fjolnirsson
Member
Excellent!
Cops refuse to return stolen gun they recovered. Grrr!!
- Thread starter Hand_Rifle_Guy
- Start date
- Status
Excellent!
The crux of this thread reminds me of when I was dispoing(not a real word) evidence back in 2000. I was in charge of the firearms and, after sifting through them, one stuck out. It was nickel S&W N-frame, .357 Magnum revolver with 4 inch tube. Anyway, I remember it vividly because(as we slip into the "wayback time machine"..............):
The revolver had been reported stolen in 1983. It had been recovered in 1994 and languished in the evidence room for 6 or so years for an unknown reason(I started in 1995 and wasn't assigned to dispo evidence until 2000). After locating the owner, who was then living way upstate, I contacted him and advised him to come and pick up his revolver or it would be destroyed(this sucks I know however it is Department policy and within the law).
Owner contacts me in disbelief! After all these years, you recovered the gun! I didn't have the heart to tell him that it had been sitting in evidence for many years........it was embarrassing. Anyway, we set up an appointment and he and his wife drive halfway down the State of California to pick up the revolver.
After the meet and greet, I verify his I.D. and hand him the gun, unloaded and cylinder open of course. He and his wife look at me with mouths gaping open in disbelief!! Then the questions.........."Is this all, I don't have to do anything else?" followed by, "This is legal, right?" and then, "So, how do I get this home." After assuring him(and her) that there was nothing else to do on their part because I returned HIS property and that yes, it was legal, I explained the laws regarding transporting a firearm in California.
As they walked out of the P.D. he said, "Are you sure this is okay, I can just walk out of here like this(with the revolver in his hand)." I said yes, however I wouldn't wave it around if I were you and away they went.
I suppose the moral of this story is that some Police Departments still respect the law and don't mind returning(read that to mean enjoy) returning stolen property to the rightfull owner.
The revolver had been reported stolen in 1983. It had been recovered in 1994 and languished in the evidence room for 6 or so years for an unknown reason(I started in 1995 and wasn't assigned to dispo evidence until 2000). After locating the owner, who was then living way upstate, I contacted him and advised him to come and pick up his revolver or it would be destroyed(this sucks I know however it is Department policy and within the law).
Owner contacts me in disbelief! After all these years, you recovered the gun! I didn't have the heart to tell him that it had been sitting in evidence for many years........it was embarrassing. Anyway, we set up an appointment and he and his wife drive halfway down the State of California to pick up the revolver.
After the meet and greet, I verify his I.D. and hand him the gun, unloaded and cylinder open of course. He and his wife look at me with mouths gaping open in disbelief!! Then the questions.........."Is this all, I don't have to do anything else?" followed by, "This is legal, right?" and then, "So, how do I get this home." After assuring him(and her) that there was nothing else to do on their part because I returned HIS property and that yes, it was legal, I explained the laws regarding transporting a firearm in California.
As they walked out of the P.D. he said, "Are you sure this is okay, I can just walk out of here like this(with the revolver in his hand)." I said yes, however I wouldn't wave it around if I were you and away they went.
I suppose the moral of this story is that some Police Departments still respect the law and don't mind returning(read that to mean enjoy) returning stolen property to the rightfull owner.
Hand_Rifle_Guy
Member
Josey, what is your issue with my friend?
I had this long paragraph typed itemizing it all again from the beginning. I deleted it because I don't want to patronize you. I just don't understand your attitude.
Edit. Ooh! Ooh! Jim's here! And pulling no punches I see. Gotta beat feet off to the PM page. We now return you to your regularly scheduled analysis.
Update of significance: This abusive circus is being brought to us by the San Mateo County Sheriff's Office. Unfortunately, in my direct experience, sheriffs are notoriously condescending, patronizing, obnoxious, self-inflated know-it-alls who simply assume that what they think is the way the world is going to run. This does by no means mean ALL of them, but enough to make a noticable difference. Arrogavce from THESE guys should come as no surprise. I hope this doesn't make this more difficult than iy already is.
The Cliff's Notes Instant Sum-Up:
1) Jefferson's ex-buddy brings by a Thief with an honest face, who, unknown to the both of them, heists the pistol.
2) Ex-buddy and Thief depart Jefferson's house and go to Redwood City, whereupon Thief puts on a Grand Show and is promptly arrested for being a complete idiot.
3) Sheriff #1 traces Jefferson's gun through the Registration database, and calls Jefferson and ascertains that the gun is stolen. Jefferson is under no suspicion of aiding/abetting Thief's stupidity.
4) Thief goes to court and gets a ticket to The Barry Place. Jefferson is not involved with the trial in any way.
