Stolen guns?

[nicki]

It appears most stolen guns are just destroyed or we will say disappear.

Considering that we have a gun registration on handguns in this state and on the Federal level, we have had a defacto registration of all guns since 1969, it seems to me it wouldn't be that difficult to track down the guns to the original owners whose property was stolen.

If your car was stolen, you and your insurance company would be notified when it was recovered, regardless of shape it was in.:eek:

It would seem to me that if police recovered a stolen weapon, first thing that should be done is to track where the gun came from.

If it was a stolen gun, it could easily be tied to other stolen guns. By not doing this simple step, the police are potentially avoiding cleaning up other crimes in the process.

From a time a gun is stolen till the time it is recovered, it usually passes through several hands. Alot of career type criminals could be prosecuted or at the minimum, put on the radar by making this part of routine procedure regarding stolen guns.

Anyone who has a gun stolen, and the gun is recovered, but no attempt is made to connect the stolen gun to the rightful owner, has had their property rights violated.

With handguns, it can't be that hard. A call to the DOJ, they match up serial numbers with owners.

Most people who have guns stolen do report them stolen and if a copy of the police report of stolen guns is not something that is routinely being sent to the DOJ and the BATFE, I would suggest that a immediate change in policy needs to occur.

Let's play this out for a second.

If I have a gun that is recovered in New York, I should be notified of its recovery and when legal proceedings are over, my property should be returned to me.

If it turns out that my gun was recovered in New York and the city went ahead and destroyed my property, I should be abe to sue New York.

Those in New York responsible for destroying my gun would also be guilty of obstructing justice here in California since by not notifying me and California authorities, they not only violated my rights, but they obstructed criminal investigations and prosecutions of people who stole my gun in California.

Now, if we really wanted to have fun, we could create a stolen gun intiative here in California, after all, what responsible person doesn't want to get stolen guns off the street and reduce the numbers of guns available to criminals, right.

Sure, this would apply in California, but if California did it, it would already have momentum in Congress for a Federal Bill.

There would probably be alot of support for a stolen gun bill from the "Pipeline States" since gun owners in those states are having their guns as well as other property stolen.

Mayor Mike wants to rid NYC of illegal guns, yet rather than track down the source of the illegal guns and help in prosecution of gun thefts in so called pipeline states, he destroys the evidence.

We here at Calguns have alot of focus on court cases and what we are gong to do post Nordyke.

A well written stolen gun intiative with teeth protecting the rights of victims of theft(US), requiring follow up on all recovered guns would be something that would pass.

This would also start drying up sources of "Police drop guns", something all civil rights groups should be concerned about.

Nicki

[NuGunner]

All I know is that they run the gun first to see if it was used in the commission of another crime

p.s.

thats also why it takes so much time to get your firearms back when they're siezed.

[Captain Evilstomper]

the only prolem i have with this is that it would start off being introuduced as a great bill that would do no wrong and then through the political process, it would be pork barrelled into oblivion. and probably changed into something totally unrecognizable from it's original incarnation. it would probably turn into a 10000% tax on anything gun related.
sorry if that sounds jaded, but lately i have absolutely no trust or faith in any politician.....

[BillCA]

Nickki,

Penal code section 12028 mandates the return of stolen firearms to the rightful owner once the court is through with it as evidence.

12028: If any weapon has been stolen and is
thereafter recovered ..., or is used in a manner as to constitute a nuisance pursuant to subdivision
(a) or (b) without the prior knowledge of its lawful owner that it would be so used, it shall not be so offered for sale but shall be restored to the lawful owner, as soon as its use as evidence has been served, upon his or her identification of the weapon and proof of ownership, and after the law enforcement agency has complied with
Section 12021.3 [background check & registration].


DA's can ask the court that a firearm used in the commission of a crime be declared a "public nusiance" to be destroyed after trial. Most PD's and DA's will tell you that if it was a "crime gun" it will be destroyed after the trial.

Ha.. I'd like to see them do that with someone's BMW 735i that was used in a stick-up. :p

Given the requirements of 12028, I appears that the owner of a stolen firearm must be notified (if possible, people do move around). If the county fails to do so and/or fails to notify the owner of steps to reclaim his firearm, then that would be a violation of both 12028 and the 5th Amendment's prohibition on the use of private property without compensation.

