BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair A
2011-2012 Regular Session B
2
5
4
AB 2549 (Hall) 9
As Amended June 18, 2012
Hearing date: July 3, 2012
Penal Code
SM:dl
ASSAULT WEAPONS: RETIRED PEACE OFFICERS
HISTORY
Source: Peace Officers Research Association of California
(PORAC)
Prior Legislation: AB 2728 (Klehs) - Chapter 793, Statutes of
2006
SB 238 (Perata) - Chapter 499, Statutes of 2003
SB 626 (Perata) - Chapter 937, Statutes of 2001
SB 23 (Perata) - Chapter 129, Statutes of 1999
Support: California Association of Highway Patrolman;
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
Opposition:California Rifle and Pistol Association; National
Rifle Association
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 49 - Noes 19
KEY ISSUES
SHOULD AN HONORABLY RETIRED PEACE OFFICER WHO IS IN POSSESSION
OF AN ASSAULT WEAPON OR .50 BMG RIFLE THAT HE OR SHE LAWFULLY
PURCHASED WITH THEIR AGENCY'S PERMISSION, AND WHO HONORABLY
(More)
AB 2549 (Hall)
Page 2
RETIRED FROM A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, 2013,
NOT BE REQUIRED TO SURRENDER THE WEAPON SO LONG AS THE HONORABLY
RETIRED PEACE OFFICER, ON OR BEFORE APRIL 1, 2013, NOTIFIES THE
DOJ OF HIS OR HER CHANGE IN STATUS AND CONTINUED OWNERSHIP OF
THE ASSAULT WEAPON OR .50 BMG RIFLE?
(CONTINUED)
SHOULD A PEACE OFFICER WHO PURCHASES AN ASSAULT WEAPON OR .50 BMG
RIFLE PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2013, BE
LIMITED TO THE PURCHASE OF ONE ASSAULT WEAPON OR .50 BMG RIFLE AND
SHALL NOT BE AUTHORIZED TO PURCHASE ANOTHER ASSAULT WEAPON OR .50
BMG RIFLE PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION UNLESS THE PEACE OFFICER HAS
RELINQUISHED HIS OR HER POSSESSION OF THE ORIGINAL ASSAULT WEAPON OR
.50 BMG RIFLE AND TRANSFERRED REGISTRATION OF THE WEAPON OUT OF HIS
OR HER NAME?
IF A PEACE OFFICER LAWFULLY PURCHASED AN ASSAULT WEAPON OR .50 BMG
RIFLE WITH THEIR AGENCY'S PERMISSION, EITHER BEFORE OR AFTER JANUARY
1, 2013, AND PROPERLY REGISTERED THE FIREARM IN HIS OR HER NAME, AND
HONORABLY RETIRED FROM THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, WITHIN 90 DAYS OF
RETIREMENT, SHOULD HE OR SHE BE REQUIRED TO NOTIFY THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE (DOJ) OF HIS OR HER CHANGE IN STATUS AND CONTINUED OWNERSHIP
OF THE ASSAULT WEAPON OR .50 BMG RIFLE?
SHOULD DOJ BE REQUIRED TO DEVELOP A PROGRAM AUTHORIZING A RETIRED
OFFICER TO FILE A "CHANGE OF STATUS" FORM FOR PURPOSES OF THIS
SECTION, SHALL DEVELOP AND ADOPT A FORM FOR THAT PURPOSE, AND BE
PERMITTED TO CHARGE THE RETIRED OFFICER A FEE COVERING THE
REASONABLE COST OF PROVIDING THIS SERVICE?
SHOULD A WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY FOR ONE
OF ITS PEACE OFFICER EMPLOYEES TO BUY AN ASSAULT WEAPON OR .50 CAL.
BMG RIFLE BE REQUIRED TO ALSO INCLUDE LANGUAGE STATING THAT THE USE
OF THE ASSAULT WEAPON OR .50 BMG RIFLE IS "FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT
PURPOSES, WHETHER ON OR OFF DUTY."
