Traffic stop. Legally owned firearm confiscated.

[bigandy1966]

So where does it specify in the law that I must keep all records of transfers of all firearms owned? I have owned firearms since I was 18, and I am quite positive the copes of paperwork for most of my guns are unobtainable either in electronic or hardcopy forms, as most places I purchased them are long since out of business, or they were bought in private transactions with only the bill of sale for long arms, way back in the days before the computerized systems were in place.
And as such How would I prove I owned anything in case of a burglary or a fire?.

[GunLawyer001]

So where does it specify in the law that I must keep all records of transfers of all firearms owned? I have owned firearms since I was 18, and I am quite positive the copes of paperwork for most of my guns are unobtainable either in electronic or hardcopy forms, as most places I purchased them are long since out of business, or they were bought in private transactions with only the bill of sale for long arms, way back in the days before the computerized systems were in place.
And as such How would I prove I owned anything in case of a burglary or a fire?.

There's no requirement in the UFA that you keep those records. However, the rules on filing a petition for return of property place the burden of proof on you to show ownership. A paper trail makes that easier.

You can live your life without using written contracts, too (within the limitations of the statute of frauds that applies to things like real estate and large contracts taking a lot of time), relying mostly on handshakes. It will just be harder for you to ever use the courts to seek justice that way.

[flyromeo3]

One term I like to use.
If its not on paper, it never happened.

[ImminentDanger]

If a gun is taken from you, and you're not a prohibited person, and it's not listed as stolen, then (in the absence of some related crime like assault) the police have no basis for refusing to return it. There's no law requiring it to be registered, or for you to have a sales receipt, or to meet whatever evidence they feel like demanding.

They don't need a paper trail if they took it from you, the presumption is that it's your property, and if they can't rebut that presumption, they shouldn't be holding on to it.

STOP, DETAIN, SEARCH - What CAN an Officer Do Legally (IANAL)
http://forum.pafoa.org/concealed-ope...lly-ianal.html
From Post#7:

Return of Seized Property
COMMONWEALTH v. ROSS - DECEMBER 8, 2011
(Commonwealth Court 250 C.D. 2011)
http://www.pacourts.us/OpPosting/Cwe...11_12-8-11.pdf

More specifically, motions to secure the return of property seized by police are initiated pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 588. Under this rule, on any motion for return of property, the moving party must establish by a preponderance of the evidence entitlement to lawful possession. Once the moving party provides sufficient proof, the burden shifts to the Commonwealth to resist the return of property by proving the property is contraband. Commonwealth v. Crespo, 884 A.2d 960 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005).

Johnson v. Commonwealth - AUGUST 1, 2007
Commonwealth Court 931 A.2d 781, 783-84 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007)
http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinio...-1-07.pdf?cb=1

There is a dearth of case law addressing the question of whether a petitioner has met his initial burden of proving that he is the lawful owner of the items seized. Commonwealth v. Younge, 667 A.2d 739 (Pa. Super. 1995). This is because the only burden of persuasion placed on a petitioner under Rule 588(a) is entitlement to lawful possession or ownership of the subject property. Commonwealth v. Stipetich, 623 A.2d 360 (Pa. Super. 1993). In fact, a mere allegation of entitlement meets this burden. Younge, 667 A.2d at 741-42.

“At a minimum, our rules and case law mandate Johnson properly allege, under oath, lawful possession.”

(My Bolding)

...