LEOSA ACT

[smallito12]

They fall under the term "qualified law enforcement officer."

From 18 USC 926B:

(c)As used in this section, the term “qualified law enforcement officer” means an employee of a governmental agency who—

(1)is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and has statutory powers of arrest or apprehension under section 807(b) of title 10, United States Code (article 7(b) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice);

From CA 32000(b)(4) PC:

(4) The sale or purchase of a handgun, if the handgun is sold to, or purchased by, the Department of Justice, a police department, a sheriff's official, a marshal's office, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the Department of the California Highway Patrol, any district attorney's office, any federal law enforcement agency, or the military or naval forces of this state or of the United States for use in the discharge of their official duties.  This section does not prohibit the sale to, or purchase by, sworn members of these agencies of a handgun.

Nailed it! But at the end of the day an FFL doesn't have to make a sale if they don't want to. I feel like the law is cut and dry in favor of, yet others read it the other way. I've been lucky enough to be able to purchase off roster weapons as a military LEO. If you aren't able to at your local store/dealer, I'd say to take your business elsewhere to somewhere that will.

[RickD427]

They fall under the term "qualified law enforcement officer."

From 18 USC 926B:

(c)As used in this section, the term “qualified law enforcement officer” means an employee of a governmental agency who—

(1)is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and has statutory powers of arrest or apprehension under section 807(b) of title 10, United States Code (article 7(b) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice);

From CA 32000(b)(4) PC:

(4) The sale or purchase of a handgun, if the handgun is sold to, or purchased by, the Department of Justice, a police department, a sheriff's official, a marshal's office, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the Department of the California Highway Patrol, any district attorney's office, any federal law enforcement agency, or the military or naval forces of this state or of the United States for use in the discharge of their official duties.  This section does not prohibit the sale to, or purchase by, sworn members of these agencies of a handgun.

You definitely "Nailed" the definition of a "Qualified Law Enforcement Officer" from the LEOSA.

The problem here is that the definition of "Qualified Law Enforcement Officer" is quite irrelevant to the PC 32000(b)(4) that you've also quoted. The term "Qualified Law Enforcement Officer" appears nowhere in that section.

The question, which remains unanswered, is whether "Qualified Law Enforcement Officer" = "Sworn Member." The DOJ seems to believe the answer is "No."

The other question, which also remains unanswered, is the citation of a powers of arrest authority for military LEOs. The LEOSA provides no such powers. Military LEOs are included under LEOSA due to their powers of "apprehension", but to more clearly fall under the common understanding of a "Sworn Officer", as used in the Penal Code, would call for them to possess powers of arrest.

[smallito12]

You definitely "Nailed" the definition of a "Qualified Law Enforcement Officer" from the LEOSA.

The problem here is that the definition of "Qualified Law Enforcement Officer" is quite irrelevant to the PC 32000(b)(4) that you've also quoted. The term "Qualified Law Enforcement Officer" appears nowhere in that section.

The question, which remains unanswered, is whether "Qualified Law Enforcement Officer" = "Sworn Member." The DOJ seems to believe the answer is "No."

The other question, which also remains unanswered, is the citation of a powers of arrest authority for military LEOs. The LEOSA provides no such powers. Military LEOs are included under LEOSA due to their powers of "apprehension", but to more clearly fall under the common understanding of a "Sworn Officer", as used in the Penal Code, would call for them to possess powers of arrest.

I see what you're saying, and again I agree with you that LEOSA does not give one the authority to buy off-roster particularly if you carry under retired LEOSA creds. However, I believe that those carrying under Active LEOSA creds still meet the provisions to purchase off-roster under the "military or naval forces of this state or of the United States" part of the code. What would the point be of adding those personnel into the code if not to allow them to purchase those weapons. CA would have left that out all together if that was the case.

[smallito12]

I hate the idea that California LEO's are "Sworn" in some magical way. Here's their swear in via the California Legislature's website:

“I, ___________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.

“And I do further swear (or affirm) that I do not advocate, nor am I a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that now advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means; that within the five years immediately preceding the taking of this oath (or affirmation) I have not been a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocated the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means except as follows:

_____ (If no affiliations, write in the words “No Exceptions”) _____

and that during such time as I hold the office of _____ (name of office) _____

I will not advocate nor become a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means.”

Sound familiar? EVERY military member quotes that first paragraph(except the CA Constitution) every time they re-enlist. The rest of it is also common sense. Thinking military LEO's aren't "sworn" is ridiculous.

