PDA

View Full Version : Retired California LEO's and "Assault Weapons" question?



Mark
05-12-2014, 10:19 PM
I am kicking around the idea of picking up an AR. I had thought that once I retire in would have to give up a standard commercial AR. Based on this I figured I would buy one with the bullet button that I know I would be able to keep post retirement and for duty use I would carry a department issued AR. I would prefer my own for carry as I could set it up exactly as I want, but I can't justify that outlay of funds if it really doesn't belong to me since having to turn it in at retirement means it effectively was never mine. Today I talked to a buddy who mentioned he was buying one for duty use. I mentioned my concerns to him and he said he called CAL DOJ and they told him that as of now he would be able to keep it as is post retirement. I googled this and I can't find anything beyond a 2011 AG opinion that LEO's could not keep a standard (non-bullet button) AR.

Anyone with any current insight on this issue?

Suvorov
05-13-2014, 12:26 AM
I am kicking around the idea of picking up an AR. I had thought that once I retire in would have to give up a standard commercial AR. Based on this I figured I would buy one with the bullet button that I know I would be able to keep post retirement and for duty use I would carry a department issued AR. I would prefer my own for carry as I could set it up exactly as I want, but I can't justify that outlay of funds if it really doesn't belong to me since having to turn it in at retirement means it effectively was never mine. Today I talked to a buddy who mentioned he was buying one for duty use. I mentioned my concerns to him and he said he called CAL DOJ and they told him that as of now he would be able to keep it as is post retirement. I googled this and I can't find anything beyond a 2011 AG opinion that LEO's could not keep a standard (non-bullet button) AR.

Anyone with any current insight on this issue?

CalGuns is probably your best bet for up to the date information like this. AFAIK - there has been no change in policy. While I don't doubt your buddy's veracity - DOJ phone answerer's have been known to give bad information before. Unless you get a piece of paper with Lady Kamila's signature on it saying you can keep your rifle after you retire, I would count on loosing it. I know that some folks have looked into buying an off list rifle and making it California legal upon retirement - I don't know if they were able to do it or not. Once again, CalGuns would be your best source of information. You could always buy and "hope" that things change before retirement.

Best luck.

ST911
05-13-2014, 08:25 PM
I would prefer my own for carry as I could set it up exactly as I want, but I can't justify that outlay of funds if it really doesn't belong to me since having to turn it in at retirement means it effectively was never mine.

I don't know about CA exemptions for retirees. But... If you buy a restricted item under a LE exemption you are the owner not the agency. When you no longer qualify for the exemption, you dispose of it through a legal channel. You could surrender it, but the agency is not entitled to it.

An unfortunate number of CLEOs believe that the letterhead imparts ownership, or at least more agency control than it does.

Dagga Boy
05-13-2014, 11:56 PM
I've been through this.......including making the midnight run out of California with a truck full of rifles after the AG "look, you're a retroactive felon" decision.

First-Anything from DOJ, ask for a letter.........which you won't get, and they are VERY good for changing their minds, and giving out different info depending on who you talk to. Kamila Harris is a rampant gun hater of the highest order, and is will do anything she can get away with when it comes to making all of California a "gun free zone".....and there is no "individual LEO exemption" in these peoples minds.

Second-Be very leery of Calguns. They are usually applauding LEO's getting treated like everyone else. Guys like me were making a big stink about that AG decision that if they could pull off making a test run at making LEO's retro-active felons, guess who was going to be next..........not only deaf ears, but a whole lot of applauding and they have been very Pro-Moonbeam in the past.

Third-The info I was given was that once I had complied with all current laws and legally registered all of my stuff as "Assault Weapons", even if I put bullet buttons in the off list guns and put them into a legal configuration, they could not be "Un-assault rifled".

Several Questions to ask yourself. If you buy and pay for the gun, have it sent to the P.D. and placed into their inventory and then have it issued to you, is this a good move? I did this with a bunch of my guns. It gets you out from under DOJ/BATFE scrutiny as the PD. is the actual owner of the gun and it becomes a simple issue service weapon. Could you loose it in the long run at retirement with law changes (or administration has changed)....sure, but if you get a couple decades of problem free service without the headaches of crossing someone with a hard on for LEO's with AW's (ask me how I know about this) that could end up costing you your job, this may be a good route. Especially if you are smart and leave California for a free state when you retire and have the gun sent there. Worse case scenario....if they won't transfer it to you, keep all your "accessories" and all you have lost is a lower receiver.

Is having a bullet buttoned legal configuration gun that is then be converted back and forth in configuration worth the potential hassle if somebody either mis interpreted the laws, or if you goof up, or they change the "rules" or have a "decision" that changes what is okay and what isn't. A compromise of both may be to buy a legally configured gun, remove the upper and put the lower away, and then buy another lower unit for the agency to issue you and at worse, you may lose that lower someday, but for the time being you are using an agency owned lower. Also, you may check to see if they have some DRMO M16's that you could use the lower from with an up to date configured upper for issue for duty use.

I usually recommend to simply tread as light as possible on this stuff, because I had the misfortune of dealing with both DOJ and BATFE, and they are not your friends or allies. Luckily, I knew the actual laws better than those I was dealing with, or it could have gone horrendously bad. The problem with a lot of this is it is all very poorly written laws, rulings, and decisions. They are always in flux, and one mistake can cost you your job, freedom, or both.

Also, guys like Skintop above are trying to give you solid advice........unfortunately, when it comes to California, nothing is as it would seem.

ST911
05-14-2014, 10:14 AM
Several Questions to ask yourself. If you buy and pay for the gun, have it sent to the P.D. and placed into their inventory and then have it issued to you, is this a good move? I did this with a bunch of my guns. It gets you out from under DOJ/BATFE scrutiny as the PD. is the actual owner of the gun and it becomes a simple issue service weapon. Could you loose it in the long run at retirement with law changes (or administration has changed)....sure, but if you get a couple decades of problem free service without the headaches of crossing someone with a hard on for LEO's with AW's (ask me how I know about this) that could end up costing you your job, this may be a good route. Especially if you are smart and leave California for a free state when you retire and have the gun sent there. Worse case scenario....if they won't transfer it to you, keep all your "accessories" and all you have lost is a lower receiver.

How common is that?

That would indeed create agency ownership and be a possible solution. Leaving the stripped receiver behind upon separation would also minimize loss and seemingly be compliant. Or, it IS California. :)

Dagga Boy
05-14-2014, 12:57 PM
How common is that?

That would indeed create agency ownership and be a possible solution. Leaving the stripped receiver behind upon separation would also minimize loss and seemingly be compliant. Or, it IS California. :)

I recommended it to a lot of my guys, and most followed the advice. I used to tell them that in 25-30 years when they retire they will really want their plasma rifle in the 40 watt range, and that AR15 will be like how I felt about my S&W model 15. They kept my old 15 (that was a complete piece of crap) and when it came time to take my $1 retirement guns it was a Glock 17 that was my last patrol gun, and my last USP45 SWAT pistols.

The agency owned guns saves a TON of headaches with ever changing laws, and the California favorite "rule" or "opinion" changes. Again, the worst you lose is a lower. The agency also liked doing things that way as they had no cash outlay, the guys took GREAT care of "their" guns versus what they did to the armory guns, and it gave the agency some control over keeping the guns from officers fired for criminal level reasons with cause. Nothing like terminating a guy for serious issues and he still has a registered AR on the agency letterhead. If something goes bad with that gun it could cause HUGE backlash for everyone.

saints75
06-09-2014, 09:27 PM
As a CA LOE I can tell you that you can keep your AR after you retire. You will need to put a bullet button on it. You will need to take a picture of the bullet button on the rifle and send it in to DOJ. I know, it !@#$ stupid. I had this talk last year when I was at Rangemaster school. Several agencies were talking about this and lead instructor explained it to the class. The instructor also told us that DOJ hires people with no sense of humor and they will not think it is funny if you switch it the bullet button back to mag release button. He told they take that pretty seriously. I hope his helped.

Chuck Haggard
06-10-2014, 08:47 AM
So glad I live in a free state.

pablo
06-10-2014, 01:41 PM
Wow I thought all retired CA cops moved to Idaho, can't throw a rock around there anymore without hitting a dinosaur from LAPD.

If it's not in writing and signed by the State AG, it's not even useful as toilet paper.

Dagga Boy
06-10-2014, 06:41 PM
Wow I thought all retired CA cops moved to Idaho, can't throw a rock around there anymore without hitting a dinosaur from LAPD.

If it's not in writing and signed by the State AG, it's not even useful as toilet paper.

Idaho was my other choice, but there is that whole "snow" thing.

The problem is that the "decision" was in writing and signed by the Attorney General who did this as his last decision as Attorney General before becoming the Governor. The new Attorney General is a rampant anti-gun person, and regular LEO's have long been a target of State DOJ. The big issue is that the decision scared many of the local Chiefs who signed the letters for their officers to buy the weapons and have also been an issue as many Chief's are not gun friendly by any stretch. I got a call "politely asking" where all my guns were that had been transfered to me on those letters. I was glad that I had moved them to Arizona and Texas so I had a polite answer.

