AB 2165 / PC 32000.(b)(6) ???

[Elite Armory]

So does anyone know much about this? I'm hearing all kinds of things and we called the DOJ which would not answer any specific questions and just referred us to PC 3200 Sub B Paragraph 6 which didn't answer anything for us.

Could someone please explain this in plain English? Can LEO still ppt off roster firearms to non LEO? Are peace officers such as correctional officers also able to continue to ppt off roster firearms to non peace officers?

[DrJeds44]

Yes they can still PPT stuff

The newly classified agents allowed to now buy off roster guns can not PPT their owned off roster guns.

[Librarian]

Yes they can still PPT stuff

The newly classified agents allowed to now buy off roster guns can not PPT their owned off roster guns.

... IF they got those off-Roster guns, in 2017 or later, by being exempt due to their employment.

OTOH, they may still PPT off-Roster guns they got by earlier PPT or by intrafamilial transfer or inheritance.

[DrJeds44]

... IF they got those off-Roster guns, in 2017 or later, by being exempt due to their employment.

OTOH, they may still PPT off-Roster guns they got by earlier PPT or by intrafamilial transfer or inheritance.

Yep.

[Elite Armory]

Thanks for the clarification.

What specifically are the new qualified agents?

[Patfishandshoot]

Thanks for the clarification.

What specifically are the new qualified agents?

Here are the 'new' ones:

(A) The Department of Parks and Recreation.

(B) The Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control.

(C) The Division of Investigation of the Department of Consumer Affairs.

(D) The Department of Motor Vehicles.

(E) The Fraud Division of the Department of Insurance.

(F) The State Department of State Hospitals.

(G) The Department of Fish and Wildlife.

(H) The State Department of Developmental Services.

(I) The Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.

(J) A county probation department.

(K) The Los Angeles World Airports, as defined in Section 830.15.

(L) A K–12 public school district for use by a school police officer, as described in Section 830.32.

(M) A municipal water district for use by a park ranger, as described in Section 830.34.

(N) A county for use by a welfare fraud investigator or inspector, as described in Section 830.35.

(O) A county for use by the coroner or the deputy coroner, as described in Section 830.35.

(P) The Supreme Court and the courts of appeal for use by marshals of the Supreme Court and bailiffs of the courts of appeal, and coordinators of security for the judicial branch, as described in Section 830.36.

(Q) A fire department or fire protection agency of a county, city, city and county, district, or the state for use by either of the following:

(i) A member of an arson-investigating unit, regularly paid and employed in that capacity pursuant to Section 830.37.

(ii) A member other than a member of an arson-investigating unit, regularly paid and employed in that capacity pursuant to Section 830.37.

(R) The University of California Police Department, or the California State University Police Departments, as described in Section 830.2.

(S) A California Community College police department, as described in Section 830.32.



For LCM's here is the penal code (32405) applicable to the sale of such magazines to LEO's (pretty much covers all gun toting local/state/fed LEO regardless of agency name):

Penal Code Section 32405.
Section 32310 does not apply to the sale to, lending to, transfer to, purchase by, receipt of, possession of, or importation into this state of, a large-capacity magazine by a sworn peace officer, as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2, or sworn federal law enforcement officer, who is authorized to carry a firearm in the course and scope of that officer’s duties.


^

[ugimports]

For this post 2017 PPT thing.. are we (FFLs) supposed to know this or will DOJ kick it back if one of these LEOs tries to PPT an off roster they recently received and didn't like? I just had an LEO (not in the above category) that purchased a Glock 43 that he didn't like as his carry piece (preferred his Ruger LC9s) and sold it off (in this case to his lucky brother). If he was in one of these new categories, how am I supposed know that? Especially, if they as the seller, don't have any reason to present me their exempt credentials in a sale scenario?

[SkyHawk]

For this post 2017 PPT thing.. are we (FFLs) supposed to know this or will DOJ kick it back if one of these LEOs tries to PPT an off roster they recently received and didn't like? I just had an LEO (not in the above category) that purchased a Glock 43 that he didn't like as his carry piece (preferred his Ruger LC9s) and sold it off (in this case to his lucky brother). If he was in one of these new categories, how am I supposed know that? Especially, if they as the seller, don't have any reason to present me their exempt credentials in a sale scenario?

I doubt DOJ will cross check. Who is liable/penalized when this law is broken - is it the FFL or the seller?

