Staff Member
Silver Lifetime
Bronze Lifetime
- Messages
- 7,053
- Reactions
- 8,761
That is when I would ask for a PO# or a check from the department or at least call the dept to verify that the officer has to purchase his own duty weapon. If they balk just tell them you're covering yourself and your FFL lic. so that you don't break the law by selling it to him as a private firearm.Being so used to preferential treatment there is nothing stopping a LEO simply saying, "yes", when asked if the purchase is related to their official duties and no one could prove otherwise. Only those officers with a conscience would truthfully answer "no". There are simply too many that think, "I'm always on duty" and unable to make the distinction between what they think and what is, actually, directly duty related or not.
If it means having to apply for a permit.... their interpretation will always lean toward, "yes, official duty related."
Dollars to donuts!
If I were an FFL in Calif. right now I would be nixing sales to police with the new law about being able to sue the gun manufactures BS. Kinda like Barret when they wouldnt ship a repaired .50 back to a dept in cali as they were not allowed there anymore.Seems like one particular local gun store here in Oregon stood on a principle against 114 and got the ball rolling and made a difference.
I wish all stores banded together on these issues. Imagine is magically every gun store stopped selling standard mags to cops in ban states how long those laws would last.
I doubt it. I doubt it's even 1:1 as there's nothing like name recognition and no Glock that isn't a Glock really runs like a Glock.
Last Edited: