LEO TRANSFER

[rkfulgor1]

Can a law-enforcement officer sell a firearm to another law-enforcement officer. Do we still need to do a background? what is the process for gifting a firearm to your son? Thanks in advance


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rbeau30]

Part of me wants to say, that being an LEO does not mean you don't have to abide by private party transfer laws.

And part of me wants to say if they are exempt from these laws they should not be.

And another part of me wants to say (taken from government liberal logic) if you are law abiding, what would you have to hide by not wanting to follow the same laws you are enforcing?

[lead_magnet]

You still need the background check.

[SouthPaw]

During the panic and when BGC's were running 9 days, I watched LEO walk in with a letter from their chief and walk right out the door with a firearm.

[OneGuy67]

Their chief cannot exempt anyone from the background check for a personal firearm. If the firearm is to be owned by the agency, that is a possibility.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

[TAR31]

Is your son gonna turn you in for not doing a background check?

[SouthPaw]

Their chief cannot exempt anyone from the background check for a personal firearm. If the firearm is to be owned by the agency, that is a possibility.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

I think it was for personal use but could be wrong. Maybe a LEO can chime in.

[OneGuy67]

I think it was for personal use but could be wrong. Maybe a LEO can chime in.

I did.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

[bobbyfairbanks]

That is amazing that LEO have, will or want to not follow the same rules that they enforce. Good job guys that makes us proud.

[rbeau30]

That is amazing that LEO have, will or want to not follow the same rules that they enforce. Good job guys that makes us proud.

Exactly, And this isn't even "LEO Bashing", we would treat the same guy off the street posting a thread on how to get a gun "without going through the BGC" with a LOT more sarcasm and harsh words.

[TAR31]

That is amazing that LEO have, will or want to not follow the same rules that they enforce. Good job guys that makes us proud.
LEOs don't write the laws. It is their job to enforce laws but I'm pretty sure they are also sworn to support the Constitution. What are they to do when the law contradicts the Constitution?

[bobbyfairbanks]

LEOs don't write the laws. It is their job to enforce laws but I'm pretty sure they are also sworn to support the Constitution. What are they to do when the law contradicts the Constitution?

I didn't mention any thing about that. I was talking about a LEO thinking that the law wouldn't aply to him since he was a cop. If you enforce a law you better dam well follow it as well.

[Irving]

I did.



Oh SNAP!


I was waiting for that. Haha

[Circuits]

LEOs do no have to undergo a background check or fill out a 4473 if the firearm is for duty use, and the seller has a signed statement from the receiving officer's agency stating that the items are for duty use. Otherwise, yes, a background check is required as it would be for any other private transaction inside Colorado.

A gift to your son or any other immediate family member does not require a background check in Colorado.

[SvenJorgensen]

Can a law-enforcement officer sell a firearm to another law-enforcement officer. Do we still need to do a background?
Yes, but you must do the background check like every other citizen. Despite whatever position or clearance that you may have, you're acting as a citizen selling/transferring privately owned firearms. Circumventing this legal requirement may risk your job as an LEO. At the very least you should comply in order to cover your own ass. If you think it's bullshit, do something about it.


What is the process for gifting a firearm to your son?
Not Sure. The regulations for a private party transfer shouldn't apply to a "bona fide" gift between immediate family members. Although, it is my understanding that Colorado law limits your son from legally owning a firearm if he is under a certain age. If this is the case, despite him being a family member, you can purchase a firearm in your own name and then legally transfer it to him when he is old enough. A background check would not be necessary in this future transfer because he is an immediate family member receiving a gift?

Due to the change is legislature, my research yielded different results... Can someone with more knowledge clarify his second question?

[BPTactical]

Some animals feel they are more equal than others apparently.

[Rucker61]

Not Sure. The regulations for a private party transfer shouldn't apply to a "bona fide" gift between immediate family members. Although, it is my understanding that Colorado law limits your son from legally owning a firearm if he is under a certain age. If this is the case, despite him being a family member, you can purchase a firearm in your own name and then legally transfer it to him when he is old enough. A background check would not be necessary in this future transfer because he is an immediate family member receiving a gift?

