Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > SPECIALTY FORUMS > FFL's Forum
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

FFL's Forum For open discussion between FFLs and polite questions for FFLs.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 05-21-2013, 7:01 PM
bthom bthom is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: San Clemente
Posts: 5
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I’m a retired Fed but was active when the previous Firearms administration extended the non roster exemption to Feds as a professional courtesy. Fed LEAs understood this. There was no written letter, just a verbal “blessing”.

Apparently this extended exemption evolved into a presumption of law.
I hear that DOJ (the current DAG and BOF management) are simply having dealers comply with the Code. No new letter or legal opinion from the AG is required since it is already Code. LEAs know that it is less problematic in court (law suits) if they enforce and regulate by Code.

Although third party info from a few dealers, I understand a couple of dealers are already being violated for allowing non roster sales to Feds. Since it is the DOJ, and not public opinion or gun owner opinion, that enforces and regulates dealer compliance, dealers have to weigh the risks of violation.

Incidentally, there is no exemption for individual Fed officers regarding large cap mags, 10 day wait letter signed by the head of the LEA agency, or the 1 in 30 day handgun exemption. Note: PC27535, 32400-32450, 27535. These codes do mention federal agencies and their exemptions as an agency.

Example/Translated: Fed agencies can give their officers agency owned large cap mags for duty use. Are they CA peace officers? No. Fed agencies know this. However Feds can enforce CA laws in exigent circumstances.

Lastly, effective facilitation for change needs to be at the state legislative level. Contact your state congressman. For those of you who don't understand this, try this simple example: Police Chiefs and their patrol officers don't don't make law, they just enforce it.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 05-21-2013, 7:38 PM
SRedmon's Avatar
SRedmon SRedmon is offline
Vendor/Retailer
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Cerritos, Ontario, Riverside, Santa Ana
Posts: 261
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big D View Post
What would happen if a fed leo in Ca purchased an off roster pistol back in 2012, but the pistol hasn't arrived at the FFLs yet?
If the pistol hasn't been DROSed and picked up, then we would no longer process it. It is up to the FFL you are having it shipped to.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 05-21-2013, 10:12 PM
Matt1984's Avatar
Matt1984 Matt1984 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Chino
Posts: 987
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

So anyone one? pc830.33? Any help would be awesome
__________________
We need to ban water to stop the poor fat kids from drowning - Ted Nugent
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 05-21-2013, 10:22 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 3,919
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt1984 View Post
So anyone one? pc830.33? Any help would be awesome
Penal Code section 830.33 doesn't do anything for federal officers.

BTHOM gave an excellent summary in Post #42. California law simply doesn't give federal officers special treatment with regard to firearms acquisition. There is a a reliance on federal statutes to meet the needs of federal officers.

However, when you consider the combined effects of Penal Code sections 830.8 and 837, federal officers have arrest authorities that are quite close to those of a state peace officer.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 05-22-2013, 4:22 AM
Matt1984's Avatar
Matt1984 Matt1984 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Chino
Posts: 987
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
Penal Code section 830.33 doesn't do anything for federal officers.

BTHOM gave an excellent summary in Post #42. California law simply doesn't give federal officers special treatment with regard to firearms acquisition. There is a a reliance on federal statutes to meet the needs of federal officers.

However, when you consider the combined effects of Penal Code sections 830.8 and 837, federal officers have arrest authorities that are quite close to those of a state peace officer.
Totally understand this part, sorry I probably wasn't clear on my question. I was just wondering is someone under 830.33 could buy an off roster handgun.
__________________
We need to ban water to stop the poor fat kids from drowning - Ted Nugent
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 05-22-2013, 8:09 AM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 3,919
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt1984 View Post
Totally understand this part, sorry I probably wasn't clear on my question. I was just wondering is someone under 830.33 could buy an off roster handgun.
Matt,

