PDA

View Full Version : CA Legal AR on duty?


center_x
06-04-2011, 1:09 PM
What do guys think about using a CA legal AR on duty?

What are the pros/cons of using one?

If I were to use one, what "device" would you recommend? (Ex.BB, mag lock, ect.)

G-RAT!
06-04-2011, 2:18 PM
if you are LEO while on duty the BB law doesnt apply to you

biochembruin
06-04-2011, 3:02 PM
I would recommend against it. Clearing malfunctions would be problematic with a magazine lock. Magazine changes under stress would be a challenge also, especially tactical reloads. If you're trying to get your department to allow you to use a California legal AR, you might as well go the extra mile and try to get an assault weapon letter.

SByota
06-04-2011, 3:36 PM
Bad idea!!! I agree with the above. Get your brass to authorize you to purchase a RAW and carry that. If you are a LEO PM me you "offical" email and I will give you the details of how I did this exact thing at my department. My Colt 6940 rides with me on patrol every shift.

tyrist
06-04-2011, 4:42 PM
NO pros

Tons of cons including basic loading/unloading, malfunction clearance, speed reloading, tactical reloading, and suppressive fire.

Using a mini 14 would be a better idea.

erik18
06-04-2011, 5:07 PM
If you're having to use a CA legal AR for duty use I am guessing that your department does not issue rifles nor do they give letters.

If that's the case, I highly doubt that your department would authorize you to use a rifle on duty either. Remember, just because it's legal to carry, doesn't mean it is in accordance with YOUR department policy.

Always stay within policy when it comes to weaponry used in the performance of your duty. It's not worth losing your job.

center_x
06-04-2011, 5:55 PM
Thanks all for your reply. The reason why I ask is because im a Level 1 reserve with a county department. I don't want to go to brass until im hired FT.

Yet again, thank you for everyones time.

biochembruin
06-04-2011, 6:32 PM
I wouldn't imagine your command staff would allow you to use a California legal AR on duty regardless of your reserve or full time status. However, if they have a liberal shotgun policy, you may want to look into your policy regarding slug ammunition. At typical patrol distances, slugs have some distinct benefits, not the least of which is the ability to penetrate more intermediate barriers than an AR would, such as windshields.

nobody33
06-04-2011, 7:21 PM
Yeah if your department won't give you one, or a letter, they are not going to let you carry one anyways. And if you get a letter you will have to buy a whole new rifle.

Triad
06-04-2011, 7:24 PM
Huge liability.

1911su16b870
06-04-2011, 9:52 PM
Whatever your department policy says! If your rifle is not in policy you are SOL if something goes down and wrong.

Notorious
06-05-2011, 10:39 AM
Thanks all for your reply. The reason why I ask is because im a Level 1 reserve with a county department. I don't want to go to brass until im hired FT.

Yet again, thank you for everyones time.

Wait... Does your department allow for privately owned patrol rifles or not? If they do, then there is a policy on how you go about getting the letter from the brass. It doesn't matter how new you are as long as it is authorized and you follow the protocol in getting the letter signed off.

Now if reserves aren't allowed private rifles, then what are you doing anyway?

If reserves are allowed private rifles but they won't authorize a letter for you, then I would recommend something that is legal and can take detachable mags like the Mini-14 which is in use by the biggest County in CA. 2,300 deputies can't be wrong, can they?

I would not use a BB AR as a fighting gun unless it is the only only only functioning gun in the vicinity and only until I find a real AR.

BigDogatPlay
06-05-2011, 7:43 PM
A mag locked rifle has no place in law enforcement use for all the reasons cited above. If you can use a privately owned rifle, but aren't blessed with the letter to be able to buy a featured gun, I'd also suggest a Mini-14 as Notorious mentions.

Utterly reliable and even with ten round mags it would be far superior to any mag locked gun.

center_x
06-05-2011, 9:50 PM
Ive been told as long as I can pass qualification, id be able to use my CA Legal AR, but like everyone here, I was unsure about using a BB in the field.

I like the Mini's, they are great guns, but I didnt want to fork out more $$$ for another gun. I guess I cant have too many toys :rolleyes:

Thanks all for your inputs.

1911su16b870
06-05-2011, 10:31 PM
Fighting Rifle = Detachable Magazine. You have many 223/556 options here in CA.

SU16, Benelli MR1, featureless AR, Saiga, featureless AK, Mini 14.

