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 08-26-2013, 8:36 PM
Calplinker Calplinker is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,613
iTrader: 12 / 93%
Default Question on retired LEO RAW's

Hi. Never been to this sub-forum but have a question. Buddy of mine is retired LEO here in CA. He's been getting letters from CalDOJ asking about his RAW he bought 8 years or so ago with his own money. It was his duty weapon, but he owned it. He retired 6 years ago.

Its registered as a RAW and they keep asking if he still has it. He's not answering but is also a bit spooked about keeping it and is considering selling it out of state.

I'm very knowledgeable about laws that effect average folks, but not retired LEO. He's asking for advice and I really don't know what to tell him other than to just reply to the letter letting them know he still has it and intends to keep it.

He is not entirely trusting CalDOJ and is just tossing the letters. My logic is if they are trying to get retirees to get rid of their AR's they will just tell him this and not do anything stupid or rash. He doesn't seem to give them this much credit.

Any advice for him?????
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-26-2013, 8:48 PM
P5Ret P5Ret is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: SF Ebay
Posts: 2,722
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

That is exactly what they are doing, there is an opinion by the former AG (Brown) that basically says if it was purchased on department letter head, the individual has no rights to it as it is a RAW purchased after the ban. I believe that if he converts it to Ca legal configuration (bullet button) there is no problem, with it. That being said there is no law that requires him to surrender or sell it out of state, just an opinion and those are like ........ well you know the rest.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-26-2013, 9:03 PM
Calplinker Calplinker is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,613
iTrader: 12 / 93%
Default

P5Ret,

Thanks for the reply. I'm well aware of that stupid opinion letter by Brown.

He is as well which is why he is spooked.

Its also a "named" RAW on the original banned list so converting it doesn't help.

He's bummed and I have no advice on what will happen (if anything) should he just keep it.

Crappy situation but he's a family man with grand kids etc., and also not a huge AR fan. It's his only one and if the smart move is to sell it out of state he would be bummed but probably okay with it.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-26-2013, 9:17 PM
P5Ret P5Ret is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: SF Ebay
Posts: 2,722
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

If he isn't a big fan of the platform and not everyone is, and can live with selling it now is the time to sell, he will probably get back what he paid if not more. He can always put the money toward something he likes better anyway, or tuck it away to spoil grand kids with. I don't know how far DOJ will go with it, I haven't heard of them sending letters to retiree's, or at least anyone I know.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-26-2013, 9:34 PM
Calplinker Calplinker is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,613
iTrader: 12 / 93%
Default

Thanks for the reply. He has been getting letters for nearly a year now. Probably 4 or 5 of them. Maybe its because he just tosses them. Who knows.

His inclination is to just sell it out of state or to another officer who is "active". I'll tell him that this may be the best choice if he'd rather not keep it due to the risk. He wants to keep one AR platform, so I encouraged him to just buy a stripped lower soon.

This just seems silly to me, but then again, it is CA...

Appreciate the info.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-26-2013, 9:38 PM
3S16 3S16 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ventura County
Posts: 391
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

If push comes to shove, Buy a stripped lower. Remove the upper and all the internals from the RAW lower and send DOJ the stripped RAW lower. The only illegal Part of his RAW is the empty lower with the "named" logo on it.
Ya , it's stupid, but hey, this is Kalifornia!
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-26-2013, 10:13 PM
scootergmc's Avatar
scootergmc scootergmc is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: On the Sac Co. 99
Posts: 4,109
iTrader: 34 / 100%
Default

He's under no obligation to answer anything. He's in violation of no law. If they show up at the door (and they might) he's under no obligation to let them in or verify anything.

How he ultimately handles it is up to him, but he's being bullied. It is very silly and a complete waste of taxpayer dollars. Keep throwing the letters away. If they show up, tell them to come back with a warrant. Hint- they won't...
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-26-2013, 10:53 PM
CBR_rider CBR_rider is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,644
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

This is the first time I have heard of California DOJ sending these letters out to retired LEO's still in possession of an item that was legal for them to purchase and legally registered to them... I would encourage him to contact his retirement association/past association about the issue. Meanwhile, I'd keep tossing the letters in the shred bin. I'd actually enjoy reading the warrant affidavit or a report that would detail how any LEO could seize the legally registered property in this case... This is a different animal from the usual prohibited persons shenanigans or a firearm possibly in some kind of illegal configuration.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-27-2013, 6:08 AM
mixicus mixicus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 545
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

There is no law that requires him to surrender his legally registered personal property.

If he's not a member already, he (and any retired CA LEO) could benefit from joining the RAM of PORAC. Some of their lead issues, aside from insurance, are in the area of retiree firearms issues (i.e. CCW, HR218,...).
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-27-2013, 11:28 AM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 3,871
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

IANAL, please keep that in mind.

The DOJ opinion was rather horribly written. It concluded that an officer had no right to retain an RAW that was personally purchased and registered after the deadline using the special "LEO only" registration process (Penal Code section 30630). In reaching that conclusion, the author looked closely at the rationale for the law and he made a pretty good argument that the purpose of the law was not served when officers retained their RAW post-retirement. The opinion failed to cite any statute that is violated when a retired officer retains possession of an RAW following retirement.

The problem with the opinion is that all of the good reasoning in the world doesn't create a law that doesn't yet exist, nor does it eliminate a law currently in force.

I'd recommend that taking one diagnostic step, request a listing of currently registered weapons from the DOJ. There is form to do this on their website. Make sure the RAW still appears as registered. If that's the case, continued possession is legal. If for some reason, DOJ has removed the registration, then I carefully check as to the reason they did so. The law does not provide an authority for DOJ to remove registrations.

I'm attaching a copy of the DOJ opinion. I am curious as to how the lawyer members of this forum view the opinion.

Last edited by RickD427; 06-02-2014 at 9:15 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 08-27-2013, 12:30 PM
Garand1911's Avatar
Garand1911 Garand1911 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Occupied Territory
Posts: 1,078
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

My 2 cents.

If he purchased the gun with a Agency Letterhead , then THE AGENCY OWNS THE GUN, even though he paid for it.
If he bought it, and registered to himself, then used it on duty, it belongs to him.
I would just get a new stripped lower with bullet button, and sell the RAW lower out of state, and send cal DOJ a copy of the sales receipt.

Very interesting that Cal DOJ is keeping tabs on RAWs and when a LEO retires. Actually its scary !
__________________
"I saved your life, AND brought you pizza" -- Me
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-27-2013, 12:41 PM
Ron-Solo's Avatar
Ron-Solo Ron-Solo is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 7,855
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garand1911 View Post
My 2 cents.

If he purchased the gun with a Agency Letterhead , then THE AGENCY OWNS THE GUN, even though he paid for it.
If he bought it, and registered to himself, then used it on duty, it belongs to him.
I would just get a new stripped lower with bullet button, and sell the RAW lower out of state, and send cal DOJ a copy of the sales receipt.

Very interesting that Cal DOJ is keeping tabs on RAWs and when a LEO retires. Actually its scary !
No, the agency does not own th gun. That is absurd.

He paid for it, it is registered to him. Period.
__________________
LASD Retired
1978-2011




If You Heard The Shot, You Weren't The Target
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-27-2013, 12:51 PM
Petro6golf's Avatar
Petro6golf Petro6golf is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: The Wastelands
Posts: 1,246
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Keep the gun, don't answer the letters and keep on keeping on. There not going to come to his house with a warrant and the goon squad. Tell DOJ to kick rocks and find someone else to harass If he's that worried about it then burry it in the backyard or something. Tell DOJ he lost it and cant find it and theres nothing he can do about it. Its up to them to prove it.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-27-2013, 1:51 PM
flyer898's Avatar
flyer898 flyer898 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fair Oaks
Posts: 487
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

This really underscores the prime argument against registration: as soon as they are ready they come and take them away.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-27-2013, 2:03 PM
RangemasterP226's Avatar
RangemasterP226 RangemasterP226 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Solano County
Posts: 1,008
iTrader: 59 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garand1911 View Post
My 2 cents.

