I post a valid question and several people jump my butt and some even accuse me of impersonating a cop. Then, when I provide support for my concern, the uninformed are suddenly silent. If a lawyer would chime in, that would be great.
Unconfigured Ad Widget
Collapse
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gun Free School Zone
Collapse
X
-
"Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen."
-- Sir Robert Peel -
Originally posted by Heikothe "by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity" may be liberally interpreted to include off duty since it does not state it in terms of "in the performance of his or her duty" or "while on official business".OK, I'll bite, what is shaky about "in his or her official capacity"Originally posted by CalCopSecond is too shaky.
When you are a sworn officer, you are allowed to carry an off-duty weapon without a CCW, because you are still in your official capacity...as a sworn officer. Where is the shaky part?
You mentioned that your Sgt believes this and I notice that you live in the Sacto area...can you mention which department this might be?
We don't want to repeat the lrdchivalry fiascoLast edited by 9mmepiphany; 03-29-2012, 10:33 PM....because the journey is the worthier part...The Shepherd's TaleComment
-
I get the argument, but I think it's a stretch. And it does not appear the intent of the legislators was for it to mean anything other than on-duty. The wording of the exemption is:
"by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity."
I think the "acting" part makes the official capacity more explicit.
Further, we only have LE powers in CA, therefore our official capacity stays in CA.
Since CA PC 626.9(l) exempts us while in CA from the CA GFSZ, I think we are also exempt from the federal GFSZ while in CA due to 18 USC 922(q)(4):
"Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as preempting or preventing a State or local government from enacting a statute establishing gun free school zones as provided in this subsection."
I am comfortable that CA's GFSZ law explicitly exempts us well enough that this federal section also exempts us form the federal GFSZ while in CA. The problem is, our official capacity ends when we leave the state, and so does our exemption from the GFSZ.
Both LEAA and FOP are working with legislators at this time to get LEOSA to explicitly exempt us from GFSZ nationwide. The fact that they are doing this makes it seem clear to me that there is at least doubt until the language is added.
Not here in the public forum. PM me.You mentioned that your Sgt believes this and I notice that you live in the Sacto area...can you mention which department this might be?Last edited by CalCop; 03-29-2012, 11:21 PM."Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen."
-- Sir Robert PeelComment
Calguns.net Statistics
Collapse
Topics: 1,869,008
Posts: 25,178,307
Members: 357,644
Active Members: 5,359
Welcome to our newest member, Ty160805.
What's Going On
Collapse
There are currently 14634 users online. 78 members and 14556 guests.
Most users ever online was 239,041 at 10:39 PM on 02-14-2026.

Comment