Legal question for Academic purposes only

J

Jack 99

New member
OK. Let's say some well-informed local sheriff's deputy is at the range, sees an illegal configuration on an AR or some non-LEOs using LEO only mags. Is that deputy required to enforce what is essentially FEDERAL law?

Seems I remember that the only part of Brady that was declared unConstitutional was the fact that local LE had to perform work for the Feds. Seems to me that if that's the case, then the local PD or sheriff hasn't got much of an obligation to enforce a Federal law at all.

Am I way off?

------------------
"Put a rifle in the hands of a Subject, and he immediately becomes a Citizen." -- Jeff Cooper
 
If I had to guess, I'd say he at least has to report it--legally, even you and I would be required to report it. This is why, when having hypothetical discussions with a friend, I have NEVER asked whether he carries. I don't want to know.

Enforcement is tougher--I just don't know.

------------------
Don

"Its not criminals that go into schools and shoot children"
--Ann Pearston, British Gun Control apologist and moron
 
The NICS "instant check" system rapidly informs the FBI of certain felonies (supposedly many tens of thousands per year) in progress, even giving precise info about who, what, where, when, and how the felony is being committed. If such frequent, major and clearly documented federal crimes are regularly ignored en masse by the FBI, then I'd be hard pressed to expect a local sheriff's underling to enforce the lesser federal crime of offensive offensive cosmetics.
 
Once upon a time I took a firearms instructor development course given by the Los Angeles office of the FBI. One of the agents (instructor) had a Remington 870 shotgun with a 14" barrel.

I asked to examine it and asked him if it was a bureau gun. He said no, it was his personal weapon. I then asked if he had problems with the BATF paperwork, getting California clearance, the tax stamp, etc.. He said no because he didn't bother.

When I gave him a quizzical look he said, "I'm the f--king FBI. Who is going to arrest me?"

So, in answer to your question; when I was an active deputy sheriff and now as a retired deputy, I would just ignore the illegally configured AR or the magazines.
 
If I was in a position to report a firearms violation that didn't involve any actual harm being done to person or property, I'd say screw it. AFAIC, if he's not infringing on anyone else's rights, he's not committing a crime.

Not that I would *ever* suggest that anyone ignore laws. That Would Be Wrong.

------------------
"The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property,
or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called into question.."
Article 11, Section 13, CO state constitution.
 
"I'm the FBI who is gonna arrest me?"

That's EXACTLY the kind of arrogance that allows crap like wounded knee, MOVE, ruby ridge and waco to go down. A bunch of people who THINK they are above the law enforcing the law on the rest of us.

That quote made me cringe but he does have a point. Welcome to the thin blue line. There are certain privedges/perks that being a cop gives and he just pointed one out.

Having said that, MOST cops aren't OUT TO BUST US. They have better things to do like catch drug dealers and write traffic tickets and rasie families of thier own.

Hypothetically speaking I bet that officer doesn't care if that's a pre-ban or post ban upper... BUT THE RANGE OFFICER SURE DOES. And HE's the guy who is gonna be leary of you esp if you bought any of it from him.

Stay safe stay legal, (or for god's sake don't TELL anyone)

Dr.Rob
 
How would anybody (even a well informed LEO) be able to spot an illegally configured AR? There is no way to tell at a glance whether a rifle is pre or post ban, and illegally configured, you would have to check the serial # with the manufacturer to find the date it was originally made, and a "well informed LEO" would know this. Just because a rifle has "evil features" would not be reasonable cause to do anything except mind his own business.
Bergie
 
Awhile back, one of the deputies in our department encountered two fellows target shooting with AR-15/M-16 style rifles. One was of Colt manufacture, the other was an Olympic arms manufacture.

Under the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act, one might have been banned (the Colt) provided it hadn't been registered, and the Olympic possibly might have been banned. Reading the act, the deputy felt he had two banned and unregistered rifles so he took them as evidence and wrote a report.

After asking everyone under the sun, including the state Department of Justice firearms enforcement branch, he concluded no one knew if the rifles were illegal and ended up giving them back.

