PDA

View Full Version : LEO reg'd AWs: one smoking gun DOJ memo....


bwiese
10-06-2011, 12:26 PM
As you know, many many CA LEOs are irritated about issues with LE-registered AW status vs.
retirement or other separation.

[There are significant questions about valid registration status after lateral transfers, as well, as
the agency chief's letter recommending officer for AW purchase eligibility - and triggering DOJ LEO
registration - can't speak for the officer in employ of a future department.]

Former Attorney General Jerry Brown (now governor), in his Opinion Letter #09-901, 31 Dec 2010,
summarized, "A peace officer who purchases and registers an assault weapon in order to use the
weapon for law enforcement purposes is not permitted to continue to possess the assault weapon
after retirement."

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

This is legally correct based on the controlling Siliveira holding (and equal protection matters), even
if the result is unfortuantely distasteful for LEOs.

Now, do note these individuals purchased expensive rifles on their own nickel for duty use - easily
$1000 or even $1500. Remember, there is substantial markup necessary from FFLs also holding a
DOJ AW Permit given the DOJ fee structure for such dealers (along with general extra DOJ-driven
overhead required to run such an operation).

These individuals also followed (and were generally departmentally required to do so!) their agencies'
armorers' recommendations for make/model (and any other configuration) as well. Some of this had
to do with perceived quality, some of this had to do with the existing fleet of agency guns: having all
the same make/model allows graceful parts substitution, inventory and administration. Thus, the
majority of LEO AW purchases were 'banned-by-name' models from Colt, Bushmaster and Armalite.

These individuals were often promised by both DOJ (and their agency) that they could keep their
LE-registered semiautos past their retirement/separation date.

Here's one 'smoking gun' DOJ letter from Deputy AG Alison Merrilees, speaking (writing) for Atty General
Bill Lockyer. It was written to the West Covina Chief of Police, Frank Wills, in January 2006. Note that this
was substantially after the date of the Silviera ruling (2002) and some related legislative cleanup emanating
from that.

http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/DOJ-LEO-AW-Seperation-Letter-2006-01-20.pdf
January 20, 2006

Dear Chief Wills:

I am writing in response to an inquiry from your office about whether officers who separate from your
department may legally retain assault weapons that are registered in their names. Under the provisions
of Penal Code section 12280(e) and (f), officers who separate from employment by a law enforcement
agency may retain assault weapons that are legally possessed pursuant to Penal Code 12285, as long as
they are not prohibited by law from possessing firearms.

I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely,
(signature)
Alison Merrilees
Deputy Attorney General
For .
Bill Lockyer
Attorney General

taperxz
10-06-2011, 12:32 PM
Wow! How does this play out after AG Browns letter though? What tangled web is this?

chead
10-06-2011, 12:33 PM
This actually isn't very heartening, because frankly I want LEO agencies to abide (mostly) by the same gun laws citizens follow. Because they are citizens too.

Obviously a Plant
10-06-2011, 12:36 PM
Underground legislation? Or just the rare definitive statement from the AG (& DOJ) regarding assault weapons...

taperxz
10-06-2011, 12:38 PM
This actually isn't very heartening, because frankly I want LEO agencies to abide (mostly) by the same gun laws citizens follow. Because they are citizens too.

This posted shares two different AG opinions that contradict each other.

bwiese
10-06-2011, 12:40 PM
This is an example of a bad (political) attorney vs. good attorney (what the textual + case law says).

This is creating a major ruckus in various spheres and will require cleanup.

A politically well-organized group of folks, having dealt with some other issues (cutbacks, pensions, etc.) on their plates is now not taking the prospective loss of $1500 guns too well at all. They are realizing some common ground with other interest groups.

There will be many, many, many things that need to be considered in cleanup for it to even take place.

If an LEO has an LEO-reg'd AW, does a later transfer to another dept, and still retains his AW (without permission from new agency), are his arrests and testimony valid?

1JimMarch
10-06-2011, 12:40 PM
Well the point here is that these guys are being entrapped. They have a 2006-era memo that says they can, when prior court rulings and law say they can't.

It means several things:

* The law in this whole area is now thoroughly polluted with convoluted crap to a point where even the cops can't get it right for their own needs.

* Any cop they try and prosecute after retirement with an "AW" can probably get off given the existence of this letter.

bwiese
10-06-2011, 12:44 PM
This posted shares two different AG opinions that contradict each other.

There is one "true", formal AG opinion - based on correct textual & case law (Brown's).
It stands on its mere merits.

There is the other - an informal 'statement of position' from a Deputy AG not doing much
analysis and going out on a limb and yet giving a 'go' to an agency. That (and many other
similar) letter is the one that cause the real problem. It does not necessarily carry the
significant 'weight' of a formal opinion letter but shows agency/personality position and
was the cause of various actions. Do note it happened several years after Silviera so
even allowance slow agency reaction time to new court holdings is irrelevant.

bwiese
10-06-2011, 12:46 PM
* The law in this whole area is now thoroughly polluted with convoluted crap to a point where even the cops can't get it right for their own needs.


And yet the DOJ in various behaviors on other matters says AW laws are clear enough no further clarifications are needed.

Note that they are not 'pulling registrations' - though invalid - which seems strange since it's significantly operationally flawed.

If you used an invalid document to get a gov't license, once DMV knows & determines that document is invalid, do you
think they allow you to maintain licensure?


* Any cop they try and prosecute after retirement with an "AW" can probably get off given the existence of this letter.Yes.

But don't expect a local DA who pops a retired LEO for, say, DV, to not still bring AW charges.

taperxz
10-06-2011, 12:49 PM
Got ya

eville
10-06-2011, 12:49 PM
oops... conflicting opinions...

jdberger
10-06-2011, 12:52 PM
There is one "true", formal AG opinion - based on correct textual & case law (Brown's).
It stands on its mere merits.

There is the other - an informal 'statement of position' from a Deputy AG not doing much
analysis and going out on a limb and yet giving a 'go' to an agency. That (and many other
similar) letter is the one that cause the real problem. It does not necessarily carry the
significant 'weight' of a formal opinion letter but shows agency/personality position and
was the cause of various actions. Do note it happened several years after Silviera so
even allowance slow agency reaction time to new court holdings is irrelevant.

Right - remember the "but 58 DA's might see things differently" comments from the same source.

Ron-Solo
10-06-2011, 12:52 PM
They are just opinions, not law. Everyone has an opinion.

bwiese
10-06-2011, 12:58 PM
They are just opinions, not law. Everyone has an opinion.

A formal AG opinion letter holds great weight in courts. Relatively few are invalidated.

Also, they're usually the product of much better analysis & cross-checking than, say, 'position letter' materials. I will note that (1) Brown is an able lawyer, and (2) the opinion letter's creation was also the product of Diane Eisenberg. She's one of the pro staff lawyers from 'regular DOJ' that does real trial work as opposed the admin Dept AGs in bureaus. (Dept AGs in bureaus don't generally run trial work.)

It's very safe to say that if an AG opinion letter recommends one conduct "A" - and precludes another conduct "B" - one should be very, very wary of getting in court for "B". At best the case is gonna run all the way up the chain.

jdberger
10-06-2011, 1:00 PM
Unfortunately, the opinion of the Chief LEO in the state does carry some weight.

Comments like the above embolden folks to disregard an important opinion. Flippantly stating that the AG's opinion is nothing more weighty than a offhand remark is dangerous. The AG's opinion is a guideline for local departments and more importantly local DAs. The Attorney General is the highest ranking LEO in the State. Forum members are encouraging LEO retirees to simply ignore what amount to "pre-litigation" letters from their former departments. Not a single one of those letters that I've seen contained a caveat stating that compliance with the AG's opinion was optional. Forum members, by encouraging retirees and future retirees to ignore the AG opinion are giving bad advice - and it has the potential to be pretty costly.

What's going to happen is that some poor retired cop is going to get nailed on a DV issue and the police are going to find his AR that he bought on Department letterhead for "duty use". Then one of the 58 DAs is gonna take a look and see if that guy got a "pre-litigation letter" from his department informing him that his AW was now illegal - and someone's going to try to make an example of him because it makes a good news story.

It's time to engage this with a little more seriousness.

Bhobbs
10-06-2011, 1:04 PM
This actually isn't very heartening, because frankly I want LEO agencies to abide (mostly) by the same gun laws citizens follow. Because they are citizens too.

Fixed

bwiese
10-06-2011, 1:10 PM
To bhobbs, chead, and other similar commenters above:

Please look upon my comments as not in recommendation for special status for retirees, but as recognition of a much larger problem that requires multiple communities to align and find common ground to protect their interests.

cmaynes
10-06-2011, 1:10 PM
This is an example of a bad (political) attorney vs. good attorney (what the textual + case law says).

This is creating a major ruckus in various spheres and will require cleanup.

A politically well-organized group of folks, having dealt with some other issues (cutbacks, pensions, etc.) on their plates is now not taking the prospective loss of $1500 guns too well at all. They are realizing some common ground with other interest groups.

There will be many, many, many things that need to be considered in cleanup for it to even take place.

If an LEO has an LEO-reg'd AW, does a later transfer to another dept, and still retains his AW (without permission from new agency), are his arrests and testimony valid?


Is there a 14th Amendment angle to this? It seems to be suggesting that retired LEO's are superior in gun rights to average law abiding citizens.... Am I mistaken on that?

jdberger
10-06-2011, 1:12 PM
To bhobbs, chead, and other similar commenters above:

Please look upon my comments as not in recommendation for special status for retirees, but as recognition of a much larger problem that requires multiple communities to align and find common ground to protect their interests.

Exactly. These LEOs paid out of their pockets for these rifles, they should be allowed to keep them. I'd like to see a bill opening AW registration for them.

taperxz
10-06-2011, 1:12 PM
To bhobbs, chead, and other similar commenters above:

Please look upon my comments as not in recommendation for special status for retirees, but as recognition of a much larger problem that requires multiple communities to align and find common ground to protect their interests.


In other words, vagueness of CA AW laws.

Bhobbs
10-06-2011, 1:13 PM
To bhobbs, chead, and other similar commenters above:

Please look upon my comments as not in recommendation for special status for retirees, but as recognition of a much larger problem that requires multiple communities to align and find common ground to protect their interests.

I know what you are saying and I agree. The whole system is so screwed up not even the people who made it can figure it out.

I think we would see much more progress if we had LEOs fighting with us instead of just enough to get their exemption. If they were forced to abide by the same laws we were it would make the laws much more vulnerable.

wash
10-06-2011, 1:29 PM
Chess not checkers everyone.

This conflict will likely be resolved positively.

sandman21
10-06-2011, 1:30 PM
They are just opinions, not law. Everyone has an opinion.

Didn’t you tell me something about “knowledge” and how obtaining it from books/reading is meaningless? Ever written or help write an opinion letter for the AG?


Unfortunately, the opinion of the Chief LEO in the state does carry some weight.

Comments like the above embolden folks to disregard an important opinion. Flippantly stating that the AG's opinion is nothing more weighty than a offhand remark is dangerous. The AG's opinion is a guideline for local departments and more importantly local DAs. The Attorney General is the highest ranking LEO in the State. Forum members are encouraging LEO retirees to simply ignore what amount to "pre-litigation" letters from their former departments. Not a single one of those letters that I've seen contained a caveat stating that compliance with the AG's opinion was optional. Forum members, by encouraging retirees and future retirees to ignore the AG opinion are giving bad advice - and it has the potential to be pretty costly.

What's going to happen is that some poor retired cop is going to get nailed on a DV issue and the police are going to find his AR that he bought on Department letterhead for "duty use". Then one of the 58 DAs is gonna take a look and see if that guy got a "pre-litigation letter" from his department informing him that his AW was now illegal - and someone's going to try to make an example of him because it makes a good news story.

It's time to engage this with a little more seriousness.

The last thread had a lot of discussion about what could or should happen, but I don’t think any really was suggesting completely ignoring a letter sent from the LEA (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=6605897#post6605897)

I hope that the CGF can help make this right, it going to be quite expensive to buy back the rifles from retired, fired, etc. LEO’s. Not only that but people are going to be losing property over a stupid unconstitutional law.

nicki
10-06-2011, 1:34 PM
A few years back the Brady Campaign filed a lawsuit to invalidate the late registrations of about 1500 to 2000 people.

Some superior court judge made the ruling, when Bill Lockyer became AG, he didn't appeal and he gave the brady campaign $100,000 in legal fees.:mad:

Before the expiration of the Fed AW bill, some manufacturers were considering not make any above 10 round mags because of increased production costs for limited run magazines.

For most of us, these gun laws are an annoyance. For LEOs, they threaten their careers.

We have LEOs on this board. Perhaps we should consider a petition drive in as many departments as we can to undo our stupid AW laws.

If they are say *** amount of LEOs and we get a large percentage to sign on, our position becomes their position.

Nicki

Nicki

dantodd
10-06-2011, 1:44 PM
Seems to me that a lot of agencies or the AG will ne making a lot of officers whole upon separation or the law will have to be changed to give everyone the same rights to possess said weapons. How painful will the payments be vs. The pain of repealing the Semi-auto ban in light of the ban being attacked and likely invalidated?

Bhobbs
10-06-2011, 2:18 PM
For most of us, these gun laws are an annoyance. For LEOs, they threaten their careers.

Nicki

Nicki

How so? LEO departments are exempt from most gun laws I can think of. Off duty LEOs should be subject to the same laws as non LEOs.

glbtrottr
10-06-2011, 2:23 PM
Double standard. Superior class of citizens.

Ubermcoupe
10-06-2011, 2:27 PM
So because there are so many conflicting reports and opposing official opinions the civilian AW cause is helped because CA cant keep their laws in order??? :confused:

dantodd
10-06-2011, 2:30 PM
A DA having the registration removed after the arrest would be looking for a new job fairly quickly.

Why do you say that? There was no mechanism for invalidating my lifetime "BFSC" but it is no longer any good for anything. There was no mechanism for invalidating Carry Licenses without revoking for cause but Sheriff Hutchins managed to expire a whole slew of OC LTCs.

Do you really think that the DoJ couldn't/wouldn't alter the system such that the CoP/Sheriff would have to sign off every X years on each AW Permit confirming the officer has not separated and is still using the weapon for Duty Use? If they aren't then their justification goes out the window and they may no longer possess the weapon as long as it is considered an "Assault Weapon" by CA.

zvardan
10-06-2011, 2:31 PM
If the law becomes unenforcable, then yes.

bwiese
10-06-2011, 2:33 PM
They would first have to remove the registration of the rifle before they could bring charges

If the registration is in fact invalid (regardless of DOJ action/nonaction) and dept letter is sent to officers about matters discussed in the Brown opinion letter, there are open questions as to chargeability.


DA having the registration removed after the arrest would be looking for a new job fairly quickly.

It's not about having the registration removed, it's whether it's even in force for a retiree (or lateral).

Bottom line, this is a huge ball of snakes that many people are worried about

BigDogatPlay
10-06-2011, 2:34 PM
In other words, vagueness of CA AW laws.

^^^This^^^

I would expect PORAC and RPOAC will be moving to get these issues addressed on behalf of their membership. There is a pretty good amount of angst / confusion in some circles of the LEO community already from what I hear, and this obvious dissonance between case law, a position from a Deputy AG and a formal opinion of the AG (the latter two are completely different animals in weight) puts LEOs who change employers (and it is in many ways a very transitory business) and retired LEO's at potential risk for felony charges because they are following the rules.

Constitutional vagueness, thy name is California.

dantodd
10-06-2011, 2:36 PM
So because there are so many conflicting reports and opposing official opinions the civilian AW cause is helped because CA cant keep their laws in order??? :confused:

Because AG Brown is probably right on the law BUT the AG's office gave contrary information that officers relied on in good faith the AG will likely have to compensate anyone who acquired a weapon before AG Brown's Opinion because the loss of the permit will be a governmental taking and since they were previously told that they wouldn't have to give up their weapons the officers are have a pecuniary interest in the permit.

Of course, the AG could just start ANYTHING as "good cause" to issue an AW Permit and then they'll be clear of Silviera issues because retired officers will not be getting special treatment. There is nothing in the law that says the AG can only issue permits to police and/or buddies.

I was wrong the AG can't do that under the current statutory scheme, it would require clean up legislation.

dantodd
10-06-2011, 2:37 PM
Currently the DOJ has no means to remove LEO registration because they are exactly the same as everyone else.