(More)
AB 2549 (Hall)
Page 3
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to (1) provide that an honorably
retired peace officer who is in possession of an assault weapon
or .50 BMG rifle that he or she lawfully purchased with their
agency's permission, as specified, and who honorably retired
from a law enforcement agency prior to January 1, 2013, shall
not be required to surrender the weapon so long as the honorably
retired peace officer, on or before April 1, 2013, notifies the
DOJ of his or her change in status and continued ownership of
the assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle; (2) provide that a peace
officer who purchases an assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle
pursuant to this section on or after January 1, 2013, shall be
limited to the purchase of one assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle
and shall not be authorized to purchase another assault weapon
or .50 BMG rifle pursuant to this section unless the peace
officer has relinquished his or her possession of the original
assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle and transferred registration of
the weapon out of his or her name; (3) provide that, if a peace
officer lawfully purchased an assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle
with their agency's permission, either before or after January
1, 2013, and properly registered the firearm in his or her name,
and honorably retired from the law enforcement agency, the
officer, within 90 days of the date of his or her retirement,
shall notify the Department of Justice (DOJ) of his or her
change in status and continued ownership of the assault weapon
or .50 BMG rifle, as specified; (4) require DOJ to develop a
program authorizing a retired officer to file a "change of
status" form for purposes of this section, shall develop and
adopt a form for that purpose, and may charge the retired
officer seeking to file that form a fee covering the reasonable
cost of providing this service, and (5) require that a written
authorization from a law enforcement agency for one of its peace
officer employees to buy an assault weapon or .50 Cal. BMG rifle
shall also include language stating that the use of the assault
weapon or .50 BMG rifle is "for law enforcement purposes,
whether on or off duty."
(More)
AB 2549 (Hall)
Page 4
Current law contains legislative findings and declarations that
the proliferation and use of assault and .50 BMG rifles poses a
threat to the health, safety, and security of all citizens of
California. (Penal Code � 30505.)
Current law states legislative intent to place restrictions on
the use of assault weapons and .50 BMG rifles and to establish a
registration and permit procedure for their lawful sale and
possession. (Penal Code � 30505.)
Current law defines an "assault weapon," as specified. (Penal
Code �� 30510 and 30515.)
Current law defines a ".50 BMG rifle and cartridge," as
specified. (Penal Code �� 30525 and 30530.)
Current law makes the manufacture, distribution, transportation,
importation, sale, gift or loan of an assault weapon or a .50
BMG rifle a criminal offense. (Penal Code � 30600.)
Current law makes the possession of assault weapons a criminal
offense, subject to certain exceptions. (Penal Code � 30605.)
Current law exempts the DOJ, law enforcement agencies, military
forces, and other specified agencies from the prohibition
against sales to, purchase by, importation of, or possession of
assault weapons or .50 BMG rifles. (Penal Code � 30625.)
Current law allows specified sworn peace officers to possess or
use assault weapons for law enforcement purposes, whether on or
off duty. (Penal Code � 30630(a).)
Current law allows specified sworn peace officers to purchase
and possess assault weapons with their own money provided that
the peace officer has verifiable written authorization from his
or her employer to possess or receive the specific assault
weapon and also that the officer registers it with the DOJ.
(Penal Code � 30630(b).)
(More)
AB 2549 (Hall)
Page 5
Current law requires that any person who lawfully possesses an
assault weapon, as specified, must register the firearm with
DOJ, as specified. (Penal Code � 30900 et. seq.)
This bill would amend the current law permitting active duty
peace officers to purchase assault weapons with the
authorization of their agency to require that:
The written authorization shall also include language
stating that the use of the assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle
is "for law enforcement purposes, whether on or off duty."
A peace officer who purchases an assault weapon or .50
BMG rifle pursuant to this section on or after January 1,
2013, shall be limited to the purchase of one assault
weapon or .50 BMG rifle and shall not be authorized to
purchase another assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle pursuant
to this section unless the peace officer has relinquished
his or her possession of the original assault weapon or .50
BMG rifle and transferred registration of the weapon out of
his or her name.
If a peace officer lawfully purchased an assault weapon
or .50 BMG rifle pursuant to paragraph (1), either before
or after January 1, 2013, and properly registered the
firearm in his or her name, and honorably retired from the
law enforcement agency, the officer, within 90 days of the
date of his or her retirement, shall notify the Department
of Justice of his or her change in status and continued
ownership of the assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle. The
notification shall include written documentation from the
head of the law enforcement agency from which the officer
retired, or a designee of the department head, stating that
the officer honorably retired from the agency.
An honorably retired peace officer who is in possession
of an assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle that he or she
lawfully purchased pursuant to paragraph (1), and who
honorably retired from a law enforcement agency prior to
January 1, 2013, shall not be required to surrender the
weapon so long as the honorably retired peace officer, on
or before April 1, 2013, notifies the Department of Justice
(More)
AB 2549 (Hall)
Page 6
of his or her change in status and continued ownership of
the assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle.
The Department of Justice shall develop a program
authorizing a retired officer to file a "change of status"
form for purposes of this section, shall develop and adopt
a form for that purpose, and may charge the retired officer
seeking to file that form a fee covering the reasonable
cost of providing this service.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
("ROCA")
In response to the unresolved prison capacity crisis, since
early 2007 it has been the policy of the chair of the Senate
Committee on Public Safety and the Senate President pro Tem to
hold legislative proposals which could further aggravate prison
overcrowding through new or expanded felony prosecutions. Under
the resulting policy known as "ROCA" (which stands for
"Receivership/Overcrowding Crisis Aggravation"), the Committee
has held measures which create a new felony, expand the scope or
penalty of an existing felony, or otherwise increase the
application of a felony in a manner which could exacerbate the
prison overcrowding crisis by expanding the availability or
length of prison terms (such as extending the statute of
limitations for felonies or constricting statutory parole
standards). In addition, proposed expansions to the
classification of felonies enacted last year by AB 109 (the 2011
Public Safety Realignment) which may be punishable in jail and
not prison (Penal Code section 1170(h)) would be subject to ROCA
because an offender's criminal record could make the offender
ineligible for jail and therefore subject to state prison.
Under these principles, ROCA has been applied as a
content-neutral, provisional measure necessary to ensure that
the Legislature does not erode progress towards reducing prison
overcrowding by passing legislation which could increase the
prison population. ROCA will continue until prison overcrowding
is resolved.
(More)
AB 2549 (Hall)
Page 7
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation.
On June 30, 2005, in a class action lawsuit filed four years
earlier, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California established a Receivership to take
control of the delivery of medical services to all California
state prisoners confined by the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). In December of 2006,
plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against CDCR sought a
court-ordered limit on the prison population pursuant to the
federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On January 12, 2010, a
three-judge federal panel issued an order requiring California
to reduce its inmate population to 137.5 percent of design
capacity -- a reduction at that time of roughly 40,000 inmates
-- within two years. The court stayed implementation of its
ruling pending the state's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
On May 23, 2011, the United States Supreme Court upheld the
decision of the three-judge panel in its entirety, giving
California two years from the date of its ruling to reduce its
prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity, subject
to the right of the state to seek modifications in appropriate
circumstances. Design capacity is the number of inmates a
prison can house based on one inmate per cell, single-level
bunks in dormitories, and no beds in places not designed for
housing. Current design capacity in CDCR's 33 institutions is
79,650.
On January 6, 2012, CDCR announced that California had cut
prison overcrowding by more than 11,000 inmates over the last
six months, a reduction largely accomplished by the passage of
Assembly Bill 109. Under the prisoner-reduction order, the
inmate population in California's 33 prisons must be no more
than the following:
167 percent of design capacity by December 27, 2011
(133,016 inmates);
155 percent by June 27, 2012;
147 percent by December 27, 2012; and
(More)
AB 2549 (Hall)
Page 8
137.5 percent by June 27, 2013.
This does not aggravate the prison overcrowding crisis described
above under ROCA.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
Under current law, an active peace officer may
purchase and use an assault weapon, as defined, with
their own money for law enforcement purposes. On
December 31, 2010 then Attorney General, now Governor,
Jerry Brown released an opinion relating to the
ownership and use of assault weapons by retired peace
officers. Prior to the Attorney General's opinion,
because that officer legally purchased and used the
firearm for law enforcement purposes, and registered
that firearm in their own name, the officer maintained
possession of that firearm when they retired.
AB 2549 clarifies and codifies the practice prior to
the Attorney General's opinion that if an officer
legally purchases an assault weapon for law
enforcement purposes with their own money and
registers that weapon in their own name, they are
allowed to keep that firearm for their own protection
after they honorably retire. This measure would
require a retired peace officer to notify the
Department of Justice (DOJ) of their retired status,
pay a small fee for the DOJ to make those changes to
their files and be subject to all of the laws that
currently apply to citizens owning assault weapons who
were grandfathered in prior to the ban.
