Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > SPECIALTY FORUMS > Calguns LEOs
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Calguns LEOs LEOs; chat, kibitz and relax. Non-LEOs; have a questions for a cop? Ask it here, in a CIVIL manner.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-11-2018, 11:16 PM
dballie2000 dballie2000 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 70
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default Retired leos and ar-15

I have a friend that just retired from federal law enforcement. He said he gets to keep his ar-15 and doesnít have to register it or modify it. He said federal law trumps state law and that 18usc 926c says he can.

I am curious if anyone had heard about this?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-12-2018, 6:22 AM
esy esy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: NorCal
Posts: 763
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Your friend is wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-12-2018, 7:06 AM
CaptMike CaptMike is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 1,205
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

he is incorrect if he lives in California if he did not register as an assault rifle with california. if he did not register it in calif, then he must comply with all calif assault weapons laws.

some say that ar15s might be covered under leosa, but that would require a test case in calif. maybe your friend may want to volunteer to get arrested so he can be the test case.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-12-2018, 7:21 AM
Hairball's Avatar
Hairball Hairball is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: SoCal or Wyoming
Posts: 1,045
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

We had a number of guys that had been "gifted" a rifle as a retirement gift. If this retired officer received such a gift, the rifle would need to be made featureless before transferring the rifle to the retired officer. He could not have registered the rifle under the current RAW period as he did not own the rifle at the time as it was the property of the agency. 18usc 926c covers the requirements that retired LE need to meet in order to continue to CCW. It has nothing to do with taking possession of what is now identified as an AW in the State of California. Once you cross that retirement line, it all changes. I had ordered another Glock 20 before I retired but it never showed up until after my retirement date so when I picked it up, I had to have it delivered with 10 round mags instead of the 15 round mags that is came with.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-12-2018, 10:32 AM
Bart1015 Bart1015 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Sonoma - Marin Counties
Posts: 167
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

If the Officer bought the rifle with via Department Letterhead and also registered it as an AW in his name he can keep it. Even if he got it post 2000. Several officers in my department did it this way, including me.
__________________
Certified Polygraph Examiner. I provide services for Criminal and Civil Litigation, Private Businesses, Law Enforcement/Fire Pre-Employment screening, Fidelity Concerns, and other types of Family Disputes.


http://ToThePointPolygraph.com
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-12-2018, 10:46 AM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 5,728
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart1015 View Post
If the Officer bought the rifle with via Department Letterhead and also registered it as an AW in his name he can keep it. Even if he got it post 2000. Several officers in my department did it this way, including me.
Bart,

I have to respectfully disagree with you here. Please closely review California DOJ Opinion #09-901. It holds that a California LEO who personally purchased an Assault Weapon using departmental authorization, must surrender the weapon upon retirement or separation from service.

The DOJ Opinion has its faults, the most significant being the failure to identify any statute that would be violated if the officer kept the weapon, but the Opinion remains in issue.

AG Opinion - Peace Officer RAW.pdf
__________________
What is really needed here is less "Tactical" thinking and more "Strategic" thinking.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-12-2018, 11:36 AM
Bart1015 Bart1015 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Sonoma - Marin Counties
Posts: 167
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

RICKD427.

I know this case. I can tell you for sure that some agencies are not concerned with letting their retired Officers keep the weapons after retirement. Let me explain why.

In the case you listed, it suggests (hypothesizes) that the gun was actually bought by the officer and registered to the agency. At the time of retirement, the agency intended to transfer the gun to the retired officer.

This can not be done because the Retiree is no longer LE and he is not exempt from the AW laws.

In fact, I had a family member who had to return his Colt to his department when he retired (2017). This was because the AW was resisted to the department, not him. The department received the receiver only and everyone was happy.

This option does NOT address the 100s of officers who bought AWs with departmental approval and registered it in their own name. If the AW is in the name of the retired LE, and NOT the agency, there is no provisions to take the AW from the officer.

This opinion is simple and they skirted the issue. If you are no longer a cop you can NOT have an AW transferred to you.

As of now, until its specifically addressed, the Officers who bought AWs and registered them in their own name, not the department, can keep it when they retire.

Its not an AW transfer if the AW was in the name of the officer to begin with.

This is an older clarification:

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...lt-Weapons.pdf

But then, maybe not...

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...lt-Weapons.pdf

What a cluster. Guess, I just don't know...

