CA LEO: SBR's and Suppressors for duty use (legality?)

[68whiskeyncoke]

I'm having trouble finding any solid info on this from the CA DOJ / OAG and hoping someone here can point me in the right direction.

This revolves around the use of federally classified SBR's and suppressors as duty weapons but personally owned, not departmental. I know many local agencies, including my own, who have cans on the SWAT rifles, so I know the ATF allows CA agencies to buy such items. I would like to find solid info on the legality of a single officer using a "personally owned" SBR/can in CA.

According to CPC 33220 (b):

"The possession of short-barreled rifles and short-barreled shotguns by peace officer members of a police department, sheriff’s office, marshal’s office, the California Highway Patrol, the Department of Justice, or the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, when on duty and the use is authorized by the agency and is within the course and scope of their duties, and the officers have completed a training course in the use of these weapons certified by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training."

So if this is true, what does "authorized by the agency" mean? A letter from the Chief?

H

[jpmuscle]

Seems hypocritical to say the least.

How about CA compliant AR with a short barrel instead?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sandsunsurf]

I have a friend who is retired CA LEO and according to him it’s an absolute no for a LEO to own an NFA weapon. It must be dept owned. I don’t have a strong knowledge or opinion on it, but also I will tell you that now that I’m retired, I don’t carry >10 magazines in Cali. Ever. Not worth the arguments

[MistWolf]

I'm having trouble finding any solid info on this from the CA DOJ / OAG and hoping someone here can point me in the right direction.

This revolves around the use of federally classified SBR's and suppressors as duty weapons but personally owned, not departmental. I know many local agencies, including my own, who have cans on the SWAT rifles, so I know the ATF allows CA agencies to buy such items. I would like to find solid info on the legality of a single officer using a "personally owned" SBR/can in CA.

According to CPC 33220 (b):

"The possession of short-barreled rifles and short-barreled shotguns by peace officer members of a police department, sheriff’s office, marshal’s office, the California Highway Patrol, the Department of Justice, or the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, when on duty and the use is authorized by the agency and is within the course and scope of their duties, and the officers have completed a training course in the use of these weapons certified by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training."

So if this is true, what does "authorized by the agency" mean? A letter from the Chief?

H

That's a question for the DOJ

[Bret]

The key phrase there is "when on duty". Even if you do get an authorization letter from your chief, you'd have to leave it at your department when not on duty.

[Itsahak]

I have a friend who is retired CA LEO and according to him it’s an absolute no for a LEO to own an NFA weapon. It must be dept owned. I don’t have a strong knowledge or opinion on it, but also I will tell you that now that I’m retired, I don’t carry >10 magazines in Cali. Ever. Not worth the arguments

i took a rifle class with a Cali LEO several years ago and that was my understanding from him as well.

[RHINOWSO]

CA LEOs should have the same restrictions as their citizens, especially when off duty.

[jpmuscle]

CA LEOs should have the same restrictions as their citizens, especially when off duty.

Considering the draconian restrictions on citizens already I can’t understand how any LE in California requires such weapons in the first place........


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dennis]

There is no such thing as a personally owned NFA SBR/SBS/Suppressor in CA no matter who you are. The only exceptions would be government, prop houses, manufacturers, and the like.

Dennis.