1. #1
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    836

    Calif AG employee says no LEOSA in Calif

    FYI from another list.
    One wonders how all these erroneous internet rumors get passed around. This is how - by incompetent employees overstepping their authority, knowledge, and abilities.
    To spread the word thru the LEO community here are the following messages which have been received by LEOs from states outside of CA inquiring about LEOSA in CA. An employee from CA AG's office, Brent George, (he's responsible for emails) has offerred his opinion from the AG's official site as to LEOSA in CA.
    BTW, Brent George's "opinion" and "understanding" of the law differs 180* from the CA AG who has published a memo concerning CA's implementation of LEOSA in CA and they are fully complying with federal law.
    From the exchange with Brent George one can quickly see that he has no legal training and has no understanding of federal law. He believes that states have to implement and recognize federal laws before they are effective in a state. Sounds like someone slept thru civics class in high school.

    Anyway, here's the exchange between Brent George, a LEO from PA, and at the end the response I received from George:


    This is in response to your recent correspondence to the Bureau of Firearms, regarding out f state peace officers carrying a concealed firearm in California. Out of state permits to carry a concealed weapon (CCW) are not recognized in California, not even in the case of out of state peace officers. Note that the federal regulation HR218 regarding peace officer CCW permits is not currently implemented in California. The only time an out of state peace officer CCW permit would be valid in California would be in the case of a federal peace officer carrying out official duties in California. In all other cases, handguns must be transported within California unloaded in a fully enclosed, secure locked container, such as a locking gun case.
    I hope this information is helpful to you. If you have any further questions or need further assistance, please contact the Bureau of Firearms at (916) 263-4887, or via e-mail.
    Sincerely,
    Brent George
    Staff Services Analyst
    California Department of Justice
    Division of Law Enforcement
    Bureau of Firearms
    Training, Information, and Compliance Section


    A request for clarification email was sent by a LEO from PA and Brent George responded with the following:

    Mr. Kxxxxxxx,
    This is in response to your recent correspondence to the Bureau of Firearms, regarding federal regulation HR218. I completely understand your point. However, the fact remains that at this time, California has not currently implemented or recognized HR218. I am not authorized to enter into a debate about such matters, but only to inform you of the information I have been given, when such information is approved for public dissemination.
    I hope this information is helpful to you. If you have any further questions or need further assistance, please contact the Bureau of Firearms at (916) 263-4887, or via e-mail.
    Sincerely,
    Brent George
    Staff Services Analyst
    California Department of Justice
    Division of Law Enforcement
    Bureau of Firearms
    Training, Information, and Compliance Section
    (916) 263 - 4868


    I then inquired of Brent George of his lack of knowledge and erroneous legal advice. This is the response I received:

    Captain SXXXXX,
    This is in response to your recent correspondence to the Bureau of Firearms, regarding HR218, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004.
    First of all, let me assure you that I am indeed an employee of the California Department of Justice, Bureau of Firearms. I am responsible for all e-mail communications received through the Bureau of Firearms public website. My employee number is 4868. My title is Staff Services Analyst.
    Second, please allow me to apologize if I ever gave anyone the impression that I was issuing any type of legal opinion, as this is definitely not the case. I am not authorized to issue legal opinions. I merely convey information as I understand it, when and if that information is approved for public dissemination. I was stating what my understanding of the facts of the situation currently are. Those facts, as I understand them, are that HR218 has not yet been fully implemented in California. That is all I ever said.
    The full text of your comments has been forwarded to my immediate supervisors and department counsel for review. If it turns out that I disseminated outdated information, meaning that the situation has changed within recent months and I was not aware of it, you will most certainly have a written correction from me.
    If you have any further questions or comments, please contact the Bureau of Firearms at (916) 263-4887, or via e-mail.
    Sincerely,
    Brent George
    Staff Services Analyst
    California Department of Justice
    Division of Law Enforcement
    Bureau of Firearms
    Training, Information, and Compliance Section
    (916) 263 - 4868
    brent.george@doj.ca.gov

  2. #2
    Oh no, it's da Po-Po
    Blackdog F4i's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,821
    Ooops.

    Someone needs to remove their head from their rectum.
    "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - George Orwell
    8541tactical.com - Ammo Wallets

  3. #3
    I ♥ my GLOCK
    reils49's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    NYS
    Posts
    3,287
    I would like to see this challenged in court.
    Last edited by reils49; 05-12-2008 at 04:12 PM.

  4. #4
    "Retired"
    pulicords's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    5,724
    FYI-
    The California Department of Justice is not the best choice of information regarding the legality/illegality of firearms related issues. Our current "Top Cop" (Attorney General and leader of DOJ) is our ex-"Governor Moonbeam"- Jerry Brown. Several months ago, a large number of local news media outlets (including the Los Angeles Times and Los Angeles Daily News) ran a story on a UCLA study that "discovered" many convicted felons and other persons legally prohibited from owning/purchasing firearms were buying ammunition. The California Department of Justice spokesman was quoted as saying that there was no legal prohibition against these people buying or possessing live ammunition, even though it's a felony in California for them to possess even a single round! Possession of a magazine, clip or speed loader is also punishable as a felony and each item possessed, can be charged as an individual criminal count.

    After informing the local news outlets of their error and verifying retractions were made, I contacted the California Department of Justice. Their personnel, refused to allow me to speak with the "spokesman's" supervisor and notified me that the Department of Justice is (apparently) the only law enforcement agency in the State of California that has refuses to take complaints against their personnel and (in violation of state law) has no written procedure in effect regarding complaints. The legal misinformation provided to the public (including criminals) was done so without consequence by the DOJ "hack" and the department had no problem with that whatsoever.

    When DOJ doesn't see anything wrong with allowing and encouraging felons to be unlawfully in possession of ammunition, why should it surprise us that they unlawfully prevent active or retired out of state officers from carrying firearms for self-protection? Welcome to California!
    "I'm not fluent in the language of violence, but I know enough to get around in places where it's spoken."

  5. #5
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    2,520
    Quote Originally Posted by pulicords View Post
    When DOJ doesn't see anything wrong with allowing and encouraging felons to be unlawfully in possession of ammunition, why should it surprise us that they unlawfully prevent active or retired out of state officers from carrying firearms for self-protection?[/I][/B] Welcome to California!
    If I recall during American Prohibition, it was illegal to manufacture or sell liquor but not to drink it.

    It's not just California, that's how we do things in America!

    Hold on though. Why is the "Staff Services Analyst" responding to these types of e-mails? What's a "Staff Services Analyst" do?

  6. #6
    Forum Member
    ford123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    ny
    Posts
    644
    "The only time an out of state peace officer CCW permit would be valid in California would be in the case of a federal peace officer carrying out official duties in California."

    Well he is wrong on many points.

    Many Federal LEO's, (including my Agency) can carry off duty, anywhere in the US of A.

    And LEOSA authorizes many local LEO's to carry anywhere in the US as well.

    As far as I know, California is part of the US....

    Oh, and no "CCW permit," requiered...

  7. #7
    L-1
    L-1 is offline
    Forum Member
    L-1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    California
    Posts
    5,193
    Guys,

    Don't get too worked up over this. This was just a Staff Services Analyst, not a Deputy AG. They do not have the authority to render legal opinions on behalf of the AG's office. I suspect this person was just trying to be helpful and in the process, misspoke about that with which they were not familiar.

    In response to inquiring minds, a Staff Service Analyst performs work of average difficulty in a wide variety of consultative and analytical staff services assignments such as program evaluation and planning; systems development; budgeting; planning; training; management; and personnel analysis; and does other related work. Work at this level is distinguished from lower-level assignments by the analytical and evaluative nature of the work, rather than the performance of process-oriented assignments.

    However, the Staff Services Analyst was partially correct when he said California had not implemented HR 218. HR 218 says that you either need an ID card from your agency saying you have met the qualifications of this legislation, or you need an ID card from your agency accompanied by a second ID card issued by your state, stating you meet your state's range qualification standards. California has not established range qualification standards nor does it issue ID cards. According to POST, that is left to local agencies.

  8. #8
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    836
    His job as "staff systems analyst" is to handle incoming emails. His pay is $44K/yr. He's the guy working at the AG's office on a Saturday night watching for incoming emails.
    He had a tiny bit of knowledge and decided to expand on the topic into an area where he has no knowledge and to start providing legal interpretation. He got into the BS factor and got caught.

  9. #9
    Oh no, it's da Po-Po
    Blackdog F4i's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,821
    Yet another reason I do not now, and shall not ever live in Kalifornia.
    "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - George Orwell
    8541tactical.com - Ammo Wallets

  10. #10
    Conservator of the Forum
    GoldBadge's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,172
    Quote Originally Posted by ford123 View Post
    "The only time an out of state peace officer CCW permit would be valid in California would be in the case of a federal peace officer carrying out official duties in California."

    Well he is wrong on many points.

    Many Federal LEO's, (including my Agency) can carry off duty, anywhere in the US of A.

    And LEOSA authorizes many local LEO's to carry anywhere in the US as well.

    As far as I know, California is part of the US....

    Oh, and no "CCW permit," requiered...
    and not every FLEO is a peace officer under the CA law. I'd like to see them try to arrest a non-peace officer FLEO for CCW.

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