• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Exceptions to the Law

W

Wild Horse

New member
Joined
Apr 14, 2009
Messages
8
Location
Orange, California, USA
imported post

I assume that Law Enforcement Officers are also bound by the confines of the law just as the rest of the people are. If I am mistaken, somebody please correct me, but given this premise:

1.) are law enforcement officers allowed to carry firearms onto a college campus? I've read the Penal Code and there's no clause that that grants instances of special permission. It says no firearms on or within 1000 feet of any school, pre-college or university otherwise. Somebody please clarify

2.) are law enforcement officers allowed to carry loaded firearms? I know the intuitive answer would be "yes" but where in the books is the legal backing for that?
 
C

CA_Libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
2,585
Location
Stanislaus County, California, USA
imported post

1) near the end of 626.9:
Code: 
[quote](l) This section does not apply to a duly appointed peace officer
as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of
Part 2, a full-time paid peace officer of another state or the
federal government who is carrying out official duties while in
California, any person summoned by any of these officers to assist in
making arrests or preserving the peace while he or she is actually
engaged in assisting the officer, a member of the military forces of
this state or of the United States who is engaged in the performance
of his or her duties, a person holding a valid license to carry the
firearm pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 12050) of
Chapter 1 of Title 2 of Part 4, or an armored vehicle guard, engaged
in the performance of his or her duties, as defined in subdivision
(e) of Section 7521 of the Business and Professions [b]Code[/b].[/quote]


(Forum won't let me use two separate quote blocks - sorry for the formatting.)



2) From 12031:

[quote](b) Subdivision (a) shall not apply to any of the following:
(1) Peace officers listed in Section 830.1 or 830.2, or
subdivision (a) of Section 830.33, whether active or honorably
retired, other duly appointed peace officers, honorably retired peace
officers listed in subdivision (c) of Section 830.5, other honorably
retired peace officers who during the course and scope of their
employment as peace officers were authorized to, and did, carry
firearms, full-time paid peace officers of other states and the
federal government who are carrying out official duties while in
California, or any person summoned by any of those officers to assist
in making arrests or preserving the peace while the person is
actually engaged in assisting that officer.  Any peace officer
described in this paragraph who has been honorably retired shall be
issued an identification certificate by the law enforcement agency
from which the officer has retired.  The issuing agency may charge a
fee necessary to cover any reasonable expenses incurred by the agency
in issuing certificates pursuant to this paragraph and paragraph(3).[/quote]
 
bigtoe416

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
imported post

Although the LEOSA is obviously unconstitutional since Article I Section 8 gives congress no authority to bring forth such bills.

I wish states would enact laws that would offer bounties on politicians that overstepped their constitutional bounds. The federal government could issue an order of marque and reprisal to do the same thing. I'd strongly back any candidate which would do that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top