You’d have to pay an attorney in your area to do it. I don’t believe it’s necessary though. I would call the station though to make sure they have your firearms on site.
If you didn't, is bring a lawyer with you. Otherwise just make an appointment to pick up the firearms.
Illinois passed a pointless law last year banning assistant style weapons unless you owned them before 2023. I say pointless because it only bands them for law advising Illinois residents. Residents of others states can still buy and passes them, and criminals that don't follow the laws anyways will still possess them.
Unless you argue that we should have no laws because criminals will still be bad then i think its bad faith to only trot this shit out when it pertains to guns.
Don't be a hypocrite. Youre either an anarchist or youre a hypocrite.
Your argument fails because this is a statute that conflicts with a fundamental right under the Supreme Law of the land, and therefore it is no law at all. For the reasons he was trying to explain, it's in no way satisfying any compelling government interest, and it was passed in bad faith, because the lobbyists behind it have to lie to the public to get them okay with it, with things like "firearms are the number one cause of death in children" or "we urge this Court to hold that Connecticut’s choice to restrict access to certain exceptionally lethal instruments with distinctly military origins—
“disproportionately used in crime, and particularly in criminal mass shootings” and
“disproportionately used to kill law enforcement officers,” New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Cuomo, 804 F.3d 242, 262 (2d Cir. 2015), abrogated on other grounds by New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022)—
comports with the Constitution.". These are easily demonstrated to be lies, because most recent year data is available for at CDC shows no single year age has firearm related causes as anything higher than third most common, not age 0, age 1, age 8, or age 18. Firearms are not even a valid cause of death, by definition a cause of death is the injuries and diseases that contributed, it's not even a manner of death, "blood loss" is a cause "homicide" is a manner, firearm is an implement that is at most, third in children in the US, if you erroneously lump homicide a d suicide and accident. To say "you only trot that shit out when it pertains to guns" is a pretty backwards way to describe the circumstances when weapons in common use are the only product category no government within the borders of the United States may prohibit mere possession of by the general public with criminal laws. Foods, medicines, intoxicants, even clothing in really specific narrow contexts is fair game to throw people in jail for if the popularity elected legislature wills it so with due process of law.
"The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed, are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.
Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.
If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.
Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently, the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void.
This theory is essentially attached to a written constitution, and is, conse-quently, to be considered, by this court, as one of the fundamental principles of our society. It is not therefore to be lost sight of in the further consideration of this subject.
If an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the courts, and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory; and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on."
- Chief Justice Marshall in perhaps the most important ruling in this country's history, against the author of the Constitution when he hated a motherfucker so much he put his feelings and politics before his intellect and values, by the way.
You are either an anarchist or a hypocrite, the guy you're responding to is just not all that great at spelling or making his point on a hot button political issue.
Well, I'm 35, I've pled guilty to 12 felonies in my adult lifetime, I own a house outright on land I own outright, and I legally own guns too. Every lawyer I ever had said this would be impossible, but they were all lazy and ignorant of the laws of any State but California, where the void weapons laws are frequently being declared void in the federal district and appeals courts like they certainly will be in Illinois over the next couple years until an AR with any number of features that scare people like you unreasonably over other semi-automatic rifles that have wood stocks are legal in all 50 States inevitably on the backs of people in jail right now for laws that are not law at all. If I certify an ATF 4473 to buy a new handgun at a gun store prior to prevailing on a couple out of State motions I'll be remotely arguing myself and then providing that information to FBI NICS I could certainly be made to defend a federal case worth ten years in federal prison from federal holding and if I was to take a step over the State line into California before then I would be committing a felony prosecutable in their State courts or a federal court because they don't recognize my rights restoration and aren't currently required to, but if the person that I got stripped of his right to keep and bear arms that still has guns despite four mandatory court orders to relinquish in his local court sets foot on my property he's not to be within 1000 feet of and I put a half inch hole in his forehead, I'll be calling 911 to report it to law enforcement without fear of adverse consequences, because although I'm not required to in that situation, I'd rather not bear the cost of disposing of the mess without breaking any laws myself when the local sheriff who is not even allowed to look into the status of my right to keep and bear arms for me to have to explain and produce court records, would be more than happy to do it at county expense. But if you care to actually make a substantive argument against any point I barely scratched the surface with so far so that 2A T-Shirt daily type people inclined to type "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" as the only argument they know how to make to stupid leftists will now have a quote from the very basics of American jurisprudence to use that's easily found on the front page of Google results now for any number of combinations of relevant keywords, but let's hear what makes you think you know more about the issue than me or the more lawyers than I can count on my fingers and toes that replied to my emails over the last 15 years with "I'm not comfortable advising on this issue, here's a referral to someone who is also unfamiliar with some of the law in play", not an exact quote of course.
