HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » "Ex-cops like Dorner...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 10:55 AM

"Ex-cops like Dorner may own banned guns". No shit?!

Assault Weapons or Assault Rifles is unclear, but once they got 'em - they got em. Wonder if law enforcement would oppose a ban for ex-LE? I would bet - not likely.

Meanwhile, cops in gun battle with Dorner report taking automatic fire. Nothing to fear here.

Sacramento --

The case of fired Los Angeles police Officer Christopher Dorner highlights a significant exemption in California's assault weapons ban: Law enforcement officers can purchase high-powered weapons that the general public is forbidden to possess, and they can keep them if they retire or are dismissed from the force.

The exemption in the state's stringent gun laws is one few lawmakers are likely to challenge, even as state leaders are pushing a wide array of bills to further restrict gun ownership and use. Taking on the issue would mean challenging the politically powerful police lobby and could set up a scenario where the state mandates the removal of guns from the possession of former public safety officials. Assemblyman Roger Dickinson, D-Sacramento, said "the political terrain would be difficult" if law enforcement opposed an express ban for retired officers, however.
...

The Department of Justice oversees the weapons registration, but does not release figures on how many officers have assault weapons or how many assault weapons have been purchased by officers. But a 2011 investigation by the Associated Press found that peace officers have purchased more than 7,600 assault weapons since they were banned in 2000. Many were in the hands of officers at larger police forces, as about 1,300 Los Angeles Police Department officers out of nearly 10,000 own assault rifles, according to the Associated Press.
...
Cottingham {president of the Peace Officers Research Association of California} said his organization believes officers should be able to keep the weapons after they retire because they are highly trained, could still be the target of criminals and can use them in dangerous situations before active officers arrive on the scene.
If it turns out that Dorner had obtained his weapons via his police position, Cottingham said that shouldn't lead to a change in the law. "It's such an outlier, such an anomaly," he said. "You've never ever before this seen or heard of a peace officer misusing an assault weapon."


http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Ex-cops-like-Dorner-may-own-banned-guns-4277196.php#ixzz2KtA8qURZ

6 replies, 1284 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 6 replies Author Time Post
Reply "Ex-cops like Dorner may own banned guns". No shit?! (Original post)
jmg257 Feb 2013 OP
iiibbb Feb 2013 #1
frylock Feb 2013 #2
Puha Ekapi Feb 2013 #3
petronius Feb 2013 #4
jeepnstein Feb 2013 #5
jmg257 Feb 2013 #6

Response to jmg257 (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 11:41 AM

1. I noticed that in the US code the police are supposed to be grouped with us pleabeans.

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia areó
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.



They look like they're in (b)(2) with the rest of us.... even active duty Police are (b)(2).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 12:33 PM

2. i would take that claim of "automatic fire" with one industrial-sized grain of salt..

they're going to throw out a lot of claims to justify their outdoor cookout.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #2)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 01:02 PM

3. +1

The whole operation to bag this nutjob was a major cluster fuck, from shooting up innocent civilians to overlooking the bad guy camped out just across the road from their command post. Now the word is that they won't pay the million dollar reward to the ladies he tied up and who alerted on his whereabouts because it is stipulated that the reward was for his "arrest and conviction".

And some people want cops to be the only ones with guns....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 01:09 PM

4. I see no reason for police to be treated differently than anyone else in

this regard - LEOs are civilians, and should be subject to all the laws and regulations the rest of us are.

About the only place I can see current/former LEO status being relevant is as a justification on an application for may-issue CCW...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 01:11 PM

5. Unless it's got a tax stamp for the NFA...

A police officer's personal rifle must be a semi-automatic with a 16 inch barrel. In other words, the Federal law applies. Merely having a department ID does not exempt someone from having to obey the law. Now if California is even more restrictive on such weapons, which wouldn't surprise me in the least, they can choose to exempt peace officers from those laws. But the fact remains that a personally-owned weapon must either be NFA compliant or have a tax stamp. I can't see your average cop buying an M16 at today's inflated millionaire friendly NFA prices and using it for a duty weapon.

The days of officers getting letterhead from their department and somehow using it to buy a cheap full-auto weapon are over. You can and will go to prison for that. For a while it was a popular racket after the 1986 closing of the NFA registry. It was never a legal practice and is now watched closely. Officers may be issued full-auto, but they remain the property of the department and must be retained according to strict guidelines. And really full auto is kind of dumb for all but a very few. Short barrels are nice but full auto is a just an extra doodad that can cause problems in a world where the officer owns every bullet fired from his weapon, especially if it goes astray.

It's not at all uncommon for officers to buy their own duty weapons. I own mine and kind of like it that way. It's really no different than requiring your mechanic to own his own tools.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeepnstein (Reply #5)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 01:23 PM

6. Thanks for the info. I remember that 'dept letter head' stuff now, atleast a bit. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread