Open Carrier's gun seized after DUI arrest. Police won't return

[theaero]

Although I have my CPL, that is still good to know. I personally consider loaded/hot/one in the pipe/etc one in the same. Washington sees it differently. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[John Hardin]

Please stop saying your pistol is registered there is no such thing a pistol registration in Washington State.

Not quite. FFLs have to record and report the retail sale of a pistol to local LEO and the State Department of Licensing.

So if you bought it commercially in WA, it is "registered" insofar as a record of sale kept by the State is a registration.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.110

(9)(a) A true record in triplicate shall be made of every pistol sold, in a book kept for the purpose, the form of which may be prescribed by the director of licensing and shall be personally signed by the purchaser and by the person effecting the sale, each in the presence of the other, and shall contain the date of sale, the caliber, make, model and manufacturer's number of the weapon, the name, address, occupation, and place of birth of the purchaser and a statement signed by the purchaser that he or she is not ineligible under RCW 9.41.040 to possess a firearm.

(b) One copy shall within six hours be sent by certified mail to the chief of police of the municipality or the sheriff of the county of which the purchaser is a resident; the duplicate the dealer shall within seven days send to the director of licensing; the triplicate the dealer shall retain for six years.

edited to add: dammit! read the entire thread before you start replying!

 

[American Pride!]

Only if it was loaded (the pistol, not the driver). If unloaded no CPL required and since in glove box not concealed on the person so no CPL required.

Not in WA. Weapon and ammo must be kept in a separate place and one must be out of the drivers reach. And in WA, an empty mag in a gun...is a loaded gun

 

[amlevin]

Yes indeed. It's interesting how posts prior to the beginning of "Happy Hour" are rather logical and reasonable. Once the "Happy Hour" gets into full swing they tend to get quite contentious.

Back to the OP, once police get a firearm into their possession, getting it back will usually require some proof of ownership. Since a lot of those in the gun community seem to be paranoid about having their name in any "registry" or "register" their firearms, then it falls on them to provide something as simple as a sales receipt, bill of sale, or maybe even an insurance document listing the weapon.

I belong to a Gun Club and their policy is to turn over all firearms left behind to the local LEA. One then needs to show proof of ownership and undergo a background check in order to have it returned.

The tendency of people to avoid having any "registered firearms in their name" can yield Unintended Consequences.

Of course those who never have ANY interaction with LEO's, never making any mistakes while driving, and in other words just lead perfect lives, this will never be an issue. Others might just do well carrying a copy of the sales receipt deep in their wallet for the firearm they're carrying. In this day and age some Dealers include the description and serial number on the "Register Receipt". Have it laminated and keep it with your CPL.

Or just be stubborn and then end up having to go get a court order or two to get your firearm back. Everyone does have freedom of choice.

 

[Rune]

Thanks for the clarity Lammo. I was operating under the assumption that if it was in the glovebox it most likely was loaded. I don't know of many who unload their firearm prior to placing it in the glovebox.

 

[sirpuma]

theaero, I think what Big Dave pointed out is the case. They are dealing with a DUI and there was a firearm present. If the firearm was loaded while in the glove box then under the cited law the LEO can take it and hold it as property until the case is completed. If it wasn't loaded they should give it back but note I say should.

One thing most people don't quite understand about the government and LEO is when they have the option to take a more restrictive stance they will. For example, under Federal Law and as printed on the Federal form 4473 if a person has a license to carry that meets certain conditions it qualifies for an exemption to the NICS check. In WA our CPL meets all the conditions. However WA state law says that a NICS check must be done. The ATF then take the position that the more restrictive law applies, even though the 4473 isn't a state form.

The DOL "may" keep the forms on record but I guarantee you they "will" keep those forms on record. The law may require certain conditions be present for LEO to "arrest" someone but they can and often will "detain" people without charges to the full limit permitted.

 

[Bill Starks]

I quit reading after page 2.....A simple bill of sale from the seller to the buyer would resolve this issue.

 

[theaero]

Why is the title of this thread, "Open Carrier's gun seized after DUI arrest. Police won't return"? Nobody was open carrying a firearm, except the police.

Haha, just thought of this myself. Because he is an everyday OCer, and my mind registered him as such

 

[amlevin]

I quit reading after page 2.....A simple bill of sale from the seller to the buyer would resolve this issue.

