Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Police officers and SURs

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    fresno, California, USA
    Posts
    210

    Post imported post

    I know peace officers have their rifles that are issued to them that they carry in their squad cars. However, are CA peace officers allowed to privately own a Sport Utility Rifle without it being an OLL or bullet buttoned?

  2. #2
    Regular Member mjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SoCal, , USA
    Posts
    979

    Post imported post

    poothrowingape wrote:
    I know peace officers have their rifles that are issued to them that they carry in their squad cars. However, are CA peace officers allowed to privately own a Sport Utility Rifle without it being an OLL or bullet buttoned?
    Yes there is a methodology for LEOs having an 'assault weapon' but its not blanket permission like for Large Cap Mags

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    34

    Post imported post

    PC 12280....

    (f) (1) Subdivisions (b) and (c) shall not prohibit the possession or use of assault weapons or a .50 BMG rifle by sworn peace officer members of those agencies specified in subdivision (e) for law enforcement purposes, whether on or off duty. (2) Subdivisions (a), (b), and (c) shall not prohibit the delivery, transfer, or sale of an assault weapon or a .50 BMG rifle to, or the possession of an assault weapon or a .50 BMG rifle by, a sworn peace officer member of an agency specified in subdivision (e) if the peace officer is authorized by his or her employer to possess or receive the assault weapon or the .50 BMG rifle. Required authorization is defined as verifiable written certification from the head of the agency, identifying the recipient or possessor of the assault weapon as a peace officer and authorizing him or her to receive or possess the specific assault weapon. For this exemption to apply, in the case of a peace officer who possesses or receives the assault weapon prior to January 1, 2002, the officer shall register the assault weapon pursuant to Section 12285 on or before April 1, 2002, and in the case of a peace officer who possesses or receives the assault weapon on or after January 1, 2002, the officer shall register the assault weapon pursuant to Section 12285 not later than 90 days after possession or receipt. In the case of a peace officer who possesses or receives a .50 BMG rifle on or before January 1, 2005, the officer shall register the .50 BMG rifle on or before April 30, 2006. In the case of a peace officer who possesses or receives a .50 BMG rifle after January 1, 2005, the officer shall register the .50 BMG rifle not later than one year after possession or receipt. The peace officer must include with the registration, a copy of the authorization required pursuant to this paragraph.

  4. #4
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    I think this is the part a some cops try to ignore:

    Required authorization is defined as verifiable written certification from the head of the agency, identifying the recipient or possessor of the assault weapon as a peace officer and authorizing him or her to receive or possess the specific assault weapon.
    CGF was/is working on a "project" where they are collecting info on such LEOs who possess banned rifles without the proper authorization.

    I'd also be curious to know if most departments actually follow the law when issuing an "assault weapon" such as might be found in the cab/trunk of a police cruiser. My guess is that many would cut corners and others might treat those weapons as issued to vehicles, not officers.

    Would be very interesting to see a news agency investigate whether EVERY "assault weapon" possessed by on-duty officers is properly "authorized."

    I also wonder how often "broken" parts are in fact not destroyed, but are smuggled out for assembly into working "assualt weapons." (A buddy of mine told me a story of a guy in his unit who got busted doing this at a National Guard armory.)
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  5. #5

    Post imported post

    Ca_Libertarian,

    LEOs that check out a department owned AR while on duty are in lawful possession the entire time they 'on-duty'. It is the same concept as when the SWAT members are in possession of full-auto weapons. There is no written documentation to say that a particular on duty LEO can possess a specific weapon for a particular time frame during their shift. Once the LEO passes a training and qualification course for a particular weapon, he/she is allowed to carry it.

    The DOJ registration requirements are for a personally owned AR. In most cases the FFL dealer will not sell an AR to an LEO without the required paperwork from his/her agency. I'm sure someone somewhere would bend the rules, but it could have serious consequences for both parties and I haven't heard of any FFL holders being lenient on this matter.

