Colorado Woman Can’t Get Her Gun Back

[longslide10]

Colorado Woman Can’t Get Her Gun Back, Thanks To New bogus Law


Violating this law abiding citizen’s 2nd amendments rights is unconstitutional.
Check it out:

Colorado’s new gun law requiring a background check for any transfer of a firearm has left one woman unarmed.

Now she’s frustrated that her weapon, taken by police for safekeeping after a car accident, isn’t being returned.

Sara Warren said Fort Collins police took her Ruger SR9, which she uses for personal protection in her job as a maid when visiting clients’ homes, after an accident required her to be transported to the hospital.

The police want to give it back, but a new universal background check law passed last year amid much controversy requires a Federal Firearms License background check.

Fort Collins police don’t have an FFL holder on staff.

“We had an opinion from our city attorney and district attorney not to return firearms without a (Federal Firearms License) check, and we don’t have an FFL person in our office,” Fort Collins deputy chief Jim Szakmeister told the Loveland Reporter Herald.


Read more at Link Removed

 

[bofh]

Thanks for reposting this. This is too important to be ignored. I had this originally posted here: http://www.usacarry.com/forums/concealed-carry-discussion/44474-emergency-room-7.html#post521009. The original story is here: Gun transfer laws stall firearm returns - Loveland Reporter-Herald.

I won't be skiing in Colorado any longer. Having a skiing or car accident and landing in a hospital is one thing to be worried about, but having your carry gun effectively confiscated in the process is something that simply can be avoided by avoiding the state of Colorado. Utah is now my preferred location for skiing.

 

[telpinaro]

Thanks for reposting this. This is too important to be ignored. I had this originally posted here: http://www.usacarry.com/forums/concealed-carry-discussion/44474-emergency-room-7.html#post521009. The original story is here: Gun transfer laws stall firearm returns - Loveland Reporter-Herald.

I won't be skiing in Colorado any longer. Having a skiing or car accident and landing in a hospital is one thing to be worried about, but having your carry gun effectively confiscated in the process is something that simply can be avoided by avoiding the state of Colorado. Utah is now my preferred location for skiing.

Don't write us off completely... There are many, many people working very hard to change this. Including a majority of the county sheriffs.

 

[Eidolon]

Why don't the transfer the gun through a local gunshop?

 

[Kalamity023]

Colorado Woman Can’t Get Her Gun Back

She never relinquished ownership of the gun in the first place. That would require a transfer from her to the PD. If they're saying that she now needs a transfer back to her they have illegally taken possession without an FFL transfer, and illegally confiscated her property without a warrant. Its no different than if someone would store a firearm in a friends safe. It sounds like a BS way for the gun grabbers to confiscate personal property.

 

[bofh]

Don't write us off completely... There are many, many people working very hard to change this. Including a majority of the county sheriffs.

I have been watching this for a while. Between these new gun laws, the increasing number of weed-smoking snow borders and skiers that run me over on the slopes or endanger me in the backcountry, and the high lift ticket prices, I think I am better off skiing in Utah. I do ski at international locations, where I can't carry, as well, but that is different.

 

[telpinaro]

I have been watching this for a while. Between these new gun laws, the increasing number of weed-smoking snow borders and skiers that run me over on the slopes or endanger me in the backcountry, and the high lift ticket prices, I think I am better off skiing in Utah. I do ski at international locations, where I can't carry, as well, but that is different.

Well, I go to a smaller, mostly locals-only place, so I haven't seen so many weed-smoking/drunk boarders or skiers. I suppose it's much worse at the other places. And the prices aren't as nuts, especially not for military.

 

[telpinaro]

She never relinquished ownership of the gun in the first place. That would require a transfer from her to the PD. If they're saying that she now needs a transfer back to her they have illegally taken possession without an FFL transfer, and illegally confiscated her property without a warrant. Its no different than if someone would store a firearm in a friends safe. It sounds like a BS way for the gun grabbers to confiscate personal property.

Technically, the storing of your firearm in someone else's safe would also be illegal under the stupid laws!

 

[bofh]

Well, I go to a smaller, mostly locals-only place, so I haven't seen so many weed-smoking/drunk boarders or skiers. I suppose it's much worse at the other places. And the prices aren't as nuts, especially not for military.

Well, the nearest ski resorts in my area are 3 hours away by car and small. When I go skiing, I take some time off, fly, and make it worth while. That's why I go to the big mountains and the larger ski resorts. I ski about 30 days in a season. I do have the Mountain Collective Pass, which saves me a bunch.

I travel a lot (over 100,000 miles a year), for business and personal. When I take my firearm with me, I don't want to be worried about accidentally becoming a felon due to stupid gun laws, such as those in Colorado. That's why I will avoid Colorado for now, at least for personal travel.

Back to the OP, the way I read the current Colorado gun laws regarding this case: (1) Sara Warren was taken to the hospital after a car accident, (2) her firearm was transferred to the local PD for safekeeping, (3) there is an exception for running a background check when transferring to the PD ("occurs by operation of law"), (4) there is a requirement to run a background check through a FFL holder when transferring it back. The new Colorado gun laws relate the act of transferring a firearm to a change in possession in addition to change in ownership. Each transfer, including each change of possession, requires a background check through a FFL holder unless it meets certain exceptions given by the law. That's how I interpret the law in this situation, but I am not a lawyer. I would certainly get one in this situation.

Why does the local PD not use a local gun store for the transfer, I don't know. May be, because they fear that this may not be the correct legal procedure. May be, because they are just looking for an excuse not to perform the transfer. May be, local gun stores refused to perform the transfer. Who knows...

Source: Link Removed

 

[bofh]

She never relinquished ownership of the gun in the first place.

It was a change of possession and not a change of ownership. Thanks to this new gun law, a change of possession requires a background check through a FFL holder, unless it meets certain exemptions (I added the bold in the following quote):

Background Check Requirement

Under the new law, before any person who is not a licensed gun dealer transfers possession of a firearm, he or she must arrange for a licensed dealer to obtain the required background check. In obtaining the background check, the dealer must follow all procedures that it would follow were it transferring the firearm in a retail transaction, including recording the transfer, retaining the records, and complying with all state and federal laws. The dealer must provide a copy of the background check results and the Bureau's approval or disapproval to the transferor and intended transferee, and may charge a fee of up to $10.

A prospective transferee may not accept possession of the firearm until after the transferor has obtained the Bureau's approval, nor may he or she knowingly provide false information to the transferor or licensed gun dealer for the purpose of acquiring a firearm. Bureau approval of a firearm transaction is valid for 30 calendar days. A person who transfers a firearm in violation of the law may be held jointly and severally liable for any civil damages caused by the transferee's subsequent use of the firearm.

Exemptions

The new law exempts from the background check requirement transfers:

1. of an antique firearm (18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(16)) or a curio or relic (27 C.F.R. § 478.11);

2. of a bona fide gift between immediate family members;

3. occurring (a) by operation of law or (b) because of the death of a person for whom the prospective transferor is an executor or adminisrator of an estate or a trustee of a trust created by a will;

4. of a temporary nature that occur in the home of an unlicensed transferee if he or she (a) is not prohibited from firearm possession and (b) reasonably believes that firearm possession is necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily injury to the transferee;

5. of possession that are temporary and that take place (a) at a shooting range that meets specific ownership requirements; (b) at an approved target shooting competition; or (c) while legally hunting, fishing, target shooting, or trapping;

6. made to facilitate the repair of a firearm as long as all parties possessing the firearm may do so legally;

7. of a temporary nature that occur while in the continous presence of the owner of the firearm;

8. for up to 72 hours, during which time the transferor may be jointly and severally liable for damages caused by the transferee's unlawful use of the firearm; or

9. to any immediate family member from an armed services member who will be deployed outside the U.S. within the next 30 days.

The exceptions listed in the new law do not limit or alter the applicability of a different state law that prohibits the purchase or obtainment of a firearm on behalf of, or for transfer to, a person whom the transferor knows or reasonably should know is ineligible to possess a firearm under state or federal law (Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-12-111).

Unless there is actual knowledge to the contrary, a (1) business that repairs firearms may rely on a transferor's statement that he or she may legally possess a firearm and (2) transferor may rely on the business's statement that no manager or employee is prohibited from firearm possession.

Source: Link Removed

Note that the background check fee is capped at $10, which means that a gun store may not do this without an actual sale to make money on.

 

[farsidefan1]

This is a totally bogus move on the part of anti gun folks. There is NO justifiable explanation for what they are doing. Identify the perpetrators and vote them out!

 

[telpinaro]

This is a totally bogus move on the part of anti gun folks. There is NO justifiable explanation for what they are doing. Identify the perpetrators and vote them out!

Better yet... two were recalled and one resigned (because she was about to be recalled)!

The only "justifiable" explanation was in their own little make-believe world where they thought magazines couldn't be reused. That same little world where "no gun" signs make criminals turn around and leave.

Yep, you know how I'll be voting!

 

[ares338]

It would be cheaper to get a new gun than to get a lawyer.

 

[BC1]

So pay a damn FFL to get your transfer done. You can complain later.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

"Just give me my damn gun."

 

[wolf_fire]

Did the police take "possession" of said firearm or did police hold on to it while she had her stay in the hospital? The way they are treating this woman, it sounds as if they confiscated and took possession of her firearm. If this is the case, then they stole it.

If this is not the case, give back the weapon that she had a FFL background check in order to purchase. If the cops still insist she get another one, then transport her and the gun to the nearest FFL, pay for the transfer, and return to her the property she legally owns.

I certainly hope they did not etch into the firearm any case number or ID like they do in a crime. That would have me boiling over.

 

[longslide10]

Don't write us off completely... There are many, many people working very hard to change this. Including a majority of the county sheriffs.

Maybe it's time to step it up a notch or two.

 

[bofh]

It would be cheaper to get a new gun than to get a lawyer.

By that logic, it would be cheaper not to buy a gun in the first place. The purpose for getting a lawyer would be not only getting your gun back, but also making sure this doesn't happen again.

 

[Nightmare45]

File a theft of property.

 

[wolf_fire]

Don't write us off completely... There are many, many people working very hard to change this. Including a majority of the county sheriffs.

Maybe it's time to step it up a notch or two.

But at least in CO they don't have to worry about warrantless searches of their vehicles like our state just passed longslide.

Each state has its usurpations. Good people from most states are fighting hard to get rid of oppressive and unconstitutional laws. To nitpick and point fingers doesn't help.