LEOs and high capacity AR magazines

[IBJanky]

Can LEOs use 30-rd PMags with their personally owned AR type rifles? (with bullet button installed of course)

I know they are exempt and can use high capacity handgun magazines, but not sure about rifle magazines.

Thanks in advance.

[edwardm]

An LEO, with proper authorization can (for now) personally purchase an assault weapon with departmental blessings and do with it what they want - that includes using standard capacity magazines.

Assuming the rifle in question is NOT a registered AW, putting a fixed magazine with capacity > 10 rounds in a semiauto, centerfire rifle constitutes manufacturing an assault weapon:

30515. (a) Notwithstanding Section 30510, "assault weapon" also
means any of the following:
...
(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine
with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

[yzErnie]

By definition, no they can't.

[CalCop]

Can LEOs use 30-rd PMags with their personally owned AR type rifles? (with bullet button installed of course)

With bullet buttoned weapon, only 10 rounders or less are allowed to be inserted into the gun, even though the LEO is allowed to purchase and own 30 round mags for his non bullet buttoned weapons.

If a LEO has a non-registered featureless AR type weapon, with a regular mag release, he can put any 30 rounder he wants in it. But so could any citizen who owns 30 rounders.

[Bobby Ricigliano]

All my legally owned 30 round magazines go into my legally owned and legally configured featureless rifles.

With the exception of being able to buy assembled hi cap magazines and access to off roster handguns, the rules are the same for LEO as for everyone else.

Some agencies give out the coveted 'letter' to buy a RAW, but mine doesn't.

[CalCop]

the rules are the same for LEO as for everyone else.

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/leosiss.pdfhttp://www.policelawblog.com/blog/20...ns-charge.html
(The weapon was a modified Colt Sporter AR-w/ a barrel less than 16 inches in length)

So, even case law has determined LEOSA exempts LEOs from state firearms bans. LEOSA says a qualified LEO can possess and carry any firearm other than a machine gun. This effectively exempts LEOs from the CA AWB.

[IBJanky]

That was the case before LEOSA became law. Now, a LEO is protected by LEOSA from prosecution for possession of state-defined illegal firearms. See below.


• During LEOSA arguments, Rep. Scott offered an amendment to limit the weapons an officer could carry in other States to exclude semiautomatic assault weapons. This amendment was defeated by a vote of 13 yeas to 19 nays. (H.R. Rep. No. 560, 108th Cong., 2nd Sess. 2004 pg. 64-67)
• During LEOSA arguments, it was argued, “If Congress enacts this legislation (LEOSA), police chiefs will be stripped of their authority to tell their own officers, for example, that they cannot bring guns into bars while off-duty; that they cannot carry…certain shotguns, rifles, or handguns….” (H.R. Rep. No. 560, 108th Cong., 2nd Sess. 2004 p. 85.) (since LEOSA was passed and is law, this is a reality.)
• CA DOJ says, “An active officer can qualify with a pistol and carry an assault weapon. Doing so may violate departmental policy, though. http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/leosiss.pdf
• In the case of People v. Drew Peterson, Case No. 08 CF 1169 (Oct. 1, 2010), by Judge Richard Schoenstedt of the 12th Judicial Circuit of the State of Illinois. Question: Whether or not the defendant, a police officer, could be charged with felony unlawful use of a weapon given the implications of the Federal LEOSA legislation passed into law in 2004. Will County prosecutors in May of 2008 had charged Mr. Peterson with felony unlawful use of a weapon, contending he had illegally modified the rifle by shortening the barrel. Judge Schoenstedt said LEOSA precluded charging the defendant with the felony weapons charge. In his opinion, the judge wrote that:
“The defense argues simply that "LEOSA" applies to any firearm not specifically excluded (by LEOSA) whether or not that firearm is illegal by State law. The State's position is that "LEOSA" only applies to firearms that are legal by state law. The State argued that factors including concealed carry; possession; privately owned vs. department issued; and illegal firearms are not covered by "LEOSA" and are important considerations in their favor…[The judge found that] the intent of LEOSA is to allow qualified law enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms, so that if the need arises, such an officer may unconceal; show; and ultimately use his weapon. LEOSA does not provide definitions as to the issue of carry or concealment, including whether it is permissible to have the weapon in a case, holster, waistband, and so forth. Similarly, LEOSA does not indicate that the size of the weapon is a factor in determining whether it can be concealed and carried. In fact, machine guns are typically larger than handguns and the machine gun is the only true firearm excepted from LEOSA…Under LEOSA, there is no distinction found by this Court that would treat a qualified law enforcement officer differently whether he possessed a firearm while on duty or off duty. The protection provided by LEOSA is simply not reduced or eliminated because an otherwise qualified officer fails to obtain permission from his department to use the weapon; or to arrange to have that weapon issued by his department…The State is essentially requesting this Court to assume or infer that the drafters intended to provide immunity only for State sanctioned weapons. In fact, it is possible to assume or infer the opposite in part because the evidence here shows that under different circumstances the officers of the Bolingbrook Police Department would have been able to possess and conceal carry this very weapon…Regardless, at trial it is the State's burden to prove each element of the offense charged. By these findings, it would be impossible for the State to do so. The defense's renewed motion to dismiss is granted.” http://www.policelawblog.com/blog/20...ns-charge.html
(The weapon was a modified Colt Sporter AR-w/ a barrel less than 16 inches in length)

So, even case law has determined LEOSA exempts LEOs from state firearms bans. LEOSA says a qualified LEO can possess and carry any firearm other than a machine gun. This effectively exempts LEOs from the CA AWB.

Thanks! This is great info!

This pretty much opens up all kinds of options to LEO personnel.

[Rockit]

That was the case before LEOSA became law. Now, a LEO is protected by LEOSA from prosecution for possession of state-defined illegal firearms.

LEOSA says a qualified LEO can possess and carry any firearm other than a machine gun. This effectively exempts LEOs from the CA AWB.

Interesting......This been tested yet?

[Ron-Solo]

Interesting......This been tested yet?

Nope. Who wants to be the test case?

[ke6guj]

Interesting......This been tested yet?

Drew Peterson used LEOSA to get an IL-state SBR charge tossed. So, it has been successfully used, but that does not mean that it would work in CA.

[Rockit]

that does not mean that it would work in CA.

Guess I should have been more specific.
What is the general consensus of the legal eagles?? This hold water in CA?

[RickD427]

Guess I should have been more specific.
What is the general consensus of the legal eagles?? This hold water in CA?

IANAL - Just been an LEO for a long time and trying to stay on top of case law for a longer time. Please keep that in mind.

If I were a betting man, I think the LEOSA argument would ultimately prevail in California. The Peterson case isn't authoritative here. It was an Illinois state case, but the issues in the case were quite simple, and the issues are the same here in California.

There is a relative dearth of case law concerning LEOSA. To get a published case, you need a conviction and an appeal. To get a conviction, you need a D.A. to file charges. That doesn't often happen when there's only a minor violation of the law by an LEO (Remember that Drew Peterson from the Illinois case is currently awaiting trial on capital murder charges). The only "interesting" California LEOSA case, that I know of, is where San Fernando PD arrested an enlisted Coast Guard member for CCW. The court found that LEOSA permitted the Coastie to carry.

There is also an interesting LEOSA battle being set up in Hawaii. The state law there purports to limit carry under LEOSA. I'm waiting to see how that shakes out.

But I'm not a betting man. I'm with Ron-Solo on this one. I would not want to be the California test case. It's simply too expensive - even if you do win.

[BigStiCK]

Hmmmm, interesting. From the research i'm doing, seems as if a non-bullet buttoned SBR may be a possibility.

Hmmmmmm........

[ke6guj]

Hmmmm, interesting. From the research i'm doing, seems as if a non-bullet buttoned SBR may be a possibility.

Hmmmmmm........

one way to find out, at least for the SBR part, would be for an LEO to get his CLEO to sign off on a SBR Form 1 and send it in. If the NFA branch inquires about the lack of the DW permit, point to LEOSA and see if they will approve it. ATF won't approve the Form 1 in violation of state law. If LEOSA exempts an LEO from CA's SBR law, then ATF would be able to approve the Form 1.

[CalCop]

I agree with Ke6guj that this has only been tested and won in Illinois. However, the same basic details apply, so a CA LEO with an unregistered assault rifle would, in my opinion, clearly prevail.