I don't see why you keep saying this. There is no part of the statute that says a permit cannot be revoked once "good cause" for the issuance of said permit is gone. In fact, the statute says that the permit is only valid for "(f)(1) Subdivision(s) (b) and (c) shall not prohibit the possession or use of assault weapons or a . 50 BMG rifle by sworn peace officer members of those agencies specified in subdivision (e) for law enforcement purposes, whether on or off duty." Once retired, the officer no longer meets this criteria. Even if the permit cannot be revoked the retiree no longer has the ability to use or possess the weapon because the weapon is only to be possessed/used "for law enforcement purposes" and the retiree no longer has any valid law enforcement use for the weapon.

BoonieGhost
10-06-2011, 2:42 PM
This actually isn't very heartening, because frankly I want LEO agencies to abide (mostly) by the same gun laws citizens follow. Because they are citizens too.

^^THIS^^

I agree... Cops are NO better than you, me or the next guy and should have to abide ALL laws we do. I also disagree with them being able to purchase high/standard cap mags for their own personal use when we cannot. LEO or not, they are still citizens and NOT military...if we cannot purchase highcap mags and have to use bullet buttons in this state, then so should they...

whats good for the goose is good for the gander...

taperxz
10-06-2011, 2:47 PM
So how do they fix this? HMMM!

I know, They open up another amnesty period for AW's for everyone. Everyone lists there OLL's, the state system breaks down from so many entries and time and money, the feds rule that evil rifles are in fact main stream (look whats happening at the CA amnesty period) rifles and are protected under the 2A nation wide. No more AW laws in CA:)

Just dreaming! Maybe not?

taperxz
10-06-2011, 2:48 PM
^^THIS^^

I agree... Cops are NO better than you, me or the next guy and should have to abide ALL laws we do. I do however disagree about them being able to purchase high/standard cap mags for their own personal use when we cannot. LEO or not they are still citizens and NOT military...if we cannot have highcaps in this state, then why can they...

I think you need to read AG Browns opinion.

Ubermcoupe
10-06-2011, 2:49 PM
So how do they fix this? HMMM!

I know, They open up another amnesty period for AW's for everyone.

That would be awesome.

bwiese
10-06-2011, 2:49 PM
First the registration has to be revoked prior to the arrest because the crime itself is possession of an UNREGISTERED assault weapon..

If the regsitration is not valid due to the above problems, it's unregistered.

If you lied on your application/cheated on your exam to be a licensed professional, that license is not valid even if you have it in hand. Conduct or work product of use that (mississued/fraudulent/invalid) license will have major complications should the invalidity be determined to have occurred before work started, etc.

zvardan
10-06-2011, 2:52 PM
I think in this instance, any opportunity we have to show just how (legally) convoluted these laws are, the greater chance we have of making it go away.

Ubermcoupe
10-06-2011, 2:57 PM
I think in this instance, any opportunity we have to show just how (legally) convoluted these laws are, the greater chance we have of making it go away.

I agree. :D

BigDogatPlay
10-06-2011, 3:00 PM
I don't see why you keep saying this. There is no part of the statute that says a permit cannot be revoked once "good cause" for the issuance of said permit is gone.

If the law does not forbid it, then such a revocation could be bootstrapped.

From PC 12280...

(2) Subdivisions (a), (b), and (c) shall not prohibit the delivery, transfer, or sale of an assault weapon or a .50 BMG rifle to, or the possession of an assault weapon or a .50 BMG rifle by, a sworn peace officer member of an agency specified in subdivision (e), provided that the peace officer is authorized by his or her employer to possess or receive the assault weapon or the .50 BMG rifle. Required authorization is defined as verifiable written certification from the head of the agency, identifying the recipient or possessor of the assault weapon as a peace officer and authorizing him or her to receive or possess the specific assault weapon.

The emphasis above is mine. But because the ability of the peace officer to purchase an AW rests upon the existence of authority granted by their employing agency, it can also be reasonably argued (in my non-lawyerly brain) that once the peace officer moves to a different agency quits the business or retires, that the original CLEO authorization is no longer valid. It would be up to their new employer to bless them again under that line of thinking. LEO's, like me, who early out and retirees could be screwed.

ETA: Note also that the statute extract says nothing about a registered AW. The statute calls, later on, for all such rifles after 2002 to be registered but the mere registration does not go to their ability to possess, particularly if they no longer are performing "law enforcement duties".

Now while the crime is possession of an unregistered AW, as Tyrist ably notes, I believe that the cessation of authority to possess terminates the ability to own or possess, and that the CADoJ could, essentially, tear up the registration and say "you better dispose of that rifle" because there is nothing in the law to prevent them from doing so.

Sure it would be litigated, but given the case law in Silveira and the AG's opinion over JB's signature, it might be a pretty tough row to hoe.

Not trying to be a ****, just playing a little devil's advocate.

dantodd
10-06-2011, 3:12 PM
Until the CADOJ sends out a notice they are tearing up and removing registrations from the system then the opinion is nothing.

That is true. This will either be litigated by someone demanding a permit on equal protection grounds because retired LEOs have them or it will be litigated because the AG proactively removes the registrations from the database and those who lose their permits will litigate.

Right now, there is no particular risk in using your registered firearm if you are a retired cop, IMO. As Bill noted if you end up in other gun drama expect an AW charge to be added on just so you can spend time and treasure defending against it.

wash
10-06-2011, 3:23 PM
I wonder if you found a former police officer at a range with a named "assault weapon" that you know he got after the ban started, could you perform a citizen's arrest?

Since it would not be lawful to take possession of the named "assault weapon" you might have to destroy it on the spot.

Does anyone have a set of the jaws of life?

BigDogatPlay
10-06-2011, 3:25 PM
Until the CADOJ sends out a notice they are tearing up and removing registrations from the system then the opinion is nothing.

While I agree with your take on CADoJ , I disagree in part.

When CLEOs start ordering that their officers being separated divest any AW purchased as a matter of policy, based on the published AG opinion, it's going to become a major pain. After all... what happens to us when we refuse to obey an order?

Chances are that act alone will compromise the entire registration system.

I agree.... very possible. The question them becomes does it open the system to new registrations, or close it forever to all... including peace officers. That is the end game, after all.

IPSICK
10-06-2011, 3:39 PM
Chess not checkers everyone...

Hopefully this is just more help for how to move and take advantage of the board.

Bhobbs
10-06-2011, 3:42 PM
I wonder if you found a former police officer at a range with a named "assault weapon" that you know he got after the ban started, could you perform a citizen's arrest?

Since it would not be lawful to take possession of the named "assault weapon" you might have to destroy it on the spot.

Does anyone have a set of the jaws of life?

Performing a citizens arrest on a LEO armed with an AR15 that isn't restricted by a BB or 10 round mags seems kind of risky.

Edit. Trying to perform a citizens arrest on any armed LEO seems like a bad idea.

Ubermcoupe
10-06-2011, 3:44 PM
Edit. Trying to perform a citizens arrest on any armed LEO seems like a bad idea.

:no: bad idea

attempting a citizens arrest on any armed person is also a no-no

Ubermcoupe
10-06-2011, 3:45 PM
Until the CADOJ sends out a notice they are tearing up and removing registrations from the system then the opinion is nothing. Chances are that act alone will compromise the entire registration system.

And if it compromises the registration system that can equate to fodder that will breach the AWB wall.

Window_Seat
10-06-2011, 4:02 PM
I've always said it, and will say it again, that retiring LEOs (and for the first time, lateral transfers of LEOs) having to relinquish theirs in the name of the legislature depriving us of ours, isn't going to go over well at all, even in court, and lead Counsel for the Government is going to have to answer to both parties. No? Is this going to be a precursor to DOJ and the Legislature having yet another "be careful what you wish for" moment? :shifty:

HST, I don't like the idea of anyone having to relinquish theirs under any lawful circumstances, and that goes for LEOs doing lateral transfers, and retiring. The solution I want is for the RRAWCA to be deemed unconstitutional, but let's not set out to disarm anyone who is lawful just yet, because it goes against what we set out to do, no?

Erik.

bwiese
10-06-2011, 4:04 PM
It's not unregistered though if you run the serial number it comes back registered to the person.

That's (slightly) the 'dead hookers are OK in your trunk if your tags are current' school of law.


Right now with Browns opinion and what I have received regarding it at work leads me to believe the CADOJ is trying to have the departments handle it administratively because they have no means to handle it any other way.

Yes, DOJ is really dodging this issue. Kamala Harris is worried about mortgage and green issues and doesn't have much love for cops.

SteveH
10-06-2011, 4:20 PM
This is an example of a bad (political) attorney vs. good attorney (what the textual + case law says).

This is creating a major ruckus in various spheres and will require cleanup.

A politically well-organized group of folks, having dealt with some other issues (cutbacks, pensions, etc.) on their plates is now not taking the prospective loss of $1500 guns too well at all. They are realizing some common ground with other interest groups.

There will be many, many, many things that need to be considered in cleanup for it to even take place.

If an LEO has an LEO-reg'd AW, does a later transfer to another dept, and still retains his AW (without permission from new agency), are his arrests and testimony valid?

Its a big stretch to claim that a violation of AW laws made out of ignorance somehow invalidates arrests/testomony in no AW arrests. Might as well add every cop that ever got a speeding ticket to the brady list by that logic.

bwiese
10-06-2011, 4:34 PM
Its a big stretch to claim that a violation of AW laws made out of ignorance somehow invalidates arrests/testomony in no AW arrests. Might as well add every cop that ever got a speeding ticket to the brady list by that logic.

Brady / Giglio material.

Let 's back up to a cop with a 'fully illegal' AW (i.e, brass pass, threw off the BB after leaving the shop, or not registering a Roberti-Roos gun)...

ANY arrest or testimony he makes during the period of illegal activity is compromised.

I believe inadvertent illegal AW possession due to this would still be worrisome to dept credibility. Also, Brady/Giglio material
doesn't require conviction - just evidence of problematic activity that needs to be disclosed.

I know it is being worried about up in Sacto right now, outside the DOJ BoF.

bwiese
10-06-2011, 4:37 PM
Its a big stretch to claim that a violation of AW laws made out of ignorance somehow invalidates arrests/testomony in no AW arrests. Might as well add every cop that ever got a speeding ticket to the brady list by that logic.

Past speeding history may well be disclosable, except most traffic cases just get resolved without trial.

Officer credibility is the key. And in today's metro area jury environments, credibility is not high - so any impeachable
material relevant to credibility (or competence) may be of even *more* import.

Crom
10-06-2011, 4:42 PM
Former Attorney General Jerry Brown (now governor), in his Opinion Letter #09-901, 31 Dec 2010,
summarized, "A peace officer who purchases and registers an assault weapon in order to use the
weapon for law enforcement purposes is not permitted to continue to possess the assault weapon
after retirement."

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

This is legally correct based on the controlling Siliveira holding (and equal protection matters), even
if the result is unfortuantely distasteful for LEOs.


Bill,

These LEO's who are separating from their employer [and agrees to follow the Brown opinion] should demand full remuneration for his rifle when they leave.

jdberger
10-06-2011, 4:57 PM
Bill,

These LEO's who are separating from their employer [and agrees to follow the Brown opinion] should demand full remuneration for his rifle when they leave.


Absolutely.
Loudly.

wash
10-06-2011, 5:00 PM
I actually want their union to be the one speaking loudly.

Liberty1
10-06-2011, 5:23 PM
Bill,

What should retiring LE do? Replace the lowers and turn in the registered lower/sell/send out of state prior to separation?

bwiese
10-06-2011, 5:41 PM
Bill,

What should retiring LE do? Replace the lowers and turn in the registered lower/sell/send out of state prior to separation?

LE should not lose the functionality they paid for and were assured they could retain - they wouldn't have bought $1200 - $1500 rifles otherwise. So mod stuff is out.

This is really a detrimental reliance matter and if there's no fixup some depts are gonna have to pay money for buybacks. (DOJ is really trying to walk away from this.)

Things are in orbit right now, we'll see how they can play out.

If immediate separation is occurring, out of state storage for very short term may be wise.

If lateral transfer, I don't see prosecution but I do see complexities for the new depts.

BigDogatPlay
10-06-2011, 7:40 PM
Nothing if you are no longer employed.

True, but as long as you are, you are subject. Would you resign or risk termination over an AW if you were ordered, pre-separation to lawfully dispose of it?

BigDogatPlay
10-06-2011, 7:43 PM
Bill,

These LEO's who are separating from their employer [and agrees to follow the Brown opinion] should demand full remuneration for his rifle when they leave.


And unless the department required the peace officer to go out an buy a rifle on his own dime, remuneration is likely a non starter. More likely is they'd simply have to sell outright to another authorized officer or consign through an AW licensee.

five.five-six
10-06-2011, 7:47 PM
As you know, many many CA LEOs are irritated about issues with LE-registered AW status vs.
retirement or other separation.

[There are significant questions about valid registration status after lateral transfers, as well, as
the agency chief's letter recommending officer for AW purchase eligibility - and triggering DOJ LEO
registration - can't speak for the officer in employ of a future department.]

Former Attorney General Jerry Brown (now governor), in his Opinion Letter #09-901, 31 Dec 2010,
summarized, "A peace officer who purchases and registers an assault weapon in order to use the weapon for law enforcement purposes is not permitted to continue to possess the assault weapon
after retirement."

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

This is legally correct based on the controlling Siliveira holding (and equal protection matters), even
if the result is unfortuantely distasteful for LEOs.

Now, do note these individuals purchased expensive rifles on their own nickel for duty use - easily
$1000 or even $1500. Remember, there is substantial markup necessary from FFLs also holding a
DOJ AW Permit given the DOJ fee structure for such dealers (along with general extra DOJ-driven
overhead required to run such an operation).

These individuals also followed (and were generally departmentally required to do so!) their agencies'
armorers' recommendations for make/model (and any other configuration) as well. Some of this had
to do with perceived quality, some of this had to do with the existing fleet of agency guns: having all
the same make/model allows graceful parts substitution, inventory and administration. Thus, the
majority of LEO AW purchases were 'banned-by-name' models from Colt, Bushmaster and Armalite.

These individuals were often promised by both DOJ (and their agency) that they could keep their
LE-registered semiautos past their retirement/separation date.

Here's one 'smoking gun' DOJ letter from Deputy AG Alison Merrilees, speaking (writing) for Atty General
Bill Lockyer. It was written to the West Covina Chief of Police, Frank Wills, in January 2006. Note that this
was substantially after the date of the Silviera ruling (2002) and some related legislative cleanup emanating
from that.

http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/DOJ-LEO-AW-Seperation-Letter-2006-01-20.pdf
January 20, 2006

Dear Chief Wills:

I am writing in response to an inquiry from your office about whether officers who separate from your
department may legally retain assault weapons that are registered in their names. Under the provisions
of Penal Code section 12280(e) and (f), officers who separate from employment by a law enforcement
agency may retain assault weapons that are legally possessed pursuant to Penal Code 12285, as long as
they are not prohibited by law from possessing firearms.

I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely,
(signature)
Alison Merrilees
Deputy Attorney General
For .
Bill Lockyer
Attorney General

correct me if I am wrong, but "after retirement" means when he dies, or starts working again, AG does not speek to "durring retirement" at all :shrug:

Cali-Shooter
10-06-2011, 7:49 PM
I know what you are saying and I agree. The whole system is so screwed up not even the people who made it can figure it out.

I think we would see much more progress if we had LEOs fighting with us instead of just enough to get their exemption. If they were forced to abide by the same laws we were it would make the laws much more vulnerable.

Thus, the birth of the OLL movement, fixed magazine (BB) guns, featureless, etc.

More fuel to bring this travesty of a law down and beheaded.

Bhobbs
10-06-2011, 7:56 PM
correct me if I am wrong, but "after retirement" means when he dies, or starts working again, AG does not speek to "durring retirement" at all :shrug:

The person is retired.

Going from working to retired is retirement.

Patrick Aherne
10-06-2011, 8:00 PM
Exactly. These LEOs paid out of their pockets for these rifles, they should be allowed to keep them. I'd like to see a bill opening AW registration for them.

Why? The stated purpose of the law is to allow serving peace officers to obtain assault weapons for the performance of their duties. Retired LE no longer NEED the AWs for duty. Allowing retired guys to "register" their AWs makes no sense because they are already registered. Silveira holds that you can't have special classes of citizens, if I am interpreting it correctly.

The main point is that the law is hopelessly, fatally flawed, especially in light of more recent 2nd Amendment rulings.

However, I DON'T see the legislature getting together and clenaing this up and allowing every non-prohibited person to own AWs. I foresee more restrictions and prevention of purchase of AWs by LEOs. I hope I am wrong.

