Friend of mine just had to surrender his handguns (some lessons learned here)

[hdwhit]

Torian wrote:
I think we can all agree that a certain degree of carelessness was involved,...

The term is "negligence".

I'm not looking to pillory this "friend", but neither am I willing to excuse his clear violation of state law on account of the fact that in his impaired state he filed a false police report. He needs to answer for this. Hopefully, the judge will see the intent to comply with the law in spite of the fact what he was reporting was wrong. I also hope your "friend" will either discover AA or the Sinclair Method for dealing with his drinking problem.

By the way, the Sinclair Method worked wonders for me.

 

[jrmiddleton425]

The "crime(s)" he is being called to answer for are genuine crimes.

The person in question doesn't appear to have been indicted, or even remotely accused of, any offense at this point. The judge suspended his pistol permit pursuant to a hearing.

It may be as simple as going into chambers with the judge and explaining the situation. At that point, the judge can do whatever he wishes-reinstate or revoke.

I will re-phrase a point I made in a post above...reporting something stolen is a big deal, and once that process starts, there's no way to stop it.

But in and of itself, there has been no crime committed to report that something was stolen, if you make the report in the genuine belief that something WAS in fact, stolen.

 

[Shaq]

No, what you're forgetting about is the fact that burying a gun in a pile of clothes (your description) could not in any way be considered "securing" a firearm. And then because he couldn't find his insecured firearm he then (however sincerely believed otherwise at the time) filed a false police report accusing innocent people of having stolen a gun he had simply misplaced.

There is no way to put lipstick on this pig.

The "crime(s)" he is being called to answer for are genuine crimes. The fact he was wrong about his initial assertion that the gun was stolen is irrelevant to the fact he filed a police report saying that it was. Unless we're going to take a position that someone who is drunk should have ready access to a gun (remember, you said he discovered his "secured" weapon in a pile of clothes), we should be united in saying that drunk people should not have firearms and those who do should lose the right - at least temporarily.

Some people are so fixated on 2nd amendment rights, their common sense evaporates. For such ignorant people, it's either "Guns are for everyone" or else "You're not supporting our freedom."

 

[Elkins45]

There's enough blame to be shared between multiple parties. Even moderate drinking while armed, although legal, puts you in a bad position should you actually have to use the gun. If not criminally then perhaps civilly unless you live in one of those few states that bars civil action unless there was a criminal conviction. I don't think drinking is immoral, but I do think it is unwise if you carry a gun.

The dumb state law is to blame too. I'm hopeful your friend draws a reasonable judge who gives him back his guns without too much more drama. Please keep us updated.

 

[ray15]

The deputy in charge of the investigation wrote up the case putting my friend in a very bad light: "Older gentlemen has a few drinks, loses track of his gun, reports it as stolen, forcing police to interrogate an honest business and numerous persons that had done absolutely nothing wrong, then finds it 5 days later".

The wording of the police report betrays the real concern here. It dwells on the fact that the police had to investigate, and identifies the interrogation of innocent witnesses as the most serious implication. It doesn't mention possible dangers to the public, via either an unsecured firearm or impaired driving. It also does not depict the report as false, rather mistaken.

Most people questioned by the police are innocent, if they are doing more than waiting for somebody to tender a confession. That's why it takes evidence to convict someone. It was the waste of the police's time that was identified as the issue here. I don't like it when people waste my time either, but generally stop short of launching a tar-and-feathering process.

I don't recommend anyone proceed as this gentlemen did. He made in retrospect preventable errors but from what I can tell broke no laws and as such his rights are still protected under the same system of laws it is assumed he broke. Unfortunately gun ownership is not really deemed a right anymore, which should be a serious issue to all here. It was annoying the police that was deemed his affront. After all, police have the right to annoy us all they wish - like when a cop refuses to maintain a proper and safe following distance because he wants to intimidate you out of the way so he can (completely illegally outside of a pursuit) cruise 20mph over the speed limit - but we must pay if we raise their ire.

I can understand how in a state with restrictive gun laws this might well produce the results it did. But the notion as one poster maintained the result would have been the same in Texas is pretty laughable. Especially without the 24 hour law to cause the lost firearm to be reported as stolen.

 

[justice06rr]

He did the right thing . . . twice. Can't believe they are using this against him.

Mike

Not exactly.

He did the right thing by securing his firearm in his vehicle before going into the bar. But he made the mistake of reporting it stolen (without being 100% certainty), filed a police report, and had the police investigate the bar patrons/staff. According to the OP, he found his pistol 5days later in his car buried under some clothes. At that point, there is already a papertrail and a file/case opened for his "lost firearm" which now goes on his permanent record.

"The deputy in charge of the investigation wrote up the case putting my friend in a very bad light: "Older gentlemen has a few drinks, loses track of his gun, reports it as stolen, forcing police to interrogate an honest business and numerous persons that had done absolutely nothing wrong, then finds it 5 days later""

It is a very unfortunate thing to happen for him. We don't know all the exact details, but in the end, his friend made a mistake which costed him. My suggestion for everyone is when you secure your weapon in your vehicle, keep it locked in the glove compartment or a car safe.

Also, don't mix alcohol and firearms if possible. In my state, you cannot carry your ccw into a bar so when I do go to one, mine always stays locked in my vehicle--which also saves me the headache and hassle of an incident such as the OP's friend.

Thanks for the replies everyone. Some good and spirited feedback here. To review, I think we can all agree that a certain degree of carelessness was involved, and yet at the same time this I individual showed true concern and respect for the law, demonstrated by his reporting of the incident.

My issue is with this "crime" committed, and the only true victim at the end of it all is the guy who may have permanently lost his right to own a pistol...forgetting the CCW aspect at this point. He also lost property, which the state now holds, and no one else is permitted to retrieve it.

This single incident, after a lifetime of being a law-abiding citizen (65 years old), is being used as the justification to take his firearms and 2nd amendment rights away. Even as a responsible gun owner, the state's response appears overly hostile. As it stands, I couldn't even move to this state without leaving 90% of the guns I own outside the borders.

Are we ok with this? Should we be? Honest questions here. We are all gun owners that value our Constitutional rights. We shouldn't let hostile states in the union turn us against each other on these topics. We barely are holding our ground as it is.

Everyone makes mistakes. Your friend apparently made one that is going to cost him.

We're all Pro-2A here and we're all for law-abiding citizens to have the right to own guns. But that right can be taken away if one is careless or negligent with the use/ownership of firearms.

If anything, your friend can move to a more gun-friendly state like FL. Here you can purchase and own guns without needing a permit as long as you are not a felon.

 

[hdwhit]

jrmiddleton425 wrote:
The person in question doesn't appear to have been indicted, or even remotely accused of, any offense at this point. The judge suspended his pistol permit pursuant to a hearing.

Look at what Torain said the reason for the hearing was based upon. The person in question is more than "remotely" but is actually accused of having filed a false police report about a gun having been stolen in a bar. That is, unquestionably, a criminal offense. The fact you cannot or are not willing to recognize it as such does not change the fact that it is a criminal offense under the applicable state law.

 

[hdwhit]

jstice06rr wrote:
He did the right thing by securing his firearm in his vehicle before going into the bar.

Read Torian's OP again. How can burying a gun in some clothing in the car be considered "securing" the weapon?

 

[hdwhit]

Let's get down to "brass tacks" here. The person in the situation presented by Torian "secured" their weapon by tossing it into a pile of clothing in their car. Whether they are already impaired a this point (and thus already gulty of a crime is outside the scope of this post, but note that the subject of the post may already have been guilty of a felony at this point) or not is not the subject of this post. The subject went into the bar and then proceeded to drink. At some point they left the bar and returned to their car. Once in their car, they could not find their "unsecured" gun in the pile of clothing. So, they filed a polcie report affirming (falsely, as it would turn out) that the gun was stolen by someone in the bar. Note that this alone is a felony which would disqualify someone from ever posessing a gun in the future. They later found the gun in the pile of clothing and reported the discovery (and the fact it made the prior police report fraudulent).

How does Troran's friend - under the facts presented - avoid a felony charge that would prevfnt him and his associates from ever lawfully prosessing guns in the future?

 

[pintler]

On the subject of leaving guns in cars: Gil Kerlikowske, then Seattle chief of police, left his handgun under the seat of his personal car while accompanying his wife into a store, and the gun was stolen. He did not do this because the law prohibited him from carrying in the store, he said he just didn't feel like carrying.

He has not been charged with any crimes. In fact, subsequent to the incident he was hired as the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, then the Customs and Border Protection Commissioner.

Now, driving drunk is a serious matter, and might be a felony depending on the state and circumstances. Whether the the person being discussed here drove drunk isn't clear - the OP speculates that maybe he did.

But what we know for sure is that he hid the gun in his car, and later couldn't find it, and did the reporting mandated by state law. And it seems like some people believe that those facts alone justify a felony conviction. To tease the issues apart, let me ask two questions:

1)does Mr. Kerlikowske deserve a felony conviction for leaving his gun in the car?
2)Suppose Granny looks in the attic trunk where she thought her late husband's gun was stored and doesn't find it. She then complies with her state's mandatory reporting law and reports it stolen. After further searching she finds it. Felony?

If the gent discussed here was driving drunk, then he should be convicted of driving drunk and suffer whatever those consequences are, but I don't buy a logical chain that says 'he drove drunk, so let's convict him of other behavior that wouldn't be a crime if he was sober'.

 

[MarkDido]

Look at what Torain said the reason for the hearing was based upon. The person in question is more than "remotely" but is actually accused of having filed a false police report about a gun having been stolen in a bar. That is, unquestionably, a criminal offense. The fact you cannot or are not willing to recognize it as such does not change the fact that it is a criminal offense under the applicable state law.

Assuming a lot there.

When he filed the report, did he KNOW the gun was actually in his car under a pile of clothes?
If so, then he did not file a "false" report.

 

[MarkDido]

Let's get down to "brass tacks" here. The person in the situation presented by Torian "secured" their weapon by tossing it into a pile of clothing in their car. Whether they are already impaired a this point (and thus already gulty of a crime is outside the scope of this post, but note that the subject of the post may already have been guilty of a felony at this point) or not is not the subject of this post. The subject went into the bar and then proceeded to drink. At some point they left the bar and returned to their car. Once in their car, they could not find their "unsecured" gun in the pile of clothing. So, they filed a polcie report affirming (falsely, as it would turn out) that the gun was stolen by someone in the bar. Note that this alone is a felony which would disqualify someone from ever posessing a gun in the future. They later found the gun in the pile of clothing and reported the discovery (and the fact it made the prior police report fraudulent).

How does Troran's friend - under the facts presented - avoid a felony charge that would prevfnt him and his associates from ever lawfully prosessing guns in the future?

There's a difference between "false" and 'erroneous".

Did he file a police report, knowing that the gun was actually in his car? If so it was false. If he genuinely thought the gun was stolen, it was not a false report.

And as far is filing a police report is a felony, it depends on the state. In Florida it is a misdemeanor.

 

[toivo]

Assuming a lot there.

When he filed the report, did he KNOW the gun was actually in his car under a pile of clothes?
If so, then he did not file a "false" report.

The issue isn't whether or not he knew where his gun was. All he really knew was that he didn't have his gun. The issue is that he claimed to know that it was stolen. "I don't have my gun so it must have been stolen" is a pretty big assumption in its own right, one that he wouldn't have had to make if he hadn't been significantly impaired. It's a convenient way of deflecting blame for a serious lapse in judgment and responsibility.

 

[Berger.Fan222]

There's a difference between "false" and 'erroneous".

Did he file a police report, knowing that the gun was actually in his car? If so it was false. If he genuinely thought the gun was stolen, it was not a false report.

And as far is filing a police report is a felony, it depends on the state. In Florida it is a misdemeanor.

I don't think making honest errors in reports to police is a crime in any state.

 

[BSA1]

“The issue isn't whether or not he knew where his gun was. All he really knew was that he didn't have his gun. The issue is that he claimed to know that it was stolen. "I don't have my gun so it must have been stolen" is a pretty big assumption in its own right, one that he wouldn't have had to make if he hadn't been significantly impaired. It's a convenient way of deflecting blame for a serious lapse in judgment and responsibility.”

He lives in NEW YORK STATE. NEW YORK STATE Law REQUIRES lost or stolen guns to be reported to the police within 72 hours.

In fact the following States have mandatory loss or theft reporting laws;
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Illinois
Maryland (handguns and assault weapons only)
Massachusetts
Michigan (thefts only)
New Jersey
New York
Ohio
Rhode Island

Based on the original post the acquaintance was complying with NEW YORK STATE LAW by reporting the missing gun.

As for the accusation he filed a FALSE Police report a careful reading of NEW YORK STATE LAW is required before making that determination. Filing a false police report is usually a result of trying to get a financial gain (such as insurance fraud) or concealing crime.

I don’t see anything that says the acquaintance filed a insurance claim for the missing gun. He filed a Police report for the gun that was missing at the time of the report.

