“Lake County correctional officers are once more suing their sheriff and county, this time claiming breach of contract in connection with their ability to carry guns. The December lawsuit alleges current Sheriff Brian Martin has violated two terms of a 2011 legal settlement among the officers, the county and previous sheriff, Frank Rivero.” What’s the beef here? Sheriff Martin has allegedly limited when the officers can carry their service weapons both on and off the job.

In an email to correctional officers in March 2016, Martin issued a directive stating officers may carry service weapons only when they’re involved with transporting prisoners.

Under the previous settlement, the sheriff is required to issue the officers concealed carry permits. Permits he apparently doesn’t want them to use with their duty guns while away from the job.

They cannot carry their duty weapons when they merely stop by the office, fuel their vehicles or travel to and from work. The email, cited in the lawsuit, further noted that a concealed weapons permit does not authorize officers to carry weapons onto the jail grounds.

So in order to comply with the sheriff’s diktat, the correctional officers — who hold California concealed carry permits — would have to be un-armed while traveling to and from work. A requirement the officers aren’t taking lying down.

Filed in December, the current lawsuit is about protecting the safety of the officers by allowing them to arm themselves on and off the job, said David Mastagni, an attorney with Mastagni Holstedt, which represents Lake County’s 40-some correctional officers.

“Blue lives matter,” he said. “The public should support law enforcement in their efforts to remain safe.”

Who could disagree with that? Oh wait. This is California we’re talking about. Never mind.

Recommended For You

89 Responses to California Correctional Officers Sue Sheriff Over On- and Off-the-Job Carry Rights

  1. Not that much different than all the states that don’t have employer parking lot laws, is it? No carve outs!

  2. It gets tiring reading about all the idiocy. We need a SCOTUS that will rule that “shall not be infringed” is just as absolute as “shall not have other gods”.

    End the idiocy.

    • The 2nd Amendment has been unfeasible as an absolute since Nobel invented dynamite. There’s no way we can reasonably allow unfettered civilian ownership of biological, chemical, nuclear, or even conventional explosive weapons.

      • “… even conventional explosive weapons.”

        Private citizens had cannons in the 1770s. That’s part of what general Gage’s troops were after. Too dangerous for ordinary rebellious bumpkins.

        • Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

          (That concoction is a bit ‘frisky’ for cast-iron cannon fuel. Good-‘ole charcoal, sulfur, and boiled-down urine will do *nicely*…)

        • This One once talked to a BATFE&RBF agent about such things and their legality in his opinion. He responded “Do that and urine big trouble”.

        • Concentrated H2SO4 and KNO3 via a simple process will yield HNO3. Both sulphuric acid and potassium nitrate(saltpeter) are readily available in most countries.

        • Nitric acid can be made using ammonium nitrate and muriatic acid, both of which are generally available at farm supply stores.

          NH4NO3 + HCl = NH4Cl + HNO3

          Let the ammonium chloride settle into its own layer and draw off the nitric.

      • It says “arms.” Not “weapons”, which has been ruled any individual arm in common use by militia or standing armies, or in common, personal use by the citizens.

        The attempts at “assault weapons ban” are a land grab.

        Addressing the non sequitur … along with the several formula already alluded to, one could make effective quantities of any category of agent named, with commonly available materials, and a modicum of knowledge. Except nukes. Nukes are hard.

        Look at the meth cookers, old school moonshiners, or modern improvisations of bombs and mortars. People actually can do this stuff.

        And yet, the people who use gas or bio weapons are all part of the “Who rules?” scrum, while regular folk who want to mind their business, mind their business.

        Kinda exactly like guns.

      • Oh look, the “no Right is absolute” opinion, ok, so the 1st 4th, 5th, 10th13th etc can be regulated too, got it.

        Liberalism IS a mental disorder.

        • The only logical and reasonable laws would be to punish the misuse of said items, not mere possession.

        • At this point, it would require restricting access to basic chemistry textbooks.

          Kinda doubt that’s possible these days.

      • But we (the U.S.A. and the world) did. Explosives were sold at hardware stores (“over the counter”) prior to the NFA of 1934. Nobel invented dynamite back in the 1860’s and TNT was made/discovered in the 1890’s. For decades ordinary people purchased and used them. Fertilizer, gunpowder, tannerite, and probably a bunch of other explosive substances I am missing are currently available “OTC”.

        As technological knowledge increases your list of prohibited/banned items and substances will grow. As knowledge increases and the availability of parts and substances increases so does the folly of arms control. We wold have liked to have kept nuclear tech in hands of one nation state but now that number hovers around nine.

        • Noble invented nitroglycerine, a liquid, that was transported in glass bottles by wagon to various oil drilling sites in the South West. The wagons were painted red, and were prone to exploding if the liquid was too harshly joggled. Eventually someone discovered that nitroglycerine was stabilized when it soaked into saw dust, and the nitro impregnated saw dust, formed into sticks and ignited electrically or by a fuse, became what is known as dynamite.

      • Logic Fail: 100%. You can not BEAR artillery, tanks, nukes, submarines. It’s about things you can shlep around.

        • Cannon and artillery were most certainly in private hands and clearly will be part of any future fight against tyranny. The only reason for government to ban, register and track such weapons is to collect them when they think we the people will rise up to overthrow them. Eventually, we either will overthrow government, or the whole country will fall to the almighty police state.

          Nukes shouldn’t be in the hands of any government or radical group. Chemical and bio weapons? Governments can’t be trusted with them either. In fact, government shouldn’t have access to anything but what we the people allow. The fed has successfully usurped the People’s power over the last 200 years.

        • For the framers, the philosophical justification for the 2nd amendment (from the writings of Adam Smith and John Locke) is our “natural right” to defend ourselves and our “natural duty” to defend others.

          What ever tools are necessary to that end (and not destructive of it) are meant to be protected. I would suggest that portability is not the criteria.

        • At least through the Civil War, things people could “schlepp around” included fully armed warships called privateers. As the name implies, privateers were privately owned, and merely licensed by the government (north or south) to engage in legal acts of piracy, gun running, and general smuggling.

      • Sorry to bust your bubble but even into the 60s (that’s the 1960s) a farmer could go down to the local hardware store and purchase dynamite. I had MUCH fun with my uncles blowin stumps and ‘fishin’ in the pond with sticks of dynamite. NO permit required.

    • Psalm 82

      1God has taken his place in the divine council;
      in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:
      2“How long will you judge unjustly
      and show partiality to the wicked? Selah
      3Give justice to the weak and the fatherless;
      maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute.
      4Rescue the weak and the needy;
      deliver them from the hand of the wicked.”

      5They have neither knowledge nor understanding,
      they walk about in darkness;
      all the foundations of the earth are shaken.

      6I said, “You are gods,
      sons of the Most High, all of you;
      7nevertheless, like men you shall die,
      and fall like any prince.”a

        • Not sure what Psalm 82 has to do with the post but . . .

          I do not see a problem with the translation. This guy took it from the ESV.

          “El” (אֵל), and its derivatives, are very broad in their use in biblical hebrew. The English word “gods” can be an appropriate translation of “el”/”elohim” if the context warrants it. The word “gods” does no always need the word “false” in front of it. To over theologize renderings is not a good way to do translations. Yes, you do get monotheism from the law, the prophets, and the writings but you don’t have to pack that into every verse.

          The word “eliyl” is often where you see the english word “idols”.

          Psalm 96:5 makes sense if you render it the way most translations do:

          For all the gods [elohe] of the peoples are idols [eliyl],
          But the LORD made the heavens. [NASB]

        • Not sure of the pertinince of some of this. Communication breakdown possibly, or limited comprehension on this one’s(Esoteric Inanity’s) part.

          The Bible was initially translated from Hebrew into Greek and from there English(granted old English). When trying to establish original meaning from biblical references it is important to take this into account.

          Regarding God and monotheism in the Old Testament, confusion seems to result when the word for “The God” is taken to mean merely “gods”.

          Apologies if this humble poster is confused and incorrect as he is neither a linguist, biblical scholar or even a person of faith. Hopefully the response was adequate for the initial inquiry.

          Nevertheless, thank you for the thoughtful analysis as samuraichatter seems to know what he/she is talking about. Informative indeed.

