PDA

View Full Version : Assault Weapos and Retired LE Officers


Tacticalintervention
06-07-2011, 2:48 PM
OK, really confused here but here are details.

A few weeks ago I got a call from a friend who had just retired from San Jose PD. He rec a letter from San Jose PD saying since he has retired he has to sell his Colt AR15, purchased under the LE Officer for duty use clause and legally registered a long time ago.

Well I honorably retired from another PD back in 2005 and have two Armalite AR10s I purchased around 2000 and registered under the same clause.

We where told by DOJ at that time once we honorably retired we could keep the weapons. That is the only reason I purchased the weapons to use on duty because no way I would put out that money only to hand them over or have to get rid of them when I retired.

I researched things and Brown issued a legal opinion, on his last day as AG that once LE retires they lose all priviveldges and have to get rid of the assualt weapons purchased un der this clause. Reading this I called firearms division and left a messege asking about this. After severla days I called again as they ahd not contacted me. I talked with an agent who told me not to worry about it as it was an opinion and not law. The agent said they where awaiting further instructions but had no plans to confiscate the weapons already legally registered. I thanked them, sharred this with my buddy and made plans to do some upgrade work on the rifles.

Today my phone rings and its another agent form DOJ and all I will say is he was not very nice and basically said "You either sell your AR10s out of state or I will be knocking on your door"

So if anyone knows whats really up please let me know before I get screwed once again by this state.

1911su16b870
06-07-2011, 3:06 PM
This is a reverberation from the AG's opinion that AWs are for duty only. While it there is no legal requirement for him to do so...that department policy is somewhat binding to him in that they still have control over him through CCW and retired ID issuance.

Interested to read what other people have to say here...

He could separate the lower and tell the dept. it was disassembled and is not longer a viable firearm?

choprzrul
06-07-2011, 3:11 PM
Contact the CalGuns Foundation (http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/hotline) immediately:

If you have a firearms-related legal issue in California...

email us or call (800) 556-2109

In Case of Encounter, Detainment or Arrest:

1. Remain Silent - Do Not Answer Questions
2. Do Not Consent to a Search
3. Demand an Attorney
4. Call CGF at (800) 556-2109

YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO VOLUNTEER INFORMATION OR OPEN LOCKED CONTAINERS!



If you need immediate legal assistance, please contact an attorney.

For your convenience, below are two firms which are familiar with firearms law.


Northern California:

Law Offices of Donald Kilmer, A Professional Corporation
1645 Willow Street, Suite 150
San Jose, CA 95125
info@dklawoffice.com
T: (408) 264-8489
F: (408) 264-8487


Southern California:

Davis and Associates
27281 Las Ramblas, Suite 200
Mission Viejo, CA 92691
info@calgunlawyers.com
T: 949.310.0817
F: 949.288.6894

PM:
Wildhawker
Hoffmang
Bwiese
Oaklander

.

Maestro Pistolero
06-07-2011, 3:11 PM
He could separate the lower and tell the dept. it was disassembled and is not longer a viable firearm?The lower, in and of itself, even stripped, is an illegal assault weapon.

As to requiring you to SELL it out of state, I don't think they can require that. You may have to REMOVE it from the state, however.

Maestro Pistolero
06-07-2011, 3:12 PM
Contact the CalGuns Foundation (http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/hotline) immediately:



PM:
Wildhawker
Hoffmang
Bwiese
Oaklander

.
THIS ∆

notme92069
06-07-2011, 3:15 PM
I would also contact Calguns immediately

wildhawker
06-07-2011, 3:15 PM
Email us your name, city/county, phone, email, and details of the issue to hotline@calgunsfoundation.org.

-Brandon

OK, really confused here but here are details.

A few weeks ago I got a call from a friend who had just retired from San Jose PD. He rec a letter from San Jose PD saying since he has retired he has to sell his Colt AR15, purchased under the LE Officer for duty use clause and legally registered a long time ago.

Well I honorably retired from another PD back in 2005 and have two Armalite AR10s I purchased around 2000 and registered under the same clause.

We where told by DOJ at that time once we honorably retired we could keep the weapons. That is the only reason I purchased the weapons to use on duty because no way I would put out that money only to hand them over or have to get rid of them when I retired.

I researched things and Brown issued a legal opinion, on his last day as AG that once LE retires they lose all priviveldges and have to get rid of the assualt weapons purchased un der this clause. Reading this I called firearms division and left a messege asking about this. After severla days I called again as they ahd not contacted me. I talked with an agent who told me not to worry about it as it was an opinion and not law. The agent said they where awaiting further instructions but had no plans to confiscate the weapons already legally registered. I thanked them, sharred this with my buddy and made plans to do some upgrade work on the rifles.

Today my phone rings and its another agent form DOJ and all I will say is he was not very nice and basically said "You either sell your AR10s out of state or I will be knocking on your door"

So if anyone knows whats really up please let me know before I get screwed once again by this state.

ptoguy2002
06-07-2011, 3:16 PM
He could separate the lower and tell the dept. it was disassembled and is not longer a viable firearm?

Can't do this.
Colt AR-15, and Armalite AR-10 are named assault weapons by make and model.
The receiver could be stripped down to nothing, but they are still named...

To the OP, you need to get rid of your AR-10.
You need to tell your buddy to sell his Colt.
Then you need to send money to CGF to fight this bull S***.

Maestro Pistolero
06-07-2011, 3:25 PM
Store it out of state immediately. Don't sell them. I hope you don't give up your rifles for this BS.

mej16489
06-07-2011, 3:29 PM
Store it out of state immediately. Don't sell them. I hope you don't give up your rifles for this BS.

From the Wiki (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Possession_of_UNregistered_California_%22assault_w eapons%22)

Penalties
Possession is a 'wobbler'

A "clean" first offense can be relatively minor:

(b) Any person who, within this state, possesses any assault
weapon, except as provided in this chapter, shall be punished by
imprisonment in a county jail for a period not exceeding one
year, or by imprisonment in the state prison.


There was a lesser penalty for violations within one year of the end of registration, but such times are gone.


Transport is a FELONY

Sometimes a suggestion is made just to take a suspected unregistered "assault weapon" out of state. This is a very poor idea:

12280. (a) (1) Any person who, within this state, manufactures
or causes to be manufactured, distributes, transports, or
imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes
for sale, or who gives or lends any assault weapon or any .50
BMG rifle, except as provided by this chapter, is guilty of a
felony, and upon conviction shall be punished by imprisonment
in the state prison for four, six, or eight years.

Trying to avoid the loss of a few hundred dollars for the lower receiver, at a risk of four years in the state prison, is a serious misunderstanding of risk/reward.

Librarian
06-07-2011, 3:32 PM
Store it out of state immediately. Don't sell them. I hope you don't give up your rifles for this BS.

That's interesting.

If these were UNREGISTERED (and we know they are registered), transportation would be a felony.

I don't think This Has Been Thought Through, at the legislative/DOJ level.

choprzrul
06-07-2011, 3:32 PM
Email us your name, city/county, phone, email, and details of the issue to hotline@calgunsfoundation.org.

-Brandon

^^THIS^^

...is the only thing OP needs to know in this whole thread...

Everything else is secondary and some might actually get him in trouble.

.

Bhobbs
06-07-2011, 3:45 PM
Can't do this.
Colt AR-15, and Armalite AR-10 are named assault weapons by make and model.
The receiver could be stripped down to nothing, but they are still named...

To the OP, you need to get rid of your AR-10.
You need to tell your buddy to sell his Colt.
Then you need to send money to CGF to fight this bull S***.

I have to agree with this.

jb7706
06-07-2011, 3:47 PM
That's interesting.
...

I don't think This Has Been Thought Through, at the legislative/DOJ level.

Heh, there's a first.:rolleyes:

LHC30
06-07-2011, 3:56 PM
What am I missing here - the DOJ allows purchase and registration of a AW by LEO. When LEO retires, they try to UN-REGISTER the AW? If I remember correctly, virtually the same letter the LEO Agency issues to allow a LEO to avoid the 10 day wait is the same as an AW letter? If that is so, then a lot of LEO's will have to sell/turn in a lot of pistols/rifles (not otherwise aw)...

bwiese
06-07-2011, 4:00 PM
What am I missing here - the DOJ allows purchase and registration of a AW by LEO. When LEO retires, they try to UN-REGISTER the AW? If I remember correctly, virtually the same letter the LEO Agency issues to allow a LEO to avoid the 10 day wait is the same as an AW letter? If that is so, then a lot of LEO's will have to sell/turn in a lot of pistols/rifles (not otherwise aw)...


You have discovered a VERY BIG PROBLEM. It is gonna get worse as retirements increase. It is on gun groups' radar.

There is a severe detrimental reliance issue due to both the DOJ Firearms Division as well as the local department telling
officers they could keep their guns - in spite of what the law actually said, and which was legitimately clarified by former
AG Brown in his opinion letter.

This has the "SKS buyback" issue written all over it. Somebody's gotta buy back some guns, or figure an alternate legal fixup.

Every police officer/deputy remotely affected by this should be contacting his union and any other LE organization he belongs to (COPS, PORAC, etc.)

Anyone who bought a $1500+ dollar rifle based on official promises issued thru the Attorney General's formal chain of command - along with the local agency's chain of command - should NOT have to suffer a taking and financial loss or loss of gun. Those purchases were made BECAUSE of allowance to retain. If there were a "you have to turn in/sell the gun at termination of service" mentioned, most of these LE AW purchases would NOT have taken place.

CWM4A1
06-07-2011, 4:06 PM
What am I missing here - the DOJ allows purchase and registration of a AW by LEO. When LEO retires, they try to UN-REGISTER the AW? If I remember correctly, virtually the same letter the LEO Agency issues to allow a LEO to avoid the 10 day wait is the same as an AW letter? If that is so, then a lot of LEO's will have to sell/turn in a lot of pistols/rifles (not otherwise aw)...

Not just the 10 day wait. How about all those "off roster" handgun they purchased? Many of them has being change hand already as they were later being sold as private transaction. At least Brown didn't issue an opinion on this one, but there is no telling if Harris would do the same, and that would really mess things up... :TFH:

And I guess it's not a surprise to most of us that this crap started with PD around bay area. Sigh...

bwiese
06-07-2011, 4:12 PM
Not just the 10 day wait. How about all those "off roster" handgun they purchased? Many of them has being change hand already as they were later being sold as private transaction. At least Brown didn't issue an opinion on this one, but there is no telling if Harris would do the same, and that would really mess things up...

You are mistaken.

AG Harris can't change that. PPTs, consignments and intrafamily transfers and "operation of law" transfers of
non-Rostered handguns are perfectly legal and statutorily supported.

If AG Brown had offered an opinion on this, it would have supported existing law. What happened was the prior DOJ administrations went out of their way to kiss cops in spite of the statute as written - and the statute writers and regulators didn't really figure out how to compose (or fix up) laws properly.

CWM4A1
06-07-2011, 4:17 PM
Sorry, should've being more specific. I was talking about LEO purchase off-roster handgun via department letter-head for "duty use" similar to letterhead allow AW purchase and registration.

bwiese
06-07-2011, 4:20 PM
Sorry, should've being more specific. I was talking about LEO purchase off-roster handgun via department letter-head for "duty use" similar to letterhead allow AW purchase and registration.

Hm, no letterhead was needed to purchase off-Roster handguns. Just valid LEO ID/badge. The exemption is in the law. There was even a DOJ memo about this some time ago. Some dealers may have required official paperwork but that's moot.

CWM4A1
06-07-2011, 4:28 PM
Okay, thanks for clarification.

mej16489
06-07-2011, 4:47 PM
Sorry, should've being more specific. I was talking about LEO purchase off-roster handgun via department letter-head for "duty use" similar to letterhead allow AW purchase and registration.

Letters are only needed to avoid 10-day gun-jail.

jeff762
06-07-2011, 4:57 PM
ar-10 lost in tragic boating accident?

Meplat
06-07-2011, 5:25 PM
All the LE unions supported Brown. How's that workin out for ya?

1911su16b870
06-07-2011, 6:16 PM
The lower, in and of itself, even stripped, is an illegal assault weapon.

As to requiring you to SELL it out of state, I don't think they can require that. You may have to REMOVE it from the state, however.


Can't do this.
Colt AR-15, and Armalite AR-10 are named assault weapons by make and model.
The receiver could be stripped down to nothing, but they are still named...

To the OP, you need to get rid of your AR-10.
You need to tell your buddy to sell his Colt.
Then you need to send money to CGF to fight this bull S***.

You guys forgot that OP has a legally registered AW through his department chief's letter!

If the lower is seperate it is no longer a firearm and IS STILL a registered CA AW.

Now the department is telling him to get rid of it all because of the AG opinion.

russ69
06-07-2011, 8:35 PM
If it was me, I'd get a couple of new lowers and add a bullet button. I'm not sure what I would do with the old lowers, I'd sell them out of state, I guess. I don't think I would want be the one to test the law, especially if it might put my retirement in jeopardy.

bwiese
06-07-2011, 8:41 PM
All the LE unions supported Brown. How's that workin out for ya?

Brown was actually legally correct in his opinion letter and past DOJ behaviors were incorrect.

We've been seeking "rule of law" as opposed to random noise/FUD/desk clerk opinion from DOJ FD/BoF for years.

There is a right way to fix this and it's not an accidental feel good-we-luv-cops memo from DOJ..

notme92069
06-07-2011, 8:46 PM
I don't think This Has Been Thought Through, at the legislative/DOJ level.

Really???????????????

notme92069
06-07-2011, 8:50 PM
Sarcasm off

Sniper3142
06-07-2011, 9:05 PM
Some folks said "Registration leads to confiscation", but lots of other folks (many of them LEOs) said was "tinfoil hat" kind of thinking...

Things that make you go... Hmmm. :(

TRICKSTER
06-07-2011, 9:13 PM
Here we go. I was wondering how long it would take.

Bruce
06-07-2011, 9:14 PM
They're cops. The law doesn't apply to them. Just ask them.

( If somebody feels the above is bashing, let me say that at the time all AW's were supposed to be registered, the answer I got from cop friends when I asked if they'd registered their AR's was, "I'm a cop. That law doesn't apply to me.")

El Gato
06-07-2011, 9:18 PM
As a side issue...

Which has a personal interest...


if the DOJ registers a gun...
and it's registered....legally...

under what law can the DOJ legally UNREGISTER a gun if I don't want to get rid of it?

under what law can they charge me with possession of a legally registered gun?

:43:

RoyBatty
06-07-2011, 9:25 PM
A RAW is a RAW...there is no law saying you can't keep them only an opinion..tell them to pound sand...they cannot confiscate...this is a scare tactic

Falconis
06-07-2011, 9:30 PM
They're cops. The law doesn't apply to them. Just ask them.

( If somebody feels the above is bashing, let me say that at the time all AW's were supposed to be registered, the answer I got from cop friends when I asked if they'd registered their AR's was, "I'm a cop. That law doesn't apply to me.")

Your cop friends aren't the brightest and not all of us are that dim. Cops also represent a certain cross section of the community.

AndrewMendez
06-07-2011, 9:36 PM
Doesn't this level the playing field for RAW's across the board? LEO's, retired LEO's and civilians, are now on the same field, are we not? :whistling:

Bhobbs
06-07-2011, 9:42 PM
Doesn't this level the playing field for RAW's across the board? LEO's, retired LEO's and civilians, are now on the same field, are we not? :whistling:

Hopefully

Bruce
06-07-2011, 9:55 PM
Your cop friends aren't the brightest and not all of us are that dim. Cops also represent a certain cross section of the community.

Oh I'm aware of that. I'm also aware that an amnesty was set up to allow the rest of the "dim" cops in this state to register their AW's because they subscribed to the same view of cops and the AW law. Perhaps if all the exemptions for LEO's were eliminated, they'd get the idea. As it is, it's quite easy for LEO's to believe they're "special" since they're exempted from so many laws that their fellow citizens are obliged to follow.

FWIW The retired LEO's can thank Gary Gorski for getting their exemption taken away from them.

Stryprod
06-07-2011, 10:11 PM
Out of money = bummer (not right)

Being treated like a civilian = priceless

Is that harsh?

Scott Connors
06-07-2011, 10:34 PM
You have discovered a VERY BIG PROBLEM. It is gonna get worse as retirements increase. It is on gun groups' radar.

There is a severe detrimental reliance issue due to both the DOJ Firearms Division as well as the local department telling
officers they could keep their guns - in spite of what the law actually said, and which was legitimately clarified by former
AG Brown in his opinion letter.

