Assault Weapons for personal use by LEOs

[CBR_rider]

where have you seen LEOs prosecuted for possessing an unregistered "assault weapon?" I'm not challenging you, I have just never seen or heard of it in CA.

To each their own, I'm not going dispute that an ak-type weapon would work but I'm content with my at Colt for now. I would rather my department by New vehicles over changing my rifle setup.

[Notorious]

Do you have first hand experience? As I've seen some officers were prosecuted for possessing unregistered AR's. LEOSA didn't help them much.

Only case I know of is Drew Petersen and LEOSA got him off with his personal SBR. Wouldn't try it here in CA though.

[Seaweed02]

This is one from my city

where have you seen LEOs prosecuted for possessing an unregistered "assault weapon?" I'm not challenging you, I have just never seen or heard of it in CA.

To each their own, I'm not going dispute that an ak-type weapon would work but I'm content with my at Colt for now. I would rather my department by New vehicles over changing my rifle setup.

This is one from my city of Redding CA. It doesn't specify what the AW were, but I would imagine that since they searched his house, he probably had high cap mags in the weapons in his gun safe. Probably thought there would never be a time when someone else would see them in his safe. As we all know, as soon as you insert a high capacity magazine into an otherwise authorized AK/AR rifle, you have made it into an illegal AW as far as the law is concerned. I don't know what handgun they are talking about, since the same law doesn't apply to handguns, and as LEO he can buy off roster handguns. Here is the link:

http://www.redding.com/news/2012/mar/02/veteran-redding-chp-officer-arrested-weapons-warra/

[FiveSeven]

Chu Vue is another ( before murder charges).
There are a few more, one was Correctional officer in Fresno county, I believe the case was on this site a few years ago (State lost in the jury trial).

[scootergmc]

This is one from my city of Redding CA. It doesn't specify what the AW were, but I would imagine that since they searched his house, he probably had high cap mags in the weapons in his gun safe. Probably thought there would never be a time when someone else would see them in his safe. As we all know, as soon as you insert a high capacity magazine into an otherwise authorized AK/AR rifle, you have made it into an illegal AW as far as the law is concerned. I don't know what handgun they are talking about, since the same law doesn't apply to handguns, and as LEO he can buy off roster handguns. Here is the link:
http://www.redding.com/news/2012/mar...weapons-warra/

Chu Vue is another ( before murder charges).
There are a few more, one was Correctional officer in Fresno county, I believe the case was on this site a few years ago (State lost in the jury trial).

Chu was dismissed, and is a bad example for reference just because of the murder.

I believe Harris (Shasta) was charged and is still pending Court. If anyone has further info I'd like to know.

[RedVines]

One of coco so deputies arrested in that dirty dui scandal was charged with possession of an aw I believe. But again, the aw charge was peripheral(sp?) to the whole investigation. Seems to be the recurring theme.

[CBR_rider]

Interesting... I'll have to see if I can dig anything up on those.

[Seaweed02]

You are absolutely right

One of coco so deputies arrested in that dirty dui scandal was charged with possession of an aw I believe. But again, the aw charge was peripheral(sp?) to the whole investigation. Seems to be the recurring theme.

You are right about it being peripheral in the Harris case here in Shasta County. They obtained a search warrant to search his house because of child pornography accusations. During the search they found the so called assault weapons and added those charges. And like I said they probably found high capacity magazines inserted into the AR/AK rifles in his gun safe, and charged him accordingly because as soon as you insert a high capacity magazine into your legally purchased AR/AK rifle, it is now an illegal assault weapon according to the law.

I buy high cap magazines for all of my weapons just because I can. I use them in my handguns because it is legal to do so. But I don't even keep the high cap magazines for my AR and AK rifles in the gun safe with my weapons. That way they can't even be inserted by mistake, not even in the privacy of my own home. I have them packaged and boxed on a shelf in my garage.

[Rofocale]

so seaweed your saying. if you have hi cap mags that can fit a rifle that accept detachable mags in the same house. that constitutes an assault weapon? or is it only ar/ak weapons? and would that bullet buttons would be irrelevant?

trying to get a better understanding because from the sounds of it. sound likes the manufacture with intent ideaology set off by ATF standards.

like having an ar-15 and m-16 f/a parts could be seen as intent to manufacture a machine gun.

[Notorious]

There is no constructive possession with CA's AWB and you can have them sitting next to each other all day and night, unless you own those particular AW's and large capacity magazines which are possessed and will mate on their own without any human input, in which case, you are screwed.

[RickD427]

There is no constructive possession with CA's AWB and you can have them sitting next to each other all day and night, unless you own those particular AW's and large capacity magazines which are possessed and will mate on their own without any human input, in which case, you are screwed.

Notorius,

Up until January 18th, I think that you would have been entirely correct with the above assessment.

You're absolutely correct that there is no "Constructive Possession" language in California's AWB.

But there is more than one avenue of attack for a dedicated prosecutor to take. On January 18th, the Court of Appeals handed down People v. Nguyen. In that case, the defendant possessed the needed parts to assemble an AW, and had taken some steps toward the manufacture, but at the time of his arrest, possessed only the parts. There was no working weapon. Rather than pursue a "Constructive Possession" argument, the prosecutor successfully argued an "Attempted Possession" argument and won. The Court of Appeals upheld.

[CBR_rider]

I don't buy it that this People v. Nguyen case is such a watershed moment for "attempted possession" or "constructive possession" cases.

#1 Nguyen was a dirtbag as evidenced by his criminal record.

#2 He ADMITTED TO BUYING THE PARTS TO MAKE AN "ASSAULT WEAPON!"

#3 He was lacking the part(s) to make the weapon CA legal.

#4 He never said he intended to make the weapon CA legal.

Thus, it seems like he did, in fact, attempt to make an "Assault Weapon."

[Notorious]

Notorius,

Up until January 18th, I think that you would have been entirely correct with the above assessment.

You're absolutely correct that there is no "Constructive Possession" language in California's AWB.

But there is more than one avenue of attack for a dedicated prosecutor to take. On January 18th, the Court of Appeals handed down People v. Nguyen. In that case, the defendant possessed the needed parts to assemble an AW, and had taken some steps toward the manufacture, but at the time of his arrest, possessed only the parts. There was no working weapon. Rather than pursue a "Constructive Possession" argument, the prosecutor successfully argued an "Attempted Possession" argument and won. The Court of Appeals upheld.

I don't buy it that this People v. Nguyen case is such a watershed moment for "attempted possession" or "constructive possession" cases.

#1 Nguyen was a dirtbag as evidenced by his criminal record.

#2 He ADMITTED TO BUYING THE PARTS TO MAKE AN "ASSAULT WEAPON!"

#3 He was lacking the part(s) to make the weapon CA legal.

#4 He never said he intended to make the weapon CA legal.

Thus, it seems like he did, in fact, attempt to make an "Assault Weapon."

This.

I think the Nguyen case was very fact specific and it can easily be differentiated from anyone else who has a CA legal configured semi-auto rifle but has large capacity magazine kits or legally possessed large capacity magazines. Without statements as to intent or other circumstantial evidence, there is no way you can prove the intent to manufacturer unless the laws are changed to make it a general intent crime that possession of all the parts alone constitute a crime.

[RickD427]

Notorious,

I hope that you prove to be right. The Nguyen case does concern me because the defendant never completed the act and it invites a "where do you draw the line" question.

CBR-Rider correctly points out that Nguyen was a "dirtbag as evidence by his criminal record", but that's irrelevant to the criminal charge. The case holding could equally be applied to an upstanding citizen.

I just hate to see movement away from solid ground.

[Notorious]

Notorious,

I hope that you prove to be right. The Nguyen case does concern me because the defendant never completed the act and it invites a "where do you draw the line" question.

CBR-Rider correctly points out that Nguyen was a "dirtbag as evidence by his criminal record", but that's irrelevant to the criminal charge. The case holding could equally be applied to an upstanding citizen.

I just hate to see movement away from solid ground.

Yes, agreed that the background of the person should make no difference to the police and prosecution as far as the application of the law. However, it does give us some extra motivation to make sure we do get what we can get within the law to put him away, versus being able to use some discretion with an upstanding citizen who got caught up in a bad situation.