PDA

View Full Version : LEOs with OLLs


Cpl_Peters
07-29-2007, 10:02 AM
Do they get to configure them with all evil features they want or do they still have to use BB or go feature less w/ MM grips?



*I searched, couldnt find anything.

dicast
07-29-2007, 10:09 AM
no evil features without a letter from head of department.

WokMaster1
07-29-2007, 10:11 AM
Personal rifles- NO, they are not above the law.
Only department issues or if their dept head signs off on ARs for duty use only.

Jicko
07-29-2007, 10:23 AM
Do they get to configure them with all evil features they want or do they still have to use BB or go feature less w/ MM grips?

*I searched, couldnt find anything.

They are just "regular" people.... their personal OLLs are just configure like yours and mine..... unless that's their "issued" weapons, acquired thru their departments, as "assault weapon".... (in that case, an AW is an AW, they can have anything they liked)

CCWFacts
07-29-2007, 11:17 AM
Clearly there are exceptions that would allow LEOs to be authorized to have AWs, MGs, etc, but it seems like those are pretty rare in the LEO world in this state. Chiefs do have legitimate liability concerns. If they issue some guy a Glock 18 and something happens, the department has liability for that.

Bottom line, LEOs have a few potential advantages over non-LEO gun owners in CA, but for the most part, we're all in the same situation.

Even the ammo serialization bill that they tried last year had no exemption for LEOs. In practice, if that bill had passed, LEOs would have had to do their training and quals in Nevada. Like how the UK Olympic pistol team has to train in Switzerland.

Cpl_Peters
07-29-2007, 12:15 PM
So I guess the advantage would be that they would just be hassled less if they got pulled over

CRTguns
07-29-2007, 1:16 PM
Several LEOs have procured letters allowing them to build the rifles "right" with all the goooood features. There's just conditions about when they can use them. If they leave the dept, they have to disassemble, they can't hunt with it... says something about practice and training off hours.

hoffmang
07-29-2007, 4:13 PM
Those conditions are bogus btw. Once the officer has a letter and spends his own money the department can't withdraw the letter. The rifle is and remains his as its registered to him in the AW registry.

If a LEO with a letter wants to check this out, call DOJ and have them send you a copy of your AW registration. If you have a registration for the lower's serial number it doesn't matter what your Chief or Sheriff says. Only the registered owner of an AW can unregister it.

-Gene

artherd
07-30-2007, 1:33 AM
Gene is correct, there is no legal path by which the DOJ or a police agency can 'revoke' a legitimite AW registration.

Infact, it would take a (challenge-able) order by a Court to revoke an AW registration.


I would idly speculate that DOJ would do it anyway on a phone call, but they'd be the only ones commiting a crime.

Said crimes would include answering personally to several serious Felonies, not protected by state provided consul.

tiki
07-30-2007, 7:07 AM
I would idly speculate that DOJ would do it anyway on a phone call, but they'd be the only ones commiting a crime.


No!! Say it isn't so!!!
The DOJ doing something illegal or underhanded? Come on! If the head law enforcement office of the state started committing illegal acts...

;)

DIG
07-30-2007, 1:24 PM
no evil features without a letter from head of department.

yup.
There are a large # of OLL's that LEO's have for personal use. This is a fact and of course, we all know there is nothing wrong with that. In the months after the Dec '05 OLL news, it seemed like alot of the OLL sales were to LEO's. That has since flip-flopped by a wide margin to civilian sales. I highly doubt any significant percentage of these OLL's purchased by LEO's had letterhead. Why would they need to? They didn't have to wait for the OLL craze to get a duty rifle if their position truely required it, right?
If CA wants to make felons out of OLL owners, well that will make felons out of alot of CA LEO's as well. I believe that this state has much bigger problems to address than worring about OLL's. sssheessh.:rolleyes:

eta34
07-30-2007, 1:30 PM
Yep, no evil features here. Same as anybody else, as it should be. (For the record, we all should be allowed "evil features.")

bwiese
07-30-2007, 4:00 PM
I think I mentioned this before but at the Aug 16 2006 hearings discussing proposed regulatory redefinition concerning detachable vs. fixed magazines, there was a heavy security presence - metal detectors, sign-in sheets, CHiPpies all over, etc.

It appears that almost half the CHP guys that drew duty for actual presence at this hearing owned OLLs.

hoffmang
08-04-2007, 11:17 AM
I was going through some of the documents I've collected and noticed a letter from DOJ BoF regarding LEO Letter AW registrations and separation from the LEA:

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

-Gene