Explore The NRA Universe Of Websites

APPEARS IN Legal & Legislation

Federal Court Finds Due Process Violation in NY County's Confiscated Gun Policy

Friday, August 28, 2015

Federal Court Finds Due Process Violation in NY County's Confiscated Gun Policy

This week, a federal court ruled that the Nassau County Sheriff’s Department could not rely on its “retention policy” to keep guns seized from a woman without providing her with a due process hearing. Panzella v. Nassau County, No. 13-cv-05640 (E.D. N.Y. Aug. 26, 2015). 

Christine Panzella’s ex-husband had obtained an ex parte order of protection against her in June of 2012. Such orders are authorized by the New York Family Court Act, and the statute authorizes the family court to include, in the order, a requirement that the person subject to the order surrender all firearms in his or her possession. The family court did not expressly order Ms. Panzella to surrender (or the police to confiscate) her firearms or otherwise invoke the surrender requirement, although the order did include a generic warning regarding the federal law (“It is a federal crime to . . . buy, possess or transfer a handgun, rifle, shotgun or other firearm while this Order remains in effect…”). As noted in the federal court decision, this disqualification applies to orders issued after actual notice is given to the affected person and after a hearing at which that person has an opportunity to participate, and would not apply to the ex parte order.

When police officers from Nassau County served the order on Ms. Panzella a few days later, they confiscated her guns. Although the ex-husband later received an extension of the protection order, he ultimately withdrew his petition, and the court terminated the proceedings and vacated the orders in March 2013. 

With these orders no longer in effect, Ms. Panzella made several requests that her two rifles and three shotguns be returned to her. The Nassau County police refused to do so based on a purported “legislative glitch” in which the family court, while authorized to order the confiscation of firearms, was not explicitly authorized to order their subsequent return when an order expired or was vacated. The police “retention policy” was not to restore firearms to their lawful owners unless and until the sheriff’s department was served with a court order directing that this be done. This policy not only places the burden of recovery on the owner whose property had been seized but requires costly and time-consuming litigation.

A previous lawsuit against Nassau County, Razzano v. Cnty. of Nassau, had already resulted in a finding that police officers violated a gun owner’s due process rights by failing to provide him with an adequate opportunity to recover rifles and shotguns, after these were confiscated based on a policy of doing so when the police believed a person to be dangerous. Subject to limited exceptions (when a gun is involved in a crime, for example), the police have to provide an owner with a prompt “post-deprivation” hearing. This has to take place before a neutral decision-maker, and the police have the burden of showing they are likely to succeed in any court action to maintain possession of the confiscated property. If the owner prevails at this hearing, the guns have to be returned.

Citing the Razanno decision, Ms. Panzella’s federal lawsuit against Nassau County claimed that the retention policy, and police refusal to hold a hearing once the orders were no longer in effect, violated her due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to United States Constitution. 

On August 26, the federal district court agreed. In ruling that Ms. Panzella should have been provided with a hearing, the court referred to the fact that other than the “unconvincing argument that a court order is required” for the return of the confiscated guns, the police failed to articulate “any basis for retaining” the firearms. The “legislative glitch” had no application because the family court orders did not actually mandate any surrender of guns, “let alone bar their return once the Extension Order expired.” In a footnote, the court similarly rejected the defendants’ indirect argument that they were not competent to determine whether to return confiscated guns, and noted that “the County’s police department makes these very determinations” in connection with pistol licensing decisions. Nassau County was directed to hold a due process hearing regarding the confiscated guns within 30 days.

IN THIS ARTICLE
New York Legal Gun Confiscation
TRENDING NOW
Anti-Gun Congresswoman Introduces Magazine Ban, Aims Slippery Slope at the Gun on Your Hip

News  

Friday, October 20, 2017

Anti-Gun Congresswoman Introduces Magazine Ban, Aims Slippery Slope at the Gun on Your Hip

We’ve been down this road before, and we know gun control doesn’t work. 

Everytown and Hollywood Launch New Campaign Against Pro-gun Legislation

News  

Friday, October 20, 2017

Everytown and Hollywood Launch New Campaign Against Pro-gun Legislation

In the wake of the still-unfolding Harvey Weinstein scandal, one might have thought that America would receive a brief reprieve from Hollywood’s ceaseless moralizing. However, on October 18, 2017, Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety, ...

Anti-Gun Billionaire George Soros Pumps $18 Billion into His Political Apparatus

News  

Friday, October 20, 2017

Anti-Gun Billionaire George Soros Pumps $18 Billion into His Political Apparatus

In recent years, Soros’s anti-gun efforts have been eclipsed by those of another billionaire, former-New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. However, the Open Society continues to attack American gun owners.

NRA Doesn’t ‘Buy’ Politicians, but Gun Controllers Do

News  

Friday, October 20, 2017

NRA Doesn’t ‘Buy’ Politicians, but Gun Controllers Do

Gun control supporters who peddle the myth about NRA money aren’t only wrong, they are ignoring team gun control’s own sordid history of buying politicians. And forget Michael Bloomberg for the moment, gun control supporters ...

No Sale: Marketing Tricks in Gun Control

News  

Second Amendment  

Friday, October 20, 2017

No Sale: Marketing Tricks in Gun Control

Advertising professionals know that switching to a fresh new moniker and a more contemporary or dynamic logo can revitalize a tired or humdrum brand.

Oregon: Governor Signs Anti-Gun Bill into Law

Thursday, August 17, 2017

Oregon: Governor Signs Anti-Gun Bill into Law

Yesterday, Governor Kate Brown signed Senate Bill 719A.  Based on a California law enacted in 2014, SB 719A will create a so-called “Extreme Risk Protection Order” (ERPO) that could be obtained by a law enforcement ...

Bad News For “Universal” Background Check Supporters

News  

Thursday, October 19, 2017

Bad News For “Universal” Background Check Supporters

NRATV Host Cam Edwards describes a study that shows the ineffectiveness of so-called “universal” background checks

Illinois: Gun and Magazine Ban Legislation to be Considered Tomorrow

Monday, October 23, 2017

Illinois: Gun and Magazine Ban Legislation to be Considered Tomorrow

The Illinois House is convening tomorrow for the 2017 Veto Session.  During this time, numerous gun control bills, including gun and magazine ban legislation, is scheduled for consideration.

Illinois: Urgent Action Needed – Numerous Anti-Gun Bills Readied for Consideration Next Week

Tuesday, October 17, 2017

Illinois: Urgent Action Needed – Numerous Anti-Gun Bills Readied for Consideration Next Week

Today, multiple gun control bills were released by the House Rules Committee and have been referred to the House Judiciary Committee for a hearing.

Gun Banners Unmasked: The Vengeful Face of the Anti-gun Agenda Emerges Once Again

News  

Second Amendment  

Friday, October 13, 2017

Gun Banners Unmasked: The Vengeful Face of the Anti-gun Agenda Emerges Once Again

What happens to the 400 million or so firearms already in private hands? How does society actually benefit from his plan? Stephens doesn’t say. He apparently just trusts that things would eventually work themselves out ...

MORE TRENDING +
LESS TRENDING -
NRA ILA

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the "lobbying" arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.