Police Run Roughshod Over Lawful Handgun Owner

[WatchManUSA]

...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?

[tombogan03884]

 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.

[tt11758]

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.

[alfsauve]

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".

[tt11758]

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.

[Sponsor]

[bryand71]

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.

[ratcatcher55]

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.

[Rastus]

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.

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]

[bryand71]

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.

[alfsauve]

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?