Property returned
A San Diego man, whose son went on a shooting rampage with a gun he stole from his father, has had his guns returned:
Two students were killed and 13 were wounded by then-15-year-old Andy Williams, who took a revolver out of his father’s locked gun cabinet.
The 4th District Court of Appeal ruled the weapons owned by Charles Jeffrey Williams were not a nuisance, as a trial judge had ruled, because they were not used in the school shooting. Weapons seized at the home included a .22-caliber rifle, a .20-gauge shotgun and an M-16 military bayonet.
Now, I can understand taking the gun used in a crime for evidence. But taking the other guns, which were otherwise lawful to own, seems a bit of an overreach on the part of those investigating. Additionally, the judge who ruled the uninvolved weapons were a nuisance should have his head examined.
March 28th, 2006 at 1:50 pm
“Additionally, the judge who ruled the uninvolved weapons were a nuisance should have his head examined.”
I would substitute ‘ventilated’ for ‘examined’, but that would probably be illegal.
March 28th, 2006 at 9:08 pm
It is my impression that police generally (1) will confiscate ALL guns found in premises being searched, (2) will NOT make efforts to preserve those guns from casual damage (i.e., dump ’em all in a pile in the trunk of the police car), (3) will NOT make certain of their security (“gee,” they will say when you ask for them back “they seem to have disappeared. Tough.”) and (4) will strenuously resist returning any that haven’t disappeared to a demonstrably rightful owner. Now some will think that this means I think the police are mainly thieves when it comes to guns, but I certainly wouldn’t want to be thought of as holding any such opinion.
March 28th, 2006 at 9:25 pm
A .20 gauge shotgun? That thing must be a cannon! I’ve never even seen a one gauge shotgun.