Hypothetically speaking...

[Snoopy47]

If you gots to ask, you deserved to be compliant. Just turn it in so that your conscious may rest.

There's the chance they are clean, and no one reported them lost or stolen. As such, there a chance you can simply simply have them DROS'd to yourself, or self register them so they are tied to you. Or even be as bold to sell them through an FFL.

Then there's the risk that they are listed as lost/stolen and come back during your attempt to get them in your name. Then you're basically screwed.

*********
For example if I were to have been the previous owner, and then realized I left them behind after some time I would be able to report them as lost because I keep an inventory of my firearms by make, model and Serial number (along with a picture).

***********

OR............... if there is a bump in the night and you shoot an unarmed bad guy they'll be nice to drop on him.

[Ruperto36]

I have known the law for this since I was a kid. "Finders keepers losers weepers"

[RickD427]

Care to substantiate that claim?

post 6



"pc 2080.1" quoted by Librarian is irrelevant. Property hidden by going to the trouble of building false walls around it is NOT LOST. It is ABANDONED.

And before anyone wastes their time and bandwidth by quoting pc 27545. As has been futilely done in previous threads.

PC 27545 contains provisions for Sale, Loan, Transfer between individuals. Which requires a FFL for doing a sale, loan, transfer. [PPT etc] It contains NO wording making possession and VOLREG, of abandoned property legally possessed according to civil law, an illegal act.

pc 27545

The hypothetical given by the OP does not provide enough information to conclude "Abandonment" of the weapons.

"Abandonment" requires an intent of the owner to give up the item.

Under the OP's hypothetical, there are several ways by which the items could have been found, and without having been "Abandoned" by the owner. These would include:

1) An elderly, or other person of diminished capacity, forgot the item was there.

2) A person intentionally placed the item there, and then died without removing it.

3) A person intentionally placed the item there, and was precluded from removing it before the property was sold.

If the weapon(s) were, in fact, actually abandoned, then there is no application of Civil Code 2080.1.

But you can not conclude that they were abandoned just so that you can reach this result.

PC 27545 does remain applicable to this situation, regardless of your opinion to the contrary. Contrary to your assertion, PC 27545 does not apply only to transfers between "individuals", it applies to transfers between "parties" (including parties that are unknown). If the "finder" of the weapon did not possess it prior to the finding, and did possess it after the finding, then there has been a "Transfer" within the meaning of PC 27545.

You are quite correct that PC 27545 does not prevent a finder from completing a Voluntary Registration of a found firearm. But that is completely separate process from the transfer. A Voluntary Transfer report made subsequent to an illegal transfer does not excuse the illegal transfer.

[RickD427]

Highly unlikely to result in more than worse case scenario of loss of said property. PC 496 [a]



A prosecutor would have to again prove beyond a reasonable doubt. That the current possessor of said property KNEW it was STOLEN. Intent in such a case would be a Bridge Too Far to prove.

Speaking hypothetically though, there is nothing that would preclude the local LEOs from arresting you for possession of stolen property and seizing that as evidence. Even if the DA ultimately does not prosecute for lack of "intent" on your part, there is about a zero percent chance of getting the property back from the PD.

Gents,

I've taken a ton of PC 496 cases to trial. The problem is not in showing the intent. The problem is in showing that the defendant had knowledge that the item was stolen. (I think that's probably what you meant by "Intent", but you used the wrong terminology). The "Knowing" element is quite important and it generally results in a lot PC 496.1 cases being rejected for filing.

As a practical issue, PC 496 charges are most often used to make a field arrest of a suspect, with the expectation that subsequent investigation will produce sufficient evidence for filing. You gotta remember that the legal standard for a proper arrest is to have a "Probable Cause" level of certainly, while the standard to convict is a "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" level of certainty. There's a big gap between these two standards that has to be closed through post-arrest investigation when a PC 496 arrest is made.

It's very rare for a defendant to make a clear admission that they knew the items were stolen. But there is no requirement for any such admission. There's more than one way for a prosecutor to make that showing. It's often done through adoptive admissions, but is most often done by showing that the defendant's conduct was consistent with having knowledge of it's stolen nature, and inconsistent with the innocent possession of the item.

