Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 6/25/2003 9:29:50 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/25/2003 12:13:51 PM EDT by sprayerboy]
A friend and I got stopped in Council Bluffs Iowa with a 870 with a folding stock stamped law enforcement only with shells in the magazine (empty chamber). A 1911 45 with shells in the mag and chamber. 2 Glock 22's with 15 Round mags stamped law enforcement only, there were no rounds in either glock. A vaquero 45 caliber with no rounds in it. We were not driving at the time. The vehicle was parked out side of a resteraunt with the guns unconcealed. We assumed things would be the same there as in western KS. Needless to say we were wrong. What can we look forward to?
Link Posted: 6/25/2003 4:35:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/25/2003 4:38:24 PM EDT by BKinzey]
What? They don't follow Federal laws in Western Kansas? Unless you are LEO and since LEO marked mags were made after the '94 ban on civilian possession of the +10 rounders manufactured after the ban, you are screwed there. As for the loaded firearms check the State and local laws. Now pay attention Dumb and Dumber: GET A LAWYER[:(!] [:(!] [:(!] [:(!] [:(!] [:(!] [:(!] [:(!] [:(!] [:(!] [:(!] [:(!]
Link Posted: 6/25/2003 5:52:36 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/25/2003 5:52:50 PM EDT by kickmyllama]
[:K]?
Link Posted: 6/25/2003 6:44:11 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/25/2003 6:52:09 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/25/2003 6:55:28 PM EDT
What you didn't like the answers the last time you asked? the law ain't changed yer screwed.
Link Posted: 6/26/2003 10:29:32 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Defcon: How did the police get involved?
View Quote
Left dog in pickup and ASPCA came to "rescue" it and saw guns-called cops
Link Posted: 6/27/2003 11:17:12 AM EDT
Originally Posted By sprayerboy: Left dog in pickup and ASPCA came to "rescue" it and saw guns-called cops
View Quote
2 'smart moves' in the same day! If you aren't a troll, you should be!
Link Posted: 6/27/2003 9:10:06 PM EDT
Originally Posted By sprayerboy: 1) 870 with a folding stock stamped law enforcement only with shells in the magazine (empty chamber). 2) A 1911 45 with shells in the mag and chamber. 3) 2 Glock 22's with 15 Round mags stamped law enforcement only, 4) A vaquero 45 caliber with no rounds in it. 5) with the guns unconcealed. 6) We assumed things would be the same there as in western KS.
View Quote
Okay first of all it is unlawful to transport any firearm across state lines with out it being encased and ammo stored sepratly. Your screwed right there. If you are not a LEO, any weapon/acc. marked as LAW ENFORCEMENT/ MILITARY ONLY means just that. Your screwed there. The best thing for you to do is get a very good lawyer you are going to need it. See ya in about 10 years. [troll]
Link Posted: 6/27/2003 9:40:06 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/28/2003 6:38:31 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/28/2003 6:46:38 AM EDT by FL-AR15]
Originally Posted By David_Hineline: No it is not against the law to posses weapons marke military and LE only, I can engrave what ever the shit I want on a gun only illegal configurations make it an actual LEonly gun not wording on the receiver.
View Quote
Are you nuts. If you are not a LEO, you can not lawfully own a weapon/acc that is banned to civilians. If you have a lower AR15 marked with LEO's only, even if you put on a post ban upper it is still not legal to own the lower.
Link Posted: 6/28/2003 6:56:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/28/2003 7:01:53 AM EDT by FL-AR15]
Originally Posted By David_Hineline: Okay first of all it is unlawful to transport any firearm across state lines with out it being encased and ammo stored separately. Your screwed right there. No it is not against federal law to transport firearms across state lines unless they are unloaded and cased.
View Quote
I did not say federal law. Each state has its own laws concerning caring weapons. Because of that the only way one can travel legally throughout the country is to store the weapons so that they are not readily accessible, and unloaded. The trunk is in some states the only place you can store a weapon when you travel through. Do it your way if you like, but you may run into a few LEO's just like sprayerboy did, and change your mind later.
