1911Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

Buffalo Cops Start Confiscation

7K views 82 replies 44 participants last post by  thearmedrebel 
#1 ·
"We recently started a program where we're cross referencing all the pistol permit holders with the death records, and we're sending people out to collect the guns whenever possible so that they don't end up in the wrong hands," said Police Commissioner Daniel Derrenda." Because at times they lay out there and the family is not aware of them and they end up just out on the street."

http://www.wgrz.com/story/news/loca...h-records-and-pistol-permit-records/18741131/


http://sellingthesecondamendment.com/gun-hating-ghouls-go-after-dead-gun-owners/
 
#2 ·
I can see where that is going to go over really well.

What? His gun, I think that he lost it in a boating accident years ago.
 
#4 ·
So they're doing this because the family is unaware of weapons laying around and they're being stolen? Are the family members all blind? Are they allowing strangers to just roam the house, picking up these weapons? Or are these weapons just laying around outside of the house? Lame reason for nothing more than a gun grab scam, pure and simple.

Maybe the cops should also confiscate the deceased person's car to prevent it from being stolen and used for drive by shootings or heists? And the house too since it could be used for drug production or sales.

Plot after plot after plot to confiscate legally owned weapons owned by honest people. When will it ever end?

Rick
 
#24 · (Edited)
I agree, they would need a warrant to come in my house.

Those evil cops that passed those evil laws. You think the people would do something like vote on it or have legislative branch and judicial branch that would stop such a thing. How do those evil cops get away with it.

Then again, is it a confiscation or just a follow up, where a person is free to decide? I mean are we open minded or blind to the news media?
I understand what you're saying. The cops are not the ones who passed/wrote the laws, and it's there job to enforce the laws as well. I also agree that ALL news media is full of BS (including the right wing news stations.) However if there is truth to this its still not right. I'm not even blaming LEO either and I agree they have to enforce the law but the COTUS applies as well. If it is a follow up, a phone call would suffice, they don't need to come to the house (if that's what's going on.) They sure as hell wouldn't have access to my home either, at least without a warrant.
 
#9 ·
Another good reason to make sure that your spouse your children and grand children know, understand and embrace the Second Amendment.

This training never ends. While at it be sure to include the whole Constitution and what it means.
 
#12 ·
So, uh, how long after you die does it take for your guns to figure out that you arent coming back, give up on you, and travel out to the street looking for a new owner?
 
#14 ·
NYC has been doing that for years! They send detectives to the house.
 
#16 ·
They are really doing this because dead people are really dangerous with guns. :p

You know, the CLEO's have probably watched too many of those Zombie shows. ;)

But in all seriousness, in the second article posted in the original post, it says:

http://sellingthesecondamendment.com/gun-hating-ghouls-go-after-dead-gun-owners/
Some police agencies give families of the deceased permit holder 15 days to sell or transfer a weapon or weapons held with the permit to another permit holder or a dealer.
What I don't understand is that settling an estate can take upwards of a year or more, and that is assuming that there is a will and a executor of the will or the estate. Family members cannot just take the guns and sell them to a gun dealer if it has been willed to someone. Plus, the probate court could take longer than that if someone dies intestate, then the court has to go and track down all the relatives entitled to inherit the estate. I just can't see how the police can go and seize property from an estate and contrive a time period like 15 days. There could be people with extensive gun collections worth serious money and that belongs to the estate and the heirs.
 
#23 ·
Those evil cops that passed those evil laws. You think the people would do something like vote on it or have legislative branch and judicial branch that would stop such a thing. How do those evil cops get away with it.

Then again, is it a confiscation or just a follow up, where a person is free to decide? I mean are we open minded or blind to the news media?
 
#18 ·
The cops there are probably the ones you would have to worry about stealing them. Now they just get to make it sound legal. Remember, it wasn't that long ago during bloomy's reign that a ring of NYC cops got busted for selling confiscated and stolen guns on the street.

Makes you maybe rethink that universal background check like WA got shoved with and the whole "permit" to exercise a constitutional right thing. Someone who dies can't sign off on a transfer to another family member so no way to legally transfer grandpa's firearms to immediate family. So tough, family heirlooms and family property now become gov't property.

