Vehicle Stop and detention by LEO due to inability to verify serial number

[PhillySoldier]

If I remember correctly in the past (almost positive it was this board) there was a thread not about detaining the firearm owner/driver but that police were confiscating weapons if the gun didnt show up in there database until the owner provided proof of purchase. I remember being worked up cause I have guns 20-25 years old where I couldnt even tell ya where I bought them let alone where a receipt for it might be

[unclejumbo]

Would seem the cops get antsy when the weapon comes back recorded in someone else's name , other than parent or spouse , and the carrier says it belongs to him. Reasonable suspicion of an illegal transfer?

Even if that were the case (which I don't think an officer would have a leg to stand on) the illegal transfer was committed by the seller. The buyer doesn't commit a crime according to PA law.

[abner13]

After talking to more than a few state troopers , I gather the line between written state law and unwritten PSP 'policy' is very fuzzy.

We can argue till the cows come home that it can't happen , shouldn't happen , but it does happen.

[free]

Even if that were the case (which I don't think an officer would have a leg to stand on) the illegal transfer was committed by the seller. The buyer doesn't commit a crime according to PA law.

But if you accept the suspicion of illegal transfer as reasonable, wouldn't the gun then be evidence of the seller's crime and subject to being taken into custody?

I mean - if it were a bloody knife on the passenger seat that the passenger couldn't adequately explain and you suspected THAT as being the instrument of a crime, it seems like you would take it into custody.

[unclejumbo]

But if you accept the suspicion of illegal transfer as reasonable, wouldn't the gun then be evidence of the seller's crime and subject to being taken into custody?

I mean - if it were a bloody knife on the passenger seat that the passenger couldn't adequately explain and you suspected THAT as being the instrument of a crime, it seems like you would take it into custody.

That brings us back around to my original statement.

At worst, the officer should have secured the firearm, gotten all the particulars of the person that possessed it and sent him on his way, returning it when the situation was resolved.

[TaePo]

The case law with torturous rationale is embodied in:

Allegheny Sportsmen's League v. Ridge, 790 A. 2d 350 - Pa: Commonwealth Court 2002


as further affirmed in:

Allegheny Cty. Sportsmen's League v. Rendell, 860 A. 2d 10 - Pa: Supreme Court 2004

where SCOPA decided:

Thanks for your help tl_3237. I have read through both. Though the courts discussion on handguns versus long guns was almost convincing, I share the dissenting opinion in the SCOPA case of 2004.

The court seems to also use common language arguments. They claim that the PSP are keeping a listing or Record of Sales, not a Registry of Ownership. However, I still stand by my argument, if the police are using the listing to determine the owner and not returning it to the lawful carrier who has current possession, the listing is in fact being used as a Registry of Ownership not a Record of Sale.

When this occurs (like in the OP and other stories in our threads), officers or their departments need to be legally slammed hard. Or, as this is proof of an abuse of the Record of Sale actually being used as a Registry of Ownership; then this proof indicates that the practice must be stopped immediately and the law followed regarding not having a listing of any type that ties in names, identity, and firearm information.

[Parrisk]

Lets say you are driving down the road in someone else's vehicle. You get pulled over for 10 MpH too fast. There is no reports or any reason for them to suspect the vehicle is stolen.
The office has you get out, puts you in cuffs, stuffs you in the cruiser and detains you for 2 hours or more while calling around trying to reach the car dealership and registered owner, just to make sure you didn't steal it.

There is no stolen car report, no busted out windows, the key IS in the ignition, there are no shaved keys or slim jims laying in sight - ie there is no probable cause!

When there is NO PROBABLE CAUSE for an office to take possession of your firearm, run the serial number etc etc etc... why hand it to them?

Hell even in NY State, at a traffic stop the NY citizen declared a firearm and valid handgun permit. Office took possession and while the partner wrote the ticket, he emptied the 10 round magazine to count bullets. 11 were counted (1 loaded and 10 in the mag) while only 7 was legally allowed. Judge threw the case out because the office had no probable cause to unload the magazine since no crime with the firearm had been committed.

[abner13]

Judge threw the case out because the office had no probable cause to unload the magazine since no crime with the firearm had been committed.

Still had to go to court , pay lawyer , lose time/pay from work , etc.

[Tommy T]

[QUOTE=crffl;3678019].

My advice as to how to respond to that query. "I don't understand officer".
Him: What don't you understand?
Driver: I thought I was being detained for a possible traffic violation, and you're asking me questions that have nothing to do with the alleged traffic violation. I'll be glad to answer any questions about the alleged traffic violation.

Always be respectful, not not compliant.



This I agree with BUT I have yet to see any consensus on the best way to respond when asked if any weapons/firearms in the vehicle. Or have I missed that?

[gnbrotz]

This I agree with BUT I have yet to see any consensus on the best way to respond when asked if any weapons/firearms in the vehicle. Or have I missed that?

From earlier in this thread:

"I do not consent to answer any questions without my attorney present."

You are obligated to provide certain documents during a traffic stop, and even exit the vehicle if asked, but you are NOT required to utter ONE SINGLE WORD. If you decide to do so, make it the quote above.