AG Opinion re LEOs and AWs

[jdberger]

From the California Attorney General's website:

http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/opinions/pdfs/o564_09-901.pdf

A peace officer who purchases and registers an assault weapon in order to use the weapon for law enforcement purposes is not permitted to continue to possess the assault weapon after retirement.

[ocspeedracer]

HAHAHAHA! wow talk about slap in the face.
So I guess for them, buying an OLL and not registering it, with dept letter head?, is a way to keep it.

[jdberger]

Interesting quote re Heller:

and carry weapons in case of confrontation.

[Barabas]

Very, very clever.

[jdberger]

One more interesting quote:

[OleCuss]

OK, but if the LEO buys and registers the AW for personal defense he/she can keep it after retirement?

How about if the LEO uses it for both work and for self-defense?

I think we can expect much more stupidity from the DOJ now that Kamala is in place.

[Barabas]

There's more here than may be apparent at first reading. Don't write this off as being stupid yet.

[spgripside]

Maybe bullet buttons and 10 round mags will be the new retirement gift of choice.

[wash]

A peace officer who purchases and registers an assault weapon in order to use the weapon for law enforcement purposes is not permitted to continue to possess the assault weapon after retirement.

Could we attack that as an underground regulation?

As far as I know there is no part of the law that expires registrations beside de-registering an off list featured RAW to sell in non-"assault weapon" configuration.

In my opinion duty weapons should be issued, any other registration should be for personal firearms and not contingent on LE employment.

As much as I dislike the distinction between LE and everyone else, we can't have an AG pulling this crap out of her back side.

[Crom]

As much as I dislike the distinction between LE and everyone else, we can't have an AG pulling this crap out of her back side.

No disrespect, but did you even look at it? It was published by Jerry Brown on his last day in office. Also note that it was Sheriff Gore who requested the opinion--not that it really matters anyway.

Now my understanding is that the Silveria v. Lockyer, 2002 (9th Cir) court invalidated a statutory exception with respect to retired peace officers; in they can't purchase AW at retirement time. So I don't even understand why this opinion was even necessary.

[JDoe]

...As much as I dislike the distinction between LE and everyone else, we can't have an AG pulling this crap out of her back side.

The opinion was released Dec. 31, 2010 by Gerry Brown and Diane Eisenberg.

It looks like there is more to this opinion than just answering a question from Sheriff Gore.

[Librarian]

Somewhat more interesting, I think, is the citation in footnote 63 to People v James

In this case, we hold that possession of an assault weapon in California remains unlawful and is not protected by the Second Amendment to the federal Constitution as construed by the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) 554 U.S. __ [171 L.Ed.2d 657] (Heller).

OK, this is not terribly surprising, but run down to the reasoning...

[Kharn]

"Dangerous and unusual" weapons, when the AR15 is the fastest-selling design on the market at the moment? I applaud Brown's decision to hang his hat on that.

[taperxz]

Somewhat more interesting, I think, is the citation in footnote 63 to People v James

OK, this is not terribly surprising, but run down to the reasoning...

Assault weapons are not illegal to have in CA. They just have to be registered.

Illegal and possesion with registration are not one in the same.

[jdberger]

"Dangerous and unusual" weapons, when the AR15 is the fastest-selling design on the market at the moment? I applaud Brown's decision to hang his hat on that.

That might be something that's difficult for the current AG to back out of.

Wouldn't that be wonderful?