    • That is an interesting translation…it doesn’t say, “shall have no other gods,” it says, “shall worship no other gods before me.” In other words, you can worship other gods, except that He had to be Numba 1. Many people in the day had “house gods” to protect them from evil spirits, and etc etc etc. Monotheism was a much later development. The Bible says so.

      • I’m not sure which translation uses the word “worship” instead of “have.” But I would also check out Deut. 4:35 “All this you were allowed to see that you might know the LORD is God and there is no other.”

        • Thank goodness we’ve got you guys here to sort through all the difficult translation barriers. After that Tower of Babel episode where God confused the language ( Genesis 11 ) attempting to communicate effectively has been hell !

        • of course when I refer to translation, I mean KJV, NIV, RSV, NAB, New Jerusalem, Douay-Rheims…none of those versions had used “worship” instead of “have”, which provided the crux of Mark N’s argument.

          But…

          I hope all Californian correctional officers get carry rights restored…as should all Californians, and indeed all peoples.

      • The Hebrew word translated “before” can also be translated as “beside” or “in addition to” or “instead of.”

        • Literally the word לפני means “to the face”, so ancient rabbis commented that this meant no other gods where Yahweh can see them — which since Yahweh is everywhere and sees all, means no other gods at all.

  3. This just shows the hypocrisy of Californians that don’t believe in the 2nd Amendment. My question is if they won’t let officers carry Duty weapons to and from work what’s the chance of you getting a personal private citizen concealed weapons permit? I would say zero to none. I would have just reminded the sheriff that this isn’t the UK and we don’t play like that in this country. But then again it is California LOL

    • The article implies that they have CCWs, but that the Sheriff has limited where and when they can carry. Under Cal law, a sheriff can impose “reasonable restrictions” on such things. And Lake County is just on the northern edge of the Bay Area, just north of Napa County. (Napa County is a virtual no issue county.) Lake County used to be 2A friendly, but this suggests that there’s a new sheriff in town.

  4. Complaints of the priveledged few, a shame that the bodyguards of high profile politicians in the state aren’t subject to such onerous standards.

  5. Always funny how the California police are all about keeping their right to “keep & bare” when its they’re rights are compromised, and conspicuously silent when we wee folk’s rights are on the line.

    • That’s the problems with carve-outs. When off duty LEOs and prison guards and such receive special exemptions, it is one less voice to lobby for gun rights for everyone. They have their exemption and they drop off the radar.

      • We need to re-frame the argument, Danny.

        Stop calling them ‘carve-outs’, it gives them an air of legitimacy.

        Call ’em what they *really* are, ‘Dangerous Loopholes’ in the gun laws that must be CLOSED!

  6. Lhstr, Kalifornia’s population is spreading out there BS to other states. It is time to step on there shit and tell the liberial’s to go to hell and stay there in there little world.

    • Simple solution, extreme vetting. A battery of tests to ascertain the political beliefs, ideology, and sympathy inherent in any Californian who wishes to leave the sunny shores of Register-or-Jail-istan. As a Californian who plans most strenuously to leave these shores by the end of this year, I am ready to take the first test.

      *kneels* I humbly solicit to be allowed into the mysteries…..oops, that’s the fake masonic initiation ritual. Well, you get the idea. *stands up and walks away awkwardly*

      • You’re welcome in Colorado, but the first test we have is DO NOT make a full price offer on any house, ever. Sorry, but you’re going to have to pay taxes on your profit from the one you sold in CA. We cannot afford any higher housing costs.

  7. So basically the cops don’t like being unarmed on their way to work, just like most of the ordinary subjects.

    Got it.

      • I’ve known enough of both to feel that prison guards deserve more respect than most cops. Too many cops are working in low crime areas writing tickets. They should go work in places where they are needed.

        • Tough balance, because a lot of the people who live in those low-crime areas- people who often scrimped and saved every paycheck to get into one- want them to stay low-crime and want the police presence there. I’m thinking of Chicago in particular.

        • A common joke in one of the small towns where a California prison is located is that “you can’t tell the guards from the prisoners.”

  8. Ehh… tough to be too sympathetic. You think cops have awful gun handling? You ought to see how prison guards handle their weapons. Shit, I’m pretty sure the average gangster (who thinks you shoot a pistol sideways, with your arm bent so that it’s above you and the muzzle pointed slightly down) can handle a firearm more safely than your average prison guard.

    • Lot of personal experience lately? Because I work everyday with a number of outstanding Correctional Officers, including members of our Tactical Support Unit and Chase Team. Many of us are prior military with combat experience.

        • You correct prisoners for the duration of their stay in prison. They usually end up back in one though, such is life. Also a CO covered under LEOSA and my employer is doing the same. Matter of fact, an officer was ambushed on his way home and killed in a gang hit. Since then, that facility has changed their standards due to Warden’s policy and allows gun lockers on the premises for staff. Has yet to go higher than single facility protocol sadly. Always reaction instead of action.

        • Secure lockers. A reasonable solution. Reasonable restriction of public property (duty weapons) and protects right to carry to and from work.

          Don’t know if having a weapon would have saved the ambushed officer, but the man deserved a fighting chance.

  9. If these guys have statutory arrest powers like the officers of the California Dept. of Corrections they should be covered Under LEOSA/HR 218. Meaning these guys should be able to carry guns nation wide without carry permits. However if their Sheriff says no Dept. Issued weapons off duty and no personal weapons in the parking lot he has that prerogative. We are dealing with the same thing with my employer. This is more a Union issue than anything.

    • And that’s, I guess, why it’s a labor issue and not a legal one.

      One that could be solved fairly easily by setting up a fairly simple set of lockers in a controlled area where employees could deposit their firearms before entering the prisoner areas of the prison.

      But that would make too much sense. Let’s fight it out and pay lawyers instead.

  10. Sheriff Brian Martin just informed every criminal gang member the method to ambush and murder his officers. Nice to have a boss that doesn’t have your six and throws you to the wolves.

  11. So if they win they get to do exercise a “right” that most people in California can’t?

    It’s beginning to seem suspiciously like California doesn’t view the 2A a right but rather as a privilege…

    • Authoritarians of all stripes believe that rights are bestowed by government, and thus are in actuality privileges. The most vociferous defenders of that position I know are on the right, but the left has more of them.

  12. Yup! More “Carve-outs” , or “Special Privileges through Governmental, or Law Enforcement community Job Entitlements”. This is what our US Constitution, and the Bill of Rights are suposed to prevent with proper “checks and balances.”

  13. Almost the same kind of stuff like Massachusetts. Before, Stun Guns, and Tasers were illegal for everyone in Massachusetts because when they first showed up and were used by “Law enforcement ONLY”. A group of Police used them to torture a drug dealer….So, from then on “Electrical weapons” were illegal for everyone…Then, in the pass couple of years. The over-bloated, and over-zealous, paramilitarizied law enforcement community received ” Carve-Outs, or Special Privileges through Governmental Bureaucracy and Job Entitlements over the Massachusetts citizenry” through the Ma. Legislators, and Governor…Granting them full use once again, but for “Law Enforcement only–RESTRICTED !!!” This just another Infringements upon the Massachusetts citizens Bill of Rights…And a breach of proper “checks and balances”. Just ask AG. Maura Healey’s office…Maybe you “might NOT” receive an answer under the Freedom Of Information Act…..

  14. “The public should support Law Enforcement in their efforts to remain safe”

    So that means that this particular group of LEOs will be advocating shall-issue CCW licensing for the average Joe, right?

    • I’m a Correctional Officer, I’m covered under LEOSA, and can carry in any state I like. And I absolutely support the right of the average Joe to carry. I overwhelmingly support it, I call and write my congressmen, I vote accordingly, and am an NRA member. I know not all law enforcement is “civilian” gun friendly, but a very large number of us are pro-gun.

      • Thank you for clearing up a running question on this topic. So apparently we have a situation where this sheriff is banning lawful LEOSA CCW by corrections officers by banning personal weapons in the parking lot. In theory this makes sense because you don’t want escapees to grab a gun on their way out. But has this/does this ever happen? I don’t know. Then the sheriff goes further in regulating when and where COs may wear/carry their duty weapons, creating a defacto ban on lawful carry by personnel who are otherwise the most widely authorized carriers nationwide. Lawful? Don’t know. Do the COs have to secure their duty weapons at work? Do they have to “securely transport” their unloaded weapons to and from work? This sounds like corrections and the sheriffs department got into a pissing contest. Or just posturing by a political animal. We all lose when people like that are in power.

        While I can’t say for sure what’s happening here, I’m not ever in favor of special privileges for agents of the state while ordinary citizens’ rights are infringed. As such I do not support LEOSA, so long as my CCW does not afford me the same acceptance. The reality is all of our rights are infringed, and when government employees are given duties, responsibilities, and a duty weapon, I see nothing wrong with we the people regulating how and where these government employees may use assigned public property (duty weapons). That said they still have the right to purchase keep and bear their own personal weapons. So let’s restore the “shall not be infringed” part of our rights, and government employees can just deal with how we citizens deem it acceptable to limit their use of public property.

        For example, if a non-sworn prison employee who does not have a duty weapon cannot carry to and from work due to a prohibition on guns in parking lots, why then should the COs enjoy being able to do so? This hits close to home for me. I am a state employee, not any sort of officer, and though Florida protects CCW holders to the extent we can keep our carry weapons secured in our vehicles while parked at work (depends where…), I can’t carry at work. But the officers can. So we have all this BS “active shooter” “training”, and the most reasonable and effective defensive weapon for us to employ against a spree shooter is banned. Crime rates between CCW holders and LEOs show that CCW holders are less likely to commit crime that LEOs. We are the safest, most upstanding group of people, and I can’t carry at work. Makes perfect sense.

        Well, that rant is long enough…

    • haha you think they don’t?

      Check the stats on police supporting gun rights. Heck, even the chiefs of police organization recently reports that “86.4% of the US’s Chiefs of Police and Sheriffs “support nationwide recognition of state issued concealed weapon permits.”

      (and chiefs tend to be less pro-gun than the regular cops)

      • Name a large urban area where the chief is pro-2A. Milwaukee has a pro-2A sheriff, but the chief is decidedly anti. The only big city chief I know of is Detroit. All the others have bought into the “more guns equals more crime” belief system.

    • Because being of such low morals and suspect character that you take government employment should give you special privileges that honest citizens do not have? Right?

      • I agree sworn officers are entitled to no more than all citizens are.

        Your constant rhetoric about low morals individuals who take government employment is BS. Get over yourself.

  15. “Blue lives matter,” he said. “The public should support law enforcement in their efforts to remain safe.”

    Other color lives…….not so much?

    Karma or poetic justice……..

    Must feel eerie being treated like the masses, while wearing a badge.
    👮 🍩 🔫

    • You seem to irrationally hate all government employees. I am one. I agree we should fear legal consequences for betraying the public trust and violating oaths. Regardless, we are still entitled to protect ourselves, same as you. We should both be able carry all day every day. I should not be left unable to protect myself merely because I’m at work in a state building.

      Your constant ranting on this site about government employees is misplaced and tired.

    • They should fear doing their jobs? So they should just sit at their desks and collect their money?

      You’ve stated several times on this site that you have a debilitating illness, Chris. Are you sure the meds and the illness are not affecting your judgement?

  16. Screw em, no carve outs. If they want to go to the SC and the SC goes “hey, what about non-COs?” I’m okay with that too.

  17. As a jailer who starter working for my department just after a huge shootout by the jail.
    I can sympathize with the CO’s

    I can agree with the general public as well.it sucks that may issue places like comiforniastan and the People’s democratic republic of the armpit of the northeast will not issue under any circumstances to hardly anyone unless you are filthy rich.

    I support national concealed carry reciprocity simply for the fact it would hopefully allow people of those areas to be able to obtain a permit from other states

    But also don’t hate the CO’s for seeking there protection

    Most states have laws rightfully so banning guns in jails and prisons. So it sticks those of us who want to work in this profession in a predicament. Can’t ccw there because of laws can’t carry duty weapon because of policy. Which really leaves us vulnerable because we work in a profession that simply because of the Job we do “thugs” might try and murder us as we are leaving to go home

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *