Peace officers buying and selling assault weapons

December 22, 2011

California peace officers have bought more than 7,600 assault weapons that are outlawed for civilians in the decade since state lawmakers allowed the practice, according to data obtained by the Associated Press after it was revealed that federal authorities are investigating illegal gun sales by law enforcement. [SanFranciscoChronicle]

The AP filed a California Public Records Act request after federal authorities served search warrants in November as part of an ongoing investigation into allegations of illegal weapons sales by several Sacramento-area law enforcement officers.

A 2001 law, allows peace officers to buy assault weapons “for law enforcement purposes, whether on or off duty.”
Locally, some top law enforcement officials have been operating under different licensing expectations than the general public.

In 2009, Paso Robles Police Chief Lisa Solomon was found to have not properly licensed a gun that allegedly came from the San Luis Obispo County District Attorney’s office. The lack of registration became public after a man stole Solomon’s loaded semi-automatic gun from her unlocked car.

Even though the gun was not properly licensed, then Atascadero Police Chief Jim Mulhall returned it to Solomon and did not take action against her for the failure to register her privately owned firearm even though he is in the business of gun distributing.

Mulhall, who resigned earlier this year, started dealing guns for profit in 1989. Through his home based gun dealership, Mulhall earns between $100,000 and $170,000 a year, according to Mantra.

The federal investigation and the AP’s discoveries prompted one state lawmaker to revisit the law to ensure that the guns can be bought only for police purposes.

“I think it’s much more questionable whether we should allow peace officers to have access to weapons or firearms that a private citizen wouldn’t have access to if the use is strictly personal,” said Assemblyman Roger Dickinson, D-Sacramento to the Chronicle.


Slowerfaster, I am a conservative who also happens to follow the whole Constitution. Without the second ammendment I can assure you the first ammendment would go away. And your fellow democrats are the ones who “cherry pick” the Constitution. The NRA also advocates for the entire Constitution unlike your groups like naral or etc. You are truly clueless.

Truth Hurts

Always twisting articles to cause local drama..This law has nothing to do with Paso PD’s Chief getting her gun stolen (and I could be wrong but I think it was a handgun correct?). What this law does is it alows law enforcement to purchase their own rifles that they can carry at work. There are a lot of benifits to this. Many of the rifles that our local agencies have are VERY basic. They have Iron sites and poor lighting systems. They are also tossed around by every other cop in the station. These rifles that the officers purchase are just that, their own, and they are taken care of better than the rifles that everyone else can use. They are better lighting equipment and some have optics that can make it more accurate and make it easier to aquire the target in a situation (and not at the taxpayers expense). I addition the officer can take the rifle out and pratice with it. Before thy could only go fire the rifle with the department had range days (by the way most agencies only quailfy with the rifle once a year). So officers are more likely to be accurate with the weapon. Now when the officers purchase the gun from a dealer they have to register it as an “assualt rifle” just like anyone one else that owns a gun like this that was purchased pre-ban. People in California own these rifles and they are legal and they are not lawenfocement it just depened on if they bought it a decade ago or not. The funny thing is that all is gun is a semi-auto .223 rifle with a detachable mag. they are not full auto. The same system can be purchased right now by ruger in the mini 14 the only difference is the grip and it is notand assualt rifle. The AR style guns are mil spec and are made by several different companies so it is a good realiable system and all parts by all companies are basically interchangable. Let the cops keep the guns they purchased with their own money. They are registered as assault rifles already and are abiding by the law. By the way ..the picture you guys are using cracking me up..I think that is a granade launcher…please..always using the extreme…

Truth Hurts

sorry for my spelling

Jack L

A+ Amen


Truth, This article is simply a daily brief, not an investigative story. I have no doubt that the reason LE are allowed to purchase these weapons is for the exact reason that you state. You’re correct that Salomon’s gun was a hand gun ( sigsaur [sic?] I believe) but I can understand why it was mentioned in this article. Lisa’s gun was not registered and it was returned to her by a LE who was also a gun dealer. As far as I know, it is illegal to return an unregistered gun to anyone.

Something that is nice about threads like these is that people are able to share information, such as you just did. Like I said, this isn’t an investigative piece, it’s just about facts that are currently out in the media.


You just demonstrated exactly why this loophole is so completely objectionable, why attempting to rationalize it. What gives law enforcement the right to purchase a weapon that I can’t? You just admitted that the criteria the state uses to classify a rifle as an “assault” weapon is essentially inconsequential to the actual capabilities of the rifle. That means the ban on private citizens from purchasing these weapons is flawed on its face.

I don’t agree with the ban. But if there is going to be a ban then it needs to apply EQUALLY to EVERYONE and there should no special class of citizen exempted. You can rationalize it however you want, and your arguments may have validity, but I have arguments about why I should be able to own guns classified as “assault rifles” that have validity as well.

Truth Hurts

Well I guess you probably figured out that I m probably in law enfocement by now..let me ask you this..why should I be allowed to carry concealed all the time and you not..wait…that is because my job puts me in situations that I meet people that are less law abiding and polite than you..have you ever been screamed at in a store because of what you do (with your kids next to you), flipped off as you drive down the road, or followed by a gang banger after the recognized you? I have..I agree that gun laws are stupid and need to be worked out..same with the medical MJ laws..the stuff changes so much it is hard to know what is legal and what is not. Why is it that if you have a concealed fix blade knife it is a felony and a concealed handgun is a misd?

I am curious though..why should you own a AR? the way you can go and purchase one. the only difference is that it has to have a different button to detach to mag. the ones on the cop’s gun are not there becasue they use it FOR WORK also and I dont think in an acutal firefight you probably wouldn’t want the cop to take too long to change mags while he is trying to save you child in a school shooting situation.

go to range mater and get one of these guns and go dress up in your camo and eat berries and pretend you are preparing for the big invasion. You are a cop hater and you probably always will be. you probably had some bad experience with an officer and that has made you pissed off and always making negative comments (not just this article but many many others I have noticed). I am sorry you have a bitter taste in your mouth. I try and treat people the way I would like to be treated. The best way to fix it is to apply and change it within. Oh and if you want to go through sometimes a year long process with written tests, physical test, oral interviews, psych tests, psych interviews, backrounds, Dr. physicals, a few more additional interviews, a 20 week basic academy, and a 24 hour rifle training course then I think you should be able to purchase one of these guns. I have one.(it stays at work and not in my home).but I know that I will have to put a new button on it when i retire and I am ok with that since I will no longer need it for work. What I am saying is I have a need for you more than you..but when I retire I agree that need is pretty much gone so I will change it back to Cal legal.

The Gimlet Eye

Truth Hurts, now you really have my dandruff up. That’s BS! You are not any more likely to get shot than anybody else. The vast majority of cops never even discharge their firearms a single time for their entire careers! If it’s fine for you to carry, then it’s fine for the general public to do the same!

If they did, the country would be a hell of a lot safer, and then we would not have to depend so much on police officers who, 99 times out of 100, can do NOTHING to stop a crime from going down. Better that the people protect themselves than put false hopes in some POLICE STATE state sanctioned goon like you who can’t do anything about it until after the fact anyway.

Any law-abiding person should be able to carry a firearm, concealed or not! Your attitude just reflects this gd POLICE STATE mentality which is CRIMINAL, totally UNAMERICAN, and a total blight on our history!

We don’t have time for your POLICE STATE state sanctioned “solutions.” We also don’t want to depend on you like a bunch of stupid cattle waiting for the slaughter.

We have our lives, our property, and our sacred honor to protect. Next time you contemplate the reasons why you can carry concealed and we cannot, you meditate on the Constitution.


Well that’s a darn good question, why is it that a concealed blade is a felony? (and a handgun not). I suspect that the answer to this question is the answer to why I think that the same laws ought to apply to law enforcement as civilians. So, I don’t think that you SHOULD be able to always have a concealed weapon when I cannot,.

If we were going to allow the right to carry arms based upon statistical probability of getting attacked on the job, we would have a lot of job professions before yours to arm, including Postal Workers, two truck drivers, lawyers, and so on.

I am not a cop hater any more than I hate all politicians. I just don’t like “most” of them. The reason that I don’t is exactly because the attitude you display by asking why I should

own an AR is the EXACT reason that this is the case. When the government sees itself as the ruler and enforcer as opposed to the servant and the peacekeeper, then a republic is on shaky ground. When there is not equal protection under the law, then the law becomes something that people should have a healthy skepticism of. When you have legislatures that make concealed carry of a knife a felony and a gun a misdemeanor, then a responsible citizen stands up to defend the *inalienable* rights that belong to him and that it is essential he exercises in order to secure the integrity of the republic,.

Take that however you want. I suspect it will cause you to raise an eyebrow, but it should not, both because I have merely expressed the sentiments expressed in the legal documents establishing this country as well as because I am just an average guy who would do anything possible to avoid any kind of physical confrontation with any human. If it did raise an eyebrow, I ask you think about how that reaction might reflect a contradiction with the basic rights and principles we espouse in this country and claim to hold sacred.


mkaney, is your contention that LEO should not be allowed to purchase these weapons at all or is it about allowing them to retain the weapons after retirement? Obviously LE need these weapons while they are practicing their profession. Remember the big LA shoot out at the B of A when the LAPD was out gunned (by 2 guys)? We can’t have the public better armed than the people who protect us, that would be ludicrous.

But I agree that once they retire, they are a citizen and have no need for the accelerated fire power.


When a situation gets elevated to one like the LA incident you mentioned, then it is generally best to back off from it altogether. Let them take the money… is it worth ANYONE’s life? Do you think we can’t then track them down later on with overwhelming numbers, even if our enforcers have the lessor weapons? I would prefer that they didn’t get into militaristic public shootouts to begin with. It’s just money! And if the populace could carry concealed weapons and a shootout did occur, then the criminals would really have something to worry about!

All of the arguments in favor of a better armed police force are easy to argue away when you really think about the *alternatives*.




Thank god!

The Gimlet Eye

Now that we are under martial law, how do you folks feel about that?


You really are dull.


Whats New? is old again

Ford Fund Denies Suggesting C.I.A. Train Police; Federal Grant Used


March 16, 1973,

The president of the Ford Foundation has denied an assertion by the Central Intelligence Agency that New York City policemen were trained by the agency at the suggestion of the foundation.

The Gimlet Eye

Sounds like the cops are preparing for a revolt.


I think they seeing the continued breakdown of society and the revolving door known as “court” and “prison” and are preparing to defend their families not if but when the _hit hits the fan .

The Gimlet Eye

The cops are only “preparing to defend their families”? What about the ongoing “militarization” of the police?


So they have a right to defend their families and I don’t?

The Gimlet Eye

Thank you, exactly!


Here is something to chew on: if you judge the breakdown of society on the change in violent crime, society is in fact NOT breaking down, it is doing the exact opposite. Crime is down almost across the board. To me what this means it’s not society that is going downhill, merely the attitude of law enforcement who perceive that.

The Gimlet Eye

Right on the money again, mkaney. They manufacture the lie, then they use it as an excuse to make another move to further their agenda, in this case, the construction of a POLICE STATE.

This is a very old trick, and it has served the gangsters of the world well, until the advent of the Internet. Now we are on to them. Keep them under the spotlight and exposed. It’s where they belong.


Law enforcement is making it more and more difficult to respect them after discovering these kind of happenings.

The Gimlet Eye

The certainly are:

US: Politicians who voted in favor of the indefinite detention military law bill received heavy contributions from defense contractors. [It is almost certain that the money came from the military in the form of fattened, no-bid contracts.]

RT Posted 2011 Dec 17


That’s another byproduct of government unions for ya…


Okay, I’ll nibble at your “hook”; exactly how is it that police officers selling firearms that the pubic may or may not have access to a function of “government unions”? The only named law enforcement officer in the article here on CCN is retired police chief Jim Mulhall, who, as a Chief of Police is NOT a union member. I am prepared to be “dazzled” by either your logical connection of the article to the police unions or a solid link from a respected news organization or both. Go for it.


I demand to see your ‘long form intelligence certificate’.

if you don’t do so, you’re a COWARD !


Nice to see the “anti-intelligence” card being played. Anything else?

Jack L

So called ‘assault weapons’, should never have been outlawed (regarding law abiding citizens) in the first place. For those of you who are not aware, you can still buy them in CA. The major difference being we are only allowed 10 round magazines and the magazine are secured by what is called a ‘bullet button’ which takes a few seconds longer to change out a magazine than what law enforcement uses.

Here is one of our home state manufactures that make a so called assault weapon that is CA legal;


There are literally hundreds of manufacturers of self loading weapons that meet the California specs, and they are all legal to own in the state of CA.

And yes, by buying them through a licensed FFL dealer and having a bullet button you can buy them all day long. The law is clear and the Bill of Rights is very clear, it is when politics gets involved that it gets cloudy. No citizen in CA without the proper license is able to legally own an “automatic weapon”. Assault weapons is the generic name give to anything that is a self loading weapon with a pistol grip, a semi auto feed and a removable clip of more than 10 rounds. A legal citizen can buy or build a self loading weapon that is legal and meets CA specs, by following the law.

That being said there is considerable funny business going on in the the DOJ (fast and furious)and in many law enforcement agencies across the nation. They are trying to tighten the laws to infringe on the second amendment and limit private ownership of firearms, through secondary means. The radical liberals have gone after bullets and clips to limit ownership of weapons when the public votes to prevent that. Senator Feinstein herself is a good example, she has fought long and hard to prevent the public from owning firearms, yet has staff who carry these same “assault weapons” for her personal protection. Many other legislators follow suit.


Don’t confuse selling a $100,000 in guns as earning $100,000 most of that (90% to 95% or more) is just coving the cost of what’s sold.


The industry is so competitive that dealers are lucky to make 10% margin. He would have to be moving somewhere near $$1.2 million in sales to see that kind of profit.

Keep in mind that throughout the entire Bill of Rights, the phrase “…shall not be infringed.” is written in only 1 place: The 2nd Amendment. Gives you some idea just how unconstitutional gun laws are.



Brother !

Another unhinged NRA freak ! you jerks act like the 2nd is the ONLY Amendment. “Abridged”. “Prohibited’ , plenty of negative proscriptions all over the place.

BTW, I’m a “2nd Amendment” Democrat, that obeys and applies the WHOLE Constitution !

Not cherry picking like coward conservatives .


Bad day for your med’s huh?


I believe that would actually make you a Libertarian. Or do you just personally support the Constitution without requiring those who you vote for to do the same>