Retired leos and ar-15

[dballie2000]

[esy]

Your friend is wrong.

[CaptMike]

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.

[Bart1015]

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.

[RickD427]

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

[Bart1015]

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/uploads/2011/04/2006-DOJ-Opinion-Re-Peace-Officer-Possession-of-Assault-Weapons.pdf

But then, maybe not...

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/2008-Letter-from-DOJ-to-CA-Sheriffs-and-Chiefs-of-Police-re-Assault-Weapons.pdf

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

Brett

[Yodaman]

Retired leos and ar-15

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.

[RickD427]

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/uploads/2011/04/2006-DOJ-Opinion-Re-Peace-Officer-Possession-of-Assault-Weapons.pdf

But then, maybe not...

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/2008-Letter-from-DOJ-to-CA-Sheriffs-and-Chiefs-of-Police-re-Assault-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.

[priusron]

Do they also have to modify all mags greater than 10 rounds?

[Bart1015]

Yup, Ca. law. Clear as mud.

[code_blue]

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.

[Bart1015]

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

[M1NM]

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.

[RickD427]

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.

[BajaJames83]

all the more reason why the ca aw laws need to be null and federal law trumps the land