Police refuse to return guns to lawful citizens

[JohnRich 4]

News:

CGF Sues San Francisco, Oakland Police Departments and CA DOJ Over Seized Firearms

"The Calguns Foundation, the Second Amendment Foundation, and two individual residents of California have filed a new federal lawsuit in San Francisco. The case alleges that the police departments of both San Francisco and Oakland are unlawfully refusing to return lawfully-owned firearms to individuals who have had charges dropped after police investigations proved that they had done nothing wrong.

"The ongoing seizure of those firearms is a violation of the Second and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution. What’s more, the departments’ refusal to return property after all charges are dropped is theft..."

Full story: CalGuns Foundation

[BartsDaddy 7]

The sad part is this is not new my mom had to sue LAPD back in 1975 to get her gun back when it was illeagaly confiscated..the way the first judge put it was any way they could get guns off the street was good, never mind they are taking them from a buisness owner that transports large sums of cash. Ànd has a curent. Concealed wepons permit for the gun in question.

Handguns are only used to fight your way to a good rifle

[quade 4]

How, exactly, are the police supposed to know whether or not the person actually owns the gun and it wasn't stolen if the person claiming the gun doesn't have it registered or can't otherwise prove ownership?

It's a bit like catching a suspected shoplifter and being forced to assume anything in the person's possession actually belongs to him. It's illogical. Simply having possession of something doesn't mean it's yours.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[NewGuy2005 53]

Quote

How, exactly, are the police supposed to know whether or not the person actually owns the gun and it wasn't stolen if the person claiming the gun doesn't have it registered or can't otherwise prove ownership?

It's a bit like catching a suspected shoplifter and being forced to assume anything in the person's possession actually belongs to him. It's illogical. Simply having possession of something doesn't mean it's yours.

That's ridiculous.

[SkyPiggie 0]

Quote

How, exactly, are the police supposed to know whether or not the person actually owns the gun and it wasn't stolen if the person claiming the gun doesn't have it registered or can't otherwise prove ownership?

It's a bit like catching a suspected shoplifter and being forced to assume anything in the person's possession actually belongs to him. It's illogical. Simply having possession of something doesn't mean it's yours.

So let's say that the police pull you over in your car for speeding on the way home from the drop zone, find expired insurance, and put the car and everything in it including your parachute rig into an impound lot. Then you straighten out the insurance mess and go to retrieve your vehicle and possessions. Does the state get to keep everything for which you can't produce a purchase receipt? Including your rig?

That's like setting up a default that all possessions belong to the state, unless you can prove otherwise. I sincerely hope that you really don't think this is a good idea.

The article explain the law very well: "In California, the Evidence Code makes it clear that simple possession is proof of ownership of almost all types of common property, including firearms," said Don Kilmer, attorney for the plaintiffs... According to longstanding California law, every firearm seized during a police investigation must be inventoried; a copy of that list is given to the person from whom firearms are seized. Every law enforcement agency knows which person they took firearms from and what specific firearms were taken."

So, the gun was in your possession, and therefore it's yours unless they can prove otherwise, like finding it on a stolen gun list. And they gave you a receipt for it when they confiscated it. Therefore, to get it back, all you should have to do is show the receipt they gave you when they took it.

There are no sales receipts for many guns, because they're very old, and have been passed down from one generation to the next. That doesn't mean the government gets to keep 'em.

So, are you the one person who has voted to keep the guns?

[oldwomanc6 60]

Quote

Simply having possession of something doesn't mean it's yours.

Generally speaking, It does. Unless someone can prove that they own it and not you.

Personal property doesn't require much of a legal trail, otherwise insurance companies wouldn't pay out a dime unless you could provide receipts.

lisa
WSCR 594
FB 1023
CBDB 9

[GeorgiaDon 379]

The only caveat I would add is that according to the linked article, the police are apparently acting according to a Department of Justice document that requires people reclaiming seized firearms to provide proof of ownership. So, it isn't clear that the police have a choice in this matter; do they get to pick and choose what laws/regulations they want to follow, and disregard the others? It may be that the real problem is with the Department of Justice.

