View Single Post
  #20  
Old 08-29-2013, 10:37 PM
Garand1911's Avatar
Garand1911 Garand1911 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Occupied Territory
Posts: 1,376
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RangemasterP226 View Post
That is completely untrue. If you are going to make a claim like that, you better have some proof.
Enough Proof?
Absurd ? YES, but so are all kalif gun laws.

"The AP found that some departments allow officers to use the weapons in their off time while others require that the weapons be used only on-duty, although an opinion by the state attorney general issued last year says officers can acquire the guns for any purpose but must relinquish them when they retire."
http://www.scpr.org/news/2011/12/21/...t-weapons-ill/

http://www.calgunlaws.com/wp-content...ult-Weapon.pdf

http://www.calgunlaws.com/wp-content...lt-Weapon1.pdf


http://www.jones-mayer.com/?t=40&an=...mat=xml&p=4102

As such, states the AG, “since the retired officer exemption has been removed from the statute, it is evident that a peace officer to whom an employer-owned assault weapon is assigned pursuant to (f)(1) must return the weapon to the employing agency upon retirement. This conclusion comports with the language of the statute, and is compelled by Silveira.” Financial Expense Incurred by Officer An issue of “fairness” has been raised in the past regarding the fact that an officer has spent his or her own funds to purchase the weapon and the compelled return of it would be unfair. The AG’s Opinion addresses this issue as well.

“[W]e do not believe that the fact that a peace officer may have spent his or her own money to buy an assault weapon under subdivision (f)(2) makes this situation materially different from the issue decided in Silveira. The Silveira case stands squarely for the proposition that the continued possession of assault weapons by retired peace officers does not serve law enforcement purposes and is therefore inconsistent with the legislative purpose of the Act, which is to eliminate the availability of assault weapons generally. The source of funds for the purchase of a weapon is not relevant to the issue of whether its possession may be justified on law enforcement grounds.”

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

At the end of the day ... the guy is in illegal possession of an assault weapon, and he is supposed to dispose of it, why do you think the DOJ is sending him nasty grams ??? They want proof he disposed of it.

Calplinker -- do you really think Cal DOJ gun squad does NOT have your buddy on the APPS list ? and the day will come when they need to build up their numbers of seizures, then they will come knocking on his door.
Or you can listen to all the internet lawyers who say ..."**** the doj and keep it", even though its not their *** on the line.
__________________
"I saved your life, AND brought you pizza" -- Me
Reply With Quote