LE Only Equipment

B

boing

New member
Rob said in a post in the Handguns forum that he wouldn't use his LEO status to buy hi-cap mags for personal use. He has moral objections.

I appreciate that very much. It has always seemed to me that LE only equipment should be restricted to "on duty" time. Keep the goodies at the department , pick 'em up when you clock in, and drop 'em off when you clock out. All equipment must be accounted for.

Am I right in thinking that an LEO can buy newly manufactured hi-caps, "pre-ban" style rifles, and such, with their own money, and keep this stuff with them when not actually on "official" duty?

If they leave law enforcement, the equipment has to be returned to the department, or something, right?

What are the rules?

I understand that LEOs "are always on duty, even when they're not", but I can't see how having a flash-hidin', stock-collapsin', 30-round mag havin' AR-15 in your closet is supposed to be interperetted as "For Law Enforcement Use Only." I smell "Us vs. Them" issues around the corner.

Please correct any misconceptions I might have.

-boing
 
Departments generally allow officers to carry off duty (if not the state itself). This includes carrying the duty weapon along with its high capacity magazines.

It is my understanding that the trouble arises with post-ban magazines and the subsequent retirement of the LEO. Some states considered the retired LEO as still being a LEO. This would allow the retiree to keep their post-ban hi-cap mags. Now, if the state doesn't considered the retired LEO as a LEO, bye bye hi-caps.

Heck, in CA if SB23 passes, no personal ownership of hi-caps by LEOs, even for on-duty use. Pretty level playing field, except that BGs don't play by the rules.

------------------
Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt
 
boing:

I believe the law restriciting high capacity magazines is wrong. Wrong for me, wrong for you, and wrong for off duty LEO's.
 
boing: There are agencies, small and large, that by policy consider their members never off duty or at least subject "on call" 24 hours per day. These are the ones which mandate concealed carry off duty, or permit their personnel to take home fully equipped agency vehicles, or require that their SWAT team members take their gear and weapon (that 30rd, flash suppressed, collapsible stock AR-15 for instance) home to expedite the call out procedure when they're 'off duty' and these are items best not left in the family sedan.

As to possession and purchase of restricted weapons or magazines, each jurisdiction's policy will vary. Certainly, if a LEO were to buy a NFA weapon under department auspices out of their own pocket and, upon honorable separation, wanted to keep it they would have to submit to the standard process or lose it to the agency.

4V50Gary: I read through SB23 and I can't seem to find where on-duty use or possession of personnally owned hi-caps is prohibited if this legislation becomes law. I would have thought though that pro-LE advocacy groups would have screened it for such language. After reading it and other pending legislation I'm increasingly glad that I moved from California after retiring from my department.



[This message has been edited by SKN (edited July 12, 1999).]
 
The rules for NFA weapons are very clearly defined. An officer issued a department's NFA weapon will almost never be able to take private possession of it, because it will likely be a post-1986 LEA only weapon. Otherwise, the Dept. would have to formally transfer the weapon through a class III dealer to the officer, after the officer jumped the appropriate hoops.

The rules about LEO mags and LEO only SEmi autos It is the opinion of most Officers and Depts that an LEO can purchase as many mags for as many different guns as he wants. I have never heard of a dept requesting the turn in of non-issued LE gear, including hi-caps.

Personally, I have two Hi-Cap LE Glock Mags for my 23 or 35. I carry them as my spares with the 23, or one in the gun when I am using my 35. I have several non-LE Hi-caps for those and other guns, that I bought before the ban or have paid a good price for. Not only am I concerned about possible legal ramifications of messing with the "gray area", but, as I said in another thread, I just don't think it is "right" to buy dozens of LE mags that I know I would not likely use in LE work.

There is a very strong "Us. vs. Them" factor at play when you look at the ATF, et al, allowing LEOs to purchase LE mags without restriction. While I choose not to take advantage of the situation, I certainly would encourage other members to not judge the LEOs that do too harshly. After all, without exception, the LEOs I know who have "taken advantage" of the privelege are pro-gun officers and our definitely on our side. Luckily, I had a good supply of hi-caps and have been lucky enough to be able to afford to buy or trade for additional mags as I felt they were necessary. If such was not the case, I might not so easily avoid the temptation.

------------------
-Essayons
 
boing,
There is a duty use only restriction on LEO only items. The current letterhead requirements to purchase these items requires the officer to certify "under penalty of perjury" that the items are for duty use only and not for personal use. The chief must also certify that on the letterhead.

