Thursday, August 15, 2013

California Attorney General to Feds: No Handguns For You

California Attorney General to Feds: No Handguns For You

Apparently, Attorney General (AG) Kamala Harris has changed California State Department of Justice policy and is now limiting federal law enforcement agents’ ability to acquire handguns. The AG says the feds can only buy firearms listed on the Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale (like the rest of us).
Understandably, federal law enforcement officers aren’t happy about it. Welcome feds, to the California disarmament festival.
California law restricts the types of handguns people can acquire through licensed firearm dealers (PC 32000). As backwards as it sounds, before most Californians can acquire a handgun, that firearm must not be considered “unsafe.” To not be considered “unsafe,” handguns must pass performance tests and have certain features that (in theory only) make the firearms allegedly safer (PC 31910). 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 (PC 31910(b)(7)).  Starting a couple months ago, this easily circumvented engraving technology is now required on new semiautomatic pistols before they can be added to the approved roster (pistols submitted for safety testing when “microstamping” was certified, on May 17, 2013, can still be added to the Roster).
California citizens are just as frustrated as federal law enforcement officers with the situation. When the roster of available pistols they can purchase dwindles down to a limited few – because manufacturers are refusing to implement “microstamping” – federal law enforcement’s objections will grow louder. And if pending legislation (SB 293) concerning “smart guns” passes and is signed by the Governor, federal law enforcement will also be forced to choose from an even more limited number of models … just like civilians.
Forgive us mere civilians if we aren’t completely sympathetic to the plight of the feds.
The Feds predicament stems from a recent (and correct) change in the Attorney General’s interpretation of existing California law. While California law restricts the sale of “unsafe handguns” by dealers, there are some exceptions to the restriction. The exception used by most law enforcement agencies and officers, and the one used until recently by federal law enforcement officers, was the following:
The sale or purchase of any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, if the pistol, revolver, or other firearm is sold to, or purchased by, the Department of Justice, any police department, any sheriff’s official, any marshal’s office, the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency, the California Highway Patrol, any district attorney’s office, or the military or naval forces of this state or of the United States for use in the discharge of their official duties. Nor shall anything in this section prohibit the sale to, or purchase by, sworn members of these agencies of any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
Pen. Code, § 32000(b)(4) 
You might notice, as did the California’s Attorney General, that federal law enforcement officers are not mentioned in this exception! The “Department of Justice” referred to in this section is the California Department of Justice, not a federal agency. So the AG’s analysis is correct: federal law enforcement is not exempt from the “unsafe handgun” restriction.
Welcome to the party guys! Don’t drop your soap.
Hey, maybe the feds can try to take advantage of a number of other exceptions to “unsafe handgun” sales restriction.The private party exception (PC 32110(a)) allows “unsafe handguns” to be transferred between two individuals who reside in California. That works sometimes. In fact, maybe federal law enforcement officers can convince their friends in the Sacramento Sheriff’s Office or Los Angeles Police Department to purchase firearms on their behalf, as a few officers from those agencies have been doing. But oops, turns out that’s illegal. (See the following links concerning the federal criminal case filed against members of the Sacramento Sheriff’s Department, and articles concerning the LAPD illegal transfers).
http://ow.ly/nkKjQ
http://ow.ly/nkKmv
http://ow.ly/nkKpw
Okay, if that won’t work maybe the federal officers can take advantage of the “single shot pistol” exception (PC 32100). Some civilians have tried this, by finding a single shot version of “unsafe handguns” they want to acquire, then modifying it after purchase. This voids the warranty, but we do suggest that feds buy these before the legislature closes this exception as well (AB 169 is currently in the appropriations “suspense file” but may be brought back at any time).
No doubt this screwing of federal agents will be “fixed” by the legislature when and if federal law enforcement agencies find a state politician with a compassionate ear. Despite the law’s potential change, the question remains: why is law enforcement allowed special privileges to acquire firearms to defend themselves and their families when the general public can’t acquire the same firearms? We are all at risk. So why limit anyone’s right to access the best tools to defend themselves and their families? Why the double-standard?