    I know of one LEO that purchased an AR around the same time I purchased mine and he drug his feet completing the DOJ registration forms. The FFL dealer does most of the paperwork, but there was a form the LEO and the agency were required to complete and submit. After a short period of time DOJ contacted him, and his Chief of Police and informed them that the LEO, and the Chief could be facing criminal and/or civil liability if the registration was not completed in short order. Needless to say, it got done.

    In many agencys, failure to comply with this law could cause severe problems for the LEO. In routine work it may not get noticed, but in the event one of my guys shot some one with his/her rifle and it was later discovered he/she was not in legal possession of it, it could get very ugly.

    However, in the event an LEO is comfortable grabbing a department owned AR off the rack each night and trusting his/her life with it, and trusting it will shoot straight, then that person is in lawful possession of that rifle during their shift.

  6. #6
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    ready on the left...ready on the right wrote:
    LEOs that check out a department owned AR while on duty are in lawful possession the entire time they 'on-duty'... Once the LEO passes a training and qualification course for a particular weapon, he/she is allowed to carry it...

    The DOJ registration requirements are for a personally owned AR...

    However, in the event an LEO is comfortable grabbing a department owned AR off the rack each night and trusting his/her life with it, and trusting it will shoot straight, then that person is in lawful possession of that rifle during their shift.
    Citation(s) please.

    I will admit I'm not well-read on this statute or related case law, but from what I've read above, it appears that "possession" by a LEO is only exempted with written permission from brass.

    So, I'd greatly appreciate if you could point me to the specific subsections that give blanket exemption for on-duty possession without written permission.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  7. #7

    Post imported post

    I think the section you listed above is clear enough. I can not speak on behalf of all agencies in the state, but in my department we are required to attend a special training course in order to carry the AR. Once that training is completed a certificate is issued and it provide the written, verifiable permission for that person to posses an AR.

    If the LE does not purchase their own AR, most agencies have several rifles they can check out each day to carry during their shift. Since the LE could, and is likely to grab a different rifle each night, it is not possible to register any particular weapon to each LEO. In some agencies the rifles are assigned to specific cars and they are supposed to stay in the car. For this reason, the department authorization allows the LEO to possess the AR. The rifle he/she is in possession of is lawfully registered to the agency and they have allowed someone to possess it that is lawfully able to possess it.

    I'm not foolish enough to think there aren't a bunch of LEOs that haven't taken the required steps to ensure their personal AR is properly registered to them. I'll bet in most cases it will be a matter of one LEO buying it from another LEO and failing to following up on the paperwork. In those cases, I don't have any sympathy for them, they know the rules and they know the AR topic can be sensitive. However, the LEO that is in possession of a department rifle does not fall into the same requirements as one who possesses their own rifle and I think one's efforts would be better spent looking into the personally owned issue.

    I think it also comes down to the intent of the law. My perception is that the law was intended to affect an LEO purchasing their own AR. Just like the full auto scenario I mentioned earlier. A SWAT operator does not have to obtain a permit or get anything from ATF to possess and use a full auto weapons in his/her duties. However, in my agency, that LEO does not take the weapon home. When the operator is not on duty and using the weapon it stays locked up with the other similar weapons. Therefore, his/her possession is on a limited basis.

    I hope this makes sense.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    The Left Coast, , USA
    Posts
    228

    Post imported post

    The Reader's Digest answer is that LEO's can buy "Assault Rifles" if their chief or sheriff writes them a permission slip and they register the evil black thing with the DOJ.

  9. #9
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    ready on the left...ready on the right wrote:
    I think the section you listed above is clear enough. I can not speak on behalf of all agencies in the state, but in my department we are required to attend a special training course in order to carry the AR. Once that training is completed a certificate is issued and it provide the written, verifiable permission for that person to posses an AR.
    But the section i quoted above doesn't say they can get permission to possess "AN assault rifle"... it says they must have written permission to possess that "specific assault weapon."

    Again, I'm looking for a statute or case law that says the way your department does it is legal.

    In my amateur legal opinion, "specific assault weapon" means the permission slip identifies a unique weapon, such as by listing make/model/SN.

    Perhaps you can check with your department's legal beagles and find out where they get their exemption... or if there's case law refining what is written in statute...
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •