PDA

View Full Version : LEOs and bullet buttons


vta
02-29-2012, 5:20 PM
Arent LEOs suppose to abide by the same laws as civilians when it comes to their personal evil rifles? Is it just me or do you guys come across LEOs at ranges running around with their rifles configured as UAWs? No bullet buttons, evil features and high caps. Anyone else have these experiences? What do I do to try to educate them about it? Its it even worth trying? Some of them are not real keen on taking legal advise from civilians in public if you can imagine...

264Grendel
02-29-2012, 5:26 PM
Do you know for a fact that its their personal rifles? Also how do you know they arent RAW.

CEDaytonaRydr
02-29-2012, 5:29 PM
California LEOs are allowed to purchase "assault weapons" with permission from their department. A lot of them don't because (I think) they have to surrender them to the department once their employment is terminated. I know one LEO who's department has it set up that way but I don't know if it's departmental regulation or state regulation...

However, if you are in the "blue line club", what are they going to do? ...arrest another cop? ...search their vehicle and run their gun's serial number? I don't think so. :rolleyes:

Swatter911
02-29-2012, 5:32 PM
I guess I could say the same thing about my fellow citizens when I see them shooting AWs at the ranges I go to.

vta
02-29-2012, 5:34 PM
Most of the guys I'm referring to are acquaintances of mine. friends of friends. I go shooting with them from time to time and yes, I know they are personal rifles they purchased recently. more specifically they are home built ARs from OLLs. maybe all the LEOs you shoot with only use dept issue rifles or RAWs for recreational shooting but that is certainly not my experience.

vta
02-29-2012, 5:42 PM
However, if you are in the "blue line club", what are they going to do? ...arrest another cop? ...search their vehicle and run their gun's serial number? I don't think so. :rolleyes:

I know. obviously they dont have fear of the teeth of the law but isn't this a form of abuse of power and corruption? I suppose no one is really bring harmed by it but I just wish there is some formal education with in the departments about this. Maybe there are and I'm just not aware of it.

vta
02-29-2012, 5:45 PM
I guess I could say the same thing about my fellow citizens when I see them shooting AWs at the ranges I go to.

Absolutely. There are the ones who are ignorant and there are ones who don't care. guess I'm just too naive into thinking that LEOs shouldn't be either.

gatesbox
02-29-2012, 5:53 PM
I'm all for stickin it to the man and all, but is this the first time you have realized that LEOs have different rights off duty and on... They can legally aquire standard mags, once they aquire they are legal forever as long as they are allowed to keep them.... And many departments simply have an allowance for the purchase of a duty rifle, why would they not use the same rifles for business and pleasure. This is a no brainier, can we talk about march madness brackets now?

Intimid8tor
02-29-2012, 5:55 PM
Absolutely. There are the ones who are ignorant and there are ones who don't care. guess I'm just too naive into thinking that LEOs shouldn't be either.

LEO's shouldn't be either, but they are. You can talk to them, but most likely will not get a warm response. You could call 911 and report someone shooting an assault rifle. Personally, I would do neither.

And cops to occasionally get busted for them. I believe one of the sheriff pilots on Sonoma County got busted for assault weapons.

vta
02-29-2012, 6:05 PM
I'm all for stickin it to the man and all, but is this the first time you have realized that LEOs have different rights off duty and on... They can legally aquire standard mags, once they aquire they are legal forever as long as they are allowed to keep them.... And many departments simply have an allowance for the purchase of a duty rifle, why would they not use the same rifles for business and pleasure. This is a no brainier, can we talk about march madness brackets now?

I'm not trying to stick anything to the man. Just seeing if others have similar experiences. I realize their ability to purchase full capacity mags and non roster handguns. The ability to purchase their own RAW is something I did not know. I suppose that might be the case here. What is the official legal exemption here? Is it just a letter from the dept? Is it owned personally by the LEO and treated the same way as a RAW or is it dept owned?

BigDogatPlay
02-29-2012, 6:07 PM
And cops to occasionally get busted for them. I believe one of the sheriff pilots on Sonoma County got busted for assault weapons.

Yes they do. The helo pilot in question was a non-LEO contractor, but the deputies who were with him and knew about what was going on got their chestnuts raked pretty hard by IA. In the past couple of years Santa Rosa Fire, Rohnert Park DPS and Lake County Sheriff have had publicly reported issues with employees illegally possessing Class 3 weapons. I'm sure it has happened to others in other places as well, but without as much press. There are some LEOs who think their badge and ID absolves them of all. I never believed that, and still don't.

LEOs who do dumb things do get caught and they do pay a price. Sometimes that price is severe as an academy classmate of mine found out the hard way in federal prison. The general public is just not made aware of most of those instances.

But I dare say with all the sensitivity going on around the ongoing BATFE investigation into some Sacramento LEOs, and some of the other shenanigans of the recent past mentioned above, if a LEO got ratted out to his agency for illegal manufacture or possession of an unregistered AW or an illegal SBS or SBR, that LEO would be looking for a new career.

m03
02-29-2012, 6:11 PM
IBTL :)

gatesbox
02-29-2012, 6:16 PM
Ok I'll do the heavy lifting on this one...

http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/30630.html

CHS
02-29-2012, 6:35 PM
Ok I'll do the heavy lifting on this one...

http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/30630.html

Completely irrelevant.

LEO's can purchase assault weapons with a love letter from their department.

Without that letter, however, the only firearms they can purchase are the standard bullet-buttoned AR's like you and I.

To answer the OP, I've run into it MANY times. I've seen tons of LEO's purchase raddlocks and then back them out to be used as a standard mag release. I've also seen LEO's purchase large-capacity magazines and then use them in mag-locked rifles.

Both things are felonies.

To be fair, on the magazine issue I believe there is a lot of misunderstanding on LEO's parts. I truly believe that many of them think it's ok to use the magazines in a bullet-buttoned rifle because they can legally purchase them.

Doesn't make it right, and it doesn't make it any less a felony. But it is what it is.

gatesbox
02-29-2012, 6:47 PM
Completely irrelevant.

LEO's can purchase assault weapons with a love letter from their department.
.

Completely irrelevant and then summarrize the exact pc in the next sentence. The relevance would be that it is completely impossible for anyone to know if a Leo's apperantly aW is legit or not. Making any attempt to educate would be a fruitless enterprise.

