PDA

View Full Version : AB 2549 (Hall) 2012: LEO and 'assault weapons' COMBINED DISCUSSION THREAD


Pages : [1] 2

Librarian
02-25-2012, 6:18 PM
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_2549&sess=CUR&house=B&author=hall

This thread, merged with a second thread, is for all of the 'is the underlying problem a good idea, and whose fault is it?' discussion.

For actual discussion of the BILL, see new thread
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=542526

Connor P Price
02-25-2012, 7:11 PM
Just in case the police decide to start running around with an assault weapon in each hand? This is silliness.

Ubermcoupe
02-25-2012, 7:23 PM
So in theory, if a LEO was given more than one “letter” allowing the officer to purchase/register an AW they could?

Are there current LEOs out there that have been able to register more than one AW???
I always assumed they could only register one.

huntercf
02-25-2012, 7:30 PM
Why would LEO's need a .50BMG? I thought they were only good for shooting down planes? :36:

Apocalypsenerd
02-25-2012, 8:07 PM
Glad to see the politicians in Sacramento love and trust our LEO's.

I mean really, without this law to prevent them from stocking up on assault weapons, the LEO's might not be out there cleaning up our society after criminals mess it up.

mag360
02-25-2012, 8:09 PM
is this Isadore Hall? Backstabbing his own LEO's, isn't he a deputy sheriff?

socal2310
02-25-2012, 8:11 PM
I love that our politicians in Sacramento are bound and determined to push LEO Unions into siding with us. Let's not forget that many of the most anti-gun bills in this state were passed only after LEO's were exempted.

Ryan

Maestro Pistolero
02-25-2012, 8:15 PM
I'm so glad that the legislature is so on top of their game that they have the luxury of resources to deal with this pervasive problem of LE having assault weapons in both their right AND left hands.

SanPedroShooter
02-25-2012, 8:16 PM
I love that our politicians in Sacramento are bound and determined to push LEO Unions into siding with us. Let's not forget that many of the most anti-gun bills in this state were passed only after LEO's were exempted.

Ryan

Yes indeedee... So we all hear that the rank and file LEO in California supports the Citizen gun owner, and all these awful bill that pass with police support (traded for their exemption) arent their fault... Will their union throw them under the bus? Or will it go to bat for them? Is the shoe on the other foot?

I am waiting to see which side is wagging the dog on this one.

Maestro Pistolero
02-25-2012, 8:20 PM
This is particularly mind-numbing because for ten years now, I have lived in a state where any non-prohibited person can own as many of these as he/she can afford. And even here, military style semi autos or 50BMGs are virtually absent from gun crime reports.

mag360
02-25-2012, 8:26 PM
this bill does more as well. It will require DOJ to make a "change of status" form, and require the retired officer to alert DOJ they are no longer active duty, and pay for the form to be filed.

that could get interesting.

Connor P Price
02-25-2012, 8:28 PM
Why would LEO's need a .50BMG? I thought they were only good for shooting down planes? :36:

They shouldn't have to "need" it. Wanting it should be enough for them as well as for us.

GOEX FFF
02-25-2012, 8:28 PM
Wow, there sure are a lot of bills that just came pumping out.

It's funny, of the anti rights bills that Librarian has listed, have to do with what we all have been talking about here on CGN for some time, often in great detail. If anyone thinks the opposition doesn't read these forums to get information, they are kidding themselves. IMO, that's why it's prudent not to speak too broadly and give any detailed "devils advocate" info that they may have not have already thought about, that can hurt the RKBA. Just sayin'.

SanPedroShooter
02-25-2012, 8:36 PM
Does anyone want to bet on the committee results with me? Can you say 'party line vote'? And I'll bet the other way for all the 'good' bills. How about 2/3rds Democratic legislature + ol' Governor Jerry?

**** the 'party line'? How about 'party fast lane'....

curtisfong
02-25-2012, 8:39 PM
I support this bill. No more LEO exemptions. Make CLEO and the LEO unions feel the same pain "civilians" do, and MAYBE we'll see actual 2A progress in this godforsaken corrupt state.

curtisfong
02-25-2012, 8:40 PM
I love that our politicians in Sacramento are bound and determined to push LEO Unions into siding with us. Let's not forget that many of the most anti-gun bills in this state were passed only after LEO's were exempted.


Exactly.

SanPedroShooter
02-25-2012, 8:42 PM
I am really interested in who the union backs on this one? The hands in Sac that feed them (and vice versa) or the rank and file that pay's dues...?

I have a feeling LEO's are gonna get a taste of some nasty medicine.

No matter which way you slice it, cops have a couple bills aimed at their personal toys...

Its kinda nice to see the gods on olympus fighting over our heads this time. Although I am sure the rest of are next.... as sure as I am they will work something out....in the end.

Adeodatus
02-25-2012, 10:32 PM
I can see some good coming from this. This forces the police to be somewhat in the same boat as us regular comrades of Commiefornia. Thus the police unions will be complaining about how "oh we need our AWs to protect the children!" So hopefully if this happens police will start supporting more pro 2A law for everyone.

Also police should always be subject to the same laws everyone else is. NO ONE should be above the law. Oh wouldnt that look interesting, all the politicians running around to police stations, busting in shouting "no high caps clipz for youz!"

mag360
02-26-2012, 12:35 AM
maybe next they will ban Leo off duty "assault clips" hahaha.

and you can only have 1 or the other, a single 50bmg OR a single assault weapon with this bill. Not both.

tenpercentfirearms
02-26-2012, 6:14 AM
I support this bill. No more LEO exemptions. Make CLEO and the LEO unions feel the same pain "civilians" do, and MAYBE we'll see actual 2A progress in this godforsaken corrupt state.

So if I understand you correctly, you support anti-gun bills? Your mother must be proud.

This bill is not going to force LEO to side with you. They still get assault weapons.

If you think police are a large enough group that if they all voted lock step with us that it would make a change in this state, no wonder you think this is a good bill. Not to mention guess what side of the political spectrum most cops already vote on?

Being anti-cop is does not make you pro-gun. However, wanting to see people lose access to firearms is anti-gun, no matter how you chalk it up.

Preaching equal protection does not mean taking the rights away from others. It means securing our rights back that were taken from us.

NotEnufGarage
02-26-2012, 6:18 AM
I guess the Dem politicians have decide that the LEO unions are safely in their pocket, so it's time for all those LEO exemptions to go.

SilverTauron
02-26-2012, 6:26 AM
New Jersey's Assault Weapons Ban applies to police just as it does to ordinary Joes.Their only exception is that high capacity magazines can be used in a personal weapon if their agency's supervisor authorizes it on paper.

Insofar as Cali goes,I doubt that law enforcement will make a public stink about this.The Police ultimately receive their money from the politicians,and the heads of various law enforcement agencies need the political backing of their district to function.It is very unlikely that Joe Police Cheif will risk his job to oppose a bill that says patrol officers can't buy a .50 BMG or sell firearms in quantity.

Speaking of Joe Patrolman,most LEOs are not 'gun people' as a matter of inclination.The guy on the ground could care less about gun laws as long as perps get jailed and his service pistol isn't affected.Id picture most patrol officers would care more about their pension benefits and healthcare policy than being told they need authorization to own an AR15.

r3dn3ck
02-26-2012, 7:05 AM
even ground for cops and robbers... hey I like those odds. No sense biasing the game to one set of players. Our legal system is founded on the rights of the accused/criminal. The recent era of handing cops special rights is BS and I'm glad as hell to see them get a few pulled back. You wanna play white hat, take the risks. You can't deal with the risk, do something else with your life.

BigDogatPlay
02-26-2012, 7:46 AM
I can't imagine PORAC or some of the larger LEO associations / unions, are going to be particularly happy about this. Small agencies with minimal budgets that don't have the money to drop in order to fully equip their officers are going to not like this either.

That said, if it keeps moving them closer to us that is not a bad thing.

Rhythm of Life
02-26-2012, 8:02 AM
Am I the only one who likes the idea that the police, ie govt, are treated closer to the manner regular people are?

And if the assault weapons are used for their job, do police need an AR in each hand? No, they only need one.

Obviously a Plant
02-26-2012, 8:31 AM
Does anyone have a clue about what motivated this bill?
I missed the threads here about double-fisting RAW's by LEO's, have they been flaunting their privilege? How exactly is this going to make California safer and why is the cost of this worth bearing?

I also fall into the roster for all if not none camp, but is this bill and the "no LEO off-roster PPT's" bill posturing to get more notches on the gun-control bed post?

postal
02-26-2012, 9:20 AM
I love that our politicians in Sacramento are bound and determined to push LEO Unions into siding with us. Let's not forget that many of the most anti-gun bills in this state were passed only after LEO's were exempted.

Ryan

THIS!!!!!!!

Force them to live by the same laws WE SUFFER under.

I hope the next AB is to remove the LEO exemption from the "safe handgun list" and full capacity magazines.

LEO have a difficult job. I respect and admire them for doing it. However, having two "classes" of citizens through these exemptions is intolerable.

Pass a bill so they follow the safe handgun list and limited capacity magazines would be the fastest way these bad laws would go away.

SilverTauron
02-26-2012, 11:43 AM
THIS!!!!!!!

Force them to live by the same laws WE SUFFER under.

I hope the next AB is to remove the LEO exemption from the "safe handgun list" and full capacity magazines.

LEO have a difficult job. I respect and admire them for doing it. However, having two "classes" of citizens through these exemptions is intolerable.

Pass a bill so they follow the safe handgun list and limited capacity magazines would be the fastest way these bad laws would go away.

Injustice to anyone is a threat to everyone.

As applied to firearms, remember that the ultimate goal for people who advocate gun control is a disarmed population. This population includes police! If the guys and girls in your state Legislature could will it into reality, there wouldn't even be armed officers on patrol. Such people subscribe to the theory that criminal activity is a social problem.These folks may compromise with a 12 gauge for one officer per precinct inside of a lead-lined vault which could only be opened by the Cheif & Mayor, but for the most part the people who would pass such civil infringement do not have a warm fuzzy place for police.

The Law Enforcement exemptions exist as a matter of practical necessity and for political acceptance;mandating that police disarm off duty leaves the cops exposed to attack traveling to and fro from work,which is a fact that not only looks bad on TV and media but rightfully attracts the attention of the police unions.

Without political pressure to support police they would be under even MORE restrictions than the average citizen, as the cops can turn against a corrupt government just as easily as an average Joe. Going back to New Orleans in 2005 for a moment, the fact that gun confiscation was ordered isn't exactly a secret. What isn't disseminated is that quite a few National Guard & police officers from all kinds of agencies refused to execute the order. Such accounts are not picked up by a media all too eager to show anti-firearm coverage wherever possible, but politicians know that cops can turn on them just as fast as an armed resident.As Rep. Lundgren said for all to hear in plain English, the point of the California Government's perspective on gun laws is control.

Crowing that police are laboring under the same yoke of injustice as you are is small comfort, and not the point of the exercise. The intent of the Constitution is to guarantee rights for all, not equal status under serfdom.

DiscoBayJoe
02-26-2012, 11:58 AM
So if I understand you correctly, you support anti-gun bills? Your mother must be proud.

<SNip>

Preaching equal protection does not mean taking the rights away from others. It means securing our rights back that were taken from us.

I haven't read the proposal.... however

> If this proposal was to EDIT the existing law, removing an exception for LEO, thus simplifying an already bad law while simultanously making it a bigger target to resolve I would support it.

> If it adds new verbiage and a new section, further complicating the laws and ultimatly making it more complicated to undo eventually, then i'd be against it.

Underneath the hood, I am a firm believer that for this system to work, laws need to apply equally to the people who are passing them. When politicans and police can obtain LTC's or AW's and joe-citizen cannot, the laws should be re-written to level the playing field.

ALSystems
02-26-2012, 12:08 PM
Does anyone have a clue about what motivated this bill?

Will this have any effect on the Richards v. Harris case (Challenge to Assault weapon ban)?
http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Richards_v._Harris

goodlookin1
02-26-2012, 12:38 PM
So if I understand you correctly, you support anti-gun bills? Your mother must be proud.

This bill is not going to force LEO to side with you. They still get assault weapons.

If you think police are a large enough group that if they all voted lock step with us that it would make a change in this state, no wonder you think this is a good bill. Not to mention guess what side of the political spectrum most cops already vote on?

Being anti-cop is does not make you pro-gun. However, wanting to see people lose access to firearms is anti-gun, no matter how you chalk it up.

Sorry, I disagree with you. I'm sick of the "For me, but not for thee" mentality. I also dont like the idea that the govt is allowed more fire power than citizens. I know thats the way it is, and citizens are never going to be allowed to own hand grenades and RPG's, but I support anything that takes away special privileges from those that enforce (and often support) unequal treatment. They need a taste of what its like to be under the same asinine laws that we are.

Preaching equal protection does not mean taking the rights away from others. It means securing our rights back that were taken from us.

You're wrong. What you're talking about is fighting for Civil Rights, not Equal Protection. Equal protection is simply putting everyone under same laws and creating no special class of privileged people. For the time being, while we are fighting to gain our rights back, they should be subject to the same s*** that we are. And while I support bills or action that seeks to gain back freedoms/civil rights, I also support bills/action that enforces Equal Protection for ALL citizens statewide, and nationwide (as per the Bill of Rights)....even if that means taking away the "privileges" (should be "rights") from the privileged few. Of course, the better option would be to give back the rights to everyone......but living in CA, you have clearly seen that is harder to do with the statists who are currently in control.

bwiese
02-26-2012, 1:26 PM
People are missing the point or reading the wrong significance into things.

The status of future LEO AWs is handwaving.... THIS IS THE "PORAC AW FIXUP" BILL regarding LEO retiree AWs.

This bill is being carried by PORAC's contract lobbyist.

Word floating around the Capitol is that it's allready well-known this bill can't really pass due to already-known severe questions given holdings in Silviera case as well as the Dec. 2010 Opinion Letter from AG Brown which directly follows/is on point. But they still are driving to get the bill passed, "... and then you can go sue."

Whaaaat?

This irrationality may be due to contract lobbyist's milestones vs. payments, who knows??

Understand PORAC's real views may well not be fully codified by the lobbyist work - even if they are for or against AW restrictions, they've just told "their guy" to "go fix this", referring to their *primary* issue of fixing the issue of retired LEOs retaining their semiauto centerfire rifles they were repeatedly told by both DOJ and their agency that they could retain.

CGF has stated in previews newspaper articles on this subject (a few weeks ago) that we will sue over these matters. I can safely assume other gun groups will perform similarly.

A "fixup bill" is not a "fixup bill" if it should't pass due to court holdings and consttiutional issues, and also doesn't nor cannot override the issues in AG Brown's Opinion Letter of Dec 2010.

There are several possible fixups that could pass and 'stand muster'.

This bill is not one of them, and seems to be an exercise in fee gathering, or for PORAC senior mgmt. to "act like they're doing something for their membership" without really wanting it to come to fruition.

bwiese
02-26-2012, 1:32 PM
Will this have any effect on the Richards v. Harris case (Challenge to Assault weapon ban)?
http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Richards_v._Harris


There can or will be 'convergence', but Richards v Harris is addressing clarity of CA standards for what-is-an-AW, vs. why some people get special privileges and don't deserve it (retired deputies).... the latter of whom were forced into this situation (spending $$$ on detrimental reliance because of incorrect information from DOJ and local agency).

kcbrown
02-26-2012, 2:06 PM
Since this is a further restriction on LEOs, I predict it will not pass. The Republicans and Democrats are both going to get behind those in law enforcement because they regard them as special and, more importantly, as enforcing their will. So this will go nowhere.

sandman21
02-26-2012, 3:38 PM
…...In light of the unequivocal nature of the legislative findings, and the content of the legislative record, there is little doubt that any exception to the AWCA unrelated to effective law enforcement is directly contrary to the act's basic purpose of eliminating the availability of high-powered, military-style weapons and thereby protecting the people of California from the scourge of gun violence....... (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13948185712203065755&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr)

It does not seem to address anything relating to Silveira. It does prove one thing the AG opinion isn't just his opinion, like some think. lol

mag360
02-26-2012, 5:43 PM
porac fix up bill should just get rid of sb23 poof all better. Then I woke up.

BigDogatPlay
02-26-2012, 6:24 PM
THIS IS THE "PORAC AW FIXUP" BILL regarding LEO retiree AWs.

Wasn't aware of that... thank you Bill for the clarification. That changes my thinking on the whole thing.

But they still are driving to get the bill passed, "... and then you can go sue."

Maybe they should ask Gavin Newsom and Ross Mirkarimi how that midset is working out in San Francisco......

Hank Stamper
02-26-2012, 6:29 PM
However, wanting to see people lose access to firearms is anti-gun, no matter how you chalk it up.

.

You are right. And all the out of state vendors who so proudly boast they do not ship to California are near the top of that list as anti-gunners.

curtisfong
02-26-2012, 6:30 PM
Underneath the hood, I am a firm believer that for this system to work, laws need to apply equally to the people who are passing them. When politicans and police can obtain LTC's or AW's and joe-citizen cannot, the laws should be re-written to level the playing field.

Exactly. If laws are NOT equally and uniformly applied, we are no better than a banana republic dictatorship.

curtisfong
02-26-2012, 6:35 PM
Injustice to anyone is a threat to everyone.


Selective enforcement is an overt threat and a blatant injustice to everyone.

If this bill is not a bill to apply equal protection and is more political system gaming, then obviously it is unsupportable.

Obviously, we will NEVER see laws that equalize law enforcement and "civilians" in this state. After reading more on this bill, I can see it is a smoke screen for yet more corruption.

Ding126
02-26-2012, 6:36 PM
Speaking of Joe Patrolman,most LEOs are not 'gun people' as a matter of inclination.The guy on the ground could care less about gun laws as long as perps get jailed and his service pistol isn't affected.Id picture most patrol officers would care more about their pension benefits and healthcare policy than being told they need authorization to own an AR15.

^^^ This

SilverTauron
02-26-2012, 8:06 PM
Selective enforcement is an overt threat and a blatant injustice to everyone.

If this bill is not a bill to apply equal protection and is more political system gaming, then obviously it is unsupportable.

Obviously, we will NEVER see laws that equalize law enforcement and "civilians" in this state. After reading more on this bill, I can see it is a smoke screen for yet more corruption.

In the spirit of comparison, out here in Freedomland law enforcement is under more restrictions than an ordinary citizen. People with badges are mandated to carry whatever the chief says they carry, and that is that. Folks with a CCW permit can strap on any pistol they feel the need to whether it is a .22LR Beretta 70 or a .50 AE Desert Eagle and all models and makes between. In point of fact Police in states like this wish they had the choices a citizen has when it comes to selection of arms, as not everyone with a badge is a fan of the Austrian Wonder Pistol.

In your state, the problem is that politicians wish to retain specific control over who is armed in your territory.Were it up to the folks in the your capitol the police would look something like Norway , where cops are not armed on patrol and require specific authorization to carry a pistol from a superior. From Wikipedia:

Norwegian police do not carry firearms on a daily basis; they keep them locked down in the patrol cars, and if need arises they have to get permission by the police commissioner or someone authorized by him or her. If there is no time to contact a superior, a police officer may arm himself and anyone under his command. From 1994 to 2004 the Norwegian police fired approximately 79 shots; 48 of these were fired during the Nokas Robbery in 2004. [2]


Thus, standing back and clapping because police are under the same unconstitutional burden as the average Joe does nothing for advancing the 2nd Amendment.

nicki
02-26-2012, 8:22 PM
Eventually SB23 and the Roberti Roos will be found to be a ban on common arms that are well suited for self defense and common defense purposes.

That should fix the problems.:43:

Nicki

bwiese
02-26-2012, 10:04 PM
…...In light of the unequivocal nature of the legislative findings, and the content of the legislative record, there is little doubt that any exception to the AWCA unrelated to effective law enforcement is directly contrary to the act's basic purpose of eliminating the availability of high-powered, military-style weapons and thereby protecting the people of California from the scourge of gun violence....... (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13948185712203065755&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr)

It does not seem to address anything relating to Silveira. It does prove one thing the AG opinion isn't just his opinion, like some think. lol

WTF are you talking about? Read the whole decision/holdings.

Silviera also held that retired LEOs did not have any rational basis to possess (nongrandfathere) AWs due to the above, since they are just 'regular people' and are not on duty.

AG Brown's opinion letter is directly derived from this and the specific wording of various AW laws.

vantec08
02-27-2012, 2:22 AM
Since this is a further restriction on LEOs, I predict it will not pass. The Republicans and Democrats are both going to get behind those in law enforcement because they regard them as special and, more importantly, as enforcing their will. So this will go nowhere.


Agree. Social Engineering requires somebody to do the heavy lifting.

drifter2be
02-27-2012, 2:45 AM
I support this bill. No more LEO exemptions. Make CLEO and the LEO unions feel the same pain "civilians" do, and MAYBE we'll see actual 2A progress in this godforsaken corrupt state.