Due to the change is legislature, my research yielded different results... Can someone with more knowledge clarify his second question?

I've found nothing in Colorado statutes that define "bona-fide gift". The only reference I've found anywhere is in IRS regulations, and some paperwork is involved in those cases. Again, it's the Democratic idiots in the legislature making laws without understanding the consequences.

[spleify]

Ease up boys.

[spleify]

I am pretty sure if its a gift to an immediate family member you are ok, but if he is buying it from you and money is being exchanged then a background check it required.

[rbeau30]

Ease up boys.

Like I said earlier, I think this is relatively civil compared to a normal joe off the street coming in here posting a thread about trying to get through the "grey area" of the law ie: magazine repair kits, the occasional " if I spit into the wind on a new moon, and it is february 30th, do I still need to go through the BGC?







In Before the Lock!

[merl]

I've found nothing in Colorado statutes that define "bona-fide gift". The only reference I've found anywhere is in IRS regulations, and some paperwork is involved in those cases. Again, it's the Democratic idiots in the legislature making laws without understanding the consequences.

bone-fide has a definition so it doesn't need one in code.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bona_fide

It means a real gift, no compensation expected or received, no favors owed. Given, over & done.

[HoneyBadger]

It just terrifies me that a LEO comes on the forum and asks if the law still applies to him and his "special status" as a LEO.
[facepalm][fail][facepalm][Puke][facepalm][beatdeadhorse][facepalm][rules][facepalm]

[funkymonkey1111]

It just terrifies me that a LEO comes on the forum and asks if the law still applies to him and his "special status" as a LEO.
[facepalm][fail][facepalm][Puke][facepalm][beatdeadhorse][facepalm][rules][facepalm]

what's interesting is that (and not so much here) on other forums people will say "ask a cop," or "i checked with the local police....." about a legal issue. Thinking the average cop knows the law (clearly many don't -- or just don't care--given noted OC confrontations) is an absurd notion. If that's cop bashing, so be it, but it's quite true and said without hyperbole.

[Gunner]

It just terrifies me that a LEO comes on the forum and asks if the law still applies to him and his "special status" as a LEO.
[facepalm][fail][facepalm][Puke][facepalm][beatdeadhorse][facepalm][rules][facepalm]

I wasn't gonna say anything so I think you for saying it for me. I'm still amazed at the lack of knowledge about laws etc from the ones who are suppose to enforce them


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ronin13]

what's interesting is that (and not so much here) on other forums people will say "ask a cop," or "i checked with the local police....." about a legal issue. Thinking the average cop knows the law (clearly many don't -- or just don't care--given noted OC confrontations) is an absurd notion. If that's cop bashing, so be it, but it's quite true and said without hyperbole.
Exactly... granted, LEOs do need to have a broader knowledge of the law than the average joe, but the best legal advice I can give: ASK A LAWYER, or just look up the law yourself, it's really not that hard.

[rbeau30]

Exactly... granted, LEOs do need to have a broader knowledge of the law than the average joe, but the best legal advice I can give: ASK A LAWYER, or just look up the law yourself, it's really not that hard.

Just like if Bert didn't make it a high priority to know or to get to know as much about firearms as possible, I think he wouldn't have the job he does very long.


AND, I'm curious why an LEO could not ask his peers, if his peers didn't know, ... etc, etc.

[theGinsue]

I think this thread is long past it's effectiveness. The question has been answered and personal opinions have been given.

The short answer is that ALL transfers for personal use firearms must go through a Background Check to comply with existing state law. ETA: I failed to acknowledge the exception for transferring to IMMEDIATE family members via gift.

Revised: Watch your comments here. Some of you are hovering mighty close to the line and I really don't want anyone getting themselves in trouble here on the site. I understand why this question is offensive to many of you but gentle nudges get better results than personal attacks. While it appears that the OP was asking in order to avoid having to go through the BGC route on a personal transfer if there was an exception, it's possible that he was seeking clarification after an LEO informed him that it wasn't required. Let's not jump to conclusions without the full picture. Even with the full picture, DO NOT start with personal attacks. We can attack and turn someone against us or we can gently educate and win an ally.

Be safe. Be legal. Be smart.

Ginsue out.

[rkfulgor1]

Thank you GINSUE....My original post was purely meant as a clarificting question..I was asking because of a PERSONAL transfer between 2 LEO's...In no way was my inquiry meant to be illusive towards the law I am SWORN to uphold and PROTECT. Im almost appaled in the negative responses JUMPING to the conclusion of dishonesty. I thank those who were honorable in answering the question. I'm not a fan of the new laws either, but with all the 'legalize' I wanted to know for sure.

[275RLTW]

Legitimate question. In other states, sworn officers are exempt from a BGC because of the position they hold. LE officers are entrusted to carry a firearm every day and additional BGCs for them are nothing but a waste of time and money.

[HoneyBadger]

Thank you GINSUE....My original post was purely meant as a clarificting question..I was asking because of a PERSONAL transfer between 2 LEO's...In no way was my inquiry meant to be illusive towards the law I am SWORN to uphold and PROTECT. Im almost appaled in the negative responses JUMPING to the conclusion of dishonesty. I thank those who were honorable in answering the question. I'm not a fan of the new laws either, but with all the 'legalize' I wanted to know for sure.
It still terrifies me that you, as the enforcer of said laws, seek legal advice on an internet forum... [facepalm]

[merl]

C&R are exempt are they not? (but that applies to everyone)


Legitimate question. In other states, sworn officers are exempt from a BGC because of the position they hold. LE officers are entrusted to carry a firearm every day and additional BGCs for them are nothing but a waste of time and money.
They have no trouble wasting our time and money, LEO should be no different.

[SvenJorgensen]

I've found nothing in Colorado statutes that define "bona-fide gift". The only reference I've found anywhere is in IRS regulations, and some paperwork is involved in those cases. Again, it's the Democratic idiots in the legislature making laws without understanding the consequences.

House Bill 13-1229 lists the exemptions for transfers as long as it does not violate C.R.S. 18-12-111. Section one, page five, line 3. Link to the bill. (http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2013a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont/590C29B4C02AFC2F87257A8E0073C303?Open&file=1229_01.pdf)

[bobbyfairbanks]

Legitimate question. In other states, sworn officers are exempt from a BGC because of the position they hold. LE officers are entrusted to carry a firearm every day and additional BGCs for them are nothing but a waste of time and money.

Seriously? They are civil servants and nothing special. Leo deserve zero special treatment. No one does. You get what the constitution gave you and nothing less

[hurley842002]

Seriously? They are civil servants and nothing special. Leo deserve zero special treatment. No one does. You get what the constitution gave you and nothing less

I'm not saying LEO's should or should not be exempt, but I think you are missing his point. LEO's get a cavity search of a BG check compared to the simple pat search you get for purchasing a firearm, and it's basically ongoing.

[cstone]

It still terrifies me that you, as the enforcer of said laws, seek legal advice on an internet forum... [facepalm]

It scares me more when people assume they know an answer and don't bother to seek a correct answer.

No one knows everything.

While LEOs are not above the law or "special" there are exemptions written into some laws for some people. Magazines above 15 round capacity are one example.

[SvenJorgensen]

While LEOs are not above the law or "special" there are exemptions written into some laws for some people. Magazines above 15 round capacity are one example.

Isn't the magazine cap exemption based upon their use in a duty weapon for official purposes?
I wasn't aware Joe Cop could walk into a store in Colorado and purchase a 17 round magazine for his personal handgun just because he is LE.

[sroz]

I'm not saying LEO's should or should not be exempt, but I think you are missing his point. LEO's get a cavity search of a BG check compared to the simple pat search you get for purchasing a firearm, and it's basically ongoing.

There are people who are investigated, have to provide their financial information and poly'd every few years; no exceptions. It's all relative.

