PDA

View Full Version : AG Opinion re LEOs and AWs


jdberger
01-06-2011, 2:15 PM
From the California Attorney General's website:

http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/opinions/pdfs/o564_09-901.pdf


A peace officer who purchases and registers an assault weapon in order to use the weapon for law enforcement purposes is not permitted to continue to possess the assault weapon after retirement.

ocspeedracer
01-06-2011, 2:23 PM
HAHAHAHA! wow talk about slap in the face.
So I guess for them, buying an OLL and not registering it, with dept letter head?, is a way to keep it.

jdberger
01-06-2011, 2:24 PM
Interesting quote re Heller:

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.

Barabas
01-06-2011, 2:26 PM
Very, very clever.

jdberger
01-06-2011, 2:28 PM
One more interesting quote:

Heller declared that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and indicated that the states could still regulate the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.62 The California Court of Appeal has accordingly held that “possession of an assault weapon in California remains unlawful and is not protected by the Second Amendment to the federal Constitution as construed by the United States Supreme Court” in Heller.63

The court of appeal noted that, in enacting the Act, the Legislature was concerned with the unusual and highly dangerous nature of such weapons, as is memorialized in the Legislature’s statement of intent in section 12275.5. As the court stated, “These are not the types of weapons that are typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes such as sport hunting or self-defense; rather, these are weapons of war.”64 Because the possession of assault weapons is not a protected Second Amendment right in California, it appears that the appropriate

63 People v. James, 174 Cal. App. 4th 662, 664 (2009) (rev. denied Sept. 17, 2009, cert. denied 130 S. Ct. 1517 (U.S. Cal. Feb 22, 2010) (NO. 09-7933)). The James court’s holding also extends to .50 caliber BMG rifles. James, 174 Cal. App. 4th at 676.

OleCuss
01-06-2011, 2:28 PM
OK, but if the LEO buys and registers the AW for personal defense he/she can keep it after retirement?

How about if the LEO uses it for both work and for self-defense?

I think we can expect much more stupidity from the DOJ now that Kamala is in place.

Barabas
01-06-2011, 2:35 PM
There's more here than may be apparent at first reading. Don't write this off as being stupid yet.

spgripside
01-06-2011, 2:38 PM
Maybe bullet buttons and 10 round mags will be the new retirement gift of choice.

wash
01-06-2011, 2:40 PM
A peace officer who purchases and registers an assault weapon in order to use the weapon for law enforcement purposes is not permitted to continue to possess the assault weapon after retirement.

Could we attack that as an underground regulation?

As far as I know there is no part of the law that expires registrations beside de-registering an off list featured RAW to sell in non-"assault weapon" configuration.

In my opinion duty weapons should be issued, any other registration should be for personal firearms and not contingent on LE employment.

As much as I dislike the distinction between LE and everyone else, we can't have an AG pulling this crap out of her back side.

Crom
01-06-2011, 2:58 PM
As much as I dislike the distinction between LE and everyone else, we can't have an AG pulling this crap out of her back side.

No disrespect, but did you even look at it? It was published by Jerry Brown on his last day in office. Also note that it was Sheriff Gore who requested the opinion--not that it really matters anyway.

Now my understanding is that the Silveria v. Lockyer, 2002 (9th Cir) court invalidated a statutory exception with respect to retired peace officers; in they can't purchase AW at retirement time. So I don't even understand why this opinion was even necessary.

JDoe
01-06-2011, 2:59 PM
...As much as I dislike the distinction between LE and everyone else, we can't have an AG pulling this crap out of her back side.

The opinion was released Dec. 31, 2010 by Gerry Brown and Diane Eisenberg.

It looks like there is more to this opinion than just answering a question from Sheriff Gore.

Librarian
01-06-2011, 3:04 PM
Somewhat more interesting, I think, is the citation in footnote 63 to People v James (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/c057995.pdf)
In this case, we hold that possession of an assault weapon in California remains unlawful and is not protected by the Second Amendment to the federal Constitution as construed by the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) 554 U.S. __ [171 L.Ed.2d 657] (Heller).
OK, this is not terribly surprising, but run down to the reasoning...
As the court’s discussion makes clear, the Second Amendment right does not protect possession of a military M-16 rifle. (Heller, supra, 554 U. S. ___ [171 L.Ed.2d at p. 579].) Likewise, it does not protect the right to possess assault weapons or .50 caliber BMG rifles. As we have already indicated, in enacting the Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 and the .50 Caliber BMG Regulation Act of 2004, the Legislature was specifically concerned with the unusual and dangerous nature of these weapons. An assault weapon “has such a high rate of fire and capacity for firepower that its function as a legitimate sports or recreational firearm is substantially outweighed by the danger that it can be used to kill and injure human beings.” (§ 12275.5, subd. (a).) The .50 caliber BMG rifle has the capacity to destroy or seriously damage “vital public and private buildings, civilian, police and military vehicles, power generation and transmission facilities, petrochemical production and storage facilities, and transportation infrastructure.” (§ 12275.5, subd. (b).) These are not the types of weapons that are typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes such as sport hunting or self-defense; rather, these are weapons of war.

Kharn
01-06-2011, 3:05 PM
"Dangerous and unusual" weapons, when the AR15 is the fastest-selling design on the market at the moment? I applaud Brown's decision to hang his hat on that. :43:

taperxz
01-06-2011, 3:12 PM
Somewhat more interesting, I think, is the citation in footnote 63 to People v James (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/c057995.pdf)

OK, this is not terribly surprising, but run down to the reasoning...

Assault weapons are not illegal to have in CA. They just have to be registered.

Illegal and possesion with registration are not one in the same.

jdberger
01-06-2011, 3:12 PM
"Dangerous and unusual" weapons, when the AR15 is the fastest-selling design on the market at the moment? I applaud Brown's decision to hang his hat on that. :43:

That might be something that's difficult for the current AG to back out of.

Wouldn't that be wonderful?

dantodd
01-06-2011, 3:14 PM
Very interesting. The primary difference between Silveira and this exception is that when the officer purchases the firearm in question he/she has a monetary interest. This is a significant difference as I believe the law now becomes a governmental "taking." The Constitution has a lot to say about taking property. I am not sure how it works with real v. personal property though.

If the revocation upon retirement really is a taking it could potentially open the door to lots of interesting things. If it is a taking the government must show that it is taken for a "public purpose" and based on Heller that "public purpose" will have to be pretty damn good and be supported. I doubt they can say that a RAW in the hands of a retired cop is dangerous therefore, what is the "public purpose" of taking it?

GuyW
01-06-2011, 3:16 PM
Yep - that Moonbeam is a warrior for the 2nd Amendment - a WARRIOR I say!
.

dantodd
01-06-2011, 3:18 PM
Yep - that Moonbeam is a warrior for the 2nd Amendment - a WARRIOR I say!
.

Can you cut the thread crapping EVERY TIME anything comes up that mentions JB? He was, in the minds of many, the best choice of 2 bad options.

Crom
01-06-2011, 3:23 PM
Interesting quote re Heller:

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.


Yup. That's the only bright spot in the whole opinion. I'll be sure to point that out to Sheriff Gore.

Fortunately the AG's opinion letter wont mean much in the face of some high court rulings. We'll get there, one victory at a time.

1911su16b870
01-06-2011, 3:26 PM
This is a very interesting AG opinion. A LEO using his own money buys an item, registers that item with the state, but when he retires he looses that property. Where is the vehicle to retain his personal property?

This is from the last sentance in the second to last paragraph of the AG opinon "Because the possession of assault weapons is not a protected Second Amendment right in California, it appears that the appropriate level of scrutiny regarding the regulation of such weapons is not governed by Heller."

OleCuss
01-06-2011, 3:26 PM
I think that the MAWP mess adequately demonstrated that we couldn't realistically hope for much good from Brown. This kind of thing should emphasize that. Just expect even more stupidity from Kamala.

I'm kind of curious. Exactly how do Jerry/Kamala expect to unregister the AW's legally owned by LEO's? Are they going to set up another bit of bureaucracy and require that all LEA's report any retirements? And what happens if they switch agencies (maybe retiring from one LEA and hiring on to another - if possible)?

Or maybe all LEO's from henceforth will have to carry both their AW registration along with proof that they are still an actively serving LEO? So documentation requirements for LEO's may exceed those of non-LEO's?

Just finding this whole thing a bit intriguing.

taperxz
01-06-2011, 3:48 PM
HMMm, then under the equal protection clause, should a retired LEO also surrender his for duty only HI Cap mags, and off roster pistols?

Or did the new gov. open the door to more equal protection as in CCW's, mags, off roster pistols, ect. Just asking.

wash
01-06-2011, 3:50 PM
That might be something that's difficult for the current AG to back out of.

Wouldn't that be wonderful?
Interesting.

I'm sorry I didn't follow the link to see that JB wrote these.

It sounds like a trap...

bruss01
01-06-2011, 3:55 PM
What's the use of posting an opinion page on your last day in office?

What's to prevent the new AG (Kamala Harris) from putting up her OWN opinion page in it's place next week?

I really don't see a point to this. None of it is legally binding on the new AG.

timmyb21
01-06-2011, 3:55 PM
Just a thought, but do you think we could get pro 2A local LE on our side to get the AW registration opened up? I know they say it is open, but anyone who applies get's denied, right? Could this help?

yellowfin
01-06-2011, 3:59 PM
I like it. Getting rid of the class distinction between LE and non LE is a big step towards equality under the law and breaking down their priviledged status from which they attack our rights is a fundamental step in the right direction. They need to be in the EXACT same situation as everyone else.

wash
01-06-2011, 4:00 PM
What's the use of posting an opinion page on your last day in office?

What's to prevent the new AG (Kamala Harris) from putting up her OWN opinion page in it's place next week?

I really don't see a point to this. None of it is legally binding on the new AG.
This might be setting up a position for Camala that she won't back down from but that will lead to her getting her butt kicked in the lawsuits that will follow.

Beelzy
01-06-2011, 4:32 PM
LOL!!!.........No RAWs for you! :biggrinjester:

Crom
01-06-2011, 4:32 PM
I like it. Getting rid of the class distinction between LE and non LE is a big step towards equality under the law and breaking down their priviledged status from which they attack our rights is a fundamental step in the right direction. They need to be in the EXACT same situation as everyone else.

It is important to note that retired law enforcement is still a protected class of citizen. They should for example always be allowed to conceal carry long after retirement. The argument for this would pass even rational review; it is because of the enemies they may have made while enforcing the law as an active LEO.

Stonewalker
01-06-2011, 4:40 PM
It is important to note that retired law enforcement is still a protected class of citizen. They should for example always be allowed to conceal carry long after retirement. The argument for this would pass even rational review; it is because of the enemies they may have made while enforcing the law as an active LEO.

If retired LEO get CCW on that rational then so does everybody else who has ever made enemies. Equal protections.

CavTrooper
01-06-2011, 4:53 PM
It is important to note that retired law enforcement is still a protected class of citizen. They should for example always be allowed to conceal carry long after retirement. The argument for this would pass even rational review; it is because of the enemies they may have made while enforcing the law as an active LEO.

You could apply this logic to just about any job.

The burger flipper that gave someone food poisining or bad gas, the HR person that didnt hire or promote or had to fire someone, any member of the Military, and so on.

resident-shooter
01-06-2011, 4:59 PM
I like it. Getting rid of the class distinction between LE and non LE is a big step towards equality under the law and breaking down their priviledged status from which they attack our rights is a fundamental step in the right direction. They need to be in the EXACT same situation as everyone else.

I totally agree. After retirement and off duty, they are mere citizens. So let's cut away those privileges or US will be like Stalinist Russia/USSR where only party members were the civilians with guns.

CavTrooper
01-06-2011, 5:11 PM
This MAY be a good thing in that retired Leo's hold no position better than the rest of the unwashed. This type of reasoning needs to be carried over to the CCW/retirement issue as well.

For one, I don't believe AW's purchased by police or an officer are required to be registered if used for duty - this correct?

What makes this interesting is Jerry is not allowing the after the fact registration - which is allowed by the AW law, but DOJ has refused to allow. So again, Jerry is keeping retired leo's down like the rest of us - cool.

The BAD:
Maybe just an oversite in the memo to stay brief, but note there is more to where and how a RAW can be possessed than was stated. There was no mention to private property or the National Forest (public land).

This could also be a prerequisite to banning posession of RAW's. :TFH: Just a warm thought.

RAWs cant be possesed on NF land, BLM is okay for the most part but NF land is a no-go.

SteveH
01-06-2011, 5:17 PM
From the California Attorney General's website:

http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/opinions/pdfs/o564_09-901.pdf

So it a time of financial crises and budget cutbacks they took a step that will make it unlikely any police officer will spend his own funds on a rather expensive piece of work equipment? Brilliant!

SteveH
01-06-2011, 5:18 PM
RAWs cant be possesed on NF land, BLM is okay for the most part but NF land is a no-go.

For a short time RAWs were not permitted on NF land. They currently are.

CavTrooper
01-06-2011, 5:20 PM
For a short time RAWs were not permitted on NF land. They currently are.

Not to threadjack but can you point me to where the managing agency of the NF has given permission to posses RAWs on the property. Id like to add it to my "book of stuff about AWs".

Thanks.

4ME&MYHOUSE
01-06-2011, 5:22 PM
What if a retired LEO had previously registered AW, then while with an agency and prior to retirement he acquired another on agency letterhead? Hmm?

Window_Seat
01-06-2011, 5:23 PM
If retired LEO get to CCW on that rational then so does everybody else who made enemies. Equal protections.

The court determined, however, that the non-peace officer plaintiffs did have standing to challenge the Act’s provisions regarding off-duty and retired peace officers on equal protection grounds, because the Act afforded those peace officers benefits that were not available to the plaintiffs. Because the court concluded that the plaintiffs were not members of a protected class, and had no fundamental right under the Second Amendment to own or possess firearms, it concluded that the plaintiffs’ equal protections claims should be reviewed under a rational-basis test.

And it might not just be those making enemies, yeah?

Erik.

Bigtime1
01-06-2011, 5:25 PM
I think we can expect much more stupidity from the DOJ now that Kamala is in place.

Amen brother.


Show me the active LEO who is going to arrest a retired LEO under this law...

tyrist
01-06-2011, 5:34 PM
So it a time of financial crises and budget cutbacks they took a step that will make it unlikely any police officer will spend his own funds on a rather expensive piece of work equipment? Brilliant!

Very few buy their own anyway. I don't think it would have many budget ramifications.

taperxz
01-06-2011, 5:36 PM
Not to threadjack but can you point me to where the managing agency of the NF has given permission to posses RAWs on the property. Id like to add it to my "book of stuff about AWs".

Thanks.

That may depend on which national forest!! They all have different restrictions regarding firearms and hunting.

yellowfin
01-06-2011, 5:37 PM
It is important to note that retired law enforcement is still a protected class of citizen.And they need to stop being, unless all gun owners are. They should for example always be allowed to conceal carry long after retirement.As long as the rest of are are too, then good. Otherwise, no. ZERO protected class ABOVE the average citizen, before, during, or after a job. Politician, cop, whatever.

Stonewalker
01-06-2011, 5:40 PM
And they need to stop being, unless all gun owners are. As long as the rest of are are too, then good. Otherwise, no. ZERO protected class ABOVE the average citizen, before, during, or after a job. Politician, cop, whatever.

Right, we are all citizens in the eyes of the law, we can't pass laws to create special classes of citizen. We do.. and that's a problem. Equal protections.

Window_Seat
01-06-2011, 5:46 PM
Right, we are all citizens in the eyes of the law, we can't pass laws to create special classes of citizen. We do.. and that's a problem. Equal protections.

And another thing (again, hoping not to thread jack)... If this is the case (as found by any future court), then how can § 926(B) (LEOSA) stand in the face of EP? Is this how we get 50 state reciprocity?

Erik.

HowardW56
01-06-2011, 5:54 PM
Amen brother.


Show me the active LEO who is going to arrest a retired LEO under this law...


Just one comes to mind.....

:iggy2:

:iggy:

RRangel
01-06-2011, 5:55 PM
Assault weapons are not illegal to have in CA. They just have to be registered.

Illegal and possesion with registration are not one in the same.

You probably realize it but McDonald is still very recent. So recent that the legal ramifications of an incorporated Second Amendment have yet to be fully realized. California's gun laws are toast.

RomanDad
01-06-2011, 5:57 PM
Do any retired LEOs stay in California?

All the ones I've known are all collecting their pension in other states.

CSACANNONEER
01-06-2011, 5:59 PM
Can any point out where, in Heller, it specifically mentions that Ca AW law is 100% constitutional? I'm pretty sure the Heller decision NEVER mentioned Ca AW laws at all let alone ruling that they were constitutional.

Amen brother.


Show me the active LEO who is going to arrest a retired LEO under this law...

Show me a LEO who refuses to arrest any criminal just because the criminal is or was a LEO and I'll show you a disgrace to his profession.

taperxz
01-06-2011, 6:01 PM
You probably realize it but McDonald is still very recent. So recent that the legal ramifications of an incorporated Second Amendment have yet to be fully realized. California's gun laws are toast.

Totally agree with you! I was repeating what the AG had in his opinion though. He stated flat out that possession was illegal. I was pointing out that they are not illegal as long as they are registered which we both know you will not be able to do in this state at this time.

edwardm
01-06-2011, 6:06 PM
Looks like Jerry just invited Mr. Gura to town. On purpose.

The way I read this, the AG's office seems to be saying "Here's the law as it is now, here's the holes to drive your truck through, y'all have fun now!" and then walked away.

Nice.

cdtx2001
01-06-2011, 6:10 PM
Sounds like there might be a good fight brewing.

Why do I have to be a sportsman just to bear arms??? Why is it my government's decision as to what constitutes "a high rate of fire" and "not what law abiding people possess"?

Gawd, I hope they don't start mentioning that shoulder thingy that goes up.

gbp
01-06-2011, 6:11 PM
JMO
First I do not think LE should have to buy their own weapons. They should be provided by and owned by the department.

Second, they are citizens just like you and me. They should receive no more status, protection or exemption from the laws that govern everyone.

Third, perhaps they can do one of those "Buy Backs" they are all so proud of to get these existing guns off the street

taperxz
01-06-2011, 6:12 PM
Now that JB is the gov, and "Kamala is the AG :banghead:" I wonder how much influence JB will have over the AG budget? Perhaps not enough to expand BOF?? Cuts are cuts and they are coming.

OleCuss
01-06-2011, 6:24 PM
.
.
.
Show me a LEO who refuses to arrest any criminal just because the criminal is or was a LEO and I'll show you a disgrace to his profession.

I think the statement was fairly good as he stated. He was talking about this "law". I think that there are a lot of LEO's out there who exercise good judgment in choosing whom to arrest.

If you come across as generally clean living and law-abiding there are a lot of LEO's who will ignore some obvious violations of stupid gun laws on the part of non-LEO's as well as LEO's. I've had non-LEO types tell me that they've had LEO's let slide some things for which they could have been arrested.

In that vein, a retired LEO is likely to be generally law-abiding and clean living. I hope that most LEO's would ignore a violation of this stupid application of law.

keneva
01-06-2011, 6:34 PM
It is important to note that retired law enforcement is still a protected class of citizen. They should for example always be allowed to conceal carry long after retirement. The argument for this would pass even rational review; it is because of the enemies they may have made while enforcing the law as an active LEO.

What about the "Enemies I might have made? I want one!

I know a leo that was unemployed for 2 days, while transfering to a new job, and was worried about transporting his AK to his new home. How stupid?

putput
01-06-2011, 7:04 PM
Oh my FN GAWD! Kamala Harris is allowing “unusual and highly dangerous weapons” on MY STREETS! I demand she use the registration information, send out agents to the homes of these CRIMINALS, and MELT THOSE THINGS DOWN!

:willy_nilly::willy_nilly::willy_nilly:


Or maybe in the meantime we should pitch in and offer some free bullet buttons…

dustoff31
01-06-2011, 7:23 PM
It hasn't been mentioned yet, so I'll throw it out.

For what purpose did Gore request this opinion? Did he want retirees to keep their rifles?

Or trying to make sure that they could not keep them?

Doesn't really matter I suppose, just curious.

sac550
01-06-2011, 8:31 PM
Amen brother.


Show me the active LEO who is going to arrest a retired LEO under this law...

It is not a law, this is an opinion from an anti gun AG, who is speculating on what a Judge(s) might rule on a 14th amend lawsuit. AW bought under (F)(2) are registered as AW, just like a normal citizen who owned prior to them becoming illegal. They are not registered as LE AW. There is no 12280 violation. This opinion will do exactly what they wanted to accomplish; scare agencies from handing out letters for AW. Thus reducing the number of AW in CA, which is a win for them.

paladin4415
01-06-2011, 8:52 PM
It hasn't been mentioned yet, so I'll throw it out.

For what purpose did Gore request this opinion? Did he want retirees to keep their rifles?

Or trying to make sure that they could not keep them?

Doesn't really matter I suppose, just curious.

The San Diego Sheriff Dept is considering letting Deputies purchase personal AR's on letterhead. I'm sure this request was to determine if those Deputies would be able to keep those AR's after retirement.
I find it interesting that the law as written, allows LEO's to purchase RAW's with letterhead from an agencies CLEO and requires that the LEO register that purchased weapon within 90 days of purchase with the DOJ. The law as written does not state anywhere that that registration expires or that any person that has followed the law must relinquish their personal property. I always thought that if it was not spelled out in the law as illegal, that it was legal.

CavTrooper
01-06-2011, 8:56 PM
The San Diego Sheriff Dept is considering letting Deputies purchase personal AR's on letterhead. I'm sure this request was to determine if those Deputies would be able to keep those AR's after retirement.
I find it interesting that the law as written, allows LEO's to purchase RAW's with letterhead from an agencies CLEO and requires that the LEO register that purchased weapon within 90 days of purchase with the DOJ. The law as written does not state anywhere that that registration expires or that any person that has followed the law must relinquish their personal property. I always thought that if it was not spelled out in the law as illegal, that it was legal.

Apparently not, considering what theyve done with the MAWP.

dustoff31
01-06-2011, 9:03 PM
The San Diego Sheriff Dept is considering letting Deputies purchase personal AR's on letterhead. I'm sure this request was to determine if those Deputies would be able to keep those AR's after retirement.
I find it interesting that the law as written, allows LEO's to purchase RAW's with letterhead from an agencies CLEO and requires that the LEO register that purchased weapon within 90 days of purchase with the DOJ. The law as written does not state anywhere that that registration expires or that any person that has followed the law must relinquish their personal property. I always thought that if it was not spelled out in the law as illegal, that it was legal.

Well, I can tell you that the AW registration does not expire. DOJ still has my RAWs on record from the first reg period in the early '90s. I subsequently moved out of state and took them with me. DOJ never demanded that I turn them in when I left. And according to DOJ, the registration is still valid and as far as they are concerned, I can bring them back into CA as I please. Subject of course to current law on transport, storage, etc.

meangreen46
01-06-2011, 9:17 PM
:popcorn:

lavgrunt
01-06-2011, 9:30 PM
:popcorn:

Ditto.......This is gonna be good !!!

Liberty1
01-06-2011, 9:33 PM
I've got a spade for rent and some unused pvc for sale. Time to make calls to some retired friends!

Munk
01-06-2011, 9:41 PM
Like others have said.. LEO's aren't the only ones who make enemies.

The .50 caliber BMG rifle has the capacity to destroy or seriously damage “vital public and private buildings, civilian, police and military vehicles, power generation and transmission facilities, petrochemical production and storage facilities, and transportation infrastructure.”

i've always loved this bit. It's as if they think that large guns are the only way to cause damage to these.

Liberty1
01-06-2011, 9:56 PM
Very few buy their own anyway. I don't think it would have many budget ramifications.

I probably know a dozen or two from small agencies who have bought their own and I know several who retired in the last two years and took theirs home. Only need one with standing to sue. This opinion will put PORAC in the business of finding a legislative fix. Smells like an opportunity for our side!

lavgrunt
01-06-2011, 10:00 PM
I probably know a dozen or two from small agencies who have bought their own and I know several who retired in the last two years and took theirs home. Only need one with standing to sue. This opinion will put PORAC in the business of finding a legislative fix. Smells like an opportunity for our side!

BINGO !!!........The curtain has just been pulled back

.........And it reveals much to work with......!!!!!

1911su16b870
01-06-2011, 10:01 PM
...The law as written does not state anywhere that that registration expires or that any person that has followed the law must relinquish their personal property. I always thought that if it was not spelled out in the law as illegal, that it was legal.

+1 and maybe this is the plan all along - One example to show how terrible the CA AW laws are...:rolleyes:

Gryff
01-06-2011, 10:05 PM
Good. Maybe the "more equal than others" status being stripped away will get LEOs more up in arms about the state of gun laws in California.

Rugerdaddy
01-06-2011, 10:40 PM
I haven't read this entire thread, so someone else may have made this point before, but an AW is an automatic weapon. The rifles that California has banned are semi-automatic sporting and target rifles. You are all referring to these rifles as AWs. This plays directly into the hands of the anti-gun lobby. Don't let them change the meaning of words; it's the most dangerous and effective way the other side has of implanting their tyranny. At least make it clear that you are using their incorrect definition, rather than conceding to defeat and accepting their Orwellian tactics.

Jake71
01-06-2011, 10:42 PM
If your not a Police Officer, your a criminal just like the rest of us.

jdberger
01-06-2011, 10:57 PM
I haven't read this entire thread, so someone else may have made this point before, but an AW is an automatic weapon. The rifles that California has banned are semi-automatic sporting and target rifles. You are all referring to these rifles as AWs. This plays directly into the hands of the anti-gun lobby. Don't let them change the meaning of words; it's the most dangerous and effective way the other side has of implanting their tyranny. At least make it clear that you are using their incorrect definition, rather than conceding to defeat and accepting their Orwellian tactics.

No. We're not.

In California, Assault Weapon is a term of art. It refers to a specific object defined quite specifically under Roberti Roos, SB23 or PC 12276. Please see The Chart (http://www.calguns.net/caawid/flowchart.pdf)for more details.

GuyW
01-06-2011, 11:12 PM
Only need one with standing to sue. This opinion will put PORAC in the business of finding a legislative fix. Smells like an opportunity for our side!

To my knowledge, PORAC has never been on "our" side ("our" meaning the average law-abiding CA gun owner). In fact, it has taken contrary positions.

.

Rugerdaddy
01-06-2011, 11:13 PM
No. We're not.

In California, Assault Weapon is a term of art. It refers to a specific object defined quite specifically under Roberti Roos, SB23 or PC 12276. Please see The Chart (http://www.calguns.net/caawid/flowchart.pdf)for more details.

I believe you've made my point. They have defined something that is patently NOT an assault weapon, as an assault weapon. They've made it legal terminology. And you accept it.

What will you do when they say that an automatic pistol, which you and I both know refers to a SEMI-automatic pistol, is an automatic weapon and must be banned? And what will you do when they say that a high powered "So-called hunting rifle" is a sniper rifle? "You don't need those deadly high-powered rifles to hunt with! If you can kill a deer with an arrow, you can certainly kill it with a lower powered rifle! What do you need a sniper rifle for!?!?"

Believe me. Study your history. They will stop at nothing.

GuyW
01-06-2011, 11:14 PM
Good. Maybe the "more equal than others" status being stripped away will get LEOs more up in arms about the state of gun laws in California.

Please don't hold your breath.
.

Librarian
01-06-2011, 11:17 PM
I believe you've made my point. They have defined something that is patently NOT an assault weapon, as an assault weapon. They've made it legal terminology. And you accept it.



In the context of what is legal in California, to do anything else adds confusion. The law is complicated enough; objecting to the legal terminology is both unhelpful and tilting at windmills.

GuyW
01-06-2011, 11:19 PM
Amen brother.


Show me the active LEO who is going to arrest a retired LEO under this law...

Well, Iggy for one...

meangreen46
01-07-2011, 1:01 AM
I can't remember if it's this thread or another, but somebody made a good point that all of you are missing: If the AG is doing this to LEOs, imagine what she may be planning for the rest of the law abiding citizens of California. If she thinks an LEO has no need for an AW....What does she think a NON-LEO needs one for? Just sayin....

adamsreeftank
01-07-2011, 1:47 AM
If the AG's office thinks they can arbitrarily cancel a retiring officer's AW permit, what is to stop them from doing the same for all of the rest of them. Since the same "compelling reasons" apply and they aren't going to worry about "taking" private property.

This is either Brown’s way of digging a nice big hole of quicksand for Harris to fall into, or he’s not the moderate I thought he was.

RomanDad
01-07-2011, 7:17 AM
If the AG's office thinks they can arbitrarily cancel a retiring officer's AW permit, what is to stop them from doing the same for all of the rest of them. Since the same "compelling reasons" apply and they aren't going to worry about "taking" private property.

This is either Brown’s way of digging a nice big hole of quicksand for Harris to fall into, or he’s not the moderate I thought he was.

Occam's razor

753X0
01-07-2011, 7:48 AM
THIS

socal2310
01-07-2011, 7:52 AM
I haven't read this entire thread, so someone else may have made this point before, but an AW is an automatic weapon. The rifles that California has banned are semi-automatic sporting and target rifles. You are all referring to these rifles as AWs. This plays directly into the hands of the anti-gun lobby. Don't let them change the meaning of words; it's the most dangerous and effective way the other side has of implanting their tyranny. At least make it clear that you are using their incorrect definition, rather than conceding to defeat and accepting their Orwellian tactics.

No, "Assault Rifle" refers to a select-fire battle rifle. "Assault Weapon" is a term of art that denigrates certain rifles on the basis of cosmetic features instead of function. The English language is constantly adding words or modifying the meanings attached to certain words, so we're fighting a losing battle there. We can and must ensure that people don't confuse "assault rifles" and "assault weapons" but the term "assault weapon" isn't going anywhere any time soon.

Ryan

norcal01
01-07-2011, 8:43 AM
One interesting point on the matter: The letters from DOJ aknowledging that an AW has been registered to an LEO for department use makes it quite clear that the AW is only to be used for law enforcement purposes. It is not the same letter as the one sent to people who registered their AW's before the ban. It says nothing about having to surrender the AW upon retirement or leaving LE. It seems likely that an LEO or former LEO using an AW for recreational purposes, even if they have a copy of the registration letter from DOJ with them while shooting, might still encounter some problems.

lavgrunt
01-07-2011, 9:41 AM
One interesting point on the matter: The letters from DOJ aknowledging that an AW has been registered to an LEO for department use makes it quite clear that the AW is only to be used for law enforcement purposes. It is not the same letter as the one sent to people who registered their AW's before the ban. It says nothing about having to surrender the AW upon retirement or leaving LE. It seems likely that an LEO or former LEO using an AW for recreational purposes, even if they have a copy of the registration letter from DOJ with them while shooting, might still encounter some problems.

I'm sorry.....Did you read the ENTIRE opinion ? It actually says the exact opposite......

Sgt Raven
01-07-2011, 9:43 AM
I haven't read this entire thread, so someone else may have made this point before, but an AW is an automatic weapon. The rifles that California has banned are semi-automatic sporting and target rifles. You are all referring to these rifles as AWs. This plays directly into the hands of the anti-gun lobby. Don't let them change the meaning of words; it's the most dangerous and effective way the other side has of implanting their tyranny. At least make it clear that you are using their incorrect definition, rather than conceding to defeat and accepting their Orwellian tactics.

No, "Assault Rifle" refers to a select-fire battle rifle. "Assault Weapon" is a term of art that denigrates certain rifles on the basis of cosmetic features instead of function. The English language is constantly adding words or modifying the meanings attached to certain words, so we're fighting a losing battle there. We can and must ensure that people don't confuse "assault rifles" and "assault weapons" but the term "assault weapon" isn't going anywhere any time soon.

Ryan

I've posted this many times before.

Assault Weapon is a term 'we' as gunnies made up in the late '70s early '80s to define a class of firearms that looked like military automatics. It covered more than just Assault Rifles as S/A versions of Battle Rifles, military shotguns, and Sub M/Gs were included. As it was over 30 years ago I don't remember who first used the term but after a while manufacturers started using it in their ads to. The anti-gun groups latched on to our little 'cuttie pie' term and started using it against us. Then MSM picked it up and they use it for any time a firearm is used. It's isn't any different than the term SUV. You could say, and many have, "what were 'we' thinking but hindsight is 20/20 and you can't change history.

yakmon
01-07-2011, 10:00 AM
how about the look on KH"s face when these guys turn in stripped receivers?

M1A Rifleman
01-07-2011, 10:03 AM
RAWs cant be possesed on NF land, BLM is okay for the most part but NF land is a no-go.

Please site the section. I disagree. They can be possessed in the National Forest - with approval. Approval are not difficult to obtain. :D

wash
01-07-2011, 10:06 AM
While it's not really relevent to the legal fight that this opinion might create, I always surround the words "assault weapon" with quotation marks to highlight the fact that the distinction between an "assault weapon" and many other firearms is entirely cosmetic and artificial.

Maybe that's why I like black rifles so much, they are like fake boobs.

Window_Seat
01-07-2011, 10:24 AM
...
I always surround the words "assault weapon" with quotation marks to highlight the fact that the distinction between an "assault weapon" and many other firearms is entirely cosmetic and artificial.

Maybe that's why I like black rifles so much, they are like fake boobs.

DING DING DING DING... WE HAVE A WINNER, LOL... Maybe worthy of a sig line, but I have no room for one... Anyone? :laugh:

Erik.

norcal01
01-07-2011, 10:28 AM
I'm sorry.....Did you read the ENTIRE opinion ? It actually says the exact opposite......

I understand what it says, I was pointing out that the opinion contradicts what the registration letter from DOJ says with regards to use of a RAW for non-LE purposes. The point being that a former or retired LEO who is contacted by an LEO while shooting their RAW would be able to show a letter stating that their weapon is registered but that its use is limited to law enforcement purposes only. It seems to me that they could, theoretically, end up with some legal problems for using their RAW in a manner not consistent with the purposes listed on the registration letter.

lavgrunt
01-07-2011, 10:35 AM
I understand what it says, I was pointing out that the opinion contradicts what the registration letter from DOJ says with regards to use of a RAW for non-LE purposes. The point being that a former or retired LEO who is contacted by an LEO while shooting their RAW would be able to show a letter stating that their weapon is registered but that its use is limited to law enforcement purposes only. It seems to me that they could, theoretically, end up with some legal problems for using their RAW in a manner not consistent with the purposes listed on the registration letter.

Got it.....Thanks for clarifying! I checked my DOJ-AW registration letter and it says nothing about using an AW for non-LE purposes. All it says is that DOJ has received and processed my AW and it is now properly registered............Not quite sure where you are seeing that language about restrictions.............

norcal01
01-07-2011, 10:56 AM
Just checked my paperwork and I was confused, it's early for me and I haven't had coffee yet. The authorization from the department lists restrictions and specifically states that it is not to be used for recreational or other non-LE purposes. The DOJ letter just says it's properly registered and refers to 12285(c) which is the same restrictions placed on any owner of a RAW. So I guess the question I have now is what are the consequences of violating the terms of the authorization letter if one is no longer employed by the same department that authorized the purchase? Nothing?

dantodd
01-07-2011, 11:09 AM
Just checked my paperwork and I was confused, it's early for me and I haven't had coffee yet. The authorization from the department lists restrictions and specifically states that it is not to be used for recreational or other non-LE purposes. The DOJ letter just says it's properly registered and refers to 12285(c) which is the same restrictions placed on any owner of a RAW. So I guess the question I have now is what are the consequences of violating the terms of the authorization letter if one is no longer employed by the same department that authorized the purchase? Nothing?

There are no legal ramifications for violating department policies, they are not laws. If you are still employed there could be workplace ramifications.

Glock22Fan
01-07-2011, 11:14 AM
Do any retired LEOs stay in California?

