Question on retired LEO RAW's

[Calplinker]

Hi. Never been to this sub-forum but have a question. Buddy of mine is retired LEO here in CA. He's been getting letters from CalDOJ asking about his RAW he bought 8 years or so ago with his own money. It was his duty weapon, but he owned it. He retired 6 years ago.

Its registered as a RAW and they keep asking if he still has it. He's not answering but is also a bit spooked about keeping it and is considering selling it out of state.

I'm very knowledgeable about laws that effect average folks, but not retired LEO. He's asking for advice and I really don't know what to tell him other than to just reply to the letter letting them know he still has it and intends to keep it.

He is not entirely trusting CalDOJ and is just tossing the letters. My logic is if they are trying to get retirees to get rid of their AR's they will just tell him this and not do anything stupid or rash. He doesn't seem to give them this much credit.

Any advice for him?????

[P5Ret]

That is exactly what they are doing, there is an opinion by the former AG (Brown) that basically says if it was purchased on department letter head, the individual has no rights to it as it is a RAW purchased after the ban. I believe that if he converts it to Ca legal configuration (bullet button) there is no problem, with it. That being said there is no law that requires him to surrender or sell it out of state, just an opinion and those are like ........ well you know the rest.

[Calplinker]

P5Ret,

Thanks for the reply. I'm well aware of that stupid opinion letter by Brown.

He is as well which is why he is spooked.

Its also a "named" RAW on the original banned list so converting it doesn't help.

He's bummed and I have no advice on what will happen (if anything) should he just keep it.

Crappy situation but he's a family man with grand kids etc., and also not a huge AR fan. It's his only one and if the smart move is to sell it out of state he would be bummed but probably okay with it.

[P5Ret]

If he isn't a big fan of the platform and not everyone is, and can live with selling it now is the time to sell, he will probably get back what he paid if not more. He can always put the money toward something he likes better anyway, or tuck it away to spoil grand kids with. I don't know how far DOJ will go with it, I haven't heard of them sending letters to retiree's, or at least anyone I know.

[Calplinker]

Thanks for the reply. He has been getting letters for nearly a year now. Probably 4 or 5 of them. Maybe its because he just tosses them. Who knows.

His inclination is to just sell it out of state or to another officer who is "active". I'll tell him that this may be the best choice if he'd rather not keep it due to the risk. He wants to keep one AR platform, so I encouraged him to just buy a stripped lower soon.

This just seems silly to me, but then again, it is CA...

Appreciate the info.

[3S16]

If push comes to shove, Buy a stripped lower. Remove the upper and all the internals from the RAW lower and send DOJ the stripped RAW lower. The only illegal Part of his RAW is the empty lower with the "named" logo on it.
Ya , it's stupid, but hey, this is Kalifornia!

[scootergmc]

He's under no obligation to answer anything. He's in violation of no law. If they show up at the door (and they might) he's under no obligation to let them in or verify anything.

How he ultimately handles it is up to him, but he's being bullied. It is very silly and a complete waste of taxpayer dollars. Keep throwing the letters away. If they show up, tell them to come back with a warrant. Hint- they won't...

[CBR_rider]

This is the first time I have heard of California DOJ sending these letters out to retired LEO's still in possession of an item that was legal for them to purchase and legally registered to them... I would encourage him to contact his retirement association/past association about the issue. Meanwhile, I'd keep tossing the letters in the shred bin. I'd actually enjoy reading the warrant affidavit or a report that would detail how any LEO could seize the legally registered property in this case... This is a different animal from the usual prohibited persons shenanigans or a firearm possibly in some kind of illegal configuration.

[mixicus]

There is no law that requires him to surrender his legally registered personal property.

If he's not a member already, he (and any retired CA LEO) could benefit from joining the RAM of PORAC. Some of their lead issues, aside from insurance, are in the area of retiree firearms issues (i.e. CCW, HR218,...).

[RickD427]

IANAL, please keep that in mind.

The DOJ opinion was rather horribly written. It concluded that an officer had no right to retain an RAW that was personally purchased and registered after the deadline using the special "LEO only" registration process (Penal Code section 30630). In reaching that conclusion, the author looked closely at the rationale for the law and he made a pretty good argument that the purpose of the law was not served when officers retained their RAW post-retirement. The opinion failed to cite any statute that is violated when a retired officer retains possession of an RAW following retirement.

The problem with the opinion is that all of the good reasoning in the world doesn't create a law that doesn't yet exist, nor does it eliminate a law currently in force.

I'd recommend that taking one diagnostic step, request a listing of currently registered weapons from the DOJ. There is form to do this on their website. Make sure the RAW still appears as registered. If that's the case, continued possession is legal. If for some reason, DOJ has removed the registration, then I carefully check as to the reason they did so. The law does not provide an authority for DOJ to remove registrations.

I'm attaching a copy of the DOJ opinion. I am curious as to how the lawyer members of this forum view the opinion.

[Garand1911]

My 2 cents.

If he purchased the gun with a Agency Letterhead , then THE AGENCY OWNS THE GUN, even though he paid for it.
If he bought it, and registered to himself, then used it on duty, it belongs to him.
I would just get a new stripped lower with bullet button, and sell the RAW lower out of state, and send cal DOJ a copy of the sales receipt.

Very interesting that Cal DOJ is keeping tabs on RAWs and when a LEO retires. Actually its scary !

[Ron-Solo]

My 2 cents.

If he purchased the gun with a Agency Letterhead , then THE AGENCY OWNS THE GUN, even though he paid for it.
If he bought it, and registered to himself, then used it on duty, it belongs to him.
I would just get a new stripped lower with bullet button, and sell the RAW lower out of state, and send cal DOJ a copy of the sales receipt.

Very interesting that Cal DOJ is keeping tabs on RAWs and when a LEO retires. Actually its scary !

No, the agency does not own th gun. That is absurd.

He paid for it, it is registered to him. Period.

[Petro6golf]

Keep the gun, don't answer the letters and keep on keeping on. There not going to come to his house with a warrant and the goon squad. Tell DOJ to kick rocks and find someone else to harass If he's that worried about it then burry it in the backyard or something. Tell DOJ he lost it and cant find it and theres nothing he can do about it. Its up to them to prove it.

[flyer898]

This really underscores the prime argument against registration: as soon as they are ready they come and take them away.

[RangemasterP226]

My 2 cents.

If he purchased the gun with a Agency Letterhead , then THE AGENCY OWNS THE GUN, even though he paid for it.

That is completely untrue. If you are going to make a claim like that, you better have some proof.