Proving gun-ownership prior to a ban?

[High Binder]

Hey guys, here in Colorado we have a bill going through HB-1229 (link below) that is called a so called 'Universal Back Ground Check' but it's really a confiscation bill. The Republican law makers and several attorneys from around the state made it VERY clear that confiscation would occur if you were out driving around and got pulled over and couldn't PROVE that you didn't buy your gun on the black-market, i.e. without a background check. So like everybody else who owns guns, I don't have receipts and the ones I do, just have the price and no reference to the serial numbers and forget about guns passed down through the generations... Anyway, you see where this is going. In a nut shell I, and everybody else in CO, need to figure out a way to establish ownership of our guns prior to this bill going into law on July 1 2013. I originally posted this in the suppressor forum thinking an NFA trust might accomplish this but apparently it won't. There were several other ideas posted in that thread all of which make sense but more/other ideas would be nice (link to thread below). Now I know that the prosecution has the burden of proof but the Senators and attorneys that testified on this bill made it VERY clear that while any charges that might be filed on you would be dropped due to the lack of proof, they would still confiscate the gun/s as "evidence" and would eventually mark them for destruction, despite the charges being dropped, i.e. legal confiscation. One Senator, said this bill was just a way to get a few people mad and open the door to universal registration because if you register your gun than the police know it belongs to you and wont confiscate it (yet).

In addition to the ideas in the suppressor thread, I had the idea of selling my friend my stuff (and visa-versa) and then buying it back with bills of sale that we would have notarized. That way we would have individual copies of bills of sale for each item which I think would be legit, because until July1, we can still buy/sell privately and you wouldn't be able to retroactively prosecute for that. Any Thoughts, good/bad??

So in nut-shell, I and everybody else in Colorado need to figure out a way to prove that we own something prior to July 1, 2013.

Signed:
-Anal-Raped In Colorado.

Link:
http://www.snipershide.com/shooting/showthread.php?t=178723

Bill:
http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/cli...e=1229_ren.pdf

 

[IdahoMike]

Get them insured and document their SN# with timestamp photos.

 

[mrsleeve]

Time stamped photos and a copy of todays paper with the S/N visible and then one of the whole firearm. Kinda flimsy I know, the insurance idea listed above is not a bad one though.

 

[mgoodrich]

Would this apply to non residents as well?

For example, going on a booked elk hunt?

I can't say that I could prove any gun I have is mine, since I usally don't keep the receipts after about a year or so.

 

[Maggot]

Would this apply to non residents as well?

For example, going on a booked elk hunt?

I can't say that I could prove any gun I have is mine, since I usally don't keep the receipts after about a year or so.

Not to mention the ones bought FTF 30 years ago.

 

[Jerry m]

go to an airport and get a US Customs form 4457 Personal effects taken abroad. Fill it out and get the serial numbers verified and have it certified by a Custom Officer. They will date stamp it. They do it all the time.

Good luck

Jerry

 

[High Binder]

Would this apply to non residents as well?

For example, going on a booked elk hunt?

I can't say that I could prove any gun I have is mine, since I usally don't keep the receipts after about a year or so.

It's a state law and if you think about it you'd get a ticket if you were caught speeding in Colorado or if you robbed a bank in Colorado they'd arrest you and charge/imprison you in Colorado. So the same would apply to out-of-state hunters. You can read the bill (above link) but I already have and there is no clause for out-of-state people bringing guns to Colorado (same with the Magazine ban but that's a different bill but it's also a mag confiscation bill too). Best bet is to book a hunt in a better state.

 

[High Binder]

go to an airport and get a US Customs form 4457 Personal effects taken abroad. Fill it out and get the serial numbers verified and have it certified by a Custom Officer. They will date stamp it. They do it all the time.

Good luck

Jerry

Damn, that's good! But do the customs people keep a carbon copy?
I think 99% of us are trying to avoid de-facto registration and a carbon copy would be just that.

 

[Maggot]

HB, you've been wanting to move back to Tejas...could be time to go. Fuck the libtards.

 

[Lowlight]

Honestly I think this is where the court case is gonna revolve, from what I understand based on listening to testimony, the CO State Constitution does not allow anyone to call your possession into question. Which is why they say these bills are un-enforceable. It's against the State Constitution to question you in this way.

My answer if I was pulled over and asked would be, "of course I did", and end it right there, without a criminal history there is no probably cause. Any follow up would be, "how long have you owned it" which again, "several years" would be my answer.

I really don't plan on doing anything differently around this, and outside of Denver Proper, I don' t see anyone enforcing it to the point of having to prove anything on the fly as it violates the State's Constitution.

These were very poorly written, and actually go into a place that can be challenged, at least that is what David Kopel said more than once under testimony. The wording is too vague, and while it "can" create a problem, I think it creates the biggest problem for the State because it reaches into places that violates existing laws.

 

[High Binder]

Honestly I think this is where the court case is gonna revolve, from what I understand based on listening to testimony, the CO State Constitution does not allow anyone to call your possession into question. Which is why they say these bills are un-enforceable. It's against the State Constitution to question you in this way.

My answer if I was pulled over and asked would be, "of course I did", and end it right there, without a criminal history there is no probably cause. Any follow up would be, "how long have you owned it" which again, "several years" would be my answer.

I really don't plan on doing anything differently around this, and outside of Denver Proper, I don' t see anyone enforcing it to the point of having to prove anything on the fly as it violates the State's Constitution.

These were very poorly written, and actually go into a place that can be challenged, at least that is what David Kopel said more than once under testimony. The wording is too vague, and while it "can" create a problem, I think it creates the biggest problem for the State because it reaches into places that violates existing laws.

Frank, I'd like to say I agree and I do to a degree but what the GOP Senators and attorneys who testified said was that the cops would take your gun as "evidence" towards their 'suspicion' that you may have bought it privately after the ban and file a charge against you but the charge would be dropped for all the reasons you just listed while your "evidence" (gun) gets disappeared. I guess you could turn around and sue the state for the value of your stolen gun but at that point you've already had your gun taken and had a trumped up fake charge filed and dismissed. It just seems prudent and CYA to have something on paper that proves to the Cop and perhaps the courts (if it went that far) that you owned the gun before the private sale ban.

The first case that goes to court (hopefully not me) will be interesting to see given the state constitution and how this law attempts to side-step it.

 

[High Binder]

HB, you've been wanting to move back to Tejas...could be time to go. Fuck the libtards.

High time if you ask me but I couldn't do it logistically for at least a year so I might as well wait and see how 2014 goes and use that as a determination as to where I stay/go.

 

[Lowlight]

You're evidence cannot "disappear" you can ask for a receipt for it.

Honestly I think they are using a bit of a scare tactics at times, they tried to have both ways in the conversation because they were the only ones talking.

There has to be a reason why the officer "questions" your ownership, sure, never say never, but frankly it opens up a lot of liability, not only for the individual officer but the department in question.

I also believe, in the enforcement section it was up to the prosecutor to prove your timing, so in a way it doesn't even work on the officer level because the state constitution says they cannot question your possession.

Like I said, the State Republicans were getting a little desperate at times and were going a bit over the top. A single photo in your case or bag with a picture of the collection and newspaper like a ransom note would be evidence enough.

You're talking absolute crazy worse case scenario with a dick of a cop, and a lot of "what if's" ... like being bitten by a polar bear while winning the lotto. Especially without any prior criminal record.

 

[Nukes]

Start a trust. Put all your guns in the trust. The paperwork is your proof and anyone in the trust should be able to use 'em for generations.


In the days of yore when I lived in.... [ugh]... California, I was an RKBA activist in regular contact with the best gun rights attorneys in the state. There were MANY illegal seizures by police. Even though completely unjustified, many judges were complicit in ensuring that guns NEVER were returned to rightful owners. It was a great rarity for a gun owner to get his gun back and usually only after legal costs that significantly exceeded the value of the illegally seized gun. It also happened that in some of those rare cases when a judge ordered the police to give back an illegally seized gun, the police said, "Sorry. It was already accidentally destroyed."

Apparently Colorado is in the process of Californication.

 

[kraigWY]

I hadn't paid much attention to this being from Wyoming and All,

But,

Another option would be to find a lawyer you could trust. Prior to July 1, give him a list of guns serial numbers and photos, he could notarize it like he does wills and you'll have proof and being a lawyer can't divulge the info.

 

[Inogame]

You could probably get any document notarized with a witness, even without a lawyer.
Sad to say but if an officer wants to jam you up he/she probably will make your life difficult no matter what you have.

I feel LL is probably right in outside of Denver and Boulder you'd be ok.

 

[savages]

If this bill goes through I will never step foot in that state to do any kind of recreational activity. IE Elk hunting and snowmobiling.
Any idea what the DNR and law enforcement think about these laws?

So basically every firearm you own will have to have some form of legitimate sales receipt if your going to take it anywhere?
I'm blown away, completely blown away by the political corruption that is showing itself plain as day and politicians getting away with doing whatever they want.

 

[thrusty]

I'm feel sorry for Colorado and it's citizens. It was once considered a great western state to me. I don't know what will happen once hunters begin to just not go there. It will be too much of a risk and hassle when there's other welcoming states. Damn deer and elk population will grow and create all kinds of problems while your state parks will suffer due to the lack of funds from no licenses being sold.

Unfortunately, the only folks who won't give a damn about the firearms laws will be the ones who were committing the crimes to begin with. Damn shame. I hope the courts rule in your favor gents.....for all our sake.

 

[roggom]

I have a bound book for my C&R rifles, I have to log each one in as I buy them or sell them. Although not required for previous FTF, here is a page. http://www.surplusrifle.com/graphics/boundbookpage.pdf

Here is the ATF's personal firearm record http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-3312-8.pdf

As for the newspaper, I do not see how that would prove date of purchase, as I could save todays newspaper and flash a pic in august after an under the table deal.

Having a log at least establishes that you have your shit together, but without receipts does not prove anything. Well at least if you enter all your firearms now, then purchase one with a receipt, the log entries will show a chronological pattern.

For my bound book, I printed the linked page and had kinkos bind about 20 pages. The book needs to be bound and not loose leaf. Anyone who ever opened one of those green log books for watch (military) know what I am talking about.


Just an afterthought. One way to make a record of purchase before the law goes into effect, is to fill out the ATF personal record, seal it and register mail it to yourself. That would be a hard copy with a date stamp.

Another thought is to do the same and have a copy notarized and signed "no further entries". The notary would not need to see the firearms, they are only establishing the document and signature at a given date. The public library can notarize a certified copy of your ATF record.

Just trying to think of ways to prove possession before the law comes into effect without declaring your firearm for public record.

 

[Lowlight]

Of course a notarized log would work, the newspaper thing was more like a joke, as if they are holding your guns ransom until you prove otherwise. The burden of proof is on the state, and the state has a constitution that says your possession shall not be called into question.


I think the log page is the best way, and getting it notarized is as easy as walking into your local bank branch.

 

[mrsleeve]

Yes Lowlight got it, Kinda of a play on how they always show the kidnapping victim is still alive in the movies by sending a picture with them holding a copy of that days paper, with the ransom note..... I suppose I did word it a bit oddly for being sarcastic.

In all honestly why would a trust not suffice??? Or as stated a specific insurance policy with your firearms listed, or a notarized listing???

 

[pawprint2]

The real problem with "unconstitutional laws" is that they ARE enforced, only after a court case, where the, in this case, the State Supreme Court decides to take the case, then rule on it, is the law declared "Unconstitutional", could take years, and $100,000's ! One only has to look at the recent court cases in Ill, and D.C., they took years, the NRA help with the funding. Yes, in the pure sense of the "law", they (the police) could not just seize your weapons because you couldn't produce a certificate of proof of time of purchase, but in real life, they could/would, after years in a court battle, you may prevail. You may get back a weapon or two, they may have been worth $5,000.00 (that has been poorly stored and banged up) when they were seized, at the cost of 20-50 times that amount, not to mention the years of your time. The best way to keep this from happening is not to have this type of un-American law passed to start with. Let there be no doubt, Unconstitutional laws are passed, and are enforced, sometimes we as a country have been lucky and the SupCt has declared them so, but almost never has this been fast.

 

[KYpatriot]

Almost none of the confiscations in New Orleans were legal in the least, and yes the city lost the case, but won the war. They got the guns, returned rusted pieces of junk if at all, and in the meantime the people were deprived of their property and their ability to defend themselves. In Colorado this law gives legal pretext to law enforcement, and while the burden of proof is on the state, do you really think they will care if they lose these cases? Even by loosing they are winning - they are suppressing and harassing the citizen's ability to exercise a Constitutional RIGHT. They are forcing you to endure legal battles and hire lawyers and do paperwork for what is supposed to be a RIGHT. Every hassle they can pile on gun owners is a win for them regardless of the outcome of the case.

What you are seeing in Colorado is the beginning of a new tactic for end-running the Constitution. They do not consider the Constitutional argument if they have the numbers to pass a bill. Now that the legal process is so lengthy and expensive, the statist, nanny-state, wanna-be tyrants don't have to worry about writing law that will pass Constitutional muster. They know it is likely to fail the Constitutional test (years from now), but in the meantime they still get to suppress your rights and as a bonus they get to fight you with an unlimited supply of your own money. So in the end they not only get the opportunity to suppress gun ownership but they also soak up the economic resources of those willing to stand up for their rights. This has been happening in corporate litigation for some time, forcing companies to settle cases they would win on the merits, because the legal costs to fight would break them. This is nothing but legal extortion, just as practiced by J Jackson and Sharpton. Now the technique has been adopted by legislators who I am guessing are receiving help from the big money anti-gun statists like Bloomberg.

