasoning they give in the bill is patently ridiculous/specious.
This is why we need nationwide Constitutional Carry. CCW is an obvious right for everyone under the 2nd Amendment.Last edited by Spaffo; 01-01-2024, 2:00 PM.Comment
-
You only posted part of the paragraph.
The LEOSA has limits and exceptions. It does not apply to all firearms and weapons. For example, it does not authorize either qualified law enforcement officers, or qualified retired law enforcement officers, to carry any of the following: machineguns, silencers, or destructive
devices. Likewise, the LEOSA does not supercede all state laws regarding the possession of concealed firearms. The LEOSA states that it ?shall not be construed to supercede or limit the laws of any State that (1) allow private persons . . . 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.?Comment
-
So when it comes to SB2 , what is the difference between a retired 830.1 California peace officers credentials ( original officers agency issued ID stamped RETIRED, CCW APPROVED, complies with chapter 44 of title 16 " of LEOSA" etc. ) and a regular CCW permit?Last edited by ap3572001; 01-04-2024, 11:30 AM.Comment
-
Who issued the license/permit, under what authority.
PC 26230, https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...ctionNum=26230. beginsThose sections are not the authority under which LEOSA is implemented - that's Federal.26230.
(a) A person granted a license to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person pursuant to Section 26150, 26155, or 26170 shall not carry a firearm on or into any of the following:
See also CA's ideas on what LEOSA means for CA LEO - https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/a...osasummary.pdfLast edited by Librarian; 01-04-2024, 6:59 PM.ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page
Frozen in 2015, it is falling out of date and I can no longer edit the content. But much of it is still good!Comment
-
-
California police agencies can issue "CCW" permits to retired officers. It is shown on their retired ID card, as I remember they are good for 5 years.
But that's different from the LEOSA credentials issued to retired Officers who qualify for concealed carry under the LEOSA requirements.
The CCW endorsement requires no annual qualifications and is only good in California.
The credentials issued for LEOSA show the date of qualification and indicates that the retired Officer has met all of the requirements as required under LEOSA.Poke'm with a stick!
Originally posted by fiddletownComment
-
Hopefully, these issues will be moot. The whole SB2 should be repealed, including the additional BS training, etc.Comment
There are currently 9519 users online. 125 members and 9394 guests.
Most users ever online was 239,041 at 10:39 PM on 02-14-2026.
Comment