That being said, personally I think the property should be returned promptly, unless there is a credible reason to suspect the property has been stolen or is evidence in a crime, which seems not to be the case in this instance as the owners have been cleared of wrongdoing.

A perhaps related issue is the ability of the police to keep property seized under forfeiture laws, even if the property owner is never charged with a crime. The courts have upheld such seizures, but I can't for the life of me see how this can be legal under the 4th amendment.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

How, exactly, are the police supposed to know whether or not the person actually owns the gun and it wasn't stolen if the person claiming the gun doesn't have it registered or can't otherwise prove ownership?

It's a bit like catching a suspected shoplifter and being forced to assume anything in the person's possession actually belongs to him. It's illogical. Simply having possession of something doesn't mean it's yours.

looks as though most are smart enough to allow your baited hook to pass on by

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[quade 4]

Quote

The only caveat I would add is that according to the linked article, the police are apparently acting according to a Department of Justice document that requires people reclaiming seized firearms to provide proof of ownership. So, it isn't clear that the police have a choice in this matter; do they get to pick and choose what laws/regulations they want to follow, and disregard the others? It may be that the real problem is with the Department of Justice.

Which was precisely my point, but people who didn't actually read the article or tend to gloss over that simply don't want to be questioned about it.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

The only caveat I would add is that according to the linked article, the police are apparently acting according to a Department of Justice document that requires people reclaiming seized firearms to provide proof of ownership. So, it isn't clear that the police have a choice in this matter; do they get to pick and choose what laws/regulations they want to follow, and disregard the others? It may be that the real problem is with the Department of Justice.

Which was precisely my point, but people who didn't actually read the article or tend to gloss over that simply don't want to be questioned about it.

I DID read the article
And by issuing the ruling to return HIS weapons, the courts states this "rule is BS
The DOJ needs to prove he is NOT the owner not the other way around

I have no way of proving my ownership (because I built most of the guns I have). And only one part has a paper trail

Guess I had better take pictures and register my guns so government departments cant take what is mine

But, in the end, it looks to me like the police had to manufacture a reason to take the guns in the first place

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DanG 1]

Quote

Guess I had better take pictures...

From a practical standpoint, this is probably a good idea. If your guns are stolen or destroyed, it will be a lot easier to get them back or get insurance reimbursement.

On the thread topic, the police should treat the guns like any other property. The DOJ guideline is improper.

- Dan G

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Guess I had better take pictures...

From a practical standpoint, this is probably a good idea. If your guns are stolen or destroyed, it will be a lot easier to get them back or get insurance reimbursement.

On the thread topic, the police should treat the guns like any other property. The DOJ guideline is improper.

Ya, you are right
Even insurance companies suggest taking videos or pictures so you can remeber/verify property

I know that a local gun dealer has a card where you can put the serial numbers from all your weapons on it incase of theft

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

Quote

Guess I had better take pictures...

From a practical standpoint, this is probably a good idea. If your guns are stolen or destroyed, it will be a lot easier to get them back or get insurance reimbursement.

On the thread topic, the police should treat the guns like any other property. The DOJ guideline is improper.

Bolding mine.

That's the whole point of the lawsuit.

And is the DOJ memo about proof a guideline or a requirement?

The article isn't clear about that.

I don't know how Califorina works, but here in Wisconsin, the state DOJ has no regulatory power over local law enforcement. The locals have to follow state (and federal and local) statutes, but DOJ has no power to enact laws.
They can (and do) issue recommendations, but locals have the autonomy to choose whether or not to follow those.

And yes, pics and records of serial numbers are a good thing to have.
For a lot of stuff, not just guns.

I have an SD card in my safety deposit box. Pics of all my valuables. Guns, electronics, antiques, my rigs, all that stuff.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

the police should treat the guns like any other property. The DOJ guideline is improper.

Agreed. And rushmc is right that the DOJ improperly reverses the burden of proof.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

That's the whole point of the lawsuit.

And is the DOJ memo about proof a guideline or a requirement?.

