Outrageous Police Behavior

[Clarence]

While I normally support the police as they have a tough job and most all deserve our respect, the brass who dreamed up this ghoulish policy deserve our contempt.

This should show us all where registration will lead.


http://www.ammoland.com/2014/11/buffalo-ny-police-blasted-for-gun-confiscations-from-grieving-families/#axzz3J8gzBYZt


Shame on them!  They dishonor the badge they wear.

[Hawkeye]

They are taking Charlton Heston's words a little too literally.  This is shameful, I have no words to describe this.

[SturmRugerSR9]

Let's look at this in a different light. Suppose a person dies and all of their estate (Including a gun or guns) is left to a son or daughter that is either mentally ill or has a criminal record. Under these conditions, the person inheriting the guns could not legally own them. So confiscation on that bases may be a good thing.
But, in general, I think this policy stinks as a blanket policy.
I may be an alternative to have the person inheriting the gun to go through the same steps as someone buying a gun at a gun store, according to that states existing gun laws. If they pass the requirements, give them the gun.
Just seems like common logic to me.

[Hawkeye]

Sturm, I think that is the responsibility of the family. I know of a recent case where a relative's grandfather passed away leaving several heirloom shotguns behind.  Knowing that there were questionable relatives who should not get their hands on the guns the grandson confiscated them until the family had a chance to grieve and come to a sensible conclusion as to who should get them.

There are too many variables. My wife's guns are in the same safe as mine. My son has a couple in their as well. More than one of my guns I received from other family members. How are the police going to sort all this out?  They do not know what is mine and what isn't. (of course I do not live in Buffalo so all this is speculative)  Next they will be confiscating cars because someone in the family might have a DUI.

[demark04]

My family lives right outside Buffalo. My father passed away in march, and the LEO's took every firearm he had. I had to jump through hoops to get them back. And because it is NY. I had to go through the transfer process through FFL's to get his. 380 transferred to me. Many thanks to Chris at Federal Firearms. I was so P#ssed I had to cut through so much red tape, even to get his long guns back. 

[Clarence]

Hopefully families will get a heads up from this and move the firearms out of state ASAP. So sad that they would have to go through this.  

But again just shows what licensing and registration can and will lead to.

[Clarence]

My family lives right outside Buffalo. My father passed away in march, and the LEO's took every firearm he had. I had to jump through hoops to get them back. And because it is NY. I had to go through the transfer process through FFL's to get his. 380 transferred to me. Many thanks to Chris at Federal Firearms. I was so P#ssed I had to cut through so much red tape, even to get his long guns back. 

How did they know about the long guns?  I always thought New York only registered and licensed hand guns. 
What an outrage!

[fdegree]

Don't vilify the police, they didn't write the law.

[MarkB]

What the police don't tell you is that the law does NOT apply to long guns or that the heirs have the right to sell the firearms or apply to keep them.  If the long guns are taken , that is an illegal action by the police.

http://personalliberty.com/posthumous-gun-confiscation-underway-new-york/

[Clarence]

Don't vilify the police, they didn't write the law.

I am not vilifying the police. Only those who would do such a thing. 
Police that infringe on our rights under color of authority especially the top brass who dreamed this up are the guilty parties.

Most police are honest and take serious the idea of "protect and serve".  I would never vilify such officers. 

[fdegree]

Most police are honest and take serious the idea of "protect and serve".  I would never vilify such officers. 

I suspected that would likely be your position on this topic    and I agree

I'm going to go off on a slight tangent to the topic of this thread, and address the idea of that "Protect and Serve" slogan that the police tend to use so much.  Many court cases have said the police are not here to "Protect and Serve".  For example:
•   Warren v. District of Columbia, 1981  --  D.C.’s highest court said that it is a “fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.”

•   Bowers v. DeVito, 1982  --  the Court of Appeals, "...there is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen."  The Constitution … does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order.

•   Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 2005  --  The Supreme Court ruled that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

None of this likely to be news to most of you...just thought I would throw it out there.

[demark04]

They knew he had registered pistols, so when my brother opened the gun safe, they took everything. They did not even leave my mom a list of what was taken. Luckily, I knew every weapon he owned.