I'm neither a lawyer, nor an FFL. Here's my cut at a response after reading the code. Here's the pertinent part of Penal Code section 32000(b)(4) (Describing the exemptions from the safe handgun roster):
"The sale or purchase of any pistol, revolver, or other firearm
capable of being concealed upon the person, if the pistol, revolver,
or other firearm is sold to, or purchased by, the Department of
Justice, any police department, any sheriff's official, any marshal's
office, the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency, the California
Highway Patrol, any district attorney's office, or the military or
naval forces of this state or of the United States for use in the
discharge of their official duties. Nor shall anything in this
section prohibit the sale to, or purchase by, sworn members of these
agencies of any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being
concealed upon the person."
Please note the section does not apply the definition of "peace officer" to those persons entitled to the exemption. It only refers to "sworn members" of the listed agencies.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 05-22-2013, 8:36 AM
Notorious's Avatar
Notorious Notorious is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,470
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Thanks, that was informative.

Now the answer begs this question... what is the legal definition of "sworn" (is it in the Penal Code?) and can you be "sworn" but not a peace officer in this state?
__________________
Guns! More guns! I need more guns!
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 05-22-2013, 7:58 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 3,919
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Notorious View Post
Thanks, that was informative.

Now the answer begs this question... what is the legal definition of "sworn" (is it in the Penal Code?) and can you be "sworn" but not a peace officer in this state?
Notorious,

The wording of that section does kinda open a Pandora's Box.

There are Police Department's operated by federal agencies and there is a federal Marshal's office. I could see someone making an argument those folks are covered under the definition, even though they are not California peace officers.

I swore an oath as a military officer. Would that make me a "Sworn" member of the military service as the term is used in the section?

We've seen stupidly worded penal code sections before. Around 20 years ago, there was an inadvertant change that made all forms of malicious mischief a misdemeanor, even if damages went into the millions. That one got fixed fast.

I'll wait for the lawyers to chime in.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 05-23-2013, 6:10 AM
Notorious's Avatar
Notorious Notorious is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,470
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

So... the word "sworn" is not defined in the PC as I take it. I have never seen it defined clearly. Many professions take an oath, including lawyers, doctors, and even some security guards... that doesn't mean anything, even if they are employed by a public agency.
__________________
Guns! More guns! I need more guns!
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 05-23-2013, 10:07 AM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 3,919
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Soul_Cal View Post
Not a lawyer either, so hopefully a CG lawyer could make some sense of this. Here's another way to look at it after reading Section 830 in its entirety.

Section 830 defines a "peace officer" based on if the person "meets all standards imposed by law on a peace officer".


830. Any person who comes within the provisions of this chapter and who otherwise meets all standards imposed by law on a peace officer is a peace officer, and notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person other than those designated in this chapter is a peace officer. The restriction of peace officer functions of any public officer or employee shall not affect his or her status for purposes of retirement.


The standards imposed by law which constitute Feds as a peace officer is not by title (i.e. California Peace Officer) but by the standards imposed by law" further mentioned in 830.8(a)(1) to 830.8(a)(1) for Feds.

830.8. (a) Federal criminal investigators and law enforcement officers are not California peace officers, but may exercise the powers of arrest of a peace officer in any of the following
circumstances:


(1) Any circumstances specified in Section 836 of this code or
Section 5150 of the Welfare and Institutions Code for violations of
state or local laws.
(2) When these investigators and law enforcement officers are
engaged in the enforcement of federal criminal laws and exercise the
arrest powers only incidental to the performance of these duties.
(3) When requested by a California law enforcement agency to be
involved in a joint task force or criminal investigation.
(4) When probable cause exists to believe that a public offense
that involves immediate danger to persons or property has just
occurred or is being committed.


So going back to the main section, Section 830:

(1) Any person who comes within the provisions of this chapter -Yes, Feds are mentioned within this chapter.
(2) Who otherwise meets all standards imposed by law on a peace officer is a peace officer - Yes, most Feds should meet one of the standards within 830.8(a)(1) to 830.8(a)(4).
Soul Cal,

There's two issues with your posting:

1) The law concerning the sale of off-roster firearms to certain law enforcement officers doesn't contain any reference to "peace officers." For the purpose of determining who is eligible for an off-roster purchase, peace officer status is irrelevant.

