LEO Carry Calif.


PDA






shepherds56
June 19, 2007, 08:33 PM
Traveling to Calif....San Diego Area then to San Francisco with the family. Currently a Deputy Sheriff from another state. Will there be a problem with loaded hadgun in car etc?

If you enjoyed reading about "LEO Carry Calif." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
jselvy
June 19, 2007, 08:41 PM
I hope so.
There is absolutely No reason for an out of jurisdiction LEO to be treated any different than an other citizen.

Jefferson

ziadel
June 19, 2007, 08:49 PM
Amen to that.

Nikdfish
June 19, 2007, 09:00 PM
If you are a "qualified law enforcement officer" under Title 18 USC § 926 (aka. HR 218/LEOSA 2004) you should be fine ... it preempts state & local concealed carry constraints for handguns (except for posted no firearms areas & posted govt. property). Not sure about any magazine capacity issues. Just carry your ID.

Nick

jselvy
June 19, 2007, 09:04 PM
And the above is symptomatic of what is wrong with this country.

Jefferson

glockman19
June 19, 2007, 09:04 PM
If you are a "qualified law enforcement officer" under Title 18 USC § 926 (aka. HR 218/LEOSA 2004) you should be fine
+1

jaholder1971
June 19, 2007, 10:51 PM
Respectfully, this isn't the forum to ask IMHO. This is a question for your supervisors as you're carrying under your department's authority.

jcoiii
June 19, 2007, 10:54 PM
Call the city pd or county SO where you're going. You should be fine. I print off the US code and have it with me when I travel just in case though. And carry dept issued ID (and I carry my badge as well for ease of identification if I'm just seen out in public, as opposed to stopped in a car or something)

isp2605
June 19, 2007, 11:00 PM
If you fit the criteria outlined in LEOSA ( http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ277.108 ) then you are OK to carry anywhere in the US or its territories.

Aguila Blanca
June 19, 2007, 11:03 PM
Respectfully, this isn't the forum to ask IMHO. This is a question for your supervisors as you're carrying under your department's authority.
Why is it a question for his supervisors? Does the Federal law require that a supervisor specifically authorize a sworn LEO to carry when on vacation? I thought it automatically applied to all LEOs who are authorized to carry in the line of duty (and to retirees meeting certain requirements, but that's not pertinent to this question).

Quiet
June 20, 2007, 01:36 AM
Contact CA DOJ BOF for the information you seek.
(916) 263-4887

Apparently, CA DOJ is still trying to figure out how to implement the Law Enforcement Officers' Safety Act of 2004.


Don't bring any hi-cap magazines. CA law does not exempt LEO in bringing hi-cap magazines into the state for any reason.

Roccobro
June 20, 2007, 02:12 AM
Don't bring any hi-cap magazines. CA law does not exempt LEO in bringing hi-cap magazines into the state for any reason.

If they are issue or Dept. authorized mags there is no problem. If you are currently employed, then all you need is a department issue ID. If retired or reserve also bring your latest qualification card.

If you'd like a tour of the downtown San Diego or San Bernardino central jails give me a PM.

Justin

Reyn
June 20, 2007, 02:34 AM
I hope so.
There is absolutely No reason for an out of jurisdiction LEO to be treated any different than an other citizen.

And the above is symptomatic of what is wrong with this country

There are plenty of other cop bashing threads in this forum regarding this "Us vs Them mentality" Why make a post here that has nothing to do with the OP's original quest? No other reason than your are trying to provoke.

Rumpled
June 20, 2007, 04:44 AM
Yes, there will be a problem.

A couple of simple points of CA law.
CA recognizes NO other CCW.
You do not have a CA CCW. (Issued by local jurisdictions)
CA has not figured out how to implement HR 218

I take this to mean you will not be allowed to carry, though you might get away with it; and you might be able to talk your way out of a felony.

Check with CA DOJ BOF for more incorrect clarification.
Here's a link
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/leosa.php

CA DOJ seems to washing their hands (they do a lot of that)

209
June 20, 2007, 06:42 AM
Well, here's the thing about the LEOSA. Each state has a certain amount of latitude in implementing it. As an example, we still don't know for sure how NJ is interpreting their no HP ammo for anyone but on-duty officers.

