Fire mission/poll: Should police sell or destroy crime guns? - Page 3

Fire mission/poll: Should police sell or destroy crime guns?

This is a discussion on Fire mission/poll: Should police sell or destroy crime guns? within the General Firearm Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; http://www.neshobademocrat.com/main.asp?SectionID=2&SubSectionID=297&ArticleID=20 604 3/10/2010 4:30:00 PM Gun auction nets $15,000 toward new bulletproof vests By Steven Thomas March 10, 2010 More than 250 handguns and long ...

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 48

Thread: Fire mission/poll: Should police sell or destroy crime guns?

  1. #31
    VIP Member
    Array DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Posts
    5,036

    Thumbs up Guns for vest



    http://www.neshobademocrat.com/main.asp?SectionID=2&SubSectionID=297&ArticleID=20 604

    3/10/2010 4:30:00 PM
    Gun auction nets $15,000 toward new bulletproof vests

    By Steven Thomas
    March 10, 2010

    More than 250 handguns and long guns confiscated in criminal cases
    over the past several years in the city were auctioned to federally
    licensed dealers last month and the proceeds will be used to purchase
    bulletproof vests for police.

    Head Auction auctioned the guns at its facility at 289-A Commerce Park
    Dr., Ridgeland.

    Police Chief Dickie Sistrunk submitted a list of surplus firearms to
    the Mayor and Board of Aldermen at a Febuary meeting. While most were
    auctioned, many were destroyed for various reasons including no
    visible serial numbers, the chief said.

    Three Glock .40 handguns, similar to those currently used by police
    officers, were added to the department's inventory.

    Mayor James A. Young voiced concern that certain firearms, such as
    automatic weapons and high-powered rifles, should not be allowed back
    on the streets.

    "We took them off the streets from drug dealers and people who don't
    care for life," Young said. "I'd rather we cut them up than put them
    back on the streets."

    Chief Sistrunk assured the board that no automatic weapons or sawed
    off shotguns would be placed on the auction.

    He said that high power rifles and shotguns were not the weapons of
    choice for criminals but used mostly by hunters.

    Alderman Cecil Nichols agreed, noting that the department had plenty
    of surplus shotguns and that they needed to be disposed of properly.

    Many of the guns stemmed from drug cases while others were seized
    after being discharged inside the city limits, the police chief said.
    Some of the guns have been in the police vault for over 20 years.

    The auction brought in just under $15,000, for the police department,
    with 10 percent going to Head Auction. According to Sistrunk, there
    were a number of small guns that were not in the best condition so
    they sold for a lot less.

    Sistrunk told the board that proceeds from the auction would be used
    to purchase new bulletproof vests, a requirement under the law.

    The police department has an ongoing need for bulletproof vests,
    Sistrunk said, because they only have a five-year lifespan. After
    that, they lose effectiveness, he said.

    "The vests will hopefully save one of my officer's lives," Sistrunk
    said.

    William Head, a Philadelphia native, oversaw the auction.

    He told aldermen at the Feb. 16 meeting that he had conducted similar
    auctions for the state Bureau of Narcotics, the Internal Revenue
    Service and the U. S. Marshal Service.

    We only sell to federally licensed firearms dealers, he said.

    Any dealer without a license was not allowed to attend the auction,
    Head said.

    Before a dealer can resale one of the guns, the law requires him to
    perform a background check on any perspective buyer, he said.
    Μολὼν λαβέ

    I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.

    I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.

    Veni, Vidi, Velcro


  2. #32
    VIP Member Array Thanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    2,362
    You can look at it from only your point of view, it is only an inanimate object, or you can see it from a victims point of view (who should be the person(s) who deside).

    They are many times that victims move from their home after a rape, or destroy the blood soaked clothing they had on when their father died. Would you tell your wife, mother, or sister how stupid she is for wanting to move? Would you want the antique walking cain used to sodomize your son to be sold to top bidder? How about substituting gun with underware worn by an murdered underage rape victim. There are many that would pay top dollar for such a thing. Just think all the money the state could make. Does that really justify it somehow?

    Many of you keep thinking of it only from your point of view, that by substituting gun with car, house, etc. you prove something. However the same tactic can be used against you (and really only proves the tactic may provide validity to each side, but does not prove anything).

    It is not a "gun rights" / 2A issue, and I'm not sure everyone understands that.

    I'm not saying one side is right or wrong, only be less dismissive of the views of that community. It is not a "rights" issue. If AZ wants to auction and CA wants to destroy, that is fine by me, as it is just not a gun-rights issue IMHO.
    NRA Member
    S&W 642 (no-lock) with .38 Spl +P 135 GR Gold GDHP
    Glock G31 & G33 with .357 Sig 125 GR. SXT Winchester Ranger

  3. #33
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    28,387
    So long as gun S/N's are "wiped" from the system as being known as "criminal" guns, then I don't see why not. The inventory wouldn't be contributing to crime, as they wouldn't be selling to criminals. To keep costs as low as possible, I'd probably recommend selling the whole lot to a vendor or two, then allow the vendor(s) to do what they do best.

    Destroying them seems to be tossing money into a hole that could otherwise be used. IMO, it's no different than what happens with vehicles that are legitimately seized from convicted felon drug producers/distributors and other such felons.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  4. #34
    VIP Member
    Array DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Posts
    5,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Thanis View Post
    ....
    It is not a "gun rights" / 2A issue, and I don't think some of you can understand that.

    I'm not saying one side is right or wrong, only that it is sheepish to not consider the views of the greater society (or community). It is not a "rights" issue. If AZ wants to auction and CA wants to destroy, that is fine by me, as it is just not a gun-rights issue IMHO.
    As always YMMV and I could see a little logic in your point -- were the guns being sold as souvenirs of "X" crime. However, I don't see how the analogy to underwear worn by an murdered underage rape victim should ever equate to guns sold at auction only "to federally licensed firearms dealers [from my last post]."

    OTOH, the "views of the greater society (or community)", which may somehow see these guns are "Crime Guns" or that "Guns are bad", is, IMHO, a very important gun-rights issue.

    Additionally, underwear worn by an murdered underage rape victim has no usefulness -- outside the alleged souvenir/memento aspect derived from its past.

    Legal guns OTOH are tools, useful tools at that, sold through legal channels for use by law-abiding citizens -- unrelated to the notoriety of past owners.

    In fact, the vast majority of these guns have no significant history. Maybe the very few souvenir/memento guns could be sold only to recognized museums and the just run-of-the-mill majority be sold to licensed firearms dealers.

    IMHO we need to fight the anti-RKBA press and Pols who would demonize any guns. IMHO, we need to call them to task whenever they play on any gun as diabolically evil.

    If the anti-RKBA "usual suspects" try painting a picture to help their point of view, it has become a gun issue, IMHO.

    Again as always YMMV
    Μολὼν λαβέ

    I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.

    I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.

    Veni, Vidi, Velcro

  5. #35
    VIP Member Array Thanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    2,362
    Still can't think of it as a gun "rights" issue, but agree,

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveH View Post
    ...Again as always YMMV
    +1
    NRA Member
    S&W 642 (no-lock) with .38 Spl +P 135 GR Gold GDHP
    Glock G31 & G33 with .357 Sig 125 GR. SXT Winchester Ranger

  6. #36
    Member Array takurpic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by Thanis View Post
    Still can't think of it as a gun "rights" issue, but agree,



    +1
    Your logic is flawed.

    Any policy that results in legal firearms being destroyed for no purpose other than to 'keep the guns out of the hands of people' is absolutely a gun rights issue. How can you not see that???

  7. #37
    Distinguished Member Array mathewsman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,920
    Hey if they sold them maybe they could afford not to cut the jobs of americans they would be another form of income and could use that money for jobs and upgrade there equipment.
    NRA sence 2003 Colt defender Taurus .357 mag
    Taurus tcp x box gamer tag mathewsman

  8. #38
    Distinguished Member Array razor02097's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,974
    Quote Originally Posted by Thanis View Post
    You can look at it from only your point of view, it is only an inanimate object, or you can see it from a victims point of view (who should be the person(s) who deside).