I understand where you are coming from, and I feel the same way, it is utter BS that LEOs get special treatment as far as firearms go, but this isn't the right way to be equal. Equality through equal restriction is BS, we should all be free to purchase whatever we want. If this bill passes it will do nothing to help us regain rights that the leftist commies that run this state have taken away from us, but instead further reinforce these restrictions since they have been more "equally" applied to ALL CA residents.

Bobby Ricigliano
02-27-2012, 6:12 AM
Allow me to offer my own opinion as a LEO:

I don't think any reasonable and lawful citizen should be prohibited from owning any type of weapon that is commonly owned and used responsibly in other states. I definitely see the need for LE agencies to have AW weapons in the light of increased violence and criminal sophistication and tactics used against LEO's.

This does not mean that ONLY LEO's should have access. I personally don't care what private citizens own/shoot/carry as long as they are acting responsible and lawful in the handling of said firearms.

It is unfortunate that the political climate and anti-2A attitude in the California legislature has driven such a nasty wedge between private citizens and LEO's. I find a lot of cop-hate rhetoric on CG to be distasteful because I don't reciprocate those feelings toward the general public I serve. If I wasn't a LEO I would still have just as much passion for firearms and the 2A as I do now so I feel the frustration that everyone else feels.

By the way, I don't have much skin in this particular game anyway because my agency does not allow letters fro privately owned AW's anyway. All of my personal EBR's are in compliance with the same laws and standards as yours are.

Just my .02 thanks for reading.

Mesa Tactical
02-27-2012, 6:22 AM
In your state, the problem is that politicians wish to retain specific control over who is armed in your territory.Were it up to the folks in the your capitol the police would look something like Norway , where cops are not armed on patrol and require specific authorization to carry a pistol from a superior.

I used to spend a lot of time in Norway. It is one of two or three places outside California I would ever choose to settle.

Very nice place. I bet we can learn a lot from them.

BobB35
02-27-2012, 6:29 AM
Allow me to offer my own opinion as a LEO:

I don't think any reasonable and lawful citizen should be prohibited from owning any type of weapon that is commonly owned and used responsibly in other states. I definitely see the need for LE agencies to have AW weapons in the light of increased violence and criminal sophistication and tactics used against LEO's.

This does not mean that ONLY LEO's should have access. I personally don't care what private citizens own/shoot/carry as long as they are acting responsible and lawful in the handling of said firearms.

It is unfortunate that the political climate and anti-2A attitude in the California legislature has driven such a nasty wedge between private citizens and LEO's. I find a lot of cop-hate rhetoric on CG to be distasteful because I don't reciprocate those feelings toward the general public I serve. If I wasn't a LEO I would still have just as much passion for firearms and the 2A as I do now so I feel the frustration that everyone else feels.

By the way, I don't have much skin in this particular game anyway because my agency does not allow letters fro privately owned AW's anyway. All of my personal EBR's are in compliance with the same laws and standards as yours are.

Just my .02 thanks for reading.


To your first point...if there truly is a need for high capacity rapid fire weapons - which is debatable outside of SWAT ( which the need for in every po'dunk town itself is debatable) there are plenty of other rifles not on the list. Browning make a rifle, ruger makes one....heck FN makes a pump action....why do the LEOs need weapons the have been deemed to be dangerous in and of themselves and the possession of which is questionable moral ground anyway. How about some good target rifles and some marksmanship training.

Edit: I don't think any of these weapons should be outlawed for anyone...I just don't like the some animals are more equal than others as well as the militarization of Law enforcement that has occurred in the last 30 years. Don't expect any different in a socialist state like CA though. Got to have heavily armed enforces when you make laws that defy common sense....

to your second point, I commend you, I just wish most of you blue brothers and sisters felt the same way.

To the law....this will not pass....

1stLineGear
02-27-2012, 7:11 AM
So in theory, if a LEO was given more than one “letter” allowing the officer to purchase/register an AW they could?

Are there current LEOs out there that have been able to register more than one AW???
I always assumed they could only register one.

About four years ago I listed two rifles to be registered in one letter. I had no issues.

sandman21
02-27-2012, 7:21 AM
WTF are you talking about? Read the whole decision/holdings.

Silviera also held that retired LEOs did not have any rational basis to possess (nongrandfathere) AWs due to the above, since they are just 'regular people' and are not on duty.

AG Brown's opinion letter is directly derived from this and the specific wording of various AW laws.

You should read my post again, it clear to me that I am saying that the PORAC does nothing to address the issues in Silveira. I am also pointing fun at those that believe that the AG opinion has just that and it didn’t really mean anything. Some still think it is his "opinion" even though the PORAC is "trying" to fix the issue. lol

sandman21
02-27-2012, 7:27 AM
Allow me to offer my own opinion as a LEO:

I don't think any reasonable and lawful citizen should be prohibited from owning any type of weapon that is commonly owned and used responsibly in other states. I definitely see the need for LE agencies to have AW weapons in the light of increased violence and criminal sophistication and tactics used against LEO's.

This does not mean that ONLY LEO's should have access. I personally don't care what private citizens own/shoot/carry as long as they are acting responsible and lawful in the handling of said firearms.

It is unfortunate that the political climate and anti-2A attitude in the California legislature has driven such a nasty wedge between private citizens and LEO's. I find a lot of cop-hate rhetoric on CG to be distasteful because I don't reciprocate those feelings toward the general public I serve. If I wasn't a LEO I would still have just as much passion for firearms and the 2A as I do now so I feel the frustration that everyone else feels.

By the way, I don't have much skin in this particular game anyway because my agency does not allow letters fro privately owned AW's anyway. All of my personal EBR's are in compliance with the same laws and standards as yours are.

Just my .02 thanks for reading.

Lol took one post for you to reciprocate. :facepalm:

I've had plenty of marksmanship training thanks to lots of military and LE training. Perhaps had you been there you might have been able to drop 2 AW wielding, up-armored bad guys with a deer rifle, even as they were spraying your car with FA fire. I wouldn't personally want to try that, although I may not possess your skills or experience.


I oppose any laws adding any restrictions to firearm ownership. Period.

I just wish that LEO would stop enforcing the AWB, much faster than the courts.

1859sharps
02-27-2012, 8:21 AM
Speaking of Joe Patrolman,most LEOs are not 'gun people' as a matter of inclination.

I know this has already been quoted, but as someone with a fair amount of LEO floating around the family, I can tell you the views on private ownership of firearms runs the same range as non LEO. From VERY pro 2nd and believes that law abiding people should be able to own the arms of their choice. To essentially neutral. To a gun is a tool for use by the cops and military only, and only while on duty and no one else needs them.

So the idea that such a bill as this will drive law enforcement in droves to "our side" is a fantasy.

postal
02-27-2012, 8:56 AM
Allow me to offer my own opinion as a LEO:

I don't think any reasonable and lawful citizen should be prohibited from owning any type of weapon that is commonly owned and used responsibly in other states. I definitely see the need for LE agencies to have AW weapons in the light of increased violence and criminal sophistication and tactics used against LEO's.

This does not mean that ONLY LEO's should have access. I personally don't care what private citizens own/shoot/carry as long as they are acting responsible and lawful in the handling of said firearms.

It is unfortunate that the political climate and anti-2A attitude in the California legislature has driven such a nasty wedge between private citizens and LEO's. I find a lot of cop-hate rhetoric on CG to be distasteful because I don't reciprocate those feelings toward the general public I serve. If I wasn't a LEO I would still have just as much passion for firearms and the 2A as I do now so I feel the frustration that everyone else feels.

By the way, I don't have much skin in this particular game anyway because my agency does not allow letters fro privately owned AW's anyway. All of my personal EBR's are in compliance with the same laws and standards as yours are.

Just my .02 thanks for reading.

Well said.

And Thank you for your service.

Untamed1972
02-27-2012, 8:57 AM
Glad to see the politicians in Sacramento love and trust our LEO's.

I mean really, without this law to prevent them from stocking up on assault weapons, the LEO's might not be out there cleaning up our society after criminals mess it up.

This is why we've always told the LEOs here: "Joine the 2A fight now and dont rest on you "LEO exemptions" and think....eh....I've got mine......cuz they day will come when they start coming for YOUR guns too."

Looks like tha day has come! Time to get the LEO unions to join the fight and quitting being paid thugs for the Anti's.

Untamed1972
02-27-2012, 9:08 AM
Thus, standing back and clapping because police are under the same unconstitutional burden as the average Joe does nothing for advancing the 2nd Amendment.

But we can hope that such restrictions will pressure LEOs, their Unions and Agency heads to join out fight and stop supporting all these anti-gun bills and perhaps actually speak out against them.

tpc13
02-27-2012, 9:10 AM
This is looked at all wrong. 10 rds legal, 11 rd mag felony. Bad guys steal gun and don't follow the law. Cops should be exempt cause they protect others. LEOs risk their lives everyday. I know your going to say it doesn't happen to me or I don't watch the news. It's time to wake up and let law enforcement do their job. Ca politicians only pass laws to stay in office and look like they did something. What people don't realize is that parolees are getting released sooner and causing more crime. Instead of passing more gun laws we need to use our efforts to keep bad guys in jail and leave the LEOs and citizens alone. Here's a thought build more prisons, use the death penalty make people understand that crime doesn't pay and they will stay in jail where they belong. If this happens we won't need frugal gun laws.

duggan
02-27-2012, 10:52 AM
This is looked at all wrong. 10 rds legal, 11 rd mag felony. Bad guys steal gun and don't follow the law. Cops should be exempt cause they protect others. LEOs risk their lives everyday. I know your going to say it doesn't happen to me or I don't watch the news. It's time to wake up and let law enforcement do their job. Ca politicians only pass laws to stay in office and look like they did something. What people don't realize is that parolees are getting released sooner and causing more crime. Instead of passing more gun laws we need to use our efforts to keep bad guys in jail and leave the LEOs and citizens alone. Here's a thought build more prisons, use the death penalty make people understand that crime doesn't pay and they will stay in jail where they belong. If this happens we won't need frugal gun laws.

Every citizen of California is at risk from early prison release, do the LEO's follow the parollees from the gate to the house to make sure they don't break any laws? Did SCOTUS rule that each and every LEO has a duty to protect each and every citizen individually? Would criminals intent on taking anothers property or life prefer a hard target or a soft target?

My life and the lives of my family members are my responsibility, having LEO's decked out with the latest and greatest is nice, hopefully they'll never have to use the stuff. With the LEO layoffs, prisons dumping cons out, and the increase in call wait times, I have every bit of a need and right to own the very same equipment LEO's are allowed to have in order to protect mine.

Ubermcoupe
02-27-2012, 12:28 PM
About four years ago I listed two rifles to be registered in one letter. I had no issues.

Really?
I had no idea you could do that. Now I have it first hand. :)

Sgt Raven
02-27-2012, 1:11 PM
Instead of passing more gun laws we need to use our efforts to keep bad guys in jail and leave the LEOs and citizens alone. Here's a thought build more prisons, use the death penalty make people understand that crime doesn't pay and they will stay in jail where they belong. If this happens we won't need frugal gun laws.

Here's a better thought, don't put so many people in Prison for Malum Prohibitum laws. There's too many bull crap laws and they add more every year. We don't need to fill the Prisons with those people. :oji:

kcbrown
02-27-2012, 1:13 PM
I understand where you are coming from, and I feel the same way, it is utter BS that LEOs get special treatment as far as firearms go, but this isn't the right way to be equal. Equality through equal restriction is BS, we should all be free to purchase whatever we want.


Certainly. However, remember that the laws which give special treatment to LEOs and which burden the general public were supported by law enforcement.

Do you think law enforcement would have supported bills which restricted them in the same way the rest of the citizenry was being restricted? No way.


If this bill passes it will do nothing to help us regain rights that the leftist commies that run this state have taken away from us, but instead further reinforce these restrictions since they have been more "equally" applied to ALL CA residents.

That doesn't follow.

If law enforcement is made to suffer under the same restrictions that the rest of the citizenry is made to suffer, then there is every reason to believe that they will think twice before supporting more restrictions on the citizenry, knowing that they will be in danger of being placed under the same restrictions. Most people want restrictions for others but not for themselves. We need to take that option off the table entirely.


Now, does that mean that such restrictions won't pass anyway? No. But the difference is that if they pass, it will be without the support, and may even be in the face of opposition, from law enforcement. Not only will that make it less likely to pass due to the fact that a major support leg is no longer there, but it is likely to make the restrictions even less popular among the general population. That alone may make the restrictions in question much easier to eliminate in later legislative sessions.

Librarian
02-27-2012, 1:33 PM
Gentlemembers, I remind you this thread is about the BILL.

bwiese
02-27-2012, 1:53 PM
You should read my post again, it clear to me that I am saying that the PORAC does nothing to address the issues in Silveira. I am also pointing fun at those that believe that the AG opinion has just that and it didn’t really mean anything. Some still think it is his "opinion" even though the PORAC is "trying" to fix the issue. lol

Sorry, I didn't get your context the first time around

sandman21
02-27-2012, 4:41 PM
Sorry, I didn't get your context the first time around

No worries. Sometimes things sound great in my head, on paper not so much... :facepalm:

Bobby Ricigliano
02-27-2012, 5:14 PM
Apparently most of what I posted to this thread was removed.

1911_sfca
02-27-2012, 7:15 PM
Here's my perspective. I think y'all are overestimating the "pain" this will cause to LEO's.

That said, in my experience, a significant number of LEO's are gun people. At least at the smaller departments I'm familiar with. And of those gun people, 100% of the ones I know are in support of law abiding citizens having the right to carry. There's really no "us vs. them" except where it comes to criminals.

It's not like LEO's live in some bubble or alternative reality. They are buying OLL's and building them up according to CA gun laws, just like calgunners. So do I care whether I can have more than one RAW? Not really; my RAW is my duty patrol rifle because my small department can't afford to outfit and issue a bunch of ARs to all officers. I still have my OLL's as many fellow LEO's do. Maybe it would affect someone on SWAT or a precision marksman because he might need more RAWs for his assignment? I'm not really sure on that one.

As to retirement and whether a personally purchased and registered rifle (using dep't letterhead) can be kept by the officer or needs to be relinquished after separation.. The AG's letter doesn't seem to use sound reasoning on this topic, but then I'm not a lawyer. This just doesn't pass the smell test.

Just my opinion. It may or may not be accurate, but based on the bay area I'd say that the perspective on importance of this bill, and generally the LEO approach to civilians owning guns is somewhat skewed here. Maybe some larger agencies or police unions have stronger feelings about it. But then I would think larger departments have the $ to issue rifles. I heard a couple years back about a large south-bay agency considering issuing AW letterhead to officers because of budget difficulties but I never did hear what came of that.

kcbrown
02-27-2012, 11:13 PM
That said, in my experience, a significant number of LEO's are gun people. At least at the smaller departments I'm familiar with.


Not enough to matter. If it were, then their very own union wouldn't consistent support anti-gun laws.


I do agree that this particular bill isn't enough to swing the balance, but we have to start somewhere.

kcbrown
02-27-2012, 11:28 PM
Injustice to anyone is a threat to everyone.

As applied to firearms, remember that the ultimate goal for people who advocate gun control is a disarmed population.

This population includes police!


I'm not so sure about this.

Seems to me that the ultimate goal for most people who advocate gun control is a disarmed citizenry. They want the government to retain guns because it's the only way for the government to have true enforceable authority over the citizenry. Remember, these people "trust" the government and believe it should have the power to dictate to others what they can and cannot do. That cannot happen in an unfettered manner unless the government has unchallengeable power over the citizenry, and that can only happen if the government remains armed while the citizenry is disarmed. Since the people in question "trust" the government, they believe that misuse of firearms could never possibly happen at the hands of the government.

Were this not the case, they'd be firmly against all the police exemptions in the laws that manage to get onto the books.



Crowing that police are laboring under the same yoke of injustice as you are is small comfort, and not the point of the exercise. The intent of the Constitution is to guarantee rights for all, not equal status under serfdom.

I agree, but you run into the "rights for me but not for thee" problem when it comes to this stuff. The only way to make people who subscribe to that fall in line is to ensure that when our liberties are taken, theirs are taken at the same time. Only then will they stand down in their support of efforts to strip us of ever more freedom.

In other words, it's easy to support freedom for yourself. It's much harder to support it for everyone. For most people, there's always someone that they believe shouldn't have some particular liberty. And that way lies the ruin of liberty for all.

Springfield45
02-28-2012, 10:35 AM
I do not support any kind of gun control what-so-ever. Even against the exempted cops. Our goal should be to preserve and restore gun rights to everyone. I understand and am sympathetic of the "Have's and Have not's" argument. But supporting any kind of ban on anyone dose not help our cause.

Uxi
02-28-2012, 10:39 AM
I support this bill. No more LEO exemptions. Make CLEO and the LEO unions feel the same pain "civilians" do, and MAYBE we'll see actual 2A progress in this godforsaken corrupt state.

Indeed. Only the LEO exemptions allowed all these blatant infringements to pass to begin with.

Untamed1972
02-28-2012, 10:49 AM
Not enough to matter. If it were, then their very own union wouldn't consistent support anti-gun laws.


I do agree that this particular bill isn't enough to swing the balance, but we have to start somewhere.


But then couple this with the LEO-PPT bill regarding off-roster guns and hopefully they'd start to wake up and see that "Oh crap.....now they're coming for MY guns too....just a little at a time like they did to everyone else."

How would the LEOs feel if at some point it ended up being they couldn't privately own guns either and had to turn in their weapons everyday when they got off duty? In the long run, dont you think that's what the freedom hating tyrants would like to see?

Uxi
02-28-2012, 10:50 AM
How would the LEOs feel if at some point it ended up being they couldn't privately own guns either and had to turn in their weapons everyday when they got off duty? In the long run, dont you think that's what the freedom hating tyrants would like to see?

That's how the military does it. Not on duty what do they "need" one for?

SilverTauron
02-28-2012, 12:06 PM
But then couple this with the LEO-PPT bill regarding off-roster guns and hopefully they'd start to wake up and see that "Oh crap.....now they're coming for MY guns too....just a little at a time like they did to everyone else."

This is how many would see it who are aware of gun laws and the U.S. Constitution. To spin the coin the other way, there are lots of LEOs who would just as soon see all firearms banned, and see the fact that they need to carry one on duty at all as a sad reality of America's "backwards" stance on gun control.



How would the LEOs feel if at some point it ended up being they couldn't privately own guns either and had to turn in their weapons everyday when they got off duty? In the long run, dont you think that's what the freedom hating tyrants would like to see?

That is the status quo in the line military today.The only folks who can be armed on a CONUS USAF base are the Security Police when on duty, and they turn in their weapons to the unit armorer when their shift is finished.Not many SPs I knew had a problem with this policy, except perhaps the armorer who had to process 40 Berettas and M4 rifles every 12 hours for shift change.

Folks here are hoping that if the public establishment is under the same restrictions as "civilians" that the same will stomp and holler for legislative change. This is an empty hope because people in uniform be it LEO or military follow orders. Period and done. There is some level of discretion on the job, but policies about firearm handling are not one of them. So now Law Enforcement must request an exception letter to own a so termed "assault rifle".

Big whoop.

Most police don't care enough to give a rats about it, and those that do would rather just put a bullet button on the receiver and call it done than pester the Chief for some letter he or she probably won't sign anyway.

On paper it seems like police and authorities have more "privileges" than civilians, when in fact those so-called "exceptions" are still denied to 99% of law enforcement and military. Take your Assault Weapons Authorization for military members. In theory this means a PCS'ing member just needs a document to be signed authorizing importation of an Assault Weapon form out of state. In reality, its a non-starter because no Colonel worth his Birds or Oak Leaves is going to sign a document authorizing a member to bring in an "assault weapon".

That sort of letter can break someone's career down the line if the authorized member screws the pooch with the firearm. Id imaging its no different with law enforcement, as the chief is putting his career and livelihood on the line by saying its OK for Officer X to buy Rifle Y.

curtisfong
02-28-2012, 12:30 PM
On paper it seems like police and authorities have more "privileges" than civilians, when in fact those so-called "exceptions" are still denied to 99% of law enforcement and military.

So what's the harm in making it 100%?

Is the 1% REALLY in need of the exceptions, or are they taking advantage of a corrupt system?

BAGunner
02-28-2012, 12:51 PM
LEOs or Civilians, you all fell into this big anti-RKBA conspiracy.

The plot is like this:
Day One:
Politician: (I need to ban some guns to get elected) Gun is bad, ban them...
Politician: (Can't just be outright ban, divide-and-conquer) except those LEOs

LEOs; ah... OK, this doesn't affect me.
Civilians: Crap, let me find some loopholes (FFL, SSE). Alright, paying a bit more, I can still get by.

Politician: (One party down, one more to go...). LEOs should have same right as the rest of the population.
Civilians: Yeah! No more privileged group... Vote with my both hands!
LEOs: Crap! Both the anti-gun group and pro-gun civilians are supporting this. Oh... OK.

Everything become quiet for a while until another plot starts its "Day One":
Politician: (I need to ban some guns to get elected)... Let's ban ****
...

You see... their Divide and Conquer tactic works every time!

They will always target a subgroup of us, and if we don't fight back right there, we will lose the whole ground inch by inch.

curtisfong
02-28-2012, 1:41 PM
How about

Day One: don't pass laws with exemptions, follow the constitution's equal protection mandate?