2. Constitutional Problems - This Bill Violates Equal Protection
(More)
AB 2549 (Hall)
Page 9
Existing Exceptions to the Assault Weapons Ban for Active Duty
Peace Officers
California's Assault Weapons Control Act (AWCA) provides for
peace officer exceptions for the general prohibitions on the
purchase and possession of assault weapons. Existing law allows
the sale to or purchase of assault weapons by specified state
and federal law enforcement agencies for the possession or use
by sworn peace officers for law enforcement purposes for use in
the discharge of their official duties. (Penal Code � 30625.)
Existing law also allows specified sworn peace officers to
possess or use assault weapons for law enforcement purposes,
whether on or off duty. (Penal Code � 30630(a).) This section
essentially permits an officer to receive and use a weapon that
is lawfully owned by a qualified law enforcement agency.
Finally, existing law allows specified sworn peace officers to
purchase assault weapons with their own money provided that the
peace officer has verifiable written authorization from his or
her employer to possess or receive the specific assault weapon.
These weapons must be registered with DOJ. (Penal Code �
30630(b)(1) and (2).) Notably, this section does not restrict
peace officers to use such weapons for law enforcement purposes
only.
The Ninth Circuit Has Declared an Exception to the Assault
Weapons Ban for Retired Peace Officers to be Unconstitutional
As originally enacted, the AWCA authorized specific law
enforcement agencies to buy and possess assault weapons, and
allowed individual officers of those agencies to use and possess
the weapon in the court of their duties. In 1999, the
Legislature broadened the officer exception in two ways. First,
officers permitted by their department to possess assault
weapons in the discharge of their official duties were permitted
to do so whether on or off duty. Second, an exception for
retired peace officers was created, providing that the general
restrictions on possession and use of assault weapons did not
(More)
AB 2549 (Hall)
Page 10
apply to a retired officer who receives the weapon upon
retirement from his or her official duties.
The Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution
guarantees all citizens the right to equal protection under the
law. (U.S. Const., Amend. IVX.) The due process clause is
violated when the state takes action that treats similarly
situated people differently. (Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 Fd 1052,
1081 (9th Cir. 2002).)
Subsequently, California residents who either owned assault
weapons or wanted to purchase them filed suit alleging the AWCA
violated the Second Amendment. Additionally, some of the
plaintiffs raised equal protection challenge to the provisions
allowing police officers to possess those weapons while
off-duty, and allowing retired police officers to possess
assault weapons after retirement. The Ninth Circuit Federal
Court of Appeal held that the exemption allowing off-duty law
enforcement officers to possess assault weapons did not violate
principles of equal protection.
The Court stated:
It is manifestly rational for at least most categories
of peace officers to possess and use firearms more
potent than those available to the rest of the
populace in order to maintain public safety. The
off-duty officer exception provides that an off-duty
officer permitted to possess and use the assault
weapons must do so only for "law enforcement
purposes." We presume that off-duty officers may find
themselves compelled to perform law enforcement
functions in various circumstances, and that in
addition it may be necessary that they have their
weapons readily available. Thus, the provision is
designed to further the very objective of preserving
the public safety that underlies the AWCA.
Consequently, there is a rational basis for the
provision, and it comports with the requirements of
(More)
AB 2549 (Hall)
Page 11
the Fourteenth Amendment.
(Silveira, supra, 312 F.3rd at 1089.)
But the Court then held that there was no rational basis for an
exception to allow for possession of prohibited weapons by
retired police officers.
In contrast, the retired officer exception has no such
clearly rational basis. The amendments to the AWCA
provide that the California agencies listed at note 6,
supra, may sell or transfer assault weapons to a sworn
peace officer upon the retirement of that officer.
The exception does not require that the transfer be
for law enforcement purposes, and the possession and
use of the weapons is not so limited.
Initially, we observe that allowing residents of
California to obtain assault weapons for purposes
unrelated to law enforcement is wholly contrary to the
legislature's stated reasons for enacting restrictions
on assault weapons. As set forth more fully above,
the legislature found that "the proliferation and use
of assault weapons poses a threat to the health,
safety, and security of all citizens in this state."
