Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Police Selling Confiscated Weapons

I admit it would be difficult to accept the fact that we have guns in our society that are lawfully produced, owned and sold and still insist that confiscated weapons must be destroyed by the police.  The only way that would work is if one believed guns are evil and should be banned entirely.

Yet, it doesn't make much sense to continue allowing lawfully owned guns to so easily flow into the criminal world, like we do, and to feed into that flow even more with confiscated weapons.

So, until we make every effort to stop the flow of guns from the good guys to the bad guys, I'm opposed to the reselling of confiscated weapons by the police because it increases the problem.  Interestingly, the states that do this are among the worst examples of sensible gun control.

Arizona, according to the National Rifle Association, is the third state in the nation to require the sale of confiscated weapons. Kentucky and Tennessee are the other two.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.


  1. > it doesn't make much sense to continue allowing lawfully owned guns to so easily flow into the criminal world

    In this case they are flowing from the criminal world into the lawfully owned world. So what's the problem?

  2. Perhaps it is the Brady’s and other gun control organizations that are shills for the gun industry. They advocate for programs that destroy perfectly good weapons, which ultimately allows for the gun industry to replace it with a new sale (manufacturing and selling arms being legal and all). That is what guys like Omar and Colin Goddard do. They get the Brady’s or anti-gun media program to give the $5000 cash to go to a gunshow, then give that money to gun dealers (note they specifically seek out the shady ones that don’t follow the law by checking IDs), then take the guns and turn them over to the police for destruction. Then the arms industry replaces those guns with brand new “highly sophisticated” guns and sells them back to the dealer. What a racket.

  3. You already said it, to require their destruction, you would have to say they are evil. In reality they are valuable objects that can be used to raise revenue for the department.

    I know you love car analogies so but this one is relevant: cars are confiscated when used for illegal purposes particularly drugs. They are auctioned off to raise money for police equipment. No one advocates destroying a car because it was used in a crime. What would be the logic in doing so with guns or any other legal product?

  4. Yeah I know in Tennessee there was some debate about this. I don't know that I have a problem with it -- police sell confiscated cars, stereos, jewelry, etc. One would *assume* (big assumption) that if the police are selling the guns they would at least make sure that they are following procedure, with all of the appropriate background checks. I actually prefer having police departments doing the selling versus some of these gun show loons who don't agree with the policies over background checks so choose to not follow them.

    It depends on what the purpose of the program is. If the purpose of the program is to have fewer guns out there (as with voluntary gun surrender programs), then I see the objection. But those kinds of programs seem to have fallen out of favor anyway ... if the weapons have been confiscated because they were involved in illegal activity, then once their usefulness as evidence is finished *something* needs to be done with them.

    The real question which no one seems to be addressing is, do you want the police to have the authority to confiscate your property AND profit from selling it? Isn't that a conflict of interest? Couldn't the cops just come in and take your stuff for any old trumped up reason? And then profit by selling it? That strikes me as a more pertinent civil liberties issue.

    Sales cannot be legally done unless there is a conviction, and I suppose if someone's conviction is later overturned you can request reimbursement from whatever agency stole your stuff. But the basic idea is not one I'm comfortable with.

    As with so many of these issues there is no black and white, just lots grays.

  5. My, my, "Japete." What a foul mouth you've developed. Must be from having to read all the mean things us gunnies have said to/about you...

  6. Colin: Actually, the "japete" comment comes from one of your buddies at DaysofOur Trailers.

  7. Makes perfect sense, particularly given that most states are cash-strapped at the moment.

  8. "One would *assume* (big assumption) that if the police are selling the guns they would at least make sure that they are following procedure, with all of the appropriate background checks."

    The police don't do background checks because they don't sell the guns straight to the consumer. They sell them to FFLs who in turn sell them to consumers.

    So the selling of a confiscated gun is no different than the selling of a new gun. If anything, the selling of a confiscated gun ensures that that particular gun is taken out of criminal circulation for a period of time.

  9. Guy, you're dumber than I thought. I put her name in quotes because I realize it's not actually her. As for who it really is, I just don't give a damn. Your interwebs sleuthing doesn't impress me.

  10. That's cool, Colin. It's from Karl Hadley.

    Pretty interesting way your buddies have "discourse," huh?

  11. I removed the "japete" comment. I guess the joke's on me because I originally approved it as soon as I say what I thought was a safe name.

    "You know they got a saying 'round here, down in Texas, I guess here in Tennessee. Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice,.....won't git fooled agin."