shepherds56
Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2006
- Messages
- 4
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?
LEO Carry Calif.
- Thread starter shepherds56
- Start date
- Status
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
Nick
glockman19
Member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2007
- Messages
- 3,700
+1
jaholder1971
Member
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.
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)
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
Member
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
Member
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.
(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
Member
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
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)
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
Member
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.
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.
gunsmith
member
I was an armed security guard in SF
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?
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
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?
My brother in a NY LEO, his agency has told him no HP in NJ.
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
Member
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.
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
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
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
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
Member
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
Member
You should be good to go. You're an LEO/Peace Officer.
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.
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.
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
- Status
