• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Colorado woman has gun stolen by laws.

hhofent

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
130
Location
Iowa
A colorado woman was in a car accident, and her gun in her purse was taken to the cop shop for "safekeeping". Well it turns out the cops have to do a FFL check before they can return her gun. They are not setup to do the check, therefore they won't return the gun.

www.infowars.com/colorado-woman-cant-get-her-gun-back-thanks-to-new-law/

Video discussing situation:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6s9iCtHDDk&app=desktop&persist_app=1&guid=&client=mv-google&gl=US&hl=en

Skip to around 15:00 for relevant part.
Also the end of video discusses whether blacks have the same rights as whites according to current law.

Thoughts? Opinions? Unconstructive criticism?

Sent from an unspecified mobile phone using unspecified software.
 

Seigi

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
121
Location
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA
Law requires that actions be taken to remove a evidence-less presumption that a person is not entitled to their property, rather than that actions be taken (even a finding of probable cause) to initially establish that they are not? Sounds like a pretty clear cut deprivation of procedural due process rights. State law doesn't get to override the 14th Amendment. She should be looking to sue under 42 USC 1983, if nothing else.
 

Yard Sale

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
708
Location
Northern Nevada, ,
I had my gun taken from me by the cops and they wanted a bunch of personal info (presumably to run a Brady check) before they would return it almost 2 years later. I declined to provide the info. They said they would destroy my gun.

I wrote a sternly worded letter to the city attorney. The cops invited me to come retrieve my gun without providing the personal info.

A lot of the time all you have to do is stand up for yourself and call their bluff.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
I had my gun taken from me by the cops and they wanted a bunch of personal info (presumably to run a Brady check) before they would return it almost 2 years later. I declined to provide the info. They said they would destroy my gun.

I wrote a sternly worded letter to the city attorney. The cops invited me to come retrieve my gun without providing the personal info.

A lot of the time all you have to do is stand up for yourself and call their bluff.

They are whoosies .. worried about going home at the end of the day ... good for u !

Its what the 2nd amendment is all about -- just think what they would do w/o us owning guns?
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Law requires that actions be taken to remove a evidence-less presumption that a person is not entitled to their property, rather than that actions be taken (even a finding of probable cause) to initially establish that they are not? Sounds like a pretty clear cut deprivation of procedural due process rights. State law doesn't get to override the 14th Amendment. She should be looking to sue under 42 USC 1983, if nothing else.

Concur. I know for a fact CSPD reads this site. Don't know about other Colorado law enforcement.

I wouldn't try to press the matter with the department who confiscated the gun. Some of them behave like children. Write a letter to the DA. They're the ones who know the law, what they can get away with, and what they can't. If law enforcement's actions are about to open the municipality up for liable, they'll Gibbs-slap them and you'll get your gun back.

If they don't, go ahead and sue them and enjoy the windfall!
 
Last edited:

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
Police can't run a NICS check. NICS access is restricted to Type-01 FFLs only (and whatever class includes pawnbrokers; anyone who sells guns at retail as a dealer).

But what police can do is run NCIC with nothing more than a name and date of birth. Since she was in an accident, I assume they have her info. If not, they certainly know her name, and it wouldn't take any great detective work to get all her info through the state DL database.

As part of my job, I run NCIC checks all the time. We require SSNs before running them, just to narrow down the number of false hits, but it's not required.
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
Even if there was some screwed up law, how long does it take for the police to pay a local FFL to do a full transfer formality? It would come out of their budget, and the woman would have unnecessary paperwork, but she'd have her gun, at least, while complaining about how screwed up the law about it is.
 

DaveT319

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2014
Messages
274
Location
Eugene, OR
I'm still just trying to understand why a legally owned gun that was seized - unnecessarily - couldn't just be given back? Sounds like a presumption of guilt until proven innocent. It would be one thing if it had been taken during a criminal investigation and not returned until the case was adjudicated. But simply taken for "safe keeping" following a car accident? Something's wrong there.
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
I'm still just trying to understand why a legally owned gun that was seized - unnecessarily - couldn't just be given back? Sounds like a presumption of guilt until proven innocent. It would be one thing if it had been taken during a criminal investigation and not returned until the case was adjudicated. But simply taken for "safe keeping" following a car accident? Something's wrong there.

I agree. If the cops are claiming it is theirs in order to necessitate a transfer to her under the law, that means they stole it from her in the first place.
 

DaveT319

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2014
Messages
274
Location
Eugene, OR
Bingo. No need to transfer something to the current legal owner.

Someone needs to challenge the law. Now. This can't be legal or constitutional.
 

DeSchaine

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2013
Messages
537
Location
Kalamazoo, MI
CO cops violating new state laws.

I know this is something of a gravedig, but I ran across articles on this subject on a different site, and wanted to point something out here.

The person(s) that removed Mrs. Warren's firearm from her purse, the officers that took custody AND the evidence/property clerk ALL needed to have Background/NICS checks made by an FFL approved person before taking possession. Since that probably didnt happen, where the hell are the charges against them?

If these laws call for background checks for ANY transfer, almost every officer in every jurisdiction in CO. is violating the new laws any time they take a gun from a suspect or a scene. I suppose the "3. occurring (a) by operation of law" of THIS could be used to cover the cops, but if there was a hospital employee that touched it, they arent covered.

If nothing else, if I was the Warrens, I'd sue the PD, the CA, and whoever actually removed the firearm from her purse for violation of the 4th Amendment.
 
Top