The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: bryand71 on August 29, 2009, 12:28:43 AM
-
http://blogs.ajc.com/bob-barr-blog/2009/08/26/police-run-roughshod-over-lawful-handgun-owner/
Police Run Roughshod Over Lawful Handgun Owner
6:00 am August 26, 2009, by Bob Barr
No good deed goes unpunished — that’s a lesson George Boggs of Fayetteville, North Carolina, learned earlier this month when he voluntarily turned his handgun over to the local police for safe-keeping while he went into the hospital following an automobile wreck. When Mr. Boggs (who maintains a valid concealed-carry permit for the handgun) later attempted to retrieve his firearm, the police said, sorry, we’ve sent it out for ballistics testing and can’t give it back to you yet.
Apparently the police in North Carolina believe themselves empowered to retain a law-abiding citizen’s firearm, and test it to see if it matches any firearms or ammunition on which the police have records that were used in crimes, regardless of whether they have any suspicion whatsoever that the firearm is illegal or has ever been used in the commission of a crime. And, the police do this even if the person has voluntarily and temporarily left a firearm with the police for safe keeping. In this case also, the owner of the handgun did not want the firearm fired because it had never been fired since he purchased it new, and he believed its value would be diminished.
Tough luck, according to the law enforcement authorities; so long as they get a firearm — however they get a firearm — they keep it as long as they want to test it, and , if it matches ballistically with some record they have, they would keep it indefinitely.
So much for property rights. So much for Fourth Amendment guarantees against unreasonable search and seizure. And so much for being a good citizen. When it comes to firearms, many law enforcement agencies believe they can do pretty much whatever they want, whenever they want, to whoever they want.
-
Lawsuit >:(
-
Lawsuit >:(
For what? First the cops have soveriegn immunity, which means they can't be sued unless they knowingly and willfully acted either unlawfully or negligently.Secondly, a decent lawyer starts at about $250 an hour, and if the cops WANT to cooperate and you've got an honest lawyer, its still going to to be 3-4 billable hours worth of phone calls and a trip to the station, plus paperwork to get the gun back. So unless its worth better than a grand, you're better off just buying another $600 pistol. >:(
FQ13 who carries a $500 Glock for more than one reason
-
For what? First the cops have soveriegn immunity, which means they can't be sued unless they knowingly and willfully acted either unlawfully or negligently.Secondly, a decent lawyer starts at about $250 an hour, and if the cops WANT to cooperate and you've got an honest lawyer, its still going to to be 3-4 billable hours worth of phone calls and a trip to the station, plus paperwork to get the gun back. So unless its worth better than a grand, you're better off just buying another $600 pistol. >:(
FQ13 who carries a $500 Glock for more than one reason
Tom, there are times I hate it when your right...this is one of them. Lately, when it comes to constitutional issues I get my dander up way too easy for some reason. THe problem is the ballistic tests that they would run, the latest Popular Mechanics debunked all of them and there is no probable cause for the tests.
-
Tom, there are times I hate it when your right...this is one of them. Lately, when it comes to constitutional issues I get my dander up way too easy for some reason. THe problem is the ballistic tests that they would run, the latest Popular Mechanics debunked all of them and there is no probable cause for the tests.
Dakota, I am ROFLMAO. NEVER IN HELL did I think I would live to see the day that anyone would confuse me with Tom. ;D ;D ;D You owe me a new keyboard, and probably lots of other folks as well. Tom, well, he might just find some rope. ;D
FQ13
-
Dakota, I am ROFLMAO. NEVER IN HELL did I think I would live to see the day that anyone would confuse me with Tom. ;D ;D ;D You owe me a new keyboard, and probably lots of other folks as well. Tom, well, he might just find some rope. ;D
FQ13
Oh shoot, I'm glad it's Sat morning this week has been a pain. Well, I guess you now know two of the main people I pay attention what they post.
-
My handgun was "taken" from me after I accidentally shot myself in the foot with it.
The local PD has a policy unlike any other in the county that they too sent the pistol to NIBIN for testing. So far its been more than 10weeks. Upon return I would have to sue the city to get it back, that is file paperwork with the court and pay a filing fee of nearly 50% the value of my property for them to release it back to me. Everyone I told this too said "what" including a veteran sheriff's officer I know.
So I had a lawyer friend to make a few calls and now the story is when it gets back I can just go pick it up.
Otherwise he will sue them and ask the judge to make the city reimburse the filing fees, lawyer fees, and court costs.
-
If the police are "requesting" NOT "demanding" to "hold" your firearm for you,.....