Brett
__________________
Certified Polygraph Examiner. I provide services for Criminal and Civil Litigation, Private Businesses, Law Enforcement/Fire Pre-Employment screening, Fidelity Concerns, and other types of Family Disputes.


http://ToThePointPolygraph.com

Last edited by Bart1015; 10-12-2018 at 11:53 AM.. Reason: Add info
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-12-2018, 11:59 AM
Yodaman Yodaman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,293
iTrader: 22 / 100%
Default Retired leos and ar-15

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart1015 View Post
If the Officer bought the rifle with via Department Letterhead and also registered it as an AW in his name he can keep it. Even if he got it post 2000. Several officers in my department did it this way, including me.


Iím not saying your wrong. But I believe this used to be the old way of doing things.

Letterhead no longer works. If the individual is no longer actively sworn. He is the same as a non-sworn in term of the configuration of the rifle.

Just like someone who is no longer actively sworn, can no longer buy magazine over 10rds.

And yes, federal laws are supposed to trump state laws is what we are taught in school (or used to be), but if that were the case why is weed legal in CA and other places now...



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Last edited by Yodaman; 10-12-2018 at 12:02 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-12-2018, 12:27 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 5,728
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart1015 View Post
RICKD427.

I know this case. I can tell you for sure that some agencies are not concerned with letting their retired Officers keep the weapons after retirement. Let me explain why.

In the case you listed, it suggests (hypothesizes) that the gun was actually bought by the officer and registered to the agency. At the time of retirement, the agency intended to transfer the gun to the retired officer.

This can not be done because the Retiree is no longer LE and he is not exempt from the AW laws.

In fact, I had a family member who had to return his Colt to his department when he retired (2017). This was because the AW was resisted to the department, not him. The department received the receiver only and everyone was happy.

This option does NOT address the 100s of officers who bought AWs with departmental approval and registered it in their own name. If the AW is in the name of the retired LE, and NOT the agency, there is no provisions to take the AW from the officer.

This opinion is simple and they skirted the issue. If you are no longer a cop you can NOT have an AW transferred to you.

As of now, until its specifically addressed, the Officers who bought AWs and registered them in their own name, not the department, can keep it when they retire.

Its not an AW transfer if the AW was in the name of the officer to begin with.

This is an older clarification:

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...lt-Weapons.pdf

But then, maybe not...

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...lt-Weapons.pdf

What a cluster. Guess, I just don't know...

Brett
Brett,

You're correct, it really is a cluster. But I would encourage you to go back and re-read the DOJ Opinion. It is clearly directed toward an officer who 1) Personally purchased an Assault Weapon with departmental authorization, and 2) Who registered that Assault Weapon in their personal name (as opposed to registering it to their agency).

You may be confusing some of the text in latter part of the Opinion discussing the application of Silveiria v Lockyer to the issues of the Opinion. That discussion concerned the relevance of a previous retired peace officer exemption in the statutes.

The Opinion itself did not address weapons registered to the agency. Here is the operative bottom line quoted from the Opinion:

"In sum, construing the law enforcement exceptions of the Act to include retired peace officers would contravene both the express language and underlying policy of the Act, and would do nothing to further law enforcement purposes. Accordingly, we conclude that a peace officer who purchases and registers an assault weapon is not permitted to continue to possess the assault weapon after retirement."

Please note the absence of any language concerning weapons registered to the agency in the above, or in the context of the entire document.

The two items of DOJ correspondence that you attached to your post were both issued prior to the formal Opinion and should be considered as superceded by the Opinion.

The main problem with the Opinion is that it cites no law that would be violated by an officer who retains their Assault Weapon post-retirement. The Opinion states that this is likely due to failure of the Legislature to adopt law on the point, and it cites the inability of DOJ to make law in the absence of a statute, but then the opinion continues to do just that.

In order to criminalize the in-state possession of such an Assault Weapon, the DOJ would need to revoke the AW registration. There is no such statute allowing for such revocation. By contrast, the statutes allowing for Assault Weapon permits does make specific provision for revocation.
__________________
What is really needed here is less "Tactical" thinking and more "Strategic" thinking.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-12-2018, 12:27 PM
priusron priusron is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 39
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Do they also have to modify all mags greater than 10 rounds?
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 10-12-2018, 12:29 PM
Bart1015 Bart1015 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Sonoma - Marin Counties
Posts: 167
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Yup, Ca. law. Clear as mud.
__________________
Certified Polygraph Examiner. I provide services for Criminal and Civil Litigation, Private Businesses, Law Enforcement/Fire Pre-Employment screening, Fidelity Concerns, and other types of Family Disputes.


http://ToThePointPolygraph.com
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-12-2018, 12:34 PM
code_blue's Avatar
code_blue code_blue is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Moscow, Democratic People's Republik of Kaliforniazakstan
Posts: 2,952
iTrader: 107 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by priusron View Post
Do they also have to modify all mags greater than 10 rounds?

No. As of now, retirees may retain "high cap" magazines acquired prior to retirement. IIRC, it is a codified exemption.

Now, if the former RAW was declassified, the high cap rifle mags could only be used in featureless configurations or non-semi auto configurations. They cannot be used in a maglocked or break-action semi auto.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-12-2018, 3:56 PM
Bart1015 Bart1015 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Sonoma - Marin Counties
Posts: 167
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Rick,

I see your point and your right. The DOJ has no legal standing to support the opinion they are giving and they have no authority to enforce their opinion.

I believe, this is why some agencies are not concerned about retirees possessing their registered AW that they (the officer) bought while employed as a cop. Actually, I know this is what is happening with the agencies I have worked for.

This is a large state and each LE agency handles stuff their own way. What works for one agency may not work for another. Some work by letter of the law, others by spirit of the law. Some make their own rules. This theory really applies here.

This AW topic was brought up in several recent discussions that I have had with active LE command staff.

The theory is, Officers were giving the opportunity to buy their own AWs because, at the time, the department(s) could not afford, or did not want, to spend the money for a rifle for everyone. When the officers were permitted to buy the guns, they were told they can keep them post retirement. There was no relinquish requirement when being approved to buy an AW.

The general agreement is, the officers bought the guns legally and they registered them as required per law.

Furthermore, the agency believes they do not have the right to take lawful obtained personal property away from officers and they do not have the funds to buy the guns from the retiree either. In short, the department does not want to deal with the potential legal issues involved.

I guess it all depends where you work and how that department views this particular issue.


Brett
__________________
Certified Polygraph Examiner. I provide services for Criminal and Civil Litigation, Private Businesses, Law Enforcement/Fire Pre-Employment screening, Fidelity Concerns, and other types of Family Disputes.


http://ToThePointPolygraph.com
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-12-2018, 5:36 PM
M1NM's Avatar
M1NM M1NM is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: West Covina
Posts: 5,899
iTrader: 48 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yodaman View Post
And yes, federal laws are supposed to trump state laws is what we are taught in school (or used to be), but if that were the case why is weed legal in CA and other places now...
A lot of this is apples and oranges in this thread. You can't compare state LEO to fed LEO. They are 2 different animals with different regulations.
As far as weed the feds have just chosen to not enforce the federal laws. If they want they can walk into any MJ store and arrest the owner/buyers on federal drug charges. Banks are refusing to handle any MJ business money due to running afoul of federal banking regulations.
MJ is the current 1920s fight against booze. They will make it legal as soon as they can figure out a way to tax it. All that bootlegger BS was not for making booze it was for not paying the tax.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-12-2018, 5:37 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 5,728
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart1015 View Post
Rick,

I see your point and your right. The DOJ has no legal standing to support the opinion they are giving and they have no authority to enforce their opinion.

I believe, this is why some agencies are not concerned about retirees possessing their registered AW that they (the officer) bought while employed as a cop. Actually, I know this is what is happening with the agencies I have worked for.

This is a large state and each LE agency handles stuff their own way. What works for one agency may not work for another. Some work by letter of the law, others by spirit of the law. Some make their own rules. This theory really applies here.

This AW topic was brought up in several recent discussions that I have had with active LE command staff.

The theory is, Officers were giving the opportunity to buy their own AWs because, at the time, the department(s) could not afford, or did not want, to spend the money for a rifle for everyone. When the officers were permitted to buy the guns, they were told they can keep them post retirement. There was no relinquish requirement when being approved to buy an AW.

The general agreement is, the officers bought the guns legally and they registered them as required per law.

Furthermore, the agency believes they do not have the right to take lawful obtained personal property away from officers and they do not have the funds to buy the guns from the retiree either. In short, the department does not want to deal with the potential legal issues involved.

I guess it all depends where you work and how that department views this particular issue.


Brett
Brett,

You've got a pretty good analysis above. Every LEA has the right to evaluate the basis of laws that they have the ability to enforce. Except for a few specified games of chance, there is no requirement that agencies enforce any particular law, there is only an ability for them to enforce the law.