5) Jefferson calls the Sheriff's Office a couple of times after a month or two to determine the fate of his gun. He is told they can't release it yet as they're not done testing it. This information was delivered by different folks at the Records desk each time.
6) (Here's where the San Mateo County Sheriff's Office commits a crime of monstrous proportion, which precipitated this whole fiasco.) Last thursday Jefferson calls and winds up talking to Sheriff #2, and getting the good news that the pistol is now available for release, provided Jefferson has no felonies or misdemeanors on his record. He gives his name and ID#, and Sheriff #2 pulls his file out of the database at the Records desk to check if he has been convicted of any felonies or misdemeanors. Sheriff #2 then informs Jefferson that he cannot release the pistol to him because he has a conviction for misdemeanor charge of 'exhibition of speed'. No mention of the Thief's case or the circumstances surrounding the Sheriff's posesssion of the gun at this, or any other time during this conversation. When asked why the Office will not release the gun despite a lack of any convictions for a felony, a misdemeanor crime of violence involving a sentence of one year or longer, or domestic violence, and not being named in a restraining order, Sheriff #2 said words to the effect of "It's our policy." Sheriff #2 then affirmed that it was in fact the misdemeanor conviction for 'exhibition of speed' that was the reason he would not authorize the pistol's release to Jefferson, the registered owner. "Come back when your probation's up. We'll see what the law says then." Now the guy thinks he can legislate?
No crime. No charge. No trial before a jury of peers. No conviction. No sentence. No penal code allowing LE to confiscate guns on the basis of a non-violent misdemeanor conviction or probation. Just "It's our policy."
Policy that's flying right in the face of California Penal Code, Section 12028.5(d), and oh yeah, that dratted inconvenient Fourth Ammendment to the Constitution, which we KNOW Sheriff's get PLENTY of legal training in how to handle so they don't get their cases tossed out, never mind the violation of guaranteed protections against aggressive arms of the government.
I am not buying it.
Jefferson is undeniably NOT prohibited from having guns. He has committed NO crime. He has had no trial, not even the slightest pretense of due process. Participation in a crime in the role of the victim does NOT make one an accessory to said crime, so why is he being treated like a convicted criminal?
Law Enforcement does not MAKE the laws, they just enforce them. If LE as an institution believes it okay to make the law up as they go, then it needs to be brutally slapped down as an institution. Institutional arrogance does not allow them abrogate citizen's rights whenever they please. This is a condition we usually refer to a "lawlessness," and I expect a LE institution to avoid this kind of action.
Josey, this isn't a test case. There is no "safe storage" law. There is no "Don't allow a thief to steal your pistol" law. There is no exception to anti-theft law for inviting a convicted felon into your home. One might have a reasonable expectation that a houseguest isn't going to break the law and rob you, however! Regardless, I don't see the relevance of any of these things to the situation at hand as Jefferson is not on trial here. The San Mateo County Sheriff's Office made it perfectly clear that it is the misdemeanor conviction on Jefferson's record that is the
problem, not the circumstances surrounding the original theft!
What I fail to understand is why you keep insisting the conditions around the original theft are relevant, when clearly they are not. What matters is San Mateo county's illegal seizure of Jefferson's gun on an unlawful pretext, which is particularly egregious as Jefferson is the victim of the original crime!
What I REALLY fail to understand is why you demand to assign culpability and blame to Jefferson for getting robbed! You assert that he's irresponsible for failing to instantly recognize the Thief for what he was. The man is not a mind-reader, nor is he a habitual criminal likely to recognize one of his own. Is it being a goob if you don't expect someone you've met only once before under non-suspicious, even friendly circumstances to immediately start ransacking your home when your back is turned? Jefferson didn't train the guy to have no scruples. He didn't tell the Thief there was a gun in his room. He didn't make the Thief willfully rip-off the friend of the friend who brought him to the house. How does being polite, making the Thief EARN his disrespect, and expecting the Thief to not steal from him when he had no prior knowledge of Thief's larcenistic tendencies make him in ANY way responsible for the Thief committ6ing ANY of the several crimes he subsequently perpetrates?
Jefferson had NO CONTROL over what choices the Thief decided on of his own free will. Yet you would blame Jefferson for this, and use that as a reason to say that his case is a bad one to use to challenge the San Mateo sheriff's BLATANT abuse of his civil rights, which the sheriff centered on a mark on his record that is totally unrelated. What does he need to do to satisfy you? WHY does his unwillingness to accept the responsibility for another's criminal acts frustrate you so much WHEN IT DIDN'T CONCERN THE SHERIFF AT ALL? How can this culpability you insist on have any bearing on the case when it is NOT what the sheriff took issue with when he decided to violate Jefferson's Fourth Ammendment protections by refusing to return his gun?
In the context of Jim March's informed confidence of how the Cal-DOJ is going to handle this, I find your attitude just a bit disheartening. Jefferson has done nothing in this situation to earn it. He's not particularly irresponsible, nor does he have bad judgement. He's just another gun-owner like the rest of us HighRiders who had the unmitigated bad luck to run afoul of both an unscrupulos thieving idiot and a snobby elitist Sheriff's department with delusions of grandeur.
Blaming the victim and shifting responsibility to shield criminals is a technique I'm a lot more used to seeing in the back-pedaling and redefining style of discussion used by Liberal Democrats. We are Riders of The High Road, and such behavior does not become us.
I had this long paragraph typed itemizing it all again from the beginning. I deleted it because I don't want to patronize you. I just don't understand your attitude.
Edit. Ooh! Ooh! Jim's here! And pulling no punches I see. Gotta beat feet off to the PM page. We now return you to your regularly scheduled analysis.
Update of significance: This abusive circus is being brought to us by the San Mateo County Sheriff's Office. Unfortunately, in my direct experience, sheriffs are notoriously condescending, patronizing, obnoxious, self-inflated know-it-alls who simply assume that what they think is the way the world is going to run. This does by no means mean ALL of them, but enough to make a noticable difference. Arrogavce from THESE guys should come as no surprise. I hope this doesn't make this more difficult than iy already is.
The Cliff's Notes Instant Sum-Up:
1) Jefferson's ex-buddy brings by a Thief with an honest face, who, unknown to the both of them, heists the pistol.
2) Ex-buddy and Thief depart Jefferson's house and go to Redwood City, whereupon Thief puts on a Grand Show and is promptly arrested for being a complete idiot.
3) Sheriff #1 traces Jefferson's gun through the Registration database, and calls Jefferson and ascertains that the gun is stolen. Jefferson is under no suspicion of aiding/abetting Thief's stupidity.
4) Thief goes to court and gets a ticket to The Barry Place. Jefferson is not involved with the trial in any way.
5) Jefferson calls the Sheriff's Office a couple of times after a month or two to determine the fate of his gun. He is told they can't release it yet as they're not done testing it. This information was delivered by different folks at the Records desk each time.
6) (Here's where the San Mateo County Sheriff's Office commits a crime of monstrous proportion, which precipitated this whole fiasco.) Last thursday Jefferson calls and winds up talking to Sheriff #2, and getting the good news that the pistol is now available for release, provided Jefferson has no felonies or misdemeanors on his record. He gives his name and ID#, and Sheriff #2 pulls his file out of the database at the Records desk to check if he has been convicted of any felonies or misdemeanors. Sheriff #2 then informs Jefferson that he cannot release the pistol to him because he has a conviction for misdemeanor charge of 'exhibition of speed'. No mention of the Thief's case or the circumstances surrounding the Sheriff's posesssion of the gun at this, or any other time during this conversation. When asked why the Office will not release the gun despite a lack of any convictions for a felony, a misdemeanor crime of violence involving a sentence of one year or longer, or domestic violence, and not being named in a restraining order, Sheriff #2 said words to the effect of "It's our policy." Sheriff #2 then affirmed that it was in fact the misdemeanor conviction for 'exhibition of speed' that was the reason he would not authorize the pistol's release to Jefferson, the registered owner. "Come back when your probation's up. We'll see what the law says then." Now the guy thinks he can legislate?
No crime. No charge. No trial before a jury of peers. No conviction. No sentence. No penal code allowing LE to confiscate guns on the basis of a non-violent misdemeanor conviction or probation. Just "It's our policy."
Policy that's flying right in the face of California Penal Code, Section 12028.5(d), and oh yeah, that dratted inconvenient Fourth Ammendment to the Constitution, which we KNOW Sheriff's get PLENTY of legal training in how to handle so they don't get their cases tossed out, never mind the violation of guaranteed protections against aggressive arms of the government.
I am not buying it.
Jefferson is undeniably NOT prohibited from having guns. He has committed NO crime. He has had no trial, not even the slightest pretense of due process. Participation in a crime in the role of the victim does NOT make one an accessory to said crime, so why is he being treated like a convicted criminal?
Law Enforcement does not MAKE the laws, they just enforce them. If LE as an institution believes it okay to make the law up as they go, then it needs to be brutally slapped down as an institution. Institutional arrogance does not allow them abrogate citizen's rights whenever they please. This is a condition we usually refer to a "lawlessness," and I expect a LE institution to avoid this kind of action.
Josey, this isn't a test case. There is no "safe storage" law. There is no "Don't allow a thief to steal your pistol" law. There is no exception to anti-theft law for inviting a convicted felon into your home. One might have a reasonable expectation that a houseguest isn't going to break the law and rob you, however! Regardless, I don't see the relevance of any of these things to the situation at hand as Jefferson is not on trial here. The San Mateo County Sheriff's Office made it perfectly clear that it is the misdemeanor conviction on Jefferson's record that is the
problem, not the circumstances surrounding the original theft!
What I fail to understand is why you keep insisting the conditions around the original theft are relevant, when clearly they are not. What matters is San Mateo county's illegal seizure of Jefferson's gun on an unlawful pretext, which is particularly egregious as Jefferson is the victim of the original crime!
What I REALLY fail to understand is why you demand to assign culpability and blame to Jefferson for getting robbed! You assert that he's irresponsible for failing to instantly recognize the Thief for what he was. The man is not a mind-reader, nor is he a habitual criminal likely to recognize one of his own. Is it being a goob if you don't expect someone you've met only once before under non-suspicious, even friendly circumstances to immediately start ransacking your home when your back is turned? Jefferson didn't train the guy to have no scruples. He didn't tell the Thief there was a gun in his room. He didn't make the Thief willfully rip-off the friend of the friend who brought him to the house. How does being polite, making the Thief EARN his disrespect, and expecting the Thief to not steal from him when he had no prior knowledge of Thief's larcenistic tendencies make him in ANY way responsible for the Thief committ6ing ANY of the several crimes he subsequently perpetrates?
Jefferson had NO CONTROL over what choices the Thief decided on of his own free will. Yet you would blame Jefferson for this, and use that as a reason to say that his case is a bad one to use to challenge the San Mateo sheriff's BLATANT abuse of his civil rights, which the sheriff centered on a mark on his record that is totally unrelated. What does he need to do to satisfy you? WHY does his unwillingness to accept the responsibility for another's criminal acts frustrate you so much WHEN IT DIDN'T CONCERN THE SHERIFF AT ALL? How can this culpability you insist on have any bearing on the case when it is NOT what the sheriff took issue with when he decided to violate Jefferson's Fourth Ammendment protections by refusing to return his gun?
In the context of Jim March's informed confidence of how the Cal-DOJ is going to handle this, I find your attitude just a bit disheartening. Jefferson has done nothing in this situation to earn it. He's not particularly irresponsible, nor does he have bad judgement. He's just another gun-owner like the rest of us HighRiders who had the unmitigated bad luck to run afoul of both an unscrupulos thieving idiot and a snobby elitist Sheriff's department with delusions of grandeur.
Blaming the victim and shifting responsibility to shield criminals is a technique I'm a lot more used to seeing in the back-pedaling and redefining style of discussion used by Liberal Democrats. We are Riders of The High Road, and such behavior does not become us.
Jim March
Member
HRG: check either PM or EMail.
Fjolnirsson: another hour or two. Working on it.
Fjolnirsson: another hour or two. Working on it
.deanf
Member
How 'bout small claims court? Just sue them for the value of the gun. Even if you don't win, you may be able to get some documents/info out of them about this policy that could be used later, in higher court.
Aguila Blanca
Member
HRG --
It is now 15:00 hours (local time) on 29 June 2004. I just saw this thread for the first time and in it you have already repeated the damned story three times.
Just get on with it! Send Jim March the information he requested and quit bellyaching. And, BTW -- although I agree completely that primary liability here lies with the chap who stole the weapon, I am not prepared to write your friend a blank check absolving him of all responsibility. The essential fact is that he left a gun of his ownership unsecured and outside of his direct control. Sorry, but he does indeed bear some responsibility in this case. He certainly should get his property returned to him, but he is not entirely blameless.
That's my opinion and it is, of course, worth exactly what you paid for it.
It is now 15:00 hours (local time) on 29 June 2004. I just saw this thread for the first time and in it you have already repeated the damned story three times.
Just get on with it! Send Jim March the information he requested and quit bellyaching. And, BTW -- although I agree completely that primary liability here lies with the chap who stole the weapon, I am not prepared to write your friend a blank check absolving him of all responsibility. The essential fact is that he left a gun of his ownership unsecured and outside of his direct control. Sorry, but he does indeed bear some responsibility in this case. He certainly should get his property returned to him, but he is not entirely blameless.
That's my opinion and it is, of course, worth exactly what you paid for it.
Hand_Rifle_Guy
Member
I repeat myself when under stress I repeat myself when under stress I repeat...
Hawkmoon-
Uh, granted. Three times because it didn't seem to be getting through. Sorry, maybe I shoulda PM'd it. Regardless, the ball is now rolling.
As to the 'under his direct control' bit, while technically it wasn't in hand at the time, outta sight in a bedroom in a house without mentioning it's presence to the concerned party seems to me to be a reasonable amount of control to a non-criminally trained individual.
It's not much different than someone who loses a pistol that's not secured during a break-in. I think one can make the legitimate assumption that locked up in one's house counts as sufficiently secure in any sort of reasonable sense, as it requires a crime, to wit: burglary, to allow access to the "unsecured" gun. I wouldn't attatch blame to the owner for failure to prevent criminal acquisition under such circumstances.
As his gun was swiped from 'under his nose', bold as brass as it were, I can't really agree with assigning culpability here either. The circumstances are just so extreme, right on the face of it. It's a crime to make you do a double-take: He did WHAT!? While you were THERE!? REALLY?
However, I'll happily grant your opinion, as you qualified what it's worth under the circumstances. My main reason for driving it home so hard repeatedly is that it had no connection to the situation of the cops seizing my buddy's gun. It seems like surrendering for the wrong reason. If the cops didn't care WHY they had Jefferson's gun, why should he let 'em seize it illegally in the first place? That's why it got me SO angry about the whole deal: They recovered it, they told him about it so they could charge the idiot with stealing it, and then THEY stole it, to all intents and purposes, and thumbed their noses while they did it. That's just so wrong it hardly bears hearing about.
[soapbox]
As I understand it, we got us a Bill Of Rights in this country, defined as a set of fundamentally undeniable protections. If LE institutions in this state think they have carte blanche to flout those rights any time they feel like it, we have a BIG problem. Blowing off the Fourth and the Second Ammendments at the same time is an even bigger one. What's next, house-to-house, turn-'em-all-in round-ups a-la Feinstein?
I used to take heart in the stout denials of various individual LEO's on this board to the effect of "We'd never do such a thing. That wouldn't be upholding the law, that'd be enforcing tyranny." Yet to discover some 50% of the agencies in this state will casually violate people's rights with no accountability beyond expensive court procedures makes me really wonder what the pronouncements of individuals is worth. The individual that Jefferson dealt with surely didn't seem to have a problem with the blatantly-rights-violating "policy" presumably handed down from whomever was in charge of his agency. And I don't believe said individual would not recognize the illegality of such a policy. The "ends" of "getting guns off the streets" ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT justify the means of arbitrarily seizing the firearms of law abiding citizens when the opportunity presents itself.
Yet it seems half of the agencies in California are willing to do exactly that, with not a complaint from the individuals who implement these "policies." I find it EXCEEDINGLY difficult to believe that that many people in the LE industry are that poorly trained and educated about fundamental rights and criminal justice. The fact remains, however, that despite extensive, expensive training and education, these unlawful procedures continue to exist, unopposed. That gives me very little faith in thinking that members of agencies like these will refuse, if/when so ordered, to "round 'em all up." I can't help but worry that in some sort of LE groupthink rationality that these individuals will find it reasonable and neccessary. That they will be willing to demand the surrender of our Second Ammendment rights at gunpoint.
Is that a possibility? could it ACTUALLY happen that way? I sure hope not. That's grounds for civil war. I knew we were on the slippery slope about gun rights, but this arbitrary seizure thing makes me feel like I just flew over the edge of a cliff. LE is the interface between governmental authority and the populace, and they're the ones who'd bear the brunt of any resistance to tyranny. I prefer to think that members of the profession do not deserve that, but "just following orders" (Or "it's just our policy.") is not a sufficient excuse.
I knew that LE is not neccessarily my friend, but if I obey the law, I expect to not run afoul of their authority. I DO NOT want to think of them as my enemy as a law-abiding citizen. However, if the ENFORCERS of the law cannot be bothered to ABIDE by the law, they destroy both their credibility and their authority.
A lack of credible law enforcement will mean the destruction of our society as we know it. We have a society because we collectively all AGREE to follow the rules (Not counting criminals, who are a very small part of the whole, and are therefore vastly out-voted.) as defined by the Constitution. If one of the more powerful, important parts of the system doesn't want to agree, then no-one else will, as it'll no longer be in their interest to hold up their end of the bargain we call civilized society.
I rather enjoy living in America. So far, our "collective agreement" has resulted in the richest lifestyle and highest standard of living on the planet. I don't want to see it fold up in a spasm of anarchy. The systemic abuse of rights that exists in this state MUST be stopped. Now.
Do I dare wonder if it's happening elsewhere? I couldn't have concieved of this being possible until it happened to someone I knew, and I've never heard of it before.
[/soapbox]
Hawkmoon-
Uh, granted. Three times because it didn't seem to be getting through. Sorry, maybe I shoulda PM'd it. Regardless, the ball is now rolling.
As to the 'under his direct control' bit, while technically it wasn't in hand at the time, outta sight in a bedroom in a house without mentioning it's presence to the concerned party seems to me to be a reasonable amount of control to a non-criminally trained individual.
It's not much different than someone who loses a pistol that's not secured during a break-in. I think one can make the legitimate assumption that locked up in one's house counts as sufficiently secure in any sort of reasonable sense, as it requires a crime, to wit: burglary, to allow access to the "unsecured" gun. I wouldn't attatch blame to the owner for failure to prevent criminal acquisition under such circumstances.
As his gun was swiped from 'under his nose', bold as brass as it were, I can't really agree with assigning culpability here either. The circumstances are just so extreme, right on the face of it. It's a crime to make you do a double-take: He did WHAT!? While you were THERE!? REALLY?
However, I'll happily grant your opinion, as you qualified what it's worth under the circumstances. My main reason for driving it home so hard repeatedly is that it had no connection to the situation of the cops seizing my buddy's gun. It seems like surrendering for the wrong reason. If the cops didn't care WHY they had Jefferson's gun, why should he let 'em seize it illegally in the first place? That's why it got me SO angry about the whole deal: They recovered it, they told him about it so they could charge the idiot with stealing it, and then THEY stole it, to all intents and purposes, and thumbed their noses while they did it. That's just so wrong it hardly bears hearing about.
[soapbox]
As I understand it, we got us a Bill Of Rights in this country, defined as a set of fundamentally undeniable protections. If LE institutions in this state think they have carte blanche to flout those rights any time they feel like it, we have a BIG problem. Blowing off the Fourth and the Second Ammendments at the same time is an even bigger one. What's next, house-to-house, turn-'em-all-in round-ups a-la Feinstein?
I used to take heart in the stout denials of various individual LEO's on this board to the effect of "We'd never do such a thing. That wouldn't be upholding the law, that'd be enforcing tyranny." Yet to discover some 50% of the agencies in this state will casually violate people's rights with no accountability beyond expensive court procedures makes me really wonder what the pronouncements of individuals is worth. The individual that Jefferson dealt with surely didn't seem to have a problem with the blatantly-rights-violating "policy" presumably handed down from whomever was in charge of his agency. And I don't believe said individual would not recognize the illegality of such a policy. The "ends" of "getting guns off the streets" ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT justify the means of arbitrarily seizing the firearms of law abiding citizens when the opportunity presents itself.
Yet it seems half of the agencies in California are willing to do exactly that, with not a complaint from the individuals who implement these "policies." I find it EXCEEDINGLY difficult to believe that that many people in the LE industry are that poorly trained and educated about fundamental rights and criminal justice. The fact remains, however, that despite extensive, expensive training and education, these unlawful procedures continue to exist, unopposed. That gives me very little faith in thinking that members of agencies like these will refuse, if/when so ordered, to "round 'em all up." I can't help but worry that in some sort of LE groupthink rationality that these individuals will find it reasonable and neccessary. That they will be willing to demand the surrender of our Second Ammendment rights at gunpoint.
Is that a possibility? could it ACTUALLY happen that way? I sure hope not. That's grounds for civil war. I knew we were on the slippery slope about gun rights, but this arbitrary seizure thing makes me feel like I just flew over the edge of a cliff. LE is the interface between governmental authority and the populace, and they're the ones who'd bear the brunt of any resistance to tyranny. I prefer to think that members of the profession do not deserve that, but "just following orders" (Or "it's just our policy.") is not a sufficient excuse.
I knew that LE is not neccessarily my friend, but if I obey the law, I expect to not run afoul of their authority. I DO NOT want to think of them as my enemy as a law-abiding citizen. However, if the ENFORCERS of the law cannot be bothered to ABIDE by the law, they destroy both their credibility and their authority.
A lack of credible law enforcement will mean the destruction of our society as we know it. We have a society because we collectively all AGREE to follow the rules (Not counting criminals, who are a very small part of the whole, and are therefore vastly out-voted.) as defined by the Constitution. If one of the more powerful, important parts of the system doesn't want to agree, then no-one else will, as it'll no longer be in their interest to hold up their end of the bargain we call civilized society.