The SU and MR1 even take AR magazines.

biochembruin
06-06-2011, 7:04 AM
Or go big and get an M1A

Notorious
06-06-2011, 9:23 AM
I would recommend the M1A Scout Squad if his department allows that caliber. Top it off with a low power 2.5x scope and you're golden.

center_x
06-06-2011, 3:11 PM
Would love an m1a, but 556/223 only. Darn rules :-)

tacticalcity
06-06-2011, 3:53 PM
if you are LEO while on duty the BB law doesn't apply to you

^^^ This is the correct answer...ignore the others. ^^^

Law enforcement officers are exempt from SB23 rules provided they have a letter from their department authorizing their ownership of an AR15. If your supervisor will not sign off on you owning a non-neutered AR he sure as heck is not going to let you carry your personal neutered AR on duty. Even if he would, it is a terrible idea.

There simply is no rational reason to have a bullet button on your AR if it is a duty weapon and you are in fact a sworn officer.

Sounds like you have some more research to do on exactly how this law works and how it applies to you. Otherwise you might find yourself in hot water when you encounter an off duty office on his way home with a non-neutered AR while you are on duty. You might think he was breaking the law, when he wasn't...and end up with a lot of egg on your face.

CSACANNONEER
06-06-2011, 4:02 PM
if you are LEO while on duty the BB law doesnt apply to you

Law Enforcement is exempt to SB23, with a letter from your department. So there is no rational reason to have a bullet button on your AR if it is a duty weapon. The quesiton doesn't make any sense. Neither do the responses. I am not trying to be rude, but if you are law enforcement, you should know this already. You can't properly enforce the law if you don't know it in the first place.

I think the key is "with a letter". It seems like the OP isn't going to get a letter but, his dept. doesn't care if he wants to carry his own, non-RAW, rifle. If it was me, I'd carry a 5 shot .308 lever action before I would consider carrying a gun with a mag lock on it. Then again, I'd go featureless if I wanted to trust my life to my own little .223 auto loader.

tacticalcity
06-06-2011, 4:14 PM
Ive been told as long as I can pass qualification, id be able to use my CA Legal AR, but like everyone here, I was unsure about using a BB in the field.

I like the Mini's, they are great guns, but I didnt want to fork out more $$$ for another gun. I guess I cant have too many toys :rolleyes:

Thanks all for your inputs.

I would bet good money you (or the people answering your question) completely misunderstood.

They probably mean they want you to buy a brand and model number that is not listed. That way they have less paperwork to do. I seriously doubt they mean you have to use a bullet button. That would just be stupid.

They just don't want you trying to buy a Colt or a Bushmaster.

I've seen that before with a local department here in Nor-Cal. They were perfectly fine with my buddy using his CMMG on duty without a bullet button after he qualified with it, but would not give him permission to buy his dream rifle, a Colt.

tacticalcity
06-06-2011, 4:15 PM
I think the key is "with a letter". It seems like the OP isn't going to get a letter but, his dept. doesn't care if he wants to carry his own, non-RAW, rifle. If it was me, I'd carry a 5 shot .308 lever action before I would consider carrying a gun with a mag lock on it. Then again, I'd go featureless if I wanted to trust my life to my own little .223 auto loader.

I doubt it. I think it is more they don't want the hassle of him trying to buy a Colt (or other banned make/model) because that is a paperwork nightmare and draws way too much unwanted attention from outside the department. I highly doubt they want him running a bullet button. They most likely just want him to buy a CMMG, STAG, etc. Something that will fly under the radar of the DOJ and AG. Buying something on-list raises too many eyebrows.

I could be wrong, but I seriously doubt his department would allow their officers to run bullet buttons. It would be a nightmare with regards to liability. It would definately get their guys killed. The lawyers and even the bean counters would be able to see that one coming from a mile away.

1911su16b870
06-06-2011, 4:25 PM
Your Department Policy matters when you are on duty.

But for arguement sake lets look at this:


(a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall
also mean any of the following:
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to
accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action
of the weapon.
(B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) A forward pistol grip.


Letter of the Law...boys...Letter of the Law...:D

So to be legal have (A) plus (E) two (which is not one) of the following! :D Just Say'in :D

Just wanted to point out something about 12276 that has been bugging me for a while.

tacticalcity
06-06-2011, 4:27 PM
Your Department Policy matters when you are on duty.

But for arguement sake lets look at this:



Letter of the Law...boys...Letter of the Law...:D

So to be legal have (A) plus (E) two (which is not one) of the following! :D Just Say'in :D

Just wanted to point out something about 12276 that has been bugging me for a while.

