TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.wzzm13.com/news/local/grand- ... ws&src=syn

Interesting story. Feel bad for the kid in Texas but, right is right. I'm happy it made it's way back to it's rightful owner.

Here's an interesting (at least to me) thought: Since the man's insurance replaced the gun, doesn't that mean the recovered gun belongs to the insurance company? At the least, the original owner should have to reimburse the insurance company.

Never give up. I 've recovered two guns. One shotgun and one revolver.

bblhd672 wrote:Here's an interesting (at least to me) thought: Since the man's insurance replaced the gun, doesn't that mean the recovered gun belongs to the insurance company? At the least, the original owner should have to reimburse the insurance company.

You are assuming he had insurance

WTR wrote:

bblhd672 wrote:Here's an interesting (at least to me) thought: Since the man's insurance replaced the gun, doesn't that mean the recovered gun belongs to the insurance company? At the least, the original owner should have to reimburse the insurance company.

You are assuming he had insurance

Both the article and the video said "his insurance replaced the gun".

txglock21 wrote:

WTR wrote:

bblhd672 wrote:Here's an interesting (at least to me) thought: Since the man's insurance replaced the gun, doesn't that mean the recovered gun belongs to the insurance company? At the least, the original owner should have to reimburse the insurance company.

You are assuming he had insurance

Both the article and the video said "his insurance replaced the gun".

I didn't watch the video, but apparently my reading comprehension leaves something to be desired.....right you are

bblhd672 wrote:Here's an interesting (at least to me) thought: Since the man's insurance replaced the gun, doesn't that mean the recovered gun belongs to the insurance company? At the least, the original owner should have to reimburse the insurance company.

Yes, it's the insurance company's gun, but it's likely the company would waive any reimbursement. I find it interesting that the LEO ran the serial number when there was no reason to believe it was stolen or that the driver was engage in any criminal activity.

Chas.

Assuming the driver purchased it legitimately, does he have any recourse against the seller?

ninjabread wrote:Assuming the driver purchased it legitimately, does he have any recourse against the seller?

Only if he can prove the seller knew the gun was stolen, which after so much time would be very difficult.

I keep hoping, my Grandfather's 16 gauge Ithaca Model 37 turns up, but it's been gone since 84.

The article indicates the shotgun was properly stored for transportation when the young man was stopped. In this case could someone define what properly stored for transportation, i.e., concealed, unloaded etc. means relating to a shotgun being transported in a vehicle?

stash wrote:The article indicates the shotgun was properly stored for transportation when the young man was stopped. In this case could someone define what properly stored for transportation, i.e., concealed, unloaded etc. means relating to a shotgun being transported in a vehicle?

I'm sure that it is a term used in Michigan, as far as I know, in Texas, there is no required method of transporting a shotgun. It was probably just a way to say that it was otherwise legal for him to have the shotgun.
I'm with Charles, the fact that they ran a check on it, makes me wonder if there were other extenuating circumstances.

Thanks Jusme. I was beginning to wonder if had missed something about shotgun transportation in a vehicle.