LEO Carry Calif.

Because every thread about LEOSA and the unequal treatment of non-LEOs and LEOs gets shut down.

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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

Fine introduction for a new member.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

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.

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).

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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

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

Click to expand...

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?

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

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???

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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???

Click to expand...

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.

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:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.