The Barr Code Police Run Roughshod Over Lawful Handgun Owner

[Mike.357]

Right, I can't imagine if you are brought into the ER by ambulance that you'd be in trouble for carrying in a posted location.

Just because we can't imagine it does not mean it cannot happen.

[Guest crotalus01]

IIRC there was a post on the High Road where exactly that happened - guy was in a car wreck, valid HCP and the prosecutor went after him for having a gun in a prohibited location when the gun was found on him after the ambulance ride to the ER...

[G27]

I'm sure it never dawned on him that he couldn't trust the cops with his gun and they'd try and screw with him.

If you gave me your car for the weekend, I'd be well within my rights to search every nook and cranny of it, if I wanted.

That's the point - he gave the police something and they checked it out. I fail to see the big deal here.

[Guest HexHead]

If you gave me your car for the weekend, I'd be well within my rights to search every nook and cranny of it, if I wanted.

That's the point - he gave the police something and they checked it out. I fail to see the big deal here.

The big deal is them telling him he can't have it back until they're done with it.

Whenever the hell that is.

[Fallguy]

The big deal is them telling him he can't have it back until they're done with it.

Whenever the hell that is.

Not sure about NC law, but they man not ever have to "give" it back to him. He may have to get a court order to have it returned to him.

Once it was in their custody, there's to pretty much do with what they want...and it takes as long as it takes.

As I said before the police are not in the business of storing property for safe keeping and the simple returning it to you upon your demand.

Don't get me wrong....I'm not necessarily happy with the situation, but can't help but to feel a large part of it was caused by the guy himself.

[Guest HexHead]

I was listening to a Tom Gresham "Gun Talk" podcast the other day when I was out walking. The ACLU is helping this New Orleans gun owner who was a passenger in a car when it was pulled over for a traffic infraction. He had his carry permit and had his pistol with him. The driver was arrested for having some pot on him and the passenger was taken in too. No charges were brought against the passenger and he was released.

The passenger kept calling the police and asking when he'd get his pistol back and was constantly given the run around, as in " You need to speak to so and so and he's not here now, call back in a few days." This went on for a month or two. In the interim, a new DA took office and when the guy called again about his gun, he was told "We have a new policy now. Guns taken when you are arrested will NEVER be returned."

So here's a guy that not only wasn't convicted, but not even charged, has his pistol confiscated and then gets told he'll never get it back.

Sheeesh, when you're a gun owner and you even have the ACLU helping you get your gun back, you know this is outrageous.

[Volphin]

I'd be filing a fed suit so fast it would make their head spin, with damages. So theft is their new policy? That will never fly in court. That AG is WAY off base.

[Guest dizzielizzie]

I would definiteally contact a lawyer if that happened to me. The gentleman thought he was doing the right thing and the police took it too far. If they wanted to, perhaps, run the serial number to make sure it wasn't stolen, fine. But to send it out for ballistics? That's just not right...

[Fallguy]

I would definiteally contact a lawyer if that happened to me. The gentleman thought he was doing the right thing and the police took it too far. If they wanted to, perhaps, run the serial number to make sure it wasn't stolen, fine. But to send it out for ballistics? That's just not right...

I'm not always a big fan of what the police do, but why shouldn't they have sent it out for balistics?

Can you imagine the stink if some how this gun was connected to a crime and it was found years later that the police had the gun in their custody at one time and it wasn't checked?

[Mark@Sea]

I'm not always a big fan of what the police do, but why shouldn't they have sent it out for balistics?

Can you imagine the stink if some how this gun was connected to a crime and it was found years later that the police had the gun in their custody at one time and it wasn't checked?

Seems to be taking the precautionary principle to extremes. And how long does it take to fire 4 or 5 rounds into a water barrel or what-have-you?

[Guest HexHead]

I'd be filing a fed suit so fast it would make their head spin, with damages. So theft is their new policy? That will never fly in court. That AG is WAY off base.

Like I said, it's sooo egregious, even the ACLU is trying to get this guy his gun back!

[leroy]

I'm not always a big fan of what the police do, but why shouldn't they have sent it out for balistics?

Can you imagine the stink if some how this gun was connected to a crime and it was found years later that the police had the gun in their custody at one time and it wasn't checked?

Probable cause. There was no reason on the policeman's part to believe that this man committed a crime. Same thing in the quote below RE: New Orleans. That's why the ACLU (and all Americans) should be mad about this. If law enforcement is allowed to do this; all they need to do is set up roadblocks and search every car for everything. This is a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment:

• Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
  

<DL><DD>The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

</DD></DL>RE: Hex's post. Another example. Same problem, different tactics.

This is why you have the Fourth Amendment. The British did the same thing before the Revolutionary War. All totalitarians and "do gooders" like these tactics.

The ACLU is helping this New Orleans gun owner who was a passenger in a car when it was pulled over for a traffic infraction. He had his carry permit and had his pistol with him. The driver was arrested for having some pot on him and the passenger was taken in too. No charges were brought against the passenger and he was released.

The passenger kept calling the police and asking when he'd get his pistol back and was constantly given the run around, as in " You need to speak to so and so and he's not here now, call back in a few days." This went on for a month or two. In the interim, a new DA took office and when the guy called again about his gun, he was told "We have a new policy now. Guns taken when you are arrested will NEVER be returned."

So here's a guy that not only wasn't convicted, but not even charged, has his pistol confiscated and then gets told he'll never get it back.

Sheeesh, when you're a gun owner and you even have the ACLU helping you get your gun back, you know this is outrageous. <!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

Be careful about what you think is alright; especially for someone else, and not not you personally. I will grant that it wasn't very smart to turn a firearm over to law enforcement for "safe keeping".

I think this quip says it best:

That how I read the story.

Quote:

<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset" class=alt2>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. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

That need not apply when you willingly hand over the property.Dumbass! <!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

I bet this guy calls some friends to hold his gun the next time.

Food for thought.

Kind regards,

LEROY

[Fallguy]

Unlike the New Orleans case, the police didn't seize this weapon, it was given to them. As I said before, AFAIK the police aren't set up for the "safe keeping" of any item. So once it was in their possesion, it was pretty much theirs do with what they wanted.

Do I think it is right....no, not really, but I'm not 100% sure the law prevents them from doing anything they did (even if it should). Also I admit a lot of my lack of sympathy still comes from the guy handing it over himself. Might feel a bit different if the EMTs, ER staff or someone like that turned it over even though granted the results could be the same.

Now I do think he should get it back when they are done.

[Mr. Brooks]

Maybe they could loan him one of the Department's service pistols until they get his back to him.

[leroy]

Unlike the New Orleans case, the police didn't seize this weapon, it was given to them. As I said before, AFAIK the police aren't set up for the "safe keeping" of any item. So once it was in their possesion, it was pretty much theirs do with what they wanted.

Do I think it is right....no, not really, but I'm not 100% sure the law prevents them from doing anything they did (even if it should). Also I admit a lot of my lack of sympathy still comes from the guy handing it over himself. Might feel a bit different if the EMTs, ER staff or someone like that turned it over even though granted the results could be the same.

Now I do think he should get it back when they are done.

I think you are right. The police arguement appears to be:

1. There is a law on the books that allows us to do this. See David's post.

2. You as an individual are obliged to know your rights. That means that voluntarily giving to giving the gun up amounts to setting those rights aside. The moral, you should know better.

I have problems with item one; but not item two. The fact is that if there is a law on the books in NC or anywhere else that violates the Constitution; citizens are obliged to see that it be challenged in the federal court. Sadly, that is not always the case. The fact is that any law, no matter how unconstitutional, can be used as justification for about anything as long as it is not challenged and overturned. The genesis of all the handgun carry permit laws was originally the direct result of this sort of thing. Local gun control laws were originated in big cities by crooks who wanted to punish and imprison their hoodlum opponents using crooked laws and crooked polititians to do it. That left the issuance of "hangun carry permits" to the whim and will of local politicians and those who owned them. That's why most state laws say that permits "shall be issued". It fixes the crook, personal predjudice, and government oppression problem.

Kind regards,

LEROY

Edited September 4, 2009 by leroy
spelling correction

[Guest evo8ricer]

1

Edited September 11, 2009 by evo8ricer

[Guest evo8ricer]

It is just like if you invite a cop in your house and he sees a crime going on it is time to put on the cuffs and serve your time same way with your car. I had an officer pull me over one time for speeding and then asked to search my vehicle I said no and he thought he had the right to so i asked for a warrent and he then said he could get one i said call the police department have them call the judge and wake him up to search a car to only find that they wasnt anything illegal and they was nothing on m record i said that one might be hard to explain to your boss and your buddies. In the end never give them permission and never give anyone your gun most hospitals do have safes and do allow you to check things in it. But why would you carry a never fired gun it would be messed up if he had to use it and the bullets that he had didnt chamber right in it ALWAYS test it before you carry it!!!!

[Guest HexHead]

But why would you carry a never fired gun it would be messed up if he had to use it and the bullets that he had didnt chamber right in it ALWAYS test it before you carry it!!!!

We gotta stop using this as a distractor to the real issue here.

[Guest HexHead]

I think you are right. The police arguement appears to be:

1. There is a law on the books that allows us to do this. See David's post.

2. You as an individual are obliged to know your rights. That means that voluntarily giving to giving the gun up amounts to setting those rights aside. The moral, you should know better.

I have problems with item one; but not item two. The fact is that if there is a law on the books in NC or anywhere else that violates the Constitution; citizens are obliged to see that it be challenged in the federal court. Sadly, that is not always the case. The fact is that any law, no matter how unconstitutional, can be used as justification for about anything as long as it is not challenged and overturned. The genesis of all the handgun carry permit laws was originally the direct result of this sort of thing. Local gun control laws were originated in big cities by crooks who wanted to punish and imprison their hoodlum opponents using crooked laws and crooked polititians to do it. That left the issuance of "hangun carry permits" to the whim and will of local politicians and those who owned them. That's why most state laws say that permits "shall be issued". It fixes the crook, personal predjudice, and government oppression problem.

Kind regards,

LEROY

The problem with #1 is that there isn't a law on the books allowing them to do that. It's "department policy". Big difference.

#2 He obviously thought he could trust the police.

[DaveTN]

We gotta stop using this as a distractor to the real issue here.

There is no real issue here of any importance. The only issue here is people taking guns to the Police Department for storage. There isn’t anything we can do about that except tell them not to do it.

[leroy]

<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset" class=alt2>Originally Posted by leroy

I think you are right. The police arguement appears to be:

1. There is a law on the books that allows us to do this. See David's post.

2. You as an individual are obliged to know your rights. That means that voluntarily giving to giving the gun up amounts to setting those rights aside. The moral, you should know better.

I have problems with item one; but not item two. The fact is that if there is a law on the books in NC or anywhere else that violates the Constitution; citizens are obliged to see that it be challenged in the federal court. Sadly, that is not always the case. The fact is that any law, no matter how unconstitutional, can be used as justification for about anything as long as it is not challenged and overturned. The genesis of all the handgun carry permit laws was originally the direct result of this sort of thing. Local gun control laws were originated in big cities by crooks who wanted to punish and imprison their hoodlum opponents using crooked laws and crooked polititians to do it. That left the issuance of "hangun carry permits" to the whim and will of local politicians and those who owned them. That's why most state laws say that permits "shall be issued". It fixes the crook, personal predjudice, and government oppression problem.

Kind regards,

LEROY

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

HEX Quote:

The problem with #1 is that there isn't a law on the books allowing them to do that. It's "department policy". Big difference.

#2 He obviously thought he could trust the police. <!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

Agreed. Department policy should not break the law --- any law.

LEROY

There is no real issue here of any importance. The only issue here is people taking guns to the Police Department for storage. There isn’t anything we can do about that except tell them not to do it.[/QUOTE]

We can quibble about the legality and judgement issues. I think this guy should talk to a lawyer and the NRA; but he needs to decide to do that. David's opinion is well taken. You need to be wiser that this.

Kind regards,

LEROY

[Guest HexHead]

There is no real issue here of any importance. The only issue here is people taking guns to the Police Department for storage. There isn’t anything we can do about that except tell them not to do it.

I disagree. The issue is the PD's refusal to return the guy's gun to him until they're done molesting it.