This has the "SKS buyback" issue written all over it. Somebody's gotta buy back some guns, or figure an alternate legal fixup.

Every police officer/deputy remotely affected by this should be contacting his union and any other LE organization he belongs to (COPS, PORAC, etc.)

Anyone who bought a $1500+ dollar rifle based on official promises issued thru the Attorney General's formal chain of command - along with the local agency's chain of command - should NOT have to suffer a taking and financial loss or loss of gun. Those purchases were made BECAUSE of allowance to retain. If there were a "you have to turn in/sell the gun at termination of service" mentioned, most of these LE AW purchases would NOT have taken place.

Hmmm...I wonder if Brown's last-day memo was a ticking time-bomb setting up Harris and the DOJ for massive "fail." I suspect that this might be the first of a series of dominoes that will eventually form a Calguns logo. :43:

1911su16b870
06-07-2011, 10:39 PM
Wouldn't it be nice if somehow PORAC and other LE lawyers would be granted status in the current 12276PC litigation that the right people are doing? :D

bwiese
06-07-2011, 10:40 PM
Hmmm...I wonder if Brown's last-day memo was a ticking time-bomb setting up Harris and the DOJ for massive "fail." I suspect that this might be the first of a series of dominoes that will eventually form a Calguns logo. :43:

Brown's opinion memo was legally correct. Just because people relied on phone clerks and political hacks in past DOJ admins for prior authorization and spent $1500 on their gun doesn't mean Brown was wrong.

Falconis
06-08-2011, 1:03 AM
Doesn't this level the playing field for RAW's across the board? LEO's, retired LEO's and civilians, are now on the same field, are we not? :whistling:

Nope. Way I see it, Most RAW (police) owners who have a rifle by name will ship it out of state (presumably to the one they are moving to). The cops who do not have a personally owned RAW never cared to begin with. The ones staying in the state will either fight ( and are probably here now) or will just give it up and find an alternate means to deal with the issue. Either way, the gloating does nothing but help distance you and them and probably drive away any help they could provide.


Now the question I want to ask is for those of you "gloating". How do you guys justify gloating when any law abiding member of society gets a 2A right taken away from them? Granted cops were exempted from most weapons laws due to a bonafide needs argument. They used the equipment and in this specific case paid for it so that they could have a tool that assists them in going home in one piece every night. Cops aren't in the "class" where they paid 50 grand to a Sheriff's campaign fund to get a badge and a CCW. Most cops who do get an AR, are using that thing and earning their keep with it. I know some here will disagree. Can anyone say that a cop doesn't need an AR for duty use? Hollywood bank robbery comes to mind.

Also does anyone think it's hypocritical that they want cops stripped of their AR's but want to buy it themselves? The if I can't have my ball then no one should argument? Reason I bring this up is one of the best ways to beat a group, even a small group, is to first fracture them best you can. We seem to be doing that without any additional help from anyone.

Anyhow, sorry if some of the above parts seem incoherent. It's 2 AM and I probably shouldn't be typing anything right now.

Another point to consider, any cop that doesnt come here and "join the fight" may go elsewhere, hire a lawyer who is less than capable and set more bad precedent.

Havoc70
06-08-2011, 1:38 AM
Personally I think we all should be able to buy whatever in the hell we want. As a guy once told me, "I won't be happy until I can CCW a suppressed MP-5". Unfortunately, the jacked up laws of this state seem to be intent on making criminals out of people who obey/enforce the law. It sucks nuts that once a cop retires he is bound to give up his legal RAW. I can't really fault anything that Falconis said above, his points are valid IMO.

Tacticalintervention
06-08-2011, 6:19 AM
For the guys with constructive help thank you.

I did what I could to uphold the law for a long time and just because I retired does not mean I wont follow the law.

I legaly purchased the weapons. Legally Registered the weapons. I used them in course of duty so department had benifit of the weapons on my dime. I was told by high level DOJ Agents, before purchasing them I would be allowed to keep them upon retirement. To me this is a breach of contract

I dont agree Brown is correct on this because his whole premiss is once we retired we are no longer LE and there fore have no special priviledges and the Assault Weapons Ban was to remove all Assault Weapons from the state.. I have a Nation Wide CCW. I have a Cal CCW all given to me by law, so I still have some special status and the law was designed to keep things like the Stockton School Mass Shooting from happening again.

s to legal opinion being much, well it will land you i jail bu over 25 years of hearing legal opinions I can say they change all the time and can be over rules any minute.

With this all said I dont need to take every dime I have to fight this and possibly end up on wrong end of the legal system, especially in this current climante.

Decoligny
06-08-2011, 7:12 AM
This is a reverberation from the AG's opinion that AWs are for duty only. While it there is no legal requirement for him to do so...that department policy is somewhat binding to him in that they still have control over him through CCW and retired ID issuance.

Interested to read what other people have to say here...

He could separate the lower and tell the dept. it was disassembled and is not longer a viable firearm?

If as the OP stated, it is a Colt AR-15, then it is a by name listed Assault Weapon. The lower itself is the prohibited item, and it cannot be made legal by disassembling it unless you disassemble the lower with a bandsaw.

1911su16b870
06-08-2011, 7:35 AM
If as the OP stated, it is a Colt AR-15, then it is a by name listed Assault Weapon. The lower itself is the prohibited item, and it cannot be made legal by disassembling it unless you disassemble the lower with a bandsaw.

The AR is legal. It was legally acquired and registered by the officer. OP post boldened.

OK, really confused here but here are details.

A few weeks ago I got a call from a friend who had just retired from San Jose PD. He rec a letter from San Jose PD saying since he has retired he has to sell his Colt AR15, purchased under the LE Officer for duty use clause and legally registered a long time ago.

Well I honorably retired from another PD back in 2005 and have two Armalite AR10s I purchased around 2000 and registered under the same clause.

We where told by DOJ at that time once we honorably retired we could keep the weapons. That is the only reason I purchased the weapons to use on duty because no way I would put out that money only to hand them over or have to get rid of them when I retired.

I researched things and Brown issued a legal opinion, on his last day as AG that once LE retires they lose all priviveldges and have to get rid of the assualt weapons purchased un der this clause. Reading this I called firearms division and left a messege asking about this. After severla days I called again as they ahd not contacted me. I talked with an agent who told me not to worry about it as it was an opinion and not law. The agent said they where awaiting further instructions but had no plans to confiscate the weapons already legally registered. I thanked them, sharred this with my buddy and made plans to do some upgrade work on the rifles.

Today my phone rings and its another agent form DOJ and all I will say is he was not very nice and basically said "You either sell your AR10s out of state or I will be knocking on your door"

So if anyone knows whats really up please let me know before I get screwed once again by this state.

The registered AW are legal and will always be legal. They can not be illegal now only due to the PO retirement. This has gone from an AG opinion to underground legislation by DOJ. The right people need to get involved.

The second issue is the department policy which says "bye to your ARs after retirement". Disassembly (sale out of state or destruction as you suggest) of the reg AW may satisfy the department requirements.

Bhobbs
06-08-2011, 8:11 AM
Nope. Way I see it, Most RAW (police) owners who have a rifle by name will ship it out of state (presumably to the one they are moving to). The cops who do not have a personally owned RAW never cared to begin with. The ones staying in the state will either fight ( and are probably here now) or will just give it up and find an alternate means to deal with the issue. Either way, the gloating does nothing but help distance you and them and probably drive away any help they could provide.


Now the question I want to ask is for those of you "gloating". How do you guys justify gloating when any law abiding member of society gets a 2A right taken away from them? Granted cops were exempted from most weapons laws due to a bonafide needs argument. They used the equipment and in this specific case paid for it so that they could have a tool that assists them in going home in one piece every night. Cops aren't in the "class" where they paid 50 grand to a Sheriff's campaign fund to get a badge and a CCW. Most cops who do get an AR, are using that thing and earning their keep with it. I know some here will disagree. Can anyone say that a cop doesn't need an AR for duty use? Hollywood bank robbery comes to mind.

Also does anyone think it's hypocritical that they want cops stripped of their AR's but want to buy it themselves? The if I can't have my ball then no one should argument? Reason I bring this up is one of the best ways to beat a group, even a small group, is to first fracture them best you can. We seem to be doing that without any additional help from anyone.

Anyhow, sorry if some of the above parts seem incoherent. It's 2 AM and I probably shouldn't be typing anything right now.

Another point to consider, any cop that doesnt come here and "join the fight" may go elsewhere, hire a lawyer who is less than capable and set more bad precedent.

I don't think it's gloating to take away an exemption that shouldn't exsist. I don't want cops stripped of their 2A but I don't want them to get an extra special deal because they are cops. They should have to deal with the laws just like the rest of us. If they buy an AR15 for duty use and have it registered because they need it for duty use, when they retire they no longer have the need for the AR15 and should give it up.

Bhobbs
06-08-2011, 8:14 AM
The AR is legal. It was legally acquired and registered by the officer. OP post boldened.



The registered AW are legal and will always be legal. They can not be illegal now only due to the PO retirement. This has gone from an AG opinion to underground legislation by DOJ. The right people need to get involved.

The second issue is the department policy which says "bye to your ARs after retirement". Disassembly (sale out of state or destruction as you suggest) of the reg AW may satisfy the department requirements.

I guess you didn't see where Bill's post that said Brown's opinion was legally correct.

bwiese
06-08-2011, 8:31 AM
The telling of police officers they could keep their guns was the underground regulation.

It's really now a detrimental reliance situation, with a further problem of legal nebulousness since appears is no way to pull the registration, but it does become invalid - this is a real clusterfluck due to a mix of poorly structured law in combination with past regulatory screwup. And the AG opinion letter was based on the Silviera case, so the legal flow is correct.

sandman21
06-08-2011, 8:40 AM
Now the question I want to ask is for those of you "gloating". How do you guys justify gloating when any law abiding member of society gets a 2A right taken away from them? Granted cops were exempted from most weapons laws due to a bonafide needs argument. They used the equipment and in this specific case paid for it so that they could have a tool that assists them in going home in one piece every night. Cops aren't in the "class" where they paid 50 grand to a Sheriff's campaign fund to get a badge and a CCW. Most cops who do get an AR, are using that thing and earning their keep with it. I know some here will disagree. Can anyone say that a cop doesn't need an AR for duty use? Hollywood bank robbery comes to mind.
How do you justify using 12031e to stop UOC’s or searching a vehicle? It strips a law abiding member of there 4A. The answer: because it’s the law and LEO are required to follow the law or they could be fired. Now when the law applies to retired LEO’s suddenly following the law is wrong and no LEO should enforce it, don’t be fooled just because it is in the AG opinion, it is the law.

Silveira v. Lockyer ( htt
p://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13948185712203065755&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr)

So the AW in the OP is illegal in CA, LEO opinions about it being legally registered do not matter.

LEO are not exempted because of a bona fide needs argument, they are exempt because the legislator could not pass the law without LEO support and to get it they had to write exemptions for LEO’s.

Can anyone say that a person doesn’t need an AR or XDm? The answer is no, however the same can not be said for others and some are simply pointing out the poetic justice.

Also does anyone think it's hypocritical that they want cops stripped of their AR's but want to buy it themselves? The if I can't have my ball then no one should argument? Reason I bring this up is one of the best ways to beat a group, even a small group, is to first fracture them best you can. We seem to be doing that without any additional help from anyone.

Do you find it hypocritical that LEO unions specifically wrote exceptions for LEO’s? The fracture occurred when exceptions were written in the law.

What people are pointing out is the hypocrisy of some LEO’s, not saying you, that it is perfectly fine to confiscate any firearm they “think” is illegal, search anyone and there vehicle if they have a firearm 12031e, search anyone shooting on public lands where its legal to shoot, require that people agree with ANY request made by a LEO.

Then if someone sticks up for there rights, they are “playing games”, or they are just trying to give the LEO a hard time.

If you want to defend rights you don’t get to pick and choose when you defend them and if your argument for enforcing unconstitutional laws and there is nothing a LEO can do since he has to enforce the law then enforce it equally.

Maestro Pistolero
06-08-2011, 9:09 AM
Wrong is wrong. I hope we defend this. Perhaps there is a tie-in with the unconstitutionally vague AWB case? I have no idea whether there is any relevance. At a minimum, it is another opportunity to highlight the silliness of 'banned by name' as one could simply replace rhe lower with an identical lower by another name. How does that survive even a rational basis test?

Tacticalintervention
06-08-2011, 9:13 AM
While a few of you are your high freakin horse about how LE has rolled over for suspension of your 2/4a rights. How about a few go dig up the old NRA Commercial/Documentary of the assault weapon laws of Cal, where my smling LE face was intereviewed when this happened back in the 1990s and I told the world what dumb law it was to begin with. Not to mention all the regular Joes I have trained in use of weapons for self protection. F me when did being a cop be a bad thing?

That said once law is in effect I follow the law. That said I never once made an arrest for violation of the assualt weapons law. I did put some dirt bags in jail for using stolen guns though.

I will just sell these out of state. I had hoped for constructive work here but obviously we can not band together.

Stryprod
06-08-2011, 9:20 AM
Now the question I want to ask is for those of you "gloating". How do you guys justify gloating when any law abiding member of society gets a 2A right taken away from them?...

...Cops aren't in the "class" where they paid 50 grand to a Sheriff's campaign fund to get a badge and a CCW....

...Can anyone say that a cop doesn't need an AR for duty use? Hollywood bank robbery comes to mind....

...Another point to consider, any cop that doesnt come here and "join the fight" may go elsewhere, hire a lawyer who is less than capable and set more bad precedent.

I justify “gloating” because, as the law stands now, he is not having his 2A rights taken away. He should have never had an AW to take home just like the rest of us according to the law, however dumb that law is. I am not advocating taking his AR away nor am I the person doing it, but a lot of us will find it “funny” that RLEO now have to play in the same mud as the rest of us.

But to say cops are not in a “class” of one sect ignores the fact that they have been in a different “class” before. Had they not, this situation would not be currently occurring.

Who is talking about cops not having ARs while on duty? We are talking about a RLEO. I think a better question to ask would be to a current LEO if he thinks civilians have a right to an AR to protect themselves.

Yes we all want that utopian promise land where we can all buy awesome guns.

We have been fighting up a hill to reach that pinnacle of utopian 2A rights while in the meantime the majority (not all like TacticalIntervention but most) of those closer to the top, LEO, legislature, et al, have been throwing boulders of harassment down upon us. Suddenly LEO starts tumbling down too. I’m sorry but I just have to laugh, say “hurts doesn’t it?” and then dust them off and say “want to join?”

Just as much as the calling is on us to be “better than that” RLEO also needs to eat a helpful serving of grandma’s humble pie. All will manifest as such in short time once they realize that despite a good laugh or two, we welcome them to the club.

mezz
06-08-2011, 9:22 AM
I called DOJ and asked if they were UN-registering RAWs from retired LEO's. They said they were not.

That is the only way they can make it a crime. When the Agent comes a-knocking, he better hand you a notice that your RAW is no longer registered and then give you sufficient time to get rid of it. And if this happens, be sure to ask for your registration fee back.

I prefer to obey laws, not opinions.

sandman21
06-08-2011, 9:41 AM
While a few of you are your high freakin horse about how LE has rolled over for suspension of your 4a rights. How about a few go dig up the old NRA Commercial/Documentary of the assault weapon laws of Cal, where my smling LE face was intereviewed when this happened back in the 1990s and I told the world what dumb law it was to begin with. Not to mention all the regular Joes I have trained in use of weapons for self protection. F me when did being a cop be a bad thing?

That said once law is in effect I follow the law. That said I never once made an arrest for violation of the assualt weapons law. I did put some dirt bags in jail for using stolen guns though.

I will just sell these out of state. I had hoped for constructive work here but obviously we can not band together.

High horse? Spare me. I was not addressing you in my post, so spare the mock outrage; I was addressing people fake outrage at this particular violation of your rights but are perfectly fine with other violations. So thank you for trying to stop the law and for training people but this is the best answer we can give you.

We gave you the only answer we can give at this time based on the laws in CA. How is that not banding together? If CGF can use your case for the greater good then I am more than happy to give more money to help fight the laws. However as it stands now that is the law and is the best answer we can give.

Bhobbs
06-08-2011, 9:52 AM
While a few of you are your high freakin horse about how LE has rolled over for suspension of your 2/4a rights. How about a few go dig up the old NRA Commercial/Documentary of the assault weapon laws of Cal, where my smling LE face was intereviewed when this happened back in the 1990s and I told the world what dumb law it was to begin with. Not to mention all the regular Joes I have trained in use of weapons for self protection. F me when did being a cop be a bad thing?

That said once law is in effect I follow the law. That said I never once made an arrest for violation of the assualt weapons law. I did put some dirt bags in jail for using stolen guns though.

I will just sell these out of state. I had hoped for constructive work here but obviously we can not band together.

Band together? We are fighting to regain our Constitutionally protected rights back. Do you honestly expect us lowly civilians to get upset over LEOs losing a BS exemption? The law never gave me an opportunity to buy and register any AWs, hi caps or off roster pistols.

bwiese
06-08-2011, 9:57 AM
I will say it will be difficult to fully prosecute a cop for a registered AW whose status changed into a dubious entity whose registration can't be pulled because it's in a sorta nether zone.

That doesn't mean a cop won't be prosecuted if something comes up (i.e., an attempt) - and then AB2728 comes up and the charges are dropped when the cop turns in the gun.

I would hope some other preventive measures could be fielded but various non-gun organizations have to realize this is a problem with several thousand of their membership.

Tacticalintervention
06-08-2011, 10:00 AM
By band to gether I meant look at it this way. This is a change in the rules. This is a stepping stone.

They are taking legally registered assault weapons under the idea the law really only wanted active duty LE to have them.

What will they do next come take all of our legally pre ban assualt weapons?

This changing of the rules has far bigger impact than just talking retired LEs legally registered weapons. Its a move toward getting all AWs

I am glad some of you like the idea LE is losing a special priviledge but thats the little picture, the bigger picture is what happens when they say turn in all AWs?

I hope this shows the courts how dumb the law is and how bad it can get when allowed to have an opinion change things. Hopefully this can be used to overturn all the AW laws here, which are dumber than most politicians

Mesa Tactical
06-08-2011, 10:02 AM
one of the best ways to beat a group, even a small group, is to first fracture them best you can.

Yep. Which is the only way the assault weapon laws got passed in the first place: by fracturing the gun rights constituency by providing exemptions for LE. Same with the handgun roster.

Bhobbs
06-08-2011, 10:02 AM
By band to gether I meant look at it this way. This is a change in the rules. This is a stepping stone.

They are taking legally registered assault weapons under the idea the law really only wanted active duty LE to have them.

What will they do next come take all of our legally pre ban assualt weapons?

This changing of the rules has far bigger impact than just talking retired LEs legally registered weapons. Its a move toward getting all AWs

I am glad some of you like the idea LE is losing a special priviledge but thats the little picture, the bigger picture is what happens when they say turn in all AWs?

Those AWs were legally owned before the ban and registered according to the law. The AWs that LEOs have and registered after the period are completely different. The private AWs registered before the ban were personally owned. The LEO AWs were purchased for use as a duty rifle. You cannot compare the two.

Tacticalintervention
06-08-2011, 10:11 AM
Those AWs were legally owned before the ban and registered according to the law. The AWs that LEOs have and registered after the period are completely different. The private AWs registered before the ban were personally owned. The LEO AWs were purchased for use as a duty rifle. You cannot compare the two.

I disagree. The law has been like a sea of poop since I started in this in 1980. Always changing with tides of politicians.

If you look at how many weapon laws are enforced you will see a trend to change meanings of laws and change how spirit of a law is understood. Understand for past six years my weapons where legal for me to possess after retirement. I used them on duty five plus years before that. Its just recently I get the prior DOJ where at mistake, there no longer legal even though you followed the legal guidelines

In 1980s you could possess many AR/M16 parts and until you assembled into a machine gun you where fine. Now have certain parts go to jail. ATF changed how they look at different parts and it has not been to make more things legal has it? Have a 10" AR upper put together and no registered pistol lower and what can happend? SBR violation. That has not been consistent. Only thing consistent is to take away guns piece by piece.

Wait until they do the bullet button attack thing because the spirit of the law did not want Bullet Button ARs. I have heard the AG has wnated to get rid of all AW type weapons "Once and for all" for awhile now. This seems like a good start as it opens the opinion door to what the law was attempting to do.

I think this change in rules opens pandoras box and in the end we will all be selling lots of things that are legal right now in non AW banning states.

I have seen many laws, court decisions change and you can almost always follow a trend. This trend is not good for any of us.

Bhobbs
06-08-2011, 10:31 AM
I disagree. The law has been like a sea of poop since I started in this in 1980. Always changing with tides of politicians.

If you look at how many weapon laws are enforced you will see a trend to change meanings of laws and change how spirit of a law is understood. Understand for past six years my weapons where legal for me to possess after retirement. I used them on duty five plus years before that. Its just recently I get the prior DOJ where at mistake, there no longer legal even though you followed the legal guidelines

So you admit the DOJ was incorrectly interpreting the laws?

In 1980s you could possess many AR/M16 parts and until you assembled into a machine gun you where fine. Now have certain parts go to jail. ATF changed how they look at different parts and it has not been to make more things legal has it? Have a 10" AR upper put together and no registered pistol lower and what can happend? SBR violation. That has not been consistent. Only thing consistent is to take away guns piece by piece.

In the early 1980s you could still build a MG and register it. That wasn't banned until 1986.

Wait until they do the bullet button attack thing because the spirit of the law did not want Bullet Button ARs. I have heard the AG has wnated to get rid of all AW type weapons "Once and for all" for awhile now. This seems like a good start as it opens the opinion door to what the law was attempting to do.

The law specifically says that a mag is not detachable if you have to use a tool to remove it. The law also says a bullet is a tool.

I think this change in rules opens pandoras box and in the end we will all be selling lots of things that are legal right now in non AW banning states.

I have seen many laws, court decisions change and you can almost always follow a trend. This trend is not good for any of us.

I disagree about this not being good for us. Any time a law that creates two classes of citizens is taken off the books is good for everyone.

sandman21
06-08-2011, 10:56 AM
By band to gether I meant look at it this way. This is a change in the rules. This is a stepping stone.

They are taking legally registered assault weapons under the idea the law really only wanted active duty LE to have them.

What will they do next come take all of our legally pre ban assualt weapons?

This changing of the rules has far bigger impact than just talking retired LEs legally registered weapons. Its a move toward getting all AWs

I am glad some of you like the idea LE is losing a special priviledge but thats the little picture, the bigger picture is what happens when they say turn in all AWs?

I hope this shows the courts how dumb the law is and how bad it can get when allowed to have an opinion change things. Hopefully this can be used to overturn all the AW laws here, which are dumber than most politicians

Its not a change in the rules; the 9th stated incorrectly that the 2A is a collective right, meaning the state could create militias, a police force being one of those militias. The AWB had an exception for retired LEO the 9th ruled that part of the law unconstitutional since an individual did not have a 2A right, when a LEO retired he was no longer part of the militia and therefore did not get to have am AW. The DOJ has incorrectly allowed LEO to think that they can keep RAW after retiring despite the ruling by the 9th.

The DOJ cant decide that properly registered RAW during the registration periods are illegal, or that OLL’s are illegal. Its not how it works, what Brown’s opinion said was that the DOJ was not following the law.

I don’t like the idea that anyone gets special privileges, period. I am not taking joy in the fact they told you to sell it, but the only thing we can do is tell you to contact CGF. CGF is currently working on overturning the AWB.

Santa Cruz Armory
06-08-2011, 11:16 AM
I called DOJ and asked if they were UN-registering RAWs from retired LEO's. They said they were not.

That is the only way they can make it a crime. When the Agent comes a-knocking, he better hand you a notice that your RAW is no longer registered and then give you sufficient time to get rid of it. And if this happens, be sure to ask for your registration fee back.

I prefer to obey laws, not opinions.

^^^
This!

ptoguy2002
06-08-2011, 11:30 AM
While a few of you are your high freakin horse about how LE has rolled over for suspension of your 2/4a rights. How about a few go dig up the old NRA Commercial/Documentary of the assault weapon laws of Cal, where my smling LE face was intereviewed when this happened back in the 1990s and I told the world what dumb law it was to begin with. Not to mention all the regular Joes I have trained in use of weapons for self protection. F me when did being a cop be a bad thing?

That said once law is in effect I follow the law. That said I never once made an arrest for violation of the assualt weapons law. I did put some dirt bags in jail for using stolen guns though.

I will just sell these out of state. I had hoped for constructive work here but obviously we can not band together.
You need to understand that a lot of people feel that LE being able to keep a banned rifle after they retire that the rest of us can't have is wrong (and it is).

woods
06-08-2011, 11:48 AM
I honestly think all police on duty or retired should have to turn in all assault weapons and off roster guns. Let's end our class system where some have freedom and some do not. They can strike down the aw ban if they want aws.

I have no sympathy for those who say they should have more rights than I.

Sent from my SPH-M910 using Tapatalk

1911su16b870
06-08-2011, 1:41 PM
The telling of police officers they could keep their guns was the underground regulation.

It's really now a detrimental reliance situation, with a further problem of legal nebulousness since appears is no way to pull the registration, but it does become invalid - this is a real clusterfluck due to a mix of poorly structured law in combination with past regulatory screwup. And the AG opinion letter was based on the Silviera case, so the legal flow is correct.

+1 ...clusterfluck... :D

Scott Connors
06-08-2011, 1:47 PM
Brown's opinion memo was legally correct. Just because people relied on phone clerks and political hacks in past DOJ admins for prior authorization and spent $1500 on their gun doesn't mean Brown was wrong.

I'm not saying that Brown was wrong, just that his waiting until his last day to be right is more than a little inconvenient for Harris, who will have to deal with all of the political flak. Seriously, well played, Jerry!

Quser.619
06-08-2011, 5:00 PM
One good thing is that maybe the Police Unions will realize that they shouldn't be offering their political weight to politicians in regards to gun laws. Or at the least, allow for different laws. The same reason something shouldn't be allowed to a citizen should & does apply to RLEOs. Period.

If this can be used to either drive a wedge between LEOs & the Legislature or bring down unjust laws for all citizens, then I support pursuing this. But to argue in favor of one group over another, let them go through what the average citizen has to.

I appreciate the service performed & honesty of those wanting to follow the law after retirement, but have a sweet tooth for the irony when this becomes more & more common.

Tacticalintervention
06-08-2011, 5:03 PM
One good thing is that maybe the Police Unions will realize that they shouldn't be offering their political weight to politicians in regards to gun laws. Or at the least, allow for different laws. The same reason something shouldn't be allowed to a citizen should & does apply to RLEOs. Period.

If this can be used to either drive a wedge between LEOs & the Legislature or bring down unjust laws for all citizens, then I support pursuing this. But to argue in favor of one group over another, let them go through what the average citizen has to.

I appreciate the service performed & honesty of those wanting to follow the law after retirement, but have a sweet tooth for the irony when this becomes more & more common.

I appreciate and completely understand your position. Hopefully the Police Associations/Unions will see it as you do also.

I would like to see all of the AW Laws over turned.

tyrist
06-08-2011, 6:16 PM
I appreciate and completely understand your position. Hopefully the Police Associations/Unions will see it as you do also.

I would like to see all of the AW Laws over turned.

I have a feeling the law will merely be modified. When I started you couldn't buy standard capacity magazines without letterhead (due to federal law).

dantodd
06-08-2011, 6:44 PM
Wrong is wrong. I hope we defend this. Perhaps there is a tie-in with the unconstitutionally vague AWB case? I have no idea whether there is any relevance. At a minimum, it is another opportunity to highlight the silliness of 'banned by name' as one could simply replace rhe lower with an identical lower by another name. How does that survive even a rational basis test?

The problem with your proposition is that "wrong is wrong" doesn't really apply here. the law of the land (Silviera) is that retired LEOs are treated the same as anyone else wrt assault weapons. This means their registration is essentially invalid once they retire. This is simply an unintended consequence of the AWB exemption combined with the Silviera case.

It is certainly possible that the DOJ will start data mining their AW registration database to go after retirees. Heck, Harris is certainly that anti-gun at least.

Now. The question isn't "Should CGF try to help retired LEOs keep their AWs?" but rather "Can CGF use this to help in their fight to bring down the AWB." There is little value in trying to defend the extension of a carve out intended for "on duty use" because Silviera will NOT be overturned.

Can we use the lever of this being an uncompensated "taking" to make it impossibly expensive for the AWB to be fairly applied? There is no statutory manner for an AW registration to be pulled it was always assumed that the owner would die, sell or become prohibited so there wasn't a revocation process AFAIK.

If we can show that there are X thousand registered AWs that are not valid and that the state has to either buy them back or not enforce the law against those who hold the permits Silviera puts us in the situation of the law not being enforceable against non-retired LEOs either.

Falconis
06-08-2011, 6:48 PM
The problem with your proposition is that "wrong is wrong" doesn't really apply here. the law of the land (Silviera) is that retired LEOs are treated the same as anyone else wrt assault weapons. This means their registration is essentially invalid once they retire. This is simply an unintended consequence of the AWB exemption combined with the Silviera case.

It is certainly possible that the DOJ will start data mining their AW registration database to go after retirees. Heck, Harris is certainly that anti-gun at least.

Now. The question isn't "Should CGF try to help retired LEOs keep their AWs?" but rather "Can CGF use this to help in their fight to bring down the AWB." There is little value in trying to defend the extension of a carve out intended for "on duty use" because Silviera will NOT be overturned.

Can we use the lever of this being an uncompensated "taking" to make it impossibly expensive for the AWB to be fairly applied? There is no statutory manner for an AW registration to be pulled it was always assumed that the owner would die, sell or become prohibited so there wasn't a revocation process AFAIK.

If we can show that there are X thousand registered AWs that are not valid and that the state has to either buy them back or not enforce the law against those who hold the permits Silviera puts us in the situation of the law not being enforceable against non-retired LEOs either.

Ultimately if this goes anywhere, it should be a mere stepping stone to get rid of the AWB altogether.

pTa
06-08-2011, 7:02 PM
I keep hearing purchased and registered/ However a sheriff deputy I kno wtook his dept letter to hi sffl and bought his Ar15 legally/ When asking if he needed to gt an Assault Registration he was told his letter was authorizatoin enogh/
So do Leos have an Assault Waepon Registration or not?

pTa
06-08-2011, 7:02 PM
I keep hearing purchased and registered/ However a sheriff deputy I kno wtook his dept letter to hi sffl and bought his Ar15 legally/ When asking if he needed to gt an Assault Registration he was told his letter was authorizatoin enogh/
So is do Leos have an Assault Waepon Registration or not?

Falconis
06-08-2011, 7:14 PM
It's not the LEO's. It's the POA's and the Chief's. Both are political entities however one wants to argue that. Most LEO's abhor some to most weapons laws here in this state. Which ones are abhorred is another argument.

The one thing law enforcement agencies ( everyone including the chief and POA chiefs) and politicians all agree on is that they want to bring down crime and especially violent crime. You know, the usual rhetoric. (THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH REALISM OR FACTS). The problem with guns is that when they are used, they are pretty horrific scenes. Like the hit in East Palo Alto where the baby was murdered in the parent's arms. ( http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/06/08/prosecutors-weigh-adult-charges-for-east-palo-alto-baby-killer-suspect/ ) Bottom line, being anti gun in this state is easy. Driving a wedge between LEA's and Politicians on this one isn't gonna happen. I just don't think we ( as in those of us pro 2A) have enough money to combat that kind of publicity. Remember, I did say facts usually don't matter. They won't matter ever when the news shows and reports on that kind of story. I am not saying it's right, I am just saying it's the way it is.

Also in case anyone hasn't noticed, regular LEO's are usually left hung out to dry when there are any hints at trouble. Doesn't matter if the cop was in the right or not. My point has always been the unlawful taking of anything is wrong. No matter the person. I even felt this way way back in College when my buddy had to get rid of some stuff due to that SKS thing.

Bottom line, Police Unions aren't going to touch this unless they see a definite win in it. They don't. That and they have more pressing things to worry about.

If people want to gloat that others are getting property taken away from them go for it. You have your reasons. Either way, it's property ( safe to assume here) that everybody here feels that they should be able to legally own. I don't think the fact that just cause some are fighting to reacquire these rights makes it proper to gloat at the misfortune of others. In the end, I don't see this being helpful. What little support that may go to funding these fights may get turned elsewhere. A cop may go to an attorney less capable in the gun rights area (Silveria), lose another case, and set more bad precedent that will make it harder down the road.

Ultimately, I would like to see gun rights win in court even if they are small wins. Just to build them up towards bigger wins later.