2) You seem to be trying real hard to bring federal officers under the umbrella of "peace officer" by combining the provisions of sections 830 and 830.0. That might possibly support the conclusion except for the first sentence of section 830.0 "Federal criminal investigators and law enforcement officers are not California peace officers." That sentence pretty much prevents any interpretation to the contrary.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 05-24-2013, 6:39 AM
Notorious's Avatar
Notorious Notorious is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,470
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

HSC is only for the safety test scam, not for the roster.
__________________
Guns! More guns! I need more guns!
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 05-27-2013, 10:10 AM
anbu_yoshi's Avatar
anbu_yoshi anbu_yoshi is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 1,507
iTrader: 61 / 100%
Default

Bumping this discussion up.

This discussion seems very similar to the definition of CA LEOs, specifically Reserve LE. Reserves aren't specifically defined under the PC, however as I recall the laws were revised and left vague to allow the Reserves to be in a grey area.

Some agencies consider them as not LE still IIRC, however who the heck would morally NOT consider reserves as LE? That's degrading a peer who faces the same risks of danger both on and off duty as you do. Obviously the Reserve level of the Officer matters, but anyone wearing the uniform can get popped by some nut at any time.

Anyways, 830.0 "Federal criminal investigators and law enforcement officers are not California peace officers.".

I don't believe that this statement was meant to tie towards the roster rather it doesn't specifically define it towards the roster.

My take on it is the simply defines who is authorized to enforce CA laws. Reserve officers aren't defined, but are fully capable of enforcing.

Still, this discussion is a discussion and until there is a letter clearly defining this specific topic, it will continue to be a discussion.

We all know that different FFL's handle their business a little different from each other. I've bought firearms from one FFL easy peezy, yet got so much grief from another.

Basically, all in all, Damn you CA and your pansy like liberal nature!

Last edited by anbu_yoshi; 05-27-2013 at 10:13 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 05-27-2013, 11:39 AM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 3,919
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by anbu_yoshi View Post
Bumping this discussion up.

This discussion seems very similar to the definition of CA LEOs, specifically Reserve LE. Reserves aren't specifically defined under the PC, however as I recall the laws were revised and left vague to allow the Reserves to be in a grey area.

Some agencies consider them as not LE still IIRC, however who the heck would morally NOT consider reserves as LE? That's degrading a peer who faces the same risks of danger both on and off duty as you do. Obviously the Reserve level of the Officer matters, but anyone wearing the uniform can get popped by some nut at any time.

Anyways, 830.0 "Federal criminal investigators and law enforcement officers are not California peace officers.".

I don't believe that this statement was meant to tie towards the roster rather it doesn't specifically define it towards the roster.

My take on it is the simply defines who is authorized to enforce CA laws. Reserve officers aren't defined, but are fully capable of enforcing.

Still, this discussion is a discussion and until there is a letter clearly defining this specific topic, it will continue to be a discussion.

We all know that different FFL's handle their business a little different from each other. I've bought firearms from one FFL easy peezy, yet got so much grief from another.

Basically, all in all, Damn you CA and your pansy like liberal nature!
Sir,

Reserve officers are specifically provided for in the Penal Code. Please refer to section 830.6.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 05-27-2013, 1:23 PM
Notorious's Avatar
Notorious Notorious is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,470
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
Sir,

Reserve officers are specifically provided for in the Penal Code. Please refer to section 830.6.
You can also refer to POST on reserve powers and status. Their manual is pretty good.
__________________
Guns! More guns! I need more guns!
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 05-29-2013, 9:40 PM
AR15Man AR15Man is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 116
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

There are District Attorney Offices that accept the filing/application of affidavits, requests for State Search Warrants and the subsequent criminal case filing directly from Fed. Agents pursuamt to 830.8.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 05-29-2013, 10:47 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 3,919
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AR15Man View Post
There are District Attorney Offices that accept the filing/application of affidavits, requests for State Search Warrants and the subsequent criminal case filing directly from Fed. Agents pursuamt to 830.8.
That's cool, but it doesn't make them peace officers.....................
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 05-31-2013, 6:12 AM
AR15Man AR15Man is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 116
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
That's cool, but it doesn't make them peace officers.....................
It depends on the DA's MOU. Some MOU's grant limited Peace Officer authority, other grant full P/O authority, (as in the case of a Task Force environment).

They CAN exercise Peace Office powers in those jurisdictions and are subsequently judged under CA. Law, pursuant their court filings.

Unfortunately, it'll take some young gung-ho CA. Officer that will arrest a valid LEOSA card carrier. The LEOSA Officer will then hit the California Tort Lottery, (when he/she invokes the Fed carry authority under LEOSA), before CA. wakes up and clarifies this issue, (this issue also affects all retired CA. Officers).

BTW, No where in LEOSA does it restrict Hi-Cap Mags, (unless the Feds restrict/prohibit them).
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 05-31-2013, 6:18 AM
Notorious's Avatar
Notorious Notorious is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,470
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AR15Man View Post
It depends on the DA's MOU. Some MOU's grant limited Peace Officer authority, other grant full P/O authority, (as in the case of a Task Force environment).

They CAN exercise Peace Office powers in those jurisdictions and are subsequently judged under CA. Law, pursuant their court filings.

Unfortunately, it'll take some young gung-ho CA. Officer that will arrest a valid LEOSA card carrier. The LEOSA Officer will then hit the California Tort Lottery, (when he/she invokes the Fed carry authority under LEOSA), before CA. wakes up and clarifies this issue, (this issue also affects all retired CA. Officers).

BTW, No where in LEOSA does it restrict Hi-Cap Mags, (unless the Feds restrict/prohibit them).
DA's MOU does not supersede state law. USC Public Safety has a MOU with the City of L.A. which grants them arrest powers on campus, doesn't make them LE under state law. They wish it did.

As for LEOSA and mags, it does not specifically speak to them, but it sure as all heck doesn't exempt them either from regulation. All the law talks about is firearm and your firearm is still a firearm no matter which magazine you stick in it and state laws restricting capacity are not incompatible with LEOSA. To the extent that there is no conflict between federal and state law, the state law is not preempted in any way just because the federal law may or may not involve areas touched upon by the state law.
__________________
Guns! More guns! I need more guns!
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 05-31-2013, 9:52 AM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 3,919
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Notorious View Post
DA's MOU does not supersede state law. USC Public Safety has a MOU with the City of L.A. which grants them arrest powers on campus, doesn't make them LE under state law. They wish it did.

As for LEOSA and mags, it does not specifically speak to them, but it sure as all heck doesn't exempt them either from regulation. All the law talks about is firearm and your firearm is still a firearm no matter which magazine you stick in it and state laws restricting capacity are not incompatible with LEOSA. To the extent that there is no conflict between federal and state law, the state law is not preempted in any way just because the federal law may or may not involve areas touched upon by the state law.
Notorious beat me to the punch. He' right on the point. A District Attorney cannot directly provide peace officer status via an MOU. The closest that he/she can come is to appoint the federal agent as a DA Investigator and then federal agent can act as a peace officer. That avenue also incurs all of the California POST requirements that apply to peace officers. The reverse also works a little more easily where state officers are appointed as federal agents to facilitate work on a task force. That's more easily done because the training overhead is less.

I'm waiting for a LEOSA case on magazines. I would have to think the magazine is a part of the firearm and is covered as a firearm, but that case holding hasn't come along yet.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 05-31-2013, 3:20 PM
Notorious's Avatar
Notorious Notorious is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,470
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
I'm waiting for a LEOSA case on magazines. I would have to think the magazine is a part of the firearm and is covered as a firearm, but that case holding hasn't come along yet.
The argument I would make if I was an over zealous DA looking to make a name for myself would be that a Glock with a 10 round magazine still functions and shoots like any other Glock with a 17 or even 33 round magazine so the "firearm" per se under LEOSA has not been abridged or infringed upon by the individual state laws restricting capacity.
__________________
Guns! More guns! I need more guns!
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 05-31-2013, 5:00 PM
anbu_yoshi's Avatar
anbu_yoshi anbu_yoshi is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 1,507
iTrader: 61 / 100%
Default

Hmmm. What about National Guard that conform to PC832 standards to work with local agencies for drug enforcement?

