Colorado's new gun laws strike again

jc1240 · May 9, 2014

Short version:

A woman who legally owns a handgun takes it with her on her home maid service jobs. She was in a car collision that required medical transport. The police took her gun for safe keeping.

Due to Colorado's new laws, the police are not allowed to return it even though they want to. The law requires an FFL to handle the transaction and they don't have one in their ranks. :rolleyes:

Someone with a brain finally figured out they could do it through a shop with an FFL, but based on the wording of this article, that still hasn't been done. How this is not an infringement I'll never understand.

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/...woman-cant-get-her-gun-back-thanks-to-new-law

ryan_j · May 9, 2014

I'm not sure if it was already a law here or a proposed one but I think if your guns are seized for domestic violence they want to make you get a background check to get them back after you sort out the DV stuff. Moral of the story, if you're a gun owner keep the peace at home, lol.

Gryphon · May 9, 2014

Stupid, stupid, stupid! She never voluntarily transferred the firearm to them; rather they seized it from her - perhaps unlawfully? Here is the problem . . . "We had an opinion from our city attorney and district attorney not to return firearms without a (Federal Firearms License) check . . ." Total BS. Give the damn pistol back to her as the rightful owner and stop wringing your hands over doing the obviously correct thing just b/c some a**hole in the legislature has you running scared. Does any one think the pistol doesn't right fully belong to this woman? Eff'in morons. All of them. This is what we have allowed this country to become - over ridden by eff'in morons to stupid to to make a decision without asking someone else if its okay. :sad20:

Robert1955 · May 9, 2014

Someone needs to file a theft report.

BradMacc82 · May 9, 2014

IIRC, in MD you have to go thru a NICS check before your firearm will be released to you if it's seized or held for "safe-keeping".

jc1240 · May 9, 2014

Gryphon said:
Stupid, stupid, stupid! She never voluntarily transferred the firearm to them; rather they seized it from her - perhaps unlawfully? Here is the problem . . . "We had an opinion from our city attorney and district attorney not to return firearms without a (Federal Firearms License) check . . ." Total BS. Give the damn pistol back to her as the rightful owner and stop wringing your hands over doing the obviously correct thing just b/c some a**hole in the legislature has you running scared. Does any one think the pistol doesn't right fully belong to this woman? Eff'in morons. All of them. This is what we have allowed this country to become - over ridden by eff'in morons to stupid to to make a decision without asking someone else if its okay.

Agreed. She is the lawful owner. It wasn't taken because she comitted a crime. This is where the officers need to remember their oath to uphold the Constituition.

This is the kind of situation where I think Fiora will be the best choice for CC sheriff.

FrankZ · May 11, 2014

BradMacc82 said:
IIRC, in MD you have to go thru a NICS check before your firearm will be released to you if it's seized or held for "safe-keeping".

I am surprised MD doesn't require you to go through a background check before you can take your gun out of the safe. Plan your range trip 8 days in advance.

gabe72 · May 11, 2014

BradMacc82 said:
IIRC, in MD you have to go thru a NICS check before your firearm will be released to you if it's seized or held for "safe-keeping".

And if you have a gun on consignment at a gunshop and take it back you get a background check too.

Gryphon · May 11, 2014

gabe72 said:
And if you have a gun on consignment at a gunshop and take it back you get a background check too.

I can understand a NICS check if you transfer it to a shop on consignment and then go back to recover it a few months later. That's a voluntary transfer. And I can understand if it is lawfully seized ( :sad20:

I had trouble typing that) upon an arrest that gets sorted out later. But when taken involuntarily for "safe keeping" after an accident? No way.

spclopr8tr · May 11, 2014

BradMacc82 said:
IIRC, in MD you have to go thru a NICS check before your firearm will be released to you if it's seized or held for "safe-keeping".

To add insult to injury, do they also charge you the $10 fee?

Straightshooter · May 11, 2014

BradMacc82 said:
IIRC, in MD you have to go thru a NICS check before your firearm will be released to you if it's seized or held for "safe-keeping".[/QUOTe

Others no written requirement that I'm aware of but you can bet your ass they do a check behind the curtain.

coopermania · May 11, 2014

BradMacc82 said:
IIRC, in MD you have to go thru a NICS check before your firearm will be released to you if it's seized or held for "safe-keeping".

Do you have the Maryland Statute for that.

gamer_jim · May 11, 2014

Hopefully SAF or another 2A organization can sue and hopefully get these laws overturned.

Colorado's new gun laws strike again

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

jc1240

Ultimate Member

ryan_j

Ultimate Member

Gryphon

inveniam viam aut faciam

Robert1955

Ultimate Member

BradMacc82

Ultimate Member

jc1240

Ultimate Member

FrankZ

Liberty = Responsibility

gabe72

Ultimate Member

Gryphon

inveniam viam aut faciam

spclopr8tr

Whatchalookinat?

Straightshooter

Ultimate Member

coopermania

Banned

gamer_jim

Podcaster

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Latest threads

Forum statistics

Share this page