John and Sue McElhiney went on vacation and their home was robbed. Now the police will not give them back their property that was stolen and recovered. The police will only give the property to a third party and then the couple must pay a fee to this third party to receive their property back. Also one piece of their property was damaged by the criminals and now they must pay to have it fixed before they can have this piece of property back. I think this is worng. Why shouldn’t the people get their legal property back?
I notice in your OP you were very careful not to give key details. Normally I’m very critical of the police and their seemingly insatiable appetite for other people’s property.
But you might have mentioned:
-the property in question were a bunch of guns (all but 2 of which were given back without problems or payment), and the payment they have to make to a third party is for a criminal background check, which the police think is now required by law before the police hand over weapons to anyone, stolen or no. Virtually everyone here, including the police, seem to want to clarify the law so that they can just give the weapons back without the couple paying the fee for the third party background check, and that looks like what will ultimately happen.
-the item that was “broken” was a shotgun that was modified to make it illegal by sawing off the barrel. The police can’t give them back an illegal weapon, so if they want it back, SOMEONE has to pay for fixing it. Clearly in this case, it shouldn’t be the police. If a criminal vandalizes your house so that it no longer meets fire code and runs away, you have to suck it up and pay to fix it before anyone can live in it again. It sucks, but who else is going to pay for it?
There’s certainly still some issues here, such as why the law requires criminal background checks for returning stolen weapons which were legally owned, or why the people have to pay for the check as if they were buying the guns all over again. But plainly the situation is not what you were trying to trick people into thinking it was.
That would be a different thread. The fact is that legally they are subject to requirements that toasters are not. I can buy a toaster without going through a background test. Your OP was intentionally deceptive.
Perhaps because it’s always treated differently? Is anyone lobbying for manditory waiting periods to buy a toaster? This seems like a bit of a no-brainer.
They already legally owned the guns. The government can’t deny someone access to their property with due process and compensation for the value of the property.
The couple didn’t make it a sawed-off. They should be given the gun back and allowed to fix it in their own time. If someone steals your car and cuts the break lines you don’t have to wait to get the car until you have the break lines fixed, you just have to wait to drive it until you fix it. Maybe they don’t have the money to fix the gun now. Or maybe they want to fix it themselves, which they can’t do until they have the gun.
As a gun rights supporter, I’m against you on this. you are not helping your case, you are making yourself (and by extension your postion) appear dishonest, manipulative, and underhanded. Please stop.
And your attmept to draw parallells between a sawed off shotgun and a car or a toaster are ludicrous. A sawed off shotgun cannot be fixed without replacing the barrel (and maybe the forearm and perhaps even the magazine). This amounts to a near rebuild and let’s not forget that the the mere possession of the cut down barrel is a Federal offense without the proper Class III license.
That’s a far cry from replacing a couple (legal to own) brake lines with another set of (legal to own) brake lines.
This couple didn’t want a sawed-off shotgun. If the government was doing its job it would have prevented the theft or caught the criminals before they could damage the property. Under the circumstances the couple should be given their property back and allowed to fix it in their own time. If the police do not want to give it they should fix it at their own expense. Let’s say you have your radio stolen and the criminals then stash some cocaine in it and some cocaine is spilt on it. Do you think it was fair the police would not give you back your radio until you paid to have the cocaine removed and the radio cleaned of cocaine powder? No, you expect the police to either clean and remove the cocaine or allow you to clean it in your own time. The police shouldn’t be allowed to prevent you from having your radio back and they shouldn’t be allowed to keep this couple’s gun either.
And let’s not forget only the one gun was damaged. The police will not give back the other gun.
Do you seriously believe that the police should have given the rightful owners an illegal weapon? If they did, they would be obligated to arrest them. Is that what you are looking for? I don’t get your continued harping on this, do you think that two wrongs make a right? DO you think that because someone turned legally owned prperty into an illegal item, that the laws concerning the same should not apply?
Cocaine in a radio? That analogy makes so little sense I don’t know where to begin. Let’s see, is it the fact that cocaine is illegal? (insert obligatory disclaimer about legally owned and prescribed cocaine because I can see where you’d go with that) Or are you telling us that it is possible to transmute transistors into cocaine? I’d love to know how you managed that feat. Because last time I checked, there isn’t a single component of a radio that can be modified or “damaged” (heh) in such a way as to turn it into cocaine.
Back on topic…your distortion of the facts betrays your bias…“damaged”? It is to laugh.
Upon further review of the linked article, the owners are idiots. Pay the money and get your property back. Principle has nothing to do with this.
Property rights? suuuuure, you keep telling yourself that. Do you undertand the difference between regulated and non regulated items? Are you trying to say that prior ownership of a regulated item precludes you from and further regulation of the same?
As long as we are throwing out stupid analogies, your argument makes as much sense as saying that since your car was stolen, and it was legal to own beforehand, you don’t need to get it inspected or get a license for it anymore because that would be infringing on your ownership of it.
Well, Star Was, your analogy of the stolen car would be closer to the real scenario if you had two cars stolen. One of the cars has never had a roadworthiness certificate, and the thieves have modified the other car in some way to make it highly dangerous, such as drilling speed holes in the fuel tank.
The cops would be within their rights to demand that you get a certificate of some sort for the first car, and demand that you have the other car repaired before you take it since it’s a bonafide deathtrap.
Don’t be dishonest - you started this thread to make the point that guns should be treated like any other piece of property, regardless of their lethal abilities. You haven’t made this point well at all. Time to give up this argument, buddy.
In your mind, perhaps, but no, quite simply guns are treated differently under the way than other property, including toasters.
Like it or not, property rights do not trump other legalities. Say you owned some paper, which was stolen and then used to counterfeit money. The treasury department will never return that to you, and won’t even reimburse you for the loss of the paper.