I rather enjoy living in America. So far, our "collective agreement" has resulted in the richest lifestyle and highest standard of living on the planet. I don't want to see it fold up in a spasm of anarchy. The systemic abuse of rights that exists in this state MUST be stopped. Now.
Do I dare wonder if it's happening elsewhere? I couldn't have concieved of this being possible until it happened to someone I knew, and I've never heard of it before.
[/soapbox]
Mr. rifle_guy,
Sounds like you're in the midst of an epiphany, regarding the reality of government. Welcome to the club. Now that your illusions are shattered, take advantage of Mr. March's offer for help. Ideals notwithstanding, having an insider "take care of your problem" by pulling a few political strings is an uncommon opportunity. Keep us posted on the outcome of your situation...
Sounds like you're in the midst of an epiphany, regarding the reality of government. Welcome to the club. Now that your illusions are shattered, take advantage of Mr. March's offer for help. Ideals notwithstanding, having an insider "take care of your problem" by pulling a few political strings is an uncommon opportunity. Keep us posted on the outcome of your situation...
NavajoNPaleFace
Member
I don't want to take away from HRG's predicament because I can 'feel his pain' for his friend but I'd like to share with all the members a little known Arizona law.
First, let me preface this story with some history.
In 1998 my home was burglarized and nearly all of my guns were among the many items stolen yet there was no suspect(s) arrested and none of the property was recovered, except..............
About three years ago I received a certified letter from the Phoenix Police Department Pawn Shop Detail saying they found one of my guns at a local pawn shop during a serial number check of the guns in the shop (this is the routine and primary function of the Pawn Shop Detail).
Everything fine so far? Yep, but........
The enclosed letter gave me the contact name of the Officer making the find, the name of the Pawn Shop (and owner) and the name of the person who pawned or sold the gun to the shop.
Also....here's where it gets interesting.....the letter explained if I wanted to claim the gun I had to appear before an Administrative Judge, on a particular date, with documents, etc. that would establish my prior ownership.
No problem as I had a receipt, photographs of the gun showing the serial number, police report, etc. right? Wrong!
I showed up at the hearing with all the documentation only to find, according to ARIZONA LAW that since the insurance company reimbursed me for the loses they have proprietary claim to the gun....not me.
(BTW...I also found out that had the pawn shop owner, or shop representative, shown up they would have secondary right to the claim after the insurance company and before me....believe it or not!).
However, no representative from Farmers Insurance or the pawn shop responded to the claim, either in person or in writing. Consequently, the Administrative Judge allowed me to write Farmer's Insurance who, thankfully, relinquished their right to the claim to me in writing and I finally got my gun.
Time spent.....approximately 6 months but, other than gas money, any cost was minimal.
I point this out only because even a state like Arizona having leanient gun laws and regulations has, at least, one crazy law regarding recoveries of firearms.
Because, at the time I couldn't truly afford an Attorney I am also thankful I had an Administrative Judge that gave me advice in what direction I needed to turn to get my gun back.
First, let me preface this story with some history.
In 1998 my home was burglarized and nearly all of my guns were among the many items stolen yet there was no suspect(s) arrested and none of the property was recovered, except..............
About three years ago I received a certified letter from the Phoenix Police Department Pawn Shop Detail saying they found one of my guns at a local pawn shop during a serial number check of the guns in the shop (this is the routine and primary function of the Pawn Shop Detail).
Everything fine so far? Yep, but........
The enclosed letter gave me the contact name of the Officer making the find, the name of the Pawn Shop (and owner) and the name of the person who pawned or sold the gun to the shop.
Also....here's where it gets interesting.....the letter explained if I wanted to claim the gun I had to appear before an Administrative Judge, on a particular date, with documents, etc. that would establish my prior ownership.
No problem as I had a receipt, photographs of the gun showing the serial number, police report, etc. right? Wrong!
I showed up at the hearing with all the documentation only to find, according to ARIZONA LAW that since the insurance company reimbursed me for the loses they have proprietary claim to the gun....not me.
(BTW...I also found out that had the pawn shop owner, or shop representative, shown up they would have secondary right to the claim after the insurance company and before me....believe it or not!).
However, no representative from Farmers Insurance or the pawn shop responded to the claim, either in person or in writing. Consequently, the Administrative Judge allowed me to write Farmer's Insurance who, thankfully, relinquished their right to the claim to me in writing and I finally got my gun.
Time spent.....approximately 6 months but, other than gas money, any cost was minimal.
I point this out only because even a state like Arizona having leanient gun laws and regulations has, at least, one crazy law regarding recoveries of firearms.
