Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 8/15/2004 10:35:00 AM EST
Personal LEO ownership of LEO marked "assault weapon" configured with banned features such as flash sup. collapsible stock and so on.
I had this discussion with an LEO on another board so I called the BATF (didn't give any ID info) for clarification.
They said that a rifle purchased with dept. letterhead in "assault weapon" configuration as described above then the ownershipo must be retained and held by the dept. the LEO works for.
The exception is when the LEO retires he can be gifted the rifle and "gain ownership" at that time.
Anyone disput this statement by the BATF?


I know a lot of LEO's bought rifles like this thinking they can by law own these but in fact have committted fruad and a felony according to the Agents I spoke to.
Before you say it's a moot point soon, it is not , the agant said if they discover that a rifle was bought under these cirumstances they will still bring charges (yeah right, sure they will)
Link Posted: 8/15/2004 10:36:59 AM EST
Par for the course, the agent you spoke to doesn't know the law.
Link Posted: 8/15/2004 10:40:54 AM EST
the law itself states that LEO's are exempted.

ATF policy mandates the dept letterhead and all the other requirements.

Which is binding?

dunno because they have never arrested a LEO for posessing an AW.... and never will, especially since theres less than a month left.
Link Posted: 8/15/2004 10:45:03 AM EST

Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter:
Par for the course, the agent you spoke to doesn't know the law.



OH yeah?, post the law that says an LEO can own what a reg. citizen cannot.
I'll bet you he did know because they transferred my call to the dept. that handles the legal questions such as these.
He said if I wanted the statement in writing I would have to submit my request for clarification in writing, I'm looking for the address he gave me now.
The guy knew what he was talking about.
I'm going to submit the request in writing to end the debate and this perceived double standard causing some LEO's to think they can personally own an "assault weapon"
(A few more weeks and we all can)
Link Posted: 8/15/2004 10:47:27 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/15/2004 10:47:53 AM EST by jrzy]

Originally Posted By JeffersonDarcy:
the law itself states that LEO's are exempted.

ATF policy mandates the dept letterhead and all the other requirements.

Which is binding?

dunno because they have never arrested a LEO for posessing an AW.... and never will, especially since theres less than a month left.



I know of one in jersey and there is another one who was indicted too.

All I see is a few of you guys saying "yes they can" but not one typed or copied piece of proof, why not?

If LEO's are exempt it should be pretty easy to post proof right?
Link Posted: 8/15/2004 10:50:34 AM EST

Originally Posted By jrzy:


I know of one in jersey and there is another one who was indicted too.





That was for a violation of JERSEY's AWB. For an M1 carbine which is perfectly legal under the feds.

That has nothing to do with the fed AWB or ATF's requirements, he was indicted on a state law
Link Posted: 8/15/2004 11:01:19 AM EST

Originally Posted By jrzy:

Originally Posted By JeffersonDarcy:
the law itself states that LEO's are exempted.

ATF policy mandates the dept letterhead and all the other requirements.

Which is binding?

dunno because they have never arrested a LEO for posessing an AW.... and never will, especially since theres less than a month left.



I know of one in jersey and there is another one who was indicted too.

All I see is a few of you guys saying "yes they can" but not one typed or copied piece of proof, why not?

If LEO's are exempt it should be pretty easy to post proof right?




Looks like the LEO cases in NJ got swept under the rug.

nj.gov/lps/newsreleases04/pr20040319b.html


"Statement of Attorney General Peter C. Harvey Regarding Law Enforcement Officers Possessing Assault Firearms


Questions have been raised concerning the authority of New Jersey law enforcement officers to privately possess and carry assault firearms for non-law enforcement purposes and how prosecutors should interpret and enforce the assault weapon statute relative to law enforcement officers who privately possess such weapons. The possession of assault firearms was prohibited in 1990 except under limited circumstances.

Recently, two municipal police officers in different counties were indicted for violating the assault firearms law. The two trial court judges reviewing the separate indictments reached different legal conclusions as to whether a municipal police officer is exempt from the assault firearms law for the private possession of these weapons. Both trial court decisions were later appealed to the Appellate Division. At my request, the respective County Prosecutors have filed motions to withdraw or dismiss those indictments in part because of conflicting or ambiguous legal advice that may have been given by representatives from the Department of Law and Public Safety over the past several years following the enactment of the assault firearms law.

While these legal issues deserve prompt and definitive resolution, I have determined that the appeals should not continue under these circumstances. In order to promote statewide uniformity of the assault firearms law, I am directing the Division of Criminal Justice, the County Prosecutors Association, and the Police Training Commission to study the legal and practical issues and report to me within 120 days on how the assault firearms law should be applied in the context of our statutory and regulatory scheme in order to achieve the ultimate goal of protecting public safety.

The Division of Criminal Justice, County Prosecutors Association and Police Training Commission shall also recommend whether legislative amendments to the assault firearms law are necessary and appropriate. Pending receipt of these recommendations, law enforcement will continue to seize prohibited assault firearms, however no law enforcement officer will be prosecuted for the private possession of assault firearms without the express authorization of the Attorney General or the Director of the Division of Criminal Justice.

Pursuant to current law, any New Jersey law enforcement officer who privately possesses assault firearms in this State may voluntarily surrender those weapons to the Chief of Police or Superintendent of the New Jersey State Police".

If my memory serves me correctly, didn't one of those cases involve an older officer seeking the Cheifs
position in his communiy? He was bumped in favor of an officer with only a few years on the job (3, I think). The younger cop had connections and the senior cop made a stink about it. The older cop had an M-1 carbine that everyone in the dept knew about.
Link Posted: 8/15/2004 11:09:19 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/15/2004 11:12:57 AM EST by jrzy]

Originally Posted By JeffersonDarcy:

Originally Posted By jrzy:


I know of one in jersey and there is another one who was indicted too.





That was for a violation of JERSEY's AWB. For an M1 carbine which is perfectly legal under the feds.

That has nothing to do with the fed AWB or ATF's requirements, he was indicted on a state law



Yeah but when are you going to answer my question about posting proof of your statement below?

Originally Posted By JeffersonDarcy:
the law itself states that LEO's are exempted.




Where's the proof they are exempt?
It shouldn't be to hard to find if it's there right?

Link Posted: 8/15/2004 11:20:59 AM EST
In NY, as I understood the law as written, a LEO could be "grandfathered" or "gifted" a weapon upon his/her retirement...WITH PAPERWORK.

This means that if a LEO should retire and the Chief saw fit to gift the person a rifle that was currently banned, the former LEO could keep the rifle, so long as he/she had the paperwork saying that the weapon was a gift. It'd be just like any other weapon, except that papers would have to follow it (to the range, say)...and I'm not sure about inheretance.

As my father is nearing retirement...I'm still pushing for him to get the Chief to approve a Sig 55x purchase

Link Posted: 8/15/2004 11:21:03 AM EST

Originally Posted By jrzy:

Originally Posted By JeffersonDarcy:

Originally Posted By jrzy:


I know of one in jersey and there is another one who was indicted too.





That was for a violation of JERSEY's AWB. For an M1 carbine which is perfectly legal under the feds.

That has nothing to do with the fed AWB or ATF's requirements, he was indicted on a state law



Yeah but when are you going to answer my question about posting proof of your statement below?

Originally Posted By JeffersonDarcy:
the law itself states that LEO's are exempted.




Where's the proof they are exempt?
It shouldn't be to hard to find if it's there right?




(4) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--
`(A) the manufacture for, transfer to, or possession by the
United States or a department or agency of the United States or
a State or a department, agency, or political subdivision of a
State, or a transfer to or possession by a law enforcement
officer employed by such an entity for purposes of law
enforcement (whether on or off duty);



"for purposes of law enforcement" is VERY broad. And it says on or off duty.

A LEO can claim on his taxes ANYTHING related to law enforcement. This includes trips to the range, ammo, guns, accessories etc.

WHo is to say "for purposes of law enforcement" cannot be just as broad, to include an officers peronally owned weapon which is similar to the ones used by his dept's version of SWAT... becuase he wants to train with it.


No, ATF does not interpret it that way, but who is to say a court wouldnt if it was brought to court?
Link Posted: 8/15/2004 11:22:44 AM EST

Originally Posted By Evil_Ed:
In NY, as I understood the law as written, a LEO could be "grandfathered" or "gifted" a weapon upon his/her retirement...WITH PAPERWORK.

This means that if a LEO should retire and the Chief saw fit to gift the person a rifle that was currently banned, the former LEO could keep the rifle, so long as he/she had the paperwork saying that the weapon was a gift. It'd be just like any other weapon, except that papers would have to follow it (to the range, say)...and I'm not sure about inheretance.

As my father is nearing retirement...I'm still pushing for him to get the Chief to approve a Sig 55x purchase




LEO's are exempted from all state weapons laws in NY.

but.... I dont think it transfers over to retirement.

THe gift thing is in the fed law... but I'm sure it would be fine with NYS law too.
Link Posted: 8/15/2004 11:24:56 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/15/2004 11:25:33 AM EST by CRC]
But the law in NJ did not specify what kind of AWs LEOs could retain after 1991. Hence the hissy fit by the anti polticians (Those guns aren't being used enforce liberal laws).


The 1994 AWB allows an officer to posses an AW off duty so he can take it home.

CRC
Link Posted: 8/15/2004 11:29:58 AM EST

Originally Posted By CRC:
But the law in NJ did not specify what kind of AWs LEOs could retain after 1991. Hence the hissy fit by the anti polticians (Those guns aren't being used enforce liberal laws).


The 1994 AWB allows an officer to posses an AW off duty so he can take it home.

CRC



Yes I agree an officer can "posses" the weapon and even take it home, my question as answered by the BATF is whether he can own it , they said no.
Link Posted: 8/15/2004 11:37:25 AM EST
.

Th ATF interprets the AWB differently than it reads. Much like the licensing statutes.....I occasionally laugh at the weirdos who repeatedly state that the "ATF cannot enact laws" or similar lines of BS. This is, in effect, making laws under the threat of arrest.
Link Posted: 8/15/2004 11:38:15 AM EST

Originally Posted By jrzy:

Originally Posted By CRC:
But the law in NJ did not specify what kind of AWs LEOs could retain after 1991. Hence the hissy fit by the anti polticians (Those guns aren't being used enforce liberal laws).