When I took my 832s, the guards mentioned that the force was attempting to be more PC and conforming to CA regulations. Basically to carry in CA when supporting LE.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 05-31-2013, 7:29 PM
Notorious's Avatar
Notorious Notorious is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,470
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by anbu_yoshi View Post
Hmmm. What about National Guard that conform to PC832 standards to work with local agencies for drug enforcement?

When I took my 832s, the guards mentioned that the force was attempting to be more PC and conforming to CA regulations. Basically to carry in CA when supporting LE.
There is already a section which excludes military from the open/concealed carry prohibitions when they are carrying out official duties.

Also, if anyone is summoned to the aid of LE, they are LE for the duration of the "hue and cry", basically the power of posse comitatus for the sheriff of yore to deputize people to help him effect arrests. If you don't come to aid of LE when summoned, you can be held liable criminally. I have never heard of any of this happening though.

However, good luck trying to argue that makes you a CA peace officer as it relates to purchasing off roster guns since you have to get the summoning officer to go with you to the gun store, tell the clerk he summoned you, argue about the law, and even if the store accepted that explanation, you still have to wait 10 days and I doubt the emergency summons will last that long.
__________________
Guns! More guns! I need more guns!
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 06-03-2013, 11:13 PM
AR15Man AR15Man is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 116
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Notorious View Post
The argument I would make if I was an over zealous DA looking to make a name for myself would be that a Glock with a 10 round magazine still functions and shoots like any other Glock with a 17 or even 33 round magazine so the "firearm" per se under LEOSA has not been abridged or infringed upon by the individual state laws restricting capacity.
Agreed,

I wish PORAC, (or some other entity), would request that the AG issue a Notice of Opinion to put this issue to bed.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 06-09-2013, 10:16 PM
Garand1911's Avatar
Garand1911 Garand1911 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Occupied Territory
Posts: 1,097
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Notorious View Post
Federal LE are considered peace officers in CA according to the penal code... forgot which section but there is one that talks about them like the way they refer to NV or AZ or OR LE when they are in hot pursuit across the border or out of state LE on official business or something like that. Unless that section has been deleted, it should still apply.
830.8. (a) Federal criminal investigators and law enforcement
officers are not California peace officers, but may exercise the
powers of arrest of a peace officer in any of the following
circumstances:
(1) Any circumstances specified in Section 836 of this code or
Section 5150 of the Welfare and Institutions Code for violations of
state or local laws.
(2) When these investigators and law enforcement officers are
engaged in the enforcement of federal criminal laws and exercise the
arrest powers only incidental to the performance of these duties.
(3) When requested by a California law enforcement agency to be
involved in a joint task force or criminal investigation.
(4) When probable cause exists to believe that a public offense
that involves immediate danger to persons or property has just
occurred or is being committed.
In all of these instances, the provisions of Section 847 shall
apply. These investigators and law enforcement officers, prior to the
exercise of these arrest powers, shall have been certified by their
agency heads as having satisfied the training requirements of Section
832, or the equivalent thereof.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My FFL has stated regarding this issue, that Feds are ok to buy non-roster guns, BUT ...he says the problem is is that FFLs are not supposed to photocopy Fed Credentials, and that writing down a badge number isnt good enough for Cal DOJ.
He says that hi cap mags are ok with just a Fed Cred number. Some stores will still sell hi caps, other stores will not sell anything to Feds.
__________________
"I saved your life, AND brought you pizza" -- Me

Last edited by Garand1911; 06-09-2013 at 10:21 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 06-12-2013, 8:48 AM
lrdchivalry lrdchivalry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Diego Area
Posts: 956
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garand1911 View Post
My FFL has stated regarding this issue, that Feds are ok to buy non-roster guns, BUT ...he says the problem is is that FFLs are not supposed to photocopy Fed Credentials, and that writing down a badge number isnt good enough for Cal DOJ.
He says that hi cap mags are ok with just a Fed Cred number. Some stores will still sell hi caps, other stores will not sell anything to Feds.
It's funny, it's ok to just write the federal leo's cred info to buy standard capacity mags or for the exemption to the HSC but not to buy an off roster gun.

I could be reading it wrong but according to the state AG's office, it states peace officers may buy off roster guns and doesn't specify state or federal.

Policy Change Regarding State Exemptions for Authorized Peace Officers

Effective immediately, peace officers who have legislative authority to carry and use firearms may, without a letter signed by the head of their agency or the agency head's designee, purchase non-rostered handguns and/or large capacity magazines. The peace officer must present a valid peace officer identification card and the dealer must retain a copy of the identification card on file. (PC 12132 & 12133). A letter is still required from the head of the agency to exempt the peace officer from the ten day waiting period. (PC 12078).

Edit: From the CA AG website:

  1. It is illegal to photocopy federal credentials. How do I retain a copy of the proof of exemption documentation for individuals with federal credentials?
    • For individuals with federal credentials record the person's name, federal agency, and credential number rather than photocopying the credentials.
__________________
When it becomes necessary to seek protection from your protectors because they've substituted their judgment for clear, standing principles they've sworn to follow and have done so to the extent of attacking the protected, to characterize their actions as justified in furtherance of some nebulous greater good is to align yourself with and endorse criminal wrongdoing. - Author unknown

Last edited by lrdchivalry; 06-12-2013 at 8:53 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 06-12-2013, 9:40 AM
SoulStealer's Avatar
SoulStealer SoulStealer is offline
AFreePeopleOughtToBeArmed
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,243
iTrader: 71 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lrdchivalry View Post
It's funny, it's ok to just write the federal leo's cred info to buy standard capacity mags or for the exemption to the HSC but not to buy an off roster gun.

I could be reading it wrong but according to the state AG's office, it states peace officers may buy off roster guns and doesn't specify state or federal.

Policy Change Regarding State Exemptions for Authorized Peace Officers

Effective immediately, peace officers who have legislative authority to carry and use firearms may, without a letter signed by the head of their agency or the agency head's designee, purchase non-rostered handguns and/or large capacity magazines. The peace officer must present a valid peace officer identification card and the dealer must retain a copy of the identification card on file. (PC 12132 & 12133). A letter is still required from the head of the agency to exempt the peace officer from the ten day waiting period. (PC 12078).

Edit: From the CA AG website:

  1. It is illegal to photocopy federal credentials. How do I retain a copy of the proof of exemption documentation for individuals with federal credentials?
    • For individuals with federal credentials record the person's name, federal agency, and credential number rather than photocopying the credentials.
This is what my FFL does, still purchase no problems!
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 06-21-2013, 11:56 AM
lrdchivalry lrdchivalry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Diego Area
Posts: 956
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

This DOJ bulletin from 2000 states on page 3 that federal peace officers are to be afforded the same exemptions that apply to California peace officers and I was checking the other bulletins and did not see any retracting the one from 2000..
__________________
When it becomes necessary to seek protection from your protectors because they've substituted their judgment for clear, standing principles they've sworn to follow and have done so to the extent of attacking the protected, to characterize their actions as justified in furtherance of some nebulous greater good is to align yourself with and endorse criminal wrongdoing. - Author unknown
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 06-29-2013, 9:38 AM
Garand1911's Avatar
Garand1911 Garand1911 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Occupied Territory
Posts: 1,097
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Are they any NorCal ffls or feds that have had this problem ? Or is it strictly a Socal problem ?
Is it just a few rogue doj agents making rules up as they go because they hate feds ?
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 06-29-2013, 11:08 AM
Matt1984's Avatar
Matt1984 Matt1984 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Chino
Posts: 987
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garand1911 View Post
Are they any NorCal ffls or feds that have had this problem ? Or is it strictly a Socal problem ?
Is it just a few rogue doj agents making rules up as they go because they hate feds ?
It's a social problem
__________________
We need to ban water to stop the poor fat kids from drowning - Ted Nugent
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 06-29-2013, 3:56 PM
1hotshooter's Avatar
1hotshooter 1hotshooter is offline
Vendor/Retailer
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Carlsbad, CA
Posts: 364
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Off Roster Firearms

Bob from CA DOJ returned my call after a couple weeks with their flavor of the week answer...No one can purchase off-roster firearms except current, active-duty California Peace Officers. NO one else.

I have a number of Federal LEOs in the area and the base MPs, so I thought this question was valid.

No PC code stated or anything to refer back to other than the answer is NO.

I'm taking it as a very large number of my customers just got cut from their purchases unless their agencies buy it direct from the manufacturers for them to use.
__________________
Michelle Garcia
Sailing Free - Skies are Clear
American Income Life
Life Agent #OK44318
MichelleGarcia.AILagent@gmail.com
Black Ops Gear Inc.
Sales@BlackOpsGearInc.com
blackopsgearinc.com
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 06-29-2013, 4:30 PM
Matt1984's Avatar
Matt1984 Matt1984 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Chino
Posts: 987
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default Feds no longer able to puchase non roster guns in CA?

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1hotshooter View Post
Bob from CA DOJ returned my call after a couple weeks with their flavor of the week answer...No one can purchase off-roster firearms except current, active-duty California Peace Officers. NO one else.

I have a number of Federal LEOs in the area and the base MPs, so I thought this question was valid.

No PC code stated or anything to refer back to other than the answer is NO.

I'm taking it as a very large number of my customers just got cut from their purchases unless their agencies buy it direct from the manufacturers for them to use.
I wonder what ca doj would say about my situation. I work for a federal agency but I am defined under the penal code as a peace officer in California because I had to go to a post academy, meet post requirements, and have the governor himself sign off on a police commission.
__________________
We need to ban water to stop the poor fat kids from drowning - Ted Nugent

Last edited by Matt1984; 06-29-2013 at 4:35 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 06-29-2013, 6:36 PM
lrdchivalry lrdchivalry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Diego Area
Posts: 956
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

I have already contacted my state assemblyman, he is going to send a letter to the AG asking for an official opinion on this issue, since there does not seem to be anything in writing reversing the AG's bulletin from 2000 stating that federal leo's are to receive the same exemptions as California leo's. The current AG also has a conflicting statement that states, that as long as the leo has statutory authority to carry and use a firearm, they can purchase off list firearms and so-called hi capacity magazines. The statement does not specify state or federal leo's.

Now it's a waiting game.
__________________
When it becomes necessary to seek protection from your protectors because they've substituted their judgment for clear, standing principles they've sworn to follow and have done so to the extent of attacking the protected, to characterize their actions as justified in furtherance of some nebulous greater good is to align yourself with and endorse criminal wrongdoing. - Author unknown
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 06-30-2013, 10:14 PM
Pseuron Pseuron is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Inland Empire
Posts: 9
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Without divulging too much, I heard that at least one federal agency has meet with and asked the US Attorney in the central district to pressure CA DOJ to stop this silly saber rattling exercise.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 07-16-2013, 5:56 PM
will0861 will0861 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 32
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default CA can go F itself...

Well I was about ready to leave Ammo Bros in Ontario after paying for my Glock 17 Gen 4, and then the guy realizes that I'm a Fed and tells me he has to switch it to a Gen 3.

I don't think it's worth arguing about wether Feds are peace officers or not. We have to push for an exemption. I can carry a god damn gun on a plane, and can by-pass security at any airport and I can't buy a Gen 4 Glock because I'm not a peace officer? I am the Federal Governments peace officer. And that means jack **** here.

I know others have done it, but I'm not giving up on this. I don't care that much about a Gen 4 Glock but its the priciple. California decides a gun isn't safe, so I can't carry it? I guess a 6 month academy and range time every three months at a minimum means I can't handle an unsafe weapon. **** you California.


