tkd4life
Ultimate Member
So I've recently had a cousin have his AR-15 stolen from his house. Once he realized his house was broken into he called the cops. As the house was in Baltimore City, I highly doubt the cops are very concerned with finding the rifle or the other things stolen as I'm sure they are busy as hell with other more important things. We are all pretty sure his rifle will never be seen again. Either way he was telling me that after the interview the cops told him that if they found the rifle and the serial numbers were still intact or if the rifle wasn't used in the commission of a crime, they would return the rifle to him.
One thing I don't understand, assuming the gun is used in the commission of a crime, how is it legal for the state to destroy personal property after it is found. If the property was illegally taken from an owner, shouldn't it be returned to the owner when found? How is it relevant that the gun was used in the commission of a crime? Isn't it illegal seizure of property if the state destroys a firearm without due compensation?
I mean if someone steals your car and commits a felony hit and run, would it be ok for cops to auction your car off or destroy it without attempting to pay you for it or even give it back? I guess I don't understand how the current policy is constitutional. Anyone smarter than me on the subject have an input?
One thing I don't understand, assuming the gun is used in the commission of a crime, how is it legal for the state to destroy personal property after it is found. If the property was illegally taken from an owner, shouldn't it be returned to the owner when found? How is it relevant that the gun was used in the commission of a crime? Isn't it illegal seizure of property if the state destroys a firearm without due compensation?
I mean if someone steals your car and commits a felony hit and run, would it be ok for cops to auction your car off or destroy it without attempting to pay you for it or even give it back? I guess I don't understand how the current policy is constitutional. Anyone smarter than me on the subject have an input?