[tommyid1]

i like you.

[Captain Evilstomper]

i like you.

LOL

[45DAVID1]

This is from a post I made earlier today....

Stolen guns usually (I say usually because some agencies require the agency who made the initial stolen report to pay for the return shipping fees) get sent back to the agency/jurisdiction that they were stolen from. My department does not destroy stolen guns as we run a CLETS and NCIC check on all firearms set for destruction and send them back to the area they were stolen from. The owner of the firearm can then get their gun back as long as they meet certain requirements. Normally if the firearm was stolen and an insurance settlement was paid the owner becomes the insurance company. I have never once seen an insurance agency retrieve a gun they made a payoff on. They usually request them to be destroyed. Once/if the insurance company gets paid back the amount they paid on the firearm (if the insurance company approves it) then ownership becomes the original person again. That person would still need to do the LEGR to make sure they can legally possess a firearm. Also, owners of stolen firearms can have the LEGR fees waived if they are able to get the firearm back.

[rayra]

Like I said, too much free time, leading to inventing 'solutions' - and now more regulations - that aren't necessary.
We have far too many laws and regulations already. What we need is ACCOUNTABILITY and ENFORCEMENT of those which already exist. That, or their erasure. NOT the creation of more CRAP.

[45DAVID1]

All I know is that they run the gun first to see if it was used in the commission of another crime

p.s.

thats also why it takes so much time to get your firearms back when they're siezed.

False. The only way to tell if the gun was used in another crime is to test fire it and then enter the casings into IBIS. Not all guns get entered into IBIS. It takes so long for the gun to be returned because before a gun can be returned the case needs to be finished in court and all the proper paperwork filed and completed.

[nicki]

Has anyone here had stolen guns returned, especially from places like LA and SF?

Nicki

[Captain Evilstomper]

don't you remember the several times that people have been arrested on trumped up assault weapons charges?
they always did deals where the da would drop the charges in exchange for the destruction of the TOTALLY LEGAL guns?
if that's not an abuse of power then i don't know what is.
"well you're here in court, even though we really have no right to hold your property, or you for that matter, we don't care because i the public servant
(who isn't supposed to have a personal agenda, or prosecute people based on political ideations, but i do because,well f*ck you i don't have to explain myself, i'm untouchable)
will get those evil, evil evil, guns off the street. because i believe it's what's right, or its what will get me re-elected, or whatever, screw it. i know how to work the legal system, and i'm going to work it to screw you, the legal gun owner, because i can.
and when i get out of office, i'm going to be a criminal defense atty, because that's where the money is, whoot!
sorry didn't mean for that to turn into a rant, but you know, lawyers man,
maybe i'm just jaded.:D

[45DAVID1]

don't you remember the several times that people have been arrested on trumped up assault weapons charges?
they always did deals where the da would drop the charges in exchange for the destruction of the TOTALLY LEGAL guns?
if that's not an abuse of power then i don't know what is.
"well you're here in court, even though we really have no right to hold your property, or you for that matter, we don't care because i the public servant
(who isn't supposed to have a personal agenda, or prosecute people based on political ideations, but i do because,well f*ck you i don't have to explain myself, i'm untouchable)
will get those evil, evil evil, guns off the street. because i believe it's what's right, or its what will get me re-elected, or whatever, screw it. i know how to work the legal system, and i'm going to work it to screw you, the legal gun owner, because i can.
and when i get out of office, i'm going to be a criminal defense atty, because that's where the money is, whoot!
sorry didn't mean for that to turn into a rant, but you know, lawyers man,
maybe i'm just jaded.:D

Thats no abuse of power. The person has the CHOICE to decide if they want the deal or to fight it. Of course it's cheaper to give up the gun versus fighting to get it back, but the person ultimately has the CHOICE to decide what they want.

[formerTexan]

Thats no abuse of power. The person has the CHOICE to decide if they want the deal or to fight it. Of course it's cheaper to give up the gun versus fighting to get it back, but the person ultimately has the CHOICE to decide what they want.

How is it no abuse of power when it would cost you thousands of dollars to get YOUR PROPERTY back? This is basically confiscation, and think about this, the state can slowly do this and guess what, at some point, people are going to say "f' this ****e", and *poof*, gun ownership goes way down, exactly what the antis want.

