Arsenal?

[seamusTX]

Here's something. I normal don't quote entire sections of the law, but I will in this case:

Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 18.19. DISPOSITION OF SEIZED WEAPONS. (a) Weapons seized in connection with an offense involving the use of a weapon or an offense under Penal Code Chapter 46 shall be held by the law enforcement agency making the seizure, subject to the following provisions, unless:
(1) the weapon is a prohibited weapon identified in Penal Code Chapter 46, in which event Article 18.18 of this code applies; or
(2) the weapon is alleged to be stolen property, in which event Chapter 47 of this code applies.
(b) When a weapon described in Paragraph (a) of this article is seized, and the seizure is not made pursuant to a search or arrest warrant, the person seizing the same shall prepare and deliver to a magistrate a written inventory of each weapon seized.
(c) If there is no prosecution or conviction for an offense involving the weapon seized, the magistrate to whom the seizure was reported shall, before the 61st day after the date the magistrate determines that there will be no prosecution or conviction, notify in writing the person found in possession of the weapon that the person is entitled to the weapon upon written request to the magistrate. The magistrate shall order the weapon returned to the person found in possession before the 61st day after the date the magistrate receives a request from the person. If the weapon is not requested before the 61st day after the date of notification, the magistrate shall, before the 121st day after the date of notification, order the weapon destroyed or forfeited to the state for use by the law enforcement agency holding the weapon or by a county forensic laboratory designated by the magistrate. If the magistrate does not order the return, destruction, or forfeiture of the weapon within the applicable period prescribed by this subsection, the law enforcement agency holding the weapon may request an order of destruction or forfeiture of the weapon from the magistrate.
(d) A person either convicted or receiving deferred adjudication under Chapter 46, Penal Code, is entitled to the weapon seized upon request to the court in which the person was convicted or placed on deferred adjudication. However, the court entering the judgment shall order the weapon destroyed or forfeited to the state for use by the law enforcement agency holding the weapon or by a county forensic laboratory designated by the court if:
(1) the person does not request the weapon before the 61st day after the date of the judgment of conviction or the order placing the person on deferred adjudication;
(2) the person has been previously convicted under Chapter 46, Penal Code;
(3) the weapon is one defined as a prohibited weapon under Chapter 46, Penal Code;
(4) the offense for which the person is convicted or receives deferred adjudication was committed in or on the premises of a playground, school, video arcade facility, or youth center, as those terms are defined by Section 481.134, Health and Safety Code; or
(5) the court determines based on the prior criminal history of the defendant or based on the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offense that possession of the seized weapon would pose a threat to the community or one or more individuals.
(e) If the person found in possession of a weapon is convicted of an offense involving the use of the weapon, before the 61st day after the date of conviction the court entering judgment of conviction shall order destruction of the weapon or forfeiture to the state for use by the law enforcement agency holding the weapon or by a county forensic laboratory designated by the court. If the court entering judgment of conviction does not order the destruction or forfeiture of the weapon within the period prescribed by this subsection, the law enforcement agency holding the weapon may request an order of destruction or forfeiture of the weapon from a magistrate.

The first underlined clause talks about weapons seized in connection with an arrest, which I have no problem with.

The second underline clause suggests that a weapon can be seized for a reason other than arrest or a search warrant. I suspect I have overlooked some other law that allows that.

The third and fourth underlined clauses suggest that seized weapons of a convicted person can be forfeited based on a subjective standard. I have no further comment about that.

- Jim

[AEA]

Well,....I am not happy with this realization of additional circumstances associated with the use of my weapon to protect myself or someone with me if necessary.

Realizing that if this can not be addressed and corrected, that it is just not feasible for anyone to have more than 2 or 3 guns that they don't mind loosing.

I don't believe this is acceptable. Anyone who carries under the CHL and has a large gun collection has just wasted thousands of dollars when the shot is fired.

Let's see.......another item to consider before firing......
Do I shoot this BG who is within 7 yards of me with a butcher knife in his hand or do I just hit him in the head with the but of the gun?
Let me think.....where are all of my other guns at right now?

[HankB]

IANAL, but it seems to me there are way too many "if this, then that, otherwise . . . " branches to this topic to come up with any definitive answer. Generally speaking, if it's determined that you are in the wrong and have done something seriously criminal, it wouldn't surprise me if "they" take your guns. (Whichever ones they can find, at least.) If you're involved in something like a rightous shooting, I don't see why they would steal anything not directly involved in the incident.

It becomes a bit more murky if someone else in the household who was not involved in the incident owns firearms.

Personally, I'd be loathe to open my safe, as doing so might be interpreted as giving consent to a search.

I'll conclude by saying that keeping all one's guns in one spot isn't a particularly wise course of action.

[srothstein]

(b) When a weapon described in Paragraph (a) of this article is seized, and the seizure is not made pursuant to a search or arrest warrant, the person seizing the same shall prepare and deliver to a magistrate a written inventory of each weapon seized.

The second underline clause suggests that a weapon can be seized for a reason other than arrest or a search warrant. I suspect I have overlooked some other law that allows that.

Jim, I think you misread this. This clause pertains to a weapon seized based on a search warrant or an arrest warrant. Another way to seize weapons is pursuant to a search or arrest without a warrant if there are exigent circumstances.

I think this the type of thing the court is referring to. This way the police are forced to account for the property to a magistrate for further disposition.

[seamusTX]

Another way to seize weapons is pursuant to a search or arrest without a warrant if there are exigent circumstances.

Thanks for clearing that up.

So is there any legal basis for seizing weapons if a person is not arrested or subject to a search warrant?

- Jim

[srothstein]

While I hesitate to call it a seizure, it would come under this law so I will mention the found abandoned property possibility. If a cop were to come across a gun lying in the middle of the street with no one around, he could take it. Surprisingly, this happens quite often with people around. The cop will see the gun and the whole crowd will say "No sir Officer, that is not my gun".

Another possibility that has happened quite often, but I have never yet found a law permitting it, is the public safety seizure. A cop gets a call, usually from a family member, that someone is acting crazy and has a gun. The officer may not be able to legally arrest or get an emergency psychiatric commitment (or know how) but he takes the guns and puts them in the property room for safekeeping. I don't see how this is a seizure for the terms of this law since the gun is not evidence and the police know whose property it is, but I would bet some department will try to apply this law.

[Venus Pax]

This thread raised my eyebrows a bit.

I did not think that other guns could be confiscated if only one was involved in an incident.

Ex: Let's say that I go off the deep end and do something stupid (and illegal) involving a single handgun. Wouldn't my husband retain the right to keep my other weapons while I'm in the hokey? It doesn't make sense that they would be able to confiscate all of them.

Considering that guns are somewhat-valuable property, it seems that they would be given to a relative or friend of the owner in the event that the owner loses his/her RKBA.
What am I missing here?

[AEA]

EXACTLY.............

Thus the need for Legislation to rectify this gaping hole in personal property rights. (with regard to firearms).

[Liberty]

EXACTLY.............

Thus the need for Legislation to rectify this gaping hole in personal property rights. (with regard to firearms).

I make no pretension of understanding the laws as they apply here, but once a place or location is determined to be a crime scene everything can become evidence.

A couple of months ago they took this truckers money because he was a latino and didn't look like he should be able to own $23,700 although it was the Feds that did the confiscation, It doesn't seem likely that a simple bill will be able to fix this problem. If they can take our money without being charged for anything. How can we stop them from taking our guns when a real crime has been committed?

[phddan]

They didn't take his money...

They stole it. Armed robbery.

Dan

[seamusTX]

This is what the "war on drugs" has done to this country.

- Jim

[KBCraig]

This is what the "war on drugs" has done to this country.

Every now and then, it's good to read Radley Balko. Helps restore a much-needed sense of rage.

[mcub]

One of the factors that we are not including is the reality that law enforcement must deal with.

Let’s say they go and arrest some one for doing X in response to a neighbor’s complaint, and leave the house full of guns. Now after they leave, and room mate of x takes the guns and murders the neighbor for getting their lover arrested.

Whom do you think the media and litigation attorneys are going to blame? Sure the DA will prosecute the room mate, but Society will prosecute the officers.

To me the issue should not be keeping the police from seizing the weapons, but rather insuring there is a reasonable way the owners can get them returned.


Thank carefully, is the primary complaint that New Orleans secured guns after the hurricane, or is the primary complaint about the refusal to give them back??

[Liberty]

One of the factors that we are not including is the reality that law enforcement must deal with.

Let’s say they go and arrest some one for doing X in response to a neighbor’s complaint, and leave the house full of guns. Now after they leave, and room mate of x takes the guns and murders the neighbor for getting their lover arrested.

Whom do you think the media and litigation attorneys are going to blame? Sure the DA will prosecute the room mate, but Society will prosecute the officers.

To me the issue should not be keeping the police from seizing the weapons, but rather insuring there is a reasonable way the owners can get them returned.


Thank carefully, is the primary complaint that New Orleans secured guns after the hurricane, or is the primary complaint about the refusal to give them back??

I value my guns more for the protection they offer me than for their dollar value. Others might have more valuable collections, but leaving citizens defenseless was reprehensible.

[CHL/LEO]

Say that I went off my rocker and started shooting up the neighborhood with a single handgun and for whatever reason they come to my house and arrest me, are they going to take the safe? Break into it? What?

In this scenario - your gun safe will be opened and any guns will very probably be taken.

Regarding your example of using deadly force to protect yourself - the weapon you used might be seized (in our city if would be) for testing and subsequent presentation to the Grand Jury, but there would probably be no reason to seize any others you owned. Each agency or department might be a little different based upon what their SOP was.

Regarding the trucker that had the $20,000+ in cash confiscated - if he can provide documented evidence that he earned the money and converted it into cash (or was paid in cash) he might be able to get it back. Even so, it will cost him time and legal fees. Like someone else posted this all came about because of the "war on drugs".