Etzler & Associates Attorney Jacob G. Blackstone Argues Case for Rights of Gun Owners

by cab

Gordon A. Etzler & Associates, LLP may have won another victory for individual rights yesterday in a case involving the state’s right to seize lawfully owned firearms. A Northwest Indiana Times article discussed the case today.

The case involved several firearms seized in 2010 by the Chesterton Police Department after officers were notified that an individual was intoxicated with weapons in his home. According to court documents, officers repeatedly told the individual the weapons were being held for safekeeping. Only after several months did the department announce it was “seizing” the weapons. Attorney Blackstone argued to the court that his client was not a dangerous individual. Therefore, Indiana law did not allow such a seizure and the property should be returned.

After hearing arguments from Attorney Blackstone and the Porter County Prosecutor’s Office, Porter Superior Judge Bill Alexa said it appears things have changed since he initially allowed the seizure and took the matter under consideration.

{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }

Leanne Hoagland-Smith April 20, 2012 at 7:09 pm

I truly did not understand under what law the police had the authority to seize his guns initially. What law states the police can keep guns for safe keeping? Must have missed that in the Indiana State Constitution and the US Constitution.

Leanne Hoagland-Smith

Reply

cab April 26, 2012 at 3:45 pm

Leanne,

There isn’t any law which allows it, but the law also doesn’t specifically disallow it. Law enforcement is allowed to confiscate weapons from a person considered to be dangerous, and then must submit an affidavit to a court for a determination whether they can retain the weapons. But there is no actual time limit in the statute for that to happen. (However, the statute also allows for seizure with a warrant, and then the affidavit has to be filed within 48 hrs. So the law intends officers to act quickly, but lawmakers forgot to specifically say they had to.) In this case, the Chief of Police admitted on cross-examination that he had no idea what the law says…so apparently they weren’t overly concerned either way. The full statutes can be read at http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/2010/title35/ar47/ch14.html

Reply

Leave a Comment