HB2269 Related to Unlawful Firearm Seizure by Feds

[K5GU]

HB 2269 (by Metcalf) Relating to the unlawful seizure of a firearm by a governmental officer or employee; creating an offense. Favorably reported by Homeland Security & Public Safety Committee and sent to Calendars on 4/21/2015.
See Analysis:
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 02269H.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[TexasJohnBoy]

I think I can get behind this one.

[joe817]

Thank you K5GU for bringing this bill to our attention. It's a good bill.

[jason812]

Can somebody explain what exactly this means in simple English? I have an idea but sometimes all the big legal words confuse me.

[cb1000rider]

From time to time, you see police take firearms from people who are not breaking any laws. That is, they "confiscate" a firearm related to a search and don't issue a ticket or charge anyone with a crime.
Or they confiscate a firearm and issue a ticket on a non-firearm related offense. Usually the firearm can be recovered by coming to claim it at the local office...

Usually the firearm can be recovered. But what was the legal grounds for removing the firearm int he first place? As it stands currently, it seems that there is no downside to removing a firearm if it suits the needs / policy of the officer or department. You can't sue over it... Well, you could, but as the firearm can be recovered, what are the actual damages. It's not against the law to take it. It's probably against the law to resist having it taken.

This law changes that. It makes it a crime to take firearms without cause, if you're under the employ of the federal government, state government, or other similar jurisdiction...

[The Wall]

From time to time, you see police take firearms from people who are not breaking any laws. That is, they "confiscate" a firearm related to a search and don't issue a ticket or charge anyone with a crime.
Or they confiscate a firearm and issue a ticket on a non-firearm related offense. Usually the firearm can be recovered by coming to claim it at the local office...

Usually the firearm can be recovered. But what was the legal grounds for removing the firearm int he first place? As it stands currently, it seems that there is no downside to removing a firearm if it suits the needs / policy of the officer or department. You can't sue over it... Well, you could, but as the firearm can be recovered, what are the actual damages. It's not against the law to take it. It's probably against the law to resist having it taken.

This law changes that. It makes it a crime to take firearms without cause, if you're under the employ of the federal government, state government, or other similar jurisdiction...

What are the damages? There is no downside to removing a firearm? Well, the best reason not to remove it would be you're leaving the person defenseless. I can see a potential law suit. Scenario: Man was pulled over and ticketed for a broken tail light. Officer took his legally carried firearm without cause. The man gets carjacked and killed 15 minutes later while on his way home. Get the picture? Now I can see the officer holding the gun until after he runs the license and issues the ticket. Even that shouldn't occur without cause. The less the gun is handled the less chance of it going it off. IMHO

[E10]

What are the damages? There is no downside to removing a firearm? Well, the best reason not to remove it would be you're leaving the person defenseless. I can see a potential law suit. Scenario: Man was pulled over and ticketed for a broken tail light. Officer took his legally carried firearm without cause. The man gets carjacked and killed 15 minutes later while on his way home. Get the picture? Now I can see the officer holding the gun until after he runs the license and issues the ticket. Even that shouldn't occur without cause. The less the gun is handled the less chance of it going it off. IMHO

The problem with your scenario is that there are many jurisdictions, even in Texas, where the police departments don't care about what happens to you after they confiscate your firearm (that's why I usually have a same-caliber backup secured in my vehicle when I travel). There have also been confiscations in which it was nearly impossible to recover the firearm, although no crime was committed, no arrest made, no citation issued, and no one detained. Confiscation of property without due process is a violation of the Fourth Amendment and should be treated in a similar manner as other violations of civil rights (but you'll never see the current Justice Department get behind it). The cops should pay for their transgressions, just like everyone else.

[cb1000rider]

I hear you.. And that might be a valid case. But for those people that aren't carjacked, it's probably pretty hard to justify hiring an attorney (thousands) and going to court to pursue damages that may not be very substantial.. And risk that attorney fees might not be covered.

Once again, it's an example of interesting legislation that shouldn't be necessary, but apparently is due to the actions of a few that likely have their own agendas.

The bottom line is that to *some* (small minority) of officers, there really isn't a personal downside to behaving in this manner. You won't successfully sue them personally and their actions may or may not be in line with departmental policy. It's pretty easy to claim that handing a firearm back to someone constitutes an increased "risk". This legislation would change that and have some real consequences. Again, it's sad that it might be necessary.

[gljjt]

To me, confiscating a firearm from a person acting reasonably (not violent) and being looked at for a non-firearm offense, is no different than taking their jewelry or TV or anything else they own. That doesn't happen with the other items I mentioned. An officer would be fired/prosecuted if they did that. What gives statutory authority to confiscate firearms. I call it theft.

