View Single Post
  #35  
Old 03-22-2014, 4:09 PM
FL Expat FL Expat is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 2
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SwampdonkeY View Post
Thanks for posting this, Swampdonkey! I'm getting a bit worried - I'm looking seriously at moving out to Cali in order to continue federal employment. I'd be covered by LEOSA after hiring on permanently with my current agency, but I'm hesitant to move if I have to leave my "normal" guns behind. I'd accepted the whole AR15 modification ridiculousness, but now I can't even bring my regular capacity pistols?

This new AG seems to have a different interpretation of Peace Officer and Official Duties from that previously issued. http://ag.ca.gov/opinions/pdfs/01-1005.pdf Has there been an official opinion issued that contradicts the previous one?

I understand the idea that Cali can restrict SALE within their borders, but can they restrict what weapons are carried under LEOSA? In other words, if someone carries a non-NFA firearm as described in LEOSA (including 15-round magazine, which is considered a necessary part of the firearm) across the Cali line while carrying under LEOSA, is that illegal importation?

I guess what confuses me is this: LEOSA is pretty specific that you can carry concealable, non-NFA firearms. They didn't originally specify ammunition (which is not part of a firearm) but fixed that. Again, that was a loophole allowing restrictions by NJ on hollowpoints because ammunition is NOT part of the firearm, so it required a fix. However, it seems Cali is acting as if a magazine (an integral part of the firearm) is not part of the firearm. Extending their rationale, Cali could ban all magazines... or better yet, restrict LEOSA-covered officers' firearms to single-shot .17 caliber rimfire pistols only. I fail to understand how this complies with LEOSA, which clearly states that a firearm can be carried, and then clearly describes what a firearm is and is not. A magazine is a necessary, integral part, without which most concealed firearms will not function in their designed fashion. Since LEOSA says that the states cannot restrict covered individuals from carrying a "firearm" (as defined by federal, not state, statute), I fail to see how the magazine restriction can be applied to a LEOSA-covered officer bringing a magazine, inserted into a non-NFA firearm and carried concealed as allowed for by federal law, into the state. Buying? Sure. Importing or selling separately? Sure. But preventing an officer from driving in with a firearm (as defined in federal statute) concealed on their hip? Doesn't that place Cali on the wrong side of Federal law?

Of course, I don't want to be the test-case
Just trying to understand the bizarre logic before I decide whether it's worth living out there.

Last edited by FL Expat; 03-22-2014 at 7:43 PM..
Reply With Quote