Although, not an expert on what CA is doing, I was out there in Oct of 2006, and didn't have a problem. All of the LEOs I met seemed to understand the law, even if the California Department of Justice can’t quite make up their mind what they’re doing.

It could be an issue if you actually shoot anybody. :eek:

gunsmith
June 20, 2007, 06:44 AM
at the cable car ticket booth, lots of out of state cops to talk too.
They always packed, it was obvious to me and any cop.
you will not have any problem whatsoever.
Even before the bill had passed other cops wouldn't have said zip.

just to be on the safe side, your a sworn officer, right? not one of those reserve ones?

we still don't know for sure how NJ is interpreting their no HP ammo for anyone but on-duty officers
My brother in a NY LEO, his agency has told him no HP in NJ.

It could be an issue if you actually shoot anybody
if it is a good shoot then he would be fine, CA law is funny that way, I think it is called an affirmative defense (IANAL though) even us civvies are supposed to be ok, there was a test case oooooh maybe ten years ago??
A guy wrote down the license plates of some taggers and shot them when they attacked him.
he had no ccw but they kicked him loose anyway

Autolycus
June 20, 2007, 07:23 AM
I dont think of it as cop bashing when he is just stating the law and saying that the law is messed up. (This is in regards to his second comment about what is wrong with the country!) I mean we bash new laws all the time on this forum and that is ok, now we bash another law and suddenly we are cop haters? Come on now, which is it? Either you support gun control or you dont? I think Jefferson is just stating that he does not like the idea of anyone being prohibited from carrying a gun and that we should go to Vermont style carry.

jselvy
June 20, 2007, 08:11 AM
Precisely Tecumseh,
The "US vs. Them" attitude is an accurate reflection of the "some more equal than others" facts of US Law. The fact the the OP is even a question when ANY other citizen knows that CA would ea him alive while carrying is indicative that the Law Enforcement Community see themselves as being above the ordinary citizen. LEO's, when not on duty and especially when out of jurisdiction, are no different than any other citizen and should be treated as such.

Jefferson

isp2605
June 20, 2007, 08:13 AM
Yes, there will be a problem.

A couple of simple points of CA law.
CA recognizes NO other CCW.
You do not have a CA CCW. (Issued by local jurisdictions)
CA has not figured out how to implement HR 218

I take this to mean you will not be allowed to carry, though you might get away with it; and you might be able to talk your way out of a felony.

That is not correct info.
If you read LEOSA you'll find that it exempts LEOs and qualified retirees from state laws. LEOSA is very specific in that regard. It goes so far as to list only the places and circumstances that a state can place restrictions. That's the point of LEOSA.
Doesn't matter if CA doesn't recognize other CCW as LEOSA is not CCW. With LEOSA a LEO or qualified retiree does not need a CCW. LEOSA exempts LEOs from the need for a CCW.
Doesn't matter if CA hasn't figured a way to implement it. The only things a state has to figure is how to qualify their retirees and that's only if the retiree's agency isn't qualifying them. For active LEOs all he needs is his photo ID card. For out of state retirees who have qualified as required then CA doesn't need to do anything.
LEOSA isn't really that difficult of a bill to understand. I posted a link to it earlier. I have no idea why guys try to make it so difficult. It's really not.
BTW, I dealt with implementing it in IL. Because of my position at the time I was somewhat involved in IL's program so I dealt with a lot of the behind the scenes things and am very familiar with what is required. Here's IL's program for retirees which was copied by several other states. www.rpocc.com

isp2605
June 20, 2007, 08:13 AM
(double tap)

isp2605
June 20, 2007, 08:21 AM
The "US vs. Them" attitude
The OP had a question about what he needed. This wasn't a thread about the merits of the law but what he, as a LEO, need to carry when he traveled out of state.
Who brought the "us v them" into the discussion? Read the threads again and you'll see it wasn't a LEO. It's the non-LEOs who hijacked the thread and brought the "us v them" into the thread. So who really has an issue with the "us v them"? Why hijack a thread where a guy has a serious question and needs info?

Autolycus
June 20, 2007, 08:32 AM
So a better answer would have been: unfortunatley for the Bill of Rights and the ideas and ideals of the Fouding Fathers LEOs are accorded more rights under Federal law then the lowly serfs errr... non LEOs. One of these rights is the right to keep and bear arms in any state in the country?;)

CountGlockula
June 20, 2007, 11:25 AM
You should be good to go. You're an LEO/Peace Officer.

GRIZ22
June 20, 2007, 02:16 PM
A couple of simple points of CA law.
CA recognizes NO other CCW.
You do not have a CA CCW. (Issued by local jurisdictions)
CA has not figured out how to implement HR 218


The LEOSA is a federal law so CA law has no impact on it other than any reference to state law made in the LEOSA.

Because CA hasn't figured out how to implement it in nearly 3 years has no bearing on the federal law.

JCF
June 20, 2007, 02:25 PM
I mean we bash new laws all the time on this forum and that is ok, now we bash another law and suddenly we are cop haters? Come on now, which is it? Either you support gun control or you dont?

...the Law Enforcement Community see themselves as being above the ordinary citizen.

The problem is with the declination of due rights to those who are legitimately owed them. The problem is not solved by expending energy harping on whether or not it is "fair" that some individuals' rights are recognized and some are not. No, it is not "fair". Nothing about the restriction of the RKBA is fair or equitable. The idea however is to mitigate the loss and slowly overcome... NOT to advocate universal and "fair" oppression.

Now, having said that... I'm with Reyn and isp2605: the OP, a LEO, had a legitimate question requiring an answer. If you want to take issue with LEOSA, LEOs, etc., why not start another thread?

And +1 GRIZ22

Autolycus
June 20, 2007, 02:32 PM
Because every thread about LEOSA and the unequal treatment of non-LEOs and LEOs gets shut down.

Mumwaldee
June 20, 2007, 03:12 PM
Traveling to Calif....San Diego Area then to San Francisco with the family. Currently a Deputy Sheriff from another state. Will there be a problem with loaded hadgun in car etc?

Welcome to crazyworld. The answer to your question is a definite maybe. If you can afford to chance it then carry. If you can't deal with a possible hassle then don't.

And call the departments and the legislators and let them know you are finding it hard to spend your tourist dollars in their commune.

shepherds56
June 20, 2007, 05:23 PM
Sorry for the turmoil I've caused, I do know that in my 20 years of LE I am at the range qualifying a minimum of 5 times a year. I also know what it takes for a CCW, ( I do have one also) I'm not trying to cause problems, hate and discontent amongst the members, just a simple answer. Sorry for the confusion.

Autolycus
June 20, 2007, 09:32 PM
No need to apologize shepherds56. Were just bitter about an unconstitutional law that allows LEOs carry guns with them in states where other citizens are not allowed to. It goes against the ideas and ideals of the Founding Fathers as well as it helps foster the elitist attitude many LEOs seem to have. Were just concerned because as Americans and members of the unorganized militia it is our job to keep a weary eye on the government in case they become tyrannical. I dont think anyone meant anything personal to you.

Welcome to TheHighroad.org

JCF
June 20, 2007, 10:26 PM
Fine introduction for a new member.

209
June 21, 2007, 12:11 AM
Gunsmith wrote:

we still don't know for sure how NJ is interpreting their no HP ammo for anyone but on-duty officers.

My brother in a NY LEO, his agency has told him no HP in NJ.


Yeah, that’s one of the things that the law didn’t clarify. For example, my department’s policy clearly states we carry specific ammunition. Now, NJ has banned the use of HP ammo which is the very ammo we must carry to be IAW our policy. So, in essence, if we carry in NJ with different ammo, we’re in violation of policy which is an alluded-to part of the act.

I’ll grant you that it’s not a major issue, but after seeking clarification from the NJ AG, it appears that they aren’t too happy about the law. It appears it has boiled down to how each prosecutor in each of the various counties will interpret the law- not much consensus. Still, it’s not a major problem for me since I avoid NJ as much as possible. :)

Gunsmith wrote:

It could be an issue if you actually shoot anybody

if it is a good shoot then he would be fine, CA law is funny that way, I think it is called an affirmative defense (IANAL though) even us civvies are supposed to be ok, there was a test case oooooh maybe ten years ago??
A guy wrote down the license plates of some taggers and shot them when they attacked him.
he had no ccw but they kicked him loose anyway.