Can the citizens really exercise the rights recognized by the US Constitution and the State Constitutions when the only legal remedy they have, the justice system, is the very thing being used to bludgeon their freedoms? Does liberty really exist when you must appeal for it in courts, with your own time and money, at every infringement that the liberals get passed, when those endless infringements are financed by your own taxes and enforced by those paid with your taxes? How long will those freedoms endure under this system, which is a legal war of attrition? How long will gun owners stomach this constant battle, the endless speeches, enduring the trotting out of dead kids and wounded congresswomen for propaganda, before the many who don't value their rights enough finally capitulate? Will even the die-hard eventually run out of energy or at least money?

This is a war of attrition, like the trench warfare of WWI, except this time the legal system forces our side to fund both side's efforts. Under those circumstances, we are still losing even when we capture a trench or two here and there.

We can stop that tactic cold though; their weakness is that their strategy depends on the unthinking blind enforcement of whatever they say. If law enforcement doesn't play the game, then the infringement mechanism stops and they can't deplete us in the courts. A time for choosing is coming for our nation's law enforcement officers. There is legal protection in Printz v. US(1997) for sheriffs and their deputies with respect to federal laws, but state laws are another matter. Municipal police officers in particular, under their politically appointed leadership, are truly in a tough position. Still, the fact remains, if we are to win this fight in the long term, the key question is this: will these laws be enforced? Again it matters little on the ground whether the law is eventually found unConstitutional or if an individual is exonerated, over time if enough enforcement happens then we cannot win legally.

 

[High Binder]

I also believe, in the enforcement section it was up to the prosecutor to prove your timing, so in a way it doesn't even work on the officer level because the state constitution says they cannot question your possession.

You're talking absolute crazy worse case scenario with a dick of a cop, and a lot of "what if's" ... like being bitten by a polar bear while winning the lotto. Especially without any prior criminal record.

Frank, I may have missed it but I went through and read the Colorado constitution and the only things relating to questions of ownership of property was in terms of real land property and water but I still think we're talking about two different things. Whereas you're saying that the state can't question you as to your ownership and I'm saying that the property is being seized as evidence of a potential crime. To me it's really no different than the police seizing anything else as evidence for an investigation. So the police aren't questioning your ownership, as ownership is a given being in your possession post July 1st, they're questioning how and more importantly when you obtained the gun and keeping the gun as evidence until the prosecutor can't charge you and then keeping your gun even after the charges are dropped. I see where you're coming from and your logic is very sound but I really do think we're talking about two different things.

 

[Lowlight]

Section 13, "shall be called into question" is the key phrasing and this was brought up by David Kopel during House testimony

 

[-Nick-]

Honestly I think this is where the court case is gonna revolve...

My answer if I was pulled over and asked would be, "of course I did", and end it right there, without a criminal history there is no probably cause.

You're evidence cannot "disappear" you can ask for a receipt for it.

...Especially without any prior criminal record.

Frank I'd like to agree with you, but based upon my own personal experience I can't in reference to your above statements. Evidence can and does sometimes magically "disappear", and then they simply cut you a check for what they estimate its value which is obviously never close to what it really was. I've even had a shotgun which was being held by the courts until the disposition of a case that 1. they tried to not give me a receipt for, and 2. I had it cabled locked through the action and when I was able to finally retrieve it the cable lock had been cut off and rounds had been fired through it. And what about those of us who do have criminal records from over 15+ years ago? I have numerous friends in LE, but I know for a fact that some officers hold grudges for over a decade and look for reasons because they think who a person is when they're younger is the same person decades past. You're 100% right that the law will inevitably be Constitutionally challenged at some point in the court, but at that point someone is IN court and paying to prove they're right. You can easily drop $100K+ in a case that works it's way to a State or Federal Supreme Court to prove you're right. I don't know about you, but I'd rather not be that guinea pig...

 

[High Binder]

Section 13, "shall be called into question" is the key phrasing and this was brought up by David Kopel during House testimony

13h amendment:
The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.


While it does say that, I think the context is different than how the the above House member stated. The police wouldn't be calling in to question your right to bear arms in general, the police would be questioning your legal ownership of that specific firearm. In other words, they're not questioning whether or not you're legally allowed to own a gun (the above amendment), rather they would be questioning whether or not you purchased it prior to July 1st.

 

[Lowlight]

I think you are fishing,

The idea someone is gonna argue when you bought a gun based on random stop is silly. I can't see any situation it happening unless they followed you to a place and watched you buy it.

There is no scenario I can see where a police officer can question your ownership at that point. Because what you are saying is, "you can't legally own it after July 1st" that is not the case, the case is whether you got a background check. The assumption is yes, you have it in your possession and if you are not a criminal you are legally allowed to own it. There is no realistic question that can be asked... you cannot determine a background check on a street corner that has been established so the status quo does not change.

There is no vehicle in the background check system to prove you did it. Therefore there is no, "receipt" vs "no receipt" situation, the police officer cannot say, "show me the background check receipt" there is none, hence the unenforceable nature of the bill. There is nothing as long as there is NO registration, which there is none. We don't have gun registration, so the police officer cannot ask to see one.

You're out of your depth here "guessing" what might happen despite the fact there is no vehicle in the system to confirm or deny

 

[milo 2.0]

Binder,
Young man, you need to come north. I'm about to start praying for you poor bastards.

Fuck, I don't have reciepts for 99.9% of the shit I own, never the less guns, most were cash anyway, especially the customs, and gun broker stuff.

 

[High Binder]

I think you are fishing,

The idea someone is gonna argue when you bought a gun based on random stop is silly. I can't see any situation it happening unless they followed you to a place and watched you buy it.

There is no scenario I can see where a police officer can question your ownership at that point. Because what you are saying is, "you can't legally own it after July 1st" that is not the case, the case is whether you got a background check. The assumption is yes, you have it in your possession and if you are not a criminal you are legally allowed to own it. There is no realistic question that can be asked... you cannot determine a background check on a street corner that has been established so the status quo does not change.

There is no vehicle in the background check system to prove you did it. Therefore there is no, "receipt" vs "no receipt" situation, the police officer cannot say, "show me the background check receipt" there is none, hence the unenforceable nature of the bill. There is nothing as long as there is NO registration, which there is none. We don't have gun registration, so the police officer cannot ask to see one.

You're out of your depth here "guessing" what might happen despite the fact there is no vehicle in the system to confirm or deny

Ordinarily, I would say that it's stretch and I'm fishing too but the fact the Senators and Attorneys testified to this exact point lends some credence to the idea that it could happen. Basically, you're leaving it in the hands of the cop to make the determination as to whether or not you own said gun based on that cop's assumption, but what if you run into a cop who assumes you didn't buy it with a background-check? Like you mentioned there's no record of the sale, so there is no vehicle to prove that you did/didn't buy it legally. I think this logic also covers the scenarios in your second paragraph as well, i.e. you cannot produce a receipt, thus it was purchased sans background-check, post July 1st and again the gun is taken in as evidence of a crime that you didn't commit but the prosecutor will eventually drop the charge.

Now I think we both have to admit that we're 'guessing' what might/could happen here so why not err on the side of safety and CYA with a notarized bill of sale from a private pre-July1 transaction?

What if next year (2014) they pass a law that emphatically states that if you don't have proof you bought a gun that it's to be confiscated/registered/etc. or anything to that effect, and you don't have pre-July1,2013 (as that would be the controlling law in 2014) proof that you bought the gun, then you're totally boned.

Either-way, until somebody gets busted and takes this issue to court, we're going to have these questions because it is so vague.

 

[Guest]

So now the law in Co. has been/will be changed to were the accused, has to prove he is not guilty of a violation of the law?

 

[-Nick-]

So now the law in Co. has been/will be changed to were the accused, has to prove he is not guilty of a violation of the law?

Lol... "Innocent Until Proven Guilty" has long since been gone now that the media stream is instantaneous...

 

[Lowlight]

I think you would have to be a dick to the cop in order for this line of questioning to even reach that point.

If the cop suggests you purchased it without a background check he would have to have some probably cause, or he would have to say what evidence he would like to prove you did. if he knows you can't prove it either way and then determines that is enough to weight it towards, no you didn't get a background check I think there is enough room to really give the department a black eye. Any lawyer would have a field day.

You keep going back to what the Reps said during the hours of testimony, half the time they were blowing smoke up our asses, and I mean that from both sides. Today I watched them argue military couldn't buy magazines while it said they could. Sure I don't want this stuff to pass but the mere fact they "said something" in testimony doesn't make it true. The fact they say you have to have a background check and don't know you don't get a receipt or an all clear doesn't make it your duty to still provide something. These are poorly written bills based around a lot of ignorance of existing methods. the fact they don't know how it works doesn't lay the burden of proof on your shoulders.

Did you get a background check --- yes
Can you prove it --- How would you like me to do that ?

There is no receipt, there is no gun owner registry, or registration process, there are no physical measures to determine past background checks.

So the idea you have to prove something to someone is false. Unless he watches you do it, he has no way to show probably cause, and unless you are a complete dick I cannot think of a single situation where a cop on a routine stop would venture down this road. If he said he was confiscating my gun because I failed to prove it, beyond my word, I would not allow it and tell him I am calling my lawyer and I want a supervisor there immediately. Lock your ass in your car and wait.

 

[LSOSGT1109]

I've been a cop for 15 years and here's what I would suggest. First off I agree with lowlight in that no cop worth his salt is gonna go down such a slippery slope. If you run across one that does intend to sieze a gun that you know you legally purchased, I would hit record on my phone. I would explain to the officer that I did purchase the gun legally but that I had no documentation on me to prove it. Then I would explain to him that I objected to him seizing it and that doing so would be a violation of my 4th amendment right. If he still chooses to sieze it then so be it. I would then take my recording to the best civil rights attorney I could find and sue their asses off for violation of my civil rights. I would caution against resisting because the US Supreme Court has ruled that people don't have the right to resist even an unlawful arrest because that's what the court system is for. I think suing the Hell out of them, getting your gun back plus a sizable chunk of cash would serve you much better.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Maggot]

I've been a cop for 15 years and here's what I would suggest. First off I agree with lowlight in that no cop worth his salt is gonna go down such a slippery slope. If you run across one that does intend to sieze a gun that you know you legally purchased, I would hit record on my phone. I would explain to the officer that I did purchase the gun legally but that I had no documentation on me to prove it. Then I would explain to him that I objected to him seizing it and that doing so would be a violation of my 4th amendment right. If he still chooses to sieze it then so be it. I would then take my recording to the best civil rights attorney I could find and sue their asses off for violation of my civil rights. I would caution against resisting because the US Supreme Court has ruled that people don't have the right to resist even an unlawful arrest because that's what the court system is for. I think suing the Hell out of them, getting your gun back plus a sizable chunk of cash would serve you much better.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

Thanks for that.

 

[High Binder]

I've been a cop for 15 years and here's what I would suggest. First off I agree with lowlight in that no cop worth his salt is gonna go down such a slippery slope. If you run across one that does intend to sieze a gun that you know you legally purchased, I would hit record on my phone. I would explain to the officer that I did purchase the gun legally but that I had no documentation on me to prove it. Then I would explain to him that I objected to him seizing it and that doing so would be a violation of my 4th amendment right. If he still chooses to sieze it then so be it. I would then take my recording to the best civil rights attorney I could find and sue their asses off for violation of my civil rights. I would caution against resisting because the US Supreme Court has ruled that people don't have the right to resist even an unlawful arrest because that's what the court system is for. I think suing the Hell out of them, getting your gun back plus a sizable chunk of cash would serve you much better.
2

That's good info! Thanks for that and I do agree it would be an extreme circumstance but it's one that I bet ends up happening here in Colorado. There's simply too much grey area in this new law that's about to pass.

 

[pawprint2]

I'd like to state that I believe 99% of all LEO are the most honest and hardworking people in the US, however; once in a great while evidence does get "disapeared", even in Colorado. The following is a good example:Gun used in slaying is missing




May 19, 2006 12:00 AM

ShareThis| Print Story | E-Mail Story



By DENNIS HUSPENI THE GAZETTE



The murder weapon in a 1999 killing is missing from evidence storage, prosecutors said Thursday, despite Colorado Springs Police Chief Luis Velez’s repeated assurances that murder cases weren’t affected by 19 months of improper evidence disposal.

The gun used in the slaying of Remmon Brown was among more than 11,000 pieces of evidence that Velez recently admitted were improperly destroyed, auctioned off or returned to owners, said Elizabeth Kirkman, 4th Judicial District Attorney’s Office spokeswoman.

Jurors convicted Derrick Turner and Kevin Richard Herrera in the drive-by shooting at the corner of Academy and Palmer Park boulevards in which Brown, 18, was killed.

Turner was convicted in 2004 of first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder and was sentenced to life in prison. Herrera was convicted in 2003 of conspiracy to commit murder and was sentenced to 44 years.

Herrera and Turner were members of a rival gang war- ring with Brown’s gang over drug turf, police said.

The convictions have been appealed, but a ruling has not been issued.

If the case has to be retried, “it would be an issue the judge would have to address,” Kirkman said of the missing murder weapon.

Prosecutors have photographs of the gun, and the gun was tested and presented at the trials, she said.

Brown’s relatives were notified Thursday.

The district attorney and the Public Defender’s Office are frustrated at the slow release of information in the three weeks since Velez admitted that evidence technicians mistakenly disposed of 11,395 pieces of evidence in 4,103 cases dating back 10 years.

Police gave the District Attorney’s Office a list of the 4,103 cases affected by the error in preserving evidence, but Kirkman said the list is “not complete.”

“For me to say I have all information at hand, I don’t,” Kirkman said of the missing evidence. “All we’re trying to do is work with the information given to us.”

Carrie Thompson, head of the Colorado Springs Public Defender’s office, on Thursday confirmed she was told about the homicide case.

“I am understanding that there are some concerns about the accuracy of the original list,” Thompson said.

She praised District Attorney John Newsome’s office for being “very forthcoming” when they get information about those cases.

Velez, who a spokesman said was out of town Thursday and unavailable for comment, specifically addressed homicide cases at an April 28 press conference about the missing evidence.

Police investigators looked at 47 homicide cases dating back 26 years, and they were “materially not affected,” Velez said April 28.

“We provided the best information we had at the time,” police Lt. Rafael Cintron said Thursday. “We have expanded the scope of our investigation to include every piece of evidence disposed of from September 2004 through March of 2006.”

Cintron would not comment on specific cases until an internal investigation is complete June 1.

Velez has said the errors occurred because evidence technicians failed to follow procedures for the disposal of evidence. He has refused to say if those technicians were fired or disciplined but has said there is no reason to believe criminal acts were committed.

Public defenders representing clients scheduled to enter pleas are being told by Thompson to delay hearings if plea agreements depend on the evidence.

“I told them not just to rely on a police report saying the evidence was there” but to physically go to the Police Department evidence room and check themselves, she said.

City Auditor Jeff Litchfield was directed by the City Council to also investigate the disposal of the evidence.

A draft report has been mostly completed, Litchfield said, and will be forwarded to the Police Department for its response before being presented to the City Council.

Thompson said Thursday her office would support a request, possibly to the state attorney general, for an independent investigation.

“There would be a lot more confidence if an outside agency investigated,” Thompson said. “I believe the DA’s office is just as frustrated as they can possibly be.”

----I should note: I did a search on Yahoo, "police evidence disapeared", I was shocked, yes shocked!!! There looks like this may have happend more than just a couple of times. I'm sure the problem is the people in charge of this stuff aren't LEO's, but civilian employees. If they want to stop this type of thing, they should put LEO's in charge of evidence, this crap would stop happening 99% of the time.











Advertise HereAds by


Read more: http://www.gazette.com/articles/evidence-6984-police-office.html#ixzz2NT4nKCuV

 

[Lowlight]

A Hide member and long time friend recent had his weapons all confiscated after shooting a gang member during a robbery. It took several years but he got them all back in the same condition they were taken. I have direct knowledge of this.

One off, oh this happened, is crap, especially when you consider it was an actual conviction and not a pending case. Over ten years, and given the fact the shooter was convicted, of course it is gone. Different rules apply.

The burden in these bills is on the state, the fact they were written without a vehicle to confirm ownership does not suddenly throw the burden of proof back on the owner. I would gladly let them wrongly confiscate my most expensive rifle for the chance to challenge this in court. That is part of the argument, that fact you can't saddle the citizen with the burden of proof when it says its on the state. This is why the Sheriffs said it was unenforceable.

Forget the scare tactics used in testimony, they were throwing everything against the wall hoping something might stick. There is a reason the Democrats said very little, they didn't have too. The holes written in the bills default the benefit to the owner, not the State. If you put the burden on the owner you get to challenge it through the courts. Yes it sucks if that is you, but the odds are so slim, I think it's just a long term mind fuck for the law abiding citizen until it ends up in court or some one else ends up in office and repels it for being a poorly written bill. The holes are gonna open the door for a court case.

 

[Jethro3898]

It's a shame that you guys are even having to discuss this.
Our country (some parts more so than others) has really lost its mind.

 

[LSOSGT1109]

A Hide member and long time friend recent had his weapons all confiscated after shooting a gang member during a robbery. It took several years but he got them all back in the same condition they were taken. I have direct knowledge of this.

One off, oh this happened, is crap, especially when you consider it was an actual conviction and not a pending case. Over ten years, and given the fact the shooter was convicted, of course it is gone. Different rules apply.

The burden in these bills is on the state, the fact they were written without a vehicle to confirm ownership does not suddenly throw the burden of proof back on the owner. I would gladly let them wrongly confiscate my most expensive rifle for the chance to challenge this in court. That is part of the argument, that fact you can't saddle the citizen with the burden of proof when it says its on the state. This is why the Sheriffs said it was unenforceable.

Forget the scare tactics used in testimony, they were throwing everything against the wall hoping something might stick. There is a reason the Democrats said very little, they didn't have too. The holes written in the bills default the benefit to the owner, not the State. If you put the burden on the owner you get to challenge it through the courts. Yes it sucks if that is you, but the odds are so slim, I think it's just a long term mind fuck for the law abiding citizen until it ends up in court or some one else ends up in office and repels it for being a poorly written bill. The holes are gonna open the door for a court case.

I totally agree. This law is simply retarded, just like all the other laws that are being passed (New York) and all of them that are they are trying to get passed in other states. None of them stand a chance of staying on the books once they are challenged in court and by court I mean Federal Court because I'm sure some state court of appeals and state supreme courts are just as liberal as the law makers in those states. I think that whoever ends up being the "test" subject in this case will have a grand opportunity to help themselves as well as the 2nd Amendment. Sure it'll be a pain in the ass for them but I think the long term affects would be very positive.

 

[SniperCJ]

I've been a cop for 15 years and here's what I would suggest. First off I agree with lowlight in that no cop worth his salt is gonna go down such a slippery slope. If you run across one that does intend to sieze a gun that you know you legally purchased, I would hit record on my phone. I would explain to the officer that I did purchase the gun legally but that I had no documentation on me to prove it. Then I would explain to him that I objected to him seizing it and that doing so would be a violation of my 4th amendment right. If he still chooses to sieze it then so be it. I would then take my recording to the best civil rights attorney I could find and sue their asses off for violation of my civil rights. I would caution against resisting because the US Supreme Court has ruled that people don't have the right to resist even an unlawful arrest because that's what the court system is for. I think suing the Hell out of them, getting your gun back plus a sizable chunk of cash would serve you much better.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

I got 10 years on you and I agree wholeheartedly!

 

[pawprint2]

A Hide member and long time friend recent had his weapons all confiscated after shooting a gang member during a robbery. It took several years but he got them all back in the same condition they were taken. I have direct knowledge of this.

One off, oh this happened, is crap, especially when you consider it was an actual conviction and not a pending case. Over ten years, and given the fact the shooter was convicted, of course it is gone. Different rules apply.

The burden in these bills is on the state, the fact they were written without a vehicle to confirm ownership does not suddenly throw the burden of proof back on the owner. I would gladly let them wrongly confiscate my most expensive rifle for the chance to challenge this in court. That is part of the argument, that fact you can't saddle the citizen with the burden of proof when it says its on the state. This is why the Sheriffs said it was unenforceable.

Forget the scare tactics used in testimony, they were throwing everything against the wall hoping something might stick. There is a reason the Democrats said very little, they didn't have too. The holes written in the bills default the benefit to the owner, not the State. If you put the burden on the owner you get to challenge it through the courts. Yes it sucks if that is you, but the odds are so slim, I think it's just a long term mind fuck for the law abiding citizen until it ends up in court or some one else ends up in office and repels it for being a poorly written bill. The holes are gonna open the door for a court case.

This is crazy, why would he have gotten all his weapons confiscated after shooting someone committing a robbery, gang member or not? I'm glad he got his weapons back, but the fact is, he shouldn't have had all of them impounded to start with. I can see the police needing to take the weapon that he fired for testing etc., to be sure of what happend, but any more of his property was just BS. I don't remember ever hearing about someone having all their heavy objects impounded because the killed a robber with a club. He may have gotten them back, but his Rights as an American were thrown out the window. Thank God, we did not have a bunch of weak sisters in 1776! G. Washington and the other patriots that gave us our country, would be ashamed of this type of action! In fact, they fought to be sure this type of thing didn't happen.

 

[LegioX]

Damn, that's good! But do the customs people keep a carbon copy?
I think 99% of us are trying to avoid de-facto registration and a carbon copy would be just that.

This is a great idea and NO they do not keep a copy. It simply proves your ownership of said weapon. It can be a pain if you owns dozens of guns cause you have to take each one to customs to have them verify serial numbers. You can have them do anything with a serial #, binos, cameras, LRF, whatever

 

[Switchblade]

As I have said and stood by my words, it's time to start a (redacted) against the (redacted) (redacted), and (redacted) (redacted) if all this stuff passes. Time to start (redacted) through building (redacted) so people will understand that the (redacted) of (redacted) will not fall.
I don't want to break any ban worthy rules, so I redacted a few words leaving my statement as intact as possible so that no (redacted) speech would be in it, nor would any (redacted) speech

 

[Rem40xb1]

Just bullshit

 

[High Binder]

This is a great idea and NO they do not keep a copy. It simply proves your ownership of said weapon. It can be a pain if you owns dozens of guns cause you have to take each one to customs to have them verify serial numbers. You can have them do anything with a serial #, binos, cameras, LRF, whatever

Thanks for the info Legio!

 

[KYpatriot]

As I have said and stood by my words, it's time to start a (redacted) against the (redacted) (redacted), and (redacted) (redacted) if all this stuff passes. Time to start (redacted) through building (redacted) so people will understand that the (redacted) of (redacted) will not fall.
I don't want to break any ban worthy rules, so I redacted a few words leaving my statement as intact as possible so that no (redacted) speech would be in it, nor would any (redacted) speech

LOL someday we are gonna have to share some bourbon...