LEOSA and California's Senate Bill 918

[rdtompki]

This unconstitutional bill will make it virtually impossible for ordinary citizens to carry without violating the law. I'm not former LE, but reading up on LEOSA it appears most/all of the onerous restrictions will apply to anyone carrying under the provision of LEOSA. The cherry on top is the provision that all private businesses are to be consider gun free zones unless they post a state-specified notice to the contrary (same for churches). The list of restrictions is extremely lengthy but includes, for example, parking lots of schools, medical facilities, parks, .... A medical facility would be a dentist's office in a large strip mall. The 1000' keep out zone around school facilities (parking lot included) would probably make it impossible to drive through any city. It will take years for this to work it's way through the judicial system. Thankfully I no longer live in that hell hole. Lots of reasons to avoid California.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

General thread on CA and related at: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....arly-worthless

Not focused on LEOs, but FYI.

[Jim Watson]

The cherry on top is the provision that all private businesses are to be consider gun free zones unless they post a state-specified notice to the contrary (same for churches).

This is the same approach New York is taking.

A suspicious person might think that the superficially favorable but narrowly drawn and easily circumvented court decisions are intentional.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Amen, brother. My conclusion in the other thread. Now this is a LEO thread, so let's not divert. We can comment on general issues in the other thread cited.

[Jim Watson]

you do not have permission to access this page.

Is it a paywall thread?

[Lon]

Not surprising. But isn’t a problem for me since I have no plans of ever visiting that shit hole state.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Site supporter forum, Jim.

[ST911]

I'm not former LE, but reading up on LEOSA it appears most/all of the onerous restrictions will apply to anyone carrying under the provision of LEOSA.

Reading and applying statutes in isolation is problematic, so I'd invite our CA LE/legal contingent to chime in. That said, the statute seems to apply the restrictions only to those licensed under the delineated sections (26150, 26155, 26170). If not licensed (LEOSA), seemingly not applicable - unless another section is in play.

26230. (a) A person granted a license to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person pursuant to Section 26150, 26155, or 26170 shall not carry a firearm on or into any of the following:

This also comes up from time to time for LEOSA carriers when talking about required disclosures of carry when in contact with LE. Some of those requirements are similarly written, "carriers licensed under the provisions of this section shall..." If not licensed, not applicable.