Ca LEO and AWs, after retirement

[Garand1911]

The high cap mag after retirement thread got me thinking/looking for this policy.

The Ca DOJ policy on LEOs with AWs after retirement is ....you are SOL???
Unless the policy has changed, proof?

http://oag.ca.gov/system/files/opinions/pdfs/09-901.pdf

"Is a peace officer who purchases and registers an assault weapon in order to use the weapon for law enforcement purposes permitted to continue to possess the assault weapon after retirement?
CONCLUSION
A peace officer who purchases and registers an assault weapon in order to use the weapon for law enforcement purposes is not permitted to continue to possess the assault weapon after retirement."


We are informed, for example, that DOJ does not revoke the registration of an assault weapon upon the owner-officer’s retirement, nor does DOJ require a peace officer to dispose of or relinquish a registered weapon upon retirement. The Act itself does not address the proper disposition of an assault weapon acquired pursuant to subdivision once a peace officer has retired."

Your thoughts?

[cr250chevy]

I have 3rd or 4th hand info that the DOJ visited a retired Officer who owned a registered AW and they told him he can not own it any longer. I believe they gave him the option to disassemble it and keeps the parts, or transfer it to another Officer. My understanding is he transferred it to another Officer....
*But yet so many on here think LEOs get a full free pass to guns...

[teg33]

Perhaps it's depend on each agency policy. A friend of mine that just recently retired from LASD got a word from his supervisor that he need to transfer his AW upon retirement.

[Spyder]

Our policy is that, upon retirement or separation, we must show proof that the receiver was destroyed, sold, or sent out of state, and if we don't show that proof, the department will "notify DOJ that we may be in possession of an assault rifle."

Which doesn't matter, because it's lawfully registered and possessed. I'm so far from retirement that I'm not worried about it.

[diverwcw]

Course and scope

*But yet so many on here think LEOs get a full free pass to guns...

So true. The vast majority of the time the hall pass LEOs are given with regard to firearms is limited to within course and scope of employment. Outside of employment, they are like everybody else. In some instances DOJ has cracked down on what they believe to be abuses by peace officers. Recently, DOJ required that if a LEO desires to bypass the 10 day waiting period, they must get a letter from the actual head of the agency, not his/her designee, the actual chief of police or sheriff of the county.

[mixicus]

Mandatory disposition, including surrender, of a registered assault weapon upon LEO retirement is not part of any existing law.

CA Attorney General issued an opinion several years ago stating upon retirement a LEO is no longer authorized to possess the AW. AG opinions are given weight but do not, by themselves, carry force of law.

[1911su16b870]

Here is Michel's page on LE AWs for active/retired.

That page has the AG opinion and a redacted DOJ letter to a retired officer to turn that AW in.

[jedi391]

Why not just put a bullet button on it and have the AW registration cancelled? In that power point presentation it says that category 3 weapons can be unregistered if the offending parts are removed.

[Dutch3]

Why not just put a bullet button on it and have the AW registration cancelled? In that power point presentation it says that category 3 weapons can be unregistered if the offending parts are removed.

That certainly makes sense. CA DOJ seems to have a hard time considering anything other than relinquishment/confiscation when it comes to just about everything, it seems.

[RickD427]

All,

We bantered this subject around a couple of months ago. A few points did become more clear the last time we did this.

Here's what we know so far:

1) The law allows LEOs to privately purchase AWs with the authorization of their agency.

2) The law requires those LEOs to register such AWs with the DOJ, resulting in their possession of an RAW.

3) There are two processes by which a person can lawfully possess an AW. The DOJ "Permit" process is currently available to all persons. the DOJ can set individual limits on the use of the AW and it can revoke a permit. The DOJ "Registration" process is currently closed to private persons, but is available (and in fact required for) LEOs with an agency letter. Limits on the use of a registered AW are set by law. There is no authority in statute for the DOJ to revoke a registration.

4) The Attorney General has authored an opinion that LEOs who have acquired AWs under the LEO registration provision may no longer continue to possess then after retirement, or separation from service. That opinion is very notable in that it reaches it conclusion based on reasoned argument, and does not cite a statute that would be violated if the former officer retained possession of the weapon.

What has become clear, thanks to previous threads, is that the DOJ seems to have taken the position that it is empowered to "revoke" an Assault Weapon Registration. If such an authority exists, then a former officer would clearly be in violation of Penal Code section 30600 if they continued to retain their previously registered AW in California.

However, that revocation authority really seems to have been created out of thin air. It's not provided for in the law. The law clearly set up two distinctly different regulatory frameworks for AWs. The "Permit" framework is highly customized and allows DOJ great latitude in regulating individual AWs. The legislature saw fit to provide a revocation authority to this customized framework. The "Registration" framework is just the opposite. It's a "one size fits all" approach. The legislature saw fit not to provide a revocation authority to this structure. I have to think that there was a deliberate reason for the difference.

After a lot of a prior discussion, it really boils down to that one pivotal point - Does the DOJ have the authority to revoke a "Registration"?

The problem in getting that question answered is that we need a volunteer to be the test case.

We have had the benefit of postings by an attorney from Michel and Associates on other threads of similar interest. I know that the firm has an interest in this subject, but the same contributor has been very conspicuously absent from this discussion. I'm writing from the perspective of a retired LEO (but not affected by the discussion. I registered my RAWs as a private citizen when first required). I would like to solicit the views of our attorney members concerning the statutory authority to revoke an AW registration.

[Da_shotcaller]

Here's my take on this thing. The AG opinion is based on the 2002 exemption for peace officer to be able to buy and register an assault weapon with a department letterhead. So technically it should not affect all retired/retiring peace officer that owns a RAW, maybe some but not all. The key is the date you registered it.

1. Retired/retiring LEO who owns a RAW that was registered in 1992 during the 1989 assault weapons ban should not be affected because 2002 exemption does not apply to you. You bought and registered your RAW just like any other civilian did back in 1992.

2. Retired/retiring LEO who owns a RAW that was registered in 2001, SB23 era. It should be the same thing no exemption was used and registered it just like any other civilian.

3. If you used the 2002 exemption and bought and registered let say a Stag, Spike Tactical, Smith and Wesson which is Off List then all you have to do is put a bullet button or run featureless and file a "no longer in possession of assault weapon" to DOJ.

[Poohgyrr]

That matches what we were told when we bought ours; thanks.

[yzErnie]

What irritates me is departments all over this state have developed policies regarding this topic. It was an opinion by the then AG and there is no law which specifically addresses the officer to terminate his possession of a lawfully owned rifle. Prototypical knee buckling reaction by weak management.

[JoeFaz]

So true. The vast majority of the time the hall pass LEOs are given with regard to firearms is limited to within course and scope of employment. Outside of employment, they are like everybody else. In some instances DOJ has cracked down on what they believe to be abuses by peace officers. Recently, DOJ required that if a LEO desires to bypass the 10 day waiting period, they must get a letter from the actual head of the agency, not his/her designee, the actual chief of police or sheriff of the county.

I currently work a "pre-retirement" job for an LE agency within another non-LE agency, and we have no chief, per se. The head of the actual agency knows nothing about LE nor would he even care to even acknowledge our existence if he didn't have to. Consequently, I can not go to him for any sort of letter, but instead have used my supervisor and that has thus far worked out.
Now, I just discovered that as a LEO I do NOT need a letter or anything other than my current sworn ID and DL in order to purchase handgun which is not on the roster. That was [good] news to me as I want to get a couple more off roster concealed carry pieces before I fully retire.

[AdiosKali]

What irritates me is departments all over this state have developed policies regarding this topic. It was an opinion by the then AG and there is no law which specifically addresses the officer to terminate his possession of a lawfully owned rifle. Prototypical knee buckling reaction by weak management.

So true Amigo