I'm sorry for the language but I'm still fuming....
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 07-16-2013, 9:02 PM
will0861 will0861 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 32
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The other problem we have is that all of these ****wads in Sacremento are completely anti-gun. They are specifying peace officers specifically since they know they can't disarm the police. The other problem we have is that these mother ****ers see a gun and immediately deem it evil. That's why a gun has to be safe to be sold in California. Hey idiots, if someone is too stupid to learn how to use a firearm properly they will still find a way to cause harm with it. A loaded chamber indicator and magazine safety is a band aid for a non existent problem. **** you Kamala Harris. If I ever meet you I'm going to shove that stupid smart memo right back in your stupid retarded face. **** you. Guess what California? Next time I come across something illegal I'm walking away. I'm not enough law enforcement to carry an off roster gun? Well **** you. I guess I can't tell that there is a pot farm in this house. Or dog fights, or starving kids. Call someone who gives a **** about this state to do something about it.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 07-16-2013, 9:11 PM
Colt-45's Avatar
Colt-45 Colt-45 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 8,937
iTrader: 131 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by will0861 View Post
Call someone who gives a **** about this state to do something about it.
Can't without being called a "terrorist" or "fearmonger"
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 07-17-2013, 7:02 AM
Notorious's Avatar
Notorious Notorious is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,470
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Excellent rants, I hear ya, buddy.
__________________
Guns! More guns! I need more guns!
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 07-21-2013, 5:55 PM
will0861 will0861 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 32
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Ok, so I've been busy. I've contacted CALDOJ, as well as as many State Representatives as I possibly can.

Speaking to someone at CALDOJ was eye opening. The are well aware that no one besides California Peace Officers can purchase off roster firearms, however they have no clue about the 10 day wait, or magazines. Basically he told me that since I'm not a California Peace Officer I can not purchase off roster pistols, but I can still waive the 10 days, and buy magazines. I asked him, since I'm not considered a peace officer for the purpose of buying a firearm, how am I considered a peace officer for the purpose of buying magazines and waiving the ten day wait? There was a silence, and then he started flipping through the PC book. He got back on the line, and said, well I guess you're right. You can't buy magazines, or waive the ten day wait. He was friendly, but it's scary to think that CALDOJ does not even know whats going on. The issue seems to be that for the last 13 years, peace officer was understood to include all state and federal law enforcement officers. Now, peace officer is being used to specify only California POST certified law enforcement officers. Unfortunately there are very few mentions of Federal Agents within California penal codes.

So, here's what I found out. Kamala Harris, the anti-gun nut that she is, rescinded the memo from Bill Lockyer, that was in place since 12/21/2000. The problem is that since her office is not recognizing Federal Agents as peace officers, that leaves us all open to some potential issues. First, among them is the fact that the law states that Federal Agents are exempt from the high capacity magazine ban while on duty. So, if you go by the strict letter of the law, then my 12 round mags are illegal for me to carry in California when I'm off duty. Furthermore, there are no other provisions for federal agents with regards to carrying a weapon. I realize that the potential for prosecution on this is slim to none, the fact that Federal Agents do not carry any weight in California is disturbing. Technically that means we could be charged with a crime. Bill Lockyers memo specifically stated that Federal Statutes would be recognized, however Kamala Harris has not made any policies or procedures regarding Federal and State laws and statutes.

We all need to make our representitives aware of this, as well as our chain of commands. Considering how crazy Kalifornia is, I wouldn't doubt that they will try to keep us from carrying in this State. I know my agency has no balls, and would probably just roll over and take it. Furthermore, once all of these insane anti-gun bills pass, it will be impossible for us to purchase anything, since California will have effectively banned firearms and ammunition.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 07-21-2013, 6:02 PM
Artema's Avatar
Artema Artema is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 3,841
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

If active military can't be exempt I don't see why federal civilians could get exemptions. Dumb.
__________________
- SAAMI Pressure Specs
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artema View Post
I'd go to the grocery store with polymer, and I'd go to war with steel.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 07-21-2013, 6:11 PM
will0861 will0861 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 32
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Nobody is talking about civilians. I agree about the military though. But, the fact is, military is only issued weapons while on duty, then the rifles and pistols get turned in to the armory at the end of the day. Federal Agents carry pistols and rifles the same way police officers do in California. We don't turn weapons in at the end of our shifts. So, if someone wanted to get real technical, it looks as though we are in violation of California law, when we are not on duty, even though the Federal Government gives us authority to carry 24 hours a day.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 1:37 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.