[jason812]

From time to time, you see police take firearms from people who are not breaking any laws. That is, they "confiscate" a firearm related to a search and don't issue a ticket or charge anyone with a crime.
Or they confiscate a firearm and issue a ticket on a non-firearm related offense. Usually the firearm can be recovered by coming to claim it at the local office...

Usually the firearm can be recovered. But what was the legal grounds for removing the firearm int he first place? As it stands currently, it seems that there is no downside to removing a firearm if it suits the needs / policy of the officer or department. You can't sue over it... Well, you could, but as the firearm can be recovered, what are the actual damages. It's not against the law to take it. It's probably against the law to resist having it taken.

This law changes that. It makes it a crime to take firearms without cause, if you're under the employ of the federal government, state government, or other similar jurisdiction...

Thanks for the explanation. Since this refers to the feds, I would think this drastically helps the vets who are being stripped of their rights on a daily basis. God bless the vets

[cb1000rider]

To me, confiscating a firearm from a person acting reasonably (not violent) and being looked at for a non-firearm offense, is no different than taking their jewelry or TV or anything else they own. That doesn't happen with the other items I mentioned. An officer would be fired/prosecuted if they did that. What gives statutory authority to confiscate firearms. I call it theft.

It happens with cash, unfortunately.. Or it has historically. Lots of monkey-business going on over the last 10 years or so... Although we look down on officers that engage in this sort of stuff, it's the policies that are most troubling. And honestly, it's all to catch bad guys... A few good guys get snared in the net.


The angle on vets is interesting. As far as I know, they weren't actively taking away personal firearms. They were just adjudicating some of those vets in a way that makes them ineligible to purchase firearms (or carry). If they were actually taking property, that's news to me, but I wouldn't think it's too far off.

[jason812]

Maybe preemptive...

[cb1000rider]

It's not preemptive, unfortunately...

On the "other" seizure side, I ran into this today:
http://www.sgvtribune.com/government-an ... t-seizures" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Eight Los Angeles County police departments made more than $43 million between 2006 and 2013 through a federal civil asset seizure program that allows police to take property sometimes without charging or convicting anyone, according to a report."

Course, that's California...

[srothstein]

This bill will not stand up in court, IMO. It tries to usurp federal law (the committee substitute bill at least). Consider this case:

An ATF agent is investigating a person for illegally selling firearms without a license. The person was observed selling firearms on six separate weekends and sold more than 10 new firearms each time, and does not have a license. When the ATF arrest him, they find him in possession of 40 new firearms. They seize the firearms. This bill would make that a crime and could result in the state trying to charge the federal agents for enforcing federal law. After all, there is no state law requiring an FFL to deal in firearms.

Now, the bill has an exception in it for laws with specific constitutional authority. But even in this forum, we have had disagreements on whether the FFL is a constitutional application of the interstate commerce regulation or not, especially with the recent challenge made in court claiming it violates 2nd amendment rights. Somehow, I doubt the federal court system would uphold this law under those conditions.


And, if you have not yet read the law, I suggest you do so. It would not cover the situations mentioned where officers have confiscated guns without cause. The law would only apply to cases where the seizure was under a specific federal law or rule.

[CJD]

This bill will not stand up in court, IMO. It tries to usurp federal law (the committee substitute bill at least). Consider this case:

An ATF agent is investigating a person for illegally selling firearms without a license. The person was observed selling firearms on six separate weekends and sold more than 10 new firearms each time, and does not have a license. When the ATF arrest him, they find him in possession of 40 new firearms. They seize the firearms. This bill would make that a crime and could result in the state trying to charge the federal agents for enforcing federal law. After all, there is no state law requiring an FFL to deal in firearms.

Now, the bill has an exception in it for laws with specific constitutional authority. But even in this forum, we have had disagreements on whether the FFL is a constitutional application of the interstate commerce regulation or not, especially with the recent challenge made in court claiming it violates 2nd amendment rights. Somehow, I doubt the federal court system would uphold this law under those conditions.


And, if you have not yet read the law, I suggest you do so. It would not cover the situations mentioned where officers have confiscated guns without cause. The law would only apply to cases where the seizure was under a specific federal law or rule.

I think it's more geared toward keeping state level officers from enforcing federal gun laws. While the law cannot usurp federal law, the state can control its own resources. Suppose Washington passes a complete gun ban, this would make it such that Texas officers cannot confiscate weapons, only federal officers. This would greatly hinder the process.