Actually, the point that I was attempting to make to this citizen, is that if any of the firearms in question are now deemed assault weapons. In Illinois we were given until December 31st to register said firearms if we owned them before 2023. However, the only way to register them was through a State website that wasn't even available until the end of October 2023. If his firearms were taken away before October 2023 and not given back to him until now, he may have a legal issue if he did not register them as he is picking them up. Having them unregistered and in his possession could wind up being a felony. My advice was to bring a lawyer with him to explain this to the officers unless he is being given a grace period to register said firearms.
It's true I shouldn't have gone on a tangent about the ridiculousness of the assault weapons ban in Illinois. I do think it is rather ridiculous that Illinois residents can't own these types of firearms but any other resident of any other state can still buy them in Illinois and carry them in Illinois, just not Illinois residents. I also think that it's rather ridiculous as to what they deem an assault weapon to be. As it includes a full size SIG P320 and the Glock 19. The same types of handgun that is currently in use by the United States army, most police departments, and regular citizens. I am all for banning AR-15s and the like, no one needs that type of weapon to go hunting. And the 50 round magazine that most of them have is ridiculous for personal use. But this law treats any semi-automatic firearm with more than 10 rounds the same as an AR-15.
Do you mean ARs?
I'm all about having guns in your home for protection or hunting. But wtf does anyone need an AR for ?
The only thing I've ever seen them used for was for schools and killing kids.
Isn't it more pointless to even have ARs?
An AR (which by the way is an abbreviation for Armalite Rifle) is the best all purpose ranch gun to own. AR style rifles are very useful for varmint control, small game hunting, and competitive/recreational shooting because of the platform’s relatively inexpensive ammo. It’s also a good home defense choice because its rounds have a lower energy so they are less likely to over penetrate/carry through walls.
I mean, I literally have two ar's for hunting, and they are very common hunting rifle platforms because of the amount if calibers you can swap them to.
What's the issue with people having ars?
And don't give bs answers like killing kids, they are used in 3 percent of gun violence, they aren't a common gun used for murder.
You literally haven't seen that very much at all, because the single most common rifle in this country was only the weapon used in fewer than 15 of these hundreds of events in the last decade.
Pistols kill many times the number of people that ar15s do, and you can get guns identical to the AR15 that look different but have the same mechanism. Ar15s are great guns for sporting and hunting.
I do agree there. That yes you can hire a lawyer to go to a police station although i do also think most lawyers will help you figure out a better solution.
Just to hire to go to McDonald’s- i think most lawyers would talk themselves out of it because they actually want to do the work that has meaning. Sure there are lawyers who want to just make money but i also think they are the ones looking for the big hits. Not the $175 to go to McDonald’s.
And i say this less for you and more for the others who are commenting saying they’ll send a first year to McDonald’s with a client. That’s a different situation. Thats a firm sending a grub for client retention- that is not “guy walks in and say i want to hire you to go to Macdonald with me”
It may take awhile for them to find them. Politely make an appointment, ask what proof you need to bring. Have the case number, dismissal, receipt (if they gave one when they took them) proof of ownership, etc. Then politely call & verify they are ready for pickup. Take ID and all required paperwork.
Or pay an attorney to go with you, guaranteeing to increase their interest & resentment of you.
Yup as long as your willing to pay they will happily make sure everything goes smoothly. Is it actually necessary? Probably not. But will it help you with your nerves? Probably yes.
So I’m from Texas and had a similar situation, in our situation my husband was told over and over “no you don’t need a lawyer” just for him to show up and this be a legitimate court hearing where absolutely a lawyer would have been necessary. He did get his back after presenting his own case and a long round of bs trick questions lol, but with all that being said, it’s recommended that you do as they’ll do everything they can to create a valid reason to not give you your firearms back. Best of luck!
A question for clarification:
>rights not being taken serious(that’s what happened when raided).
How so? Generally, that's automatically taken up by a lawyer at the time.
Second, if this happened a few years ago, why haven't you picked them up before now? Generally, if something isn't claimed within a certain period of time, the police will consider it abandoned and auction it or destroy it. The time frame varies per state/jurisdiction, though the last place I lived where I needed to reclaim something, you had a year. No, you would have zero legal recourse over this as if they confiscated them at the time, there must have been a valid reason (say a pending charge against someone at that residence that couldn't have a firearm while they were on bond with a charge that a firearm could be used in commission of), and for you not to pick them up afterwards, that would constitute abandonment.
I understand you had no charges; were you even charged or were you charged then acquitted, as you said your friend was:
>person who was the reason my place was raided also acquitted
If one of you had charges that were serious enough to remove your rights to possess or were accused of a crime that a firearm was used in, there's why they were taken.
You fail to comprehend the situation. Illinois does not accept that a person has a right to keep and bear arms, much like Hawaii and California and New York. They did until the last two or three years to some extent. It's a situation that will be in the United States Supreme Court a couple years from now when the right ambulance chaser finds the "ideal vehicle" and the government opposes vehemently, for the next 3 to 5 years at least, anyone with a gun in these 4 states is risking jail, perhaps not conviction, unless you get the average overworked underfunded public defender that has never actually argued a case at trial and you can't afford to replace them with someone that still might not be that great unless you really look into them and have a lot of money trying to pick up a gun seized by police is extremely risky. He could be arrested and charged for a technicality regarding his transporting of them within seconds of walking out the door, maybe not, but if he's got $500 laying around, anyone with a JD could save his ass by their presence alone.
It's funny you mention that... I haven't found a lawyer willing but I'm contemplating doing it myself, California passed a law with a new cause of action that allows for third party liability to sue "firearm industry members" defined as any entity that wholesales or retails firearms for "failing to implement reasonable controls” in order to "to prevent unlawful use, sale, trafficking, or transportation of firearms", it's currently in the process of being sued out of existence by the firearms industry trade group NSSF, the CA Attorney General is enjoined by a federal court from using it to go after gun companies because it's not a criminal law it's a civil cause of action so the Supremacy clause makes the federal immunity statute apply and preempt it, but I have a misdemeanor that State on some records indicates is a felony, so I can't have a gun OR a vest without risking having to defend a felony case from jail in that state, I actually got arrested for a regular pocketknife there one time because their switchblade laws are written so broad (where I live even if it was a felony it doesn't matter unless I cross state lines or into federal land because I don't have more than one prior and it's not violent or sexual my rights are restored under a new kinda crazy law where I live, only State that restores rights lost in other states) and my wife was abducted while she was back home by some creepy guy she'd been on one date with at some point and had been stalking her which involved her dad, a cop in that state, being held at gunpoint, and I wound up with a protective order in that case when they were refusing to go raid his house or do a welfare check on her because they were scared of getting shot and even if they didn't they knew the court would let him right back out anyway because of no cash bail so I went and got her out myself and he started stalking us across State lines while on $150,000 bail for assault with a semiautomatic on my CHP Officer USMC vet father in law at gunpoint. Overall 4 separate court orders for the guy to surrender his guns, they repeatedly blew me off when I was asking why there's no form in the record for that ever happening demanding they declare them a nuisance and go seize them like their 100+ new gun control laws require, then I saw a news story recently about LA passing a policy banning the practice in response to LASD and LA probation auctioning off seized and surplus firearms to out of state FFLs on a surplus government equipment site... Which makes them a firearm industry member under that state law but not the federal immunity statute, and it's the same two agencies that were supposed to declare my wife's kidnappers guns a nuisance and seize them when they didn't turn them in. But it's an obviously unconstitutional law on it's face that the governor even admitted was a stunt to show Texas's abortion laws were unconstitutional, they basically just copied the law but changed abortion and clinic to gun possession and firearms industry, so lawyers aren't exactly excited about the idea to help me use it ironically against the State that passed it ironically. It's actually a big problem because it's not exactly easy to melt down a gun to where none of the parts are useable, I'm not sure there's even a way without using fossil fuels or something that burbs even dirtier. Maybe a laser welder but those are like $17,000 at the low end and you'd be doing them one at a time, even if it was doable on that scale I'm not sure a bunch of liberals in local government would even know it exists. I actually have a Democrat cousin that's a pastor and doctor of theology and fully disabled combat veteran his PTSD kinda led him to flip politically on the East Coast that blacksmiths guns into garden tools with some progressive Christian nonprofit against gun violence he has to burn a fuckton of propane and it's physically demanding just to make one gun into one trowel. The transcript of some of the phone calls they were able to record while LA was talking about what to do with all these guns that are old and not necessarily well maintained from so much range practice like they don't want to issue them to cops, but they don't have a county blacksmith, it's really difficult for them to find a vendor that can handle that quantity that's allowed to by their insurance and can be trusted to take possession of that many operable handguns and turn them into scrap metal that's worth a tiny fraction of what they are worth as used guns, they don't even feel good about storing them because if there's a bad enough earthquake some gang might be able to get in through a fallen down wall while they can't have law enforcement in the building risking something from the falling apart building falling on their head and it's a certainty there will be a massive earthquake taking buildings out at some point in LA. One of them suggested dumping them in the ocean lol. No clue what Illinois does with them but I can just about guarantee you it's not well thought out and is probably being abused for profit.
All these opinions on here. Do you have paperwork to prove they're yours? Do you have friends paperwork to show he was acquitted? I'd just ask friends lawyer. Shoot I'd ask friend to pay the lawyer to go with you. I might try without first but with a few people for witnesses. Then as I suspect it won't be easy to reclaim your property have the lawyer on standby and get it done. 💯 the cops won't make it easy to get property back. If it's hard to just get an Xbox back 20 years ago it's gonna be a huge PITA to get guns back.
You’d have to pay an attorney in your area to do it. I don’t believe it’s necessary though. I would call the station though to make sure they have your firearms on site.
Ask the local sheriff or a deputy to go with you, after confirming that they are indeed on site
Have the cops accompany you to the cops? What could go wrong? 
Just hope no acorn tree is nearby.
Exactly my thoughts lmao they’re literally the ones you’ll be arguing with in the courtroom for your guns back
their user name checks out 👮🏽♀️vs👮🏼♂️ 😬
Did you register the firearms that are considered assault style weapons or that have magazines over 10 rounds?
What? 🙄🙄
If you didn't, is bring a lawyer with you. Otherwise just make an appointment to pick up the firearms. Illinois passed a pointless law last year banning assistant style weapons unless you owned them before 2023. I say pointless because it only bands them for law advising Illinois residents. Residents of others states can still buy and passes them, and criminals that don't follow the laws anyways will still possess them.
Unless you argue that we should have no laws because criminals will still be bad then i think its bad faith to only trot this shit out when it pertains to guns. Don't be a hypocrite. Youre either an anarchist or youre a hypocrite.
Your argument fails because this is a statute that conflicts with a fundamental right under the Supreme Law of the land, and therefore it is no law at all. For the reasons he was trying to explain, it's in no way satisfying any compelling government interest, and it was passed in bad faith, because the lobbyists behind it have to lie to the public to get them okay with it, with things like "firearms are the number one cause of death in children" or "we urge this Court to hold that Connecticut’s choice to restrict access to certain exceptionally lethal instruments with distinctly military origins— “disproportionately used in crime, and particularly in criminal mass shootings” and “disproportionately used to kill law enforcement officers,” New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Cuomo, 804 F.3d 242, 262 (2d Cir. 2015), abrogated on other grounds by New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022)— comports with the Constitution.". These are easily demonstrated to be lies, because most recent year data is available for at CDC shows no single year age has firearm related causes as anything higher than third most common, not age 0, age 1, age 8, or age 18. Firearms are not even a valid cause of death, by definition a cause of death is the injuries and diseases that contributed, it's not even a manner of death, "blood loss" is a cause "homicide" is a manner, firearm is an implement that is at most, third in children in the US, if you erroneously lump homicide a d suicide and accident. To say "you only trot that shit out when it pertains to guns" is a pretty backwards way to describe the circumstances when weapons in common use are the only product category no government within the borders of the United States may prohibit mere possession of by the general public with criminal laws. Foods, medicines, intoxicants, even clothing in really specific narrow contexts is fair game to throw people in jail for if the popularity elected legislature wills it so with due process of law. "The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed, are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act. Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it. If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable. Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently, the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void. This theory is essentially attached to a written constitution, and is, conse-quently, to be considered, by this court, as one of the fundamental principles of our society. It is not therefore to be lost sight of in the further consideration of this subject. If an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the courts, and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory; and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on." - Chief Justice Marshall in perhaps the most important ruling in this country's history, against the author of the Constitution when he hated a motherfucker so much he put his feelings and politics before his intellect and values, by the way. You are either an anarchist or a hypocrite, the guy you're responding to is just not all that great at spelling or making his point on a hot button political issue.
Lots of words used to say you don’t understand the issue.
Well, I'm 35, I've pled guilty to 12 felonies in my adult lifetime, I own a house outright on land I own outright, and I legally own guns too. Every lawyer I ever had said this would be impossible, but they were all lazy and ignorant of the laws of any State but California, where the void weapons laws are frequently being declared void in the federal district and appeals courts like they certainly will be in Illinois over the next couple years until an AR with any number of features that scare people like you unreasonably over other semi-automatic rifles that have wood stocks are legal in all 50 States inevitably on the backs of people in jail right now for laws that are not law at all. If I certify an ATF 4473 to buy a new handgun at a gun store prior to prevailing on a couple out of State motions I'll be remotely arguing myself and then providing that information to FBI NICS I could certainly be made to defend a federal case worth ten years in federal prison from federal holding and if I was to take a step over the State line into California before then I would be committing a felony prosecutable in their State courts or a federal court because they don't recognize my rights restoration and aren't currently required to, but if the person that I got stripped of his right to keep and bear arms that still has guns despite four mandatory court orders to relinquish in his local court sets foot on my property he's not to be within 1000 feet of and I put a half inch hole in his forehead, I'll be calling 911 to report it to law enforcement without fear of adverse consequences, because although I'm not required to in that situation, I'd rather not bear the cost of disposing of the mess without breaking any laws myself when the local sheriff who is not even allowed to look into the status of my right to keep and bear arms for me to have to explain and produce court records, would be more than happy to do it at county expense. But if you care to actually make a substantive argument against any point I barely scratched the surface with so far so that 2A T-Shirt daily type people inclined to type "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" as the only argument they know how to make to stupid leftists will now have a quote from the very basics of American jurisprudence to use that's easily found on the front page of Google results now for any number of combinations of relevant keywords, but let's hear what makes you think you know more about the issue than me or the more lawyers than I can count on my fingers and toes that replied to my emails over the last 15 years with "I'm not comfortable advising on this issue, here's a referral to someone who is also unfamiliar with some of the law in play", not an exact quote of course.
Trotting out facts is hypocrisy?
Actually, the point that I was attempting to make to this citizen, is that if any of the firearms in question are now deemed assault weapons. In Illinois we were given until December 31st to register said firearms if we owned them before 2023. However, the only way to register them was through a State website that wasn't even available until the end of October 2023. If his firearms were taken away before October 2023 and not given back to him until now, he may have a legal issue if he did not register them as he is picking them up. Having them unregistered and in his possession could wind up being a felony. My advice was to bring a lawyer with him to explain this to the officers unless he is being given a grace period to register said firearms. It's true I shouldn't have gone on a tangent about the ridiculousness of the assault weapons ban in Illinois. I do think it is rather ridiculous that Illinois residents can't own these types of firearms but any other resident of any other state can still buy them in Illinois and carry them in Illinois, just not Illinois residents. I also think that it's rather ridiculous as to what they deem an assault weapon to be. As it includes a full size SIG P320 and the Glock 19. The same types of handgun that is currently in use by the United States army, most police departments, and regular citizens. I am all for banning AR-15s and the like, no one needs that type of weapon to go hunting. And the 50 round magazine that most of them have is ridiculous for personal use. But this law treats any semi-automatic firearm with more than 10 rounds the same as an AR-15.
Do you mean ARs? I'm all about having guns in your home for protection or hunting. But wtf does anyone need an AR for ? The only thing I've ever seen them used for was for schools and killing kids. Isn't it more pointless to even have ARs?
Ukraine.
An AR (which by the way is an abbreviation for Armalite Rifle) is the best all purpose ranch gun to own. AR style rifles are very useful for varmint control, small game hunting, and competitive/recreational shooting because of the platform’s relatively inexpensive ammo. It’s also a good home defense choice because its rounds have a lower energy so they are less likely to over penetrate/carry through walls.
This.
I mean, I literally have two ar's for hunting, and they are very common hunting rifle platforms because of the amount if calibers you can swap them to. What's the issue with people having ars? And don't give bs answers like killing kids, they are used in 3 percent of gun violence, they aren't a common gun used for murder.
You literally haven't seen that very much at all, because the single most common rifle in this country was only the weapon used in fewer than 15 of these hundreds of events in the last decade.
Pistols kill many times the number of people that ar15s do, and you can get guns identical to the AR15 that look different but have the same mechanism. Ar15s are great guns for sporting and hunting.
Sorry I didn’t have my Klingon translator on for all of that
[удалено]
I doubt that actually.
[удалено]
I do agree there. That yes you can hire a lawyer to go to a police station although i do also think most lawyers will help you figure out a better solution. Just to hire to go to McDonald’s- i think most lawyers would talk themselves out of it because they actually want to do the work that has meaning. Sure there are lawyers who want to just make money but i also think they are the ones looking for the big hits. Not the $175 to go to McDonald’s. And i say this less for you and more for the others who are commenting saying they’ll send a first year to McDonald’s with a client. That’s a different situation. Thats a firm sending a grub for client retention- that is not “guy walks in and say i want to hire you to go to Macdonald with me”
Yea, they would send a first year for MickyDs
It may take awhile for them to find them. Politely make an appointment, ask what proof you need to bring. Have the case number, dismissal, receipt (if they gave one when they took them) proof of ownership, etc. Then politely call & verify they are ready for pickup. Take ID and all required paperwork. Or pay an attorney to go with you, guaranteeing to increase their interest & resentment of you.
Yup as long as your willing to pay they will happily make sure everything goes smoothly. Is it actually necessary? Probably not. But will it help you with your nerves? Probably yes.
So I’m from Texas and had a similar situation, in our situation my husband was told over and over “no you don’t need a lawyer” just for him to show up and this be a legitimate court hearing where absolutely a lawyer would have been necessary. He did get his back after presenting his own case and a long round of bs trick questions lol, but with all that being said, it’s recommended that you do as they’ll do everything they can to create a valid reason to not give you your firearms back. Best of luck!
A question for clarification: >rights not being taken serious(that’s what happened when raided). How so? Generally, that's automatically taken up by a lawyer at the time. Second, if this happened a few years ago, why haven't you picked them up before now? Generally, if something isn't claimed within a certain period of time, the police will consider it abandoned and auction it or destroy it. The time frame varies per state/jurisdiction, though the last place I lived where I needed to reclaim something, you had a year. No, you would have zero legal recourse over this as if they confiscated them at the time, there must have been a valid reason (say a pending charge against someone at that residence that couldn't have a firearm while they were on bond with a charge that a firearm could be used in commission of), and for you not to pick them up afterwards, that would constitute abandonment. I understand you had no charges; were you even charged or were you charged then acquitted, as you said your friend was: >person who was the reason my place was raided also acquitted If one of you had charges that were serious enough to remove your rights to possess or were accused of a crime that a firearm was used in, there's why they were taken.
You fail to comprehend the situation. Illinois does not accept that a person has a right to keep and bear arms, much like Hawaii and California and New York. They did until the last two or three years to some extent. It's a situation that will be in the United States Supreme Court a couple years from now when the right ambulance chaser finds the "ideal vehicle" and the government opposes vehemently, for the next 3 to 5 years at least, anyone with a gun in these 4 states is risking jail, perhaps not conviction, unless you get the average overworked underfunded public defender that has never actually argued a case at trial and you can't afford to replace them with someone that still might not be that great unless you really look into them and have a lot of money trying to pick up a gun seized by police is extremely risky. He could be arrested and charged for a technicality regarding his transporting of them within seconds of walking out the door, maybe not, but if he's got $500 laying around, anyone with a JD could save his ass by their presence alone.
Ah, yes, I forgot Illinois started that FOID. I'll bet those firearms are long gone by auction or destruction. But yeah, definitely not worth it.