When the legislature first passed the AWCA, the entire
Assembly, sitting as the Committee of the Whole, heard
testimony from the California Attorney General, the
chiefs of police of several local jurisdictions,
public health experts, and the relatives of crime
victims about the devastating effects of assault
weapons on California communities. In light of the
unequivocal nature of the legislative findings, and
the content of the legislative record, there is little
doubt that any exception to the AWCA unrelated to
effective law enforcement is directly contrary to the
act's basic purpose of eliminating the availability of
high-powered, military-style weapons and thereby
protecting the people of California from the scourge
(More)
AB 2549 (Hall)
Page 12
of gun violence.
(Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052, 1089-1090 (9th Cir. Cal.
2002), footnotes and citations omitted.)
Consequently, the Court concluded, "We thus can discern no
legitimate state interest in permitting retired peace officers
to possess and use for their personal pleasure military-style
weapons. Rather, the retired officers exception arbitrarily and
unreasonably affords a privilege to one group of individuals
that is denied to others, including plaintiffs." (Silveira,
supra, 312 F.3d 1052, 1091 (9th Cir. 2002).)
The Attorney General's Opinion
This bill would require that any authorization given by a law
enforcement agency to one of its peace officer employees to buy
an assault weapon contain the restriction that the weapon was to
be used "for law enforcement purposes, whether on or off duty."
This raises the question whether it would violate the Equal
Protection Clause for a retired peace officer to be exempted
from the assault weapons ban if the law clearly stated that the
weapon could only be used for law enforcement purposes. San
Diego Sheriff Gore requested an opinion from the Attorney
General as to whether a peace officer who purchases and
registers an assault weapon in order to use the weapon for law
enforcement purposes is permitted to continue to possess the
assault weapon after retirement. In his 2010 Opinion, Attorney
General Jerry Brown concluded that this would still be a
violation of equal protection because "it is the a peace
officer's role as a law enforcement agent that provides a
rational basis for distinguishing between a peace officer and a
private citizen for purposes of possessing and using assault
weapons. A retired officer is not authorized to engage in law
enforcement activities." Therefore, allowing retired peace
officers to own weapons that other citizens are prohibited from
owning, even if it was stated that this was for "law enforcement
purposes only," would still be unconstitutional. (93
Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 130 (Dec. 31, 2010).) Finally, as to whether
(More)
AB 2549 (Hall)
Page 13
it should make any difference that a peace officer used his or
her own funds to purchase the weapon, the Attorney General said
it does not.
Furthermore, we do not believe that the fact that a
peace officer may have spent his or her own money to
buy an assault weapon under subdivision (f)(2), makes
this situation materially different from the issue
decided in Silveira. The Silveira case stands squarely
for the proposition that the continued possession of
assault weapons by retired peace officers does not
serve law enforcement purposes and is therefore
inconsistent with the legislative purpose of the Act,
which is to eliminate the availability of assault
weapons generally. The source of funds for the
purchase of a weapon is not relevant to the issue of
whether its possession may be justified on law
enforcement grounds.
3. The Question of Taking
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution states:
"nor shall private property be taken for public use without just
compensation." Because California statute briefly purported to
allow retired peace officers to buy and possess assault weapons,
a provision later found unconstitutional and repealed, and
because current law allows active duty officers to buy and
possess assault weapons but does not make provision for them to
keep them upon their retirement, the question has been raised
whether this situation creates an unlawful taking by the
government, in violation of the 5th Amendment. It does not.
Courts have long recognized that prohibiting possession of
dangerous weapons is a valid exercise of the government's police
power not to be confused with the power of imminent domain.
In 1978, Washington DC passed a law prohibiting the ownership of
certain types of weapons, including those that could fire more
than 13 rounds without reloading. The law was quickly
challenged by a several gun owners who had legally purchased
(More)
AB 2549 (Hall)
Page 14
such weapons before the law went into effect and were thus
required to dispose of them or be in violation of the law. They
claimed this amounted to a taking by the government, without
just compensation, in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held:
Petitioners' third constitutional challenge alleges
that D.C. Code 1978 Supp., � 6-1820(c) provides for a
taking of their property without just compensation in
violation of the Fifth Amendment. That section of the
Code provides three alternatives for disposition
within seven days of a firearm denied registration.
The unsuccessful applicant may (1) "peaceably
surrender" the firearm to the chief of police, (2)
"lawfully remove" the firearm from the District for as
long as he retains an interest in the firearm, or (3)
"lawfully dispose" of his interest in the firearm.
Petitioners' argument is that the second and third
alternatives require, under the terms imposed by the
Federal Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. � 922
(1970), a quick "forced sale" of the firearms at less
than fair market value to a dealer in firearms, while
the first alternative would provide not even a salvage
value return.
(More)
Assuming, arguendo, that the statute authorized a
"taking," we note that the Fifth Amendment prohibits
taking of "private property . . . for public use,
without just compensation." Such a taking for the
public benefit under a power of eminent domain is,
however, to be distinguished from a proper exercise of
police power to prevent a perceived public harm, which
does not require compensation . Lamm v. Volpe, 449 F.2d
1202, 1203 (10th Cir. 1971). That the statute in
question is an exercise of legislative police power
and not of eminent domain is beyond dispute . The
argument of petitioner, therefore, lacks merit.
(Fesjian v. Jefferson, 399 A.2d 861, 865-866 (1979), emphasis
added.)
4. Technical Problems
Aside from its constitutionality, this bill raises several
technical issues. The bill is clearly intended to allow retired
peace officers to legally continue to possess assault weapons
they purchased under the provisions of Penal Code section 30630.
However, the bill merely provides that an honorably retired
peace officer who is in possession of an assault weapon or .50
BMG rifle that he or she lawfully purchased under this section,
and who honorably retired from a law enforcement agency prior to
January 1, 2013, shall not be required to surrender the weapon
so long as the honorably retired peace officer, on or before
April 1, 2013, notifies the Department of Justice of his or her
change in status and continued ownership of the assault weapon
or .50 BMG rifle. By merely providing that this group of
retirees is not required to surrender the weapon does not confer
on them the right to legally possess the weapon, although that
appears to have been the intent of the language.
As to peace officer retirees who honorably retires after January
1, 2013, the bill states that if he or she lawfully has
purchased an assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle pursuant to this
section, and properly registered the firearm in his or her name,
(More)
AB 2549 (Hall)
Page 16
he or she must, within 90 days, notify DOJ of his or her
retirement and continued ownership of the assault weapon or .50
BMG rifle. Again, a requirement to notify DOJ does not confer
the right to possess the weapon, although, again, this appears
to have been the author's intent.
5. Policy Concerns
Aside from its constitutionality and the technical issues
mentioned above, this bill raises several policy questions. Is
it consistent with the purpose of the assault weapons ban to
allow retired peace officers to continue to possess them? As
noted by both the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the
Attorney General, these former peace officers have no greater
law enforcement authority in retirement than any other citizen.
One possible rationale for allowing peace officer retirees to
possess weapons deemed too dangerous for other citizens to own
is that, due to their training, allowing this group of citizens
to own these weapons would pose less of a public safety threat
than allowing others to own them. However, as the Ninth Circuit
Court observed, "The object of the �assault weapons ban] is not
to ensure that assault weapons are owned by those most skilled
in their use; rather, it is to eliminate the availability of the
weapons generally." (Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052, 1091
(9th Cir. Cal. 2002).)
In addition to allowing peace officer retirees to own assault
weapons, this bill would specifically permit them to own .50
caliber BMG rifles. These are military-type sniper rifles with
an accurate range of over one mile. One ammunition supplier's
website states:
. . . A McMillan TAC-50 .50BMG sniper rifle was used
by Canadian Corporal Rob Furlong to bring off the
longest-range confirmed sniper kill in history, when
he shot a Taliban insurgent at 2,430 meters (2,657
AB 2549 (Hall)
Page 17
yards/7,972 feet/1.509 miles) during the 2002 campaign
in Afghanistan.
The previous record for a confirmed long-distance was
set by Marine sniper Carlos Hathcock in 1967, using
the same round in an M2 Browning Machine Gun equipped
with a telescopic sight. This weapon was used by other
snipers, and eventually purpose-built sniper rifles
were developed especially for this round. The previous
standard for ammunition for sniper rifles was 30-06,
but the .50 round is more accurate at extreme range.
(http://www.50bmgsupply.com/)
Would it promote public safety to allow peace officer retirees
to possess long-range military-type sniper rifles? Would this
be consistent with the purposes of the assault weapons ban in
California?
***************