Quoted:
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”!!
)
Quoted: … 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.