Falconis
10-06-2011, 8:49 PM
I think he was seeing it as a way to allow everyone else another chance to register their weapons after LEO's registered again.

vincewarde
10-06-2011, 8:55 PM
First, I hope that someone will fight this if DOJ moves to revoke registrations.

IF and only if the defense of continued possession fails, I am glad that in many cases the option of molding the rifle into a BB or Featureless. They have that option thanks to Calguns and it is a very good thing!

trashman
10-06-2011, 9:04 PM
This has the makings of a perfect-mini-storm.

From my perspective, anything we can do to politically re-align rank-and-file (i.e. union) law enforcement so that they have the same interests in legislative outcomes as California gunnies is a Good Thing.

--Neill

taperxz
10-06-2011, 9:12 PM
Bottom line. This will change the way DOJ handles AW's sometime in the near future. They have no choice. Equal protection for all or Pee ons V. law enforcement. Its a better place to be in this political environment than them taking no stand.

1859sharps
10-06-2011, 9:16 PM
Am I understanding correctly? that this situation presents some possible opportunities for turning the permit and registration process into shall issue/register for any law abiding citizen. effectively negating the AW law as we know it. And maybe even be helpful in terms of the hi cap mag situation?

bwiese
10-06-2011, 10:55 PM
Am I understanding correctly? that this situation presents some possible opportunities for turning the permit and registration process into shall issue/register for any law abiding citizen. effectively negating the AW law as we know it. And maybe even be helpful in terms of the hi cap mag situation?

Over-10rd magazine issues are completely separate from semiauto rifle issues.

And LE agencies have their issues there, too:
- many LE agencies let their officers buy their duty handguns for $1 or
some nominal amount (or even give, perhaps). This includes over 10rd
magazine.

Now, LEOs are able to buy their own over-10rd mags while in active
sworn service and are able to keep them into retirement.

However, LE *agencies* aren't really able to GIVE such mags to
them. They can issue for duty but can't give to retirees.

hornswaggled
10-06-2011, 11:49 PM
Wait, are these the same LEOs who will happily snatch away a civilian's legally owned AR-15 and throw him to the DA wolves just because he enjoys his power and thinks he should have more rights than the average citizen? Well boo-hoo. Welcome to the real CA, the one where your 2A rights end simply because. Leave the force, AW should fall unregistered, felony offense, go to jail. End of story. That's how the rest of us live.

dantodd
10-06-2011, 11:56 PM
First, I hope that someone will fight this if DOJ moves to revoke registrations.

IF and only if the defense of continued possession fails, I am glad that in many cases the option of molding the rifle into a BB or Featureless. They have that option thanks to Calguns and it is a very good thing!

Because of Silviera there is really no valid argument for continued possession once a peace officer is retired as the laws are currently written.

A previous AG published a written statement that continued possession is ok.

Police officers relied on this statement and purchased weapons accordingly.

Retired police now have a situation where they acted in good faith and because they were relying on an official communication by the AG's office they have a claim for renumeration.

Unless the law is changed the officers are due their money back for thousands of weapons upon retirement.

If the AG doesn't want to track and pay for all these weapons they will need to ask the legislature to pass clean up legislation. Since police officers lose all their "super powers" upon retirement there aren't many options for the legislators that doesn't include paying all retired cops who purchased guns on an AW permit.

Ubermcoupe
10-06-2011, 11:57 PM
Am I understanding correctly? that this situation presents some possible opportunities for turning the permit and registration process into shall issue/register for any law abiding citizen. effectively negating the AW law as we know it. And maybe even be helpful in terms of the hi cap mag situation?

I'll take registration now... but the bigger picture is getting rid of the AWB in the first place.
If it's just another registration period than what about the next generation(s).

dantodd
10-06-2011, 11:57 PM
Over-10rd magazine issues are completely separate from semiauto rifle issues.

And LE agencies have their issues there, too:
- many LE agencies let their officers buy their duty handguns for $1 or
some nominal amount (or even give, perhaps). This includes over 10rd
magazine.

Now, LEOs are able to buy their own over-10rd mags while in active
sworn service and are able to keep them into retirement.

However, LE *agencies* aren't really able to GIVE such mags to
them. They can issue for duty but can't give to retirees.

I thought LEAs were allowed to buy or sell to anyone.

dantodd
10-07-2011, 12:01 AM
I'll take registration now... but the bigger picture is getting rid of the AWB in the first place.
If it's just another registration period than what about the next generation(s).

A new registration period doesn't solve the problem because you"ll be having police officers with AW permits retiring for the next 30 years.

They could have such an amnesty and then have officers register the weapons "privately" but then new officers couldn't buy any. That won't make the Police Union very happy.

Chatterbox
10-07-2011, 12:23 AM
I'm sorry, I'm probably being dim about this...but why would Kamala Harris give a fig about the plight of retired police offiers in this case? Yeah, (some) cops are not going to be happy with her, but by and large they aren't her constituency anyway. Her office issues a statement saying that the retired officers need to sell their guns within X days of retirement, and that's pretty much it.

Falconis
10-07-2011, 12:26 AM
Kamala doesn't give a **** about law enforcement period. I think this thread is more about what can be forced upon her (rock and hard place) than what she is willing to do.

peekay331
10-07-2011, 12:51 AM
Past speeding history may well be disclosable, except most traffic cases just get resolved without trial.

Officer credibility is the key. And in today's metro area jury environments, credibility is not high - so any impeachable
material relevant to credibility (or competence) may be of even *more* import.
no court is going to find that having an unregistered assault weapon, in of itself, is probative of truthfulness. If, however, the officer is investigated about the weapon, and lies about it to the investigator, then it may be a different story. Alternatively, if there is some issue at trial concerning the officer's ability to properly follow required procedures, then it may also be probative. But possessing an assault rifle in violation of a registration requirement, will not, by itself, be disclosable.

NSR500
10-07-2011, 1:32 AM
Interesting...

I hope it plays out well for killing California's asinine laws.

Mesa Tactical
10-07-2011, 7:51 AM
A politically well-organized group of folks, having dealt with some other issues (cutbacks, pensions, etc.) on their plates is now not taking the prospective loss of $1500 guns too well at all. They are realizing some common ground with other interest groups.

I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

tuolumnejim
10-07-2011, 8:14 AM
Exactly. These LEOs paid out of their pockets for these rifles, they should be allowed to keep them. I'd like to see a bill opening AW registration for them.

I must disagree, active or retired LEO are civilians just like most of us. I for one would like to see any special considerations for LEO removed so they can play along with the rest of us in our ordinary lives.

mag360
10-07-2011, 8:20 AM
anything beneficial the grassroots community can do to further this or should we just see this as an update to our current situation?

ubet
10-07-2011, 8:41 AM
Let the retirees go to prison for aw charges or have to give up their guns without a buyback program. I sure as hell dont want my tax dollars to go to buying back their guns, they can ship them outta state and store them, or they can hock em and follow the same laws as we must. I am sick and tired of this what is good for the goose isnt good for the gander ****.

If this knocks out the awb, then hey that is a great thing, but if its not going to, I say they get to play on the same field as me and my neighbors and everyone else on this board.

Wherryj
10-07-2011, 8:44 AM
Unfortunately, the opinion of the Chief LEO in the state does carry some weight.

Comments like the above embolden folks to disregard an important opinion. Flippantly stating that the AG's opinion is nothing more weighty than a offhand remark is dangerous. The AG's opinion is a guideline for local departments and more importantly local DAs. The Attorney General is the highest ranking LEO in the State. Forum members are encouraging LEO retirees to simply ignore what amount to "pre-litigation" letters from their former departments. Not a single one of those letters that I've seen contained a caveat stating that compliance with the AG's opinion was optional. Forum members, by encouraging retirees and future retirees to ignore the AG opinion are giving bad advice - and it has the potential to be pretty costly.

What's going to happen is that some poor retired cop is going to get nailed on a DV issue and the police are going to find his AR that he bought on Department letterhead for "duty use". Then one of the 58 DAs is gonna take a look and see if that guy got a "pre-litigation letter" from his department informing him that his AW was now illegal - and someone's going to try to make an example of him because it makes a good news story.

It's time to engage this with a little more seriousness.

I agree. Whether you agree with the policy that allows one "class" of citizens (LEOs) to retain a weapon that is "illegal" for others after termination of their official duties is not the issue. It is wrong for ANYONE to get charged under this law that is obviously so poorly written that even the attorney general seems to misunderstand it.

I say that because at least ONE of the two AG opinions MUST be wrong. You can't have directly opposing opinions on the same matter without at least one being incorrect.

If the AG can't be expected to understand the law, how is a citizen-former LEO or not-expected to understand it?

Wherryj
10-07-2011, 8:46 AM
Let the retirees go to prison for aw charges or have to give up their guns without a buyback program. I sure as hell dont want my tax dollars to go to buying back their guns, they can ship them outta state and store them, or they can hock em and follow the same laws as we must. I am sick and tired of this what is good for the goose isnt good for the gander ****.

If this knocks out the awb, then hey that is a great thing, but if its not going to, I say they get to play on the same field as me and my neighbors and everyone else on this board.

Will you say that same thing when they ban ALL magazines over ten rounds? How about when they ban all semi-automatic firearms?

Surely a tax payer who doesn't feel that the Second Amendment "is still valid" would have the same opinion about YOUR being paid for your property that was confiscated?

1859sharps
10-07-2011, 8:55 AM
Over-10rd magazine issues are completely separate from semiauto rifle issues.

And LE agencies have their issues there, too:
- many LE agencies let their officers buy their duty handguns for $1 or
some nominal amount (or even give, perhaps). This includes over 10rd
magazine.

Now, LEOs are able to buy their own over-10rd mags while in active
sworn service and are able to keep them into retirement.

However, LE *agencies* aren't really able to GIVE such mags to
them. They can issue for duty but can't give to retirees.

completely get that they are technically two issues. been following your posts for a while.

However, the thought was this. If the LEO buys their own rifle that by law is an Assault Weapon, and because it's a duty rifle they probably got some "hi cap" mags to go with it. Then they retire. To be able to continue to use those "hi cap" mags, the rifle needs to stay a legally owned/registered Assault weapon right? other wise even if they can bullet button the rifle (assuming that is an option because they don't have a named rifle) and eliminate the issue with the registration you bring up, they won't be able to legally use the "hi cap" mag. correct?

so, if the legislature steps up to fix this issue, wouldn't there be an opportunity to address two issues at the same time?

mag360
10-07-2011, 8:55 AM
what ubet is saying, reading between the lines here, is he wants the cops to fight with us for everyone. Not fight for their own special carve out exemption.

ubet
10-07-2011, 9:05 AM
what ubet is saying, reading between the lines here, is he wants the cops to fight with us for everyone. Not fight for their own special carve out exemption.

THANK YOU!!! Someone else gets it.

ubet
10-07-2011, 9:06 AM
Will you say that same thing when they ban ALL magazines over ten rounds? How about when they ban all semi-automatic firearms?

Surely a tax payer who doesn't feel that the Second Amendment "is still valid" would have the same opinion about YOUR being paid for your property that was confiscated?

Read what mag360 wrote. I want them to fight for WHAT IS RIGHT, not for their own special interests. And if a few of them have to go to jail for them to pull their heads out of their *** and align with us, so be it.

1859sharps
10-07-2011, 9:08 AM
I'll take registration now... but the bigger picture is getting rid of the AWB in the first place.
If it's just another registration period than what about the next generation(s).

Oh it should go without saying that the ideal is to get rid of the AWB.

however what I was thinking is that getting rid of it at the legislative level probably isn't going to happen, but that this issue might force "them" to allow anyone with a clean record on a shall issue basis get a permit to buy and register so called Assault Weapons moving forward, for us, the next generation and so on. verse a limited open registration period.

which would be "good" for us in the now who may have something that could be registered. But that would be pretty selfish and short sighted, because as you say what about the next generation or even people who miss out on the limited window.

it would allow "them" to continue to say there is an AWB ban or some level of control, and we would get to go back to buying/owning/selling so call assault weapons as if the ban wasn't there.

work could of course continue to eliminate the AWB law and the permit and registration process.

Patrick Aherne
10-07-2011, 9:48 AM
Read what mag360 wrote. I want them to fight for WHAT IS RIGHT, not for their own special interests. And if a few of them have to go to jail for them to pull their heads out of their *** and align with us, so be it.

Well, as long as it's for a good reason, who cares, right?

dantodd
10-07-2011, 10:33 AM
Exactly. These LEOs paid out of their pockets for these rifles, they should be allowed to keep them. I'd like to see a bill opening AW registration for them.

I must disagree, active or retired LEO are civilians just like most of us. I for one would like to see any special considerations for LEO removed so they can play along with the rest of us in our ordinary lives.

You have completely missed the point of Josh's post. Reread the thread and then look at Josh's post in context. Hopefully you will understand why he said what he said and why it is right and good for all Californians.

Psy Crow
10-07-2011, 10:34 AM
what ubet is saying, reading between the lines here, is he wants the cops to fight with us for everyone. Not fight for their own special carve out exemption.

This would be the optimal situation, however I am pessimistic of it happening.

I wonder how many rank-and-file LEOs are in favor of striking CA's AW laws and would actually say so publicly?

I can't see Operating Engineers Local 3, PORAC, or CPCA filing briefs saying "All non-prohibited persons should be able to purchase and possess 'assault weapons'", or words to that effect.

Some Assembly-person or Senator will calculate they need the LEO vote or campaign contributions and will create some horribly convoluted piece of twisted legislation to 'fix' the situation in favor of LE only.

OTOH, CGF is having great success. Maybe I'm suffering from BGOS from being in Kalifornia so long...

dantodd
10-07-2011, 10:37 AM
Forum members are encouraging LEO retirees to simply ignore what amount to "pre-litigation" letters from their former departments. Not a single one of those letters that I've seen contained a caveat stating that compliance with the AG's opinion was optional. Forum members, by encouraging retirees and future retirees to ignore the AG opinion are giving bad advice - and it has the potential to be pretty costly.


I didn't realize that LEA's were sending out letters to retirees informing them that their banned weapons are no longer validly registered. That certainly puts a different light on things.

mag360
10-07-2011, 10:38 AM
I didn't know the operating engineers local 3 took antigun positions? I'll have to look into that.

bwiese
10-07-2011, 10:41 AM
Some Assembly-person or Senator will calculate they need the LEO vote or campaign contributions and will create some horribly convoluted piece of twisted legislation to 'fix' the situation in favor of LE only.


That restriction specifically can't happen, and there is growing understanding of this problem.

dantodd
10-07-2011, 10:49 AM
completely get that they are technically two issues. been following your posts for a while.

However, the thought was this. If the LEO buys their own rifle that by law is an Assault Weapon, and because it's a duty rifle they probably got some "hi cap" mags to go with it. Then they retire. To be able to continue to use those "hi cap" mags, the rifle needs to stay a legally owned/registered Assault weapon right? other wise even if they can bullet button the rifle (assuming that is an option because they don't have a named rifle) and eliminate the issue with the registration you bring up, they won't be able to legally use the "hi cap" mag. correct?

so, if the legislature steps up to fix this issue, wouldn't there be an opportunity to address two issues at the same time?

The 20/30/100 round AR magazines an officer buys do not become illegal once his registration for his AR is revoked. The officer can still use those magazines in any rifle. The only caveat is that he cannot use them in a manner than makes them non-detachable. So, he can use them in his "registered" gun once he neuters it (assuming it isn't a "named" weapon) and he can use it in any other OLL that he may own. But those rifles must be "featureless."

The difference is that with the semi-auto rifle ban there is an ongoing registration and a retiree no longer meets the requirements to hold that registration. With a "large capacity ammunition feeding device" there is no on going registration or tracking, only acquisition is restricted. (i.e. There is no crime of "possessing a large capacity magazine" there is a crime of "possessing an unregistered assault weapon.")

Psy Crow
10-07-2011, 10:56 AM
I didn't know the operating engineers local 3 took antigun positions? I'll have to look into that.

Clarification:
I did not say Operating Engineers Local 3 has an anti-gun position. I am unaware of their position on firearms, if any.

However, considering that at least part of their membership are LEOs, I would be (pleasantly) surprised to see them endorsing "EBRs for all."

Psy Crow
10-07-2011, 10:59 AM
Some Assembly-person or Senator will calculate they need the LEO vote or campaign contributions and will create some horribly convoluted piece of twisted legislation to 'fix' the situation in favor of LE only.


That restriction specifically can't happen, and there is growing understanding of this problem.

Bill, you just made my day. :)

bwiese
10-07-2011, 11:00 AM
Clarification:
However, considering that at least part of their membership are
LEOs, I would be (pleasantly) surprised to see them endorsing
"EBRs for all."

This fixup is best not in a public flag-waving method, but as 'cleanup'.
That way friends in orgs whose mgmt has to "not be pro-gun" can still help and not walk away

Psy Crow
10-07-2011, 11:10 AM
Clarification:
I did not say Operating Engineers Local 3 has an anti-gun position. I am unaware of their position on firearms, if any.

However, considering that at least part of their membership are LEOs, I would be (pleasantly) surprised to see them endorsing "EBRs for all."

This fixup is best not in a public flag-waving method, but as 'cleanup'.
That way friends in orgs whose mgmt has to "not be pro-gun" can still help and not walk away

Thanx Bill.
Hopefully the 'cleanup' will improve the position of all CA gun owners.

ubet
10-07-2011, 12:58 PM
Well, as long as it's for a good reason, who cares, right?

Their unions and chiefs made criminals out of them when they backed the laws that we currently have. They pandered to save their own butts. If they wanted to be able to own "aw" and not be in any jepeorady they ORIGINALLY should have done the correct thing, and not backed the ban. They did though, so if they dont LEGALLY dispose of them, they should go to jail. Just like anyone of us would if we got caught with a named lower or in an "illegal configuration".

bwiese
10-07-2011, 1:06 PM
^^ This above confrontationalism is not helpful to our work.

We have similarly situated folks that are having issues that are adding to the complexity of their dept's work. Their depts' senior management relied on DOJ assertions - and passed them on - such that large individual expenditures were made on promise of legal retention of gun.

Falconis
10-07-2011, 1:17 PM
Ubet, here's the problem I have with your "interpretation". Guy gets hired by a department and is a good person all around. He either did not support the ban or was too young at the time to know WTF was going on. Department gives him the authorization to buy the rifle under all the confusion as stated before. Now ignoring the fact that all we have are opinions and nothing is actually on the books in a clear cut manner, you want to see a few officers (screw the fact if they are innocent) placed in prison just because you have feelings of inadequacy/jealousy/anger (or whatever) just to prove some elusive point you want to make?

I think there are better ways to fight this than making unnecessary enemies as you go along. The fact that you probably don't believe in the AW ban but you want to see cops placed in prison for just mere possession is hypocritical to say the least.

So yeah, who cares if a few innocents get placed in prison, as long as they are cops huh?

1859sharps
10-07-2011, 1:49 PM
.... They pandered to save their own butts. ....

assuming your argument is spot on in terms of what happened...

wouldn't it be more constructive to welcome back the wayward folk who have now seen the light? leverage this to make things better for all rather than further enlarge the "wedge" between us.

Besides, as Falconis points out, it's entirely possible some of the ones caught up in this where to young to have been in a position to have "pandered to save their own butts". After all the first ban happened 22 years ago, and SB 23 is 12 years ago. Yikes, has it been that long already...boy am I getting old.

m03
10-07-2011, 1:55 PM
I think there are better ways to fight this than making unnecessary enemies as you go along. The fact that you probably don't believe in the AW ban but you want to see cops placed in prison for just mere possession is hypocritical to say the least.

That does sound a bit heavy-handed. Then again, as the old saying goes: The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly.

dantodd
10-07-2011, 2:25 PM
you want to see a few officers (screw the fact if they are innocent) placed in prison just because you have feelings of inadequacy/jealousy/anger (or whatever) just to prove some elusive point you want to make?


That's not really helpful either.

Let's just say that the situation has changed such that there are more people within the rank and file (and may those who represent them) of the police who are now in a bad spot wrt the "Assault Weapons Ban" and that because of Silviera they now have common ground with the rest of CA gun owners in getting changes made to the law.

Whether anyone on either side has inferiority or superiority complexes shouldn't really matter, we now have the opportunity to get additional support behind our efforts to change the law and those officers who want to keep their registered weapons post-separation also have new allies.

dantodd
10-07-2011, 2:26 PM
Then again, as the old saying goes: The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly.

Absolutely, I have no desire to see anyone in jail simply for wanting or owning a banned semi-automatic weapon. However; you cannot have a rule of law if those laws are not equally enforced. Let's fix the law before more good people, including cops, end up in jail.

sandman21
10-07-2011, 2:35 PM
assuming your argument is spot on in terms of what happened...

wouldn't it be more constructive to welcome back the wayward folk who have now seen the light? leverage this to make things better for all rather than further enlarge the "wedge" between us.

Besides, as Falconis points out, it's entirely possible some of the ones caught up in this where to young to have been in a position to have "pandered to save their own butts". After all the first ban happened 22 years ago, and SB 23 is 12 years ago. Yikes, has it been that long already...boy am I getting old.

Yep, I don't care that they didn't do the right thing the first time. Taking your enemies ally and making them yours is worth more than vengeance for the wrong done to you. Making them an ally is not the same as forgetting what they did and being mindful of that.


...Snip.....
LEO just enforce the law, right? Good law, bad law, unconstitutional law does not matter, just like 12031e, carrying without a LTC, right?

The law applies to all, lets fix the law so nobody, retired-LEO or Joe Blow, goes to jail for an unconstitutional law.

wilit
10-07-2011, 2:38 PM
So how does this help us tactically? I realize this basically eliminates the special class of citizen (retired LEO), but how does that help us other than bringing LEO's down to our level?

dantodd
10-07-2011, 2:42 PM
So how does this help us tactically? I realize this basically eliminates the special class of citizen (retired LEO), but how does that help us other than bringing LEO's down to our level?

It helps tactically because LEOs like the idea of keeping their guns. LEOs have a very strong voice in the Legislature, especially concerning issues like gun laws. LEOs also have very active unions which give lots of money to political candidates. Those LEO leaders and unions can choose to ask the state and LEAs to make the officers whole monetarily and bring retired LEOs "down to our level" or they can ask the legislature to alter the law so that their retirees can continue to possess their registered weapons.

If they choose the former we all lose, if they choose the latter we all win.

Now, the goal is for people (those way above my pay grade) to reach out and help the LEO leaders and unions make the right decision.

sandman21
10-07-2011, 2:49 PM
So how does this help us tactically? I realize this basically eliminates the special class of citizen (retired LEO), but how does that help us other than bringing LEO's down to our level?

I think it does a couple of things, shows that the law is vague the DOJ cant het it right let alone anyone else and brings in a new ally when or if a fix-up is needed, the new ally has lots of weight to throw around and can be used to help.


P.S. The quote in your sig is not by Benjamin Franklin but by Richard Jackson (http://futureofthebook.com/franklin-quoted-by-minsky/)

Sgt Raven
10-07-2011, 3:03 PM
I didn't know the operating engineers local 3 took antigun positions? I'll have to look into that.


After the shooting at Lehigh I don't see OE#3 or the Teamsters coming out in favor of less gun control.

bohoki
10-07-2011, 4:34 PM
this is crazy if the gun is registered to a person it would be legal for them to keep it as is till they die only the person its registered to can unregister it

dantodd
10-07-2011, 5:01 PM
this is crazy if the gun is registered to a person it would be legal for them to keep it as is till they die only the person its registered to can unregister it

Can you explain which part of the statute permits the officer to retain the weapon after he no longer has any "official law enforcement" duties?

bohoki
10-07-2011, 5:08 PM
Can you explain which part of the statute permits the officer to retain the weapon after he no longer has any "official law enforcement" duties?

people are allowed to have registered assault weapons once registered you are good to go

El Gato
10-07-2011, 5:14 PM
This whole topic came up recently with certain probation/parole officers...

Jerry's Admin allowed certain officers...alot of certain officers.. to buy AW's...then a few weeks before the "Jerry's got an opinion letter" came out, asked for the registration letters back...

according to a certain Calguns attorney, they can't do that...and they can't make the officers sell it nor move it out of state...

not that it wouldn't be wise to move/sell etc if "they" sent those officers a letter demanding them to do that... but it certainly would add to the conversation....alot...

and now that probation officers are going to be supervising parolee's and their status is changing and probation departments are buying alot of guns...and long guns...that does change things just a bit maybe or not...

I KNOW Assembly person S. Grove is aware of the situation and concerned...

and if THOSE officer's retired, after buying the gun and getting no demand letter from the AG...Hmmmm now that would be interesting wouldn't it...cause the AG wants the rifle gone, but won't send an official letter demanding it...or perhaps I'm reading too much into it... lets see ...the AG says sure buy the guns... Ooops we gots a new AG and we say nay nay...but we didn't a month ago... now... we do... so shut up and pay no attention to the man/woman/whatever behind the curtain....

fortunately certain Attorney's who do this stuff for a living, and know more about it than I do... can advise those officers...

TRICKSTER
10-07-2011, 5:15 PM
Can you explain which part of the statute permits the officer to retain the weapon after he no longer has any "official law enforcement" duties?

Can you explain what part of the statute explains or allows the process of revoking the registration on a legally registered weapon?

El Gato
10-07-2011, 5:21 PM
Can you explain which part of the statute permits the officer to retain the weapon after he no longer has any "official law enforcement" duties?

a more important question might be ... can you explain which part of the statute actually demands the officer give up the rifle now that he/she no longer has official duties...?

got the case law.. but the case law has never been placed into action in the code...so there is no vehicle by which the ever blessed STATE can ram that one up everyones behind cause they didn't see it coming....

and of what import might the federal HR 218 laws have ...?

and isn't the real beef here that the law should be equal? That we ALL should be able to waltz into the local gun store and buy what we want being that we are qualified to possess firearms?
including short barrel rifles/shotguns just like the county mounties?
of course it is...that's the real point.. that our 2nd amendment rights are not suborned by an artificial boundary like the State line... or perhaps I've misread Ezell ?

dantodd
10-07-2011, 5:34 PM
Can you explain what part of the statute explains or allows the process of revoking the registration on a legally registered weapon?

The process for deregistering is administrative. The fact that the statute only permits possession for Law enforcement duties means that once the person no longer has such duties he no longer has a valid reason to possess. I"ll not bother regurgitating Brown's letter, you can read it if you don't understand.

1911_sfca
10-07-2011, 5:36 PM
If an LEO has an LEO-reg'd AW, does a later transfer to another dept, and still retains his AW (without permission from new agency), are his arrests and testimony valid?

If the AW is personally owned and registered, then it doesn't matter if he laterally transfers to another department -- now whether he uses that AW on duty is a matter of the new department's firearms policy. This has pretty much nothing to do with arrests and testimony, unless he uses the AW in the course of arresting someone.

bwiese
10-07-2011, 5:39 PM
If the AW is personally owned and registered, then it doesn't matter if he laterally transfers to another department -- now whether he uses that AW on duty is a matter of the new department's firearms policy. This has pretty much nothing to do with arrests and testimony, unless he uses the AW in the course of arresting someone.

Um, if the reg letter is invalid (due to transfer), the underlying registration is invalid. It's an unregistered AW even though DOJ says otherwise.

Any illegal action an officer does - especially a continuing, ongoing one, even if inadvertent - clutters up testimony and arrests.

ubet
10-07-2011, 5:42 PM
wouldn't it be more constructive to welcome back the wayward folk who have now seen the light? leverage this to make things better for all rather than further enlarge the "wedge" between us.

Besides, as Falconis points out, it's entirely possible some of the ones caught up in this where to young to have been in a position to have "pandered to save their own butts". After all the first ban happened 22 years ago, and SB 23 is 12 years ago. Yikes, has it been that long already...boy am I getting old.

Bolded:


YES IT IS! Is it happening though? (not being sarcastic, want an honest answer for an honest question).

I am no fan of ca gun laws. But I am a fan of, whats good for the goose is good for the gander. If its illegal for one, it needs to be illegal for ALL.

El Gato
10-07-2011, 5:44 PM
Um, if the reg letter is invalid (due to transfer), the underlying registration is invalid. It's an unregistered AW even though DOJ says otherwise.

Any illegal action an officer does - especially a continuing, ongoing one, even if inadvertent - clutters up testimony and arrests.

Ummm yep...
which may make it a good idea.. duly noted as I in fact read all of your posts on this...to move said evil instrument of destruction to Nevada ...should I retire....pending successful resolution of this goat...ummm...waltz

TRICKSTER
10-07-2011, 5:47 PM
The process for deregistering is administrative. The fact that the statute only permits possession for Law enforcement duties means that once the person no longer has such duties he no longer has a valid reason to possess. I"ll not bother regurgitating Brown's letter, you can read it if you don't understand.

I'm not talking about Brown's letters. Those are opinions not laws. Where in the statute, (Penal Code) is the state given the authority to unregister LEO's legally registered weapons and where is the procedure spelled out

BajaJames83
10-07-2011, 5:58 PM
Well the LEO's are on our side, we can only hope for the AWB to go away!

1911_sfca
10-07-2011, 6:05 PM
Um, if the reg letter is invalid (due to transfer), the underlying registration is invalid. It's an unregistered AW even though DOJ says otherwise.

Any illegal action an officer does - especially a continuing, ongoing one, even if inadvertent - clutters up testimony and arrests.

Yah I wasn't commenting on the totally bogus and artificial legal construction in that DOJ opinion.. I was assuming that the underlying reg is still valid. As I believe the courts would in your hypothetical.

dantodd
10-07-2011, 6:15 PM
I'm not talking about Brown's letters. Those are opinions not laws. Where in the statute, (Penal Code) is the state given the authority to unregister LEO's legally registered weapons and where is the procedure spelled out

That process is administrative. The permits are issued ONLY for law enforcement duties. When one no longer has such duties they have no valid use for the gun.

1911_sfca
10-07-2011, 6:18 PM
That process is administrative. The permits are issued ONLY for law enforcement duties. When one no longer has such duties they have no valid use for the gun.

This is where you, and Jerry Brown, are misreading the laws.

The permits are issued BECAUSE of law enforcement duties, not ONLY to perform them. A critical distinction. And the permits are PERSONAL, registered to an individual officer. If they were for law enforcement purposes only, they would be registered to the department. Oh wait, there is already another class of reg's for that.

Once the law enforcement duties end, there is nothing that says the registration shall also end. Other than Jerry Brown's opinion. In the absence of some law proscribing a revocation of a valid AW reg, it really shouldn't happen.

cmaynes
10-07-2011, 6:42 PM
This is where you, and Jerry Brown, are misreading the laws.

The permits are issued BECAUSE of law enforcement duties, not ONLY to perform them. A critical distinction. And the permits are PERSONAL, registered to an individual officer. If they were for law enforcement purposes only, they would be registered to the department. Oh wait, there is already another class of reg's for that.

Once the law enforcement duties end, there is nothing that says the registration shall also end. Other than Jerry Brown's opinion. In the absence of some law proscribing a revocation of a valid AW reg, it really shouldn't happen.

the department isnt paying for the firearms in question- the Officers are. They wouldnt be registered to the Dept if the Dept didnt pay for them- right? The permit is issued due to the need of the officer using a personal weapon for official duties- when the official duty ceases, the permission ceases with it.

El Gato
10-07-2011, 7:12 PM
the department isnt paying for the firearms in question- the Officers are. The wouldnt be registered to the Dept if the Dept didnt pay for them- right? The permit is issued due to the need of the officer using a personal weapon for offiycial duties- when the official duty ceases, the permission ceases with it.

Ummm maybe you should slow down and run spell check a bit...

in what part of the code does it authorize Aunt Kamala to unregister the gun...?
obviously Jerry thinks the underlying code is no longer justified based upon the caselaw...but...and here it the critical but...government officials have to act based upon code and regulation...and per my attorney...it doesn't exist...I understand it could be interpreted as not being a valid registration, if I should in fact retire... but I also know some judges...had one in class this week as a matter of fact...and he might just rely upon the actual code and the fact the the guns were bought upon good faith and the fact that my department is freakin' broke and in fact laid off a bunch of good officers the year I bought my guns... so they couldn't have bought them for me...and they obviously felt I needed to have one as I was the one who was looking at developing the plan to arm our officers with rifles...and developing a training plan without actually having a rifle is a bit silly...and they issued the registrations to me..personally..there is also "mens rea" which kinda means..."the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty".... which may or may not be important.... I have the paperwork... it doesn't say to "officer whoever for official use while performing the duties of LEO"..if it did... I'd say you were right...

but it doesn't... now does it... it says exactly the same thing it says for my other guns I had the foresight to buy before the idiot law went into place...and I'm just as pissed as anyone that my kids can't buy them.. so like get over it.. and pull together.. the law is stupid...and we/you/us almost universally agree the law doesn't stop lawbreakers.. look into any dept. gun vault at the stacks of sawed off rifles/shotguns that are never federally prosecuted...and we confiscate alot of them... like most of the long guns are sawed off...alot...

now...as to your anger at people who...through no fault of their own...are in the position of losing their legally acquired assets... through government forfeiture...does that make you nervous...that the govt. can cause me/you/us to lose our property, maybe throw you/us in jail when you acted in good faith? And no LAW has been passed by the legislature and signed by the executive that gives said law enforcement officers the legal vehicle to demand you give up your legally purchased equipment?...Especially when all/most of us think the law is asinine and deserves to be thrown out?

in the interest of full disclosure: I am also a licensed therapist.. and while I can't help you with your anger issues.. I can give you problems you have never dreamed of...trust me on that one...Edit: How about somthing with aliens?"

and as to the law.. I think I'll trust to the advice of counsel which is retained for the matter as opposed to internet forums...no disrespect meant to the lawyers here..nor implied..

cmaynes
10-07-2011, 7:36 PM
Ummm maybe you should slow down and run spell check a bit...

in what part of the code does it authorize Aunt Kamala to unregister the gun...?
obviously Jerry thinks the underlying code is no longer justified based upon the caselaw...but...and here it the critical but...government officials have to act based upon code and regulation...and per my attorney...it doesn't exist...I understand it could be interpreted as not being a valid registration, if I should in fact retire... but I also know some judges...had one in class this week as a matter of fact...and he might just rely upon the actual code and the fact the the guns were bought upon good faith and the fact that my department is freakin' broke and in fact laid off a bunch of good officers the year I bought my guns... so they couldn't have bought them for me...and they obviously felt I needed to have one as I was the one who was looking at developing the plan to arm our officers with rifles...and developing a training plan without actually having a rifle is a bit silly...and they issued the registrations to me..personally..there is also "mens rea" which kinda means..."the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty".... which may or may not be important.... I have the paperwork... it doesn't say to "officer whoever for official use while performing the duties of LEO"..if it did... I'd say you were right...

but it doesn't... now does it... it says exactly the same thing it says for my other guns I had the foresight to buy before the idiot law went into place...and I'm just as pissed as anyone that my kids can't buy them.. so like get over it.. and pull together.. the law is stupid...and we/you/us almost universally agree the law doesn't stop lawbreakers.. look into any dept. gun vault at the stacks of sawed off rifles/shotguns that are never federally prosecuted...and we confiscate alot of them... like most of the long guns are sawed off...alot...

now...as to your anger at people who...through no fault of their own...are in the position of losing their legally acquired assets... through government forfeiture...does that make you nervous...that the govt. can cause me/you/us to lose our property, maybe throw you/us in jail when you acted in good faith? And no LAW has been passed by the legislature and signed by the executive that gives said law enforcement officers the legal vehicle to demand you give up your legally purchased equipment?...Especially when all/most of us think the law is asinine and deserves to be thrown out?

in the interest of full disclosure: I am also a licensed therapist.. and while I can't help you with your anger issues.. I can give you problems you have never dreamed of...trust me on that one...

and as to the law.. I think I'll trust to the advice of counsel which is retained for the matter as opposed to internet forums...no disrespect meant to the lawyers here..nor implied..

I have no anger issues- when Harris rescinds Brown's opinion on that we can talk- as far as I am aware, She has not.

as Bill Weise put into the OP-


Former Attorney General Jerry Brown (now governor), in his Opinion Letter #09-901, 31 Dec 2010,
summarized, "A peace officer who purchases and registers an assault weapon in order to use the
weapon for law enforcement purposes is not permitted to continue to possess the assault weapon
after retirement."

Bill also said that the Lockyer letter didn't carry the same weight legally- and yet thats the one we are using to cover this correct?

Is there a grey area there? I didnt think so.... I do a bit of work with these things- and I am pretty certain a retired LEO is not going to be able to get a new AW permit due to his prior service, but I am sure there exceptions to that- but not many. Most of the guys who want to do that simply move to Nevada. Otherwise we are talking about retired LEO's having different Civil Rights than non-LEO's.... If we go that way we can talk a bit about equal protection I guess.... because clearly the law is being applied unevenly to two citizens.

swhatb
10-07-2011, 7:43 PM
A lot of LEOs I know retired still kept there ARs. A lot of Reserves in the agency have got them as well and wonder what happens when they become full time else where or retire as well.

Falconis
10-07-2011, 7:48 PM
This is to instead and everyone else who have said the same Crap regardless of Intentions. The cops that want the awb abolished r here. The ones on the fence r Polly being driven away in droves now. Then there r the ones who will never side with us. Those of u spouting out ur assessed r not doing any good. Just food for thought. Anyone else get what I am saying? God knows if I was on the fence I would go anti after reading some of this drivel.

Falconis
10-07-2011, 7:49 PM
Sorry if the above is hard to read. On my phone

TRICKSTER
10-07-2011, 7:50 PM
I have no anger issues- when Harris rescinds Brown's opinion on that we can talk- as far as I am aware, She has not.

as Bill Weise put into the OP-


Former Attorney General Jerry Brown (now governor), in his Opinion Letter #09-901, 31 Dec 2010,
summarized, "A peace officer who purchases and registers an assault weapon in order to use the
weapon for law enforcement purposes is not permitted to continue to possess the assault weapon
after retirement."

Bill also said that the Lockyer letter didn't carry the same weight legally- and yet thats the one we are using to cover this correct?

Is there a grey area there? I didnt think so.... I do a bit of work with these things- and I am pretty certain a retired LEO is not going to be able to get a new AW permit due to his prior service, but I am sure there exceptions to that- but not many. Most of the guys who want to do that simply move to Nevada. Otherwise we are talking about retired LEO's having different Civil Rights than non-LEO's.... If we go that way we can talk a bit about equal protection I guess.... because clearly the law is being applied unevenly to two citizens.

Jerry Brown can say whatever he wants, but the Penal Code (which is the law) does not state this nor does it provide for a way for the state to void these registrations. Point out the specific Penal Code section that allows this, not an opinion.

Sgt Raven
10-07-2011, 7:55 PM
........snip..........
now...as to your anger at people who...through no fault of their own...are in the position of losing their legally acquired assets......

......snip.........

in the interest of full disclosure: I am also a licensed therapist.. and while I can't help you with your anger issues.. I can give you problems you have never dreamed of...trust me on that one...

and as to the law.. I think I'll trust to the advice of counsel which is retained for the matter as opposed to internet forums...no disrespect meant to the lawyers here..nor implied..


To me, this looks like a thinly veiled threat, you might want to rethink that.

GaryV
10-07-2011, 7:56 PM
Is there a 14th Amendment angle to this? It seems to be suggesting that retired LEO's are superior in gun rights to average law abiding citizens.... Am I mistaken on that?

Can you say LEOSA?

Sgt Raven
10-07-2011, 8:00 PM
Jerry Brown can say whatever he wants, but the Penal Code (which is the law) does not state this nor does it provide for a way for the state to void these registrations. Point out the specific Penal Code section that allows this, not an opinion.

There are a lot of things in the P/C that the courts have ruled changed. I.E. the whole reason we have OLLs. But they're still in the P/C.

cmaynes
10-07-2011, 8:08 PM
Jerry Brown can say whatever he wants, but the Penal Code (which is the law) does not state this nor does it provide for a way for the state to void these registrations. Point out the specific Penal Code section that allows this, not an opinion.

well we do have this- how it would work in court is uncertain-

Penal Code section 12280(e) provides an exception for the sale to, purchase by, or possession of assault weapons or .50 BMG rifles by specified law enforcement agencies and military or naval forces for use in the discharge of their official duties. The law permits possession and use of these weapons by sworn members of these agencies when on duty and the use is within the scope of their duties.
• Penal Code section 12280(f) provides an exception for the delivery, transfer, or sale to, or possession of an assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle by peace officer members of specified agencies with the express authorization of their employing agencies. For this exception to apply, if the firearm is an assault weapon, the peace officer must register the firearm as an assault weapon with the Department of Justice within 90 days of the date of acquisition. If the firearm is a .50 BMG rifle and the officer took possession of the rifle after January 1, 2005, the officer shall register the firearm as a.50 caliber BMG rifle not later than one year after possession or receipt.

the question would be if section f was seen as superior to section e.

I suppose talking to the CA DOJ Firearms branch would be a way to resolve that directly....

TRICKSTER
10-07-2011, 8:09 PM
There are a lot of things in the P/C that the courts have ruled changed. I.E. the whole reason we have OLLs. But they're still in the P/C.

Yes but as far as I know, there has been no court case or established case law on this. Besides, we have OLLs because The State tried to add things to the AW law that wasn't in the Penal Code. Sounds like that is what they are trying to do here.

Sgt Raven
10-07-2011, 8:22 PM
Yes but as far as I know, there has been no court case or established case law on this. Besides, we have OLLs because The State tried to add things to the AW law that wasn't in the Penal Code. Sounds like that is what they are trying to do here.


Well there's the whole Silvera ruling, and the P/C sections about the weapons for duty use, as the reason to allow them.

ETA: We have OLLs because the court ruled part of the P/C controlling them was vague.

Falconis
10-07-2011, 8:28 PM
Wonder what the tune here would be if some court ruled tomorrow that bullet buttons weren't a sufficient enough device ...

cmaynes
10-07-2011, 8:42 PM
It is sort of interesting that a conversation taking place on a 2nd Amendment supporting site would take such a curious turn....

hornswaggled
10-07-2011, 8:44 PM
Their unions and chiefs made criminals out of them when they backed the laws that we currently have. They pandered to save their own butts. If they wanted to be able to own "aw" and not be in any jepeorady they ORIGINALLY should have done the correct thing, and not backed the ban. They did though, so if they dont LEGALLY dispose of them, they should go to jail. Just like anyone of us would if we got caught with a named lower or in an "illegal configuration".

Amen.

El Gato
10-07-2011, 8:56 PM
To me, this looks like a thinly veiled threat, you might want to rethink that.

I've been a therapist for years... as in lawyers there are good ones and ones that will give you problems... I've seen both...
was meant in jest...a slam if you will to fellow (is there a female form of the word fellow?) therapists who need success in their own treatment..... but as to loony... the therapy field has loony...

and if you really looked closely, the aforemention issue with problems is actually a quote out of a certain comic strip and worded almost verbatim...

the next line is : "how about something with aliens?"

which I could/should have probably added.. but being I had surgery yesterday with expected pain medication which I am not in habit of taking... let this stand as an explaination/apology for not adding the joke line...

El Gato
10-07-2011, 8:58 PM
Sorry if the above is hard to read. On my phone

often have the same problem my ownself

tacticalcity
10-07-2011, 8:59 PM
A lot of guys here clearly have a "I'm taking my ball and going home attitude" because their not allowed to play. Instead of being able to look at from the officer's perspective they allow their own jealousy and their own agenda to color their view. I have no problem with their agenda, in fact I share it. But that doesn't mean I cannot put myself in these officer's shoes.

These officers purchased these weapons in good faith with their hard earned money based largely on the promise of the attorney general's office that they could keep them when they retire. Then seeming out of no where the state changes its mind and royally screws them. Not just from a certain date forward, but retroactively as well.

There are officers who already retired and are/were already in possession of weapons they were encouraged to purchase and told they could keep into their retirement. Now they are suddenly criminals and must sell the rifle or continue breaking the law. It isn't right.

The resonses seem very colored to me. Too much personal agenda and resentment of law enforcement officers. Whether you think they should have been promised the right to keep these arms or not, retroactively screwing over the officers who purchased them under the promise that they could keep them is wrong.

If you want to change the rules in the middle of the game, the new rules should start from the moment you make the change, and not go back to the beginning and rewrite the score of the game.

cmaynes
10-07-2011, 9:00 PM
I've been a therapist for years... as in lawyers there are good ones and ones that will give you problems... I've seen both...
was meant in jest...a slam if you will to fellow (is there a female form of the word fellow?) therapists who need success in their own treatment..... but as to loony... the therapy field has loony...

and if you really looked closely, the aforemention issue with problems is actually a quote out of a certain comic strip and worded almost verbatim...

the next line is : "how about something with aliens?"

which I could/should have probably added.. but being I had surgery yesterday with expected pain medication which I am not in habit of taking... let this stand as an explaination/apology for not adding the joke line...

El Gato, mend well- no hostility was intended....

hornswaggled
10-07-2011, 9:05 PM
So if average Joe citizen purchased a Bushmaster XM15 prior to the ban with his own money in good faith that it would remain legal for him to possess, and the ban occurred, he still could legally hold onto it, right?

Oh wait, no?

Then why should a former LEO be afforded special rights to slip through? That would only encourage LEOs to support and enforce stupid laws because they know the laws WON'T. APPLY. TO THEM.

cmaynes
10-07-2011, 9:08 PM
So if average Joe citizen purchased a Bushmaster XM15 prior to the ban with his own money in good faith that it would remain legal for him to possess, and the ban occurred, he still could legally hold onto it, right?

Oh wait, no?

Then why should a former LEO be afforded special rights to slip through? That would only encourage LEOs to support and enforce stupid laws because they know the laws WON'T. APPLY. TO THEM.

if the rifle was owned prior to the ban and registered- it would be legally compliant....

El Gato
10-07-2011, 9:12 PM
El Gato, mend well- no hostility was intended....

thanks...
I don't have a problem with being hostile... mind you.. should the person ask for it... and being duly warned and lacking compliance with the law attempts bodilly injury to someone other than themselves for which I can be very libertarian except for the suicidal..... hostility is well applied and graded as to performance...and ceases as in once said miscreant has been rendered "hor de combat" ceases...

but IMHO... which is admittedly mine and not the province of others....

we should not be hostile toward one another... which is my point and the critical mass of my anger...the enemy of my enemy and all that...

there are plenty of people who frequent this forum who I would not be "friends" with outside the 2A issues... but this is a 2A issue and a 4th issue and I think, which is perhaps my issue, (therapist heal thyself)...that we should all stinking get along for Diety's sake......and nobody needs to keep an eye on those skeet shooters or the black powder people in case they have impure thoughts...can't we all just pull the cart in the same direction.. which is what I thought MR Bweise was saying... you know... hey there is a chink in the freakin' armor of their case... and maybe it undermines the whole stupid law of cards they built...and maybe we shouldn't divide ourselves and help them along but maybe talk to our LEO friends and get them on board instead of lightin' a fire under their seats... most of those LEO folks are kinda type A on steroids type folks and are trained to form snap judgements.. let us not, to the extent I speak for myself and maybe some others, PISS THEM OFF.... how's about we recruit a bit?
pretty please with ammo on top? Make nice and tell them how the STATE and their bosses is fixin' to screw 'em? Whatcha think ya'll ?

I've been typing post Norco ingestion again haven't I...
good night all

BigDogatPlay
10-07-2011, 9:17 PM
Can you say LEOSA?

Not applicable, generally. LEOSA concerns the ability of qualifying LEOs and qualifying retired LEOs to carry a concealed firearm, e.g. a handgun, in any state of the union. It has no blessing mechanism, as I read and understand it, for possession of non-concealable weapons, e.g. EBRs, post employment.

cmaynes
10-07-2011, 9:25 PM
thanks...
I don't have a problem with being hostile... mind you.. should the person ask for it... and being duly warned and lacking compliance with the law attempts bodilly injury to someone other than themselves for which I can be very libertarian except for the suicidal..... hostility is well applied and graded as to performance...and ceases as in once said miscreant has been rendered "hor de combat" ceases...

but IMHO... which is admittedly mine and not the province of others....

we should not be hostile toward one another... which is my point and the critical mass of my anger...the enemy of my enemy and all that...

there are plenty of people who frequent this forum who I would not be "friends" with outside the 2A issues... but this is a 2A issue and a 4th issue and I think, which is perhaps my issue, (therapist heal thyself)...that we should all stinking get along for Diety's sake......and nobody needs to keep an eye on those skeet shooters or the black powder people in case they have impure thoughts...can't we all just pull the cart in the same direction.. which is what I thought MR Bweise was saying... you know... hey there is a chink in the freakin' armor of their case... and maybe it undermines the whole stupid law of cards they built...and maybe we shouldn't divide ourselves and help them along but maybe talk to our LEO friends and get them on board instead of lightin' a fire under their seats... most of those LEO folks are kinda type A on steroids type folks and are trained to form snap judgements.. let us not, to the extent I speak for myself and maybe some others, PISS THEM OFF.... how's about we recruit a bit?
pretty please with ammo on top? Make nice and tell them how the STATE and their bosses is fixin' to screw 'em? Whatcha think ya'll ?

