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)