Buffalo Police Confiscate Registered Guns Of the Deceased

it is a legal concept every Person should be familiar with.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, some gun lovers may believe that the second clause of our Second Amendment, may operate in a vacuum of special pleading.

 

As Spidey or Batman?

 

Illegally? If I'm married, my property is also my wife's property.

What is illegal is the seizure of my assets by the government.

 

Your wife may not be in compliance with the laws related to firearms. For example if you have a CCW it doesn't allow your wife to carry a concealed weapon. You might be legally entitled to possess firearms while your wife could be an ex-felon prohibited from possessing firearms. It appears that in this case a permit is required to possess the firearms so the heir would require the permit to possess the firearms and if they don't have that permit then they're not in compliance with the law and they would be illegally in possession of the firearm.

In any event we know that there are people that inherit firearms that are prohibited from possessing them under the law. A son or daughter could easily be a criminal or mental case on the FBI NICS database where possessing firearms would be illegal under the law.

So we're back to the beginning of my argument. If a permit is required and the heir obtains the permit then they can lawfully possess the firearms they inherit. If a permit is required and they don't obtain that permit then they're in illegal possession of the firearms.

Why do some pro-gun advocate oppose the confiscation of firearms that are illegally in the possession of some people?

 

Those that oppose the siezure of firearms where a permit is required but the person doesn't have that permit are opposing the confiscation of firearms that are illegally in the possession of a person. If the permit is required under the law for handguns, which is the case here, then the person must have that permit to legally possess the firearm. Lacking that permit they're illegally in possession of the firearm. The Buffalo Police Department is only addressing the confiscation of firearms that are not lawfully possessed by the heirs of an estate where they failed to comply with the law requiring a pistol permit.

Of course it's the responsibility of the heir to know the law that requires the permit for the handgun and to comply with the law. If they don't comply with the law then they're a "criminal" and not a "law-abiding" person.

As also noted in the story this only applies to handguns, not long guns, and the heir can easily have the handgun impounded by a local licensed gun shop pending the heir's obtaining the permit. The police are not going to confiscate a handgun that's been impounded at a gun store while the heir obtains the required permit. The Buffalo Police will only impound a firearm where the heir doesn't have the permit and illegally has the firearm in their possession.

Only those violating the law (i.e. not law-abiding people) will have any firearms confiscated. Why is anyone opposed to law-breakers having their firearms confiscated?

 

The issue in Buffalo is that they are confiscating firearms with no questions asked. Even if the spouse is perfectly within the law, they are still removing the firearms from the household, whether its a shotgun, rifle or handgun.

 

What is to stop those in charge from arbitrarily enacting some standard to reclassify legal firearms ownership as illegal firearms possession, simply because they have such authority and are intent on using it because they can?

 

We're not back to the beginning of anything.

If two people are married, they share in ALL property. If there are guns in my house, she has as much access to them as I do.

If someone divorces, the property value of the guns is included in the assets shared between the two.

It does not follow that upon the death of one of the spouses, the other is suddenly in possession of something illegally.

Your argument makes no sense, especially legally.

If your wife doesn't have a driver's license should the cops come and confiscate your car when you die?

 

Article I Section 10 of the US Constitution prohibits the imposition of ex post facto criminal law by government. A lawfully purchased item cannot be made "illegal" to own because that would create ex post facto criminal law.

For example the 18th Amendment to the US Constitution prohibited the "manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors" but "intoxicating liguors" purchased prior to the imposition of this prohibition remained legal to own. Howard Hughes' father purchased a large inventory of alcoholic beverages prior to "prohibition" and it would have lasted him for many decades. When he died Howard Hughes inherited this supply of alcoholic beverages and it remained completely legal for him to possess it. Hughes did face one problem though. This store of alcohol was in Texas and when he wanted to move it to California it was against the law to transport it across state lines under prohibition. Of course Hughes didn't address this problem and instead delegated it to Noah Dietrich (his CEO) so Dietrich violated the law by smuggling the alcohol from Texas to California. So the ownership of the alcoholic beverages could not be made a criminal offense but it could be prevented in the future from being transported across state lines because that was not an "ex post facto" criminal offense because it had not occurred prior to the law.

 

If your wife is an ex-felon prohibited by law from possessing firearms and you provide her with access to those firearms then both of you are committing a felony.

Of note married couples may or may not share all property depending upon the statutory laws. For example Prenuptial Agreements can limit the ownership of certain property to one of the spouses in a marriage even in community property states.

The husband may be fully entitled to own firearms, and may own firearms, while the wife is prohibited from owning or possessing firearms under the law. As noted above the husband would be required to ensure that the wife doesn't have access to those firearms but the prohibition for the wife does not extend to the husband.

Once again, returning to the Buffalo Police Department it's only concerned with hand guns that can fall into the hands of those that can't lawfully possess the firearms. This can easily happen in the case of inheritance because a prohibited person can inherit a firearm and be in violation of the law by assuming possession of that firearm.

The law enforcement has nothing to do with confiscation of lawfully owned/possessed firearms and no firearms that are in the lawful possession of the heir will be taken by the police department.

 

Not entirely true.

A married couple, one of which is a felon, must go to extreme lengths to make sure the one with a felony doesn't get charged with constructive possession. Even if the gun is in a locked room the felon doesn't have access to, in a safe they don't have the combination for, this is still dangerous even when both are alive.

A felon/non-felon situation in which the non-felon died is a very specific case, and to my knowledge none of the guns confiscated fell into this category.

The police are using gun registration to show up at the deceased person's house without a warrant and seize ALL firearms. Note that this law ONLY applies to handguns, and by law they are not allowed to seize long guns, nor are they allowed to do so without a search warrant. They are showing up and not explaining the heirs options, and are illegally confiscating firearms.

The police department is breaking the law in multiple ways, and that is the bottom line.

The police have no more right to show up and seize guns without legal justification than they do to show up and seize your car or anything else.

Obviously if the police are showing up BEFORE the time allowed to register or sell those firearms, it IS confiscation.

 

Then explain under what authority various states determine that the only way for the owner of a firearm to ensure it remains legal to own is to submit it for registration purposes, long after it was purchased.

 

A requirement to register a firearm does not create an ex post facto criminal offense because the legislation relates to a future event when passed into law. The firearm remains legal to own while the registration relates to a "future" and not "past event. If the person doesn't register then they're committing a criminal offense related to possession of the firearm and the "registration" law imposes a "future" criminal offense for failure to register the firearm by the effective date of the law. The firearms is not confiscated because the ownership of the lawfully purchased firearm has become illegal to own but instead because the owner failed to register the firearm after the law was passed.

The difference is in understanding what was lawful in the past always remains lawful while other laws can affect what's lawful in the future. Registation requirements being imposed create a future criminal act for failure to register while the firearm purchased in the past cannot be made illegal to own. The firearm could be confiscated if the future laws requiring registration are not complied with but the firearm cannot be confiscated based upon the firearm itself because the firearm is lawful to own because no laws in the past prohibited the lawful purchase. Of course the same type of firearm can be prohibited from purchase in the future because that is not an ex post facto law.

Existing firearms lawfully purchased are always "grandfathered" into all legislation because of the prohibitions against ex post facto criminal law under the Constitution.

 

In other words, implementing more and more requirements which must be complied with in order to ensure that legally owned property remains legal.

 

The executor of an estate has 2 weeks to dispose of the weapons. It seems perfectly logical to take the weapons out of an abandon residence if there are weapons there. If the executor of the estate is doing his job, he should make arrangements to have the weapons stored somewhere until they are either sold by the estate or properly given to the next of kin. I have seen the executor who needed extra time, take them to the police, store them in their weapons locker with a recipe until the proper disposal could be done.

You can not have unattended weapons laying around and the police have an OBLIGATION to see that the estate takes care of them first. They only confiscate them if the estate executor is not doing their job.
If they have records to locate weapons of dead people, someone would be pretty pissed if the police did not do their job and act on it and they were stolen from an abandon house before they could be given to the next of kin or sold at auction by a dealer.

Not everyone is aware that a person has guns and just maybe, the police are the only ones who can provide this service. Some of you guys are freak'n paranoid. THESE ARE DEAD PEOPLE and no one may be taking care of the now abandon weapons. The police are doing their job. You can't steal weapons from a dead person but you can from his estate. Sometimes, the executor or next of kin want nothing to do with weapons storage and are reluctant to do the right thing and provide safe legal storage, They don't want the responsibility. Yes, I read the article. They explain everything.