I've won a lot of 496 convictions where the defendant sold (without completing the DMV required paperwork) a late model automobile for $50.00 "on the street". Nobody in their right mind would do that unless the car was stolen (at least that's how the trier of fact viewed the evidence).

In this case, the prosecutor could easily point to the evasion of the PC 27545 requirement as evidence of the "knowledge" element.

But under the OP's hypothetical, it's gonna be practically impossible to make a PC 496 case. You've got to to show that the item has actually been "stolen" and his scenario doesn't allow for that.

[fiddletown]

No matter what TYPE of personal property is LEFT BEHIND by a previous owner or tenant. It is considered ABANDONED PROPERTY and covered by civil codes....

Cite primary legal authority.*

_____
*Primary legal authority:

...Primary authorities are the rules of law that are binding upon the courts, government, and individuals. Examples are statutes, regulations, court orders, and court decisions. They are generated by legislatures, courts, and administrative agencies....

[fiddletown]

I have known the law for this since I was a kid. "Finders keepers losers weepers"

Except that is not actually the law.

[AlHO1966]

No, that's the California Law, just because you loose something it's still yours, no different than finding a horse, dog, cat, chicken. The lost and found law is a Federal Martine Law, states have different laws but most are like ours. It applies to metal detecting finds too. Back 45 years ago when you found something we reported to LE and the local news paper lost and found. If after 30 days the property wasn't claimed the finder could keep it (still like that for state law). Then city and county started making laws that when the property wasn't claimed it became theirs to auction and keep the proceeds.

I believe the case law involves lost farm animal/s (livestock).

The conclusion, the person doesn't have a duty to take possession of lost property, but once they do, it triggers the reporting requirement. I'm a metal detector dude.

Be careful reporting found property, sometimes the owner or LE suggest that the finder stole it, could be better leaving it be, or keeping your mouth shut.

[johncage]

report it to the police, it could have been used in the commission of crimes, and/or stolen. also invite the police/atf/fbi/nsa to do a thorough search of the entire home for similar hidden items.

[tony270]

I've found valuables that were identifiable, once was a divorced couple, I contacted a man that though his wife had sent me, and that I was up to something. It was her class ring. I know of other stories that the owner tripped out, said the items was stolen in a burglary insinuating that the finder was a crook. And another thing, if the person passes away the property belongs to their next of kin.

johncage has the best point of all.

The law was updated to 90 days.

Metal Detecting has restrictions on keeping items 50 years or older.

[M1NM]

Bottom line check the serial numbers online. If it was made before documented transfers were required on sales in CA then that's when you bought it. There are a couple things that could bite you there. You were too young to possess it at the time it was made or there is a documented sale later than the "here's your cash, here's your gun" transfer process was legal.

[Mr. Beretta]

Somebody in the past, associated with the house, INTENTionally wanted to “distance” them selves from the gun.

1…Stolen?

2…Use in a crime?

3…A convicted felon living at the house, who wanted to maintain access to the gun for whatever reason?

4…Hide it from family members, children, etc.?

5…Fearful of possible government confiscation?

6… ???????

There’s no legal way to find out the “status” of the gun without LE assistance. I would call the PD / Sheriff and ask to speak with a Detective Sergeant. Explain your concerns in detail and ask them for their assistance.

Be straightforward and politely ask them, if you can legally keep the gun (of course mention your status of being a non prohibited person) if it’s not stolen, evidence in a crime or reported lost / stolen. If they keep the gun, they keep the gun. Life will go on.

Contrary to some member’s opinions, not every LEO is hell bent on screwing over every person they come in contact with, while in possession of a gun. I still hope that someday an LEO will call and tell me they found my Colt Officer’s model stolen from me decades ago.

Please keep us updated.

Good Luck.

