Woman in Colorado can't get gun back from police...

[coltle6920]

Didn't know where to post this but here goes.

A woman in Colorado was in a car accident and had to be transported to a hospital.She had a gun in her car at the time which she says she legally owns and uses for self defense.Because she was going to the hospital the police took possession of the firearm.Apparently they are saying that because of the gun laws passed in 2013 she has to get a background check done before the gun can be returned.

While the police took possession of her firearm they never took ownership of it.There are several other citizens that are also having problems getting firearms returned from law enforcement.I have no idea if this story is indicative of how things are done across Colorado or an isolated incident in one town.There is nothing that specifically spells out this situation in the gun law regarding background checks or transfers.

Any thoughts on this (especially from LEO's) would be appreciated.Losing one handgun is bad enough but I take several handguns and ammo with me to a range and would be rather ticked off if put in the same situation.

I'm hoping that there will be something updated in the near future but here is the news article.

Gun transfer laws stall firearm returns - Loveland Reporter-Herald

 

[coltle6920]

Given the immense response to this post I figured I would post the updated report.

The woman will get her firearm back in a few days.The problem still exists that the laws are so ambiguous no one knows what will happen down the road with someone else.It seems that (IMO) the public attention brought to this matter is what forced the decision to return the firearm.

Here is the updated news report...

Sara Gets Her Gun | National Review Online

 

[Muss Muggins]

IMHO, I think it's reasonable to require a background check prior to returning a firearm to the owner. Nobody has any assurances that the owner had not become ineligible to possess a firearm since the initial acquisition. I also think it's reasonable to not give said seized firearm to a third party, such as the husband, without a background check. Offices don't let third parties drive off the vehicle of an arrested party without checking their license. As for the methodology of the background check, it seems like they're overthinking it.. The police have the ability to run a nationwide criminal check in a matter of seconds, and it seems to me that should be the answer. Unfortunately, that new law sounds like it was authored by someone unfamiliar with the process.

 

[Mcwsky09]

Given the immense response to this post I figured I would post the updated report.

Sara Gets Her Gun | National Review Online

I *think* there was another post on the same story - all the replies might be there - or I may be thinking of the other forum I frequent.

 

[coltle6920]

Thanks for the replies...I tried searching through different areas to see if it was already posted but nothing stood out.

I really would like to see what others have to say.More importantly I wanted to hear how other LEO have to handle a situation like this.I wouldn't think that this is the first time this happened.

 

[THE PILGRIM]

Got towed one time, down in the French quarter. I came out of this apartment I was staying in and walked down to where my car had been parked. It was gone! I had parked behind a sign that said cars towed between I think 3 and 5AM.
The address of the impound yard was on the sign. I flagged down a taxi and gave them the address. The driver said I know where that is I go there every day.
I walked in and described my car. The lady says okay that would be a certain amount of money. I started counting out my money.
She reaches under the counter and pulls out a open bottle of booze and my radio.
Now I'm waiting for the other shoe to fall. She just hands me the keys and a receipt.
I slog through the mud to find my car, this place is down by the river in a Swamp.
Much to my relief my revolver was still in the glove box. I was out-of-state as fast as the law would allow.

 

[b_san]

IMHO, I think it's reasonable to require a background check prior to returning a firearm to the owner. Nobody has any assurances that the owner had not become ineligible to possess a firearm since the initial acquisition.

I strongly disagree with that statement. Because there are no indications either way as to whether or not the owner of the firearm has been disqualified it must be assumed that they are in fact legal. The police officer taking possession of the firearm was a temporary protective custody due to the woman's emergency room trip and it should be returned to her immediately upon her request and polite thank you to the officer for retrieving and keeping it safe for her. Making her fill out a 4473 to retrieve her property would be ridiculous.

Just another step down the road from the policies that some departments have to run the serial number of every legally carried gun they come into contact with during traffic stops but even more burdensome.

 

[Rpg]

IMHO, I think it's reasonable to require a background check prior to returning a firearm to the owner. Nobody has any assurances that the owner had not become ineligible to possess a firearm since the initial acquisition. I also think it's reasonable to not give said seized firearm to a third partys.

So, for instance, you're OK with the idea that a Fish and Game guy inspecting a shotgun to be sure it doesn't exceed the 3 shot capacity limit during a pheasant hunt not return the gun to the hunter without going through a FFL and attendant background check?

Our Colorado legislators must have been sampling some of that recreational pot when they wrote this law.

Just my opinion, of course.

 

[Muss Muggins]

I strongly disagree with that statement. Because there are no indications either way as to whether or not the owner of the firearm has been disqualified it must be assumed that they are in fact legal. The police officer taking possession of the firearm was a temporary protective custody due to the woman's emergency room trip and it should be returned to her immediately upon her request and polite thank you to the officer for retrieving and keeping it safe for her. Making her fill out a 4473 to retrieve her property would be ridiculous.

Just another step down the road from the policies that some departments have to run the serial number of every legally carried gun they come into contact with during traffic stops but even more burdensome.

I respect your opinion. In response, I would only add that they run the license plate and driver's license number of every driver and vehicle they come in contact with during traffic stops. The check of the serial number and the criminal history takes only seconds. My issue, as described above, is that the department in question seems to be putting form over function. If you're legal, and it's legal, run the numbers, turn it over, and move on. Any person providing a firearm to another has a responsibility to insure that they are not providing a firearm to a prohibited recipient.

 

[Muss Muggins]

So, for instance, you're OK with the idea that a Fish and Game guy inspecting a shotgun to be sure it doesn't exceed the 3 shot capacity limit during a pheasant hunt not return the gun to the hunter without going through a FFL and attendant background check?

Our Colorado legislators must have been sampling some of that recreational pot when they wrote this law.

Just my opinion, of course.

I think it is reasonable to assume that is in our future . . . Through our local newspaper, I am aware of more than one person who failed to pay an over the daily limit dove fine, had their criminal history run in preparation for the failure to pay hearing, and then faced a charge of felon in possession of a firearm. Again, I think going through the FFL is form over function. An adequate criminal history check is keystrokes away.

 

[Rpg]

I think it is reasonable to assume that is in our future . . . Through our local newspaper, I am aware of more than one person who failed to pay an over the daily limit dove fine, had their criminal history run in preparation for the failure to pay hearing, and then faced a charge of felon in possession of a firearm. Again, I think going through the FFL is form over function. An adequate criminal history check is keystrokes away.

Perhaps in a large metropolitan area

Have you ever tried to get an internet connection in hunting country?

I have.

You can't in lots of areas.

This is the death of lots of businesses in Colorado that depend on hunters for a few weeks every year.

Read our law.

It's a mess.

I didn't vote for these folks.

This is an embarrassment

Just my opinion, of course.

 

[Muss Muggins]

Perhaps in a large metropolitan area

Have you ever tried to get an internet connection in hunting country?

I have.

You can't in lots of areas.

This is the death of lots of businesses in Colorado that depend on hunters for a few weeks every year.

Read our law.

It's a mess.

I didn't vote for these folks.

This is an embarrassment

Just my opinion, of course.

Come across many LEO's in my life. Never met one that wasn't in touch with dispatch by radio. I agree that we face larger issues.

 

[Don 73]

Sounds like they made it a bit overcomplicated. In my dept it would have been taken for "safe keeping" and returned to the owner upon proof of identity and a signature on the property form.

 

[Rpg]

Sounds like they made it a bit overcomplicated. In my dept it would have been taken for "safe keeping" and returned to the owner upon proof of identity and a signature on the property form.

I've never wanted to live in NE Ohio until now.

 

[coltle6920]

This incident seems like it should've been easy to resolve but was made complicated for some reason.

I'm merely guessing but it seems to me that the officer at the scene of the accident would've ran her driver's license.Wouldn't this have shown if she had any "wants" or "warrants"? The hospital also ran tests on her blood and they apparently came up negative.

 

[coltle6920]

Sounds like they made it a bit overcomplicated. In my dept it would have been taken for "safe keeping" and returned to the owner upon proof of identity and a signature on the property form.

Not arguing your statement...Just need some clarification,please.

Are you saying that there wouldn't be a quick check to see if a person wasn't wanted for something before returning their firearm?

 

[Don 73]

Not arguing your statement...Just need some clarification,please.

Are you saying that there wouldn't be a quick check to see if a person wasn't wanted for something before returning their firearm?

That would have been done at the time of the accident. And while it IS possible, it's not likely for a person to pick up a warrant over the course of a few days.

 

[SMSgt]

How about someone posting the actual CO law as on the books so we have a reference point to gripe about.

 

[coltle6920]

Having a tough time putting up the link for the law pertaining to Colorado background checks.

Do a Google or Bing search for Colorado HB13-1229

I have an issue interpreting the usage of the word "possession".In some passages it seems to imply ownership.In other passages it seems to imply merely lending the firearm for someone to use.

The LEO took possession of the woman's firearm for safe keeping but somewhere along the line someone else assumed that they took ownership of it thereby requiring an FFL.

There is something that really stinks here and we'll probably never know the real reason behind it.

 

[Muss Muggins]

Having a tough time putting up the link for the law pertaining to Colorado background checks.

Do a Google or Bing search for Colorado HB13-1229

I have an issue interpreting the usage of the word "possession".In some passages it seems to imply ownership.In other passages it seems to imply merely lending the firearm for someone to use.

The LEO took possession of the woman's firearm for safe keeping but somewhere along the line someone else assumed that they took ownership of it thereby requiring an FFL.

There is something that really stinks here and we'll probably never know the real reason behind it.

There is always more to the real story than that which is published . . . That's what many times leaves people confused and shaking their heads.