62coltnavy
New member
Just the other day, one buddy was showing his best friend a gun (unspecified what kind of gun in the news report). The gun was accidentally dropped and discharged, killing the best friend. The San Diego police confiscated every firearm in the house (five total, at least four of which were long guns). So legal or not, it happens.
San Francisco and Oakland were both sued by CalGuns Foundation for their policies with respect to the return of firearms to their owners. In the typical case, when the criminal case is concluded the Cal AG will issue a letter authorizing the police to release the weapon. But neither of these departments, due to some wording in the letter, would agree to release any weapon without further proof of "ownership"-- even though this was the procedure outlined by statute--and that a police officer had confiscated it from the person seeking its return was not enough "proof." I am pretty sure both of those cases were settled. An additional party was the AG, which refused to change the language of the letter so as to clarify the apparent ambiguity on which these departments were hung up.
There was another case in northern California--Marin if recollection serves. Elderly man was the victim of a home invasion--held at gun point and his valuables demanded. Being an old man, he told the crook he had to pee--and the crook let him go to the bathroom (where he had a hidden handgun). Gun battle and struggle ensues. Multiple shots fired. The police seize the old man's gun as evidence--apparently because the crook had at one point in the struggle gained control of it--and still have it years later, as well as another gun in the house at the time. The DA was going to allow the release, but then the crook appealed his sentence--and the guns remain "safely" locked away. How the hell these firearms have evidentiary value makes them necessary to the appellate property confounds my (legal) intellect. Whatever else may be in dispute, the ownership of the guns, or which gun shot which guy, is not.
San Francisco and Oakland were both sued by CalGuns Foundation for their policies with respect to the return of firearms to their owners. In the typical case, when the criminal case is concluded the Cal AG will issue a letter authorizing the police to release the weapon. But neither of these departments, due to some wording in the letter, would agree to release any weapon without further proof of "ownership"-- even though this was the procedure outlined by statute--and that a police officer had confiscated it from the person seeking its return was not enough "proof." I am pretty sure both of those cases were settled. An additional party was the AG, which refused to change the language of the letter so as to clarify the apparent ambiguity on which these departments were hung up.
There was another case in northern California--Marin if recollection serves. Elderly man was the victim of a home invasion--held at gun point and his valuables demanded. Being an old man, he told the crook he had to pee--and the crook let him go to the bathroom (where he had a hidden handgun). Gun battle and struggle ensues. Multiple shots fired. The police seize the old man's gun as evidence--apparently because the crook had at one point in the struggle gained control of it--and still have it years later, as well as another gun in the house at the time. The DA was going to allow the release, but then the crook appealed his sentence--and the guns remain "safely" locked away. How the hell these firearms have evidentiary value makes them necessary to the appellate property confounds my (legal) intellect. Whatever else may be in dispute, the ownership of the guns, or which gun shot which guy, is not.