IMO, I believe CA will do pretty much as NJ is doing. Get involved in a shoot, they’re probably buy off on the carry of the gun, but they’ll try to enforce some element of a state law, i.e. high cap mag in the case of CA, to render some charge against the involved officer. I think it's going to depend on how gun-friendly the prosecutor in the involved area is.

It’s going to take a few test cases to see how the law will work out. :uhoh:

I, for one, don’t particularly want to be one of the test cases. :D

But, the law did result in a LOT of legal manuvering by a LOT of people. After that law was passed, we had more classes concerning it and more legal opinions being rendered than I've ever seen concerning any one law. It seems as though the smoke has not cleared and many of the questions have gone unanswered. I assume the frustration caused people to just throw their hands up and they're are waiting for that aforementioned test case to see how it will actually work.

jaholder1971
June 21, 2007, 01:01 AM
Quote:
Respectfully, this isn't the forum to ask IMHO. This is a question for your supervisors as you're carrying under your department's authority.
>Why is it a question for his supervisors? Does the Federal law require that a >supervisor specifically authorize a sworn LEO to carry when on vacation? I >thought it automatically applied to all LEOs who are authorized to carry in >the line of duty (and to retirees meeting certain requirements, but that's not >pertinent to this question).

1. Because he's still subject to the policies of his employer if he's carrying.

2. His supervisors -probably - have a better idea what the law allows than a bunch of us anonymous guardhouse lawyers and shadetree internet experts.

nemoaz
June 21, 2007, 01:34 AM
1. Because he's still subject to the policies of his employer if he's carrying.

2. His supervisors -probably - have a better idea what the law allows than a bunch of us anonymous guardhouse lawyers and shadetree internet experts.

His supervisor's opinion and his employer's policies CANNOT change federal law. Any policy to the contrary is null and void.

NOTWITHSTANDING any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm"

NOTWITHSTANDING means his supervisor's opinion or his agency policy is worthless. Nothing in the law allows employer's policy to supercede the rights conferred by the statute. If his employer's policy is that he cannot carry off duty, or cannot carry out of state, or cannot carry anything except a purple Keltec, those policies are void by this provision. The only time there would be an issue is if he was suspended or the subject of a disciplinary action.

Here's the definition of "qualified law enforcement officer'

"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;

`(2) is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm;

`(3) is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the agency;

`(4) meets standards, if any, established by the agency which require the employee to regularly qualify in the use of a firearm;

`(5) is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance; and

`(6) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm. (Meaning felony or domestic violence convictions)

Here's the full text: http://leaa.org/218/218text.html

209
June 21, 2007, 01:34 AM
His supervisors -probably - have a better idea what the law allows than a bunch of us anonymous guardhouse lawyers and shadetree internet experts.

So, that would mean we can't discuss the various CHP/CWP regulations as they apply in the various states in threads on this forum anymore?

Because the obvious avenue for the questioner would be ask the state authority that issued the permit. After all, no guardhouse lawyers or shadetree internet experts on this forum have valid information.

So, that would mean we can't discuss the merits or drawbacks to any particular firearm or ammunition?

Because the obvious avenue would be to tell them to read “professionally” completed studies, not listen to guardhouse lawyers and shadetree internet experts on this forum.

I guess discussions on any topics or any public discourse is out since no one can have any valid input on any subject, unless they are an expert in the particular subject matter (and then of course, we'll obviously have to form some criteria on which to base that expert status).

Pray tell, what do we discuss here? :confused:

Roccobro
June 21, 2007, 03:32 AM
Seeing as the NRA was the major reason the LEOSA got passed federally, I'd recommend giving them more money and keep hounding your representative for our rights to be restored FULLY.

And as for the fate of this thread, the OP's question has been answered (by those who know) and it's usefulness will run out in 3, 2......

