Retired California LEO's and "Assault Weapons" question?

[Mark]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

So glad I live in a free state.

[pablo]

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]

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.