Illegal seisure of gun ?

What if anything can be done about a leo taking your gun after you say you don't consent to an illegal seisure while being nazzi stopped ?

Go talk to a lawyer.

dougwg said:

Go talk to a lawyer.

Click to expand...

Nice, glad you took the time to type "that" in. LOL, I didn't mean it to come off like that, sorry.

I'll put it another way. Go talk to an attorney, or get shot attempting to prevent a unlawful seizure.

Ok, I'll put it another way. Are they acountable for breaking the law ? Has anything ever been done, or do we just let them break the laws that they are supposed to uphold ? If they can't legally do it, why do we not have a way to combat it ? Or is it just one of those thing we just have to except. I personally don't care if they hold on to it, but it seams like they are slapping us in the face when they do it, with the what are you gonna do about it attitude.

Go talk to a lawyer. You may have a cause for a 42 USC 1983 action.

In Michigan 1983 actions have been prosecuted and settlements made by law enforcement agencies.

TheQ said:

Go talk to a lawyer. You may have a cause for a 42 USC 1983 action.

In Michigan 1983 actions have been prosecuted and settlements made by law enforcement agencies.

Click to expand...

I don't have personnal experiance with it. It just made me wonder why when someone is stopped illegally they stand their ground on everything else, but the police just egnore that right. I was just wondering, not a big deal to me, I was just making an observation. I'm just tring to learn. I'm not tring to start anything, I just thought this would be a good place to ask.

casper said:

I don't have personnal experiance with it. It just made me wonder why when someone is stopped illegally they stand their ground on everything else, but the police just egnore that right. I was just wondering, not a big deal to me, I was just making an observation. I'm just tring to learn. I'm not tring to start anything, I just thought this would be a good place to ask.

Click to expand...

And thats fine, and we're happy to answer your questions. However, when someone, as Doug did, does give you an answer, you probably shouldn't react so harshly. 'Go talk to a lawyer' was not a sarcastic comment, it was, in fact, the only solution. They are accountable for breaking the law, and in order to hold them accountable, you will likely need the assistance of a lawyer.

Difficult site, at times

Casper, It is my opinion that this site, at times, can be frustrating when trying to get some feedback. You could get responses that range from one word to a few pages long. I am from the Peoples Republic of New Jersey, so I have no personal experience. But, after reading many threads over the years, I offer the following. First, you could meet with the Police Chief in your jurisdiction, relay your experience, and ask some questions. Remain polite just as you have been on this site. After that, join an open carry group in your area. When you meet for breakfasts, lunches, or dinners, tell other members about your experience and see if one of them has any suggestions. Maybe a few of you could visit the police station. Third, invite the LEO who seized your firearm to an open carry meeting. This suggestion may not go over big on this forum, but in my opinion, it is a GOOD suggestion. Keep us informed. you may continue to get frustrating responses, but don't let this upset you, at least not too much. Keep up the good work.

Evil Creamsicle said:

And thats fine, and we're happy to answer your questions. However, when someone, as Doug did, does give you an answer, you probably shouldn't react so harshly. 'Go talk to a lawyer' was not a sarcastic comment, it was, in fact, the only solution. They are accountable for breaking the law, and in order to hold them accountable, you will likely need the assistance of a lawyer.

Click to expand...

I didn't mean it that way, I reread it and it does sound like it though. I should have put this guy on there.:banana: I changed the post.

First, I'm not a lawyer, my advice is just that; advice.

I would highly recommend, in addition to the advice already given here, getting an audio and/or video recorder and having it on you and recording whenever you are out and about while armed.
That will help remove any doubt about what happened during an encounter, whether it's with another citizen or with law enforcement.

Getting clear advice/opinion from an attorney is probably the most valuable thing to take away from this discussion, having that will let you know exactly where you stand and what your options are.
Get copies of the sections of the law dealing with firearms and read, reread and reread them again. Knowledge is your best weapon when it comes to the law.

Good luck and keep us updated with any future interactions.

-MH

Evil Creamsicle said:

And thats fine, and we're happy to answer your questions. However, when someone, as Doug did, does give you an answer, you probably shouldn't react so harshly. 'Go talk to a lawyer' was not a sarcastic comment, it was, in fact, the only solution.

Click to expand...

casper perhaps could have asked appropriate followup questions, instead of the way he responded. However, we--the experienced guys here--can be better at providing a little more complete answers.

We don't just have to say, "Find a lawyer". We're better than that, because we are one of the "go to" websites for such information. Not only do we know to go to a lawyer, we know of a few lawyers who are really good firearms-related litigators.

To my experienced friends here: let's be a little more helpful.

casper, here are a few attorneys who specialize in firearms law and are good:
Dean Greenblatt
Jim Simmons
Steve Dulan

You should be able to web search and find their office contact info. They may be able to help, or recommend someone else who can. If you have trouble getting in contact with them, let us know.

DanM said:

casper perhaps could have asked appropriate followup questions, instead of the way he responded. However, we--the experienced guys here--can be better at providing a little more complete answers.

We don't just have to say, "Find a lawyer". We're better than that, because we are one of the "go to" websites for such information. Not only do we know to go to a lawyer, we know of a few lawyers who are really good firearms-related litigators.

To my experienced friends here: let's be a little more helpful.

casper, here are a few attorneys who specialize in firearms law and are good:
Dean Greenblatt
Jim Simmons
Steve Dulan

You should be able to web search and find their office contact info. They may be able to help, or recommend someone else who can. If you have trouble getting in contact with them, let us know.

Click to expand...

I don't think you went far enough either!

You can and should do better, DanM! Telling him to google the lawyers names *scoffs*

Casper:

You can find the contact information for a few lawyers Michigan Open Carry recommends here: http://forums.michiganopencarry.org/index.php/topic,1804.0.html

The real answer? Not much. Unless you get your law degree or find a lawyer who likes to work for free. Truth of the matter is the civil damages(IF you win)for having your gun "seized" during an OC stop will be nearly non-existent. So how much money would you spend to "make a point" that your rights were violated?

It's going to cost you at least $2500-$5000 to retain a lawyer(IF you can find one to take the case, that's why I recommended getting your law degree). After you hopefully win the case, you "MIGHT" win the $5000(HIGHLY doubtful) back. So after your lawyer gets his cut of the winnings(40-50%) you break even or LOSE $2500(that's why finding a lawyer who works for free is needed) just to make a point. Some would say "its not about the money" and a true patriot would happily lose $2500 to prove a point. Would that be you?

casper said:

Ok, I'll put it another way. Are they accountable for breaking the law ? Has anything ever been done, or do we just let them break the laws that they are supposed to uphold ? If they can't legally do it, why do we not have a way to combat it ? Or is it just one of those thing we just have to except. I personally don't care if they hold on to it, but it seams like they are slapping us in the face when they do it, with the what are you gonna do about it attitude.

Click to expand...

Yes, they are accountable for breaking the law. You, as the wronged citizen must hold that cop accountable. The legality of the seizure must be resolved via the courts. Any attempt to exert your rights, physically, will always go very badly for the citizen. On the street the cop has the power of the state to wield if he chooses to wield that power, rightly or wrongly. In a courtroom you too have the power of the state to wield.

DanM said:

casper perhaps could have asked appropriate followup questions, instead of the way he responded. However, we--the experienced guys here--can be better at providing a little more complete answers.

We don't just have to say, "Find a lawyer". We're better than that, because we are one of the "go to" websites for such information. Not only do we know to go to a lawyer, we know of a few lawyers who are really good firearms-related litigators.

To my experienced friends here: let's be a little more helpful.

casper, here are a few attorneys who specialize in firearms law and are good:
Dean Greenblatt
Jim Simmons
Steve Dulan

You should be able to web search and find their office contact info. They may be able to help, or recommend someone else who can. If you have trouble getting in contact with them, let us know.

Click to expand...

Sorry to assume, casper. Thanks for the reply.

DanM, you are also correct, and also thanks.

Thanks guys, I see all those how to videos on how to respond to the stops, and all sounded good except that part. The police just egnore the person and go right on breaking the law. I just wondered if the fact that they never get in trouble for it was why. A right not used is lost type thing. Again thanks for the help.

casper said:

What if anything can be done about a leo taking your gun after you say you don't consent to an illegal seisure while being nazzi stopped ?

Click to expand...

As already mentioned, get a lawyer.

However, cops know that few people will sue over the temporary seizure of firearm during a traffic stop or detention. It just costs way too much for many people, with too little return. Cops know this.