Without having a lawful basis, specifically a statute to charge an ex-officer with, I would also decline to take any action.
__________________
What is really needed here is less "Tactical" thinking and more "Strategic" thinking.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10-12-2018, 5:39 PM
BajaJames83's Avatar
BajaJames83 BajaJames83 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: North West SD county
Posts: 4,914
iTrader: 322 / 100%
Default

all the more reason why the ca aw laws need to be null and federal law trumps the land
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-12-2018, 8:38 PM
HAVOC5150's Avatar
HAVOC5150 HAVOC5150 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: State of Jefferson
Posts: 1,197
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart1015 View Post
If the Officer bought the rifle with via Department Letterhead and also registered it as an AW in his name he can keep it. Even if he got it post 2000. Several officers in my department did it this way, including me.
I disagree. I had a conversation with the former chief of Vallejo PD and a few months after he retired he was sent a letter by the DOJ to either move the rifle out of state or sell it to an active LEO.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-15-2018, 10:38 AM
Galli1565 Galli1565 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 562
iTrader: 49 / 100%
Default

I thought CA AB 1192 that was signed into law by brown specifically addressed this, allowing honorably retired PO’s to keep their rifles?
__________________
Certified Colt 1911 Armorer // Certified Glock Armorer
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-15-2018, 12:28 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 5,728
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Galli1565 View Post
I thought CA AB 1192 that was signed into law by brown specifically addressed this, allowing honorably retired POís to keep their rifles?
Negative. AB 1192 only addressed large capacity magazines. It contained nothing with regard to RAW's.
__________________
What is really needed here is less "Tactical" thinking and more "Strategic" thinking.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 10-15-2018, 12:41 PM
Galli1565 Galli1565 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 562
iTrader: 49 / 100%
Default

Thanks Rick as always for the clarification!
__________________
Certified Colt 1911 Armorer // Certified Glock Armorer
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 10-15-2018, 12:57 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 5,728
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Galli1565 View Post
Thanks Rick as always for the clarification!
You're most welcome. Just trying to keep good folks outta trouble. It's not so easy the way California handles its lawmaking process.
__________________
What is really needed here is less "Tactical" thinking and more "Strategic" thinking.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 10-18-2018, 7:18 AM
1911_sfca's Avatar
1911_sfca 1911_sfca is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,327
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
Brett,

You've got a pretty good analysis above. Every LEA has the right to evaluate the basis of laws that they have the ability to enforce. Except for a few specified games of chance, there is no requirement that agencies enforce any particular law, there is only an ability for them to enforce the law.

Without having a lawful basis, specifically a statute to charge an ex-officer with, I would also decline to take any action.
I agree; Brett's analysis is much more reasonable than opinion 09-901, when it comes to various aspects of the law. Their opinion neglects property law, and other considerations. A good judge would not agree with it.

That said, having a lawfully purchased and duly registered firearm as one's property doesn't seem to invoke the same property rights protections that it should (and does, in other states).

Quote:
Originally Posted by HAVOC5150 View Post
I disagree. I had a conversation with the former chief of Vallejo PD and a few months after he retired he was sent a letter by the DOJ to either move the rifle out of state or sell it to an active LEO.
And I take it he didn't want to be the test case?

Last edited by 1911_sfca; 10-18-2018 at 7:21 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 10-18-2018, 7:34 AM
HAVOC5150's Avatar
HAVOC5150 HAVOC5150 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: State of Jefferson
Posts: 1,197
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1911_sfca View Post
And I take it he didn't want to be the test case?
Iím guessing not. He could have acted as his own attorney since he is one. His sons a Lt and he sold the rifle to him. He said he received the letter to get rid of it or give it to an active LEO shortly after he bashed Kameltoe Harris and the CADOJ in a speech he delivered (I want to say it was at a chiefs of police event).
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 10-18-2018, 1:01 PM
Bart1015 Bart1015 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Sonoma - Marin Counties
Posts: 167
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HAVOC5150 View Post
Iím guessing not. He could have acted as his own attorney since he is one. His sons a Lt and he sold the rifle to him. He said he received the letter to get rid of it or give it to an active LEO shortly after he bashed Kameltoe Harris and the CADOJ in a speech he delivered (I want to say it was at a chiefs of police event).

Or, the Ex-Chief knew the person he talked to might just broadcast the details of the conversation, including details about the agency to unknown people on a public forum.

The prior Chief may have decided to limit his involvement in this type of potental unwanted attention.
__________________
Certified Polygraph Examiner. I provide services for Criminal and Civil Litigation, Private Businesses, Law Enforcement/Fire Pre-Employment screening, Fidelity Concerns, and other types of Family Disputes.


http://ToThePointPolygraph.com
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:31 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.