HR 218 and California

[Scott204 1]

Heading out to California for a vacation with the family. So I decieded to call out there before I start toting my off duty weapon with me. As I understood HR218 states active law enforcement can carry all 50 states. Well I am glad I called. The lady who called me back from the attourney generals office stated, and I quote, "California has not adpoted HR218 yet so you will not be able to carry your weapon." Didn't think they could choose to not pay attention to a federal law but I guess so.

[redwings9 5]

Scott that is garbage, Federal Law trumps anything the state dreams up even California and New Jersey. With an active ID (or retired ID) and proof of qualifications you are good to go. Beware LEOSA does not cover any magazine restrictions that a state may adhere to, JHP are covered under LEOSA as they are not a violation of the NFA.

 

Now here's the rub can you get jammed up and if you ended up in court it would get thrown out as it has in other cases. This is the same bull$%^& that NJ is doing by keeping their heads in the sand and after almost two years since the LEOSA improvement passed they still have not revised the information or provided updated guidelines......

 

I would also recommend having insurance that both the NRA and FOP and another outfit offers specifically for active and retirees covered under LEOSA. Have a good time and be safe.

[BlueLineFish 615]

Personally i would carry anyway. Thats just me.

[GRIZ 3,369]

The response you got seems odd. The CA AG has a bunch of stuff on their website regarding LEOSA.

[Pizza Bob 1,488]

http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/leosanew

 

click on the "Summary"

 

You are good to go.

[Scott204 1]

This is getting interesting, I called back and spoke to the same lady. I told her that the CA Office of the attourney general sites HR 218 on its website. So I asked her how can it not be adopted if it is mentioned on the web site. I was told I would get a call back.

[PK90 3,570]

Redwing is correct

 

Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk 2

[Scott204 1]

She said because I am from outside CA I am not considered a "peace officer" under CA penal code. Only if I was there on offical business. WHo else should I call?

[Pizza Bob 1,488]

She must be a former NJ resident.

 

From the AG's website - LEOSA Summary...

 

 

SUMMARY of The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) of 2004

On July 22, 2004, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) of 2004, also commonly called "HR 218," became law. (18 U.S.C. §§, 926B, 926C.) This federal law allows "a qualified law enforcement officer" or "a qualified retired law enforcement officer" with identification that meets specified criteria to carry a concealed firearm anywhere in the nation, notwithstanding most other state and local laws which restrict the possession of concealed weapons.

In order to be "a qualified law enforcement officer" under the LEOSA, a person must meet the following requirements:

1. Be an employee of a governmental agency who is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for any violation of law;
   
2. Have the statutory powers of arrest;
   
3. Be authorized by the agency to carry a firearm;
   
4. Not be the subject of any disciplinary action by the agency;
   
5. Meet the standards, if any, established by the agency that require employees to regularly qualify in the use of a firearm;
   
6. Not be under the influence of alcohol or any intoxicating or hallucinatory drug;
   
7. Not be prohibited by federal law from possessing firearms;
   
8. Be carrying photographic identification issued by the governmental agency identifying the individual as a law enforcement officer.
   

Regarding the requirement that the individual have the statutory power of arrest to be a "qualified law enforcement officer," California law allows "a peace officer" to make an arrest. (Pen. Code, § 834.) Penal Code sections 830.1 through 832.6 specify the persons who are peace officers and when and where they may use their authority. No one else is considered a peace officer under California law. (Pen. Code, § 830.)

 

Since you are a LEO, per their requirements, the "Peace Officer" definition does not apply to you. She has really screwed things up in her mind.

 

HTH

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

[wildchevys 2]

she is wrong

[GRIZ 3,369]

CA definitions have nothing to do with what LEOSA defines. If you are covered by LEOSA then you are covered in any state or territory.

[Tactical Turtle 11]

Scott that is garbage, Federal Law trumps anything the state dreams up even California and New Jersey. With an active ID (or retired ID) and proof of qualifications you are good to go. Beware LEOSA does not cover any magazine restrictions that a state may adhere to, JHP are covered under LEOSA as they are not a violation of the NFA.

 

Now here's the rub can you get jammed up and if you ended up in court it would get thrown out as it has in other cases. This is the same bull$%^& that NJ is doing by keeping their heads in the sand and after almost two years since the LEOSA improvement passed they still have not revised the information or provided updated guidelines......

 

I would also recommend having insurance that both the NRA and FOP and another outfit offers specifically for active and retirees covered under LEOSA. Have a good time and be safe.

 

The proof of qualifications can be a issue. From what I have learned from asking and even my dept doesn't issue a piece of evidence that I qualified with my off duty. Did u mean just for retired Leo's??

[GRIZ 3,369]

IIRC if you are activly employed you only need your photo ID, the rationale being that if you are employed you must have qualified.

 

If you are retired you need the proof of qualification.

[redwings9 5]

CG no this applies to both active and retired, given that all active are required to qualify the assumption (take note of the ass out of U and M) that as an active officer you are qualified. The off duty weapon as long as it is similar should apply for qualification purposes. Retirees must qualify according to LEOSA . What Pizza Bob posted from calf. is almost verbatum what the law states.

 

Possibly this will help clear up any issues.http://www.fop.net/legislative/issues/hr218/hr218faq.pdf

[PK90 3,570]

As a RLEO, I carry my NJ qualification record on the back of a basic HR218/S1132 statement shrunken to ID size and laminated.

 

FOP FAQ

[Dan 177]

Additional proof that the "mother may I" questions to government officials generally get you nowhere. It's easier, and much less liability for them to say "no" and be wrong, then to say "yes" and be wrong.

[redwings9 5]

Funny thing relate to this is that on three seperate occassions I have called the state attorney generals office and asked about the revisions, twice no response, last time they have staff working on it.................. Wonderful

[mipafox 438]

Personally i would carry anyway. Thats just me.

 

Me, too.

 

I have to go to CA a few times a year.

[Scott204 1]

Well i am here in CA unarmed. So far so good but i should have just brought it.

[UnrestrictedEnthusiastInVA 0]

Even states that claim they haven't adopted it, don't have a decision as it's a federal law.

[BlueLineFish 615]

I would never go to Cali unarmed

[mipafox 438]

Well i am here in CA unarmed. So far so good but i should have just brought it.

 

It's not like Jersey. You can at least BRING your gun. I'm no cop and I do it. Cop carry I'll leave to you guys.