Did the AG just throw retired LEOs under the bus?

[TheKlawMan]

Originally Posted by Lrchops

Well a legal update is out from the law offices of Mastagni, Holstedt, Amick, Miller & Johnson Law firm! Retired LEO's who legally purchased thier assault rifles in compliance with state law get to keep the rifles in thier present condition after retirement!

I don't know how to insert a saved document here or I would include the letter that just came out!

Great. I didn't want to have to figure out if this was an ex post facto law. I can barely spell it.

[Notorious]

Writing an opinion from a law firm is great but the issue is not ripe for adjudication. You have to have a controversy first.

[Lrchops]

Bottom line is the AG's opinion is not law. When or if it becomes law, then anyone from that point on will have to comply. It cannot legally be retroactive. The guns are legally purchased and legally registered.

That would be the same as making a law that all pre ban assault rifles legally registered within the law, must be turned in to the government! Can't happen. Unconstitutional for the government to seize your legally owned property.

[Notorious]

Originally Posted by Lrchops

Bottom line is the AG's opinion is not law. When or if it becomes law, then anyone from that point on will have to comply. It cannot legally be retroactive. The guns are legally purchased and legally registered.

That would be the same as making a law that all pre ban assault rifles legally registered within the law, must be turned in to the government! Can't happen. Unconstitutional for the government to seize your legally owned property.

Caveat: Unconstitutional without DUE PROCESS. 5th Amendment protection of due process against government takings. The government can, and has, seized private property, it just needs to give you due process.

[E Pluribus Unum]

People who are no longer employed as peace officers should get no more quarter than any other retiree or citizen for that matter.

Honestly, active LEOs should not get any more perks than the rest of us off duty. If your department needs you to have an assault weapon, let them issue you one.

[xmustanguyx]

I never understood why cops always asked me why I felt the need to carry a gun and yet they always carry off duty as well. How naked some feel when they go out without their firearm, and yet still wish to deny law abiding citizens the same rights.
If this goes anywhere they will get a taste of what everyday people have to go through.

[Notorious]

Originally Posted by E Pluribus Unum

People who are no longer employed as peace officers should get no more quarter than any other retiree or citizen for that matter.

Honestly, active LEOs should not get any more perks than the rest of us off duty. If your department needs you to have an assault weapon, let them issue you one.

Retirees get retiree benefits. Ours are just different than yours. If my department allows me to have a weapon that I need but can't afford it issue it and then gives me the choice to buy one, I will buy it.

Originally Posted by xmustanguyx

I never understood why cops always asked me why I felt the need to carry a gun and yet they always carry off duty as well. How naked some feel when they go out without their firearm, and yet still wish to deny law abiding citizens the same rights.
If this goes anywhere they will get a taste of what everyday people have to go through.

How many cops out of the 25,000+ cops in the SoCal area asked you that question? 1? 2? Was it everytime? Was it once? Get the picture?