Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

LEO Carry Calif.

Discussion in 'Legal' started by shepherds56, Jun 19, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. shepherds56

    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?
     
  2. jselvy

    jselvy member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    518
    I hope so.
    There is absolutely No reason for an out of jurisdiction LEO to be treated any different than an other citizen.

    Jefferson
     
  3. ziadel

    ziadel Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2005
    Messages:
    343
    Amen to that.
     
  4. Nikdfish

    Nikdfish Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    339
    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
     
  5. jselvy

    jselvy member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    518
    And the above is symptomatic of what is wrong with this country.

    Jefferson
     
  6. glockman19

    glockman19 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2007
    Messages:
    3,699
    +1
     
  7. jaholder1971

    jaholder1971 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2007
    Messages:
    1,302
    Location:
    thehighroad.us
    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.
     
  8. jcoiii

    jcoiii Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2003
    Messages:
    325
    Location:
    NE TN
    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)
     
  9. isp2605

    isp2605 Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    Messages:
    1,333
  10. Aguila Blanca

    Aguila Blanca Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    1,693
    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).
     
  11. Quiet

    Quiet Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2007
    Messages:
    3,064
    Location:
    bouncing between the 909 & the 702
    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.
     
  12. Roccobro

    Roccobro Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2006
    Messages:
    1,506
    Location:
    San Berdoo, CA
    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
     
  13. Reyn

    Reyn Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2005
    Messages:
    484
    Location:
    AL
    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.
     
  14. Rumpled

    Rumpled Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Messages:
    149
    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)
     
  15. 209

    209 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2007
    Messages:
    265
    Location:
    Northeastern US
    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:
     
  16. gunsmith

    gunsmith member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2003
    Messages:
    5,906
    Location:
    Reno, Nevada
    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?

    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
     
  17. Autolycus

    Autolycus Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2006
    Messages:
    5,456
    Location:
    In the land of make believe.
    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.
     
  18. jselvy

    jselvy member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    518
    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
     
  19. isp2605

    isp2605 Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    Messages:
    1,333
    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
     
  20. isp2605

    isp2605 Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    Messages:
    1,333
    (double tap)
     
  21. isp2605

    isp2605 Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    Messages:
    1,333
    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?
     
  22. Autolycus

    Autolycus Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2006
    Messages:
    5,456
    Location:
    In the land of make believe.
    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?;)
     
  23. CountGlockula

    CountGlockula Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    3,522
    Location:
    In a Los Angeles coffin.
    You should be good to go. You're an LEO/Peace Officer.
     
  24. GRIZ22

    GRIZ22 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2006
    Messages:
    5,176
    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.
     
  25. JCF

    JCF Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2006
    Messages:
    700
    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
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page