One good thing is that maybe the Police Unions will realize that they shouldn't be offering their political weight to politicians in regards to gun laws. Or at the least, allow for different laws. The same reason something shouldn't be allowed to a citizen should & does apply to RLEOs. Period.

If this can be used to either drive a wedge between LEOs & the Legislature or bring down unjust laws for all citizens, then I support pursuing this. But to argue in favor of one group over another, let them go through what the average citizen has to.

I appreciate the service performed & honesty of those wanting to follow the law after retirement, but have a sweet tooth for the irony when this becomes more & more common.

Falconis
06-08-2011, 7:15 PM
I keep hearing purchased and registered/ However a sheriff deputy I kno wtook his dept letter to hi sffl and bought his Ar15 legally/ When asking if he needed to gt an Assault Registration he was told his letter was authorizatoin enogh/
So is do Leos have an Assault Waepon Registration or not?

Ummm that's false. There should have been a blue card along with all the other paperwork he was suppose to have mailed off to DOJ after signing.

Bhobbs
06-08-2011, 8:32 PM
If people want to gloat that others are getting property taken away from them go for it. You have your reasons. Either way, it's property ( safe to assume here) that everybody here feels that they should be able to legally own. I don't think the fact that just cause some are fighting to reacquire these rights makes it proper to gloat at the misfortune of others. In the end, I don't see this being helpful. What little support that may go to funding these fights may get turned elsewhere. A cop may go to an attorney less capable in the gun rights area (Silveria), lose another case, and set more bad precedent that will make it harder down the road.

Ultimately, I would like to see gun rights win in court even if they are small wins. Just to build them up towards bigger wins later.

We're not gloating they are getting their property taken away. What I see is people saying that they don't like exemptions that create different classes of citizens. In this case it's LEOs vs non-LEOs.

tomo2068
06-08-2011, 8:41 PM
I must respectfully disagree with those that feel Brown's opinion is correct. This is my opinion of the laws:

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.


The real failing of DOJ is that they did not follow the law and implement a procedure for everyone to acquire/posses assault weapons as they were directed to by the law.

This is just my opinion and not legal advice.

Falconis
06-08-2011, 9:13 PM
Brown's opinion memo was legally correct. Just because people relied on phone clerks and political hacks in past DOJ admins for prior authorization and spent $1500 on their gun doesn't mean Brown was wrong.

Just on principal, I can't admit Brown is right. Even if he is. In this case, I don't think he is.

Stryprod
06-08-2011, 9:41 PM
It's not the LEO's. It's the POA's and the Chief's. Both are political entities however one wants to argue that. Most LEO's abhor some to most weapons laws here in this state. Which ones are abhorred is another argument.

I agree with most of your assessment later in your post but you are telling me that most (the majority) of LEOs abhor (utterly detest) some to most weapons laws in this state?

All I can say is "whoa, your fish was how big?!?!"

I think we could agree that the list below is the majority of the most popular civilian 2A laws/issues that we distaste:

CCW
HSC
AW Ban
Handgun Roster List
10 Day wait period
1 Handgun per Month
Magazine Capacity

Tell me which one(s) negatively affect LEO? Exactly.

Which one(s) cause the majority of LEO distaste? Exactly

Which one(s) cause some LEO some angst? Now we may be moving into the realm of statistical probability although doubtful plausibility.

Better yet, do the majority of LEO exercise their right not to arrest or detain us on possible infractions of the aforementioned list?

RoyBatty
06-08-2011, 9:49 PM
I reassert my earlier post...there is no California Penal Code that says RAW become illegal once an Officer retires..it is an opinion nothing more. If there is show me a section in the Penal Code, I have never seen someone get charged with case law...The Government cannot take or force you to give up property in this and AFS is not PC for any search warrant...am I missing something?

Stryprod
06-08-2011, 10:01 PM
I reassert my earlier post...there is no California Penal Code that says RAW become illegal once an Officer retires..it is an opinion nothing more. If there is show me a section in the Penal Code, I have never seen someone get charged with case law...The Government cannot take or force you to give up property in this and AFS is not PC for any search warrant...am I missing something?

Using your logic we should have never had OLL and BB rifles confiscated and/or attempted AW charges on people because there was no law making it illegal.

RoyBatty
06-08-2011, 10:06 PM
-Correct Styprod...those arrests are/were illegal...the Cali laws are horribly written

Rattlehead
06-08-2011, 10:15 PM
..the Cali laws are horribly written

Which begs the question:

How the hell are we supposed to abide by them?

Maestro Pistolero
06-08-2011, 10:21 PM
Which begs the question:

How the hell are we supposed to abide by them?

We hope that they are vague ENOUGH to be found unconstitutional.

Stryprod
06-08-2011, 10:21 PM
-Correct Styprod...those arrests are/were illegal...the Cali laws are horribly written

Agreed, and I'll throw in the Federal tax code for good measure as well :)

Worst case is OP has to sell AW out of the state and buy an OLL, which really is not all that bad.

I wish OP better than the worst case, but I wish this for everyone too.

NeuTag
06-08-2011, 10:47 PM
I reassert my earlier post...there is no California Penal Code that says RAW become illegal once an Officer retires..it is an opinion nothing more. If there is show me a section in the Penal Code, I have never seen someone get charged with case law...The Government cannot take or force you to give up property in this and AFS is not PC for any search warrant...am I missing something?

Nobody has posted a link to Brown's opinion. Here it is: http://tinyurl.com/5sn7o34 (http://tinyurl.com/5sn7o34)

Brown's logic is pretty straight forward. If your not a peace officer anymore and/or your agency letter authorizing the purchase and registration of an AWB becomes invalid, your registration is no longer valid.

I recommend you get rid of that lower receiver before you get hit with a $250 fine, court fees, lawyer fees and a misdemeanor conviction. If you have more than two AWBs, its a felony.

dantodd
06-08-2011, 10:56 PM
I reassert my earlier post...there is no California Penal Code that says RAW become illegal once an Officer retires..it is an opinion nothing more. If there is show me a section in the Penal Code, I have never seen someone get charged with case law...The Government cannot take or force you to give up property in this and AFS is not PC for any search warrant...am I missing something?

Read Silviera. Not all laws are statutory. Case law is law just as surely as statutes.

Falconis
06-08-2011, 11:17 PM
Problem with my statement is that most of my LEO friends have the same mindset as my civy friends and I. Maybe I am optimistic but now that I am thinking about your question a little more, more anti 2A LEO's do come to mind. I'll speak for myself on the issues you posted below.

As to which laws effect me negatively? I have no idea what you mean exactly. BUT, me personally, AW laws. Only cause I can't buy them. My agency wont hand out letters to purchase them. Otherwise, none of them. I tend to follow the laws. I obviously cant buy a machinegun either. Not sure I would want to. Something about blowing 3 bucks every 1/10th of a second doesnt appeal to me.

Which ones do I distaste? Mag laws and and AW laws. Sold my buddy a gen 3 glock and had to buy 3 10 round mags in addition. Felt like crap I had to hand him the 10 round mags instead of the hi cap ones. And no I didn't want to disassemble or anything like that. Was also 40 bucks outta my pocket. Gave him a good deal on the glock.

Laws dont cause me angst. It's the people that don't follow them.

I dont have the stats with me so I cant say anything about the majority. Like I inferred above, I may have misspoke. But I always use discretion when appropriate.

Feel free to PM me with further questions before we de rail this thread further.


I agree with most of your assessment later in your post but you are telling me that most (the majority) of LEOs abhor (utterly detest) some to most weapons laws in this state?

All I can say is "whoa, your fish was how big?!?!"

I think we could agree that the list below is the majority of the most popular civilian 2A laws/issues that we distaste:

CCW
HSC
AW Ban
Handgun Roster List
10 Day wait period
1 Handgun per Month
Magazine Capacity

Tell me which one(s) negatively affect LEO? Exactly.

Which one(s) cause the majority of LEO distaste? Exactly

Which one(s) cause some LEO some angst? Now we may be moving into the realm of statistical probability although doubtful plausibility.

Better yet, do the majority of LEO exercise their right not to arrest or detain us on possible infractions of the aforementioned list?

Scott Connors
06-09-2011, 12:10 AM
-Correct Styprod...those arrests are/were illegal...the Cali laws are horribly written

7duP4d9ZziY

Bhobbs
06-09-2011, 8:33 AM
IMO a LEO should be able to keep the rifle IF they configure it as a legal rifle. If they have a named lower then they should leave it with the department and buy an OLL and build the rifle off that with a bullet button or featureless. There is no reason why they should be able to take the rifle home as an AW.

Stryprod
06-09-2011, 8:41 AM
Problem with my statement is that most of my LEO friends have the same mindset as my civy friends and I. Maybe I am optimistic but now that I am thinking about your question a little more, more anti 2A LEO's do come to mind. I'll speak for myself on the issues you posted below.

As to which laws effect me negatively? I have no idea what you mean exactly. BUT, me personally, AW laws. Only cause I can't buy them. My agency wont hand out letters to purchase them. Otherwise, none of them. I tend to follow the laws. I obviously cant buy a machinegun either. Not sure I would want to. Something about blowing 3 bucks every 1/10th of a second doesnt appeal to me.

Which ones do I distaste? Mag laws and and AW laws. Sold my buddy a gen 3 glock and had to buy 3 10 round mags in addition. Felt like crap I had to hand him the 10 round mags instead of the hi cap ones. And no I didn't want to disassemble or anything like that. Was also 40 bucks outta my pocket. Gave him a good deal on the glock.

Laws dont cause me angst. It's the people that don't follow them.

I dont have the stats with me so I cant say anything about the majority. Like I inferred above, I may have misspoke. But I always use discretion when appropriate.

Feel free to PM me with further questions before we de rail this thread further.
First, I appreciate your honesty that your assessment may not be correct and is only your experience. That speaks volume to your credibility.

My point was that if you are LEO none of those laws affect you at all, LEO gets a free pass easily in the majority of the cases. Every single one affects normal civilians and is clearly on or near the top of the list of items being sought to be overturned here.

This varied and discriminant application of any set of laws creates separate classes so it's obvious and understandable why some civilians would gloat.

Compound the above with the fact that only recently this special class of folks might lose their special class status that they start coming slowly out of the woodwork asking for help? That rubs some folks the wrong way... initially.

And as stated prior by me, it may not be the "big thing" to gloat, but it certainly is understandable given this past class segregation. If anything, it was a long winded explanation for you to better understand why some of us were gloating and nothing more.

I suppose we agree to disagree but the fact remains we are all on the same team and even the gloating, as previously mentioned, at best will chuckle and then dust everyone off and say "We had a good laugh at your follies, lets move forward together now".

Anyway I wish OP the best of luck!!!

bwiese
06-09-2011, 8:57 AM
I reassert my earlier post...there is no California Penal Code that says RAW become illegal once an Officer retires..it is an opinion nothing more. If there is show me a section in the Penal Code, I have never seen someone get charged with case law...The Government cannot take or force you to give up property in this and AFS is not PC for any search warrant...am I missing something?

AG opinion letters generally hold great weight in courts. Given the matter is derived directly from Silviera (US 9th) decision, there's really no argument [for now, until full RKBA issues raised]. The term 'opinion' is being misinterpreted here as some 'feel good' issue when it's not. If you have an opinion letter against your position, you're not doing well up or down the court system. Yes, sometimes they can be challenged, but this letter was based on standing Fed matter.

The only valid issue - outside of new RKBA grounds, post-Heller/McDonald - are ones of official promise/detrimental reliance.

The other real problem is that there is no nonvoluntary deregistration process. So what happens is you end up with a legally nebulous situation where the registration is invalid but the DOJ likely can't pull it. Charges of illegal AW possession are probably defendable but don't go beyond AB2728 nuisance situation where cop gives up the gun to save expense of defense.

Tacticalintervention
06-09-2011, 8:58 AM
Hey this has gone on longer than I had hoped and has turned a little less productive.

I want to thank everyone for the help.

I want to say I understand where the guys are coming from who said LE should not have expemptions at all. You tend to miss things that dont effect you, especially when you are busy making a living here and off shore. Now that it has effected me it became far more personal than before. I am sorry I did not do enough to try and stop this before. The NRA Commercial was somthing but obviously not near enough.

I hope in the future we can all ( LE, retired LE and everyday good American Citizens) can put aside our differences and fight for the common goal of returning our rights to possess weapons for self defense.

Thanks again.

Tacticalintervention
06-09-2011, 8:59 AM
Hey Bill, please foregive me but are you a lawyer?

bwiese
06-09-2011, 9:02 AM
I recommend you get rid of that lower receiver before you get hit with a $250 fine, court fees, lawyer fees and a misdemeanor conviction. If you have more than two AWBs, its a felony.

You're looking on the BRIGHT side.

ANY unreg'd AW charge can be a felony (and later wobbled all the way down to nuisance/$300). TRANSPORTING an unreg'd AW is a nonwobbler felony.

The real issue is the nebulous area of DOJ Firearms not pulling the registration vs. invalid registration vs. charge of unreg'd AW possession.

I don't think the DOJ BoF really wants to delve into the AW letters, either. They may well find some signatures of chiefs in there that are quite unique and don't match the graphology of the rest of those chief's other handwriting exemplars. Also, there are apparently some letters signed not by agency head (chief, sherriff, director, etc.) but just by watch commander or armorer which were let slide. So we have a prospective mix of document fraud and already-incorrect issuance.

It's a clusterfluck.

bwiese
06-09-2011, 9:03 AM
Hey Bill, please foregive me but are you a lawyer?

Nope, we just talk to them a lot :) along with lobbyists. This issue has been known for some time and is just coming to head due to retirements and city budgets risking RIFs causing some separations in service.

Stryprod
06-09-2011, 9:05 AM
Hey this has gone on longer than I had hoped and has turned a little less productive.

I want to thank everyone for the help.

I want to say I understand where the guys are coming from who said LE should not have expemptions at all. You tend to miss things that dont effect you, especially when you are busy making a living here and off shore. Now that it has effected me it became far more personal than before. I am sorry I did not do enough to try and stop this before. The NRA Commercial was somthing but obviously not near enough.

I hope in the future we can all ( LE, retired LE and everyday good American Citizens) can put aside our differences and fight for the common goal of returning our rights to possess weapons for self defense.

Thanks again.
Could not have been spoken better!!!

As far as the thread being productive, please make sure you contact the folks that were originally suggested in the beginning of the thread. Worst case is they point you in the right direction.

And again, if I were you, I would just avoid the hassle all around and just strip the goody features off that AW and sell it. Buy an OLL and slap a bullet button on and the rest of your goody features from the old rifle. You might be out some dough but surely less than fighting and even winning the right to retain that AW.

I'm normally not one to say "give up" fighting for your 2A rights, but it seems like at this moment that is the best and most common sense option until further down the road when we win some more cases to kill that AW ban.

bwiese
06-09-2011, 9:09 AM
I think we should not discuss LE conversions to OLLs here any more.
There's no mandate to modify.

The real issue ultimately is that the gov't has to friggin' buy back $1500 Colt Bushmaster and Armalite rifles. This expense is both due to DOJ and agency involved.

tacticalcity
06-09-2011, 9:09 AM
This is one those that is going to end up in a court room and some poor guy who thought he was perfectly legal ends up being the test case.

Unless, of course, an RBKA case beats it to the punch and goes in our favor.

Sorry, was typing while others were posting their desire to end the conversation.

Tacticalintervention
06-09-2011, 9:12 AM
I am going to just sell them off because I dont need the trouble. I alreayd have many more pre ban stuff registered under the original registration we all had to do. I did talk with lawyers and some high ups on this the feeling is this is not really legal to do.
Law provides for non registered firearms. Mine is legally registered. Its as dumb as the high cap ban. You can not buy or sell but possession is legal.

Opinions will effect how LE acts when dealing with an individual but opinions can be overturned by a court and often are. This was Browns opinion based ona court decision this is not the 9th Courts ruling. Its the AGs opion of it

Law only provides to take away registration status from felons. I am not a felon. They need to rewrite law so officers have to give up AWs when they retire for this to be good law.

The law does not provide for a way to take away a registration in any other case.

Thge lawyer told me what the state should have done was demand the departments own the weapons and have registered to the departments not individuals. Just like machine guns for duty use. They are not the officers property. They are departments.

Once they were registered to us they became our personal property. Taking away personal property requires due process and we have not had due process on this.

dantodd
06-09-2011, 9:20 AM
The real issue ultimately is that the gov't has to friggin' buy back $1500 Colt Bushmaster and Armalite rifles. This expense is both due to DOJ and agency involved.

