Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Sac county deputies charged.

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • #31
    biglou
    Senior Member
    • May 2007
    • 1317

    Why pay a premium to a LEO when you can just buy an off roster single shot exempt ?

    Comment

    • #32
      chief916
      Member
      • May 2012
      • 209

      Originally posted by 9mmepiphany
      The latest word...however it is from the local paper...is that one of the allegations is that the FFL they were using was buying the guns back and then reselling them.

      It doesn't seem like the number of guns was a huge red flag. The investigation has been on-going for a while (2008) and we're only talking about 24 guns each. The bigger flag was that several of the guns have been used in recent crimes...the Daly City stand-off.


      This happened several years ago too. A very nice local FFL had a part time employee who was also a deputy. Unbeknownst to him, the employee was grabbing CDLs and using them from straw purchases. After a long legal battle the FFL only lost his license and the employee turned into an informant for the state


      yep the partner in the business who was doing the side deals was a Sheriff officer.. so of course naturally the other owner didn't think twice to assume anything was going on.
      New to AR-15, lots to learn having alot of fun
      Can build lower parts kits for folks who are unsure...

      Comment

      • #33
        ke6guj
        Moderator
        CGN Contributor - Lifetime
        • Nov 2003
        • 23725

        Originally posted by biglou
        Why pay a premium to a LEO when you can just buy an off roster single shot exempt ?
        how do you know that there was a premium? IIRC, it is alleged that this began before SSE was common. Plus, certain firearms might be hard to SSE or might not have enough expected sales volume to justify the initial SSE creation expenses.

        Depending on how this was done, the FFL could have "legal off-roster handguns" for sale in his case with merely a $25 DROS fee to a roster-exempt person and then having it put back into his case. He could even sell for retail and make a decent profit, even after giving the LEO a few bucks for letting him "use" his badge.
        Jack



        Do you want an AOW or C&R SBS/SBR in CA?

        No posts of mine are to be construed as legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.

        Comment

        • #34
          biglou
          Senior Member
          • May 2007
          • 1317

          Originally posted by ke6guj
          how do you know that there was a premium? IIRC, it is alleged that this began before SSE was common. Plus, certain firearms might be hard to SSE or might not have enough expected sales volume to justify the initial SSE creation expenses.
          From the Sac Bee:

          Investigators said the motive was ancient: money.

          The officers were "making tens of thousands of dollars on these transactions between 2008 and 2011," Benjamin Wagner, the U.S. attorney in Sacramento, said as Jones, Sacramento Police Chief Rick Braziel, Roseville Police Chief Daniel Hahn and District Attorney Jan Scully looked on.

          It reads to me that they are being accused of buying and selling for profit. Of course they must have their day in court. Innocent until proven guilty.

          Comment

          • #35
            Gryff
            I need a LIFE!!
            • May 2006
            • 12690

            The officers were "making tens of thousands of dollars on these transactions between 2008 and 2011,"
            Nothing in that statement guarantees that the "tens of thousands of dollars" were profit. If anything, a modern journalist will use the amount of gross sales rather than profit because it makes for more drama in print.
            My friends and family disavow all knowledge of my existence, let alone my opinions.

            Comment

            • #36
              fizux
              Senior Member
              CGN Contributor - Lifetime
              • Apr 2012
              • 1540

              From the OP referenced article: "law enforcement officials or members of the military who are exempted under the law"

              Are military exempt from this asinine requirement? Or is that the proposed new language?
              Nationwide Master List of Current 2A Cases, courtesy of Al Norris @ TFL.

              Reloading Clubs: SF, East Bay

              Case Status: (Handgun Roster). SF v. 44Mag (Mag Parts Kits). Bauer v. Harris (DROS Fees). Davis v. LA (CCW policy). Jackson v. SF (Ammo/Storage). Teixeira (FFL Zoning). First Unitarian v. NSA (Privacy). Silvester (Waiting Period). Schoepf (DROS Delay). Haynie (AW ban). SFVPOA v. SF (10+ mag possession ban). Bear in Public: Drake (3CA); Moore (7CA); Richards, Peruta, McKay (9CA).

              Comment

              • #37
                Anti-Hero
                Senior Member
                • Dec 2009
                • 1572

                Steroids were also mentioned in an earlier report, but I don't see it mentioned in any of the articles posted here.
                IPSO FACTO

                Comment

                • #38
                  five.five-six
                  CGN Contributor
                  • May 2006
                  • 34925

                  I never understood why only LEs are allowed to have those guns deemed to be "unsafe" by the state

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  UA-8071174-1