It happened to me

Originally Posted By: CatskinnerIt doesn't. Kal52 said with narcotics involved it goes out the window. I believe the owner got screwed and that cop got himself a shotgun.

I'm in full agreement. Although I suspect the shotgun will sit for years, and then be destroyed. I don't think a cop will get it.



Travis
 
Originally Posted By: CatskinnerThat's easy.
I'd say thanks for calling in the drug paraphernalia, and its a shame these crackheads we have around here run out on you law abiding folks who are nice enough to rent to these scumbags. But now that they left you with all this stuff to clean up, and didn't pay the last months rent, I hope you can sell some of it and recoup some of the money owed.

GC what would you do? I'm afraid to even know. Actually since you like to play a pretend cop, just keep it to yourself. I'm sure it will be some feel good bs anyway.

Catskinner, sounds pretty hypocritical to just make it up as you see fit and to suit your immediate purpose regardless of existing laws or people's rights. Thank goodness you aren't a cop, you would be one of those very people you don't trust 100% of the time.
 
Or he will use it for "demonstration" like the other stuff he took. But when a cop says he will hold something for "safe keeping", that is a euphemism for thank you very much this will come in handy in my personal use.
 
dont know wasnt there,

but having residue in a baggie can be considered small amount

any residual materials in the pipes can be considered small amount

at least thats the way it was up here. Not sure how they do things now as ive been out of the bail enforcement for a good while.

Ive gotten folks out on bond for possesion of small amount/para when all they had was a pot pipe, all they have to do is scrape it out.

ive revoked people for having less weed in a bag than whats left in the bottom of a pack of smokes.

the fact there was a firearm and narcotics in the same place is reason enough to take the gun.
I dohnt think law enforcement worries to much about people commiting crimes with chainsaws and motorcycles as they do with firearms.
 
GC what the he!! are you talking about? You are the meathead that said lets play "what if". And since you are big on sources, show me the law that was broken.
 
"the fact there was a firearm and narcotics in the same place is reason enough to take the gun.
I dohnt think law enforcement worries to much about people commiting crimes with chainsaws and motorcycles as they do with firearms."





So Kal52, if I find your wife's pressure cooker is in the kitchen and your gunpowder in your reloading room, I can arrest you and take all you property because you have bomb making paraphernalia? And charge you as a terrorist I suppose then too.
 
Originally Posted By: CatskinnerGC what the he!! are you talking about? You are the meathead that said lets play "what if". And since you are big on sources, show me the law that was broken.

Meathead... You are big on name calling and personal jabs, just short on cognitive thinking. What grade are you in?
 
I apologize I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. I obviously upset you and I shouldn't have called you that. It wasn't meant in a hurtful way.
 
LOL... Wish I could accept your apology but I don't trust you 100% of the time.
smile.gif
 
Hah good one. Seriously my statement was because you said lets play what if, I played and you basically inferred I was crazy for what I said. Just a healthy internet debate is all. We all have more in common than not, so I'm not out to offend you. Take care
 
ok ill explain it again.

OP called, my evicted tennents left a baggie with residue, must have been enough for him to determine that it was drug residue, some drug para and a gun.

those items together warrant the taking of that gun, it did not belong to the op, it was stated that it belonged to the same people who left behind the drugs/para, so therefore that gun is gone!

as far as the silly bomb scenario, did i call them to see if the pressure cooker was stolen? is my wife hiding her stash in said pressure cooker? better yet, did that guff speaking work slacker pay her rent?!
I sure hope I get a fair price for that pressure cooker once I get it back.

The law that was broken, not by the OP but the ex tennants was having a firearm and drugs in the same place.
The same as if you had a shotgun in your car and a bag of weed.

As far as arresting the ex tennants for anything, I personally doubt it would happen, unless the gun was stolen.
for small amount arrests up here you more or less get a fine and a stern talking to from a judge, probably not worth there time.
 
Last edited:
In NM even if you evict a tenant you are legally responsible to store their property for 30 days after the evection. The owner of the rental property is liable for the tenants property for 30 days so if anything is damaged or missing the tenant can take you to court to recover the damages or loss of their property. To recover any unpaid rent or damages you have to take them to small claims court and try to get a judgment against them. Then it is still up to the property owner to try to get wages garnished. All of this is a major pain in the [beeep], so in most cases it just isn't worth perusing.

drscott
 
Originally Posted By: kal52ok ill explain it again.

