Mr. James
Member
Greetings, all,
Hope someone can help with this "friend-of-a-friend" scenario. Fellow pawned a rifle to pay off a pressing debt. When he returned two weeks later to repay the loan, he learned the pawnbroker had in the interim been raided by the ATF. That much loved agency had, naturally, seized all firearms in the pawnbroker's possession. The story given is that ATF is refusing to approve any transfer of the rifle back to the pawnbroker (who was never convicted on the original violation (that being unknown to me)), or to the original owner.
The story, edited for clarity and removal of names:
"I got a seat belt ticket and needed some fast money to pay it. So I pawned my rifle. I went back 2 weeks later to repay my loan and the ATF had seized it. I did nothing wrong [ - ed. note] but the ATF ran one of their stings on the pawn shop and took all the guns in the shop. The charge [which led to ] my rifle being seized was dropped by the U.S. attorney's office. The pawn shop owner was convicted on some lesser charges and now they will not [return] any of the guns. . . . This has been going on for 2 years and every time it looks like I will see my rifle again, someone at the ATF delays it or some more paper work needs to be done. [The] U.S. attorney has [given] the OK [for return of the rifle], the Pawn Shop has given the OK. [Name deleted] at the ATF in Charlotte has not given the OK."
With this limited information, can anyone out there comment on the relationship of bailment and the seizure of pawned goods by law enforcement? I suspect this gent lacks either the incentive (i.e., a really nice rifle), resources or inclination to go hammer and tong at the ATF, but still, what happens to property owned by a - presumably - innocent third party when it is seized in the course of a law enforcment operation?
Thanks, all, for any insight into this mess.
Hope someone can help with this "friend-of-a-friend" scenario. Fellow pawned a rifle to pay off a pressing debt. When he returned two weeks later to repay the loan, he learned the pawnbroker had in the interim been raided by the ATF. That much loved agency had, naturally, seized all firearms in the pawnbroker's possession. The story given is that ATF is refusing to approve any transfer of the rifle back to the pawnbroker (who was never convicted on the original violation (that being unknown to me)), or to the original owner.
The story, edited for clarity and removal of names:
"I got a seat belt ticket and needed some fast money to pay it. So I pawned my rifle. I went back 2 weeks later to repay my loan and the ATF had seized it. I did nothing wrong [ - ed. note] but the ATF ran one of their stings on the pawn shop and took all the guns in the shop. The charge [which led to ] my rifle being seized was dropped by the U.S. attorney's office. The pawn shop owner was convicted on some lesser charges and now they will not [return] any of the guns. . . . This has been going on for 2 years and every time it looks like I will see my rifle again, someone at the ATF delays it or some more paper work needs to be done. [The] U.S. attorney has [given] the OK [for return of the rifle], the Pawn Shop has given the OK. [Name deleted] at the ATF in Charlotte has not given the OK."
With this limited information, can anyone out there comment on the relationship of bailment and the seizure of pawned goods by law enforcement? I suspect this gent lacks either the incentive (i.e., a really nice rifle), resources or inclination to go hammer and tong at the ATF, but still, what happens to property owned by a - presumably - innocent third party when it is seized in the course of a law enforcment operation?
Thanks, all, for any insight into this mess.