Did the AG just throw retired LEOs under the bus?

[1911su16b870]

Originally Posted by jdberger

From the California Attorney General's website:

http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/opi...564_09-901.pdf

Just finished reading the AG's opinion that retired LEOs who purchased and registered their personal AWs are not allowed to keep them after they retire.

[FLIGHT762]

It does look that way. You do know that the AG was Jerry Brown on his last day as AG.

[CaptMike]

Wow, on the last day of his term. We shall see what he does next. Looking forward to retiring in another state someday. stay safe everyone

[capo]

Your top cop even hates you guys too...wow!

Maybe one day he will make us not carry any guns even on duty.

[556fmj]

Originally Posted by topgun7

Maybe one day he will make us not carry any guns even on duty.

No kidding. We will be carrying rubber band guns.

[003]

http://www.policelawblog.com/blog/hr-218/

I suspect the LEOSA is going to be tested sooner than I original thought.

[grammaton76]

Not to say that this is his intention, but I imagine that the police unions will not be too dead-set against rescinding CA's AWB if their special status is taken away from them.

Before: "Eh, I get to keep mine. I'm trained, therefore I get to keep this as a perk. The law doesn't bother me."
After: "Oh crap, I'm going to have to give up ALL these weapons? Man, this law sucks."

[4ME&MYHOUSE]

^^^ this

[SoCalDep]

I wonder why he did this at the end of his term?....Possibly to avoid the embarrassment when it's thrown out in court on multiple grounds...I read the statement and it sounds about as brilliant as the AR and AK series designation. I severely doubt it will hold up in court under the scrutiny of recent Supreme Court decisions, LEOSA, and the law itself...

You know their full of it when they use the word "intent" as much as they did...Here's a good translation:

"We know the law says one thing but we're going to say the law really means something else and since we're going to say something opposite what is actually written into law we're going to tell everyone that when we wrote the law we actually meant to say something else, though we say in this decision that if we meant to say something else we could have actually said it....But we really meant something else."

[foxtrotuniformlima]

So the AG says that LEOs are just like non-LEOs when not employed as one ? For all those folks that have been complaining that they get exemptions from all the laws we hate so much, now you should be happy.

Perhaps another Chief of Police should ask for the AG's opinion on if officers who got a handgun that was not on the roster would have to give them up when they retire too. That would be a hoot.

[grammaton76]

Originally Posted by foxtrotuniformlima

Perhaps another Chief of Police should ask for the AG's opinion on if officers who got a handgun that was not on the roster would have to give them up when they retire too. That would be a hoot.

This would be a moot question to ask. I have a non-rostered handgun from my dad; they'd just point to PPTs and say that the rest of us aren't completely stopped by the roster.

The AWB however is a clear cut night and day comparison.

[IrishPirate]

But police officers aren't normal citizens! that's why they can have unsafe handguns, evil black rifles, and hi-cap mags.....because they are not normal people right? So where's the logic now???


oh i get it.....they finally realized that LEO's ARE normal people too but instead of rescinding the rediculous laws that prevent the rest of us normal people from enjoying our civil liberties, they just lumped LEO's in with the normal group so they can continue to sh*t on everyone......makes sense

[BigDogatPlay]

Well if nothing else it's going to give the new AG and her staff something to litigate at some point. As opined above, I can't imagine this is going to play well with the rank and file. Gun hating CLEOs will, I'm sure in some cases, roll over and say "yeah boys... turn them in".

I personally think it's a very tough argument to make to say to a retiring LEO that their property, which they purchased with their own funds and the state's blessing is imperiled simply because their ID now says "retired".

Our tax dollars hard at work... someplace other than where our team can do the most good with them.

Of course, considering the large equal protection window that (IMO) the entire business of active LEOs being able to buy off roster and AW already opens........................

[SoCalDep]

Originally Posted by grammaton76

The AWB however is a clear cut night and day comparison.

Not true. Normal people own registered assault weapons.

What the AG is advocating is the confiscation of legally registered assault weapons pursuant to CA law. If they get away with it with cops...Who's next?

C.O.N.F.I.S.C.A.T.I.O.N.

This is not a "I get to have what you don't get to have" issue...This is a "Bring in your guns" issue.

The ramifications are far greater than LE...And I say this owning a BB equipped AR. We have a liberal Governor, liberal AG, who were both elected by the people of this state...The last thing I want is them thinking they can start pushing the issue...

My Sheriff won't sign an AW letter anyway so I don't have a big dog in this fight, but to say it's night and day...Well, not so much.

Get ready...The fight's a-comin'.

[Sniper3142]

Originally Posted by 1911su16b870

Just finished reading the AG's opinion that retired LEOs who purchased and registered their personal AWs are not allowed to keep them after they retire.

Yup... it does look that way.

To all of our outstanding, hardworking, greatly under-appreciated LEOs in this state...

Welcome to the STRUGGLE!!

[Fastattack]

Well, it chaffs my hide when I'm at the range and a retired LEO shows up with gear I can't legally get *only* because I didn't happen to choose law enforcement as my profession. The law STINKS. And Moonbeam is supposed to be more friendly toward 2A in his old age? Well, we now know where he really stands.

[BillCA]

Originally Posted by SoCalDep

I wonder why he did this at the end of his term?....Possibly to avoid the embarrassment when it's thrown out in court on multiple grounds...I read the statement and it sounds about as brilliant as the AR and AK series designation. I severely doubt it will hold up in court under the scrutiny of recent Supreme Court decisions, LEOSA, and the law itself...

OR... JB could be just "priming the pump" for a repeal of the AWB.

As others put it, the LEOs will not want to give up their guns and if the law says they'll have to, then that's just more voices arguing that the AWB in unconstitutional.

Note that in a court, it'll be rather difficult for the POA and retired officers to contend;
Ordinary citizens have no legitimate need for these weapons, but our police officers need them to combat crime and protect their own families, even when retired.

They can't show evidence that retired LEOs are at special risk that requires or justifies an AW in their possession. That will leave them the 2A arguments that these are militia rifles, the modern day equivilent of the Brown Bess, Squirrel Rifle, Trapdoor Springfield or the 1903 rifle.

[armygunsmith]

Originally Posted by grammaton76

Not to say that this is his intention, but I imagine that the police unions will not be too dead-set against rescinding CA's AWB if their special status is taken away from them.

Before: "Eh, I get to keep mine. I'm trained, therefore I get to keep this as a perk. The law doesn't bother me."
After: "Oh crap, I'm going to have to give up ALL these weapons? Man, this law sucks."

I agree. Hopefully we'll see more people joining the fight against the AWB. Reminds me of the following quote:

They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

[bcj128]

Sheriff Gore lost my vote.

[coltds]

thats awesome....muy bueno

[1911su16b870]

IMO this AG opinion only forces POAs and LE unions to pressure the legislature to enact a clear, specific exemption for LE and retired LE to own CA "AWs".

The state can not allow people to legally buy something and then make those same people criminals because they still own that same item after they retire.

[lavgrunt]

.......Who cares.........Most retired cops move to Idaho anyway !!!

[DannyInSoCal]

What's next - LEO's won't be allowed to carry while off duty...?

[chris]

Originally Posted by grammaton76

Not to say that this is his intention, but I imagine that the police unions will not be too dead-set against rescinding CA's AWB if their special status is taken away from them.

Before: "Eh, I get to keep mine. I'm trained, therefore I get to keep this as a perk. The law doesn't bother me."
After: "Oh crap, I'm going to have to give up ALL these weapons? Man, this law sucks."

Originally Posted by 4ME&MYHOUSE

^^^ this

agree 100%

[yzErnie]

I have not read the entire publication yet but I do have this opinion so far.

If someone jumps through all of the hoops required from California to be able to purchase the rifle land then lawfully purchases and possesses one, I don't see how they can tell you must have to get rid of it. Maybe a grandfather clause to be added?

[BigDogatPlay]

Having read through the entire opinion after dinner... yeah, I need a life... I think you may be onto what the motivation is; prompting the legislature to amend and clean up the law a bit to remove all doubt.

Or to screw the retirees....

I did find it somewhat hopeful that the deputy AG who wrote the opinion is clear on the concept that Silviera is more than a little moot now post McDonald.

[Ron-Solo]

"Opinions" are like rectums, everyone has one, and they all stink.

This does not have the force of law.

A peace officer who is able to purchase an AW is able to register it as an AW, just like people who did during the 89 & 90 registrations. They don't become 'unregistered' later, they remain registered AWs. If they were able to take them away, they would be able to take away ALL registered AWs.

Just don't see it happening.

[Notorious]

Originally Posted by DannyInSoCal

What's next - LEO's won't be allowed to carry while off duty...?

Don't laugh... until LEOSA... there were more than enough LEO's who were not allowed to carry off duty, either by law or policy.

It's also standard in a few other countries, and we all know how libs love to model the US after foreign countries because they think they are more civilized and advanced than ours.

In Hong Kong, the officer turns in his issue weapon at the end of the shift because they are not allowed to carry when not working. So... gangsters were known to wait at the station for the off-duty officer to come out that door. That's just one of the places that I know of with this kind of rule.

In a related story, cops in Australia and UK don't routinely carry guns on duty. There are a few departments that don't allow on duty carry... Pasadena College Police being one... I feel for those guys.

[alex00]

Originally Posted by Ron-Solo

"Opinions" are like rectums, everyone has one, and they all stink.

This does not have the force of law.

A peace officer who is able to purchase an AW is able to register it as an AW, just like people who did during the 89 & 90 registrations. They don't become 'unregistered' later, they remain registered AWs. If they were able to take them away, they would be able to take away ALL registered AWs.

Just don't see it happening.

Even though it doesn't have the force of law, I could see Departments requiring officers to turn in or de-register the rifles as a condition of being issued a retiree identification card.

I'm interested to see where this heads.

[BigDogatPlay]

Originally Posted by alex00

Even though it doesn't have the force of law, I could see Departments requiring officers to turn in or de-register the rifles as a condition of being issued a retiree identification card.

+1

Force of law aside, if a CLEO (such as Sheriff Gore) feels emboldened to act within his authority to create department policy based on this opinion, that's where the rubber is going to meet the road. While I would agree that it's not reasonable and perhaps wouldn't happen, we all have had times where we've looked at something our CLEO has done and scratched our heads.

Who knows, after all, what Sheriff Gore was being advised by his own inside counsel or what his thinking was when he requested the opinion in the first place? It's all speculation, but the analogy of where there is smoke, there is fire, has to be considered.

[oddjob]

I will admit I didn't read the whole opinion. The AG opinion is just that.....an opinion. Bottom line is that its up to each of the 58 District Attorney's Office's to prosecute or even confiscate the AW's.

Years ago there was an opinion about off duty officer's carrying CCW's. This was under Bill Lockyer. Its been too long ago for me, but I think it was regarding if an off duty officer has a "right" to CCW as opposed to being "allowed."

It didn't affect a thing.....zip, zero, zilch.

[TRICKSTER]

If this is the case, the result will be fewer departments with patrol rifles on the street. My department does not have the money to purchase enough patrol rifles but they do allow personal rifles, but the officer must go through an approved Patrol Rifle course. How many officers will be willing to purchase their own rifle if they will have to give it up when they retire?

As for those who complain about LEO's being able to purchase something they can't, most LEO's purchase these as tools of the job, not range toys.
How many of you would invest $1000+ on tool for work knowing that if you ever had to use it, it could be taken away for several years without compensation from your employer. That is the way it is with my department. If I have to use my rifle at work, it's gone until whatever court case it is involved in is done. No compensation, no replacement while it's tied up in evidence for court.

[nobody33]

Interesting that Gore asked this opinion as I don't believe SDSO even allows their deputies to buy rifles. Other agencies in the county do. I have 22 years left so hopefully this changes. Realistically this only an opinion and unenforceable... my registration is no different than any other.

[Notorious]

San Diego doesn't have rifles in their cars. San Fran doesn't even have shotguns in their cars. Thank the progressives and their touchy feely approach to policing.

[grammaton76]

Originally Posted by Notorious

San Diego doesn't have rifles in their cars. San Fran doesn't even have shotguns in their cars. Thank the progressives and their touchy feely approach to policing.

I know I used to see rifles in Oceanside PD cars. I'm pretty sure I may have seen the muzzle of an AR in a San Diego car too, unless perhaps this is a recent change.

[trendar5]

Originally Posted by grammaton76

Not to say that this is his intention, but I imagine that the police unions will not be too dead-set against rescinding CA's AWB if their special status is taken away from them.

Before: "Eh, I get to keep mine. I'm trained, therefore I get to keep this as a perk. The law doesn't bother me."
After: "Oh crap, I'm going to have to give up ALL these weapons? Man, this law sucks."

This forum has rules, even for moderators. Are you a LEO?

You start off making the claim that police unions are against the repeal of the AWB. I have worked for three agencies, one of them is the 10th largest city in the nation. None of my unions has ever made a public statement on this issue. Perhaps you wanted them to come out and demand the repeal of the AWB. I'm all for a repeal, for the record.

But your second bit about individual officers essentially having an attitude that they don't care about the ban because they are exempt seems like an insult to LEO's. By the way, if you are not an LEO, come out and try the job for a few months and see how great all the "perks" are, like getting shot down in the street by some animal.

[Notorious]

Originally Posted by grammaton76

I know I used to see rifles in Oceanside PD cars. I'm pretty sure I may have seen the muzzle of an AR in a San Diego car too, unless perhaps this is a recent change.

San Diego County? You talking about PD.

[bcj128]

Originally Posted by Notorious

San Diego doesn't have rifles in their cars. San Fran doesn't even have shotguns in their cars. Thank the progressives and their touchy feely approach to policing.

Oh contrair monfrair...

SDPD allows officers to buy AR's that they carry on patrol, so they will be directly affected. There are tens or more of retired SDPD officers with AR's purchased under this program.

[cmichini]

Originally Posted by grammaton76

Not to say that this is his intention, but I imagine that the police unions will not be too dead-set against rescinding CA's AWB if their special status is taken away from them.

Before: "Eh, I get to keep mine. I'm trained, therefore I get to keep this as a perk. The law doesn't bother me."
After: "Oh crap, I'm going to have to give up ALL these weapons? Man, this law sucks."

I like this development. It adds another class of citizens who are now subject to the draconian, unjust and amoral laws on the books.

Misery loves company and now there's a harmed group with a powerful lobby arm that actually gets attention from legislatures.

Seems like a group that was a little more equal than others, just became merely equal.