Colorado Transfer Law Backfires! Victim can't get gun back from Police
http://www.reporterherald.com/news/...25491/gun-transfer-laws-stall-firearm-returns
So the victim's personal handgun was taken while the victim was in the ambulance for 'safe keeping' after a accident. But because of Colorado's "transfer laws", the police refuse to give the firearm back to the victim. The police do not have an FFL on it's staff.
"Due to advice from the city attorney's office based on the Colorado gun transfer laws that went into effect July 1, 2013, the police have been unable to return her property."
According to the article, the sheriff was told that other people are in the same position. The victim needs her firearm because of her work as a maid that often requires her to enter stranger's homes .....alone.
"I'm a lawful citizen. I use my gun legally. I need my gun ... this is ridiculous to me," Warren said. "There are people out there who can't get their guns back. They haven't done anything wrong."
Later on in the article, the police are trying to resolve it. Nevertheless, perhaps this could be a good case for having the law thrown out or having it repealed. One of the suggestions made in the article is to have an "police exemption" for such cases. One of the questions raised that if some kind of deal with an FFL is worked out, then should the victim pay an FFL fee to get her firearm back?
This is one of the many reasons why "UBC" 'Universal Background Checks" should never be implemented. And I'm still amazed that some here on THR actually support such a measure.
.
http://www.reporterherald.com/news/...25491/gun-transfer-laws-stall-firearm-returns
So the victim's personal handgun was taken while the victim was in the ambulance for 'safe keeping' after a accident. But because of Colorado's "transfer laws", the police refuse to give the firearm back to the victim. The police do not have an FFL on it's staff.
"Due to advice from the city attorney's office based on the Colorado gun transfer laws that went into effect July 1, 2013, the police have been unable to return her property."
According to the article, the sheriff was told that other people are in the same position. The victim needs her firearm because of her work as a maid that often requires her to enter stranger's homes .....alone.
"I'm a lawful citizen. I use my gun legally. I need my gun ... this is ridiculous to me," Warren said. "There are people out there who can't get their guns back. They haven't done anything wrong."
Later on in the article, the police are trying to resolve it. Nevertheless, perhaps this could be a good case for having the law thrown out or having it repealed. One of the suggestions made in the article is to have an "police exemption" for such cases. One of the questions raised that if some kind of deal with an FFL is worked out, then should the victim pay an FFL fee to get her firearm back?
This is one of the many reasons why "UBC" 'Universal Background Checks" should never be implemented. And I'm still amazed that some here on THR actually support such a measure.
.
Last edited: