Calguns.net

Calguns.net (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/index.php)
-   Calguns LEOs (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/forumdisplay.php?f=167)
-   -   AR acquired while an LEO, now what? (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=644335)

Mineralogy Mike 11-14-2012 8:39 PM

AR acquired while an LEO, now what?
 
Hi folks, I'm not an LEO but my awesome wife is. I've got my bullet-buttoned AR and my ten rounders but we are thinking of buying some more toys. We are thinking about AR without a bullet button or an FN SCAR to name a couple. Because of her LEO status she can legally buy these, obviously.

But what if she decides to change careers and is no longer an LEO? Librarian suggested I ask you fine officers as you might have the answer handy. Would we have to get rid of the rifles if she is no longer an LEO? Or would it be a matter of simply installing bullet buttons?

Thanks guys!

TRICKSTER 11-14-2012 9:09 PM

She can only buy it if her department authorizes it. More and more departments are no longer authorizing private purchases because of Jerry Brown's ruling when he was AG stating that the authorization ends when the LEO status ends.
See this thread.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...assault+weapon

five.five-six 11-14-2012 9:19 PM

When an LE retires from a California job, They're supposed to take their Calpers And assault weapons to Idaho.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk 2

TURNKEY13 11-14-2012 9:30 PM

She can still (for now) keep it. Browns "opinion" that the weapon must be surrendered when LE status ends is just that, opinion, not law. The weapon when purchased, becomes a legally owned RAW. Until the Penal Code exemption section is changed, nothing changes when one is no longer LEO.

solanoshooter 11-15-2012 6:23 AM

As Turnkey says, there is no law, just the former AG's opinion. Right now there is a Porac sponsored bill to let retired LEO's keep one and only one registered assault weapon that was previously purchased for duty use.

Which brings up another point. As stated above, your agency must allow it. The letter require for purchase and registration states that the rifle shall be used for duty. It is different than the LEO in good standing letter required to waive the 10 days on a non AW purchase.

Armed24-7 11-15-2012 9:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mineralogy Mike (Post 9725589)
Hi folks, I'm not an LEO but my awesome wife is. I've got my bullet-buttoned AR and my ten rounders but we are thinking of buying some more toys. We are thinking about AR without a bullet button or an FN SCAR to name a couple. Because of her LEO status she can legally buy these, obviously.

But what if she decides to change careers and is no longer an LEO? Librarian suggested I ask you fine officers as you might have the answer handy. Would we have to get rid of the rifles if she is no longer an LEO? Or would it be a matter of simply installing bullet buttons?

Thanks guys!

Per the LEOSA 2004, a peace officer (not retired or suspended) can own an assault weapon. What the LEOSA is not clear on, is whether or not you must have written approval from your department. I read LEOSA 2004 and I did not find anything in there about requiring written approval of your department. So, I am not certain. I had a recent conversation with one of our weapons training guys and he said that you need to have written authorization from your department in order to be compliant with the LEOSA. I hear there are some test cases going on though.

A peace officer can buy 30 round mags all day long, but once she uses a 30 round mag, it becomes an assault weapon.

There are bullet buttons out there that will convert to a standard magazine release with a few turns of the screw. Here is an example of one: http://www.riflegear.com/p-470-raddl...zine-lock.aspx

My suggestion would be to make sure the rifle is CA legal if you go to the range. Some LEO's keep 30 round mags around in case P00P hits the fan.

lavey29 11-16-2012 3:38 PM

Most of this info is accurate. You need a letter from your agency. Some agencies give them out others do not. I also know that you get another letter from DOJ/ATF that indicates once you retire or leave LE that you can no longer possess your assault weapon in Cali and must surrender it. Co-worker has a friend from a small agency that received such letter recently after his purchase. Maybe it is a new practice they are using even though "technically" as indicated it is not current law.

Bobby Ricigliano 11-17-2012 7:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mineralogy Mike (Post 9725589)
Because of her LEO status she can legally buy these, obviously.

Not, obviously.

Peace officers cannot just buy RAW's because of their job title. With a Chief's letter you can buy a specific authorized duty gun. Without it, you follow the same rules as everyone else.

The only real exemption LEO's automatically get is hi-cap mags and non rostered handguns. I have been a full time LEO for 12+ years in California, and all of my EBR's are configured in a manner in which anybody could possess them legally. I just happen to run everything featureless, which is the next best thing to a RAW in California.

lavey29 11-17-2012 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobby Ricigliano (Post 9740223)
Not, obviously.

