Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Look Bubbles, jealousy is a terrible thing. You're an enabler of jealousy. You know that, right?
Proof of Ownership?
- Thread starter ChileRelleno
- Start date
- Status
CajunBass
Member
Yea...I could do that too...I just don't want to...Yea...that's it. I don't want to.
(insert "pout" emoticon here)
Last edited:
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Given that COPS doesn't always show the whole process, I am sure that what you saw was guns being held "for the officers safety" that were undoubtedly given back. I am an avid COPS watcher and can't recall guns being confiscated for lack of proof of ownership. I have seen episodes where guns were confiscated because a permit was required for possession, but that is a different matter.
In what states is the gun's serial number tied with the owner of a gun?
What you are calling "becoming more common" does not appear to be becoming more common at all.
JohnBT
Member
No, and I'm not about to start carrying proof of ownership. Or worrying about it either.
The cops could always say the proof looked bogus/photoshopped or something, so why bother. When it comes to legal problems, I let my lawyer handle them.
John
The cops could always say the proof looked bogus/photoshopped or something, so why bother. When it comes to legal problems, I let my lawyer handle them.
John
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
There are a few, but it certainly isn't many, or most.
PA maintains a database of handgun sales records and we have had a problem with a few PSP officers confiscating handguns if the serial number didn't show up in that record as sold to the person in possession of that gun.
There are obvious faults in that system, and I believe the practice is in decline, but it is one reason I don't volunteer information about my LTCF in traffic stops.
A big Midwestern city LEO friend of mine says it is routine in his department to confiscate the firearm even if the SN comes back clean and they are a legal CCW holder when they can't provide proof of ownership. I was floored by his comment and asked him if I was pulled over in his area and didn't have proof, would I have mine taken too? He said yes. My assumption was that my professional employment status age and ethnic background might save me from such an unfortunate situation. Apparently they are an equal opportunity confiscator. I then asked him if he had proof of ownership of his duty side arm. He knew what I was asking and the sound of crickets were deafening.
Gottahaveone
Member
I was digging thru the listings last night to see if there was anything worth watching on the tube when I ran across "Navajo Cops". I had never heard of the show and decided to check it out. Turns out that the reservation covers the Four Corners area and they have jurisdiction over highways in Colo, NM, Utah, and Az.
At one point they stopped a gentleman for speeding (in AZ) who had a pistol on his seat. Even after they ran the number and it came back clean and after he explained that he had bought it years ago with no paperwork (as was legal), they confiscated it until he could prove ownership. The cop closed the scene with a statement about "well, at least that's one more gun off the streets." I said bad things about his ancestors and changed the channel.
While that is the first time I've actually watched it happen, I've heard for years that this is a favorite tactic in New Orleans. I cannot understand why this doesn't open the door for a lawsuit. I've never heard of anyone being asked to prove ownership of a laptop, or cell phone, or wristwatch in order to retain ownership so why is it OK for them to illegally confiscate guns? Isn't this a blatant example of Unreasonable Search and Seizure?
At one point they stopped a gentleman for speeding (in AZ) who had a pistol on his seat. Even after they ran the number and it came back clean and after he explained that he had bought it years ago with no paperwork (as was legal), they confiscated it until he could prove ownership. The cop closed the scene with a statement about "well, at least that's one more gun off the streets." I said bad things about his ancestors and changed the channel.
While that is the first time I've actually watched it happen, I've heard for years that this is a favorite tactic in New Orleans. I cannot understand why this doesn't open the door for a lawsuit. I've never heard of anyone being asked to prove ownership of a laptop, or cell phone, or wristwatch in order to retain ownership so why is it OK for them to illegally confiscate guns? Isn't this a blatant example of Unreasonable Search and Seizure?
Zach S
Member
No, I do not.
If an officer would confiscate your firearm because you don't have proof of ownership, he likely wont accept whatever proof of ownership you provide anyway, for whatever reason he can think of ("how do I know you didn't write/type that receipt yourself?")
I have never had to surrender my sidearm during a routine traffic stop in NC (duty to inform). At most, they want to know what and where I'm carrying, and if I have any other firearms in the vehicle.
If an officer would confiscate your firearm because you don't have proof of ownership, he likely wont accept whatever proof of ownership you provide anyway, for whatever reason he can think of ("how do I know you didn't write/type that receipt yourself?")
I have never had to surrender my sidearm during a routine traffic stop in NC (duty to inform). At most, they want to know what and where I'm carrying, and if I have any other firearms in the vehicle.
armoredman
Member
Reservations are NOT the United States, especially the Navajo Nation, the only one to successfully avoid any tribal members being drafted, IIRC. Don't carry a firearm on reservation land without permission of the tribal police, written, in hand.
I have never had that happen in any of my encounters with AZ law enforcement, not once, and it would be quite difficult to do, as we do not require anything as stupid as registration or Cali style FFL only transfers. Any AZ officer who tried this routine would probably get his walking papers handed to him after the court case settled.
Actually, I can only image an AZ officer doing this would be a recent immigrant from New Jersey, New York or some such who slept through firearms law in the Academy.
Reality TV, BTW, is not real, nor "tru", it is drivel. Go on a ride along for a better view.
I have never had that happen in any of my encounters with AZ law enforcement, not once, and it would be quite difficult to do, as we do not require anything as stupid as registration or Cali style FFL only transfers. Any AZ officer who tried this routine would probably get his walking papers handed to him after the court case settled.
Actually, I can only image an AZ officer doing this would be a recent immigrant from New Jersey, New York or some such who slept through firearms law in the Academy.
Reality TV, BTW, is not real, nor "tru", it is drivel. Go on a ride along for a better view.
Owen Sparks
member
- Joined
- May 27, 2007
- Messages
- 4,523
In the American system of justice the burden of proof is supposed to be on the accuser.
You should not have to prove that you own your gun or for that matter, anything else in your possession, they should have to prove that you don't.
You should not have to prove that you own your gun or for that matter, anything else in your possession, they should have to prove that you don't.
That would not happen in my state. There is no state registry, or need to register at all. The only ones that keep a registry are the retailers. If it was reported stolen, then maybe it would be in "the system." I don't know why an officer would even check that unless the suspect was arrested for drug possession or something serious.
Police officers around here are more likely to ask if it's a good gun and how much it would cost for them to get one.
Last edited:
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Absolutely, however there is plenty of precedent for confiscation of items, generally pursuant to an arrest, when there is some reasonable suspicion of a crime in progress or having been committed. You aren't on trial (yet) so you can't argue your guilt or innocence of anything. On the side of the road during a traffic stop is not the time or place.
The real frustration/scare here is that confiscations of this sort appear to be utterly without the attendant accusation of a crime. If an officer confiscates an item, that item must be illegal or suspected to be a material item involved in a crime. If an officer confiscates something but makes no criminal charge against you, then there is a taking without any form of due process being initiated.
If the gun is suspected to be stolen, then the person holding it should be detained as an accessory or suspect, or involved in some way, in a crime. Absent that, this is merely theft.
Only if you live in one of those few states that actually have firearm registrations. In most states, there are no records except your receipt. Even the NICS records are destroyed at the end of the day.
I would think it was a valid question, but I don't know of this actually ever happening. Maybe on Cops, but not in the real world.
EOD Guy
Member
Yoda said:
Not in San Francisco. There haven't been any gun shows in San Francisco for decades, if ever. I have never heard of it happening at any gun shows in California.
timhernandez
Member
In Michigan, no registration, no DB of owners to weapons, etc.
If asked to provide proof of ownership, I would ask where the requirement to carry or produce said documentation was listed as a requirement of a CPL.
If asked to provide proof of ownership, I would ask where the requirement to carry or produce said documentation was listed as a requirement of a CPL.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
And NICS records do not include serial number of the firearm being transferred anyway.
NavyLCDR
member
Nope, I don't carry, nor do I even possess receipts for my guns. In Washington state, face-to-face sales are legal with no paperwork required. Handguns purchased from FFLs are recorded in a database maintained by the department of licensing which cross references the serial number of the gun with the purchaser's info and with the driver's license info. Given any piece of that info the LEO can obtain the rest of the info in the database. HOWEVER, that info is completely useless and a waste of taxpayers dollars because private sales are legal without paperwork, as it should be.
So, if a cop runs the serial number of my gun, the Department of Licensing is going to tell him the gun was purchased from an FFL by someone else. That information is useless. If the cop wants me to prove my ownership of the gun, and confiscates my gun until I can prove ownership, then I will go to court, at the municipality's expense, obtain a Writ of Mandamus ordering the police to release my gun to me, because it is not up to me to prove my lawful possession/ownership of the gun - it is up to the police to prove that I am not the lawful owner. And unless another alleged owner comes forward to claim the same gun, they have no way to prove I am not the lawful owner.
The OP's scenario is something that could very well happen in Washington state. But I am not going to keep receipts/records just for that reason.
So, if a cop runs the serial number of my gun, the Department of Licensing is going to tell him the gun was purchased from an FFL by someone else. That information is useless. If the cop wants me to prove my ownership of the gun, and confiscates my gun until I can prove ownership, then I will go to court, at the municipality's expense, obtain a Writ of Mandamus ordering the police to release my gun to me, because it is not up to me to prove my lawful possession/ownership of the gun - it is up to the police to prove that I am not the lawful owner. And unless another alleged owner comes forward to claim the same gun, they have no way to prove I am not the lawful owner.
The OP's scenario is something that could very well happen in Washington state. But I am not going to keep receipts/records just for that reason.
berettaprofessor
Member
And this is exactly why anyone with enough money and a half-lawyer will have a field day with the police officer in question.
Exactly correct. "Please officer, quote me the statute that says I must carry proof of ownership on my person at all times?"
In answer to the OP, only for the NFA items I carry.
JohnBT
Member
We know you photoshopped that car title. You can't fool us either. Hand over the keys.
Gottahaveone
Member
Not going to argue about the reality of "reality" TV, but for the guy who lost his pistol it was real enough. And unless Law Enforcement has changed significantly in the 25 years it's been sense I last wore a badge, I don't need the ride along for a better view
I don't believe this is common practice, and I agree with those who would question the officer for the statue allowing this. And I would be asking for a supervisor who would hopefully be less inclined to see the agency sued. But it does seem be happening enough for it to be a legitimate concern. And for the record, no, I don't carry a receipt and it's never been an issue when I've been required to disclose the few times I've stopped. In fact, I've never even been asked what I'm carrying or where. They respond as common sense would suggest and simply say "Ok, thanks for telling me".
FROGO207
Member
Well the local PD recovered a .22 rifle that was stolen. The owner described it being unique well enough that the thief was caught with it and charged. However the owner could not take possession because he could not prove ownership either.:banghead::banghead: This was stupid IMHO. I would think that a record of serial numbers and pictures in ones possession would prove ownership, if even lacking a bill of sale as FTF is legal in our state also.
For the FA ones I do but not for anything else.
For the FA ones I do but not for anything else.
armoredman
Member
GH1, please note,
So yes, there was someone, the OP, posting about using reality TV as a reason to do this thing. Thank you for your service, but it was him I was suggesting a ride along for better familiarity with local PD, not someone with more experience at it than the guy driving.
ChileRelleno said:
So yes, there was someone, the OP, posting about using reality TV as a reason to do this thing. Thank you for your service, but it was him I was suggesting a ride along for better familiarity with local PD, not someone with more experience at it than the guy driving.
1911Jeeper
Member
If you are contacted by Law Enforcement as part of their official duties (shooting noise complaint, check for hunting/fishing permits, man with a gun complaint, traffic stop, pedestrian stop, etc.), all the Officer has to do is state that he has a "reasonable suspicion" that your property (of any type) may be stolen goods, and they can run the serial numbers.
It is probably SOP in some jurisdictions.
If the property item doesn't show up on record as stolen property, there is no reason you should need to show proof of ownership.
It is probably SOP in some jurisdictions.
If the property item doesn't show up on record as stolen property, there is no reason you should need to show proof of ownership.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
And the articulable reason that such a suspicion would be reason-able is what, exactly? Or are you saying the officer should/would/could simply make up a lie to excuse the search?
- Status
