who owns it?

[leadcounsel]

I've tried to dissect the messy OP into a logical chain of events.

1. First owner of gunshop had gun stolen.
1a. His property until/if insurance paid him a claim for it.

1b. Did insurance pay a claim? If so, they became owner of the gun.

2. Your father owned the gunshop - 2nd owner. Own all property of gunshop, but not the stolen gun which was purchased by insurance. If not purchased by insurance, then your father became owner of the stolen property.

3. You take ownership of gunshop - 3rd owner Own all property of gunshop, but not the stolen gun which was purchased by insurance. If not purchased by insurance, you became the owner of the stolen property.

4. Pawnshop buys gun (unknown to him to be stolen) 2010.
5. Police recover stolen gun 2010 from purchaser (how?)

So, the answer is if the insurance company paid a claim, it rightfully belongs to them. If the insurance company did not pay a claim, it rightfully belongs to you. However if YOU cannot provide proof that it was ever owned lawfully by the gun shop, and passed along to you, and no insurance claim was paid, then the pawnshop owner has a valid claim to ownership.

 

[CoRoMo]

...if YOU cannot provide proof that it was ever owned lawfully by the gun shop...

Are the police records of the theft, not proof enough?

I received a call from the local police deptartment that a gun which was stolen from our gun shop in 1970 was retrieved...

Rather than him having to prove ownership, why shouldn't the pawn shop have to disprove it?

 

[leadcounsel]

Are the police records of the theft, not proof enough?

Maybe, maybe not. Hard to file a police report for something stolen...? Maybe the gunshop owner filed lots of stolen gun reports that were never stolen. Maybe he was a gunsmith that worked on a gun he coveted and reported it stolen. Or maybe it was just misplaced and found and sold years later. Who knows. I've seen my share of false or bad or mistaken police reports.

This thread has made me curious about the value and type of gun. Surely the gun would have to be something special to be sued over ownership, where it appears the pawnshop would be 3rd in line behind the original owner and insurance company...

 

[jkulysses]

So correct me if I'm wrong but shouldn't the pawn shop be running the serial # of the gun for this exact reason before they fork over any money for it??? Seems logical to me and why should the original owner have to pay for something that was stolen from him now that's just silly. And yes in my opinion if he bought the store then he is now the original owner of that gun unless as stated by pretty much everybody else the insurance company paid for it.

 

[Freedom_fighter_in_IL]

Hmmmmm?

27 CFR section 478.129:

(e) Records of dealers and collectors under the Act. The records prepared by licensed dealers and licensed collectors under the Act of the sale or other disposition of firearms and the corresponding record of receipt of such firearms shall be retained through December 15, 1988, after which records of transactions over 20 years of age may be discarded.


Wouldn't those 40 year old records be long gone by now?

Not 100% sure there CoRoMo, but something in my memory is nagging at me to recall that along the lines of "lost/stolen" inventory those records are to be kept until the issue is resolved. I.E. property recovered or the insurance company paid. Hence why I said "if the insurance company paid the claim there would be no inventory record, but if they didn't there should be". Again not 100% sure and my alzheimer's may be kicking in on this.

 

[Jim K]

Did the store remain a legal entity through the purchases? In other words, did "Ye Olde Gun Shoppe" keep the name and identity or did it close and your father start a new business, or did you start a new business?

If the store kept its corporate identity it should have its records. (The law may ALLOW records to be destroyed; that doesn't mean they should be destroyed!) If the shop ceased business, then its records went to BATFE and will be difficult if not impossible, to retrieve.

If insurance was claimed and paid the insurance carrier of the time or its successor(s) should still have records.

BUT, no insult intended, I have never seen a gun in a pawn shop that was worth fighting over. Few have been worth over a couple of hundred dollars, not worth hiring a lawyer or spending any time. I would say let the pawn shop and the insurance company go at it. In fact, if an insurance claim was filed and paid, the insurance company owns the gun, no matter who has physical possession.

Jim

 

[Freedom_fighter_in_IL]

BUT, no insult intended, I have never seen a gun in a pawn shop that was worth fighting over

Nowadays that may be fact, but about 25 years ago my dad found a mint condition (meaning 98%+) VERY low serial numbered M1 for 50 bucks. If seen today for that price, trust me there would be blood in the streets fighting for that weapon! Even then that was a steal by anyones standards.

 

[CoRoMo]

If I were the OP, and I got the call from the PD, telling me that a stolen gun had been recovered, it would have to be something quite special for me to not reply, "They can have it. I don't want it". We'd have to be talking an absolute minimum of a $1,000+ market valued firearm. That'd be a cool grand that I could make at no cost. It'd pay a good many of my bills. Anything less than that, and I wouldn't bother.

 

[JohnR3400]

Hmmmmm?

27 CFR section 478.129:

(e) Records of dealers and collectors under the Act. The records prepared by licensed dealers and licensed collectors under the Act of the sale or other disposition of firearms and the corresponding record of receipt of such firearms shall be retained through December 15, 1988, after which records of transactions over 20 years of age may be discarded.​

Wouldn't those 40 year old records be long gone by now?

Thank you, that answers all my questions as to how I can prove, or disprove ownership. And this is a gun worth getting back for sure. Besides, all the previous owners of this store are deseased so I wouldn't even know the insurance company to contact. But, you answered it and for that, I thank you, John

 

[Guillermo]

would it not be a BATF violation to have a gun on the inventory that is not present?

 

[CoRoMo]

Guill... yep.