Peace officers cannot just buy RAW's because of their job title. With a Chief's letter you can buy a specific authorized duty gun. Without it, you follow the same rules as everyone else.

The only real exemption LEO's automatically get is hi-cap mags and non rostered handguns. I have been a full time LEO for 12+ years in California, and all of my EBR's are configured in a manner in which anybody could possess them legally. I just happen to run everything featureless, which is the next best thing to a RAW in California.


You are incorrect. With a letter specifying which weapon, LE can buy and legally possess assault weapon(s) that do not require buttons or mag restrictions. May be used for on duty depending on agency guidelines or off duty for personal use. I know a number of small agencies that give their officers letters.

Now the questions arises as to what happens when you retire or leave LE. As of now, I have been told that DOJ/ATF sends you documentation which indicates that you can not legally possess the weapon after you retire, etc...I am not sure how they are enforcing this at this time and how they know when you retire.

scootergmc 11-17-2012 2:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Armed24-7 (Post 9727918)
Per the LEOSA 2004, a peace officer (not retired or suspended) can own an assault weapon. What the LEOSA is not clear on, is whether or not you must have written approval from your department. I read LEOSA 2004 and I did not find anything in there about requiring written approval of your department. So, I am not certain. I had a recent conversation with one of our weapons training guys and he said that you need to have written authorization from your department in order to be compliant with the LEOSA. I hear there are some test cases going on though.


:confused::confused: LEOSA has nothing to do with officers purchasing/owning AWs.

hitman13 11-17-2012 3:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scootergmc (Post 9742405)
:confused::confused: LEOSA has nothing to do with officers purchasing/owning AWs.

I bring my SBR AR into Cali all the time under LEOSA......

ETA: federally you are fine, state wise... Maybe not..... Just gotta roll those dice and maybe be the test case.

scootergmc 11-17-2012 3:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hitman13 (Post 9742527)
I bring my SBR AR into Cali all the time under LEOSA......

ETA: federally you are fine, state wise... Maybe not..... Just gotta roll those dice and maybe be the test case.

And it still has nothing to do with officers purchasing/owning AW's.

hitman13 11-17-2012 3:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scootergmc (Post 9742611)
And it still has nothing to do with officers purchasing/owning AW's.

What you consider an AW, the rest of America simply calls firearms. LEOSA states that owning it would be fine, as long as the person in possession is covered by LEOSA.... IIRC this is the same type of situation that they tried to hang Drew Peterson on, unsuccessfully. Now, that may not be binding case law or anything, but it is the only case that I am currently aware of.

Unless you want to civilly discuss why I am wrong, which I may be..

hitman13 11-17-2012 3:35 PM

Purchasing you are on your own, but anyone can get a stripped lower.


DISCLAIMER: ANY POSTS I HAVE MADE IN THIS TREAD IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE, JUST MY HUMBLE OPINION AND EXPERIENCES.

scootergmc 11-17-2012 3:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hitman13 (Post 9742648)
What you consider an AW, the rest of America simply calls firearms. LEOSA states that owning it would be fine, as long as the person in possession is covered by LEOSA.... IIRC this is the same type of situation that they tried to hang Drew Peterson on, unsuccessfully. Now, that may not be binding case law or anything, but it is the only case that I am currently aware of.

Unless you want to civilly discuss why I am wrong, which I may be..

I'm not saying you are wrong, nor did I. What I am simply saying is that LEOSA has nothing to do with officer purchasing/owning AW. I guess I should make that a CA specific comment since, yes of course, AWs are strictly defined compared to what commonly passes as firearms in another state.

If a CA peace officer walks into a FFL/AW dealer and tries to purchase a weapon with the LEOSA argument, it will fall on deaf ears.

I get your argument. I understand that possession/carrying is an entirely different ball of wax.

hitman13 11-17-2012 3:56 PM

And now I see where you are coming from too :D

Bobby Ricigliano 11-18-2012 1:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lavey29 (Post 9741863)
You are incorrect. With a letter specifying which weapon, LE can buy and legally possess assault weapon(s) that do not require buttons or mag restrictions. May be used for on duty depending on agency guidelines or off duty for personal use. I know a number of small agencies that give their officers letters.

Now the questions arises as to what happens when you retire or leave LE. As of now, I have been told that DOJ/ATF sends you documentation which indicates that you can not legally possess the weapon after you retire, etc...I am not sure how they are enforcing this at this time and how they know when you retire.

That's what I said. Officers CAN buy specific weapons (i.e. AR-15 with evil features and standard cap mags) as stipulated in letters from their Chief. The officer would personally own the weapon and could naturally use it on and off duty.

The OP implied that simply based on being a LEO, a person could purchase a RAW. This is incorrect. It is on a department by department basis. Some agencies issue the letters, some don't.

lavey29 11-18-2012 10:15 AM

Ok, I must have misinterpreted your post. What you are stating above is correct to my knowledge also.

tbhracing 11-18-2012 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by five.five-six (Post 9725866)
When an LE retires from a California job, They're supposed to take their Calpers And assault weapons to Idaho.

I pay 100% for my CalPERS and will take it where ever I want. And Nevada sounds better than Idaho.

scootergmc 11-18-2012 11:29 AM

Really? You pay the employer's contribution too?

ke6guj 11-18-2012 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hitman13 (Post 9742527)
I bring my SBR AR into Cali all the time under LEOSA......

is that a personally-owned SBR or dept-owned? If personally-owned, what do you do about the 5320.20 requirements. Do you file the .20 and refer to LEOSA-exemption instead of needing the DW permit? Or does the LEOSA exempt you from even needing a .20?

hitman13 11-18-2012 1:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ke6guj (Post 9746751)
is that a personally-owned SBR or dept-owned? If personally-owned, what do you do about the 5320.20 requirements. Do you file the .20 and refer to LEOSA-exemption instead of needing the DW permit? Or does the LEOSA exempt you from even needing a .20?

It's personally owned. ATF doesn't care about CA laws, they issue it no questions asked and no LEOSA related explanation given.

ke6guj 11-18-2012 2:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hitman13 (Post 9747133)
It's personally owned. ATF doesn't care about CA laws, they issue it no questions asked and no LEOSA related explanation given.

normally, BATFE does care about CA law. They won't approve an SBR Form1 in CA because it doesn't comply with CA law. I can't see how they would approve a .20 to CA without making sure it complies with CA law. And if you didn't mention anything about LEOSA, I don't see how they would know that your SBR was legal in CA but that all the other out-of-state SBRs wouldn't be legal in CA.

tbhracing 11-18-2012 3:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scootergmc (Post 9746657)
Really? You pay the employer's contribution too?

Yes. Some police and fire agencies have their employees pay 100%,

scootergmc 11-18-2012 3:40 PM

which one please?

tbhracing 11-18-2012 4:05 PM

By memory only- FDs paying 100% of PERS- Alameda County and Apple Valley.

scootergmc 11-18-2012 4:16 PM

I think you're confused. Many PERS agencies now have their employees pay 100% (usually the full 9% employee share) of the employee's contribution. But I know of no agency where the employee pays the agency's entire contribution as well. Here's Alameda for you:

http://www.acgov.org/hrs/documents/I...un_30_2015.pdf

tbhracing 11-18-2012 7:29 PM

No, I am NOT confused. I know the entire contract very well and am one of the employees that pays the entire amount.

ADD- The ALCo employees are NOT in the County PERS system, they are in CalPERS.

scootergmc 11-18-2012 8:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tbhracing (Post 9749075)
No, I am NOT confused. I know the entire contract very well and am one of the employees that pays the entire amount.

ADD- The ALCo employees are NOT in the County PERS system, they are in CalPERS.

:rolleyes: I guess I'll reply to your PM...

deadcoyote 11-19-2012 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by five.five-six (Post 9725866)
When an LE retires from a California job, They're supposed to take their Calpers And assault weapons to Idaho.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk 2

Best post I've seen in a while (I'll be going to New England though).

Mineralogy Mike 11-19-2012 12:36 PM

Thanks for all the info, guys.

I thought the deal was she could pretty much buy anything she wanted (machine guns and Wile E. Coyote TNT excepted) simply because she was a police officer. I didn't know her agency would have to give her a letter for purchasing firearms, I thought it was automatic with her LE id. And I don't know how easily she can get a letter, we've never asked!

scootergmc 11-19-2012 3:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mineralogy Mike (Post 9752745)
Thanks for all the info, guys.

I didn't know her agency would have to give her a letter for purchasing firearms, I thought it was automatic with her LE id. And I don't know how easily she can get a letter, we've never asked!

Just to clarify, the letter is needed for AWs, and to bypass a 10 day wait, but not such things as purchasing non-roster handguns, normal mags, etc.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 9:43 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.