Retired LE keeping AW's

[BigDogatPlay]

My registration letter doesn't say "for law enforcement purposes", nor did my Chief's letter, and I don't see anything in the PC that specifies an exemption "for law enforcement purposes".

They don't have to. Check out Silveira v. Lockyer and the Attorney General's Opinion that started this all. They refer back to the legislative intent, which was clear that the weapons were being allowed to be transferred for law enforcement purposes. And language which enabled retirees to keep their RAW was struck from the final bill that the legislature voted out. I would guess that they understood there might be an equal protection issue if they spelled it out so they left it unsaid for the court and the attorney general to later interpret.

Even if PORAC doesn't get their bill passed, it seems to me that the antis will need to pass legislation to allow de-registration of assault weapons. I don't see any provision under current PC statutes that could apply when the AW was properly registered.

I've never seen one either... but that doesn't mean that CADoJ could not seek de-registration through adoption of administrative rules. Remember that the basis of much of the OLL with evil features movement is based on regulatory definitions on top of the Penal Code. With Silveira and the AG opinion backing such an action up, that might be far easier to achieve than you think. The ability of certain classes of peace officer to personally purchase and register an identified AW is an exception under the law. Exceptions are the easiest thing in the world to close down on, quite often, particularly when there is a good deal of material in the record that would support such a closure.

An AG, such as the current incumbent who couldn't give two spits for any cop anyway -- which has been well proven already from her time as DA of San Francisco County, would / could run such a regulatory change through faster than she could break wind.

Not saying what will happen, rather what could happen. But if PORAC is successful in jamming through this legislation, they will have opened the door to a huge equal protection issue that will (IMO) ultimately destroy the AWB.... not such a bad result from my perspective, but a major PITA for good, honest cops in the interim.

[warkaj]

But if PORAC is successful in jamming through this legislation, they will have opened the door to a huge equal protection issue that will (IMO) ultimately destroy the AWB.... not such a bad result from my perspective, but a major PITA for good, honest cops in the interim.

And that's exactly what should happen, when you retire as a cop you are no longer a cop, you are a civilian and you should have to deal with the same crap laws that the civ's do. I see that's the only way anyone is going to care... going back to the "first they came..." quote.

[BT JUSTICE]

If it was up to me, anybody who can be trusted to buy a gun should be able to carry one, especially those in military service. And as far as I'm concerned, a gun is a gun is a gun, regardless of how scary it looks. Any legislative efforts to categorize guns on a heirarchy of their percieved dangerousness is a waste of time. We'd do better as a society to focus on identifying and monitoring those who prove untrustworthy to have or carry any gun.

[warkaj]

If it was up to me, anybody who can be trusted to buy a gun should be able to carry one, especially those in military service. And as far as I'm concerned, a gun is a gun is a gun, regardless of how scary it looks. Any legislative efforts to categorize guns on a heirarchy of their percieved dangerousness is a waste of time. We'd do better as a society to focus on identifying and monitoring those who prove untrustworthy to have or carry any gun.

I get you, I understand where you're coming from but by "identifying and monitoring those who prove untrustworthy to have or carry any gun" does that not open the door to corruption? If you look at it from a purely Constitutional stance, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, is that not infringing?

I shouldn't need a permit to carry a gun, I shouldn't need a background check to buy a gun, no one should. Yet I have to show an ID to buy a gun and I can only buy 1 handgun a month but I don't have to show ID to vote and I can apparently do that as many times as I feel like it in one day with a phone book in hand. As we've seen you can cause much more damage by allowing those not permitted to vote the ability to do so... don't think a gun has cost us $5 trillion dollars in damages like an election has.

Here's food for thought on "identifying and monitoring those who prove untrustworthy to have or carry any gun"...

[jdberger]

Hey Andrew, wanna calm down a bit?

I don't know what your thread entailed, or why you decide it's ok to come in here and rant and rave about anything at all. [/B]

<snip>

This is a forum, isn't it? Discourse is the raison d'etre, no?

CollinsWorld English Dictionary
forum (ˈfɔːrəm)

— n , pl -rums , -ra
1. a meeting or assembly for the open discussion of subjects of public interest
2. a medium for open discussion, such as a magazine
3. a public meeting place for open discussion

[BT JUSTICE]

Warkaj, I agree completely; we should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. That logic should apply when considering whether or not a person ought to carry firearms. We have plenty of people wandering the streets who prove (repeatedly, and beyond a doubt) by their actions that they shoudnt have guns, but there's no mechanism to keep guns out of their hands. When you demand uninfringed rights for everyone, including crazies, felons and dopers, you're just asking for an movement to repeal the whole second amendment.

[Falconis]

and if you bother to read the forum description or the rules, well you would know there are rules here JD. Like it has been pointed out to soo many others, 1A isn't the free for all here. Most everyone else can follow the rules, I don't see why the few have to try and piss on everything. I don't mind Anddew coming in here and pointing out flaws and criticizing whatever needs to be criticized. But to come in here and rant and rave that all the cops here are part of the problem as he suggests in a bit insulting.

Much like you coming in here and ranting and raving that things will go one way if we all do X, Y, or Z, and then insinuating other things after we all point out the flaws in your plan. Or coming in here to give us english lessons when I don't think any of us need them. Most of us avoid the OT section for good reason and I think most of us would like to see this section NOT turn into the OT forum.

I'm sure you would love it if I showed up to your office and discussed gun politics with you?

But back to andrew, hey there is only so much we can do and we all here do what we can. I for one have spoken to my union rep, and I can tell you that I have no idea where that conversation will lead in the future. My comment in us trying to keep our property is exactly that. A person trying to obtain their lawfully obtained property. But if it gets confiscated in the grand scheme of things to further a cause, oh well. I'm just going to make it as difficult as possible. I am sure you can understand that. I am sure you would do the same if you were in my shoes.

As to the rest of us trying to influence politics, you're talking about an uphill battle while carrying a 100 gallons of water. You get what I am saying there? I don't know what you think we can do individually, since almost all the cops here probably spread out to around atleast 50 agencies or even more. In fact, aside from what you have mentioned above, what would you have us do? A lot of us have talked to various people of importance. It hasn't gotten anywhere. A lot of us were probably way too young when some of the asinine laws went into effect to do anything about them. At the very least, our voices were thrown in with yours when we protested. You can yell and scream at cops all you want, at the end of the day all it does is divide us and doesn't bring us any closer to a resolution.

Also, to the whole prohibited person thing, I think that is just something we may inherently disagree on. Although I believe there are people who should never own or be able to touch a gun again, there are quite a few others who vehemently disagree in whole or in parts.

[Patrick Aherne]

Anytime anyone whips out the Nazi quotes, that's when I know they're not worth listening to.

[BigDogatPlay]

If it was up to me, anybody who can be trusted to buy a gun should be able to carry one, especially those in military service. And as far as I'm concerned, a gun is a gun is a gun, regardless of how scary it looks. Any legislative efforts to categorize guns on a heirarchy of their percieved dangerousness is a waste of time. We'd do better as a society to focus on identifying and monitoring those who prove untrustworthy to have or carry any gun.

You and I agree completely on these points. In my career as a LEO I never once feared a law abiding citizen who chose to own a firearm. I still don't... I wish more LEOs working now shared my outlook. Thankfully those who post here do.

[bluesmoke9]

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.

If I can ask, what does being a retired associate PORAC member have to do with anything?

[TRICKSTER]

If I can ask, what does being a retired associate PORAC member have to do with anything?

Because by being a member, we are kept in the loop and informed when bills like this, which effect retired, LEOs are proposed.

[Disgruntled Gunny]

I would love to see this amended to include honorably retired military members who had RAWs covered by their Military AWP.

[Falconis]

I would love to see this amended to include honorably retired military members who had RAWs covered by their Military AWP.

I would to. Would love it even more if the whole thing was abolished though.

[3S16]

Exactly. Thanks Trickster.

Technically, it's R.A.M. (Retired Associate Member)