Police Run Roughshod Over Lawful Handgun Owner

[RobD]

http://blogs.ajc.com/bob-barr-blog/2009 ... _barr_blog

No good deed goes unpunished — that’s a lesson George Boggs of Fayetteville, North Carolina, learned earlier this month when he voluntarily turned his handgun over to the local police for safe-keeping while he went into the hospital following an automobile wreck. When Mr. Boggs (who maintains a valid concealed-carry permit for the handgun) later attempted to retrieve his firearm, the police said, sorry, we’ve sent it out for ballistics testing and can’t give it back to you yet.

Apparently the police in North Carolina believe themselves empowered to retain a law-abiding citizen’s firearm, and test it to see if it matches any firearms or ammunition on which the police have records that were used in crimes, regardless of whether they have any suspicion whatsoever that the firearm is illegal or has ever been used in the commission of a crime. And, the police do this even if the person has voluntarily and temporarily left a firearm with the police for safe keeping. In this case also, the owner of the handgun did not want the firearm fired because it had never been fired since he purchased it new, and he believed its value would be diminished.

Tough luck, according to the law enforcement authorities; so long as they get a firearm — however they get a firearm — they keep it as long as they want to test it, and , if it matches ballistically with some record they have, they would keep it indefinitely.

So much for property rights. So much for Fourth Amendment guarantees against unreasonable search and seizure. And so much for being a good citizen. When it comes to firearms, many law enforcement agencies believe they can do pretty much whatever they want, whenever they want, to whoever they want.

[1911fan]

Carrying a fire arm for self defence that he had never even test fired?

[mnmike59]

Carrying a fire arm for self defence that he had never even test fired?

That was my first thought!

[DeanC]

Well if he didn't fire it then he's got nothing to fear.

I'm going to wait and see how this one plays out before I make any judgments.

[justaguy]

Maybe he just had it in the car with him and not loaded and carrying. Either way why give up your gun?

[LarryFlew]

Well if he didn't fire it then he's got nothing to fear.

But he is right about the value being diminished once a gun is fired. Could even have been a collectors item rather than his self defense gun. Bit sketchy on the details but BS on the part of the PD non the less.

[David]

It didn't say he was carrying it, for self defense or any other reason. Perhaps it was in his car when he got in a wreck, and rather than leave it with the car and tow truck driver, he asked the police to hang on to it while he went to the hospital. He's got a permit, but like a lot of people with a permit, he might not have been carrying. He might have been transporting some collectible firearm from where he bought it to his home.

Or, he might have been carrying some firearm for self defense he never fired. You can never tell from a news story, so you can't really comment on whether he's a moron or not. Throw in the fact that this is from a blog, and no one really knows anything for sure.

[yukonjasper]

This guy used poor judgement on a number of accounts. Why would he bring the gun to the police for safe keeping? They make all sorts of ways to lock guns up at home. If your home is not safe enough to house a locked weapon, then you have larger problems than the Police keeping your gun. The claim about it not being fired is a probably a lie so he can play gotcha with the police department with a claim of lost value. With attribution, I question the entire story. Blogs don't impress me with the veracity of their information.

[goalie]

This guy used poor judgement on a number of accounts. Why would he bring the gun to the police for safe keeping? They make all sorts of ways to lock guns up at home. If your home is not safe enough to house a locked weapon, then you have larger problems than the Police keeping your gun. The claim about it not being fired is a probably a lie so he can play gotcha with the police department with a claim of lost value. With attribution, I question the entire story. Blogs don't impress me with the veracity of their information.

Um, he was in an accident. He didn't have the option of putting it in his "home safe" before going to the hospital.....

[justaguy]

I don't know about all of you, but I think this makes us look bad.

[DeanC]

Well, I'm just going to wait and see.

[tacticalninja32]

he gets no clout?

[Lastgunshop]

http://blogs.ajc.com/bob-barr-blog/2009/08/26/police-run-roughshod-over-lawful-handgun-owner/?cxntfid=blogs_bob_barr_blog

When Mr. Boggs (who maintains a valid concealed-carry permit for the handgun) later attempted to retrieve his firearm, the police said, sorry, we’ve sent it out for ballistics testing and can’t give it back to you yet.

Apparently the police in North Carolina believe themselves empowered to retain a law-abiding citizen’s firearm, and test it to see if it matches any firearms or ammunition on which the police have records that were used in crimes, regardless of whether they have any suspicion whatsoever that the firearm is illegal or has ever been used in the commission of a crime. And, the police do this even if the person has voluntarily and temporarily left a firearm with the police for safe keeping. In this case also, the owner of the handgun did not want the firearm fired because it had never been fired since he purchased it new, and he believed its value would be diminished.

Tough luck, according to the law enforcement authorities; so long as they get a firearm — however they get a firearm — they keep it as long as they want to test it, and , if it matches ballistically with some record they have, they would keep it indefinitely.

So much for property rights. So much for Fourth Amendment guarantees against unreasonable search and seizure. And so much for being a good citizen. When it comes to firearms, many law enforcement agencies believe they can do pretty much whatever they want, whenever they want, to whoever they want.

I know a few people in Minneapolis that this happen to them. MPD will keep your guns as long as they can. One of my customer had Judge Burke sign a order telling MPD to give the gun back to my cusomer. Was MPD piss about that.

[tacticalninja32]

http://blogs.ajc.com/bob-barr-blog/2009/08/26/police-run-roughshod-over-lawful-handgun-owner/?cxntfid=blogs_bob_barr_blog

When Mr. Boggs (who maintains a valid concealed-carry permit for the handgun) later attempted to retrieve his firearm, the police said, sorry, we’ve sent it out for ballistics testing and can’t give it back to you yet.

Apparently the police in North Carolina believe themselves empowered to retain a law-abiding citizen’s firearm, and test it to see if it matches any firearms or ammunition on which the police have records that were used in crimes, regardless of whether they have any suspicion whatsoever that the firearm is illegal or has ever been used in the commission of a crime. And, the police do this even if the person has voluntarily and temporarily left a firearm with the police for safe keeping. In this case also, the owner of the handgun did not want the firearm fired because it had never been fired since he purchased it new, and he believed its value would be diminished.

Tough luck, according to the law enforcement authorities; so long as they get a firearm — however they get a firearm — they keep it as long as they want to test it, and , if it matches ballistically with some record they have, they would keep it indefinitely.

So much for property rights. So much for Fourth Amendment guarantees against unreasonable search and seizure. And so much for being a good citizen. When it comes to firearms, many law enforcement agencies believe they can do pretty much whatever they want, whenever they want, to whoever they want.

I know a few people in Minneapolis that this happen to them. MPD will keep your guns as long as they can. One of my customer had Judge Burke sign a order telling MPD to give the gun back to my cusomer. Was MPD piss about that.

happen to me too, and the scratch the **** outta my M9 which was brand new, they confiscated it for "safe keeping" since I was not home when they responded to a call because some idiots started a fight in my house, they were locked inside my room but was searching my room for more suspect in the fight,

[Tutmos]

Never ever let police into your house. Go outside and talk to them there while closing the door. In the case of the fighting people in the house, kick them outside and let them duke it out. Nothing good can come of letting police inside the house.

It's like inviting a vampire into your house. You're screwed no matter how good of a person you thought you were.

As for the story. What can you say? Another police force giving them all a bad name and showing how you cannot trust them. Boy that's a great dynamic to have, not being able to trust law enforcement.