Page 2 of 2 First 12
  1. #26
    DAL
    DAL is offline
    "Official Non-Person"
    DAL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    California - Nevada
    Posts
    9,792
    Quote Originally Posted by SgtCHP View Post
    My post is for information only. That is why I posted the CA AG's opinions and the LEOSA. In order to qualify under LEOSA, an officer must be a full time officer working for and under the authority of a qualified law enforcement agency. Reserves do not qualify in that regard. They are not full-time law enforcement officers."
    You seem to be confusing active reserves and retired reserves. The part of LEOSA that applies to active law-enforcement officers is 18 U.S.C. § 926B. There is absolutely nothing in that section that requires full-time employment. What constitutes "employed by" is left undefined, but part-time employment is clearly employment. Many departments pay their reserves.

    Furthermore, Cal. Govt. Code § 1030 refers to uncompensated peace officers as employees, and the Labor Code considers reserve officers who are volunteers employees for purposes of workers' compensation.
    Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
    Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. -- Albert Einstein

  2. #27
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by DAL View Post
    You seem to be confusing active reserves and retired reserves. The part of LEOSA that applies to active law-enforcement officers is 18 U.S.C. § 926B. There is absolutely nothing in that section that requires full-time employment. What constitutes "employed by" is left undefined, but part-time employment is clearly employment. Many departments pay their reserves.

    Furthermore, Cal. Govt. Code § 1030 refers to uncompensated peace officers as employees, and the Labor Code considers reserve officers who are volunteers employees for purposes of workers' compensation.
    Yep. My department policy and ID card clearly states as a reserve, I am covered under LEOSA to carry a firearm.

  3. #28
    Retired Sergeant - CHP
    SgtCHP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Left Coast
    Posts
    6,252
    Quote Originally Posted by DAL View Post
    Furthermore, Cal. Govt. Code § 1030 refers to uncompensated peace officers as employees, and the Labor Code considers reserve officers who are volunteers employees for purposes of workers' compensation.
    Only while on duty and performing the duties of a peace officer for the entity involved. As you say, for worker's compensation ONLY. When they are not on-duty, they have limited powers and authority. Not the same as a full-time peace officer.

    The statement within LEOSA that qualifys is:

    (c) As used in this section, the term “qualified law enforcement officer” means an employee of a governmental agency who—
    (1) 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, and has statutory powers of arrest;
    (2) is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm;
    (3) is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the agency;
    (4) meets standards, if any, established by the agency which require the employee to regularly qualify in the use of a firearm;
    (5) is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance; and
    (6) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm.
    The final factor is the AGENCY policy as it pertains to Reserve Officers. That is the essential. If the agency is not willing to permit the individual to CCW, then LEOSA does not come into being for those individuals. No agency approval, no federal approval.
    Last edited by SgtCHP; 04-17-2012 at 09:35 AM.
    Be courteous to all, but intimate with few, and let those few be well tried before you give them your confidence!

    [George Washington (1732 - 1799)]


  4. #29
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Ann Arbor, MI
    Posts
    304
    Quote Originally Posted by SgtCHP View Post
    Only while on duty and performing the duties of a peace officer for the entity involved. As you say, for worker's compensation ONLY. When they are not on-duty, they have limited powers and authority. Not the same as a full-time peace officer.
    Which may be true for California (I defer to your knowledge), but this also varies state-to-state.

  5. #30
    DAL
    DAL is offline
    "Official Non-Person"
    DAL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    California - Nevada
    Posts
    9,792
    Quote Originally Posted by SgtCHP View Post
    Only while on duty and performing the duties of a peace officer for the entity involved. As you say, for worker's compensation ONLY. When they are not on-duty, they have limited powers and authority. Not the same as a full-time peace officer.

    The statement within LEOSA that qualifys is:



    The final factor is the AGENCY policy as it pertains to Reserve Officers. That is the essential. If the agency is not willing to permit the individual to CCW, then LEOSA does not come into being for those individuals. No agency approval, no federal approval.
    I did not say that a reserve is an employee for workers' comp only. The Govt. Code calls reserves employees. "Employee" is one of those terms that can have multiple meanings.

    Again, there is nothing in the legislation about being employed full time. In addition, the legislative history is directly contrary to your contention about LEOSA applying only if allowed the employing agency allows the officer to carry a weapon off duty, stating that LEOSA overrides local agency policies.

    Beyond that, most agencies, at least in Southern California, allow their reserves to carry a weapon off duty, either by giving them 24-hour peace officer powers or issuing them CCW permits.
    Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
    Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. -- Albert Einstein

  6. #31
    DAL
    DAL is offline
    "Official Non-Person"
    DAL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    California - Nevada
    Posts
    9,792
    Quote Originally Posted by zigziggityzoo View Post
    Which may be true for California (I defer to your knowledge), but this also varies state-to-state.
    Not true for California, as I explained.
    Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
    Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. -- Albert Einstein

  7. #32
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Montgomery Alabama
    Posts
    17,031
    Quote Originally Posted by DAL View Post
    I did not say that a reserve is an employee for workers' comp only. The Govt. Code calls reserves employees. "Employee" is one of those terms that can have multiple meanings.

    Again, there is nothing in the legislation about being employed full time. In addition, the legislative history is directly contrary to your contention about LEOSA applying only if allowed the employing agency allows the officer to carry a weapon off duty, stating that LEOSA overrides local agency policies.

    Beyond that, most agencies, at least in Southern California, allow their reserves to carry a weapon off duty, either by giving them 24-hour peace officer powers or issuing them CCW permits.


