Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 6/22/2002 8:39:36 AM EDT
Seems to have vanished. What gives?

Link Posted: 6/22/2002 11:28:03 AM EDT
Thought it was just me going nuts???WTF
Link Posted: 6/22/2002 12:54:11 PM EDT
Doesn't look like it was the mods...maybe the original poster deleted it??...
Link Posted: 6/22/2002 12:55:53 PM EDT
Well crap! I put way too much time into a reply only to find that it got zapped. Ain't that about par.

Link Posted: 6/22/2002 1:03:26 PM EDT

Which thread are you talking about? The one where the guy was going to build on a RRA lower, Bushmaster upper, Wilson finish, ect?

What was your response to?

Link Posted: 6/22/2002 1:54:18 PM EDT

Yep, that's the one. I was responding to comments concerning the legal ownership, use, and retention of LEO only weapons and magazines.

Link Posted: 6/22/2002 3:06:30 PM EDT

I had posted some info on LEO only ARs and my experiences with "parts guns", can't remember seeing your post. Did the thread turn into a flame war or is there a reason that the guy that started the thread would delete it.

All the info that I saw on that thread was good info, wonder why it got deleted.

Link Posted: 6/22/2002 3:18:40 PM EDT
Questionable legality would be my guess. IIRC, the guy who started the thread didn't have a very high post count either. In any event, what he said he was going to do initially was illegal IMO. Then said was Mil/LEO. Still illegal. ???LEO in first place???
Link Posted: 6/22/2002 3:37:39 PM EDT
I thought the post was started by Urban Marine or something to that effect, am I wrong?
Link Posted: 6/22/2002 7:06:46 PM EDT

I think my reply on the thread in question was at least in part to address something you said about leaving the L.E. profession and losing your L.E. restricted firearms. That is widely accepted as the truth, however it is not the way that the 2000 edition of the Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide "Green" book reads. Specifically, I am speaking of:

18 U.S.C. 922(v)(2), (v)(4), (w)(2), and (w)(3)

922(v)(4)(c) exempts individuals who have retired from law enforcement IF the items (including post ban assault weapons) are transferred to the individual by the law enforcement agency upon their retirement, and they are not otherwise prevented from possessing such items. So, it is possible to donate all of your weapons and magazines to the department just prior to retirement, and then have those items given to / issued back to you for life upon your formal retirement from service. Now, I'm sure some of you will think that this is waaay off-base and would never happen, but it is fairly common practice (at least in my section of the country) for retiring officers to be presented with their sidearm by the department upon their retirement. These are weapons that the city actually purcased, and not ones that they have no financial intrest in. Of coarse, the city could screw you at the last minute, but that is unlikely.

I believe someone else referenced that any post-ban assault rifle or magazine can only be used on duty while working as a law enforcement officer, however this is also incorrect. According to 922(v)(4)(A), the purpose of possession and aquiring must be for law enforcement purposes, but it stipulates that it includes off-duty time as well.

Someone mentioned something about not being able to get a post ban Beta C mag and use it at the range. This is only true if you are prevented from carrying an AR-15 by your department. If you can and do carry it packed away in your duty bag or trunk, you may legally use it to practice with at the range. After all, proficiency is part of your job.

Of coarse, if you happen to work for a larger department that has been infested with liberals and politicos rather than cops, you are screwed. They would probably never accept / return such weapons to a retiree.

Link Posted: 6/22/2002 7:10:16 PM EDT
Sounds like it originated as a B-O-G thread .
Link Posted: 6/23/2002 5:45:19 AM EDT

You are correct about the retirement part, we have had a couple guys retire in the last year and they were able to retain their LEO ONLY ARs.

What I was refering to in my post is that if you purchase a LEO only AR and then leave the Department for another job you may loose the rifle. In Colorado a Police Officer / Deputy is a level 1 peace officer, most of your Department of Corrections guys are Level 2. Level 2 means that they are authorized to carry weapons on duty, but they do not automatically get a CCW as part of their employment like a Level 2 Peace Officer does. There are also a few other things covered in the State definitions, covers things like power to arrest, ect, ect.

The point that I was trying to make in my post is that getting a LEO only AR is not always the best way to go, because if you leave your current empolyment as a Level 1 for another position that is NOT a Level 1, then the Department has to keep your AR because legally you can not possess it. The Department letter that is used to purchase the LEO ONLY AR is placed in your personel file, so if you quit or get terminated the admin folks will check your personel file and have you turn in any items that you are not allowed to have.

Link Posted: 6/23/2002 6:18:35 AM EDT
Are you saying that your department seized their personal property without due process? Officers leaving prior to retirement can sell their weapons to dealers or other officers, but it is a violation of the 4th ammendment to simply sieze the items since they are personally owned property.

When your chief signs a letter authorizing you to purchase post ban AW or magazines, he is not making you a purchasing agent for the department. He is saying that you are authorized to use the equipment that you purchase with your funds in the performance of your job.

As an example, using different equipment for illustrative purposes, imagine an officer with no LEO magazines or AW who decides to become an accountant after 5 years in. Now, lets say this officer worked alot of road jobs (real common around here at least) and had fitted his personal vehicle with emergency lights to use in the performance of that job (legal in Texas and required on most job sites for safety purposes). Would you have a problem if during his exit interview with the city, a team of mechanics from the motor pool was busy in the parking lot siezing all of this equipment? Do you think he would have an issue with that? I sure as hell would.

If I were you, I'd check with my union rep considering this issue. In the absence of a union, check with your legal organization rep if one exists in your state because it sounds like the department is bluffing their way into a windfall of expensive equipment.

Just my .02, YMMV

Link Posted: 6/23/2002 8:36:25 AM EDT

In my post I stated that they guys that retired and had purchased LEO/Govt ONLY AR15s, were able to KEEP their rifles, because they had retired.

Comparing emergency lights and LEO/GOVT only AWs are like comparing apple and oranges. In most places anyone can go into a police supply store and purchase emergency lights.

With a LEO/GOVT AR you must obtain a letter from the Chief of Police and here in Colorado they have standardized many things in the letter. It must state that the Officer purchasing the AR15 is employeed as a full time Level 1 Peace Officer, the rifle will be used for work use, it's not being purchased for resale, ect, ect, ect.

We have done a lot of researching on this subject. Basically what it comes down to is that you obtained the rifle / high cap magazines while employeed as a Level 1 Peace Officer, once you are no longer a Level 1 Peace Officer you are legally no longer able to possess these items.

Now there is a flip side to this. If I go out and purchase a Glock pistol on Department letterhead (same process as purchasing an AR15), then if I leave my job for a non LEO position, I can keep the pistol but have to surrender the high cap mags. The mags are marked LEO/GOVT ONLY, just like the receiver on the AR15, but the pistol is legal to possess by anyone. Where you run into the problem is when the mag / rifle / whatever is marked for LEO/GOVT ONLY. Once you are no longer a LEO it is illegal to possess these items, unless you are retired in good standing.

There was a lot of research done, I wasn't involved in it. Wish I could provide you with the info that our guys came up with, but I don't have it.

Like to hear if you know of something different.

Link Posted: 6/23/2002 2:38:49 PM EDT

The comparison of emergency lights to post ban AW was merely to illustrate the fact that both were private property owned by the officer. I am not arguing that once someone leaves law enforcement (short of retiring) that they cannot keep / possess the restricted hardware, but the department has no right to confiscate it either. The officer may sell it to a licensed dealer or another officer (level 1 in Colorado I guess). From what I understand, the initial statement on letterhead is that you are not purchasing the weapon for the PURPOSE of resale, not that you can never sell it.

Maybe I misunderstood you initially, but it sounded like the PD was confiscating the equipment for their own use without the officer's / citizen's consent or reimbursement.

I'd be interested to find out what sort of research was done on the subject. Maybe I missed something.

Link Posted: 6/23/2002 3:11:50 PM EDT

You are correct, the individual officer can sell the rifle to a dealer or another individual officer prior to quitting. The problem with this is, you will take a big loss in most cases.