...this is a gun worth getting back for sure.

John... can we get a hint of the make/model? Pretty please with sugar on top?

 

[Freedom_fighter_in_IL]

would it not be a BATF violation to have a gun on the inventory that is not present?

Not if the inventory was showing lost or stolen no. Now if the PHYSICAL firearm were present without it being listed in inventory, that would be a big whopping nono

 

[leadcounsel]

Dude, just tell us what the gun is for Pete's sake...

 

[CoRoMo]

We know that the first store owner filed a report to the effect of this stolen gun. Should be safe to assume that he then noted the same in his bound book. It looks like the insurance question is an unanswerable question. If there's no way to get that answer, I believe the rights to this property can only be one individual's: JohnR3400.

Of course, I'm just an internet faux lawyer.
I have no real knowledge of the facts of
this case. I can't possibly know what is
right or what is wrong. I don't even know
what I'm talking about. I really don't know
a dang thing at all. I can't even tell you my
own name. Don't believe a word I say.
Run! Run away now!!

 

[JohnR3400]

Thanks for insight, but no way to ever know who the Insurance company was or may even still be in business? There was a police report, and no where on the report is any mention of insurance company at all. As I see it, it is mine. And yes, it is worth getting. Pawnshops are not known for over paying people so I am certain that they never paid it's worth. In AZ pawnshops have to file a report for Police on all guns purchased and they did that. They have to hold the gun for 2 weeks before they can resell it for the Police to check ser. #. Everything went the way it should, now the Police have it, and the Pawnshop wants it. I won't need a lawyer for this, just have to show ownership of the same business which has been in business for over 50 years now.
Thanks and thanks to eveyone who has posted, John

 

[jkulysses]

Still not going to tell us what it is huh!! I say no more help for you until we get some answers haha.

 

[JohnR3400]

It's a 1970 Colt Cobra and as I am told by the detective, it is in like new condition, even if not not exactly in that shape, I still want it, but legally of course!

 

[Lucky Derby]

I hope this works out for you. Cobras are nice little guns.

 

[medalguy]

"when you purchase a business the unpaid debts and assets convey."

Not necessarily at all. When a business is sold, more often that not it is an asset sale only. That means the assets transfer but not any liabilities. The name and assets all convey to the new buyer but no liabilities such as a pending lawsuit against the previous owner of the business.

Now, is the shop were a corporation, there could have been a stock sale, in which case all of the assets AND liabilities convey to the new owner intact. This is generally not a desirable method of purchase, but a highly desirable method of sale.

So you would need to go back through all of the sales records and determine whether any of the liabilities of the prior companies were transferred. If not, you have no claim on the gun and the new "owners" of the pistol have no claim on you.

I would most definitely spend a little time with a qualified attorney.

 

[John Wayne]

A Colt Cobra is not likely to be worth paying thousands of dollars in legal fees.

However, since the pawn shop is trying to get the gun from you, and you don't have to hire a lawyer, you can go to court and have one of two things happen:

You become the owner of a Colt Cobra, a nice and fairly collectable gun, a very nice surprise. You wanted the gun, legally, and the court confirmed that it is legally yours.

OR

The pawn shop becomes the owner of a gun you didn't even know about, and you don't lose anything.

I don't see a pawn shop investing a lot of time or money into fighting over a gun that is probably worth $500 or so. They can't sue you to recoup legal fees either. It will probably be an open-and-shut case, in your favor, and the pawn shop is just betting on the fact that you'd rather let them have it than deal with it.

Either way, as I see it, you have nothing to lose. If they take it to court you might as well go. It couldn't hurt to get any advice from any attorney friends you might have; I would not, however, invest any money in procuring those services for this particular item.

 

[Freedom_fighter_in_IL]

Either way, as I see it, you have nothing to lose. If they take it to court you might as well go. It couldn't hurt to get any advice from any attorney friends you might have; I would not, however, invest any money in procuring those services for this particular item.

I found a few for sale online and the average price for them was in the $800 dollar range (why I have no clue as I see nothing special at all about them) Those were the .38 specials not the .22's . Did see one with some fancy dancy engraving on it for $2500 or so but other than that just your average $500 to $800. Nothing to get all worked up about really. Good luck.

 

[Bubbles]

How to Get Your Stolen Property from an AZ Pawn Shop

 

[JohnR3400]

I want to thank everyone for your opinions and I do understand that they are just opinions only, but for all of you, I thank you.
As I see it, the Pawnshop would never have had been able to purchase this gun for no other reason than an unlawful act, robbery, was committed. So, I don't see any moral reason for the Pawnshop to get ownership of it, unless the insurance company and or the gunshop were to now be out of business. As I see it, there is no way to know whether or not, the insurance company is still in business, whether or not, the insurance company reimbersed the original owners, but one thing for sure, my shop still is in business. And, yes you could also say that if it were not stolen, I would never have ownership of this gun, however, my business years ago would have made a profit by selling the gun had it not been stolen, and since this business is still in business, and there is no way to contact any insurance company, and the police have the record of the stolen gun, then, I would say there is a moral reason for me to get ownership of this gun.
And, as I see it, I don't need a lawyer and all I will have to do is to show up to court, present my case why I believe I should receive this gun by the examples I've stated above, and then the judge will make his/her decision and that I can live with. I cannot see anything that the Pawnshop could argue that they would have more ownership rights to this gun than me. And, that is how I see it. And, once again, thank you, all of you, for your input, it certainly has helped me! John

 

[Art Eatman]

Nap time.