Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 4/25/2002 11:58:17 AM EDT
You guys remember the letter I wrote ATF back in June of last year regarding the LEO who retires and wants to acquire, for pursonal use, an AR marked "LEO only". Just recieved the letter today. Will edit this post to display the whole letter, however, I'm too busy right now. Basically, the important paragraph states: "You asked if a law enforcement officer purchases an AR-15 rifle marked "Restricted- Law Enforcement Use Only" and then later leaves the department, can he retain possession of the rifle if he removes those features that qualify the rifle as a smiautomatic assault weapon?" SNIP "If the officer lawfully acquired the rifle for law enforcement use, in compliance with section 922(v)(4), the officer is not prohibited from altering the firearm at a future time so that it no longer qualifies as a semiautomatic assault weapon. If the rifle does not meet the definition of a semiautomatic assault weapon, possession of the rifle is not prohibited even though the receiver is marked, "Resticted, Law Enforcement Use Only." They added this CAVEAT for dealers: "Please note, possession and alteration of semiautomatic assault weapons by persons other than qualified law enforcement officers may be unlawful. For example, licensed dealers can only acquire and possess semiautomatic assault weapons for sale to law enforcement. A dealer who falsely represents that the weapons are for sale to law enforcement, but who actually intends to reconfigure the weapons so that they would no longer meet the definition of a semiautomatic assault weapon would be in violation of section 922(v).
Link Posted: 4/25/2002 3:26:58 PM EDT
Good news! But... Drat! I just thought of something. This would not apply to a LE Only [b]Colt AR-15A3[/b]. The name makes it a 921(a)(30) assault weapon by name regardless of evil feature count. Bummer.
Link Posted: 4/26/2002 2:56:10 PM EDT
I was told by a gun dealer today that a 4473 must be filled out if the officer wishes to sell the weapon. I never heard of this before but I guess it would make sense considering the "dangerous and evil nature" of the LEO weapon...haha Is that 4473 form correct for transfer???
Link Posted: 4/27/2002 1:52:36 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/27/2002 2:17:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/27/2002 2:18:30 PM EDT by Dave_G]
The way I read it is that [i]f the officer lawfully acquired the rifle for law enforcement use, in compliance with section 922(v)(4), the officer is not prohibited from altering the firearm at a future time so that it no longer qualifies as a semiautomatic assault weapon. It is therefore no longer a regulated weapon. Further, [i]f the rifle does not meet the definition of a semiautomatic assault weapon, possession of the rifle is not prohibited even though the receiver is marked, "Resticted, Law Enforcement Use Only." So, as long as the rifle was lawfully acquired in the first place, it is legal for a non-LEO, active or retired, to p[ossess it as long as it no longer qualifies as a 921(a)(30) AW. If you want to find out for sure, write the BATF and ask them. You will only have to wait about 9 months for an answer. Not to blow my own horn, but I was correct on this issue. I would bet your good money I'm right here, too.
Top Top