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 07-27-2013, 12:56 AM
hbm4's Avatar
hbm4 hbm4 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 449
iTrader: 28 / 97%
Default Retired LEO's and registered AW's

It may have been covered previously, so please forgive me for asking if so. Anyone have any insight or knowledge of the pending or recently passed bills regarding retired or separated LEO's and their personal lawfully purchased and registered AW's? I know there was an official opinion and there were some POA's fighting it. any feedback would be greatly appreciated.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-27-2013, 7:29 PM
CalCop CalCop is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sacto Area
Posts: 573
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

http://michellawyers.com/police-law-...on-possession/
__________________
"Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen."
-- Sir Robert Peel
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-27-2013, 8:18 PM
CalCop CalCop is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sacto Area
Posts: 573
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The current CA law is unclear. When Brown was AG, he issued an opinion saying retired cops must surrender their AW.
AB2549 sought to change the law to allow them to keep their AWs...but it failed.
__________________
"Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen."
-- Sir Robert Peel
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-27-2013, 8:47 PM
TRICKSTER's Avatar
TRICKSTER TRICKSTER is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Contra Costa County
Posts: 10,757
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalCop View Post
The current CA law is unclear. When Brown was AG, he issued an opinion saying retired cops must surrender their AW.
AB2549 sought to change the law to allow them to keep their AWs...but it failed.
^This. AFAIK there is no process in the current law that allows the state to revoke the lawful registration of these weapons.
__________________


Ignorance can be educated.
Crazy can be medicated.
But there is no cure for stupid.


Police Brutality? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRd5oucG114

NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-27-2013, 8:49 PM
hbm4's Avatar
hbm4 hbm4 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 449
iTrader: 28 / 97%
Default

thnx for the feedback guys. i had reviewed that site a little calcop. crazy to think agencies are issuing letters to their retirees advising them to surrender their purchased weapons based on an opinion. as long as there is no "official" law, i think we are C4
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-27-2013, 9:14 PM
CalCop CalCop is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sacto Area
Posts: 573
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Agreed
__________________
"Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen."
-- Sir Robert Peel
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-27-2013, 9:24 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 3,854
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TRICKSTER View Post
^This. AFAIK there is no process in the current law that allows the state to revoke the lawful registration of these weapons.
I think that Trickster is pretty much on point with this.

The DOJ opinion was very badly written. It does conclude that an officer must surrender the AW upon retirement, but provides no basis to file charges against an officer who refuses to do so.

The AW remains registered to the officer following retirement. That precludes any basis to charge the officer for possession of an unregistered AW.

The only real advantage in the AG's Opinion to gun control advocates is that it could provide support for legislation that would allow for revocation of registration upon retirement. That hasn't happened yet, and would likely invite legal action as a government "taking." The prevention of such legal action is the main reason we now have registered AWs.

It's a "cluster" and will likely need a test case to sort out.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-27-2013, 11:03 PM
hbm4's Avatar
hbm4 hbm4 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 449
iTrader: 28 / 97%
Default

best part is, they are drawing a line in the sand with emphasis on retired LEO's and maintaining possession of RAWs, but i havent heard much of private citizens and their continued possession of their pre ban registered AW's
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-27-2013, 11:16 PM
MixedMotives's Avatar
MixedMotives MixedMotives is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Bakersfield,CA
Posts: 239
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

"Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry"
Thomas Jefferson


sorry for being off topic
__________________
laws of the Peoples Republic of Kalifornia are aimed at rendering the citizens into prey.

Last edited by MixedMotives; 07-27-2013 at 11:21 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-27-2013, 11:33 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 3,854
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hbm4 View Post
best part is, they are drawing a line in the sand with emphasis on retired LEO's and maintaining possession of RAWs, but i havent heard much of private citizens and their continued possession of their pre ban registered AW's
Sir,

There's a big difference between the two. Private citizens have been unable to register any AWs since the ban, effectively limiting the number in existence.

LEOs are able to currently purchase AWs, with authorization from their agencies, and are then able to register them. They're the only folks that can effectively acquire newly purchased AWs in the state.

The DOJ opinion only applies to those newly (with department authorization) acquired AWs. LEOs that registered their AWs prior to the ban are not affected.