I finally got what you were trying to say...more than one and you are good...sadly it doesn't work that way.

However...

Law enforcement is completely except from Sb23 both on and off duty, with their own personally owned weapon(s) provided their department issues them a letter on department letterhead giving them permission.

Technically they can also get around the banned list as well. But it is more complicated. I am guessing that his department does not mind giving him permission to get around SB23 (12276) but does not want the hassel of helping him get around the Dangerous Assault Weapons List.

1911su16b870
06-06-2011, 4:29 PM
Law enforcement is EXEMPT with a department letter both on and off duty. So you would be wrong.

...if it is not in department policy, you are not supposed to use it. If your chain of command gives you the go ahead to use it...then it is a different situation, liability is then transfered from the officer to the department.

The patrol rifle department policy will outline how an officer can aquire a rifle (letter etc.) within policy (i.e. Colt 6920 with two 20 round magazines) and the training requirements (initial training, zeroing, distance, qualification and maintenance) that need to be met in order to use it on duty.

1911su16b870
06-06-2011, 4:37 PM
I finally got what you were trying to say...more than one and you are good...sadly it doesn't work that way...

I know bro...I was just joking around, that is why I had the :D smilies there!

tacticalcity
06-06-2011, 4:38 PM
...if it is not in department policy, you are not supposed to use it. If your chain of command gives you the go ahead to use it...then it is a different situation, liability is then transfered from the officer to the department.

The patrol rifle department policy will outline how an officer can aquire a rifle (letter etc.) within policy (i.e. Colt 6920 with two 20 round magazines) and the training requirements (initial training, zeroing, distance, qualification and maintenance) that need to be met in order to use it on duty.

Yes...but he just said his department said he could.

They did not say he needed to use a BULLET BUTTON EQUIPPED RIFLE. That is something you guys read into his question.

All they said was it had to be California legal. What I am saying is I think they were NOT talking about SB23 legal...but rather not listed on the Dangerous Assault Weapons List.

As in, if you already own a California Legal AR15 we will give you permission to take off the bullet button and use it on duty provided you qualify with it. However, we are not going to give you special permission to run down and buy a COLT AR15 or that super sexy KAC SR-15 that is banned just because you are cop. So buy your rifle the ordinary way, with the bullet button on it so it doesn't standand out to the DOJ or AG, then once you have it and it is already DROS'd into your name we will give you permission to remove the bullet button and use it on duty. They don't want to be part of the DROS process. If something goes wrong they want to be able to say "...but he purchased that rifle legally and of his own accord and we had no part in that..." and wash their hands of it. It is pure CYA on their part.

That is a very common approach/response from departments these days. I know of two that take that approach in my area alone. They are willing to give permission to their officers to use them on duty and run them normally, but are not willing to give them permision before they own the rifle, only after. Which means their rifles are all "off list" and nobody is "importanting assault weapons" into California on their behalf.

So my advice is to get some clarification from your department as to whether or not you will be expected to run a bullet button after you qualify, or if they just want to make sure your rifle is "off-list". Until you know for sure, you won't know if it is a smart decision or not. If they just mean they want it to be "off-list" then go for it. That is great! If they mean you are supposed to leave the bullet button on then don't do it.

1911su16b870
06-06-2011, 4:44 PM
Yes...but he just said his department said he could.

They did not say he needed to use a BULLET BUTTON EQUIPPED RIFLE. That is something you guys read into his question.

All they said was it had to be California legal. What I am saying is I think they were NOT talking about SB23 legal...but rather not listed on the Dangerous Assault Weapons List.

As in, if you already own a California Legal AR15 we [the PD] will give you permission to take off the bullet button and use it on duty provided you qualify with it.

However, we are not going to give you special permission to run down and buy a COLT AR15 or that super sexy KAC SR-15 that is banned just because you are cop.

That is a very common response from departments these days. I know of two that take that approach in my area alone.

Do I understand the boldened part it means your department can write you a letter that you have authorization to use your S&W MP15 rifle on duty, and now you can remove the mag lock and use it normally?

Please post or pm me the precedent on this! It would be greatly appreciated as a great and inexpensive way to bring in patrol rifles into my department.

biochembruin
06-06-2011, 4:47 PM
I doubt it. I think it is more they don't want the hassle of him trying to buy a Colt (or other banned make/model) because that is a paperwork nightmare and draws way too much unwanted attention from outside the department. I highly doubt they want him running a bullet button. They most likely just want him to buy a CMMG, STAG, etc. Something that will fly under the radar of the DOJ and AG. Buying something on-list raises too many eyebrows.