[Ranger353]

Sorry for the long post, but I thought it was important to clarify for everyone on this thread. From the C.R.S., LEOs are not exempt from a BGC. If the firearm is agency owned then they cannot transfer it to a third party because that would not only violate C.R.S. 18-12-112, but would also constitute theft (C.R.S. 18-4-401) of property. It was a legit question that has been answered.

Secondly, a firearm gifted to immediate family members are exceptions to 18-12-112, per paragraph (6)(b) below.


C.R.S. 18-12-112


COLORADO REVISED STATUTES
*** This document reflects changes current through all laws passed at the First Regular Session
of the Sixty-Ninth General Assembly of the State of Colorado (2013) ***
TITLE 18. CRIMINAL CODE
ARTICLE 12. OFFENSES RELATING TO FIREARMS AND WEAPONS
PART 1. FIREARMS AND WEAPONS - GENERAL
C.R.S. 18-12-112 (2013)
18-12-112. Private firearms transfers - background check required - penalty - definitions

(1) (a) On and after July 1, 2013, except as described in subsection (6) of this section, before any person who is not a licensed gun dealer, as defined in section 12-26.1-106 (6), C.R.S. (http://web.lexisnexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=5cba6ca1ad6f2e78bd0dc6e8db94eb51&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDAT A%5bC.R.S.%2018-12-112%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=2&_butInline=1&_butinfo=COCODE%2012-26.1-106&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzt-zSkAl&_md5=1d8a54af14717c705d6aafeb0d12d361), transfers or attempts to transfer possession of a firearm to a transferee, he or she shall:

(I) Require that a background check, in accordance with section 24-33.5-424, C.R.S. (http://web.lexisnexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=5cba6ca1ad6f2e78bd0dc6e8db94eb51&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDAT A%5bC.R.S.%2018-12-112%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=3&_butInline=1&_butinfo=COCODE%2024-33.5-424&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzt-zSkAl&_md5=bfb388ffa347d835b8d0acb33a7d4346), be conducted of the prospective transferee; and

(II) Obtain approval of a transfer from the bureau after a background check has been requested by a licensed gun dealer, in accordance with section 24-33.5-424, C.R.S. (http://web.lexisnexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=5cba6ca1ad6f2e78bd0dc6e8db94eb51&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDAT A%5bC.R.S.%2018-12-112%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=4&_butInline=1&_butinfo=COCODE%2024-33.5-424&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzt-zSkAl&_md5=dbbd738b11972fadf349cbad3be9df24)

(b) As used in this section, unless the context requires otherwise, "transferee" means a person who desires to receive or acquire a firearm from a transferor. If a transferee is not a natural person, then each natural person who is authorized by the transferee to possess the firearm after the transfer shall undergo a background check, as described in paragraph (a) of this subsection (1), before taking possession of the firearm.

(2) (a) A prospective firearm transferor who is not a licensed gun dealer shall arrange for a licensed gun dealer to obtain the background check required by this section.

(b) A licensed gun dealer who obtains a background check on a prospective transferee shall record the transfer, as provided in section 12-26-102, C.R.S. (http://web.lexisnexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=5cba6ca1ad6f2e78bd0dc6e8db94eb51&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDAT A%5bC.R.S.%2018-12-112%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=5&_butInline=1&_butinfo=COCODE%2012-26-102&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzt-zSkAl&_md5=c2544e6390c608e1b085bdf0849222c2), and retain the records, as provided in section 12-26-103, C.R.S. (http://web.lexisnexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=5cba6ca1ad6f2e78bd0dc6e8db94eb51&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDAT A%5bC.R.S.%2018-12-112%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=6&_butInline=1&_butinfo=COCODE%2012-26-103&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzt-zSkAl&_md5=ae02237d12569ddb8edcb71ac580a266), in the same manner as when conducting a sale, rental, or exchange at retail. The licensed gun dealer shall comply with all state and federal laws, including 18 U.S.C. sec. 922, as if he or she were transferring the firearm from his or her inventory to the prospective transferee.