Whatever happened to everybody's obsession with moral hazard?

Untamed1972
02-28-2012, 2:24 PM
This is how many would see it who are aware of gun laws and the U.S. Constitution. To spin the coin the other way, there are lots of LEOs who would just as soon see all firearms banned, and see the fact that they need to carry one on duty at all as a sad reality of America's "backwards" stance on gun control.




That is the status quo in the line military today.The only folks who can be armed on a CONUS USAF base are the Security Police when on duty, and they turn in their weapons to the unit armorer when their shift is finished.Not many SPs I knew had a problem with this policy, except perhaps the armorer who had to process 40 Berettas and M4 rifles every 12 hours for shift change.

Folks here are hoping that if the public establishment is under the same restrictions as "civilians" that the same will stomp and holler for legislative change. This is an empty hope because people in uniform be it LEO or military follow orders. Period and done. There is some level of discretion on the job, but policies about firearm handling are not one of them. So now Law Enforcement must request an exception letter to own a so termed "assault rifle".

Big whoop.

Most police don't care enough to give a rats about it, and those that do would rather just put a bullet button on the receiver and call it done than pester the Chief for some letter he or she probably won't sign anyway.

On paper it seems like police and authorities have more "privileges" than civilians, when in fact those so-called "exceptions" are still denied to 99% of law enforcement and military. Take your Assault Weapons Authorization for military members. In theory this means a PCS'ing member just needs a document to be signed authorizing importation of an Assault Weapon form out of state. In reality, its a non-starter because no Colonel worth his Birds or Oak Leaves is going to sign a document authorizing a member to bring in an "assault weapon".

That sort of letter can break someone's career down the line if the authorized member screws the pooch with the firearm. Id imaging its no different with law enforcement, as the chief is putting his career and livelihood on the line by saying its OK for Officer X to buy Rifle Y.


I think point has been that for the Anti-gun politicians to get the support of the LEO unions and CLEO associations they had to put all these LE exceptions in there for them.........so that would seem to indicate that had they not been put in they would not have gotten the LE support for those bills.

So what happens now when the .leg starts taking away the exceptions that LE asked be included in the first place?

bcj128
02-28-2012, 2:51 PM
The fairest way out of this mess for the police is to remove the names and Kassnar guns from the AWB, making guns banned by features / characteristics. When the officer retires, he puts in a bullet button, and viola, no more evil Assault Weapon...send in a notification to DOJ, and now you're like everyone else.

Librarian
02-29-2012, 12:12 AM
Just saw a promo for a segment on the CBS-5 news, here in SF Bay Area, regarding police and their personally acquired weapons for duty use.

Nothing on the web site yet - http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/

bwiese
02-29-2012, 8:41 AM
Just saw a promo for a segment on the CBS-5 news, here in SF Bay Area, regarding police and their personally acquired weapons for duty use.

Nothing on the web site yet - http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/



Yes indeed. Certain people may be speaking out ;-) pointing out the Silviera failure of this legislation and Other Problems With Cops And AWs. It's around a 4 min piece with 3 interviewees + initial "problem statement" so not that much may be conveyed.

bwiese
02-29-2012, 5:33 PM
11PM 'late news' tonight. KPIX-TV CBS Channel 5, SF Bay Area.

Appears not to be airing on the 'evening' (6pm or whatever) news.

jdberger
02-29-2012, 10:12 PM
It's on "next"

jdberger
02-29-2012, 10:20 PM
Wow. That was bizzare. What a weird segment.

bwiese
02-29-2012, 10:24 PM
They didn't make me look too stupid - just fat... the camera adds 20 lbs ;-)

They didn't go into (likely due to time limits) about the other problems - laterals, illegal AW possession by current cops, etc.

Somehow in editing they got my M1A w/muzzle brake being as (implied) being an AW.

Oh well, it may trigger more arrests and add more plaintiffs to Richards v Harris. I'll sign up ;-)

But all in all the issue is out there and now we can start driving it.

If Ron Cottingham of PORAC were so bright, he'd not've picked a lame-arsed contract lobbyist.

To note I spent 1.5hrs prep on the phone with the reporter and then 30 min pre interview prep.

She was not progun but not a real anti, and I can tell that some of the stuff that was told to here was lost in edit,
not out of malice but likely time constraints. The last guy in the line is not gonna get the full gravy.

What's nice is we displaced any room for Brady/ LCAV simply by occupying the spot.

TheBest
02-29-2012, 10:37 PM
I hope they post your segment on the videos page soon.

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/video/

bwiese
02-29-2012, 10:50 PM
Note that this was intrinsically a 'hit' piece on CA-defined AWs.

Sometimes you just wanna walk away from that debate and not give the press more to feed on - where nonparticipation is the best option.

But the real content of the piece was the 'retired cops are special' vs The Law and with a fixup bill that's near DOA, we can maybe steer some things or get a little Payback.

Plus, when you fill some airtime, that's one slot the Bradys can't be in.

Sgt Raven
02-29-2012, 11:02 PM
The one Rifle they featured a lot of looked like a Spikes Tactical. I'm sure I saw their 'Spider' engraved on the side. If so that could be kept just by adding a bullet button and a 10 round mag. That would have solved most this mess, if the department spec'd an OLL as the personal owned Rifles. Then once they left the department, they would only have to configure the Rifles legally. :oji:

bwiese
02-29-2012, 11:12 PM
Then once they left the department, they would only have to configure the Rifles legally. :oji:

1. The numbers are 90+% "ABC" listed - Colt, Bushmaster, Armalite.
Most depts placed their armorers in control of what guns the officers
could acquire, and they basically duplicated the dept standards for
the officers' personal guns. Sometimes they limited or specified
configurations & options too. But in any case, parts changes don't
'fix' a listed gun, which most are. [There's a smattering of LMTs
in the mix.]

2. It's unclear they can force modification of any rifle. Officers bought,
under detrimental reliance, a fully capable rifle per assurances of their
Dept and DOJ.

Sgt Raven
02-29-2012, 11:26 PM
Doesn't any fix up legislation run into the problem that Silveira v. Lockyer is the controlling case on this and SCOTUS has already declined to hear that case? I don't see this legislation getting around that fact,

jdberger
02-29-2012, 11:32 PM
Doesn't any fix up legislation run into the problem that Silveira v. Lockyer is the controlling case on this and SCOTUS has already declined to hear that case? I don't see this legislation getting around that fact,

Yes.

However, the "lobbyist for the police", Ron Cottingham insists that they're "special" (Silveira disagrees).

Obviously, the answer would be to simply open up the Roster and let folks who currently own AWs register them as such. The problem (at least according to our benevolent masters) is that mere citizens might actually register their guns, too. And there might be as many as half a million.

But I guess that we should have known that asking any union lobbyist about "equity under law" wouldn't get us much past a blank stare....

Sgt Raven
02-29-2012, 11:34 PM
Why do they need this when they could just issuing those magical Assault Weapons Permits and solve the problem. Of course then there would be the equal protection thing when only they could get them. :oji:

bwiese
03-01-2012, 1:00 AM
Doesn't any fix up legislation run into the problem that Silveira v. Lockyer is the controlling case on this and SCOTUS has already declined to hear that case? I don't see this legislation getting around that fact,

Yes, and my commentary on that was left on the cutting-room floor.

They went straight to the AG Opinion Letter (which derived primarily from Silviera).

There seems to be an understanding that a suit may happen anyway regardless of bill variations [unless it were 'fixed' properly ;-) , which this isn't.]

PORAC also may just want to appease their membership by appearing to "do something", while in reality not being able to do anything. Remember cops do not carry much weight in Sacto this time around.

SanPedroShooter
03-01-2012, 5:16 AM
What...was that...? I am trying to figure out what that would look like to someone at home that doesnt understand the issue.

"Does the CGF want to take guns away from cops?"

I always laugh when I think that almost every gun shop, in a state that will never voluntarily reverse itself on the issue, is selling out of what are functional 'AW's'....

The written article came out much clearer in my opinon.
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/03/01/should-calif-cops-turn-in-assault-weapons-they-own-at-retirement/

mag360
03-01-2012, 6:04 AM
Bill, wheb they are interviewing you, is there ever any effort to get the real story as to what is an "assault weapon" and the sillyness behind a features ban? Or do they just hear "assault weapon, scary gun, cops can keep or can't keep".

TheBest
03-01-2012, 6:17 AM
Video posted!

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/video/6797631-should-calif-cops-turn-in-assault-weapons-they-own-at-retirement/

TheBest
03-01-2012, 6:18 AM
The fairest way out of this mess for the police is to remove the names and Kassnar guns from the AWB, making guns banned by features / characteristics. When the officer retires, he puts in a bullet button, and viola, no more evil Assault Weapon...send in a notification to DOJ, and now you're like everyone else.

It is my understanding, that if the rifle in question is Listed, even if you put a bullet button on, it is still an unregistered AW. This is at least, according to the flow chart.

SkyStorm82
03-01-2012, 6:19 AM
Is CGF backing this bill?

ke6guj
03-01-2012, 6:57 AM
It is my understanding, that if the rifle in question is Listed, even if you put a bullet button on, it is still an unregistered AW. This is at least, according to the flow chart.

correct.

lhecker51
03-01-2012, 6:59 AM
I haven't read the proposal.... however

> If this proposal was to EDIT the existing law, removing an exception for LEO, thus simplifying an already bad law while simultanously making it a bigger target to resolve I would support it.

> If it adds new verbiage and a new section, further complicating the laws and ultimatly making it more complicated to undo eventually, then i'd be against it.

Underneath the hood, I am a firm believer that for this system to work, laws need to apply equally to the people who are passing them. When politicans and police can obtain LTC's or AW's and joe-citizen cannot, the laws should be re-written to level the playing field.

Which gun laws are politicians exempt from?

Stoner
03-01-2012, 7:33 AM
This issue has made Calguns position on MY gun rights very clear. I am not willing to support an organization that does not support my gun rights. So the divide and concor is in effect!! Based on this rational, maxium letter of the law enforcement of assault weapon violations will now be the order of the day.

In fact it’s in the crosshairs of second amendment rights groups such as the Calguns Foundation.

“At some point there is going to be a big stop sign on this,” said Calguns Vice Chair Bill Wiese. He lobbies to keep guns in the hands of citizens like himself. So why is he lobbying to keep assault rifles out of the hands of retiring cops? “I just don’t think a retiree gets special privileges,” he said.

SanPedroShooter
03-01-2012, 7:50 AM
Do the 'gun rights' of state enforcers trump mine? What about when they throw in the towel? Are they subject to laws they have been enforcing (and supporting via their unions) on me?

If not, why not?

These 'laws' are rotten to the core. There is only one right answer, you know what it is.

Stoner
03-01-2012, 8:05 AM
These requirements do not apply to members of federal law enforcement
agencies who are authorized by their employing agency to possess these
weapons.
99

(c) Nothing in this article shall be construed to limit or prohibit
the sale, delivery, or transfer of an assault weapon or a .50 BMG
rifle to, or the possession of an assault weapon or a .50 BMG rifle
by, a member of a federal law enforcement agency provided that
person is authorized by the employing agency to possess the assault
weapon or .50 BMG rifle.



After reading the entire bill I noticed the above listed items that also refer to "federal law enforcement agencies". All the information posted here appears to be directed toward local LEO's. Is it the intent of Calguns to go after ALL the the listed "Special People", or just local LEO's??

SanPedroShooter
03-01-2012, 8:08 AM
Is the legislature currently trying to draft a bill to exempt federal LE from state law when they retire, or only local LE?

I guarantee you this, if you work for the FBI, and you retire in CA, your personal 'AW' is now subject to state law.

greasemonkey
03-01-2012, 8:16 AM
CGF is NOT "going after" law enforcement, I figured this ignorant misconception would be fairly prevalent on this issue. This bill, as it stands, creates a HUGE equal protection issue and is a bad bill. The AW ban has been (and will continue to be) challenged by CGF, it will go away eventually but if done improperly (as the LE Associations are doing), it will cause a lot of legal problems for everyone, both LE & non-LE.

You're looking at this with EXTREMELY prejudiced tunnel vision and all you're coming up with is "CGF doesn't want cops having rifles", which is not true, CGF does not want a law to remain standing that's so ridiculous, so confusing, that even law enforcement has a hard time legally acquiring tools for duty, let alone people (both LE and non-LE are constantly arrested because of an asinine 'configuration' game that's confusing even AFTER reading through the flow-chart).

Take a step back, deep breath, use your professional training and consider a comprehensive perspective of the matter at hand. Sound good?

These requirements do not apply to members of federal law enforcement
agencies who are authorized by their employing agency to possess these
weapons.
99

(c) Nothing in this article shall be construed to limit or prohibit
the sale, delivery, or transfer of an assault weapon or a .50 BMG
rifle to, or the possession of an assault weapon or a .50 BMG rifle
by, a member of a federal law enforcement agency provided that
person is authorized by the employing agency to possess the assault
weapon or .50 BMG rifle.



After reading the entire bill I noticed the above listed items that also refer to "federal law enforcement agencies". All the information posted here appears to be directed toward local LEO's. Is it the intent of Calguns to go after ALL the the listed "Special People", or just local LEO's??

ke6guj
03-01-2012, 8:25 AM
I guarantee you this, if you work for the FBI, and you retire in CA, your personal 'AW' is now subject to state law.
IIRC, the LEOSA would exempt him from CA law in that case.

SilverTauron
03-01-2012, 8:30 AM
These requirements do not apply to members of federal law enforcement
agencies who are authorized by their employing agency to possess these
weapons.
99

(c) Nothing in this article shall be construed to limit or prohibit
the sale, delivery, or transfer of an assault weapon or a .50 BMG
rifle to, or the possession of an assault weapon or a .50 BMG rifle
by, a member of a federal law enforcement agency provided that
person is authorized by the employing agency to possess the assault
weapon or .50 BMG rifle.



After reading the entire bill I noticed the above listed items that also refer to "federal law enforcement agencies". All the information posted here appears to be directed toward local LEO's. Is it the intent of Calguns to go after ALL the the listed "Special People", or just local LEO's??

I believe this chapter simply authorizes the ATF/FBI/USMS/USSS/DEA to transport such weapons within California on duty without excessive paperwork.

As written, LEOs are prohibited from transferring weapons not on the roster or AW's . This presents a problem if a DEA agent finds an AW at a cretins' drug safehouse, as they'd be in violation of the law the moment he or she handled the gun and gave it to another Federal Agent for evidence. That's a transfer of an AW according to the state law, which makes the Federal agent subject to charges accordingly without a listed exemption.

Thus, TWO authorization letters would be needed, one from the parent Federal agency and a secondary one from the local law enforcement agency the Feds intend to operate at.This would get old real fast for a US Marshall tracking down different fugitives in different parts of your state.

Stoner
03-01-2012, 8:33 AM
CGF is NOT "going after" law enforcement, I figured this ignorant misconception would be fairly prevalent on this issue. This bill, as it stands, creates a HUGE equal protection issue and is a bad bill. The AW ban has been (and will continue to be) challenged by CGF, it will go away eventually but if done improperly (as the LE Associations are doing), it will cause a lot of legal problems for everyone, both LE & non-LE.

You're looking at this with EXTREMELY prejudiced tunnel vision and all you're coming up with is "CGF doesn't want cops having rifles", which is not true, CGF does not want a law to remain standing that's so ridiculous, so confusing, that even law enforcement has a hard time legally acquiring tools for duty, let alone people (both LE and non-LE are constantly arrested because of an asinine 'configuration' game that's confusing even AFTER reading through the flow-chart).

Take a step back, deep breath, use your professional training and consider a comprehensive perspective of the matter at hand. Sound good?

We just have two different perspectives. Yours is from a non-LEO perspective and mine is from a LEO perspective. My perspective is that regulations provided to LEO put more gun rights in the state and will eventually include everyone. Your perspective is that if I do not have it, then no one should. You call it equal protection under the law; I call it removing protections granted to LEOS. Why would anyone who calls themselves pro-gun, pro 2A, back any law that takes gun rights away from ANYONE. First they take them from me, who do you think is next…………………
Perhaps you should “Take a step back, deep breath, use your professional training and consider a comprehensive perspective of the matter at hand. Sound good??”

SanPedroShooter
03-01-2012, 8:41 AM
IIRC, the LEOSA would exempt him from CA law in that case.

Then why doesnt it cover retired LE now? Maybe I am not understanding the way LEOSA works.

Does it provide an exeption for retired LE to keep 'AW's' in California?

SanPedroShooter
03-01-2012, 8:45 AM
"First they take them from me, who do you think is next………………… "

I think you have it backwards. First they took them from us, then gave them to you. Now it turns out, you are us.....

If this sounds like anything other than schadenfruede well, it may be. But I dont see how anyone can not be galled by the injustice of the situation in total. How this bill to exempt police from the unjust laws they are required to enforce will make the situation better is beyond me. If CGF is against it, I trust them.


What is the CGF position?

WTSGDYBBR
03-01-2012, 8:45 AM
New World Order ... Soon not even the police will have gun's . Sling Shots TJ Style.

greasemonkey
03-01-2012, 8:58 AM
We just have two different perspectives. Yours is from a non-LEO perspective and mine is from a LEO perspective. My perspective is that regulations provided to LEO put more gun rights in the state and will eventually include everyone. Your perspective is that if I do not have it, then no one should. You call it equal protection under the law; I call it removing protections granted to LEOS. Why would anyone who calls themselves pro-gun, pro 2A, back any law that takes gun rights away from ANYONE. First they take them from me, who do you think is next…………………
Perhaps you should “Take a step back, deep breath, use your professional training and consider a comprehensive perspective of the matter at hand. Sound good??”
Correct assertion on the different perspectives. Unfortunately for you, that does not mean we're both correct.

Stoner
03-01-2012, 9:04 AM
"First they take them from me, who do you think is next………………… "

I think you have it backwards. First they took them from us, then gave them to you. Now it turns out, you are us.....

If this sounds like anything other than schadenfruede well, it may be. But it dont see how anyone can not be galled by the injustice of the situation in total. How this bill to exempt police from the unjust laws they are required to enforce will make the situation better is beyond me. If CGF is against, I trust them.

You know, I guess that is the fundamental difference we are talking about. I just found out the other day the congress and the member of the senate are allowed to conduct insider trading, No violation of the law. Does that piss me off, you bet it does. But how do I go about fixing that is the bigger question. Do I lobby to make it illegal for everyone?? Or is there some middle ground I can live with.

Bottom line is no one wants to have privileges taken away from them. And EVERYONE in almost any job has certain privileges that are afforded to them as a result of being in a particular line of work. You worked for them while you were in the job, it was part of the job, and now someone wants to take that away from you. Does not sit well with anyone.

But from my perspective, and this is from my perspective, Calguns is supporting an effort to take something way from me, and that does not sit well with me.

SanPedroShooter
03-01-2012, 9:09 AM
I agree with you. Your perspective is obvious to anyone who thinks about it, and I would feel the same way, right or wrong.

I would like see and hear the official CGF position on this one. Because it does seem counter intuitve. I would never support taking guns away from anyone (within reason) especially not police who rely on guns to protect their own lives, on and off duty, just as I rely on my guns to protect mine (even if I am generaly disarmed out side of my house). I expect that after a lifetime of service, the least we can do is let them keep a rifle they bought and paid for....

I get the feeling there is more than meets the eye here. Maybe its been explained and I missed it. The TV interview with Bill was odd to say the least.

jdberger
03-01-2012, 9:18 AM
Is CGF backing this bill?

CGF doesn't do political lobbying. It's not part of our charter.

greasemonkey
03-01-2012, 9:20 AM
You know, I guess that is the fundamental difference we are talking about. I just found out the other day the congress and the member of the senate are allowed to conduct insider trading, No violation of the law. Does that piss me off, you bet it does. But how do I go about fixing that is the bigger question. Do I lobby to make it illegal for everyone?? Or is there some middle ground I can live with.

Bottom line is no one wants to have privileges taken away from them. And EVERYONE in almost any job has certain privileges that are afforded to them as a result of being in a particular line of work. You worked for them while you were in the job, it was part of the job, and now someone wants to take that away from you. Does not sit well with anyone.

But from my perspective, and this is from my perspective, Calguns is supporting an effort to take something way from me, and that does not sit well with me.
And therein lies one of the problems with your perspective, you're worried about losing YOUR PRIVILEGE. If you were legitimately concerned with fundamental rights, you would have been outraged over the the AW ban and dumbfounded by how poorly written it is that not even the "special" LE are exempt from it. Then you ought to be excited that an unbiased civil rights organization is making progress in abolishing such an arbitrary, invasive policy that infringes on peoples rights whether they're LE or not, ergo, allowing you to use for duty AND personal use whatever configuration it is our state so arbitrarily deemed to be an "AW".

You're being short-sighted and worrying about temporarily losing a perk that was illegal to begin with.

SanPedroShooter
03-01-2012, 9:22 AM
CGF doesn't do political lobbying. It's not part of our charter.

What about the CRPA or NRA, do they have a position, cause I cant find it yet. Does CGF take positions on politcal bils as a group, even if they dont lobby either way?

I dont want to get to far off topic, but since your here, doesnt brady have the same 501c status? They seem to have all kinds of public opinions on this stuff.... Can we exploit that if they are abusing their tax status?

greasemonkey
03-01-2012, 9:24 AM
I get the feeling there is more than meets the eye here. Maybe its been explained and I missed it. The TV interview with Bill was odd to say the least.
Not surprising that they spun that interview to portray "Here's Bill Wiese of the gun-nut group on why he hates cops".:facepalm:

sandman21
03-01-2012, 9:25 AM
We just have two different perspectives. Yours is from a non-LEO perspective and mine is from a LEO perspective. My perspective is that regulations provided to LEO put more gun rights in the state and will eventually include everyone. Your perspective is that if I do not have it, then no one should. You call it equal protection under the law; I call it removing protections granted to LEOS. Why would anyone who calls themselves pro-gun, pro 2A, back any law that takes gun rights away from ANYONE. First they take them from me, who do you think is next…………………
Perhaps you should “Take a step back, deep breath, use your professional training and consider a comprehensive perspective of the matter at hand. Sound good??”

But from my perspective, and this is from my perspective, Calguns is supporting an effort to take something way from me, and that does not sit well with me.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking. Who is backing a law taking gun rights away? This bill is intended to allow LEO to possession of RAW after retirement. However, it does come close to complying with Silveira. Therefore, CGF is not trying to take away LEO gun rights, but trying to get the state to comply with case law and pass a law that would solve the issue.


You clearly do not understand the issues related to RAW, since Silveira,

…...In light of the unequivocal nature of the legislative findings, and the content of the legislative record, there is little doubt that any exception to the AWCA unrelated to effective law enforcement is directly contrary to the act's basic purpose of eliminating the availability of high-powered, military-style weapons and thereby protecting the people of California from the scourge of gun violence....... (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13948185712203065755&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr)

The possession of a RAW using the department letterhead after retirement is a felony, the fact that it was registered to the individual LEO, changes nothing. The DOJ and the law enforcement agencies that allowed this to happen have created felons out of retired LEO. It you want to go yell at someone, go yell at the DOJ, your agency and finally the PORAC for not wanting to work with gun rights groups to pass a law that would no longer make felons out of retired LEO’s.

jdberger
03-01-2012, 9:31 AM
I agree with you. Your perspective is obvious to anyone who thinks about it, and I would feel the same way, right or wrong.

I would like see and hear the official CGF position on this one. Because it does seem counter intuitve. I would never support taking guns away from anyone (within reason) especially not police who rely on guns to protect their own lives, on and off duty, just as I rely on my guns to protect mine (even if I am generaly disarmed out side of my house). I expect that after a lifetime of service, the least we can do is let them keep a rifle they bought and paid for....

I get the feeling there is more than meets the eye here. Maybe its been explained and I missed it. The TV interview with Bill was odd to say the least.

CRPA was working with PORAC on a solution. When almost there, PORAC decided that they'd limit the bill to just give amnesty to retired LEOs. Ordinary (non-special*) folks could pound sand. The PORAC lobbyist was informed that his approach (throwing civilians out of the lifeboat) would raise an equal protection issue that might scuttle the (proposed) new law entirely. They didn't care.

Stoner - you have everything completely back to front. CRPA hasn't been trying to restrict YOUR ability to own a gun, they've been trying to EXPAND it. It's your UNION who's taking actions that will eventually scuttle your ability to purchase utility rifles for duty use and retain those rifles after you are no longer an LEO.








*“I believe they are special people." - Ron Cottingham, President Police Officers Research Association of California explaining why retired police officers aren't bound by the same gun laws as the peasants ordinary citizens.

jdberger
03-01-2012, 9:33 AM
What about the CRPA or NRA, do they have a position, cause I cant find it yet. Does CGF take positions on politcal bils as a group, even if they dont lobby either way?

I dont want to get to far off topic, but since your here, doesnt brady have the same 501c status? They seem to have all kinds of public opinions on this stuff.... Can we exploit that if they are abusing their tax status?

See my previous reply.

Re: Brady, they're both a (c)3 and a (c)4. The latter can lobby (same with NRA/ILA).

SanPedroShooter
03-01-2012, 9:33 AM
Not surprising that they spun that interview to portray "Here's Bill Wiese of the gun-nut group on why he hates cops".:facepalm:

I am continually let down and disappointed by the media on this issue... Suprise, suprise. If they are this wrong and biased on this issue which I have a fair knowledge of, generally speaking, what else are they way wrong about?

Comment withdrawn, thanks for the info. I hope that more people can understand 'our' side on this issue.

Ubermcoupe
03-01-2012, 9:41 AM
I hope they post your segment on the videos page soon.

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/video/

Its up, its up!

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/video/6797631-should-calif-cops-turn-in-assault-weapons-they-own-at-retirement/

Stoner
03-01-2012, 9:51 AM
You clearly have no idea what you are talking. Who is backing a law taking gun rights away? This bill is intended to allow LEO to possession of RAW after retirement. However, it does come close to complying with Silveira. Therefore, CGF is not trying to take away LEO gun rights, but trying to get the state to comply with case law and pass a law that would solve the issue.


You clearly do not understand the issues related to RAW, since Silveira,

…...In light of the unequivocal nature of the legislative findings, and the content of the legislative record, there is little doubt that any exception to the AWCA unrelated to effective law enforcement is directly contrary to the act's basic purpose of eliminating the availability of high-powered, military-style weapons and thereby protecting the people of California from the scourge of gun violence....... (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13948185712203065755&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr)

The possession of a RAW using the department letterhead after retirement is a felony, the fact that it was registered to the individual LEO, changes nothing. The DOJ and the law enforcement agencies that allowed this to happen have created felons out of retired LEO. It you want to go yell at someone, go yell at the DOJ, your agency and finally the PORAC for not wanting to work with gun rights groups to pass a law that would no longer make felons out of retired LEO’s.

Wow, you might want to lighten up on the caffeen there sport.

Once you have done that you might want to read the article and watch the news clip. Calguns does not support the bill and is opposed to it!! Being opposed to a bill that extends gun rights, be it to a small portion of gun owners, is still opposed to a pro gun rights bill.

jdberger
03-01-2012, 9:56 AM
Wow, you might want to lighten up on the caffeen there sport.

Once you have done that you might want to read the article and watch the news clip. Calguns does not support the bill and is opposed to it!! Being opposed to a bill that extends gun rights, be it to a small portion of gun owners, is still opposed to a pro gun rights bill.

As a Director of the Calguns Foundation, I can assure you that you have no idea what you're talking about. Unsuprisingly, the media got most everything wrong.

Sgt Raven
03-01-2012, 9:57 AM
We just have two different perspectives. Yours is from a non-LEO perspective and mine is from a LEO perspective. My perspective is that regulations provided to LEO put more gun rights in the state and will eventually include everyone. Your perspective is that if I do not have it, then no one should. You call it equal protection under the law; I call it removing protections granted to LEOS. Why would anyone who calls themselves pro-gun, pro 2A, back any law that takes gun rights away from ANYONE. First they take them from me, who do you think is next…………………
Perhaps you should “Take a step back, deep breath, use your professional training and consider a comprehensive perspective of the matter at hand. Sound good??”


My God, what does it take to get through to you?

Silveira v. Lockyer is the controling case law on this subject and YOUR Unions' attempt to get around it doesn't change that in one little bit. This will be just as DOA till the AWB is gone.

Then you come here and say you're going to mess with people you meet in your employment out of SPITE. Can't you see what a petty bitter little man that makes you look like? Is that how you enforce the laws normally, on emotions? Do you go out and target specific groups because you don't like their 'whatever'?

greasemonkey
03-01-2012, 9:59 AM
Wow, you might want to lighten up on the caffeen there sport.

Once you have done that you might want to read the article and watch the news clip. Calguns does not support the bill and is opposed to it!! Being opposed to a bill that extends gun rights, be it to a small portion of gun owners, is still opposed to a pro gun rights bill.
Is this one video/article seriously your sole source of information on this topic??! What a clown.

soopafly
03-01-2012, 10:02 AM
..you might want to read the article and watch the news clip.

You might want to get better informed on this issue.

Sgt Raven
03-01-2012, 10:02 AM
Wow, you might want to lighten up on the caffeen there sport.

Once you have done that you might want to read the article and watch the news clip. Calguns does not support the bill and is opposed to it!! Being opposed to a bill that extends gun rights, be it to a small portion of gun owners, is still opposed to a pro gun rights bill.


We're saying this bill as written has been ruled unconstitutional already, why waste the time and money. We don't want the legislature writing any more laws that have such glaring problems from the start. Why would you want to depend on a new law that one just like it was ruled against? :facepalm:

Sgt Raven
03-01-2012, 10:07 AM
Stoner, you're so smart, explain to us how this bill does not run a foul of Silveira v. Lockyer. Tell us that. Since that's the controlling case law, tell us how this bill gets around that FACT.

sandman21
03-01-2012, 10:10 AM
Wow, you might want to lighten up on the caffeen there sport.

Once you have done that you might want to read the article and watch the news clip. Calguns does not support the bill and is opposed to it!! Being opposed to a bill that extends gun rights, be it to a small portion of gun owners, is still opposed to a pro gun rights bill.

Where I thought LEO always had all the facts before commenting on something. One news clip and one article. :rolleyes: :facepalm:

Not surprisingly, you have not addressed the fact that the bill DOES NOTHING for yours or anyone else’s 2A rights. So how about you direct your anger towards the people who have caused the issued? Or do you just want go after the organization that has helped retired LEO when their department has sent them letters saying they need to turn in there RAW, more them out of state, etc.

As a Director of the Calguns Foundation, I can assure you that you have no idea what you're talking about. Unsuprisingly, the media got most everything wrong.

This cant be true that would make Stoner wrong. :eek:

radioman
03-01-2012, 10:11 AM
I saw this last night, KPIX 5. our gun laws are a mess in this State and LEO's are not safe from them, if you buy a tool for your job should you not be able to keep it when you retire, the State says NO.

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/video/6797631-should-calif-cops-turn-in-assault-weapons-they-own-at-retirement/

tcd511
03-01-2012, 10:16 AM
Retired = Normal citizen like you and I. So no. They needed a tool for a job they performed but are no longer performing it so you no longer need it. If you let them keep them then it puts them above the rest of us commoners.

wildhawker
03-01-2012, 10:17 AM
I strongly believe that personally-owned (and lawfully possessed) property should not be taken by the government at all, let alone without due process and compensation.

-Brandon

Stoner
03-01-2012, 10:18 AM
My God, what does it take to get through to you?

Silveira v. Lockyer is the controling case law on this subject and YOUR Unions' attempt to get around it doesn't change that in one little bit. This will be just as DOA till the AWB is gone.

Then you come here and say you're going to mess with people you meet in your employment out of SPITE. Can't you see what a petty bitter little man that makes you look like? Is that how you enforce the laws normally, on emotions? Do you go out and target specific groups because you don't like their 'whatever'?

I am aware of Silveira, and the fact that it is “case law”. And that being the “case” why are they not out rounding up all the retired officers that have registered assault weapons that were purchased during their employment??

Perhaps you do not understand the difference.

And as to my reference toward enforcing AW laws to the letter of the law, I see that does not sit well with you. Well that’s about the same feeling I have about an organization or individual that feels my rights should be taken away, because you don’t get the same benefit. And you can go on with your rant about being petty, bitter, blab, bla, bla. I gave up worrying about that in about the 6th grade. Have a good day.

And to the Calguns foundation. If I have incorrect information about you intentions regarding this bill, you have my apologies. I only have the facts in front of me to go on. I understand your need to keep cretin issues close to the vest, so to speak. But if you remain silent on the matter, what choice do I have??

missiondude
03-01-2012, 10:19 AM
Make them buy an OLL and bullet button like everyone else...

Stoner
03-01-2012, 10:22 AM
Where I thought LEO always had all the facts before commenting on something. One news clip and one article. :rolleyes: :facepalm:

Not surprisingly, you have not addressed the fact that the bill DOES NOTHING for yours or anyone else’s 2A rights. So how about you direct your anger towards the people who have caused the issued? Or do you just want go after the organization that has helped retired LEO when their department has sent them letters saying they need to turn in there RAW, more them out of state, etc.



This cant be true that would make Stoner wrong. :eek:

Come on man, what are you 12?? You need me to send you some more icons??

Harrison_Bergeron
03-01-2012, 10:22 AM
Why not just make them get bullet buttons or otherwise reconfigure their guns like the rest of us have to?

Big Ben
03-01-2012, 10:25 AM
Make them buy an OLL and bullet button like everyone else...

In theory, they could just install a bullet button and keep it. But as I understand it (and I could be wrong) most departments require their officers to purchase weapons that are banned by name.

So as a police officer, they end up in a catch-22. They purchase a rifle with their own funds that is used to do their job. Then they have to turn it in if they retire/terminate. And the option of converting it to a bullet-buttoned configuration isn't available, because the weapon is banned by name.

It's a lousy situation for them to be in.

pepsi2451
03-01-2012, 10:25 AM
We just have two different perspectives. Yours is from a non-LEO perspective and mine is from a LEO perspective. My perspective is that regulations provided to LEO put more gun rights in the state and will eventually include everyone.

I'm not sure what your trying to say here. It almost sounds like you think the LEO exemption will be expanded to include everyone. That make no sense though.

First they take them from me, who do you think is next…………………

They already took them from us normal folk, you are apparently next.

Sgt Raven
03-01-2012, 10:27 AM
I am aware of Silveira, and the fact that it is “case law”. And that being the “case” why are they not out rounding up all the retired officers that have registered assault weapons that were purchased during their employment??

Perhaps you do not understand the difference.

And as to my reference toward enforcing AW laws to the letter of the law, I see that does not sit well with you. Well that’s about the same feeling I have about an organization or individual that feels my rights should be taken away, because you don’t get the same benefit. And you can go on with your rant about being petty, bitter, blab, bla, bla. I gave up worrying about that in about the 6th grade. Have a good day.

And to the Calguns foundation. If I have incorrect information about you intentions regarding this bill, you have my apologies. I only have the facts in front of me to go on. I understand your need to keep cretin issues close to the vest, so to speak. But if you remain silent on the matter, what choice do I have??

The same reason you're not out looking for every person with a minor bench warrant. They will just tack that on when they catch them for something else.

No one here took your rights away, the 9th Circuit with SCOTUS's blessing took them away. Go harass the Justices on the 9th Circuit for that. If we're to believe your words, because we don't want another bad law enacted, you would harass us. Then, yes that makes you sound petty and bitter. :rolleyes: :oji:

BlindRacer
03-01-2012, 10:27 AM
I have an idea. Lets just make them legal. That way we all win.

They should absolutely be able to keep a tool that they purchased with their own funds. However, us lesser citizens should not be dis-allowed from owning them either.

tcd511
03-01-2012, 10:29 AM
I have to agree that they should be complensated if they had to buy it and now cant keep it. However could they have already written it off as a tax write off since it was a tool purchased for work? Installing bullet buttons is a good idea to.

Sgt Raven
03-01-2012, 10:29 AM
Stoner, you're so smart, explain to us how this bill does not run a foul of Silveira v. Lockyer. Tell us that. Since that's the controlling case law, tell us how this bill gets around that FACT.

Stoner, Stoner, Stoner, you still haven't answered this.

Harrison_Bergeron
03-01-2012, 10:29 AM
The state allowing certain non-cops to own AWs would be a good thing for the court battles wouldn't it?

sandman21
03-01-2012, 10:31 AM
I am aware of Silveira, and the fact that it is “case law”. And that being the “case” why are they not out rounding up all the retired officers that have registered assault weapons that were purchased during their employment??

You know they have not? Several LEO's have come on here seeking help with letters they have received from their departments. CGF has helped them out.

Perhaps you do not understand the difference.

And as to my reference toward enforcing AW laws to the letter of the law, I see that does not sit well with you. Well that’s about the same feeling I have about an organization or individual that feels my rights should be taken away, because you don’t get the same benefit. And you can go on with your rant about being petty, bitter, blab, bla, bla. I gave up worrying about that in about the 6th grade. Have a good day.

And to the Calguns foundation. If I have incorrect information about you intentions regarding this bill, you have my apologies. I only have the facts in front of me to go on. I understand your need to keep cretin issues close to the vest, so to speak. But if you remain silent on the matter, what choice do I have??

All the information is right in front of you, yet you continue to ignore it…..

CRPA was working with PORAC on a solution. When almost there, PORAC decided that they'd limit the bill to just give amnesty to retired LEOs. Ordinary (non-special*) folks could pound sand. The PORAC lobbyist was informed that his approach (throwing civilians out of the lifeboat) would raise an equal protection issue that might scuttle the (proposed) new law entirely. They didn't care.

Stoner - you have everything completely back to front. CRPA hasn't been trying to restrict YOUR ability to own a gun, they've been trying to EXPAND it. It's your UNION who's taking actions that will eventually scuttle your ability to purchase utility rifles for duty use and retain those rifles after you are no longer an LEO.

As a Director of the Calguns Foundation, I can assure you that you have no idea what you're talking about. Unsuprisingly, the media got most everything wrong.

Come on man, what are you 12?? You need me to send you some more icons??

You know the saying about pointing fingers, right?

Connor P Price
03-01-2012, 10:34 AM
Its a difficult situation because its not right for them to get special treatment to begin with. However once they're given that special treatment (read:equal protection violation) they shouldn't have their property taken away from them either. There are enough things wrong with the system that its tough to know what to be upset about.

Stoner
03-01-2012, 10:35 AM
I'm not sure what your trying to say here. It almost sounds like you think the LEO exemption will be expanded to include everyone. That make no sense though.



They already took them from us normal folk, you are apparently next.

You know I think I just realized something, most LEO think of themselves as “us normal folks”. And most normal folks do not think of LEOs as part of them , but as another opposing group. When the AWB went into effect it affected all of us. As long as you don’t think we are all on the same team, it gives the anti’s ammo to use against us. They have and will continue to.

So carry on, you are doing a great job!!!

Maestro Pistolero
03-01-2012, 10:35 AM
In theory, they could just install a bullet button and keep it. But as I understand it (and I could be wrong) most departments require their officers to purchase weapons that are banned by name.
Correct, answered your own question.

So as a police officer, they end up in a catch-22. They purchase a rifle with their own funds that is used to do their job. Then they have to turn it in if they retire/terminate. And the option of converting it to a bullet-buttoned configuration isn't available, because the weapon is banned by name.

It's a lousy situation for them to be in.

Right, except it can be sold or moved out of state. They may also keep the upper and get an un-named lower with a BB.

CrazyPhuD
03-01-2012, 10:38 AM
The state shouldn't be in the business of banning certain guns because they look different than others. So the question of 'should LEOs be allowed to keep those same types of guns' is moot.

johnthomas
03-01-2012, 10:38 AM
First off, they don't have to buy it for work, they want one and work enables them to get one. Of all the one's bought by LEO, how many have really been used in the line of duty?
It is a loop hole that we all wish we had. That said, they bought them legally, why not keep them. Most people that buy tools for work end up keeping a few even after they retire.

TheBest
03-01-2012, 10:42 AM
You know I think I just realized something, most LEO think of themselves as “us normal folks”. And most normal folks do not think of LEOs as part of them , but as another opposing group. When the AWB went into effect it affected all of us. As long as you don’t think we are all on the same team, it gives the anti’s ammo to use against us. They have and will continue to.
This bill will put retired LEO above "us normal folks", you realize that, right? All because they can own a RAW.

That's why "us normal folks" are against that. Equal rights for *all*.

pepsi2451
03-01-2012, 10:45 AM
You know I think I just realized something, most LEO think of themselves as “us normal folks”. And most normal folks do not think of LEOs as part of them , but as another opposing group. When the AWB went into effect it affected all of us. As long as you don’t think we are all on the same team, it gives the anti’s ammo to use against us. They have and will continue to.

So carry on, you are doing a great job!!!

I think we all should be "normal folk" but apparently Ron Cottingham (president of the PORAC) thinks you are "special people."

The problem is we aren't treated the same under the law. When you give one group of people special privileges that have nothing to do with law enforcement THAT is dividing us.

G60
03-01-2012, 10:46 AM
Do away with the AWB altogether and the problem solves itself.

Flopper
03-01-2012, 10:49 AM
The state allowing certain non-cops to own AWs would be a good thing for the court battles wouldn't it?

YES.

"Chess, not checkers."

Stoner
03-01-2012, 10:52 AM
Stoner, Stoner, Stoner, you still haven't answered this.

Ok, Silveira is case law, Correct??? So, let’s say they go to retired officer A’s residence, and have probable cause to look in his safe. In the safe they find him in possession of an assault weapon that he bought with his own money and registered it with DOJ. He has a registered AW. What are they going to arrest him for??

DOJ has not sent him a letter telling him his weapon is no longer registered. The AG did an OPINOPN letter indicating retired officers should not be allowed keep their personal property that was purchased and registered with their own money. But that is just an opinion!!