I could be wrong, but I seriously doubt his department would allow their officers to run bullet buttons. It would be a nightmare with regards to liability. It would definately get their guys killed. The lawyers and even the bean counters would be able to see that one coming from a mile away.

Look, there is no extra paperwork when trying to by a listed assault weapon versus an unlisted assault weapon. As far as the CA DOJ is concerned, an AW is an AW, whether defined by name or by features. Buying something on list doesn't "raise eyebrows" with the DOJ. All they want is a letter from the department's commander (or person authorized by the department's head), and the blue AW registration card. It's actually quite easy once you have the letter.

1911su16b870
06-06-2011, 4:49 PM
What do guys think about using a CA legal AR on duty?

What are the pros/cons of using one?

If I were to use one, what "device" would you recommend? (Ex.BB, mag lock, ect.)

...All they said was it had to be California legal...

Featureless or Magazine Locked with Features is how I understood it. I didn't see any mention of in/out of dept policy...

tacticalcity
06-06-2011, 4:51 PM
Look, there is no extra paperwork when trying to by a listed assault weapon versus an unlisted assault weapon. As far as the CA DOJ is concerned, an AW is an AW, whether defined by name or by features. Buying something on list doesn't "raise eyebrows" with the DOJ. All they want is a letter from the department's commander (or person authorized by the department's head), and the blue AW registration card. It's actually quite easy once you have the letter.

If they give the letter before they buy the rifle, then that letter is part of the DROS. Later that can bite them in the rear and it has a huge political stigma to it. Especially since it allows their officers to buy listed brands. The departments do not want to be seen as "importing dangerous assault weapons" especially when the head of the department is an elected official who could be held accountable.

If the officer leaves the force he can keep the rifle, and if there is then an incident involving that rifle, then there would be a paper trail leading back to that department saying they gave him permission to buy that dangerous assault rifle. But if he buys it legally, on his own, then they are only on the hook so long as he is an active member of their department.

However, allowing officers to carry their own legally aquired rifles, which are not named on the Dangerous Assault Weapons list does not have the same dangerous political overtones to it. After all, the officers purchased their rifles of their own accord and within the law. Issuing a letter at that point, which the department keeps on file and does not give to the officer so he cannot use it to buy an off-list rifle, is considerably less risky. Now whether they actually bother with the letter, or just give their officers permission via their department police I do not know. But this practice is common place.

You guys need to start thinking like lawyers and public relations officials if you want to understand how and why things work the way they do at your departments. You're thinking too much like cops.

tacticalcity
06-06-2011, 4:56 PM
Do I understand the boldened part it means your department can write you a letter that you have authorization to use your S&W MP15 rifle on duty, and now you can remove the mag lock and use it normally?

Please post or pm me the precedent on this! It would be greatly appreciated as a great and inexpensive way to bring in patrol rifles into my department.

San Ramon Police Department allows their officers to remove bullet buttons of their legally aquired personally owned AR15s and use them as duty rifles once they qualify. They do this because they do not have the budget for them.

However I am not calling out the other department in case this is someday determined to be against DOJ policy. I actually like them. I am not fond of San Ramon. In their very short existance they have done some very shady things to their own officers.

From conversations I have had with officers from all over this state, this practice is common place.

1911su16b870
06-06-2011, 4:59 PM
Look, there is no extra paperwork when trying to by a listed assault weapon versus an unlisted assault weapon. As far as the CA DOJ is concerned, an AW is an AW, whether defined by name or by features. Buying something on list doesn't "raise eyebrows" with the DOJ. All they want is a letter from the department's commander (or person authorized by the department's head), and the blue AW registration card. It's actually quite easy once you have the letter.

This was my understanding up to this point and thread. DOJ wants you to get your AW from a CA licensed AW dealer. They do not want rank and file officers just converting their CA legal builds into AWs.

