Houston/Katy geologist arrested for having gun in car.

[CHL/LEO]

There are plenty of reasons that a LE agency can gain control of your gun but first let me start off by saying that this particular incident is being openly discussed around my department.

A few officers are of the opinion that the guy should have just gotten a CHL and he would have avoided the whole issue. Quite a few others are of the opinion that a law abiding person doesn't need permission to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights any more than they would their 1st Amendment Rights. This should serve notice that it really comes down to how the particular officer you come into contact with feels about CHLs, traveling with a gun (no CHL), etc. In fact, there are some officers that are of the opinion that no one should have guns except LEOs. In my opinion people that believe that (whether LEOs, DAs, Judges, or politicians) are just plain wrong but will also do what they can to dictate and implement this belief system onto our society.

For example, let's say I and another officer were on a traffic stop similar to the one this thread is about. He believes that no citizen should have a gun and I believe the opposite - that you really shouldn't even need a CHL to protect you and your family. He decides that he is going to arrest the unlucky citizen and I totally disagree. All I can do is call a supervisor to the location to "break the tie". It then comes down to what the supervisor’s beliefs are regarding the situation.

Let's say I'm over ruled and we're off to jail with the newly branded "criminal". I have one last "court of appeal" available to me and that is the jail Sgt that must approve every arrest report or no one gets into jail. Again, it's the luck of the draw as to who you get as to what happens. If you get several jail Sgts arguing about it then it usually comes down to, "Just book them and let the DA and judge decide what they want to do with them."

I share this example primarily to show you how the interpretation and application of the law can be so varied. Please be careful and my advice to all is to get a CHL and don't let the gray area of traveling be used against you.

Back to a LE department getting a hold of your gun: there are plenty of ways they could and I will give you some examples of just the ones I've been personally involved in:

(1) gun's in car -car's in accident - driver goes to hospital - LEO is inventorying car prior to being towed - LEO finds gun - gun goes to property room.
(2) same scenario as above but gun was on driver - LEO takes gun and places it into property room.
(3) your gun is stolen - LEO recovers your stolen gun - LEO notifies you that they have your gun and you can arrange to pick it up from the property room.
(4) spouse calls 911 and tells LEO that they are afraid of their spouse who has a gun - spouse gives gun to LEO and asks them to keep it - gun goes to property room.

These are just some of the ways that your gun could end up in a LE agency's property room and with no crime haven been committed by you.

Now here's the problem that you are going to run into when this does happen. At my department we have very specific rules that our property room personnel have to follow regarding releasing guns back to the owners. In above situation one, two, or three you would go to the property room and provide proof that the gun was yours and then you would be handed a form to complete. This form is a background information form that is used to do a background check on every person that comes to pick up a gun. You may say, "I have a CHL I don't need a background check" to which you will be told everyone gets a background check so fill out the form or you don't get your gun back.

After you complete the form and hand it in you will probably next be thinking that this is like the "instant" background check that gun dealers do and everything will be though in five minutes so that you can be on your way with your gun. Sorry, the information sheet that you complete will be sent to both the ATF and the FBI for a check. People are told that it takes around 6 to 8 weeks to get a response back from both agencies so check back in a few months.

Now if your gun was taken because of item number 4 you will have one more hurdle to cross over. The officer that seized your gun will be contacted by the property room and told that you were there to pick your gun up and does that particular officer have any problem with them releasing your gun to you. Now's the time you might want to remember all the officers with differing opinions as to whether citizens should even have a gun… Let's say you are unlucky enough to get one of those officers and your spouse has done a great acting job of convincing this officer that she is in fear of her life by you having a gun. That officer will proceed to tell the property room to not let you have the gun and when that happens, the entire release process comes to a halt. No submittal of a background check or anything - the process just ended.

