LEOs and high capacity AR magazines

[TripleThreat]

Thank you for that. Currently there are some Cal PD agency's that still say if you carry off-duty under HR218 (832 PC, full Police powers while on duty, Police I.D. caring members etc.) they are in violation of the Duty Manual, therefore, you pretty much don't have a job any longer.

Thanks again,

Vffr1

[CalCop]

So my question is, if someone is a Reserve Officer in California, meets all the requirements and carries on-duty, but their Dept. won't issue Reserves CCW's, are they still cover (allowed to) carry under HR218?

Reserve maritime law enforcement Officer Jose Diaz and implement new policies and procedures for the improper arrest and seizure of Coast Guard Reservereserve maritime law enforcement officer was permitted to carry pursuant to the Federal Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act, which allows police officers to carry firearms off duty.

As California court precedent in People v. Clark, holds that a firearm is not loaded unless the ammunition is in a position from which it can be fired, the District Attorney instead filed against Diaz for unlawful possession of a firearm in a vehicle. That case was subsequently dismissed (because of LEOSA). Calguns' own Jason Davis won that case.

If a reserve officer meets all the criteria of a qualified LEO as defined in USC 926B(c), it doesn't matter what his agency says about whether he can carry off duty. And, a CCW permit is not required for qualled LEOs, only the police ID is required.

[CalCop]

Can [qualified LEOs] carry inside of California or only outside of California?

Does LEOSA Apply in your own state, or only the other 49?

http://www.SheepdogAcademy.com

[CalCop]

Currently there are some Cal PD agency's that still say if you carry off-duty under HR218 (832 PC, full Police powers while on duty, Police I.D. caring members etc.) they are in violation of the Duty Manual, therefore, you pretty much don't have a job any longer.

Post #59 above clearly shows that PDs cannot determine your off-duty conduct. If LEOSA applies to you, the PD policy CANNOT restrict your off-duty carry. In the Davis case listed in post #59, even administrative charges were overturned due to LEOSA. And Diaz is a good example that PDs can be held monetarily liable if they violate LEOSA.

[1911su16b870]

So I looked into the "employee" definintion of 18 USC 926B and find the definition of "special government employee" in 18 USC 202 which states "with or without compensation".

One may speculate that would cover Reserves under 18 USC926B because they are volunteers and usually not paid(without compensation" by their agencies except for special circumstances.

Would you guys agree with that?

[ryang]

So my question is, if someone is a Reserve Officer in California, meets all the requirements and carries on-duty, but their Dept. won't issue Reserves CCW's, are they still cover (allowed to) carry under HR218?

Here's my take on this: LEOSA (don't call it HR218) will protect a CA Reserve from legal prosecution. However if that concealed carry was against department policy then it's a fair bet that person will not be a Reserve for much longer. You are a Reserve at the Chief's pleasure. If it no longer please them then your career is over.

[CalCop]

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/leosiss.pdf

[CalCop]

So I looked into the "employee" definintion of 18 USC 926B and find the definition of "special government employee" in 18 USC 202 which states "with or without compensation".
One may speculate that would cover Reserves under 18 USC926B because they are volunteers and usually not paid(without compensation" by their agencies except for special circumstances.
Would you guys agree with that?

April 14, 2011: Court found that volunteer deputy sheriff meets the requirements for off-duty carry under LEOSA. (N.J. Law Div. 2011). http://www.SheepdogAcademy.com

[CalCop]

Here's my take on this: LEOSA (don't call it HR218) will protect a CA Reserve from legal prosecution. However if that concealed carry was against department policy then it's a fair bet that person will not be a Reserve for much longer. You are a Reserve at the Chief's pleasure. If it no longer please them then your career is over.

Post #59 above clearly shows that PDs cannot determine your off-duty conduct. If LEOSA applies to you, the PD policy CANNOT restrict your off-duty carry. In the Davis case listed in post #59, even administrative charges were overturned due to LEOSA. And Diaz is a good example that PDs can be held monetarily liable if they violate LEOSA.

If the reserve officer is able to prove he was fired because of carry protected by LEOSA, the PD is monetarily liable. Besides, don't tell your PD you are carrying off-duty. They would never know unless you ever needed to use it....then, you'll be happier you had your gun than worrying about being a volunteer officer any more.

[TripleThreat]

Great, great information.

Thanks everyone, especially Calcop!

Vffr1

[Patrick Aherne]

So this makes the retired officer RAW with department letter quandary moot. Further, wouldn't it lead to a challenge to CA state awb laws in the Ninth Circuit because of Silviera v. Lockyer?

[lrdchivalry]

Post #59 above clearly shows that PDs cannot determine your off-duty conduct. If LEOSA applies to you, the PD policy CANNOT restrict your off-duty carry. In the Davis case listed in post #59, even administrative charges were overturned due to LEOSA. And Diaz is a good example that PDs can be held monetarily liable if they violate LEOSA.

If the reserve officer is able to prove he was fired because of carry protected by LEOSA, the PD is monetarily liable. Besides, don't tell your PD you are carrying off-duty. They would never know unless you ever needed to use it....then, you'll be happier you had your gun than worrying about being a volunteer officer any more.

Agreed! An agency may tell an officer they cannot carry an issued weapon, however, if the officer mets the definition of qualified leo, they cannot tell the officer he cannot carry a personally owned firearm.

IMO I don't think it would be hard to prove the officer was fired for carrying undee HR218 and as you stated, the agency will be paying some money.

[ryang]

Post #59 above clearly shows that PDs cannot determine your off-duty conduct. If LEOSA applies to you, the PD policy CANNOT restrict your off-duty carry. In the Davis case listed in post #59, even administrative charges were overturned due to LEOSA.

I believe the Davis case shows LEOs can not be legally prosecuted for carrying against department policy.

If the reserve officer is able to prove he was fired because of carry protected by LEOSA, the PD is monetarily liable.

Monetarily liable for what damages? The majority of Reserves are non-paid volunteers. Does anyone have knowledge of a Reserve who was terminated and successfully sued the department over it?

Besides, don't tell your PD you are carrying off-duty. They would never know unless you ever needed to use it....then, you'll be happier you had your gun than worrying about being a volunteer officer any more.

I didn't say the Reserve would notify their department. I see it like a one time "get out of jail free" card. Use it once but don't expect to stay a Reserve afterwards.

[RickD427]

Post #59 above clearly shows that PDs cannot determine your off-duty conduct. If LEOSA applies to you, the PD policy CANNOT restrict your off-duty carry. In the Davis case listed in post #59, even administrative charges were overturned due to LEOSA. And Diaz is a good example that PDs can be held monetarily liable if they violate LEOSA.

If the reserve officer is able to prove he was fired because of carry protected by LEOSA, the PD is monetarily liable. Besides, don't tell your PD you are carrying off-duty. They would never know unless you ever needed to use it....then, you'll be happier you had your gun than worrying about being a volunteer officer any more.

CalCop,

Can you provide a better reference (Volume, Reporter, and Page format) to the Davis case? I cannot locate it as a published case. I'm questioning the assertion that agencies cannot discipline their employees for violating agency policy, even if the conduct is non-criminal under LEOSA.

I believe that you are correct in that there is no criminal liability to an officer who carries in violation of policy. LEOSA clearly trumps agency policy and state law (with specified exceptions) when it comes to criminal liability. I have a hard time believing that it would prevent an agency from administratively sanctioning an employee for policy violations.

[CalCop]

Can you provide a better reference (Volume, Reporter, and Page format) to the Davis case?

Davis v. Dept of Justice, 2007 Merit System Protection Board Lexis 5609. It was an administrative case where the Federal Bureau of Prisons filed disciplinary charges against a corrections officer (Davis) for off-duty carry against BOP policy. An administrative law judge dismissed the disciplinary charges when Davis appealed it. So, will the agency try to discipline you? Perhaps, but if you appeal to the personnel board, the judge will side in your favor. If not, take it to court and win some money for the agency's violation of LEOSA.

I'm questioning the assertion that agencies cannot discipline their employees for violating agency policy, even if the conduct is non-criminal under LEOSA. I believe that you are correct in that there is no criminal liability to an officer who carries in violation of policy. LEOSA clearly trumps agency policy and state law (with specified exceptions) when it comes to criminal liability. I have a hard time believing that it would prevent an agency from administratively sanctioning an employee for policy violations.

If the following doesn't convince you, I don't know what to say...it's plenty good enough for me...
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/leosiss.pdf

If you go to http://www.SheepdogAcademy.com you can order for $10.00 the materials they pass out to their seminar participants. Best ten bucks I've spent in a LONG time. It lists 36 LEOSA cases that went to court, and their outcomes. 95% favored the officer.