imported post
Sgt. John Somerindyke said in situations such as this, police can't assume a weapon has never been used.
"We have to be consistent with our policy," he said. "We have had some hits doing this."
...Can't assume the gun's never been used? Even if a gun shows excessive wear, it doesn't give them the right to seize it. Whether it's been used or not, I sure as hell dont want anyone firing my gun without permission and direct oversight by ME personally. Personal pet peeve. The point is that the gun's been wrongly seized. It's only a sidebar, or further infringement, that it's being tested. I'm on the side of the gun owner 100% BUT.... it's never been fired and firing a round thru it will depreciate it's value?! That's a pretty think coat of B.S.. You mean he plans on never firing it? Ever? C'mon... Not to mention, this is personal opinion here, but - carrying a gun that you've never fired is pretty ignorant. It hasn't proven itself to be reliable and function flawlessly. ...Or accurate. Just assuming that the fixed sights are dead-on and that it'll hit where you wantit to is ignorant as well. ...Especially in such a lightweight gun chambered in .45 - it's got a lot of snap! I've read several reviews citing that they've got controllability issues. Anyway...
Point being that I don't see how they can legitimately seized a gun trusted to them in this particular scenario - citing that the gun owner hadn't violated any laws, and that there's no probably cause or reason to suspect that it gun had been used in commission of a crime.
Somerindyke said that since 2003, the ballistics tests have identified 32 guns that were used in crimes in Cumberland County.
Of those 32 guns, how many were seized with at least RAS? Documentable RAS. I am willing to bet - ALL OF THEM. This scenario, with the traffic accident, the concealed-carrier going to hospital, etc. doesn't offer any RAS. Therefore, this shouldn't be allowed to happen and does seem to be a blatant violation.
Tiffanie Sneed, the Police Department's lawyer, said the gun-testing policy helps make the community safer. People sometimes buy guns not knowing they have been used in crimes. The weapons are returned to their owners if the tests show they were not used in crimes, she said.
So what happens if, like she said, someone unknowingly, legally, buys a handgun that HAS been used in a crime? ...And they get into a car accident, surrenderit to the police as to not violate CCW/hospital laws, etc., they test it and it comes back as having been used in commission of a crime... Where does it go from there? It doesn't sound like the new, rightful gun owner gets it back. Is it just his loss then? What?