Link Posted: 6/28/2003 6:57:59 AM EDT
David_Hineline is RIGHT. I have made an extensive study of the exact text of the law, and an LEO/GOV'T ONLY marking on a firearm by itself does not prohibit ownership of it. (The situation is different for LEO magazines.) The way the law works regarding the LEO marking is that any post-ban rifle configured as an assault rifle is for sale as a completed rifle ONLY to LEO's and government entities, and must be marked as such with the LEO/GOV'T marking. A dealer is prohibited from disassembling a post-ban, LEO marked assault weapon for the purpose of selling it off for parts, and he also may not reconfigure it to a post-ban legal configuration in order to sell it to non-LEO's. However, in no way, shape, or form does federal law prohibit a manufacturer or dealer from selling an LEO marked lower receiver alone (or any configuration short of a complete rifle) to anyone who fills out the 4473 and passes the background check. But...some people, even those who work for some of our Industry Partners, are unwilling to accept this proclamation of the truth of the written letter of the law, and trying to get Bushmaster to sell a stripped lower with the LEO marking to a dealer is not quite as easy as pulling teeth out of an antsy elephant. Not singling Bushmaster out here, they're not the only company that's excessively cautious and don't quite fully understand the exact text of the laws that govern their products. If you doubt me, you have only to search 18 U.S.C sections 921 and 922, and then search the parallel authority, the Code of Federal Regulations. You will find the relevant laws and will not find any specific prohibition against a civilian owning an LEO-marked rifle so long as it is not in a pre-ban configuration. CJ
Link Posted: 6/28/2003 7:09:25 AM EDT
What?????? A LEO only lower will still be a newly built preban. That is because of the trigger group being, according to US code of the AWB, easily made into full auto/ select burst weapon. Because of that they can not legally sell to a cilivian without a FFL.
Link Posted: 6/28/2003 7:17:44 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/28/2003 7:20:37 AM EDT by cmjohnson]
Nope. Read it again. The LEO stamping alone changes NOTHING about the classification or designation of the lower receiver. As with ALL lower receivers, no civilian can purchase it direct from the manufacturer without an FFL. That's a given, and need not be gone over again. The LEO stamping is ONLY to differentiate a post-ban assault weapon as a legally built post-ban assault weapon made for the only legal markets, LEO and government. The specific language of the law does not prohibit you from buying a lower receiver from the manufacturer (via a dealer, of course) with the LEO marking on it. It is not legal for a dealer to disassemble a completed rifle to sell the lower or any other parts off of it, but if the lower hasn't been entered into the logs as a completed post-ban rifle in pre-ban configuration at the factory, there's no law that stands in your way if you wish to buy an LEO marked lower and build it up...so long as you build the rifle up in POST-ban configuration. If you disagree, post the specific text of the law that supports your position. I don't doubt that you could get into a sticky situation if you were to build up your post-ban rifle with a LEGALLY OBTAINED LEO marked lower receiver and a cop saw it, but a thorough study of the law would show no wrongdoing. CJ
Link Posted: 6/28/2003 7:31:45 AM EDT
Originally Posted By FL-AR15: What?????? A LEO only lower will still be a newly built preban. That is because of the trigger group being, according to US code of the AWB, easily made into full auto/ select burst weapon. Because of that they can not legally sell to a cilivian without a FFL.
View Quote
You don't appear to have any idea what you are talking about. This may be one of the silliest statements I've ever read on this site. The only difference between a LEO-only semi auto AR lower and a civilian one are the markings stamped on the lower. The only pre-ban feature a lower can have would be an attached tele-stock. Fixed stock, no FH upper (16"+ barrel), on a lower marked LEO-only is a legal postban for anyone to have. Now when you reply that you meant to say that LEO-only lowers get M16 parts, I'll point out that's BS, too.