That is a Big Fat NEGATIVE Ghost Rider.
NEVER voluntarily give your firearm to ANY Police Station.
Give it to a friend you can trust, family member, bury it in the yard for few days......
Knowing NC, he will eventually get it back, they are not all bad up there. Might be a while, and I would demand a copy of the test.
Than I would sell it and get another one...
-
If the police are "requesting" NOT "demanding" to "hold" your firearm for you,.....
That is a Big Fat NEGATIVE Ghost Rider.
NEVER voluntarily give your firearm to ANY Police Station.
Give it to a friend you can trust, family member, bury it in the yard for few days......
Knowing NC, he will eventually get it back, they are not all bad up there. Might be a while, and I would demand a copy of the test.
Than I would sell it and get another one...
I agree with you that the best course of action in this situation would be to turn it over to a friend or relative, providing that person has a valid CCW. If they do not, handing them your weapon could put them in violation of the law.
As for burying it in the back yard, that's probably not a realistic option in the aftermath of a traffic crash.
There may be instances when the only option you have available is to turn it over to the police, and take your chances.
As it turns out for the fellow whose story was told in the original article, his best bet may be to replace the gun and forget about it. If he eventually gets it back he should go right out and buy a Powerball ticket. ;D
-
Well, First I lock myself out of my apartment , then I read this thread, this is turning into quite the Saturday. ;D
-
...he voluntarily turned his handgun over to the local police for safe-keeping while he went into the hospital following an automobile wreck.
So much for property rights. So much for Fourth Amendment guarantees against unreasonable search and seizure. And so much for being a good citizen. When it comes to firearms, many law enforcement agencies believe they can do pretty much whatever they want, whenever they want, to whoever they want.
It looks like the guy didn't understand the rules before he surrendered his gun to the police. It would never occur to me to give my guns over to the police to store my guns - nor would I want them to. Is this common practice in other parts of the country?
-
It seems like he was carrying when he was in the wreck and gave the pistol to the Cops instead of having the EMT's keep it with his personal effects. I don't know what the usual procedure is but I would bet it varies from place to place, perhaps even at the whim of the responders.
-
It looks like the guy didn't understand the rules before he surrendered his gun to the police. It would never occur to me to give my guns over to the police to store my guns - nor would I want them to. Is this common practice in other parts of the country?
I would be tremendously surprised if the EMT's would be allowed to put it with his personal effects. Too much liability. I would imagine it went something like this:
Injured Guy: "I am a concealed carry permit holder and I'm carrying. Where can we store my weapon until I get out of the hospital?"
Cop: "If you want, I can hang onto it for you."
Injured Guy: "Thanks, officer!"
That would be considered a "voluntary" turnover of the weapon. And we all know that any law-abiding, responsible gun owner is going to want his weapon placed in the hands of someone he believes to be as responsible as he is. What can I say? In this instance the guy screwed up......he trusted the cop.
-
I'm not agreeing with the police, but......Something doesn't add up here.
He has an unfired firearm that he values as a collectible and he's carrying it as his CCW
Okay, maybe it wasn't his "carry" piece.
Maybe he just bought it and was taking it home?
Or
maybe it never occured to him to "practice".
-
I'm not agreeing with the police, but......Something doesn't add up here.
He has an unfired firearm that he values as a collectible and he's carrying it as his CCW
Okay, maybe it wasn't his "carry" piece.
Maybe he just bought it and was taking it home?
Or
maybe it never occured to him to "practice".
To be honest, I was thinking the same thing.
-
OK, time to update. I was reading through all the comments from the story and found this:
Ric Wiley
August 27th, 2009
12:02 pm
Just dropping a line to stop all the assumptions about this story, because we all know what happens when we ass-u-me. I listen to the NRA NEWS station daily, and they interveiwed Mr. Boggs on Wed.. He was not carrying the gun for any purpose, he had just bought the gun in July and had not been to the range yet to fire it, not sure why it was in the car, he didn’t say, but it wasn’t being carried for self defense He had bought it at a gun store and it was brand new, and he had not had a chance to fire it yet. After getting out of the hospital he went to the police station with the receipt from the store to get his gun back and, well you know what happened after that.And yes he is going to sue the city police dept. for violating, at the very least, his 4th admendment right. FYI Mr. Boggs is a 70 yr. old, retired Army SGT. so I’m guessing he know’s about handling & carrieing a firearm, sorry if I ruined some of your idiotic assumption’s.
-
I can only say locally, if an EMT or fireman come across a firearm at a traffic accident they must notify law enforcement to take control of the weapon before they can do anything further. Fire and EMT are not allowed to touch the firearm.
Law enforcement will check to make sure the weapon is not stolen. They will ask for some form of proof of ownership before returning the firearm. Yes they will give you a receipt if they take it from you and that will count as proof of ownership.
It sounds like they are dragging this old man through the ringer.
-
OK, time to update. I was reading through all the comments from the story and found this:
Ric Wiley
August 27th, 2009
12:02 pm
Just dropping a line to stop all the assumptions about this story, because we all know what happens when we ass-u-me. I listen to the NRA NEWS station daily, and they interveiwed Mr. Boggs on Wed.. He was not carrying the gun for any purpose, he had just bought the gun in July and had not been to the range yet to fire it, not sure why it was in the car, he didnt say, but it wasnt being carried for self defense He had bought it at a gun store and it was brand new, and he had not had a chance to fire it yet. After getting out of the hospital he went to the police station with the receipt from the store to get his gun back and, well you know what happened after that.And yes he is going to sue the city police dept. for violating, at the very least, his 4th admendment right. FYI Mr. Boggs is a 70 yr. old, retired Army SGT. so Im guessing he knows about handling & carrieing a firearm, sorry if I ruined some of your idiotic assumptions.
Not all protect and serve. Thanks Bryand71...and also for the reminder:
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." [Samuel Adams]
-
Rastus,
I always try to post the facts on any 2a article I start a thread with or when adding to one.
I appreciate the compliment on my signature, I have found it to be very relevant even today, sad to say.
-
Thanks, Bryan.
I wasn't trying to imply the gentleman did anything wrong, nor that anything he did was grounds for what the police did. There were just a few details missing which you've provided.
I'm with him. Wonder if there's anything an out-of-stater can do to help him?
-
Thanks, Bryan.
I wasn't trying to imply the gentleman did anything wrong, nor that anything he did was grounds for what the police did. There were just a few details missing which you've provided.
I'm with him. Wonder if there's anything an out-of-stater can do to help him?
Nothing anybody can do really, which makes it annoying. It sounds like the cops were folowing policy. He'd have been better off if they smacked him around a little, then he'd have a complaint that wouldn't cost more than it was worth to fix. >:(
FQ13
-
As one who made no assumptions, he will get his gun back, and probably will never have his pending case get to court.
The ballistics "test" is new as a former NC resident of over 20 years.
My S&W Model 411, was "impounded" by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg County Sheriff when I was pulled over for speeding. After disclosing to the officer I was in possession of a firearm, in my center console, he took it, even though I had a CCW license.
He told me I could pick it up at the station and I promptly did the very next day. The ammo was in a Ziploc bag, the 2 mags were in another, and the pistol was in another.
I later found out the young officer did not know how to interpret "direct" or "indirect" possession of a firearm, so he took it.
The ballistics test, may have been some yahoo's in LE just being pri*&%. But I believe he will get it back regardless, without going to court.
If they fired it, and he feels it lost value, than lawyers have a way of mucking it up....
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
United States of America
Great Seal of the United States
This article is part of the series:
United States Constitution
Original text of the Constitution
Preamble
Articles of the Constitution
I ∙ II ∙ III ∙ IV ∙ V ∙ VI ∙ VII
Amendments to the Constitution
Bill of Rights
I ∙ II ∙ III ∙ IV ∙ V
VI ∙ VII ∙ VIII ∙ IX ∙ X
Subsequent Amendments
XI ∙ XII ∙ XIII ∙ XIV ∙ XV
XVI ∙ XVII ∙ XVIII ∙ XIX ∙ XX
XXI ∙ XXII ∙ XXIII ∙ XXIV ∙ XXV
XXVI ∙ XXVII
Other countries · Law Portal
view • talk • edit
The Bill of Rights in the National Archives.
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. It was ratified as a response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, which is a type of general search warrant, in the American Revolution. The amendment specifically requires search and arrest warrants be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. Search and arrest should be limited in scope according to specific information supplied to the issuing court, usually by a law enforcement officer, who has sworn by it.
In Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment applies to the states by way of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court has also ruled that certain searches and seizures violated the Fourth Amendment even when a warrant was properly granted.
All this is out the door, if he voluntarily agreed to have LE "hold it". Since that was never disclosed it is an important piece of the pie.
Just my unassuming .02 cents.
-
Rastus,
I always try to post the facts on any 2a article I start a thread with or when adding to one.
I appreciate the compliment on my signature, I have found it to be very relevant even today, sad to say.