Maybe they will use the same logic for jewelry, any cash or PMs at home, vehicles, house (it might become a crack house), land, and anything else they can think of to become the property of "the collective."
 
#58 ·
Naw,man. The families of the dead people who voted Democratic,are exempt. The rest of the criminals better just put down Grampy's cap and ball pistol,along with the 32 oz soda,and back away slooooowly.
 
#26 ·
How ghoulish can cops get? Reading the obits, finding out if the deceased had a permit and going over there to hassle the bereaved? This is way out of bounds. It would be bad enough if they just sent a letter offering to dispose of the permitted firearm, but it's still 'hearse-chasing'.
 
#30 ·
So it sounds like the police are trying to eliminate the source of firearms used in violent crimes. These same illegal guns are the very ones the anti-gun groups are citing as the reason we shouldn't have firearms. I personally support the idea of not letting a dirtbag steal a gun from a vacant house and use it in future robberies, car jackings and shootings.


Has anyone here indicting the cops stopped to consider that they may not be doing this simply because one of them was sitting around trying to find a way to mess with people? Could it be the police commissioner was told what to do by his mayor or elected city council? I agree that just because the boss said so is no reason to violate people's civil rights, but consider that many of these registration laws have been repeatedly upheld by various state and federal courts. Just because you or I don't care for them does not equate to the police being thugs and "ghouls" for following the law. I'm sure if anyone's rights are being violated, there will be half a dozen NRA attorneys ready to sue. :rolleyes:


Polymerman is right about the estate and probate stuff. However, the vast majority of estates are not taken care of through probate and the courts. People who don't have wills, simply cease to exist. A car might be the only titled property they own. Bank accounts are at or near zero and the amount of clothing and other possessions is nil. For many there are no IRA's or 401K's for the kids to fight over. The life insurance policy might be enough to cover funeral costs.

I see houses stand empty after deaths all too often. Often it takes the family getting some tax bills, eviction notices, foreclosure notices or overdue utility notices a few months later before they start thinking about getting rid of grandpa's stuff. And yes, they simply show up to the house, clean out what they want and drive away. The bank or landlord then calls a clean up company and the rest goes into a dumpster. Often they have no idea what firearms might have been in the house. Often the houses have been entered by any number of scavengers from the time of their 'clean out' to when it is finally re-sold or buldozed by the bank.


If tasked, my approach would be to:

Knock, tell the family that police records show he owned several firearms, provide the family with a list of serial numbers and ask them to try to make sure they don't fall in to the wrong hands. I would then turn and walk away. I might offer information on how to transfer ownership records (apparently required in NY) to another family member. No searches, no 'collecting', no asking to visually verify anything.

This may be exactly what is taking place. The police commissioner probably has no clue how the street cops or detective assigned to the matter actually carry out their job. Since the author of the article doesn't cite any examples of what is actually taking place, we don't really know... The author in the second link is more concerned about ginning up paranoia and distrust of the government than trying to pass along any real information.
 
#31 ·
All of your points make some sence. But that is the tragedy. Every argument that has been given sounds good to take away or restrict our gun freedoms and rights. I say no, no more its to much and needs to stop. Our leaders are not in office to control us or take away our freedoms and use LEO's to do there bidding. If LEO's do that they are no better then the nazi's were to say I was just following orders.
 
#37 · (Edited)
5th Amendment: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


So I can easily see the 'being deprived of liberty and property' in this instance.

Where is the "Due Process" and "Just Compensation"?


I fully believe the following to be true: """All law enforcement and military personnel have a Constitutional Duty to refuse to comply with illegal laws…no matter what they are!"""

I think in this instance, you have an illegal law being enforced by law enforcement personnel and they should be refusing to do this.
 
#38 ·
5th Amendment: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


So I can easily see the 'being deprived of liberty and property' in this instance.

Where is the "Due Process" and "Just Compensation"?
I would say the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendment are easily all in question in regards to this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top