Hopefully this will be the end of it. Proof of ownership has been established. Now take notes, as this may prove useful somehow. Seems our hero was in a motorcycle accident up in Westminster a couple years ago. When the police and ambulance folks were finishing up, it seemed he was wearing a gun, and had a valid CCW. The police took the gun, so the ambulance folks wouldn't have to deal with it, and returned it to him when he got out of the hospital. The record of this transaction is as good as a bill of sale, almost.
Having established ownership, the gun will be returned as soon as a background check is completed. Huh? I hear you say.
Right. Having established ownership. the Denver police apparently still cannot transfer a gun to its legal owner until a background check has been completed. Never mind that they checked for wants and warrants at the outset and he came up clean. Never mind that any FFL in the state could run such a check in something between 15 minutes and 3 hours, which is why it's called an "instant" check. At one time, he held a high security clearance. I guess they plan to find out if it's still valid. Any day now.
They already returned the ammo, having emptied the magazines. This is because they will not return a gun in a loaded condition, or even with the ammo in a ziploc bag. You know how gun owners are.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Re the story of the man who was arrested for complying with the "gun free zone" rule of Denver University by leaving his gun in his car, and then lost his job because of it (Part one, two, three, and four):
See Reason's "Gun Rights vs. Freedom?" (August 28, 2008). The author takes the propertarian position of the gun-banning employer, although many of the readers disagree in the comments section.
On a related note, I was at the Premier Expo (PE) gun show in Longmont this weekend. While Tanner and (the now defunct) Crossroads gun shows have signs that say "no loaded guns allowed" that are small and ambiguous enough for me to assume that they're referring to the guns for sale and not to CCW, P.E. had a large banner explicitly stating "No Concealed Carry" and something about "Leave CCW Guns In Vehicles."
To quote from the article itself:
"The "take your guns to work" law says anyone with a conceal-carry permit has a legal right to keep his gun locked in his car in the company parking lot. Until recently, companies had the authority to make the rules on their own premises. But when it comes to guns, that freedom is defunct."
Note that it specifically allows the gun to be locked up inside the car. 5 short paragraphs later, the meaning of the law is now greatly expanded:
"So the law doesn't uphold gun rights. What it does do is infringe on property rights. The Florida Chamber of Commerce makes the obvious argument that there is no right "to have a gun in your car on someone else's property" (my emphasis). But the law tells company owners they have no control over workers who insist on bringing deadly weapons onto their premises."
No one claims that they have some right to bring a gun into their workplace. The employer is sovereign there. The government even recognizes the problem by making government buildings "no carry" zones but only if the building is set up with supervised lockers in which guns and like stuff may be stored while you're visiting.
The D.U. campus straddles two busy thoroughfares, and while the administration might wish it, they have no authority to set up checkpoints at either end, and shake down the traffic passing through, or even stopped at a red light.
Evan McKenzie refers to the Reason article cited above as an example of "repressive libertarianism".
At first glance, it appears to be an oxymoron. But read my "modest proposal", and see if it changes views on the proper role of contracts and corporate power.
Post a Comment