[BillCA]

Thats no abuse of power. The person has the CHOICE to decide if they want the deal or to fight it. Of course it's cheaper to give up the gun versus fighting to get it back, but the person ultimately has the CHOICE to decide what they want.

Abuse of power starts when you are jailed with insufficient evidence of any violation of law. It was drummed into our heads at the academy that you had best have at least 75% of the elements of a crime before transporting any suspect to jail and 100% of them before booking.

For instance, an officer arresting someone for an AW violation when the rifle is a rimfire rifle instead of centerfire does not have all the elements of a crime. Booking a person into jail on AW charges at that point is akin to arresting someone for CCW violations without looking in his wallet for a permit.

A DA who, when it is evident that not all elements of a crime are present, tries to force you to give up property in order to be released should be charged with not only civil rights violations but extortion too.

Disclaimer: this is not to criticize cases where evidence turns out to be faulty or a witness fails for some reason. Nor even situations where exculpatory evidence is later found.

[BillCA]

Has anyone here had stolen guns returned, especially from places like LA and SF?

Nicki
Yes.

In 2006, El Cerrito PD recovered a revolver stolen in 2004 and I got it back last year. It took almost a year from date of recovery to being able to pick it up at the PD. The officer involved in the case was very nice and happy to see that it was returned to its rightful owner.

[AYEAREFIFTEEN]

Now, if we really wanted to have fun, we could create a stolen gun intiative here in California, after all, what responsible person doesn't want to get stolen guns off the street and reduce the numbers of guns available to criminals, right.

Nicki

Are there really that many firearms stolen in California that this should be an issue? If this is a big issue its no wonder this state believes we need to buy a gun lock with every handgun and/or have to fill out safe avidavits.

At the risk of being really unpopular here (once again :p ), how about people concentrate more on securing their firearms so they don't get stolen in the first place. Shouldn't this be one of the first things a responsible gun owner should do?

Do we need additional legislation to protect people who leave their firearms laying in draws, under the bed, or standing up in the closet?

If a person can afford a $1200 OLR or a $2500 raced out 1911, they can afford a $500 safe.

[nicki]

The purpose for a stolen gun intiative is multi fold.

1. Forces gun into a system so that it can be returned to lawful owner.

2. Drys up supply of "drop guns" for cops who would be temped to plant evidence on suspects.

3. Stolen guns usually have a trail of multiple crimes behind them and are usually tied to other stolen guns and other crimes.

When a stolen gun is just destroyed and the case closed, the ties to other crimes and criminal activity is also severed.

4. Criminals caught with guns could be motivated to say where they got their guns from, thereby drying up sources of illegal gun dealers.

A strong,well written, plain english, common sense, stolen gun intiative would be a true gun crime intiative that would be a put up or shut up proposal.

Done well, it probably would become a federal bill also, wheter it would pass, I don't know, but at least it would be out there.

We here at Calguns have been focusing on rights, here would be a opportunity for us to show that why we are focused on rights, we recognize public problems with gun violence and are committing resources to help reduce gun violence.

Nicki

[AYEAREFIFTEEN]

1. Forces gun into a system so that it can be returned to lawful owner.

How could this be done without some sort of mandatory federal registration of all firearms? Once the stolen gun goes into the system, how do we trace it back to its lawful owner unless it was federally registered?

2. Drys up supply of "drop guns" for cops who would be temped to plant evidence on suspects.

Does this REALLY happen that often? Even if it does happen on a regular basis what's to keep a department from "losing" the firearms anyway. You can put it in a registry till the cows come home and it still won't keep crooked cops from "losing" guns. (Like the ATF losing thousands of guns.)

3. Stolen guns usually have a trail of multiple crimes behind them and are usually tied to other stolen guns and other crimes.

When a stolen gun is just destroyed and the case closed, the ties to other crimes and criminal activity is also severed.

How can you link the gun to other crimes it may have been involved in if you give it back to the lawful owner? Pretty much the same as destroying it.

We here at Calguns have been focusing on rights, here would be a opportunity for us to show that why we are focused on rights, we recognize public problems with gun violence and are committing resources to help reduce gun violence.

Nicki

Calguns best bet in reducing gun violence is to promote responsible gun ownership focused on properly securing our firearms.