The 1994 AWB allows an officer to posses an AW off duty so he can take it home.

CRC



Yes I agree an officer can "posses" the weapon and even take it home, my question as answered by the BATF is whether he can own it , they said no.



Its been posted once, but look at this again:

(4) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--
`(A) the manufacture for, transfer to, or possession by the
United States or a department or agency of the United States or
a State or a department, agency, or political subdivision of a
State, or a transfer to or possession by a law enforcement
officer employed by such an entity for purposes of law
enforcement (whether on or off duty);


Transfer means transfer of LEGAL OWNERSHIP.

Link Posted: 8/15/2004 12:05:33 PM EST
I've read alot of these posts about L.E.O. AR15's in the past few months. How can anyone, even BATF charge a L.E.O. with a law violation?

Almost every time someone starts a topic on L.E.O. weapons, someone posts a BATF letter that reads the opposite than the one before.

I'm a L.E.O. and I am confused.

I hope the law dies and stays dead.

Colt_BSR
Link Posted: 8/15/2004 12:09:48 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/15/2004 12:17:31 PM EST by Sparky315]
You got us- in a single telephone conversation with a BATF agent you have single-handedly revealed that THOUSANDS of cops all over the country are actually felons just waiting to get arrested. Here's a tip for you: NEVER, EVER believe what BATF tells you over the telephone. From BATF's own website:

"(O8) May law enforcement officers purchase and possess semiautomatic assault weapons and high capacity ammunition feeding devices? [Back]

Yes. The law provides exceptions for law enforcement officers purchasing assault weapons and magazines for official use. However, assault weapons may not be lawfully distributed to, or received or possessed by, an officer having been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. A licensee may lawfully transfer these items to a law enforcement officer and the officer may lawfully receive and possess them if:

(1) the officer is a "peace officer" having the authority to arrest persons for violations of the law and to obtain and execute search warrants;
(2) the officer is employed by a government agency; and
(3) in the case of a semiautomatic assault weapon, the officer has not been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. "

The officer must simply get a letter from his agency saying he/she is a LEO, authorized to purchase the SAW/hi-cap mags for duty use, and has no domestic violence convictions/is not the subject of a restraining order. The officer may then purchase, with his/her own funds, the restricted item. The restricted item(s) are THEIR PROPERTY, not property of their agency. There are currently restrictions on keeping them when the officer retires or leaves law enforcement, but those will go away when the ban dies. I have to have appropriate documentation and authority granted by my agency to buy a SAW, but if I get it the item is mine until I retire. It's a bizarre quirk in the law that I can only keep a SAW after I retire if the SAW is agency property and they gift it to me. BATF has told officers that the way to keep personally-purchased SAWs after retirement is to TRANSFER OWNERSHIP to the agency, who them 'gifts' it to them. No reason to do that if the gun belonged to the agency to begin with, is there?

You got bad information from an agent who did NOT know the law. Happens all the time.

I don't know what the reason is for the GIGANTIC chip you have on your shoulder, but it's obviously becoming an obsession for you. Seriously, get some help- you'll be happier.
Link Posted: 8/15/2004 12:11:47 PM EST

Originally Posted By jrzy:


I know a lot of LEO's bought rifles like this thinking they can by law own these but in fact have committted fruad and a felony according to the Agents I spoke to.
Before you say it's a moot point soon, it is not , the agant said if they discover that a rifle was bought under these cirumstances they will still bring charges (yeah right, sure they will)




You are mistaken. Cops and public servants do not break the law....especially in your state.


SGtar15
Link Posted: 8/15/2004 12:12:35 PM EST
put it this way:

ATF is a part of the executive branch. Law enforcement, same as any other police agency.

They are not elected members of the legislative branch, so they cannot make laws.

They are not part of the judicical branch, so they cannot interpret laws.

What they can do is decide how they want to enforce the law.


From what it looks like to me, their policies concerning AW possesion by, and transfer to LEOs are in direct contradiction of the letter of the law. Am I a judge? no. Would a judge see it that way? who knows?

Has the ATF ever arrested a LEO for an AW offense? no. (in fact i have never seen anything conclusive that ANYONE other than a dealer has been charged with a stand alone AW offense)

and its dead in 28 days. So we'll never find out teh truth on this issue anyway. Who cares. 9/13/04
Link Posted: 8/15/2004 12:18:08 PM EST

Originally Posted By Sparky315:
You got us- in a single telephone conversation with a BATF agent you have single-handedly revealed that THOUSANDS of cops all over the country are actually felons just waiting to get arrested. Here's a tip for you: NEVER, EVER believe what BATF tells you over the telephone. From BATF's own website:

(O8) May law enforcement officers purchase and possess semiautomatic assault weapons and high capacity ammunition feeding devices? [Back]

Yes. The law provides exceptions for law enforcement officers purchasing assault weapons and magazines for official use. However, assault weapons may not be lawfully distributed to, or received or possessed by, an officer having been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. A licensee may lawfully transfer these items to a law enforcement officer and the officer may lawfully receive and possess them if:

(1) the officer is a "peace officer" having the authority to arrest persons for violations of the law and to obtain and execute search warrants;
(2) the officer is employed by a government agency; and
(3) in the case of a semiautomatic assault weapon, the officer has not been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

The officer must simply get a letter from his agency saying he/she is a LEO, authorized to purchase the SAW/hi-cap mags for duty use, and has no domestic violence convictions/is not the subject of a restraining order. The officer may then purchase, with his/her own funds, the restricted item. The restricted item(s) are THEIR PROPERTY, not property of their agency. There are currently restrictions on keeping them when the officer retires or leaves law enforcement, but those will go away when the ban dies.

You got bad information from an agent who did NOT know the law. Happens all the time.

Take the chip off your shoulder, it's starting to affect your mind.




for official use
Link Posted: 8/15/2004 12:22:45 PM EST

Originally Posted By jrzy:

Originally Posted By Sparky315:
You got us- in a single telephone conversation with a BATF agent you have single-handedly revealed that THOUSANDS of cops all over the country are actually felons just waiting to get arrested. Here's a tip for you: NEVER, EVER believe what BATF tells you over the telephone. From BATF's own website:

(O8) May law enforcement officers purchase and possess semiautomatic assault weapons and high capacity ammunition feeding devices? [Back]

Yes. The law provides exceptions for law enforcement officers purchasing assault weapons and magazines for official use. However, assault weapons may not be lawfully distributed to, or received or possessed by, an officer having been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. A licensee may lawfully transfer these items to a law enforcement officer and the officer may lawfully receive and possess them if:

(1) the officer is a "peace officer" having the authority to arrest persons for violations of the law and to obtain and execute search warrants;
(2) the officer is employed by a government agency; and
(3) in the case of a semiautomatic assault weapon, the officer has not been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

The officer must simply get a letter from his agency saying he/she is a LEO, authorized to purchase the SAW/hi-cap mags for duty use, and has no domestic violence convictions/is not the subject of a restraining order. The officer may then purchase, with his/her own funds, the restricted item. The restricted item(s) are THEIR PROPERTY, not property of their agency. There are currently restrictions on keeping them when the officer retires or leaves law enforcement, but those will go away when the ban dies.

You got bad information from an agent who did NOT know the law. Happens all the time.

Take the chip off your shoulder, it's starting to affect your mind.




for official use



Yes. They can buy it, so long as it will be used on the job. It is very common for LEO's here in the south to be required to purchase thier own sidearm, rifle, and magazines.

They can't buy it just for the hell of it, it must be for use on the job, and they must have that documented on department letterhead. But as long as those requirments are met they can buy it.


You have serious reading comprehension issues....
Link Posted: 8/15/2004 12:37:43 PM EST

Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter:

Originally Posted By jrzy:

Originally Posted By Sparky315:
You got us- in a single telephone conversation with a BATF agent you have single-handedly revealed that THOUSANDS of cops all over the country are actually felons just waiting to get arrested. Here's a tip for you: NEVER, EVER believe what BATF tells you over the telephone. From BATF's own website:

(O8) May law enforcement officers purchase and possess semiautomatic assault weapons and high capacity ammunition feeding devices? [Back]

Yes. The law provides exceptions for law enforcement officers purchasing assault weapons and magazines for official use. However, assault weapons may not be lawfully distributed to, or received or possessed by, an officer having been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. A licensee may lawfully transfer these items to a law enforcement officer and the officer may lawfully receive and possess them if:

(1) the officer is a "peace officer" having the authority to arrest persons for violations of the law and to obtain and execute search warrants;
(2) the officer is employed by a government agency; and
(3) in the case of a semiautomatic assault weapon, the officer has not been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

The officer must simply get a letter from his agency saying he/she is a LEO, authorized to purchase the SAW/hi-cap mags for duty use, and has no domestic violence convictions/is not the subject of a restraining order. The officer may then purchase, with his/her own funds, the restricted item. The restricted item(s) are THEIR PROPERTY, not property of their agency. There are currently restrictions on keeping them when the officer retires or leaves law enforcement, but those will go away when the ban dies.

You got bad information from an agent who did NOT know the law. Happens all the time.

Take the chip off your shoulder, it's starting to affect your mind.




for official use



Yes. They can buy it, so long as it will be used on the job. It is very common for LEO's here in the south to be required to purchase thier own sidearm, rifle, and magazines.

They can't buy it just for the hell of it, it must be for use on the job, and they must have that documented on department letterhead. But as long as those requirments are met they can buy it.


You have serious reading comprehension issues....



Hit a nerve huh?
I understand it all, I am just trying to make my point that an LEO has no more right to personally own that weapon than I do.

The point is , say an LEO bought the weapon with dept letterhead approved by his CO, now lets say he quits after three years on the job to be a carpenter, do you think he gets that rifle to own as his own?
Link Posted: 8/15/2004 12:46:29 PM EST

Originally Posted By jrzy:
The point is , say an LEO bought the weapon with dept letterhead approved by his CO, now lets say he quits after three years on the job to be a carpenter, do you think he gets that rifle to own as his own?



Only if the Chief gifts it to him as a parting gift.

