Retired LE keeping AW's

[003]

It appears that PORAC has been successful in getting a clean up bill in the works as it relates to retired LE being able to legally keep privately purchased AW.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_2549&sess=CUR&house=B&author=hall

“The bill would also require a peace officer who lawfully purchased
an assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle and properly registered the firearm
in his or her name, as required pursuant to the provisions described
above, and who has honorably retired, as defined, from the law
enforcement agency, to notify the Department of Justice of his or her
change in status and continued ownership of the assault weapon or .50
BMG rifle. The bill would require the notification to include written
documentation from the head of the law enforcement agency from which
the officer retired, or a designee of the department head, stating that the
officer honorably retired from the agency. The bill would require the
Department of Justice to develop a program authorizing a retired officer
to file a “change of status” form for purposes of these provisions, and
to develop and adopt a form for that purpose, and would authorize the
department to charge the retired officer seeking to file that form a fee
covering the reasonable cost of providing this service.”

[FLIGHT762]

Glad to see PORAC is doing something about this even though I'm not affected.
I'm still a retired associate member (RAM) and pay for the yearly LDF coverage.

[Swatter911]

Maybe I'm a little slow on the uptake, but I don't see where "change of status" = keeping my AW after retirement.

Does the status change somehow comport with Silveira?

[003]

The issue this legislation impacts is the AG opinion issued by Jerry Brown on his last day in office as the AG. If you recall the opinion stated that retired LE officers did not have the legal right to keep their personally purchased AW after retirement. This provides a vehicle to do that. Filing a “change of status” from active duty to retired. It allows "continued ownership" after retirement.

[Swatter911]

continued ownership" after retirement.

Thanks, I guess I'm just having a hard time connecting the dots this morning. I've got the AG opinion saved, I'll re-read it and compare it to the text of the bill. I checked PORAC's website and couldn't find anything.

The bill is kind of a mixed bag - possession of a single RAW - but with that we get the status change. The usual suspects in the 2A forum are having a field day with this one.

[003]

Thanks, I guess I'm just having a hard time connecting the dots this morning. I've got the AG opinion saved, I'll re-read it and compare it to the text of the bill. I checked PORAC's website and couldn't find anything.

The bill is kind of a mixed bag - possession of a single RAW - but with that we get the status change. The usual suspects in the 2A forum are having a field day with this one.

Yep - - I read some of the comments on the 2a forum. It does appear that they do not understand the real impact of this bill.

[bcj128]

[/B]
Yep - - I read some of the comments on the 2a forum. It does appear that they do not understand the real impact of this bill.

OK...I'm lost. What does this bill do that will counter the constitutional aspect of Silviera case?

Hey, I want to keep my AR like everyone else, but how can this work?

Why not remove the names section of the AWB and allow us to put bullet buttons on ours to keep them. Just send a letter to DOJ and advise it's been neutered to their satisfaction...

[3S16]

I got a letter from the Dept. from which I retired about the above proposed legislation two week ago. Penal code section 30630. There is quite a bit more to the bill concerning prior registration and even includes a section on .50 cal. rifles. It could probably be found in it's entirety on the PORAC website.
There was a short window of opportunity back in (I believe) 2002 for LEO's to register their assault weapons, that were privately purchased with the Departments approval, with the DOJ through their agency. Fortunately, I took advantage of it.
The Department also sent me a letter after I retired regarding Browns Attorney Generals "opinion" regarding retirees keeping AW's after retiring. They stressed it was an opinion at this point and not a law.

This is why I've remained a PORAC member.

[Bobby Ricigliano]

Are any LEO's actually STAYING in California when they retire? I will be 22349a cvc across state lines immediately upon retirement.

By the way my agency doesn't allow privately owned AW duty guns anyway, but you all that purchased them for work with your own money damn sure ought to be able to keep them.

[Swatter911]

Are any LEO's actually STAYING in California when they retire? I will be 22349a cvc across state lines immediately upon retirement.

You and me both brother. My rifle will proceed me if necessary.

[BigDogatPlay]

OK...I'm lost. What does this bill do that will counter the constitutional aspect of Silviera case?

Because then Attorney General Brown based his opinion on the holding in Silviera. That 9th Circuit opinion held, essentially, that retirees had no rational basis constitutionally on which to stand in keeping their RAWs as their law enforcement purpose would no longer exist once they retired. I am paraphrasing, but that's kind of the gist of it. Sheriff Gore of San Diego County ran with what was in Silviera, asked CADoJ for an opinion and got one, fully in line with the holding in Silviera and with the California Assault Weapon Control Act and it's legislative intent, neither of which has been reversed. silviera likely never will.

Our status as peace officers ends the day we retire, we become just another citizen although one with a concealed carry privilege. The law as originally constructed and as defined by the 9th Circuit indicates that we can possess an issued RAW or own one with our employer's permission for law enforcement purposes. Silviera affirmed exactly that, and the AG opinion restated it plainly.

Hey, I want to keep my AR like everyone else, but how can this work?

It might not... stay tuned.

Why not remove the names section of the AWB and allow us to put bullet buttons on ours to keep them. Just send a letter to DOJ and advise it's been neutered to their satisfaction...

That is potentially Pandora's Box stuff, I think, and across a number of issues that could have far reaching and unintended consequences that the powers that be in Sacramento would probably not like.

Link to the thread in 2A forum on point

[bcj128]

That is potentially Pandora's Box stuff, I think, and across a number of issues that could have far reaching and unintended consequences that the powers that be in Sacramento would probably not like.

Link to the thread in 2A forum on point

I would suggest it may be good to push open the box. Or find a way to exempt the AR-style weapons from the names section, and keep the issue of characteristics for making them AW's. It saves money for the state (who will eventually pay the bill, thats $1000 I don't intend to give them for free in the value of my AR) and it preserves the "equality" issue. Some want this fight to go on to legalize the AR's. But realistically, Sacramento will never give up on their AWB...

[Bodei]

I will have our association send a letter of support for AB 2549, all should do the same.

[Falconis]

As much as I would love to keep my AR hassle free, I would love it even more if this stupid ban was lifted in it's entirety.

[cacop]

As much as I would love to keep my AR hassle free, I would love it even more if this stupid ban was lifted in it's entirety.

So true but I always think in baby steps with this state. First LEOs can buy and register and keep then we can work on OLLs.

In the end if this legislation get my PD to allow personally issued ARs on duty even if I have to truck it across the state line in 10 years I will at least be using MY rifle for the next 10 years not something management has deemed "good enough."

What I really hope for is the AWB to go bye-bye.