Justin

Shield529
June 21, 2007, 04:31 AM
Since we had to get off in the US Vs. THEM. Why do CCW holders get to bypass th NCIS check and just walk away with a new gun NO ? ASKED, while I sit around for days delayed???




:)

209
June 21, 2007, 04:49 AM
Seeing as the NRA was the major reason the LEOSA got passed federally, I'd recommend giving them more money and keep hounding your representative for our rights to be restored FULLY.


At the time the whole LEOSA thing was getting sat on in the various committees in Congress (it sat around for quite a while), I thought a few Reps and Senators kept trying to change it to apply to all permit holders. Then, it seemed it turned into a "Well, let's get this passed, and then we can expand it to add permit holders in a few years" mindset. I guess it was thought the law could be used as a kind of stepping stone using little steps to finally gain the final big one.

I asked about that change last year, and I was told..... get ready for it......

We can't make a federal law for that. It violates the rights of the states. :confused:

Now, I admit I am not totally clear on all of the nuances of law, but it seems to me that if you look at what 218 did, it basically gave federal acceptance to a state issued police certification. If they could do that, why not grant the same acception to a state issued pistol permit?

Maybe I'm just too logical.

209
June 21, 2007, 05:04 AM
Since we had to get off in the US Vs. THEM. Why do CCW holders get to bypass th NCIS check and just walk away with a new gun NO ? ASKED, while I sit around for days delayed???


IMO, all of the gun laws are screwed up. In CT, a certified LEO is supposed to be able to buy a handgun "on his badge" just as easy as a CCW holder can buy one "on their permit” as in no waiting period (both have the background check of course). I have yet to find a dealer that will do that, luckily I also have a CCW, so it's not a problem.

There are also two ranges I use occasionally. Both require a CCW if you're shooting handguns. "Wait, I'm a certified PO." Not the same thing, the law says you need a permit. The first time that happened to me, I didn't have my permit with me. Luckily, my wife was there and I got to shoot tagging off hers. :rolleyes:

The CT law on carry in a school got written up in a screwed up manner that allowed CCW holders to carry, but an off-duty officer without one couldn't. Unfortunately, that law got changed and now no one can.

As I said, screwed up laws, seemingly with no rhyme or reason. :banghead:

Spreadfire Arms
June 21, 2007, 06:44 AM
I take this to mean you will not be allowed to carry, though you might get away with it; and you might be able to talk your way out of a felony.

HR218 allows you to carry a concealed handgun, short barreled rifle, short barreled shotgun, or AOW as a peace officer in any state.

the above quote is incorrect if you are referring to CA Penal Code 12025 and 12031. they are misdemeanors, not felonies.

GRIZ22
June 21, 2007, 11:34 AM
Yeah, that’s one of the things that the law didn’t clarify. For example, my department’s policy clearly states we carry specific ammunition. Now, NJ has banned the use of HP ammo which is the very ammo we must carry to be IAW our policy. So, in essence, if we carry in NJ with different ammo, we’re in violation of policy which is an alluded-to part of the act.

The AG in NJ has issued a memo which says out of state officers/retirees can not carry hollow points. NJ allows 15 round magazines which really only bans a few (Glock 17 for one).

The LEOSA says the only state laws which have any effect are those that limit whereyou can carry. In NJ crimnal law says you can't carry on school laws and there is a (casino?) law that says you can't carry in casinos. Every court house I've ever been to in NJ has a place where the sheriff's officer will check your gun if you're a civilian or even an LEO on personal business (I don't have a problem with that).

Based on what the LEOSA says the NJ bans on hollow points and hign capacity magazines don't mean anything if you are carrying under the LEOSA. However, I don't want to be the test case. State law cannot supercede federal law so I'm sure the LEOSA will prevail when there is the test case.

There are many police departments in NJ that forbid officers from carrying issued weapons in other states as they're not sure how other states will react. Their officers still have to qualify with whatever they carry but no issue weapons out of state.

The same qualification as an LEO is a requirement of the LEOSA. Other than that I think it would difficult for a LE agency to project it's policy outside of it's state.

If you enjoyed reading about "LEO Carry Calif." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!