This came to my mind when I read the post about the 4 guys who formed a SWAT team and purchased their guns through the department.

1.  This may very from department to department, can a reserve officer purchase a LEO only weapon through the department?  Who would own the gun?

2.  When the above officer leaves the department, what happens to the gun?  If it was purchased through the department, but paid for by the officer, who owns it?

I would assume that the gun would stay with the department, but not sure.

Reserve officers are treated differently from agency to agency. Some agencies use them as nothing more than glorified  unarmed meter maids, while some agencies treat them as full LEO's.

I guess first of all your dept would have to be willing to lie. An individual officer cannot buy  a full-auto or select fire weapon. (unless using preban NFA reg. route) Police depts can buy these and they are registered NFA weapons. I believe local PD even pay the Tax Stamp but federal agecnies have the guns registered but don't pay the stamp. (or fee is waived). Individual officers can purchase on letterhead a post ban 16" barrel LE weapon. It can have pre-ban features, but must be semi-auto and 16" barrel length.

Now the dept. can buy full auto and issue it to you no problem, but it is not owned by you.

If somehow the dept was willing to lie and buy the weapon with your funds then I guess you'd be buying the dept. a free gun as it cannot be "owned" by the individual officer.

There is no legal way you can keep that full auto gun as you never legally owned it to begin with.  

Full auto firearms owned by state/local government agencies, to include police agencies, are all registered NFA weapons, but transfer tax-free on Form 5.

Full auto firearms owned by the federal government are not on the NFA registry.

Assuming the postban semiautomatic assault weapon was lawfully acquired and used on duty, upon leaving the department, simply changing out the preban configuration barrel with a legal postban configuration barrel, and replacing a collapsable stock with a fixed one, should leave the former postban semiautomatic assault weapon with only one evil feature.  It would no longer be a semiautomatic assault weapon subject to the provisions of 18 USC 922(v)(1).  

There is no provision in federal law prohibiting the possession of a postban-configured AR15-type rifle by a person not prohibited from possessing firearms, even one marked for government or law enforcement use only.  The violation is possession of a semiautomatic assault weapon.  It says nothing about possession of a Gov't/LEO marked weapon in either 18 USC 922 or 18 USC 921.

Perhaps it would be best to wait for the response to Steve's letter to the BATF on this since the BATF FAQ everyone looks at is conditioned on the rifle remaining a semiautomatic assault weapon, not being reconfigured prior to transfer as a postban.

Dave_G:  The only wrinkle is that "LEO-only" weapons are registered as "semi-auto assault weapons" when originally manufactured, which is the reason a LEO can't legally configure a post-ban AR with LEO-only features after the fact.

There have been several good arguments raised in favor of a LEO being able to keep a LEO-marked lower after leaving the force, if the LEO-only features are removed - but by definition and registration, the lower itself is still a registered "semi-auto assault weapon".

I'd personally want a revenue ruling from the ATF that possession by a former LEO was OK, before I'd keep even a neutered, registered "semi-auto assault weapon" in my possession.

im pretty sure atf will rule once a "assualt" weapon always a "assualt weapon" witch is the case with non leo pre 94 "assualt weapons"