So what are they going to do about the retired officer with a REGISTERED AW??? The same thing they are going to do to a NORMAL person with a REGISTERED AW.

mag360
03-01-2012, 10:53 AM
YES they should keep them, when the CA AWB goes away and they can do t without an extra "super special" exemption.

sholling
03-01-2012, 10:53 AM
This is one of those sticky questions. As a firm believer that no one should be more equal in the eyes of the law than the common citizen my feeling is that until we all have the right to own scary looking guns then no they should not be allowed to keep them. Police unions failed to oppose the roster and the various scary weapon bans as long as their members were exempted - now their members should live with it just like the rest of us until those laws are overturned or defeated in court. In fact I think they should have to live by the same weapon restrictions as the rest of us while on duty and off. That includes off-duty and retired LTC, the roster, magazine capacity, scary looking guns, knives, and clubs - all of the restrictions placed on the common citizen. If they had to live with the same restrictions as the rest of us those restrictions would be gone by January.

speedrrracer
03-01-2012, 10:56 AM
That media piece did as poor a job as possible at allowing bwiese to express his opinion. I suspect it's not the media's first time failing in that regard.

This situation is to be expected, and is well-known to anyone with experience in software.

You make a poor decision at a high level early on (violating 2A rights) and you will certainly pay for it later (complex laws requiring specific exceptions which then require extra maintenance over time as circumstances change).

Stoner
03-01-2012, 10:57 AM
I think we all should be "normal folk" but apparently Ron Cottingham (president of the PORAC) thinks you are "special people."

The problem is we aren't treated the same under the law. When you give one group of people special privileges that have nothing to do with law enforcement THAT is dividing us.

Well then carry on, we are divided!!! And there will be a winner is this battle, and it will not be either of us.

NytWolf
03-01-2012, 10:58 AM
I saw this last night, KPIX 5. our gun laws are a mess in this State and LEO's are not safe from them, if you buy a tool for your job should you not be able to keep it when you retire, the State says NO.


You paid for it. It's yours.

Once a LEO becomes a non-LEO, they should abide by the same laws as civilians.

If they are not banned, then they should have BB's, etc.
If they are banned, then they should have the option of registering them as RAW.
If they don't want them, then the agency where they worked should purchase it from them at the current market value.

sandman21
03-01-2012, 11:02 AM
Ok, Silveira is case law, Correct??? So, let’s say they go to officer A’s residence, and have probable cause to look in his safe. In the safe they find him in possession of an assault weapon that he bought with his own money and registered it with DOJ. He has a registered AW. What are they going to arrest him for??

DOJ has not sent him a letter telling him his weapon is no longer registered. The AG did an OPINOPN letter indicating retired officers should not be allowed keep their personal property that was purchased and registered with their own money. But that is just an opinion!!

So what are they going to do about the retired officer with a REGISTERED AW??? The same thing they are going to do to a NORMAL person with a REGISTERED AW.

The LEO has the AW registered to him for law enforcement purposes. Once the LEO retires the reason for registration is no longer valid, this is no different than violating the rules on a persons LTC while you are violating the LTC does not exempt them from the concealed carry laws. Or someone practicing outside there area of experience with a professional engineering license. The fact that the DOJ has no means of removing a name is irrelevant. If this were just an “opinion”, PORAC would not be trying to pass this crappy law.

mag360
03-01-2012, 11:04 AM
stoner- whine much? Get over yourself and your exemption the union already carved out for you 12 years ago. So this is an exemption to continue an exemption of a banned item a regular person can't own. Why can't you just fight for the AWB to go away and not twist around the goals of cgf, which are not at all "to keep cops from having semi automatics".

mag360
03-01-2012, 11:09 AM
the LEO registered AW was done on the terms that as an LEO it had certain duty implications that were used to justify the AW, when you are no longer an LEO, the terms of which your AW was registered have now changed. Hence why they must be removed from AW status.

the pre existing RAW owners were not allowed to register due to some job necessity, but because they owned them.

SAR_boats
03-01-2012, 11:11 AM
Yes. (and they should be legal for the rest of us too)

Bought and paid for. They did the time of dealing with scumbags for 20+ years. They are vetted. Retired military should be included too.

bwiese
03-01-2012, 11:12 AM
The law's clear that they cannot retain such firearms (Silviera v. Lockyer in 2002 + formal AG Opinion Letter of 12/10).
.
Formal, repeated DOJ FD/BoF behavior and statements during this 2002-2010 interregnum directly told officers otherwise,
with not only employee signature but under the global signature of the chief law enforcement officer of CA. (Every letter
had signature "By [DeputyAG]... for [AG]")
.
A pure direct legislative fixup for this specific matter alone isn't possible (due to #1). If passed it's easy to kill - will go right
to 9th Circuit quickly.

Internally in Sacto the PORAC contract lobbyist has already acknowledged this to People I Trust Very Well - he's urging
passage even though it's acknowledged Silviera controls. It almost seems that either...
.

PORAC contract lobbyist gets paid by "milestone" achievements and took on the impossible
just to get some income, ... or...
.
PORAC wants positive PR with its membership but really doesn't really care about actual
end-result success and is "just going thru the motions"

.
90-95% of these guns are NOT 'fixable' via a mod...

It's quite unclear that CA could force a mod - options currently legally sustainable are compensation+
surrender/sale, or a more global fixup to allow nonLEOs [who definitionally have the same rights as retired
LEOs]

Also, conversion post-retirment on listed guns involves changes to a firearm that is already definitionally
contraband. True, prosecution of a retiree LEO for this matter may well be defendable, but that still does
not result in allowance of retaining the gun.

Agency armorers/mgmt. set the standards for LEO AW purchases. 99% of the time these usu mimic the
agency acquisition standards for their own "institutionally-owned" guns, so they're almost always "Colt,
Bushmaster, Armalite" plus some HKs, and banned by make & model. [There were a few LMTs thrown in
later.]
.
Yes, retiring LEOs could sell the gun out of state - except that involves:
.

doing this before separation/transfer from the letter-issuing agency;
.
existing retirees are already in violation;
.
if firearm not directly driven/flown with owner out of state, services of a
CA FFL holding a CA AW permit are required. T his'll run around $150ish
min. The officer should not have to pay this since the DOJ + his department
created this situation. Furthermore, since the officer purchased under detrimental
reliance a fully working nonmodified firearm, the loss of this can be argued to
have value too.
.
change of receivers == new gun, and is outside the scope of this issue since we
are talking about the original gun. That's akin to building a Rolls Royce from a Ford
by retaining the horn button. No legal support for turning a gun into a bunch of
parts to rebuild into something else.

.
This prospective legislation also causes other issues:
.

IT STILL DOES NOT ADDRESS FIXING HUGE ISSUES OF "LATERAL" TRANSFER VALIDITY.
Since AW registration is tied to validity/currency of letter signed by agency head, the
lateral transferree's new dept. has worries (even more than the officer).
.
It doesn't address flawed/invalid registration issues where DOJ issued AW regs based on
letters signed by someone ranking lower than the chief or agency head. Informed folks
tell me sometimes watch commander types or sworn armorers actually signed the letter
(in good faith, not understanding the law).
.
There appear to be issues with certain "Agency letters" submitted to DOJ where the "Chief's
signature" does not graphologically match that Chief's actual signature. [The ol' boyz got
some letterhead and a laser printer and went wild...]
.
This legislation in no way affects or fixes the "LEOs with illegal AWs" situation - which hugely
compromises every case these officers have touched, esp where officer credibility is involved.
Information about felony conduct - whether or not charged/ convicted - is Brady-list material
disclosable, and could end up unrolling certain cases where officer credibility is important.

This situation encompasses both "innocent" behavior ("I thought I was exempt"), or ("I bought
this gun in 1988 (or 1999) and didn't know it wasn't registered because I filled out the 4473 at
the shop") vs. pure illegal behavior based on "Brass Pass" (LA-area cops going to gunshops,
buying MMGd/BB'd ARs on their personal nickel, and then removing any and all compliance parts.)

These various situations are pretty common given the 22 year time span since Roberti-Roos and
12 year time span since SB23. There's a lot of paperwork around, and sales/accouting records of
gun shops are no great secret - they're not gov't docs like 4473/DROS papers, no confidentiality
required. Plus these guys have bragged, over an extensive time period, to friends, family and
future ex-wives ;-)

Th.

Stoner
03-01-2012, 11:13 AM
The LEO has the AW registered to him for law enforcement purposes. Once the LEO retires the reason for registration is no longer valid, this is no different than violating the rules on a persons LTC while you are violating the LTC does not exempt them from the concealed carry laws. Or someone practicing outside there area of experience with a professional engineering license. The fact that the DOJ has no means of removing a name is irrelevant. If this were just an “opinion”, PORAC would not be trying to pass this crappy law.

I understand your argument, but you missed the part of the law that states “or for personal use”.

And you still have not answered the question, what law are they going to use to take the weapon??

Also saw this posted on another thread by Wildhawker: “I strongly believe that personally-owned (and lawfully possessed) property should not be taken by the government at all, let alone without due process and compensation.

-Brandon


I can only hope Bill’s comments were taken out of context. Having talked to the press on a number of occasions, I am fully aware of how they will work what you said to fit their intent.

ArkinDomino
03-01-2012, 11:15 AM
Let them keep it. But if they civilians now, bullet button those bad boys up!

Stoner
03-01-2012, 11:16 AM
stoner- whine much? Get over yourself and your exemption the union already carved out for you 12 years ago. So this is an exemption to continue an exemption of a banned item a regular person can't own. Why can't you just fight for the AWB to go away and not twist around the goals of cgf, which are not at all "to keep cops from having semi automatics".

Come on, you lead with “whine much? Get over yourself” Then you go on to indicate you don’t like the LAWS that are on the books. Might want to look in the mirror there sport.

Stoner
03-01-2012, 11:19 AM
the LEO registered AW was done on the terms that as an LEO it had certain duty implications that were used to justify the AW, when you are no longer an LEO, the terms of which your AW was registered have now changed. Hence why they must be removed from AW status.

the pre existing RAW owners were not allowed to register due to some job necessity, but because they owned them.

But for now they have not been removed from AW status. So you are in favor of taking away gun rights. If you cant do it, no one can. I get that, we just disagree.

socom308
03-01-2012, 11:21 AM
Johnthomas is correct. If you go back and research the history and legislative intent behind the AW ban, it was never intended to place limitations on peace officers. What they didn't foresee or realize with the original bill were that scores of peace officers were under the belief that they were not subject to the registration requirement or limited from acquiring firearms so classified. This lead to the sudden creation of a large number of "would be felons" because of a legislative oversight.

Legislators went back and inserted the exception for peace officers to acquire weapons that fall under the AW rule only with the requirement of verification of full time peace officer status by the head of their respective agency at the time of acquisition. Many departments had no allowance for personally owned rifles being used on duty when the law was enacted, nor was the amendment added with such intent. It is even stated in the legislative intent that the firearm may be used, but has no requirement to be for law enforcement use.

There is no sunset clause in the legislation for the ownership of said AW's by peace officers, and there is no secondary registry that differentiates that status. Brown's opinion on the matter is incorrect, and there is no data to support his position, which was incorrectly gleaned from the now expired federal ban.

I personally own several AW's acquired under my peace officer status, and many of them were purchased prior to my agency's development of a rifle program or intent to allow personally owned rifles on duty. Only two of my AW's even meet the regulations for duty use at that, and none were purchased with the primary intent to use them on duty.

I don't agree with the state's AW ban any more than the rest of you do, but the whole position that the community here is taking on this issue is incorrect and it is causing a lot of good people in the LEO community that would otherwise support the mission of this board to leave, or avoid joining in the first place:(

6172crew
03-01-2012, 11:23 AM
I strongly believe that personally-owned (and lawfully possessed) property should not be taken by the government at all, let alone without due process and compensation.

-Brandon

+1. I think anyone who thinks otherwise should think about joining the Brady campaign...all 6 of the members that is.

The more black rifles in the hands of law abiding citizens the better IMO. :chris:

gobler
03-01-2012, 11:24 AM
Only if they repeal the stupid AW ban.... Then we are all GTG.


Sent from somewhere in space & time...

6172crew
03-01-2012, 11:25 AM
Let them keep it. But if they civilians now, bullet button those bad boys up!

Some of these rifles would still be AWs because they are some lame *** list, should the .gov be able to arrest them or take property away from them?

WTSGDYBBR
03-01-2012, 11:26 AM
I hope this opens the eye of many law enforcement in the end we will all be fighting for the same rights .

proclone1
03-01-2012, 11:38 AM
If a LEO was allowed to get a weapon only for the requirements of his job (I'm giving the state the benefit of the doubt in that "AW's" are allowed FOR the job, and not because they're part of a special, better-than-civilians Clique) that a normal law-abiding citizen could not, then when that LEO is no longer performing that job, then why should he be more entitled to keep said weapon? I consider that former LEO to be in the same position and same level of entitlement as your average law-abiding citizen.

That said, there's no such thing as an "AW" and law-abiding citizens should be able to own whatever they want, and there shouldn't need to be an exception for LEO's to own certain weapons and have the OP's problem in the first place. If you're an LEO and don't agree, welcome to our world.

bwiese
03-01-2012, 11:39 AM
Brown's opinion on the matter is incorrect, and there is no data to support his position, which was incorrectly gleaned from the now expired federal ban.

Sorry, sonny. Brown's opinion derives directly from Silviera and statutory construction in the *California* law and is the product of sound legal analysis.

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH 1994-2004 Federal AW ban.

Silviera was held by 9th Circuit and the US Supremes denied review. It's held law.


don't agree with the state's AW ban any more than the rest of you do, but the whole position that the community here is taking on this issue is incorrect and it is causing a lot of good people in the LEO community that would otherwise support the mission of this board to leave, or avoid joining in the first place:(The mission of CGN is for Gun Rights For All.

We can probably do without them because
1. they are wrong;
2. they are asserting special privileges for retirement;
3. they don't know WTF is going on under the table;
4. these things can get "fixed for all" if done right.


That said, there's no such thing as an "AW" and law-abiding citizens should be able to own whatever they want, and there
shouldn't need to be an exception for LEO's to own certain weapons and have the OP's problem in the first place. If you're
an LEO and don't agree, welcome to our world.

Exactamundo!

DDRH
03-01-2012, 11:40 AM
YES

Sgt Raven
03-01-2012, 11:53 AM
But for now they have not been removed from AW status. So you are in favor of taking away gun rights. If you cant do it, no one can. I get that, we just disagree.

But you have some departments that have read the law, the AG opinion, and Sliviera v. Lockyer and sent out letters that tell their officers that they can not keep their RAWs registered under a CLEO letter when they leave employment with that department.

So is your new saying "ignorance of the law is no excuse, except when it benefits me"? Just because they're not rounding up officers, doesn't mean they're wrong about the true meaning of the law as written.

radioman
03-01-2012, 11:54 AM
Johnthomas is correct. If you go back and research the history and legislative intent behind the AW ban, it was never intended to place limitations on peace officers. What they didn't foresee or realize with the original bill were that scores of peace officers were under the belief that they were not subject to the registration requirement or limited from acquiring firearms so classified. This lead to the sudden creation of a large number of "would be felons" because of a legislative oversight.

Legislators went back and inserted the exception for peace officers to acquire weapons that fall under the AW rule only with the requirement of verification of full time peace officer status by the head of their respective agency at the time of acquisition. Many departments had no allowance for personally owned rifles being used on duty when the law was enacted, nor was the amendment added with such intent. It is even stated in the legislative intent that the firearm may be used, but has no requirement to be for law enforcement use.

There is no sunset clause in the legislation for the ownership of said AW's by peace officers, and there is no secondary registry that differentiates that status. Brown's opinion on the matter is incorrect, and there is no data to support his position, which was incorrectly gleaned from the now expired federal ban.

I personally own several AW's acquired under my peace officer status, and many of them were purchased prior to my agency's development of a rifle program or intent to allow personally owned rifles on duty. Only two of my AW's even meet the regulations for duty use at that, and none were purchased with the primary intent to use them on duty.

I don't agree with the state's AW ban any more than the rest of you do, but the whole position that the community here is taking on this issue is incorrect and it is causing a lot of good people in the LEO community that would otherwise support the mission of this board to leave, or avoid joining in the first place:(

I did not bring this up to bash LE, more to show how dumb the laws this state are, if you need to fight you should have the tools to do so.

But, we the citizens should not be bared from such weapons, in common use. what would your job be like if all you could have was ten rounds, or just revolvers. It would play hell on LE, I for one would not want to see that happen, but at the same time, if you can have it so should we.

bwiese
03-01-2012, 12:02 PM
But for now they have not been removed from AW status. So you are in favor of taking away gun rights. If you cant do it, no one can. I get that, we just disagree.




When the LEO letter is no longer valid, the registration has no underlying support and is thus invalid thru derivation.
.
We have the curious situation of the DOJ saying they will not pull
invalid registrations. That's because they are really hiding from
this one.
.
A charge of possession of an unregistered assault weapon is likely
defendable. Continued possession of legally-defined contraband
is not.
This situation at worst will have to result in a buyback, but the
state and agencies are trying to avoid it.
.
To protect Gun Rights For All, minor instances such as this may
involve short-term disappointments, esp as these individual situations
are agency matters not global RKBA matters.
.
I have plenty of communications with fine LEOs who indeed do
understand the problem and would rather lose their AWs than
get a "local fix" that does not advance gunrights.
I am NOT special; I have 9 reg'd AWs myself (6 ARs, 1 AR10, 2 FALs.)

I'd burn them all in a second to make a valid incremental forward
step toward teardown of CA AW laws.




.

bohoki
03-01-2012, 12:05 PM
i think if they were trusted with them at one time they should be trusted with them until they do something to lose that trust

sandman21
03-01-2012, 12:07 PM
I understand your argument, but you missed the part of the law that states “or for personal use”.

And you still have not answered the question, what law are they going to use to take the weapon??

Also saw this posted on another thread by Wildhawker: “I strongly believe that personally-owned (and lawfully possessed) property should not be taken by the government at all, let alone without due process and compensation.

-Brandon


I can only hope Bill’s comments were taken out of context. Having talked to the press on a number of occasions, I am fully aware of how they will work what you said to fit their intent.

First it does not say “or for personal use” in PC 30630, while with the department the LEO may use the RAW while not on duty. Even if it did, Silveira makes continued possession after retirement impossible, read Section 3(b) of Silveira.

They are guilty of possessing an unregistered assault weapon, CA PC 30605

Librarian
03-01-2012, 12:22 PM
Ladies and Gents,

Pardon the confusion, but I just merged the two threads; the actual bill technical discussion will have its own thread momentarily. -- http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=542526

Carry on, politely, please.

tpc13
03-01-2012, 12:34 PM
Cops aren't above the law, but they do have specific training above regular citizens (POST) and should be excluded from turning over their AWs. If they feel the need or forced to by someones opinion (Dan Lungren, previous DA) to turn over their registered AWs then so be it. It's simple just dissemble the gun and give up the legally registered lower. Go by a CA lower and go featureless or BB. Make sure u get a letter from LE in charge that u turned it over. Yes this sounds stupid and I think Kommie Ca should leave Law enforcement alone. They work too hard to keep us safe and should get some kind of exemption. But people in power take positions and make bad decisions. We should not stand for this and unite against them. For we are the people who employ them. Without us they have no job ,opinion or anyone to govern.

newbee1111
03-01-2012, 12:43 PM
Couldn't police departments just swap an OLL for the retiring officer's named lower and give them a bullet button?

greasemonkey
03-01-2012, 1:01 PM
Couldn't police departments just swap an OLL for the retiring officer's named lower and give them a bullet button?

I don't know that the Dep't could buy them an OLL but at $150 to buy an OLL, under current law, I would think that'd be a great way for an officer to hang on to their $1,500 investment minus the essentially un-reg'd AW receiver they would be surrendering

Obviously the ideal and CGF/CRPA/SAF solution is for the AW ban to die a horrible death instead of PORAC's approach to continue the us vs. them nitpicking of who's a special class of citizen and who is not.

Sgt Raven
03-01-2012, 1:10 PM
Cops aren't above the law, but they do have specific training above regular citizens (POST) and should be excluded from turning over their AWs.

Let me see, what specialized training do I have? I should be able to have a M16, a M60, a M203, a M79, and a M2 along with the ammo for them. Also grenades and anti tank weapons too. So much for specialized training. :oji:

TheBest
03-01-2012, 1:10 PM
Another question:

What happens to the "high capacity" (greater than 10 round) magazines upon retirement (also bought as an active LEO for their AWs)? Now they are in possession of high cap mags, is there any law broken?

radioman
03-01-2012, 1:11 PM
My OP now #131 got sent over to this s*** storm, all the in-fighting, the us V them does not help, you guys in blue are the same as us, the man in the street. No man should have more rights then the other, that's not what this country is about, or ever should be. your union will stand and fight for your rights, but at the same time, fight to take ours. No man's rights should be taken at the stroke of a pen, you paid for your AW, you should be able to keep it. but no law should give you men in blue more rights then us, we are the same, we are citizens of the united states, no more no less.

tahoetarga
03-01-2012, 1:27 PM
And therein lies one of the problems with your perspective, you're worried about losing YOUR PRIVILEGE. If you were legitimately concerned with fundamental rights, you would have been outraged over the the AW ban and dumbfounded by how poorly written it is that not even the "special" LE are exempt from it. Then you ought to be excited that an unbiased civil rights organization is making progress in abolishing such an arbitrary, invasive policy that infringes on peoples rights whether they're LE or not, ergo, allowing you to use for duty AND personal use whatever configuration it is our state so arbitrarily deemed to be an "AW".

You're being short-sighted and worrying about temporarily losing a perk that was illegal to begin with.

I am an 'honorably' retired LEO...my AR? OLL, bullet button and ten-round mags...

Big Ben
03-01-2012, 2:17 PM
My OP now #131 got sent over to this s*** storm, all the in-fighting, the us V them does not help, you guys in blue are the same as us, the man in the street. No man should have more rights then the other, that's not what this country is about, or ever should be. your union will stand and fight for your rights, but at the same time, fight to take ours. No man's rights should be taken at the stroke of a pen, you paid for your AW, you should be able to keep it. but no law should give you men in blue more rights then us, we are the same, we are citizens of the united states, no more no less.

Well said, sir. I completely agree.

greasemonkey
03-01-2012, 3:29 PM
I hope we're all able to take the **** bullet button off and hang it on the wall soon, too!

Inasmuch as it bothers me that we can't use a normal push-button sporting rifle, it also bothers me that someone can honorably work on the police force (or serving in military combat) all the way to retirement carrying a loaded AR around for years and they're suddenly unfit to carry it just because they retired.
I am an 'honorably' retired LEO...my AR? OLL, bullet button and ten-round mags...

1911su16b870
03-01-2012, 4:22 PM
Featureless baby, featureless.

Give me any RAW parts minus the receiver and I can make it featureless for you.

Solar tactical grip wrap
Pin the stock
Install YHM phantom break
Remove VFG

Done.

Librarian
03-01-2012, 4:37 PM
Here's the set of things that are most influential.

SB 626 (Perata) 2001 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_626&sess=0102&house=B&author=perata) gave us Penal Code Section 12880(f)(1) and (f)(2), which are now Penal Code Section 30630 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/30630.html)(b)(1) and (b)(2)
(b)
(1) Sections 30600, 30605, and 30610 shall not prohibit the
sale, delivery, or transfer 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 Section 30625 if
the peace officer is authorized by the officer's 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 that person to
receive or possess the specific assault weapon.
(2) For this exemption to apply, in the case of a peace officer
who possesses or receives the assault weapon prior to January 1,
2002, the officer shall register the assault weapon on or before
April 1, 2002, pursuant to former Section 12285, as it read at any
time from when it was enacted by Section 3 of Chapter 19 of the
Statutes of 1989, to and including when it was amended by Section 9
of Chapter 129 of the Statutes of 1999. In the case of a peace
officer who possesses or receives the assault weapon on or after
January 1, 2002, the officer shall, not later than 90 days after
possession or receipt, register the assault weapon pursuant to
Article 5 (commencing with Section 30900), or pursuant to former
Section 12285, as it read at any time from when it was amended by
Section 9 of Chapter 129 of the Statutes of 1999 to when it was
repealed by the Deadly Weapons Recodification Act of 2010. In the
case of a peace officer who possesses or receives a .50 BMG rifle on
or before January 1, 2005, the officer shall register the .50 BMG
rifle on or before April 30, 2006. In the case of a peace officer who
possesses or receives a .50 BMG rifle after January 1, 2005, the
officer shall register the .50 BMG rifle not later than one year
after possession or receipt.


The first bill analysis (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/01-02/bill/sen/sb_0601-0650/sb_626_cfa_20010516_135929_sen_floor.html) of SB 626 includes
"Additionally, the prohibition on purchase of assault
weapons extended to police officers. PORAC has since
notified my office that many agencies can't afford to
purchase assault weapons, but would authorize officers
to if allowed under law."

The sponsor of this bill indicates that:

"One change particularly important to PORAC relates to
an omission that prohibited peace officers from
purchasing assault weapons for use at work, even though
the purchase is through and with the permission of
their agency. This change reinstates that concept."

Subsequent analyses of the bill are consistent with the above. However, one later analysis includes
The existing assault weapon's law does seem to contemplate that
the excepted sworn peace officers in the law would be obtaining
their assault weapons which they could possess from the
specified agencies which are authorized to buy them. There is
some anecdotal information that at least some law enforcement
officers have not registered their privately owned assault
weapons which they lawfully possessed prior to January 1, 2001.
All persons possessing the assault weapons added by SB 23 in
1999-effective January 1, 2000-had one year to register their
assault weapons. This bill would appear to offer another
opportunity for the specified sworn law enforcement officers to
register their assault weapons possessed prior to January 1,
2002, in this case by April 1, 2002. This bill does require the
employing agency to authorize the officer to possess the
firearm, but there is no restriction that the assault weapon be
necessary for law enforcement purposes. The author indicates
that some of the authorized agencies cannot afford to provide
their officers assault weapons but would if they could so that
this bill may be intended to allow officers to essentially
purchase duty weapons. However, there is nothing in this bill
which requires the agency authorization to be limited to such
weapons. For example, the exemption could be limited to assault
weapons that the agency would purchase for duty use or that the
assault weapons would be authorized as duty weapons.

ETA SB 238 (Perata) 2003 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_238&sess=0304&house=B&author=perata) (have to be persistent to find this, does not come up in Bill Search) deleted PC 12280(g) and (h) (g) Subdivisions (a) and (b) shall not prohibit the sale or
transfer of assault weapons by an entity specified in subdivision (e)
to a person, upon retirement, who retired as a sworn officer from
that entity.
(h) Subdivision (b) shall not apply to the possession of an
assault weapon by a retired peace officer who received that assault
weapon pursuant to subdivision (g).because 3)Deletes the exemption for retired peace officers from the ban
on assault weapons, pursuant to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeal ruling in Silverira v Lockyer on December 5, 2002.

Jerry Brown's Attorney General Opinion No. 09-901 (ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/opinions/pdfs/o564_09-901.pdf) is the source of the controversy. (PDF, 16 pages, too long to quote)

cacop
03-01-2012, 5:09 PM
A few pages back people were asking "what do officers think?"

Honestly the answer for the most part officers come from the communities they police. Sure we in the Bay get people from the Valley but most of the time they are within an hour's drive. Now we tend to be a bit more conservative than the average person in our comunity. IIRC about 20 years ago when CA was more or less 50/50 Rep/Dem we ran about 65/35 Rep/Dem. So take that into account for your local agency. And of course Mitt Romney and Ron Paul are both Republicans. So with that understand we are not a monolithic group so that is of little help when it comes to the AWB or really any other legislative or legal effort.

Then comes our numbers. Before the crash we had 80,000 officers in the state. That was out of 37 million or so or 0.22% of the population. Now we are down at least to 70,000, I suspect it is less than that but I can't confirm it since no one wants to admit there are fewer officers on the street. Take my city for example, we have 94 authorized positions but we only staff at best 90, realistically 85-90 depending on the time of year. So now with us down to 70,000 we are at 0.19% of the population. Do not expect much from us in Sacto.

Now for PORAC. PORAC for the line officer is a legal defense fund. When I get an IA for being "rude" when I tell them they are under arrest or it was somehow improper for me to follow the law and department policy PORAC is who will send a lawyer to protect my rights. Also if I get in an officer involved shooting they will send a lawyer to protect my rights. That is extremely important if I have to shoot someone who is politically protected. They will also help with contract negotiations, for an extra fee. We had to do it last negotiations due to the city hiring an attorney to make sure the contract was iron clad and they weren't setting themselves up for a lawsuit.

Now when it comes to the lobbying arm of PORAC they are essentially no different than any other trade association. They look out for their members' interest. I am a member of PORAC and I get their trade magazine every month. They have a legislative round up of all the bills working their way through Sacto and occaisionally DC. They will range from sentencing laws, IA procedures, personnel issues, etc.

I *think* PORAC did this because this has become a pretty big issue for some departments. Officers were buying rifles that needed letterhead to become RAW and the weapons were on "the list" and could not be converted to OLLs. Then there is the issue of transferring out of state either through sales or leaving CA. Then there are issues with laterals, which departments are seeking due to their low cost to train compared to entry level. One way or another this will work itself out.

As for me Chief 1 in 2001 bought enough rifles for on duty officers to use. They are pool guns so they are essentially glorified shotguns. Chief 2 essentially kept the status quo but bought more rifles. He still did not allow individual officers to buy rifles even though he could. Maybe he saw the writing on the wall. I don't know the man was hard to read and he wasn't someone people enjoyed talking to do to his mean streak. Chief 3 seemed to be more inclined to allow personal rifles with letterhead until the AG opinion. This PORAC patch *may* have him allow personal ARs with letterhead. IF he does I will push for allowing OLL to be converted to RAW so that in retirement we could possibly convert them back to OLL. For example I will pick up say a BCM in OLL configuration at my local gun shop without letterhead, just like everyone else. Then ask the chief for a letter and then convert it to RAW configuration once it is registered with the state. Then when I retire either take the weapon out of state or convert it to OLL configuration.

No matter the details, things need to change. The best would be for the AWB law to get overturned so that I can go into any gunstore that chooses to carry AR-15s and walk out 10 days and 1 minute later with my own rifle with no registration reguirements. Second best would being able to walk out the door having registered it like everyone else.

In the end for now I will have to make do with the way things are now. It sucks but maybe in a few years a certain person will retire and we can carry Mini 14s or our own shotguns. I would almost rather have my own shotgun than have the glorified shotguns we have now. At least with my own shotgun I know where the zero is.

yakmon
03-01-2012, 6:03 PM
Officers were buying rifles that needed letterhead to become RAW and the weapons were on "the list" and could not be converted to OLLs.

an illegal lower receiver is just as illegal as a complete rifle. strip that thing, and mean down to a stripped reciever. stock, lpk, buffer tube. turn in stripped reciever, buy an OLL and bullet button. you're only out $100. sucks to be out even that. but it is an out.

cacop
03-01-2012, 6:46 PM
an illegal lower receiver is just as illegal as a complete rifle. strip that thing, and mean down to a stripped reciever. stock, lpk, buffer tube. turn in stripped reciever, buy an OLL and bullet button. you're only out $100. sucks to be out even that. but it is an out.

In our department there are people debating this point, among others. Mostly because we were thisclose to getting letterhead signed by the chief when the AG dropped his bomb.

One side of the argument says, "The AG said you must turn it in. Taking it out of state, turning it into an OLL, selling it out of state, or anything other than turning it in is a felony."

The other side says, "If I take it out of the state where is the crime? I no longer possess it. If it could be an OLL in the hands of a civillian in certain configurations it would be legal even if registered as an AW."

I called Cal DOJ a few days after the opinion came out and they could not answer my questions because they did not know. As far as they were concerned they had to be turned in. They said to call back in a few months. I did and they still had no idea. I got the point that this was going to be a long process to figure out what was going on.

Until the law gets changed and holds up that you can keep an AR in retirement without having to jump through hoops I want nothing to do with it. If they were to say I could take it out of state I would. I would look at either moving out of state or finding a small storage unit just on the other side of the state line and storing it there.

From what I understand the AG's opinion has spurred at least one retired officer to sue to keep his AR. IIRC a few non-LE have joined too. I have not heard anything since a few months after the AGs opinion as to where that lawsuit has gone.

The number one thing to remember when in LE is to not trust anyone, especially your bosses.

greasemonkey
03-01-2012, 7:35 PM
It's not an RAW or unReg'd-AW out of CA, they'd be treated the same as anyone else that currently has a Listed Receiver that wasn't registered, receiver needs to die or go out of CA where they're just another sporting rifle.

A City near me is going through the same problem right now, they need a bit more punch for the job but the dep't can't afford it. The most reasonable thing so far, under the current laws, is to do as you suggested, buy & Reg with a letter from the Chief/Sheriff, then surrender the receiver upon retirement. All of the rest of the parts are NOT a firearm, weapon or AW. The pistol grip & collapsible stock are not evil features until they're attached to a centerfire, semi-auto rifle(receiver).

I say 'most reasonable' though buying an OLL receiver & rebuilding into a featureless/bullet button configuration is hardly reasonable.


In our department there are people debating this point, among others. Mostly because we were thisclose to getting letterhead signed by the chief when the AG dropped his bomb.

One side of the argument says, "The AG said you must turn it in. Taking it out of state, turning it into an OLL, selling it out of state, or anything other than turning it in is a felony."

The other side says, "If I take it out of the state where is the crime? I no longer possess it. If it could be an OLL in the hands of a civillian in certain configurations it would be legal even if registered as an AW."

I called Cal DOJ a few days after the opinion came out and they could not answer my questions because they did not know. As far as they were concerned they had to be turned in. They said to call back in a few months. I did and they still had no idea. I got the point that this was going to be a long process to figure out what was going on.

Until the law gets changed and holds up that you can keep an AR in retirement without having to jump through hoops I want nothing to do with it. If they were to say I could take it out of state I would. I would look at either moving out of state or finding a small storage unit just on the other side of the state line and storing it there.

From what I understand the AG's opinion has spurred at least one retired officer to sue to keep his AR. IIRC a few non-LE have joined too. I have not heard anything since a few months after the AGs opinion as to where that lawsuit has gone.

The number one thing to remember when in LE is to not trust anyone, especially your bosses.

yakmon
03-01-2012, 7:49 PM
as the lower reciever is the serialized part, you are turning in the firearm. parts is parts, no?

yakmon
03-01-2012, 7:57 PM
One side of the argument says, "The AG said you must turn it in. Taking it out of state, turning it into an OLL, selling it out of state, or anything other than turning it in is a felony."

The other side says, "If I take it out of the state where is the crime? I no longer possess it. If it could be an OLL in the hands of a civillian in certain configurations it would be legal even if registered as an AW."



what's the pc for the felony possession of an AW, in this case? it's your property. as far as the DOJ and ATF are concerned, the lower is registered part. if you can buy an upper assembly, lpk and stock assembly like you can order a pizza, by what law can they make you turn that stuff in?

missiondude
03-01-2012, 8:10 PM
I also have a hard time seeing the difference between a police officer having to surrender the firearm after they retire, and the estate of a RAW owner having to surrender the firearm after the owner expires. The heirs cant keep the RAW and are not compensated for its value.

Stoner
03-01-2012, 9:27 PM
The law's clear that they cannot retain such firearms (Silviera v. Lockyer in 2002 + formal AG Opinion Letter of 12/10).
.
Formal, repeated DOJ FD/BoF behavior and statements during this 2002-2010 interregnum directly told officers otherwise,
with not only employee signature but under the global signature of the chief law enforcement officer of CA. (Every letter
had signature "By [DeputyAG]... for [AG]")
.
A pure direct legislative fixup for this specific matter alone isn't possible (due to #1). If passed it's easy to kill - will go right
to 9th Circuit quickly.

Internally in Sacto the PORAC contract lobbyist has already acknowledged this to People I Trust Very Well - he's urging


passage even though it's acknowledged Silviera controls. It almost seems that either...
.

PORAC contract lobbyist gets paid by "milestone" achievements and took on the impossible
just to get some income, ... or...
.
PORAC wants positive PR with its membership but really doesn't really care about actual
end-result success and is "just going thru the motions"

.
90-95% of these guns are NOT 'fixable' via a mod...

It's quite unclear that CA could force a mod - options currently legally sustainable are compensation+
surrender/sale, or a more global fixup to allow nonLEOs [who definitionally have the same rights as retired
LEOs]

Also, conversion post-retirment on listed guns involves changes to a firearm that is already definitionally
contraband. True, prosecution of a retiree LEO for this matter may well be defendable, but that still does
not result in allowance of retaining the gun.

Agency armorers/mgmt. set the standards for LEO AW purchases. 99% of the time these usu mimic the
agency acquisition standards for their own "institutionally-owned" guns, so they're almost always "Colt,
Bushmaster, Armalite" plus some HKs, and banned by make & model. [There were a few LMTs thrown in
later.]
.
Yes, retiring LEOs could sell the gun out of state - except that involves:
.

doing this before separation/transfer from the letter-issuing agency;
.
existing retirees are already in violation;
.
if firearm not directly driven/flown with owner out of state, services of a
CA FFL holding a CA AW permit are required. T his'll run around $150ish
min. The officer should not have to pay this since the DOJ + his department
created this situation. Furthermore, since the officer purchased under detrimental
reliance a fully working nonmodified firearm, the loss of this can be argued to
have value too.
.
change of receivers == new gun, and is outside the scope of this issue since we
are talking about the original gun. That's akin to building a Rolls Royce from a Ford
by retaining the horn button. No legal support for turning a gun into a bunch of
parts to rebuild into something else.

.
This prospective legislation also causes other issues:
.

IT STILL DOES NOT ADDRESS FIXING HUGE ISSUES OF "LATERAL" TRANSFER VALIDITY.
Since AW registration is tied to validity/currency of letter signed by agency head, the
lateral transferree's new dept. has worries (even more than the officer).
.
It doesn't address flawed/invalid registration issues where DOJ issued AW regs based on
letters signed by someone ranking lower than the chief or agency head. Informed folks
tell me sometimes watch commander types or sworn armorers actually signed the letter
(in good faith, not understanding the law).
.
There appear to be issues with certain "Agency letters" submitted to DOJ where the "Chief's
signature" does not graphologically match that Chief's actual signature. [The ol' boyz got
some letterhead and a laser printer and went wild...]
.
This legislation in no way affects or fixes the "LEOs with illegal AWs" situation - which hugely
compromises every case these officers have touched, esp where officer credibility is involved.
Information about felony conduct - whether or not charged/ convicted - is Brady-list material
disclosable, and could end up unrolling certain cases where officer credibility is important.

This situation encompasses both "innocent" behavior ("I thought I was exempt"), or ("I bought
this gun in 1988 (or 1999) and didn't know it wasn't registered because I filled out the 4473 at
the shop") vs. pure illegal behavior based on "Brass Pass" (LA-area cops going to gunshops,
buying MMGd/BB'd ARs on their personal nickel, and then removing any and all compliance parts.)

These various situations are pretty common given the 22 year time span since Roberti-Roos and
12 year time span since SB23. There's a lot of paperwork around, and sales/accouting records of
gun shops are no great secret - they're not gov't docs like 4473/DROS papers, no confidentiality
required. Plus these guys have bragged, over an extensive time period, to friends, family and
future ex-wives ;-)

Th.






I guess I am a little confused by your comments.

In the past there were quite a few comments about how underground regulation did not stand up. Now you are saying that an OPINION written by DOJ at the request of a southern California Sheriff is the new law of the land because it is taken from Case law that says we are are all equal under the law. Sorry but I don’t agree. An opinion is just that, an opinion.

And I apologize if this comes across a little strong, but you write as though your opinions are the law. I understand you have your opinions and are entitled to them, but they are your opinion. Comments like “A charge of possession of an unregistered assault weapon is likely defendable. Continued possession of legally-defined contraband is not.” in my OPINION, are a bit over the top.

I have a letter from the DOJ documenting I own several RAW’s. There is no indication which weapon or weapons were registered via department letter head, and which were registered by other means. I have not received any documentation from DOJ indicating any of my RAW’s are no longer registered. So please tell me how this is, “Continued possession of legally-defined contraband??” I just don’t follow your logic.

I know we have disagreed on a number of issues in the past and you have made your feelings about LEOS and other public employees quite clear. I would like to think everyone in this world should be treated equally under the law, but we all know this just is not the case.

If I want diplomatic immunity, I need to be a diplomat
If I want to conduct insider trading and have it be legal, I need to be a senator or congressman
If I want 24 hour protection and have air force one at my disposal, I would have to be the president.
If I want to have a RAW when I retire, I have to be a LEO.

Didn’t your parents ever tell you “life’s not fair”? :pAt some point, not in my life time, people may learn to work together for the common good, but for now, everyone is interested in what benefits them.

cacop
03-01-2012, 10:01 PM
I guess I am a little confused by your comments.

In the past there were quite a few comments about how underground regulation did not stand up. Now you are saying that an OPINION written by DOJ at the request of a southern California Sheriff is the new law of the land because it is taken from Case law that says we are are all equal under the law. Sorry but I don’t agree. An opinion is just that, an opinion.

And I apologize if this comes across a little strong, but you write as though your opinions are the law. I understand you have your opinions and are entitled to them, but they are your opinion. Comments like “A charge of possession of an unregistered assault weapon is likely defendable. Continued possession of legally-defined contraband is not.” in my OPINION, are a bit over the top.

I have a letter from the DOJ documenting I own several RAW’s. There is no indication which weapon or weapons were registered via department letter head, and which were registered by other means. I have not received any documentation from DOJ indicating any of my RAW’s are no longer registered. So please tell me how this is, “Continued possession of legally-defined contraband??” I just don’t follow your logic.

I know we have disagreed on a number of issues in the past and you have made your feelings about LEOS and other public employees quite clear. I would like to think everyone in this world should be treated equally under the law, but we all know this just is not the case.

If I want diplomatic immunity, I need to be a diplomat
If I want to conduct insider trading and have it be legal, I need to be a senator or congressman
If I want 24 hour protection and have air force one at my disposal, I would have to be the president.
If I want to have a RAW when I retire, I have to be a LEO.

Didn’t your parents ever tell you “life’s not fair”? :pAt some point, not in my life time, people may learn to work together for the common good, but for now, everyone is interested in what benefits them.

The part in bold was one of the questions I asked Cal DOJ about in the months after their opinion. I specifically asked how a legally registered AW could be no longer be legally registered. I asked if they would remove the AW from the registration as soon as an officer retired and surrendered the gun. Their answer was that once on the registration list it will always be on the registration list. So in other words there is no process in place to make a weapon that was once legally registered to someone suddenly unregistered.

I followed up with something that might make them think about the silliness of it all. I asked if I bought an OLL with a bullet button just like anyone else and then converted it to AW status by placing a regular mag release on it could I register it as an AW with letterhead. They said of course I could. Then I asked if when I retired I could convert it back to OLL status and therefore keep it. They said no because once a RAW, always a RAW and since it was bought after the ban it cannot be taken off the RAW registery.

I even brought up the point about putting a folding stock on a post ban Mini14 and registering it. Same circular logic.

What people have to realize is that the opinion was an answer to ONE question. It raised a whole bunch of other questions. The question I came up with are some of the ones in this thread. When I asked Cal DOJ they had no answers. They also would not really give me any official answers to those questions unless I asked my questions the same as the sheriff in SD.

So to make a long post short the opinion was about one thing: a qustion and an answer. Nothing else. Everything else is pure conjecture on everyone's part.

Question: Does an officer have to turn in an AR that he recieved with letterhead that was registered as a RAW?

Answer: Yes.

Anything else is conjecture until someone asks another question.

Sgt Raven
03-01-2012, 10:23 PM
I guess I am a little confused by your comments.

In the past there were quite a few comments about how underground regulation did not stand up. Now you are saying that an OPINION written by DOJ at the request of a southern California Sheriff is the new law of the land because it is taken from Case law that says we are are all equal under the law. Sorry but I don’t agree. An opinion is just that, an opinion.

And I apologize if this comes across a little strong, but you write as though your opinions are the law. I understand you have your opinions and are entitled to them, but they are your opinion. Comments like “A charge of possession of an unregistered assault weapon is likely defendable. Continued possession of legally-defined contraband is not.” in my OPINION, are a bit over the top.

I have a letter from the DOJ documenting I own several RAW’s. There is no indication which weapon or weapons were registered via department letter head, and which were registered by other means. I have not received any documentation from DOJ indicating any of my RAW’s are no longer registered. So please tell me how this is, “Continued possession of legally-defined contraband??” I just don’t follow your logic.

I know we have disagreed on a number of issues in the past and you have made your feelings about LEOS and other public employees quite clear. I would like to think everyone in this world should be treated equally under the law, but we all know this just is not the case.

If I want diplomatic immunity, I need to be a diplomat
If I want to conduct insider trading and have it be legal, I need to be a senator or congressman
If I want 24 hour protection and have air force one at my disposal, I would have to be the president.
If I want to have a RAW when I retire, I have to be a LEO.

Didn’t your parents ever tell you “life’s not fair”? :pAt some point, not in my life time, people may learn to work together for the common good, but for now, everyone is interested in what benefits them.

The way you're saying it then there is currently no problem, then why is this bill needed? Your union is sponsoring this bill because there is a problem. We're saying this bill does not fix the overlying problem. That Silveira v. Lockyer still controls and this bill won't fix that problem. Your union is wasting your dues money on a lobbyist pushing a bill that does not fix the problem.

So is there a problem? Does this bill fix that problem? What would fix the problem, if this bill doesn't fix it?

Sgt Raven
03-01-2012, 10:27 PM
The part in bold was one of the questions I asked Cal DOJ about in the months after their opinion. I specifically asked how a legally registered AW could be no longer be legally registered. I asked if they would remove the AW from the registration as soon as an officer retired and surrendered the gun. Their answer was that once on the registration list it will always be on the registration list. So in other words there is no process in place to make a weapon that was once legally registered to someone suddenly unregistered.

I followed up with something that might make them think about the silliness of it all. I asked if I bought an OLL with a bullet button just like anyone else and then converted it to AW status by placing a regular mag release on it could I register it as an AW with letterhead. They said of course I could. Then I asked if when I retired I could convert it back to OLL status and therefore keep it. They said no because once a RAW, always a RAW and since it was bought after the ban it cannot be taken off the RAW registery.

I even brought up the point about putting a folding stock on a post ban Mini14 and registering it. Same circular logic.

What people have to realize is that the opinion was an answer to ONE question. It raised a whole bunch of other questions. The question I came up with are some of the ones in this thread. When I asked Cal DOJ they had no answers. They also would not really give me any official answers to those questions unless I asked my questions the same as the sheriff in SD.

So to make a long post short the opinion was about one thing: a qustion and an answer. Nothing else. Everything else is pure conjecture on everyone's part.

Question: Does an officer have to turn in an AR that he recieved with letterhead that was registered as a RAW?

Answer: Yes.

Anything else is conjecture until someone asks another question.

This answer was wrong. A type 3 AW is only an AW as long as it has features that make it an AW. A RAW can be unregistered, I know people who have sold their RAWs out of state and unregistered them.

cacop
03-01-2012, 10:52 PM
This answer was wrong. A type 3 AW is only an AW as long as it has features that make it an AW. A RAW can be unregistered, I know people who have sold their RAWs out of state and unregistered them.

But those were sold out of state.

What if they were converted OLL status? Know anybody who has done that?

Also because it was done in the past does not mean it will be done in the future.

locosway
03-01-2012, 11:27 PM
So if I understand you correctly, you support anti-gun bills? Your mother must be proud.

This bill is not going to force LEO to side with you. They still get assault weapons.

If you think police are a large enough group that if they all voted lock step with us that it would make a change in this state, no wonder you think this is a good bill. Not to mention guess what side of the political spectrum most cops already vote on?

Being anti-cop is does not make you pro-gun. However, wanting to see people lose access to firearms is anti-gun, no matter how you chalk it up.

Preaching equal protection does not mean taking the rights away from others. It means securing our rights back that were taken from us.

I recall seeing and hearing the voice of LE in general supporting AB144. I certainly do not consider LE to be pro-gun, or pro-rights. The puppets at the top do have influential power in getting laws passed or exemptions added for their job title.

This doesn't mean we should support an anti-gun bill, but it's ironic when the tables are turned.

I too agree that if the exemptions for LE were removed, we would have more sensible gun laws. That doesn't mean I want LE disarmed, but rather the citizens allowed equal arms as their keepers.

Sgt Raven
03-01-2012, 11:39 PM
Some here seem to getting angry at those of us telling you, "The Emperor has no Clothes". I wish you would stop attacking the messenger and look instead at their message. Are you going to be better off if this is passed and then shot down by the courts? Or is it better to fix it before it gets that far? :oji:

Might we please refrain from large fonts without special need?
Reminds me of nothing so much as speaking more loudly, expecting the non-English speaker to then understand English.

// Librarian

Jason_2111
03-02-2012, 7:19 AM
an illegal lower receiver is just as illegal as a complete rifle. strip that thing, and mean down to a stripped reciever. stock, lpk, buffer tube. turn in stripped reciever, buy an OLL and bullet button. you're only out $100. sucks to be out even that. but it is an out.

My thoughts too. Mainly because of the purchasing of AW's by LEO's is not a department mandated thing... it's optional. They have that option (if the department policy allows it)... but it is optional... not required.
I can't see a buy-back for something that was optional.
If the department mandated it for the performing of their duties, then they sure as heck would need to buy them back or something... but this was all a decision made by the individual officer to purchase these weapons and get into this situation.
Of course, law or no law, nobody is going to kick in the door of a retired LEO for having an AW. That's just not going to happen.

Until the AW ban goes away... the most reasonable option I see is just this... swap out the stripped lower for an OLL, go CA legal configuration. Sell off the old lower to the department, or someone in the department, or someone in another department. Heck, we could set up a special LEO market place for that.

I had a similar conversation with a friend of mine a while back about people who have finished 80% lowers. (this has nothing to do with this topic directly, but does make the same point, so please bear with me).
When he found out that they couldn't be transfered to someone else.. he said "What if I build out this 2,000 dollar ultra-pimp-master rifle, and then I have a baby or something and want to get rid of it? Am I just going to be SOL for the 2 large?"
I told him, strip it down, sell off the upper, LPK, and lower furniture, chop the stripped lower in half with a hack saw and recycle the thing. (just don't tell my wife this is possible.... ;) ). He'd be out for the lower and the depreciation on the other parts, but certainly not 2 grand.

I think this law is a bad idea, just like a lot of the bad laws we already have (and that CGN is actively fighting). But until the laws are fixed, we, all of us, have to operate within them. Making a personal choice that later can cause a problem is something that the individual needs to be mindful of.
If an officer doesn't want to be in violation of the law when he retires... he needs to take some steps before that day comes. If there's anyone with no excuse for not knowing the laws regarding firearms, it's LEO's.

I hate it when good people could get crapped on by a bad law.

hammerhead_77
03-02-2012, 7:57 AM
I've been reading all the posts in this thread and I think the real message here is: Legislature - stop passing laws that you have to exempt special interests from. Yes, cops are a special interest group...as are virtually anyone who pays lobbyists.

Stoner - Good on you for sticking to your guns (pun intended). I disagree with you enjoying a special status because of your employment, but I understand fully why you would want to retain that which was promised you.

The main thing that interests me here is the "us vs. them" issue - I think it is a sociologically critical phenomenon that really needs to be understood from a root cause level. I'm going to start a thread over in the LEO's forum regarding just that...lets see if I get flamed there the way Stoner has taken heat here.

bwiese
03-02-2012, 9:48 AM
I guess I am a little confused by your comments.

In the past there were quite a few comments about how underground regulation did not stand up. Now you are saying that an OPINION written by DOJ at the request of a southern California Sheriff is the new law of the land because it is taken from Case law that says we are are all equal under the law. Sorry but I don’t agree. An opinion is just that, an opinion.


You fail to differentiate between regulatory excess by underlings vs. a formal Opinion Letter BY THE AG that's been vetted by multiple lawyers based off a higher FEDERAL court's ruling (about state law) and the statutory wording of the law.

Opinion letters are generally regarded to have "great weight" and should be regarded as pretty damned well set. Relatively few are challengeable, and the fact that the 12/10 letter is based directly on Silviera holding and statutory construction of the law means it ain't going anywhere until this is subject to 2A claims, which were held to be invalid back in 2002 (pre-Heller, pre-McDonald)

You're also confused by the term Opinion. Woe be to those that cross holdings of Opinion Letters. Challenging them is generally difficult statistically. AGs generally DON'T issue opinions unless they've done their work.

The above is not just me saying this, but what a Real Lawyer would say.


And I apologize if this comes across a little strong, but you write as though your opinions are the law. I understand you have your opinions and are entitled to them, but they are your opinion. Comments like “A charge of possession of an unregistered assault weapon is likely defendable. Continued possession of legally-defined contraband is not.” in my OPINION, are a bit over the top.

I can't help what you feel. I have a pretty deep familiarity with this matter as I've been looking into this since 2005 and talking with gun lawyers.

Remember this is "not only me speaking" but there is analysis behind this because this issue has been looked at for a long time. It wasn't worried about pre-Heller/McDonald but now things can be acted upon.

You're a cop with an axe to grind, apparently, because things didn't work out your way. Maybe if a bunch of you guys didn't line up behind Lockyer or your chief on the TV news and let your opinion be felt we might not be in this situation. If your job "forced" you to, you have litigation avenues to pursue, and you can always quit your job. What do you think I would do if my company started doing anti-gun crap?

I have 9 Reg'd AWs. I'd be GLAD to lose them in an incremental step that leads to a takedown or severe modification of CA AW laws.

What about you???

You
I have a letter from the DOJ documenting I own several RAW’s. There is no indication which weapon or weapons were registered via department letter head, and which were registered by other means.

Correct, however that is within the AFS special weapons database. The letter just says "it's registered".

In fact I'll check with the database (I have the public info on nonidentifable list) - there are all sorts of things revealed by the data, including 'court fixups'/settlement/mandated registration in 1990s AW cases, 'amnesty registration periods, LE registration, etc.


I have not received any documentation from DOJ indicating any of my RAW’s are no longer registered. So please tell me how this is, “Continued possession of legally-defined contraband??” I just don’t follow your logic.


Just because DOJ doesn't take certain actions due to an issue they created doesn't mean the law is invalid.

The CRIMINAL matter of possession of an unreg'd AW is likely defendable based on the registration not being pulled.

The "complete legal situation" of that registration being invalid - as emphasized by the former head of the agency that has this huge problem now - means the underlying support for that registration is invalid, and possession is unsupported.

Now, I don't believe they'll go picking them up but if you had an unfounded DV incident or other exigency matter where guns were seized and you could get them back, this might play into it.


I know we have disagreed on a number of issues in the past and you have made your feelings about LEOS and other public employees quite clear. I would like to think everyone in this world should be treated equally under the law, but we all know this just is not the case.

Please understand that I don't want cops to lose their AWs.
I want this category to go, and all people to have access to nondifferentiated firearms.

If I want to have a RAW when I retire, I have to be a LEO.


That's not what held law says. Read Silviera v Lockyer end piece; this case was held by US 9th Circuit COA, and Supremes punted on it meaning it's held case law.

Really, the Opinion Letter is almost needless - it's just a n additional reiteration of support. Silviera controls.


Didn’t your parents ever tell you “life’s not fair”? :pAt some point, not in my life time, people may learn to work together for the common good, but for now, everyone is interested in what benefits them.

Life has certain arbiters of fairness, one of them is our Court system.

When things are not fair, you fight back. Just like we sent Federal troops into the South to go put bullets into Sheriffs like Bull Connors, we will and are fighting back here.

They Courts have already spoken; the fact you refuse to understand the problem, or the panic going on - yes, panic - in Sacramento means you're not clued in.

There are fixups available and you know what they are. We can block small-scale fixups and use that as a bounce-board into the Courts.

Remember this is March also. There's a lot of time for fixups and equitable treatment of the issue.

I think this will HAVE to get fixed if not now, next legislative cycle. There's too many problems existing here.

And the retired LEO portion - those who bought in good faith and who SHOULD keep their AWs if things get fixed - is the smallest issue. The real issue is all the cops with AWs with incorrectly issued reg'd, forged signatures on their reg letters, and the 'brass pass' guys with unreg'd AWs.

Jason_2111
03-02-2012, 10:25 AM
Bill... so what happens when a LEO with a RAW quits, or gets laid off? I understand the main issue here is all around retiring officers, but what about just plain ol "former" officers? Once their status changes, their exemption goes away does it not?

In effect, wouldn't an officer turning in a resignation letter while still being in possession of a RAW become an instant felon? I would think their union would be all up on this.

bwiese
03-02-2012, 12:05 PM
Bill... so what happens when a LEO with a RAW quits, or gets laid off? I understand the main issue here is all around retiring officers, but what about just plain ol "former" officers? Once their status changes, their exemption goes away does it not?

In effect, wouldn't an officer turning in a resignation letter while still being in possession of a RAW become an instant felon? I would think their union would be all up on this.

This is one of the huge problems this 'retiree' situation does not address.

Again the gun is 'registered', but there is no valid legal support for the continued registration. Criminal liability is defendable, but possession of the contraband item is not.

Furthermore, the whole issue of 'lateral transfers' where an officer with a LEO reg'd AW moves to a different dept (who doesn't issue letters) is a huge problem - for the new dept!

yakmon
03-02-2012, 12:20 PM
In our department there are people debating this point, among others. Mostly because we were thisclose to getting letterhead signed by the chief when the AG dropped his bomb.

One side of the argument says, "The AG said you must turn it in. Taking it out of state, turning it into an OLL, selling it out of state, or anything other than turning it in is a felony."

The other side says, "If I take it out of the state where is the crime? I no longer possess it. If it could be an OLL in the hands of a civillian in certain configurations it would be legal even if registered as an AW."

I called Cal DOJ a few days after the opinion came out and they could not answer my questions because they did not know. As far as they were concerned they had to be turned in. They said to call back in a few months. I did and they still had no idea. I got the point that this was going to be a long process to figure out what was going on.

Until the law gets changed and holds up that you can keep an AR in retirement without having to jump through hoops I want nothing to do with it. If they were to say I could take it out of state I would. I would look at either moving out of state or finding a small storage unit just on the other side of the state line and storing it there.

From what I understand the AG's opinion has spurred at least one retired officer to sue to keep his AR. IIRC a few non-LE have joined too. I have not heard anything since a few months after the AGs opinion as to where that lawsuit has gone.

The number one thing to remember when in LE is to not trust anyone, especially your bosses.

my understanding is they want you to turn in the registered firearm.
this is not a firearm.

http://cdn1.cheaperthandirt.com/ctd_images/bgprod/ARR-167.jpg

this is a firearm.

http://www.riflegear.com/images/product/large/1190_1_.jpg

Hopefully, this is only a temporary BS step until the entire AW bs is ruled unconstitutional. you're not "converting" it to an OLL, you're building a new gun from parts.

Stoner
03-02-2012, 12:40 PM
You fail to differentiate between regulatory excess by underlings vs. a formal Opinion Letter BY THE AG that's been vetted by multiple lawyers based off a higher FEDERAL court's ruling (about state law) and the statutory wording of the law.

Opinion letters are generally regarded to have "great weight" and should be regarded as pretty damned well set. Relatively few are challengeable, and the fact that the 12/10 letter is based directly on Silviera holding and statutory construction of the law means it ain't going anywhere until this is subject to 2A claims, which were held to be invalid back in 2002 (pre-Heller, pre-McDonald)

You're also confused by the term Opinion. Woe be to those that cross holdings of Opinion Letters. Challenging them is generally difficult statistically. AGs generally DON'T issue opinions unless they've done their work.

The above is not just me saying this, but what a Real Lawyer would say.



I can't help what you feel. I have a pretty deep familiarity with this matter as I've been looking into this since 2005 and talking with gun lawyers.

Remember this is "not only me speaking" but there is analysis behind this because this issue has been looked at for a long time. It wasn't worried about pre-Heller/McDonald but now things can be acted upon.

You're a cop with an axe to grind, apparently, because things didn't work out your way. Maybe if a bunch of you guys didn't line up behind Lockyer or your chief on the TV news and let your opinion be felt we might not be in this situation. If your job "forced" you to, you have litigation avenues to pursue, and you can always quit your job. What do you think I would do if my company started doing anti-gun crap?

I have 9 Reg'd AWs. I'd be GLAD to lose them in an incremental step that leads to a takedown or severe modification of CA AW laws.

What about you???

You

Correct, however that is within the AFS special weapons database. The letter just says "it's registered".

In fact I'll check with the database (I have the public info on nonidentifable list) - there are all sorts of things revealed by the data, including 'court fixups'/settlement/mandated registration in 1990s AW cases, 'amnesty registration periods, LE registration, etc.



Just because DOJ doesn't take certain actions due to an issue they created doesn't mean the law is invalid.

The CRIMINAL matter of possession of an unreg'd AW is likely defendable based on the registration not being pulled.

The "complete legal situation" of that registration being invalid - as emphasized by the former head of the agency that has this huge problem now - means the underlying support for that registration is invalid, and possession is unsupported.

Now, I don't believe they'll go picking them up but if you had an unfounded DV incident or other exigency matter where guns were seized and you could get them back, this might play into it.



Please understand that I don't want cops to lose their AWs.
I want this category to go, and all people to have access to nondifferentiated firearms.



That's not what held law says. Read Silviera v Lockyer end piece; this case was held by US 9th Circuit COA, and Supremes punted on it meaning it's held case law.

Really, the Opinion Letter is almost needless - it's just a n additional reiteration of support. Silviera controls.




Life has certain arbiters of fairness, one of them is our Court system.

When things are not fair, you fight back. Just like we sent Federal troops into the South to go put bullets into Sheriffs like Bull Connors, we will and are fighting back here.

They Courts have already spoken; the fact you refuse to understand the problem, or the panic going on - yes, panic - in Sacramento means you're not clued in.

There are fixups available and you know what they are. We can block small-scale fixups and use that as a bounce-board into the Courts.

Remember this is March also. There's a lot of time for fixups and equitable treatment of the issue.

I think this will HAVE to get fixed if not now, next legislative cycle. There's too many problems existing here.

And the retired LEO portion - those who bought in good faith and who SHOULD keep their AWs if things get fixed - is the smallest issue. The real issue is all the cops with AWs with incorrectly issued reg'd, forged signatures on their reg letters, and the 'brass pass' guys with unreg'd AWs.

Thanks for you well reasoned and thoughtful response, and I am serious about that and not attempting to be a smart ***.

I will only respond to two points you make, as I understand we may disagree on some points.

Your point that “You’re a cop with an ax to grind”, is an unwarranted personal attack. I was a cop and am now honorably retired after 28 years of service. I was not a politically involved individual while I was a cop, and did not line up behind anyone. I did my job, served my community, retired and moved on with my life. Being retired I find I now have more time to be involved in political matters, and I am attempting to make a difference. So if someone would like to come and take my RAW and make me a test case, bring it on! Is that commitment involved enough for you?

As to you involvement with real lawyers, I understand you can present the same set of facts to two different lawyers and come away with two completely different answers. I also have the ability to chat with individuals in that profession. My family consists of a retired justice from the California applet court and two retired judges from superior court, an attorney that has worked for the AG office and another attorney in private practice. We have had lengthy discussions regarding the issues, and I rely on what I believe to be well reasoned advice.

I also appreciate you making your personal opinion on retired officers retaining their RAW known.

cacop
03-02-2012, 1:38 PM
my understanding is they want you to turn in the registered firearm.
this is not a firearm.

http://cdn1.cheaperthandirt.com/ctd_images/bgprod/ARR-167.jpg

this is a firearm.

http://www.riflegear.com/images/product/large/1190_1_.jpg

Hopefully, this is only a temporary BS step until the entire AW bs is ruled unconstitutional. you're not "converting" it to an OLL, you're building a new gun from parts.

I pitched this idea to my department just after the AG opinion. They were less than thrilled due to having to make sure officers configured their rifles properly prior to retirement. At least that was their take on it. Because remember I could buy a BCM with BB at the local store like anyone else, get letterhead to turn it into an RAW, and then in retirement convert it back to OLL configuration. Maybe.

The big stumbling block for an OLL "out" was the lack of an AG opinion on OLL. The closest I could ever come to an opinion on them was 5-6 years ago being ordered by a Sgt. to see if an AK with a BB was legal. I knew about the flowchart but he wanted the AG's office. Their response was essentially "we think they are in violation of the law, we will not prosecuete people for them, however you and your agency are free to do so."

In calling the AG's office multiple times after they dropped their opinion The last person I talk to basically told me I could ask for an opinion just like the sheriff of SD county did.

I am tempted to do so when it comes to OLLs because they are skirting the issue. I do not trust my DA enough not to charge me if he thought it would save his career. It would be nice to have an opinion from the AG that it was in fact legal to have an OLL properly assembled.

Of course it could backfire and she could say OLLs were illegal. She might be proven wrong later in court but....

In the end we have to remember if the AG gives an opinion it is very narrowly answering a question. They are not going to answer questions not asked.

cacop
03-02-2012, 1:47 PM
A while back people were asking why PORAC was going for a patch that would probably not hold up in court.

After thinking about it last night my conclusion was that PORAC members said, "Do something about this." So they are doing something about this. PORAC is not going to wade into the AWB and trying to overturn it unless they have to and not without backup. And back up for them is going to be cheifs and sheriffs not the NRA or CGF.

Why would cheifs and sheriffs want to wade into the AWB issue? Because there are a lot of small departments that do not have much of budget, even now. Big cities can get away with having 10% of their department with issued rifles because there will be enough for them in case the SHTF. 10% of LAPD is 900 officers. At least 50 are going to be on at any one time. A PD with 15 people and that same 10% will only have one or two trained people and they will not always be working.

The orginal AWB did not have a peace officer exemption IIRC. It took a couple of years for enough agencies to lobby sacto to give them the exemption.

I suspect it will take about a decade for this to work itself out. I should be retired by then.

Sunday
03-02-2012, 1:51 PM
I support this bill. No more LEO exemptions. Make CLEO and the LEO unions feel the same pain "civilians" do, and MAYBE we'll see actual 2A progress in this godforsaken corrupt state. Funny about the constitution as if all of a sudden it matters?.

Mesa Tactical
03-02-2012, 1:54 PM
Of course it could backfire and she could say OLLs were illegal. She might be proven wrong later in court but...

No she can't (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=429902).

Jason_2111
03-02-2012, 2:01 PM
This is one of the huge problems this 'retiree' situation does not address.

Again the gun is 'registered', but there is no valid legal support for the continued registration. Criminal liability is defendable, but possession of the contraband item is not.

Furthermore, the whole issue of 'lateral transfers' where an officer with a LEO reg'd AW moves to a different dept (who doesn't issue letters) is a huge problem - for the new dept!

This is just nuts.
Perhaps it'd be a good idea to get a pamphlet (online) put together explaining the risks for those that are just about to leave their departments. It'd royally suck to end up in a bad place just because things were gray and murky while a bad law was being un-frak'd.

As always, thanks for your clarifications. :)

bwiese
03-02-2012, 2:14 PM
This is just nuts.
Perhaps it'd be a good idea to get a pamphlet (online) put together

There are 5+ more months before bill lockdown, signing season etc.

Let's not go off half-cocked. Sometimes these things don't get fixed till August.

thebronze
03-02-2012, 6:57 PM
You know I think I just realized something, most LEO think of themselves as “us normal folks”. And most normal folks do not think of LEOs as part of them , but as another opposing group. When the AWB went into effect it affected all of us. As long as you don’t think we are all on the same team, it gives the anti’s ammo to use against us. They have and will continue to.

So carry on, you are doing a great job!!!

Dude, that's the biggest bunch of crap I've read all day. You're being completely disingenuous when you say that most LEO's think of themselves as "us normal folks". However, you are correct that most civs don't think of cops as them, for myriad reasons.

Sounds to me like you're (on this very thread) advocating coppers getting special treatment, by virtue of their occupation.

As a former cop, I don't believe that cops should get an exemption that civilians can't have. I didn't think it was right when I was a cop and don't think it's right as a civilian.

Cops were perfectly fine with the AW ban because they got an exemption for it. So with that line of reasoning, you should be fine with having to give yours up when you're no longer on the job.

Bottom line: there should be no AW ban for either cops OR civilians.

cacop
03-02-2012, 7:02 PM
No she can't (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=429902).

What was the exact make model of that BB?

thebronze
03-02-2012, 7:14 PM
What was the exact make model of that BB?

Nice post count!

yakmon
03-02-2012, 7:59 PM
most likely it's your standard issue bullet button (http://www.riflegear.com/p-58-ar15-bullet-button.aspx)

Jeepergeo
03-03-2012, 4:46 PM
I guess the Dem politicians have decide that the LEO unions are safely in their pocket, so it's time for all those LEO exemptions to go.

The Unions are in this and other things for the sake of the Union and its power, not for the sake of its members.

It cracks me up to see cops spew their Union line when all that is happening is that the line staff LEOs are being used a pawns by the Unions in a big game that most LEOs are not able to understand.

cacop
03-04-2012, 9:10 AM
Nice post count!

I've lurked a lot more on this site than posted.

Plus my big reason for coming here is the flowchart. Whenever someone runs into an OLL I tell them about here and they just don't understand this internet thingy. So I go here, print out the flow chart and tell them to call DOJ if they don't believe it. They never call DOJ, it's not worth it.

One of these days it is my goal to attach a copy of the flowchart to a report involving OLLs or illegal AW. Cricling the "yes" and "no" as appropriate.

cacop
03-04-2012, 9:16 AM
most likely it's your standard issue bullet button (http://www.riflegear.com/p-58-ar15-bullet-button.aspx)

Probably. I just like stuff that is court tested.

It's probably just a holdover from my PD in how they want armorers to go to factory courses rather than Lassen. It is a nice feeling that Sig will come in and testify in your behalf should something happen.

hoffmang
03-04-2012, 10:02 AM
I also appreciate you making your personal opinion on retired officers retaining their RAW known.

If all citizens and permanent residents of the United States who reside in California can have the same firearm, then you can retain your firearm as well. If not, then you're forced to surrender it.

This is your problem from the 14A:
"nor shall any State ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

You can read the Federal Court's analysis starting at page 64 of the opinion (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/gunlawsuits/silvlckyr120502opn.pdf).

The bottom line is that you and I both should be able to own bullet buttonless Bushmasters with pistol grips but we will be subject to the same law regardless of whether we're ex law enforcement.

-Gene

kcbrown
03-04-2012, 8:39 PM
Having been in discussion with someone via PM on this issue, I've managed to be convinced that, at least for this specific issue, it may be better to leave the LEO exemption to the AWB (for new purchases only, not for existing acquisitions: existing acquisitions should have a permanent exemption associated with them) in place at least for a time (see below).

Firstly, I'm completely with Brandon on the property issue: if you purchased the weapon, it's yours, and the state has no business or right to take it away from you, nor does it have the right to force you to change its configuration at your expense (or at all, really). And while that particular sentiment didn't apply to the people in general, the fact that it was wrong then doesn't now make it right.

Secondly, the problem with the AWB, magazine capacity restrictions, etc., that LEOs are exempt from is that they all serve to reduce the effectiveness of the weapon in question, and thus place the bearer in greater risk of life or limb. LEOs willingly place themselves in harm's way more often than do non-LEOs, so the risk to them that comes from being under-armed is greater than for the average individual.

However, offsetting that somewhat is the fact that individuals are the primary targets of the bad guys, so while their need for "unrestricted" weaponry may be less probable, it is more immediate. As the primary targets, individual civilians must have immediate access to the weaponry they need if they are to respond effectively to the threat posed by the bad guys. That means they must be allowed to carry that weaponry with them in a state that allows immediate deployment. We all know this, and this is the endgame towards which we are fighting.


The problem with all this is, of course, equality under the law. If LEOs are exempt from the law then they represent an "aristocracy", something which is a grave affront to the fundamental principles upon which this country was founded. Furthermore, if LEOs are always exempt from laws such as the AWB, they will continue to support such laws, knowing that they won't be affected by them, and legislators will thus have a much greater chance of enacting those laws simply because the public trusts law enforcement when it comes to these things (the public views law enforcement as an authority on the subject). The very support of anti-gun laws by law enforcement almost certainly yields greater public support for those same anti-gun laws.

So: how best to meet the life-and-death needs of law enforcement while satisfying the need for equality under the law (and against the abuse of the public trust on the part of law enforcement in support of the anti-gun laws that they know they'll be exempt from)?

Firstly, it seems clear that if law enforcement officers are to be exempt from the law, it must be only while exercising their official duties (which, as I understand it, is actually 24x7 for most LEOs, so if the department allows them to keep their department-issued AWs, even at home, while they remain employed by that department, that's fine). Anything else makes law enforcement personnel into a clear aristocracy. That means once they're retired, they cannot purchase anything a normal civilian cannot. I believe this is how it is now (at least for the most part), so there's probably not much to do on this front. Secondly, LEAs are fully responsible for ensuring that law enforcement personnel have the tools they need to survive, and must not be allowed to shirk that duty by foisting onto their employees the burden of acquiring the weaponry they need to survive in the field.

As such, my approach to solving this problem would be to:


Allow anyone who has already purchased a weapon, magazines, and other things that LEOs currently have exempt status about to keep what they have. It's their property, since they purchased it with their own funds, so they should be able to keep it in its current form. None of this having to convert it to neutered status, etc., either. As I said, it was wrong to foist that upon the general population, so it's just as wrong now to foist that upon LEOs.

Arrange so that as of some specific time in the future (to make a transition period possible), LEOs must be forced to comply with the law in their purchases, the LEAs forced to buy the weaponry the LEOs request, and the state forced to immediately reimburse the LEAs for those purchases, all at the same time. That means no more AWs through private purchase as of that point. The LEAs need to be forced to make those purchases and to retain ownership of the weapons in question (so, no transfers of AWs from the department to the LEOs, either -- the weapons remain the property of the LEAs). To that end, the state must be forced to directly fund those purchases by the LEAs. Since the law in question is one that was foisted upon us by the state, it is logical for the state to suffer the financial consequences of it. So any LEA which needs to acquire weapons for its personnel must be allowed to get full reimbursement from the state for their weaponry purchases. This eliminates the financial argument that is currently used to justify the personal purchases of AWs and other restricted weaponry by LEOs.


Can the above be abused, making it possible for LEAs to acquire far more in the way of weaponry than perhaps they need? You betcha. But it would achieve equality under the law for all while giving LEOs the tools they need to maximize their survival, and I'd rather see the good guys have "too much" weaponry than not enough.


Of course, the above is almost certainly not going to happen. That means we're faced with trading lives for equality under the law. For cases like this only, where the need on the part of the law enforcement guys in the field is real, I find myself drawn towards the side of saving lives, and only because the restrictions in question are going to be (if they're not already) challenged in court. Should those challenges either fail or not materialize at all, I will change my stance, for the state can justify any and all manner of transgressions upon equality under the law on the "justification" of "saving lives", and it simply will not do for a permanent aristocracy to be created in this country.

Harrison_Bergeron
03-04-2012, 9:05 PM
It was asked before and never answered: Did these police officers claim the purchasing of these weapons for work use on their taxes?

The follow up would be, did they factor in any personal use when figuring this deduction?

This seems like a very important question when the argument is that they should not lose any personal property that they paid for.

kcbrown
03-04-2012, 9:22 PM
It was asked before and never answered: Did these police officers claim the purchasing of these weapons for work use on their taxes?

The follow up would be, did they factor in any personal use when figuring this deduction?

This seems like a very important question when the argument is that they should not lose any personal property that they paid for.

What has that got to do with it?

If you paid for something, it's yours, whether you can claim an exemption for it on your taxes or not. People purchase items for use in their businesses all the time. Why should they forfeit those items just because they claimed an income tax exemption for them?

Springfield45
03-04-2012, 9:42 PM
Some of these LEO's may be buying these guns for off-duty practice so they can perform better at ON-duty qualifications. That also allows the purchase to be tax deductable as a work related expense.

Sgt Raven
03-04-2012, 10:58 PM
What has that got to do with it?

If you paid for something, it's yours, whether you can claim an exemption for it on your taxes or not. People purchase items for use in their businesses all the time. Why should they forfeit those items just because they claimed an income tax exemption for them?

If you claim something on your income taxes you depreciate it's value over the time it's claimed. When you sell it later you have to claim the money as income. If the item has been fully depreciated, you don't lose any money as you've been paid for it already.

curtisfong
03-04-2012, 11:14 PM
So I can get an AW exemption if I can provably show that I have an immediate need to respond to bad guys?

If so, I support a law that provides for the exemption.

Until then sorry, kc. No special treatment for cops under the law. Period.

kcbrown
03-04-2012, 11:46 PM
If you claim something on your income taxes you depreciate it's value over the time it's claimed. When you sell it later you have to claim the money as income. If the item has been fully depreciated, you don't lose any money as you've been paid for it already.

Sure, but that has nothing to do with whether or not you can keep the item in question. It has nothing to do with a forcible sale or any of that. So it's not clear to me what the purpose of this line of questioning is, since the rules governing business-exempted property as regards taxes are reasonably well-known.

kcbrown
03-05-2012, 12:00 AM
So I can get an AW exemption if I can provably show that I have an immediate need to respond to bad guys?

If so, I support a law that provides for the exemption.

Until then sorry, kc. No special treatment for cops under the law. Period.

Clearly any such exemption should be for anyone who can show such a need and not just for law enforcement.

Again, the problem here is that what's being traded is survival versus lack of equality under the law. The reality is that there should be no need to show need at all. The AWB shouldn't even exist.

Now, look at the overall situation. The situation is that the AWB is being challenged in court now. Unless we get unlucky, that challenge will succeed which means this whole LEO exemption business is temporary. I'd rather live with a temporary inequality and give the good guys a better chance of survival than to insist on equality at the potential expense of their lives.

If the challenge fails, then it'll change the situational equation. At that point, your stance will be warranted. And in any case, I've proposed a solution to that as well (though I don't foresee it ever being implemented).

The politicians have managed to put us in a situation where we're forced to choose between lives which are not our own and equality under the law. And that just sucks all around. Those politicians are pure evil for doing that.

Sgt Raven
03-05-2012, 12:20 AM
All DOJ has to do is start issuing the Mythical AW permits and the retired LEOs are covered. Of course they don't want to do that because we would have an EP case against them. :oji:

bcj128
03-05-2012, 8:50 AM
To issue the permits, there needs to be the political will to do so. There is none as long as the seat of power is in the three cities of LA, SF, and Sacramento.

As a cop, I have a gealthy fear of the guns such as AK's because I see how devastating they and how that round is. However, just because I fear it does not give me the right to outlaw it. Freedom is messy, and is not risk-free.

curtisfong
03-05-2012, 8:53 AM
]I'd rather live with a temporary inequality and give the good guys a better chance of survival than to insist on equality at the potential expense of their lives

Moral hazard. I don't like it.

bcj128
03-05-2012, 9:07 AM
Here's an idea, legalize AW's and just register them like everything else...

bcj128
03-05-2012, 9:14 AM
To issue the permits, there needs to be the political will to do so. There is none as long as the seat of power is in the three cities of LA, SF, and Sacramento.

As a cop, I have a gealthy fear of the guns such as AK's because I see how devastating they and how that round is. However, just because I fear it does not give me the right to outlaw it. Freedom is messy, and is not risk-free.

Uxi
03-05-2012, 9:39 AM
Here's an idea, legalize AW's and just register them like everything else...

Having to register for a fundamental right seems onerously infringing, but it wouldn't be nearly as blatant.

Mesa Tactical
03-05-2012, 9:56 AM
As a cop, I have a gealthy fear of the guns such as AK's because I see how devastating they and how that round is.

Compared to, say, .30-'06, 8mm, .303 or 7.62x54?

bcj128
03-05-2012, 10:40 AM
Compared to, say, .30-'06, 8mm, .303 or 7.62x54?

It's more the delivery system. Bolt guns aren't as quick to return fire. The rounds you mention are definitely more potent, but the semi-auto delivery system makes returning fire harder, because they can keep you pinned down easier as a bold gun takes a second or two to re-chamber.

We can't get around the elephant in the room, that a semi-auto is a much more effective combat system than a bolt gun. (The Garand helped us see this in WWII). When criminals have this, and I'm on the business end of it, they do constitute a bigger threat to me in being able to return fire. Just as a full auto gun can be a greater threat in other situations (round accountability, those who "spray and pray, etc.)

Calibers can be more devastating, but the delivery system is something to consider as to how effective the gun is. The 7.62 x 39 has a lot of uumph, and can do devastating damage.

That in and of itself is not a reason to outlaw it, as their use in crime is much less significant than other types of weapons. Just because something gets misused, doesn't necessarily mean your solution is to outlaw it. Perhaps, it's better to regulate the "behavior" than the object.

pepsi2451
03-05-2012, 10:52 AM
As a cop, I have a gealthy fear of the guns such as AK's because I see how devastating they and how that round is.

Its not healthy to fear inanimate objects. You should fear the person that is willing to shoot someone not the rifle they use. You should have no reason to fear my AK.

pepsi2451
03-05-2012, 10:58 AM
It's more the delivery system. Bolt guns aren't as quick to return fire. The rounds you mention are definitely more potent, but the semi-auto delivery system makes returning fire harder, because they can keep you pinned down easier as a bold gun takes a second or two to re-chamber.

We can't get around the elephant in the room, that a semi-auto is a much more effective combat system than a bolt gun. (The Garand helped us see this in WWII). When criminals have this, and I'm on the business end of it, they do constitute a bigger threat to me in being able to return fire. Just as a full auto gun can be a greater threat in other situations (round accountability, those who "spray and pray, etc.)

Calibers can be more devastating, but the delivery system is something to consider as to how effective the gun is. The 7.62 x 39 has a lot of uumph, and can do devastating damage.

That in and of itself is not a reason to outlaw it, as their use in crime is much less significant than other types of weapons. Just because something gets misused, doesn't necessarily mean your solution is to outlaw it. Perhaps, it's better to regulate the "behavior" than the object.

The AW ban didn't ban semi autos. It banned rifles that look scary. How is an AK more effective then a mini-30? You don't think we should have to register every semi auto do you?

ddestruel
03-05-2012, 11:00 AM
you did read his whole post before posting this didnt you?

Its not healthy to fear inanimate objects. You should fear the person that is willing to shoot someone not the rifle they use. You should have no reason to fear my AK.


Because reading the end of his last statement (post #245 right above yours) seemed to pretty clearly mirror your sentiments

[QUOTE=bcj128;8160713] ..........That in and of itself is not a reason to outlaw it, as their use in crime is much less significant than other types of weapons. Just because something gets misused, doesn't necessarily mean your solution is to outlaw it. Perhaps, it's better to regulate the "behavior" than the object [QUOTE]

Just checking because it seems he is suggesting regulation of bad behavior on the part of individuals and addressing the individual and not advocating regulation of the object as your comments seem to increasingly suggest.

pepsi2451
03-05-2012, 11:04 AM
you did read his whole post before posting this didnt you?




Because reading the end of his last statement (post #245 right above yours) seemed to pretty clearly mirror your sentiments



Just checking

This post made it sound like he thinks they should be registered:

Here's an idea, legalize AW's and just register them like everything else...

I could be wrong, and if I am I apologize.

I still don't think its healthy to fear an object. An AK in the hands of a law abiding citizen is not a threat to him.

greasemonkey
03-05-2012, 11:17 AM
Here's an idea, legalize AW's and just register them like everything else...

Because registration has helped...how?