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

[bhayles]

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.

This wasn't a traffic stop with a suspicion the person had done something wrong unless the wreck was her fault, which wasn't stated in either story.

A similar situation would be if you had a heart attack in your car in a private parking lot...say Wally World. Someone calls an ambulance and the police show up as well. They would have no reason to run plates and DL numbers just to see if there was something actionable about the heart attack victim.

Any person providing a firearm to another has a responsibility to insure that they are not providing a firearm to a prohibited recipient.

I know you run a background check every time you hand a gun to someone...anyone...right? Before "transferring" your handgun to your wife at the range, you run a check on her, just to make sure she hasn't done something to disqualify here since your last range trip?

Laws like this, and enforcement like this, is driven by an anti-gun agenda, period.

 

[Don 73]

A similar situation would be if you had a heart attack in your car in a private parking lot...say Wally World. Someone calls an ambulance and the police show up as well. They would have no reason to run plates and DL numbers just to see if there was something actionable about the heart attack victim.

In the case of a car accident or a heart attack as you mentioned, sometimes the victim is not able to talk to you due to injuries etc and we need a way to try and identify the victim. The easiest way is to run the vehicle's plates since the majority of the time the driver of a vehicle IS the owner.

 

[stc1]

Guilty until proven innocent......My how times are changing.

 

[Don 73]

Guilty until proven innocent......My how times are changing.

I blame all the frivolous lawsuits being filed these days ... everyone is afraid to do what is right & what makes sense in fear of being sued.

 

[steelslaver]

I think I would get a good lawyer and try for a lawsuit on the grounds that I had been deprived of my constitutional rights. IE being deprived of my property without due process off law. She was never arrested or found guilty of a crime. How can they legally deprive her of her legal property?

Could be a great test case.

 

[vt_shooter]

I think I would get a good lawyer and try for a lawsuit on the grounds that I had been deprived of my constitutional rights. IE being deprived of my property without due process off law. She was never arrested or found guilty of a crime. How can they legally deprive her of her legal property?

Could be a great test case.

Would you spend thousands of dollars to fight to get a $500 Glock returned to you? Gun-hating liberals use the cost of litigation to their advantage - they pass laws knowing the constitutionality is suspect, and they correctly bet they'll get away with it because the cost to litigate it will discourage most people from fighting unjust laws. It's a shame there's no penalty for politicians who pass laws that are later deemed to have stripped people of rights that the constitution was supposed to protect.

 

[JohnSW]

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.

That makes sense. The police, for example, shouldn't return guns to convicted felons.

 

[OFT II]

Something's strange here. I don't know why they want her to do the background check but it only takes about five minutes to fill out the form.

 

[bhayles]

Gun-hating liberals use the cost of litigation to their advantage - they pass laws knowing the constitutionality is suspect, and they correctly bet they'll get away with it because the cost to litigate it will discourage most people from fighting unjust laws.

Precisely why folks SHOULD fight, even for "a $500 Glock". When their tactics quit working they'll quit using them...and not a single second before.

 

[b_san]

Something's strange here. I don't know why they want her to do the background check but it only takes about five minutes to fill out the form.

The point isn't that it's only a small burden, the point is that there's a burden at all. She never gave up ownership of it, it was only briefly held by the police officer as a safety measure so that it wouldn't be stolen or lost, so it's still her property and no legal transfer was made. You should not be required to fill out a 4473/NICS check to retrieve your property.

 

[steelslaver]

With the right lawyer the cost would be 0 unless she recovered monetary damages and then he would get his cut. You can sue a government body in civil court for deprivation of your constitutional rights. There are lots of laws that are not right that work because nobody ever stands up.

If people had not stood up many states would not have carry permits. A good part of the reason we have lost many of our RIGHTS is because of the attitude that its easier to just go along even when you are getting run down the rails.

 

[AZretired]

In my old department, when guns come into our custody, for any reason, before they are returned we run a Criminal History on them. No Cost to them and only takes a few minutes. Be surprised how many people fail the CH and don't get their guns back. But the City doesn't want the liability of returning a gun to a convicted felon.

 

[steelslaver]

I can buy them checking the gun against a stolen gun registry, running a background check on her, but not at her expense and no way she should have to fill out the form. It is already her gun.

 

[GreyOwl]

I can buy them checking the gun against a stolen gun registry, running a background check on her, but not at her expense and no way she should have to fill out the form. It is already her gun.

EXACTLY! It's not like the police dept. filled out the form in order to take possession from her!!

 

[S&W Fan]

Looks like a week from today is when she gets it back. I get what the Sheriff was doing here but the fact is the gun was not taken into evidence, it was being held for safe keeping and it seems that he decided to make a test out of our stupid new law, even after he was advised he could return it, at the expense of this woman. Unless I'm not comprehending it correctly.

Better ways it could've been handled in my view.

 

[steelslaver]

I get what the sheriff was doing too. Time for a new sheriff. If the sheriff in this county pulled that he probably wouldn't even make it to the next regular election.

 

[Ogandydancer]

I totally agree w/ b san's original post on this. No reason to have to fill out a 4473 to be able to get your own property returned.

 

[GaryS]

My aaumption would be that this law is working EXACTLY as intended by the legislature.

 

[Autococker07]

My aaumption would be that this law is working EXACTLY as intended by the legislature.

Thats what I am thinking also..... terrorists do not need to overwhelmingly overcome to win, a few hijacking/bombings here and there spread doubt, and make air travel a painful mess.... annoyance is a powerful weapon for those to weak to win a fair fight.

 

[islamoradamark]

oh i see if i was in a car accident went to hospital loose time off work now got to take more time off to get my stuff back. what about my mortgage payment