If the FFL has any exposure, then I guess you have to start asking every single person who PPT sells:

1) are you Leo
(If yes)
2) are you one of the newly exempt Leos
(If yes)
3) did you acquire this gun using the exemption

Or you could just ask it as one long question. And you probably should collect affidavits of answers to those questions from every seller.

If the FFL has no exposure, then I wouldn't bother asking anything. After all, you dont ask sellers if the guns are stolen. It's on them.

I can't believe the DOJ has no guidance, but it is typical for them. They want everyone pro-gun to stumble into a crime.

[ugimports]

I doubt DOJ will cross check. Who is liable/penalized when this law is broken - is it the FFL or the seller?

If the FFL has any exposure, then I guess you have to start asking every single person who PPT sells:

1) are you Leo
(If yes)
2) are you one of the newly exempt Leos
(If yes)
3) did you acquire this gun using the exemption

Or you could just ask it as one long question. And you probably should collect affidavits of answers to those questions from every seller.

If the FFL has no exposure, then I wouldn't bother asking anything. After all, you dont ask sellers if the guns are stolen. It's on them.

I can't believe the DOJ has no guidance, but it is typical for them. They want everyone pro-gun to stumble into a crime.

The reason I have a little bit of worry is because I think Botach Tactical in Southern California got nailed when a person misrepresented her ID as an LEO and the gun was eventually used in a crime. The store was held liable for not knowing (or should have known) that the credentials were fake. There's some precedent.

Old reference: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...928-story.html

I don't recall what the results of that were.

[Librarian]

I doubt DOJ will cross check. Who is liable/penalized when this law is broken - is it the FFL or the seller?
.

Looks like the FFL -

a person licensed pursuant to Sections 26700 to 26915, inclusive, shall not process the sale or transfer of an unsafe handgun

and it appears doing that would be a violation of 32000(a)

32000.

(a) A person in this state who manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state for sale, keeps for sale, offers or exposes for sale, gives, or lends an unsafe handgun shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year.
...

In theory, DOJ could reject the PPT by matching the serial number of the gun with the existence of a LEO exception (after 2016, transferee is in the new class) on the earlier transfer and seeing if there is a LEO exception on the current transfer; no LEO exemption on this one, no transfer.

[mej16489]

In theory, DOJ could reject the PPT by matching the serial number of the gun with the existence of a LEO exception (after 2016, transferee is in the new class) on the earlier transfer and seeing if there is a LEO exception on the current transfer; no LEO exemption on this one, no transfer.

Does the DROS software have two different 'exception codes' for LEOs? If it doesn't, there isn't any way for the DoJ to know without additional information.

[OniKoroshi]

Wait... so I can get a job at DMV and buy off roster handguns? Slap me silly and call me Hillary!!!

[michaelinfv]

I'm sure you all realize this but the DMV investigations unit has at least one 832 PC uninformed "investigator" (PEACE OFFICER) the Fire Dept.has arson inv. Officers. (PEACE OFFICER) etc even the post office has Ferdral Peace Officers and the Military has uniformed an UC Fed. Cops.

So I think someone is not seeing the broader picure...Could be me but I don't know what all the whoopla is about. I retired as an Los Angeles cop in 2014 and that does put me further out of the loop.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[code_blue]

PC32000 has absolutely nothing to do with peace officer status or even law enforcement status (in a traditional sense) for that matter. The only requirement is for individuals to be "sworn" members of the listed agencies i.e. custodial deputies, correctional officers, and security officers with limited peace officer powers from an SO may purchase under the original exemption while full POST, full powered peace officers from other organizations are under the new, "lesser" class.

This statute has everything to do with control and nothing to do with logic.

[autopro]

The reason I have a little bit of worry is because I think Botach Tactical in Southern California got nailed when a person misrepresented her ID as an LEO and the gun was eventually used in a crime. The store was held liable for not knowing (or should have known) that the credentials were fake. There's some precedent.

Old reference: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...928-story.html

I don't recall what the results of that were.

Amelia Suarez the security guard plead no contest and was sentenced to 36 months probation, 300 hours of community service and to take a firearm safety class. Botach was convicted after a trial but I don't know what the sentence was.

She was a civilian employee of the Sheriffs Dept. and I do not believe was allowed to carry even on the job.