(c) A licensed gun dealer who obtains a background check for a prospective firearm transferor pursuant to this section shall provide the firearm transferor and transferee a copy of the results of the background check, including the bureau's approval or disapproval of the transfer.

(d) A licensed gun dealer may charge a fee for services rendered pursuant to this section, which fee shall not exceed ten dollars.

(3) (a) A prospective firearm transferee under this section shall not accept possession of the firearm unless the prospective firearm transferor has obtained approval of the transfer from the bureau after a background check has been requested by a licensed gun dealer, as described in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section.

(b) A prospective firearm transferee shall not knowingly provide false information to a prospective firearm transferor or to a licensed gun dealer for the purpose of acquiring a firearm.

(4) If the bureau approves a transfer of a firearm pursuant to this section, the approval shall be valid for thirty calendar days, during which time the transferor and transferee may complete the transfer.

(5) A person who transfers a firearm in violation of the provisions of this section may be jointly and severally liable for any civil damages proximately caused by the transferee's subsequent use of the firearm.

(6) The provisions of this section do not apply to:

(a) A transfer of an antique firearm, as defined in 18 U.S.C. sec. 921(a) (16), as amended, or a curio or relic, as defined in 27 CFR 478.11, as amended;

(b) A transfer that is a bona fide gift or loan between immediate family members, which are limited to spouses, parents, children, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, first cousins, aunts, and uncles;

(c) A transfer that occurs by operation of law or because of the death of a person for whom the prospective transferor is an executor or administrator of an estate or a trustee of a trust created in a will;

(d) A transfer that is temporary and occurs while in the home of the unlicensed transferee if:

(I) The unlicensed transferee is not prohibited from possessing firearms; and

(II) The unlicensed transferee reasonably believes that possession of the firearm is necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily injury to the unlicensed transferee;

(e) A temporary transfer of possession without transfer of ownership or a title to ownership, which transfer takes place:

(I) At a shooting range located in or on premises owned or occupied by a duly incorporated organization organized for conservation purposes or to foster proficiency in firearms;

(II) At a target firearm shooting competition under the auspices of, or approved by, a state agency or a nonprofit organization; or

(III) While hunting, fishing, target shooting, or trapping if:

(A) The hunting, fishing, target shooting, or trapping is legal in all places where the unlicensed transferee possesses the firearm; and

(B) The unlicensed transferee holds any license or permit that is required for such hunting, fishing, target shooting, or trapping;

(f) A transfer of a firearm that is made to facilitate the repair or maintenance of the firearm; except that this paragraph (f) does not apply unless all parties who possess the firearm as a result of the transfer may legally possess a firearm;

(g) Any temporary transfer that occurs while in the continuous presence of the owner of the firearm;

(h) A temporary transfer for not more than seventy-two hours. A person who transfers a firearm pursuant to this paragraph (h) may be jointly and severally liable for damages proximately caused by the transferee's subsequent unlawful use of the firearm; or

(i) A transfer of a firearm from a person serving in the armed forces of the United States who will be deployed outside of the United States within the next thirty days to any immediate family member, which is limited to a spouse, parent, child, sibling, grandparent, grandchild, niece, nephew, first cousin, aunt, and uncle of the person.

(7) For purposes of paragraph (f) of subsection (6) of this section:

(a) An owner, manager, or employee of a business that repairs or maintains firearms may rely upon a transferor's statement that he or she may legally possess a firearm unless the owner, manager, or employee has actual knowledge to the contrary and may return possession of the firearm to the transferor upon completion of the repairs or maintenance without a background check;

(b) Unless a transferor of a firearm has actual knowledge to the contrary, the transferor may rely upon the statement of an owner, manager, or employee of a business that repairs or maintains firearms that no owner, manager, or employee of the business is prohibited from possessing a firearm.

(8) Nothing in subsection (6) of this section shall be interpreted to limit or otherwise alter the applicability of section 18-12-111 (http://web.lexisnexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=5cba6ca1ad6f2e78bd0dc6e8db94eb51&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDAT A%5bC.R.S.%2018-12-112%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=10&_butInline=1&_butinfo=COCODE%2018-12-111&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzt-zSkAl&_md5=0270d91c5849406d81422dede4b13470) concerning the unlawful purchase or transfer of firearms.

(9) (a) A person who violates a provision of this section commits a class 1 misdemeanor and shall be punished in accordance with section 18-1.3-501 (http://web.lexisnexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=5cba6ca1ad6f2e78bd0dc6e8db94eb51&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDAT A%5bC.R.S.%2018-12-112%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=11&_butInline=1&_butinfo=COCODE%2018-1.3-501&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzt-zSkAl&_md5=64b373873879e3afb770763a29c89acd). The person shall also be prohibited from possessing a firearm for two years, beginning on the date of his or her conviction.

(b) When a person is convicted of violating a provision of this section, the state court administrator shall report the conviction to the bureau and to the national instant criminal background check system created by the federal "Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act", Pub.L. 103-159, the relevant portion of which is codified at 18 U.S.C. sec. 922 (t). The report shall include information indicating that the person is prohibited from possessing a firearm for two years, beginning on the date of his or her conviction.

[Ronin13]

Legitimate question. In other states, sworn officers are exempt from a BGC because of the position they hold. LE officers are entrusted to carry a firearm every day and additional BGCs for them are nothing but a waste of time and money.
The only thing I'll say on this- I really do support the bill that keeps coming up and getting shot down that says if you're a CCW permit holder, you don't need a BGC to purchase a firearm, in that should be included sworn LEOs with proper credentials... Of course, that would be logical and rational, Liberals cannot have that, no way, no how!

[cstone]

Isn't the magazine cap exemption based upon their use in a duty weapon for official purposes?
I wasn't aware Joe Cop could walk into a store in Colorado and purchase a 17 round magazine for his personal handgun just because he is LE.

I'm not aware of any store in Colorado that has any 15+ round magazines on sale for anyone to just walk in and purchase. If you have credentials and walk into a police supply store, you can purchase 30 round PMAGs. Fair? So few things in life are. Rather than complain about LEOs and what they can buy, lets work on changing the dumb law that doesn't make anyone safer.

I just raised the issue as an example of how exemptions are written into laws. I don't believe the rank and file police officers lobbied the state legislature for a special exemption so they could purchase PMAGs.

[rkfulgor1]

HONEYBADGER;

Just cause I am sworn to uphold the laws.. doesnt mean I know everything about each and every indvidual new law that comes out every year... We as LEO's are consistantly trying to keep up with them.. Its not easy...DO YOU KNOW EVERY minute detail in your job ???? I'm guessing not...Im sick and tired of the LEO bashing by people who " dont practice what they preach ".. I'll be the first to admit that there are some bad seeds in our tree, and there are some LEO's who hide behind the badge and take full advantage of the perks associated with my line of work. But at the same time, WE, as LEO's took an oath the serve and protect the public from the BAD PEOPLE. Just remember...when the general public needs help, they call us. We put our lives on the line everyday serving and protecting the public. With that being said, I'm sorry you have a distorted view of Police Officers and other people carrying a badge.

[HoneyBadger]

I don't believe the rank and file police officers lobbied the state legislature for a special exemption so they could purchase PMAGs.
Very good point, but I still don't think a LEO should be looking for legal advice on an internet forum. It is his/her duty first and foremost to know and understand the law that they have a duty to enforce. What if he came to an internet forum other than this one and they gave him bad info? Now he is a criminal (unknowingly) because he illegally transferred a firearm to a friend without a BCG.


I digress... The real issue here is with the law itself, it's verbiage, and implementation. Oh yeah, and the part where it is completely unconstitutional and unrighteous.