[Stink Finger]

Military police are military police. If they have no arrest powers off of a military base(other than citizens arrest) then they are not considered sworn law enforcement. Pretty cut and dry from the DOJ and attorneys I have talked too. In regards to off roster unless you are a part of NCIS, Army Investigations, and a few others that can arrest a person outside of base you do not qualify according to the state. At the end of the day it’s your license

[smallito12]

I'd have to respectfully disagree. They are not "Peace Officers" but they are "Sworn" LEO's of their respective agencies. Being a Peace Officer is not required under the Code. Here's a link to a great write up on the subject. Again, I agree that it's the FFL's license and they can, and should, only do what they feel comfortable with. That being said, I have bought off-roster multiple times in CA as a military LEO and will continue to support those dealers.

https://crpa.org/news/crpa/sworn-members-or-peace-officers-unsafe-handgun-roster-alert/

[Librarian]

I hate the idea that California LEO's are "Sworn" in some magical way. Here's their swear in via the California Legislature's website:

“I, ___________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.

“And I do further swear (or affirm) that I do not advocate, nor am I a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that now advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means; that within the five years immediately preceding the taking of this oath (or affirmation) I have not been a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocated the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means except as follows:

_____ (If no affiliations, write in the words “No Exceptions”) _____

and that during such time as I hold the office of _____ (name of office) _____

I will not advocate nor become a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means.”

Sound familiar? EVERY military member quotes that first paragraph(except the CA Constitution) every time they re-enlist. The rest of it is also common sense. Thinking military LEO's aren't "sworn" is ridiculous.

Military LEO are generally not 'peace officers' in the sense of CA Penal Code, CHAPTER 4.5. Peace Officers [830 - 832.19] those folks are these guys - "the Department of Justice, a police department, a sheriff’s official, a marshal’s office, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the Department of the California Highway Patrol, any district attorney’s office, " from PC 32000(b)(4)

830.

Any person who comes within the provisions of this chapter and who otherwise meets all standards imposed by law on a peace officer is a peace officer, and notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person other than those designated in this chapter is a peace officer. The restriction of peace officer functions of any public officer or employee shall not affect his or her status for purposes of retirement.

and following.

As with many such situations, one's only relief would come from 'writing one's representatives' to get the law changed.

[smallito12]

Military LEO are generally not 'peace officers' in the sense of CA Penal Code, CHAPTER 4.5. Peace Officers [830 - 832.19] those folks are these guys - "the Department of Justice, a police department, a sheriff’s official, a marshal’s office, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the Department of the California Highway Patrol, any district attorney’s office, " from PC 32000(b)(4)
and following.

As with many such situations, one's only relief would come from 'writing one's representatives' to get the law changed.

The LAW doesn't need to be changed... The LAW is very clear. It's the ridiculous interpretation that's causing issues.

There is absolutely NO requirement to be a "Peace Officer" in PC 32000 (4).... None. That is completely made up by the DOJ and parroted by FFL's in some type of 6 degrees of separation thing. Don't take my word for it, read the statute. For those who are stating that a LEOSA card does not give you the ability to buy off-roster, I think you're missing the point of the card. While the card does serve as a nationwide CCW, it only gives us that power for one reason; That reason is because, by issuing us this card, the FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY that we work for has certified:

(c)As used in this section, the term “qualified law enforcement officer” means an employee of a governmental agency who—

(1)is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and has statutory powers of arrest or apprehension under section 807(b) of title 10, United States Code (article 7(b) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice).

This is the same way any of the other departments listed under PC 32000 (4) verifies their employees. With a departmental ID verifying the holder is a member of that department. My LEOSA card literally states that I am an Active Department of Defense Law Enforcement Officer, so why is that not enough? I know the LEOSA thing confuses everyone, so what if it wasn't a LEOSA card? What if it was just an ID card that says that I am an Active Federal Law Enforcement Officer? Would that be enough? Cause that is LITERALLY what it says. It's just doing two things at the same time. Giving me a nationwide CCW BECAUSE I am a Federal Law Enforcement Officer.

It's one thing when either the letter or the spirit of the law aren't upheld, as sometimes they seem at odds. In this case, neither the letter OR the spirit of the law is being upheld. It's ridiculous. Why would California include Federal LEO's and Military Members in PC 32000 (4) if they had no intention of letting them purchase off-roster weapons? If that was really their desire, the state could have saved themselves some ink and a lot of manhours for the CA DOJ FA's by just omitting them. Simple!