    DAL, with all due respect, and your post is the most recent in a thread of excellent ones, I still contend that our Reserve Officer is in a form of legal limbo. In Alabama, and I realize I am speaking in that context, a Reserve Officer has very limited authority and can act only under the supervision of a full time, certified LEO. That would seem to remove any protection(s) afforded a Reserve Officer under LEOSA. At least in this state. OTH, many smaller agencies in Alabama employ part time Officers. These Officers are fully certified under Alabama POST, and would be fully covered under LEOSA. I realize too, that the Officers I reference might have status as a class of Reserve Officer in California or another state, and thus be governed by another set of standards. In Alabama however, they are classed as part time Officers, but enjoy full LEO status.

  8. #33
    Retired Sergeant - CHP
    SgtCHP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Left Coast
    Posts
    6,252
    Quote Originally Posted by DAL View Post
    I did not say that a reserve is an employee for workers' comp only. The Govt. Code calls reserves employees. "Employee" is one of those terms that can have multiple meanings.

    Again, there is nothing in the legislation about being employed full time. In addition, the legislative history is directly contrary to your contention about LEOSA applying only if allowed the employing agency allows the officer to carry a weapon off duty, stating that LEOSA overrides local agency policies.

    Beyond that, most agencies, at least in Southern California, allow their reserves to carry a weapon off duty, either by giving them 24-hour peace officer powers or issuing them CCW permits.
    I think we are drifting too far off of the original topic. Refer to the OP's original post. You and I are debating CA law. He is in AZ. I don't know AZ law and I am certain that you are not that familiar with it either. Apologies to the OP. Let's get back on track.
    Be courteous to all, but intimate with few, and let those few be well tried before you give them your confidence!

    [George Washington (1732 - 1799)]


  9. #34
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Montgomery Alabama
    Posts
    17,031
    As usual, I find myself in agreement with SgtCHP. Good thoughts for the OP. To the OP, you will best be guided by the policies of the agency which commissions you as a Reserve Officer. In large part these policies will be based on Arizona Law.

  10. #35
    Surfing Socal
    Jiu-Jitsu Cop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    2,638
    Quote Originally Posted by zigziggityzoo View Post
    http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/leosiss.pdf

    From California Attorney General's office:



    Take that for what you will.
    Not to mess with you but you need to update your CPC. As of 2012 all of the weaons sections 12020 - 12031 CPC have been rewritten and renumbered.
    Budda sat in front of a wall and when he stood up he was enlightened. I sat in front of a wall and when I stood up the wall was enlightened.


    We forge our skills in the fire of our will.

  11. #36
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Ann Arbor, MI
    Posts
    304
    Quote Originally Posted by Jiu-Jitsu Cop View Post
    Not to mess with you but you need to update your CPC. As of 2012 all of the weaons sections 12020 - 12031 CPC have been rewritten and renumbered.
    That's directly from the California Attorney General's office. I didn't write it, I just found the link. And best I can tell, it's from about 4 years ago.

  12. #37
    DAL
    DAL is offline
    "Official Non-Person"
    DAL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    California - Nevada
    Posts
    9,792
    I think it would be unwise to start carrying a weapon off duty in another state as soon as you become a reserve, especially if you are traveling to a state like California. Your maturity and judgment levels make it more likely that you will get into trouble. In addition, the law is unsettled. Although I suspect that criminal charges would not be filed even if you were unfortunate enough to get arrested, you really don't want to find out.

    Additional points:

    (1) On page H4816 on the House Report, Rep. Cunningham stated that the law was intended to override policies of police departments that prohibited their officers from carrying off duty.

    (2) Before being broadened in 2010, 18 USC 926C distinguished between qualified active officers and qualified retired officers. Retirees were required to have been "regularly employed." Active-duty had no such requirement. Therefore, "irregular" employment should suffice.

    (3) The Tennessee Attorney General has published an opinion on this subject.
    http://www.tn.gov/attorneygeneral/op/2005/op/op29.pdf

    March 21, 2005
    Opinion No. 05-029
    Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004
    QUESTIONS
    1. Do part-time and reserve police officers in Tennessee meet the definition of
    “qualified law enforcement officer[s]” in the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004?
    2. Can an agency prohibit their part-time and reserve police officers from carrying
    firearms off duty and thus preclude them from the benefits of the Law Enforcement Officers Safety
    Act of 2004?
    OPINIONS
    1. Part-time or reserve status does not disqualify officers from being considered
    qualified law enforcement officers for the purpose of the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of
    2004.
    2. An agency can prohibit the off-duty carrying of firearms by part-time or reserve
    police officers. If officers are not authorized by their agency to carry a firearm off duty, then they
    are arguably not entitled to the protection of the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004.
    Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
    Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. -- Albert Einstein

  13. #38
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,070
    Quote Originally Posted by DAL View Post
    Your maturity and judgment levels make it more likely that you will get into trouble.
    Just curious, OP has a whole 6 posts (I only read this one) and this post didn't seem immature and it didn't look like an exercise of poor judgement. Could you please explain why you would make the above statement about him??
    Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented immigrant" is like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"

  14. #39
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    7
    Rodeman,
    Tried to send you a PM but your account has them disabled.
    They are disabled by default (i just activated mine).

  15. #40
    DAL
    DAL is offline
    "Official Non-Person"
    DAL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    California - Nevada
    Posts
    9,792
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDog4907 View Post
    Just curious, OP has a whole 6 posts (I only read this one) and this post didn't seem immature and it didn't look like an exercise of poor judgement. Could you please explain why you would make the above statement about him??
    (1) He has not even been hired, but is concerned about carrying a weapon out of state. He should get used to doing so as an off-duty officer in his home state first.

    (2) He has no law-enforcement experience, and so is unlikely to have developed judgment about when to use a weapon and how to behave around law-enforcement officers.
    Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
    Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. -- Albert Einstein

Page 2 of 2 First 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Click here to log in or register