I'm thinking I should post that signature one more time. We have brethren here who still need to read this,... again:
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." --- Samuel Adams
-
I'll throw in one more:
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws...you create a nation of law-breakers and then you cash in on guilt."
Ayn Rand
-
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_08_30-2009_09_05.shtml#1251850460
From the [1]Fayetteville Observer:
George Boggs thought he was doing police a favor last week when he
handed over the firearm he kept in his car after he was in a wreck.
Boggs has a permit to carry a concealed weapon, and he wanted his
handgun secured while he went to the hospital, he said. The permit
requires him to notify police of his weapon. On Monday, when he
went to the Fayetteville Police Department to retrieve his gun, he
couldn't get it back. He was told that police first wanted to fire
the gun to see if the spent shell casing and round would match data
in a nationwide ballistics inventory used to solve crimes. The gun
is scheduled to be test-fired today, he was told. Boggs complained
to police supervisors that his new gun has never been fired. The
ballistics test, he said, would diminish the value of the
.45-caliber Taurus Millennium he bought last month for $399 at a
local gun store. He said the city is violating his Fourth Amendment
rights that protect him from unreasonable searches and seizures.
Police defend their decade-old policy of checking most handguns
that come into their custody - no matter the reason - to see if
they have been used in a crime. They say public safety outweighs
any inconvenience to the owner.
My tentative thinking is that any such policy of test-firing all guns
that come into police custody, with no individualized suspicion that
the gun had been used in any misconduct, violates the Fourth Amendment
violation. It's a search, at least as much as moving the stereo
equipment to see the serial number in [2]Arizona v. Hicks was a
search. (Hicks was a Justice Scalia opinion, by the way.) And it's
hard to justify this under the special needs / administrative search
rationale, because it does seem to be aimed at serving the [3]general
interest in law enforcement.
-
In summation: The police acted within the law.................................................................and it's B.S. >:(
-
No they didn't. 4th Amendment violation, no probable cause and no search warrant.
-
No they didn't. 4th Amendment violation, no probable cause and no search warrant.
I don't think that they would need either if you freely gave them the gun.
-
As I understand it that doesn't give them the right to test fire it unless they have reason to believe it was used in a crime, then they still need a warrant.
-
As I understand it that doesn't give them the right to test fire it unless they have reason to believe it was used in a crime, then they still need a warrant.
You are probably right Tom. I don't have a clue as to the legalities, once that the gun is surrendered.
-
Way I see it is that if you gave him your hand and asked him to help you out of a hole it would not give him the right to finger print you, even though you held out your hand voluntarily.
-
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_08_30-2009_09_05.shtml#1251850460
From the [1]Fayetteville Observer:
.
.
.
Boggs complained
to police supervisors that his new gun has never been fired. The
ballistics test, he said, would diminish the value of the
.45-caliber Taurus Millennium he bought last month for $399 at a
local gun store. He said the city is violating his Fourth Amendment
rights that protect him from unreasonable searches and seizures.
Police defend their decade-old policy of checking most handguns
that come into their custody - no matter the reason - to see if
they have been used in a crime. They say public safety outweighs
any inconvenience to the owner.
My tentative thinking is that any such policy of test-firing all guns
that come into police custody, with no individualized suspicion that
the gun had been used in any misconduct, violates the Fourth Amendment
violation. It's a search, at least as much as moving the stereo
equipment to see the serial number in [2]Arizona v. Hicks was a
search. (Hicks was a Justice Scalia opinion, by the way.) And it's
hard to justify this under the special needs / administrative search
rationale, because it does seem to be aimed at serving the [3]general
interest in law enforcement.
Big difference between most and all. If the policy is in fact "most", this guy has a clear case for damages as they provided no probable clause to justify why this particular weapon had to be tested, especially as they were told it was new and had never been fired.
-
Big difference between most and all. If the policy is in fact "most", this guy has a clear case for damages as they provided no probable clause to justify why this particular weapon had to be tested, especially as they were told it was new and had never been fired.
Bingo Path, you again cut to the crux of the matter.
-
" Diminish the value of a Taurus ?"
Still trying to get that one, ..
The question is: Is it standard operating procedure at the Sheriff's office, to ballistics test all firearms that come into their possession regardless of circumstances???
I still think the LEO's were just being A holes, and for the unlawful seizure,,,that might be tougher to get damages, as they will give him his pistol back, if he hasn't gotten it back already...
The probable cause may be irrelevant if the SOP is to ballistics test ALL firearms they receive...
Thinking about the song "I fought the law, and the law won."