I've been typing post Norco ingestion again haven't I...
good night all

totally with you.... thanks!

El Gato
10-07-2011, 9:31 PM
Not applicable, generally. LEOSA concerns the ability of qualifying LEOs and qualifying retired LEOs to carry a concealed firearm, e.g. a handgun, in any state of the union. It has no blessing mechanism, as I read and understand it, for possession of non-concealable weapons, e.g. EBRs, post employment.



ok...
found an updated LEOSA

https://wilenet.org/html/hr218/HR218_amended_by_S1132.pdf

salient point would include the definition of firearms allowed to be carried LEOSA supercedes state law does it not?

(e) As used in this section, the term “firearm”—
(1) except as provided in this subsection, has the same meaning as in section 921 of this title;
(2) includes ammunition not expressly prohibited by Federal law or subject to the provisions of the National
Firearms Act; and
(3) does not include—
(A) any machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the National Firearms Act);
(B) any firearm silencer (as defined in section 921 of this title); and
(C) any destructive device (as defined in section 921 of this title).

which makes me curious as to section 921....

(3) The term "firearm" means (A) any weapon (including a starter
gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to
expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or
receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm
silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include
an antique firearm.



HMmmmmmmmm

so what does that mean to retired type folks...?

dantodd
10-07-2011, 9:32 PM
Wonder what the tune here would be if some court ruled tomorrow that bullet buttons weren't a sufficient enough device ...

That isn't in the purview of a court. Now, if we somehow discovered that magazine parts kits aren't really legal even though we have a letter saying they are and people bought them in good faith that might be a more apt analogy. And if that were the case I hope we"d spend time trying to fix the problem rather than spending energy denying the law which is what I am seeing going on here.

Falconis
10-07-2011, 9:48 PM
Dan, either way I think the analogy fits, purview of the court or not. It's just an example. What actually would happen here is the same thing that is happening now. Lot's of moaning and groaning, some ill feelings towards LEO's, and more moaning and groaning.

sandman21
10-07-2011, 10:19 PM
Yes but as far as I know, there has been no court case or established case law on this. Besides, we have OLLs because The State tried to add things to the AW law that wasn't in the Penal Code. Sounds like that is what they are trying to do here.

Initially, we observe that allowing residents of California to obtain assault weapons for purposes unrelated to law enforcement is wholly contrary to the legislature's stated reasons for enacting restrictions on assault weapons. As set forth more fully above, the legislature found that "the proliferation and use of assault weapons poses a threat to the health, safety, and security of all citizens in this state."......
We thus can discern no legitimate state interest in permitting retired peace officers to possess and use for their personal pleasure military-style weapons. Rather, the retired officers exception arbitrarily and unreasonably affords a privilege to one group of individuals that is denied to others, including plaintiffs.Silveira v. Lockyer (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13948185712203065755&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr)
It seems the court was clear on this matter.

This is to instead and everyone else who have said the same Crap regardless of Intentions. The cops that want the awb abolished r here. The ones on the fence r Polly being driven away in droves now. Then there r the ones who will never side with us. Those of u spouting out ur assessed r not doing any good. Just food for thought. Anyone else get what I am saying? God knows if I was on the fence I would go anti after reading some of this drivel.
Dan, either way I think the analogy fits, purview of the court or not. It's just an example. What actually would happen here is the same thing that is happening now. Lot's of moaning and groaning, some ill feelings towards LEO's, and more moaning and groaning.
164 post in this thread 4 talk about taking the RAW or the LEO going to jail, 6 talking about it being good that LEO's are being placed at the same level as the rest, most of the posts are by 2 or 3 people, yet you want to make it seem that the whole thread is about that, mountain out a molehill. You have a number of people unquestionable rejecting both those ideas, what more do you want? Or do you just want your pound of flesh?
You don't like when generalizations are placed on LEO's why place them on people trying to help. It's a two way street.

If there are those who would go anti because of a couple of posts, oh well, I still plan to fight for their rights to keep their property and enjoy their 2A rights even if there's comes before mine.

A lot of guys here clearly have a "I'm taking my ball and going home attitude" because their not allowed to play.....
Two or three is not a lot, stop trying to make an issue out of nothing. Some peoples personal opinions have been rejected, making generalizations only creates a division.


I don't think the state is going to do a buyback of all the RAW's out there now, it's simply going to be too much money for departments, amnesty won't work either, it's an interesting problem the state finds its self in. Let hope that CGF can rid us of the AW laws and then nobody has to worry about having an unregistered AW.

snip

I think AJAX talked about this awhile go, LEOSA has other uses, and owning a RAW was one of them was part of it, I don't think all the details are worked on that,

Sgt Raven
10-07-2011, 10:34 PM
I've been a therapist for years... as in lawyers there are good ones and ones that will give you problems... I've seen both...
was meant in jest...a slam if you will to fellow (is there a female form of the word fellow?) therapists who need success in their own treatment..... but as to loony... the therapy field has loony...

and if you really looked closely, the aforemention issue with problems is actually a quote out of a certain comic strip and worded almost verbatim...

the next line is : "how about something with aliens?"

which I could/should have probably added.. but being I had surgery yesterday with expected pain medication which I am not in habit of taking... let this stand as an explaination/apology for not adding the joke line...


Sorry, I don't know the line or the comic. :facepalm: (someone give me a Gibb's slap). Hope you're feeling better soon, I spent about 50 hours this week at my wifes side in the Hosp.

Don29palms
10-07-2011, 10:34 PM
All I ever see in this BS communst state is for every 1 unconstitutional gun control law that get overturned by hard working advocates 4 more get passed by the socialist politicians of the U.S.S.Kalifornia.

Bhobbs
10-07-2011, 11:05 PM
Initially, we observe that allowing residents of California to obtain assault weapons for purposes unrelated to law enforcement is wholly contrary to the legislature's stated reasons for enacting restrictions on assault weapons. As set forth more fully above, the legislature found that "the proliferation and use of assault weapons poses a threat to the health, safety, and security of all citizens in this state."......
We thus can discern no legitimate state interest in permitting retired peace officers to possess and use for their personal pleasure military-style weapons. Rather, the retired officers exception arbitrarily and unreasonably affords a privilege to one group of individuals that is denied to others, including plaintiffs.Silveira v. Lockyer (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13948185712203065755&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr)
It seems the court was clear on this matter.


I think that pretty much ends all discussion about retired LEOs keeping their AWs.

nobody_special
10-07-2011, 11:27 PM
Initially, we observe that allowing residents of California to obtain assault weapons for purposes unrelated to law enforcement is wholly contrary to the legislature's stated reasons for enacting restrictions on assault weapons. As set forth more fully above, the legislature found that "the proliferation and use of assault weapons poses a threat to the health, safety, and security of all citizens in this state."......
We thus can discern no legitimate state interest in permitting retired peace officers to possess and use for their personal pleasure military-style weapons. Rather, the retired officers exception arbitrarily and unreasonably affords a privilege to one group of individuals that is denied to others, including plaintiffs.Silveira v. Lockyer (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13948185712203065755&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr)
It seems the court was clear on this matter.


This may be the only significant holding from Silveira that was not overturned by Heller. But I'm not sure if it is relevant to the current situation. It appears to be in reference to a presumably repealed PC §12280(h) which allowed California agencies to:
sell or transfer assault weapons to a sworn peace officer upon the retirement of that officer. § 12280(h).
But I see no such provision in the current penal code. To further confuse matters, I note also footnote 55:
[55] It would appear from the wording of § 12285 that retired peace officers who obtain assault weapons for personal use upon retirement from government service are exempt from the registration and use restrictions of the AWCA. Whether or not they are, however, our conclusion is the same.


The relevant PC is §12280(f)(2), which states that police may receive and possess an assault weapon, but it must be registered (to the officer). Written authorization must be submitted along with the registration ("authorization is defined as verifiable written certification from the head of the agency, identifying the recipient or possessor of the assault weapon as a peace officer and authorizing him or her to receive or possess the specific assault weapon... The peace officer must include with the registration, a copy of the authorization..."). It seems to me that the relevant question is this: if the authorization is no longer valid, does that invalidate the registration? In light of Silveira I suspect that the registrations are invalid upon retirement. But I wouldn't want to place money on the issue.

Once again, yellowfin's quote is apt:

GrayWolf09
10-07-2011, 11:56 PM
Actually it is not all that surprising to have conflicting opinions from the AG's office. The Attorney General represents hundreds of state agencies in thousands of legal cases. Sometimes the AG takes a position in a particular case at the urging of the agency they are representing. There are also informal requests for opinions like the one DAG Merilees replied to. These positions and opinions generally are approved by the Deputy's immediate supervisor.

There are also times when people with juice (like an Assemblyman or Senator or someone who has their ear) want or don't like or are concerned about a particular position. Then they request a formal letter opinion like the one Bill cited in the original post. These are generally written by a separate unit in the AG's office that just writes opinions. If the subject matter effects other parts of the office they generally try to resolve conflicts in house but that is not always possible. These opinions, especially if they are controversial, are approved at the highest levels of the office (the AG or one of his appointees). They carry much more weight than say DAG Merilees' letter.

As Bill points out there are some serious and very real legal problems cropping up because California's AW law is so screwed up.

My sense is that a good deal of the anger in this thread is caused by the perception that LE fights anti-gun legislation until they are exempted, then they stop opposing it. Perhaps now LE might want to fix the current situation by urging the repeal of California's AW law which would solve the problem for all of us.:rolleyes:

Falconis
10-08-2011, 12:10 AM
What I want sandman is those 2 or 3 or whatever amount of people to pull their heads out of their asses and try to get a bigger picture. I want those guys to realize that the same people they want to join their fight won't if they keep persisting with their posts. The way they put it, they have 2 options. Join the fight or carve out their own niche and only get themselves exempted again. That is an actual real possibility considering history.

It may be 2 or 3 people, but it's the amount of posts that keep diverting attention away from the actual cause of the post and a possible long term solution down the road. You say most of the posts are by 2 or 3 people, how many in total? Sounds like 2 or 3 people may be making a majority of the posts, but more are certainly dumping fuel on a fire that could be better used elsewhere. If the attitude that is shown here wasn't so persistent (on this thread and others), not much would probably be said here. But the fact is, almost every thread like this, a number of posts are made, arguments countered, and some people want to defend the inflammatory posters. So I ask, what's your point and what do you want in the end?

Also, let's be realistic. It's not just one or 2 anti posts on this site. This site generates enough anti LE sentiment these days, it has a reputation all it's own. I am not talking about this thread alone.

BTW, I am not making generalizations. I am pointing out the specific individuals that are the constant inflamers around here. When I said, this is to instead, I meant ubet. Damn auto correct on my phone :). That isn't a generalization, again I am calling out the specific people here. I am not saying the whole thread is about this. I am saying is that anytime something useful comes along, certain posters are just diverting attention away. This is the thread where I am just saying something about it. In the end, do you think trying to divert the attention to jailing cops, stripping someone of their firearm, or anything of that sort does any good? Do you think these people that are doing it, even the ones constantly doing it are of any good to this cause in the long term?

Like I said, what I actually want to see is constructive use of this forum instead of the constant *****ing. Like the last 1/3 of your post which I saw as something useful to discuss. Even though amnesty will not work, let's face it, it's something that is popular with politicians as a way to ease out of a tough spot. How many times has it been done before on any number of subjects and how many more times has it been pondered? Although I would find that beneficial it does not solve the ultimate problem that all of us are facing. Can we agree on that Sandman?

I would ultimately like to see myself buying an unneutered AW without permission from my boss again. But I would also like to see certain enhancement penalties for using a firearm in the commission of a crime. Mainly because I have seen too many of my friends buried and many an innocent hard working person killed because of them.

In the end, I won't lie to you. There are cops that want nothing more to disarm the civilian populace because of their personal beliefs. There are also cops that screw up on the job. Then there are the cops that people here like talking to. In the end, I think you and I can agree that the posters who constantly bring up crap just to stir the pot aren't doing any of us any good here. Can we?

For the record, I think yellowfins collaboration reference is the most accurate description I Have read yet :)

Falconis
10-08-2011, 12:16 AM
BTW, one thing to consider when you guys think the Silvera decision will prevent X, Y or Z, or anything like that is one of the more popular sayings on this board. Don't try to instill common sense into Ca gun laws.

ubet
10-08-2011, 7:14 AM
My sense is that a good deal of the anger in this thread is caused by the perception that LE fights anti-gun legislation until they are exempted, then they stop opposing it. Perhaps now LE might want to fix the current situation by urging the repeal of California's AW law which would solve the problem for all of us.:rolleyes:

Some of the most sense anyone has had in this thread to date.

ubet
10-08-2011, 7:29 AM
Falconis, I dont want to see anyone go to jail over guns. I do want to see people do the right thing the first time, and not only after the game changes so its not in their favor. Mistakes have been made. Passed that. If this gives the gun community the chance to kick ca awb to the curb then it is great (I think that is something we can all agree on). What I do NOT like, is how Ca creates separate classes of citizens, you get to do this if you are x but not if you are y. If those games werent played, this conversation wouldnt even exist.

OT:
Maybe this will give you a little insight to why I think how I do, bare with me.
My dads family has always been a ranching family, and in the 1880s settled in Elko county Nv, my great grandfather ended up buying a bar/hotel when he quit buckarooing and got married. Prohibition came along, he had to close the bar, but kept the hotel going. Depression came along, he lost the hotel. When my grandfather was young, growing up during prohibition and in the depression, he one time asked my great grandfather, "dad, how come you dont have a still and sell it like some of these other guys? If you did, we could own a ranch in star valley or up in the Rubys." My great Grandfather hit him closed fist so hard it put him into the wall and he slid down along his back, with the response, "because its against the god damned law."

That little story has stuck with me my entire life, if things are against the law or not right, you dont do them, no matter if you suffer because of it.

GaryV
10-08-2011, 8:28 AM
Not applicable, generally. LEOSA concerns the ability of qualifying LEOs and qualifying retired LEOs to carry a concealed firearm, e.g. a handgun, in any state of the union. It has no blessing mechanism, as I read and understand it, for possession of non-concealable weapons, e.g. EBRs, post employment.

So, a retired LEO being able to carry, post employment, a weapon in places where the rest of us can't, and in defiance of state law, simply because he is a retired LEO, is somehow not giving him gun rights above and beyond those of other private citizens? Last time I checked, "bear" was a right right along side "keep". Simply because it isn't an unfair treatment of one right doesn't mean it isn't an unfair enhancement of the other.

GaryV
10-08-2011, 8:50 AM
A lot of guys here clearly have a "I'm taking my ball and going home attitude" because their not allowed to play. Instead of being able to look at from the officer's perspective they allow their own jealousy and their own agenda to color their view. I have no problem with their agenda, in fact I share it. But that doesn't mean I cannot put myself in these officer's shoes.

These officers purchased these weapons in good faith with their hard earned money based largely on the promise of the attorney general's office that they could keep them when they retire. Then seeming out of no where the state changes its mind and royally screws them. Not just from a certain date forward, but retroactively as well.

There are officers who already retired and are/were already in possession of weapons they were encouraged to purchase and told they could keep into their retirement. Now they are suddenly criminals and must sell the rifle or continue breaking the law. It isn't right.

The resonses seem very colored to me. Too much personal agenda and resentment of law enforcement officers. Whether you think they should have been promised the right to keep these arms or not, retroactively screwing over the officers who purchased them under the promise that they could keep them is wrong.

If you want to change the rules in the middle of the game, the new rules should start from the moment you make the change, and not go back to the beginning and rewrite the score of the game.

I general terms, I agree with you - the treatment of these officers is wrong, given what they were led to believe. However, if they are given the option to sell the firearms at a fair market price, then I would say that they aren't being treated unfairly at all. No other private citizen in the state may register AWs for nothing but his own private recreational use, so why should a retired LEO be allowed to keep them for that purpose? As long as he is receiving fair compensation for the firearm upon retirement, he's really out nothing more than anyone else is.

The other part here is that it is not about jealousy. That is an ad hominem attack. It's about whether the state is applying the laws fairly in denying our rights, or whether they are relegating the rest of us to a lower level of citizenship with fewer rights than those they deem more worthy - and whether LEOs generally support them in this creation of special classes of citizenship. If I saw that these LEOs really were joining with us in a common cause, pushing for a loosening of the AW registration process for everyone, then I'd support them 100%. But I strongly suspect that the majority (with notable exceptions on this board) want no such thing, and would be perfectly happy to have an exception made just for them. After all, they were perfectly happy to have special rights when they believed they could keep their guns (as they are with the handgun roster, normal capacity mags, LEOSA, etc.).

I would gladly welcome support for our cause from all the officers who may now find themselves having to give up their firearms. But until I see it, I have no reason to believe that they won't just continue to push for a special set of rights for themselves and let us continue to fight without (and sometimes even against) them to get ours.

Smokeybehr
10-08-2011, 9:04 AM
The question actually boils down to one simple fact: Is there a difference in the AW registration performed before the deadline by everyone, and the registration done after the deadline for LEOs only.

IMHO, if the only difference is the CLEO letter, then it's the same registration, and the LEO gets to keep the RAW that he purchased with his own money after retirement. If there's no difference in the RAW form, except the date issued, how is an ordinary LEO out on the street going to know?

cmaynes
10-08-2011, 9:23 AM
So, a retired LEO being able to carry, post employment, a weapon in places where the rest of us can't, and in defiance of state law, simply because he is a retired LEO, is somehow not giving him gun rights above and beyond those of other private citizens? Last time I checked, "bear" was a right right along side "keep". Simply because it isn't an unfair treatment of one right doesn't mean it isn't an unfair enhancement of the other.

it is quite sensible to allow former LEO to CCW in that manner. They may be in greater danger as a consequence of their official duties. It is a VERY, VERY different matter than keeping AW's....

GaryV
10-08-2011, 10:27 AM
it is quite sensible to allow former LEO to CCW in that manner. They may be in greater danger as a consequence of their official duties. It is a VERY, VERY different matter than keeping AW's....

Really? A retired LEO from jerkwater Mississippi, population 200, who never arrested anyone for anything worse than DUI or Misdemeanor DV in his 15 years as a LEO is in some significantly greater danger 20 years later while vacationing in upstate NY than citizens who live every day of their lives in NYC? I seriously doubt it. I was a LEO myself for 5 years, before going back to school, and several of my friends and family still are, or were for many more years, many in large cities. And never once have any of us ever run into someone with an old grudge from what we did while working from whom we needed to defend ourselves.

This is just the same BS based on nothing more than unsupported supposition, backed by exactly zero statistical evidence. It sounds logical, but in real-life it isn't actually true. While movies like Cape Fear sell a lot of tickets, that doesn't make them a reflection of a larger reality. It's just another example of creating a society in which the rights of citizenship are unequally distributed, furthering the creation of a police state in which the police are "superior" citizens.

And how is it different from keeping AWs? If you're going to argue that retired LEOs are at some significantly greater risk than the rest of us, despite a complete lack of evidence that such is the case, then wouldn't that also support their desire to keep superior firepower in their homes? After all, if someone with an old grudge is going to come looking for them, they're much more likely to track them down at home than when they're traveling out of state. It's not any different. It's just the same apportionment of extra rights to people for no other reason than because they have become a social elite.

donw
10-08-2011, 10:48 AM
This actually isn't very heartening, because frankly I want LEO agencies to abide (mostly) by the same gun laws citizens follow. Because they are citizens too.

+1

i, personally, believe i should be able to own any thing LEO can...(That includes night vision riflescopes to hunt at night with!)

we all know LEO/LEA are placed above the normal "Joe the plumber" in todays legislative culture though.

1911_sfca
10-08-2011, 11:24 AM
I think that pretty much ends all discussion about retired LEOs keeping their AWs.

Not really. Aside from volumes of inane dribble about the second amendment NOT being a personal right, the only thing that Silvera rules on is whether a law enforcement agency could transfer a department-owned AW to an officer upon their retirement and allow it to be personally registered by the officer. The court decided there was no legitimate law enforcement reason for this to happen, especially because the AW may not even be one that was assigned to the officer while they were full-time.

This is a very different question than whether a LEO, who has personally been authorized to buy (by their deparment) and has been registered (by CA DOJ) an AW, can then keep that AW per the registration when they separate from the department. The registration has no stipulations on how the weapon is to be used; it is simply granted on the initial premise.

So regardless of what your personal opinions are on the topic, the courts have not ruled on this topic, and Brown's opinion is what it is.

Edit to add: IMO, the legislators may take that opinion and modify the legislation.. if there is political will to do so. What the court would say on this is unknown at this point, but it points in the direction of allowing officers to keep the rifle based on the registration, just like any other personal AW registration.. and per the opinion letter written by A.M. that Bill posted on page 1.

cmaynes
10-08-2011, 11:30 AM
Really? A retired LEO from jerkwater Mississippi, population 200, who never arrested anyone for anything worse than DUI or Misdemeanor DV in his 15 years as a LEO is in some significantly greater danger 20 years later while vacationing in upstate NY than citizens who live every day of their lives in NYC? I seriously doubt it. I was a LEO myself for 5 years, before going back to school, and several of my friends and family still are, or were for many more years, many in large cities. And never once have any of us ever run into someone with an old grudge from what we did while working from whom we needed to defend ourselves.

This is just the same BS based on nothing more than unsupported supposition, backed by exactly zero statistical evidence. It sounds logical, but in real-life it isn't actually true. While movies like Cape Fear sell a lot of tickets, that doesn't make them a reflection of a larger reality. It's just another example of creating a society in which the rights of citizenship are unequally distributed, furthering the creation of a police state in which the police are "superior" citizens.

And how is it different from keeping AWs? If you're going to argue that retired LEOs are at some significantly greater risk than the rest of us, despite a complete lack of evidence that such is the case, then wouldn't that also support their desire to keep superior firepower in their homes? After all, if someone with an old grudge is going to come looking for them, they're much more likely to track them down at home than when they're traveling out of state. It's not any different. It's just the same apportionment of extra rights to people for no other reason than because they have become a social elite.

well, I cant speak from direct experience, but I have a family member who works for DEA, and very close friend on the gang squad with SFPD, and I think they feel differently. I do also know that it is common practice for LEO's to not live in the city they work in... at least here in Los Angeles. I certainly have no interest in arguing the point, but from a commonsense perspective, I don't feel its wrong for former LEO's to have that blanket priviledge. that of course is just one persons opinion on the matter- and I also feel that a legal CCW holder is probably not going to pose a threat to the general public either.

I do also believe we need to separate the AW issue here from the CCW issue- they are very different. and I dont think an AR can be concelled very easily unless its an SBR, which is another layer to the onion.

hornswaggled
10-08-2011, 11:31 AM
if the rifle was owned prior to the ban and registered- it would be legally compliant....

Too late then. The deadline for citizens to register AWs has long passed. So the named AR owned by the retired LEO (who is now a regular citizen) is now an unregistered AW, and possession of it is a felony.

sandman21
10-08-2011, 11:43 AM
This may be the only significant holding from Silveira that was not overturned by Heller. But I'm not sure if it is relevant to the current situation. It appears to be in reference to a presumably repealed PC §12280(h) which allowed California agencies to:
But I see no such provision in the current penal code. To further confuse matters, I note also footnote 55:
The relevant PC is §12280(f)(2), which states that police may receive and possess an assault weapon, but it must be registered (to the officer). Written authorization must be submitted along with the registration ("authorization is defined as verifiable written certification from the head of the agency, identifying the recipient or possessor of the assault weapon as a peace officer and authorizing him or her to receive or possess the specific assault weapon... The peace officer must include with the registration, a copy of the authorization..."). It seems to me that the relevant question is this: if the authorization is no longer valid, does that invalidate the registration? In light of Silveira I suspect that the registrations are invalid upon retirement. But I wouldn't want to place money on the issue.

Once again, yellowfin's quote is apt:
The state's third argument fails also. The state contends that the retired officers exception is rational because it allows retiring peace officers to keep their duty weapons, which in some cases the officer may have purchased with his own funds. However, the retired officer provision contains no such limitation; indeed, on its face the statute would permit the transfer of any number of assault weapons to any peace officer, regardless of whether that officer had ever come into contact with the weapons being acquired. Indeed, in contrast to the off-duty officer provision, under the retired officers' exception the retiree may possess and use assault weapons for any purpose whatsoever.[58]
We may not complete our evaluation of the statute's validity merely by examining the state's proffered justifications for the law. Rather, we must determine whether any reasonable theory could support the legislative classification. Heller, 509 U.S. at 320, 113 S.Ct. 2637. An exception to the assault weapons law for retired officers might arguably be rational if California required its retired peace officers to participate as reserves in the event of an emergency. However, there is no such requirement in California. Moreover, even if there were such a requirement, a statute that permitted retired peace officers — at their discretion — to obtain assault weapons and use them for unlimited purposes, and in an unregulated manner, would not reasonably advance the objective of establishing a reserve force of retired officers prepared to act in emergencies.

It would appear to me it does not matter if the RAW was registered to the LEO's or transferred from the LEA to the LEO. Silveria held that RAW's in the hands of retired LEO's is contrary to the AW ban. The DOJ should have never allowed registration of AW to LEO's because once retired the RAW is no longer legally registered to the LEO. The fact that the PC does not allow the AW to be unregistered changes nothing in my mind.


What I want sandman is those 2 or 3 or whatever amount of people to pull their heads out of their asses and try to get a bigger picture. I want those guys to realize that the same people they want to join their fight won't if they keep persisting with their posts. The way they put it, they have 2 options. Join the fight or carve out their own niche and only get themselves exempted again. That is an actual real possibility considering history.
It's also a two way street, if there would not be a backlash from the public on this issue, LEA would be sending letters to retied LEO's to sell or transfer out of state there RAW's and dealing with any court case along the way. However, it would still leave people without their property for several years until the case is won.
It may be 2 or 3 people, but it's the amount of posts that keep diverting attention away from the actual cause of the post and a possible long term solution down the road. You say most of the posts are by 2 or 3 people, how many in total? Sounds like 2 or 3 people may be making a majority of the posts, but more are certainly dumping fuel on a fire that could be better used elsewhere. If the attitude that is shown here wasn't so persistent (on this thread and others), not much would probably be said here. But the fact is, almost every thread like this, a number of posts are made, arguments countered, and some people want to defend the inflammatory posters. So I ask, what's your point and what do you want in the end?
10 total out of 164. With just as many telling the people they are wrong.

My point is that you don't see that you and others are also dumping fuel on the fire "inadequacy/jealousy/anger", "anger issues" are just as unhelpful as saying all the retired LEO's should go to jail. It's a two way street and both sides dump fuel. What I want in the end is for people to realize when someone has made a unhelpful point and try and make them realize that without dumping fuel on the fire. This thread is a perfect example of that, people pointed to the posters errors without dumping fuel to the fire, however others decided that dumping of fuel was needed.

BTW, I am not making generalizations. I am pointing out the specific individuals that are the constant inflamers around here. When I said, this is to instead, I meant ubet. Damn auto correct on my phone :). That isn't a generalization, again I am calling out the specific people here. I am not saying the whole thread is about this. I am saying is that anytime something useful comes along, certain posters are just diverting attention away. This is the thread where I am just saying something about it. In the end, do you think trying to divert the attention to jailing cops, stripping someone of their firearm, or anything of that sort does any good? Do you think these people that are doing it, even the ones constantly doing it are of any good to this cause in the long term?
No generalizations..........
Also, let's be realistic. It's not just one or 2 anti posts on this site. This site generates enough anti LE sentiment these days, it has a reputation all it's own. I am not talking about this thread alone.
Do you think it's good when people say it's only an AG opinion? Or there is no PC that says retired LEO can't keep a RAW? Neither is helpful.
Like I said, what I actually want to see is constructive use of this forum instead of the constant *****ing. Like the last 1/3 of your post which I saw as something useful to discuss. Even though amnesty will not work, let's face it, it's something that is popular with politicians as a way to ease out of a tough spot. How many times has it been done before on any number of subjects and how many more times has it been pondered? Although I would find that beneficial it does not solve the ultimate problem that all of us are facing. Can we agree on that Sandman?
That's my point about amnesty would not work, each year more would retire and they would need to give more amnesty, I think you might be able to fight that on equal protection grounds, I think the fix would need to be for all. They might try a onetime registration so you get everyone's AW registered then cut it off and no longer allow a LEO to buy a RAW. I don't think some LEA's are going to want to do that, they are then going to have to foot the bill for future RAW's, taking away from budgets
I would ultimately like to see myself buying an unneutered AW without permission from my boss again. But I would also like to see certain enhancement penalties for using a firearm in the commission of a crime. Mainly because I have seen too many of my friends buried and many an innocent hard working person killed because of them.
In the end, I won't lie to you. There are cops that want nothing more to disarm the civilian populace because of their personal beliefs. There are also cops that screw up on the job. Then there are the cops that people here like talking to. In the end, I think you and I can agree that the posters who constantly bring up crap just to stir the pot aren't doing any of us any good here. Can we?
Sure we can agree to that, I have been more mindful to simply not get into with those that only want to stir the pot. If I do I try to make my points without stirring so that others might take my opinion better.

I am also well aware that LEO's are just a cross section of our society, just like gun owners. My disagreements about LEO actions, laws, the role of LEO in government do not mean that I think all LEO's are bad as I have said many times.

sandman21
10-08-2011, 11:45 AM
well, I cant speak from direct experience, but I have a family member who works for DEA, and very close friend on the gang squad with SFPD, and I think they feel differently. I do also know that it is common practice for LEO's to not live in the city they work in... at least here in Los Angeles. I certainly have no interest in arguing the point, but from a commonsense perspective, I don't feel its wrong for former LEO's to have that blanket priviledge. that of course is just one persons opinion on the matter- and I also feel that a legal CCW holder is probably not going to pose a threat to the general public either.

I do also believe we need to separate the AW issue here from the CCW issue- they are very different. and I dont think an AR can be concelled very easily unless its an SBR, which is another layer to the onion.

Carrying a firearm is not a privilege it's a civil right. :D

cmaynes
10-08-2011, 11:46 AM
Too late then. The deadline for citizens to register AWs has long passed. So the named AR owned by the retired LEO (who is now a regular citizen) is now an unregistered AW, and possession of it is a felony.

wasn't this framed on a timeline prior to the ban? if so, then it would be permissible to register the AW by anyone not otherwise ineligible...

I think the issue of all this hinging on the CLEO sign-off is the main thing here- where it gets sticky is that a personal weapon, being in essence loaned to the department, is wrong- The department should provide the weapons it is bonding its officers to use- What if this was an NFA item, or say an SBR, or a suppressor? those all have very valid LE usages, and just because a Dept is unwilling to pay for them shouldn't mean that a willing officer gets the letters, and then is able to purchase the items- (with an exemption on the tax stamps)... and then be allowed to keep them. it seems that a formal transfer of ownership would be required on those cases so that the NFA registry properly reflects the ownership of the items. Though I would think this to be a very rare sort of scenario- but not one thats impossible. The sad thing is that a move 300 miles to the east puts you in a place where a civilian actually CAN get the CLEO signoffs on all that cool stuff- or a Trust can be used to legally aquire them-

cmaynes
10-08-2011, 11:48 AM
Carrying a firearm is not a privilege it's a civil right. :D

then we need to focus on the matter and educate the general public about that.

GaryV
10-08-2011, 12:10 PM
well, I cant speak from direct experience, but I have a family member who works for DEA, and very close friend on the gang squad with SFPD, and I think they feel differently. I do also know that it is common practice for LEO's to not live in the city they work in... at least here in Los Angeles. I certainly have no interest in arguing the point, but from a commonsense perspective, I don't feel its wrong for former LEO's to have that blanket priviledge. that of course is just one persons opinion on the matter- and I also feel that a legal CCW holder is probably not going to pose a threat to the general public either.

I do also believe we need to separate the AW issue here from the CCW issue- they are very different. and I dont think an AR can be concelled very easily unless its an SBR, which is another layer to the onion.

A very small percentage of former LEOs will have done things as part of their job to warrant extra concern. That's not the issue. The vast, vast majority will not have, and having reached the specified number of years that LEOSA defines as "qualified" has little to do with it. Someone who worked for only 5 years, like myself, may have worked undercover against some very nasty people and actually be in danger, while someone who works mostly traffic for 20 years probably won't be. And yet, time in is the primary criterion by which one becomes "qualified" under LEOSA. That indicates that it is simply a reward for attaining a particular status, and has nothing to do with actual threat.

Also, while that very small minority of officers who legitimately face an increased threat may really need something like LEOSA, why should it extend to all 50 states? The likelihood of someone actually tracking them as they travel in order to get them out of state is virtually zero. If something is going to happen, it's almost certain to happen in or near home. So why not just make it effective in their home state and/or the state(s) in which they worked? My earlier example of someone who worked for a small town LEA then being allowed to carry far from home on a short trip to a state in which the average citizen cannot carry makes the point that this is quite a significant and largely unjustified grant of special rights.

If you want to discuss carry separately from possession, that's fine. But the question I originally responded to was a more general question about retired LEOs being granted special 2nd Amendment rights over the rest of the citizenry. And LEOSA, just like keeping AWs after retirement, is precisely that. You chose to involve yourself in that discussion, so it's silly for you to now say that discussion is invalid because you think there's a fundamental difference based on, as you said, your personal opinion. Setting up a straw-man argument by trying to conflate them in saying that most AWs are not concealable doesn't change the fact that LEOSA is exactly the same kind of grant of extra gun rights to people, for no other reason than because they worked a specified time as a LEO, as is allowing retired LEOs to keep firearms that were purchased for the express purpose of use in their duties as LEOs. While some portions of the two instances are unique to each, they are far more the same issue than they are separate.

And as I said, if they are allowed to sell the AWs at fair market prices upon retirement, I don't see where they have any legitimate complaint at all. No other private citizen is allowed to keep post-ban AWs, why should LEOs? As long as they are allowed to recoup their expense, the fact that they paid for them out of their own pockets is irrelevant. While the ruling in Silviera dealt with a slightly different issue, the ruling makes clear that their reasoning was that the AW ban was meant to prevent any further privately owned AWs from being allowed in the state, and that retired LEOs weren't an exception. The nit-picking differences that have been mentioned in relation to transferring department AWs as opposed to individually purchased AWs don't begin to rise to the level of challenging that reasoning of the court.

cmaynes
10-08-2011, 12:24 PM
A very small percentage of former LEOs will have done things as part of their job to warrant extra concern. That's not the issue. The vast, vast majority will not have, and having reached the specified number of years that LEOSA defines as "qualified" has little to do with it. Someone who worked for only 5 years, like myself, may have worked undercover against some very nasty people and actually be in danger, while someone who works mostly traffic for 20 years probably won't be. And yet, time in is the primary criterion by which one becomes "qualified" under LEOSA. That indicates that it is simply a reward for attaining a particular status, and has nothing to do with actual threat.

Also, while that very small minority of officers who legitimately face an increased threat may really need something like LEOSA, why should it extend to all 50 states? The likelihood of someone actually tracking them as they travel in order to get them out of state is virtually zero. If something is going to happen, it's almost certain to happen in or near home. So why not just make it effective in their home state and/or the state(s) in which they worked? My earlier example of someone who worked for a small town LEA then being allowed to carry far from home on a short trip to a state in which the average citizen cannot carry makes the point that this is quite a significant and largely unjustified grant of special rights.

If you want to discuss carry separately from possession, that's fine. But the question I originally responded to was a more general question about retired LEOs being granted special 2nd Amendment rights over the rest of the citizenry. And LEOSA, just like keeping AWs after retirement, is precisely that. You chose to involve yourself in that discussion, so it's silly for you to now say that discussion is invalid because you think there's a fundamental difference based on, as you said, your personal opinion. Setting up a straw-man argument by trying to conflate them in saying that most AWs are not concealable doesn't change the fact that LEOSA is exactly the same kind of grant of extra gun rights to people, for no other reason than because they worked a specified time as a LEO, as is allowing retired LEOs to keep firearms that were purchased for the express purpose of use in their duties as LEOs. While some portions of the two instances are unique to each, they are far more the same issue than they are separate.

And as I said, if they are allowed to sell the AWs at fair market prices upon retirement, I don't see where they have any legitimate complaint at all. No other private citizen is allowed to keep post-ban AWs, why should LEOs? As long as they are allowed to recoup their expense, the fact that they paid for them out of their own pockets is irrelevant. While the ruling in Silviera dealt with a slightly different issue, the ruling makes clear that their reasoning was that the AW ban was meant to prevent any further privately owned AWs from being allowed in the state, and that retired LEOs weren't an exception. The nit-picking differences that have been mentioned in relation to transferring department AWs as opposed to individually purchased AWs don't begin to rise to the level of challenging that reasoning of the court.

the carry issue is one of personal safety- as is any CCW issue I think. Judges and attorneys also carry as do CA State Senators. The interesting thing about the LEOSA is that I think any agency would issue a civilian CCW to a retired officer....
As to the broad provisions of that- being honored in 50 states, etc- I would expect the legislation was taking into account Federal LEO personnel- IE, DEA, FBI, BP etc- perhaps State or Municipal officers shouldn't be granted that, but it sorta is what it is. I am not clear on where the strawman here is, but I see there being distinctions which make them different.

the AW issue is one of financial investment and value foremost- the "fun" of owning an AW is gravy- should an officer have to use his own car, and properly outfit it to perform his duties? I wouldnt think so.... Should an officer have to buy his own body armor? I wouldnt think so either- though I pitched cash in for two of my friends to do so- one in SF and one in Burbank....

we do need to get past the argument on this though and work towards getting the ban tossed out on whatever grounds required.

ubet
10-08-2011, 12:28 PM
work towards getting the ban tossed out on whatever grounds required.

FOR THE WIN

GaryV
10-08-2011, 1:08 PM
the carry issue is one of personal safety- as is any CCW issue I think. Judges and attorneys also carry as do CA State Senators. The interesting thing about the LEOSA is that I think any agency would issue a civilian CCW to a retired officer....
As to the broad provisions of that- being honored in 50 states, etc- I would expect the legislation was taking into account Federal LEO personnel- IE, DEA, FBI, BP etc- perhaps State or Municipal officers shouldn't be granted that, but it sorta is what it is. I am not clear on where the strawman here is, but I see there being distinctions which make them different.

the AW issue is one of financial investment and value foremost- the "fun" of owning an AW is gravy- should an officer have to use his own car, and properly outfit it to perform his duties? I wouldnt think so.... Should an officer have to buy his own body armor? I wouldnt think so either- though I pitched cash in for two of my friends to do so- one in SF and one in Burbank....

we do need to get past the argument on this though and work towards getting the ban tossed out on whatever grounds required.

Except that there are no data or anything else supporting the idea that retired LEOs have special safety concerns. Active LEOs? Sure, but again, only within their own area of operation, and they don't need LEOSA for that, not even the feds. It's nothing but a gift of special rights as a reward for being a LEO for a specified amount of time. As I pointed out before, its provisions are not based in any way on the actual likelihood of an officer having special safety concerns, but almost entirely on time served.

No, officers should not have to purchase their own equipment. And I know of no department in California the requires that their officers purchase an AW. If officers want and AW, some departments will allow them to purchase their own and use them on duty, but they are not required to do so as a condition of employment. And, as I've said twice before, if they are allowed to recoup those costs on retirement, any such argument of investment or value is simply invalid. It becomes the same issue of special rights for "special" citizens.

The straw-man is that whether an AW can be concealed is irrelevant to whether LEOSA and the retention of AWs by retired LEOs are both part of the same issue or not. To try to say that an AW has to qualify for concealed carry for the two issues to be linked is most definitely a straw-man. Neither I nor anyone else ever said or even implied that the reason they should be considered part of the same issue is because they are to be exercised simultaneously. But the fact that they usually can't be seems to have been one of your main points. That's a straw-man.

Take away the fact that there really is no legitimate special safety issue for all but a hand full of retired LEOs, that LEOSA qualifications do not take any such criteria into account and very often work against them, that active LEOs can already generally carry without an LTC anywhere they are likely to actually be at increased risk, and that retiring LEOs can always sell their AWs at fair market value, negating any investment or value argument - all of which are demonstrably true - and both issues become nothing but a matter of a special class of gun rights for retired LEOs, for no other reason than because the political elite has classed them as a higher form of citizen than the rest of us. If we want to use this to get the ban tossed, either we need to make an equal-protection case out of it, based on the fact that retired LEOs are not entitled to special rights; or we need to convince LEOs that they are not special citizens entitled to special rights, and that they are in the same boat we are - and should therefore support the rights of everyone if they want those rights for themselves. How else is the AWs for retired LEOs issue useful in getting the ban overturned?

cmaynes
10-08-2011, 1:26 PM
I was not tying the AW / CCW issue together except in the humor of a concealled AW- which should have been obvious, but seemingly was not. I guess my poor language skills elevated a joke comment into a strawman.

as the the ability to sell an AW after retirement, to whom would it be sold? and should the burden of such be reasonable- as well- I would be interested in how many dept's allow officers to carry weapons which are not typically issued- I would think there would be some liability issues in that, but perhaps I am mistaken.

As well- the notion of LEOSA being a sort of reward is kind of interesting- but the overarching rational of time in service compounding potential threat does seem plausible. And I am frankly ok with sworn LEO's having the priviledge of CCW after they complete their service. There are not that many professions where someone has to deal with the reality of getting killed as a day to day risk they assume- so I am personally willing to toss that bone out there.

again- we shouldnt be building walls here, but tearing them down. We need to band together to unf#$% the laws on the books, and educate the public to the value of the 2nd Amendment.

CSACANNONEER
10-08-2011, 1:34 PM
well, I cant speak from direct experience, but I have a family member who works for DEA, and very close friend on the gang squad with SFPD, and I think they feel differently. I do also know that it is common practice for LEO's to not live in the city they work in... at least here in Los Angeles. I certainly have no interest in arguing the point, but from a commonsense perspective, I don't feel its wrong for former LEO's to have that blanket priviledge. that of course is just one persons opinion on the matter- and I also feel that a legal CCW holder is probably not going to pose a threat to the general public either.

I do also believe we need to separate the AW issue here from the CCW issue- they are very different. and I dont think an AR can be concelled very easily unless its an SBR, which is another layer to the onion.

So, you are saying that your close friends in LE do feel that they are in a special class and should be granted special priviledges, like retaining RAWs, after leaving their jobs? Do they really feel that they are somehow superior to those who worked other jobs? If so, I think they are a meanace to their professions. I know more than a few retired LEOs, including my father (+31 years as a federal LEO) who don't think of themselves as being in some sort of different class which deserves special "rights".

I know that "here in Los Angeles" MOST LAPD officers happen to live within the city limits and most LASD officers happen to live within the limits of LA County. So, while they may not live in the areas they patrol, they still live within their immediate jurasdiction. In fact, many LEAs do, or did, REQUIRE their officers to live within the agency's jurasdiction.

cmaynes
10-08-2011, 1:41 PM
So, you are saying that your close friends in LE do feel that they are in a special class and should be granted special priviledges, like retaining RAWs, after leaving their jobs? Do they really feel that they are somehow superior to those who worked other jobs? If so, I think they are a meanace to their professions. I know more than a few retired LEOs, including my father (+31 years as a federal LEO) who don't think of themselves as being in some sort of different class which deserves special "rights".

I know that "here in Los Angeles" MOST LAPD officers happen to live within the city limits and most LASD officers happen to live within the limits of LA County. So, while they may not live in the areas they patrol, they still live within their immediate jurasdiction. In fact, many LEAs do, or did, REQUIRE their officers to live within the agency's jurisdiction.

well I suppose they do in the manner that they are wearing armor and weapons at work- beyond that, one is not a "gun" person- though he is certainly competent, and the other is an enthusiast. Beyond that, they dont think they deserve special consideration from what I can tell.

as to where LEO live- I know Simi Valley and Palmdale are very popular places for LEO's-

I think they both feel the firearms laws in the State could be a whole lot better though.

bohoki
10-08-2011, 8:17 PM
well we do have this- how it would work in court is uncertain-

Penal Code section 12280(e) provides an exception for the sale to, purchase by, or possession of assault weapons or .50 BMG rifles by specified law enforcement agencies and military or naval forces for use in the discharge of their official duties. The law permits possession and use of these weapons by sworn members of these agencies when on duty and the use is within the scope of their duties.
• Penal Code section 12280(f) provides an exception for the delivery, transfer, or sale to, or possession of an assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle by peace officer members of specified agencies with the express authorization of their employing agencies. For this exception to apply, if the firearm is an assault weapon, the peace officer must register the firearm as an assault weapon with the Department of Justice within 90 days of the date of acquisition. If the firearm is a .50 BMG rifle and the officer took possession of the rifle after January 1, 2005, the officer shall register the firearm as a.50 caliber BMG rifle not later than one year after possession or receipt.

the question would be if section f was seen as superior to section e.

I suppose talking to the CA DOJ Firearms branch would be a way to resolve that directly....

if they have an exception for use during official dutys then they should not open the register for them to be registered

but they did so they should stand

Falconis
10-08-2011, 8:33 PM
It would appear to me it does not matter if the RAW was registered to the LEO's or transferred from the LEA to the LEO. Silveria held that RAW's in the hands of retired LEO's is contrary to the AW ban. The DOJ should have never allowed registration of AW to LEO's because once retired the RAW is no longer legally registered to the LEO. The fact that the PC does not allow the AW to be unregistered changes nothing in my mind.

Whether they should have or should not have, they did. We are where we are now and different arguments come into play because of how things played out.

It's also a two way street, if there would not be a backlash from the public on this issue, LEA would be sending letters to retied LEO's to sell or transfer out of state there RAW's and dealing with any court case along the way. However, it would still leave people without their property for several years until the case is won.

I didn't think this started as a backlash from the public but from with the LE community and the differing opinions.

10 total out of 164. With just as many telling the people they are wrong.

My point is that you don't see that you and others are also dumping fuel on the fire "inadequacy/jealousy/anger", "anger issues" are just as unhelpful as saying all the retired LEO's should go to jail. It's a two way street and both sides dump fuel. What I want in the end is for people to realize when someone has made a unhelpful point and try and make them realize that without dumping fuel on the fire. This thread is a perfect example of that, people pointed to the posters errors without dumping fuel to the fire, however others decided that dumping of fuel was needed.

I've tried it both ways and in my personal experience here, some people just want the fire to burn. There are a lot of comments I just let slide, then there are days I feel like saying something. I don't think any particular group here deserves any abuse or should have to quietly put up with it.

No generalizations..........

Well we can argue all day long can't we? :)

Do you think it's good when people say it's only an AG opinion? Or there is no PC that says retired LEO can't keep a RAW? Neither is helpful.

Actually it's helpful to the point where maybe someone can come up with a legal theory and back it up. I think calling for the jailing of cops over a gigantic cluster**** of a misunderstanding of the laws is even less called for. Atleast with your above statement, it's just positing possible legal theories. Isn't that what this board is for?

That's my point about amnesty would not work, each year more would retire and they would need to give more amnesty, I think you might be able to fight that on equal protection grounds, I think the fix would need to be for all. They might try a onetime registration so you get everyone's AW registered then cut it off and no longer allow a LEO to buy a RAW. I don't think some LEA's are going to want to do that, they are then going to have to foot the bill for future RAW's, taking away from budgets

It'll work for the moment which is what all that the legislature may care about. Kick the ball down the road and let some other session take care of it or kick it again. You're theory and mine have 2 things in common. They are theories and full of holes.

Sure we can agree to that, I have been more mindful to simply not get into with those that only want to stir the pot. If I do I try to make my points without stirring so that others might take my opinion better.

Ehhh I have my days that I choose.

I am also well aware that LEO's are just a cross section of our society, just like gun owners. My disagreements about LEO actions, laws, the role of LEO in government do not mean that I think all LEO's are bad as I have said many times.

Here's the problem with this board. We all don't really know each other from squat. We all only know each other from PM's and posts made. If all one sees is a certain type of post from a person, that paints the picture for that person for all to see. No one is going to see your "other" side or theirs.

Even you have to admit the anti LE sentiments are a bit overbearing on this board. Take it as a generalized statement. It is. Even by your count it's 6 percent of the posts made, not even a fraction of 1 percent. I don't know how many more may have been made after your last post. Don't care. But can you also blame anyone that wants to defend their position? I know and admit that I threw gas on this fire. Whether it was justified or not, I am also the type of person to take certain actions after something is said or done. Most of the time I won't, but I am not the type of person to just let everything slide.

As to the overall nature of what this thread was suppose to be, are you seriously going to try and curtail people discussing how to keep their firearms legally? If yes, then why? Because it is a LEO? The statements such as it's just an opinion or there is no PC for it may be just blunt to you, but I see it as a possible starting point. Bill and some others see this entire thread as a diving board to hopefully get the whole AWB tossed. You see how it's building yet?

EDIT: Let me add one thing. Despite all hostilities, it sounds like the powers to be are working on a way to toss the AWB by allowing the special exemption/separate class of citizen thing to stand and proliferate. I know I am in favor of this for all the obvious reasons. But everyone that has been screaming their heads off here, are you truly against this because of what's been stated, or are you just bellowing because of your distaste for certain peoples in society? Are you willing to wait that much longer or forever to wait for a solution that just may never come?