California Attorney General says feds not exempt from state ‘safe’ handgun law (with poll)

[sarisataka]

California Attorney General Kamala Harris has determined federal agents are not covered by an exemption that allows California law enforcement officers to purchase “unsafe” handguns denied to non-LEOs.

“The AG says the feds can only buy firearms listed on the Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale (like the rest of us),” attorney Chuck Michel wrote on CalGunLaws.com.

While it may sound absurd on the surface to allow police officers to walk around with guns the state has deemed “unsafe,” the language is deceptive. They’re not talking about things like guns that blow up in your hand due to faulty design, material defects or workmanship.

“To not be considered ‘unsafe,’ handguns must pass performance tests and have certain features that (in theory only) make the firearms allegedly safer,” Michel explained. “Most problematic for the California public is the recent development that before any semiautomatic pistol can be added to the Roster of guns approved for sale they must be equipped with ‘microstamping’ technology.

http://www.examiner.com/article/california-attorney-general-says-feds-not-exempt-from-state-safe-handgun-law?cid=rss

9 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	All LEO's should be subject to the same restrictions as citizens, on or off duty
	8 (89%)
	LEO's should have access to weapons not available to citizens only when on duty
	0 (0%)
	LEO's should have access to weapons not available to citizens at all times
	0 (0%)
	LEO's should not be armed
	0 (0%)
	Federal officers should be exempt from state laws but state and local LEO's should have to follow state law
	1 (11%)
	I like bacon (other, please explain)
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[petronius]

1. As far as private and personal ownership is concerned, I'd say that all LEOs,

active or retired, should be held to the exact same laws as anyone else. If a specific piece of equipment is required for law enforcement purposes, but is not available to the general public, then that item should be held and strictly controlled by the department in question. (I avoided mentioning guns in this reply, because I can't think of an item or law for which this wouldn't be my opinion...)

[pipoman]

2. How about 'California Safe Handgun Law' is stupid...

not to mention an oxymoron..

[hack89]

3. Make LEOs follow the same laws as everyone else

it is another way to moderate the more radical gun control proposals.

[jimmy the one]

4. first reaction

I voted LEO permitted to use firearms disallowed to general public, when on duty.
That's with reservations, such as honorably retired LEO's could purchase 'some' firearms disallowed etc, & also I don't fully comprehend the calif law & how it applies so as to make a really really educated opinion. But that's my first reaction fwiw.
I reserve the right to keep my opinion or bear another.

[oneshooter]

5. What makes a "retired LEO" better than a "retired Master Gunner"

If he is no longer a LEO then he is simply a citizen, like millions of others.

[krispos42]

11. Some people say...

...that retired LE officers face increased risk of danger from people they've arrested or had other dealings with during their LE career.

Mr. Badass does his 15, gets out, and goes on the hunt for the guy that put him in there.





Get a concealed-carry permit, then. If your state makes you wait 6 months and pay $1,000 in fees, then too fucking bad. If it's not too much to demand from the people living in the dangerous, crime-infested part of the city, then it's not too much to demand from the guy with options.

And if the laws of the state limit me to 10 rounds in my gun to deal with Mr. Badass, then I don't see why a trained, experienced, LE officer needs more than me to deal with Mr. Badass.

The retired LE officer might face an increased risk of danger from certain people from his career, but his overall risk is probably much less than the regular folks living in the crime-ridden part of a city.

[Jenoch]

13. In Minnesota, we have

retired LEO get to carry a concealed weapon without going through the regular CCW process. They have to qualify at a police range at least once per year.

[sarisataka]

6. I had to think it over before voting my own poll

I was hung up on the thought of should specialty units, like SWAT, have access to automatic weapons.
After much thought, my conclusion was no.

Tactical units have two distinct needs, long range weapons for snipers and general purpose for the other team members.

There are very few sniper rifles not available to citizens since they are not any different from good hunting rifles. One sniper I spoke to some years back used his personal rifle that he hunted small game. It was extremely accurate and he could not envision having to take a shot over 100 yards in an urban environment.