[nicki]

1. We already have mandatory federal registration, what do you think that form 4473 is. Sure it is at the dealer, all ATF does is contact the maker, follow the gun down the distributor chain till they get first purchaser.

2. When a gun is stolen, usually other things are stolen also. A stolen gun usually leads back to a series of crimes to the original owner. If the person found with a stolen gun didn't steal it, he got it from somewhere.

Piling up the penalities for possession of stolen firearms often will make the theft willing to play let's make a deal.

3. Cops probably don't drop many guns, but it is the perception they can and do, it is a emotional issue that can be used because the public perception is that bad cops do plant evidence. This viewpoint is especially more prevalent in minority communities.

4. Sure we should secure our guns well, but guns get still get stolen from secure spots also.

We should all do what we can to not be victims, but things happen.

A home defense guns use is limited if you have to access your safe half asleep in the dark when you hear that funny noise at night:rolleyes:

Nicki

[BillCA]

At the risk of being really unpopular here (once again :p ), how about people concentrate more on securing their firearms so they don't get stolen in the first place. Shouldn't this be one of the first things a responsible gun owner should do?

Do we need additional legislation to protect people who leave their firearms laying in draws, under the bed, or standing up in the closet?

If a person can afford a $1200 OLR or a $2500 raced out 1911, they can afford a $500 safe.
Actually the number of people who only own 1 or 2 guns is probably much higher than those who own 8 or more guns. Spending $400 or more to lock up one long gun and one handgun doesn't make financial sense to a lot of people, especially those living in relatively "safe" areas.

If you want to provide an incentive for people to secure their firearms, then provide a 50% tax break on the cost of any kind of safe, gun safe or locking container that is "state approved" for gun storage. Sales of larger, $1200 safes would improve and those wanting an entry level safe like a Sentry could get it for half price - a much more attractive option. (Sorry, only one safe per year). At the very least, allow a tax credit for the sales tax on the safe ($40-$96 generally).

WRT Nicki's concept of pushing on criminals who steal guns or traffic in stolen guns...
Penal Code §487 describes the theft of a firearm as grand theft, a felony, with a penalty of 16 months, 2, or 3 years.

Receiving or possession of a stolen firearm is a felony, punishable by up to one (1) year in state prison. §496
If firearm theft is offensive to the public, then we need to modify §487 and §496 to provide a 4-year term for theft or receipt of a stolen firearm.

Additional leverage can be brought to bear on the possessor of a stolen firearm using §496(c) which allows the recovery of damages by the victim.
(c) Any person who has been injured by a violation of subdivision (a) or (b) may bring an action for three times the amount of actual damages, if any, sustained by the plaintiff, costs of suit, and reasonable attorney's fees.
If the person caught does not provide information about his source of the stolen firearm, he then, should be told that he can be held liable for three times the damages of the original theft, plus court fees and attorney's fees. This would be in addition to his jail time and could be assessed against any joint bank accounts with his family.

If said person provides information that leads to the arrest of others for receiving stolen firearms then his portion of liability will be split up amongst those arrested. If his information leads to the arrest of the original thief then his total liability is limited to 1/2 actual damages or 1/2 the actual damages spread evenly amongst all involved.

Thus, an incentive to cooperate, especially if the theft involved high dollar value items and/or expensive damage during the theft.

[JDay]

Nickki,

Penal code section 12028 mandates the return of stolen firearms to the rightful owner once the court is through with it as evidence.



DA's can ask the court that a firearm used in the commission of a crime be declared a "public nusiance" to be destroyed after trial. Most PD's and DA's will tell you that if it was a "crime gun" it will be destroyed after the trial.

Ha.. I'd like to see them do that with someone's BMW 735i that was used in a stick-up. :p

Given the requirements of 12028, I appears that the owner of a stolen firearm must be notified (if possible, people do move around). If the county fails to do so and/or fails to notify the owner of steps to reclaim his firearm, then that would be a violation of both 12028 and the 5th Amendment's prohibition on the use of private property without compensation.

However if you're never notified you will never know that it was recovered in the first place.

[BillCA]

However if you're never notified you will never know that it was recovered in the first place.

In which case that would be violative of 12028 by the recovering agency. That would open the door to a civil suit as well as possible criminal charges against officers in the agency.