Stolen personal items

[TowDawg]

I think the random checking of cars for unlocked doors is happening all over the place. I live out in the country (or what used to be out in the country) and neighborhoods all around my are getting hit nightly. Mine's gated, which doesn't stop someone who really wants to get in, but with the gates and cameras, they move on to easier locations. That said, I've never parked outside, but if I did you can bet anything of value (gun, wallet, radar, etc) would never stay in the car overnight. I know it's pain in the ass to have to remove it every night, but if you don't park in the garage you've got to do it.

Sponsored

 

[wibornz]

I never look my shitbox XJ. I think theives look at it and say dam I feel sorry for this mofo.

 

[HardSell]

I think theives look at it and say dam I feel sorry for this mofo.

They certainly didn't feel sorry for me.... and it had 31s, a standard and 285k on the clock. Fortunately, I hadn't redone the interior as I had planned. Someone's gonna get a nice Dana 44, ARBs and serious bumpers. Worth more parted out than intact. Easy to work on too! Pritchett, Upper Helldorado and Rusty nail were the only trails it hadn't done in Utah, for good reason. Hole in the Rock was the most fun. Elephant Hill at night returning from Beef Basin with broken front axle slapping around wasn't bad either. Routinely got over 20mpg at 75mph on interstates. God, that was a good vehicle!

 

[JimLee]

With states like California decriminalizing property crimes, look for these kinda crimes to increase. Welcome to the third world.

 

[entropy]

With states like California decriminalizing property crimes, look for these kinda crimes to increase. Welcome to the third world.

What do you mean? They freaking sent a helicopter the other night around Pasadena to catch a car thieves gang, not the kind who steal cars, but whatever they find inside the car. They caught one and it is currently being prosecuted.

Flying that helicopter costs more than whatever crap they get from cars. but if thats what it takes yo catch these pricks... oh well...

Heli was flying low telling everyone to lock themselves. I thought there was a freak with a gun shooting people, locked my door and got my 12 gauge. Nah just some lows stealing some change.

in GTA it takes like 3 stars to get the helicoper.

 

[JimLee]

What do you mean? They freaking sent a helicopter the other night around Pasadena to catch a car thieves gang, not the kind who steal cars, but whatever they find inside the car. They caught one and it is currently being prosecuted.

Flying that helicopter costs more than whatever crap they get from cars. but if thats what it takes yo catch these pricks... oh well...

Heli was flying low telling everyone to lock themselves. I thought there was a freak with a gun shooting people, locked my door and got my 12 gauge. Nah just some lows stealing some change.

in GTA it takes like 3 stars to get the helicoper.

Theft of goods valued under $1000 is now a misdemeanor offense in California, punishable with a ticket and you get to walk away. They must have thought those guys were armed or trying to steal vehicles. There's alot of possible reasons they may have responded the way they did. If they were truly just swiping whatever small items they could get their hands on they probably walked within hours of getting caught, im not sure but I think the act of actually breaking into a car still carries a stiffer penalty but if a tweaker just walks up to your unlocked (or topless)vehicle and empties your glove box good luck with him ever doing any prison time. Hell, California just let thousands of hardened criminals doing serious time walk free because of COVID, a few of them have already raped or killed someone...again.

 

[Whaler27]

In reality, it's a numbers game....

According to google, there are 273.6 million vehicles

Overview. There were an estimated 773,139 thefts of motor vehicles nationwide in 2017. The estimated rate of motor vehicle thefts was 237.4 per 100,000 inhabitants.

So you have a .0004% chance of your vehicle being broken into. Of course you can increase your odds by being in shitty locations.

I assume your Google data summary is derived from FBI data compilation which is notoriously incomplete for a variety of reasons, including the fact it relies on incomplete state and local reporting, and not all state statutes align well with the reportIng categories. Oregon, the birth place of the methamphetamine epidemic, has a terrible property crime problem. We also dramatically under-report property crime, because people know the criminal justice system does little to punish it, and insurance recovery isn’t contingent on police reports. Also, in Oregon the offense the OP described would be called a “car clout” by police or, more precisely, “Unlawful Entry into a Motor Vehicle” and “Theft in the First Degree”, not car theft — because the Jeep wasn’t stolen, it’s contents were. The last time I looked, now several years ago, Lane County, Oregon (the home of Eugene and the University of Oregon) averaged about 20 to 25 car thefts per week, but it wasn’t uncommon to have five to ten times that number of car clouts, particularly during the holiday season. Sadly, your chance of having your vehicle clouted in Oregon is quite high, particularly if it’s parked on the street in town overnight.

To the OP, I feel your pain. No lecture from me. With luck the gun will be recovered, but it will require quite a bit of luck. Hopefully, you can give police the serial number, but if you can’t, and the gun was purchased in the last ten years or so, they may be able to track down the serial number via etrace. Please give them whatever information you can. Once you’ve done that there’s no point in beating yourself up further. The truth is stolen guns are as thick as fleas in this country and new guns are entering circulation at an astonishing rate. (Oregon gun sales have been averaging between 6,000 and 10,000 per week since last March, and this isn’t a large population state.) No serious criminal has any difficulty finding a gun to use in a robbery, and your misfortune hasn’t done anything to change that.

The combination of a quality vehicle alarm system and quality gun vault can discourage the average doper-thief, but I would never rely on that overnight.

 

[Sta Nisia]

What do you mean? They freaking sent a helicopter the other night around Pasadena to catch a car thieves gang, not the kind who steal cars, but whatever they find inside the car. They caught one and it is currently being prosecuted.

As someone whose business services insurance business I can tell you that theft of auto and theft from auto are two complete different animals. Virtually no theft from auto is prosecuted. In fact police departments actively discourage formal reporting of theft from auto. Tehy will tell you not to bother since your insurance doesn't usually require a police report. If they do do a report, which is very rare, they are not going to try and lift prints or do any investigation. They are certainly not prosecuted. The term "GTA" is kind of funny, since theft of auto is mostly charged as misdemeanor "taking without possession", and pled even lower. Theft from auto is prosecuted successfully less often and less severely than package theft. Almost no one goes to jail for it.

Hence there are no even close to accurate public numbers but rather internal claim based numbers held by insurance companies. I can say that theft from auto is a couple of orders of magnitude (100x) more common. Your lifetime risk of having a vehicle stolen is pretty low, whereas, especially if you live in an urban area, you may well experience multiple theft from auto.

That said, when it comes to firearms, a lot of jurisdictions make it essentially necessary for not only concealed carry permit holders, but in some circumstances many law enforcement officers, to very often lock firearms in vehicles. Same with many many employers.

Someone mentioned removing slides etc. I disagree. Don't be futzing around with your firearm outside its holster in your car. Keep in mind that your risk of negligent discharge increase astronomically when you remove a concealed carry gun from its holster. Manipulating one in a car, where you sitting, might hold the gun improperly, and do so faster than is best practice as well, from not wanting someone to see you, also increases risk. The absolute safest thing to do when you have to leave the firearm in your car is to use a single belt clip holster and remove it, with the gun inside and never leaving the holster, from your belt and put it in a small gun lockbox (although I can tell you that lots of federal agencies and lots of state laws for civilians allow it to be in locked trunk (or in the case of a jeep, a huffy rear divider area), or even a padlocked backpack.

Also the frame, lower or fire control group of the firearm is, from the legal perspective, the "gun." Take your slide, barrel and mag off your glock and the remaining piece the frame is still in every legally important way (criminal and civil) -- a gun. Walk with that glock frame into a place where carrying is a felony and you are committing a felony. Taking apart a gun does have place, but not sitting in your auto where the holster keeps things away from trigger. Let's say you are taking the wife for a long weekend and have a 16-year-old teenager at home. Your teenager maybe responsible as heck, but they still have friends and friends of friends. In addition to storing the serialized part in your safe, you may want to put the barrel in another place and the slide in yet another.

BTW theft of guns from autos happens but it is not one of the major supply of guns used in crime or general illegally possesses guns. Theft of guns from both auto and home (more common) aggregates to about 12%. Top supply is straw purchase. My state has strong gun control laws and weak prosecution of straw purchase, with extremely low time served.

The firearm is most secure on you and in a holster that covers trigger guard. Again the main reason why there are guns in cars is laws and private prohibitions, some arguably sensible, some way less so, that mandate it. If your supermarket has a no guns sign, chances are there are more guns in cars in its parking lot. If your town prohibits concealed carry in public parks, then it is more likely there are guns in than cars around that park.