In another incident, the sheriff had an AK-47 style rifle in evidence and the accused (not on weapons charges) said his attorney could have the rifle in payment for legal fees. The attorney said the rifle was not an AK-47 under Roberti-Roos, but a clone that was still permitted. Again, the Department of Justice could not provide one expert witness to testify if the rifle is banned or not. The local superior court judge said it was banned. The appeals court said the superior court judge didn't have the expertise to make the decision and ordered the sheriff to give it back or find an expert witness and have another hearing.

The sheriff couldn't find an expert witness but still refused to deliver the rifle to the attorney. The last I heard the attorney was debating whether to file for a Writ of Mandate ordering the sheriff to deliver the rifle.

And that, is fun and games in identifying what rifles are illegal or not in California.
 
what an interesting question and so many ideas and opinions. first let me state that im an LEO AND im pretty 'well informed'. to answer the 'hypothetical question', what would I do?
ok, heres the scene: my off duty self is at the local range and spying a civilian shooting something that looks illegal, or is 'illegal' (e.g. post/pre ban marriage), i would probably go over and ask him if he got a good deal on whatever he put together, i could care less if he has something the BATF has declared 'illegal', i hope whoever it is has a closet full of whatever.
without getting into a treatise here, i took an oath of office, in it were the words 'to support and uphold the constitution of the united states' (my eyes STILL water with pride), i think the constitution is crystal clear, the words 'shall not be infringed' mean just that, there is no way in hell i would enforce an uncostitutional law, that is just as much a civil rights violation as i would if as the 5th, 8th, 14th, 4th.
to put my money where my mouth is, i worked for a vehmently anti gun 'chief' in a right to carry state, because of my speaking my mind on a citizens right to carry and encouraged those who asked to get competant training, i was branded a 'gun nut', i had a rough time looking for another agency to hire me because of a bad reference from a bad cheif (who himself was just recently fired, for some pretty serious abuses of power, arresting w/o a warrant for a misdemenor NOT commited in his presence- can anyone here say 'false arrest'- theres a civil rights abuse there!) anyhow, i hope that answers your question..
p.s. im totally not surprised about the encounter with the fed and his 'im the fbi' remark, typical goverment arrogance. isnt it ironic that that same agency investigates any sort of civil rights violation against the police, yet one of their own is above the law himself when it comes to his own rights.
 
C,
Very glad to hear what you said. If all of our LEO's thought like you, we would actualy have a free country again. I was just wondering today why sworn officers of the law were enforcing blatantly illegal, anti-freedom laws.
 
The court ruling stated that the Fed Govt. could not appropriate local resources to do its bidding. That is, if the Feds don't subsidize the locals, the locals don't have to play along with them.

Turning to the deputy at the range issue, the deputy may, if (s)he suspects a crime which is felonious in nature, (s)he may act upon it even though it is Federal Law. A crime is a crime. (S)He should deliver it on Federal charges which goes before a Federal Magistrate and not the local state court judge (in Calif, it's the Superior Court). It really boils down to this: If the deputy is a antigun a**hole who is looking to improve his/her statistics or just a power crazed a**hole, (s)he can act on it. Also, notwithstanding the Court decision, they may be acting under orders of the agency which voluntarily enforces the Federal Legislation.

Happily, most local cops I know don't care and won't ask. They're as pro-gun as you and I. It's when someone goes full auto that they'll start making inquiries.

By the way C, good work. I had a chief who was like that too, and sacked for his incompetence. Funny things these guys don't realize is that if they want to get rid of you, be nice to you. Make it easy to leave and rather than bad mouth the officer, be honest and give a fair appraisal of the officer. That way the officer gets a fair shot at leaving. Most administrators haven't figured that out.

------------------
Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt
 
I don't think a illegal rifle catch most LE eyes.

First, the laws are just to confusing for the average cop to keep up with, chances are if he knows the law, then he is a fellow gun nut.

Second, most police are busy trying to enforce laws that have real victims. Why would he bother to spend time arresting an other wise honest citizen lawfully using an unlawful gun.

As a side note, I often see guns configured in unlawful ways for sale at both gunshops and gunshows in GA.

This tells me that this stupid law is being largly ignored by everyone. Now, if they could only figure out how to get some more hi cap mags without awaking the BATF.


------------------
The new guy.

"I'm totin, this pistol because my dang SKS won't fit in my holster"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top