This is why my retirement checks enhance the economy of Texas and I have totally divested of everything in California. I just want my retirement checks, and they can keep the utopia.

Drang
06-11-2014, 01:38 AM
This is why my retirement checks enhance the economy of Texas and I have totally divested of everything in California. I just want my retirement checks....
Pardon the thread drift all, but, as the son of a retired Detroit PD Lieutenant, I sincerely wish you the best of luck on this count.

Mark
06-28-2014, 10:24 AM
I think I may have found a solution, according to DOJ's website, if you remove the features that make the rifle an "assault weapon" you can contact DOJ and have it removed from registration. I figure when I retire, I'll just switch out the standard mag release for a bullet button configuration and I'll be in compliance.

Drank, sorry about what's happening to your Dad, it's wrong on every count. I don't think you can compare Detroit to California though. To do that you'd have to have say, the entire technology industry leave Silicon Valley and have San Francisco neighborhoods go completely abandoned and not be able to sell houses for $10. Check the prices for single family homes here in the SF area and you'll see that isn't a realistic concern.

Dagga Boy
06-28-2014, 12:08 PM
I think I may have found a solution, according to DOJ's website, if you remove the features that make the rifle an "assault weapon" you can contact DOJ and have it removed from registration. I figure when I retire, I'll just switch out the standard mag release for a bullet button configuration and I'll be in compliance.

Drank, sorry about what's happening to your Dad, it's wrong on every count. I don't think you can compare Detroit to California though. To do that you'd have to have say, the entire technology industry leave Silicon Valley and have San Francisco neighborhoods go completely abandoned and not be able to sell houses for $10. Check the prices for single family homes here in the SF area and you'll see that isn't a realistic concern.


When I asked DOJ about converting my registered "assault weapons" into a legal configuration I was told that once they were registered, they could not be "undone" and would always be an assault weapon. They only way to remove it from registration would be to turn it over to a L/E agency or remove it from California. The problem with Calif. DOJ is you can never get any level of consistent answer when you call them, and I have asked for numerous items discussed to be confirmed in a letter, which I have never ever received a single documentary correspondence. This including official requests from my duties at a police agency.

One of my great fears is that my retirement checks will not come. I look at the guys in Detroit and elsewhere as the epitome of not trusting promises that government agencies make about anything. I have a track set to be wholly without any debt at all in the next 8 years and to own everything debt free because of this fear.

LSP972
06-28-2014, 01:57 PM
I have a track set to be wholly without any debt at all in the next 8 years and to own everything debt free because of this fear.

I'm already there. It took some austerity the last few years on the job, but it was damn sure worth that.

Our state constitution says that not a dollar of state money can be spent on ANYTHING until state retirees have gotten theirs. One of those sacred cows was the State Group Benefits health insurance program. One of the few state programs that actually worked with some degree of efficiency, it was always a hands-off item to greedy pols looking for additional revenue; until last year. Our current weasel POS governor managed to privatize it (Blue Cross), and we're already seeing the detrimental effects of that move. Fortunately, that idiot is on his way out, and cannot do any more damage to the retirement system. Oh, he's tried… twice. But the legislature spanked him both times, so he had to settle for screwing up our health care benefits.

That's this round… Lord knows who/what we'll get for our next governor, and the only certain thing is that which we thought was graven in stone… isn't.

My wife is also a state employee, with a very healthy deferred comp balance. I told her that's for when the ice cream turns to kitten, so we'll be able to buy cat food to live on.

.

Mark
06-29-2014, 12:19 PM
This is off DOJ's website:

"If the characteristics that make my firearm a category 3 assault weapon are removed, can I cancel the registration? Can I sell it as regular (non-assault weapon) firearm?

Yes. If the defining characteristics establishing a firearm as a category 3 assault weapon are removed, it is no longer an assault weapon and the registration may be canceled. However, once the registration is canceled, you can never replace the characteristic(s) that make it an assault weapon, or you will be in possession of an illegal weapon. To cancel an assault weapon registration, contact DOJ at (916) 227-2153. Once the registration has been canceled, the firearm can be sold or transferred like any other firearm (non-assault weapon)."

I think that should mean I'm good, it is frustrating that everything's so unclear about what's legal or not. No matter how stupid the law, I have no desire to be out of compliance.

Dagga Boy
06-29-2014, 01:53 PM
Awesome the way the change their mind willy nilly. I would also check if that applies to LE exempt registered guns which O was told could not be undone.