    They are many times that victims move from their home after a rape, or destroy the blood soaked clothing they had on when their father died. Would you tell your wife, mother, or sister how stupid she is for wanting to move? Would you want the antique walking cain used to sodomize your son to be sold to top bidder? How about substituting gun with underware worn by an murdered underage rape victim. There are many that would pay top dollar for such a thing. Just think all the money the state could make. Does that really justify it somehow?

    Many of you keep thinking of it only from your point of view, that by substituting gun with car, house, etc. you prove something. However the same tactic can be used against you (and really only proves the tactic may provide validity to each side, but does not prove anything).

    It is not a "gun rights" / 2A issue, and I'm not sure everyone understands that.

    I'm not saying one side is right or wrong, only be less dismissive of the views of that community. It is not a "rights" issue. If AZ wants to auction and CA wants to destroy, that is fine by me, as it is just not a gun-rights issue IMHO.
    Do you actually think every gun taken by police was used in a murder or rape? That argument is ridiculous.

    The majority of guns police confiscate are products of searches, raids and busts. A guy gets stopped for speeding or DUI and has a warrant for his arrest. He is a felon and a search reveals a gun in his car. It goes with police and will not be returned since he is a felon. It wasn't used in a crime. It was in the possession of a criminal but could fetch an extra $300 for the PD. Should we destroy it instead?

    By destroying the guns confiscated by police you (the tax payer) will in effect be paying money to take the chance at potential revenue that police could use to acquire new equipment away.

    The family or victim isn't going to see the gun again. They don't know what happens to it. They don't know the serial#. Why is it so important to destroy it?
    There is something about firing 4,200 thirty millimeter rounds/min that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

  9. #39
    VIP Member Array Thanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    2,362
    Quote Originally Posted by takurpic View Post
    Your logic is flawed...Any policy that results in legal firearms being destroyed for no purpose other than to 'keep the guns out of the hands of people' is absolutely a gun rights issue. How can you not see that???
    Not a 2a issue or some "god-given right" that existed prior to the COTUS. I have no problem with what a community desides to do with illegal firearms (naturally, as pointed out by one post, assuming they are not the stolen property of another, and most of the time this is not the case). The gun rights issue is what the community considers to be illegal firearms.

    Quote Originally Posted by razor02097 View Post
    Do you actually think every gun taken by police was used in a murder or rape? That argument is ridiculous...The family or victim isn't going to see the gun again. They don't know what happens to it. They don't know the serial#. Why is it so important to destroy it?
    I'm not really considering those other, less high profile illegal firearms (bid away on the others, or not, I don't care). Just those used in volient crimes. The argument is no less ridiculous than a rape victim who raped on a cruise does not want to go on some other cruise. How a person "feels" after a crime is relevant. The "why" is not my concern, if a victim(s) of a violent crime want the firearm destroyed, I would see it as a reasonable request, while many other requests to destroy substituted objects (like a cruise ship) would be less reasonable.

    If you don't want to understand that, because you care more about guns than feelings, that is your right.

    However the only "right" in this issue is the right of an opinion, and not a firearm right.
    NRA Member
    S&W 642 (no-lock) with .38 Spl +P 135 GR Gold GDHP
    Glock G31 & G33 with .357 Sig 125 GR. SXT Winchester Ranger

  10. #40
    Distinguished Member Array razor02097's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,974
    Quote Originally Posted by Thanis View Post
    I'm not really considering those other, less high profile illegal firearms (bid away on the others, or not, I don't care). Just those used in volient crimes. The argument is no less ridiculous than a rape victim who raped on a cruise does not want to go on some other cruise. How a person "feels" after a crime is relevant. The "why" is not my concern, if a victim(s) of a violent crime want the firearm destroyed, I would see it as a reasonable request, while many other requests to destroy substituted objects (like a cruise ship) would be less reasonable.

    If you don't want to understand that, because you care more about guns than feelings, that is your right.

