Likewise (as I learned personally when I lived in Montreal and was given and subsequently unknowingly used a counterfeit $10 bill to try to buy a Haagen Daz ice cream) when the police confiscate a counterfeit bill from you, they don’t give you any compensation in return even though you are just an innocent victim. (And, you never get your ice cream either!)
And, apparently, if you have more than one counterfeit bill on you, you can be charged and convicted without them having to prove you knew the bills were counterfeit! So, if you want real issues to be concerned about, Star Was, rather than whining about this silly one that even most of your fellow gun affectionados don’t agree with you on, there is plenty out there.
Hmmm. With the single exception of the requirement to fix the damaged property, this sounds almost exactly like what happened to my wife and I when our property was stolen. It was recovered a few days later, damaged to the point that it wouldn’t work. When we went to recover it, the police wouldn’t give it to us, they would just give us the police report we would need to get the property from a third party. The third party that we went to then required us to pay almost $100 to get back what was rightfully ours, and stolen from us through no fault of our own! In fact, since it was damaged to the point that it couldn’t be operated properly, the third party originally was going to require us to have another party (yes, a FOURTH party) remove our property from their (ahem) property (that is, the property of the third party). Only the actions of a (wilfully, and extremely briefly, blind) doorman allowed us to avoid contacting the dread fourth party. It almost enough to make your blood boil!
Of course, our property was our car, the third party was the impound lot (and the fourth party would have been a garage of our choosing that would tow from there). The fee, well, the fee was the cost of the tow and the impound (I think there may have been a small fee for the police report, I don’t remember. It was a long four days).
I guess my point (probably poorly made) is that there is more than one reason people may have to pay to get back recovered stolen property. Your example is just one of those possible, and in fact, if they do have to pay for a background check, well, I guess them’s the breaks. Of course, that’s just my opinion.
Okay, since we’re sharing stories of stolen cars now…
An Accord I had a few years ago was stolen…three days passed and then at 3 a.m. I get a call from the police saying they were chasing the perp, he got away, but they have my car, come get it! Great! I called a friend (who is still my friend after waking her to drive me to get my stolen car) who took me the frighteningly short distance to the location of my recovered vehicle. With fingerprinting ink all over the damn thing, inside and out, missing knobs, all previous loose contents of mine gone, and the interior smelling of serious ASS I drove the car home. After looking over the car next morning, I find QUITE A LOT of little stems, seeds and little flecks of pot all over the back floorboards and backseat!!! Lovely. (And I wasn’t about to smoke it not knowing where it came from! ) And the police never bothered to clean up the ink or the pot before sending me on my way. :eek:
Yea, I’d expect the police to give me back the radio, and the cocaine powder, and allow me to clean it in my own time. That’s exactly what I would expect! And then I expect Bill Gates to give me one billion dollars. And for Don Rumsfeld to say, ya’ know what, I was wrong about that whole Iraq thing. And for Santa Clause to . . .
From reading the article linked to in the OP, it sounds like nobody, including the police, think the victims should pay. It sounds like an unexpected result of the law. (As for recovering stolen vehicles, the police don’t generally own wreckers and so have to contract out towing and storage. IANAL, but you could probably sue the person who stole it to recover your money)
As for the shotgun, I’m far from an expert but wouldn’t it be possible for the police to remove the illegaly modified parts and give the rest to the victims? Shotgun with short barrel=illegal, shotgun with no barrel=not a usable gun, therefore not illegal?
The folks should pay the $60 to get their guns back – or maybe have their homeowners insurance pay it, if they have an insanely low deductible – and then sue the criminals for damages.
This whole thing is the criminals’ fault, not the cops.
So all the couple has to do is apply for and receive an appropriate license from the ATF, and they can get the sawed-off shotgun back.
Isn’t it the NRA always saying that we should enforce the gun laws on the books before creating new ones? I wonder if their general policy stance extends to the specifics of this case.
I’m not seeing the logic here that says getting your own firearm back equates to what the background check is legally supposed to cover: the purchase of a firearm from a federally licensed (FFL holding) dealer.
If what the cops in this case are saying is true, then wouldn’t I have to get a new background check every time I get my firearm back from another party, such as a gunsmith?
I guess my question is this: why are the fees associated with transfers of stolen property being passed along to the victims instead of being paid for via victims’ compensation funds, insurers and monies raised by selling the seized assets of convicts? Police are constantly auctioning off drug dealers’ cars and jewelry and taking their massive wads of cash; shouldn’t that money cycle back through to assist those who have had criminal interruptions of their lives?
Well if Mr. and Mrs. McElhiney were doing their job as responsible gun owners, then they would have had their guns locked up in a gun safe that the burglars would not have been able to gain access to. All guns should be kept under lock and key.
Where do you think most criminals get their guns? Do you think they buy them legally down at your friendly neighborhood firearms shop? No, they steal them from schmucks like the McElhiney’s who don’t store their guns properly.
Those poor, poor McElhiney’s. What in the world are they going to do with only eight guns? How will they ever live without that damaged shotgun?
Nothing can be made totally secure. If someone wants it bad enough, he/she can get it. How do you know they weren’t in a gun safe?
I guess you won’t mind if a few of your expensive things are stolen. After all, I am sure there are quite a few people who don’t think you need them in the first place.
And if I hadn’t been walking across that dark parking lot at that hour of the night, I wouldn’t have had my purse stolen and my eyeglasses broken when I was knocked to the ground.
[QUOTE]
Quoth Apos…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.
Think of it this way. Say the guns were legally purchased. Say the owners committed some type of felony that precludes them from owning the weapons. The police are not obliged to return a firearm to a felon. Background checks prevent the violation of that law.
Further, the ATF’s definition of short barreled shotguns means that weapons that are modified from full barrel length by the end user, leaving the barrel less than 18 inches in length, and/or less than 26 inches overall are defined as short barreled shotguns, thus requiring special clearance to own . In US v. HALL this is spelled out a little more clearly.
Regarding the payment for lost property.
If it’s a vehicle that’s towed; the police department isn’t in the vehicle storage business. If it’s a stolen vehicle, sometimes you pay, sometimes you don’t, depends on the agency, but if you have to, in many cases your insurance will cover that cost.
If it’s other non-regulated property; if the police department is making you pay to get your stuff back(i.e dvd players, etc.) well, that’s just revenue enhancing bullshit, and they should stop exploiting victims.
Catsix asked…
No, because you are making a legal business transaction, and the gunsmith assumes no further responsibility than to fix the gun and return it, he assumes that you legally own the weapon. He (assuming) is responsible for checking the weapon against a kind of ‘hot sheet’ of stolen weapons in some areas, but no, he’s not obliged to check you out.
Yogini…
The cops aren’t in the car detailing business either…
) And the police never bothered to clean up the ink or the pot before sending me on my way. :eek: