PDA

View Full Version : Law Enforcement buying OLL!!!


GMONEY
11-21-2008, 12:17 PM
I was in a SoCal shop today and saw an Sergeant pick up a Noveske! This is good news as I believe LEO's who are familiar with these shops are familiar with the law!

= Less Headaches for us!

sorensen440
11-21-2008, 12:18 PM
Should have talked to him
I woudln't be surprised if he were a calgunner

bwiese
11-21-2008, 12:29 PM
There are many LEOs with OLLs.

Hell, the Aug 2006 regulatory hearing in Sacto was staffed with some CHP officers (probably for 'protection' against apparently 'unruly' gunowners) who managed to draw specific duty due to their interest in OLLs.

Unfortunately a significant fraction of LEOs buying OLLs appear to be configuring their personal guns as AWs - without dept. letter, without DOJ registration. One FFL witnessed MMGs or BBs being removed in parking lot and replaced with AW configuration and dropped into patrol car trunk.

Hopi
11-21-2008, 12:33 PM
Unfortunately a significant fraction of LEOs buying OLLs appear to be configuring their personal guns as AWs - without dept. letter, without DOJ registration. One FFL witnessed MMGs or BBs being removed in parking lot and replaced with AW configuration and dropped into patrol car trunk.

I think that this is not as unfortunate as it may seem.......

BONECUTTER
11-21-2008, 12:33 PM
I have sold hundreds to LEO's. When I first started selling OLL's and people were on the "are they legal" fence LEO's buying them was about 60+% of my customers.

I guess they figured they would have more flexibility than most people.

LBPD, SDSD, OCSD, SAPD,CMPD, FVPD, LAPD, LASD, .....Come to think of it I can't think of any local department who I hav't sold OLL's.

Just depends on the officer.

Ironchef
11-21-2008, 12:44 PM
South San Francisco PD has at least 2 cops who are OLL owners, and one is a Calgunner I believe, the other is my sister's boyfriend.

Sam1
11-21-2008, 12:47 PM
they still bust us for having OLLs, maybe the staff at these shops should educate them because they probably think they're the only ones who could buy OLLs.

bwiese
11-21-2008, 12:48 PM
I think that this is not as unfortunate as it may seem.......

;) <bseg>

trinydex
11-21-2008, 1:36 PM
so these department letters that are issued to leos... they are only for duty use?

how does an leo get a letter saying they can have a registered assault weapon for duty and personal use (like i believe i remember iggy's letter saying)

http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/Ignatius_Chinn-M4-Letter-2005-05-17.pdf

here's the letter, it's from his lea. so once he stops working for the doj, does this paper expire?

JWC6
11-21-2008, 1:46 PM
nearly two years ago at Bright Spot Pawn, I counted at least three LEO's DROSing or picking up OLLs.

jmzhwells
11-21-2008, 1:53 PM
Some agencies provide AW's for work purposes, and wont write letters. So practice is hard since the dept. doesnt provide very much. Some LEO's are buying the OLL's to train with. 10 rnds at a time isnt very good, but better than nothing, or very little.

Hopi
11-21-2008, 2:04 PM
Some agencies provide AW's for work purposes, and wont write letters. So practice is hard since the dept. doesnt provide very much. Some LEO's are buying the OLL's to train with. 10 rnds at a time isnt very good, but better than nothing, or very little.

LEOs can legally buy high-caps without a letterhead. It would be my guess that many are using detachable magazine configs, MMG etc (at least those still in legal config).....

jmzhwells
11-21-2008, 2:13 PM
LEOs can legally buy high-caps without a letterhead. It would be my guess that many are using detachable magazine configs, MMG etc (at least those still in legal config).....

The MMG doesnt really simulate the pistol grip, like the one in the car. But who knows.

CCWFacts
11-21-2008, 2:14 PM
(at least those still in legal config).....

I assume they are a lot more relaxed about legal config than non-LEOs. It seems impossible that a LEO would be prosecuted for a non-legal config, unless he was involved in some other serious crimes. There are enough cases of LEOs getting away with non-legal full-auto configurations. I personally encountered a California LEO with his FA gun in Nevada, without having done the 5320.20 (http://www.atf.treas.gov/forms/pdfs/f532020.pdf). I believe non-Federal LEOs have to do the 5320 just like everyone else. He mentioned that he thought it was required but he hadn't bothered to do it.

Hopi
11-21-2008, 2:15 PM
I assume they are a lot more relaxed about legal config than non-LEOs. It seems impossible that a LEO would be prosecuted for a non-legal config,

Sadly, you'll get no argument from me on these points as I have not an appropriate rebuttal.

Hopi
11-21-2008, 2:17 PM
The MMG doesnt really simulate the pistol grip, like the one in the car. But who knows.

Either way, you're training half-pregnant......either shackled by a mag lock, or going MMG, IMO, both sacrifice the muscle memory learned by training with your fighting gun.....

jmzhwells
11-21-2008, 2:23 PM
I assume they are a lot more relaxed about legal config than non-LEOs. It seems impossible that a LEO would be prosecuted for a non-legal config, unless he was involved in some other serious crimes. There are enough cases of LEOs getting away with non-legal full-auto configurations. I personally encountered a California LEO with his FA gun in Nevada, without having done the 5320.20 (http://www.atf.treas.gov/forms/pdfs/f532020.pdf). I believe non-Federal LEOs have to do the 5320 just like everyone else. He mentioned that he thought it was required but he hadn't bothered to do it.

Isnt a non-legal config an unregistered AW. I think the state will have a prob with that. If the state doesnt care, then I hope that the agency will. I know several that use the prince 50, that way they can go out of state and unscrew for training purposes. I dont think the 5320 is reqd for that is it?

trinydex
11-21-2008, 2:28 PM
I assume they are a lot more relaxed about legal config than non-LEOs. It seems impossible that a LEO would be prosecuted for a non-legal config, unless he was involved in some other serious crimes. There are enough cases of LEOs getting away with non-legal full-auto configurations. I personally encountered a California LEO with his FA gun in Nevada, without having done the 5320.20 (http://www.atf.treas.gov/forms/pdfs/f532020.pdf). I believe non-Federal LEOs have to do the 5320 just like everyone else. He mentioned that he thought it was required but he hadn't bothered to do it.

The recent murder arrest/investigation of a prison guard up in Sacramento area revealed he owned some DoubleStar OLLs - and unreg'd AW charges were mentioned, if not actually filed.

It appears these OLLs may have been configured with a 'brass pass'.


Also: this is not a 'loophole'. The law was clear. We merely comply with the law and all court decisions. If the legislature had intended for these situations to have been addressed they could have updated the law: in fact, they moved the other way and approved AB2728.

in regards to that officer in sac i believe the news article said something about the da holding officers to a higher standard.

CCWFacts
11-21-2008, 2:32 PM
Isnt a non-legal config an unregistered AW. I think the state will have a prob with that. If the state doesnt care, then I hope that the agency will. I know several that use the prince 50, that way they can go out of state and unscrew for training purposes. I dont think the 5320 is reqd for that is it?

5320.20 HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH OLLs! It's for NFA stuff ONLY. IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT "NFA" MEANS, THEN IT'S NOT RELEVANT TO YOU.

As for "would the state have a problem with LEOs owning illegal AWs?" A gun in a non-legal configuration is, of course, an unregistered AW. I can imagine their departments telling them to fix the situation, but I can't conceive of a prosecutor wanting to convict an otherwise-law-abiding LEO of that. I could imagine them tacking it on if there were other serious misconduct. This is just my opinion based on my views of how the real world works, which is not always fair, not at all.

jmzhwells
11-21-2008, 2:45 PM
5320.20 HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH OLLs! It's for NFA stuff ONLY. IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT "NFA" MEANS, THEN IT'S NOT RELEVANT TO YOU.

Thats what I was thinking, however it was mentioned in an OLL post. Just trying to claify. Thanks. And yes i know what NFA means. It means Not For Americans. LOL

CCWFacts
11-21-2008, 2:53 PM
Thats what I was thinking, however it was mentioned in an OLL post. Just trying to claify.

Yes, it's good to clarify on that. I wouldn't want someone reading this to send in that form the BATF for no reason. Not that anything bad would happen, it's just unnecessary and pointless and the BATF will wonder, "why are you sending this to us".

CalCop
11-21-2008, 5:50 PM
so these department letters that are issued to leos... they are only for duty use? how does an leo get a letter saying they can have a registered assault weapon for duty and personal use (like i believe i remember iggy's letter saying)
12280(f) (1) Subdivisions (b) and (c) shall not prohibit the possession
or use of assault weapons or a .50 BMG rifle by sworn peace officer
members of those agencies specified in subdivision (e) for law
enforcement purposes, whether on or off duty.

CalCop
11-21-2008, 5:53 PM
so once he stops working for the doj, does this paper expire?He did stop working for DOJ. He now works for SFPD. I'm sure he kept his assault rifle. The penal code says he can buy it cuz he works for DOJ. It also says he can possess it since he works for a PD. Question is...can he keep it when he retires?

yellowfin
11-21-2008, 7:19 PM
I'd imagine he'll still need something to destroy desks with...

jb7706
11-21-2008, 7:47 PM
Question is...can he keep it when he retires?

IIRC there was a thread on that topic a while back. The thinking was that once it is registered it is treated the same as an AW that was registered by any given civillian. That means he keeps his rifle after his LEO status is gone. Nothing I have seen in the law says that the regitration expires at retirement or other end of service.

sac550
11-21-2008, 7:54 PM
He did stop working for DOJ. He now works for SFPD. I'm sure he kept his assault rifle. The penal code says he can buy it cuz he works for DOJ. It also says he can possess it since he works for a PD. Question is...can he keep it when he retires?

The rifle is registered in the officers name, not in the name of the agency. When the officer retires, or leaves the agency the rifle is still in their name. They are not required to turn in the rifle, even if they are fired.

hoffmang
11-21-2008, 7:59 PM
There are two distinct issues regarding LEO AW registration based on a department letter. Ownership of the rifle, and registration of the rifle.

When an AW is acquired using a department letter it is registered into the name of the officer. If the officer used his own money and clearly owns title to the AW, then he can treat it just like any other registered AW for the rest of his life and does not need to relinquish it. If the AW was purchased with department or city/county funds, he would either have to arrange to acquire it or give it back to its rightful owners - even though he still had it registered in his name.

Most of the time a registered AW by letter will be a firearm owned by the officer.

-Gene

tetris
11-21-2008, 8:48 PM
Isnt a non-legal config an unregistered AW. I think the state will have a prob with that. If the state doesnt care, then I hope that the agency will.

Why would the State have a problem with its agents having superior firepower? That's how the State exercises its power. The State only has a problem with YOU having a semi-auto.

Bobula
11-21-2008, 8:54 PM
I work for a le agency, several have olls.

Backcountry
11-21-2008, 10:25 PM
Double standard... LE carry a lot less risk to have an OLL with a detachable mag (which makes it an illegal AW) versus the average citizen. While I support LE 100%, I think that this double standard is BS and I fully support prosecuting any LE in violation to the fullest extent, in order to bring about "change" that allows ordinary law abiding citizens the constitutional right to arm ourselves as we wish.

E Pluribus Unum
11-21-2008, 11:23 PM
Unfortunately a significant fraction of LEOs buying OLLs appear to be configuring their personal guns as AWs - without dept. letter, without DOJ registration. One FFL witnessed MMGs or BBs being removed in parking lot and replaced with AW configuration and dropped into patrol car trunk.

Selective enforcement at its best.....

No cop is going to arrest another cop for possession of an illegal AW... especially on duty.

bwiese
11-21-2008, 11:46 PM
Selective enforcement at its best.....

No cop is going to arrest another cop for possession of an illegal AW... especially on duty.

Um, Iggy did. As DOJ agent he's an LEO.

Several SFPD cops were popped in 2000, quite a few dismissed. One cop with an FFL was charged with AW sales violations and went to prison.

Iggy popped some SJPD cops by logging serial #s at a LE shoot in Gilroy.
Several cops got nastygrams in their personnel file and 'surrender your illegal gun' letters from DOJ.

E Pluribus Unum
11-21-2008, 11:51 PM
Um, Iggy did. As DOJ agent he's an LEO.

Several SFPD cops were popped in 2000, quite a few dismissed. One cop with an FFL was charged with AW sales violations and went to prison.

Iggy popped some SJPD cops by logging serial #s at a LE shoot in Gilroy.
Several cops got nastygrams in their personnel file and 'surrender your illegal gun' letters from DOJ.

Iggy is a zealot... I am not talking about him... he would bust his own grandma.


I am speaking on the local level.

trinydex
11-22-2008, 1:34 AM
The rifle is registered in the officers name, not in the name of the agency. When the officer retires, or leaves the agency the rifle is still in their name. They are not required to turn in the rifle, even if they are fired.

do they ever register guns that they already own?

Max-the-Silent
11-22-2008, 6:44 AM
Contrary to popular belief on this site and most everywhere else, cops are human beings, they have hobbies they pursue in their off-duty time, and some guys are serious shooters and gun owners - and they don't believe that gun control is a good idea for the civilian populace.

Some LEO's might even have a personal don't ask, don't tell policy about firearms wrt law abiding people, LEO or otherwise.

CalCop
11-22-2008, 6:47 AM
While I support LE 100%, I think that this double standard is BS and I fully support prosecuting any LE in violation to the fullest extent, in order to bring about "change" that allows ordinary law abiding citizens the constitutional right to arm ourselves as we wish.Yeah, pretty much. I know plenty of cops with OLLs...including myself...they are configured legally.

Max-the-Silent
11-22-2008, 6:49 AM
Um, Iggy did. As DOJ agent he's an LEO.

Several SFPD cops were popped in 2000, quite a few dismissed. One cop with an FFL was charged with AW sales violations and went to prison.

Iggy popped some SJPD cops by logging serial #s at a LE shoot in Gilroy.
Several cops got nastygrams in their personnel file and 'surrender your illegal gun' letters from DOJ.

Bill, you're in essence correct, but the "cop" with the FFL was a SFPD washout that lost his FFL, and was using his copy on file with certain distributors to order AW's, and was selling these rifles to LEO's around the bay - to the best of my knowledge the officers involved surrendered the rifles in question and were not prosecuted, but I'm unsure of the disposition of the sellers case - he may have plea-bargined out.

CalCop
11-22-2008, 6:51 AM
to have an OLL with a detachable mag (which makes it an illegal AW) Not necessarily true. An OLL can have a detachable mag so long as the OLL doesn't have a pistol grip, flash suppressor, collapsible stock, etc.

fairfaxjim
11-22-2008, 7:06 AM
Contrary to popular belief on this site and most everywhere else, cops are human beings, they have hobbies they pursue in their off-duty time, and some guys are serious shooters and gun owners - and they don't believe that gun control is a good idea for the civilian populace.

Some LEO's might even have a personal don't ask, don't tell policy about firearms wrt law abiding people, LEO or otherwise.

These aren't the LEO's that make me nervous. The general anti-gun tone of the elected representatives in this state rolls downhill at all levels. They hire and fire the LE Agency Chiefs, approve their budgets, and have more say in the dept. than they really should have. After enough years of this, we now have LE agencies whose official policies, whether openly stated or not, have become very anti civilian firearm ownership and posession. Officers are trained to treat anyone with a firearm as a suspect, an armed suspect at that, and the policies and procedures have become arrest anyone you can with a gun an let the DA sort it out. A few LEO's that are gun friendly are fine, but in reality, an LEO contact, particularly in an urban area, while in posession of a firearm is a very risky encounter, even if all laws are being complied with and all your i's are dotted and t's crossed. An encounter with a black rifle, subject to so many rules and interpretations that the LEO's can't seem to get it right with their own rifles, is even more risky. It boils down to the old Dirty Harry line "Do you feel lucky today punk? Well, do you?"

5150Marcelo
11-22-2008, 7:50 AM
Where in hell did he find a Noveske in stock!

homerm14
11-22-2008, 10:29 AM
Bill, you're in essence correct, but the "cop" with the FFL was a SFPD washout that lost his FFL, and was using his copy on file with certain distributors to order AW's, and was selling these rifles to LEO's around the bay - to the best of my knowledge the officers involved surrendered the rifles in question and were not prosecuted, but I'm unsure of the disposition of the sellers case - he may have plea-bargined out.

I know and work with several of the officers involved in this. This was right after the ban when most were not sure of the specifics of the law. No one was prosecuted, but all involved had to surrender the weapons (with no compensation) because they were misinformed by the FFL. Most of the officers involved tried to donate the guns to the department and were not allowed to by the DOJ (Iggy). There are quite a few officers in my department that don't particularly care for him.

trinydex
11-22-2008, 2:06 PM
I know and work with several of the officers involved in this. This was right after the ban when most were not sure of the specifics of the law. No one was prosecuted, but all involved had to surrender the weapons (with no compensation) because they were misinformed by the FFL. Most of the officers involved tried to donate the guns to the department and were not allowed to by the DOJ (Iggy). There are quite a few officers in my department that don't particularly care for him.

so they did they wrongfully surrender the weapons too? how did iggy ever mess things up so bad for so many people, be such a zealot and still be able to get a law enfrocement job after retiring from doj?

Max-the-Silent
11-22-2008, 2:07 PM
I know and work with several of the officers involved in this. This was right after the ban when most were not sure of the specifics of the law. No one was prosecuted, but all involved had to surrender the weapons (with no compensation) because they were misinformed by the FFL. Most of the officers involved tried to donate the guns to the department and were not allowed to by the DOJ (Iggy). There are quite a few officers in my department that don't particularly care for him.

Iggy makes friends wherever he goes...I just wish that he'd decide to try making friends on the island of Elba or someplace similar.

Max-the-Silent
11-22-2008, 2:11 PM
so they did they wrongfully surrender the weapons too? how did iggy ever mess things up so bad for so many people, be such a zealot and still be able to get a law enfrocement job after retiring from doj?

No "wrongfully" to it.

They got suckered by a guy they trusted, to what extent I don't know, but the rifles in question hadn't been registered pursuant to state law, and there were no agency love letters filed on their behalf in the first place.

Considering what Iggy wanted to happen to all of them, surrendering the pieces was painless.

And the answer to your second question is that police administrators and rank and file officers are entirely different animals.

CCWFacts
11-22-2008, 2:11 PM
Contrary to popular belief on this site and most everywhere else, cops are human beings, they have hobbies they pursue in their off-duty time, and some guys are serious shooters and gun owners - and they don't believe that gun control is a good idea for the civilian populace.

I completely believe that. It's pretty obvious. I think that most cops, even in places like SF, who are at the "working" level, have a very realistic understanding, and they know that the AR-15 in my closet is not a threat to them, whereas the rusty Raven 25 in that crack dealer's pocket is. And they know the key factor there is that I'm not a crack dealer.

It's the cops higher up, at the "political" levels, that are the problem in this state.

Some LEO's might even have a personal don't ask, don't tell policy about firearms wrt law abiding people, LEO or otherwise.

I'm fully aware of that also. Many "working" cops understand what's important and what's not, and realize that making an arrest of "Joe Citizen", who has no criminal intent and isn't causing any problems, just because he happens to be carrying sans permit or whatever, is the wrong priority.

trinydex
11-22-2008, 2:37 PM
No "wrongfully" to it.

They got suckered by a guy they trusted, to what extent I don't know, but the rifles in question hadn't been registered pursuant to state law, and there were no agency love letters filed on their behalf in the first place.

Considering what Iggy wanted to happen to all of them, surrendering the pieces was painless.

And the answer to your second question is that police administrators and rank and file officers are entirely different animals.

ic.... is he a police administrator right now?

A324
11-22-2008, 2:56 PM
Iggy makes friends wherever he goes...I just wish that he'd decide to try making friends on the island of Elba or someplace similar.

Iggy protecting the public with FUD

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j71VD4aiFg&feature=related

Max-the-Silent
11-22-2008, 2:59 PM
ic.... is he a police administrator right now?


No - it's admin that does the hiring. The fact that Iggy is persona non grata at OPD won't make him any firends on SFPD, but it warms the cockels of an administrator's heart.

javalos
11-22-2008, 3:18 PM
Lots of cops doing that, some sheriffs deputy's here in Calaveras county do it despite the sheriff being anti-gun. Sheriff walked into a gun dealers store and told him he had issues with him selling OLL's and building complete rifles out of them. So now the gun dealer epoxy's and pins the magazine to the receiver because he's afraid the sheriff will harass him.

CalCop
11-22-2008, 6:14 PM
I completely believe that. It's pretty obvious. I think that most cops, even in places like SF, who are at the "working" level, have a very realistic understanding, and they know that the AR-15 in my closet is not a threat to them, whereas the rusty Raven 25 in that crack dealer's pocket is. And they know the key factor there is that I'm not a crack dealer.

It's the cops higher up, at the "political" levels, that are the problem in this state.Bingo! Many line cops just shake their heads at admin forced policies. Line cops are generally not solicited for feedback...and even when cops are able to share ideas...they are usually ignored for more "enlightened" schemes.

I'm fully aware of that also. Many "working" cops understand what's important and what's not, and realize that making an arrest of "Joe Citizen", who has no criminal intent and isn't causing any problems, just because he happens to be carrying sans permit or whatever, is the wrong priority.In the academy...it's called "discretionary decision making."

CalCop
11-22-2008, 6:16 PM
so they did they wrongfully surrender the weapons too? how did iggy ever mess things up so bad for so many people, be such a zealot and still be able to get a law enfrocement job after retiring from doj?Not only did he get an LE job...he got it with SFPD, where he made the waves.

http://www.examiner.com/a-1376867~SFPD_s_latest_officers_may_be_new__but_bri ng_experience.html

Sgt Raven
11-22-2008, 9:40 PM
Not only did he get an LE job...he got it with SFPD, where he made the waves.

http://www.examiner.com/a-1376867~SFPD_s_latest_officers_may_be_new__but_bri ng_experience.html


Does his brother and sister officers know who he is and what he did to other officers? If they do, then will they be there for him when he needs back up? :rolleyes:

bwiese
11-23-2008, 10:23 AM
Does his brother and sister officers know who he is and what he did to other officers? If they do, then will they be there for him when he needs back up? :rolleyes:

Before we go completely off the wall on Iggy vs other cops, remember that during his duty in Oakland PD he helped bust some corrupt cops/DEA types for massive drug locker "leakage". I've forgotten the details, but it seems like he posed as a dirty dirty cop (as opposed to just a dirty cop, which he was at DOJ) willing to trade guns for drugs or vice versa and wore a wire.

The interesting thing about this, CA AW laws and cops is that it appears many 'drug cops' freely violate the AW laws either intentionally or thru misunderstanding. There's a real chance that one or more of these could be blackmailed into opening a drug locker (remember the famous "mouse" in the SFPD's marijuana evidence locker?)