Simple? Simple doesn't work. No reason for all the arguing and quasi legal opinions when one just does "simple".

 

[rapgood]

[snip] Possession being 9/10ths of the law (especially if you get busted for possession) ....

Lucky that I wasn't drinking anything when I read that! Made my day!

 

[KBCraig]

Incorrect. When a person is purchasing a handgun through a dealer and does not have a CPL (and when you get a CPL or have it renewed) the LEO do a NICS check. In fact with getting the CPL they do two levels of NICS, two levels of NCIC and the state mental health department checks. When I send a state form in to the LEO for NICS checks they call me back with a NICS Transaction Number and not some state number.

If the police are the point of contact for background checks in Washington, then they are not NICS checks, by definition. NICS is the National Instant Check System, and it is operated by the FBI. Only FFL dealers have access to it.

What you are getting is the state equivalent to NICS.

 

[Lammo]

View attachment 9080
Lucky that I wasn't drinking anything when I read that! Made my day!

Glad to help out. I took out keyboard & monitor insurance a long time ago.

 

[amlevin]

Glad to help out. I took out keyboard & monitor insurance a long time ago.

Keyboard Insurance = $29.95/year

New Keyboard = $23.95

Sounds like a good deal to me

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Keyboard Insurance = $29.95/year

New Keyboard = $23.95

Sounds like a good deal to me

Almost got my keyboard with that one.

Good thing I go to Goodwill and get them for about 4 bucks.

 

[sirpuma]

If the police are the point of contact for background checks in Washington, then they are not NICS checks, by definition. NICS is the National Instant Check System, and it is operated by the FBI. Only FFL dealers have access to it.

What you are getting is the state equivalent to NICS.

Are you an FFL license holder that deals with firearms transfers? I am. I know what I get and what their steps are.

 

[Difdi]

What's "combative" about standing up for your rights?. AT that point you are now standing up for 4th and 5th amendment rights, and insisting they follow due process.

You are probably right that is exactly what will happen though no matter how serenely you took your stand.

Let's repeal those laws then I'll vote for that.

Per the U.S. Supreme Court, an unconstitutional law is unconstitutional from inception, not the moment a constitutional challenge succeeds.

Exercise of constitutional rights can never be considered probable cause or reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. This includes the fifth amendment, despite what TV shows like Law & Order would have us believe.

Telling a cop QUOTE " Pound Sand" isn't rude? Sure sounds rude to me. How about, "I won't answer any questions without my lawyer present." That you most certainly can do and they will happily accept. But if you make their investigation hard, they can and probably will make things hard on you. But this is all neither here nor there. However if you ever get the chance to record yourself literally telling a cop to "pound sand" when he's asking if you will help with a criminal investigation, I would really love to see it and the results. Call it an experiment. They really don't care about our rights, I've been in the silver bracelets simply for not answering some questions because I was legally armed. So you can't tell me they will be all happy if you tell them off.

You have a right to be rude. The first amendment to the U.S. constitution guarantees it, and case law (SCOTUS on down) agrees. Simply raising your middle finger to police on a public street as you drive past is protected speech. Less offensive speech is certainly protected as well.

If nobody ever broke the law, nobody would have invented police. If swearing an oath to uphold the law made people incapable of breaking it, we'd all be so sworn during our childhoods. Just because police put you in handcuffs for exercising your rights, doesn't mean your rights don't exist. As for false arrests, Google for "John Bad Elk vs The United States" some time. That was a SCOTUS ruling on the 4th amendment, and as I understand matters, Washington's version of the 4th is even stronger.

Glad to help out. I took out keyboard & monitor insurance a long time ago.

I'm flat out accident prone. No keyboard insurance carrier would touch me with a ten-foot mouse pad. My keyboard is not only waterproof, it's dishwasher-safe ( http://www.sealshield.com ). I'm still looking for a monitor to match.

Who says the law has anything to do with it. I've been specifically talking about being combative and rude to cops conducting an investigation. You will be put in cuffs in a heart beat and threatened with death. Ask me how I know. Just ask me.

So you were falsely arrested and the subject of extortion/coercion. Doesn't make it legal.

You guys talk all big about being a rude tough guy to cops, but really, you think they will tolerate it? HA.

Mouthing off to the mafia is also unwise. But it doesn't make the consequences of doing so legally justifiable. Want to see a fascinating legal function? Have a witness nearby for the next time you meet that cop who likes to give you bracelets and death threats for exercising your rights. As soon as he does so, your witness makes a citizen's arrest on the officer for a felony crime (18USC242). Be sure to have video going, it'll be a fascinating encounter. Especially if the officer decides to resist arrest.

And please, if a firearm you are REGISTERED as having purchased winds up as evidence in a criminal investigation, you don't think that is probable cause to ask you what happened to it? WOW

This I agree with you on. Going by the definitions of innocence tossed around by our more rabidly libertarian types around here, there is no such thing as probable cause or even reasonable suspicion, since police can't exercise either until after they prove your guilt. It'd be fun to see someone trying to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in court if they were barred by law from investigating a crime until after the trial; Which would have to be in absentia, since they couldn't make an arrest until after a conviction either.

Let's start with "Probable Cause".



So, transferring a firearm to a prohibited individual is a felony, hindering an officer during his appointed duties is a gross misdemeanor. An officer can arrest you if he has PC that you committed a felony or if you commit a gross misdemeanor in his presence. So your gun is found at the scene of a crime. Whether or not your finger prints are on the weapon there is PC that you are involved because your firearm was involved. This gives them reason to investigate and ask you questions. You tell the cops to F off or "Pound Sand" as you guys love to say. That hinders his investigation. He will assume your combative behavior is because you committed a felony in transferring a firearm to a prohibited person and since you committed a gross misdemeanor in his presence, boom, the cuffs come out. Sorry, but this is the reality of things. And cops don't need to have a law giving them probable cause to ask you questions about a crime. Investigation is part of the job and asking questions is the most basic form of investigation.

Aaand we're back to disagreement, heh. Oh, I'm not arguing with your statements about what makes for a valid arrest or investigation. But I do disagree about what gives them PC or RS. Exercise of your 1st and 5th amendment rights is not hindering his investigation. It's not obstruction of justice. It's disrespectful, but being disrespectful isn't illegal. So no, you didn't commit a gross misdemeanor in his presence.

But he may have committed a felony in your presence, under Title 18, Chapter 13, Sections 241 and 242 of the U.S. Code.

 

[Matthias]

To the OP:

Clear cut in my head. If the OP sisters boyfriend doesn't have the judgement to not drink and drive, possibly causing injury/death to innocent persons, then who is to say that he has the proper judgement to decide when to draw and when not to? I for one am in favor of him getting his weapon taken away. If you place your trust to protect somebody who gets a DUI and breaks the law(if the gun as loaded), then I will pray for you. It will be pretty much impossible for your buddy to get his weapon back, because who is to say that I couldn't go to the police station and state that the gun is mine and I bought it from somebody else? Seems that your sisters boyfriend needs to "educate" himself in the proper laws, before he even thinks about carrying. Thats the problem now and days, people try and take advantage of laws that are supposed to benefit law abiding citizens and ends up ruining it for the rest of us.

 

[Venya]

Being arrested for DUI is not the same as being found guilty. And allegedly making a stupid decision doesn't forfeit your right to your own property.

 

[b0neZ]

Hello all. Please pardon the interjection.
I've read the entire thread and only have two questions:
I noticed one thing repeating through this thread: The statements about the gun being in the glovebox and loaded. In the OP, it states that both driver and passenger had valid CPL's, which I understand is needed to carry a loaded firearm in a vehicle. Knowing that, why is anyone bothering to even discuss this part of the story?
Now, as far as getting his gun back, is it possible for him to contact the person he bought it from and get a backdated bill of sale to prove ownership, or is that out of the question?

EDIT: I must add that I am not trying to anger anyone or start an argument of any kind, I am simply trying to better understand the laws of your state. With that, if I am wrong anywhere in my post, please let know where so I can learn. Thank you.

 

[Stat]

“yes, another Lowry lovely.” Milk came out my noise when I read that one. I remember when the Department of Licensing was required by law to keep these records but the leg never gave them any money to do anything with them until two years later. (If I remember correctly) The boxes just stacked up in a corner of a room until the scanning equipment and data base could be purchased. Took about a year and twenty four people in a small room to enter them. Get a copy of the report; the gun must be ID on it. Would that not indicate possession?