What to do with a gun left behind by somebody else?

[pacrat]

RickD427 said;

[1]....Police agencies do not "destroy virtually every weapon that they get." [2]....You're spouting pure BS on that one. [3]....Agencies can only LEGALLY destroy weapons when they have the legal standing to do so. [4]....That standing comes primarily from court order (where the weapons was used in the commission of a crime)

Sentences [1] and [2] I can agree with. Sentences [3] and [4] have historically been proven incorrect. My addition of the bolded and underlined LEGALLY is the missing link in [3].

Scota,

Wrong again. Weapons destruction is determined by state law, not by local agency policy.

Just as Scota's statement was an incorrect "absolute". So was yours with the "can only" and "state law" claims.

There have been multiple instances where strongly biased Anti-Gun Agencies have destroyed citizens firearms, even when they were temporarily surrendered [Roberts] to comply with TRO for example. And when there were court orders "AGAINST THE DESTRUCTION OF THE FIREARMS" [Wright]. For no other reason than "Agency Policy".

Roberts v Matsuda and Wright v Beck as examples.

I hate to see any legally owned firearms placed into the hands of LE. Because some agencies do have anti gun bias and go to great lengths to do anything possible to deter private ownership. Even breaking the law themselves, while relying on qualified immunity and the reluctance of citizens to fight legal battles with City Hall to CTAs.

That said, I also agree that relinquishing the firearm OP asked about to local LE. Is the only viable legal option.

JM2c

[edgerly779]

Contact local pd and king county sheriff and ask what their policy is, Do not walk in with shotgun and give to desk officer. Get a receipt. Print out pertinent statutes from post #2 to show to PD or Sheriffs.

[RickD427]

RickD427 said;



Sentences [1] and [2] I can agree with. Sentences [3] and [4] have historically been proven incorrect. My addition of the bolded and underlined LEGALLY is the missing link in [3].



Just as Scota's statement was an incorrect "absolute". So was yours with the "can only" and "state law" claims.

There have been multiple instances where strongly biased Anti-Gun Agencies have destroyed citizens firearms, even when they were temporarily surrendered [Roberts] to comply with TRO for example. And when there were court orders "AGAINST THE DESTRUCTION OF THE FIREARMS" [Wright]. For no other reason than "Agency Policy".

Roberts v Matsuda and Wright v Beck as examples.

I hate to see any legally owned firearms placed into the hands of LE. Because some agencies do have anti gun bias and go to great lengths to do anything possible to deter private ownership. Even breaking the law themselves, while relying on qualified immunity and the reluctance of citizens to fight legal battles with City Hall to CTAs.

That said, I also agree that relinquishing the firearm OP asked about to local LE. Is the only viable legal option.
JM2c

Pacrat,

Adding the word "legally" into my statement was probably appropriate. It better communicates my meaning.

But my point remains unchanged. California LEAs take tens of thousands of weapons into custody each year, and we should expect a small number to be inappropriately handled. Folks are human, that includes LEOs, and they make occasional mistakes. That doesn't translate into the global statements made by Scota that I responded to.

I have to reach back twenty years or so to the San Bernardino capers to find a clear example where a LEA has intentionally mishandled firearms in their custody.

I'm not familiar with the Roberts case that you mentioned.

However in Wright v Beck, it wasn't "Agency Policy" that caused the destruction of his weapons. It was the agency's belief (albeit not ultimately agreed with by the court) that they were destroying the weapons according to law.

[Librarian]

How about adding 12-31-2000 for one iteration on registration of AWs, and 12-31-2016 for another iteration on registration of BBAWs? There was also another date for registration of .50 BMG, but that date escapes me at present.

Different concept - 'assault weapons' and .50 BMG rifles (April, 2006 was the last date to register, PC 30905(a) ) required a step beyond DROS.

[71MUSTY]

If your Mom lived with him over 7-years then it's considered a common law marriage and since California is a Community Property State, your Mom would own half.

FALSE. Urban Legend at best. California does not reconcile Common law Marriage.

[pacrat]

Pacrat,

Adding the word "legally" into my statement was probably appropriate. It better communicates my meaning.

But my point remains unchanged. California LEAs take tens of thousands of weapons into custody each year, and we should expect a small number to be inappropriately handled. Folks are human, that includes LEOs, and they make occasional mistakes. That doesn't translate into the global statements made by Scota that I responded to.

I have to reach back twenty years or so to the San Bernardino capers to find a clear example where a LEA has intentionally mishandled firearms in their custody.

I'm not familiar with the Roberts case that you mentioned.

However in Wright v Beck, it wasn't "Agency Policy" that caused the destruction of his weapons. It was the agency's belief (albeit not ultimately agreed with by the court) that they were destroying the weapons according to law.

Rick,.............A reminder.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=1079830&highlight=Roberts

Scroll to post 12 for reference where you commented on the Roberts v Matsuda case.

Perhaps you should also do a refresher look into the Wright Case. Beck had the city attorney. Do an end run around a currently litigated civil suit, where Beck had already been ordered to return said property. Went to a different judge, ignorant of the circumstances, with an ex-parte order of destruction and duped that judge into signing it.

That case, is still actively being appealed. And solidly supports my statement.

I hate to see any legally owned firearms placed into the hands of LE. Because some agencies do have anti gun bias and go to great lengths to do anything possible to deter private ownership. Even breaking the law themselves, while relying on qualified immunity and the reluctance of citizens to fight legal battles with City Hall to CTAs.

I agree with the paragraph that I underlined in the above quote. That is why I underlined "some agencies" in my initial reply. Because no matter how small of a percentage of agencies choose to place policy bias above law. It "CAN" and does happen.

LEGR is another POS burden dumped on LE by the legislature. But "some agencies". And C o Ps welcomed it as a means to further their own agenda of anti-gun bias.

[RickD427]

Rick,.............A reminder.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=1079830&highlight=Roberts

Scroll to post 12 for reference where you commented on the Roberts v Matsuda case.

Perhaps you should also do a refresher look into the Wright Case. Beck had the city attorney. Do an end run around a currently litigated civil suit, where Beck had already been ordered to return said property. Went to a different judge, ignorant of the circumstances, with an ex-parte order of destruction and duped that judge into signing it.

That case, is still actively being appealed. And solidly supports my statement.



I agree with the paragraph that I underlined in the above quote. That is why I underlined "some agencies" in my initial reply. Because no matter how small of a percentage of agencies choose to place policy bias above law. It "CAN" and does happen.

LEGR is another POS burden dumped on LE by the legislature. But "some agencies". And C o Ps welcomed it as a means to further their own agenda of anti-gun bias.

Pacrat,

Thanks for the reminder about Roberts v Matsuda. I deal with a ton of case law and don't always recognize cases, particularly when folks only provide one party of the case citation. When I've got a full citation, I generally pull up a case and review it before commenting.

In doing that here, I'll stand by my observation that Roberts v Matsuda was a "yawner" of a case, and another reason that I didn't recall it from a partial citation.

But let's not drift from the subject of my original point, and that was that agencies are bound by law in the destruction of weapons. With regard to Roberts v Matsuda, the case pleadings make clear that there was a legal conflict between court orders to return the weapons, and the statutory requirement for them to be registered. When an agency is served with a facially illegal (in the sense of ordering an action in violation of law) court order, the agency acts reasonably is seeking a remedy to the order. I'll let the JD's on this forum speak up as to the form of remedy, that's outta my area of expertise. I'll also observe that the statutory requirement for registration prior to release remains in effect. Please refer to PC 33855(b).

I tried to pull up Wright v Beck to review it in the manner you requested, but I was only able to locate it on the Michel and Associates website where it is password protected.

I do agree with your sentiments regarding the LEGR process and I have commented on those in other threads. While the purpose (to ensure that folks are legally able to possess firearms) of the LEGR process is noble, the manner of that process is extremely onerous and burdensome. There is nothing that the LEGR process accomplishes, that a LEO releasing a weapon could not accomplish in real-time, and in less than 10 minutes. But the LEGR process was not inflicted upon gun owners by LEAs seeking to operate outside of the law. It was inflicted by the legislature and governor and is very much a component of the law.

[pacrat]

Rick said;

Thanks for the reminder about Roberts v Matsuda. I deal with a ton of case law and don't always recognize cases, particularly when folks only provide one party of the case citation. When I've got a full citation, I generally pull up a case and review it before commenting.

Roberts v Matsuda and Wright v Beck. Were both cited by me in my initial post.

quote from that post.

Roberts v Matsuda and Wright v Beck as examples.

But let's not drift from the subject of my original point, and that was that agencies are bound by law in the destruction of weapons.

Agreed, they are "supposed" to be bound by law. Yet "some" only abide by the law after they are sued for their policies. For one agency twice. LAPD, first Parks and his mandated Spec. Order 1, after his loss. Then Beck, also LAPD, who ignored his own dept policy and got sued for the same offense.

Last year here on CG there was a long thread started by Michel and Assoc. JDale. Regarding the Wright v Beck fiasco. There are lots of quotes and citable links there.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=1100712&page=4

Becks predecessor "Parks" had already been sued and lost for the same thing.

LAPD has been previously sued for its failure to provide basic due process or follow state law when it comes to returning firearms to their owners. In that prior matter, Sarah McGee, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., USDC Central District of California Case No. 98-2043GHK, then-Chief Bernard Parks agreed to implement Special Order No. 1, making compliance with state law regarding return of firearms an express policy of the LAPD. Once again, LAPD has ignored state law as well as its own policy, and the result is the destruction of priceless collector’s items valued in the aggregate at nearly three-quarters-of-a-million dollars.

LE has lost multiple cases for illegal destruction of firearms. While supposedly following Ca DOJ guidelines as to state law. McGee v LAPD and Roberts v Matsuda here in SoCal. And according to Michel also one on San Fran and another in Oakland. I have no doubt that Wright v Beck will stick with that record. [if he lives long enough] Sadly all have been loses of defendant concession and settled without a ruling. So not citeable. I believe that is the only likely reason that this portion of pc33855(b) has not yet been stricken.

and that the firearm has been recorded in the Automated Firearms System in the name of the individual who seeks its return.

I will stick with the opinion that "some" LEAs can and do illegally destroy citizens firearms. The loss of the previous mentioned law suits against those agencies support that opinion. Because they choose to hide behind the already disproved ambiguity of the AFS clause of pc 33855b is just smoke and mirrors for their agendas. After all if they get sued and lose, they really don't care. Not their dime!!!

I hope Michel and Assoc can make the RICO claim stick on Beck. About damn time crooks with badges carried their own water.

JM2c