Because, at the time I couldn't truly afford an Attorney I am also thankful I had an Administrative Judge that gave me advice in what direction I needed to turn to get my gun back.
Aguila Blanca
Member
That's not such a crazy law. The fact is you had been paid for the gun. In essence, the insurance company bought it from you, but did not take delivery immediately.
I don't see this as illogical at all. You were paid for the gun. The insurance company was out-of-pocket, not you. And, of course, the pawn shop guy had also paid for the gun, so it stands to reason he'd be next in line.
Compare it to an auto accident. Your vehicle is totalled. Insurance company pays you the book value for the vehicle, and it becomes their vehicle. If you want it back for the parts, you then have to buy it back from the insurance company. You pay them the salvage price. Happens all the time. You don't get paid full value for the car plus get to keep the car.
I don't see this as illogical at all. You were paid for the gun. The insurance company was out-of-pocket, not you. And, of course, the pawn shop guy had also paid for the gun, so it stands to reason he'd be next in line.
Compare it to an auto accident. Your vehicle is totalled. Insurance company pays you the book value for the vehicle, and it becomes their vehicle. If you want it back for the parts, you then have to buy it back from the insurance company. You pay them the salvage price. Happens all the time. You don't get paid full value for the car plus get to keep the car.
gunsmith
member
Daley City once confiscated my gun
There in San Mateo county. The cause was my roomate (casual aquaintance) complained about it. The police confiscated it for three days,but gave it back with no problems.
That was 1999,now I know alot more about the law-it was an illegal confiscation as it was not a domestic violence situation,I was just renting a room from an anti moron jerk.
There in San Mateo county. The cause was my roomate (casual aquaintance) complained about it. The police confiscated it for three days,but gave it back with no problems.
That was 1999,now I know alot more about the law-it was an illegal confiscation as it was not a domestic violence situation,I was just renting a room from an anti moron jerk.
NavajoNPaleFace
Member
Hawkmoon, I guess my point wasn't as clear as I had intended.
If I hadn't been reimbursed by the insurance company I still wouldn't have had first claim on a gun that was stolen from me in the first place.
My thinking is that if anyone (in this case a pawn shop) purchases a stolen firearm, without taking reasonable steps to determine if it is, or is not, stolen, then they have no long term legal claim of that weapon in a dispute over the ownership.
I could be wrong in my rationale.
Another example of stolen property possession and legal claim might be if you bought a vehicle that unknowingly happened to be stolen. Would the sale be legal to begin with?
If not then you, of course, would not have legal claim to ownership.
If I hadn't been reimbursed by the insurance company I still wouldn't have had first claim on a gun that was stolen from me in the first place.
My thinking is that if anyone (in this case a pawn shop) purchases a stolen firearm, without taking reasonable steps to determine if it is, or is not, stolen, then they have no long term legal claim of that weapon in a dispute over the ownership.
I could be wrong in my rationale.
Another example of stolen property possession and legal claim might be if you bought a vehicle that unknowingly happened to be stolen. Would the sale be legal to begin with?
If not then you, of course, would not have legal claim to ownership.
GullyFoyle
Member
Whenever you talk to police BRING A TAPERECORDER. Tell them you are taping the conversation. Then politely ask the law under which they can keep your property. You'd be surprised how dramatically this changes their responses. Cite the specific precedent and legislation posted on this site. Get a tape recorded response.
Bring a friend, make the sure the friend is wearing a suit and carrying a briefcase and is clean cut.
Bring a friend, make the sure the friend is wearing a suit and carrying a briefcase and is clean cut.
armoredman
Member
navajoPaleface, when a Tucson gunsop takes in a firearm, they subject it to a serial number check through TPD, takes about 14 days to go through. Not a waiting period on the purchaser, as ithe gun is not on the shelf that whole time. That was how we found several stolen.
Has the BG had his trial yet? A year ago, June 18th I had 7 guns stolen from my house. Three were recovered and a forurth was recovered after it was used in a home invasion where the Bg snatched the baby and held my gun to it's head 'til the parents gave him money. Thay're all in jail and awaiting trial. The police still have the guns and will keep them until the State's Attorney says I can have them back, which will be after the trials.
Wait, your guy's on probation and you don't understand why he can't have his gun back?
My ex filed a injunction on me, falsely alleging some things. When the Deputy came to serve me , he also took my guns. The injunction was denied and I got my guns back.
Wait, your guy's on probation and you don't understand why he can't have his gun back?
My ex filed a injunction on me, falsely alleging some things. When the Deputy came to serve me , he also took my guns. The injunction was denied and I got my guns back.
Last edited:
- Status