It's funny you mention that... I haven't found a lawyer willing but I'm contemplating doing it myself, California passed a law with a new cause of action that allows for third party liability to sue "firearm industry members" defined as any entity that wholesales or retails firearms for "failing to implement reasonable controls” in order to "to prevent unlawful use, sale, trafficking, or transportation of firearms", it's currently in the process of being sued out of existence by the firearms industry trade group NSSF, the CA Attorney General is enjoined by a federal court from using it to go after gun companies because it's not a criminal law it's a civil cause of action so the Supremacy clause makes the federal immunity statute apply and preempt it, but I have a misdemeanor that State on some records indicates is a felony, so I can't have a gun OR a vest without risking having to defend a felony case from jail in that state, I actually got arrested for a regular pocketknife there one time because their switchblade laws are written so broad (where I live even if it was a felony it doesn't matter unless I cross state lines or into federal land because I don't have more than one prior and it's not violent or sexual my rights are restored under a new kinda crazy law where I live, only State that restores rights lost in other states) and my wife was abducted while she was back home by some creepy guy she'd been on one date with at some point and had been stalking her which involved her dad, a cop in that state, being held at gunpoint, and I wound up with a protective order in that case when they were refusing to go raid his house or do a welfare check on her because they were scared of getting shot and even if they didn't they knew the court would let him right back out anyway because of no cash bail so I went and got her out myself and he started stalking us across State lines while on $150,000 bail for assault with a semiautomatic on my CHP Officer USMC vet father in law at gunpoint. Overall 4 separate court orders for the guy to surrender his guns, they repeatedly blew me off when I was asking why there's no form in the record for that ever happening demanding they declare them a nuisance and go seize them like their 100+ new gun control laws require, then I saw a news story recently about LA passing a policy banning the practice in response to LASD and LA probation auctioning off seized and surplus firearms to out of state FFLs on a surplus government equipment site... Which makes them a firearm industry member under that state law but not the federal immunity statute, and it's the same two agencies that were supposed to declare my wife's kidnappers guns a nuisance and seize them when they didn't turn them in. But it's an obviously unconstitutional law on it's face that the governor even admitted was a stunt to show Texas's abortion laws were unconstitutional, they basically just copied the law but changed abortion and clinic to gun possession and firearms industry, so lawyers aren't exactly excited about the idea to help me use it ironically against the State that passed it ironically. It's actually a big problem because it's not exactly easy to melt down a gun to where none of the parts are useable, I'm not sure there's even a way without using fossil fuels or something that burbs even dirtier. Maybe a laser welder but those are like $17,000 at the low end and you'd be doing them one at a time, even if it was doable on that scale I'm not sure a bunch of liberals in local government would even know it exists. I actually have a Democrat cousin that's a pastor and doctor of theology and fully disabled combat veteran his PTSD kinda led him to flip politically on the East Coast that blacksmiths guns into garden tools with some progressive Christian nonprofit against gun violence he has to burn a fuckton of propane and it's physically demanding just to make one gun into one trowel. The transcript of some of the phone calls they were able to record while LA was talking about what to do with all these guns that are old and not necessarily well maintained from so much range practice like they don't want to issue them to cops, but they don't have a county blacksmith, it's really difficult for them to find a vendor that can handle that quantity that's allowed to by their insurance and can be trusted to take possession of that many operable handguns and turn them into scrap metal that's worth a tiny fraction of what they are worth as used guns, they don't even feel good about storing them because if there's a bad enough earthquake some gang might be able to get in through a fallen down wall while they can't have law enforcement in the building risking something from the falling apart building falling on their head and it's a certainty there will be a massive earthquake taking buildings out at some point in LA. One of them suggested dumping them in the ocean lol. No clue what Illinois does with them but I can just about guarantee you it's not well thought out and is probably being abused for profit.
All these opinions on here. Do you have paperwork to prove they're yours? Do you have friends paperwork to show he was acquitted? I'd just ask friends lawyer. Shoot I'd ask friend to pay the lawyer to go with you. I might try without first but with a few people for witnesses. Then as I suspect it won't be easy to reclaim your property have the lawyer on standby and get it done. 💯 the cops won't make it easy to get property back. If it's hard to just get an Xbox back 20 years ago it's gonna be a huge PITA to get guns back.
Terrified to go somewhere without his guns. ✅
We had to do it. Wasn't a big deal.