Link Posted: 6/28/2003 7:51:58 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/28/2003 7:59:11 AM EDT by FL-AR15]
Originally Posted By DavidC: You don't appear to have any idea what you are talking about. This may be one of the silliest statements I've ever read on this site. The only difference between a LEO-only semi auto AR lower and a civilian one are the markings stamped on the lower. The only pre-ban feature a lower can have would be an attached tele-stock. Fixed stock, no FH upper (16"+ barrel), on a lower marked LEO-only is a legal postban for anyone to have. Now when you reply that you meant to say that LEO-only lowers get M16 parts, I'll point out that's BS, too.
View Quote
You still have not proven anything, and neither have I yet. If it is possible to legally own a lower AR15 in a preban confrig made after Sept 1994 with Leo markings, then why can't I legally purchase one? The answer is I cannot. According to cmjohnson I can not legally buy one unassembled from a FFL because he cannot disassemble it to sell as parts. And I cannot legally buy one in as a preban, collapsable stock ext. So how is it that I can legally own one without being a criminal? Seriously guys, I am not trying to be an ass. But what you are saying goes against pop opinion of the law.
Link Posted: 6/28/2003 2:11:57 PM EDT
Originally Posted By FL-AR15:
Originally Posted By DavidC: You don't appear to have any idea what you are talking about. This may be one of the silliest statements I've ever read on this site. The only difference between a LEO-only semi auto AR lower and a civilian one are the markings stamped on the lower. The only pre-ban feature a lower can have would be an attached tele-stock. Fixed stock, no FH upper (16"+ barrel), on a lower marked LEO-only is a legal postban for anyone to have. Now when you reply that you meant to say that LEO-only lowers get M16 parts, I'll point out that's BS, too.
View Quote
You still have not proven anything, and neither have I yet. If it is possible to legally own a lower AR15 in a preban confrig made after Sept 1994 with Leo markings, then why can't I legally purchase one? The answer is I cannot. According to cmjohnson I can not legally buy one unassembled from a FFL because he cannot disassemble it to sell as parts. And I cannot legally buy one in as a preban, collapsable stock ext. So how is it that I can legally own one without being a criminal? Seriously guys, I am not trying to be an ass. But what you are saying goes against pop opinion of the law.
View Quote
If you have a stripped LEO lower and a stripped postban lower, there is no difference other than the markings on the frame. If you legally obtain a LEO stripped lower, you may only configure it as a postban rifle.
Link Posted: 6/28/2003 3:12:11 PM EDT
In simple terms, you can buy a stripped (or assembled) LEO marked lower receiver via a dealer, so long as it is not part of a COMPLETED firearm as shipped (and ordered) from the manufacturer. A few years back, Colt took back a few hundred green label, LEO marked rifles. Colt disassembled them and sold the parts, including the lowers, as surplus. Any dealer could buy the lowers and sell them to anyone who was eligible to buy a post-ban rifle. In this case, the lowers were not (re)shipped as completed rifles configured as assault rifles, making them legal for civilians to own. If you really want such an item, you can arrange for your dealer to purchase a factory fresh stripped lower with the LEO marking on it from any of a number of manufacturers. The tricky part is convincing both the dealer and the manufacturer that this is legal. Not everyone buys it because they don't know the law and don't care to do the research. CJ
Link Posted: 6/28/2003 3:35:15 PM EDT
I can't read through all those posts, they are really mind numbing. 1) Rem-870 marked LE only, (I don't believe that is a weapon that falls under any AW laws, but Remington only markets it to LE.) 2) 1911, loaded 3) 2 Glock 22's with LE only mags, unloaded. 4) Vaquero .45, unloaded. First, Are you a complete dumb-ass? What kind of moron leaves loaded weapons, or for that matter any item of real value in a car where it is readily visible to ANYONE who walks by? Answer that question. (hint you'll save time with the obvious answer) Next, IA law probably has a few things to say about cased/uncased, loaded/unloaded. Not to possibly mentioning something about securing firearms. Was the car even LOCKED? As far as LEO only markings, I believe D. Hineline is correct. But I'm not sure that the law has really been tested in Court. There also may be IA State law about AW's, or LEO only markings that is different, than federal. Also just because he is right, doesn't mean that the LEA, and local prosecutor involved will be readily convinved that those are not restricted items. Same as W Kansas? Those LE only marked magazines are a felony according to federal law.
Link Posted: 6/28/2003 3:55:16 PM EDT
Did you get your dog back? I think I would just plead stupid and hope I didn't get jail time.
Link Posted: 6/28/2003 4:21:41 PM EDT
Originally Posted By FL-AR15: What?????? A LEO only lower will still be a newly built preban. That is because of the trigger group being, according to US code of the AWB, easily made into full auto/ select burst weapon. Because of that they can not legally sell to a cilivian without a FFL.
View Quote
The "LEO" marked rifles, when sold as COMPLETE WEAPON to law enforcement agencies, are "LEO" because they have the "evil features" of a flash hider, folding stock and bayonet lug. These were the restricted features of the AWB. All ar-styled semi-auto weapons cannot be sold new unless you go through an FFL to get one. I too suggest that you find a copy of the AWB and read it word-for-word and actually study it. I say this because you have absolutely no clue as to what you're talking about and it's more fun to give shit to someone who has SOME clue.
Link Posted: 6/28/2003 4:35:10 PM EDT
"1) Rem-870 marked LE only, (I don't believe that is a weapon that falls under any AW laws, but Remington only markets it to LE.)" Yes. Remingtom marked the folding stocks "For LE only." On a pump it means nothing as they are not restricted by federal law. AFAIK there are no restrictions under state law.
Link Posted: 6/28/2003 4:56:18 PM EDT
Originally Posted By cmjohnson: In simple terms, you can buy a stripped (or assembled) LEO marked lower receiver via a dealer, so long as it is not part of a COMPLETED firearm as shipped (and ordered) from the manufacturer. A few years back, Colt took back a few hundred green label, LEO marked rifles. Colt disassembled them and sold the parts, including the lowers, as surplus. Any dealer could buy the lowers and sell them to anyone who was eligible to buy a post-ban rifle. In this case, the lowers were not (re)shipped as completed rifles configured as assault rifles, making them legal for civilians to own. If you really want such an item, you can arrange for your dealer to purchase a factory fresh stripped lower with the LEO marking on it from any of a number of manufacturers. The tricky part is convincing both the dealer and the manufacturer that this is legal. Not everyone buys it because they don't know the law and don't care to do the research. CJ
View Quote
Okay, I have spent at least the last two hours reading over 18 U.S.C sections 921 and 922. I did not find anything saying anything about it it being unlawful owning weapons with LEO markings. I stand corrected, thank you. It is not that I don't trust you. I just need to know without hear say being the basis for the facts. CMJohnson, from what I have read and understood, It is unlawful to own a newly built completed preban configured weapon. And anyone who manufactures such a weapon must mark it as LEO/Military Use only if it is completed as a preban. The only thing I think should be pointed out is that the ATF will be hard pressed to convince. So if, and I mean IF, any of us were able to legally purchase a stripped lower with markings, I don't think any of us would stand a chance in hell getting it back without a long legal battle.
Link Posted: 6/28/2003 5:12:56 PM EDT
Originally Posted By FL-AR15: Okay, I have spent at least the last two hours reading over 18 U.S.C sections 921 and 922. I did not find anything saying anything about it it being unlawful owning weapons with LEO markings. I stand corrected, thank you. It is not that I don't trust you. I just need to know without hear say being the basis for the facts.
View Quote
A very sensible precaution.
CMJohnson, from what I have read and understood, It is unlawful to own a newly built completed preban configured weapon. And anyone who manufactures such a weapon must mark it as LEO/Military Use only if it is completed as a preban.
View Quote
Very succinctly put, and correct.
The only thing I think should be pointed out is that the ATF will be hard pressed to convince. So if, and I mean IF, any of us were able to legally purchase a stripped lower with markings, I don't think any of us would stand a chance in hell getting it back without a long legal battle.
