Fish and Game Code 2006

[retired]

With all of the trash talk in this thread, there is no need for it to continue.

For those who may have any additional info concerning LEOSA or any court decision, feel free to pm the OP.

For those of you who are non leo, please read the rules located in the sticky near the top of this specialty forum. Thank you.

[TrailerparkTrash]

That being said I have notice an increase in contacting off duty Leo's that think the Fish and Game Code does not apply to them IE illegal methods of take, over limits of fish, spotlighting and trespassing and then want professional courtesy.

That being said, I met a Cali game warden on two seperate occassions (same warden) that thought he was above the vehicle code, while off duty. He thought the vehicle code didn't apply to his illegal (25+ over the posted limit) speeding and blowing through red lights. Guess what??? HE wanted a professional courtesy too!

How many hours ago was it that you were speeding down the road in your POV??? Just curious.

I"m not condoning ANY person from driving down the road with a loaded rifle and "not" (((wink wink))) hunting. That's wrong, agreed. But since you brought up the professional courtesty thing, I thought I'd point out that wardens are no different than anybody else when it comes to "wishing" for a courtessy "moment." Wardens always seem to point that fact out that "cops are not above the F&G code." I totally agree, but don't be a hypocrite then with the other laws (VC, PC, etc...), while STRICTLY (letter of the law) enforcing F&G laws.

Theres probably been more "spirit of the law" enforcement with vehicle code and other LEO's, than there has been with wardens and the F&G code. I'm basing this observation on a close friend of mine that is a Warden himself. I'm constantly giving him $h!t (in a joking manner of course) about his unwaivering "letter of the law" enforcement style with all of his contacts (i.e. both sworn and non-sworn).

[Rider1k]

This is interesting

[Tripper]

Bah, I'm pretty sure there is a relatively recent case from a circuit court (4th?) where the judge dismissed a case against a LEO with a Rifle on LEOSA grounds, but I can't find it either...

LEOSA is about "firearms" not "handguns"

LEOSA is about safety

[Ron-Solo]

Bolton, Still waiting on your qualifications........

[jj805]

Bolton:


LEOSA exempts rifles as well as pistols.....


Thanks for YOUR opinion.....

But dose LEOSA exempt you from F&G laws while hunting? I think that is what Bolton is saying. I think you missed the the "while traveling and engaged in hunting" part of his Quote. The part Bolton forgot to mention was, "while off duty".

(a) It is unlawful to possess a loaded rifle or shotgun in
any vehicle or conveyance or its attachments which is standing on or
along or is being driven on or along any public highway or other way
open to the public.
(b) A rifle or shotgun shall be deemed to be loaded for the
purposes of this section when there is an unexpended cartridge or
shell in the firing chamber but not when the only cartridges or
shells are in the magazine.
(c) The provisions of this section shall not apply to peace
officers or members of the Armed Forces of this state or the United
States, while on duty or going to or returning from duty.

http://law.onecle.com/california/fish/2006.html

From the summery below, It appears that LEOSA dose exempt LEO from CA F&G code 2006.

9. Does this Act broaden the ability to carry on a plane?
No. The LEOSA exempts active/retired law enforcement officers from state and
local carrying laws. It does not exempt them from federal laws, which regulate
firearms on aircraft and federal property.

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

[hitman13]

Ron-solo.
Having a loaded concealed pistol would not of been a problem. Loaded hunting rifle while traveling and engaged in hunting is the problem.

Thanks for your opinion.

Bolton:


LEOSA exempts rifles as well as pistols.....


Thanks for YOUR opinion.....

[jbolton]

Ron-solo.
Having a loaded concealed pistol would not of been a problem unless it was archery season only. Loaded hunting rifle while traveling and engaged in hunting is the problem.

Thanks for your opinion.

[Ron-Solo]

Bottom line is this.