What is sadly missing in this thread is how many THR members support him losing not only his 2nd Amendment Right to Bear and Keep by being forced to surrender ALL OF HIS HANDGUNS to the STATE without a warrant or compensation.

(edited to ask; N.Y.C. bans handguns and long guns. Does the same State issued permit apply to long guns also? Or does New York allow cities and counties to enact however more restrictive gun laws (home rule) they want)?

Lapses of good judgment is not necessarily a crime. Drinking to the point of blacking out is certainly using poor judgment and may be an indicator of being a alcoholic. However that is not a crime. In fact based on the information posted by the O.P. no one was ever at risk or in any danger by the gun being in the car under a pile of clothes.

Unfortunately in appears that the good citizens of NEW YORK STATE and some forum members accept the concept that the rbka is a privilege determined by the whims of the State.

A understanding of the 5th and 14th Amendments are missing in this discussion.

 

[Shaq]

The issue isn't whether or not he knew where his gun was. All he really knew was that he didn't have his gun. The issue is that he claimed to know that it was stolen. "I don't have my gun so it must have been stolen" is a pretty big assumption in its own right, one that he wouldn't have had to make if he hadn't been significantly impaired. It's a convenient way of deflecting blame for a serious lapse in judgment and responsibility.

Lapses in judgment, irresponsibility, not caring about the safety of others, etc. quite common in alcoholics.

 

[Shaq]

“The issue isn't whether or not he knew where his gun was. All he really knew was that he didn't have his gun. The issue is that he claimed to know that it was stolen. "I don't have my gun so it must have been stolen" is a pretty big assumption in its own right, one that he wouldn't have had to make if he hadn't been significantly impaired. It's a convenient way of deflecting blame for a serious lapse in judgment and responsibility.”

He lives in NEW YORK STATE. NEW YORK STATE Law REQUIRES lost or stolen guns to be reported to the police within 72 hours.

In fact the following States have mandatory loss or theft reporting laws;
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Illinois
Maryland (handguns and assault weapons only)
Massachusetts
Michigan (thefts only)
New Jersey
New York
Ohio
Rhode Island

Based on the original post the acquaintance was complying with NEW YORK STATE LAW by reporting the missing gun.

As for the accusation he filed a FALSE Police report a careful reading of NEW YORK STATE LAW is required before making that determination. Filing a false police report is usually a result of trying to get a financial gain (such as insurance fraud) or concealing crime.

I don’t see anything that says the acquaintance filed a insurance claim for the missing gun. He filed a Police report for the gun that was missing at the time of the report.

What is sadly missing in this thread is how many THR members support him losing not only his 2nd Amendment Right to Bear and Keep by being forced to surrender ALL OF HIS FIREARMS to the STATE without a warrant or compensation.

Lapses of good judgment is not necessarily a crime. Drinking to the point of blacking out is certainly using poor judgment and may be an indicator of being a alcoholic. However that is not a crime. In fact based on the information posted by the O.P. no one was ever at risk or in any danger by the gun being in the car under a pile of clothes.

Unfortunately in appears that the good citizens of NEW YORK STATE and some forum members accept the concept that the rbka is a privilege determined by the whims of the State.

A understanding of the 5th and 14th Amendments are missing in this discussion.

Some people are so fixated on 2nd amendment rights, their common sense evaporates.

 

[BSA1]

Some people are so fixated on 2nd amendment rights, their common sense evaporates.

Except this is more of a 5th and 14th Amendment Case.

 

[toivo]

He filed a Police report for the gun that was missing at the time of the report.

Wrong. He filed a police report saying that it was stolen. He didn't know that, and in fact couldn't know it because it wasn't true.

What is sadly missing in this thread is how many THR members support him losing not only his 2nd Amendment Right to Bear and Keep by being forced to surrender ALL OF HIS HANDGUNS to the STATE without a warrant or compensation.

Relax and dismantle that straw man. I'm not calling for that or anything like it.

What I'm saying is that this man's behavior was irresponsible bordering on the criminal, and I don't have much sympathy for him. Nobody should lose any rights without having their day in court, but behavior like this just makes it that much harder for all of us gun owners who don't get drunk and "misplace" their firearms.

I've read the blogs from the antis who like nothing better than to highlight incidents like this with snarky comments like "Another 'responsible' gun owner," etc. I resent being judged by the actions of drunks and fools, and I will condemn their behavior without hesitation. It has nothing to do with my degree of support for the Second Amendment, which is wholehearted.