The gray area is the definition of "duty use". Many departments require officers to carry their ID and be armed at all times. Members of SWAT teams often carry call out gear to include class 3 weapons everywhere, including the trunks of their personal vehicles so they are instantly ready to deploy. Probably unless you were found duck hunting with an LEO only AR15 or hi cap Glock magazines, you could probably justify any other use as "duty" any target shooting, competition etc. could be considered training. It would all depend on the opinion of the chief as to what he or she would consider duty. A department (and there are some) that discouraged or forbade off duty carry, probably wouldn't permit an officer to buy these items to start with.

There have been officers and military personnel get in trouble for stretching this too far. Back in '92, before the infamous '94 crime bill, several members of the Illinois Army National Guard got in trouble for getting around the '89 import ban.

Gun South Incorporated had filed suit in federal court to be allowed to sell somewhere between 1500 and 2000 Steyr AUGs that were in the country in a bonded warehouse before the executive order establishing the import ban was signed. They won the suit, but BATF placed LEO only restrictions on the weapons. They advertised them in various gun magazines, you probably saw the ads.

The marksmanship coordinator (a captain) from the 66th Infantry Brigade, Illinois Army National Guard, got with a large firearms distributer (I won't say who in an open forum, because ultimately there were no criminal charges filed) and began issuing letterheads to soldiers for the purchase of these AUGs. The AUGs were purchased and "laundered" through the distributer and resold. At that time there were no laws against resale. One was used in a crime down South (Tennesee I think) and traced. This got the BATF looking into all of these purchases. It seems that they were plain and simply straw man purchases. The Guard disciplined the 8 soldiers involved, but no criminal charges were filed. In many cases these guys never even saw the weapons, they were shipped to the marksmanship coordinator and he resold them to the distributer and paid the soldier whose name was on the letterhead $100.00.

There is a lot of abuse and confusion in this area. At any gunshow here you can find dealers who will sell hi cap magazines to anyone with a badge. This isn't legal. They must have letterhead documentation. I've heard of an instance in California where a dealer was selling LEO only AR15s to officers without letterheads. We can only hope that this stupid law sunsets on schedule in 2004.

Jeff
 
I hate to trivialize such a hot topic, but I guess all I have to say is "who cares?"

This sounds like a case of jealousy, where you are afraid that someone might be getting something that you don't have. That will always be the case.

I am issued, and carry with me all the time,a select fire Colt M-4. It's in my living room right now. I was also issued 9 hi-cap mags for my Glock. Does this make me a bad guy?

The local service stations usually give us free coffee too......
 
Benton Quest,

Besides the law being fundamentally wrong and the fact that cops do it for other than duty weapons.

If you can't understand what is wrong with it, I guess I was wrong about you.

It appears divide and conquer is working on both sides.

Note: I do not imply that an officer having those duty weapons and hi-cap mags is wrong. just the system that only allows officers to have such things.

FWIW I don't have any hi-cap weapons at the moment. I don't plan on buying any more (except maybe CZ-75 or Hi-Power).

[This message has been edited by Prichard (edited July 12, 1999).]
 
I have a very close friend who recently retired from the Ohio State Highway Patrol. He was allowed to purchase his duty pistol, but had to turn in the high capacity magazines.
Cat
 
So why is it "wrong" for law enforcement to have such items?

I think EVERYBODY should have access to these items....Why exclude law enforcement? Should we NOT have these items because you can't? Should I not take advantage if these laws because it may offend you? Is it a double standard? Yes? Is it fair? No. Is it right? No. The law is stupid. So why should I exclude myself.

I have never used le only ewuipment to profit in anyway. Not one item has been sold or transferred to an unauthorized user.

I guess I don't get the argument. It just seems stupid to turn in our hi-capacity mags at the end of each shift just so your feelings won't be hurt......If I'm missing the point here, I'm sure you'll be more than happy to let me know.
 
Almost forgot....now that I'm ranting....If officers use their LE status to obtain items other than those used on duty, then I would agree that is wrong.

Everything I have that is restricted is in fact used on duty. I just thought it odd the idea of turning in these items at the conclusion of each shift.

And free donuts? No. I wish. Not the case. Of course, if we did, I'd weigh 600 pounds so its probably for the better.
 
I've got a friend who is a Constable in the UK. They wear empty holsters and carry their guns in a lockbox in the vehicle.
Jeff
 
SKN - that's what I've heard from the CA Rilfe and Pistol (CA RAP - Gawd, what a horrible mnemonic). I also know that PORAC (Peace Officer Research Association of CA) one of the top ten most effective lobbying groups (oh, excuse me, labor organizations) is actively opposed to SB23. Califonians take heart, many cops are also opposed to bad legislation.

------------------
Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt
 
My understanding is that you do NOT get to keep the LE only items after retire.

Here in Missouri (backwards state when it comes to CCW) a retired officer is not allowed to CCW either. They are trying to change this law (as well as get civilian CCW) but have so far been unsuccessful.

As far as peace officers in other countries not being able to take le items home....who cares?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top