[pacrat]

For clarity my responses are bolded within your quote

The hypothetical given by the OP does not provide enough information to conclude "Abandonment" of the weapons. [IN YOUR OPINION]

"Abandonment" requires an intent of the owner to give up the item. [BUT THAT INTENT IS NOT LIMITED TO THE TIME THE PROPERTY WAS LEFT] [IT BECOMES ABANDONED WHEN THE PREVIOUS OWNER FAILS TO RETURN AND ASSERT OWNERSHIP RIGHTS]

Under the OP's hypothetical, there are several ways by which the items could have been found, and without having been "Abandoned" by the owner. These would include:

1) An elderly, or other person of diminished capacity, forgot the item was there. [UNKNOWABLE]

2) A person intentionally placed the item there, and then died without removing it. [UNKNOWABLE]

3) A person intentionally placed the item there, and was precluded from removing it before the property was sold. [UNKNOWABLE]

[BECAUSE PREVIOUS OWNER IS UNKNOWN]

......WHAT IS KNOWN, IS THAT THE PREVIOUS OWNER PLACED PROPERTY IN A HIDDEN COMPARTMENT...........THEN FAILED TO RETRIEVE IT] HENCE ABANDONED IT.

If the weapon(s) were, in fact, actually abandoned, then there is no application of Civil Code 2080.1. [AS LIBRARIAN POINTED TO IN CC 2080.7] [INTENT IS UNPROVABLE SINCE PREVIOUS OWNER IS UNKNOWN]

But you can not conclude that they were abandoned just so that you can reach this result. [NOR CAN YOU MAKE UP UNKNOWABLE OR UNPROVABLE, "WHAT IFS", WHEN THE LOGICAL CONCLUSION, IS THE "FACT" THAT ITEMS WERE HIDDEN AND NEVER RETRIEVED. HENCE- ABANDONED]

PC 27545 does remain applicable to this situation, regardless of your opinion to the contrary. Contrary to your assertion, PC 27545 does not apply only to transfers between "individuals", it applies to transfers between "parties" (including parties that are unknown). If the "finder" of the weapon did not possess it prior to the finding, and did possess it after the finding, then there has been a "Transfer" within the meaning of PC 27545.

[NO, THERE HAS BEEN NO TRANSFER APPLICABLE TO 27545. BECAUSE YOUR CREATIVE WRITING ADDITION ^^^BOLDED IN QUOTE^^^ DOES NOT EXIST IN THE STATUTE. NICE TRY.

IF A PARTY IS UNKNOWN "GHOST" NOT EVEN THE CA. LEGISLATURE CAN DEMAND THAT THEY BE PRESENT AT AN FFL TO EFFECT A TRANSFER.



You are quite correct that PC 27545 does not prevent a finder from completing a Voluntary Registration of a found firearm. But that is completely separate process from the transfer. A Voluntary Transfer report made subsequent to an illegal transfer does not excuse the illegal transfer.

YOUR CREATIVE WRITING ADDITIONS, BY INTENTIONALLY INNACCURATE PARAPHRASING OF THE STATUE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN ILLEGAL TRANSFER.

Abandoned personal property at a previous residence. Is a matter of civil property law. Not the Penal Code.

[Featureless]

What are the laws/obligations regarding firearms found in a hidden storage closet, concealed behind a fake wall in a newly purchased home...in California?

Likely used in many crimes, when you are caught in possession YOU will be arrested. Try bull****ting your way out of that, Boris. You will have to account for your whereabouts during each and every one of those murders. Good Luck!!

[SVT-40]

For clarity my responses are bolded within your quote


Abandoned personal property at a previous residence. Is a matter of civil property law. Not the Penal Code.

You always try this line.

Facts are you don't have to be responsible for the faulty advice you give.

It's not your skin and freedom at risk.

Bottom line is if anyone finds a firearm and doesn't turn it in to the police, they risk criminal charges.

They may "get away with it". But it's not worth the risk.

Are you willing to risk your freedom to keep something which isn't yours legally?

That's the real issue.

[pacrat]

RICK said

In this case, the prosecutor could easily point to the evasion of the PC 27545 requirement as evidence of the "knowledge" element.

[WHAT EVASION OF PC 27545 REQUIREMENT?] Other than your previously asserted, non-existent creative writing additions TO THE STATUTE

But under the OP's hypothetical, it's gonna be practically impossible to make a PC 496 case. You've got to to show that the item has actually been "stolen" and his scenario doesn't allow for that.

And the fact that it would be impossible to prove "BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT" that current homeowner KNEW of prior theft.

Filing a VOLREG would show clear conscience on part of filer. And should it show as "stolen" in AFS. Allow previous owner to reclaim his property.