OP called, my evicted tennents left a baggie with residue, must have been enough for him to determine that it was drug residue, some drug para and a gun.

those items together warrant the taking of that gun, it did not belong to the op, it was stated that it belonged to the same people who left behind the drugs/para, so therefore that gun is gone!

as far as the silly bomb scenario, did i call them to see if the pressure cooker was stolen? is my wife hiding her stash in said pressure cooker? better yet, did that guff speaking work slacker pay her rent?!
I sure hope I get a fair price for that pressure cooker once I get it back.

The law that was broken, not by the OP but the ex tennants was having a firearm and drugs in the same place.
The same as if you had a shotgun in your car and a bag of weed.

As far as arresting the ex tennants for anything, I personally doubt it would happen, unless the gun was stolen.
for small amount arrests up here you more or less get a fine and a stern talking to from a judge, probably not worth there time.

You make some valid points but here is where you and I disagree:

I don't believe this scenario is akin to a traffic stop and being in possession of a firearm and narcotics at the same time.

The OP made it clear that after a certain amount of time, he has ownership of whatever property was abandoned by the tenants.

I would argue that the paraphernalia and the firearm were separate. The paraphernalia was handed over for proper disposal, the firearm was given simply to determine if it were legal to own or transfer. This is no different than leaving a motorcycle in the garage, and a bag of weed in the bedroom. They are exclusive from each other. "Here's the weed. Is this motorcycle I'm taking possession of (legally) stolen?" I would argue that it is not the officer's job to decide what does and what does not require "safekeeping." It is his job to determine if the item has been stolen or not so the law abiding citizen can recoup his loss.

I dismiss the idea of a firearm being inherently more dangerous than a motorcycle, because I'm an American and that chit don't fly with me.

I also dismiss the notion that it's "only $100.00". That's not relevant. If it's a $100.00 NEF, or a $20,000.00 Merkel, the law states that property was abandoned and after XXX amount of days the property owner assumes ownership.

Keep in mind, the officer did not tell the OP this was evidence, or stolen. Or that a crime had been committed and it was needed for investigative purposes. He stated it was being held for "safekeeping."

I got a big f'in problem with cops saying that to a law abiding citizen. And any American that doesn't, should shove their head between their legs, and go stand next to Al Franken.



Travis
 
ok, so I re read the OP

after a certain amount of time he can sell whatever items were left by the ex tennents. He posted this on the 2nd that today was the day he could take possession.

up until the 2nd those items still belonged to the tenant.
so, that being the case, the cop took the mans shotgun, for "safe keeping", he had until the 2nd to claim it if he wanted it back.

now, in order for him to get the gun now, he has to go through an ffl and pay the transfer fees. It wasnt given to him, it wasnt sold to him, it was abandonded.
Do i think that is kind of a raw deal, yes but for liability the police probably have to transfer it from their possession to his via ffl.

the problem with the motorcycle analogy is that a person doesnt get prosecuted for having narcotics and a bike together, its the fact it was a gun/drugs/para that gave them the right to take it, that and the fact it didnt belong to the op,wasnt loaned, sold or deliberately left in his care

A motorcyle isnt illegal to own in the first place, and you dont need a background check to purchase one.

He didnt have to tell the op anything to be honest, the OP had no right to the gun at the time it was taken, this all happend prior to the 2nd, before that date the tenants, from what i understand could have come back to claim it anyway.

If i were that officer i would have taken it as well, OP had no claim to it yet, and I dont know if Id leave a firearm with someone who was not the owner in this instance.

was a crime being committed, you could argue no, as nobody had "possession" of either the gun or the para at the time the officer got there, they were evicted, and what is that states definition of "possession"

as for the money, IMHO, it would not be worth the trouble for 100.00, if it were the merkel, id pay the 70.00.

Im not a lawyer or cop, so what im going by is my past experieces with law enforcement/lawyers/tweakers etc.

with all the LEO etc, here somebody should be able to clear some of it up.

lots going on here, so i hope my babble is making sense as well as the spelling errors
 
Quote:up until the 2nd those items still belonged to the tenant.
so, that being the case, the cop took the mans shotgun, for "safe keeping", he had until the 2nd to claim it if he wanted it back.