F&G code states when engaged in hunting and traveling in a vehicle your hunting firearm shall not be loaded. Loaded mag is legal. Bullet in a firing position is not legal. The fact that the op states an I quote "even after I badged him" is just arrogant. You broke the law and deserve the ticket that you received.

It's the same as if you were bow hunting during bow season only, and had a concealed pistol. You would be breaking the law, and would deserve the ticket that you would get. Being a leo has nothing to do with it.

For the purposes of this discussion, it might have everything to do with it per the Federal Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act (LEOSA)

Jbolton, are you LE? Do you know what the LEOSA is? It is federal law that overrides state law for qualified LEO and Retired LEO, which is why it is appropriate to identify yourself as a LEO.

You are posting in the LAW ENFORCEMENT forum. Please take a moment to review the rules of this forum. It is for LEOs to discuss things amongst themselves, and for non-LEOs to ask questions, in a civil manner.

In my opinion, you are not following the spirit of this forum.

Ron

[kermit315]

jdawg, I think your case is going to hinge on the exact specifics of where you were located:

Lifted from wikipedia:


In CA there are no state laws which permit private property owners from prohibiting that I'm aware of...

If you were on state/local owned property - LEOSA might not be in effect...

Then again - LEOSA specifically states that it only doesn't supersede state laws with regard to possession on state/local property

LEOSA specifically calls out concealed weapons as well, and hunting rifles are very rarely concealed. California definitions of what is a concealed weapon might come into play as well.

Tagged to watch.

[mej16489]

jdawg, I think your case is going to hinge on the exact specifics of where you were located:

Lifted from wikipedia:

Although the general effect of LEOSA is to override state and local law, this is subject to limitations. LEOSA does not override:

state laws permitting private property owners from limiting or prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons on their property (such as public bars, private clubs, and places such as amusement parks)

state laws prohibiting carrying concealed weapons on state or local government property (such as courthouses, schools or parks)

In CA there are no state laws which permit private property owners from prohibiting that I'm aware of...

If you were on state/local owned property - LEOSA might not be in effect...

Then again - LEOSA specifically states that it only doesn't supersede state laws with regard to possession on state/local property

[mej16489]

It's the same as if you were bow hunting during bow season only, and had a concealed pistol. You would be breaking the law, and would deserve the ticket that you would get. Being a leo has nothing to do with it.

For the purposes of this discussion, it might have everything to do with it per the Federal Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act (LEOSA)

[jbolton]

Bottom line is this.

F&G code states when engaged in hunting and traveling in a vehicle your hunting firearm shall not be loaded. Loaded mag is legal. Bullet in a firing position is not legal. The fact that the op states an I quote "even after I badged him" is just arrogant. You broke the law and deserve the ticket that you received.

It's the same as if you were bow hunting during bow season only, and had a concealed pistol. You would be breaking the law, and would deserve the ticket that you would get. Being a leo has nothing to do with it.

[IrishJoe3]

I feel that I either missed something or you mistakenly think that the average gun owner is a tactifool mall ninja. If that's your view, I'm sorry. If you are comparing tactifool idiots to the average LEO, I'd agree with you but, remember that there are more than a few tacticool, mall ninja, LEOs and that the majority of gun owners are more apt to use paper plates when eating moles than spend the money on special Molle plates.

I LOLed, you’re right.
See, that’s what I get when I fire from the hip like that. ;-) No, I simply was poking fun at a few folks here that love to scoff at how untrained LEOs are compared to them, as they strut around in every tactical accessory known to man. I find it amusing.
There are plenty of non LEOs that are excellent, amazingly proficient. And Plenty of LEOs who are….not. But I gotta say from my life experience the majority of the “WTF are you thinking” moments involving firearms have mostly been non LEO. If that even means anything.

[nothing4u]

I love how you are ignorant that he isn't arguing he is above the law...he's arguing that he is following overriding federal law per LEOSA.

That's fine and dandy but there's this thing called state rights. This case is actually a 10th Amendment issue.