If you want to get your gun back your next recourse is to hire an attorney and take the matter to court. This will take a long time and cost you lots of money. Most people think, "Well, the gun cost me $500 and the attorney wants a $1,000 retainer fee, and that's just for starters. It could cost me a couple of thousand dollars to get my gun back and that could take 6 months or a year to do. You know what, I'm just going to get me another gun and cut my losses." Now if the gun has a special meaning or value to you then by all means take it to court, but just remember what it will cost you AND there is no guarantee as to what the judge thinks about private citizens and gun ownership.

Years ago when I heard that this was our policy and procedures I couldn't quite believe it. Especially once they came out with the CHL along with the ability to do instant checks... and why the ATF check? Now before you start screaming to me that my department is all screwed up let me tell you this policy didn't come down from our Chief. This little jewel is courtesy of the city management who got direction from the city attorneys that this is what needed to be done.

I know this is a long reply but one of the things I hope to do on this forum is to educate non LEOs as to why some departments and some officers do the things they do. Some of it seems totally devoid of common sense as you might see it (and at times it is because you are dealing with a huge government entity that has a lot of power) but the fact is that's the way the rules are and perhaps once you know the rules you can either work to get them changed or play within them.

Now lots (if not most) of you are going to cry, "This isn't fair!" to which I will tell you the same thing that I tell younger officers (and my kids), "Rule #1 - Life isn't fair - you better get used to it." From then on out whenever they start into some diatribe about how something isn't fair I just refer them to Rule #1 and ask them for a possible solution.

[Photoman]

The moral of the story being: Don't carry Grandad's Registered Magnum or that $2500 Wilson 1911.

Thanks for the informative post CHL/LEO.

[flintknapper]

There are plenty of reasons that a LE agency can gain control of your gun but first let me start off by saying that this particular incident is being openly discussed around my department.

A few officers are of the opinion that the guy should have just gotten a CHL and he would have avoided the whole issue. Quite a few others are of the opinion that a law abiding person doesn't need permission to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights any more than they would their 1st Amendment Rights. This should serve notice that it really comes down to how the particular officer you come into contact with feels about CHLs, traveling with a gun (no CHL), etc. In fact, there are some officers that are of the opinion that no one should have guns except LEOs. In my opinion people that believe that (whether LEOs, DAs, Judges, or politicians) are just plain wrong but will also do what they can to dictate and implement this belief system onto our society.

For example, let's say I and another officer were on a traffic stop similar to the one this thread is about. He believes that no citizen should have a gun and I believe the opposite - that you really shouldn't even need a CHL to protect you and your family. He decides that he is going to arrest the unlucky citizen and I totally disagree. All I can do is call a supervisor to the location to "break the tie". It then comes down to what the supervisor’s beliefs are regarding the situation.

Let's say I'm over ruled and we're off to jail with the newly branded "criminal". I have one last "court of appeal" available to me and that is the jail Sgt that must approve every arrest report or no one gets into jail. Again, it's the luck of the draw as to who you get as to what happens. If you get several jail Sgts arguing about it then it usually comes down to, "Just book them and let the DA and judge decide what they want to do with them."

I share this example primarily to show you how the interpretation and application of the law can be so varied. Please be careful and my advice to all is to get a CHL and don't let the gray area of traveling be used against you.

Back to a LE department getting a hold of your gun: there are plenty of ways they could and I will give you some examples of just the ones I've been personally involved in:

(1) gun's in car -car's in accident - driver goes to hospital - LEO is inventorying car prior to being towed - LEO finds gun - gun goes to property room.
(2) same scenario as above but gun was on driver - LEO takes gun and places it into property room.
(3) your gun is stolen - LEO recovers your stolen gun - LEO notifies you that they have your gun and you can arrange to pick it up from the property room.

(4) spouse calls 911 and tells LEO that they are afraid of their spouse who has a gun - spouse gives gun to LEO and asks them to keep it - gun goes to property room.

These are just some of the ways that your gun could end up in a LE agency's property room and with no crime haven been committed by you.

Now here's the problem that you are going to run into when this does happen. At my department we have very specific rules that our property room personnel have to follow regarding releasing guns back to the owners. In above situation one, two, or three you would go to the property room and provide proof that the gun was yours and then you would be handed a form to complete. This form is a background information form that is used to do a background check on every person that comes to pick up a gun. You may say, "I have a CHL I don't need a background check" to which you will be told everyone gets a background check so fill out the form or you don't get your gun back.

After you complete the form and hand it in you will probably next be thinking that this is like the "instant" background check that gun dealers do and everything will be though in five minutes so that you can be on your way with your gun. Sorry, the information sheet that you complete will be sent to both the ATF and the FBI for a check. People are told that it takes around 6 to 8 weeks to get a response back from both agencies so check back in a few months.

Now if your gun was taken because of item number 4 you will have one more hurdle to cross over. The officer that seized your gun will be contacted by the property room and told that you were there to pick your gun up and does that particular officer have any problem with them releasing your gun to you. Now's the time you might want to remember all the officers with differing opinions as to whether citizens should even have a gun… Let's say you are unlucky enough to get one of those officers and your spouse has done a great acting job of convincing this officer that she is in fear of her life by you having a gun. That officer will proceed to tell the property room to not let you have the gun and when that happens, the entire release process comes to a halt. No submittal of a background check or anything - the process just ended.

If you want to get your gun back your next recourse is to hire an attorney and take the matter to court. This will take a long time and cost you lots of money. Most people think, "Well, the gun cost me $500 and the attorney wants a $1,000 retainer fee, and that's just for starters. It could cost me a couple of thousand dollars to get my gun back and that could take 6 months or a year to do. You know what, I'm just going to get me another gun and cut my losses." Now if the gun has a special meaning or value to you then by all means take it to court, but just remember what it will cost you AND there is no guarantee as to what the judge thinks about private citizens and gun ownership.

Years ago when I heard that this was our policy and procedures I couldn't quite believe it. Especially once they came out with the CHL along with the ability to do instant checks... and why the ATF check? Now before you start screaming to me that my department is all screwed up let me tell you this policy didn't come down from our Chief. This little jewel is courtesy of the city management who got direction from the city attorneys that this is what needed to be done.

I know this is a long reply but one of the things I hope to do on this forum is to educate non LEOs as to why some departments and some officers do the things they do. Some of it seems totally devoid of common sense as you might see it (and at times it is because you are dealing with a huge government entity that has a lot of power) but the fact is that's the way the rules are and perhaps once you know the rules you can either work to get them changed or play within them.

Now lots (if not most) of you are going to cry, "This isn't fair!" to which I will tell you the same thing that I tell younger officers (and my kids), "Rule #1 - Life isn't fair - you better get used to it." From then on out whenever they start into some diatribe about how something isn't fair I just refer them to Rule #1 and ask them for a possible solution.

Great post!

Questions concerning the text highlighted above.

Why would LE feel obligated (let alone legally justified) in receiving property from a spouse based only upon their feeling/word?

Would the property room have also accepted every knife, scissors, bat, rope, etc...in the house, and "stored" it for her upon her request?

This seems very wrong to me, and is the reason for my questions.

Thanks,

Flint.

[jimlongley]

Now here's the problem that you are going to run into when this does happen. At my department we have very specific rules that our property room personnel have to follow regarding releasing guns back to the owners. In above situation one, two, or three you would go to the property room and provide proof that the gun was yours and then you would be handed a form to complete. This form is a background information form that is used to do a background check on every person that comes to pick up a gun. You may say, "I have a CHL I don't need a background check" to which you will be told everyone gets a background check so fill out the form or you don't get your gun back.

After you complete the form and hand it in you will probably next be thinking that this is like the "instant" background check that gun dealers do and everything will be though in five minutes so that you can be on your way with your gun. Sorry, the information sheet that you complete will be sent to both the ATF and the FBI for a check. People are told that it takes around 6 to 8 weeks to get a response back from both agencies so check back in a few months.

Good post, but that part is criminal. Any other piece of personal property taken into safe keeping (ie the first scenarios) would be returned immediately, so should guns.

[ElGato]

Me too on the ''Good Post'', keep them coming. The more we know about contact with LE the better off we will be. I think it has been very well established here that 99% of our contact with LE will be positive and not present any more problems than a non-CHL's contact, the 1% is the part we need to study and prepare for so that we are certain that we conduct ourselves in a way so not to make a bad situation worse and be able to come out of it in the best way possible.

[frankie_the_yankee]

This is my first post on this forum, but I thought I could bring another perspective to this discussion.

I've lived in TX for the last 6 years, but before that spent 50 years living in RI. For the record, let me note that RI is not a "gun friendly" state. Far from it. You can't carry a loaded pistol anywhere unless you have a CHL. Even unloaded, you can only transport a pistol directly to or from your home and a gun store or your home and a "bona fide" shooting range. (i.e. not your buddy's place out in the country.)

And CHL's are not easy to get. Unlike "shall issue" states like TX, in RI the local authorities (in this case, the state AG's office) have "discretion" under the law as to whether to issue a permit or not. Generally, the applicant is required to show "need", as is some special circumstance that causes them to NEED a gun for personal protection.

Unless you're a retired cop, well-connected, or unusually resourceful and persistent, he usually exercises his "discretion" to determine that you don't really "need" a permit so you can't have one. Another recent "innovation" is to issue a "restricted" permit, even though there is no provision in the law that says he can do that. Say if you own a small retail business, you'll get a permit "for work purposes only". With that, you can carry when going to or from the store, the bank, etc. At any other time, you CAN'T carry and it's a felony.

Be that as it may, I would put myself in the "resourceful" catagory in that I had obtained a RI CHL in 1992 (with no restrictions) and more or less carried a pistol with me everywhere I went (that was legal).

Then one evening in 1995 while out for a walk in Providence (the state capital), I began to feel ill and suspected that I was having a heart attack. I entered a photocopy shop that happened to be nearby and asked the clerk to call for an ambulance. Shortly afterward, the ambulance showed up and they loaded me in the back and headed for the hospital. I was fully conscious, and remained so throughout the whole incident.

As the EMT's began to loosen my clothing and give me oxygen, I told them there was something they had to know. I told them that I was licensed to carry a pistol, and that I in fact was carrying right then. I told them I was going to take the (holstered) pistol out of my waistband and lay it alongside me, where they were to leave it alone.

They said, "Sure." Then one called out to the driver, "Hey, you'd better call ahead and have them send a cop to the emergency room. This guy we just picked up is carrying a gun."

The way he put it irritated me and I interrupted him saying, "Excuse me! You call ahead and tell them to have a cop at the emergency room because the guy you just picked up is LICENSED TO CARRY A GUN and happens to be carrying one right now, and that HE WANTS a cop to take custody of the gun while he is temporarily incapacitated. And listen here, I want you to say it exactly like that. Got it?" (I wasn't in a good mood at the moment.)

The driver said, "OK buddy. No problem." And he called it in just as I said.

Now remember, this is anti-gun RI we're talking about here.

At the emergency room, a cop was there and I gave him the gun. I started to tell him that I was fully licensed, but he interrupted me to say, "Hey, you're all set buddy." (Somehow, he had my wallet, though I don't ever recall giving it up.) "You've got all the right stuff here. When you get out, go to the station, tell the desk sargent what happened, and that you need to see the armorer to get your gun back." I do not remember getting a receipt for the gun.

That was on a Thursday. The following Monday, I was released from the hospital and went directly to the police station. The sargent directed me to the armorer just as the patrolman had said. I open the door and see "Steve", a guy I knew from bowling pin matches though I'd had no idea he was a cop. He said, "Hey Frank! What are you doing here?" I explained what was up, and he went over to a wall and pulled a large drawer open. This drawer was full of confiscated guns, pistols, rifles, shotguns of all types. I noticed that most of them looked old, and kind of grubby looking. Some were rusty. The general impression was that of a pile of junk. Steve said, "These are all the 'assault weapons' we've taken off the streets." We both laughed. Then he handed me a large manila envelope with my gun in it, wished me a speedie recovery, and I was on my way.