For a second there, I was getting my hopes up that DOJ would use common sense for patrol officers with a department letter saying they could convert their rifles into normal featured ARs, but that is against current law for 12276PC [need to insert it here thinking 12280-90PC] peace officer exemptions.

biochembruin
06-06-2011, 5:06 PM
As in, if you already own a California Legal AR15 we will give you permission to take off the bullet button and use it on duty provided you qualify with it. However, we are not going to give you special permission to run down and buy a COLT AR15 or that super sexy KAC SR-15 that is banned just because you are cop. So buy your rifle the ordinary way, with the bullet button on it so it doesn't standand out to the DOJ or AG, then once you have it and it is already DROS'd into your name we will give you permission to remove the bullet button and use it on duty. They don't want to be part of the DROS process. If something goes wrong they want to be able to say "...but he purchased that rifle legally and of his own accord and we had no part in that..." and wash their hands of it. It is pure CYA on their part.

That is a very common approach/response from departments these days. I know of two that take that approach in my area alone. They are willing to give permission to their officers to use them on duty and run them normally, but are not willing to give them permision before they own the rifle, only after. Which means their rifles are all "off list" and nobody is "importanting assault weapons" into California on their behalf.

I really think you might be confused as to what these departments in your area are doing to allow their officers to own AW. It works this way:

1: The department decides which of their officers is qualified to buy an AW, based on their own policy.

2: The qualified officer meets with an AW dealer and picks a rifle, usually from a department approved list, based on the department policy. The officer obtains the serial number of said rifle.

3: The dept writes a letter for the officer stating the officer is a full time employee and is authorized by said department to purchase the rifle. The letter states the make, model, and SN of the rifle.

4: Officer buys the rifle and gives the letter to the AW dealer. The dealer gives the officer the rifle, a copy of the letter, and a blue AW registration card.

5: Officer fills out the card and sends it to the DOJ within 90 days, along with the $20 fee. If the officer fails to send in the registration card, the officer is then in possession of an unregistered assault weapon, and in violation of the penal code. The AW must be returned to the AW dealer.

That's all there is to it. If an officer bought or manufactured a CA legal rifle with a bullet button, then removed said bullet button with "permission" of the department, the officer would have just manufactured an assault weapon, and would be in possession of an unregistered assault weapon. Neither of those violations have exemptions for law enforcement officers.

If an officer has an assault weapon, it must be registered. The process you previously described does not provide for registering the weapon with the DOJ, something the officer must do (ie, the dept can't do it for the officer) if it is an officer owned weapon.

1911su16b870
06-06-2011, 5:09 PM
The way Murphy's law works for me is that as soon as I have authorization to buy a CA AW...the CGF/SAF AW lawsuit will win and they'll throw 12276PC out the window. :D

tacticalcity
06-06-2011, 5:12 PM
I really think you might be confused as to what these departments in your area are doing to allow their officers to own AW. It works this way:

1: The department decides which of their officers is qualified to buy an AW, based on their own policy.

2: The qualified officer meets with an AW dealer and picks a rifle, usually from a department approved list, based on the department policy. The officer obtains the serial number of said rifle.

3: The dept writes a letter for the officer stating the officer is a full time employee and is authorized by said department to purchase the rifle. The letter states the make, model, and SN of the rifle.

4: Officer buys the rifle and gives the letter to the AW dealer. The dealer gives the officer the rifle, a copy of the letter, and a blue AW registration card.

5: Officer fills out the card and sends it to the DOJ within 90 days, along with the $20 fee. If the officer fails to send in the registration card, the officer is then in possession of an unregistered assault weapon, and in violation of the penal code. The AW must be returned to the AW dealer.

That's all there is to it. If an officer bought or manufactured a CA legal rifle with a bullet button, then removed said bullet button with "permission" of the department, the officer would have just manufactured an assault weapon, and would be in possession of an unregistered assault weapon. Neither of those violations have exemptions for law enforcement officers.

If an officer has an assault weapon, it must be registered. The process you previously described does not provide for registering the weapon with the DOJ, something the officer must do (ie, the dept can't do it for the officer) if it is an officer owned weapon.

That is how it should work. It is not how it is working.

When my conversation took place with the three officer friends of mine I made all the arguments you are making with me. They clearly spelled out that letters would NOT be issued to them before hand. However, once they legally purchased their own rifles they would be allowed to qualify with them. Once they did, they would be allowed to use them on duty - without a SB23 compliance devices. They made it very clear, the rifles had to be purchased before hand and had to be off-list rifles. Since that initial conversation I have had the same conversation with officers of other departments. Guys I was taking carbine courses with. Some were teaching the courses, some were my fellow students. Through those conversations it became obvious this was common place. Letters being issued to buy whatever they wanted seemed almost unheard of. The only explination that makes sense to me is that it is CYA. They don't want it showing up as an AW on the DROS. They want it to be DROS'd as a normal long rifle, and without their department associated with the purchase. Otherwise they would just issue the letter. Doing it their way means that when that officer leaves that department, their liability of his being legally able to keep the rifle goes away. It's not an AW, it's just another long gun that some civilian purchased on his own. Nothing to do with them. The fact that at one point he worked for them is much more manageble than them arming him with an assault rifle that he could keep after he left the force.