I doubt (although I could easily be wrong) that you will not see a similar effort to require pre-ban registered AWs to be surrendered. The expense (financial as well as in political capital) of the "taking" litigation would be prohibitive. That's why we have registered AWs in the first place.

The post-ban acquisitions by LEOs are a little different. They supposedly were put on notice that AWs were a strictly controlled item. Their purchase with the agency approval would suggest that their purchase was to support official duties that they no longer perform following retirement. Both points weaken the strength of any potential "takings" claim.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07-28-2013, 12:04 AM
BT JUSTICE's Avatar
BT JUSTICE BT JUSTICE is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: north bay
Posts: 641
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Except that there was no requirement or mention in the code that the weapons be used for law enforcement purposes..."authorized by the deparment to receive the weapon" as I recall. It would be cool to see a Thompson or a FAL used on a felony stop though!
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-28-2013, 2:29 AM
Tubbie's Avatar
Tubbie Tubbie is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 222
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Smile But I was the law once...

Quote:
Originally Posted by MixedMotives View Post
"Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry"
Thomas Jefferson


sorry for being off topic
Translation: What? Just be cause you were once LEO, you think you're entitled to hold on to your toy? Oh, Joe Citizen, do you know how silly you sound right about now?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-28-2013, 5:25 AM
Dutch3's Avatar
Dutch3 Dutch3 is offline
Dirt Farmer
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Butte County
Posts: 11,290
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

It seems like a bad deal, considering firearms purchased by officers with their own funds and registered to them individually rather than to their department are their personal property.

If the requirement is "for duty use", then why wouldn't the opinion also apply to off-roster handguns purchased for duty use? If the officer can keep his handgun at retirement, why not the AW?

Don't get me wrong, I believe the handgun roster and AW registration are unconstitutional and should be repealed. Both are clearly intended to vilify and criminalize firearm ownership by citizens of this state.
__________________
Assembly Public Safety Chair Reginald Jones-Sawyer:
..."and with that I'd like to turn it over to my colleague Loni Hancock, Senate Public Safety Chair, and as I like to say, my partner in crime."

Senate Public Safety Chair Loni Hancock:
"Yeah, we do that quite a lot, actually..."

- Joint Legislative Informational Hearing on Firearms - Newsom Initiative #1756 - May 3rd 2016
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-28-2013, 10:59 AM
MixedMotives's Avatar
MixedMotives MixedMotives is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Bakersfield,CA
Posts: 239
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubbie View Post
Translation: What? Just be cause you were once LEO, you think you're entitled to hold on to your toy? Oh, Joe Citizen, do you know how silly you sound right about now?
oh forst,
did you get lost ? it means the cops, retired cops, government shouldn't have what the people cant have .. was that clear enuffff
__________________
laws of the Peoples Republic of Kalifornia are aimed at rendering the citizens into prey.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-29-2013, 10:05 AM
Poohgyrr Poohgyrr is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sutter's Fort - behind the cannons!
Posts: 279
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
The post-ban acquisitions by LEOs are a little different. They supposedly were put on notice that AWs were a strictly controlled item. Their purchase with the agency approval would suggest that their purchase was to support official duties that they no longer perform following retirement. Both points weaken the strength of any potential "takings" claim.
Depending on when the rifle was purchased and what features it has. After much reading and questioning and lawyer consultations during the Clinton AW ban, CA DOJ told us a rifle with only two (mag and pistol grip) of the five evil features was not an AW per Federal Laws, and we could keep them after retirement. But, even the Shadow doesn't know what evil lurks in the hearts of lawmakers or sausage manufacturers.....

If I still live here after retirement, and they have taken my Bushy, then I will be forced to protect my family from home invasions & violent felons with a CA State approved 870.....

Of course, lots of tests have demonstrated that 223 rounds are much more likely to stop violent felons with only one shot - which also stays inside the violent felon's body - vs many other rounds.......
__________________
John
"Life brings us joys and sorrows alike. It is what a man does with them - not what they do to him - that is the test of his mettle.". T. Roosevelt

Last edited by Poohgyrr; 07-29-2013 at 10:08 AM..
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 3:30 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, 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 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.