Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 2/21/2006 9:13:28 PM EDT
I was wondering if HR 218 could be applied to a leo like me who is stuck in NY? I have several post ban hi cap magazines & rifles that are defined as "Assault Weapons" by NY law, and I was thinking if I could use HR 218 to cover me when I retire ? In NY the way the law is written, I would have to get rid of any post ban ( post Sept 14th 1994 ) weapons and Hi cap magazines upon retiring. I'm just wondering what ever one thinks and any info would be great.

Thanks & be safe!
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 1:01:28 AM EDT
I'm not a lawyer and I can't vouch for what LEO's would actually do to you in your area, but I don't see anything in the law itself that would cover either. I'm sure there's plenty of people who will tell you to do whatever you want, but they won't pay you legal bills (neither will I but I'm suggesting caution).
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 1:17:48 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/22/2006 1:23:27 AM EDT by 199]
I’d say the answer is “no” regarding your rifles and any hi-cap rifle magazines, and probably "no" regarding any hi-cap pistol magazines.

H.R. 218 (Public Law 108-277) is not as clear as it could be, but the obvious intent deals with concealed carry laws, not laws regarding possession.

Further, while (as far as I can tell) the law only uses the term ‘firearm” in it’s body, the preamble states:


An Act

To amend title 18, United States Code, to exempt qualified current and former law enforcement officers from State laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed handguns.



So my guess is rifles (and presumably rifle magazines) are out anyway! (Though it does seem you might be able to argue that the above was a clerical error.)

H.R. 218 makes no reference to hi-cap magazines (or, for that matter, hollowpoint bullets) - thus my guess is that H.R. 218 does not exempt folks from any state or local laws prohibiting them.

ETA: Don’t forget there’s also an annual qualification standard for retirees!
Link Posted: 2/26/2006 4:37:12 AM EDT
???
Link Posted: 2/26/2006 6:45:51 PM EDT
My non-learned opinion would be to believe that since you are required to qualify with your weapon at dept. standards to stay legal as/per the fed. law, then whatever equipment you are required to use during quals would be legal.

If you have hi-cap pistol mags for qual then you'd be good. I can't think of a reason a retired officer would be getting qualed on a rifle unless he was staying on as a reserve, so rifle mags and "assault" weapons would probably be out.

Link Posted: 2/27/2006 4:18:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/27/2006 4:25:29 PM EDT by 1981]
Thats kind of what I thought. I've been told by the NY state police that a retired leo would have to comply with the ban, and I was told by the Westchester county police dept. ( pistol permit unit ) that as long as I have my retired dept. ID I should be good for my Rifles ( "assault weapons ) and Hi cap magazines.
Link Posted: 2/27/2006 4:23:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/27/2006 4:26:05 PM EDT by 1981]
I think it is real F%%%ed up that I can serve 20 years as a Police Officer with my Hi cap magazines, and Ar 15s ( post ban ) , but after 20 years of service & upon retiring in good standing, I'm no longer trusted to keep a rifle with a folding stock or my Hi cap magazines because it was made after some stupid date!
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 12:01:29 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/28/2006 5:31:59 PM EDT by BigKahuna13]
1981 Do what everyone else is doing......... Retire to Pennsylvania... More NY retired cops live in the Poconos, than there are cops on active duty..
Link Posted: 3/2/2006 9:20:03 AM EDT
That sounds like a plan I just need to talk the wife into it.
Link Posted: 3/2/2006 3:49:30 PM EDT
HR 218 only applies to being able to carry concealed across the country. It have anything to do with mags, rifles, or ammo for that matter. LEO marked equipment, technically, are supposed to be owned by the department, so when you retire you are suposed to turn that stuff in.
Link Posted: 3/2/2006 6:30:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/2/2006 6:30:13 PM EDT by npd233]

Originally Posted By Vinnie:
HR 218 only applies to being able to carry concealed across the country. It have anything to do with mags, rifles, or ammo for that matter. LEO marked equipment, technically, are supposed to be owned by the department, so when you retire you are suposed to turn that stuff in.



Huh?
Link Posted: 3/3/2006 7:48:33 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/3/2006 7:49:37 AM EDT by Vinnie]

Originally Posted By npd233:

Originally Posted By Vinnie:
HR 218 only applies to being able to carry concealed across the country. It have anything to do with mags, rifles, or ammo for that matter. LEO marked equipment, technically, are supposed to be owned by the department, so when you retire you are suposed to turn that stuff in.



Huh?



Equipment marked Law Enforcement/Military Only was not supposed to be for general consumption due to the ban prohibiting the new equipment to the unwashed masses. Whatever department you worked for was supposed to buy this equipment. This of course no longer applies to most people in the country, but here in NY...
Link Posted: 3/3/2006 8:15:00 AM EDT
It was also available, during the ban, to any individual LEO also. Why would he turn his personal property in?
Link Posted: 3/3/2006 9:41:21 AM EDT

It was also available, during the ban, to any individual LEO also. Why would he turn his personal property in?


Read somewhere a while ago that allows the retiree to receive a department issued rifle as a gift as long as he/she retired in good standing. I'll try to find it
Link Posted: 3/3/2006 2:15:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By npd233:
It was also available, during the ban, to any individual LEO also. Why would he turn his personal property in?



Because once you weren't a LEO, you couldn't posses high cap mags and evil featured rifles made after 9-13-94.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 7:12:36 PM EDT
I just read that the Calf. dept of justice is moving forward with implimenting HR 218 and that the Calf. dept of justice had a informational letter about HR 218 sent out to Calf. Police depts. and it is my understanding that a "Assault weapon" could be covered under HR 218 because the term "Firearm" used in HR 218 doesn't state "Assault Weapon" with the items that are stated to not be Firearms such as a NFA weapon or a Machine gun. HR 218 deals with the term "Firearm" not just a pistol or handgun! HR 218 seems to be too gray and in need of revision.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 9:58:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Juntau:

It was also available, during the ban, to any individual LEO also. Why would he turn his personal property in?


Read somewhere a while ago that allows the retiree to receive a department issued rifle as a gift as long as he/she retired in good standing. I'll try to find it


That was an ATF interpretation which also applied to hi-cap mags - it was based on the now expired federal AWB. Federally, at least, that’s no longer an issue.

Actually, “LEO only” markings themselves have no legal meaning. They can reference existing laws, expired laws, or non-legal limitations placed by the manufacturer.

With the expiration of the federal AWB, many AR-15 type rifles and hi-cap mags marked with it can now be legally owned by non-LEO’s in many states.

Other items such as Remington 870 folding stocks and some ammunition (esp. +P+ ammo) are so-marked by manufacturers but have always been legal for non-LEO’s to own.

(Ironically, there is also some ammo marked essentially “non-LEO only”!! )


Originally Posted By 1981:
… HR 218 seems to be too gray and in need of revision.


That, ultimately, is the problem.

Considering it took ten years to get the thing enacted to begin with, plus that Randy Cunningham did incredibly stupid things and just got put in jail for several years (), I doubt any revision is going to happen in the foreseeable future.

So all these loose ends will ultimately have to be resolved through the courts – only who wants to be the test case?

Actually, what you should do (though you risk painting yourself in a corner) is send a letter to the state AG posing these questions.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 7:12:16 PM EDT
???
Top Top