Colorado’s new gun control law has forced police to steal a woman’s pistol.


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

Colorado’s new gun control law has forced police there to steal a woman’s pistol.

They appear to want to return it, but the law has created a situation where they can’t return it legally.

Share

6 comments

  • Pzatchok

    I can understand the need for a background check when they return a firearm to its owner.

    No one wants them to hand over a gun to someone who can’t pass the check. (since the check is law in that state)

    But when the law was proposed and passed the idiot law makers instead of dancing around all smug and happy they passed another ‘safety’ law. (into gun law) they knew some people would be getting their guns back, it always happens and has has happened since guns were invented. And since they knew some would be getting them back they should have added in a way to pay for the back ground checks.

    They knew if that if they had added in a statement that the gun owner should pay they would have never passed the law. And if they stated that the county pay the counties would sue to make the state pay since its a state law.

    Considering that the agent at the check station is an already paid for federal employee they or their office don’t need paid for. The only person getting any fee is the guy with the FFL phoning it in.

  • Edward

    Apparently I don’t understand Colorado’s law. She already passed a background check in order to get the gun in the first place. Background check performed and passed.

    Are the Colorado legislators really as stupid as this article makes them seem, that at the time a gun changes hands (even to its previously checked owner, or a previously checked repairman, or … ) a background check is necessary? If that is so, it is clear that the officer that confiscated the gun (and that is what it turned out to be, whatever the intention) would also need such a background check, and that obviously was not performed, because the police department does not have anyone to perform it.

    If it is against the law to return the gun, then it must have also been against the law for the officer to take it.

    What about SWAT teams arming themselves from the armory? Or an officer disarming a bad-guy? Both of these situations require quick action, not delayed action.

  • Pzatchok

    The problem in reality is that a person could have never went through a back ground check to get the gun in the first place.

    Either by private person to person sale or they bought it long before the background check system was law.

    In the mean time they could have preformed any number of crimes that now make it illegal for them to have a gun.

    The cops mainly only check you for outstanding warrants and civil protection orders. Neither of which might keep you from owning a gun.

  • Edward

    So, that means that the answer to my question: “that at the time a gun changes hands a background check is necessary?” is, “yes.”

    Are there exceptions for police officers, SWAT teams, BLM officers, and employees of other government agencies? Otherwise, it would be illegal for them to disarm the public, as they did to poor, unprotected Sara Warren, unless they had a FFL holder at the scene.

  • Pzatchok

    Yes they are the exception.

    The back ground check you go through to get a gun is just a look to see if you are wanted or on a no purchase list.

    Officers of the law tend to go through a far more thorough back ground check at the time they are sworn in. Plus psychological checks.
    But even they go through the general background check when they make a private purchase.

    When they confiscate a weapon is in the name of the department and under the orders of the prosecutor for their area.
    They in effect are acting under your orders and on your(as a citizen) behalf.

  • Edward

    My question was not so rhetorical.

    New York stupidly forgot to exempt police officers from the 7-round magazine law, so their officers could not legally have more than 7 rounds in their guns. That left them less armed than the law breakers. Eventually, somebody noticed how stupid the NY legislature is, and they fixed it. Since the smart people go into business, the average people go into science (ironic to think that the PhDs are only average), and the stupid people go into politics (which explains a lot), I just want to make sure that there are some quality assurance programs in our legislatures.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *