I can understand the reasoning of those of you who are opposed to selling to CA LEOs, but, having considered your arguments, I really don't buy into them.
I admit that I'm going to go back to my own experiences, living in a jurisdiction where concealed carry just isn't an option for most. Would you refuse to sell a pistol to me since I live in a state where most can't legally carry, as I do? Would it make any difference to you that I actively advocate for concealed carry by sharing my views with our legislators? Or, would you elect not to sell to any current or retired LEO here because we enjoy rights that are denied most? As an aside, I'd note that I see and hear a steady drumbeat of support for concealed carry here, and a great deal of it comes from cops and ex-cops who are "privileged" by virtue of their right to carry under the federal LEOSA.
The logic of punishing those who are in a similar privileged situation in California eludes me. I seriously doubt that the reluctance of one--or even hundreds--of non-Californians to sell hi-capacity magazines to cops would make any difference to the legislators, who view those cops as nothing more than low-level civil servants. It seems to me that our collective energies could be much better used in ways that would actually have an impact. How about a boycott of California-grown produce? Or a movement to urge other gun owners to spend their tourist dollars outside California?
I guess if it makes you feel more ideologically consistent, I don't have any problem with an individual deciding not to sell to a patrol officer in California. But, there is no way on God's Green Earth that this will have the slightest effect on California's lawmakers.