How Long Does LEGR Take

[pacrat]

Having been a watch commander for many years, and at many different stations, I would be very interested in learning if my deputies did, in fact, make an error when seizing a firearm. There are processes in place to address such acts of misfeasance.

As it should be, if the WC is unaware that there are issues or errors. He can't deal with them for the mutual benefit of citizens and his officers. In such instances as related by OP. I would likely venture a guess that the fault would not fall on the door knockers. But those who sent them with incorrect or outdated info. Once tasked with siezing a gun, they use all lawful tools to complete the task. Lying to gain compliance, is one of those tools that SCOTUS saw fit to allow them. From the viewpoint of the average citizen. It is not right or ethical, especially considering the "higher standard" we keep hearing LE is held to. But it has been deemed "legal".

Those processes however, do not include the return of a firearm without the LEGR being completed.

Which is wrong, but still nothing LE can do about it. If the taking of property in the form of a firearm by LE was unlawful. The citizen still has to pay LEGRansom to get his gun back. The legislature didn't write a "sorry the cops goofed, do over" clause into the POS.

But also, just to put things into historical perspective, folks often claim that restraining orders against them are not valid. Probably four times out of five they're wrong and the order proves to be valid. The fifth guy (or gal) proves to be right. I've got no basis to determine if the OP fits in the group of four, or the group of one. The LE agency watch commander is the right person to figure it out. But even if you're the one, it's not going to get your weapons returned without the LEGR.

Got to ask. Is that a general statement concerning ROs ? In my mind that is what you are saying. Because if specific to the OP's situation. 4 out of 5 wins is great at the horse track. But a 20% failure rate, would be a horrible record for LE unlawfully seizing guns.

You may have the making of a good court case to test the statute, but that's going to cost tens of thousands of dollars.

The underlined is exactly what our legislature depends on to protect their unconstitutional creations. They even brag about it on the floor of the State Assembly.

Just so that everyone understands, all that happens when you submit a LEGR is that a DOJ employee queries several records systems to determine if there is a record that would make you ineligible to possess the firearm. Then they issue the letter and the gold seal. It's only valid for a limited time because there's a potential for you to become prohibited after the letter is issued.

But every single one of those record systems are available to the LE agency possessing the firearm. I can do everything in less than five minutes while you're standing at my counter that is accomplished with the LEGR. And I can do it with information that current right up to the moment the weapon is released.

And each and every one of those "record systems". Relies on the accurate and timely entry of info by thousands of public service union drones typing away at all the cities, counties, courts, sheriffs offices, PDs, state hospitals, county hospitals, etc, etc, etc. Across the entire state.

How many times have all here, read where you state just how screwed up the record keeping in this state is? Especially when it comes to the dismal condition of anything to do with DOJ records?

Yes, status can be checked in 5 minutes for those with proper access. But that is no guarantee that the 5 minutes spent isn't just the last leg of a "Garbage in - Garbage out" exercise.

JM2c

[RickD427]

Pacrat,

To respond directly to your question about RO's, I do not have any information about the OP's matter so I can only speak in generalities. LEO's often have to deal with Restraining Order issues. Often a party will take the position that an RO is not valid, generally because if that were true, then the problem they're facing goes away. That's where my "four out of five" figure comes from. After running down a whole bunch of those claims, about 80% of the orders were valid when they were claimed to be invalid and about 20% were in fact, invalid.

It's also important to make clear the condition of DOJ's records systems. I often point out that they are "horribly maintained." That's a pretty well known fact and folks should understand it.

But that's not to say that the individual records in the system contain a large number of errors. That is not true. On rare occasions, you will find that a data entry error was made. Those are usually "typo" type mistakes and don't usually change the meaning of a record. Where DOJ does report information, that information is typically correct.

The biggest challenge to DOJ records is where the record is incomplete. Where office staffs are overworked, a lot of data entry simply does not occur. A person may have an arrest record opened upon their arrest, and years later there is no court disposition. This is where most of the 20% "invalid" Restraining Orders fell. Typically, those orders were withdrawn by the court, but not timely removed from the automated systems.

Another major issue is where there is inadequate information in a record to allow "data fusion" to occur with other records. "John Smith, age 40" may have a felony arrest record, and a different "John Smith, DOB 01-23-1976" may be confused as being the same person.

[FalconLair]

just did a little research on the LEGR definition

im guessing its a California thing?

[HKMadness]

Rick, I never said anything about having an officer change anything. Not sure why you find it offensive to request a LEGITIMATE reason from the dept. for what parts of the LEGR haven't been satisfied. Sounds more to me like you know he will just be given bs and the run around like so many others in the same situation have.

[pacrat]

Pacrat,

To respond directly to your question about RO's, I do not have any information about the OP's matter so I can only speak in generalities. LEO's often have to deal with Restraining Order issues. Often a party will take the position that an RO is not valid, generally because if that were true, then the problem they're facing goes away. That's where my "four out of five" figure comes from. After running down a whole bunch of those claims, about 80% of the orders were valid when they were claimed to be invalid and about 20% were in fact, invalid.



The biggest challenge to DOJ records is where the record is incomplete. Where office staffs are overworked, a lot of data entry simply does not occur. A person may have an arrest record opened upon their arrest, and years later there is no court disposition. This is where most of the 20% "invalid" Restraining Orders fell. Typically, those orders were withdrawn by the court, but not timely removed from the automated systems.

Thank you for clarifying the "4 out of 5" question. I was 99.99% sure that is what you meant. But hey, it's CalGuns. There's always those who chose to claim things were said, that weren't. Especially since the subject of this thread is the seizure/return of firearms. Always a hot button issue.

The bolded portion above is exactly what I was trying to convey as a possible cause for the possible unlawful seizure of the OP's pistol. Since the term of the TRO was only 21 days. That should be enough time for the original TRO to have made its way through the system to the Deps on the porch. But if they showed up at any short period of time, after that 21 days. As the OP said. That would likely be the cause they were acting on inaccurate/incomplete info.

What you could do in 5 minutes. It takes the DOJ weeks to do. Yeah, there is a reason for that. And it isn't IMO, "overworked" DOJ employees.

JM2c

[pacrat]

just did a little research on the LEGR definition

im guessing its a California thing?

Yes Sir, it is just another of many sad and sucky, California things foisted upon citizens..