Basically if you purchase something on Department Letterhead it's really not your personal property even though you are paying for it out of your pocket. Technically it's your's as long as you stay in law enforcenment. It seems like they catch us coming and going ;-) This is why I've never purchased an AR on Dept Letterhead.

Link Posted: 6/23/2002 3:31:54 PM EDT
True, you take a loss selling to a dealer. Then again, you always do. Another officer is the best route, but both are better alternatives than just walking away from it. Unless of coarse you could work a tax angle on it; never thought about that before. You might be able to get credit for the full value depending upon tax laws (which I learned to pay someone else to handle years ago).

I am actually the resident FFL for my department, and while some of the guys just have to have those restricted Bushmaster
M-4s, I try to push the RRA post-ban tactical entry models. Since they added chrome lining, these have been going like hotcakes.

Wow, that was alot of dialog to find that we both believe non-LEO ONLY guns are usually the way to go. What the hell, it was fun anyway.


Link Posted: 6/23/2002 4:05:27 PM EDT
This is my view of why USMC03 and Saleen are correct to recommend a non LEO weapon -

A officer who legally acquires a LEO/ONLY assault weapon, at his own expense, must surrender or sell/dispose of the weapon upon retirement or termination. In this case the now former officer can not legally own it.

On the other hand, a police agency that acquires and owns a LEO/ONLY assault weapon, may give the weapon to a officer upon his/her retirement or termination. In this case the now former officer can legally own it.

To get around this nasty little feature of the law, the officer transfers ownership of his LEO/ONLY weapon to the department, with the understanding that he will be given back the weapon upon retirement or termination.

Wow! You have now left yourself exposed to the charge that the officer and his department have entered into an agreement designed to circumvent the law.

Never mind what this says about the absurdity of the law itself, it is the law, and there is no shortage of little worked bees in the DOJ only too willing to enforce it.

I hope the officer, and his entire department, are good citizens now and forever, and do nothing to raise the ire of the Feds, or equally as dangerous, the ire of some special interest group.

Believe me, when the DOJ takes a interest in a police department - well let’s just say they are motivated to get that consent degree signed, and they ain’t too concerned about whose life gets chewed up in the process. I’ve been to that proctologist, take my advice -

I sure wouldn’t hang my personal freedom on so thin a thread. If you have to buy it yourself, get a non-LEO weapon.

Oh, and let’s hope the now former officer never has to use the LEO/ONLY weapon to defend himself, or goes thru a nasty divorce, a child custody battle, has a vindictive neighbor, or any one of a thousand of life’s little irritants.

Of course, the law expires on Sept 13, 2004, so maybe the issue will just go away.

Mike (retired after 22 years and lovin’ it)
Link Posted: 6/23/2002 5:31:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/23/2002 5:33:00 PM EDT by saleen]
Originally posted by flashman:

Wow! You have now left yourself exposed to the charge that the officer and his department have entered into an agreement designed to circumvent the law.

No, we have conspired to COMPLY with the law.

Call it MALICIOUS COMPLIANCE if you will, my supervisors HATE that prase.

Link Posted: 6/24/2002 11:58:01 AM EDT
Guys, there may be a work around. Please correct me if I am wrong, but...

1. When a LEO purchases an LEO only AR15 "assault rifle", what we are talking about is a post-ban rifle with pre-ban features.

2. If the weapon is semi-auto, not select fire, then the only thing the officer would have to do to make it civilian legal would be to remove any pre-ban features, i.e. substitute a permanently affixed muzzle brake for the flash suppressor. Take off the tele-stock and put on a fixed buttstock. Grind off the bayonet lug or replace the FS base with a postban style.

There has been some discussion about a receiver that is marked LEO/Gov't only. It is my understanding that so long as the rifle is otherwise compliant with the law, the marking itself is meaningless. Supposedly Remington restricts the sale of the 700 PSS to LEO only, as well the LEO shotguns. Their folding stock for the 870 is marked "LEO only", but all are legal to own by civilians.
Top Top