[ElGato]

Great! to bad it can't alway's be like that.

[CHL/LEO]

jimlongley posted:

Good post, but that part is criminal

If by criminal you mean - "not right" - I agree with you 100%. If you actually did mean "criminal or illegal" this has been taken to court several times and it has always been determined that the city has the right to implement and enforce this policy.

I agree with you though, if my gun was stolen and I went down there to pick it up from them after they recovered it and then happened to run into this situation - I would be extremely upset too.

flintknapper posted:

Would the property room have also accepted every knife, scissors, bat, rope, etc...in the house, and "stored" it for her upon her request?

The property room will take any property that an officer places in there. What you probably meant is that would an officer do what you asks? Some would. some wouldn't and that's one of the things that I hope everyone will understand. Different officers will see things from their perspective and take completely different actions than another officer might. Try to keep the gray area to a minimum but don't be surprised when these type of things actually do happen.

[jimlongley]

In 1969 I was a Gunner's Mate in the US Navy stationed in RI.

One night a shipmate came in to a bar where I had just sat down to start my evening and told me he needed a jump for his car. He and his grilfriend had been sitting in it with the radio on or something, up near the college, and the battery had died. I went with him and we got his car started.

While we were sitting on the side of the road I had taken a blue light (I was a volunteer fireman in NY and had a permit) out of the trunk and put it on the roof flashing to keep us from getting hit. Displaying any color light on a NON-MOVING vehicle was legal in RI at that time.

After we got the car started, I just pulled the light off the roof and tossed it on the front seat. After I started the car the ground clip fell and made contact with the ashtray resulting in the light flashing on the seat for a moment until I yanked it free. A patrol car with two LEOs in it, which had been watching the whole thing and not bothering to offer two uniformed sailors help, lit me up and stopped me.

I explained what had happened and showed them the NY blue light permit, and they requested that I follow them back to the station, which I did.

After we arrived at the station they told me that, although a NY blue light permit was not valid in RI, they believed my story and were not going to ticket me for that, but since I smelled like beer they thought that I was DUI and that they would not allow me to drive back to the base, and then they told me that parking a car in the PD lot was dangerous because stuff got stolen all the time, so if I had any valuables I should take them with me or turn them in to the desk sergeant and pick them up "when you're sober." (This after having me drive to the station.)

I turned a guitar, camera bag (with camera), a double barrel shotgun (broken down and the forend was still in the car, and a .22 rifle, with the cocking handle in my pocket and magazine follower still in the car. The desk sergeat tagged everything and put them in the back partially assembling the shotgun in the process.

The next day when I went to claim my stuff, I was handed my guitar and camera bag, but not the guns. The desk sergeant told me I had to see the detectives about that, and then refused to return the property receipts to me.

When I walked in to the detectives' room one turned to the other and made some snide comment about not thinking I should own guns (he apparantly couldn't see the crossed cannon on my sleeve and didn't recognize the marksmanship ribbons on my chest.)

The detectives told me that I had been carrying the guns in violation of RI law, which said that they had to be broken down. When I pointed out that the shotgun had been given to the desk sergeant in two parts which he assembled, they told me that that was unlikely, and they also didn't want to hear about the essential parts missing from the .22 which I was still in possession of. They also stated that the ranges that I used on base did not exist, and that if I didn't like it, they didn't care and I should take it up with the chief (accompanied by a good laugh.)

I left the PD and went directly to USN JAG Corps office on base, where I just happened to know a JAG officer. I explained what had transpired and we drew up a list of charges against the City of Newport RI PD and the detectives, desk sergeants (day and night) and the "arresting" officers individually and collectively.

