AR pistol and LEO (H.R. 218)

[FiveSeven]

(LEOSA H.R. 218). An exemption from state handgun laws.

If a LEO can purchase any handgun with some features that are prohibited (threaded barrel, etc)...
Can this apply to AR pistol since it's considered a handgun/pistol and be exempt from assault weapon law as long as it does not violate other Fed laws such as SBR-AOW?

[mej16489]

A CA LEO isn't exempt from purchasing an Assault Weapon (on his own). That would include a pistol with a threaded barrel or one with a magazine outside the grip. Without department authorization a CA LEO must follow the flowchart http://www.calguns.net/caawid/hgflowchart.pdf for purchases.

However, once the handgun is in the LEO's possession by legal means - its arguable that LEOSA *might* cover the LEO if the handgun is returned to its Assault Weapon status.

A non-CA LEO who brings one in passes the smell test to me a bit more..but I'm not sure.

[Calm Down]

Bless my Sheriff. Custom lower from Fidelis Arms. Model "Deputy Sheriff", DSA (Deputy Sheriff's Association) and engraved with our star.

[FiveSeven]

^
And that's not RAW I assume.

A CA LEO isn't exempt from purchasing an Assault Weapon (on his own). That would include a pistol with a threaded barrel or one with a magazine outside the grip. Without department authorization a CA LEO must follow the flowchart http://www.calguns.net/caawid/hgflowchart.pdf for purchases.

However, once the handgun is in the LEO's possession by legal means - its arguable that LEOSA *might* cover the LEO if the handgun is returned to its Assault Weapon status.

A non-CA LEO who brings one in passes the smell test to me a bit more..but I'm not sure.

You think it's a gray area... I see.
If it's registered as a pistol and if it can be CC then I think it'd be exempt from AW status.

[Notorious]

Leosa covers us for carry but if we buy in state, I assume we are still bound by state law to not manufacture an unregistered aw pistol. The gray areas is if we bought in state in ca configuration then go out of state, put it back in original configuration, then bring it back, then leosa exempts us in that w are protected in carrying any concealable weapon, no?

In any event, I don't want to be the test case.

[9mmdude]

Tag, this is interesting. I have to agree with this:

"However, once the handgun is in the LEO's possession by legal means - its arguable that LEOSA *might* cover the LEO if the handgun is returned to its Assault Weapon status.

A non-CA LEO who brings one in passes the smell test to me a bit more..but I'm not sure."

Does Federal Law trump state law.

[thefiveoh]

Calm down, that is a sweet weapon. What do they cost?

[Notorious]

Federal law absolutely trumps state law to the extent that it is inconsistent. State law can be more expansive or restrictive otherwise.

Here's something I didn't know. Turner's says you can put a vfg on a pistol if it has a rifle barrel on it so they had some AR pistols on display with 11.5" barrels and vfg. You cannot if the barrel is 10" or under.

Then again, they told me Leos are not exempt from the residency requirements.

[FiveSeven]

^
I've seen longer AR pistols at the local shop with VFG, just wasn't aware of 10" requirement and how that one company got away with AFT permission. Interesting.

Are you talking about second paperwork when buying a handgun?
I've seen dealers who absolutely need second prof or res even though just an DL and ID should be enough.

[vintagearms]

^
I've seen longer AR pistols at the local shop with VFG, just wasn't aware of 10" requirement and how that one company got away with AFT permission. Interesting.
.

Had to do with ATF's interpretation of concealability. They honestly make stuff up as they go along.

[Notorious]

^
I've seen longer AR pistols at the local shop with VFG, just wasn't aware of 10" requirement and how that one company got away with AFT permission. Interesting.

Are you talking about second paperwork when buying a handgun?
I've seen dealers who absolutely need second prof or res even though just an DL and ID should be enough.

They wanted me to show proof of residency before they start the ppt. They asked for utility bills, etc.

I know the law says LEO, by virtue of our job, are exempt from having to show second proof of residency.

[FiveSeven]

Should have told them to check the Law.
I had something similar experience. Won't say who the FFL was but he did not want to release the handgun without second paperwork. All I had was expired/outdated vehicle registration renewal paperwork.

I spoke to DOJ afterwards and they asked me who the dealer was and if I wanted them to contact that FFL. I declined their offer.

Anyway. Here is the link you should give to your FFL and if anything, they should know the laws just as much if not better.

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/dlrfaqs.php#33G

34. What proof of residency are peace officers required to provide to the firearms dealer?

Peace officers, including reserve and retired peace officers, may present valid credentials issued by a California law enforcement agency in lieu of the other required residency documentation. This consideration is given to peace officers who do not want to provide documentation of their residence address for security reasons and who otherwise do not object to having their credentials copied by the firearms dealer for inclusion with the DROS record.

(PC section 12071)

[Notorious]

Appreciate it. I'll tell the kid when I pick up my gun. They need to know this stuff.

[003]

I believe a good (and legally convincing) argument could be made that LEOSA - - HR 218 which allows qualified Officers to carry a concealed "firearm" nationwide gives them the ability to possess in California and elsewhere what California defines as an assault weapon.

HR 218 states in part:

SEC. 2. EXEMPTION OF QUALIFIED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS FROM STATE LAWS PROHIBITING THE CARRYING OF CONCEALED FIREARMS.
(a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926A the following:

`Sec. 926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law enforcement officers


`(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).

The specific relevant language in the 2010 revision to the LEOSA (S1132) states:

(e) As used in this section, the term ‘firearm’

(1) Except as provided in the subsection, has the same meaning as in section 921 of this title;
(2) Includes ammunition not expressly prohibited by Federal law or subject to the provisions of the National Firearms Act; and
(3) Does not include
(A) Any machinegun (as defined in t section 5845 of the National Firearms Act;
(B) Any firearm silencer (as defined in section 921 of this title); and
(C) And destructive device (as defined in section 921 of this title).

Now the argument can be made that since Federal law specifically lists those items not allowed; machine guns, silencers and destructive devices and does not use the term handguns, pistols or revolvers, but uses the term “firearm” that all firearms, including California defined assault weapons are allowed.

I have read several arguments that make a good case that says Federal law allows both active and qualified retired law enforcement officers to possess in California what California defines as an assault weapon.

While I have no interest in being the test case, it would be nice to see this issue resolved so that out of state and retired cops can possess AW’s in California.

If anyone is interested in reading the full bill, goggle S 1132: Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act Improvements Act of 2010. Public Law No: 111-272

This was signed into law by President Obama on October 12, 2010.

Click the link to read the full text. http://www.leaa.org/218/218text.html

To add another perspective read the Drew Peterson ruling. LEOSA Ruling in the Context of Officer Felony Weapons Charge. http://www.policelawblog.com/blog/20...ns-charge.html

[mej16489]

I believe a good (and legally convincing) argument could be made that LEOSA - - HR 218 which allows qualified Officers to carry a concealed "firearm" nationwide gives them the ability to possess in California and elsewhere what California defines as an assault weapon.

Its without a doubt an arguable conclusion; its simply not completely settled yet. I think LEOSA clearly exempts possession of concealable firearms. I think it very likely covers possession of things like CA defined 'assault pistols'.

Part of the OPs question was can a LEO simply go to the store and purchase one. I think LEOSA clearly doesn't preempt state law in that regard. The only way a LEO can purchase an, off the shelf, privately owned 'assault pistol' would be via LEO AW registration.

But, it does appear that once a LEO has a legally acquired concealable firearm in his possession that he can probably turn it into an 'assault pistol' without strictly legal ramifications (though 'agency issues' could be a whole other ballgame)