Defensive Carry banner

1 - 20 of 35 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,069 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Law enforcement officers may be illegally selling guns, ATF says

This, in my opinion, is why there should not be exceptions for personal ownership by law enforcement for weapons that are restricted to the people. There are arguments (with more validity) for law enforcement departments to have exceptions for certain weapons. If it is deemed necessary that officers need specific weapons for the execution of their duties, then the departments should provide them. By allowing officers to have exceptions for personal ownership creates a class of citizens with more rights than others.

The exceptionally egregious restrictions in California is the reason for this particular issue. With so many models of handguns being restricted simply because they are not on the magic list it creates incentive for law enforcement officers to buy those weapons with their LE discounts (because they have an exception) and then to sell them at a significant profit to those that could not otherwise obtain those weapons legally. If that exception did not exist, or if CA did not have the stupid list, this wouldn't even be an issue.

I wonder if the FEDs will bring charges against any officers that are apparently "in the business" of selling firearms without an FFL license? Oh wait
But Harden wrote that the goal is “to educate, not investigate, to ensure law enforcement officials comply with federal law in order to avoid unnecessary public embarrassment to themselves and your department/agency.”
I wonder how many non LEO people the feds decide to educate rather than to investigate/charge? When the vast majority of LEOs aren't violating the law, why do they not hold those accountable that are? It just further fosters a wedge between the public and LE.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
36,723 Posts
"The California law establishing the roster has an exemption that allows sworn peace officers to purchase such weapons, and an additional one that allows officers to resell the guns under certain conditions. But if officers are buying and reselling weapons for profit as a business, they need a federal firearms license, or FFL."


More of a public service to the citizens of California, IMO.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
18,144 Posts
One does not need an FFL to sell a personal firearm.

Selling a few does not necessarily mean "in the buisness".

I wonder if the FEDs will bring charges against any officers that are apparently "in the business" of selling firearms without and FFL license?
I doubt it. It is very difficult to prove with very few cases ever coming to a judgement.

Gotta love California where they'll spend more time and effort on prosecution frivolous gun cases that are only illegal in that state, than they would on murders, thieves or crooked politicians.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,890 Posts
Money is the root of all evil.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,069 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Selling a few does not necessarily mean "in the buisness".
No one said "a few" guns would classify as "in the business". But, the issue is
. . . some officers had bought more than 100 firearms
But, the law creates an incentive for officers to make quick cash by just even selling a few firearms because CA citizens are willing to pay a significant premium to acquire firearms they could not otherwise purchase. If they are going to have an exception for LEO to buy off register firearms, they should at least be restricted from reselling them.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
18,144 Posts
If they are going to have an exception for LEO to buy off register firearms, they should at least be restricted from reselling them.
There you go.Gun Control at its finest.

First..make it illegal for a certain class of citizens to sell their own firearms...

Second...make it illegal for every citizen to sell their private firearms without a background check...

Third...since people can lie about their background check, make it illegal for every citizen to sell their private firearm.

Gun Control doesn't happen all at once. It happens in little steps, not so much that you might notice and take issue with it, but a bit here and a bit there and then one day you wake up and wonder where all of your rights went.

You know who the one's that work hardest FOR gun control are?

Gun Owners. The ones that aren't smart enough to figure it out. Gun Owners are the biggest enemy of Gun Rights that ever existed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,069 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
@HotGuns, the best solution is to get rid of the registry and allow the people to purchase the same firearms the LEOs can personally purchase. But, as it stands now, the laws create a special class of people that can purchase a products (typically at a discount) and then to resell at a significant profit. So, no one should be surprised that some are violating the law and taking advantage of the situation. Take away the conditions that make this a thing.

But, the really idiotic thing about this is that the supposed reason for the registry is so the state of CA can test those guns to make sure they are "safe". If that is the case, why do they make an exception for LEOs to buy potentially unsafe weapons and then to sell those unsafe weapons to the public. The only reason I propose not allowing LEOs to sell those weapons is to push the issue. If AC believes those weapons are unsafe then why is there even an exception? They want to allow LEOs to carry unsafe weapons? You would think LEOs should be specifically barred from carrying those weapons (even if they bought them before the registry) to protect the public.

No. We all know the real reason for the registry is just another layer of the onerous anti-gun actions by CA lawmakers. What really bothers me, is that they always write in an exception for LEOs so they will have their support in getting those laws passed. I have no respect for law enforcement officials that would support any such law that includes personal exceptions for LEOs. Exceptions for the LE departments is one thing, but personal exceptions, does not provide equal protection under the law.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
18,144 Posts
The exceptions for LEO's comes straight from the mindset of California Politicians. In their warped little pea sized brains its a perfectly legitimate thing to do...in a Police State.

But, the really idiotic thing about this is that the supposed reason for the registry is so the state of CA can test those guns to make sure they are "safe". If that is the case, why do they make an exception for LEOs to buy potentially unsafe weapons and then to sell those unsafe weapons to the public. The only reason I propose not allowing LEOs to sell those weapons is to push the issue. If AC believes those weapons are unsafe then why is there even an exception? They want to allow LEOs to carry unsafe weapons? You would think LEOs should be specifically barred from carrying those weapons (even if they bought them before the registry) to protect the public.
You said it. Idiotic.

We all know the real reason for the registry is just another layer of the onerous anti-gun actions by CA lawmakers. What really bothers me, is that they always write in an exception for LEOs so they will have their support in getting those laws passed. I have no respect for law enforcement officials that would support any such law that includes personal exceptions for LEOs. Exceptions for the LE departments is one thing, but personal exceptions, does not provide equal protection under the law.
The only correct answer is to eliminate each and every law that is contrary to the U.S. Constitution. Starting with each and every law that infringes on the right to bear arms would be a good start. In reality though, we know that will never happen because most of the elected traitors can't even spell Constitution.

The next answer would be to build a fence around the entire state and excommunicate them from the rest of the U.S...and then watch themselves melt down to a state of nothingness.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
280 Posts
I am aware of three ATF cases prosecuted by DOJ of local cops; they were skirting the private sales v. needing an FFL at gun shows. One cop was given a warning twice; the other two were not. The two not given warnings tried to use that as a defense that they never got a warning from ATF and had they they would've stopped. Or, gotten a license.

I firmly disagree with laws that have special carve outs for certain classes of citizens or contain within the law a "protected species" of individual. These exceptions to the law have an eroding effect on the public's already doubtful faith they place in our justice system.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,119 Posts
Funny how Liberals only trust L.E. with concerns to carrying and owning firearms, but then turn around and complain about the epidemic of L.E. shooting unarmed citizens. Makes absolute no sense at all. While off duty, they should be subject to the same firearm laws and restrictions as the rest of us.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,816 Posts
I have a couple of observations about this.

1) The article in the Liberal Arts Times has a number of obfuscations and inaccuracies in it. Normal.

2) I am simply amazed that the BATFE has the cojones to investigate anyone for "straw purchases" after Fast and Furious. Can I get an ABOLISH to that?

3) Thank the good Lord above I don't live in Kommiefornia. I offer a sincere bless your hearts to those good people who do.

4) A liberal dose of doubt in the efficacy of our justice system is a healthy thing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,019 Posts
LEOs pay their dues and I don't have issue with them being afforded special privileges within reason. What is reasonable? I don't know. Most seem to swing to the right on issues anyway and I don't see any reason to fear their special privileges.

I guess I just have bigger fish to fry. I'll focus on protecting and expanding my rights instead of limiting theirs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,435 Posts
I have a couple of observations about this.

1) The article in the Liberal Arts Times has a number of obfuscations and inaccuracies in it. Normal.

2) I am simply amazed that the BATFE has the cojones to investigate anyone for "straw purchases" after Fast and Furious. Can I get an ABOLISH to that?

3) Thank the good Lord above I don't live in Kommiefornia. I offer a sincere bless your hearts to those good people who do.

4) A liberal dose of doubt in the efficacy of our justice system is a healthy thing.
We don't really have a justice system. We have a legal system, which in the hands of many persecutors, er, prosecutors, is a system for putting people in jail, not for finding the truth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Phaedrus

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,816 Posts
Bubblehead751...I agree to a point. Case in point. One of the more tragic events I witnessed was a certain Sargent, who happened to be a member of the Bomb Squad. When he committed a crime and drew attention to himself, in addition to charges unrelated to this discussion, he was found to have quite a bit of illegal explosives and components in his garage. I never found out the details, but one of the Bomb Squad officers was almost ashen-faced when he told me how dangerous the situation was. The Sgt. went to prison. When he gets out of state prison, he will face federal charges for the explosives. Tragic for him, his family, and neighbors.

I don't see that officers need any more armament than lawful citizens. In Texas neither officer nor citizen has any special privileges, weapons-wise. I've never seen a case where an officer lost his life for lack of a more powerful weapon that was not available to him. Now in CA, all bets are off.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,816 Posts
We don't really have a justice system. We have a legal system, which in the hands of many persecutors, er, prosecutors, is a system for putting people in jail, not for finding the truth.
While I don't disagree that there are many prosecutors only trying to get elected or obtain a higher office, don't overlook defense lawyers. And I would be remiss if I didn't include a few judges and other "officials" involved in the legal system.

Some wise so and so once told me that casting all lawyers into a leaky rowboat and setting them adrift on the open ocean would trigger a feeding frenzy such as the world has never seen. :danceban:

All in all though, our justice system is light years better than any other on earth. Imperfect as it is.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
19,639 Posts
Calif. officers bought 7,600 banned assault weapons through legal exemption | 89.3 KPCC

About 7,625 assault weapons have been registered with the DOJ over the last decade, with some officers buying more than one weapon. For the first 11 months of 2011, 844 officers bought 861 weapons, according to the DOJ figures.


762 guns per year average throughout a state with roughly 77,000 sworn officers. What's the break down to, something on the order of .099%. We're talking HUGE numbers of abuse huh?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,069 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
Calif. officers bought 7,600 banned assault weapons through legal exemption | 89.3 KPCC

About 7,625 assault weapons have been registered with the DOJ over the last decade, with some officers buying more than one weapon. For the first 11 months of 2011, 844 officers bought 861 weapons, according to the DOJ figures.


762 guns per year average throughout a state with roughly 77,000 sworn officers. What's the break down to, something on the order of .099%. We're talking HUGE numbers of abuse huh?
Except the issue is not about "assault weapons" which, to my knowledge, they cannot resell to a civilian. It is about handguns. In case you are not aware, California has a list of 'approved' handguns. Manufacturers must pay the state to run any model through a battery of tests to have them approved for the civilian market. And this is for each and every variation - they can't just submit a base model and have all the variations approved. So many variations of handguns are not available to the public because manufacturers are not willing to be further extorted.

However, the law provides that LEOs may buy off list handguns and may resell those guns. Because the law creates a scarcity of many models there is a high demand for them. When you combine the discounts LEOs typically get with the high demand it creates a manufactured Oligopoly (a group monopoly, like OPEC) where some LEOs can take advantage and purchase the off-list guns for themselves and then sell them for a significant profit.

Per the article, the authorities found that some firearms used in crimes were traced back to LEOs who had purchased hundreds of guns and had been purchased within the last three years. Based on historical evidence, the shorter periods between a gun entering the market to being used in a crime point to a straw purchase.

Plus, as I stated previously, the supposed reason for the list is to ensure Californians do not buy "unsafe" firearms. So, I challenge anyone to explain why LEOs need an exception to buy unsafe handguns.

EDIT: Apparently, now, any gun added to the list must also include microstamping to imprint on each casing fired. Any existing gun may remain on the list in its current configuration. But, even minor modifications require the gun to go through all the current requirements.

From 2016
This year’s loss of 81 handgun models was about 10% of all handguns remaining on the Roster. At this rate, within a decade there will be no more handguns allowed for retail sale in California.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
19,639 Posts
Is it the presumption of members that Ca. allows a restricted firearm to be owned/carried as along as it was bought first by an leo who is granted an exception and can be documented?

I find that HIGHLY unlikely. Anyone got a source for the law that allows a private citizen in Ca. to buy a restricted gun from an leo who then doesn't suffer from the states restrictions? I'd like to see the statute that makes that possible.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,069 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
Is it the presumption of members that Ca. allows a restricted firearm to be owned/carried as along as it was bought first by an leo who is granted an exception and can be documented?

I find that HIGHLY unlikely. Anyone got a source for the law that allows a private citizen in Ca. to buy a restricted gun from an leo who then doesn't suffer from the states restrictions? I'd like to see the statute that makes that possible.
You're definitely late to the party. That is exactly what the article was about. This has been common knowledge for some time. I recall a recent thread in this forum by a CA member who was asking for feedback on a specific gun he wanted to buy because he was going to have to pay well over market value because it was not on the approved list and he was buying it from a LEO.

I don't have any specific link available that states this explicitly, but there is definitely an exemption for LEOs to purchase off roster guns. Couple that with the fact that off roster guns are only restricted for new purchases. So private sales are allowed. Ergo, LEOs can purchase the off roster guns and then resell them on the private market. There have been cases of prosecution, but based on this recent story it is not as uncommon as they would have you think.

Former California deputy sentenced to prison for selling off-roster guns
"California law restricts the types of firearms that its residents can purchase, limiting them to an approved roster. There is an exemption for law enforcement personnel, who can buy and then sell the off-roster firearms in personal transactions as long as the objective is not “livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale,” U.S. Attorney Philip A. Talbert said in a statement.
Will a direct quote from a US DOJ attorney assigned to California suffice?
 
1 - 20 of 35 Posts
Top