Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Q's On Cid's Recover Of The Reno Pd Thompsons A


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 TNKen

TNKen

    Regular Member

  • Regular Group
  • 374 posts
  • Location:Bristol, TN
  • Interests:Firearms, machine guns, defensive handgun competition, snow skiing and ski patrol, my children

Posted 02 June 2005 - 10:37 AM

Have been reading the threads on Subguns regarding the second attempt by CID to recover now two Thompsons that came out of the Reno PD. As an attorney, I think the feds may have an uphill battle, but someone will be out a lot of effort and money to prove the point if the feds pursue it.

How does one know if your NFA item came out of a PD via a purported "loan" by the Government as opposed to a direct purchase by the PD from Auto Ordnance or Savage?

Will a FOIA request show the origin of the weapon, or will the information be redacted so you cannot tell the source?

But, it makes me uncomfortable to say the least. Despite my desire to have a US Property marked weapon, at this point I'm glad I don't.

Ken
  • 0

#2 LIONHART

LIONHART

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 2785 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Thompsons of course. All Manufactures and Models.

Posted 02 June 2005 - 12:30 PM

Get your Grinders out! cool.gif
  • 0

#3 gijive

gijive

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2402 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois
  • Interests:Thompson SMG, WWII, Firearms in general.

Posted 02 June 2005 - 01:10 PM

QUOTE (TNKen @ Jun 2 2005, 10:37 AM)
How does one know if your NFA item came out of a PD via a purported "loan" by the Government as opposed to a direct purchase by the PD from Auto Ordnance or Savage? 


Any guns loaned by the government to police agencies would have ben post-WWII giveaways of surplus guns to law enforcement agencies. Apparently, some police agencies obtained guns this way.

Any direct purchase of a Thompson by a police agency would have been through Auto-Ordnance Corporation. Savage was contracted to make Thompsons by Auto-Ordnance Corporation, Savage did not make any direct sales to law enforcement, military or anyone else.
  • 0

#4 Sgt

Sgt

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2047 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eastern TN
  • Interests:Militaria, Chess, Tools, Sherlock Holmes, Printmaking, UFOs, Ghosts, Electronics, Comic Books, Long walks in the rain, with my Savage 1928a1. (just kidding on the last one; it doesn't have to be raining) -- Ralph

Posted 02 June 2005 - 07:30 PM

I'm not sure I understand what is going on here. So these military property guns were only loaners to the PDs and then the PDs sold them to civilians. If that is the case, then why don't they go after the PDs who allegedly sold illegal guns?

What about any military Thompson? There are a lot of them out there with government inspection stamps. Are the ones a Reno singled out because they have the, "US Property," on them? I wonder what makes those at Reno so special.
  • 0

#5 LIONHART

LIONHART

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 2785 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Thompsons of course. All Manufactures and Models.

Posted 02 June 2005 - 08:40 PM

Yup, and there are many owners who have been reading these Threads not Believing a word of it. They will, when they get that knock on the door.
  • 0

#6 TD.

TD.

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2882 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 June 2005 - 09:05 PM

There must be a lot more than is now known on the story of the M1 Thompson’s from Reno PD and Army CID. My first (and current) thought is the story is completely false. This is another example of the Internet rumor mill. However, if there is any substance to it at all, I can guarantee the circumstances surrounding the Army’s actions involve much more than we are being told. Think about it. This country is at war. Army CID has more important things to do than chase after legally registered small arms that have no value at all to any government agency. Even if we were not at war, Army CID has more important things to do than chase after legally registered small arms that have no value at all to any government agency. In addition, there is no indication theft was involved when these Thompson left the inventory of the US government and went to a police department.

As to the comment made concerning the US Property Markings – many a US weapon with US Property markings has been sold by the US Government to private individuals. Think of all the .45 Caliber Semi-Automatic Pistol’s sold through the Director of Civilian Marksmanship (DCM) Program in the 1960’s by the US Army – complete with bill of sale. Do you think I am going to be grinding the US Property markings off my Remington Rand 45 – not a chance…and not a chance the government could get it back through any legal process currently in place.


  • 0

#7 LIONHART

LIONHART

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 2785 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Thompsons of course. All Manufactures and Models.

Posted 02 June 2005 - 10:09 PM

QUOTE
Army CID has more important things to do than chase after legally registered small arms that have no value at all to any government agency.


There have been many reports of the CID investigating, updating the wherabouts of loaned Military Vehicles to various Parks, and VFW Halls through out the US since 9/11. So the CID looking into the whereabouts of loaned guns doesn't surprise me...Nor should it surprise anyone else..

QUOTE
legally registered small arms


They may be legally registered, but the question is, were they legally sold? Not if those Firearms were LOANED to a PD and later sold their not. I also believe the Government will try to reclaim their property.

QUOTE
no indication theft was involved when these Thompson left the inventory of the US government and went to a police department.


That's not the issue. It's only after the PD(S) sold what wasn't theirs to sell, is the problem.


QUOTE
As to the comment made concerning the US Property Markings – many a US weapon with US Property markings has been sold by the US Government to private individuals. Think of all the .45 Caliber Semi-Automatic Pistol’s sold through the Director of Civilian Marksmanship (DCM) Program in the 1960’s by the US Army – complete with bill of sale. Do you think I am going to be grinding the US Property markings off my Remington Rand 45 – not a chance…and not a chance the government could get it back through any legal process currently in place.


