Now I don't know about you, but if I had to produce receipts for everything in my house, I'd probably wing up losing most of it.
At No Lawyers - Only Guns and Money, a similar case is mentioned with a reference to California law:
"In California, the Evidence Code makes it clear that simple possession is proof of ownership of almost all types of common property, including firearms," said Don Kilmer, attorney for the plaintiffs. "The California Department of Justice is misleading police departments in such a way that they violate the rights of gun owners who were investigated and found to not have violated the law."I'm thinking that this is probably the case in most states. In this case, both the innocent occupants have made statements as to which firearms belonged to whom so there shouldn't be any problem with actual ownership. They even agree as to which guns "belong" to #1, who shouldn't actually have any.
The other doctrine here is what happens when one person in a group occupancy is prohibited. Does this automatically prohibit everyone in the premises?
Denver is very hostile to guns in general and the police never miss a chance to remind the peasants.
Film at 11, I guess.
5 comments:
This is right in line with other forfeiture procedures. If you get caught with a large pile of cash, it's assumed it's ill-gotten. Just read something along those lines. WRT property, it's guilty until proven innocent. Recall that in the case of KT Firearms, there are actual indictments against gun parts.
I'm in the same boat you are, wrt various guns. Not to mention most of my possessions. I do save receipts for major purchases, but I have a lot of stuff acquired 2nd hand too.
Not sure how much weight it would carry, but photographing all your major stuff, and recording serial numbers, is a good idea. I actually started this on the guns a while back. Didn't finish it for some reason.
Just a thought. If Occupant #3 knew Occupant #1 was a felon, and possessed a firearm, I think that violates the law. Then, by not reporting the violation, does Occupant #3 become an accessory to the violation of the law prohibiting a felon from possessing a firearm? Making Occupant #3's possession of a firearm a no-no.
But Occupant #3 should have been allowed to put owned firearms in escrow, for sale if found guilty of the accessory charges.
The courts, not the cops, should determine whether affidavits signed and witnessed by O2 and O3 should be sufficient to define ownership. The cops are allowed to lie; only the average citizen is actually required to be honest and truthful. At least, that is how it looks from my chair.
No Brad, mere knowledge of the crime is not a crime in itself.
Robin,
I dunno. Teachers and foster parents in some states (including MO and OK) are guilty of violating the law if they suspect child abuse and fail to report it.
Failing to report other crimes can also be a crime.
And sharing a residence with a felon that possesses a firearm might be construed to be more than mere knowing; it might be an active failure to report a crime, if not enabling the unlawful behavior (accessory) by not either reporting the problem, or moving out or evicting O1.
At least O2 and O3 didn't conspire to deceive the police as to who owned Occupant #1's weapons.
"This is right in line with other forfeiture procedures. If you get caught with a large pile of cash, it's assumed it's ill-gotten."
Not if you're a collections attorney who represents corporations and extorts from individuals. Those types of thieves are privileged as "Officers of the Court". And they're the types of lawyers that conservatives like.
I can only speak from my personal experience. I don't know if judges treat other types of lawyers -- the ones that conservatives villify -- with such deference.
Post a Comment