Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Lakewood woman's lawsuit forces police to return confiscated firearms(OH)
Buckeye Firearms Association ^ | 16 September, 2011 | Chad D. Baus

Posted on 09/17/2011 7:37:59 AM PDT by marktwain

On August 30, the Cleveland Scene reported that after having attempted to get police to return her collection of firearms for an entire year, a Lakewood, OH veteran was finally forced to file a lawsuit against the police department, which had confiscated the collection from her home when she was away.

From the article:

Francesca Rice no longer serves in her country's armed forces, but she brought a piece of the action back home with her.

It seems the Lakewood vet had stockpiled her Edgewater Towers condo with a home arsenal including handguns, shotguns, a sniper rifle — plus a Thompson sub-machine gun, just in case the pizza guy got fresh.

Her cache somehow caught the attention of Lakewood Police, who paid a visit last September. When they found Rice wasn't home, they asked an obliging employee of the complex to open up the apartment without her consent. Once inside, they raided the gun rack, making off with 13 firearms worth around $15,000. The only problem: They had no apparent reason to.

When Rice kindly asked to have her toys returned, the cops acknowledged that the weapons were legally owned. But they refused to return them without a court order. And so Rice has filed suit in Lakewood Municipal Court.

In truth, according to a list published by the Lakewood Municipal Court, the firearm incorrectly described by The Scene as a "sub-machine gun" was just a modern, semi-automatic version of the iconic rifle, and the "sniper" rifle was a vintage Chinese SKS M21 semi-automatic carbine.

With the obligatory, incorrect and scary-sounding descriptions we've come to expect from the news media having been included, The Scene continued:

So far, nobody's doing much talking. Lakewood Police Chief Timothy Malley declined to speak specifically about the seizure, citing the ongoing lawsuit. He also declined to speak generally about situations in which Lakewood cops would be likely to seize property on a whim. Rice's attorney did not return Scene's calls for comment, and Rice didn't respond to repeated buzzes on her apartment intercom.

Amid all the zipped lips, there's a moral here for everybody: Gun owners, beware of law enforcement looking to trod upon your rights. And non-gun owners, beware of neighbors who are particularly well prepared for the zombie apocalypse.

Buckeye Firearms has been attempting to learn more about the situation since this article originally was published just over two weeks ago. We were able to determine that Lakewood police had acted based on a situation involving the gun owner's absence from a Virgina VA hospital where she had been receiving treatment.

However, no charges were ever filed, and a year later, Rice's requests to have her guns returned had gone unanswered. (Note: while we don't know ANY of the specifics of Ms. Rice's medical situation in 2010, this is a good example to point to when discussing why our military veterans are often hesitant to seek psychiatric treatment at the VA for some of the more common symptoms faced by troops after they return home, such post-traumatic stress disorder.)

Fortunately, the lawsuit seems to have had its desired effect. From a Cleveland Scene article dated September 14:

Last month we brought you the story of Francesca Rice, an Iraq war veteran in Lakewood whose stockpile of licensed firearms was seized by cops. So Rice, whose service left her disabled, pursued justice the American way: By suing their ass.

Since Scene first reported the story, Rice's arsenal has been restocked and her legal action tabled.

The incident started in September 2010, when Lakewood Police were asked to check on Rice by the VA hospital, where she'd been receiving treatment. Thirteen weapons — including a machine gun and sniper rifle — were taken when cops suspected Rice's disability prevented her from owning them under Ohio law.

Last week, with no further evidence from the VA that Rice couldn't handle a gun, the police returned her weapons.

"On the advice of my attorney," says Rice, "I have safely and legally stored my collection elsewhere."

We are pleased that Ms. Rice's collection has been returned to her, and wish her all the best.

Chad D. Baus is the Buckeye Firearms Association Vice Chairman.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events; US: Ohio
KEYWORDS: banglist; confiscation; jbt; lawsuit; lping; oh; policestate; rapeofliberty
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-64 next last
To: meyer

Cite your proof.


41 posted on 09/18/2011 11:58:10 AM PDT by Enterprise ("Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: cracker45

Regarding this thread, there is nothing wrong me and I stand by my statement.


42 posted on 09/18/2011 11:59:24 AM PDT by Enterprise ("Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: mosaicwolf
The new Showtime series, Homeland, portrays returning vets as terrorists and DHS agents as "heroes" of the people. Disgusting.
43 posted on 09/18/2011 12:51:36 PM PDT by ronnyquest (I spent 20 years in the Army fighting the enemies of freedom only to see fascism elected at home.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise
Cite your proof.

In an effort to defend the indefensible, you're asking me to prove the obvious?

44 posted on 09/18/2011 3:12:08 PM PDT by meyer (We will not sit down and shut up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: meyer
"In an effort to defend the indefensible, you're asking me to prove the obvious? "

Your answer is judged as "non responsive" and you are hereby disqualified from further participation. Thank you for your interest. You may apply again in six months. Good bye, and good luck.

45 posted on 09/18/2011 5:52:16 PM PDT by Enterprise ("Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Usagi_yo

My imagination isn’t that good - you painted a pretty clear picture in words, and I “looked” at it as written.
That’s precisely why I put your very own written words in quotes...makes denying it kinda difficult! The cops said her weapons were legally owned, but refused to return them, then here you come galloping in, positing that they “might” be illegal and she “might” shoot a bunch of people, apparently all on the basis of her having been receiving some sort of medical treatment at a VA hospital. Sure smells like an anti-veteran bias to me!!

JC


46 posted on 09/18/2011 6:01:34 PM PDT by cracker45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: starlifter
"Though certain copsuckers view any police action as prudent and appropriate."

I don't know to whom your are referring as being "copsuckers," but if you will re-read what I have posted you will see that I have neither approved nor condemned the actions of the police.

47 posted on 09/18/2011 6:01:39 PM PDT by Enterprise ("Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise

Yep, I read the thread and your very high opinion of your deductive reasoning ability definitely appears to be in the minority! I gotta ask; are you a current or prior gubmint employee of some sort?

JC


48 posted on 09/18/2011 6:07:57 PM PDT by cracker45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: cracker45

You gotta ask, and I don’t gotta answer. It’s not relevant to the thread and YOU DAMNED WELL KNOW IT!


49 posted on 09/18/2011 6:14:50 PM PDT by Enterprise ("Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: cracker45

Not only is your imagination vivid, but your comprehension was off a bit too.

As written, I was clearly sympathetic to both sides. That the gun owner should have had the guns returned Immediately and that the Police had every right to verify legal and eligible ownership prior to returning them. It’s called CYA.

Now, as to *how* they discovered the weapons, I find it a little bit off. But I’ll take it at face value that it wasn’t an ‘anonymous tip’ (wink wink), nor was it a neighbor complaining about her gun collection. IIRC, the article said she didn’t show up for her therapy and the folks at the VA had reason to believe that some harm may have come to her.

As for the what-if? had nothing to do with her veteran status. It’s just plain old simple CYA. You don’t give guns back without knowing for certain that they they are legal and that the person who owns them has not had that right revoked.


50 posted on 09/18/2011 9:14:43 PM PDT by Usagi_yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise

Just asking, but since you got all PO’d and started shouting, then that’s as I suspected!! I will say, however, that somewhere along the way during your prior gubmint service, you had a fairly good set of schooling because your spelling is excellent...

JC


51 posted on 09/18/2011 10:31:03 PM PDT by cracker45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Usagi_yo

CYA isn’t a legal concept nor a valid excuse for extrajudicial theft! You’re a moron for even suggesting that.

JC


52 posted on 09/18/2011 10:36:13 PM PDT by cracker45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: cracker45
"Just asking, but since you got all PO’d and started shouting, then that’s as I suspected!!"

So Sherlock, could my prior Government service have been military?

53 posted on 09/18/2011 11:50:39 PM PDT by Enterprise ("Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise
Your answer is judged as "non responsive" and you are hereby disqualified from further participation.

Whatever...

54 posted on 09/19/2011 2:11:30 AM PDT by meyer (We will not sit down and shut up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: cracker45

Yes it is a legal concept. It’s called misfeasance and nonfeasance.

Stop being a knee jerk reactionary.


55 posted on 09/19/2011 5:42:40 AM PDT by Usagi_yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

I know of combat vets who have paid for PTSD treatment out of pocket in cash to avoid such a thing.


56 posted on 09/19/2011 10:16:55 AM PDT by jjm2111
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise

“So Sherlock, could my prior Government service have been military?

Possibly, if you were a MP who thought himself above reproach when dealing with the uniformed riff-raff or a staff officer type who never really trusted any of the lower enlisted personnel anyway. Who knows? You’re the one who refused to acknowledge police malfeasance when the available evidence suggested otherwise...

JC


57 posted on 09/19/2011 7:04:05 PM PDT by cracker45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Usagi_yo

You didn’t address that “excuse for extrajudicial theft” thing I mentioned. For the PC folks, yes I suppose I am a knee jerk reactionary. Get used to it, because someone has to stand up for justice!

JC


58 posted on 09/19/2011 7:15:30 PM PDT by cracker45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: cracker45
"Possibly, if you were a MP who thought himself above reproach when dealing with the uniformed riff-raff or a staff officer type who never really trusted any of the lower enlisted personnel anyway."

I see. Someone who sneers at military service.

And by the way, police malfeasance has not been proved.

59 posted on 09/19/2011 8:00:42 PM PDT by Enterprise ("Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: cracker45

Because what really happened was Extrajudicial punishment — and I made it clear that I didn’t approve of it.

You keep on overlooking that while I believe that the police were lawfully obligated to ascertain that the weapons were legal, and that the owner was deemed in lawful possession, that then the owner was entitled to have them promptly returned.

Are we clear now?


60 posted on 09/19/2011 8:39:04 PM PDT by Usagi_yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-64 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson