LAPD SWAT Kimbers.....

[John1960]

No doubt the LA Times is going to make this into a big deal.
Fascinating reading. How long before the loophole is closed?

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/24/local/la-me-swat-gun-sales-20120825

[rromeo]

Already being discussed, but what loophole are you talking about?

[gesundheit]

John1960 are you saying that hundreds of Kimbers bought for SWAT and being sold for a discount is not a big deal? This is something that LAPD discovered themselvels. LA Times is just reporting what is public knowledge.

Hopefully the full investigation will show nobody engaged in straw purchases for third parties. It would be highly stupid of them to engage in this.

[skyscraper]

One of those guns was recently for sale on gunbroker for over 2k nib.

[trendar5]

Gesundeit, when you say "Kimbers bought for SWAT," it is inflammatory. You are implying that the taxpayers bought those.

[Ron-Solo]

As Trendar stated, these Kimbers were not bought by the Department and then sold. These guns were purchased by individual officers directly from Kimber, via the FFLs in question. Kimber made the guns available to individual LAPD officers. They also made some special for Beverly Hills PD a few years ago with the City badge and logo engraved on the slide. You had to be Beverly Hills PD to buy one. I saw one at a dealer that was handling the transfers. Very nice guns.

Years ago, LASD had a custom 1911 and Ruger Blackhawk commissioned. You had to be a member of the Department to purchase them, and the transfer went thru a specific FFL who agreed to handle the transfer. That was in the 80's, but I still have mine.

If they bought them directly, went thru an FFL, then decided to sell them later, there is probably nothing illegal about the transfer.

If they bought them and then immediately did the transfer, that could be an issue.

[rromeo]

My company has jackets available to employees only. I bought an extra one for my wife. I think that's about the same thing, except I didn't sell the jacket.

[DVSmith]

I heard this on the news this AM. So a manufacturer makes something and restricts sales to a specific group of people. Some of those people buy them from the manufacturer and then re-sell them to individuals that the manufacturer would not sell them to. This happens a bazillion times a day on eBay. What is the big deal?

[skyscraper]

Well it's different with firearms. If the DOJ thinks you purchased them with the intent to sell without a license, they take issue with it.

[BigDogatPlay]

If they bought them directly, went thru an FFL, then decided to sell them later, there is probably nothing illegal about the transfer.

If they bought them and then immediately did the transfer, that could be an issue.

Or... if they bought them in some manner of quantity and re-sold in numbers greater than allowed for PPT within a given year. That would go along way toward dealing without a license and is part of what brought attention to the officers in Sacramento who are currently under charge.

I've bought a few department commemorative or LEO owned duty guns over the years from older guys who didn't want them any more through PPT. I think, though, that with the advent and limitations of the roster driving the demand there is a burgeoning market that smart guys might try to take advantage of. It's silly, to me, that it has come to that, but there it is.

[Ron-Solo]

Yep, one of the Sacto guys sold 38 handguns in one year...

[cacop]

From what the article states the number of guns vs. officers doesn't seem too out of whack. Unless it is only a handful of officers buying and then reselling, then it could be a problem. Of course does this mean that every officer on LAPD SWAT gets investigated for this? The LAPD might have stopped this investigation before they had to explain in court why they were checking every single person's gun purchases. Even though they are police officers, they still do have some rights.

[nick]

I heard this on the news this AM. So a manufacturer makes something and restricts sales to a specific group of people. Some of those people buy them from the manufacturer and then re-sell them to individuals that the manufacturer would not sell them to. This happens a bazillion times a day on eBay. What is the big deal?

The big deal is, apparently, that the scary scary guns are involved.

What bothered me about the whole thing (I heard about it on NPR as well) was that they were investigated, found to be not in violation of any laws or department policies, and then investigated again, after the demand from a city councilman, if I recall correctly. Which sounds like persecution to me. Probably, for touching the evil objects of witchcraft.

Another fun tidbit was when the guest on that radio program, forgot his name, said with trepidation and almost horror in his voice, "The 60 members of the SWAT team bought over 300 guns in 3 years!". That's what, 5 guns per guy in 3 years? It wasn't clear, whether he was talking about these Kimbers, or in general. The way he phrased it, it sounded that they bought over 300 guns in general, not just these Kimbers.

[Falconis]

5 handguns per guy. lets just assume they were all the special kimbers. hell of a deal, they intend to keep 1 or 2 and sell off the other 3 to maybe family members and friends. big deal.

[TrailerparkTrash]

Hey Ron-Solo, my Uncle has an original Winchester '94 that is stamped "LA SHERIFF" on it. He bought it at a silent "Friends of the NRA" auction about 25 years ago. I researched it and found out the dept had some of those lever actions in the 20's and 30's. Sadly, my uncle was never LASD and he won't sell it to me. (pouting.)