JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Messages
153
Reactions
135
What a dumb law. http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/09/colorado-woman-cant-get-her-gun-back-thanks-to-new-law/

Apparently any transfer requires a FFL background check, and the PD can't do it. I'd question whether this is even a transfer. I thought a transfer implied change of ownership, the cops simply took her gun because she had to leave it when she went to the hospital. Stupid people or stupid laws, maybe both. Does anybody else know if this is the normal definition of transfer?
 
Sounds like they found a way to work it out. By using a local FFL to conduct the silly BGC. But as questioned in the comments who conducted the BGC when the police took possession of the pistol in the first place. Since the law has no police exemption they too would need to pass a BGC prior to taking possession of the pistol.

A perfect example of why people who know little to nothing about a complex subject shouldn't be allowed to create laws that no one understands.
 
They used to call this a SKO ( safe keeping order) whenever the police took possession of a firearm, with no crime committed, they just held it till you came to get it back.
 
Stupid laws are stupid. How did they take possession of it without an FFL on their end since it sounds like that is also written into the law? Sounds like that Sheriff is trying to get it back to her, but is being hamstrung by the legal department. SO many problems boil down to one of two things: politics or lawyers. And usually they are tied together. Hope Colorado gets it head pulled out of its butt and gets all those people their guns back with no fees being paid.
 
There is a current thread about temporary confiscation of firearms during a traffic stop. It sounds like it will only be a matter of time before the cops will take your legally-owned weapon (that you passed a background check to purchase) as a precaution, and then require a new background check to return it.
 
It gets even funnier when you consider that the law makes no exemption for police, and by confiscating the weapon from her, the police effectively conducted a firearms transfer without a background check - in other words, they violated the law. Will there be any consequences? Doubtful.
 
It gets even funnier when you consider that the law makes no exemption for police, and by confiscating the weapon from her, the police effectively conducted a firearms transfer without a background check - in other words, they violated the law. Will there be any consequences? Doubtful.

But it does raise the issue that since the police did not do a background check on themselves, she did not transfer the weapon, merely stored it in a secure location.
 
Here's an article about "transferring" firearms after the PD has taken them. According to the article once police have them, for ANY reason, they can't return them as that's a transfer.

Is this intentional in the writing of the law (my opinion) or an unfortunate side effect and unintended consequence?

http://www.reporterherald.com/news/...25491/gun-transfer-laws-stall-firearm-returns

Yes they can. Returning guns out of the property room is done frequently. If the gun is obtained pending an investigation it is held for awhile then released to the owner.
 
How did they take possession of it without an FFL on their end since it sounds like that is also written into the law?
If it was taken without an FFL then it should be returned in the same manner. It sounds like they are making up a provision to cover something that was done incorrectly in the first place.
 
From the Sheriff's Point of View - some time has passed while he held the weapon. Could the owner /now/ not be allowed to receive the transfer of a weapon?

CO has a pot law -
Was she committed to a mental hospital?

--

How ever that turns out, there does need to be a way to have your guns stored by someone - perhaps a gun shop? a specialty business? Sheriff?
Not everyone has family or friends who could do that.
 
You people seem to forget . . . This is an arm of the government and they CAN DO WHATEVER THEY DARNED WELL PLEASE . . . AND THERE IS PRECIOUS LITTLE THAT THE SHEEPLE CAN DO ABOUT IT.

But you say, it isn't logical. What are you, some misguided zealot that still believes in the Constitution? You are a dangerous threat to the new order and will be dealt with in a swift and decisive manner!!!!

Sheldon
 
The police took custody of the firearm without an FFL from her to them...so by their own logic, whoever has possession of the firearm is out of compliance with their own law, correct?

If she didn't commit a crime to have the gun taken from her to begin with, then why didn't it just follow her to the hospital?
 
Having run a few evidence rooms, the "safe keeping" term is correct. When the gun is taken in under that, it is returned either after the case is done, or by owner request, depending how it was obtained.

Then before returning, a background check is run, which takes a few minutes. Some might ask, why the check? Because the status of the person owning a firearm may have changed. The same when an inmate is released from jail, a warrant check is done, as some arrest warrants will come out during the incarceration time.
 
Having run a few evidence rooms, the "safe keeping" term is correct. When the gun is taken in under that, it is returned either after the case is done, or by owner request, depending how it was obtained.

Then before returning, a background check is run, which takes a few minutes. Some might ask, why the check? Because the status of the person owning a firearm may have changed. The same when an inmate is released from jail, a warrant check is done, as some arrest warrants will come out during the incarceration time.

I get checking the gun to see if it is stolen and if you can legally own a firearm (I can just see the PR behind given a felon a firearm from the police station or being in possession of a stolen firearm and giving it back to the thief) ...but just keeping it and saying "sorry, we don't have an FFL"? That is utter BS.

By their own logic they broke the law when they took the gun without going through an FFL!
 
Sounds like the Police broke the law when they illegally transferred the weapon to themselves in the first place. Or they stole the weapon. Has to be one or the other.
 
Police are not in the firearms transfer biz. Should there be a confiscation, they still don't go thru any transfer garb.

One will need to look up the laws of CO., to see what the procedure is for the po po.
 

Upcoming Events

Oregon Arms Collectors March Gun Show
Portland, OR
Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top