But!! You do have a less expensive option that can be effective. Not always; but plenty of times. Formal written complaint. Especially if you take a few moments and collect all the rest of the information and have a recording of the encounter.

Now, brace yourself for some criticism. It does not help at all for you to write "illegal seizure" while being "nazi stopped". Nobody can give good advice since there is no such thing as a nazi stop in 4th Amendment court opinions. And, the term "illegal seizure" in reference to a gun and consent is kinda pointless, because you don't have to consent or refuse consent to an illegal seizure. If its an illegal seizure, its illegal. Consent plays no part. So, when it comes to this sort of thing, a little precision is necessary. Being angry or indignant is the appropriate response for a red-blooded American; its just that you have to keep that separate enough of use precise-enough terms.

Lets start with being traffic-stopped. In PA vs Mimms, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) said that during a traffic stop a gun = danger and a cop may temporarily seize the gun for officer safety. So, if the traffic stop was legal, the temporary gun seizure will be legal. Another case about guns and traffic stops is Michigan vs Long. So, if you want to complain about a traffic stop gun seizure you'll have to badger the cops for lack of judgement, making up a justification/pretext to check a serial number, and so forth, rather than attack the legality. Don't worry about it--a little creative thinking will give you plenty of ways to ridicule the snot out of the cops for seizing your gun even if it was technicially legal for them to do so.

Regarding a Terry Stop (temporary detention for investigation of a crime), SCOTUS said in Terry v Ohio that if a cop has reason to suspect a person is or about to commit a crime, the cop may temporarily seize him while he investigates. And, if the cop suspects he might be both armed and presently dangerous (two conditions) and nothing in the initial moments of the encounter serves to dispel his concerns for his safety (third condition), then the officer may search that person for weapons.

So, if the Terry Stop itself is illegal, for example is done without genuine reasonable suspicion, then the temporary gun seizure is also illegal. The problem is the OCer has almost no way to know for sure whether the Terry Stop is legal while it is happening to him.

But, if the Terry Stop is legal, then the analysis has to move to whether the cop had legitimate reason to think the person was both armed and presently dangerous. If the cop can see the OCed gun, that answers the question about whether the suspect is armed. But, not whether he is presently dangerous. In the interest of full disclosure, I have never read a court case where a later court threw out a case or evidence because the cops failed to show both 1) armed, and 2) presently dangerous. Its almost as though, despite the Terry court's clear requirement for two conditions, lower courts have treated it as though armed = dangerous. But, Terry v Ohio says what it says nonetheless. And, it provides an avenue of attack in a formal complaint. For example, a father merely enjoying a festival in the presence of his wife and two kids completely lacks the presently dangerous characteristic of someone casing a jewelry store for a robbery.

The whole point of a formal written complaint is to let the cops know you know. After a well written complaint that cites the law and makes articulate observations about lack of judgement and draws solid conclusions based on cops' behavior, the cops have to start being careful. "Oh, snit! Somebody knows! Now we gotta be careful." Also, a formal written complaint starts documenting patterns of behavior. Cops don't want that because it makes it easier to win a federal lawsuit for rights violations. Nope. Cops don't want that.

Formal written complaints are not magic bullets. They don't always result in immediate visible change, but understand that just because the police department outwardly denies the complained behavior does not mean nothing happened behind the scenes. A good example is what happened a few years ago after some cops got out of hand with several OCers in a restaurant. Cops denied almost everything in the formal complaints; but! from that day forward not one OCer has had more than a dirty look from a cop in that burg.

Some police departments are hardcase idiots. One in Washington state comes to mind from several years ago. OCers had to write complaint after complaint bringing up the law, demanding change in police training. It went on and on for months or perhaps a year. But, finally the message got through. (It might have taken a threat of a lawsuit, I don't recall.)

So, formal complaints don't always result in immediate gratification, but they head in the direction of solving things. And, can cost a lot less than a lawsuit.

casper said:

What if anything can be done about a leo taking your gun after you say you don't consent to an illegal seisure while being nazzi stopped ?

Click to expand...

I'm guessing this is hypothetical?

DrTodd said:

I'm guessing this is hypothetical?

Click to expand...

Yes Sir, I see the videos, and the police just egnore the person, when they do not consent to it.