What one woman wants for Christmas: a returned gun
- Thread starter MoW
- Start date
Yes, that illustrates something that really chaps me. That the legal authorities can and do hold guns like that for the duration as "evidence". Well, if it is your only gun, as appears to be the fact in this case, well, that leaves the victim defenseless, never mind that the victim isn't even being charged with a crime.
Reprehensible.
It seems to be a really good justification to have more than 1 of a person's primary defense gun on hand, just so that if the powers that be have one impounded, you aren't left out in the cold.
And note that what she had was not some cheap-o, but a decent quality CCW class revolver. It doesn't say if she has her carry permit, but I'd assume that she did just based on what the gun is. With that in mind, maybe the "emergency relief gun" as suggested should be something small and concealable and yet inexpensive, like maybe a Bersa .380 or a Makarov.
Reprehensible.
It seems to be a really good justification to have more than 1 of a person's primary defense gun on hand, just so that if the powers that be have one impounded, you aren't left out in the cold.
And note that what she had was not some cheap-o, but a decent quality CCW class revolver. It doesn't say if she has her carry permit, but I'd assume that she did just based on what the gun is. With that in mind, maybe the "emergency relief gun" as suggested should be something small and concealable and yet inexpensive, like maybe a Bersa .380 or a Makarov.
Hunter Rose
New member
>It doesn't say if she has her carry permit<
Actually, the article stated that she has completed training for her CCW...
You mean to tell me there's NOBODY in the area that could loan her a .38? Heck... I'd hand her my Taurus to use, if she was nearby!
Actually, the article stated that she has completed training for her CCW...
You mean to tell me there's NOBODY in the area that could loan her a .38? Heck... I'd hand her my Taurus to use, if she was nearby!
Ah -- so it does. I didn't catch that part first time through.
Another thought comes to mind. One that might require some legislation, but is in my mind the really "fair" way to do this. Maybe there needs to be a requirement that should a firearm be impounded in this sort of justifiable self defense case, that an in-kind replacement be provided -- free of charge -- for the duration? It is debatable in my mind whether the state or the defense should be required to provide it. After all, the victim has done nothing wrong, so why should the victim be made to suffer for it?
Garand Illusion
New member
The worst part is ... from other stories I have read, probably not in Texas, if she'd had 10 guns and the other 9 were in her safe they might have taken them all into evidence.
Definitely too bad she doesn't have a friend to loan her a weapon, because I doubt she'll get the gun she used that night back for months or years, and it's probably even legal to do so (whether it should be or not).
Definitely too bad she doesn't have a friend to loan her a weapon, because I doubt she'll get the gun she used that night back for months or years, and it's probably even legal to do so (whether it should be or not).
Yet another reason I think it is a good idea to keep a gun or 2 appropriately sealed and BURIED -- somewhere where the grabbers can't get ahold of it/them. You just can't trust the government, when it all boils down to it they really aren't your friends.
I mean, really -- here you have someone who has just demonstrated the necessity of being self armed, and the first thing you do is completely disarm them? Not just holding on to the weapon in question for nominally legit legal purposes, but hauling in all other viable defensive weapons like the victim is some sort of criminal! What possible sane rationale leads to that?
:barf: 
This has always mystified me, why would they take all of the guns from the resident when you had only used one?
It's almost like the DA's want victims to become even more victims by ensuring that they are unarmed (and criminals who know this may attack because they know the victim is now unarmed and the address is printed (WTH! *what the heck) is up with that?).
Why is it if you get a DUI they don't take all your cars (if you own more than one)? Why is it that if you stab someone in defense they don't take ALL your knives? Why is it that it's only guns that they take all as "evidence"?
Wayne
Gary Conner
New member
In Texas, a CCW permit is not required to have a gun in your home
Quote: "It doesn't say if she has her carry permit<
Actually, the article stated that she has completed training for her CCW..."
The thing is, you do not have to have a CCW permit in Texas to have a gun in your house. You also do not have to have a CCW permit to carry a gun in your car, if you are "travelling" within Texas.
The problem is, LEO's nowdays think that enforcing the law, means telling people what they think ought to be done, rather than following the law.
The Arlington police department has stolen her property. Period. And everyone in the city, allows it to happen to this lady.
When his buddies come back to take revenge, I guess now she can call 911.
Quote: "It doesn't say if she has her carry permit<
Actually, the article stated that she has completed training for her CCW..."
The thing is, you do not have to have a CCW permit in Texas to have a gun in your house. You also do not have to have a CCW permit to carry a gun in your car, if you are "travelling" within Texas.
The problem is, LEO's nowdays think that enforcing the law, means telling people what they think ought to be done, rather than following the law.
The Arlington police department has stolen her property. Period. And everyone in the city, allows it to happen to this lady.
When his buddies come back to take revenge, I guess now she can call 911.
Yes, I know that all too well. I grew up in Tx, and spent the majority of my adult life there as well. I was just trying to draw an inference based on the type of revolver used -- I had missed that part of the article that said that she had completed her CCW training and had completed her test as well.
BTW If you want a real headache, or are prepared for a whole lot of legal mumbo-jumbo and double talk, just try to get a definitive answer that is respected by all jurisdictions as to what "Travelling" means in Tx, as pertaining to having a gun in your car. Talk about a legal minefield...
I guess no one saw, or chose to ignore the part of the article that states that they asked the defense if they needed the evidence(the gun) and if they could release it. The defense wants it held. This(according to the article) has nothing to do with the police. Sorry to interupt the cop bashing with the truth. Proceed.
Steve154:
No, I saw that part all right. And I'm not ignoring it. The system still stinks, no matter who is behind the impoundment. Impoundment of an innocent victim's means of defense is still wrong -- even if it is the true criminal's defense which has requested the impoundment. I can see that it would be justifiable to temporarily take custody of the weapon in order to do forensic testing -- results of which can be released to both the prosecution and defense in hard copy. Once that has been completed, there is no justification for further holding the weapon. IMHO, if the defense or prosecution actually requires the physical prossession of the weapon, an in-kind replacement really ought to be provided to that innocent victim. Justice would still be served without depriving the victim of his/her property for the duration of the legal proceedings which can drag on for YEARS. Think of it as being like a loaner car/rental car that is provided when your car is in the shop for service.
Where the condemnation of the local authorities comes into play is the lack of intestinal fortitude shown pertaining to telling the defense to go bugger off about the unjust, unreasonable impoundment of the innocent victim's self defense weapon.
No, I saw that part all right. And I'm not ignoring it. The system still stinks, no matter who is behind the impoundment. Impoundment of an innocent victim's means of defense is still wrong -- even if it is the true criminal's defense which has requested the impoundment. I can see that it would be justifiable to temporarily take custody of the weapon in order to do forensic testing -- results of which can be released to both the prosecution and defense in hard copy. Once that has been completed, there is no justification for further holding the weapon. IMHO, if the defense or prosecution actually requires the physical prossession of the weapon, an in-kind replacement really ought to be provided to that innocent victim. Justice would still be served without depriving the victim of his/her property for the duration of the legal proceedings which can drag on for YEARS. Think of it as being like a loaner car/rental car that is provided when your car is in the shop for service.
Where the condemnation of the local authorities comes into play is the lack of intestinal fortitude shown pertaining to telling the defense to go bugger off about the unjust, unreasonable impoundment of the innocent victim's self defense weapon.
FirstFreedom
Moderator
She's a smart lady. And the DA and police have no answer to this question, because there is none. Worthless anti-gun prosecutors. Really it's theft. They should reimburse her for every day they have her gun, at the same rate that gun ranges rent out a gun. What if that was her only gun? How's she supposed to protect herself?
I could go along with that, IF gun ranges rented out guns and allowed them to be taken from the premises as part of the rentals, like with a rental car. I am not aware of any who do that, so it is a moot point. Being reimbursed for a rental that you could take home would work if you could actually take it home with you for SD purposes, in other words.
That is why I propose the (temporary) replacement in kind instead.
gb,
I have absolutely no disagreement with your position until the last part about the police lacking the fortitude to stand up for her. Please try to remember that the police are done with their job to this point(if the investigation is in fact complete) The DA now owns the case and the evidence. It is his and only his responsibility to dispose of, or keep evidence as being relevant. The police have absolutely no power to make any determination of this sort without the consent of the DA. If he says to keep it, you keep it. No one is going to give back evidence that the DA says to keep. It would be committing suicide and would probably bring a criminal charge.
Have you ever seen some of the things that prosecutions are lost for? It gets beyond ridiculous. They are simply not taking any chances on losing this guy. I don't believe that there is a grand conspiracy to keep granny unarmed.
I have absolutely no disagreement with your position until the last part about the police lacking the fortitude to stand up for her. Please try to remember that the police are done with their job to this point(if the investigation is in fact complete) The DA now owns the case and the evidence. It is his and only his responsibility to dispose of, or keep evidence as being relevant. The police have absolutely no power to make any determination of this sort without the consent of the DA. If he says to keep it, you keep it. No one is going to give back evidence that the DA says to keep. It would be committing suicide and would probably bring a criminal charge.
Have you ever seen some of the things that prosecutions are lost for? It gets beyond ridiculous. They are simply not taking any chances on losing this guy. I don't believe that there is a grand conspiracy to keep granny unarmed.
Steve154: Look at what I said, and what I didn't say. I said "Local Authorities", not "Police". I have no beef with the police in this matter. As you correctly point out, their part in this is largely over, besides that they don't have the means to refuse that sort of request. The beef I have is with the DA and the judges involved. Those are the ones who have the means and yet lack the intestinal fortitude.
Then why is she still being kept unarmed? Smells like the little guy (or granny in this case) getting the shaft to me -- willfully and on purpose, too. Smells like the big guy just doesn't care to be bothered by doing right by the little guy (granny), too much hassle to do the right thing. I mean, what with all of the money being tossed around by the legal system, would it be too much to ask for them (the defense in this case, they are the ones holding things up) to shell out a few hundred bucks for a replacement gun for granny? It is not like they wouldn't get it (the gun) back, ya' know. Or are they just being too cold hearted and cheap? I lean towards the cold hearted and cheap hypothesis.
Sir,
There were other posts about how the police stole her gun etc...
and I am guilty of reading what I wanted into what you actually said. I stand corrected and appreciate the clarification.
If I were King she would have a medal to go along with her new gun and maybe a little more training to get her hits up into COM
There were other posts about how the police stole her gun etc...
and I am guilty of reading what I wanted into what you actually said. I stand corrected and appreciate the clarification.
If I were King she would have a medal to go along with her new gun and maybe a little more training to get her hits up into COM
I had a nice S&W 650 "confiscated" by police unjustly. They gave me a big run around about getting it back. Finally I got in touch with their Internal Affairs office, dealt with a nice female officer who had the gun back to me in 24 hours. I know IA isn't real popular with the average LEO, but that's what it took to get it.
Hunter Rose
New member
TABING: that's more an issue with corruption in the department, not what we're seeing here. And yeah, I've BTDT: finally got the gun back by talking to a judge...
progunner1957
Moderator
And as someone else pointed out:
This is nothing more than back-door gun confiscation. Once the police take your guns, good luck getting them back - and don't be surprised if all the nicest ones come up "missing" from the evidence room.