Feds’ CA Carve-Out Craters. For Now

Sorry Bub, only guns on the approved list. For now. (courtesy wklaw.com)

“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),” calgunlaws.com reports. “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?” Why indeed.

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

47 Responses to Feds’ CA Carve-Out Craters. For Now

  1. avatarGov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    I can accept that civilians should be (in violation of the 2nd amendment) denied some military hardware, but civilian police have no right to possess anything civilians are denied.

    • avatarThomasR says:

      So if it’s in violation of the second amendment, why do you accept that citizens should be denied access to the same military hardware as our armed forces have access to?

      • avatarGov. William J. Le Petomane says:

        The constitution is only as strong as the willingness of the population to follow it. Regardless of what the constitution says, regardless of whether you agree or not, the vast majority of Americans would not tolerate private possession of any sort of weapon of mass destruction. They barely tolerate private ownership of semi-automatic rifles. You can stomp your foot up and down all you want it’s not going to change anything, and I can accept that reality.

        Personally, constitution aside, I think you should be allowed to possess anything you want, as long as you don’t possess it with the intent to commit a crime. For instance, you could possess a few sticks of dynamite for the purpose of removing stumps, or a fully automatic rifle for no other purpose than entertainment. But I can’t think of a legitimate purpose to possess sarin gas. The government should be free to regulate ownership of weapons the public views as a threat by their mere existence. It’s up to us to convince others that the weapons we wish to have are not a threat. That’s just reality.

        • avatarThomasR says:

          I agree, the people of this country have completely abdicated all responsibility for being the the first line of defense for their communities and their country.

          The founding fathers intended for the militia to be stronger than any standing military, that means we would have the training and the weapons to defeat any attempt by the government to impose tyranny through a “professional” military.

          At this point, we have also become what our founding fathers warned would happen if we gave the responsibility for our protection to the government and the state enforcers; a bunch of thumb sucking overgrown adolescents refusing to be responsible for even the most minimal level of protecting their personal self, ( only 5% to 7%of a population get a CCL even in a shall issue state) let alone being a “well regulated” ( well trained and equipped) band of citizens soldiers.

        • avatarGov. William J. Le Petomane says:

          Change is a generational thing, it doesn’t happen overnight. But I do believe that the country is headed in the right direction on this one. Even among conservatives, 40 years ago being “tough on crime” meant that you wanted the government to hire more police and loosen the restrictions under which they work. Now it means that we should all have the right to arm ourselves and when the criminal attacks we’ll handle it ourselves and save the state the cost of a jury trial and incarceration. This is a giant leap back toward not only the founding father’s America, but the 18th century world in general.

          As far as militias having the capability to stand up to the standing army, it’s not really necessary. History has proven this over and over, from our own Revolution, to Vietnam, to Afghanistan (for us, the Russians and the British before them). Taking the enemy head on was the mistake the Confederacy made in the Civil War. Had they fought a guerrilla campaign instead there would be 2 Americas to this day.

        • avatarWLCE says:

          short barrel rifles and shotguns, suppressors, and select fires are not weapons of mass destruction.

          The fact that they’re heavily restricted is a infringement on the 2nd amendment in itself.

          The 2nd was intended to cover weapons of the respective period. infantry weapons.

        • avatarGov. William J. Le Petomane says:

          WLCE,

          Like I said, the constitution is only as strong as society’s willingness to follow it. If the Supreme Court started reading the 2nd amendment literally, a new amendment would be passed before you could even secure the yellow cake.

          If you want to change that, you have to change society. Convince your neighbors that unrestricted ownership of select fire weapons is a good idea and it will happen. But not overnight.

    • avatarRLC2 says:

      I agree that civilian police should have only same weapons and rights as civilians.
      I even support Ms Harris in her effort to promote States Rights over the Feds.

      Not that it makes sense here in CA, as civilians DONT have effective 2A rights,
      or that she would normally have a snowflakes chance in hell,

      BUT, because the One called her the prettiest AG in the USA,
      and Ms Harris is very ambitious, and the buzz seems to indicate she is a natural replacement for Eric Holder,

      then this is the sort of signal you want to pay attention to, for whats behind it.
      Is it a grandstanding shot accross the bow to FED LEOs that Ms Harris is even tougher than Mr Holder? Hmmmm… let the tin-foil hats be passed around…

      Honestly, I just feel bad for all the Feds who will have to downgrade to 10 round mags in their Bushmasters and MP5s, including the IRS Paperwork Police, DOE School Swatties, TSA gropers, State Game Wardens, and any of the 57 County cops and small town city cops, who will have to register their patrol car Mini 14s, and their personal Modern Sporting Rifles, and their kids Ruger 10/22 plinker they got for XMAS, as assault weapons, and cant sell them and their heirs destroy on death of current owner,

      just like the rest of us civilians when the lunatics in the CA Congress pass SB374:

      https://www.firearmspolicy.org/the-issues/california/2013-2014/sb374/

  2. avatartdiinva says:

    I don’t think that California can dictate to a Federal Agent what weapon he can acquire. It would be interesting to see what happens when the CDJ officers show up to assault a Federal Agent.

    • avatarTy King says:

      Even if you’re correct, California can still dictate what shopkeepers can sell.

    • avatarRoscoe says:

      @ tdiinva

      Never happen; CA DOJ agents would not go after a Fed Agent or Officer. If there were some egregious offense involved, DOJ would go through the agency to resolve.

      As Ty King stated, Harris would have to restrict the sales at the retail level to achieve her goal.

  3. avatarDirk Diggler says:

    politicians in CA may avoid this given the push for more revenues and the general pissed off atmosphere there – it would be bad ju-ju. Instead, they will lean on the “prettiest” attorney general to revise her list adminsitratively . . . right after BArry agrees to headline some fundraisers for her run for governor. . .

  4. avatarHenry Bowman says:

    “Why the double standard?”

    HAHAHA. That’s like asking why can prison guards have guns but prisoners can’t. The same relationship applies between “officially sanctioned government agents” and “the rest of us.”

    • avatarRich D says:

      So Henry Bowman, are we all criminals until proven otherwise? Another sheep among wolves. I hope you don’t feel violated when a real criminal comes to take from you. After all, its exactly what you are asking for.

      • avatarArdent says:

        Rich, I’m awfully sure Henry was being sarcastic.

      • avatarHenry Bowman says:

        Rich, I was merely pointing out that the double standard between government agents and us mere mundanes exists because the government views all who are not “officially sanctioned” as undesireables. The double standard is BS, of course, but as to why it exists… well, it’s because they view themselves as better than us.

  5. avatarMntneer says:

    Kudos to Kamala Harris. Now if manufacturers would stop selling to those states and localities that limit the citizens rights. For example, limit all sales of handguns to New York agencies to the subcompacts or revolvers that carry less than 7 rounds.

    What’s good for the goose should be good for the gander.

    • avatarJus Bill says:

      What has happened in NYS is that a number of manufacturers and online retailers of “prohibited” arms will not sell to NYS LEOs either. Sauce for the gander…

  6. avatarKMc says:

    Because they can. Still. Always, one way or another?

  7. avatarmediocrates says:

    California should be totally disarmed. Then we can give all of our felons a free ticket to San Diego.

  8. avatarPeter says:

    I thought this law was passed as a safety measure, to keep unsafe guns out of the state.
    Do they magically become safe when handled by a LEO?

  9. avatarRoscoe says:

    Interesting; I wonder if purchases through one’s agency are effected by her statewide edict. I bet not. They weren’t in my day, and I bet that’s still true today.

    On the one hand I want to say “What an extremist unjust gun grabbing b….”.

    On the other I think fair’s fair let’s level the playing field.

    You can guess which thought win’s out though.

    Not one step back.

    Go around her extremist a55.

  10. avatarAharon says:

    Because…

    1) they will be claimed to be in a special class that faces retaliation by criminals.
    2) they will be claimed to have been professionally trained.
    3) they will be claimed to need them for their jobs.

  11. avatarArdent says:

    I’m with the author, this won’t last. Further it doesn’t (can’t legally) apply to issued weapons, only to privately purchased weapons for personal use. The latter lacking a carve out for anyone actually makes more sense than having carve outs for some groups. That is if you ignore the unconstitutionality of the law in the first place.

    All in all it’s just more evidence of how far out of touch California pols are in general.

    • avatarRoscoe says:

      Agreed!

      In addition, no LEO in CA is going to roust a Fed on anything concerning the handgun roster.

  12. avatarMark N. says:

    It is not a question of arresting or rousting, it is a question solely of private purchases. All Kamala has said, and it appears to be correct, that the language of the statute (as enacted into law) does not provide an exception for federal leos to privately purchase off roster guns, as it does for state leos. This law does not apply to officially issued firearms and mags.

  13. avatarQuentin says:

    “We are all at risk.” Really?????

    So you claim you’re at the same level of risk of someone who spends their working life putting criminals in prison and keeping them there? Who might have to worry 20 years down the road about multiple someones getting out of prison, and attacking you and your family? Do you in all honesty expect people to believe that?

    • avataruncommon_sense says:

      Quentin,

      Actually the general population is more at risk. Look at the victims of violent crime and tell me how many are off-duty law enforcement officers versus how many are citizens. I cannot recall an off-duty law enforcement officer being the victim of a revenge violent crime ever in my entire life. Has it happened? Probably a few times. And that pales in comparison to the 100+ million citizens who were victims of violent crime over the last 50 or so years.