Frankly, I am getting tired of repeating myself here. I know what I know because all 3 officers purchased all their parts from me (except the lowers which they purchased from an FFL I put them in contact with). I tried to talk them out of doing it that way. I suggested they just get a letter and buy the Colt and KAC rifles they really wanted. These guys were friends, so I wasn't charging them a markup anyway. That is when they explained how their department works and why they could not do it the ideal way. They were buying the rifles to be duty weapons.

1911su16b870
06-06-2011, 5:20 PM
T4 Tac...thanks for clarifying what is going on...your effort is appreciated by me! :cheers2:

biochembruin
06-06-2011, 5:21 PM
That is how it should work. It is not how it is working.

When my conversation took place with the three officer friends of mine I made all the arguments you are making with me. They clearly spelled out that letters would NOT be issued to them before hand. However, once they legally purchased their own rifles they would be allowed to qualify with them. Once they did, they would be allowed to use them on duty - without a SB23 compliance devices. They made it very clear, the rifles had to be purchased before hand and had to be off-list rifles.

Frankly, I am getting tired of repeating myself here.

Then don't repeat yourself, just stop posting. The law regarding officers obtaining assault weapons was already outlined in this thread before you came in and confused the OP. If this department you mention is advocating their officers possession of unregistered assault weapons, you shouldn't be suggesting the OP follow their example and land himself in trouble. It was already suggested numerous times that he contact his department. It may very well be that they want him to field a CA legal rifle, complete with bullet button intact. Wouldn't be the dumbest thing I've heard a department doing. While the department may want this, others have pointed out this is tactically unsound.

To the OP and others that may be confused, follow the law and your dept policy. Remember, you might be fired for not following policy, and you might be jailed for not following the law.

And don't use a bullet button while on duty.

tacticalcity
06-06-2011, 5:33 PM
I told him to ask his department to clarify exactly what they meant by "California Legal".

Show me where in the law that it states that their personal rifles have to be a new purchase and not a rifle they already own?

I don't know what paperwork took place after they qualified. I only know letters would not be issued for the purpose of buying the rifle but that once they owned a rifle and qualified with it, they were allowed to use them without bullet buttons or other compliance devices. That does not preclude that paperwork being filled out at that point to notify the DOJ. I simply wasn't part of that part of the process. Maybe the department doesn't want them buying an AW until they have qualified on it. And since they cannot qualify on it until they have it...it becomes a catch 22. Primary motivation still being some form of CYA.

The only person confused here is you. OP seems to be doing just fine.

"the sale to, purchase by, or possession of assault weapons by the Department of Justice, police departments, sheriffs' offices, marshals' offices, the Department of Corrections, the Department of the California Highway Patrol, district attorneys' offices, or the military or naval forces of this state or of the United States for use in the discharge of their official duties" and provides that nothing shall "prohibit the possession or use of assault weapons by sworn members of these agencies when on duty and the use is within the scope of their duties." (Penal Code section 12280(d))"

Source: http://www.rkba.org/ca/sb23-analysis-psc.html#poe

biochembruin
06-06-2011, 5:45 PM
Read California Penal Code 12280(f)(2). In part...

Required authorization is defined as verifiable written certification from the
head of the agency, identifying the recipient or possessor of the
assault weapon as a peace officer and authorizing him or her to
receive or possess the specific assault weapon. For this exemption to
apply, in the case of a peace officer who possesses or receives the
assault weapon prior to January 1, 2002, the officer shall register
the assault weapon pursuant to Section 12285 on or before April 1,
2002, and in the case of a peace officer who possesses or receives
the assault weapon on or after January 1, 2002, the officer shall
register the assault weapon pursuant to Section 12285 not later than
90 days after possession or receipt.

I think I've been trained well enough by my department on this, since I'm qualified to teach it. If no letters were issued, stand by. It's not the department's *** that will be in jail.

tacticalcity
06-06-2011, 6:01 PM
Read California Penal Code 12280(f)(2). In part...

Required authorization is defined as verifiable written certification from the
head of the agency, identifying the recipient or possessor of the
assault weapon as a peace officer and authorizing him or her to
receive or possess the specific assault weapon. For this exemption to
apply, in the case of a peace officer who possesses or receives the
assault weapon prior to January 1, 2002, the officer shall register
the assault weapon pursuant to Section 12285 on or before April 1,
2002, and in the case of a peace officer who possesses or receives
the assault weapon on or after January 1, 2002, the officer shall
register the assault weapon pursuant to Section 12285 not later than
90 days after possession or receipt.

I think I've been trained well enough by my department on this, since I'm qualified to teach it. If no letters were issued, stand by. It's not the department's *** that will be in jail.

Nothing in that contradicts what I am saying.

Officer does not own an AW. He owns a normal long rifle. Only after he qualifies is he given written verifiable permission to possess an AW. At which point he removes the bullet button. Only at that point does the rifle become an AW. At which point he has 90 days to file the paperwork. Nothing in the above law says it can't work that way.

Now, if the officer FAILS to qualify he is not given permission from his agency. No harm no foul. He just can't remove the bullet button or use that rifle on duty. It was his choice to buy the rifle, they owe him nothing and they risked nothing. Perfect CYA for the department.

This way they make sure he can qualify with the weapon to their standards before they give him permission to have an AW. From a liability standpoint, it would be nuts to give him permission to buy the AW before they knew he was qualified on it. And if they do not own department ARs, how are they going to qualify him on it before hand?

center_x
06-06-2011, 6:17 PM
Need to bust out the computer to respond to all these quotes, assumptions, and all the possibilities of a lot of egg on my face, because my phones' screen isnt big enough.

Actually, Im not going to, too much drama, but Ill try to keep it as simple as possible in "bullet points" to avoid any confusion.

-I will not ask for a letter until Im FT.

-Ive been told I can use a BB, with my own lower, if I qualify with it, but wasnt sure if I should (hence the reason why I started this post)

-I know the rules/laws on the AW issues.

-I dont care about a dream rifle, I care about coming home.

-I only care about my dept's policy

-If I qualify with a BB, Im not going to take it on/off while on/off duty. Thats stupid!

-This thread is done

-Ive already found a Mini 14 :D

biochembruin
06-06-2011, 6:36 PM
There is no LEO exemption for manufacturing an assault weapon. The only exemption is that a LEO may currently purchase and register an assault weapon.

Notorious
06-06-2011, 7:53 PM
There is no LEO exemption for manufacturing an assault weapon. The only exemption is that a LEO may currently purchase and register an assault weapon.

This.

I thought about the other way and converting my existing rifle if I qual but was told that's not how it works. The rifle has to be bought as is from the dealer and registered as Biochem says.

erik18
06-06-2011, 9:56 PM
Even if an officer is "allowed" to remove a bullet button from his off list rifle, he WILL NOT be able to register it with the Doj as an assault weapon unless he has a letter from his sheriff/chief. No way around that.

Danielp59
06-07-2011, 12:34 PM
I would never use a ca legal ar for duty use.

Chances are you wouldn't be allowed to use it anyways. You have to be trained on how to use your rifle by your department. If not, your a huge liability to the county. If you shoot someone accidentally (not saying it would happen). The first thing the courts will look at when the department is getting sued is what type of training you have with that rifle. I highly doubt your department will let you use a cal legal AR for the multiple reasons stated by other.

So there is no bypassing the brass because they would have to approve your training.
Just wait it out, get your letter and get an AR that you don't have a stupid BB and can have high caps for. I know it looks cool when you deploy it but the chances of you getting in an OIS with your rifle are slim to none. Not to mention theres not much that a slug or some buck shot can't handle while on patrol.

nobody33
06-07-2011, 1:22 PM
I also want to throw this in, beyond the tactical, policy, and legal reasons on why you should not carry one already mentioned... there are political reasons too. I think it is setting a bad precedent for LEO's to be carrying neutered weapons on duty. If officers starting carrying BB rifles it's going to be a slippery slope until the legislature has us carrying 10 round mags in our pistols, not issuing AW letters, making us wait 10 days to get a duty or back up gun, etc etc. As far left as the legislature is, there are plenty of people in Sacramento who would just as soon take away guns from the police if they could. And AW's will be the first to go. Officer's carrying BB rifles on duty could give them a reason to stop issuing letters.

BigDogatPlay
06-07-2011, 1:53 PM
Nothing in that contradicts what I am saying.

