« New Third Circuit case that might be headed for the Supremes | Main | After moving to Texas, Tesla announces new AR-15 »
LA destroys firearms collection, will wind up paying for it
Opinion here. An example of what gun owners face in California. Huge gun collection seized, government concedes it had no reason to seize, owner fights for years to get it back, and government destroys collection anyway.
8 Comments | Leave a comment
"The LAPD voluntarily returned approximately eighty firearms, but kept the rest because, in its determination, plaintiff had not submitted sufficient proof that he owned them."
Seems to me that LAPD needs to prove plaintiff DOESN'T own the firearms.
Otherwise, government could seize ANY property a person possesses and keep it until they prove ownership.
Better start keeping all receipts, I guess.
Exactly what Tom said above. I live in LA County, and the burden of proof falls upon the State (general term for government of any level) to prove guilt. If the defendant had possession of the property at the time of confiscation, then the State must assume by default that he/she is the owner of said property.
Another good reason to greatly pare back or eliminate sovereign immunity.
How many of these "destroyed" guns are actually in the private collections of LAPD officers?
And who believes that LAPD will pay anything like the true market value for these firearms?
Well, the usual "buyback" payment is a sub $100 grocery gift card, so I guess he's got food for life coming?
So I guess if LAPD were to confiscate a few thousand doses of meth from my house, they'd have to ask for proof that it was actually mine? Somehow I suspect that they were laughing their asses off when they came up with that "reason". I agree the "destroyed" guns will eventually reappear in some boss's collection.
This also has happened with GCA '68, has it not?