LEO AR15 Question

[jak77]

Hello all,

I was talking to a coworker the other day about firearms and our topic of discussion shifted towards AR15s. As I am from Kalifornia (and not LEO), I am subject to all the stupid and pointless laws that restrict the 2nd amendment rights of law abiding citizens, and do nothing to keep firearms away from the people that use them for evil. However, my question is, do law enforcement agencies carry AR15s with the third selector for group therapy? Especially in Kalifornia? After being a part of this forum for a little bit now, I did not think so. I thought all AR15s carried on duty were only single fire. My coworker's brother is a LEO and my coworker swears that his brother has an AR15 with this third selector (in California), and since he is LEO, he is allowed to purchase this kind of weapon and carry it in his car for duty, in addition to taking it home with him as kind of a personal weapon. I wholeheartedly disagreed with him, but I was not 100% sure, so I bring this question to the people that would know best. All input is greatly appreciated, especially from those who serve in our state.

Thanks much, stay safe.

[jwise]

In general (because that's all I can comment on), departments have one of two policies: department owned and issued, or individual officer owned and authorized.

For those who own their rifles individually, they can only be semi-automatic. The department-owned rifles can be full-auto.

From the outside looking in, you wouldn't be able to tell if a rifle was individually owned or department owned and issued.

[cpd169]

+1 on the above post.

[LongCut]

Without even knowing all the ins and outs of CAs goofly gun laws, I would tend to call BS on this. Maybe not BS, but maybe he just doesn't know better. If he is saying that his brother's personal rifle that he carries on duty is full/burst, I find that hard to believe. Our patrol guns are semi, but our SWAT guns are full. They all belong to the Dept. If I had the kind of money needed to personally own a select fire lower, you can rest assured that the thing isn't going to work with me.

Plus if he is saying that his brother can get full auto weapons through his Dept. for his personal collection, I again call BS.

[David Hineline]

Regarding the M16 since it is a US produced gun. At the federal level any gun registered before 1986 may be owned by any individual. So if a dept. allowed use of a personal weapon on duty an individual owned M16 could be used. Value of this gun over $10,000 so not likely.

Any post 86 M16 would have to be dept. owned and issued as a duty weapon to the officer, but could not be individual owned. Some officers in states where individual ownership is against the law, will buy a duty gun themselves but by state law it must be registered to the dept., then if they leave the dept. they would either have to transfer it to thier new dept. if post 86 gun or transfer it to themselves if they move to an area where machineguns are not regulated by state law.

In California machinegun ownership at the private level is for the well heeled financially, not within a std. cops budget, but his dept. could own and issue current production guns or govment loan/lease guns to the dept. which is quiet common.

[Surf]

My division issues Colt M4A1's which are the full auto variant, however they are departmentally owned. As mentioned above, most departments where you have officers with full auto rifles, will generally tend to be departmentally owned and issued, even if class III firearms are legal in that area.

[jak77]

Thanks for the input guys, seems like I was right on this issue. Even if the rifle was department owned, would he be able to take it home with him?

[jwise]

Thanks for the input guys, seems like I was right on this issue. Even if the rifle was department owned, would he be able to take it home with him?

Most likely, if it was issued to him.

[jak77]

Ok thats what I figured, my coworker said that because his brother was LEO, he was allowed to purchase a full auto assault rifle. Which I called BS on. With California's laws I definitely disagreed with him, LEO or not. It seems like the only way he could posses a full auto rifle would be if it was dept owned and issued. He did say his brother was a member of SWAT, but this still would not enable him to purchase a full auto weapon (only posses one) in the state of California. Am I correct in this assumption?

[Mabbottusmc]

Our swat team has full autos. Everyone else has single shot. They are all dept. owned.

[beavo451]

Ok thats what I figured, my coworker said that because his brother was LEO, he was allowed to purchase a full auto assault rifle. Which I called BS on. With California's laws I definitely disagreed with him, LEO or not. It seems like the only way he could posses a full auto rifle would be if it was dept owned and issued. He did say his brother was a member of SWAT, but this still would not enable him to purchase a full auto weapon (only posses one) in the state of California. Am I correct in this assumption?

You can "purchase" a FA rifle for the department. Meaning you pay for it, the department receives it, you use it, but when you leave the department, it stays there. Basically you donate the money to the department and the department issues you that rifle. This is pretty rare though.