All the ones I've known are all collecting their pension in other states.

I know of three that are still here. One LASD, two LAPD.

Glock22Fan
01-07-2011, 11:17 AM
I think the statement was fairly good as he stated. He was talking about this "law". I think that there are a lot of LEO's out there who exercise good judgment in choosing whom to arrest.

If you come across as generally clean living and law-abiding there are a lot of LEO's who will ignore some obvious violations of stupid gun laws on the part of non-LEO's as well as LEO's. I've had non-LEO types tell me that they've had LEO's let slide some things for which they could have been arrested.

In that vein, a retired LEO is likely to be generally law-abiding and clean living. I hope that most LEO's would ignore a violation of this stupid application of law.

I've had several LEO's tell me they would turn a blind eye if they found someone like me (i.e. apparently law abiding and with a good attitude) carrying a concealed firearm for self-defense.

Librarian
01-07-2011, 12:10 PM
While it's not really relevent to the legal fight that this opinion might create, I always surround the words "assault weapon" with quotation marks to highlight the fact that the distinction between an "assault weapon" and many other firearms is entirely cosmetic and artificial.

Agreed - I try to do the same thing, but sometimes forget.

California 'assault weapons' == semiautomatic rifles some collection of goofballs thinks look 'scary'. See the Wiki article on the history of 'assault weapon' laws (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/History_of_%27Assault_Weapon%27_laws#Stephen_C._He lsley_remembers), especially Stephen Helsley's off-site article.

Liberty1
01-07-2011, 12:54 PM
To my knowledge, PORAC has never been on "our" side ("our" meaning the average law-abiding CA gun owner). In fact, it has taken contrary positions.

.

They're not on our side. But the AG opinion cites the 9th's Silveira equal protection issues which removed a retired officers AW purchase exemption. Any legislative fix for all the retired officers who now possess their own property unlawfully will have to incorporate that EP issue. The only other "fix" in my IANAL IMOpinion would be a massive involuntary confiscation and reimbursement of thousands of rifles.

Liberty1
01-07-2011, 1:12 PM
If the AG's office thinks they can arbitrarily cancel a retiring officer's AW permit, what is to stop them from doing the same for all of the rest of them. Since the same "compelling reasons" apply and they aren't going to worry about "taking" private property.

This is either Brown’s way of digging a nice big hole of quicksand for Harris to fall into, or he’s not the moderate I thought he was.

I can't say that this is Brown's personal opinion. Just that this is an AG opinion which is bound by the James and Silveira court opinions. What this is IS the first time a CA official and no less then the AG has said under Heller and McD the there is a right to carry and possess firearms in case of conflict, that right is fundamental, and that that rational basis is rejected.

I'm sure that will be helpful to Gura's next move in Richards. I don't see this as Brown's opinion as much as an AG opinion which appears correct as to the current state of the law absent some interesting property issues concerning the now illegal retired possession of their privately purchased rifles. Looks like there will be a rush on bullet buttons and ten rounders. Wonder how many own listed rifles? :)

AlexDD
01-07-2011, 1:21 PM
I am curious to Bill W and Gene H's opinion on this matter.

IIRC Wasn't Bill W working on possession of illegal AW by LEOs just a little while back...

It seems something worth comment on since it came from Brown's office.

ke6guj
01-07-2011, 1:42 PM
Wonder how many own listed rifles? :)more than a few, I'd guess.

I recall hearing LEOs recommending to others LEOs that they get Colt, Bushmaster, etc, pushing the on-list brands, because they could get those with letterhead.

wash
01-07-2011, 1:45 PM
There is a distinction between illegal posession of "assault weapons" by police officers and legal posession of "assault weapons" by police officers.

Illegal posession is embarassing to the PDs and DAs.

Legal posession through department letterhead and registration might not seem all that great to regular citizens who can't do it, but it is within the law and worth protecting, especially for the retired LEOs.

Fighting the ban itself is our main goal but we can't give an inch. I don't see a big distinction between retired LEO and retired waiters (or anyone else) so I think the exceptions for LEOs might be the wedge we need for an equal protection case.

wash
01-07-2011, 1:49 PM
more than a few, I'd guess.

I recall hearing LEOs recommending to others LEOs that they get Colt, Bushmaster, etc, pushing the on-list brands, because they could get those with letterhead.
If I were a LEO, I know I would get a listed rifle, probably a KAC or some other Ca unobtanium.

I would also ask for a letter to register all (or at least most) of my previously purchased OLLs but if I started with nothing, I would buy something from the list.

Window_Seat
01-07-2011, 2:01 PM
PORACs CCW Coverage Insurance (http://www.porac.org/ccwcoverage.html)

Interesting...

They help retired LEOs appeal their CCW denials if they are entitled to a CCW.

They also defend them if they are wrongfully charged with discharging of a FA in SD, which could come back to haunt the RLEO (IN MY IANAL opinion as well).

This attitude of "He/they should rot away in 2X2 rodent infested prison cells for life, but our guy is innocent because he's a RLEO" is going to have to answer in court when it comes time for that as well as an EP case, and this might be the right thing to feature in a complaint, no?

If this organization is defending RLEOs because they are RLEOs, that could be very bad for the RLEO, no? Is this not why a RLEO should trust CGF instead of PORAC?

Erik.

norcal01
01-07-2011, 2:04 PM
There are no legal ramifications for violating department policies, they are not laws. If you are still employed there could be workplace ramifications.

I know policies aren't law and don't apply to me since I no longer work for the same agency that authorized the AW purchase. I was thinking more along the lines of a DA trying to be creative and articulate that possession could be illegal if it was being used for something other than a law enforcement purpose.

vincewarde
01-07-2011, 2:08 PM
Yep - that Moonbeam is a warrior for the 2nd Amendment - a WARRIOR I say!
.

More like a covert agent. He is not stupid - yet he states in this opinion that Heller/McDonald protects the right to CARRY. That's a big plus.

As for the position on AW, it's good to know that the cops are now in the same boat as the rest of us - BUT I am sure Brown knows full well that the "unusual" test will fail when applied to ARs, Aks, etc. Too popular elsewhere. The only reason they are unusual here is that they have been banned. If they banned handguns I guess they would be unusual too - but they clearly could not use this circular reasoning to support the ban any more than DC could. Same principle applies to AWs. .50 BMGs might be a problem since they were never in common use.

IMHO Brown is setting us up for victory and he knows it.

zenthemighty
01-07-2011, 2:15 PM
Yep - that Moonbeam is a warrior for the 2nd Amendment - a WARRIOR I say!
.

Yeah. We should all support him...

Liberty1
01-07-2011, 3:17 PM
more than a few, I'd guess.

I recall hearing LEOs recommending to others LEOs that they get Colt, Bushmaster, etc, pushing the on-list brands, because they could get those with letterhead.

I'm going to buy a colt in about 6-8 months, but I'm 15 years from retirement so I bet the issue will be settled by then (I hope).

Grumpyoldretiredcop
01-07-2011, 5:03 PM
PORACs CCW Coverage Insurance (http://www.porac.org/ccwcoverage.html)

Interesting...

They help retired LEOs appeal their CCW denials if they are entitled to a CCW.

They also defend them if they are wrongfully charged with discharging of a FA in SD, which could come back to haunt the RLEO (IN MY IANAL opinion as well).

This attitude of "He/they should rot away in 2X2 rodent infested prison cells for life, but our guy is innocent because he's a RLEO" is going to have to answer in court when it comes time for that as well as an EP case, and this might be the right thing to feature in a complaint, no?

If this organization is defending RLEOs because they are RLEOs, that could be very bad for the RLEO, no? Is this not why a RLEO should trust CGF instead of PORAC?

Erik.

PORAC's Long-Term Disability insurance sucks ***. I can't imagine that their so-called "CCW Coverage" is any better, nor would I spend any money on it. I'd trust CGF a heck of a long way further than PORAC.

Rugerdaddy
01-07-2011, 6:44 PM
In the context of what is legal in California, to do anything else adds confusion. The law is complicated enough; objecting to the legal terminology is both unhelpful and tilting at windmills.

I understand and agree that while discussing California law it is most convenient to use the term the law uses.

No, "Assault Rifle" refers to a select-fire battle rifle. "Assault Weapon" is a term of art that denigrates certain rifles on the basis of cosmetic features instead of function. The English language is constantly adding words or modifying the meanings attached to certain words, so we're fighting a losing battle there. We can and must ensure that people don't confuse "assault rifles" and "assault weapons" but the term "assault weapon" isn't going anywhere any time soon.

Ryan

Thanks for making that distinction, but unfortunately, only we in the firearms community know and understand the distinction.

I've posted this many times before.

Assault Weapon is a term 'we' as gunnies made up in the late '70s early '80s to define a class of firearms that looked like military automatics. It covered more than just Assault Rifles as S/A versions of Battle Rifles, military shotguns, and Sub M/Gs were included. As it was over 30 years ago I don't remember who first used the term but after a while manufacturers started using it in their ads to. The anti-gun groups latched on to our little 'cuttie pie' term and started using it against us. Then MSM picked it up and they use it for any time a firearm is used. It's isn't any different than the term SUV. You could say, and many have, "what were 'we' thinking but hindsight is 20/20 and you can't change history.

You are exactly correct, but by continuing to use the term “assault weapon” when referring to a modern sporting/target rifle, we feed the beast, and the beast works tirelessly to “educate” the people that our “assault weapons” are dangerous and need to be banned. I am of the opinion that we should NEVER use the term “assault weapon” when unnecessary. When I tell acquaintances about my rifles I always call them modern sporting rifles. If they say it looks like an assault rifle or assault weapon I tell them that’s just it- it LOOKS like one, but isn’t, and explain to them the difference.


Maybe that's why I like black rifles so much, they are like fake boobs.

Hmmmm,……….that may explain my penchant for caressing and fondling my rifles….. :tt1:

BigDogatPlay
01-07-2011, 7:27 PM
I can't say that this is Brown's personal opinion. Just that this is an AG opinion which is bound by the James and Silveira court opinions. What this is IS the first time a CA official and no less then the AG has said under Heller and McD the there is a right to carry and possess firearms in case of conflict, that right is fundamental, and that that rational basis is rejected.[quote]

And in this opinion the office notes that Silviera is somewhat / largely mooted by McDonald WRT to the fundamental right. From earlier....

[quote]Because the court concluded that the plaintiffs were not members of a protected class, and had no fundamental right under the Second Amendment to own or possess firearms, it concluded that the plaintiffs’ equal protections claims should be reviewed under a rational-basis test.

So since Silviera is indeed mooted on that key point, the entire premise of an equal protection claim is thrown wide open in my wholly layman's opinion.

But I also believe that this opinion is as much to kick start the legislature to fix the existing statute to clearly identify that retired can keep their stuff. Which if that happens, in light of the opinion, only makes the equal protection argument stronger.

My $0.02....

Lrchops
01-07-2011, 11:39 PM
I am a Deputy Sheriff with over 25 years of service. I purchased a Colt M4 rifle a few months back for duty carry and personal protection.

I will retire in about 5 years and I will be damned if I am going to relinquish my rifle to the Government. I suppose the left wing has succeeded in turning an honest, law abiding, tax paying law enforcement officer into a criminal!!

So be it. I stand on principal values. I believe in personal responsibility and know the rights fromt he wrongs. This interpretation of the law is rediculous and insulting. It is wrong. RESPONSIBILITY,,,,the interpreters of this decision lack responsibility in carefully crafting thier decisions.

I will move out of state before I will allow the government to steal my property. Now they need to add to the provision that the state will be required to provide the retired LE with monetary compensation at current market value. That is the only way they may have my rifle, is to pay me what it is worth. That would be about $4000.00 cash.

Any law enforcement officer that would enforce these rediculous laws is a coward and a sell out.

We must ban together to form a beachhead against these crazy laws. I hope there will be a big court battle. If not, you will see one when they try and take my rifle!

xenophobe
01-08-2011, 12:15 AM
The short answer used to be no. The long answer appears to still boil down to the short answer of no.

As the court’s discussion makes clear, the Second Amendment right does not protect possession of a military M-16 rifle

And this is where you really wish Miller would have shown up in court. /sigh

hoffmang
01-08-2011, 4:02 PM
To my knowledge, PORAC has never been on "our" side ("our" meaning the average law-abiding CA gun owner). In fact, it has taken contrary positions.
Actually, PORAC has been opposing some of the same bills NRA/CRPA has been opposing over the last couple of years.


So since Silviera is indeed mooted on that key point, the entire premise of an equal protection claim is thrown wide open in my wholly layman's opinion.
The equal protection decision in Silviera survives the rest of the decision's invalidation.

I think this opinion is a valid opinion from the governments point of view. I however think the retired officer who for whatever reason retains his recently registered RAW is un-prosecutable.

-Gene

Patrick Aherne
01-08-2011, 10:46 PM
This will have a chilling effect on Chiefs issuing letters for AWs. I fail to see how a RAW becomes illegal after retirement. Interesting days ahead.

glockwise2000
01-08-2011, 11:47 PM
LOL!!!.........No RAWs for you! :biggrinjester:

RAW Natzi?..... LOL

L84CABO
01-09-2011, 1:01 AM
I am a Deputy Sheriff with over 25 years of service. I purchased a Colt M4 rifle a few months back for duty carry and personal protection.


You are very fortunate. At least you have the ability to obtain this rifle to protect yourself and your family. Most of the rest of us law abiding California residents do not...unless you consider bullet buttons and 10 round magazines the same thing. I guess, however, that a police officer's life is more important than an average California civilian's life.

No disrespect to you personally Sir and the fine job you do. I'm only expressing my frustration with the absurdity of these laws.

Peace and stay safe!

L84CABO
01-09-2011, 1:35 AM
Quote:

As the court’s discussion makes clear, the Second Amendment right does not protect possession of a military M-16 rifle. (Heller, supra, 554 U. S. ___ [171 L.Ed.2d at p. 579].) Likewise, it does not protect the right to possess assault weapons or .50 caliber BMG rifles. As we have already indicated, in enacting the Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 and the .50 Caliber BMG Regulation Act of 2004, the Legislature was specifically concerned with the unusual and dangerous nature of these weapons. An assault weapon “has such a high rate of fire and capacity for firepower that its function as a legitimate sports or recreational firearm is substantially outweighed by the danger that it can be used to kill and injure human beings.” (§ 12275.5, subd. (a).) The .50 caliber BMG rifle has the capacity to destroy or seriously damage “vital public and private buildings, civilian, police and military vehicles, power generation and transmission facilities, petrochemical production and storage facilities, and transportation infrastructure.” (§ 12275.5, subd. (b).) These are not the types of weapons that are typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes such as sport hunting or self-defense; rather, these are weapons of war.


Ok, last time...The Second Amendment is not about protecting your right to duck hunt. It's not about "recreation" or "sport." It's about your right to defend your freedom whether threats to that freedom come from an oppresive foreign king or, God forbid, our own government. I hate to offend anyone's delicate sensibilities but it is precisely about killing people and it is precisely about war.

Peace

uglygun
01-09-2011, 12:02 PM
One interesting point on the matter: The letters from DOJ aknowledging that an AW has been registered to an LEO for department use makes it quite clear that the AW is only to be used for law enforcement purposes. It is not the same letter as the one sent to people who registered their AW's before the ban. It says nothing about having to surrender the AW upon retirement or leaving LE. It seems likely that an LEO or former LEO using an AW for recreational purposes, even if they have a copy of the registration letter from DOJ with them while shooting, might still encounter some problems.


To expand upon this, after reading your clarification that you have a Dept policy regarding use. The LE registration letters will likely be clarified to explain the new position/opinion of the DOJ, so not only will you have a Dept policy regarding use but now you'll get a DOJ notification on the registration stating the terms and the slated expiration terms of your registration.

jimx
01-09-2011, 12:11 PM
It is not a law, this is an opinion from an anti gun AG,

Funny, all the right people said he was not anti gun last Nov.

bwiese
01-09-2011, 1:04 PM
t is not a law, this is an opinion from an anti gun AG


Funny, all the right people said he was not anti gun last Nov.

This could trigger huge financial problems (buybacks/compensation) in a broke state.

This is a real gift if you think deeply. The opinion is also consistent with CA law as (poorly) written.

hoffmang
01-09-2011, 5:01 PM
Funny, all the right people said he was not anti gun last Nov.

How is enforcing equal protection anti-gun? This is one of the final straws for ending the "retired cop" exemption that allowed cops to be politically peeled away from the gun owner.

-Gene

tyrist
01-09-2011, 5:11 PM
Does the DOJ have the authority to remove the registration from the computer system?

Window_Seat
01-09-2011, 5:28 PM
Funny, all the right people said he was not anti gun last Nov.How is enforcing equal protection anti-gun? This is one of the final straws for ending the "retired cop" exemption that allowed cops to be politically peeled away from the gun owner.

-Gene

Correct, it's a blessing because most LEOs will have a serious problem forfeiting their non-BB ARs (with features/LCMs), and they certainly won't do so in the name of keeping you and me (as being LACs) from having it when the question of EP comes up in court, yeah? Is this not how we begin going after the AW ban?

Erik; thanks Moonbeam

CavTrooper
01-09-2011, 5:31 PM
Remember, LEOs have huge unions with giant teams of lawyers to take care of issues like this for them. Im sure the CGF will be free and clear of having to do anything here, the LEOs union lawyers will handle this. Thats part of what they pay dues for.

SoCal Bob
01-09-2011, 5:38 PM
As I see it, this could put the State in an awkward position where they would:

1.) Initiate a buyback
2.) Order retired L/E to make the AW's compliant by:
a. Installing a BB and using 10 rd mags, or
b. Converting it to a featureless build
3.) Ignore it and wait for someone to file suit and let the Courts decide
4.) Pass some new nonsensical legislation and hope it sticks this time
5.) Admit the AW laws didn't make any sense to begin with and vote to do away with them.

Tacit Blue
01-09-2011, 5:42 PM
The media has purposely tainted the definition of " assault rifle " I always thought assault rifle had a selective fire mode. Not Semi, very big difference in using the term " Assault rifle".

bshnt2015
01-09-2011, 5:44 PM
you said it Pat

sac550
01-09-2011, 5:52 PM
As I see it, this could put the State in an awkward position where they would:

1.) Initiate a buyback
2.) Order retired L/E to make the AW's compliant by:
a. Installing a BB and using 10 rd mags, or
b. Converting it to a featureless build
3.) Ignore it and wait for someone to file suit and let the Courts decide
4.) Pass some new nonsensical legislation and hope it sticks this time
5.) Admit the AW laws didn't make any sense to begin with and vote to do away with them.

Many LEO's have a named weapon so they can't put a BB in it or go featureless. Most also aren't worried about this opinion. The gun is registered to them not the agency. If ever stopped with it it would show registered as an AW.

Also don't think for a second if LEO'S were concerned about that the powerful LEO unions would get it fixed in the legislature.

OHW
01-09-2011, 5:56 PM
Any law enforcement officer that would enforce these rediculous laws is a coward and a sell out.

We must ban together to form a beachhead against these crazy laws. I hope there will be a big court battle. If not, you will see one when they try and take my rifle!

Sub-group exceptions work for you?

OHW
01-09-2011, 5:59 PM
You are very fortunate. At least you have the ability to obtain this rifle to protect yourself and your family. Most of the rest of us law abiding California residents do not...unless you consider bullet buttons and 10 round magazines the same thing. I guess, however, that a police officer's life is more important than an average California civilian's life.

No disrespect to you personally Sir and the fine job you do. I'm only expressing my frustration with the absurdity of these laws.

Peace and stay safe!

That right there.

bwiese
01-09-2011, 6:00 PM
Also don't think for a second if LEO'S were concerned about that the powerful LEO unions would get it fixed in the legislature.

It is now a concern and there are areas for cooperation amongst a variety of groups.

Window_Seat
01-09-2011, 6:16 PM
...
Also don't think for a second if LEO'S were concerned about that the powerful LEO unions would get it fixed in the legislature.

See :gura: & Amendment XIV (Sec. 1).

Erik.

taperxz
01-09-2011, 6:26 PM
I am a Deputy Sheriff with over 25 years of service. I purchased a Colt M4 rifle a few months back for duty carry and personal protection.

I will retire in about 5 years and I will be damned if I am going to relinquish my rifle to the Government. I suppose the left wing has succeeded in turning an honest, law abiding, tax paying law enforcement officer into a criminal!!

So be it. I stand on principal values. I believe in personal responsibility and know the rights fromt he wrongs. This interpretation of the law is rediculous and insulting. It is wrong. RESPONSIBILITY,,,,the interpreters of this decision lack responsibility in carefully crafting thier decisions.

I will move out of state before I will allow the government to steal my property. Now they need to add to the provision that the state will be required to provide the retired LE with monetary compensation at current market value. That is the only way they may have my rifle, is to pay me what it is worth. That would be about $4000.00 cash.

Any law enforcement officer that would enforce these rediculous laws is a coward and a sell out.

We must ban together to form a beachhead against these crazy laws. I hope there will be a big court battle. If not, you will see one when they try and take my rifle!

What would have happened if you had pulled me over and discovered i had an "assault rifle" and i was not LEO and i said the same thing to you as you were trying to take my rifle away?

Window_Seat
01-09-2011, 6:39 PM
I am a Deputy Sheriff with over 25 years of service. I purchased a Colt M4 rifle a few months back for duty carry and personal protection.

I will retire in about 5 years and I will be damned if I am going to relinquish my rifle to the Government. I suppose the left wing has succeeded in turning an honest, law abiding, tax paying law enforcement officer into a criminal!!

So be it. I stand on principal values. I believe in personal responsibility and know the rights fromt he wrongs. This interpretation of the law is rediculous and insulting. It is wrong. RESPONSIBILITY,,,,the interpreters of this decision lack responsibility in carefully crafting thier decisions.

I will move out of state before I will allow the government to steal my property. Now they need to add to the provision that the state will be required to provide the retired LE with monetary compensation at current market value. That is the only way they may have my rifle, is to pay me what it is worth. That would be about $4000.00 cash.

Any law enforcement officer that would enforce these rediculous laws is a coward and a sell out.

We must ban together to form a beachhead against these crazy laws. I hope there will be a big court battle. If not, you will see one when they try and take my rifle!What would have happened if you had pulled me over and discovered i had an "assault rifle" and i was not LEO and i said the same thing to you as you were trying to take my rifle away?

I am a cop in Sacramento County. I believe bullet button are rediculous for any law abiding honest responsible citizen. Bullet buttons laws are an insult to rightious gun owners. The only people who have to worry about a bullet button violation with me are people that can't have a gun in the first place (street thugs, gangsters, felons, parollees, probationers, drug users/dealers) But generally these people dont even own high dollar guns!!! The good citizens are the only ones hurt by this stupid law. Makes and honest man a criminal if he/she decides to turn out that screw.

There ya have it. Not accusing you of it, but let's all not turn this into a cop bashing thread, please.

Erik.

jimx
01-09-2011, 6:44 PM
How is enforcing equal protection anti-gun? This is one of the final straws for ending the "retired cop" exemption that allowed cops to be politically peeled away from the gun owner.

-Gene

Perhaps I am being a bit hypocritical -

On one hand I am upset they let leo's have RAWs
On the other hand I get upset when they take them away.

Scarecrow Repair
01-09-2011, 9:32 PM
The media has purposely tainted the definition of " assault rifle " I always thought assault rifle had a selective fire mode. Not Semi, very big difference in using the term " Assault rifle".

Yes, and we don't have "buffalo" in this country, we have "bison". I'll pay attention to your politically correct usage here when you start referring to Bison, NY.

1911_sfca
01-09-2011, 10:19 PM
The reasoning of this opinion really falls apart for me in pages 8 & 9. I just can't wait until the AW legislation is repealed for everyone.

In the meantime, can someone confirm that this is an officer who was using a department rifle, which upon retirement the department transferred to the officer, and then there is some kind of action being taken against him/her? The whole context doesn't quite make sense to me.

I purchased an on-list rifle with a department letter this summer, and the AW registration letter didn't contain any language with respect to restrictions of performing law enforcement duties with the rifle, as another poster in this thread suggested. So in this case I just don't see how the DOJ would add restrictions at some later point by "re-evaluating" the registration status of the rifle with respect to employment status. The law just doesn't support that.

Maybe I am missing something...

LHC30
01-10-2011, 9:38 AM
I haven't read the opinion yet, but perhaps the AG is resting on the part of the initial gun letter where the Chief LEO is attesting to the fact that the gun is used for the officer's duties...once the duties are no longer there, then the reason for the purchase (possession) terminates...

Not logic I subscribe to, just trying to understand the (il)logic...

hoffmang
01-10-2011, 3:45 PM
1911_sfca,

The context is that Sheriff Gore wants to grab the RAW back on retirement. As I said above, I don't think its prosecutable if your department doesn't get the firearm back from you as you're in compliance with the letter of the Penal Code.

-Gene

1911su16b870
01-10-2011, 10:04 PM
First RAWs, second magazines > 10 rounds...third ??? :confused:

Crazed_SS
01-10-2011, 11:13 PM
The San Diego Sheriff Dept is considering letting Deputies purchase personal AR's on letterhead. I'm sure this request was to determine if those Deputies would be able to keep those AR's after retirement.
I find it interesting that the law as written, allows LEO's to purchase RAW's with letterhead from an agencies CLEO and requires that the LEO register that purchased weapon within 90 days of purchase with the DOJ. The law as written does not state anywhere that that registration expires or that any person that has followed the law must relinquish their personal property. I always thought that if it was not spelled out in the law as illegal, that it was legal.

My best friend from elementary school is a deputy here. Actually he's the guy who busted up that Busby fundraiser awhile back.. Anyway, he wanted to get a RAW and the Dept said "no way"..

They did send him to some tactical rifle course and then issued him a shorty Bushmaster AR w/ Aimpoint. So he got his AR, it just belongs to the county.

:D

Sgt Raven
01-12-2011, 7:35 PM
1911_sfca,

The context is that Sheriff Gore wants to grab the RAW back on retirement. As I said above, I don't think its prosecutable if your department doesn't get the firearm back from you as you're in compliance with the letter of the Penal Code.

-Gene

If Gore doesn't want them to keep them, then he should issue them a Department owned one instead. ;)

kcbrown
01-12-2011, 10:44 PM
How is enforcing equal protection anti-gun? This is one of the final straws for ending the "retired cop" exemption that allowed cops to be politically peeled away from the gun owner.


How so? You yourself said that any cop who retires with their RAW is un-prosecutable.

So in practice the AG's statement does nothing, if you're right.

hoffmang
01-12-2011, 10:57 PM
How so? You yourself said that any cop who retires with their RAW is un-prosecutable.

So in practice the AG's statement does nothing, if you're right.

Yes and Yes. Both are very good.

-Gene

kcbrown
01-13-2011, 1:12 AM
Yes and Yes. Both are very good.


Well, this means that nothing changes, which means the separation between LEOs (retired or not) and the rest of us remains unchanged by all this. You seemed to be saying that the AG's statement would somehow change this, but that's contradicted by your statement that retired cops will be un-prosecutable.


ETA: It sounds, actually, like you may be referring to the possibility of a future equal protection suit making it possible for normal people to acquire AWs. I don't think that will work, because the un-prosecutability of retired cops who hold onto their RAWs is not due to the inapplicability of the law to them, but the refusal of DAs to bring charges against them. That a given DA refuses to bring charges against someone doesn't mean they can't do so, and the court will naturally rule against an EP suit brought on those grounds, since doing so would open the floodgates to EP suits against a plethora of laws that make LEOs (retired or not) "special". And the courts want LEOs, both current and retired, to remain "special" more than they want the law to be applied equally.

Liberty1
01-13-2011, 1:29 AM
Well, this means that nothing changes, which means the separation between LEOs (retired or not) and the rest of us remains unchanged by all this. You seemed to be saying that the AG's statement would somehow change this, but that's contradicted by your statement that retired cops will be un-prosecutable.

Their un-prosecutable therefore one will get prosecuted out of fairness most likely in LA or SF. We're in the best of both worlds! "Yes & Yes!" Q is does Kamella get a honey moon or did Brown already screw her?

Liberty1
01-13-2011, 1:47 AM
First RAWs, second magazines > 10 rounds...third ??? :confused:

I don't know, brass pass is no good for DUIs?

kcbrown
01-13-2011, 4:43 AM
Their un-prosecutable therefore one will get prosecuted out of fairness most likely in LA or SF.


No, being un-prosecutable means they won't get prosecuted. If they could get prosecuted, then they wouldn't be un-prosecutable!



We're in the best of both worlds! "Yes & Yes!" Q is does Kamella get a honey moon or did Brown already screw her?Heh.

What you're thinking of simply won't happen. The establishment does not want LEOs (retired or otherwise) to lose their "special" status, which is exactly what would happen if the "un-prosecutable" suddenly became "prosecutable". This is most especially true in highly populated regions such as LA and SF, where corruption is rampant (one need only examine the way CCWs are handled in such places to see that).


Just because the AG issues an opinion doesn't mean the DOJ will actually follow that opinion in practice. You have to treat all these things as strictly political when they reference a "special" class of people such as LEOs (or judges, or ... ). If the AG or some DA refuses to prosecute a retired LEO for hanging onto his RAW, what possible recourse can there be? There won't be any from the courts -- they'll laugh the complaint out of the courtroom.

"Equal protection" is only as "equal" as the prosecuting attorneys and courts want it to be, and no more. For law enforcement, "equal" means Extra Special treatment, and that's the way the people in the system like it.

Dr.Lou
01-13-2011, 7:02 AM
The AG's opinion is not law, it's merely an opinion. Like AHs, everybody has one.

five.five-six
01-13-2011, 7:08 AM
Maybe bullet buttons and 10 round mags will be the new retirement gift of choice.

:rofl:

BigDogatPlay
01-13-2011, 1:49 PM
I don't know, brass pass is no good for DUIs?

It's not in my county...... just saying.

To Gene's "yes and yes"..... I usually don't like being teased, but the payoff here is liable to be well worth the petty annoyance.

:D

Untamed1972
01-13-2011, 2:14 PM
If Gore doesn't want them to keep them, then he should issue them a Department owned one instead. ;)

SDSO patrol cars already have ARs in them. so why should any of them need to purchase their own "for use on duty?"

N6ATF
01-13-2011, 6:22 PM
2 man cars? They're particular about the equipment they use? Poor maintenance record at the armory?

hoffmang
01-13-2011, 8:17 PM
The reason a retired LEO who had a personal AW registered is unprosecuteable is that I believe the penal code exempts anyone whose firearm is registered on the face of the law. It's hard to find the LEO guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of a constitutional interpretation that is parallel but not directly on point.

-Gene

flyingcaveman
01-14-2011, 2:21 AM
What the hell happened to the 14th amendment?

N6ATF
01-14-2011, 8:44 AM
It only applies in the home.

:rolleyes:

Stonewalker
01-14-2011, 10:24 AM
Perhaps I am being a bit hypocritical -

On one hand I am upset they let leo's have RAWs
On the other hand I get upset when they take them away.

Right, you are thinking about the specific consequences of each scenario, you aren't thinking about principles. And the Bill of Rights is all about principles.

It only applies in the home.

:rolleyes:

I almost spit tea all over my computer!

paladin4415
01-14-2011, 2:53 PM
SDSO patrol cars already have ARs in them. so why should any of them need to purchase their own "for use on duty?"

Are they issued to each Deputy, or are they "pool" guns that live in the car? "Pool" rifles are not a good idea. IMO

tomo2068
01-14-2011, 8:22 PM
Question: Can a California peace officer who legally acquired an assault weapon keep it upon leaving the agency?

Answer: After examining the applicable sections in the California penal code, there is nothing contained within the statutes that would prohibit the former peace officer from keeping the legally acquired and registered assault weapon. There is also nothing in the statutes that expressly allows the former peace officer to keep the legally acquired and registered assault weapon.

So we must dig deeper into the issue. We shall begin with California penal code section 4, which states:

The rule of the common law, that penal statutes are to be
strictly construed, has no application to this Code. All its
provisions are to be construed according to the fair import of their
terms, with a view to effect its objects and to promote justice.

Simply stated, California law is to be interpreted and enforced based on the spirit of the law and legislative intent when a law was enacted. The laws are not to be strictly interpreted and enforced.

We can easily determine the intent of the legislature when they passed the Assault Weapons Control Act (AWCA) by reading penal code section 12275.5, which states, in part:

It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this chapter to place
restrictions on the use of assault weapons and to establish a
registration and permit procedure for their lawful sale and
possession.

Penal code section 12280 establishes a procedure for California peace officers to acquire, possess and register assault weapons. Once the assault weapon has been properly acquired and registered, it is retained by the officer, becoming the officer’s property, and would be subject to the transfer restrictions for registered assault weapons.

The acquisition and permanent possession of assault weapons by California peace officers would comply with the stated intent of the legislature when the AWCA was enacted.

One would also encounter due process issues if they tried to take someone’s legally acquired property.

(I am not an attorney and this is my opinion only)

jpigeon
01-14-2011, 11:40 PM
Major Pimp slap from the CA hustlers...

mezz
04-27-2011, 12:10 PM
I got a memo and form to sign from my chief, stating that I acknowledge and have read the opinion, and upon retirement or separation, I will privide proof to my agency that it has been disposed of, sold or a permit from DOJ saying its lawful for me to continue to possess it. If I refuse to sign the form, the chief will notify DOJ that the permission to continue to possess is recinded by my agency.

I dont have a big problem with signing it, because I have a permit from DOJ (the original registration letter). And I called DOJ and spoke with "Dana" in firearms. I asked him if DOJ was revoking registrations if the agency recinds permission to possess, or notifies them of a retirement. He said they are NOT revoking the registrations.

But who knows what will happen in the future and what this new AG will do...

Maestro Pistolero
04-27-2011, 1:01 PM
As the court’s discussion makes clear, the Second Amendment right does not protect possession of a military M-16 rifle. (Heller, supra, 554 U. S. ___ [171 L.Ed.2d at p. 579].

That is not AT ALL clear from the Heller decision. Here's what the court said:

It may be objectedthat if weapons that are most useful
in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be
banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely
detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said,
the conception of the militia at the time of the Second
Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens
capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of
lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia
duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as
effective as militias in the 18th century, would require
sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at
large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small
arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and
tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited
the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the
protected right cannot change our interpretation of the
right.

Bold mine. To paraphrase: If M-16s may be banned, then the first clause of the amendment no longer applies. Short of a constitutional convention that overturns the amendment, I contend that it certainly does still apply.

To continue paraphrasing: Even if M16s can't overcome modern tanks and bombers for the original anti-tyranny purpose, they are still protected.

jwkincal
04-27-2011, 9:17 PM
I'm willing to bet that if you had a time machine you might learn that the framers felt the 2A was to apply to things like artillery as well.

It was not unheard of for large landowners to have such things.

ke6guj
04-27-2011, 9:21 PM
I'm willing to bet that if you had a time machine you might learn that the framers felt the 2A was to apply to things like artillery as well.

It was not unheard of for large landowners to have such things.yup, you should hear hoffmang talk about "letters of Marque" where citizens actually owned their own warships to attack pirates.

Maestro Pistolero
04-28-2011, 10:09 AM
If the principle of the anti-tyranny purpose of the 2A is to balance power of government with a peaceable armed populace, then isn't it obvious that the firearms would need to be up to the task? Otherwise, isn't that primary purpose of the amendment then rendered moot and null?

So, what antis won't say, but what is inherent in any argument that the police be better armed than law-abiding citizens, is that they disagree with the principles behind the second amendment but are unwilling to say so outright, and they don't have the balls or the ability to repeal it through the process laid out in the constitution itself.

So, instead of using due process to change what they don't like and don't agree with, they undermine the integrity of the entire constitution by making a mockery of it with their circumventions.