Barring those few exceptions we, the self-defense civil rights activists of California, welcome federal law enforcement officers to the State of California disarmament festival. We thank them for their service. We look forward to them joining us in the limited exercise of our Second Amendment rights, or fighting for its expansion … for all of us!
This article is filed in the following categories in the CalGunLaws.com database: Legal Frontlines.
  • Sal Bonito says:
    There are now too many reasons for a Californian to consider moving out of state… these draconian gun bills and laws just might be enough for me to give up on this state.
    How can so many be so fooled by so few?
  • Frank says:
    Lets all get together and vote these idiots out off office, there has got to be more of us then them.so ldts do it
  • Will says:
    CALDOJ is just as clueless as anyone else regarding the law. I was told over the phone that I should probably get CCW for my Federally issued duty weapon so I’m not in violation of California law. My response was how to I get a CCW for a weapon that is owned by the federal government? Oops, can’t do that either….so essentially all Federal Agents are in violation of California law by carrying duty weapons and magazines since the only mention of federal agents in all of these new laws refers to us while on duty….Honestly California can go F itself. I’m screwed here as a gun owner, and am now getting the shaft as a federal agent….don’t call me to help when this welfare state starts burning to the ground….
  • Will says:
    I’m also in the process of writing state legislators and speaking to lawyers to try and get this resolved. So don’t think I’m all talk.
  • askeptic says:
    Several comments today at other sites wondering if the carve-outs in firearms laws are not a de facto granting of nobility to LE, in violation of the Constitutional prohibition of the granting of titles (Art-I, Sec-9(8).
  • Carl Adams says:
    As Sal says, it is time to get out of California. I’m headed for Az where the gun laws are sane.
  • Hank O says:
    Don’t forget, California does not recognize the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, aka HR 218, that allows authorized federal, state and local law enforcement, active and retired, to carry a concealed weapon nationally. It’s not just active and retired feds BUT ALL ACTIVE AND RETIRED LAW ENFORCEMENT that do not have a California CCW.
  • Please do not move to arizona, or if you do dont try and implement any of your silly laws here. Otherwise come on over, just leave your government there.
  • JanK says:
    I just heard today on the news that crime in California is on the rise. I’m SHOCKED! Realignment and disarming honest citizens, and the crime rate rises. Go figure. Hello, Idaho?
  • Steven in CA says:
    What CA DOJ says regarding whether a federal law applies in this state is legally irrelevant. If AG Kamala Harris thinks it doesn’t apply, maybe she should read the Supremacy Clause in the US Constitution as well as the ancient case of In Re Neagle in which the Supreme Court held that a fed officer carrying out his duties can’t be prosecuted in a state court. (Neagle, a US Marshal, was charged with murder by CA after Neagle shot a former CA Supreme Court Chief Justice who was attacking an incumbent US Supreme Court Justice!.)
  • NotWill says:
    I think Will is a Mall Ninja. I hope we dont have agents who think and act like that employed.
  • Ron says:
    Kamala is running for the “Grand Moff Tarkin” award. “The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.”
  • [...] California seems to be engaging in their own nullification law. [...]
  • [...] buy firearms listed on the Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale (like the rest of us),” calgunlaws.com reports. “No doubt this screwing of federal agents will be ‘fixed’ by the [...]
  • [...] buy firearms listed on the Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale (like the rest of us),” calgunlaws.com reports. “No doubt this screwing of federal agents will be ‘fixed’ by the [...]
  • Beth Anne says:
    You ask why the double standard…
    Because we the people allow it. When will we stop the madness?
  • John says:
    Now, if we could just persuade the manufacturers of all the firearms that are on the list to withdraw their products, would we not have slam dunk of a case to offer under Heller (I think) that we must be allowed to purchase firearms that are in common use and that therefore the list is unconstitutional?
  • there’s no laws as such in Alaska,they wont allow contamination by lower 48 states as said there.
  • Charles Ross says:
    If it is a good law for California, it is a good law for Federal police (and local).
  • [...]  He has much more on the issue here. [...]
  • […] they may not. Although that policy change is a correct interpretation of the law, as CalGunLaws recently explained, now the DOJ is curiously hesitant to reevaluate its incorrect policy that retired federal […]

No comments:

Post a Comment