Recovering a handgun from MD

[Carson]

Well, OP, there you have it.

If you let it sit you will never get it, and if you call too much, you will never get it. The cops have it, and they aren't giving it back.

Not to say you shouldn't try, I applaud your efforts, but the system is against you, and the system has all the cards.

There is a difference between calling too much and ‘nagging to death’. I would hope you could tell the difference.

I recommended calling once a month.

[rwilson452]

depends on said sheriff's political affiliation.

This is Los Angles CA. are you kidding?

[tl_3237]

Hello,

I'm looking for some assistance in retrieving a handgun from another state. A relative of mine, a PA resident and LTCF holder, was involved in a vehicle accident in MD. Tragically, he did not survive the accident. The deceased had a loaded handgun in the vehicle with him but did not possess a MD CCW license. The MD State Police currently have possession of the handgun.

His mother, who is the executor for his estate and a PA resident, is attempting to retrieve his belongings. The police have stated that they can't give the handgun to her since it isn't "registered in her name." Of course, PA doesn't officially have a registration scheme, although maintenance of sales records essentially amount to one.

We intend to argue that per Title 18, Section 6111.4, PA doesn't have a registration program. Furthermore, Section 6111(a) exempts transfers between parent and child from the "on FFL premises" transfer requirement. And lastly, intestate transfers across state lines are exempt from federal laws requiring passage through an FFL.

Are there other angles we could or should use? One fly in the ointment is that the loaded handgun should not have been in MD to begin with. However, I don't know if that gives the police authorization to keep property recovered at the scene of the accident.

Thanks in advance for the help.

Since the handgun was seized as the result of an illegal transport contravening 4-203:

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
TITLE 13. OTHER FORFEITURES
SUBTITLE 2. VIOLATIONS OF GUN LAWS


Md. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Code Ann. § 13-201 (2017)

§ 13-201. Property subject to seizure and forfeiture


The following property is subject to seizure and forfeiture:

(1) a handgun worn, carried, or transported in violation of § 4-203 or § 4-204 of the Criminal Law Article or sold, rented, transferred, or possessed in violation of § 5-103, § 5-104, § 5-118, § 5-119, § 5-120, § 5-121, § 5-122, § 5-123, § 5-124, § 5-125, § 5-126, § 5-127, § 5-128, § 5-129, § 5-133(a), (b), and (d), § 5-134, or § 5-136 of the Public Safety Article; and


(2) ammunition, handgun parts, or handgun appurtenances that are:

(i) worn, carried, or transported in violation of § 4-203 or § 4-204 of the Criminal Law Article; or


(ii) found in the immediate vicinity of a handgun worn, carried, or transported in violation of § 4-203 or § 4-204 of the Criminal Law Article.

That said and if MD has no intention of moving for forfeiture and if the decedent can be proven the then legal owner (PSP database or other official records), then proof of same along with the executor's court appointment ("short certificate") should suffice to establish a legal claim to the property as belonging to the estate.

[Bang]

I wonder what manner of documentation is legally-required acceptable. How about a sworn notarized affidavit from a close friend, relative, paramour, spouse, or maybe an FFL or gunsmith having personal knowledge? Just doing that might give the officials a little less secure position. Done as a part of the chipping away at them.

[RenoV8]

It sounds to me like you could fight this based on principle or is it principal? I can assure you, you will win it in one way and lose it in another. Which will you choose?

[gghbi]

Since the handgun was seized as the result of an illegal transport contravening 4-203:
That said and if MD has no intention of moving for forfeiture and if the decedent can be proven the then legal owner (PSP database or other official records), then proof of same along with the executor's court appointment ("short certificate") should suffice to establish a legal claim to the property as belonging to the estate.

Do we know if this is true? OP says it is in their custody, but does not state that.

[tl_3237]

Do we know if this is true? OP says it is in their custody, but does not state that.

We know that a handgun was transported loaded. Since the OP failed to give any inkling as to the decedent being eligible for a MD exemption (LEO, MD CCW, etc), it's a safe assumption that the highlighted in your post was true and the handgun was properly seized.

[kwc]

We know that a handgun was transported loaded. Since the OP failed to give any inkling as to the decedent being eligible for a MD exemption (LEO, MD CCW, etc), it's a safe assumption that the highlighted in your post was true and the handgun was properly seized.

Thanks for the citation--that is helpful.

The decedent was not eligible for an exemption. To date, the police have said nothing about the fact that the handgun was accessible to the decedent or that it was loaded. It isn't clear they plan to move to forfeiture.

[kwc]

I wonder what manner of documentation is legally-required acceptable. How about a sworn notarized affidavit from a close friend, relative, paramour, spouse, or maybe an FFL or gunsmith having personal knowledge? Just doing that might give the officials a little less secure position. Done as a part of the chipping away at them.

We do have the purchase receipts with his name and address, so certainly the "record" of transfer from an FFL to him is clean.

[Bang]

If Maryland entities conduct business as Penna departments do, the particulars on the questioned firearm, if relatively modern et cetera, are run through BATFE, which goes to the manufacturer on down to distributor and on to retailer's record of sales. Included in their investigation, they will attempt to ascertain if stolen and advise.

Between no stolen reports, no prior illegal use established, and everything else pointing to known owner, the glitch remains that it is a loaded firearm in a motor vehicle...a violation of Maryland law... and likely contraband subject to permanent seizure followed by melting it down for the safety of the citizens of Maryland. The owner being deceased may make it even easier for the state to escheat the gun and order it melted.