PDA

View Full Version : LEO's exempt from AW laws?


lelandEOD
05-15-2012, 9:30 AM
I didn't thinks so, but I wasn't really sure what to say. I've got a friend who's brother is a prison guard and father is a retired deputy sheriff. Both seem to think they can have bullet button-less converted Saiga rifles because of some duty related status.

Can someone send me a link to some information I can send them to keep them out of hot water? Or am I wrong altogether?

PandaLuv
05-15-2012, 9:40 AM
You're not wrong at all.

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/chapter7.pdf

tonyxcom
05-15-2012, 9:48 AM
They aren't exempt at all. The department typically lets them register an RAW if it's their duty weapon, but not weapons that are personal use only.

I don't imagine an AK being an approved duty weapon so they are likely breaking the law.

They should be exempt from the hi-capacity magazine law though, but the AWB should preclude their use in rifles that aren't RAWs. Handguns are ok.

laabstract
05-15-2012, 10:58 AM
Have to follow same laws unless they have written permission on letter head from their police department for duty purposes.

Chaos47
05-15-2012, 11:09 AM
Theres a lot of dumb people out there.

Went over to a car that pulled up at my BLM spot to say hi and to let us know whenever they wanted a cease fire to go put their targets down range. Got to talking about what they brought and they where excited to show me their new converted 223 siaga. They pull it out and I nicely say now that it has been converted it needs a bullet button. He then told me "no, its cool my uncles harbor patrol" :facepalm:

chunker
05-15-2012, 11:31 AM
Theres a lot of dumb people out there.

Went over to a car that pulled up at my BLM spot to say hi and to let us know whenever they wanted a cease fire to go put their targets down range. Got to talking about what they brought and they where excited to show me their new converted 223 siaga. They pull it out and I nicely say now that it has been converted it needs a bullet button. He then told me "no, its cool my uncles harbor patrol" :facepalm:

That's when you say "That's great! Now when you go to jail for the next 10 years can I have your rifle then make it legit for my own personal use?" =)

artoaster
05-15-2012, 1:25 PM
Tell me if I'm wrong.

So, AR-15's that are owned by a department or agency (police, sheriff, chp, etc.) are duty weapons that are not personally owned by individual LEO's.

Now, if an LEO has a personal AR (or any other AW) it must comply with current laws, i.e. OLL, locked 10 round mags, feautureless, etc. and if he/she owns a RAW registered within legal timeframe that's cool also. But an LEO cannot get a AW registered after the fact for personal use or take an OLL and configure as an AW.

Also, no longer would an LEO have a personal AW that would be his/her duty gun, those nowadays are going to be agency owned...correct??

P.Charm
05-15-2012, 1:31 PM
Tell me if I'm wrong.

So, AR-15's that are owned by a department or agency (police, sheriff, chp, etc.) are duty weapons that are not personally owned by individual LEO's.

Now, if an LEO has a personal AR (or any other AW) it must comply with current laws, i.e. OLL, locked 10 round mags, feautureless, etc. and if he/she owns a RAW registered within legal timeframe that's cool also. But an LEO cannot get a AW registered after the fact for personal use or take an OLL and configure as an AW.

Also, no longer would an LEO have a personal AW that would be his/her duty gun, those nowadays are going to be agency owned...correct??

they can have personal guns used for duty. so no the agency won't own them.

VMCJ-3
05-15-2012, 1:49 PM
My neighbor got a "letter" for his AR from someone at the top of the food chain in his Dept. It entitles him to use 30 round mags and no B/B, plus any of the other evil features (no SBR) that he desires.

All should be fine until he retires, then there becomes some question with the alphabet boyz as to it's A/W status. I guess it's not a matter of just putting on a B/B and 10 round mags. It's like turn in/destroy the "registered" lower. Any LEO's please correct me if I'm wrong.

tonyxcom
05-15-2012, 1:57 PM
they can have personal guns used for duty. so no the agency won't own them.

Correct, lots of LEO's personally own both their duty handguns and rifles. Most agencies require them to be on some form of approved list. I know for LAPD, these personally owned weapons can only be modified by the agency armorer. Meaning anything beyond a field strip and cleaning needs to be done by the amorer; like the replacement of a bad extractor or even an extended mag release(if approved) on a pistol.

tonyxcom
05-15-2012, 2:02 PM
My neighbor got a "letter" for his AR from someone at the top of the food chain in his Dept. It entitles him to use 30 round mags and no B/B, plus any of the other evil features (no SBR) that he desires.

All should be fine until he retires, then there becomes some question with the alphabet boyz as to it's A/W status. I guess it's not a matter of just putting on a B/B and 10 round mags. It's like turn in/destroy the "registered" lower. Any LEO's please correct me if I'm wrong.

I am not sure if the above is a separate permission given that precludes the need for it be an actual RAW, in which case it would sound logical that they could just install a BB and use 10 round mags. But from what I always understood was that the LEA would issue some soft of paperwork to the LEO that would allow him to buy a RAW for duty use. It make sense as that is money that the department doesn't have to spend.

But I do recall reading something in the last few months that was passed that would allow them to keep the personally owned RAW after a retirement or other honorable separation form the LEA.

Librarian
05-15-2012, 5:08 PM
So, a duty gun personally owned must be RAW or have letter from agency (and DOJ) allowing use of high capacity 30 round mags and standard magazine release?


LEO have an exemption that they may buy and register an a/w, with that CLEO letter.

Any other a/w-type weapon, LEO have to obey the same stupid a/w laws the rest of us are bound by.

I am not sure if the above is a separate permission given that precludes the need for it be an actual RAW, in which case it would sound logical that they could just install a BB and use 10 round mags. But from what I always understood was that the LEA would issue some soft of paperwork to the LEO that would allow him to buy a RAW for duty use. It make sense as that is money that the department doesn't have to spend.

But I do recall reading something in the last few months that was passed that would allow them to keep the personally owned RAW after a retirement or other honorable separation form the LEA.

Actually, the law as it stands, according to a CA-AG letter on the point, says after a LEO stops working as a LEO, those LE-exempted RAW are no longer legal. There's a bill in the Legislature this session to address that, but it has not passed.

34marine
05-15-2012, 6:22 PM
PPssssssh, PLEASE.
Your line of thinking is inches away from that of an anti.

Here is a better scenario, I as a private citizen of the United States of America have complete and unadulterated 2A rights to defend myself and do not have to hope that by the grace of god I am lucky enough that LEO near by should I be in trouble.

Completely not an anti? I did however forget to say in my rant that the LEO was off-duty. Maybe that would've cleared it up. Maybe it wouldn't and you are out there.

tonyxcom
05-15-2012, 7:09 PM
Actually, the law as it stands, according to a CA-AG letter on the point, says after a LEO stops working as a LEO, those LE-exempted RAW are no longer legal. There's a bill in the Legislature this session to address that, but it has not passed.

Roger.

Don29palms
05-15-2012, 9:03 PM
police have lives too, they are not following you around in their spare time to protect you. Police respond to reported crimes.

We have a right to be safe, to life, and self defense, not to mention, to keep and bear arms. Ultimately you and i are responsible for our own safety, and law enforcement are not entitled to have weapons for self defense and protection that function better than ones owned by us subjects, err, i mean civilians. This sentiment turns my stomach.

I believe there is no combative use for a rifle equipped with a bullet button. Its a range toy. More practical choice would be an automatic pistol, featureless rifles or a pump shotgun..

Unfortunately the concept of rights in this country are false and have been for a long time. Especially 2A privileges. We have Constitutional Guidelines and the Bill of Privileges.

The privilege of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except for when the government deems it necessary.

eviioiive
05-15-2012, 9:27 PM
Lots of fud in this thread...keep reading

MrPlink
05-15-2012, 11:07 PM
Unfortunately the concept of rights in this country are false and have been for a long time. Especially 2A privileges. We have Constitutional Guidelines and the Bill of Privileges.

The privilege of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except for when the government deems it necessary.

I understand where you are coming from, but if you believe that then why fight?
I'm angry because my RIGHTS have been infringed upon.

MrPlink
05-15-2012, 11:10 PM
Completely not an anti? I did however forget to say in my rant that the LEO was off-duty. Maybe that would've cleared it up. Maybe it wouldn't and you are out there.

So what? Unrealistic scenario.

You are missing my point

I'm not anti LEO at all. Hell, give em flame throwers for all I care, I just want the complete right to defend myself, because odds are should it happen there will not conveniently be LEO (on duty or off) to save my butt