Cite to authority please. I know of no badge requirement (However, it may be agency policy)LEO can carry Loaded and exposed if they have there badge on the belt next to their weapon, with or without a uniform on, on or off duty
Citation please. (You get called on this almost every other post... get with the citations already... Or stop spreading bad info.)but not on UC/CSU/JR College property or grounds unless on official business... technically.
edit: Not response to previous post but to the school zone post
i dont see why they wouldnt be exempted. there are times where a gun would be needed in a school zone.crash5150 wrote:Citation please. (You get called on this almost every other post... get with the citations already... Or stop spreading bad info.)but not on UC/CSU/JR College property or grounds unless on official business... technically.
edit: Not response to previous post but to the school zone post
I'm pretty sure LE are exempted entirely from 626.9.
Yeah cops/gun shop employees/DAs/etc sometimes just make shit up when asked for their legal advice... don't believe everything you hear.I'm trying to find citation.. but all i have is the word of campus police. 626.9 has listed exemptions and I don't see off duty LEO on the exemption list.
[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, ... [long list continues][/quote]
[b]12027[/b]. Section 12025 does not apply to, or affect, any of the
following:
...
(e) Guards or messengers of common carriers, banks, and other
financial institutions while actually employed in and about the
shipment, transportation, or delivery of any money, treasure,
bullion, bonds, or other thing of value within this state.
I don't know of any case law, but I very much doubt any trial court would agree with your interpretation. It appears to me that the legislature intended to limit this exception to the time your actually engaged in your employment function.
My guess is there is no case law to date, and frankly who wants to be a guinea pig?CA_Libertarian wrote:
I don't know of any case law, but I very much doubt any trial court would agree with your interpretation. It appears to me that the legislature intended to limit this exception to the time your actually engaged in your employment function.
I agree. I expect the interpretation of "...while actually employed in and about..." would be: "...while actually in the process of..." rather than just employed by the company.
Again, I don't have any case law to support this either way, but I would guess that's how it would turn out. I always expect the public to rule for LE and against citizens (even if they are security related professionals)..... should be the other way around.:banghead:
I would like to know why private security guards, who aren't sworn peace officers, and have as much "authority" (there only job is to observe, report and deter crime) as the average citizen can legally open carry a loaded weapon while law-abiding members of the public can't. in some instances, a member of the public has far more firearms training than a private security guard, but that person can't open carry a loaded weapon.
Why is that? When will this be challenged? Private security guards should not have more rights than the public.
Has this issued been talked about much here?