Different situation. From what I understand, the CID is investigating Firearms that were loaned by them, and later sold. Not legal Guns obtained through the DCM and the like.
  • 0

#8 TD.

TD.

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2882 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 June 2005 - 06:00 AM

Lionhart,
You may be right. However, if CID were looking for two Thompsons lawfully provided to the Reno PD years ago, I would bet there is much more to this story than we know today. The disposal of these and other Thompson’s to law enforcement agencies happened many, many years ago when the Thompson was being phased out of service or was no longer an issue weapon. I doubt these government disposal records even exist today. I still say Internet rumor mill…but it is fun to discuss biggrin.gif


  • 0

#9 TNKen

TNKen

    Regular Member

  • Regular Group
  • 374 posts
  • Location:Bristol, TN
  • Interests:Firearms, machine guns, defensive handgun competition, snow skiing and ski patrol, my children

Posted 03 June 2005 - 06:44 AM

I have not researched ths issue in terms of federal law and the feds usually play by different rules.

However Under Tennessee state law (and probably most other jurisdictions) and the provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code, if a person voluntarily surrenders and turns over an item to a person (the holder), and the holder sells the item to a innocent third party, the third party retains ownership of the item. The owner has a cause of action against the holder, but not against the innocent purchaser.

For example, if I take my old Corvette to someone for restoration, and voluntarily surrender it to the restorer, then the restorer turns around and sells my car to an innocent purchaser without notice that the car is mine, then the third party, as a bona fide purchaser without notice of the fraud, retains ownership of the Corvette. I have a cause of action against the restorer, but not against the third party to recover the car. Harsh, but the law favors protection of the innocent third party.

I litigated a stolen banjo case a couple of years ago. Different facts. Banjo was stolen from a car. Police report filed, etc. The guy that had it claimed he bought it at a yard sale. Two judges ruled the person in possession had no better title to the banjo than his predecessor, which was a thief. A thief has no title to anything. We got the banjo back.

Difference in the two situations is the circumstanes of the tranfer to the seller. One is a voluntary conveyance while the other is an outright theft. Under the voluntary conveyance, the language of the statute even includes "larceny by trick" i.e. if the swindler knew what he was going to do from the outset, and cons you into turning over the Corvette to him, same result. The key is the circumstances of the initial transfer.

Will this apply to the governmnet? Maybe. The Thompsons were not "stolen" nor do they represent stolen property. There was a voluntary conveyance to the PD and subssequent transfer to a bona fide purchaser.

We'll see.

Ken
  • 0

#10 philasteen

philasteen

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Board Donor
  • 1118 posts

Posted 03 June 2005 - 09:50 AM

TNKen, here was my interpretation of the same thing you posted about:

And UCC 2-403(1) in this case operates at the juxtaposition of Federal and state law. It's really a fascinating potential note for a law review, but here's how it works in this case:

The Reno PD had voidable title (under federal law) to the Thompson. When the Thompson was put in the hands of the dealer, the dealer too had the same voidable title. Upon the sale by the dealer (a merchant engaged in the business of selling goods of the same type as the Thompson), 2-403(1) operated under state law to create good title in the first purchaser, who was a bona fide purchaser for value.

So the current possessor has a good state law title to the Thompson thanks to 2-403(1).

Now, the interplay of state and federal law is whether the federal claim to title will trump the state law title. I have looked into this within the past year in regards to another matter and have found no precedent on point. My personal assessment is that the Federal case, to recover on a 30+ year old piece of property loaned to a PD and then transferred through numerous successor BFPV's with a good form of title, is not a case I would want to bring.

It would be a different story if the Thompson was stolen by the Reno PD, in which case the Reno PD would have held void and not voidable title. However, the Thompson was loaned to the Reno PD, and the fact that the Reno PD may have violated the terms of that loan by selling the Thompson to the dealer is not relevant to the above analysis as the merchant seller still took with the voidable title required to cause the provisions of UCC 2-403(1) to operate.

  • 0

#11 The Moor

The Moor

    Long Time Member

  • Regular Group
  • 111 posts

Posted 03 June 2005 - 12:32 PM

US Property?
Owned by the government?
A government by the people, for the people and of the people.
So what comprises the government? The people. What makes is the US? The people. Who owns the Thompson with the US Property marking? The people.
So this means that the Reno Thompson is partly my property and partly the property of everyone else that is a US citizen, including the greedy CID officer who wants the gun for his collection.
  • 0

#12 Merry Ploughboy

Merry Ploughboy

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 888 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 04 June 2005 - 12:51 PM

Doesn't this put every Amnesty Registered GI "bring back" gun (Thompson, M3, etc.) at risk? Those were never even loaned to the person who took them back from Europe, the South Pacific or where-ever.

Also, somewhat related, isn't the Jerry Prasser Chinese Thompson (only $80,000) subject to confiscation by the Chinese government as was done with WWII "bring back " art in the '80's by the various European owners? Likewise, the "bring back" Stens could be re-claimed by the British?
  • 0