THIS. And the more that are out there the more expensive it will become. Is there a law against such re-purchased rifles (like at a gun buy back program) being used by the State or local agencies?

Tacticalintervention
06-09-2011, 9:24 AM
I dont know of any agency buing back retired officers aws weapons

bwiese
06-09-2011, 9:28 AM
I dont know of any agency buing back retired officers aws weapons

No this is gonna take litigation from someone with 'standing'.

The other issue is that, per gun cost, it's kinda a small-claims issue unless seen as a lump sum problem

bwiese
06-09-2011, 9:30 AM
Opinions will effect how LE acts when dealing with an individual but opinions can be overturned by a court and often are. This was Browns opinion based ona court decision this is not the 9th Courts ruling. Its the AGs opion of it

It is very very consistent with that decision and was directly derived therefrom. Don't deceive yourself with term 'opinion'; this opinion letter has esssentiall force of law and will carry great weight in courts. There are relatively few such things overturned, esp when directly coupled with a US court matter.

Tacticalintervention
06-09-2011, 9:38 AM
Having worked in law for 2.5 decades I disagree I have seen so many opinions overturned I dont put as much faith in them as you do. Especially when its issued last day in office. AG is still a lawyer who practises law. He is not a judge, whos opinion has to be over turned by higher court. Basically any judge can overturn the AG.

This reminds me of his Gay Marriage is protected by constitution then his changing to its not protected by consittution thing ( I may have it backwards but he did 360 turn eitehr way). His opinion changed. Either way he still had to argue his opinion in court to be rules on by a judge.

With that said I dont want to be test case becaue I have too much to lose. One other thing I learned from 25 years LE is anyone can be made into a scape goat and burned up real good if the politics decide to. These days politics of guns have turned against us all and even us gun owners turn on each other.

1911su16b870
06-09-2011, 10:17 AM
You're looking on the BRIGHT side.

ANY unreg'd AW charge can be a felony (and later wobbled all the way down to nuisance/$300). TRANSPORTING an unreg'd AW is a nonwobbler felony.

The real issue is the nebulous area of DOJ Firearms not pulling the registration vs. invalid registration vs. charge of unreg'd AW possession.

I don't think the DOJ BoF really wants to delve into the AW letters, either. They may well find some signatures of chiefs in there that are quite unique and don't match the graphology of the rest of those chief's other handwriting exemplars. Also, there are apparently some letters signed not by agency head (chief, sherriff, director, etc.) but just by watch commander or armorer which were let slide. So we have a prospective mix of document fraud and already-incorrect issuance.

It's a clusterfluck.

+1 thanks TI and BW for the info.

Call_me_Tom
06-09-2011, 10:52 AM
I think we should not discuss LE conversions to OLLs here any more.
There's no mandate to modify.

The real issue ultimately is that the gov't has to friggin' buy back $1500 Colt Bushmaster and Armalite rifles. This expense is both due to DOJ and agency involved.
I see a hike in DROS fees to cover the buy back.

bwiese
06-09-2011, 11:41 AM
Folks,

CGF has discussed this a bit.

We believe - esp given that DOJ will not pull the LEO AW registrations - that such 'violations' caused by retiring/separating (even though DOJ + agency promised a 'forever' registration, and you LEOs relied on those repeated, intentional promises) are unprosecutable at least and not winnable by the opposition in worst case.

Cops should keep their legitimately-reg'd AWs, not sell them - and don't OLL them, etc.

Yes, matters involving unregistered AWs are crimes - but DOJ says they are not pulling the registration.
Yes, discontinuance of (or lack of valid) grounds for registration while letting the registration stay alive is legally nebulous, but
it also readily demonstrates how screwed the law is.

[An edge condition might include if dept letter actually expresses limits, "until termination of service", etc. - much like MAWP military AW permit
restriction. However this color is again in question given the DOJ can't/won't pull the LEO AW registration].

CGF will back clean cases should some drama occur, but with DOJ not pulling such registrations and any actual underlying violation involving possession or transport of an *unregistered* AW, we don't see much problem. At worst we end up with another eventual "SKS buyback" situation.

[For those that find themselves in possession of a DOJ registration based on department LEO AW letter whose signature image really doesn't match the graphology of the chief/sheriff/agency head etc., sorry. Registrations based on fraudulent filings don't have the above protection, as the whole process has been corrupted/invalid from the start.]

One final comment - if you read between the lines in AG Brown's opinion letter, he's really saying this whole broad arena (beyond the simple problem at hand) is tainted as unconstitutional, and that's a ball we can run with.

LHC30
06-09-2011, 1:15 PM
To the OP:

Suppose we meet over a beer by my place in AZ and discuss you renting safe space from me ;-)

Maestro Pistolero
06-09-2011, 1:44 PM
Excellent!

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ-JyR3REsJLtAZXiLQu6qW_Kvcu7V9vl7FWVRAQ95R9SS8OyZP
Folks,

CGF has discussed this a bit.

We believe - esp given that DOJ will not pull the LEO AW registrations - that such 'violations' caused by retiring/separating (even though DOJ + agency promised a 'forever' registration, and you LEOs relied on those repeated, intentional promises) are unprosecutable at least and not winnable by the opposition in worst case.

Cops should keep their legitimately-reg'd AWs, not sell them - and don't OLL them, etc.

Yes, matters involving unregistered AWs are crimes - but DOJ says they are not pulling the registration.
Yes, discontinuance of (or lack of valid) grounds for registration while letting the registration stay alive is legally nebulous, but
it also readily demonstrates how screwed the law is.

[An edge condition might include if dept letter actually expresses limits, "until termination of service", etc. - much like MAWP military AW permit
restriction. However this color is again in question given the DOJ can't/won't pull the LEO AW registration].

CGF will back clean cases should some drama occur, but with DOJ not pulling such registrations and any actual underlying violation involving possession or transport of an *unregistered* AW, we don't see much problem. At worst we end up with another eventual "SKS buyback" situation.

[For those that find themselves in possession of a DOJ registration based on department LEO AW letter whose signature image really doesn't match the graphology of the chief/sheriff/agency head etc., sorry. Registrations based on fraudulent filings don't have the above protection, as the whole process has been corrupted/invalid from the start.]

One final comment - if you read between the lines in AG Brown's opinion letter, he's really saying this whole broad arena (beyond the simple problem at hand) is tainted as unconstitutional, and that's a ball we can run with.

dantodd
06-09-2011, 1:49 PM
Cops should keep their legitimately-reg'd AWs, not sell them - and don't OLL them, etc.

Yes, matters involving unregistered AWs are crimes - but DOJ says they are not pulling the registration.
Yes, discontinuance of (or lack of valid) grounds for registration while letting the registration stay alive is legally nebulous, but
it also readily demonstrates how screwed the law is.


This is really important. If you've read this thread you should know why.

Tacticalintervention
06-09-2011, 4:29 PM
Folks,

CGF has discussed this a bit.

We believe - esp given that DOJ will not pull the LEO AW registrations - that such 'violations' caused by retiring/separating (even though DOJ + agency promised a 'forever' registration, and you LEOs relied on those repeated, intentional promises) are unprosecutable at least and not winnable by the opposition in worst case.

Cops should keep their legitimately-reg'd AWs, not sell them - and don't OLL them, etc.

Yes, matters involving unregistered AWs are crimes - but DOJ says they are not pulling the registration.
Yes, discontinuance of (or lack of valid) grounds for registration while letting the registration stay alive is legally nebulous, but
it also readily demonstrates how screwed the law is.

[An edge condition might include if dept letter actually expresses limits, "until termination of service", etc. - much like MAWP military AW permit
restriction. However this color is again in question given the DOJ can't/won't pull the LEO AW registration].

CGF will back clean cases should some drama occur, but with DOJ not pulling such registrations and any actual underlying violation involving possession or transport of an *unregistered* AW, we don't see much problem. At worst we end up with another eventual "SKS buyback" situation.

[For those that find themselves in possession of a DOJ registration based on department LEO AW letter whose signature image really doesn't match the graphology of the chief/sheriff/agency head etc., sorry. Registrations based on fraudulent filings don't have the above protection, as the whole process has been corrupted/invalid from the start.]

One final comment - if you read between the lines in AG Brown's opinion letter, he's really saying this whole broad arena (beyond the simple problem at hand) is tainted as unconstitutional, and that's a ball we can run with.

Sir, this one is about as clean as it could get. Hand signed letter fro Chief. Promise to be able to keep from DOJ back then. I got a call from a CalGun Lawyer today and will wait and see what he says

Thanks for all the help

Quser.619
06-09-2011, 4:42 PM
Without placing yourself into a potential legal bind, please up date us as to the solution or decision that you come to. I for one am interested & wonder as more & more LEO retire or pass away, what exactly will happen to these firearms in the future

garandguy10
06-09-2011, 6:28 PM
All the LE unions supported Brown. How's that workin out for ya?

My LE union did not support Brown.

Mute
06-09-2011, 6:30 PM
Hey this has gone on longer than I had hoped and has turned a little less productive.

I want to thank everyone for the help.

I want to say I understand where the guys are coming from who said LE should not have expemptions at all. You tend to miss things that dont effect you, especially when you are busy making a living here and off shore. Now that it has effected me it became far more personal than before. I am sorry I did not do enough to try and stop this before. The NRA Commercial was somthing but obviously not near enough.

I hope in the future we can all ( LE, retired LE and everyday good American Citizens) can put aside our differences and fight for the common goal of returning our rights to possess weapons for self defense.

Thanks again.

Mike, I don't think you owe anyone any apologies. You've done your share for the shooting community.

garandguy10
06-09-2011, 6:32 PM
I called DOJ and asked if they were UN-registering RAWs from retired LEO's. They said they were not.

That is the only way they can make it a crime. When the Agent comes a-knocking, he better hand you a notice that your RAW is no longer registered and then give you sufficient time to get rid of it. And if this happens, be sure to ask for your registration fee back.

I prefer to obey laws, not opinions.

When the agent from the DOJ comes knocking, do not invite him/her into your home. Tell him/her that he/she needs a warrant, and say nothing else about anything. Silence is Golden.

AndrewMendez
06-09-2011, 8:05 PM
I can't believe I read thru this entire thread. :rolleyes:
Interesting perspective. Its always so easy to spot the LEO's vs civilians.
My opinion, based on educated guesses and conversations with people smarter then I. This will be part of the smackdown against the AWB, maybe more. It will be a clear and level playing field, regardless of if you are a LEO, retired, military or joe dirt who wants to own something without a BB.
I am interested to see if ANY of the Police Unions, will then side with the CGF, or if they will continue their traditional anti gun for civilians stance, as this can then benefit their LEO's

bcj128
06-11-2011, 12:57 PM
Ok, there are those who don't like AW's in the LE world. That's just life as police come from all walks of life, some are pro gun, others are not.

I am definitely pro gun, and don't go looking to blame a tool for it's misuse. I do support shall issue ccw, with two caveats. First, carrying a gun is a right that caries some sobering responsibility, and I believe all ccw holders should get training as far as laws, gun handling, and how to keep yourself out of trouble. In addition, we should've the ones championing the idea that if you abuse that right, you are held accountable. If a fellow cop screws the pooch, we hold him accountable through numerous internal and external processes. We will have a whole lot more credibility if we do. Just my humble 2 cents.

Brown Rock
06-11-2011, 4:04 PM
Does he have to turn in the whole rifle? Can't he just strip it down and sell the stripped lower? I'm sorry man, that sucks.

bcj128
06-11-2011, 7:19 PM
Does he have to turn in the whole rifle? Can't he just strip it down and sell the stripped lower? I'm sorry man, that sucks.

From what I was told, you can strip it down to the lower. I bought a JD lower and built it up with a BB to throw on my LMT Upper and I'll turn in the Bushmaster lower when I retire in seven years.

Tacticalintervention
06-14-2011, 8:19 AM
Hey last post on here.

This appears to have worked out in my favor.

I am but one of many LE current and retired who are progun and always have been.

I will continue to fight for all of our gun rights.

Thanks to CalGuns for the great help

adamsreeftank
06-14-2011, 1:58 PM
Hey last post on here.

This appears to have worked out in my favor.

I am but one of many LE current and retired who are progun and always have been.

I will continue to fight for all of our gun rights.

Thanks to CalGuns for the great help

???

hoffmang
06-14-2011, 8:30 PM
???

A conversation has been had.

Here are the lines people need to read between. The AG's opinion is spot on about the state of the law. However, it is impossible to successfully prosecute someone who is in possession of an assault weapon registered to him/her.

-Gene

jaq
06-15-2011, 12:25 AM
A conversation has been had.

Here are the lines people need to read between. The AG's opinion is spot on about the state of the law. However, it is impossible to successfully prosecute someone who is in possession of an assault weapon registered to him/her.

-Gene

YOU are "The Awesome".

Thank you, Mr. Hoffman for the excellent work you have done. You are one of the few humans that I know of who restores my faith in humanity and rolls back the tide of cynical despair.

I knew I forgot to do something when I was in college: I forgot to finish that poli-sci B.A. and go on to get a J.D.

Sigh.

dantodd
06-15-2011, 1:05 AM
A conversation has been had.

Here are the lines people need to read between. The AG's opinion is spot on about the state of the law. However, it is impossible to successfully prosecute someone who is in possession of an assault weapon registered to him/her.

-Gene

I like the way Silviera looks between those lines.....

cmichini
06-15-2011, 3:45 PM
... If a fellow cop screws the pooch, we hold him accountable through numerous internal and external processes.

Priceless :rofl2:
Except in cases of 'professional courtesy', I'm sure.

Jim_KT
06-15-2011, 5:47 PM
A conversation has been had.

Here are the lines people need to read between. The AG's opinion is spot on about the state of the law. However, it is impossible to successfully prosecute someone who is in possession of an assault weapon registered to him/her.

-Gene

Not trying to be sarcastic or argumentative, but isn't that the point of registering the "AW?" Possession will be legal, or am I missing more?

Falconis
06-15-2011, 7:22 PM
Not trying to be sarcastic or argumentative, but isn't that the point of registering the "AW?" Possession will be legal, or am I missing more?

It was stated earlier. Law was not thought out thoroughly at the beginning and now these issues are croppping up.

Sgt Raven
06-15-2011, 7:36 PM
It was stated earlier. Law was not thought out thoroughly at the beginning and now these issues are cropping up.

Isn't that a normal SNAFU for California's government entities? :p

locosway
06-16-2011, 2:59 AM
Would more of this cause officers unions and departments to not support further gun control bills? It seems that a lot of the support comes from exempting officers, however if officers knew they wouldn't be exempt once retired, and they spoke up to their unions, then would opposition be more likely to not have these stupid control measures passed, or would they just work harder to exempt more LE from them?

Untamed1972
06-16-2011, 7:31 AM
I will just sell these out of state. I had hoped for constructive work here but obviously we can not band together.

Why not just buy some off-list lowers, strip the lowers you have and put the parts into the OLLs and reassemle them with bullet buttons for now, and just sell the stripped lowers out of state?

OLL's are pretty cheap these days and would allow you to keep most of your investment.

Untamed1972
06-16-2011, 8:13 AM
Hey this has gone on longer than I had hoped and has turned a little less productive.

I want to thank everyone for the help.

I want to say I understand where the guys are coming from who said LE should not have expemptions at all. You tend to miss things that dont effect you, especially when you are busy making a living here and off shore. Now that it has effected me it became far more personal than before. I am sorry I did not do enough to try and stop this before. The NRA Commercial was somthing but obviously not near enough.

I hope in the future we can all ( LE, retired LE and everyday good American Citizens) can put aside our differences and fight for the common goal of returning our rights to possess weapons for self defense.

Thanks again.


I appreciate your candor. I think what many of have termed "gloating" was just more of an group "we told you so" kinda thing.

For as long as I've been on CGN I've seen LEOs basiclly tell the us regular folks "you're just jealous", "quit your whining" etc. I and many others have pointed out many of the bad laws likely would not have passed w/o CLEO/LEO/LEO-union support, stating that if these laws were equally applicable to LEOs there would be much more uproar against them. Can you imagine the headlines in the media "CA legislature wants to disarm COPs!"

I personally have stated here many times that the thing we need the most in this state to combat all these bad gun laws is OPEN LEO support for the pro-2A cause, and OPEN LEO outrage against the passing of new laws. (Sheriff Parker was a good example of this with the AB962 law suit. I personally sent him and email and thanked him for getting involved.).

So I will not gloat or say "HAHA" over this AW issue. All I will say is that I'm glad the eyes of some are finally being opened because the truth of the matter is WE NEED YOUR HELP AND SUPPORT!!!

This reminds me of that email that goes around about "When they came for the Jews I didn't care because I wasn't Jewish, When they came for the etc......I didn't care because I wasn't.......But then they came for me and there was no one left to help me."

The issue of standing up for ALL civil rights is important, not just the ones we personally care about because someday the rights we DO care about will be next on the list. We need those SWORN to support and defend the Constitution to ACTUALLY START DOING SO.......because as the LEOs are now finding out......When they took guns away from "civilians", I didn't care because I wasn't a "civilian". But then they came for my guns :eek:

Lucky for you LEOs/r-LEOs....there are still "civilians" here for you, fighting the fight....even for those who were fighting against us. So start spreading the word to all your LEO/retired friends and coworkers that NOW IS THE TIME JOIN THE FIGHT!!!! Why......because they WILL come for you eventually!

Bhobbs
06-16-2011, 8:17 AM
I appreciate your candor. I think what many of have termed "gloating" was just more of an group "we told you so" kinda thing.

For as long as I've been on CGN I've seen LEOs basiclly tell the us regular folks "you're just jealous", "quit your whining" etc. I and many others have pointed out many of the bad laws likely would not have passed w/o CLEO/LEO/LEO-union support, stating that if these laws were equally applicable to LEOs there would be much more uproar against them. Can you imagine the headlines in the media "CA legislature wants to disarm COPs!"

I personally have stated here many times that the thing we need the most in this state to combat all these bad gun laws is OPEN LEO support for the pro-2A cause, and OPEN LEO outrage against the passing of new laws. (Sheriff Parker was a good example of this with the AB962 law suit. I personally sent him and email and thanked him for getting involved.).

So I will not gloat or say "HAHA" over this AW issue. All I will say is that I'm glad the eyes of some are finally being opened because the truth of the matter is WE NEED YOUR HELP AND SUPPORT!!!

This reminds me of that email that goes around about "When they came for the Jews I didn't care because I wasn't Jewish, When they came for the etc......I didn't care because I wasn't.......But then they came for me and there was no one left to help me."

The issue of standing up for ALL civil rights is important, not just the ones we personally care about because someday the rights we DO care about will be next on the list. We need those SWORN to support and defend the Constitution to ACTUALLY START DOING SO.......because as the LEOs are now finding out......When they took guns away from "civilians", I didn't care because I wasn't a "civilian". But then they came for my guns :eek:

Lucky for you LEOs/r-LEOs....there are still "civilians" here for you, fighting the fight....even for those who were fighting against us. So start spreading the word to all your LEO/retired friends and coworkers that NOW IS THE TIME JOIN THE FIGHT!!!! Why......because they WILL come for you eventually!

I agree with this 100%.

locosway
06-16-2011, 8:19 AM
I appreciate your candor. I think what many of have termed "gloating" was just more of an group "we told you so" kinda thing.

For as long as I've been on CGN I've seen LEOs basiclly tell the us regular folks "you're just jealous", "quit your whining" etc. I and many others have pointed out many of the bad laws likely would not have passed w/o CLEO/LEO/LEO-union support, stating that if these laws were equally applicable to LEOs there would be much more uproar against them. Can you imagine the headlines in the media "CA legislature wants to disarm COPs!"

I personally have stated here many times that the thing we need the most in this state to combat all these bad gun laws is OPEN LEO support for the pro-2A cause, and OPEN LEO outrage against the passing of new laws. (Sheriff Parker was a good example of this with the AB962 law suit. I personally sent him and email and thanked him for getting involved.).

So I will not gloat or say "HAHA" over this AW issue. All I will say is that I'm glad the eyes of some are finally being opened because the truth of the matter is WE NEED YOUR HELP AND SUPPORT!!!

This reminds me of that email that goes around about "When they came for the Jews I didn't care because I wasn't Jewish, When they came for the etc......I didn't care because I wasn't.......But then they came for me and there was no one left to help me."

The issue of standing up for ALL civil rights is important, not just the ones we personally care about because someday the rights we DO care about will be next on the list. We need those SWORN to support and defend the Constitution to ACTUALLY START DOING SO.......because as the LEOs are now finding out......When they took guns away from "civilians", I didn't care because I wasn't a "civilian". But then they came for my guns :eek:

Lucky for you LEOs/r-LEOs....there are still "civilians" here for you, fighting the fight....even for those who were fighting against us. So start spreading the word to all your LEO/retired friends and coworkers that NOW IS THE TIME JOIN THE FIGHT!!!! Why......because they WILL come for you eventually!

Yep, that's my exact view as well. And I've run into the same, "you're jealous", or even, "you're completely insane". It's not that I want to disarm cops, because I don't. But I want the laws to be equal to all citizens regardless of their job.

fairfaxjim
06-16-2011, 9:27 AM
I hope EVERYONE here has come to the realization that those wanting to restrict our rights (2A and otherwise) are interested in only one thing - TAKING THOSE RIGHTS! They really don't believe that LE should have any special rights or privileges - LE was used as a tool to get what they wanted and now that they have the AW ban, LE gets thrown under the bus with the rest of us. You can rest assured that if they knew this (to use their favorite buzword) "loophole" would have been created by alllowing LE to register their AW's, there would have never been registration allowed.

GIVE THEM NOTHING - Stay absolute and accept no infringement, because if you get a favorable exception today, you won't have it tomorrow.

1911su16b870
06-16-2011, 9:42 AM
Give them nothing and take away from them every(ban)thing!

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRXUZC6pECOT8wp5B0sS4GGsjxY4b1RE VzWuHhEcPFIR4KVwhWnag

:D

Falconis
06-16-2011, 9:45 AM
Yep, that's my exact view as well. And I've run into the same, "you're jealous", or even, "you're completely insane". It's not that I want to disarm cops, because I don't. But I want the laws to be equal to all citizens regardless of their job.

Decided to ignore the posts about where some departments couldn't afford the rifles for their officers and the posts about fair compensation. Or the other people using loopholes to obtain AW permits in the state.

Tell me, does your job require you to arrest or neutralize armed suspects of crimes?

Patrick Aherne
06-16-2011, 10:12 AM
What most calgunners forget is that those of us who are still employed do not have full first amendment rights. We can be fired if we speak in a manner that impacts the operations of the government entity we work for.

Plus, our unions generally focus on wage and benefit issues+ most gunny cops are not usually big union guys.

Mike is a solid 2nd amendment guy, NRA member and the maker of the only slings I put on my Precision rifles.

He complied with the law, played by the rules all his life and attempted to be a good cop who bought the rifles his mission required but department wouldn't buy.

Please remember that most working cops can't comment on the current state of CA law or what we would do if we found an otherwise honest guy carrying illegally, or someone who was misinformed and accidentally made an illegal AW that we saw at the range, etc.

Every cop knows gun laws are the functional equivalent of trying to stop drunk driving by banning sober drivers from owning cars.

I hope the courts restore sanity to the mess that is CA gun laws and someday we can all just argue about 9 vs 45, instead of us vs them.

Untamed1972
06-16-2011, 10:23 AM
What most calgunners forget is that those of us who are still employed do not have full first amendment rights. We can be fired if we speak in a manner that impacts the operations of the government entity we work for. Plus, our unions generally focus on wage and benefit issues+ most gunny cops are not usually big union guys.


Can I speak frankly on this issue for a moment?

This argument gets old and tired after awhile.

I have proposed many times here that LEOs should form a pro-2A organization to speak for them, since they cannot speak for themselves in their official capacity.

And who better to do the speaking then RETIRED LEOs.....since they're not subject to departmental control of their speech any longer?

I have said repeatedly the only LEO input the general public sees is the CLEO's, CLEO associations and various other LEO/LEA organzations that DO speak out in support of anti-gun movements and policies.

The public needs to start seeing an opposing LEO voice to those things. I understand that LEOs can't speak out individually, but they could band together and form a group/organization to speak for them. Your agency can't prohibit you from being an anonymous member of a private group, they can't take that much of your constitutional right to assemble away from you.

And if your unions mostly focus on wges/benefits then why do I contstantly see political ads stating support for candidates/issues claiming CA-police officers assoc and such?

Falconis
06-16-2011, 11:02 AM
Can I speak frankly on this issue for a moment?

Sure, everyone else does :)

This argument gets old and tired after awhile.

The anti cop rhetoric gets old here too. Works both ways.

I have proposed many times here that LEOs should form a pro-2A organization to speak for them, since they cannot speak for themselves in their official capacity.

Harder than you think. Don't get me wrong, it's a good idea, but things are tried and they die out eventually for a number of reasons.

And who better to do the speaking then RETIRED LEOs.....since they're not subject to departmental control of their speech any longer?

Some are still tied to the department in a lot of ways. Also, the ones that want to stay retired and out of any fight, I feel, have deserved that right.

I have said repeatedly the only LEO input the general public sees is the CLEO's, CLEO associations and various other LEO/LEA organzations that DO speak out in support of anti-gun movements and policies.

That goes back to the politicians we all elect. Chiefs get hired by City Councils and have to answer to them. Sheriffs get hired by the public and often slips through the cracks.

The public needs to start seeing an opposing LEO voice to those things. I understand that LEOs can't speak out individually, but they could band together and form a group/organization to speak for them. Your agency can't prohibit you from being an anonymous member of a private group, they can't take that much of your constitutional right to assemble away from you.

As far as being an anonymous member to a pro 2A group, what the hell am I doing here? Aside from hearing how 80 percent of the people here wants us to give up our RAW's (to whoever gets them). Along with all the other I can't believe you guys do that sort of stuff too and blah blah blah

You're right. They can't prohibit us from assembling. But they can always "find" some sort of rules violation to terminate us over. I know what you're thinking, ohhh they wouldn't do that .... MY challenge is you want to bet? Best case scenario, a cop gets his job back and sues the department. It will still take him 12 to 36 months to fight the termination then God knows how long for the civil suit. If that cop has a family, that's a long time to go through that kind of stress.

And if your unions mostly focus on wges/benefits then why do I contstantly see political ads stating support for candidates/issues claiming CA-police officers assoc and such?

Who do you think has control over wages and benefits?

Untamed1972
06-16-2011, 11:31 AM
Some are still tied to the department in a lot of ways. Also, the ones that want to stay retired and out of any fight, I feel, have deserved that right.

Yeah......but now they are finding themselves dragged back into the fight over their RAWs. Sometimes the fight can't be avoided......and a good defense sometimes is a strong offense.

As far as being an anonymous member to a pro 2A group, what the hell am I doing here? Aside from hearing how 80 percent of the people here wants us to give up our RAW's (to whoever gets them). Along with all the other I can't believe you guys do that sort of stuff too and blah blah blah

But Calguns is not a LEO voice, it's a citizens voice. When the old lady at home is watching the political commercials for the next election, whose voice do you think would make a greater impression? That's all I'm saying.

You're right. They can't prohibit us from assembling. But they can always "find" some sort of rules violation to terminate us over. I know what you're thinking, ohhh they wouldn't do that .... MY challenge is you want to bet? Best case scenario, a cop gets his job back and sues the department. It will still take him 12 to 36 months to fight the termination then God knows how long for the civil suit. If that cop has a family, that's a long time to go through that kind of stress.

No need to bet on that, I actually know the reality of that more than you or anyone else realizes. At some point though one has to ask themselves....how much your personal liberty and the liberty of others is one will to sacrifice for a "job"? Some things just aren't worth giving up for a dollar. That I know from personal experience also.

At some point folks need to man-up, take a stand, draw a line in the sand or whatever cliche' is appropriate. We are not talking about griping at your boss over the new "no casual friday" policy at the local State Farm office....we are talking about taking a stand on the very liberties that are the foundation of our country!

But I dont want to derail this thread.....this stuff has all been covered before.

Like I said before....we need your support as "citizens" AND as "LEOs", and the more vocal and open that support can be....the greater the effect it will have.

Tacticalintervention
06-16-2011, 12:26 PM
OK can we just knock off the non productive stuff and look at this as a win?

This is first time part of AW Bill has been shown to be non enforceable.

They dont want Retired LE with legally registered assault weapons but law does not allow the removal.

This is a turd in the punch bowel for the anti gunners.

As I said before I am going to follow the law and the laws says they cant take it away unless I commit a felony, which I have no plans to. There you go retired LE standing up for whats right.

Lets move to next phase of getting rid of all the stupid bans

Maestro Pistolero
06-16-2011, 1:04 PM
OK can we just knock off the non productive stuff and look at this as a win?

This is first time part of AW Bill has been shown to be non enforceable.

They dont want Retired LE with legally registered assault weapons but law does not allow the removal.

This is a turd in the punch bowel for the anti gunners.

As I said before I am going to follow the law and the laws says they cant take it away unless I commit a felony, which I have no plans to. There you go retired LE standing up for whats right.

Lets move to next phase of getting rid of all the stupid bans
HEAR, HEAR, GIVE THAT MAN A CIGAR!

Infighting blows.

Falconis
06-16-2011, 1:11 PM
But Calguns is not a LEO voice, it's a citizens voice.

I didn't know I gave up my citizendry when I became a cop. Guess I can just leave.

No need to bet on that, I actually know the reality of that more than you or anyone else realizes. At some point though one has to ask themselves....how much your personal liberty and the liberty of others is one will to sacrifice for a "job"? Some things just aren't worth giving up for a dollar. That I know from personal experience also.

At some point folks need to man-up, take a stand, draw a line in the sand or whatever cliche' is appropriate. We are not talking about griping at your boss over the new "no casual friday" policy at the local State Farm office....we are talking about taking a stand on the very liberties that are the foundation of our country!

What you are suggesting we do will provide no positive results and only result in the inability for a previous police officer to not be able to provide for their family. There are other methods to attack and I don't see any reason for any police officer to throw themselves under the bus.

Please tell us your experiences.

But I dont want to derail this thread.....this stuff has all been covered before.

... too late?

Like I said before....we need your support as "citizens" AND as "LEOs", and the more vocal and open that support can be....the greater the effect it will have.

I thought you implied above we aren't citizens here. AND for everyone else that wants to yell at the top of their lungs that LEO's are citizens as well, which is it? LEO's are regular citizens you guys won't lift a finger to help and do everything you possibly can to drag down?

I already argued a lot of this with somebody else here. LEO's are here and some of us do help the same as some of you guys. We donate money, offer up advice, and even though I have failed at this miserably, not for lack of trying, I do try to attend some of the events.

You can argue and yell at us to go marching towards the front line to soak up bullets all you want, most of us know what the general outcomes of strategies like those are.

But in the end, I'll say thanks to the people here who have shown support and especially the mods, CGF Board members, and the owner of this site.

Bhobbs
06-16-2011, 1:18 PM
Decided to ignore the posts about where some departments couldn't afford the rifles for their officers and the posts about fair compensation. Or the other people using loopholes to obtain AW permits in the state.

Tell me, does your job require you to arrest or neutralize armed suspects of crimes?

No, it does not but what does this have to do with keeping the AWs after they leave the job?

Also what does a department not having the funds to give their officers rifles have to do with the retired officers getting a special exemption from the law?

locosway
06-16-2011, 1:24 PM
Decided to ignore the posts about where some departments couldn't afford the rifles for their officers and the posts about fair compensation. Or the other people using loopholes to obtain AW permits in the state.

Tell me, does your job require you to arrest or neutralize armed suspects of crimes?

I wanted to leave this alone, especially since the thread is going in the complete wrong direction. However, please allow me to answer.

My current job does NOT require me to interact with possibly armed and/or dangerous people. However, I have worked such jobs in the past. I have arrested people, been in fights, had weapons pulled, done vehicle stops, searches, and so on.

Like I said before, I do NOT want to disarm LEO's, and I want them to have all of the tools they need to do their job. This has nothing to do with AW laws one bit. My point was, that if police unions/associations, and the general LEO population were not exempted from these laws that they would hold a lot less weight, and would NEVER be passed in the first place.

Wouldn't you rather have none of these silly firearms laws? Or do you prefer the two tiered citizen system when it comes to firearms? Actually, don't answer that... This debate need not continue. If you or anyone else would like to talk further on this issue please PM me.

Falconis
06-16-2011, 1:30 PM
Could have PM's me that question to begin with. Asking me a question then telling me not to answer that is like punching someone then running away as far as I am concerned. From my point of view, this isn't a simple issue and therefore a simple answer can't be given. When it is, something is usually left out that is as pertinent as the question answered.

First, without the exemption, I know atleast 1 whole squad from another agency that would be without. Would you rather have them be at a disadvantage simply just because you do? In fact PM me that answer.

I'll also PM you the answer to your next question.

Falconis
06-16-2011, 1:32 PM
No, it does not but what does this have to do with keeping the AWs after they leave the job?

Also what does a department not having the funds to give their officers rifles have to do with the retired officers getting a special exemption from the law?

How bad would you scream if you had something taken away from you without compensation.

Didn't we already have this argument in PM's? Or is this just to further the appearance of our disagreements? You stopped responding at one point.

EDIT: Also has something to do with being told one thing and another happening. can't tell me that would make you happy either.

Falconis
06-16-2011, 1:44 PM
PM sent. I actually agree with locos, you can PM me BHOBBS if you want to further discuss this. I say we kill this thread unless someone has something positive to say. I agree that it's a win, especially in the long run whether people want to agree or not.

There are enough anti cop rhetoric rants here that I think you guys can move it elsewhere.

sandman21
06-16-2011, 2:00 PM
First, without the exemption, I know atleast 1 whole squad from another agency that would be without. Would you rather have them be at a disadvantage simply just because you do?

Who has said that? Answer nobody.

How bad would you scream if you had something taken away from you without compensation.

Didn't we already have this argument in PM's? Or is this just to further the appearance of our disagreements? You stopped responding at one point.

EDIT: Also has something to do with being told one thing and another happening. can't tell me that would make you happy either.

Without compensation? Where has that been discussed? The LEO would have to be compensated for the rifle.

There are enough anti cop rhetoric rants here that I think you guys can move it elsewhere.

Anti-cop rhetoric rants? Or more accurately people don’t agree with you so they must be anti-cop rhetoric rants, right? :rolleyes:

wildhawker
06-16-2011, 2:08 PM
I wonder if a robust retired LE 501c4 exists in CA...

Untamed1972
06-16-2011, 2:13 PM
I thought you implied above we aren't citizens here. AND for everyone else that wants to yell at the top of their lungs that LEO's are citizens as well, which is it? LEO's are regular citizens you guys won't lift a finger to help and do everything you possibly can to drag down?


I think you missed the point of my statements. In saying CGF/CGN is a "citizens voice" I meant it represents a group of people who are speaking out, taking action as "private citizens", some of whom happen to be LEOs. But as you've stated, you can't speak out as LEOs, so your support here is as a private citizen.

When I say we need your support as LEOs, I mean a LEO voice to counteract the LEO voices/organzations that openly support all these bad laws and policies. I'm not sure why that's so hard to grasp?

The fact of the matter is because of the respect the general voting population has for LE, the voice of an LE organization opposing gun laws would carry more weight than "just those crazy redneck NRA gun nut guys who cling to their guns and bibles".

The "scare tactics" used by the various LEO organizations that support this stuff gets peoples' attention because they respect the profession. Little do they know they're being fed a bunch of BS. Those with the most power to counteract the BS would be those in the same profession would it not?

If the support of LEO and Firefighter organzations didn't count for anything then why would they bother lending their support to anything, or why would candidates seek their support in elections? They realize that people respect those professions so their support carries some weight to influence the public. So all I am saying is that we need some sort of organziation that carries the same influence over the general voting public that will speak AGAINST these things. At least seeing 2 groups from the same profession opposing eachother on an issue might give people pause to stop and examine the issue more closely for themselves.

Falconis
06-16-2011, 2:41 PM
What you meant to say and what you actually wrote are 2 different things untamed. As far as you knowing our reality, i'll beg to differ and leave it at that.

You do realize there are just some POA's and unions that ARE anti 2A no matter how you slice it? Some are aligned with the Chiefs and Sheriffs. Well anti 2A as we would see it. They'll tell you they support the 2nd amendment as much as Boxer does in her replies.

Here's a question for you. You have THE ORGANIZATION saying one thing and a minor population of the same organization saying something else. What do you think is going to happen. There have been current and former LEO's, Cheifs, Sheriffs, and others related to the field give interviews counteracting the bull**** and all the anti gun laws still passed like an out of control freight train. That video has been posted here a couple times already and I think is hosted on the Michel Law Firms website.

Besides I thought this was about LEO's keeping thier rifles. Not about political support. PM me with anything else. I think a lot of people would like to see this thread die and leave it as a win as stated before.

Super Spy
06-16-2011, 2:45 PM
Putting the gun in a car and taking it for a drive is legal. Once you cross the border to a free state it's legal to own. Unless a CA LEO follows you across the border...where they no longer have any jurisdiction, how could they even make a case. You come home with no illegal weapon.....maybe just some legal parts.

Nobody should be surprised that AG Harris is all over this, it's a chance to screw gun owners and LEO's at the same time. That's gotta be paydirt for her.

Untamed1972
06-16-2011, 2:51 PM
What you meant to say and what you actually wrote are 2 different things untamed. As far as you knowing our reality, i'll beg to differ and leave it at that.

You do realize there are just some POA's and unions that ARE anti 2A no matter how you slice it? Some are aligned with the Chiefs and Sheriffs. Well anti 2A as we would see it. They'll tell you they support the 2nd amendment as much as Boxer does in her replies.

Here's a question for you. You have THE ORGANIZATION saying one thing and a minor population of the same organization saying something else. What do you think is going to happen. There have been current and former LEO's, Cheifs, Sheriffs, and others related to the field give interviews counteracting the bull**** and all the anti gun laws still passed like an out of control freight train. That video has been posted here a couple times already and I think is hosted on the Michel Law Firms website.

Besides I thought this was about LEO's keeping thier rifles. Not about political support. PM me with anything else. I think a lot of people would like to see this thread die and leave it as a win as stated before.


I reread what I wrote and it seemed pretty clear to me.....I think because of the "LEO-bashing" that does happen around here some of the LEO folks are just overly sensitive to anyone that doesn't just simply profess undying admiration for the boys in blue.

I dont know how many times I said "we need your support"....WTF else do you want?

Falconis
06-16-2011, 2:56 PM
Ok so it's clear to you. It wasn't to me. I am not over sensitive, but it was still unclear.

I thought I was here supporting you guys. I'm donating money, well that's all I am doing at this point other than disagreeing with some people on some subjects. What else you want from me?

Falconis
06-16-2011, 3:01 PM
ohh as far as what I want, start another thread entirely about union support about 2A rights and list which laws were supported by what unions. This thread has gone WAY WAY off track.

Untamed1972
06-16-2011, 3:05 PM
Ok so it's clear to you. It wasn't to me. I am not over sensitive, but it was still unclear.

I thought I was here supporting you guys. I'm donating money, well that's all I am doing at this point other than disagreeing with some people on some subjects. What else you want from me?

How about some ackowledgement that "professional support" or "professional opinion" on a topic tends to carry more weight then just the support/opinion of the general public?

And yeah....maybe I'm dreaming that a pro-2A LEO organization could be developed, but if there are anti-groups why couldn't there be a pro-group?

If the voters are ultimately responsible for these bad laws as is often stated.....then who is responsible for the continued existence/power of anti-2A unions?

Falconis
06-16-2011, 3:10 PM
since you won't give me what I asked for, another thread or continued discussion in a PM, why should I answer any of that?

Falconis
06-16-2011, 3:16 PM
Guess I can answer those questions now since you wont start another thread.

Sure it does, but it also depends. Apparently all the 2A support given already by "professionals" has amounted to squat regarding anti gun laws. Want to give me that?

There is, but there are also obstacles. Finding the people to lead it, monetary issues, but most importantly, finding the right people to lead it. I think we can both imagine the obstacles in that.

Unions come and go along with the opinions of the leadership of said unions. If a union supported a bad 2A law, it was bad timing. If the mindset permeates for long periods of time, it's probably the fault of the city and the chief. City is anti 2A. They hire a Chief that will probably agree with them. He has final word on all hires. Guess which end of the pool he will hire from? Guess how those people will vote when it comes time to vote in new union leadership.

Sometimes, you just cant change anyone's mind.

Trailboss60
06-16-2011, 3:21 PM
It is really ridiculous that they even refer to an AR as an "assault weapon"...hell if it isn't full auto, it sure as hell isn't an assault weapon. But that's what happens when you get knuckledragging communist's drafting laws.

My solution was to move out of Ca., and I have never once regretted my decision...it is amazingly different in a free state....the mindset of the citizen and the LEO's as it pertains to firearms is quite a contrast, Sheriff Arpaio gladly signed off on my NFA form.

When I lived in Hollister, the sheriff sneered at me when I asked for a ccw application.
:rolleyes:

Falconis
06-16-2011, 3:24 PM
It is really ridiculous that they even refer to an AR as an "assault weapon"...hell if it isn't full auto, it sure as hell isn't an assault weapon. But that's what happens when you get knuckledragging communist's drafting laws.

My solution was to move out of Ca., and I have never once regretted my decision...it is amazingly different in a free state....the mindset of the citizen and the LEO's as it pertains to firearms is quite a contrast, Sheriff Arpaio gladly signed off on my NFA form.

When I lived in Hollister, the sheriff sneered at me when I asked for a ccw application.
:rolleyes:

LMAO, after that hell's angels incident, are you surprised? Well that and this being Ca.

Bhobbs
06-16-2011, 3:28 PM
LMAO, after that hell's angels incident, are you surprised? Well that and this being Ca.

You find it funny that a person is denied a means to protect themselves because of some criminal activity?

Trailboss60
06-16-2011, 3:29 PM
LMAO, after that hell's angels incident, are you surprised? Well that and this being Ca.

Not sure which Hells angel incident it was, I moved in 05...I might understand if I was a Hell's angel, but I wasn't...hadn't so much as had a traffic ticket in over ten years.

Sheriff Hill is a turd....I guess he did everyone a favor and moved on.

Falconis
06-16-2011, 3:42 PM
I think it was from the 60's or 70's. It was a big deal back then and still has some reverberations today. It was meant more as a joke.

Falconis
06-16-2011, 3:42 PM
You find it funny that a person is denied a means to protect themselves because of some criminal activity?

Can you put what I said in context and just accept it as a joke.

Trailboss60
06-16-2011, 3:52 PM
I think it was from the 60's or 70's. It was a big deal back then and still has some reverberations today. It was meant more as a joke.

I know what you are talking about...actually it took place in the forties and it wasn't the Hell's angel's, just a bunch of drunk bikers that Life magazine overdramatized, and was the seed that set the stage for "The wild ones".

Falconis
06-16-2011, 5:07 PM
ahhh ok. I for some reason thought there was a hell's angel event centered in Hollister. BTW, I in no way meant to cast aspirations on you. Like I said, just a joke. Figured the Sheriff, if he remembers history is probably still shell shocked.

Falconis
06-16-2011, 5:32 PM
Sorry missed this one. Didnt meant to leave you out.

Who has said that? Answer nobody.

Ok, i'll admit, maybe I did read into something elsewhere. But I know I read exemption here somewhere. Could have been a PM. You may be right. I can't find the thread where I answered to that, but it's been a long argument


Without compensation? Where has that been discussed? The LEO would have to be compensated for the rifle.

I know of a few departments operating this way. Sell it, give it to us, or get rid of it are the options. But with all the people I have talked to, compensation by anyone was never brought up.

Anti-cop rhetoric rants? Or more accurately people don’t agree with you so they must be anti-cop rhetoric rants, right? :rolleyes:

Nope. I don't feel that way at all. And there are enough rants here that are blatantly anti LEO. I'm sure we both feel the way we do due to certain experiences.

sandman21
06-16-2011, 6:04 PM
Ok, i'll admit, maybe I did read into something elsewhere. But I know I read exemption here somewhere. Could have been a PM. You may be right. I can't find the thread where I answered to that, but it's been a long argument
Acceptable we all make mistakes, the poster you quoted and nobody in this thread has as well.
I know of a few departments operating this way. Sell it, give it to us, or get rid of it are the options. But with all the people I have talked to, compensation by anyone was never brought up.
There is nothing the department can do, they can't take it without compensation. I am well aware that some departments try to scare LEO into giving them the RAW, after all if you give it to them they didn't take it without compensation. ;)
Nope. I don't feel that way at all. And there are enough rants here that are blatantly anti LEO. I'm sure we both feel the way we do due to certain experiences.
Blatantly anti LEO here? Are you including me in that category as well? You don't know my experiences LEO, you are completely wrong in your assumption.

1911su16b870
06-16-2011, 6:19 PM
Trying to clarify the OP...
1) retired LE with registered AW for his dept,
2) the dept he retired from and whom issues him his retired LE ID
3) has told him (setting dept policy) to dispose of his registered AW and
4) provide proof of doing so.
This goes beyond the AG opinion [which is legally ambiguous and unenforceable]. Now 3) and 4) happen or 2) is in jeopardy.

Falconis
06-16-2011, 6:22 PM
There is nothing the department can do, they can't take it without compensation. I am well aware that some departments try to scare LEO into giving them the RAW, after all if you give it to them they didn't take it without compensation. ;)

I know that. I was arguing the specific point that some people here think Officers should just give up their rifles for whatever reason they stated. This thread has twisted and turned and eventually devolved into what it is into now.

[QUOTE=sandman21;6605897Blatantly anti LEO here? Are you including me in that category as well? You don't know my experiences LEO, you are completely wrong in your assumption[/QUOTE]

Never said it was you in particular. Just said some threads here are blatantly anti LEO. I can accept some people won't agree with me. Most people don't agree with me on some issues. Especially with me thinking it's a good idea to be emporer of the world.

and you're right, I don't know you.

Meplat
06-16-2011, 7:22 PM
Decided to ignore the posts about where some departments couldn't afford the rifles for their officers and the posts about fair compensation. Or the other people using loopholes to obtain AW permits in the state.

Tell me, does your job require you to arrest or neutralize armed suspects of crimes?

Well, I'm retired now but most of my working life was spent doing work that is a lot more dangerous than LE. I don't expect special privileges as a result. It is irrelevant to rights. I ounce used high explosives on a daily bases. Should I still be able to walk into a hardware store and buy dynamite? Yes! (And so should you!) But not because I used it on the job, or because I had a dangerous job. It's because prior restraint is wrong. By the same token, there should be no restrictions on you possessing an "AW", not because you are a cop, but because you are an American, with god given rights! And there should be none on me either.

It should be evident by now that LE has an image problem. And not just here. That last line of the post may be a valuable clue why. It's not a good idea to start taking your own press or yourself too seriously.

Now, please understand that I have not read the entire thread or the post to which this was a response. This is not in support of that poster, or in opposition to you. I support you. We must all hang together or we will most assuredly hang separately (don't remember witch of the FFs said that and I aint gonna look it up right now). But LEOs sure are hard to love sometimes. I guess warm and fuzzy aint their long suite. ;)

Falconis
06-16-2011, 7:37 PM
I never argued for taking away arms from anyone. I actually believe the AWB should be abolished as a whole.

I am arguing for the ability for LEO's to keep their AR's after retirement despite the desires of others on this board.

Thanks to Gene and crew, the argument is moot as a whole.

Meplat
06-16-2011, 8:26 PM
What most calgunners forget is that those of us who are still employed do not have full first amendment rights. We can be fired if we speak in a manner that impacts the operations of the government entity we work for.

You are not at all unique in that regard. You may think you are, but you are not. I was under the same restrictions for most of my life, and still am to some degree. When in collage my son was fired from Home Depot for saying something his supervisor thought cast the company in a bad light. Any employer can do this.


Plus, our unions generally focus on wage and benefit issues+ most gunny cops are not usually big union guys.

Maybe this will get them to rethink that. I hope so. If you have to be in it you might as well try to have some say in it.


Mike is a solid 2nd amendment guy, NRA member and the maker of the only slings I put on my Precision rifles.

He complied with the law, played by the rules all his life and attempted to be a good cop who bought the rifles his mission required but department wouldn't buy.

I very much support him and all you guys. But this is a chance to experience how the little people are treated.


Please remember that most working cops can't comment on the current state of CA law or what we would do if we found an otherwise honest guy carrying illegally, or someone who was misinformed and accidentally made an illegal AW that we saw at the range, etc.

I know that. As I have been the beneficiary of several looks the other way, before I got a CCW. All circumstances have their perks, being a doctor, or a butcher, or a cop, or just being fat and fifty and clean cut. That is why I actually like cops, most I’ve met both personally and in the line of duty are very decent folks.


Every cop knows gun laws are the functional equivalent of trying to stop drunk driving by banning sober drivers from owning cars.

I hope the courts restore sanity to the mess that is CA gun laws and someday we can all just argue about 9 vs 45, instead of us vs them.

No matter what the courts do it will still be up to us to learn how to get along.

locosway
06-16-2011, 8:26 PM
I never argued for taking away arms from anyone. I actually believe the AWB should be abolished as a whole.

I am arguing for the ability for LEO's to keep their AR's after retirement despite the desires of others on this board.

Thanks to Gene and crew, the argument is moot as a whole.

I don't think anyone wants to see another person, including a LEO lose their property. In fact, I don't even recall anyone alluding to that.

Falconis
06-16-2011, 9:04 PM
Not here and maybe nobody directly said it on this thread. I'll even admit I may have even read into something way more than what was written.

Meplat
06-16-2011, 10:43 PM
Brown was actually legally correct in his opinion letter and past DOJ behaviors were incorrect.

We've been seeking "rule of law" as opposed to random noise/FUD/desk clerk opinion from DOJ FD/BoF for years.

There is a right way to fix this and it's not an accidental feel good-we-luv-cops memo from DOJ..

I agree, but a last day opinion. I hope LE never supports him again. And I'm OK with brown, just can't trust politicians in general.

Meplat
06-16-2011, 10:48 PM
They're cops. The law doesn't apply to them. Just ask them.

( If somebody feels the above is bashing, let me say that at the time all AW's were supposed to be registered, the answer I got from cop friends when I asked if they'd registered their AR's was, "I'm a cop. That law doesn't apply to me.")

I don't call it bashing, I call it envy and while I can understand it, it is counter productive. We need to be bigger people than that.

locosway
06-16-2011, 10:50 PM
I don't call it bashing, I call it envy and while I can understand it, it is counter productive. We need to be bigger people than that.

I wouldn't call it envy, at least I don't feel that I'm envious of a LEO. Instead I feel frustrated that there is a group of people who're above normal law.

Meplat
06-16-2011, 10:50 PM
Hopefully

Don't hold your breath!

Bhobbs
06-16-2011, 10:54 PM
Don't hold your breath!

Oh I'm not. If I was I would have died a long time ago.

Meplat
06-16-2011, 11:08 PM
Out of m (not right)

Being treated like a civilian = priceless

Is that harsh?

Oh, come on. If your rights are violated that does not mean you should cheer when others are!

Meplat
06-16-2011, 11:27 PM
Nope. Way I see it, Most RAW (police) owners who have a rifle by name will ship it out of state (presumably to the one they are moving to). The cops who do not have a personally owned RAW never cared to begin with. The ones staying in the state will either fight ( and are probably here now) or will just give it up and find an alternate means to deal with the issue. Either way, the gloating does nothing but help distance you and them and probably drive away any help they could provide.

True. And a big problem, we need to stick together.


Now the question I want to ask is for those of you "gloating". How do you guys justify gloating when any law abiding member of society gets a 2A right taken away from them?

Very short sighted!


Granted cops were exempted from most weapons laws due to a bonafide needs argument. They used the equipment and in this specific case paid for it so that they could have a tool that assists them in going home in one piece every night. Cops aren't in the "class" where they paid 50 grand to a Sheriff's campaign fund to get a badge and a CCW. Most cops who do get an AR, are using that thing and earning their keep with it. I know some here will disagree. Can anyone say that a cop doesn't need an AR for duty use? Hollywood bank robbery comes to mind.

I don’t think that LAPD would allow their officers to have AR-15s at that time, no matter who owned it. But a small department without room in the budgit, I see that.

Also does anyone think it's hypocritical that they want cops stripped of their AR's but want to buy it themselves? The, if I can't have my ball then no one should argument? Reason I bring this up is one of the best ways to beat a group, even a small group, is to first fracture them best you can. We seem to be doing that without any additional help from anyone.

Too true.


Anyhow, sorry if some of the above parts seem incoherent. It's 2 AM and I probably shouldn't be typing anything right now.

Another point to consider, any cop that doesnt come here and "join the fight" may go elsewhere, hire a lawyer who is less than capable and set more bad precedent.

Good point.

Stryprod
06-16-2011, 11:36 PM
Oh, come on. If your rights are violated that does not mean you should cheer when others are!

Let me preface that I have had a few birthday celebratory drinks tonight, so I am in no condition to spout Shakespearean prose.

That being said.... SIGH.............

Have you read the rest of my posts or the thread for that matter? You are going full circle back to post #39 out of 188. Might there be some explanation in between?

Meplat
06-16-2011, 11:41 PM
I understand your position but two wrongs do not make a right. Pun Intended.I don't think it's gloating to take away an exemption that shouldn't exsist. I don't want cops stripped of their 2A but I don't want them to get an extra special deal because they are cops. They should have to deal with the laws just like the rest of us. If they buy an AR15 for duty use and have it registered because they need it for duty use, when they retire they no longer have the need for the AR15 and should give it up.

locosway
06-16-2011, 11:42 PM
I understand your position but two wrongs do not make a right. Pun Intended.

If you removed all of the exemptions for LEO's you would see these laws be repealed literally overnight. The law should apply equally to everyone.

Meplat
06-16-2011, 11:45 PM
I would bet that the legislature will fix this in short order. It would be nice to get a little something out of this for the rest of us. Like another "registration" window.

The telling of police officers they could keep their guns was the underground regulation.

It's really now a detrimental reliance situation, with a further problem of legal nebulousness since appears is no way to pull the registration, but it does become invalid - this is a real clusterfluck due to a mix of poorly structured law in combination with past regulatory screwup. And the AG opinion letter was based on the Silviera case, so the legal flow is correct.

Stryprod
06-16-2011, 11:48 PM
....two wrongs do not make a right....

... nor does one wrong make a right.

Meplat
06-16-2011, 11:52 PM
While a few of you are your high freakin horse about how LE has rolled over for suspension of your 2/4a rights. How about a few go dig up the old NRA Commercial/Documentary of the assault weapon laws of Cal, where my smling LE face was intereviewed when this happened back in the 1990s and I told the world what dumb law it was to begin with. Not to mention all the regular Joes I have trained in use of weapons for self protection. F me when did being a cop be a bad thing?

That said once law is in effect I follow the law. That said I never once made an arrest for violation of the assualt weapons law. I did put some dirt bags in jail for using stolen guns though.

I will just sell these out of state. I had hoped for constructive work here but obviously we can not band together.

Yes we can! Take a deep breath. Don't do anything foolish. This will be fixed, and I hope CGF will help.

Meplat
06-17-2011, 12:25 AM
I justify “gloating” because, as the law stands now, he is not having his 2A rights taken away. He should have never had an AW to take home just like the rest of us according to the law, however dumb that law is. I am not advocating taking his AR away nor am I the person doing it, but a lot of us will find it “funny” that RLEO now have to play in the same mud as the rest of us.

Yes he should have had an AW. And you should have also, if you wanted one. Envy is a terrible thing. We must get past it and band together. You must realize that this may lead LEOs to understand the plight of the rest of us, and we need to get over it real soon and take them into the foal.


But to say cops are not in a “class” of one sect ignores the fact that they have been in a different “class” before. Had they not, this situation would not be currently occurring.

Who is talking about cops not having ARs while on duty? We are talking about a RLEO. I think a better question to ask would be to a current LEO if he thinks civilians have a right to an AR to protect themselves.
Many cops think they are in a “special” class, let this sink in and let them see the light before you start dancing on the grave of their “special” status.

Yes we all want that utopian promise land where we can all buy awesome guns.

We have been fighting up a hill to reach that pinnacle of utopian 2A rights while in the meantime the majority (not all like TacticalIntervention but most) of those closer to the top, LEO, legislature, et al, have been throwing boulders of harassment down upon us. Suddenly LEO starts tumbling down too. I’m sorry but I just have to laugh, say “hurts doesn’t it?” and then dust them off and say “want to join?”

Just as much as the calling is on us to be “better than that” RLEO also needs to eat a helpful serving of grandma’s humble pie. All will manifest as such in short time once they realize that despite a good laugh or two, we welcome them to the club. [/QUOTE]

Meplat
06-17-2011, 12:57 AM
Ultimately if this goes anywhere, it should be a mere stepping stone to get rid of the AWB altogether.

Here, Here!

Falconis
06-17-2011, 1:37 AM
If you removed all of the exemptions for LEO's you would see these laws be repealed literally overnight. The law should apply equally to everyone.

I would have to disagree with you. I could be wrong however. I think there is enough hatred of firearms in (MOST)California liberal politicians that they'll continue to just outright ban it and come up with a tax or find money elsewhere to fund departments that don't have them. Instead of coming out of my pocket, it'll come out of everybody's little by little. Atleast that's how I have surveyed California Liberal Politics in my life.

I said this in a PM, AWB sucks and the exemptions do cause a lot of grief apparently. But the exemption was a band aid to a bad law. Was the exemption needed? I think yes. Some here think no. We will all disagree for a number of reasons no matter what is said or presented. Goes back to my argument of the AR being a needed tool for law enforcement work. Again, band aid for a bad law.

Now do I think Brown was right in his entire opinion? Nahh, just on general principal. I still have to read it in detail. Do I think he was right on the legislature's intent? Ohh hell yes. I do believe the legislature wanted no civilian in the world to own an AR or AK or hell, anything that has a pistol grip. Still unsure of flintlocks.

All bias aside, if I were joe blow electrician or computer programmer, I would want the retire LEO's to be able to keep their AR's just to stick in the craw of the legislatures that passed this bill and especially in light of Brown's opinion piece.

Meplat
06-17-2011, 4:26 PM
I think it was from the 60's or 70's. It was a big deal back then and still has some reverberations today. It was meant more as a joke.

I think it actually goes all the way back to the 50's. The movie "Rebel Without a Cause" with Brando was inspired by the incident.

Meplat
06-17-2011, 4:49 PM
Guilty! Had not read the whole thread at that time.

Let me preface that I have had a few birthday celebratory drinks tonight, so I am in no condition to spout Shakespearean prose.

That being said.... SIGH.............

Have you read the rest of my posts or the thread for that matter? You are going full circle back to post #39 out of 188. Might there be some explanation in between?

Meplat
06-17-2011, 5:03 PM
If you removed all of the exemptions for LEO's you would see these laws be repealed literally overnight.

I am not quite sure by what mechanism you invasion this happening. The legislature sure does not seem to be riding to their rescue with any enthusiasm on this one. Seems like the politicians don’t really give a rat’s burrow about them.

The law should apply equally to everyone.

No argument there.

Tacticalintervention
06-17-2011, 5:05 PM
The only thing special about me is my wife says my poop smells worse than anyone else on the planet.

I learned from this experience and plan on doing everything I can to fight against these AW laws continuing in Cal.

We need to get our state back

Terminator2
07-26-2011, 1:36 PM
Here is the legal opinion from the Cal Peace Officers Association team:


"Brought to you by California Peace Officers' Association
January 11, 2011
From: Martin J. Mayer, Esq., The Law Firm of Jones & Mayer
POSSESSION OF AN ASSAULT RIFLE BY AN OFFICER AFTER RETIREMENT IS NOT
PERMITTED
On December 31, 2010, the California Attorney General issued a long awaited
official, published, opinion (No. 09-901) answering the question of whether a
retired peace officer can keep an assault rifle he or she lawfully purchased and
registered while serving as an active law enforcement officer?
The conclusion reached by the Attorney General is that “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 posses the assault weapon
after retirement.” (Emphasis added.)
In an in-depth and extensive legal opinion, the Attorney General addresses all
issues contained in the underlying question. The question was originally posed by,
now retired, San Diego Sheriff Bill Kolender and was re-submitted by current Sheriff
William D. Gore.
[Pursuant to a request from the Office of the Attorney General (AG) for input from
the California State Sheriffs’ Association (CSSA), this firm, as general counsel to
CSSA, submitted a legal analysis in December of 2009 to the AG, reaching the
same conclusion now set forth in AG Opinion No. 09-901. Our conclusion was that
“the Assault Weapons Control Act (AWCA) provides for a general prohibition on
assault weapons within the state of California which become applicable –
subsequent to retirement – to a peace officer who lawfully purchased and
registered an assault weapon while an active sworn member of a law enforcement
agency.”]
Assault Weapons Control Act (AWCA)
The Attorney General points out that the general purpose of the AWCA [Penal Code
sections 12275-12290], as set forth when the act was amended in 1999, was to
“ban all assault weapons, regardless of their name, model number, or manufacture.
It is the purpose of this act to effectively achieve the Legislature’s intent to prohibit
all assault weapons.”
The Opinion sets forth the various exceptions to what, otherwise, appears to be a
virtual total ban on such weapons. Among those exceptions is one for peace
officers using such weapons for law enforcement purposes. PC 12280(f)(1) allows
officers from designated law enforcement agencies to possess and use the agency’s
assault weapons for law enforcement purposes.
The Attorney General also notes a second exception, PC 12280(f)(2), which permits
an officer employed by one of the designated agencies to purchase an assault
weapon if “the employer authorizes the officer to possess the weapon and the
officer registers the weapon within a specified time period.”
Silveira v. Lockyer
In 2002, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals issued a ruling in the case of
Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052, wherein the Court “struck down a provision that
was similar to what is now section 12280(f)(1)….” The AG notes that “the Silveira
court reasoned that, because retired peace officers no longer served in any law
enforcement capacity, their possession of assault weapons did not advance a
legitimate state interest.”
Subsequent to that decision, the state Legislature amended the AWCA and deleted
the retired officer’s exception. The AG Opinion cites to the amending legislation
which stated that, “it is the intent of the Legislature in amending Section 12280 of
the Penal Code to delete the exemption allowing retired peace officers to obtain an
assault weapon from their employing agency upon retirement.”
As such, states the AG, “since the retired officer exemption has been removed from
the statute, it is evident that a peace officer to whom an employer-owned assault
weapon is assigned pursuant to (f)(1) must return the weapon to the employing
agency upon retirement. This conclusion comports with the language of the
statute, and is compelled by Silveira.”
Financial Expense Incurred by Officer
An issue of “fairness” has been raised in the past regarding the fact that an officer
has spent his or her own funds to purchase the weapon and the compelled return of
it would be unfair. The AG’s Opinion addresses this issue as well.
“[W]e do not believe that the fact that a peace officer may have spent his or her
own money to buy an assault weapon under subdivision (f)(2) makes this situation
materially different from the issue decided in Silveira. The Silveira case stands
squarely for the proposition that the continued possession of assault weapons by
retired peace officers does not serve law enforcement purposes and is therefore
inconsistent with the legislative purpose of the Act, which is to eliminate the
availability of assault weapons generally. The source of funds for the purchase of a
weapon is not relevant to the issue of whether its possession may be justified on
law enforcement grounds.”
The AG also points out that a retired officer who lawfully owned the weapon prior to
the Act, and had timely registered it, would be “grandfathered” in, as would any
other private citizen who met those requirements.
Post Silveira Cases
The Attorney General also addresses the fact that two recent decisions from the
United States Supreme Court have been issued regarding the Second Amendment
and an individual’s right to bear arms.
In the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, (2008) 554 U.S. 570, the Supreme
Court held that the Second Amendment allows the possession of guns in one’s
home for personal protection and struck down the District of Columbia’s laws which
banned such possession.
In the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, (2010) 130 S.Ct. 3020, the Supreme
Court ruled that the Second Amendment applied to the states and, therefore,
complete bans on possessing weapons was unconstitutional.
However, in both the Heller case and the McDonald case, the Supreme Court stated
that the right to keep and bear arms was not unlimited. States still have the right
to reasonably regulate the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. In
McDonald, the Court stated that the right “was not a right to keep and carry any
weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
HOW THIS AFFECTS YOUR AGENCY
As stated in the AG’s Opinion, “our examination of the language of the Act, the
legislative history of the Act, and the Silveira case all persuade us that a peace
officer who has purchased and registered an assault weapon as an active duty
officer no longer comes within any of the Act’s exceptions upon his or her
retirement ….”

If an agency has allowed officers to retain such weapons after retirement, this
Opinion, along with the statute and case law, appears to conclude that such action
is unlawful. Official opinions of the Attorney General do not constitute the “law,”
however, in California, official opinions of the Attorney General are given great
weight by appellate courts when addressing issues contained in those opinions.

As in all matters involving the law, it is important that you receive advice and
guidance from your agency’s designated legal counsel. In this situation, in
particular, such advice and guidance is imperative.

Information on www.jones-mayer.com is for general use and is not legal advice.
The mailing of this Client Alert Memorandum is not intended to create, and receipt
of it does not constitute an attorney-client relationship."

I've an idea...donate the assault weapon to your local PD or S/O and take a tax deduction on your state and fed tax return!