      Regardless, rights are not subject to risk. And even if you wanted to use “risk” to limit rights, how do you objectively, quantitatively, and accurately determine the “risk” that a law enforcement officer faces off-duty with the risk that an average citizen faces? Who determines the “risk threshold” below which government can deny someone their rights and above which government cannot deny someone their rights? How do you stop the person who “calculates” a citizen’s “risk level” from abusing their office? And what are the units of the risk calculation — percent injured per lifetime???

      A citizen who owns some particular firearm with some magazine capacity and some rate-of-fire does not make that person a criminal any more than a citizen who owns 5 gallons of gasoline and matches or model rocket igniters. Remember, 2 ounces (a quarter cup) of gasoline has as much chemical energy as one stick of dynamite. That means a citizen who possesses 5 gallons (640 ounces) of gasoline has the chemical energy equivalent of 320 sticks of dynamite. And yet I don’t see anyone screaming to prevent citizens from possessing 5 gallons of gasoline.

  14. avatarGreeneGuy says:

    Hey why not. Here in NY there is a carve out to the SAFE Act that allows LEOs (present employees and retirees) to still posses high capacity magazines, load their magazines with more than 7 rounds, and they can still purchase “assault weapons”. They’ve created a double standard caste system under the guise of “safety”. If Gov. Cuomo had his way, confiscation would be the law of the land as well. He said so himself.

  15. avatarMark N. says:

    “Why the double standard?” Com on RF you know the answer to that. “It’s for the children!”

  16. avatarAmanathia says:

    I’m waiting for the CA attorney general porn parody, thank you very much. “Cameltoe Harris” might be the title of it. Maybe not, someone else can probably do better :(. “THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: WATCH HER CONSTITUENTS GET SCREWED” might be better. /no idea.

  17. avatarRLC2 says:

    HOWEVER NOT ALL HOPE IS LOST-

    CCW good news coming….(sorry to hijack thread, slightly, so putting this last, as its relevant – but Robt, is it maybe worth a separate article? I recommend contact Brandon Coombs at Calguns Foundation as the go-to guy for more)

    This is a bit confusing, but comprehensive-

    http://www.examiner.com/article/the-future-of-concealed-carry-california

    “As California goes, so goes the nation”.

    Before the naysayers and nihilists and Kali bashers get started- let me ask:

    Do you want a shall issue outcome like in IL, here in CA? That would then lead to more in say, MA, CT, NY? Then we need a Supreme Court decision, and this is the key:

    Tell your friends, and your reps at NRA, SAF, GOA and JFPFO to get out the word, and send support to Calguns and FPC, where a well-funded team approach to careful legal strategizing building foundations on strong precedence and setting up for well-timed decisions have put the 9th court in a headlock, which has only until December, this year, to delay on a decision that will either support CCW,
    or
    create such a legal contradiction that the Supremes will have to step in and set it right.

  18. avataruncommon_sense says:

    I’m not sure what to think of this. At least the California Attorney General is being consistent. I never thought I would see a state that was so rabid about gun control that they would even discriminate against federal law enforcement.

  19. avatarMatt in FL says:

    I’m fairly certain this will only apply to firearms purchased at retail by the agents themselves, not to organizational purchases, so while it’s a step in the right direction, I’m not sure it’s terribly important.

    • avatarDaniel Silverman says:

      Many LEO’s get a stipend to purchase their firearms. If this is the case at the federal level they are screwed. Then how dose a beat cop know if the federal officer purchased it himself or it was office issued?

      • avatarMatt in FL says:

        Yeah, I don’t care. The laws are stupid, and they’re stuck with them just like we are. Eff ‘em.

  20. avatarDaniel Silverman says:

    Oh this is just beautiful.. No really it is..

    Unless they are buying under single shot exemption..
    No new hand guns for you, unless they are micro stamped, or you are happy with a GEN 3 instead of a GEN 4. Oh this is just precious…

    Also if the bill which outlaws transfer, sale of any gun not on the list, like those purchased through single shot exemption, goes through… Well the Feds will be in a world of hurt.

    Now of course the M4 carbine, and other big stuff is still legal because those are not handguns.. I hope they sue the hell out of her…
    I really hope she keeps up the lunacy. Really.. Day by day her run at governor will fade..

  21. avatarFederale says:

    Kamala Harris cannot regulate, nor can the State of California, regulate the Federal government. What it can do is regulate the firearms purchased by employees. Most Federal law enforcement employees carry firearms issued to them and purchased directly from manufacturers based outside California.

  22. avatarWilliam Burke says:

    “Winner of the “Dumbest Congressman(person) Award” 18 years running.”

    How she could be dumber than Hank Johnson is a mystery to me:

    http://blog.heritage.org/2010/04/01/video-congressman-thinks-the-island-of-guam-could-tip-over/

    Either that, or Hank Johnson is the master of irony.

  23. avatargs650g says:

    Things are going to get ugly when some pigs are officially more equal than others.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.