Shotguns are often used but are also available to average citizens. Ammo, such as bean bag rounds and lock breakers, are what adds flexibility that is useful for police work.

Lastly is the needs of carbines. Typically police use some form of selectable fire carbine or submachine gun. I am familiar with the value of full auto or burst capability for clearing confined areas, yet that was always in a free-fire environment. Whenever there was a potential of non-combatant presence or friendly fire, everyone used single shot setting. Training in target ID and engaging with double or triple taps made the selectable option irrelevant. I see no reason LEOs could not use the same standards and use weapons that are only single shot capable.

The side benefit of restricting LEOs to the same standard as your neighbor is it reduces the militarization of police that we see growing at an alarming rate.

[krispos42]

12. I mildly disagree.

I don't necessarily think the cops need full-auto stuff, but they do need things like grenade launchers.

I think that if a state has a ban on "assault weapons", the cops should have to live with the restrictions as well. If I can't have an AR-15, then they, too, can seek out a politically-correct replacement. Mossberg just came out with a bolt-action .223 that takes AR-15 magazines. Have fun with that.

I think they should be able to get around any magazine-capacity limit, simply because they are charged with heading INTO dangerous situations. I'm not particularly happy with what I just said, but...

[sarisataka]

15. It is a difficult issue

as I can see benefits and recognize the risks police face.

I am against magazine limits in general but if the limit is 10, I think LEOs can live with that as well. Every officer locally carries at least two extra mags, I've seen some with 4. If a person goes through most of that they are legitimately in a firefight

[krispos42]

16. I don't have a problem with regular-capacity mags on duty.

Remember, they're charging INTO danger. And, like all self-defense shootings, it usually takes several good hits to disable somebody quickly to keep them from hurting you or somebody else. Police are more likely than regular CCW permittees to have to face the situation of shooting to keep a 3rd party safe, I think. At least in the public sphere.

Plus, we have to remember that in a case with several shooters, regular CCW permittees will not be playing Rambo unless they're cornered; they'll be trying to GTFO ASAP. "Die Hard" is but a movie. But the cops? Yeah, they're suppose to head towards the gunfire.


But unless they're subject to immediate recall in case of emergency, then they should be limited the same way regular citizens are when off-duty. You can even make a case that their service guns, uniforms, and other items should not accompany them home.

[Travis_0004]

17. They also have back up a lot of the time.

If the people in NYC can only be trusted with 7 round mags, then the cops should have the same restrictions. The odds of a cop even firing their weapon in the line of duty is low.

[oneshooter]

18. And the odds of said police missing their target

and hitting bystanders is a lot higher .

[Jenoch]

7. I have a question related to this thread but not to the poll.

Is it currently legal for an FFL to sell a new semi-auto handgun in California that does not have the microstamping technology imbedded? Is it legal for an FFL to sell a pre-microstamping semi-auto handgun that is NIB?

[sarisataka]

8. As I read it

Pistols on the Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale are grandfathered in.
http://certguns.doj.ca.gov/

The catch is that there is an Expiration Date on all firearms so eventually they will drop off the list unless they are modified to meet the updated requirements. Once off the list a pistol can not be sold.

[Jenoch]

9. I looked at that list and

it appears most will expire by next year. The California legislature is betting the gun manufacturers will comply with their law. I am not so sure.

[sarisataka]

10. My thought is more

cynical.
Comparing the recently added to recently removed, I think the CA lawmakers know manufacturers won't do major retooling for just one state. Today there are 1281 models on the list; I expect that number to plummet over the next year or two.

[petronius]

14. There is an annual 'maintenance' fee ($200) for each model in order

to keep it on the list - the expiration date is the due date for that fee. As long as the manufacturer pays the fee, each model remains on the list and doesn't need to meet current requirements...

(The Calguns wiki page is pretty informative, and references the relevant codes.)