Bingo!
"Law" trumps "policy" in all cases.
DoJ doesn't make laws.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[davjohns 1]

I actually had an issue with the Birmingham PD on this issue. My father still had the original receipt and box for the pistol for some reason. It was 25 years since purchased. BPD jerked me around on the issue until they destroyed it per their SOP. Not worth suing over. They do this routinely and I don't have the time to make an issue of it.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[rehmwa 2]

they unlawfully seized and destroyed your private property

abuse of power that strips citizens of their rights and property is clearly something worth making an issue over

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

How, exactly, are the police supposed to know whether or not the person actually owns the gun and it wasn't stolen if the person claiming the gun doesn't have it registered or can't otherwise prove ownership?

It's a bit like catching a suspected shoplifter and being forced to assume anything in the person's possession actually belongs to him. It's illogical. Simply having possession of something doesn't mean it's yours.

Anything John posts, you feel compelled to counter, yes? But this is more ridiculous than usual.

As oldwoman rights, yes, having possession generally means it's your's. Unless it can be demonstrated otherwise. And in California, all handgun sales (and now long gun sales as of 1? year ago) are recorded forever, so the registration point is moot. The cities can identify the original buyer (and any recorded transfers, required for p2p sales) and support their claim that it doesn't belong to the person, but they cannot support a blanket seizure.

Don't forget - these are cases where the person in question was found not to have committed crimes.

[ianmdrennan 2]

Quote

And rushmc is right

Beer!!

Performance Designs Factory Team

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

How, exactly, are the police supposed to know whether or not the person actually owns the gun and it wasn't stolen if the person claiming the gun doesn't have it registered or can't otherwise prove ownership?

It's a bit like catching a suspected shoplifter and being forced to assume anything in the person's possession actually belongs to him. It's illogical. Simply having possession of something doesn't mean it's yours.

Anything John posts, you feel compelled to counter, yes? But this is more ridiculous than usual.

Nope. Simply questioning the "black and white" concept inherent in the poll. It leaves no room for any grey area whatsoever.

The FACT is life is made up of the grey areas. Rarely does any one set of circumstances allow for perfect "black and white" answers such as posed by people who make polls such as this.

There are, in fact, times when it's going to be perfectly acceptable to confiscate devices associated with criminal behavior even if no criminal charges are brought.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

There are, in fact, times when it's going to be perfectly acceptable to confiscate devices associated with criminal behavior even if no criminal charges are brought.

Not unless you take liberties with the 4th Amendment. Your history shows a loose attitude toward constitutional rights, but that doesn't mean we all have to.

There is no criminal behavior present if no charges are brought and convictions achieved.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Anything John posts, you feel compelled to counter, yes? But this is more ridiculous than usual.

Quote

Nope. Simply questioning the "black and white" concept inherent in the poll. It leaves no room for any grey area whatsoever.

Yep. He's free to create any poll he likes. You don't like it? Create your own. Really simple concept.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[quade 4]

Am I free to question his methodology?

Really simple concept!

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

There are, in fact, times when it's going to be perfectly acceptable to confiscate devices associated with criminal behavior even if no criminal charges are brought.

Not unless you take liberties with the 4th Amendment. Your history shows a loose attitude toward constitutional rights, but that doesn't mean we all have to.

There is no criminal behavior present if no charges are brought and convictions achieved.

If you attempt to board an aircraft with a gun you accidentally left in your briefcase, are TSA agents allowed to confiscate it or are they compelled to allow you to carry it on-board? After all, no criminal activity took place.

Or...are they compelled to cart you off to jail?

Is there no middle ground?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

How, exactly, are the police supposed to know whether or not the person actually owns the gun and it wasn't stolen if the person claiming the gun doesn't have it registered or can't otherwise prove ownership?

It's a bit like catching a suspected shoplifter and being forced to assume anything in the person's possession actually belongs to him. It's illogical. Simply having possession of something doesn't mean it's yours.

Do you listen to yourself?

If the cops impound your car do you have to bring the bill of sale as proof of ownership to get it back?

Do you in fact have a proof of ownership for everything you own just incase you are asked to prove it?

Do you understand the simple concept of innocent until proven guilty?

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.