And as per the above PC to answer the OP, no LEOs don't have to follow the same laws, the have a whole separate pc that applies to them, if they do not aquire an AW according to the above posted pc, then CH would be correct.... Bring your tarot cards and perhaps you can figure out if a LEOs AW is department approved or not...

vta
02-29-2012, 6:47 PM
I truly believe that many of them think it's ok to use the magazines in a bullet-buttoned rifle because they can legally purchase them.

Doesn't make it right, and it doesn't make it any less a felony. But it is what it is.

That is exactly the kinds of situations I come across. Obviously not just LEOs and also civilians.

I have many times given friendly reminders to acquaintances who are just unclear of what the law is. One guy had a kydex grip sleeve on an AK with an adjustable stock. He was glad to hear and appreciated my suggestion to get it pinned or mag locked. On the other hand, I gave a similar suggestion to another person who was a MP at a navy base, he was not rude or disrespectful but the response he gave me was that he was in law enforcement and that it is ok. That is pretty much par for the course.

vta
02-29-2012, 6:51 PM
Completely irrelevant and then summarrize the exact pc in the next sentence. The relevance would be that it is completely impossible for anyone to know if a Leo's apperantly aW is legit or not. Making any attempt to educate would be a fruitless enterprise.

And as per the above PC to answer the OP, no LEOs don't have to follow the same laws, the have a whole separate pc that applies to them, if they do not aquire an AW according to the above posted pc, then CH would be correct.... Bring your tarot cards and perhaps you can figure out if a LEOs AW is department approved or not...

I think you can safely infer that if the rifle has a raddlock on it, as in the examples that CHS mentioned, it is probably not a dept rifle or a RAW.

gatesbox
02-29-2012, 7:01 PM
I think you can safely infer that if the rifle has a raddlock on it, as in the examples that CHS mentioned, it is probably not a dept rifle or a RAW.

Very true, I concede that if you see a LEO with a BB and a high cap mag they are clearly confused, and the rifle is likely not department approved.

It is only my opinion, but I'm not keen on rifle range AW education conversations with the guy in the next lane. If such a conversation naturally occurred between acquaintances, prob better have a copy of the pc or flow chart and just hand it to them. IMO chatting about rifle legality at the range and among multiple LEOs either would not go well or could expose someone as a felon, which would completely ruin a good day of shooting. IANAL and this is just my opinion.

So you are in a group of LEOs and you notice a configuration issue with one of their rifles, you bring it to the groups attention, it is not department approved. The other LEOs should be duty bound to arrest the guy.... Is that the helpful outcome? Again IMO these conversations are packed with danger.... Best case scenario is print out ten copies of the flow chart and hand it to guys like this like a mute Hari Krishna....

Oneaudiopro
02-29-2012, 7:02 PM
What ever happened to minding your own business?

five.five-six
02-29-2012, 7:07 PM
IMO, no one should have to use a BB

Falconis
02-29-2012, 7:10 PM
Arent LEOs suppose to abide by the same laws as civilians when it comes to their personal evil rifles? Is it just me or do you guys come across LEOs at ranges running around with their rifles configured as UAWs? No bullet buttons, evil features and high caps. Anyone else have these experiences? What do I do to try to educate them about it? Its it even worth trying? Some of them are not real keen on taking legal advise from civilians in public if you can imagine...

Most of the guys I'm referring to are acquaintances of mine. friends of friends. I go shooting with them from time to time and yes, I know they are personal rifles they purchased recently. more specifically they are home built ARs from OLLs. maybe all the LEOs you shoot with only use dept issue rifles or RAWs for recreational shooting but that is certainly not my experience.

How did we go to from random cops at the ranges to acquaintances of yours?

vta
02-29-2012, 7:13 PM
How did we go to from random cops at the ranges to acquaintances of yours?

who said anything about random cops? My experiences include acquaintances but definitely not limited to them. Do you think it is a good idea for me to mention names and departments?

vta
02-29-2012, 7:17 PM
IMO, no one should have to use a BB

amen. only if it was that easy. hopefully one day.

JDoe
02-29-2012, 8:13 PM
...Is it just me or do you guys come across LEOs at ranges running around with their rifles configured as UAWs? No bullet buttons, evil features and high caps. Anyone else have these experiences?...

Yup, seen them and their non-LEO buddies with their OLLs without bullet buttons. I talked with them and tried to educate them but they smiled and essentially said that they wouldn't have any trouble because they are LEO or they are with LEOs...

Saym14
02-29-2012, 8:38 PM
mind your own business. I would expect them to do the same.

CHS
02-29-2012, 8:44 PM
mind your own business. I would expect them to do the same.

LEO's minding their own business around "assault weapons"? Right.

I'm sorry, but I believe in holding them to the exact same standard as they hold us. If that means not minding our own business, then don't mind your own business.

Rattlehead
02-29-2012, 8:55 PM
Do you know for a fact that its their personal rifles? Also how do you know they arent RAW.

vta, are you going to answer this?

Oneaudiopro
02-29-2012, 9:34 PM
LEO's minding their own business around "assault weapons"? Right.

I'm sorry, but I believe in holding them to the exact same standard as they hold us. If that means not minding our own business, then don't mind your own business.

If someone tried to "educate" me at the range, I guarantee you they would walk away with their feelings hurt.

huntercf
02-29-2012, 9:43 PM
I have a LEO friend who was issued a department FA AR15, it belonged to the department but he was allowed to take it out to practice with.
IMO if you know the guy you might quietly mention it to him in a way that looks like you are looking out for his best interest, blurting it out in a crowd would not be the way. If you are at the range and notice a LEO shooting a non-BB'd AR, minding your own business may be the way to go, you never know, he may take offense to a civilian schooling him on firearms laws and pointing out that he may be committing a felony at which point he decides he is now on duty and decides to "inspect" your firearms and vehicle.

Farva
03-01-2012, 7:24 AM
I personally know an LA County Sheriff who openly brags about multiple non BBed AR15s that he owns that were not acquired via department letter. If I tried to explain to him that this was illegal he just brushes it off like, "dude im a cop, my own kind wont turn me in for not having a BB."

I just assumed this kind of thing was the commonplace among some LEO.

henmar77
03-01-2012, 7:52 AM
Arent LEOs suppose to abide by the same laws as civilians when it comes to their personal evil rifles? Is it just me or do you guys come across LEOs at ranges running around with their rifles configured as UAWs? No bullet buttons, evil features and high caps. Anyone else have these experiences? What do I do to try to educate them about it? Its it even worth trying? Some of them are not real keen on taking legal advise from civilians in public if you can imagine...

Don't worry, you might already have addressed it by posting here. Good luck getting invited by them now.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

Mesa Tactical
03-01-2012, 8:02 AM
In the past couple of years Santa Rosa Fire, Rohnert Park DPS and Lake County Sheriff have had publicly reported issues with employees illegally possessing Class 3 weapons.

How many arrests and how many prosecutions have there been?

BigDogatPlay
03-01-2012, 8:17 AM
I personally know an LA County Sheriff who openly brags about multiple non BBed AR15s that he owns that were not acquired via department letter. If I tried to explain to him that this was illegal he just brushes it off like, "dude im a cop, my own kind wont turn me in for not having a BB."

I'd bet you any amount of money that if LASD command staff learned of that individual and his attitude, he would be without a job quickly and probably in jail. Sheriff Baca's position on those items is eminently clear.

How many arrests and how many prosecutions have there been?

At least four I am personally aware of in specific cases in and around Sonoma and Lake County.

moleculo
03-01-2012, 10:06 AM
I'd be willing to bet that this whole issue is more pervasive than most realize.

I was recently introduced by a mutual friend to a long time PD LEO. The discussion turned to guns (like it normally does with my buddies) and AR style rifles. The PD LEO proceeded to tell me personally that he had many "banned" rifles that are now named assault weapons, and it was OK because he was a LEO. I asked him if he got the department permission slip or if they were RAW and he said flat out, "No. I don't have to. I'm a cop." I dropped the subject because it wasn't the right time or place to further that discussion.

Farva
03-01-2012, 11:58 AM
I'd bet you any amount of money that if LASD command staff learned of that individual and his attitude, he would be without a job quickly and probably in jail. Sheriff Baca's position on those items is eminently clear.

Maybe so, but how command staff will ever find out, or another cop will turn him in, is extremely unlikely.

N8TEN30
03-01-2012, 1:43 PM
THIS THREAD IS WORTHLESS

If ANYONE flagrantly breaks Weapons Laws of the Land, they are subject to Criminal Charges! We all know this, yet some "concerned citizen" wants to make sure LEO's are "educated"?? Stupid!!

Either be a RAT and report it or MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS. If you know gun laws, you better believe a LEO knows them.

And if anyone says LEO's dont get punished for breaking these laws, you are ignorant and misinformed. You think the ATF considers other LEO's above the laws they are sworn to enforce?

So OP, stop acting like you are genuinely concerned and just state the obvious......that you are pissed off you cant get away with the things you think others are getting away with.

SteveH
03-01-2012, 2:50 PM
Most of the guys I'm referring to are acquaintances of mine. friends of friends. I go shooting with them from time to time and yes, I know they are personal rifles they purchased recently. more specifically they are home built ARs from OLLs. maybe all the LEOs you shoot with only use dept issue rifles or RAWs for recreational shooting but that is certainly not my experience.

Sounds like you are hanging out with some unethical cops aka crooks.

moleculo
03-01-2012, 2:51 PM
If you know gun laws, you better believe a LEO knows them.

Part of the problem is that most of the laws are so complicated in CA that even well trained, and well meaning cops don't understand many of them. Of course, that's a different issue than blatant disregard for the law by a LEO.

CHS
03-01-2012, 2:53 PM
Either be a RAT and report it or MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS. If you know gun laws, you better believe a LEO knows them.


If you ask ten LEO's the same question about firearms, you'll generally get 12 different answers. Occasionally, if you're lucky, you'll get a correct answer.

So, I'm sorry but you're wrong.

Mesa Tactical
03-01-2012, 3:00 PM
If you know gun laws, you better believe a LEO knows them.

You must be new here. Welcome to the forum.

Farva
03-01-2012, 3:07 PM
THIS THREAD IS WORTHLESS

If ANYONE flagrantly breaks Weapons Laws of the Land, they are subject to Criminal Charges! We all know this, yet some "concerned citizen" wants to make sure LEO's are "educated"?? Stupid!!

Either be a RAT and report it or MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS. If you know gun laws, you better believe a LEO knows them.

And if anyone says LEO's dont get punished for breaking these laws, you are ignorant and misinformed. You think the ATF considers other LEO's above the laws they are sworn to enforce?

So OP, stop acting like you are genuinely concerned and just state the obvious......that you are pissed off you cant get away with the things you think others are getting away with.


ATF is concerned with CA LEO breaking BB laws? I could see them worrying about selectfire weapons but not CA BB laws. Also, most LEO do not know the gun laws because they are so damn complicated in this state.

jtkkz
03-01-2012, 3:07 PM
my friend just built an AR for an LEO and the LEO had my friend built his AR with a bullet button.

bwiese
03-01-2012, 3:19 PM
If you know gun laws, you better believe a LEO knows them.


That is the funniest thing I've heard all week. ROFLMAO.

brownfeathermedic
03-01-2012, 3:24 PM
We don need no stinkin Bagges!!! Our preferances for no bullet buttons,High capacity mags,collapsible stocks,multiple accesories make a squeaky clean afficionado like myself a felon,in someones eyes.to hell with the AWB!!!

Sgt Raven
03-01-2012, 3:36 PM
On the question about a possible RAW with a RadLock. If the RAW is a type 3 RAW and you lock a 10 round mag in it with a RadLock, is it still a AW for RAW transportation laws? My understanding is a type 3 RAW can move in and out of status depending on it's configuration. :confused: If so then you lose the transportation rules about RAWs at that point.

bwiese
03-01-2012, 3:43 PM
On the question about a possible RAW with a RadLock. If the RAW is a type 3 RAW and you lock a 10 round mag in it with a RadLock, is it still a AW for RAW transportation laws? My understanding is a type 3 RAW can move in and out of status depending on it's configuration. :confused: If so then you lose the transportation rules about RAWs at that point.

You are absolutely correct.

A Cat 3 Registered AW (which is definitionally off-list) has its actual AW status determined by its configured features suite, as it stands at time of examination. The papered Registered AW status merely allows it to be reassembled into AW form.

A Cat 3 Registered AW, when not set up as an AW via its configured features suite, is a non-AW (either featureless or maglocked) exempt from treatment as an AW for purposes of shooting, transport, etc.

oddjob
03-01-2012, 3:50 PM
There is another possibility with the original post regarding LEO's. Maybe they were having some "unofficial fun" with you?

In other words their rifles ARE legal by virtue of being a personally owned registered assault rifle (RAW) or it may belong to their agency and they are allowed to take it out for practice. But they SAY its a recently built rifle and etc.....And they SAY they don't care.....Thus pulling your chain. I've seen it happen in other subject matters.

A lot of the LEO's I know are pretty decent jokers and it wouldn't surprise me to see LEO's having "fun" with people. Like giving a 5150 W&I person the direct line to the chief or sheriff.

SVT-40
03-01-2012, 4:01 PM
What happens at the range should stay at the range.....

JMHO

Absent real stupid or dangerous situations

ap3572001
03-01-2012, 4:45 PM
Its simple. Leo can : own RAW that they got on their own (pre ban) , have raw that they bought with a letter OR have an assault rifle that belong to dept. Thats it.

BigDogatPlay
03-01-2012, 5:34 PM
Maybe so, but how command staff will ever find out, or another cop will turn him in, is extremely unlikely.

If someone in his own agency finds out that one of his fellow peace officer employees is openly committing felony crimes and fails to report it, that someone is going to have a problem too when / if it gets found out. One concerned citizen raising a question with the burn squad at sheriff's HQ and that ball will get opened very quickly.

While I am sure there is a pervasive mindset that cops won't tell on cops, I am here to tell you that they will, and they do. Not 100% but darned close to it. An officer who is willing to commit felonies involving banned weapons of one kind, is certainly capable of doing other things. Speaking as a former peace officer, I don't want people working with me that would.

It's called integrity, we have to have it. If one person doesn't that person needs to be dealt with. That a person happens to be a peace officer does not give him carte blanche to illegally possess a banned weapon. If his agency issues him one, or he purchases one on his own dime within the law I have no problem. If he purchases OLL, knowing that features require a locked mag and keeps the mag release conventional, that to me is an integrity problem that needs to be dealt with.

If you have first person observation and feel that strongly about it, report it and let the investigators deal with it.

ar15robert
03-01-2012, 6:39 PM
What ever happened to minding your own business?
exactly!I dont bother shooting my RAW at a range cause of the people who look and go awww hes shooting an illegal weapon without knowing its a registered gun.And then i insert a hi cap for the hell of it.

epilepticninja
03-01-2012, 6:55 PM
When I'm am at the range, I mind my own business. As long as no one is pointing a weapon at me, I don't care what they are shooting.

eta34
03-01-2012, 7:05 PM
That is the funniest thing I've heard all week. ROFLMAO.

Quoted for truth...and I'm a cop.

Problem is, how does one know if the cop at the range has a legal RAW or not?

cacop
03-01-2012, 7:34 PM
Some people like to play with fire in regards to weapons laws, or other laws. It happens with cops and non-cops alike.

Cops really need to be careful because all it takes is one phone call and they are getting their locker, cube, or any other workspace searched. Also getting a search warrant for their home would be pretty simple. Plenty of cops have been charged with AWB violations over the last few years.

As for what people use on the range I don't really care. Even when my city had a functioning gun range we never went up there to check on things.

I ave toyed wit hthe idea of getting an OLL but I have declined because I do not want to be the test case. I have called Cal DOJ to get an opinion on an AK for work purposes. What one of their lawyers said made my hair stand up on end, "We wont advise you on the decision to charge or not. If you and your DA's office wants to charge him with the AWB violation you can."

I do not want to be an officer they want to "get" and give them an easy charge that I will have to fight in court. I do not see many people here wanting to defend me.

N8TEN30
03-01-2012, 7:37 PM
You must be new here. Welcome to the forum.

What an arrogant condescending comment. I'm not the ignorant one here.

LEO's are held more responsible for knowing the laws than civilians, whether they do or not, and are punished more severely when they break them or their department wants to 'make an example of them'. When they choose to not follow rules, like all of us do at times, they CHOOSE to take he risk.

Why dont you all say what you do for a living, then we can all make assumptions on how much you are out of company policy or defrauding your employer. You just pick an easy target because the LEO's are easy to hate.

Just remember that hate next time you become a victim of a crime, or the bank you are in is robbed.....and you dont have the balls to stop the bad guy. Who do you rely on then? Do you really hate the one that will risk their life for your safety?! That truly is a thankless job, and its attitudes like yours that keep them always at a distance. Way to go neighbor!

lrdchivalry
03-01-2012, 7:39 PM
Its simple. Leo can : own RAW that they got on their own (pre ban)

Even if the leo aquired it on their own prior to the ban, it would still be illegal if it was not registered.

CHS
03-01-2012, 7:55 PM
Quoted for truth...and I'm a cop.

Problem is, how does one know if the cop at the range has a legal RAW or not?

At a range, it's pretty much impossible to determine. Could be an issue weapon, could be a personally owned RAW, could be anything.

My experience came while working at a shop. Most people would tell you the stupidest things, no exception for LEO's. I sold raddlocks to LEO's all the time who straight-up told me that they just leave them in the AW configuration and sold them 30rd mags that they told me they use with bullet buttons.

Cylarz
03-01-2012, 8:24 PM
I understand the frustration and the disgust with the apparent double standard. It's not fair that some cop gets to enjoy rights that aren't extended to the rest of us, especially being that there's not even a license or certification of any kind that allows a civilian to obtain LEO-style access to "assault weapons" in California. Especially considering that ordinary citizens in over 40 other states do have those rights.

That said, I'm not inclined to question someone at the range who appears to have an illegal firearm. It's not my job to enforce gun laws or rat out people who break them, unless said individuals are an immediate threat to me. I simply consider it to be none of my business; my own guns are legal and that's enough for me. I did see a high-cap magazine at the rifle range not long ago; I quietly asked the range safety officer about it and was told the shooter was a cop. I did not bother him.

Sgt Raven
03-01-2012, 8:57 PM
I have toyed with the idea of getting an OLL but I have declined because I do not want to be the test case.

You know S&W and Colt are making California specific AR Rifles. When the big boys are selling them, then their big legal departments have given them the green light. A factory stock Rifle from any major manufacturer is going to be properly configured for sale in California. It's not 2005 anymore and the rules are pretty clear on OLLs. :facepalm: :TFH:

cacop
03-01-2012, 9:20 PM
You know S&W and Colt are making California specific AR Rifles. When the big boys are selling them, then their big legal departments have given them the green light. A factory stock Rifle from any major manufacturer is going to be properly configured for sale in California. It's not 2005 anymore and the rules are pretty clear on OLLs. :facepalm: :TFH:

I explained the phone conversation I had with Cal DOJ and they dropped the "58 DAs" comment. That set me on edge about it. I don't trust my DA not to raid my gun safe and charge me with an AWB violation for an OLL. So far they have picked up on it when a department charged some dealers with AWB violations for OLLs. They wisely dropped the charges.

