Lots of folks like to use CA as a punching bag when it comes to our firearms laws. They seem intent on doing this without any actual knowledge of CA's laws.
CA is one of those states that decided
not to enact a state "standard" requirement for LEOSA qualifications.
Essentially, in everyday practice that means that the "standard" is whatever happens to satisfy the authority (COP, Sheriff, etc) signing off on a LEOSA qualification. Pretty much the same thing that's done with CCW license quals.
One agency may require the retiree pay a fee for range time, targets, ammo and the signed document, or limit the retirees they'll allow to schedule a qual session ... and yet another may open up their range to any interested retirees, at no charge (for anything), even if retired federal or transplanted from other states, counties, or who live outside their immediate jurisdiction. Just depends.
Pretty reasonable, all things considered.
As far as letting the feds enact legislation for national reciprocity? Careful what you wish for.
It wasn't exactly easy to get enough states to sign onto the legislation that became LEOSA, and it's been modified since first signed. Apparently, one of the things that it required to get enough states to sign onto it was that active and retired cops would be forced to qualify to an existing standard
annually.
And that was for cops, who received a lot more exposure to firearms training and use-of-force/legal update training than the average private citizen. Imagine what they might want to see for private citizens?
Sound good to you?
Or, the states could avoid the potentially convoluted and burdensome federal legislative mess, and try to accommodate the wishes of other states by approaching it as they did the DLC/DLA, which were agreements between states. Of course, even those took quite a while, and it required a lot of work to achieve something acceptable.