LEOSA mag capacity limits in CA?

[chsk9]

Is LEOSA carry in Calif. limited to 10 rounds?
Thanks

[kev20914]

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=805878

This was disused here. I am a Fed LEO and was told by a LGS that they couldn't sell me "hi cap mags" because LEOSA doesn't exclude us from state magazine capacity regulations.

[RickD427]

The link in Post #2 will give you a really good summary of the topic.

Reader's digest version:

1) There is nothing in LEOSA that requires, or permits, a vendor to sell a large-capacity magazine to a person qualified under LEOSA. The sale of a large-capacity magazine is a felony (Refer to PC 32310). Although not specifically made illegal in the code, DOJ also regards the purchase of a large-capacity magazine as being a felony (Refer to PC 31 and here (Question 9) http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs)

2) The law is unsettled as to whether LEOSA allows you to import a large-capacity magazine.

3) There is no law against the possession (and carrying) of large-capacity magazines. However, the law does define them as legal nuisances (Refer to PC 32390). We're debating this one in a current thread.

[hansen]

[ke6guj]

(30)(A)The manufacture of a large-capacity magazine for any federal, state, county, city and county, or city agency that is charged with the enforcement of any law, for use by agency employees in the discharge of their official duties whether on or off duty, and where the use is authorized by the agency and is within the course and scope of their duties.

(B)The manufacture of a large-capacity magazine for use by a sworn peace officer as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2 who is authorized to carry a firearm in the course and scope of his or her duties.

If you have your ID and badge, your good to go "Off duty". Retired L/E with credentials, I have not seen a problem in CA.

30(a) says that the mags can be manufactured FOR the agency to be used by the officers, and that includes federal agencies. But the agency purchases and owns the mags, the LEO themselves is not doing the manufacturing, and that says nothing about selling/purchasing.

30(b) says that officers can manufacture his own mags, but that only applies to CA-defined sworn peace officers, which do not apply to fed LEO's AFAIK.

[chsk9]

I'll downsize to the G26 from the G19 then. Thanks for the input.

[1911su16b870]

IIRC LEOSA covers you for those standard >10 round capacity magazine that you bring into CA for your visit.

[lrdchivalry]

IIRC LEOSA covers you for those standard >10 round capacity magazine that you bring into CA for your visit.

[1911su16b870]

Thanks lrd for the clarification...which looks very good.

That said...this may be another case law type issue, that after much trouble and litigation will get tossed Federally under the spirit of the LEOSAct IMO.

[RickD427]

Gents,

You just hit on the area of law that I discussed as being unsettled in my earlier post.

There is nothing in LEOSA that specifically addresses magazine capacity.

The USDOJ has offered an opinion that LEOSA does not trump state laws addressing magazine capacity. This opinion has been published through a number of sources, including the NRA and FOP.

California case law (People v Hale) holds that a magazine is a component part of a firearm.

LEOSA does specifically provide that it trumps state laws concerning the carrying of firearms. Since California defines the magazine as being part of the firearm, it would follow that LEOSA would cover the magazine as well.

Please note this logic only applies to California since Hale was a state case. Also please note that no court decision, that I'm aware of, has actually so held. In other words, this is a good argument, but the battle hasn't been fought yet.

[lrdchivalry]

Gents,

You just hit on the area of law that I discussed as being unsettled in my earlier post.

There is nothing in LEOSA that specifically addresses magazine capacity.

The USDOJ has offered an opinion that LEOSA does not trump state laws addressing magazine capacity. This opinion has been published through a number of sources, including the NRA and FOP.

California case law (People v Hale) holds that a magazine is a component part of a firearm.

LEOSA does specifically provide that it trumps state laws concerning the carrying of firearms. Since California defines the magazine as being part of the firearm, it would follow that LEOSA would cover the magazine as well.

Please note this logic only applies to California since Hale was a state case. Also please note that no court decision, that I'm aware of, has actually so held. In other words, this is a good argument, but the battle hasn't been fought yet.

If I read the case cited correctly, it just states that the court determined a magazine separated from the firearm itself would still constitute an operable firearm and does not address capacity. The firearm does not cease to operate if a 10 round magazine is inserted into it, therefore, one can still argue that out of state leo's or visiting federal leo's can still be prosecuted for unlawful importation. Remember, the leo is not being denied an integral part of the firearm only the amount that the part can hold.

[RickD427]

If I read the case cited correctly, it just states that the court determined a magazine separated from the firearm itself would still constitute an operable firearm and does not address capacity. The firearm does not cease to operate if a 10 round magazine is inserted into it, therefore, one can still argue that out of state leo's or visiting federal leo's can still be prosecuted for unlawful importation. Remember, the leo is not being denied an integral part of the firearm only the amount that the part can hold.

You're reading the case correctly. I'd differ as to your conclusion. The point is that the magazine is part of the firearm. If you accept that, then it follows that LEOSA covers the magazine because LEOSA covers the firearm. Capacity of the magazine is irrelevant if LEOSA applies.

The weapon will function just fine with a ten round magazine. There no issue there. But it will do a better job of serving its protective function if its loaded to full design capacity.

If the magazine is part of the weapon, the officer cannot be prosecuted for importation because LEOSA would trump the state law provisions prohibiting importation. LEOSA's reference to "firearm" necessarily includes all component parts of the firearm. Under Hale, that includes the magazine.

But also remember, all of the above is only argument. There's no case law to cite yet. It's possible that a court could follow the logic that you've laid out and convict.

[lrdchivalry]

But also remember, all of the above is only argument. There's no case law to cite yet. It's possible that a court could follow the logic that you've laid out and convict.

True, there is no case law to cite, however, better to err on the side of caution since the NRA, the CA AG, BATFE and the FOP seem to lean in the direction of the LEOSA not covering magazines at all.

[RickD427]

True, there is no case law to cite, however, better to err on the side of caution since the NRA, the CA AG, BATFE and the FOP seem to lean in the direction of the LEOSA not covering magazines at all.

On that point I fully agree.

But its also important to note that the NRA and FOP are only reporting the DOJ view. They didn't give it an analysis. I haven't seen anything on the subject from the California AG yet.

[lrdchivalry]

I haven't seen anything on the subject from the California AG yet.

I have and mentioned it in my first post in this thread. This Q&A is years old and I have not seen anything since it came out to contradict what was written. I will post it again.

The Q&A from the CA AG had this listed:
Can active/retired officers carry large capacity magazines in states that restrict large capacity magazines? PC 12020(b) exceptions?

It appears that under California law (12020(a)(2) PC), nobody may import large capacity magazines into California. There does not appear to be an exemption for law enforcement officers from other states. This may all lead somebody to ask whether federal law enforcement officers moving or being relocated into this state are in violation of California law if they bring their large capacity magazines with them, since such officers are in violation of California law and there is no exemption for them.