 

90% of the time, the problem arises when there is no will or named executor to take immediate care of the property of the deceased. If there is, and the executor of the will knows what they are doing or can seek legal advice, they would imedialy secure the residence and remove the weapons themselves so these unattended weapons problems don't occur. If there are weapons, they should notify the police and indicate the safest, legal place for storage. Then, NO ONE has a reason to confiscate any weapons.

 

Do you have a problem with complying with the laws of the land that are all created under the authority of the US Constitution?

 

Anyone that assumes guardianship of the property of the deceased pending distribution should know and comply with the law and if they do so then there are no problems related to any firearms that the deceased may have left to the estate.

Ignorantia juris non excusat​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorantia_juris_non_excusat

 

Absolulty. But as you know, that does not happen many times. Many don't bother with wills and name executors or name friends who actually pass away before. It can be weeks before anything is sorted out before the process starts. An executor who is on the ball is into the property immediately and seeing that everything is secured and protected, and locked and insurance. One big area is unattended firearms. That takes help of the police who are the most experienced with federal and local laws. Executors that are experienced and know there are firearms and worry about security, WANT the police involved. We have a bunch here who want to take their guns with them when they croak...I guess. If anything happens and the decreased's firearms are involved, you can bet the "sue birds" would come out of the wood work and try to sue the estate. Getting the police involved ASAP is actually an insurance policy. This happens and my first advice would always be, until the will is probated and there are firearms, call the police and get their help and advice ASAP.

The police are a service your tax dollars are already paying for. Their help and advice is part of their job in these matters involving firearms.

 

Funny story...I was helping a relative take another deceased relative's firearms to the police station to have them stored temporarily. He started to go into the trunk and "pile" the more then a half dozen hunting rifles in his arms and on slings accoss his shoulders, preparing to carry them in. I immedialy intercepted him and had him put the guns back into the trunk and informed him.."don't walk into a police station with an arm full of guns. Go in unarmed and ask them to help bring them in" . After we did this, we had a good laugh with the cops on duty how they were prepared to react with my relative, armed to the hilt trying to stumble through the front door without being "announced". Oooops.

 

The police are responsible for law enforcement and while they can provide some advice on how the law is enforced they do not have a role in providing legal advice. That's the job of an attorney and an attorney should be the first person contacted by the heir(s) of the estate.

 

While the police in your location provided for the impound of the firearms that's not really their responsibility. I would have personally advised contacting a licensed gun shop owner and arranging for the private impounding of the firearms until they could be lawfully distributed by the executor of the estate. The licensed gun shop owner could have lawfully removed the firearms from the property and secured them pending disposition and distribution of the property of the deceased by the executor (whether specified in the will or appointed by the court).

Once again seeking legal advice from an attorney should be the very first step in the process to ensure compliance with the law and protection of the property involved.

 

This discussion really highlights the fallacy of the "pro-gun" advocates claim that firearms are being confiscated because these firearms would only be confiscated if the law is violated but it's very easy for the heirs of an estate where firearms are involved to comply with the law.

Simply contacting an attorney, which should be the very first thing the heir(s) to any estate should do, would prevent those involved from violating the law and the firearms would never be confiscated by the police.

 

Unless of course you're actually in law enforcement, then you can be as ignorant as you want.

The only thing this highlights are those people who support a police state, the loss of our rights, the violation of presumption of innocence, and unjustified seizure of personal property.

 

The attorney WILL not have the ability to secure firearms. He in all likely hood, willdirect you to responsible parties. It will be the local, country then federal authorities in that order if you feel you need further assistance in securing firearms. The police are an excellent source for safely securing firearms and it decreasing your liability by involving them as necessary as it is reporting an accident and using their accident reports as evidence in a court of law. You are mistaking about the roll they have in securing unattended firearms with the role an executor has in preparing and distributing the estate in general. If the fire arms are stolen for example after you have notified the police of their location and asked them for advice in securing them and you followed that advice as per your attorney directive, your liability is decreased significantly. It's the police that have liability protection, not you when it comes to providing security. The first people an executor should go to for advice is a lawyer...,in cases you need help with firearm disposal they. WILL refer to police departments with a directive, to follow their advice. I have been an executor on four occasions and in the case of firearms, it always happend this way. Did I always try to store the guns at a police station, absolulty not. But it was available and any public safety organization should be able to or offer advice.