I'm just wondering how the majority of the police feels about this.  Or are you guys minorities too about this in your departments?  I know there was a police officer in uniform at a gun show this weekend and I saw that he was by the booth looking at AR parts.  I asked him  how he felt about it and how ppl were trying to get around the band by buying off list lowers.  Apprently he knew about the off list lowers, and was trying to find one for sale XD .  He sounded like he was pro 2nd amendment.

Police are just as frustrated as the rest of us are by the ban.  Many, if not most, are pro-2nd amendment and have also purchased off-list lowers.  In theory they can get a letter to lawfully purchase an "Assault Weapon" but the folks in charge of most Law Enforcement agencies are all anti-gun and will not issue letters to authorize the purchase of off-list handguns or "assault weapons".

I'm not a cop, but the general feeling I get is that LEOs are not inclined to enforce the AWB. Unless the offenders are in violation of other stuff as well. Obviously, YMMV.

AR15fan, what's your opinion on this?

I'm an LEO, and I don't support it.

The last time I was shot at four years ago, it was by a guy with a bolt action 30.06, not an AW.

This is really the wrong place to ask.  Ask a LEO forum and see what they say, I'm sure it will be entirely different.  

Not LEO here, but at the two group buy DROS sessions I attended I was a minority in the LEO/NON-LEO ratio.

Most of the guys that were in there DROSing the receivers were Officers for one city or another, and I recall 3 CHP officers.

I know another LEO that can't get a department letter to get one, so he ran out and DROSed a pair.  

Cops are people too, and many times feel the same as anyone else.

I'm not LEO either but I did here that a DA also got in on the Drosing and got (2) lowers.I guess if something big happens they will have to go after the DA too!

Quoted: This is really the wrong place to ask.  Ask a LEO forum and see what they say, I'm sure it will be entirely different.

agreed. of course most if not all police members here are going to be pro-2nd ammendment.

im an LEO and a FFL in Texas.  formerly i was an LEO in CA.  ive been shipping off-list (Stag and Ameetec) lowers to CA to various persons.  most of my buyers have not been LEO's.  some are military (current or former).  most are just plain old civilians.

however, in TX, a good half of my customers are LEO's, the other half are regular old joes.

laws are a little different here in TX.  this is a SHALL ISSUE CCW state.  you can carry a rifle/shotgun/pistol in your car in TX without a permit so long as you are not suspected of violating any law above a traffic violation, dont belong to a criminal street gang, are in a privately owned motor vehicle, and in the case of a handgun that it is concealed.

that being said i think most LEO's in TX don't normally get alarmed by a law abiding citizen carrying a gun.

before i was a LEO i was stopped by a city PD officer for a traffic violation (a rather chicken shit one but i didnt get a ticket so it doesnt matter).  i told him i was armed and showed him my CCW (here called a "CHL" for Concealed Handgun License).  he didn't even care that i had a gun, and didnt even want to see it.

OTOH i think in CA you don't run into too many citizens with CCW's.  when i was an LEO in CA, i only dealt with two citizens with CCW's.  one was dead (i found the CCW in his wallet, he died of old age in his own bed), and the other one was a very wealthy business woman.

Quoted: Quoted: This is really the wrong place to ask.  Ask a LEO forum and see what they say, I'm sure it will be entirely different.   agreed. of course most if not all police members here are going to be pro-2nd ammendment.

Yep, but just about anyone here knows more about guns than 90% of all LEOs. And 99% of the general public.

I have noticed that most of the newer/younger police officers that I run into now know a bit more about weaponry than in the past.

I think it's because they are more into the black leather gloved tactical ninjaness of the new and improved LEO.

Ok, I am a police officer and I specialize in weapons laws and teach weapons laws in several academies.  One I do not feel that the current AW laws are fair as they, like most laws will only be followed by good law abiding citizens.  Second they are so convoluted that most local guys are not interested in enforcing them.  No they are not being lazy they know like me that the laws have no affect on violence in society so we are not going to go look for the honest citizen that has an AR or other weapon.  Not to say I won’t throw a AW law up on a piece of $^%* crip or blood that elects to use a AK on a drive-by.  Don’t blame the tool blame the user.

Quoted: Ok, I am a police officer and I specialize in weapons laws and teach weapons laws in several academies.  One I do not feel that the current AW laws are fair as they, like most laws will only be followed by good law abiding citizens.  Second they are so convoluted that most local guys are not interested in enforcing them.  No they are not being lazy they know like me that the laws have no affect on violence in society so we are not going to go look for the honest citizen that has an AR or other weapon.  Not to say I won’t throw a AW law up on a piece of $^%* crip or blood that elects to use a AK on a drive-by.  Don’t blame the tool blame the user.

Several points:

1) AWB laws are making quite a few Americans into lawbreakers who wouldn't otherwise break any laws. It seems to me that that has to, to some extent, undermine respect for the law in general. In fact, I suspect that this is also true among Americans who are not in violation: most gun owners probably never violated the federal '94 ban, but I suspect it lowered respect for law in general.

2) From a police perspective, it would be good for just about everything to be against the law, so that there always is a pretext to take down a bad guy. Assuming that he can selectively enforce the law. That does appear that that's how the AWB is often used. But that's not right, and that's not how laws should be in free society (free?). This isn't a knock on the cops who use the law this way, if I was a cop I'd probably do the same (get a suspected rapist off the street for violation of AWB--sure, if that works). Its a knock at the law and its supporters.

I have been a law enforcement officer nearing twenty years and truthfully, I would much rather face a guy with an AR-15 or other assault weapon, than to take away the rights of law abiding citizens.  

The focus should not be on banning weapons from everyone, as a cure for crime.  The focus should be on getting LEOs the right tools to get the bad guys off the street.  We are out gunned but do our jobs, we are out numbered but do our jobs, I would say underpayed, but we get good money (don't tell the bosses, we always ask for morehat
I guess the answer to your question is I disagree with the AW ban, as it unnecessarily affects law abiding citizens.  The fact that lawful civilians are getting the weapons now, is no biggie to me, I just hope they use their head and don't get themselves in trouble by building them into illegal firearms because they are too impatient to wait for the legal process, and in turn losing their right to own firearms permanently.

One other thing to consider is that this ban also affects LEOs.  Some have the duty to carry these type of weapons, but can not legally own their own without the signature of the "head of their agency".  There are many agencies, where the head of the agency will not sign approval letters to anyone.  What is rediculous is how they blame the officers when they can not shoot effectively, yet don't give them the time or ability to practice with these weapons.  Everyone sees this on the news lately, hundreds of rounds shot and very few hits.  What wasn't told on the news was that several of these incidents included AR-15 weapons.  

Thanks for your time.          

Quoted: One other thing to consider is that this ban also affects LEOs.  Some have the duty to carry these type of weapons, but can not legally own their own without the signature of the "head of their agency"

This is even more ironic for National Guard and Reserves members in this sttae. We are expected to stand up and defend this country in a moments notice (which I and everyone I know have done at least once since 9/11) and be deployed to a hostile place with only a weapon to protect our lives. So there I am in Baghdad International with an M4A1 and everyone else with various forms of M16's and M4's, most have not fired one since they left their training schools. I am lucky to have a non-neutered copy to practice, but all my fellow soldiers, returning from Iraq/Afghanistan, that wishes to purchase a weapon to practice and get more familiar with for their next deployment is basically screwed.

How can a state/country ask its young men/women to risk their lives if it won't let those same young men/women the ability to own the same tools they are expected to fight and die with?

I am a LEO and am Pro 2nd amendment.  I do not care for the CA AW laws at all.  I am fortunate in that I do have an evil "assault rifle" before the ban came.  I also know of fellow officers from my dept. who have purchased some of the AR stripped lowers and eventually them up.  They are also in a holding pattern in regards to the CA DOJ regulations.  

My take on this is if your a law abing person and sane individual I do not see any reasons why you should not be able to own a assault rifle.  

I met two LEO's at the FFL I picked up my off-list lowers...guess what they were doing??  Picking up their own off-list lowers!!  One was from the LASO and the other from some PD.  They hate the ban as much as we do.

It's up to each LEO to decide how to handle their situation when it comes to AWs.  What you're asking for on this thread possibly won't give you a true answer of how most LEOs would feel.  Don't let the examples of people seeing some LEOs purchasing lowers lead you to believe that most or all LEOs are just as frustrated as we are.  If you want a true idea what the sentiment is, I would suggest that you go down to your local PD and ask a few directly, or find some forum that isn't an AW or gun forum and is focused more on LE issues to ask that question.  I've personally met 2 LEOs during my ride alongs that do not think that AWs are meant for the general public.  They definitely were not gun enthusiasts.

Quoted: I'm just wondering how the majority of the police feels about this.

The majority of cops have no emotional investment in the issue at all.

Or are you guys minorities too about this in your departments?

Yes, gun enthusiasts are usually i the minority in a LE agency. For most cops a gun is just a job tool, like a police car, flashlight, laptop computer or pen.

Quoted: Yes, gun enthusiasts are usually i the minority in a LE agency. For most cops a gun is just a job tool, like a police car, flashlight, laptop computer or pen.

Suspect a larger % are gun enthusiasts than the general population.

Quoted: I have been a law enforcement officer nearing twenty years and truthfully, I would much rather face a guy with an AR-15 or other assault weapon, than to take away the rights of law abiding citizens.   The focus should not be on banning weapons from everyone, as a cure for crime.  The focus should be on getting LEOs the right tools to get the bad guys off the street.  We are out gunned but do our jobs, we are out numbered but do our jobs, I would say underpayed, but we get good money (don't tell the bosses, we always ask for morehat I guess the answer to your question is I disagree with the AW ban, as it unnecessarily affects law abiding citizens.  The fact that lawful civilians are getting the weapons now, is no biggie to me, I just hope they use their head and don't get themselves in trouble by building them into illegal firearms because they are too impatient to wait for the legal process, and in turn losing their right to own firearms permanently. One other thing to consider is that this ban also affects LEOs.  Some have the duty to carry these type of weapons, but can not legally own their own without the signature of the "head of their agency".  There are many agencies, where the head of the agency will not sign approval letters to anyone.  What is rediculous is how they blame the officers when they can not shoot effectively, yet don't give them the time or ability to practice with these weapons.  Everyone sees this on the news lately, hundreds of rounds shot and very few hits.  What wasn't told on the news was that several of these incidents included AR-15 weapons.   Thanks for your time.

I couldn't said it better...