If he purchased the gun with a Agency Letterhead , then THE AGENCY OWNS THE GUN, even though he paid for it.

That is completely untrue. If you are going to make a claim like that, you better have some proof.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-27-2013, 3:24 PM
e90bmw e90bmw is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Northern Ca.
Posts: 1,227
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garand1911 View Post
My 2 cents.

If he purchased the gun with a Agency Letterhead , then THE AGENCY OWNS THE GUN, even though he paid for it.
If he used his money, then he loaned them the firearm and it is his unless they plan to buy it.

Surrender?? Not.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-27-2013, 3:43 PM
SOAR79 SOAR79 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: LA,IE,SD
Posts: 2,987
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

bullying at its finest
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-28-2013, 10:56 AM
Bobby Ricigliano's Avatar
Bobby Ricigliano Bobby Ricigliano is offline
Mit Gott und Mauser
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: The People's Glorious Republik of Southern Kalifornistan
Posts: 12,899
iTrader: 286 / 100%
Default

This will not happen to me because the time period between my retirement and my relocation out of California will be measured in hours.

**Edit** I don't a RAW anyway. Still leaving immediately.

Last edited by Bobby Ricigliano; 08-28-2013 at 10:59 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-28-2013, 11:33 AM
bluesmoke9 bluesmoke9 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: El Segundo, CA
Posts: 726
iTrader: 38 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mixicus View Post
There is no law that requires him to surrender his legally registered personal property.

If he's not a member already, he (and any retired CA LEO) could benefit from joining the RAM of PORAC. Some of their lead issues, aside from insurance, are in the area of retiree firearms issues (i.e. CCW, HR218,...).
I asked PORAC about supporting a change in the law to allow retirees to purchase high capacity magazines. The silence was deafening.
__________________
If you buy anything because it has "tactical" or "operator" in the name, we probably don't run in the same circles.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-29-2013, 10:37 PM
Garand1911's Avatar
Garand1911 Garand1911 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Occupied Territory
Posts: 1,078
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RangemasterP226 View Post
That is completely untrue. If you are going to make a claim like that, you better have some proof.
Enough Proof?
Absurd ? YES, but so are all kalif gun laws.

"The AP found that some departments allow officers to use the weapons in their off time while others require that the weapons be used only on-duty, although an opinion by the state attorney general issued last year says officers can acquire the guns for any purpose but must relinquish them when they retire."
http://www.scpr.org/news/2011/12/21/...t-weapons-ill/

http://www.calgunlaws.com/wp-content...ult-Weapon.pdf

http://www.calgunlaws.com/wp-content...lt-Weapon1.pdf


http://www.jones-mayer.com/?t=40&an=...mat=xml&p=4102

As such, states the AG, “since the retired officer exemption has been removed from the statute, it is evident that a peace officer to whom an employer-owned assault weapon is assigned pursuant to (f)(1) must return the weapon to the employing agency upon retirement. This conclusion comports with the language of the statute, and is compelled by Silveira.” Financial Expense Incurred by Officer An issue of “fairness” has been raised in the past regarding the fact that an officer has spent his or her own funds to purchase the weapon and the compelled return of it would be unfair. The AG’s Opinion addresses this issue as well.

“[W]e do not believe that the fact that a peace officer may have spent his or her own money to buy an assault weapon under subdivision (f)(2) makes this situation materially different from the issue decided in Silveira. The Silveira case stands squarely for the proposition that the continued possession of assault weapons by retired peace officers does not serve law enforcement purposes and is therefore inconsistent with the legislative purpose of the Act, which is to eliminate the availability of assault weapons generally. The source of funds for the purchase of a weapon is not relevant to the issue of whether its possession may be justified on law enforcement grounds.”

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

At the end of the day ... the guy is in illegal possession of an assault weapon, and he is supposed to dispose of it, why do you think the DOJ is sending him nasty grams ??? They want proof he disposed of it.

Calplinker -- do you really think Cal DOJ gun squad does NOT have your buddy on the APPS list ? and the day will come when they need to build up their numbers of seizures, then they will come knocking on his door.
Or you can listen to all the internet lawyers who say ..."**** the doj and keep it", even though its not their *** on the line.
__________________
"I saved your life, AND brought you pizza" -- Me
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 08-29-2013, 11:11 PM
leok20's Avatar
leok20 leok20 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: NorCAL/Sacramento
Posts: 974
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Just have him
Sell lower or complete out of state. Why risk the trouble he may go through.

California laws are stupid. The games they play are stupid.

But

You play stupid games you win stupid prizes.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-30-2013, 7:06 AM
hitman13's Avatar
hitman13 hitman13 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Pinal County, AZ
Posts: 3,805
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby Ricigliano View Post
This will not happen to me because the time period between my retirement and my relocation out of California will be measured in hours.

**Edit** I don't a RAW anyway. Still leaving immediately.
Good plan, for other reasons besides firearms as well.
__________________
“A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.”
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-30-2013, 10:05 AM
TRICKSTER's Avatar
TRICKSTER TRICKSTER is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Contra Costa County
Posts: 10,759
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garand1911 View Post
Enough Proof?
Absurd ? YES, but so are all kalif gun laws.

"The AP found that some departments allow officers to use the weapons in their off time while others require that the weapons be used only on-duty, although an opinion by the state attorney general issued last year says officers can acquire the guns for any purpose but must relinquish them when they retire."
http://www.scpr.org/news/2011/12/21/...t-weapons-ill/

http://www.calgunlaws.com/wp-content...ult-Weapon.pdf

http://www.calgunlaws.com/wp-content...lt-Weapon1.pdf


http://www.jones-mayer.com/?t=40&an=...mat=xml&p=4102

As such, states the AG, “since the retired officer exemption has been removed from the statute, it is evident that a peace officer to whom an employer-owned assault weapon is assigned pursuant to (f)(1) must return the weapon to the employing agency upon retirement. This conclusion comports with the language of the statute, and is compelled by Silveira.” Financial Expense Incurred by Officer An issue of “fairness” has been raised in the past regarding the fact that an officer has spent his or her own funds to purchase the weapon and the compelled return of it would be unfair. The AG’s Opinion addresses this issue as well.

“[W]e do not believe that the fact that a peace officer may have spent his or her own money to buy an assault weapon under subdivision (f)(2) makes this situation materially different from the issue decided in Silveira. The Silveira case stands squarely for the proposition that the continued possession of assault weapons by retired peace officers does not serve law enforcement purposes and is therefore inconsistent with the legislative purpose of the Act, which is to eliminate the availability of assault weapons generally. The source of funds for the purchase of a weapon is not relevant to the issue of whether its possession may be justified on law enforcement grounds.”

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

At the end of the day ... the guy is in illegal possession of an assault weapon, and he is supposed to dispose of it, why do you think the DOJ is sending him nasty grams ??? They want proof he disposed of it.

Calplinker -- do you really think Cal DOJ gun squad does NOT have your buddy on the APPS list ? and the day will come when they need to build up their numbers of seizures, then they will come knocking on his door.
Or you can listen to all the internet lawyers who say ..."**** the doj and keep it", even though its not their *** on the line.
First, a AGENCY LETTER is required for authorization to purchase a AW, that does not make it property of the department as the registration is in the officers name, not the AGENCIES name. To claim that using a AGENCY LETTER to authorize purchase makes it the property of the agency is absurd. When I used an AGENCY LETTER to buy a duty pistol so I could bypass the 10 day wait, did that make the pistol the property of the AGENCY?

Second, instead of posting newspaper articles and more opinions, please show me the actual section of the law that details the process showing where the DOJ can revoke the registration of a lawfully registered AW.
__________________


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
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 10:25 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.