« Brady Center loses suit against online ammo sellers | Main | FBI misleads on mass killings »
Torrance CA settles suit over illegal destruction of guns
Story here. The city police would refuse to return guns that came into their hands but should legally have been returned to their owners. In this case, they destroyed the guns despite court orders to the contrary. And wound up paying $30K to settle the civil suit.
Update: whether the taxpayers are on the book depends upon the law being sued under and local policies. If it was brought as a California case, I don't know. If brought under section 1983, the officials themselves would have been liable (since unconstitutional acts are not seen as "official duties." But a lot of governments will cover the sums anyway. The one limit there is that the 9th Circuit has ruled that a policy of covering punitive damages (that is, a policy, rather than a case-by-case review) can make the government liable, since it is essentially endorsing willful constitutional violations in advance of their occurring).
4 Comments | Leave a comment
Leaping Jesus. It is hard to believe stuff like this happens in the United States. No offense to those who worked that out but $30k seems like an awfully small sum for the hassle and travesty of justice.
Not hard to believe, happens frequently here in Rhode Island.
And how is it that the people who clearly were acting contrary to law are not responsible? Why should the Torrance taxpayers have to foot the bill for their illegal actions? Qualified immunity only applies (theoretically) when the actor has a reasonable expectation that their actions are legal - the law, and court orders to the contrary would say they had no such expectation.
A fascinating bit of Penal Code is at 18255 - http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN§ionNum=18255.
"
18255. (a) Upon taking custody of a firearm or other deadly weapon pursuant to this division, the officer shall give the owner or person who possessed the firearm a receipt.
(b) The receipt shall describe the firearm or other deadly weapon and list any identification or serial number on the firearm.
(c) The receipt shall indicate where the firearm or other deadly weapon can be recovered, the time limit for recovery as required by this division, and the date after which the owner or possessor can recover the firearm or other deadly weapon."
If the PD actually followed the law here, the person from whom the guns were taken should be able to produce the receipt as proof of ownership.
The governing Penal Code for the Law Enforcement Gun Release is at http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&division=11.&title=4.&part=6.&chapter=2.&article=
The LEGR form (BOF 119) states "This form is only to be used by the owner of the firearm who is seeking to redeem his/her firearm in the custody or control of a law enforcement agency or court. In the case of a handgun, the applicant must already have a record on file in the DOJ Automated Firearms System (AFS) reflecting that he or she is the lawful owner or possessor of the handgun. It is the responsibility of the court or law enforcement agency with custody or control of the firearm to verify that the applicant is the lawful owner or possessor of the firearm."
That's NOT what the PC says, and of course, for any one out of state it's frankly impossible that their guns would be registered with California.
The State of California through its elected Attorney General seems to want to Make Stuff Up.