    However the only "right" in this issue is the right of an opinion, and not a firearm right.
    uuummmm....ok...??? So as long as police keep track of ones used in violent crime and only destroy those right? If the victim wants that cruise ship destroyed police should blow that up too right?

    you are trying to put emotion into a bureaucrat process... Its like putting bleach into the engine crank case. You can't backpedal and say "Oh well I don't care about guns not used in violent crime". The question was should the guns taken by police be sold or destroyed.

    I say they should be sold. The money should then be used to benefit the police department. The guns would be sold to law abiding people that pass background checks. How does that hurt victims again? Would the new owner of the gun put it in their face and pull the trigger or something?
    There is something about firing 4,200 thirty millimeter rounds/min that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

  11. #41
    VIP Member Array Thanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    2,362
    Quote Originally Posted by razor02097 View Post
    uuummmm....ok...??? So as long as police keep track of ones used in violent crime and only destroy those right? If the victim wants that cruise ship destroyed police should blow that up too right?...
    I've already answered that.

    Quote Originally Posted by razor02097 View Post
    ..you are trying to put emotion into a bureaucrat process... Its like putting bleach into the engine crank case...
    It is like asking people and government to care about people. So long as it does not infringe on 2A, for example, it is just not a "gun right" and I'll let the community and LE address it as they see fit, and not make everything that happens to "guns" (especially "illegal" ones) into a federal case.

    The only gun right issue is how the term "illegal guns" is defined.
    NRA Member
    S&W 642 (no-lock) with .38 Spl +P 135 GR Gold GDHP
    Glock G31 & G33 with .357 Sig 125 GR. SXT Winchester Ranger

  12. #42
    VIP Member Array grady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Near St. Louis, Missouri
    Posts
    2,837
    Should police departments destroy confiscated firearms or sell or trade them for better equipment?

    Destroy them
    24% (188 votes)

    Sell or trade them
    76% (596 votes)

    Total votes: 784

  13. #43
    Distinguished Member Array Spec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Metro Detroit Area
    Posts
    1,716
    24% des.

    76% Sell/trade

    I think if they are in good shape then why not. If they are unsafe then get rid of them.
    NRA Certified Rifle/Pistol Instructor
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G18CFw0lnD8

    Accuracy ALWAYS WINS! So carry what you can hit with.

    If you find yourself in a fair fight your tactics stink.

  14. #44
    Member Array merischino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Southern Florida
    Posts
    301
    Destroy them
    24% (188 votes)

    Sell or trade them
    76% (598 votes)

    Total votes: 786
    People who like this sort of thing will find this the sort of thing they like.
    - Abraham Lincoln

    A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
    - Winston Churchill

  15. #45
    Distinguished Member Array razor02097's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,974
    Quote Originally Posted by Thanis View Post
    It is like asking people and government to care about people. So long as it does not infringe on 2A, for example, it is just not a "gun right" and I'll let the community and LE address it as they see fit, and not make everything that happens to "guns" (especially "illegal" ones) into a federal case.

    The only gun right issue is how the term "illegal guns" is defined.
    I wasn't talking about it being a "gun right". It has nothing to do with gun rights!

    It's the fact that I and others would have to pay tax money to destroy potential revenue for police departments to upgrade their gear or have it donated to a charity.

    Also.... yeah it is sad to see perfectly good guns destroyed because they don't know what else to do with them, or they aren't allowed to sell them to responsible law abiding people.
    There is something about firing 4,200 thirty millimeter rounds/min that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Fire Mission -- Wash Post Poll
    By DaveH in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: October 26th, 2010, 12:28 PM
  2. Fire Mission- hit this poll
    By Jason Rogers in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: February 27th, 2010, 03:47 PM
  3. Fire Mission on Poll!!!
    By Ricebrnr in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: January 21st, 2010, 10:56 PM
  4. Fire Mission: Hit This Poll
    By Jason Rogers in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: June 6th, 2009, 09:48 PM
  5. 2A news poll FIRE MISSION
    By paramedic70002 in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: November 7th, 2008, 11:07 AM

Search tags for this page

do police sell guns from crimes?

,

lincoln park mi volients

,

punishment for us marshals selling stolen firearms

,

should police sell guns

Click on a term to search for related topics.