ETA:


HONEYBADGER;

Just cause I am sworn to uphold the laws.. doesnt mean I know everything about each and every indvidual new law that comes out every year... We as LEO's are consistantly trying to keep up with them.. Its not easy...DO YOU KNOW EVERY minute detail in your job ???? I'm guessing not...Im sick and tired of the LEO bashing by people who " dont practice what they preach ".. I'll be the first to admit that there are some bad seeds in our tree, and there are some LEO's who hide behind the badge and take full advantage of the perks associated with my line of work. But at the same time, WE, as LEO's took an oath the serve and protect the public from the BAD PEOPLE. Just remember...when the general public needs help, they call us. We put our lives on the line everyday serving and protecting the public. With that being said, I'm sorry you have a distorted view of Police Officers and other people carrying a badge.


I'm sorry. I certainly didn't mean to hurt your feelings. I am simply concerned that as the chief enforcer of the law, you have come to an internet forum for interpretation of that law. I voiced that concern above and I don't believe it needs to be re-restated. I understand there are stresses associated with your job, but if you cannot handle it, then maybe you should seek other employment - for your sake, and for the rest of us who are also just trying to do the right thing. You can call it "bashing" if you want. I am simply questioning the strange reality that we have here: a LEO asking the internet for help understanding the laws which he is bound to enforce.

Regardless, you brought up an interesting point: "LEOs took an oath to serve and protect the public from the BAD PEOPLE." When enforcing laws like the BGC law and the magazine capacity limiting law, who are the real "bad people"? What does your oath actually say?

My oath is to support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;... and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.

I hope I am not chasing you away and leaving a sour taste in your mouth. I would like to have a reasonable discourse. If that is not possible, then at the very minimum, I would hope that my words have given you cause to evaluate your office and the way in which you fulfill your duties. I would love to have you as an active member of this internet community, but I certainly understand if you do not have the time or desire to do so. I never assumed that you were trying to skirt the law (and doing so on the internet would be the end of your career in LE, obviously) but I apologize for my sardonic and rude tone.


Rather than complain about {FILL IN THE BLANK HERE}, lets work on changing the dumb law that doesn't make anyone safer.

A fabulous idea! I'm guilty. Lets be unrelenting to our elected officials and tireless in our defense of our liberties! Liberty is an interesting thing in that very rarely will anyone else defend it for you; you must stand up to defend it for yourself, lest you will lose it without ever having known its value.

[osok-308]

Their chief cannot exempt anyone from the background check for a personal firearm. If the firearm is to be owned by the agency, that is a possibility.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

This was my thought. But I wouldn't be surprised if he was able to purchase it if it was for the express use of duty.

[Zundfolge]

Rather than complain about LEOs and what they can buy, lets work on changing the dumb law that doesn't make anyone safer.

http://forums.riftgame.com/attachments/general-discussion/13403d1376677766t-what-happened-elrar-why-not-both.jpg

Look, on the individual level I don't fault some LEO for taking advantage of his privileged status, as long as doing so doesn't involve squashing some fellow citizen's rights ... I just object to this stratification of rights by occupation. I don't believe "journalists" should have more 1A rights either. That said, Ranger 353 pretty much answered the OP's question.

As for "cop bashing", I appreciate that street level law enforcement is not an easy job, and its a damn sight more difficult and potentially deadly than my graphic design job (and I really do thank the good ones that are truly there trying to make our communities a safer/better place, several of which post right here on this forum). But some of y'all get real butt hurt real fast and start throwing around the accusation of "cop bashing" when we're all just questioning why y'all seem to have more rights than the rest of us. No it's not your fault, its the politicians, but I also don't see large numbers of uniformed folk out there marching in the streets to correct the problems (CO Sheriffs being a notable exception) and I'm having a harder time trusting that the majority of y'all won't gladly kick doors in when the politicritters order the jackboot to come down on the neck of the people. If you're one that will stand up for the constitution and what's right when the S hits the F, then we're clearly not bitchin' about you (but I find I trust your brothers and sisters less and less).

Anyway, try to take all that into account before you get offended. And yes, we non LEO serf types should probably cut individual LEOs with questions some slack.

[spleify]

Ok I'm done with this.

Someone came in here to ask a question and be educated on something and some just want to attack him.

Its over.