We got an almost immediate visit with the chief who "apologized" IF there had been a misunderstanding (I love weasel words from officials who are unwilling to apologize for real) and that we should come back that afternoon to get my guns. The JAG officer told the chief that since I had turned them in "immediately" and that they should still be in the property cage, so we should have them in our hands in minutes.

The shotgun was returned in a few minutes, but it took a couple of hours for them to "find" my Remington Nylon 66 Apache Black which I'll bet had already gone home with somebody.

Having been a LEO myself since then, and having many friends who are and were LEOs, I try not to let that one little incident color my viewpoints, but then situations like this occur, and Susan Buxton, and CHL/LEO says that's just the way they do things, and it kind of sets me back.

PD and DA should not be above the law, nor should they administratively adjust it, if they have taken possession, in "normal" circumstances, of a gun, then it should be returned to the owner with no questions asked. There is no good reason on this earth for a lawfully possessed firearm that has been given into the hands of the police for safekeeping to be kept any longer than the owner showing up to get it.

[frankie_the_yankee]

The detectives told me that I had been carrying the guns in violation of RI law, which said that they had to be broken down.

He lied. In RI there is no law against transporting long guns in a vehicle. There is no requirement that they be broken down. Handguns may be required to be broken down, as per the statute below.

§ 11-47-10 License or permit not required to carry to target range. – No license or permit shall be required for the purpose of carrying or transporting any pistol or revolver from one's home or place of business to a bona fide target practice range, nor from a bona fide target practice range to one's home or place of business, to engage in any shoot meet, or practice, provided that the pistol or revolver is broken down, unloaded and carried as openly as circumstances will permit, or provided that the pistols or revolvers are unloaded and secured in a separate container suitable for the purpose.

There is no requirement whatsoever that long guns be broken down. Also, they may be transported anywhere, not just to target ranges as in the statute above. The only prohibition in RI law is that LOADED longs may not be transported, nor loaded magazines for same. See below.

§ 11-47-51 Loaded weapons in vehicles. – It is unlawful for any person to have in his or her possession a loaded rifle or loaded shotgun or a rifle or shotgun from the magazine of which all shells and cartridges have not been removed in or on any vehicle or conveyance or its attachments while upon or along any public highway, road, lane, or trail within this state; provided, that the provisions of this section shall not apply to sheriffs, deputy sheriffs, ....

... and a few dozen other government types.

So basically, the detectives were scamming you, and probably trying to steal your guns.

[Venus Pax]

This is a very interesting thread. TTT.

[CHL/LEO]

CHL/LEO says that's just the way they do things

Let's clarify that by "they" you are referring to certain officers or certain departments - not all officer or all departments, and especially not me.

[jimlongley]

CHL/LEO says that's just the way they do things

Let's clarify that by "they" you are referring to certain officers or certain departments - not all officer or all departments, and especially not me.

Not trying to pick a fight with you, but you did post: "At my department we have very specific rules" which sounds an awful lot like "that's just the way we do things." That is the way I have heard it expressed elsewhere.

Frank, I believe RI law has changed since '68, because I recall checking the statute back then and that it required guns to be transported broken down. Of course they were as broken down as they could be at the time, I was still in possession of some of the parts, I had even removed the shotgun from a soft case to take it inside the PD, and the only way it would fit in the case was broken down.

[stevie_d_64]

I'm in the agreement column for the info CHL/LEO posted...That is an interesting and informative post...

Although I am not surprised by it...

As much attention as this gentleman received, and his testimony should have garnered some effort to contact the department in question...I mean he should not have had to even ask for someone in our government (his elected official) to inquire to the status on the retrieval of his firearm...

But thats just my opinion...

And $140 for his initial Texas CHL should be waived as a sign of good faith...But I know that may be pushing it a little...

[stevie_d_64]

BTW, I am glad we have something in the works, legislatively, that will hopefully clear this up this session...

I think thats HB1815...Haven't gotten to the updates yet today...