Owner gets back guns taken by police

Timesunion.com ^ | 30 July, 2008 | SCOTT WALDMAN

[marktwain]

"You have the power to take the guns away, you don't have the power to give them back," Sherwood said. "Our hands were tied."

-----------------------------------------------------

I believe that the above statement is false. In fact, once the case was dismissed and the guns ordered returned, I believe the town was violating the law by not returning his lawfully owned firearms.

[Gay State Conservative]

I have no problem with someone who has a restraining order against him/her being *temporarily* forbidden to possess firearms.But some kind of court procedure in which clear proof of “dangerousness” would have to be presented must be enacted to turn the temporary ban into a long term ban.

[SJSAMPLE]

I do.
A restraining order isn’t a conviction.
You can get a restraining order fairly easily, especially when a spouse is involved.

[longtermmemmory]

The problem is that a liberal leaning judge will see this as a tool to remove guns in a prophalactic ruling rather than based on real evidence.

[tiger-one]

In NH the law is arrested for DV, weapons are seized, the perp can get them back by court order. This NH law maybe moot sine the SCOTUS has ruled.

[longtermmemmory]

a TEMPORARY order is issued ex-parte without the other side without hearing usually with just written request.

These illiterate cops are saying the TEMPORARY without hearing ruling results in a permanent loss of fundamental rights?!!

It is not just plain wrong, it is vulgar and obscene for police to make that stand.

[mad_as_he$$]

You are correct but that doesn't stop them. They have done this for years and many people have been deprived of their guns(property) on a mere allegation. NEVER willing surrender you guns to the cops. Take them and pawn them until you get it cleared up.

[SJSAMPLE]

Yep.
That’s the best advice upon the first hint of marital problems.
A buddy signed his over to a friend on my advice.

[SJSAMPLE]

And I have no problem with most restraining orders.

Ordering a person to stay away from you, as long as it doesn’t significantly impact their life, is an OK idea under most circumstances. Most people respect them, but they won’t even pause the hard-core crazies.

Just had a guy in Indy kill his wife, her boyfriend and then himself.
Restraining order didn’t do jack sh!t.

Taking away rights, however, is just wrong.

[bmwcyle]

My ex-wife took my 9mm during our divorce and gave it to her lawyer. I discovered it gone about two weeks after she did it. I call her lawyer and told her she was in holding a stolen gun and I wanted it returned. It was locked in the lawyers desk. I told the female lawyer that she would return the gun or I will be in her office with the Fairfax County Police for keeping a stolen gun. I got the gun right back.

[longtermmemmory]

That is idiotic. Possession of the pawn ticket can be used to show “possession”. Any judge with a dime store law degree will not fall for that BS stunt.

The judge could order the monies turned over for support and direct the person to forfeit the ticket.

[longtermmemmory]

after a full and fair hearing.

We have judges using the Ex-parte window to essentially bypass the fundamental rights test.

Imagine an exparte gag order on free speech until a hearing two weeks later.

[Dead Corpse]

Vulgar, obscene, stupid, criminal, tyrannical, vicious, violating, etc...

The adjectives just keep on coming when describing our "government run amok" that is so pervasive these days.

[TC Rider]

It is not just plain wrong, it is vulgar and obscene for police to make that stand.

But it is an excellent opportunity for the police to go rummaging through your safe and decide what might look better in their safe.

[SJSAMPLE]

Agreed.
Both parties should be represented.

[mad_as_he$$]

It is only idiotic if you let it be discovered. At the very least you can have the judge tell the pawn shop not to turn them back over to you until the matter is cleared up - in the unlikely event the deposit is discovered. But hey if you want to give your guns to the cops go right ahead. Most states you cannot transfer a gun without a dealer. Pawn shops are dealers so they can hold it without a transfer. in states where you can "give" your guns to someone you really trust.

Are you one of those people who spews his deep dark secrets to any authority figure? Then NONE of my advice on anything is for you.

[PapaBear3625]

Alternately you can rent a room from a trusted friend, and store your firearms there. It’s not a “transfer”, since they are stored in a space that you are renting.

[marktwain]

“Most states you cannot transfer a gun without a dealer.”

---

A common misconception. The reality is the inverse. Most states do not require a dealer to be involved in a private transaction.

There are only a few nanny States like New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, and California that require gun transactions to go through a dealer.

[Emmett McCarthy]

I don’t know since I’ve never had occasion to do it, but I’m told that, if a person pawns a gun, that person must undergo the same background checks to redeem it from pawn as if they were buying it for the first time. There is no recorded gun registration in my state so, even though I have a carry permit, the state has no way of knowing whether I have guns or not.

[mad_as_he$$]

I'll take you word for it but I thought the preponderance of States require a dealer for transfer. I am most familair with Kalifornia so that is my main reference. In any case do not do something to transfer any guns that might result in a felony rather than a domestic misdemeanor. Isn't there a site for gunlaws (gunlaws.com?) or such?