Officer does not own an AW. He owns a normal long rifle. Only after he qualifies is he given written verifiable permission to possess an AW. At which point he removes the bullet button. Only at that point does the rifle become an AW. At which point he has 90 days to file the paperwork. Nothing in the above law says it can't work that way.

Sounds good. And it could work that way I guess. My understanding is that it is troublesome from a paperwork perspective because the rifle is being converted, if you will, into an AW by someone who is not a 07 FFL or an FFL who is an AW permitee. There is no LEO exemption for "manufacturing" an AW that I am aware of. This is where I think the solution as you present falls into deep shades of grey. And if your presentation is the true state of affairs in that department, there may be some exposure to liability on their part.

This way they make sure he can qualify with the weapon to their standards before they give him permission to have an AW. From a liability standpoint, it would be nuts to give him permission to buy the AW before they knew he was qualified on it. And if they do not own department ARs, how are they going to qualify him on it before hand?

The can do that by sending him to a training class where the rifles are furnished, either by another department or by the school. That would be the simplest solution to my mind with my training manager hat on. And an inspection of the officer(s) owned rifle by the department armorer would almost certainly be required anyway before it could be deployed. That covers liability questions all the way around without the department having to own a rifle.

FWIW, your earlier responses read to me like the department was usurping the registration requirement for personally owned, by the LEO, AWs. The inference I got was that the department was waving their magic wand, in essence. They can't do that and I think that may be a source of confusion on the thread.

If, OTOH, those officers never registered their rifles with CADoJ and changed out bullet buttons for standard mag releases, and the rifles have at least one feature, then they have all committed felonies, which would be a big problem for them and the department.

center_x
06-07-2011, 2:32 PM
I also want to throw this in, beyond the tactical, policy, and legal reasons on why you should not carry one already mentioned... there are political reasons too. I think it is setting a bad precedent for LEO's to be carrying neutered weapons on duty. If officers starting carrying BB rifles it's going to be a slippery slope until the legislature has us carrying 10 round mags in our pistols, not issuing AW letters, making us wait 10 days to get a duty or back up gun, etc etc. As far left as the legislature is, there are plenty of people in Sacramento who would just as soon take away guns from the police if they could. And AW's will be the first to go. Officer's carrying BB rifles on duty could give them a reason to stop issuing letters.

+1 Good way at looking at it

1911su16b870
06-07-2011, 3:53 PM
This has been a tremendous thread.

As a factory trained/POST certified AR armorer, I am certainly qualified to remove a magazine lock and install a standard magazine release button and spring. Now if my department directed me to do so for duty purposes, it would be on the department and DOJ to suss out beforehand. How would I cover myself so I do not end up being a AW manufacturer felon?

BigDogatPlay
06-07-2011, 9:40 PM
This has been a tremendous thread.

I agree.

As a factory trained/POST certified AR armorer, I am certainly qualified to remove a magazine lock and install a standard magazine release button and spring. Now if my department directed me to do so for duty purposes, it would be on the department and DOJ to suss out beforehand. How would I cover myself so I do not end up being a AW manufacturer felon?

Have the "right people" and your PORAC attorney on speed dial or just politely refuse to do it would be my first guesses. My opinion is that they'd be directing you to commit a felony, but it's just my non-lawyerly opinion. Take it for what it's worth.

Notorious
06-07-2011, 10:57 PM
Your department would provide the defense and indemnify you as an officer in the line of duty but you are still on the hook for the felony. Do you want to take that risk of a conviction with a zealous DA and unsympathetic jury?

The law is the law and there is no exemption for you, even under direct orders because the order would be illegal as given and no illegal orders are valid.

1911su16b870
06-07-2011, 11:23 PM
I agree that 12276 is the law and how could I ignore that which I am sworn to uphold?

The only way I could see that would be legal is if my dept sponsors me getting a CA AW manufacturer registation, I obtain DOJ AW manufacturer registration and then I DROS officers individual rifle in, do the "AW manufacturing" and then DROS the same rifle out as AW to that officer who would have the appropriate department letter and blue card. Logistically I think that is a good way forward because then I would make sure the rifle is outfitted to department policy prior to undertaking the effort or make it so.

...or eventually Hoffman's AW lawsuit is decided in their favor and 12276PC is voided.

Notorious
06-07-2011, 11:45 PM
If you are licensed then you would not be manufacturing as a Leo but rather as an authorized licensee so the discussion above would be irrelevant and moot to your situation. Absent that, a Leo as a person has no exemption.