My advice is when it has to stay in the car due to laws forcing you to do so, that you get one of these: https://www.tuffyproducts.com/jeep-...4/deluxe-enclosure-jeep-wrangler-jl-2018-2020 Or this: https://www.tuffyproducts.com/product/722/locking-lid-cubby-cover-jeep-wrangler-jl

 

[Whaler27]

****
The term "GTA" is kind of funny, since theft of auto is mostly charged as misdemeanor "taking without possession", and pled even lower. Theft from auto is prosecuted successfully less often and less severely than package theft. Almost no one goes to jail for it.
***
Also the frame, lower or fire control group of the firearm is, from the legal perspective, the "gun." Take your slide, barrel and mag off your glock and the remaining piece the frame is still in every legally important way (criminal and civil) -- a gun. Walk with that glock frame into a place where carrying is a felony and you are committing a felony.

I can’t speak for the rest of the country, but the two statements above are not accurate as to the west coast. There is no misdemeanor car theft statute in Oregon and many other states. Though Oregon and some other states have provisions allowing the prosecutor to prosecute certain felonies as a misdemeanor (by informing the court of the intention at arraignment) the provision is used infrequently, at least in Oregon. Serial car thieves serve a LOT of prison time in Oregon, as the charge is equivalent to burglary of a business under both the statutory structure and the Oregon sentencing guidelines. Again, this is common, but don’t know what is done out east.

Whether police departments process car clouts for prints is agency-dependent and, often, dependent upon workload and what was stolen in the theft. Unless a police agency or its “CSI” team is especially slammed, a car clout involving theft of a dozen guns would probably be processed in Oregon, because theft of a bunch of guns represents a larger community risk.

 

[Black Jeep Convertible]

I feel like if any of these “victims” spent anytime in the military, none of them would be dumb enough to leave a firearm unsecure in their vehicle, because we grew up getting fucked up for violating any part of firearms safety and security

 

[Sta Nisia]

I can’t speak for the rest of the country, but the two statements above are not accurate as to the west coast. There is no misdemeanor car theft statute in Oregon and many other states.

it is 100%accurate. A whole lot of car theft is pled to "taking without permission"/"Unauthorized use of vehicle." That IS a misdemeanor.
Portland is ranked third to fifth among all cities in the US for prevalence of car theft, it is one of the car theft capitals of the US, the majority until last year pled to misdemeanor UUV/taking without permission, often no jail time at all. Oregon has changed their law a bit due the abuse but it is still a major problem.
https://www.kgw.com/article/news/in...uted/283-8761144f-40db-439e-85ca-1d879504da9a

And when you say "prosecuting car theft as a misdemeanor is not prevalent," you mean charging, and that does not reflect all the resolutions of cases which in the US are most often plea bargains. Very often despite being charged with maximum, you will be pled to misdemeanor.

On guns: In Oregon, like many states, the operative term is “firearm”, which often requires operability/functionality. The operability requirement isn’t unique to Oregon. There is no Oregon statute criminalizing possession of an inoperable firearm unless it‘s stolen or it is used in the commission of another crime — and firearms without barrels aren’t operable.

Constructive possession is an issue. Oregon is a rare case because of case law (Oregon v., Briney), but that was a carry decision only, not a possession by prohibited person If Briney had been prohibited he would have had his conviction upheld.

Brinely did not have, own or have control of the non working part of the gun. Briney did not have the part (firing pin) needed at home or in his vehicle. No nearby gun shop even carried the part. That was all part of the appeal/

Also if Briney had had the gun, as described in the post I was relying to, where the poster said they kept some combination of of barrel, slide and frame on them and some in nearby parked car, than that is "constructive possession." it is not lke a broken firing pin in a rare gun where the person did not own or control working firing pin.

Lastly it is also federal law controls transferring to a prohibited person -- which is a federal crime. A glock frame, P320 FCG, full ar lower, etc, are firearms. Working or not is not the issue since a child can buy the rest of the parts.

Do not forget tha the ATF has ruled that an 80% is not a gun, but an 81% receiver, even with no stock, barrel, bolt, bolt carrier, or even barrel is "a gun" when it comes to federal definitions.

Take a P320 "80% FCG and drill one hole in it toward completion and it is a "gun" according to the ATF and all reliant federal statue. one drilled hole in this to take it >80% and it's a gun as far as the ATF is concerned: https://www.glockstore.com/assets/i...in-1.jpg?resizeid=9&resizeh=1000&resizew=1000

 

[Sta Nisia]

I feel like if any of these “victims” spent anytime in the military, none of them would be dumb enough to leave a firearm insecure in their vehicle, because we grew up getting fucked up for violating any part of firearms safety and security

Absolutely. But as I mentioned in a lot of jurisdictions the gun safety laws mandate removing it from the safest place, a proper holster on your person, to leaving it in a car. I am not so sure that even securing it in console by locking it is really meaningful in most cases since once their in they almost always jimmy open the glove box and console box, which takes one second with same punch tool they bust out your window with. An unlocked car, with gun inside unlocked console is indefensible, but getting into a car and the box is not exactly hard.

 

[rickinAZ]

I leave my handguns locked in my safe at home. I doubt that I could shoot someone, and my hesitation would get me killed. I'm a sporting shooter only.

 

[Whaler27]

it is 100%accurate. A whole lot of car theft is pled to "taking without permission"/"Unauthorized use of vehicle." That IS a misdemeanor.
Portland is ranked third to fifth among all cities in the US for prevalence of car theft, it is one of the car theft capitals of the US, the majority until last year pled to misdemeanor UUV/taking without permission, often no jail time at all. Oregon has changed their law a bit due the abuse but it is still a major problem.
https://www.kgw.com/article/news/in...uted/283-8761144f-40db-439e-85ca-1d879504da9a

You‘re wrong. Google and read the statute, ORS 164.135. What we call “UUMV” in Oregon, is a felony, as it has been since the law’s inception. Unless the value of the vehicle stolen is elevated to $5,000, $10,000, or more, it is a “2” on the Oregon felony sentencing guidelines, just like Burglary in the second degree. The classification of the crime as a C felony is listed in the statutory text.

And when you say "prosecuting car theft as a misdemeanor is not prevalent," you mean charging, and that does not reflect all the resolutions of cases which in the US are most often plea bargains. Very often despite being charged with maximum, you will be pled to misdemeanor.

Actually, I don’t mean that. The crime of UUMV is a felony as a matter of Oregon law. There is no legal mechanism for “charging“ a felony as a misdemeanor, but there is an infrequently used mechanism for making the reduction at or after sentencing. In 99% or more of the cases “charging” is the initial step, not the resolution. Resolution typically (almost always) involves counsel. For most cases that means an attorney has to be appointed at public expense, but such an appointment is made at arraignment on the initial charge which, in this case, is a felony.

Oregon’s awful property crime problem didn’t produce greater leniency. To the contrary, it produced a repeat property offender law which provided substantially longer prison sentences for those with predicate offenses. (Misdemeanants aren't sentenced to prison.) The two most common predicate offenses (and enhanced sentences) were Burg-2 and UUMV. (If you’re interested, Google Oregon Revised Statutes ORS 137.717 and read the statute.)

https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/182089

In a small percentage of first-time offender cases, some DAs will agree to have an eligible property felony like UUMV sentenced as a misdemeanor up front. More often, the DA will agree to “earned misdemeanor treatment”, which allows a criminal defendant to apply for misdemeanor reduction following successful completion of probation. The latter was allowed more often, because it provides supervision during the period of probation, and a means of enforcing restitution. (Oregon counties have no money to supervise misdemeanants.) In my experience over more than thirty years, reduction to misdemeanor status through either of the above processes took place less than 5% of the time — because an offender who has no prior convictions and behaves can have both the felony conviction and the preceding arrest expunged. If the criminal has a prior criminal record, or he doesn‘t continue to behave well, the DA wouldn’t want misdemeanor treatment anyway, so having the conviction processed as a felony up front almost always made more sense —- which is why that’s what almost always happened.

Finally, the Briney case you quote above isn’t about constructive possession. It’s about operability In the context of the former statutory definition of “firearm”. The old definition, which was the basis of my section on firearms that you quoted, required that the device be “readily capable of use”. The Briney case turned on what that meant. The court found, “Given what we believe to be the legislative policy underlying the enactment of the concealed weapons statutes in Oregon, we think that, in order for a firearm to be "readily capable of use as a weapon" for the purposes of ORS 166.250(1)(a), the legislature intended that the firearm either be operational or promptly able to be made so at the time that an individual is alleged to be unlawfully carrying it concealed.(7)”...

in response to the Briney case the Oregon Legislature amended the statutory definition of firearm — so operability is no longer a requirement. This is the third or fourth definition of firearm I have worked with in Oregon. (I deleted the operability language from my earlier post, as the law was amended.)

Sponsored