Link Posted: 8/15/2004 12:50:22 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/15/2004 12:51:30 PM EST by GUNSFORHIRE]
I forget where it took place...but there was A LEO arrested for this. I remember reading it. NewJersey I think
Link Posted: 8/15/2004 12:58:59 PM EST

Originally Posted By Evil_Ed:

Originally Posted By jrzy:
The point is , say an LEO bought the weapon with dept letterhead approved by his CO, now lets say he quits after three years on the job to be a carpenter, do you think he gets that rifle to own as his own?



Only if the Chief gifts it to him as a parting gift.




Only if he retires, he can't gift it to him if he quits.
If a guy was a cop for three months and quits do you think the Chief can legally gift an "assault rifle" to him?
Link Posted: 8/15/2004 1:00:02 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/15/2004 1:00:54 PM EST by Stormtrooper]
<mackey> cops are bad, mmmmmmmkay. </mackey>
Link Posted: 8/15/2004 2:47:54 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/15/2004 2:49:23 PM EST by Sparky315]
Yes, it has to be for 'official use'. So what? That doesn't mean I can't keep it at home in my safe, or take it to job-related training. Or use it to defend my home, if I live in my jurisdiction. A far cry from your earlier claim that I couldn't even OWN it, isn't it? The issue of what happens to the rifle when a cop retires or leaves has been addressed. You're sounding an awful lot like a MMM spokeswoman screeching about 'assault rifles' being bad- somenone answers your question, you start screaming about something else.

As far as proving your point that an LEO has no more right to own an AW than you do, that point has already been disproven, you are just unwilling to admit it. Take your fucking Ritalin before posting any more.
Link Posted: 8/15/2004 2:54:42 PM EST
If a LEO has a LEO only AW and then quits HE/SHE/IT IS A FELON.

Now they need to be smart enough to ditch the gun BEFORE they quit.

CRC
Link Posted: 8/15/2004 2:57:02 PM EST

Originally Posted By jrzy:

Originally Posted By CRC:
But the law in NJ did not specify what kind of AWs LEOs could retain after 1991. Hence the hissy fit by the anti polticians (Those guns aren't being used enforce liberal laws).


The 1994 AWB allows an officer to posses an AW off duty so he can take it home.

CRC



Yes I agree an officer can "posses" the weapon and even take it home, my question as answered by the BATF is whether he can own it , they said no.



They can only own it for as long as they are a LEO.

Once they are not a LEO-unless gifted on retirement- and they still have the gun they are a CRIMINAL.

CRC
Link Posted: 8/15/2004 4:07:45 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/15/2004 4:16:32 PM EST by jrzy]

Originally Posted By Sparky315:
Yes, it has to be for 'official use'. So what? That doesn't mean I can't keep it at home in my safe, or take it to job-related training. Or use it to defend my home, if I live in my jurisdiction. A far cry from your earlier claim that I couldn't even OWN it, isn't it? The issue of what happens to the rifle when a cop retires or leaves has been addressed. You're sounding an awful lot like a MMM spokeswoman screeching about 'assault rifles' being bad- somenone answers your question, you start screaming about something else.

As far as proving your point that an LEO has no more right to own an AW than you do, that point has already been disproven, you are just unwilling to admit it. Take your fucking Ritalin before posting any more.



Are you nuts?
It has been proven through this post that an LEO cannot personally own that rifle and just because you can keep it at your home don't mean jack shit, you still don't own it.
The point I was making is that an LEO has no more right to "own" the rifle than anyone else.

Just for the record I made this thread because some cops feel they are better or have more rights than do average everyday folks.
The double standard some cops think is bullshit and why such offense taken at this thread?
Are you a cop?
If you notice there is a great deal of animosity whenever any LEO authoritative right is called into question.
The question was only partly about the rifle, The rest is actually about the superior attitude of a very few cops who think they are above the rest of us.
I will say that the above description fits damn few here at AR 15.com
We have some LEO idiots but not as many as other boards.

If that AR in your closet is logged out to you from and FFL and you are an LEO and it is in your name personally and it is in "assault weapon" configuration then you are a felon, PERIOD, just an un-indicted one.

Link Posted: 8/15/2004 4:24:56 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/15/2004 4:26:13 PM EST by Garand_Shooter]

Originally Posted By jrzy:


Are you nuts?
It has been proven through this post that an LEO cannot personally own that rifle and just because you can keep it at your home don't mean jack shit, you still don't own it.
The point I was making is that an LEO has no more right to "own" the rifle than anyone else.

If that AR in your closet is logged out to you from and FFL and you are an LEO and it is in your name personally and it is in "assault weapon" configuration then you are a felon, PERIOD, just an un-indicted one.




You went to public school didn't you? Dude, your reading comprehension and logical thinking skills suck.

The rest of the world reads the law and realizes that as long as they are a LEO, they can buy and own that weapon.... they just must either sell it back to a LEO or a FFL if they quit the job. They own it, it belongs to them.

Your above statement is so wrong its not even funny. You set out to prove something thats not true, and your so blinded by the conclusion you already came too that when the facts are posted right in front of you you can't comprehend them.
Link Posted: 8/15/2004 4:34:37 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/15/2004 4:37:22 PM EST by jrzy]

Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter:

Originally Posted By jrzy:


Are you nuts?
It has been proven through this post that an LEO cannot personally own that rifle and just because you can keep it at your home don't mean jack shit, you still don't own it.
The point I was making is that an LEO has no more right to "own" the rifle than anyone else.

If that AR in your closet is logged out to you from and FFL and you are an LEO and it is in your name personally and it is in "assault weapon" configuration then you are a felon, PERIOD, just an un-indicted one.




You went to public school didn't you? Dude, your reading comprehension and logical thinking skills suck.

The rest of the world reads the law and realizes that as long as they are a LEO, they can buy and own that weapon.... they just must either sell it back to a LEO or a FFL if they quit the job. They own it, it belongs to them.

Your above statement is so wrong its not even funny. You set out to prove something thats not true, and your so blinded by the conclusion you already came too that when the facts are posted right in front of you you can't comprehend them.



Are you an LEO?
If so lets test your theory.
If you use dept. letterhead to obtain a "assault weapon" configured rifle and log it out in your name from the FFL you are committing a felony, if you can't or wont understand that then you are the one who needs remedial reading courses.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that LEO's cannot own "assault weapons" they have the same rights as anyone else when not performing their duties.
Keep it up with the insults too, they show real class in upbringing.
IT'S A FELONY, UNDERSTAND?
Link Posted: 8/15/2004 4:36:54 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/15/2004 4:43:52 PM EST by FiveO]
Jesus Christ jrzy, you are not usually so thick!

I, as a LEO can order a LEO fully AW configured weapon in my name, with my money for my oficial use on the job... All I need is a letter from my Department.

I carry it to work and I can take it out shooting cans, I can sleep with it if I want to. As long as I am a LEO and using the weapon on the job it is mine. Mine all mine.

Hell, my good buddy just got a Bushy Patrol Carbine from a BM dealer IN HIS NAME... It is not illegal at all.

It is exactly the same as the Glock 23 I ordered direct from Glock with a letter from my Sheriff. It was $405 and shipped with 3 hi-caps right to my office door.

I KNOW you do not LIKE that but what about it is hard to UNDERSTAND?

You did see this didn't you?


Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter:

Its been posted once, but look at this again:

(4) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--
`(A) the manufacture for, transfer to, or possession by the
United States or a department or agency of the United States or
a State or a department, agency, or political subdivision of a
State, or a transfer to or possession by a law enforcement
officer employed by such an entity for purposes of law
enforcement (whether on or off duty);


Transfer means transfer of LEGAL OWNERSHIP.


Link Posted: 8/15/2004 4:43:07 PM EST
Do us, yourself and your ATF contact a favor and send him this link.

Both he and you are wrong.

FROM THE HORSE"S MOUTH.
Link Posted: 8/15/2004 4:45:01 PM EST

Originally Posted By FiveO:
Jesus Christ jrzy, you are not usually so thick!

I, as a LEO can order a LEO fully AW configured weapon in my name, with my money for my oficial use on the job... All I need is a letter from my Department.

I carry it to work and I can take it out shooting cans, I can sleep with it if I want to. As long as I am a LEO and using the weapon on the job it is mine. Mine all mine.

It is exactly the same as the Glock 23 I ordered direct from Glock with a letter from my Sheriff. It was $405 and shipped with 3 hi-caps right to my office door.

I KNOW you do not LIKE that but what about it is hard to UNDERSTAND?




I guess the agent at the office assigned these types of questions made a mistake huh?
I don't think so, why do you think with the amount of coverage this thread has taken do you not see anyone post the law or exception saying you can "own" a banned weapon?

If the exception is there you should be able to post it huh?

I'll tell you one thing, Monday morning I will know whether I owe apologies or there are Felons with arrogant attitudes here.

These weapons can be possessed by LEO's but not owned, understand yet?
Why don't you test your post and order a fully auto colt AR directly from colt and see if you really are exempt?

Shut me up, post the exemption in the law saying you can own one personally.
Link Posted: 8/15/2004 4:48:03 PM EST

Originally Posted By jrzy:

Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter:

Originally Posted By jrzy:


Are you nuts?
It has been proven through this post that an LEO cannot personally own that rifle and just because you can keep it at your home don't mean jack shit, you still don't own it.
The point I was making is that an LEO has no more right to "own" the rifle than anyone else.

If that AR in your closet is logged out to you from and FFL and you are an LEO and it is in your name personally and it is in "assault weapon" configuration then you are a felon, PERIOD, just an un-indicted one.




You went to public school didn't you? Dude, your reading comprehension and logical thinking skills suck.

The rest of the world reads the law and realizes that as long as they are a LEO, they can buy and own that weapon.... they just must either sell it back to a LEO or a FFL if they quit the job. They own it, it belongs to them.

Your above statement is so wrong its not even funny. You set out to prove something thats not true, and your so blinded by the conclusion you already came too that when the facts are posted right in front of you you can't comprehend them.



Are you an LEO?
If so lets test your theory.
If you use dept. letterhead to obtain a "assault weapon" configured rifle and log it out in your name from the FFL you are committing a felony, if you can't or wont understand that then you are the one who needs remedial reading courses.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that LEO's cannot own "assault weapons" they have the same rights as anyone else when not performing their duties.
Keep it up with the insults too, they show real class in upbringing.
IT'S A FELONY, UNDERSTAND?



