Hi-Cap Mags / Retired LEO

[9mmdude]

You can stuff a lot of magazines in a safe deposit box which deals with the import issue if you return.

['Ike']

You can stuff a lot of magazines in a safe deposit box which deals with the import issue if you return.

LoL! That'd be a different way of doing it...

[swat]

My brother-in-law is a retired LEO from an agency outside of California, and he and his family spent the Thanksgiving Holiday at our home in S. Calif. He brought his Glock carry gun with him including a couple of high cap magazines. I know the LEOSA allows honorably retired LEO to carry throughout the nation, but what about high cap mags in Calif? Does the law allow the visiting retired LEO to bring his/her high cap mags with him/her?

[Cokebottle]

My brother-in-law is a retired LEO from an agency outside of California, and he and his family spent the Thanksgiving Holiday at our home in S. Calif. He brought his Glock carry gun with him including a couple of high cap magazines. I know the LEOSA allows honorably retired LEO to carry throughout the nation, but what about high cap mags in Calif? Does the law allow the visiting retired LEO to bring his/her high cap mags with him/her?

Only if those magazines were legally possessed within California prior to 1-January 2000.

[003]

While I think all of us are happy with the basic issues covered in the original HR 218, and the clean up signed by Obama (S 1132). The one issue that is not covered in either is an off duty or retired out of state leo bringing high capacity magazines into California. My reading of State law makes that illegal. There is no exemption for off duty or retired out of state officers to bring high capacity magazines into California in either Federal or California law. That of course assumes they were not legally possessed in California prior to January 1, 2000.

While S 1132 addressed the hollow point ammunition issues created by New Jersey. The high capacity magazine issue was not addressed. I contacted the senate sponsors at the time and tried to get the magazine issue included, but was rebuffed. I got lots of platitudes, but no action.

An interesting side note that falls into the category of “the law of unintended consequences” is the ability of those covered by LEOSA to import and possess tracer ammunition in California.

The appropriate excerpt from S 1132:

(e) As used in this section, the term `firearm'--
(1) except as provided in this subsection, has the same meaning as in section 921 of this title;
(2) includes ammunition not expressly prohibited by Federal law or subject to the provisions of the National Firearms Act; and
(3) does not include--
(A) any machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the National Firearms Act);
(B) any firearm silencer (as defined in section 921 of this title); and
(C) any destructive device (as defined in section 921 of this title).

While this was included specifically to bring New Jersey into compliances with national standards, it does impact the California tracer law.

[Cokebottle]

While this was included specifically to bring New Jersey into compliances with national standards, it does impact the California tracer law.

As well as California AP handgun ammo.

[003]

Yes it does, I did not think of that one.

[retired]

Am I reading that correctly: that I, as a retired Ca. leo, can both posses and import AP and tracer ammo and it is legal.

[Ron-Solo]

Not sure I'd want to be the test case.

[003]

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s1132/text

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:5:./temp/~c111T3csLc::

Click the link and you can read the entire bill as passed and signed.

The short answer is yes you can. Having said that I frankly don't see why anyone would be interested in either tracer or AP handgun ammunition. Also, please keep in mind restrictive laws are passed because people did things that those in power believed unacceptable. Why push it? Can you imagine the reaction from either of our two Senators if they got a call from some distraught Chief of Police or Mayor, telling about the problems caused by this apparent inadvertent hole in LEOSA.

I also agree with Ron-solo, I certainly would not want to go throught the aggravation to prove it was legal for me to do so.

[mej16489]

I too contacted reps about fixing the magazine issues on the last LEOSA update.

However, CA does have some binding case-law (which I'm forgetting at the moment) which associates magazines as being an integral part of a firearm. So, since the firearm is allowed under LEOSA, it may follow that the magazine are allowed too (for CA - no idea about other states.)

In other words, for CA, importation of HiCap Mags by someone covered under LEOSA might be defensible...

[Ron-Solo]

I just can't picture any LEO giving an out of state LEO grief over a hicap in their carry weapon. The only cases where someone was given grief about hicaps were add on charges involving narco or gangs. It's really not that big of a problem in the big picture of things. The only busts I've heard of besides that involved people crossing the border and buying cases of mags without breaking them down before brining them into CA. Those people were not too smart about it either.

[Che762x39]

I just can't picture any LEO giving an out of state LEO grief over a hicap in their carry weapon. The only cases where someone was given grief about hicaps were add on charges involving narco or gangs.

Roger that.

I apply the K.I.S.S. principle when I was on the job. I stopped an out of state LEO or a retired cop with a hi-cap, well BFD. Now I am retired and I have id'd myself and no one (yet) asked, is that a hi cap magazine?"

[retired]

Hey, I was just wondering if I understood it correctly; I didn't say I was going to rush out and buy the stuff.

And I don't plan on being any test case either. I worked the jails long enough as a deputy and as a sgt. to know I don't want to live there for a period of time. It was bad enough to work there.