Inexcusable in my opinion. The OP wanted checks done. There is no law that restricts the passing of a firearm to another owner within the state. Unless I'm missing something about AZ state law?

Quote:now, in order for him to get the gun now, he has to go through an ffl and pay the transfer fees.

Why? It hasn't crossed state lines. Is there a federal law that deals with abandoned firearms?

Quote:Do i think that is kind of a raw deal, yes but for liability the police probably have to transfer it from their possession to his via ffl.

I don't see any liability in that at all. It's a record check. Check it, give it back. It is not the job of the local PD to hunt down the original purchaser of the firearm.

Quote:A motorcyle isnt illegal to own in the first place,

Stolen ones are. And that's the only thing that can make a firearm illegal to own as well. Thus, the request for the check being ran.

Quote:He didnt have to tell the op anything to be honest, the OP had no right to the gun at the time it was taken, this all happend prior to the 2nd, before that date the tenants, from what i understand could have come back to claim it anyway.

I don't think you're tracking very well. The OP can't take ownership of any of it, but it would still be in his care. Now he can, so there's no reason for the cop to not hand it over. It's his.

Quote:If i were that officer i would have taken it as well, OP had no claim to it yet, and I dont know if Id leave a firearm with someone who was not the owner in this instance.

Now we're back to the motorcycle...




Travis
 
1. the gun wasn't "passed" to him it was left in the residence. I don't know AZ law, so im with you there.

2. I don't know why they want the ffl transfer, its the way they do it, maybe to make sure he can legally take possession of it, ie legally own a gun.
like I said, this sucks, but it is what it is.

3. if there is a law about abandoned firearms, I don't know what it is.

4. its also illegal to own a firearm if your a felon etc.
again, maybe that's why they require him to go through the ffl transfer.

5. ok, I hope I make sense on this one, and not misunderstanding you.
the OP had no claim to the gun at this point, its abandoned, it may legally have been left in "his care"
depending on the laws pertaining to property/rent etc.
but the officer may have not felt it a good idea to leave a firearm with someone who is not the rightful owner, or if that person can even legally possess a firearm.
thus holding it for safe keeping.
now this is where the ffl fees become the pia.
he can have it, just has to go through some BS.

6. not sure I follow, but if the bike wasn't stolen, it would stay put, if the bike was it would be taken.

but to possess a firearm a person has to meet certain requirements that a motorcycle doesn't.
its not the officers responsibity to do a background check on the gun, or the op, and he may have felt it better to take the gun rather than leave it with the OP.

I think what it boils down to is we disagree on the officers use of discressionary judgement,
I think what he did was reasonable,
you don't.

like I said, I hope im making sense here.
 
Quote:its also illegal to own a firearm if your a felon etc.
again, maybe that's why they require him to go through the ffl transfer.

If the cop is so GD interested in the libability of it, he could run checks on the OP and be done with it. To tell the man he needs an FFL is BS.


Quote:but the officer may have not felt it a good idea to leave a firearm with someone who is not the rightful owner, or if that person can even legally possess a firearm.
thus holding it for safe keeping.

There is no difference between leaving a firearm with the OP, than leaving everything else the tenants owned with the OP.

Quote:not sure I follow, but if the bike wasn't stolen, it would stay put, if the bike was it would be taken.

Laughin'... You just proved my point.

Quote:its not the officers responsibity to do a background check on the gun, or the op, and he may have felt it better to take the gun rather than leave it with the OP.

First of all, it is his responsiblity to run the S/N of the firearm. A tax paying citizen just asked him to. If it's not his responsibility to run checks on the OP before handing it back, why do you argue that he is covering himself of any "liability?"



Travis
 
its not his responsibility to do it on the spot, could he have, im sure he could have, but he didnt have to.
should he have, I would argue yes, ive never stated he shouldnt have.

could he have left the gun with the OP, im sure he could have, whether he should have is where we are parting ways, you say yep, Id say it was up to him. not knowing the OP and the whole drug/para thing, I think Id have taken it.

I get the whole bike scenario, if he can check the bike he can check the gun, but im not so certain that they can just call up the batfe and go an on the spot background check to make sure OP is in the clear.

Now, the whole ffl, like I said to you earlier, I agree that it sucks, but its just the dept covering their butts.

not sure how else I can explain this, but i feel like im just repeating myself.
Travis, I think you and I are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top