View Single Post
  #10  
Old 08-27-2013, 12:28 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 5,665
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

IANAL, please keep that in mind.

The DOJ opinion was rather horribly written. It concluded that an officer had no right to retain an RAW that was personally purchased and registered after the deadline using the special "LEO only" registration process (Penal Code section 30630). In reaching that conclusion, the author looked closely at the rationale for the law and he made a pretty good argument that the purpose of the law was not served when officers retained their RAW post-retirement. The opinion failed to cite any statute that is violated when a retired officer retains possession of an RAW following retirement.

The problem with the opinion is that all of the good reasoning in the world doesn't create a law that doesn't yet exist, nor does it eliminate a law currently in force.

I'd recommend that taking one diagnostic step, request a listing of currently registered weapons from the DOJ. There is form to do this on their website. Make sure the RAW still appears as registered. If that's the case, continued possession is legal. If for some reason, DOJ has removed the registration, then I carefully check as to the reason they did so. The law does not provide an authority for DOJ to remove registrations.

I'm attaching a copy of the DOJ opinion. I am curious as to how the lawyer members of this forum view the opinion.

Last edited by RickD427; 06-02-2014 at 10:15 PM..
Reply With Quote