Proof of Ownership required to pick up a gun

[ViperGTS19801]

Let's say, hypothetically, someone has their gun, which is legally owned and carried, confiscated by a jackbooted authority figure. Then let's say said firearm owner jumps through all the ridiculous and unconstitutional hoops of getting it back the "right way." Then, when told he can go to pick it up, he's also told he needs to bring "proof of ownership" in order to get it back.

If the reasoning for the original confiscation was not in any way related to the rightful ownership of the firearm, and the investigation of the person between the taking and the giving back of said firearm did not turn up anything suspicious about the ownership, can failing to bring a purchase receipt really result in them not turning over the property?

Does anyone have personal experience with this?

[gnbrotz]

can failing to bring a purchase receipt really result in them not turning over the property?

I'm assuming you're asking about the legality of this process, rather than the literal "can they do that"? I think you already know that they "can" do anything they want.

[39flathead]

As I posted in another thread, I had a pistol confiscated from my vehicle while someone else was driving it, they borrowed my car, got stopped and did not have a LCTF for the revolver in the glove box.

After the gun was ran through a stolen firearms database, I was called to come in for my gun, I only had to show ID when I went to the PSP barracks and after a PICS, left with my firearm complete with the police evidence box it was stored in.

Unless the gun was taken due to some robbery ring or other type of crime, I cannot see why any proof would be needed.

As a side note, every one of my firearms has been photographed and on the back, the serial # and model info is written, I did have this when I went to PSP for mine, but when I told them I had it, they said "that's OK, we have a record of it being from your vehicle, we don't need to see that".
Keeping a photo record is good for this type of situation as well as for insurance reasons.

[zackattack784]

As I posted in the original thread, I believe the PPD would need to prove that you do not own it rather than the other way around. But that assumes the PPD actually follows the law. Unfortunately, I feel lawyering up is the only way you an assure you get your gun back.

[thefirstndsecond]

Happens in NJ all the time with sstolen guns. Get a fricken lawyer!!!

Why I have pics serial numbers receipts etc.. especially for insurance. Happened to people in NJ that a friend knows well.

[Emptymag]

Ummm... seems silly to require proof of ownership when they already know that it's "his", don'cha think?

[gnbrotz]

Ummm... seems silly to require proof of ownership when they already know that it's "his", don'cha think?

Well....they're going to say, we know he had it, but we don't know it's "his". Wonder if they'd release a recovered bike or TV without proof of ownership?

[lildobe]

Well....they're going to say, we know he had it, but we don't know it's "his". Wonder if they'd release a recovered bike or TV without proof of ownership?

Well... could you make them run it in the sales database for proof of ownership, and then turn around and use that as prima facie evidence that they are using the database as a registry?

[gnbrotz]

Well... could you make them run it in the sales database for proof of ownership, and then turn around and use that as prima facie evidence that they are using the database as a registry?

Nah....that should only be abused when it suits their needs - like the desire to disarm someone, not to enable/facilitate lawful gun possession.

[Emptymag]

I'll bet if you told them they could just melt it down, there wouldn't be any issue with proving who it belongs to.

And someone in the dept. would have himself a "new" backup gun.