No, its a felony if your not a LEO, or if your don't get it for use on the job. We've posted the links to the ATF website that says that, I've highlighted the pertinant text in red for you and explained it in terms a 3rd grader can comprehend. Every FFL disagrees with you, the ATF website does, and the actual law does.

No, I am not a LEO, I just know how to read. Have you noticed that everyone on here, LEO or not, and the ATF website disagrees with you... and you and this mystery ATF agent are the only ones who hold your opinion. There is a reason for that. Heck start a poll for everyone that holds a FFL and see what response you get.
Link Posted: 8/15/2004 4:51:16 PM EST

Originally Posted By jrzy:

I guess the agent at the office assigned these types of questions made a mistake huh?
I don't think so, why do you think with the amount of coverage this thread has taken do you not see anyone post the law or exception saying you can "own" a banned weapon?

If the exception is there you should be able to post it huh?


Shut me up, post the exemption in the law saying you can own one personally.



Jesus fucking Christ, I posted it with the important words highlighted in red then explained what they meant in case the word "transferred" was too hard to comprehend for you.

What more do you want? Should I draw it in picture with crayons?
Link Posted: 8/15/2004 4:52:36 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/15/2004 4:58:38 PM EST by jrzy]

Originally Posted By FiveO:
Do us, yourself and your ATF contact a favor and send him this link.

Both he and you are wrong.

FROM THE HORSE"S MOUTH.



The exemption you have mistakenly used to think you can own one only applies to "purposes of law enforcement"

You are relying on the phrasing "transfer", it does not mean ownership in this case, as in an FFL transfering a gun to someone, that is where you are confused and wrong.
It means the same thing as taking possession as in holding.
The agent I spoke with said that was the cause of most of the misleading thoughts by officers.
The exemption was created so you could physically take possession of a weapon to do your job.

Listen in all honesty this guy knew his shit and knows his job, he didn't hesitate or blink when he quoted what the law is.
Link Posted: 8/15/2004 4:57:23 PM EST

Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter:
Have you noticed that everyone on here, LEO or not, and the ATF website disagrees with you... and you and this mystery ATF agent are the only ones who hold your opinion. There is a reason for that. Heck start a poll for everyone that holds a FFL and see what response you get.



Not really, CRC agrees with me and what other FFL posted on this thread?

I'll will do the best thing for everyone so we all know the truth right?
I will contact the BATF in the morning and expedite my request for a written clarification.
Link Posted: 8/15/2004 4:59:54 PM EST
Jrzy... I am at a loss. You asked for proof and it was shown to you... You offer one man's opinion, allegedly.

From experience with you I know you are not that thick so I am gonna assume you are just reeling us in...

Fish on!
Link Posted: 8/15/2004 5:01:13 PM EST

Originally Posted By jrzy:

Originally Posted By FiveO:
Do us, yourself and your ATF contact a favor and send him this link.

Both he and you are wrong.

FROM THE HORSE"S MOUTH.



The exemption you have mistakenly used to think you can own one only applies to "purposes of law enforcement"

You are relying on the phrasing "transfer", it does not mean ownership.
It means the same thing as taking possession as in holding.
The agent I spoke with said that was the cause of most of the misleading thoughts by officers.
The exemption was created so you could physically take possession of a weapon to do your job.

Listen in all honesty this guy knew his shit and knows his job, he didn't hesitate or blink when he quoted what the law is.


I tell you what, get a hold of the BATF rulebook they give to every FFL or ask a FFL here how it reads. The word transfer in EVERY case means transfer ownership. It has nothing to do with posession. Go ahead, read the regs. Thats why its says transfer to OR posession of in that very paragraph. Otherwise if you take transfer to only mean possession than under that law even departments couldn't buy them. That same exemption covers individual LEOS and thier departments, so your saying that departments can't buy them if your saying individuals cannot, since the paragraph applies to both.

Its not rare or unusual to find a BATFE agent that doesn't know what hes talking about.. teh fact that they spout it out quick emans nothing.
Link Posted: 8/15/2004 5:02:59 PM EST
JRZY,

They can buy the gun only for use on duty but once they buy it and are still a LEO they can use it for personal uses to.

Hunting, plinking, home defense, shooting, paper weight.

As long as they also use for their LE job too.

CRC
Link Posted: 8/15/2004 5:03:35 PM EST

Originally Posted By FiveO:
Jrzy... I am at a loss. You asked for proof and it was shown to you... You offer one man's opinion, allegedly.

From experience with you I know you are not that thick so I am gonna assume you are just reeling us in...

Fish on!



No, I am going to finish this one way or another Monday moring, If I owe an apology I will make a public one here, if I am right then there are some apologies owed me.
And your statement about me is unfair to say the least, I might be over zealous in my postings but I do not intenionally lie.
Link Posted: 8/15/2004 5:04:42 PM EST
Here is a sample letter from Bushmaster.

www.bushmaster.com/le/attention_dealers.htm

Note that BM will only sell to Agencies directly, not to LEOs individually. I was told that was a corporate decision based on percieved liability, not upon a requirement of the law.

As you can see, their distributors can sell to individual officers.

Don't know what else I can do for ya, Bro.
Link Posted: 8/15/2004 5:06:04 PM EST

Originally Posted By jrzy:

Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter:

Originally Posted By jrzy:


Are you nuts?
It has been proven through this post that an LEO cannot personally own that rifle and just because you can keep it at your home don't mean jack shit, you still don't own it.
The point I was making is that an LEO has no more right to "own" the rifle than anyone else.

If that AR in your closet is logged out to you from and FFL and you are an LEO and it is in your name personally and it is in "assault weapon" configuration then you are a felon, PERIOD, just an un-indicted one.




You went to public school didn't you? Dude, your reading comprehension and logical thinking skills suck.

The rest of the world reads the law and realizes that as long as they are a LEO, they can buy and own that weapon.... they just must either sell it back to a LEO or a FFL if they quit the job. They own it, it belongs to them.

Your above statement is so wrong its not even funny. You set out to prove something thats not true, and your so blinded by the conclusion you already came too that when the facts are posted right in front of you you can't comprehend them.



Are you an LEO?
If so lets test your theory.
If you use dept. letterhead to obtain a "assault weapon" configured rifle and log it out in your name from the FFL you are committing a felony, if you can't or wont understand that then you are the one who needs remedial reading courses.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that LEO's cannot own "assault weapons" they have the same rights as anyone else when not performing their duties.
Keep it up with the insults too, they show real class in upbringing.
IT'S A FELONY, UNDERSTAND?



You don't 'log out' guns from FFL dealers- you purchase them. The law specifically allows LEOs to PURCHASE AWs from dealers as long as they jump through the hoops. Purchase, not rent. It's mine, just like any other property I own- there are simply some restrictions on what I can do with it, and if the AWB were renewed I would have to sell it when I retire. Note- sell, not turn back in to my department property room, as it is not their property.

You have proven exactly NOTHING through this thread except that you are either uncommonly dense and incapable of understanding very simple concepts, or you are trolling. I vote for #1.
Link Posted: 8/15/2004 5:07:58 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/15/2004 5:10:45 PM EST by Garand_Shooter]

Originally Posted By jrzy:

Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter:
Have you noticed that everyone on here, LEO or not, and the ATF website disagrees with you... and you and this mystery ATF agent are the only ones who hold your opinion. There is a reason for that. Heck start a poll for everyone that holds a FFL and see what response you get.



Not really, CRC agrees with me and what other FFL posted on this thread?

I'll will do the best thing for everyone so we all know the truth right?
I will contact the BATF in the morning and expedite my request for a written clarification.


No, CRC said:


They can only own it for as long as they are a LEO.

Once they are not a LEO-unless gifted on retirement- and they still have the gun they are a CRIMINAL.

CRC



He even clarified just now..they can own as long as they are LEO's. If they quit they cannot.

I can understand why your confused now, with the level of comprehension you have shown of what he just posted I understand why you can't understand the law. If you thought he agreed with you when he said that, lord only knows what the ATF agent said... it probably wasn't what you heard.
Link Posted: 8/15/2004 5:08:32 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/15/2004 5:14:07 PM EST by jrzy]

Originally Posted By CRC:
JRZY,

They can buy the gun only for use on duty but once they buy it and are still a LEO they can use it for personal uses to.

Hunting, plinking, home defense, shooting, paper weight.

As long as they also use for their LE job too.

CRC



I agree with that statement.
They can not have it in their name as if they own it personally.
It must remain in the dept. name.
If that gun was logged out to them by the FFL into their name they committed a felony.
I'll let you know what the ATF says when I get this back in writing from them.
Why do you think this is such a sore subject with LEO's?
If I'm right then some of them are felons.
Link Posted: 8/15/2004 5:09:56 PM EST

Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter:
Its not rare or unusual to find a BATFE agent that doesn't know what hes talking about..



So fucking sad and so fucking true.
Link Posted: 8/15/2004 5:10:52 PM EST
OK no problem. this will be cleared up one way or the other.
Link Posted: 8/15/2004 5:12:26 PM EST

Originally Posted By jrzy:

Originally Posted By CRC:
JRZY,

They can buy the gun only for use on duty but once they buy it and are still a LEO they can use it for personal uses to.

Hunting, plinking, home defense, shooting, paper weight.

As long as they also use for their LE job too.

CRC



I agree with that statement.
Thye can not have it in their name as if they own it personally.
It must remain in the dept. name.
If that gun was logged out to them by the FFL into their name they committed a felony.
I'll let you know what the ATF says when I get this back in writing from them.
Why do you think this is such a sore subject with LEO's?
If I'm right then some of them are felons.



No, we just have to deal with ignorant fucktards like you all day and it makes us tired. There is obviously no point in talking to you at all- at least nobody else buys your ignorant drivel.
Link Posted: 8/15/2004 5:12:53 PM EST
They can buy it BUT they have to get department approval from their chief.

This isn't automatic weapons where only DEPARTMENTS can buy or obtain.

Any LEO that does the paperwork, gets permission and is allowed by the law can buy one.

BUT THEY DO NOT PERMANENTLY OWN IT.

It's theirs for use on the job for as along as they are a LEO. Then they have to get rid of it- sell to another officer, melt it down or sell it to a FFL.

Sucks really.

CRC
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top