What if I got in an officer involved shooting that was politically unpopular and they decided to raid my safe to drum up a charge to appease the masses?

Are you ging to pay my mortgage while I fight it?

Until you are willing to pay my mortgage I will play with my totally legal Mini 14.

freonr22
03-01-2012, 9:40 PM
politely cacop,see my signature... 300,000-400,000 olls are in use in california.. they are ok when configured properly..

cacop
03-01-2012, 10:36 PM
politely cacop,see my signature... 300,000-400,000 olls are in use in california.. they are ok when configured properly..

What county do you live in?

If you look at election results for 2008 my county voted for Obama more than any other county except SF. A little over 3/4 of the couty voted for him. That would be a jury of my peers.

I have personal 30 round mags for the AR I check out for work. Mostly they are for my war bag but occasionally they get used for an instructor class when the budget permits. If I pick up an OLL I could very easily see my DA looking to use the mags and the OLL as proof that I am intending to break the law. I suppose a featureless built would help but can I trust a DAseeking reelection from an electorate that is so overwhelmingly against guns? What about the judge and his election?

I am pretty sure I could win...eventually. I could also see my boss drop me like an old habit to save his skin. Meanwhile I don't have a paycheck and I seriously doubt many here are willing to pay my bills while I fight it.

So I went with a Mini 14. I picked the blued steel and wood stock version. If the DA tries to wave that around in court it is going to look like the kind of gun people in this county think people should have. A "sporting" gun.

If I lived in say, Plumas County, I wouldn't really worry about it. I am sure the jury of my peers would be far more sympathetic. Hell, the Da would probably think he would never get reelected by charging a gun owner with an OLL.

When you come live in my county and have a high profile job like me with all kinds of opportunities for people to come after you then we can talk. Until then you live your life the way you want and I'll live mine the way I want.

greasemonkey
03-01-2012, 11:24 PM
30-rd in a Bullet Button OLL is BY FAR the most common felony I've seen committed by active LE. Some do it ignorantly and truly don't know, most I've seen just don't care...which just doesn't make sense to me as there's no such thing as "just a felony", it's a pretty big deal. As much as I disagree with the laws as-written, there's no excuse.
To answer the OP, I've run into it MANY times. I've seen tons of LEO's purchase raddlocks and then back them out to be used as a standard mag release. I've also seen LEO's purchase large-capacity magazines and then use them in mag-locked rifles.

Both things are felonies.

To be fair, on the magazine issue I believe there is a lot of misunderstanding on LEO's parts. I truly believe that many of them think it's ok to use the magazines in a bullet-buttoned rifle because they can legally purchase them.

Doesn't make it right, and it doesn't make it any less a felony. But it is what it is.

Saym14
03-02-2012, 12:20 AM
LEO's minding their own business around "assault weapons"? Right.

I'm sorry, but I believe in holding them to the exact same standard as they hold us. If that means not minding our own business, then don't mind your own business.

then you need to make a citizens arrest when you see them like this. Hhahahahaaa!!!!

locosway
03-02-2012, 12:35 AM
To all the people saying "mind your own business" and "what happens at the range stays at the range". Can you assure me that what I do at the range as a "civilian" will stay at the range?

Certainly I don't care if someone has a legal or illegal gun, but I find it odd that with so many threads about LEO's inspecting firearms at the range, that us "civilians" are told to mind our own business.

Connor P Price
03-02-2012, 12:54 AM
LEO's are held more responsible for knowing the laws than civilians, whether they do or not, and are punished more severely when they break them or their department wants to 'make an example of them'. When they choose to not follow rules, like all of us do at times, they CHOOSE to take he risk.


Check out Haynie v Pleasanton or Richards v Harris, those LEO's were unfamiliar with the law.

Civilians are continually reminded that ignorance of the law is no excuse, we're expected to know the law and abide by it no matter what. Otherwise the consequence is being arrested. Then looking at the above mentioned cases we see that ignorance of the law is a perfectly sufficient excuse for LEO's, the officers in question were entirely covered by qualified immunity and were not arrested or convicted for kidnapping, false arrest, battery (they presumably put their hands on the arrested individuals at some point) or theft for taking their property. The only criminals involved in either of those cases are the officers yet they receive no penalties whatsoever.

For you to say that LEO's are held more responsible for knowing the law than civilians suggests that you're entirely unfamiliar with qualified immunity as it's applied or that your being seriously biased.

freonr22
03-02-2012, 2:16 AM
What county do you live in?

If you look at election results for 2008 my county voted for Obama more than any other county except SF. A little over 3/4 of the couty voted for him. That would be a jury of my peers.

I have personal 30 round mags for the AR I check out for work. Mostly they are for my war bag but occasionally they get used for an instructor class when the budget permits. If I pick up an OLL I could very easily see my DA looking to use the mags and the OLL as proof that I am intending to break the law. I suppose a featureless built would help but can I trust a DAseeking reelection from an electorate that is so overwhelmingly against guns? What about the judge and his election?

I am pretty sure I could win...eventually. I could also see my boss drop me like an old habit to save his skin. Meanwhile I don't have a paycheck and I seriously doubt many here are willing to pay my bills while I fight it.

So I went with a Mini 14. I picked the blued steel and wood stock version. If the DA tries to wave that around in court it is going to look like the kind of gun people in this county think people should have. A "sporting" gun.

If I lived in say, Plumas County, I wouldn't really worry about it. I am sure the jury of my peers would be far more sympathetic. Hell, the Da would probably think he would never get reelected by charging a gun owner with an OLL.

When you come live in my county and have a high profile job like me with all kinds of opportunities for people to come after you then we can talk. Until then you live your life the way you want and I'll live mine the way I want.

Sir,
Kindly explain how your fears come into play with a featureless build? I just don't understand? It is not a gray area.. If you have no features ... And use an exile machine, or a monster man, or whatever type of non pistol grip, and no collapsible stock, and no flash hider.. YOU can use 30 rd mags!

Or with features, a bullet button and a 10 round mag.

Maybe I missed something you said?

Have you seen the flow chart at the header of calguns? This is a legal for all above 18 to own, possess and use.

cacop
03-02-2012, 10:35 AM
Sir,
Kindly explain how your fears come into play with a featureless build? I just don't understand? It is not a gray area.. If you have no features ... And use an exile machine, or a monster man, or whatever type of non pistol grip, and no collapsible stock, and no flash hider.. YOU can use 30 rd mags!

Or with features, a bullet button and a 10 round mag.

Maybe I missed something you said?

Have you seen the flow chart at the header of calguns? This is a legal for all above 18 to own, possess and use.

I know featureless is a lot less risky. My main beef with featureless is that I might as well go with a KelTec rather than try to turn the AR into a KelTec.

What I might do, if I care enough to do it, is to buy a stripped lower and keep it that way. Then if by some miracle we get to turn OLL into RAW I can skip buying weird butstocks, etc. If not then I'll make the choice of featureless or feature build when I am retired. Or if I move out of state when I retire I will build it any way I want, depending of course on what they do in DC over the next 10 years.

There is just way too much oversight and gotcha games with LE these days for me to play it close to the edge with the laws. People don't like us and I am not giving them any ammo to get me.

Take a look at everybody saying our pensions are too good. They werent saying that a decade ago. Even now life expectancy for a cop is 57 in CA. How is retiring 7 years before you die too generous? Or we get paid too much yet when our city cut our pay we haven't been able to hire up to full staffing because we have been told by potential hires they can work for more under better conditions elsewhere.

We are hated and they will get us every chence they get.

Mesa Tactical
03-02-2012, 10:55 AM
Take a look at everybody saying our pensions are too good. They werent saying that a decade ago. Even now life expectancy for a cop is 57 in CA.

Since you can't possibly believe this (as you must know many, many former LEOs older than that; I sure do), why do you repeat it? It's nonsense.

http://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2977

cacop
03-02-2012, 11:02 AM
Since you can't possibly believe this (as you must know many, many former LEOs older than that; I sure do), why do you repeat it? It's nonsense.

http://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2977

You are starting it out at 55 in those charts.

Also you never addressed the second part of my statement. No one complained 10 years ago. They were too busy looking down their noses at public employees and counting their stock options before they hatched.

chris
03-02-2012, 11:05 AM
California LEOs are allowed to purchase "assault weapons" with permission from their department. A lot of them don't because (I think) they have to surrender them to the department once their employment is terminated. I know one LEO who's department has it set up that way but I don't know if it's departmental regulation or state regulation...

However, if you are in the "blue line club", what are they going to do? ...arrest another cop? ...search their vehicle and run their gun's serial number? I don't think so. :rolleyes:

^this

SJgunguy24
03-02-2012, 11:22 AM
Do you know for a fact that its their personal rifles? Also how do you know they arent RAW.

I will give you one example, I had a young deputy who had me remove the 5.5" muzzle device from his upper. When he showed me his lower it had no mag lock and had a stock attached. The lower was a Double Star off list lower. Right before he left he slapped that bow 10.5" upper onto that lower. When I asked him about that he said "well I didn't know."
"Ignorance is no excuse. " is what I said. His response, "yeah well i'm a cop, who's gonna mess with me?"

And they wonder why people have such ill feeling towards cops?


Its simple. Leo can : own RAW that they got on their own (pre ban) , have raw that they bought with a letter OR have an assault rifle that belong to dept. Thats it.

That pre ban better have paperwork. I've run into many LEO's who never registered their pre ban AR's during the registration period. They are felons and many i've talked to try the ignorance route, and yet again I say, "ignorance is no excuse". If they would take me to jail for the exact same thing they're guilty of then they need to sit in,that cell right with me. It the proper thing and is what's right and fair. A badge means your held to a higher standard and you should face a more severe punishment because YOU KNEW BETTER.
That is fair, equal protection under the law is in that document every officer swore to uphold.

Bobby Ricigliano
03-02-2012, 11:48 AM
OK, I am a LEO.

All my rifles are featureless and thus California compliant.

If I am at the range, and I see another shooter with what appears to be an AW...

I presume it is legally owned and go back to minding my own business. I don't try to play range police on my day off.

Mesa Tactical
03-02-2012, 12:02 PM
You are starting it out at 55 in those charts.

Nevertheless, the notion that life expectancy of public safety employees is 57 is patently ridiculous, and you make yourself look a little silly by repeating it.

cacop
03-02-2012, 12:31 PM
Nevertheless, the notion that life expectancy of public safety employees is 57 is patently ridiculous, and you make yourself look a little silly by repeating it.

So starting at 55 instead of 50 when people can retire makes it a good argument? Also riddle me this, what percent of police officers and firefighters go out on disabilities even with 3 at 50? What do you think will change if it goes to 3 at 55?

What about the other half of my argument?

BTW you have just bought into class warfare. Democrats say, "Look at those rich people keeping you down." Republicans say, "Look at those public employees keeping you down."

What are they trying to hide? What is behind the curtain?

My guess is that it has something to do with CA having 12% of the country's population but 1/3 of the welfare cases. Why aren't they mentioning that?

Ask questions, demand answers.

Rattlehead
03-02-2012, 1:29 PM
Nevertheless, the notion that life expectancy of public safety employees is 57 is patently ridiculous, and you make yourself look a little silly by repeating it.

So starting at 55 instead of 50 when people can retire makes it a good argument? Also riddle me this, what percent of police officers and firefighters go out on disabilities even with 3 at 50? What do you think will change if it goes to 3 at 55?

What about the other half of my argument?

BTW you have just bought into class warfare. Democrats say, "Look at those rich people keeping you down." Republicans say, "Look at those public employees keeping you down."

What are they trying to hide? What is behind the curtain?

My guess is that it has something to do with CA having 12% of the country's population but 1/3 of the welfare cases. Why aren't they mentioning that?

Ask questions, demand answers.

With all due respect to both of you, could we please stay on topic?

BigDogatPlay
03-02-2012, 1:31 PM
politely cacop,see my signature... 300,000-400,000 olls are in use in california.. they are ok when configured properly..

Maybe where you are... in Sonoma County, not so much. (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Richards_v._Harris) There've been at least three arrests, two of plaintiff Richards by different agencies, for legally configured OLL in the past couple of years here.

Featured OLLs with properly fitted maglocks are still not without some risk.

N8TEN30
03-02-2012, 1:52 PM
Check out Haynie v Pleasanton or Richards v Harris, those LEO's were unfamiliar with the law.

For you to say that LEO's are held more responsible for knowing the law than civilians suggests that you're entirely unfamiliar with qualified immunity as it's applied or that your being seriously biased.

Oh, are those my only two options? Lol. You sound like you are familiar with Case Law (Are you a Public Defender? Because this thread can totally shift off of LEO's! :)), so you should know nothing is that cut and dry. Tomorrow, there could be another case defining a change in what LEO's are covered under as far as their Department is concerned.

Sometimes workers (not just LEO'S) can plead ignorance as long as they know they are within Department policy. The liability then falls on the Department or Company to produce reason that such ignorance exists (i.e. lack of training, no set policies on the matter). If the Company values the Employee to be more valuable than the fine or hit they will take politically, they may choose to back the Employee and have Attorneys go to work. If not, the employee is like a wounded animal that gets left behind by the herd.

It just so happens, that Sheriff and Police Departments dont like to look bad in the eyes of the public they are Sworn to protect.....and that usually dictates their action or inaction.

JMHO....

epilepticninja
03-02-2012, 2:20 PM
What is truly sad is that if we were one of our neighboring states, this thread wouldn't exist. I love this state, but dayum they have some ridiculous weapon laws here. Ok, back to the debate.

cacop
03-02-2012, 2:56 PM
With all due respect to both of you, could we please stay on topic?

Sorry. After I hit reply I though to my self, "What the hell is the OP again."

cacop
03-02-2012, 3:11 PM
Maybe where you are... in Sonoma County, not so much. (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Richards_v._Harris) There've been at least three arrests, two of plaintiff Richards by different agencies, for legally configured OLL in the past couple of years here.

Featured OLLs with properly fitted maglocks are still not without some risk.

As the DOJ said to me in regards to OLLs a few years back, "There are 58 district attorneys in this state each with their own opinion."

Perfect non-gun example is being under the influence of a controlled substance (11550H&S). That is being high on things like coke or heroin.

Santa Clara county will not file unless there are solid symptoms of being under the influence present. Such as non reactive pupils that are pined out and and being on the nod.

Santa Cruz county will file just so long as the pupils are smaller than normal and the pee test comes back dirty. Totally outside the intent of the law and case law. They get away with it by offering probation and not really enforcing probation violations for further dirty tests.

Could a DA encourage departments to arrest people for OLLs, file charges, and then drop them one the rifles are destroyed? Sure. Eventually the courts might rule that OLLs are perfectly legal. They could also rule they were illegal.

Right now OLLs are the elephants in the living room. No one wants to admit they are there. Even with the hubbub with the AG's opinion on LE having to turn in RAWs purchased with letterhead no one is really mentioning them outside the internet.

Connor P Price
03-02-2012, 3:15 PM
Oh, are those my only two options? Lol. You sound like you are familiar with Case Law (Are you a Public Defender? Because this thread can totally shift off of LEO's! :)), so you should know nothing is that cut and dry. Tomorrow, there could be another case defining a change in what LEO's are covered under as far as their Department is concerned.

Sometimes workers (not just LEO'S) can plead ignorance as long as they know they are within Department policy. The liability then falls on the Department or Company to produce reason that such ignorance exists (i.e. lack of training, no set policies on the matter). If the Company values the Employee to be more valuable than the fine or hit they will take politically, they may choose to back the Employee and have Attorneys go to work. If not, the employee is like a wounded animal that gets left behind by the herd.

It just so happens, that Sheriff and Police Departments dont like to look bad in the eyes of the public they are Sworn to protect.....and that usually dictates their action or inaction.

JMHO....

No, I'm not a public defender, or an attorney at all for that matter. I'm not cop bashing here either, it's not the fault of the rank and file it's simply a defect in the system. If anyone is to blame it's our legislature, left leaning judiciary that favors governmental power, and perhaps a few bad apples with badges. Although I sincerely believe those bad apples to be a small minority.

You are correct that under certain circumstances officers are thrown under the bus. However it remains as fact that quite often they are covered by qualified immunity and departmental policy when they are ignorant of the laws they are tasked with enforcing. Civilians receive no such protection so it's quite clear that officers are given breaks that everyday people would never get.

With this in mind how is it that police are held to a higher standard as far as knowing the law? I stand by my statement that the standard is lower for law enforcement. They frequently get away with being ignorant of the same laws that Joe Shmoe would be told he has no excuse for being ignorant of.

N8TEN30
03-02-2012, 4:10 PM
Civilians receive no such protection so it's quite clear that officers are given breaks that everyday people would never get.

With this in mind how is it that police are held to a higher standard as far as knowing the law? I stand by my statement that the standard is lower for law enforcement. They frequently get away with being ignorant of the same laws that Joe Shmoe would be told he has no excuse for being ignorant of.

I appreciate your viewpoint. I think we are overall in agreement, but just coming from different perspectives.

IMO, Civilians dont get the same breaks LEO's do because they are not SWORN to live by the same standards.....on and off duty. I believe this is where the breakdown occurs....because even when LEO's are not working, they are still MANDATED to act in some way, if a notable crime is occurring. If they choose to not get involved, and it is found out, they are subject to Discipline or sometimes, Criminal Action. So, when are they truly off duty? Even when they want to go to the shooting range and be a regular "Joe Shmoe" and use their AR the way God intended, they are still subject to their neighbor posting their actions on a public forum and singling them out as an entitled class.

Now, of course it doesn't help when the LEO's act like they are untouchable, but in all reality, they are taking their fate in their own hands. I also feel the bad apples are a minority, but they do a lot of damage to the good apples and the public!

There's also the issue of what is "Subjectively Reasonable". LEO's are allowed to act on what they experience Subjectively to make arrests or split second decisions. I think this is the area that causes so much debate and mistrust of what is actually supposed to be enforced. Its one of the bigest variables! If one LEO chooses to 'inspect someones weapon' at the range, I guarantee you, other LEO's are thinking 'He must've looked like a dirtbag' or 'I wouldn't have done that'. But its hard to say.....because NONE OF US WERE THERE. And even if one of us was, we would not have the same thoughts going through our head that that particular LEO had.


As far as being held to a higher standard, I stand by my opinion, they definitely are. I just think the general public only focuses on the negative....because laws are being enforced on them, so they naturally will be bitter and want to rebel.

Kind of like a rebellious teenager that has to follow the house rules........they love to focus on the hypocracy of the parents! :eek:

BigDogatPlay
03-02-2012, 4:14 PM
As the DOJ said to me in regards to OLLs a few years back, "There are 58 district attorneys in this state each with their own opinion."

Perfect non-gun example is being under the influence of a controlled substance (11550H&S). That is being high on things like coke or heroin.

I don't disagree on point with you regarding the above. Check my sig line, I am familiar with 11550 H&S and I do know that prosecutorial policy can and does vary greatly from county to county. But in the case of the recent arrests in SoCo, they are not (apparently) as a result of DA policy. They are (arguably) a result of street level LEOs, including self admitted department experts, not being able to correctly interpret the AWCA as published in the Penal Code and in CADoJ literature and that creates a situation of unconstitutional vagueness. That is what the ongoing federal civil rights actions are arguing.

Very big difference. Apples to oranges, IMO.

Right now OLLs are the elephants in the living room. No one wants to admit they are there. Even with the hubbub with the AG's opinion on LE having to turn in RAWs purchased with letterhead no one is really mentioning them outside the internet.

OLLs are, to a point and for the law abiding gun owner in general, still an elephant, yes. However there is a pretty bright line, in the Penal Code and within published regulatory definitions, between a featured OLL with a maglock and a RAW purchased under a very limited exemption by certain classifications of peace officers. As a former LEO I think it's a good thing that they can, but as a law abiding citizen with a deep belief in the concept of equal justice under law, I have long believed that that exemption, like so many others, is an equal protection problem. Even more so in light of Nordyke, Heller and McDonald.

The problem here is what the Penal Code says, backed up by the legislative intent and the legislative record, and made concrete by the Silviera court and the AG opinion. Those all make it pretty clear that the ability to purchase and register is based entirely on the need of law enforcement duties.

If the PORAC sponsored legislation extends the privilege to retirees in the face of all of the above, I believe a blatantly obvious equal protection issue will be created. And if that helps make the ridiculous parts of the AWCA go away, then I am all for the bill to get passed.

bwiese
03-02-2012, 4:25 PM
If the PORAC sponsored legislation extends the privilege to retirees in the face of all of the above, I believe a blatantly obvious equal protection issue will be created. And if that helps make the ridiculous parts of the AWCA go away, then I am all for the bill to get passed.

Understand that Don Kilmer will be tanned, rested and ready after Nordyke, and Jason Davis already has material drawn up. (We've been prepared for this to emerge.)

I'm fairly confident NRA/CRPA has its game plan foundations established too.

We're just ready to drop the handkerchief.

Remember that this legislative matter only addresses one aspect of a complex matter ;-)

bwiese
03-02-2012, 4:26 PM
I
IMO, Civilians dont get the same breaks LEO's do because they are not SWORN to live by the same standards.....on and off duty.

No actions are sworn to in retirement. They're just 'any other retiree'.

Connor P Price
03-02-2012, 4:29 PM
I appreciate your viewpoint. I think we are overall in agreement, but just coming from different perspectives.

IMO, Civilians dont get the same breaks LEO's do because they are not SWORN to live by the same standards.....on and off duty. I believe this is where the breakdown occurs....because even when LEO's are not working, they are still MANDATED to act in some way, if a notable crime is occurring. If they choose to not get involved, and it is found out, they are subject to Discipline or sometimes, Criminal Action. So, when are they truly off duty? Even when they want to go to the shooting range and be a regular "Joe Shmoe" and use their AR the way God intended, they are still subject to their neighbor posting their actions on a public forum and singling them out as an entitled class.

(emphasis mine)

Based on departmental policy I suppose it may be possible for them to end up in some hot water at work. Criminal liability though? Incredibly unlikely and somewhat silly to even suggest perhaps excepting only the most wildly unusual of cases. Departmental policy may get you a few days off, but that's not remotely the same as being held legally responsible for inaction.

Warren v DC and Castle Rock v Gonzales each teach us that not only are police protected from criminal liability for a complete failure to protect and serve the people, or even act in a reasonable manner, they are also protected from civil liability.


As far as being held to a higher standard, I stand by my opinion, they definitely are. I just think the general public only focuses on the negative....because laws are being enforced on them, so they naturally will be bitter and want to rebel.


You're certainly entitled to your opinion, however I don't see any factual or rational basis for it at this point.

N8TEN30
03-02-2012, 10:47 PM
Warren v DC and Castle Rock v Gonzales each teach us that not only are police protected from criminal liability for a complete failure to protect and serve the people, or even act in a reasonable manner, they are also protected from civil liability.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, however I don't see any factual or rational basis for it at this point.

Well then, I guess the logical answer would be to become a LEO! They sound like a very protected class! No civil liability.....break laws and get away with it.....you sold me!

Thank you for allowing me to have my opinion. :) I dont have the interest in digging up case law to continue this debate, but something tells me.......If you thought like I did, you would be researching and quoting case law to defend your stand. So I dont believe you will be open to "see" any factual or rational basis for my opinion....because its not yours. ;)

Nice debate though!

-hanko
03-03-2012, 12:39 PM
Arent LEOs suppose to abide by the same laws as civilians when it comes to their personal evil rifles? Is it just me or do you guys come across LEOs at ranges running around with their rifles configured as UAWs? No bullet buttons, evil features and high caps. Anyone else have these experiences? What do I do to try to educate them about it? Its it even worth trying? Some of them are not real keen on taking legal advise from civilians in public if you can imagine...
Check your definition of "civilian".

Cops remain civilians until/unless they take the oath for military service.

"Educating" a leo is at your own risk.:lurk5:

Let me know which range you're at just before you plan on the education. :)

-hanko

Connor P Price
03-03-2012, 12:53 PM
Check your definition of "civilian".

Cops remain civilians until/unless they take the oath for military service.

"Educating" a leo is at your own risk.:lurk5:

Let me know which range you're at just before you plan on the education. :)

-hanko

Dictionary.com

ci·vil·ian
   noun
1.a person who is not on active duty with a military, naval, police, or fire fighting organization.

Merriam Webster

Definition of CIVILIAN

2a : one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force

I'm unclear on what definition you're using? People on this site say that a lot, they usually tend to be military it seems, but I never quite understand where its coming from.

Librarian
03-03-2012, 1:36 PM
'Civilian' is in-group jargon for 'not in this group'.

I've heard priests use it to refer to non-clergy.

Connor P Price
03-03-2012, 1:50 PM
'Civilian' is in-group jargon for 'not in this group'.

I've heard priests use it to refer to non-clergy.

I've seen that in a colloquial sense as well, it seems a bit silly for people to be critical of others for using the proper definition rather than a slang one though.