Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 64

Thread: Petition: Let federal LEOs keep their weapons upon retirement

  1. #21
    Member TGS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Back in northern Virginia
    Quote Originally Posted by HCM View Post
    Not all the CS-1s were destroyed. At least some of them were given to FLETC. A batch of the 3 inch version were converted to non firing "red handle" guns and another batch were converted for blanks as training guns. There are also still some 4" CS-1's used for live fire. Our trainees get a revolver familiarization class which includes 50 rounds of live fire with the CS-1's.
    In my FLETC class, they were used to teach students how to decock and unload revolvers. Apparently they used to do a fam-fire with the basic programs, but stopped that sometime before I got there.

    They were also used as props for the crime scene and search warrant training.

    Kind of broke my heart.

    Quote Originally Posted by HopetonBrown View Post
    Wasn't this law enacted partially because some department was selling Kimbers for a $1?
    If I'm thinking of the same instance, that was a state LE agency, not a federal one.

    Seperate issue, basically.
    Last edited by TGS; 03-13-2016 at 01:40 PM.
    "Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer

  2. #22
    I shared this with some guys, and my wife put it on her social media stuff. Some idiot posted on her feed saying that he would support this when it was for civilians also. Aside from the fact that LEO's are civilians, I'm not sure anyone dumber than that guy exists. Not only does it not cost taxpayers a dime, the public gets to benefit from career expenses involved in guns/ammo/training and make the public a tiny bit safer for free. No agency I have worked for puts retired guns back into service, so no extra expense at all.

    When non leo's spend 20-30 years with taxpayer funded weapons/ammo/training and a career arresting bad guys, then I'm all for them getting to keep those guns. I know no one here disagrees, so I'm not attacking anyone, just venting.

  3. #23
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TEXAS !
    Quote Originally Posted by HopetonBrown View Post
    Wasn't this law enacted partially because some department was selling Kimbers for a $1?
    This only applies to federal LE agencies. Basically, the transitions from revolvers to 9mm autos and subsequent traditions to 40 autos in the 1990's placed large numbers of surplus police firearms on the market in the 1990's. Because they were being sold cheap, some of these surplus PD guns started showing at crime scenes and became a target of anti gunners. It became "a thing" and someone had to "do something".

    President Clinton (Bubba) issued an executive order in 1996 barring Federal LE agencies from selling guns to anyone, including retired officers/ agents. It restricted disposal of surplus fed LE firearms to transfer to other government agencies or destruction. This was later codified under 41 CFR.

    Some background:

    In the late 1980's and early 1990's many agencies transitioned from revolvers to high capacity 9mm semi auto pistols. This began placing many surplus LE guns on the market at bargain prices. When the 40 S&W round hit the market, some agencies looked to "upgrade" their 9 mm autos for 40 caliber autos. This placed even more surplus police handguns on the market at bargain prices.

    Then the 1994 assault weapons ban was passed, which included a ban on high capacity pistol magazines. This made pre-ban high-capacity mags quite valuable. Some of them were selling for $100 apiece or more. Seeing an opportunity, several of the gun companies began offering prior customers one for one swaps to upgrade their existing 9 mm handgun's and magazines to 40 calibers. Glock was the first to do this but others jumped on the band wagon. The gun companies would do an armorer inspection on the trade in guns, replace the springs, and sell the guns with one high-capacity magazine as certified preowned. They would then make their profit by selling the 3 or 4 additional pre-ban high-capacity magazines at $75-100 each.
    Last edited by HCM; 03-13-2016 at 02:00 PM.

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by HCM View Post
    An ideal solution for this problem would be to change CFR Title 41 §101-42.1102-10(5) (c) and amend it so that federal agents/officers are given the option to retain their service weapon upon retirement or certain other limited circumstances and amend the LEOSA Improvements Act to allow retired or separated agents/officers the ability to carry the higher capacity magazines and other accessories (used while on active status) after they have retired or separated.
    Just for clarification. After retirement, currently, the officer has to revert to carrying Joe Citizen reduced capacity magazines?

  5. #25
    Re the Kimbers...that was a fiasco. ALE is now part of the NCSBI which falls under DPS.

    http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...-kimber-1911s/
    Last edited by KeeFus; 03-13-2016 at 05:51 PM.

  6. #26
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TEXAS !
    Quote Originally Posted by IRISH View Post
    Just for clarification. After retirement, currently, the officer has to revert to carrying Joe Citizen reduced capacity magazines?
    In states with mag restrictions, yes, unless there is an exemption in the state law.

    For example The NY Safe Act does not have an exemption for retired law enforcement so the 7 round (now 10 round) limit in magazines applies to retired LEOs and off duty out of state LEOs carrying under LEOSA.

  7. #27
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TEXAS !
    Quote Originally Posted by KeeFus View Post
    Re the Kimbers...that was a fiasco. ALE is now part of the NCSBI which falls under DPS.

    http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...-kimber-1911s/
    3" kimbers no less. I'm just shocked they didn't work This is what happens when you have "one guy, who knows best", or at least thinks he knows best, making procurement decisions.

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by HCM View Post
    In states with mag restrictions, yes, unless there is an exemption in the state law.

    For example The NY Safe Act does not have an exemption for retired law enforcement so the 7 round (now 10 round) limit in magazines applies to retired LEOs and off duty out of state LEOs carrying under LEOSA.
    Thanks!

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by SLG View Post
    I shared this with some guys, and my wife put it on her social media stuff. Some idiot posted on her feed saying that he would support this when it was for civilians also. Aside from the fact that LEO's are civilians, I'm not sure anyone dumber than that guy exists. Not only does it not cost taxpayers a dime, the public gets to benefit from career expenses involved in guns/ammo/training and make the public a tiny bit safer for free. No agency I have worked for puts retired guns back into service, so no extra expense at all.

    When non leo's spend 20-30 years with taxpayer funded weapons/ammo/training and a career arresting bad guys, then I'm all for them getting to keep those guns. I know no one here disagrees, so I'm not attacking anyone, just venting.
    This is one of those things where I can see the doofus' point of creating different levels of a right; but the point is moot. There are already different levels of the 2A as the laws stand in these places.

    It's a no-brainer good idea for the exact reasons you state, SLG.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  10. #30
    Signed. I hope it works out because I've always marveled at how wasteful it was to destroy old federal guns instead of selling them. Plus, if retiring Feds can keep their duty guns, they won't have to buy new guns, meaning fewer guns sold. If that doesn't convince the Brady campaign to back this, I don't know what will! [emoji41]


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    My posts only represent my personal opinion and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or official policies of any employer, past or present. Obvious spelling errors are likely the result of an iPhone keyboard.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

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