NC wants my revolver - stolen in 1982

[Peanut Butter]

Threatening you over a gun you got THE RIGHT WAY. Absolutely horses***

 

[Falcon1]

Yea you should absolutely be calling the pawn shop. I would take it back and get my money back and let them sort out the legal nonsense.

 

[DinkyDau]

That's what I want to know

I would put a hammer on the pawn shop, the LEO will trace it back the trail of selling, until it dies. They two are in receivership of a stolen gun and you and the police need to go to that pawn shop and get a refund and give it to the LEO at the same time..It is up to that pawn shop to explain, how he received the weapon. Good luck!

 

[Fatal_Bert]

The database they use is a for Profit service. Its not a governmental entity

The database who uses? The pawnshop don't have access to any police database, only the police do.

If the pawnshop didn't do their job sending the numbers in to the police that would be an issue, but obviously they did because that's how the gun was traced.

 

[Rabbit2047]

Yea you should absolutely be calling the pawn shop. I would take it back and get my money back and let them sort out the legal nonsense.

Wish I could. Was told not to let it out of my possession or I would be charged with obstruction.

 

[hamburglar3]

Definitely get a property receipt. Double check that the serial number is correct

 

[BanjoJohn]

The only thing I've ever left at a pawn shop was $$ for a great deal on tools or a firearm.

 

[letusbuyyourcar]

So the pawn shop never did a stolen gun check? I kinda thought that was required.

The pawn shops I used to deal with in Macon would make some effort to make good on it. They would either return your money or offer up another revolver.

 

[Ken Ford]

How is the pawn shop not being held responsible for selling stolen goods?

Same way he’s not responsible for receiving it.
But continuing to posses someone else’s property is wrong both legally and morally.

 

[BanjoJohn]

Same way he’s not responsible for receiving it.
But continuing to posses someone else’s property is wrong both legally and morally.

OP should have sold it on the cheap so he would not continue to posses someone else's property and could sleep peacefully at night.