View Quote
In a just world, all you'd have to do is sit down with a few law books and go through the relevant section of the U.S. Code and the C.F.R. and confirm that there is no prohibition stated in the text of the law that prevents you from ownership of an LEO marked rifle if it is not in a pre-ban configuration. It'd take a few hours, maybe a day or so at most. The laws aren't THAT complicated, taken one at a time. Here, check out the parallel authority, the CFR: [url]http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_03/27cfrv2_03.html[/url] You'll find all kinds of interesting information, but no prohibition against owning an LEO marked lower in and of itself. CJ
Link Posted: 6/28/2003 5:15:03 PM EDT
Originally Posted By FL-AR15:
Originally Posted By David_Hineline: No it is not against the law to posses weapons marke military and LE only, I can engrave what ever the shit I want on a gun only illegal configurations make it an actual LEonly gun not wording on the receiver.
View Quote
Are you nuts. If you are not a LEO, you can not lawfully own a weapon/acc that is banned to civilians. If you have a lower AR15 marked with LEO's only, even if you put on a post ban upper it is still not legal to own the lower.
View Quote
David_Hineline I am sorry for the remark about your sanity. I stand corrected.
Link Posted: 6/28/2003 5:17:18 PM EDT
Originally Posted By David_Hineline: Okay first of all it is unlawful to transport any firearm across state lines with out it being encased and ammo stored sepratly. Your screwed right there.
View Quote
Johnny Law has to PROVE it was transported across a state line, and at the time it went over said line it was uncased. Knowing and proving are two different things most of the time. [;D]
Link Posted: 6/30/2003 2:32:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/30/2003 2:42:16 PM EDT by dbrowne1]
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:
Originally Posted By David_Hineline: Okay first of all it is unlawful to transport any firearm across state lines with out it being encased and ammo stored sepratly. Your screwed right there.
View Quote
Johnny Law has to PROVE it was transported across a state line, and at the time it went over said line it was uncased. Knowing and proving are two different things most of the time. [;D]
View Quote
It's not illegal to transport otherwise legal guns across state lines, unless it's a Class III item (and then you just need to tell the ATF where it's going). Even if it were, I'll bet at 1000:1 odds there won't be any feds involved here, and such a crime would have to be a federal one. This guy is on the hook for two, and only two, possible things: 1. STATE charges relating to possessing the loaded 1911 within his reach, the loaded shotgun depending on what "loaded" means there, and other charges depending on where the other guns were located. 2. FEDERAL charges, if anyone at the nearest U.S. Attorney's office even gives a shit, for possessing the LEO-only Glock mags. There is nothing else there. Find a lawyer who understands gun laws, that's my advice. The state prosecutor will probably try to make a big deal out of all the "LEO only" stuff, and you need someone who can explain that this doesn't matter, except with respect to the mags, and in any event, that's a federal charge and not a state one.
Link Posted: 6/30/2003 3:06:45 PM EDT
I did a quick search about KS law, but didn't turn up anything, so I'm going to assume what I've been told in regards to a question asked to an LEO friend of mine is correct (he said he checked and answered me back a few days later, I trust him). In KS, it's illegal to carry a loaded pistol in a vehicle, it must be in a closed (and locked, I believe) container. We cant carry concealed, there is no permit, open carry is legal. "long rifles" are not restricted when transporting in a vehicle. You were breaking KS law, as well. This all being on the word of a friend who says he checked for me. The only thing I have actually been able to confirm was the non-CCW point. Personally, I trust him.
Link Posted: 6/30/2003 3:46:40 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/30/2003 4:02:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/30/2003 4:08:56 PM EDT by DzlBenz]
This must have been started by a [:K]. It's just too goofy to be real. If it is, this kid's in deep trouble. I think it's a hoax post. He starts out, "A friend and I got stopped in Council Bluffs Iowa ..." and then says, "We were not driving at the time." Well, [b]sprayerboy[/b] which is it? Where does one obtain a LEO-marked 870 and Glock mags anyway? I think we've heard the last from [b]sprayerboy[/b].
Link Posted: 6/30/2003 10:16:56 PM EDT
This post showed up at another location with the subject as being MIC/MIP (minor in control/possession)??? Not sure if its a troll in any case they aint liking the answer that they are in deep doodoo.
Link Posted: 7/1/2003 4:03:02 PM EDT
"Where does one obtain a LEO-marked 870 and Glock mags anyway?" The 870 is not marked LE only, just the stock is which means nothing on an 870. There are so many Glock PD trade-in guns that LEO marked mags are readily available.
Link Posted: 7/1/2003 5:53:54 PM EDT
I was in a legal battle i won over some aslt/non aslt rifle issues. Its realy not much fun and was very pricey to win. These guys dont seem like the bad guys to me so i would hope some of you would cool off on the smart ass remarks to these fellas as it could be you some day. Yes you can have LE parts but what matters is the final configuration of parts.If you have time please send a letter to the batf and get a written ruling from there viewpoint about what the fed thinks you have.A good lawyer and alot of reading of penal codes and fed 5300 regs will help you.They will have to prove intent on some issues so stay off internet with important things.I would hope you have 0 crim backround and dont get mad,be smart,,READ,LEARN what you can,dont give up.You made some poor choices but im sure your not the bad guys these crazy laws dont work on anyhow,,,,GOODLUCK!!! Brad
Link Posted: 7/1/2003 6:02:41 PM EDT
Bravo!!!! Somtimes it gets very lonely understanding batf text with all the dark shadows but i read on and it clear you do to. Great post Brad
Link Posted: 7/1/2003 6:22:04 PM EDT
What an obvious [:K]. The first post of his ARFCOM career: Buddy and me got busted by cops with an arsenal. What should I do? Second Post: I'm such a dumbfuck that not only did I do the immensely stupid things I stated in the first post, but the ASPCA had to come rescue my dog because I am too stupid to take care of it. No other posts since then = He is a [:K].
Link Posted: 7/1/2003 7:36:38 PM EDT
Am I imagining things, or did BRAD2 just post a congratulatory post to HIMSELF?
I was in a legal battle i won over some aslt/non aslt rifle issues. Its realy not much fun and was very pricey to win. These guys dont seem like the bad guys to me so i would hope some of you would cool off on the smart ass remarks to these fellas as it could be you some day. Yes you can have LE parts but what matters is the final configuration of parts.If you have time please send a letter to the batf and get a written ruling from there viewpoint about what the fed thinks you have.A good lawyer and alot of reading of penal codes and fed 5300 regs will help you.They will have to prove intent on some issues so stay off internet with important things.I would hope you have 0 crim backround and dont get mad,be smart,,READ,LEARN what you can,dont give up.You made some poor choices but im sure your not the bad guys these crazy laws dont work on anyhow,,,,GOODLUCK!!! Brad
View Quote
and then the next post (again, brad2)
Bravo!!!! Somtimes it gets very lonely understanding batf text with all the dark shadows but i read on and it clear you do to. Great post Brad
View Quote
Now I know the board has been acting up a bit the past few weeks... perhaps this was a glitch... but it sure is funny. Especially this being brad2's 1st and second posts ever [:D]
Link Posted: 7/1/2003 7:50:58 PM EDT
Yep He sure did. BTW there is no need to show intent for possession of the LEO mags. Possession however slight is sufficient to commit the offense. (Aand everybody agrees on that one if not on one or more of the others.)
Link Posted: 7/2/2003 7:20:09 AM EDT
Originally Posted By rkbar15: "Where does one obtain a LEO-marked 870 and Glock mags anyway?" The 870 is not marked LE only, just the stock is which means nothing on an 870. There are so many Glock PD trade-in guns that LEO marked mags are readily available.
View Quote
I didn't take it that way. I took his original post to mean an LEO-marked 870, with a folding stock, with shells in the magazine but not in the chamber. Since the original poster ([:K]?) has dropped off the radar screen, we may never get a clarification. I think the guy's going to be in trouble, if indeed he is a civilian in possesion of the LEO-marked mags. I don't think the shotgun is an issue. I still think this is a hoax post. I hope, in a way, that it's not, because we are all interested in exactly how a case like this is actually prosecuted. Unfortunately, if the post is true, our friend [b]sprayerboy[/b] is in for some unhappy days.
Top Top