Colorado Transfer Law Backfires! Victim can't get gun back from Police

[Midwest]

Colorado Transfer Law Backfires! Victim can't get gun back from Police

http://www.reporterherald.com/news/...25491/gun-transfer-laws-stall-firearm-returns

So the victim's personal handgun was taken while the victim was in the ambulance for 'safe keeping' after a accident. But because of Colorado's "transfer laws", the police refuse to give the firearm back to the victim. The police do not have an FFL on it's staff.

"Due to advice from the city attorney's office based on the Colorado gun transfer laws that went into effect July 1, 2013, the police have been unable to return her property."

According to the article, the sheriff was told that other people are in the same position. The victim needs her firearm because of her work as a maid that often requires her to enter stranger's homes .....alone.

"I'm a lawful citizen. I use my gun legally. I need my gun ... this is ridiculous to me," Warren said. "There are people out there who can't get their guns back. They haven't done anything wrong."

Later on in the article, the police are trying to resolve it. Nevertheless, perhaps this could be a good case for having the law thrown out or having it repealed. One of the suggestions made in the article is to have an "police exemption" for such cases. One of the questions raised that if some kind of deal with an FFL is worked out, then should the victim pay an FFL fee to get her firearm back?

This is one of the many reasons why "UBC" 'Universal Background Checks" should never be implemented. And I'm still amazed that some here on THR actually support such a measure.




.

 

[vamo]

I don't really see this story as a good argument against UBC. Its one instance of one hastily crafted law that apparently needed another exemption written in.

That being said I think it is in our best interest as gun owners to oppose UBC, but not at all because of the issue brought up in this story.

 

[beeenbag]

It didn't back fire, it did exactly what the creators of the bill wanted, dis-arm Americans!

I thought the whole idea of the recall was to get these bills reversed, why hasn't anything happened to undo the whole basis of the recall?

 

[Midwest]

The lady didn't commit no crime, the police took possession of her personal property and cannot return it. Where is due process? According to the article there are others in the same boat like this lady with their possessions (firearms) confiscated...While I am no lawyer, but from what I can see there should be some kind of basis for a class action to have the law modified or overturned.

.

 

[MEHavey]

This is a no-brainer:

- Walk down to the nearest gunshop
- She fills out the paperwork/gets the check
- Cops hand her the gun.

 

[Midwest]

Here is more from the article...Note the last paragraph about it not workable. Wouldn't that would be a valid reason to challenge the law?

"Smith said the law technically states that if a gun is seized by an officer and turned into evidence, an FFL background check would be required on both the officer and the evidence custodian.

"The city attorney is not able to interpret the law and how to carry it out, which I would take as an indication that it was terribly written," Smith said. "As written, it is simply not workable."

.

 

[MedWheeler]

Back in the late eighties, Grendel Firearms (now defunct) was marketing a pistol to LEOs as a possible BU/OD gun. When they contacted my agency, a deal was made that individual officers could purchase the gun through a department PO, and the guns would be delivered to the department, then handed out to those of us who ordered one. I was one of them, and that's exactly how it went down. I wonder now how that was permissible, and simply figure(d) that the agency must have (or be) a FFL; after all, it does purchase its own firearms (and also eventually trades them in.)

But because of Colorado's "transfer laws", the police refuse to give the firearm back to the victim.

The department isn't "refusing" to return it. The department is finding itself not legally permitted to return it. It sounds (okay, reads) as if Sheriff Smith and Deputy Chief Szakmeister are both inclined to find a way not to keep private citizens' firearms.

"Smith said the law technically states that if a gun is seized by an officer and turned into evidence, an FFL background check would be required on both the officer and the evidence custodian.

Was the gun in this case turned into evidence? Or was it simply taken for safekeeping?

 

[barnbwt]

"I don't really see this story as a good argument against UBC. Its one instance of one hastily crafted law that apparently needed another exemption written in."
How is that not a good argument against UBC? Or gun laws in general? Seems they always leave out 'what we meant to say' and need substantial re-writing and tailoring after the fact. Heck, NYC's SAFE act forgot to exempt LEOs and some folks mistakenly thought it banned all semi-autos . And that's not even counting the on-its-face inanity of the 7-rounds in a ten-er rule that was struck down almost immediately by a sympathetic judge.

TCB

 

[JERRY]

were they smoking marijuana when they wrote that law?

 

[Midwest]

were they smoking marijuana when they wrote that law?

Maybe Gabby or Bloomberg 'helped' with drafting the law.
.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Does anyone know exactly what the law states? This is the first I've heard of this. My friend has an elderly Father in CO with several guns including some high cap magazines he stands to inherit.

My friend also has a 22 rifle his father loaned him in the 90s that he wants to return as it is taking up needed room in his gun safe.

Mike

 

[MEHavey]

HOUSE BILL 13-1229

(I) REQUIRE THAT A BACKGROUND CHECK, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 24-33.5-424, C.R.S., BE CONDUCTED OF THE PROSPECTIVE TRANSFEREE; AND

(II) OBTAIN APPROVAL OF A TRANSFER FROM THE BUREAU AFTER A BACKGROUND CHECK HAS BEEN REQUESTED BY A LICENSED GUN DEALER, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 24-33.5-424, C.R.S.

(b) AS USED IN THIS SECTION, UNLESS THE CONTEXT REQUIRES OTHERWISE, "TRANSFEREE" MEANS A PERSON WHO DESIRES TO RECEIVE OR ACQUIRE A FIREARM FROM A TRANSFEROR. IF A TRANSFEREE IS NOT A NATURAL PERSON, THEN EACH NATURAL PERSON WHO IS AUTHORIZED BY THE TRANSFEREE TO POSSESS THE FIREARM AFTER THE TRANSFER SHALL UNDERGO A BACKGROUND CHECK, AS DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPH (a) OF THIS SUBSECTION (1), BEFORE TAKING POSSESSION OF THE FIREARM.

(2) (a) A PROSPECTIVE FIREARM TRANSFEROR WHO IS NOT A LICENSED GUN DEALER SHALL ARRANGE FOR A LICENSED GUN DEALER TO OBTAIN THE BACKGROUND CHECK REQUIRED BY THIS SECTION.

(b) A LICENSED GUN DEALER WHO OBTAINS A BACKGROUND CHECK ON A PROSPECTIVE TRANSFEREE SHALL RECORD THE TRANSFER, AS PROVIDEDIN SECTION 12-26-102, C.R.S., AND RETAIN THE RECORDS, AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 12-26-103, C.R.S., IN THE SAME MANNER AS WHEN CONDUCTING A SALE, RENTAL, OR EXCHANGE AT RETAIL. THE LICENSED GUN DEALER SHALLCOMPLY WITH ALL STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS, INCLUDING 18 U.S.C. SEC.922, AS IF HE OR SHE WERE TRANSFERRING THE FIREARM FROM HIS OR HER INVENTORY TO THE PROSPECTIVE TRANSFEREE.

(c) A LICENSED GUN DEALER WHO OBTAINS A BACKGROUND CHECK FOR A PROSPECTIVE FIREARM TRANSFEROR PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION
SHALL PROVIDE THE FIREARM TRANSFEROR AND TRANSFEREE A COPY OF THE RESULTS OF THE BACKGROUND CHECK, INCLUDING THE BUREAU'S APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF THE TRANSFER.

(d) A LICENSED GUN DEALER MAY CHARGE A FEE FOR SERVICES RENDERED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION, WHICH FEE SHALL NOT EXCEED TEN DOLLARS.

Click HERE for actual bill
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'm sorry guys but I see NOTHING about the cop(s) having to get a separate background check for themselves.
Bad as the law is [for the Colorado citizens who elected these blithering (xxxx)s ], I see nothing confusing about it either.

 

[Midwest]

(b) A LICENSED GUN DEALER WHO OBTAINS A BACKGROUND CHECK ON A PROSPECTIVE TRANSFEREE SHALL RECORD THE TRANSFER, AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 12-26-102, C.R.S., AND RETAIN THE RECORDS, AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 12-26-103, C.R.S., IN THE SAME MANNER AS WHEN CONDUCTING A SALE, RENTAL, OR EXCHANGE AT RETAIL.

THE LICENSED GUN DEALER SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS, INCLUDING 18 U.S.C. SEC.922, AS IF HE OR SHE WERE TRANSFERRING THE FIREARM FROM HIS OR HER INVENTORY TO THE PROSPECTIVE TRANSFEREE.

Some comments, concerns and questions..

So that means if someone goes to a place that rents out a machine gun to shoot at the range, that person has to to undergo a background check even if they are not leaving the premises with a firearm?

And seller A wants to sell a firearm to buyer B. They both have to go to the FFL and then the FFL does the transfer. I understand that part.

But the FFL has to log the firearm into his books from seller A and then log it out to buyer B after buyer B passes the background check...correct?

So when does the FFL run a check on the firearm to see if it was stolen?

Or does the FFL check firearms to see if they were stolen?

If the firearm later comes up stolen, is the FFL in trouble because they didn't check the firearm to see if it was stolen?

If buyer and seller show up at an FFL to make the transfer, can the FFL do the transfer on the spot?

Do buyer and seller have to make an appointment?

If there an extended delay for the transfer to take place because the FFL is busy with other things and doesn't have time to check out the firearm and log it in and out. Then how long does buyer and seller have to wait till the process is complete? A few minutes, few hours,...a few days...weeks?

Lastly, how does one prove that the firearm they have in their possession was acquired before the law took place? Is the burden on the gun owner or the state government? What will Colorado do in the future to prove that someone acquired a firearm through an FFL? Registration with 'ID cards' for each firearm?
.