PDA

View Full Version : Police and Privately owed "AWs"


CavTrooper
12-02-2007, 3:55 AM
The community that I live in has a security company that patrols around here 24/7, since Im always out doing silly stuff, it was only a matter of time before I ran into one of the guards. Well, the guard was a nice enough fella and we ended up chatting for awhile. Turns out that the security guards are all current or former law enforcement officers, this guy turns out to be LAPD. So I proceed to ask him about OLLs and officers who get letters to buy thier own "AWs". He says hes never run across an OLL, but it sounded interesting and he was going to look into it, as far as the Officers and thier privately purchased and owned "AWs", we got into a good conversation.
Turns out (according to this Officer) that the "AWs" that are privately purchsed for duty use, are being taken in to the department armorer and having the trigger groups replaced with burst (or auto) trigger groups (he wasnt exactly clear and I wasnt going to push it)! I want to think that this guy was yanking my chain or just didnt know what he was talking about but we had some nice rapport going, and being that Im well educated and experienced in BSing, I am inclined to believe him.
Has anyone else heard of this? If this is actually the case, how could this possibly be legal?

CSACANNONEER
12-02-2007, 5:32 AM
I doubt it. I don't believe that LAPD would go to all the trouble of remachining AR15 lowers into M16 lowers. I also doubt that they are licenced to do this. It would be cheaper and easier to buy M16s in the first place!

I have seen Ventura County SOs carrying M16s in their patrol vehicles. But, the one that I got to break down had an AR15 trigger group and an empty hole where the AS goes.

AJAX22
12-02-2007, 6:44 AM
Most of the patrol guns are military surplus that had the AS pulled out of them by Uncle Sam. If they are in fact taking privatly owned AW's and milling them into MG's that is probably a no-no.

For department owned guns, I think they might actually be able to get a form 1 approved.... I'm not certain how that works for PD's.

M. Sage
12-02-2007, 6:54 AM
Nah, he mis-spoke.

A privately-owned rifle turned into a MG? The cop would then own an un-registered MG, and that's a no-no.

CSACANNONEER
12-02-2007, 7:11 AM
Nah, he mis-spoke.

A privately-owned rifle turned into a MG? The cop would then own an un-registered MG, and that's a no-no.

But, wouldn't it be great to find out that this was actually going on! Think of the repercussions.

M. Sage
12-02-2007, 7:15 AM
Lol, yeah, I can imagine the repercussions.

LECTRIKHED
12-02-2007, 7:21 AM
Maybe he was confused and they are putting in 2 stage triggers. Anyways it seems like a major waste of our taxpayer money.

Bizcuits
12-02-2007, 10:08 AM
Im well educated and experienced in BSing


Your a recruiter, you were trained to BS :) Did you offer him a job during your discussion?

It wouldn't surprise me, however at the same time, it doesn't sound quite right. From my experince patrolmen had Semi only AR-15s, SWAT and Special Units trained in FA and other features had the FA.


Now where he could be confused is with DUTY and DUTY + PERSONAL.

If the letter head is simply for Duty, then I'd see it making sense. As the Weapon isn't actually the Officers, as when he retires it goes back to the department. It's basically the Officer bought his own duty weapon, gets to keep it, but it belongs to the department.

If the letter is Duty and Personal, I don't believe the department would be willing to convert it. As the weapon is the Officers personal approved weapon, but also his duty weapon. Meaning when he retires, he has the option to sell or I believe keep it.

Could be the department armorer was doing it illegally for the Officers, this has happened before. Few years ago up in Sac some Officers got caught with Full Autos and were busted.

bluestaterebel
12-02-2007, 12:39 PM
i really doubt that guy was an off duty cop at least not lapd. there is no way that the department armorer is doing that. what is happening is that officers purchasing the smith m&P15ts are having problems with malfunctions. smith&wesson is swapping out the upper receivers and the department armorer is putting them on.

tyrist
12-02-2007, 1:02 PM
I do not think he is an off duty cop, those "security" companies just don't pay well enough. Now if he was working as a body guard for a celebrity or movie set security that is another issue altogether. I suppose he could be retired. The department does not allow any officer to have any type of burst weapon for liability reasons. You are responsible for every round you fire and where it goes.

anothergunnut
12-02-2007, 4:05 PM
My ex brother in law was a San Jose PD. He did off duty security work at the local mall and Carl's Jr but it was always in his SJPD uniform. From all outward appearances, he was a SJPD officer on duty. He never did "security officer" work.

SteveH
12-02-2007, 5:37 PM
Sounds like BS to me. In fact most of the major So Cal agencies are buying M4 and M16A4 rifles and Carbines and converting them to semi auto only for their patrol rifle programs.

If the big boys are converting department owned full autos to semi why would any agency be converting individual officer owned to select fire?

CSACANNONEER
12-02-2007, 8:27 PM
Well, while I was working at a range, I talked to both LAPD and a LASO officers tonight (they're both regular shooters). I asked both of them if they had ever heard of such a thing and they both laughed at the idea.

randy
12-03-2007, 3:50 AM
LAPD has allowed some of their officers to buy personal ar's. It's a bad deal I don't agree with.

bluestaterebel
12-03-2007, 1:09 PM
Hey Randy, so if California allowed it's citizens to buy personal ar's would you think that's a bad deal you dont agree with? just wondering if youre consistent.

MudCamper
12-03-2007, 1:58 PM
Hey bluestate perhaps randy's point was he doesn't like the fact that the police are not required to obey the laws that they are enforcing. It is a precedent that leads to a police state.

MikeK
12-03-2007, 2:00 PM
Hey bluestate perhaps randy's point was he doesn't like the fact that the police are not required to obey the laws that they are enforcing. It is a precedent that leads to a police state.
They are obeying the laws.

The law allows them to purchase them with permission from their department.

MudCamper
12-03-2007, 2:17 PM
They are obeying the laws.

The law allows them to purchase them with permission from their department.

This is true. But these are dangerous and IMO unjust laws. I think that all gun-control laws should apply to all of the following groups of people equally:

1 - state and federal legislatures
2 - their bodyguards and the secret service
3 - all police and law enforcement personel
4 - all the rest of us

Currently gun-control laws only apply to category 4. How many more laws do you think would be passed if they had to apply to the first 3 groups also?

bwiese
12-03-2007, 2:23 PM
I believe this equal-protection/bill-of-attainder matter will come up in relation to CA AW laws - esp as these are personal weapons.

bwiese
12-03-2007, 2:27 PM
My ex brother in law was a San Jose PD. He did off duty security work at the local mall and Carl's Jr but it was always in his SJPD uniform. From all outward appearances, he was a SJPD officer on duty. He never did "security officer" work.

SJPD has an extortionate scam. It seems that for many common types of security work in SJ that would normally involve Wackenhut/Pinkerton security types elsewhere, SJ requires real live cops, to be paid at OT rates.

MikeK
12-03-2007, 2:43 PM
This is true. But these are dangerous and IMO unjust laws.

I'm not arguing that point. Simply saying that they are obeying the current laws.

adamsreeftank
12-03-2007, 3:21 PM
While I strongly doubt that any PD would convert a semi-auto to a full or burst, especially if it were privately purchased, there are private security firms working in CA that have full-auto permits. A friend of mine works security in a housing project and they issue full-auto weapons. They are all owned by the company.

CSDGuy
12-03-2007, 3:55 PM
SJPD has an extortionate scam. It seems that for many common types of security work in SJ that would normally involve Wackenhut/Pinkerton security types elsewhere, SJ requires real live cops, to be paid at OT rates.
There are PD's that have formal "Off-Duty" Programs where you pay for officers to be present and the costs per hour are specified. State law allows this kind of "secondary employment" but there is no "gray area". They are not security guards.

State law also allows for security guard employment of off-duty officers, but for that type of work, they'd have to be registered as Security Guards with the BSIS...

thomasanelson
12-03-2007, 3:58 PM
While I strongly doubt that any PD would convert a semi-auto to a full or burst, especially if it were privately purchased, there are private security firms working in CA that have full-auto permits. A friend of mine works security in a housing project and they issue full-auto weapons. They are all owned by the company.

I would be surprised if this is true. My understanding is that there are only a few entities in CA that can posses a class 3 license for full automatic guns. These are obviously the military & Feds (U.S. Army etc or National Guard (aka the militia if you ask the anti-gun pinkos)), Hollywood prop houses who own guns for use in films and TV and the commander of a SWAT unit of a Police agency. Once again, I have heard that the SWAT commander is "responsible" for the automatic weapons even if they are in the hands of his officers. Can anyone else shed light on this?

gose
12-03-2007, 4:08 PM
Some PDs even allow personal MGs. Not sure if any still do, since the guy I met might have had it (M4) for a while....

Riodog
12-03-2007, 11:13 PM
Know for a fact that Lapd "Metro" division officers carry M-4's and 14" Bennelli's in the trunk of their cars. Cars go home with them 24-7. Some cars just might have even more "playtoys" in the trunk.
Take it to the bank,
Rio:D

artherd
12-03-2007, 11:39 PM
They are obeying the laws.

The law allows them to purchase them with permission from their department.

The law is illegal, it creates a protected class out of an otherwise civilian population.

randy
12-04-2007, 2:01 AM
If you are on a detail or team that requires you to have your tools with you at all times then by all means you should have all your DEPARTMENT issued tools with you.

If you aren't on one of those special details and the dept allows you to purchasce a restricted firearm to keep at home and do as you please with I don't agree with that.

I don't agree with the ban we have but we have it.
I don't think it's right they can buy off list pistols either.

I have my CA registered stuff but I still support all the OLLs and the efforts of the people who have faught the good fight.

Letting law enforcement buy their personel restricted firearms helps create a us vs. them in what should be a united effort to keep and in a perfect world restore our rights.

bodyarmorguy27
12-04-2007, 8:22 AM
I'll confirm that the guy is full of SH#t. I work for that department and am one of the officers on the departments rifle cadre. The city issue rifles are M16s that are de-milled and rendered semi auto. I have a Colt 6920 that is semi auto and I didn't take it to the armorer to get the auto modification done, and there is no option to do so.

MikeK
12-04-2007, 8:28 AM
The law is illegal. . .
Link?