 

[heyjoe]

edited to ask; N.Y.C. bans handguns and long guns. Does the same State issued permit apply to long guns also? Or does New York allow cities and counties to enact however more restrictive gun laws (home rule) they want)?

NYC is the only place in New York State that you need a permit for a rifle or shot gun.

 

[BSA1]

Wrong. He filed a police report saying that it was stolen.

None the less his gun was missing and he is required by NEW YORK STATE LAW to report to the Police within 72 hours which he did. We don't know why he reported it stolen. It could have been based on a reasonable belief on his part or as the O.P. suggests faulty memory from drinking too much or trying to make up a story to avoid making it appear he was so drunk that he lost it.

He didn't know that, and in fact couldn't know it because it wasn't true.

You must have less skillful thieves in your area. Where I live we have thieves that break in locked cars without doing any damage to it or leaving behind evidence. I had my truck broken into this winter and the thief did not do any damage to the door or lock. The thief could have taken items from my truck that I would not have realized was missing for a period of time (Instead he was trying to make a amateur attempt to steal my truck).

What I'm saying is that this man's behavior was irresponsible bordering on the criminal, and I don't have much sympathy for him.

To paraphrase Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.;

"Young man, let me remind you that this is a court of law and not a court of {justice} irresponsible behavior."

Nobody should lose any rights without having their day in court, .

Which is exactly what is going on here. He has not had his day in Court, has not been charged with a crime and the State is attempting to force him to over all of his handguns without a warrant. However the good citizens of New York State agree that handgun ownership is a privilege that is given on the whims of the Government.

I resent being judged by the actions of drunks and fools, and I will condemn their behavior without hesitation.

I have reached the stage of life and the enough wisdom that I don't care what others do and what opinions others have of me. People opposed to gun ownership will condemn regardless of what I do or don't do. I have my hands full just taking care of myself.

...but behavior like this just makes it that much harder for all of us gun owners who don't get drunk and "misplace" their firearms...It has nothing to do with my degree of support for the Second Amendment, which is wholehearted.

As I have said before this is NOT a 2A case. It is about violating the 5th and 14th Amendments by the Government.

 

[tulsamal]

I lived in Hawaii for three years. JAN 86 to OCT 88. It was worse. Even for an Active Duty Army guy. Rifles and shotguns were bad enough but buying a handgun was such an enormous pain in the backside that I literally didn't buy one the whole time I was there. Probably the longest stretch of my adult life without buying a new handgun!

 

[george burns]

So in New York you must have the written permission of the State to own a handgun?

When permission to own a handgun is taken away the owner must surrender them to the State without compensation?

I can understand why the State would suspend his conceal carry permit pending a hearing but do not understand being forced to turn over any (let alone all) of his handgun(s).

Because it's like the chicken and the egg, in order to get a permit in NYC, :which I had". for 25 years, you need a reason, Like carrying large amounts of cash, jewlery etc. Then you get the license predicated on the business, you get a pyrchase order to go get a gun, which is then typed on your permit, "along with the serial #, caliber and name of the gun.
Once they take your permit, you lose the ability to carry that or any other guns, which would be listed on the permit. That's it, if you sell the business, you also lose the reason you got the permit, thus you hand in the permit and prior to that get an ordet to sell the gun, "pain in the ass". Now you know why people hate NYC who like guns.

 

[MarkDido]

Because it's like the chicken and the egg, in order to get a permit in NYC, :which I had". for 25 years, you need a reason, Like carrying large amounts of cash, jewlery etc. Then you get the license predicated on the business, you get a pyrchase order to go get a gun, which is then typed on your permit, "along with the serial #, caliber and name of the gun.
Once they take your permit, you lose the ability to carry that or any other guns, which would be listed on the permit. That's it, if you sell the business, you also lose the reason you got the permit, thus you hand in the permit and prior to that get an ordet to sell the gun, "pain in the ass". Now you know why people hate NYC who like guns.

It's not just guns. It's the entire NYC "We know what's best for you" mentality.

 

[LawHoc]

So in New York you must have the written permission of the State to own a handgun?

When permission to own a handgun is taken away the owner must surrender them to the State without compensation?

I can understand why the State would suspend his conceal carry permit pending a hearing but do not understand being forced to turn over any (let alone all) of his handgun(s).

I believe there are provisions for having a surrendered (legitimate, untainted) gun taken into possession by a lic firearms dealer for resale, proceeds to owner less fees.