Sebastian the Ibis
Member
The D.C. Police are lying, or they are crafting a really narrow exception so that they can arrest people anyway.
Generally only a prosecutor can grant immunity, police almost never can (and the exceptions are mostly limited to prosecutor starting an interrogation and a detective finishing it or something like that) that is why everyone goes to jail once they open up to the nice cop trying to help them. Therefore this immunity scheme has to be done by a legislature - Congress or the D.C. City Council.
The D.C. statutes are really specific and D.C. has not hesitated to prosecute people who try to comply but technically don’t.
The D.C. law I assume the police are currently relying on is D.C.Code § 7-2507.05(a) (2001) which provides in relevant part: If a person or organization within the District voluntarily and peaceably delivers and abandons to the Chief any firearm ... or ammunition at any time, such delivery shall preclude the arrest and prosecution of such person on a charge of violating any provision of this unit with respect to the firearm ... or ammunition voluntarily delivered. Delivery under this section may be made at any police district, station, or central headquarters, or by summoning a police officer to the person's residence .... Every firearm ... to be delivered and abandoned to the Chief under this section shall be unloaded and securely wrapped in a package, and, in the case of delivery to a police facility, the package shall be carried in open view...
In Lewis v. U.S. 871 A.2d 470 (D.C. 2005) a woman was arrested for turning in her roommates guns because the guns were loaded, when the statute said they had to be unloaded.
Also take a look at Stein v. U.S. 532 A.2d 641 (D.C. cir 1987), Ted Kennedy's body guard was arrested and did not get immunity because he turned guns over to the Capitol Police who do not count under the immunity statute, only city police (or whomever “the Chief” is) count under this law. It also did not matter that he was a former Californian Police Chief, hired to protect a senator who was registered to carry a gun everywhere else he went including foreign countries.
The case also says that the "Statute providing immunity from weapons prosecution for one whose possession of weapon was solely in order to surrender it to police custody is restricted to violations of Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975, and does not grant immunity from prosecution for any other firearm offenses." D.C.Code 1981, § 6-2375(a). Stein v. U.S., 532 A.2d 641 (D.C. Cir 1987)
So basically the cops realize the whole immunity thing goes out the door once Scalia takes the D.C. firearms law out behind the woodshed and puts a bullet in its head. So they are trying to use it while they have it.
Bottom Line: Even if you are a cop and your father is the chief of police, NEVER EVER EVER respond to a cop without a lawyer, and never give permission. If he didn’t need it he wouldn’t ask.
Generally only a prosecutor can grant immunity, police almost never can (and the exceptions are mostly limited to prosecutor starting an interrogation and a detective finishing it or something like that) that is why everyone goes to jail once they open up to the nice cop trying to help them. Therefore this immunity scheme has to be done by a legislature - Congress or the D.C. City Council.
The D.C. statutes are really specific and D.C. has not hesitated to prosecute people who try to comply but technically don’t.
The D.C. law I assume the police are currently relying on is D.C.Code § 7-2507.05(a) (2001) which provides in relevant part: If a person or organization within the District voluntarily and peaceably delivers and abandons to the Chief any firearm ... or ammunition at any time, such delivery shall preclude the arrest and prosecution of such person on a charge of violating any provision of this unit with respect to the firearm ... or ammunition voluntarily delivered. Delivery under this section may be made at any police district, station, or central headquarters, or by summoning a police officer to the person's residence .... Every firearm ... to be delivered and abandoned to the Chief under this section shall be unloaded and securely wrapped in a package, and, in the case of delivery to a police facility, the package shall be carried in open view...
In Lewis v. U.S. 871 A.2d 470 (D.C. 2005) a woman was arrested for turning in her roommates guns because the guns were loaded, when the statute said they had to be unloaded.
Also take a look at Stein v. U.S. 532 A.2d 641 (D.C. cir 1987), Ted Kennedy's body guard was arrested and did not get immunity because he turned guns over to the Capitol Police who do not count under the immunity statute, only city police (or whomever “the Chief” is) count under this law. It also did not matter that he was a former Californian Police Chief, hired to protect a senator who was registered to carry a gun everywhere else he went including foreign countries.
The case also says that the "Statute providing immunity from weapons prosecution for one whose possession of weapon was solely in order to surrender it to police custody is restricted to violations of Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975, and does not grant immunity from prosecution for any other firearm offenses." D.C.Code 1981, § 6-2375(a). Stein v. U.S., 532 A.2d 641 (D.C. Cir 1987)
So basically the cops realize the whole immunity thing goes out the door once Scalia takes the D.C. firearms law out behind the woodshed and puts a bullet in its head. So they are trying to use it while they have it.
Bottom Line: Even if you are a cop and your father is the chief of police, NEVER EVER EVER respond to a cop without a lawyer, and never give permission. If he didn’t need it he wouldn’t ask.
