I have asked this question and recieved several answers.  Is there any LE purchasers or delaers out there that can clear this up.  Does a restricted lower require department letterhead with specifc disclamer of duty use?  

Thanks,
Adrian

Yes, but you can also just buy one from another officer without a letter. And like bigbore stated if bought on letterhead it will belong to the depatrment, but the department can retire the weapon to you when you leave. There appears to be some gray areas here. I would try to talk to ATF, but good luck getting the same answer from two different agents!

Ray

Ya know, no offense to our law enforcement personell, but...

This crap the ATF gives about gray areas is just bullshit.  Laws are black and white, no grey.  Something is either legal or it isn't with specifications on objects.  Possesion of a drug is illegal, muder is illegal, rape is illegal, illegal fully-automatic rifle is illegal, bayonet on a chinese SKS that entered country with it on is a grey area.  WTF is that????!!!!   It is one of two possibilities, either it is legal or illegal.  Lets make their self appointed judging asses own up to it.  We don't need the ATF, they do nothing but exploit their all powerful God appointed whims and take our money to deprive us of our personal liberties.

Regards,
Mortis...

So I one LEO buys it from another LEO, it isn't really owned by the dept? I know of correctional officers who buy them on letterhead (for personal use) so I wonder how they can get away with that. They certainly aren't being purchased for duty use

what I would like to know: why would you even want to go through that whole entire B.S?  

V65-Sabre,
I’m a SWAT/Cop here in TX. I own 3 preban AR’s, 2 LEO AR’s and I’m issued an 11.5” burst, Bushie.  What I mean by gray areas is; (1) I bought both of my LEO AR’s from other officers.  No letterhead, but I’m an officer and can legally be in possession of them. Same thing with LEO hi-cap mags. ATF told us officer to officer sale is okay. (2) If an officer is shooting his AR or pistol with LEO mags off-duty, does this fall under personal use or training?  I feel I’m training on my personal time.  If I use one of my restricted weapons w/mags off-duty in self-defense or to protect someone else, I’m acting as a Police Officer, again not personal use.  Now after all of this whom do my LEO AR’s belong to?  I guess technically my department since I work for them an acquired the weapons and mags during this period.  But I bet there are a lot of officers and departments that don’t even think about this.  Figuring if you bought it it’s yours.  Obviously I’m no expert in this area.  I’m trying to do every thing legally, but again…I think there are some gray areas. [>:/]

Ray  

As far as I'm concerned, LEO's can abide by the same laws the average citizen has to abide by...including on duty..how's that for clearing up "gray"areas.

Lowers are not restricted no matter what the markings say. Number of evil features is what restricts a rifle not the markings.

If you have a restricted weapon and you leave law enforcement service then just pin the stock and chop the barrel and bayonet lug off to remove illegal features.

First, like I said, I own 3 pre-ban AR’s just like anyone else can do as long as their state allows it and they aren’t a criminal.  Second, I have 2 LEO AR’s just like anyone else who becomes an officer can purchase.  Third, I have an issued class 3 weapon just like any other officer can get if they can make it on a SWAT team.  If I want to use the same weaponry the military uses I’d go back in.  So, for most people there shouldn’t be anything keeping them from getting the same gear I use.  Criminal and civil law has never been and will probably never be completely black and white.  There are gray areas all over the place in all aspects of life, including the law.  Don’t blame an officer because they are able and willing to get the tools they need to do their job.  And
I am just an average citizen. [soapbox]  I never thought I'd be on one. [:D]  

Ray  

I would like to add on this topic.  With my department If you buy a LEO restriced firearm it does "belong" to the department but it's your's.  If you leave the department and go to another department then the department you went to will send letterhead to your old department so you can have your gun.  Now... Say you leave or retire who gets the gun?  The wise thing to do would be to sell if to another officer OR the department can "retire" the gun and give it to you but there must be a letter with the gun.

As far as the whole on-duty off-duty thing.  Here in Texas you are NEVER off-duty.  If you are employed with a police department or sheriff's department you are ALWAYS on-duty.  Meaning if you use your gun in self defense OR at the range you are considered on-duty.

Andrew

Just to backup what David said, I have a letter from ATF specifically asking about these LE marked stripped receivers.  I presntly don't have a scanner or I would post it, but here is the important part of their reply.  You may want to write them and get a letter addressed to you if you are planning on getting one of these as a CYA type of thing:

"A licensed dealer may receive or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon for transfer to qualified law enforcement officers or government entities as provided in Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 478, section 478.49(c).  However, a licensed dealer cannot receive or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon for other purposes, such as stripping the weapon for parts.

A firearm frame or receiver possessed without other components does not meet the definition of a semiautomatic assault weapon, even if the receiver bears the "Restricted Law Enforcement/Government Use."  A firearm assembled using such a receiver that does not have the physical characteristics of a semiautomatic assault weapon is not prohibited under section 922(v) ot Title 18, United States Code.

Any person who is engaged in the business of assembling firearms for the purpose of sale and distribution must have a Federal firearms license as a manufacturer of firearms.  Assembly of such firearms would incur Federal Excise Tax.  Additional information concerning semiautomatic assault weapons and assembly of AR15 style rifles is enclosed.

yadda yadda yadda
Signed:  Sterling T. Nixon, Chief, Firearms Technology Branch"

From the way I read and understand this, if you bought a LE/Govt Use marked receiver from a dealer, so long as you had something from the dealer (written receipt?) that stated the receiver was not originally a "semiauto assault rifle" that had been stripped for parts you could legally purchase and put it into a post-ban configuration for personal use.  Otherwise, it sounds to me like a manufacturer/FFL would have to assemble it into a post-ban config and pay the excise tax.  I'm no legal expert, so I welcome your experience and input.

One more thought, if the receiver ever was a complete LE restricted firearm, wouldn't ATF have a way of researching that by going to the original manufacturer and seeing how the receiver left the factory?  At that point, even if you had a CYA letter from the dealer that sold it to you, who would be liable for parting the gun out and would you still be able to keep it?

Not exactly. The letterhead is just a Federal requirement for the dealer to sell it to you. You, the individual officer own the weapon.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#o11



Only if you leave to retire (not change jobs or careers), and only if the weapon is owned by the Dept. LEO owned SAWs cannot be transferred to the officer.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#o9

Otherwise, the weapon must be disposed of.

If you have convinced yourself of this, I will not argue with you, but we all know the difference between when we are on-duty and when we are off-duty, don't we? No need to embelish it to fit our gun owning needs.

Also, you are generalizing about all TX PDs. Not all see things this way, different depts have different policies. Sure, you legally have 24x7 police power, but a reserve officer from Dallas is going to get laughed at if he claims he is on-duty while vacationing in Big Bend.

Anyway, examples the ATF considers off-duty would be non-LEO-sanctioned shooting matches, out-of-legal jurisdiction, etc. Off-duty as it pertains to these weapons is very narrow in scope, unless you have a very anal dept.

RenegadeX,

Like I said, I’m no expert in this area, but it was an ATF agent that informed my department that a LEO AR purchased on letterhead by an individual officer actually belonged to the department.

[blue]Edited to add:[/blue]
[url]http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#o11[/url]
After reading this section it says nothing about the weapon belonging to the officer.
Simply the conditions and required information on the letterhead for purchasing the weapon.  Nothing about officer to officer sale either, a so called gray area.  I would feel it’s somewhere along the lines of a private weapon sale (person to person), no federal paper work or background check required.

And while I see your point and agree with you on the on-duty off-duty issue.  That would be a department G.O. definition and not a federal one.  If I have to use my restricted weapon/mags off-duty, I’m acting as a Police Officer.  Again, “on-duty”, another so called gray area.  If there is a specific federal definition for being on-duty I would like to know it.

[red]"LEO owned SAWs cannot be transferred to the officer."[/red] Yes they can.  You would just have to "give" the weapon back to the department before they retired it to you, even though technically it’s already theirs.  It says this under the retired weapon section. (Another gray area?)

I want to do everything legally and the last thing I would ever want to do is pass on some bad information that could get someone in trouble!

Ray

Since it says "transfer to law enforcement officer" instead of "transfer to law enforcement agency", to me that implies the person.

You read it pretty good though, What you call "Grey Area", I call "Loophole".  I didn't realize the officer-officer did not require letterhead! Good catch. I only knew about "the give gun to agency same day you retire, and they give it back to you" trick. Just goes to show how poor a law this really is!

I totally agree!  And Lord only knows what the laws/regulations for LEO AR’s will be like if the ban is lifted.  Again, I’m trying to do everything legally and pass on good information.

Ray

[red](O9) May law enforcement officers keep their semiautomatic assault weapons (SAWs) and large capacity ammunition feeding devices (LCAFDs) when they retire or leave their employment with a law enforcement agency?[/red]

[blue]Under certain circumstances. In general, it is unlawful to possess SAWs and LCAFDs. However, there is an exception that allows a retired law enforcement officer (LEO) to possess a SAW or a LCAFD if the item belongs to the law enforcement agency and the LEO's agency transfers it to the LEO when he retires. The law of the jurisdiction where the officer was employed governs whether he is considered “retired.” The exception does not cover officers who leave an agency for reasons other than retirement. It also does not allow retired officers to acquire additional SAWs/LCAFDs after retirement.

We recognize some law enforcement officers have to purchase their own service weapons. Such an officer still can fall within the exception for retired officers if the LEO gives his service SAW/LCAFD back to his agency before retiring, following the agency’s rules/guidelines for such a transfer. We recommend that both the officer and his agency keep records of any such transfer, in case it later must be established that the transfer was not a sham to avoid the general prohibition.

Any officer who does not fall within the retired officer exception should transfer any SAWs/LCAFDs he owns to an FFL or another qualified officer when he retires or otherwise leaves the agency.[/blue]

You can keep it just like you bought it and they also recommend having a letter.  Just from the department to the officer nothing needed from the ATF at this time.

Ray