Tennessean writing about what police should do with seized guns

[Guest brianhaas]

Pardon the interruption.

Hope everyone is doing well, it's been awhile since I've checked in. I'm currently writing a story about what police should do with seized firearms.

Legislators recently tried to pass a law forcing departments to sell these firearms (once they're no longer needed for court) to the public. Police departments in general are opposed to the idea, saying they don't want to be taking crime guns and putting them back out on the streets.

Was looking to see if anyone would mind being quoted on the issue, either for or against, the push to force police departments to sell guns. I'd just need to use your full name and city if I were to use your quote in my story.

My deadline is basically about 2 p.m. tomorrow (Friday). Thanks and my contact information is below.

Brian Haas

The Tennessean

Office: 615-726-8968

Fax: 615-259-8093

Twitter: Brian Haas (brianhaas) on Twitter

Facebook: Brian Haas | The Tennessean - Journalist - Nashville, TN | Facebook

http://www.tennessean.com

[RobertNashville]

Just my $0.02 but I wonder - what do law enforcement agencies do with any other seized property? Whatever they do with other property I suggest that they should do the same with a firearm (subject to background checks per Federal law, etc.).

The only thing that makes a vehicle or any other piece of property different from a "firearm" is public perception, usually fueled by unjustified emotion-based opinion.

[Armed Aviator]

Just my $0.02 but I wonder - what do law enforcement agencies do with any other seized property? Whatever they do with other property I suggest that they should do the same with a firearm (subject to background checks per Federal law, etc.).

The only thing that makes a vehicle or any other piece of property different from a "firearm" is public perception, usually fueled by unjustified emotion-based opinion.

+1

[Mike]

Once cleared fro the evidence room, firearms should be sold back to the public. They pose no more threat to public safety than any other firearm sitting on a dealers shelf. The people who purchase them will still go through the same background check as they would if they were purchasing new. This program allows departments to turn evidence room clutter into useful revenue. Hopefully it will allow them to focus on enforcing laws that actually help the community rather than trying to bend over Joe Taxpayer at a traffic stop because he was going a half mile over the speed limit. Concurrently we should be auditing seizure records to ensure that police are not abusing the asset forfeiture laws we have in place today. It is a slippery slope we have gone down allowing law enforcement to seize evidence and auction it off sometimes months prior to the actual court date. A true review of out asset forfeiture laws should be in order. Not just in letter of law but an audit of the processes current use and practice should be looked at to ensure there is no abuse by those who only look at revenues rather than actually serving the general public. Those people they have sworn to protect and serve.

Mike

[Steelharp]

Ditto. "Crime guns" are no different than "crime cars," or anything else. It's a good source of revenue for them to sell them.

[Guest brianhaas]

Good question, Robert. In general, departments are free to do what they'd like with most evidence (drugs are obviously supposed to be destroyed). But Tennessee law dictates they sell the firearms eventually. Instead, most departments tend to just hold onto the guns since they don't want to sell them. At most, they'll exchange the guns for proper service weapons for the department.

But the large majority of guns are simply warehoused. That's my impression so far.

[Guest nysos]

The person committed the crime with the gun as a tool, no different if they used their fists, a baseball bat, a rock they picked up on the side of the road. I don't see anything wrong with the resale of these firearms, I know some depts sell their seized arms in bulk to local shops to sell.

Why not create a couple jobs and generate more revenue for their department? Hire 2-3 people to run a store front, get a shop set up as an FFL. Have some display cases, throw them out with prices marked to sell quick. The only safety standpoint I would be worried about is the condition of the firearm. As a selling point they could have a dedicated armorer to inspect the condition of the firearm, clean it, and test it before it can be sold to the public so that it is deemed safe/functional. Would be bad publicity for John Q to buy X brand in terrible condition and get a kaboom, only to say "but the police department sold it to me!"

[bigwakes]

Selling the seized firearms would be a great source of revenue for the department or the city. I think this one is pretty obvious. They could even have an auction with X% of proceeds benefiting whatever cause they want.

[E4 No More]

Just my $0.02 but I wonder - what do law enforcement agencies do with any other seized property? Whatever they do with other property I suggest that they should do the same with a firearm (subject to background checks per Federal law, etc.).

The only thing that makes a vehicle or any other piece of property different from a "firearm" is public perception, usually fueled by unjustified emotion-based opinion.

^^^

Ding, ding, ding! Winner!

To qualify my remarks: I am a former LEO.

They have absolutely no problem selling anything else they have seized, (obviously speaking of otherwise legal property), to try and fund their department/city coffers, so why the problems with guns? Perhaps it's because the Chiefs of Police are too political and reflect what their mayors think, but because they are Chiefs of Police people assume that they speak for their officers? You can bet that quite a few have no problems retaining certain firearms for their own use - including illegal ones.

[Guest nicemac]

You can bet that quite a few have no problems retaining certain firearms for their own use - including illegal ones.

This was the first thing that came to my mind.

[Moped]

Well, it's not like the person they are selling the firearm to, doesn't have to pass a background check before acquiring the firearm. That means they sell them to legitimate buyers. That's a stupid argument for the PD's to make! Besides, if they use the weapons as trade in's for new department weapons, what do they think is going to happen to them once they are traded? Obviously, they are going to be marketed in such publications as Shotgun News, as "Police Trade Ins". Either way they end up back on the street. What's the difference?

[gregintenn]

Why not hand them out to underprivilidged people who may not have access to a gun?

[gregintenn]

Seriously Brian, that is an interesting topic for an article. You are more than welcome to quote me in the article stating,

"The obvious answer, seeing that all levels of goverment are perpetually looking for more revenue, is to sell them at public auction, just like seized cars, boats, etc. A confiscated gun wouldn't pose any more danger if sold than would a new gun sold in a gun store. Destroying them would be just another example of government waste."

Greg Herbert

Lafayette, Tennessee

[Guest 270win]

This writer would be shocked to know that many places AUCTION seized guns at the courthouses to people. What a bed wetter.

[TNWNGR]

I hate to tell you this fellow’s but your showing a touch of ignorance and bias against LEA and LEO in general here. Many agencies auction vehicles, electronics, jewelry and other evidence or surplus equipment on line. It’s easier and doesn’t require a once or twice yearly auction which is an enormous expense in manpower hours. Firearms are far simpler to dispose of by trading them to a LE Supplier for ammunition or to help pay for replacement weapons or equipment. These weapons in turn are sold to distributors, then gun shops and their customers.

Some gun’s get torched and turned into manhole covers. Either they’re junk, broken, have missing or altered serial numbers or are otherwise illegal. If you think a LEO is immune to prosecution for being in possession, with intent, of a stolen or otherwise illegal firearm then your deluded. LEA are subject to evidence inventories quite often, if they are an accredited agency then policies are pretty darn specific on what can and can’t be done. In the end the general public does get to buy a lot of seized guns once they are cleared to do so by the respective judges, they just get them from a licensed dealer.

[mikegideon]

Ditto. "Crime guns" are no different than "crime cars," or anything else. It's a good source of revenue for them to sell them.

Right. The gun doesn't have a personality.

[Motasyco]

Ditto. "Crime guns" are no different than "crime cars," or anything else. It's a good source of revenue for them to sell them.

Exactly the first thought I had.

[DaveTN]

I’m a former Police Officer and a Tax Payer. If someone’s kid was killed by a gun that was sold by the Police Department many people (including many here), would be going nuts wanting to sue the cops. The public outrage would be overwhelming.

Therefore I feel the same way about this I do about trying to force businesses to allow HCP holders to carry…. Absolute immunity. If you are going to force the Police Departments to become arms dealers over their own objections you have to give them absolute immunity. Because the Police Department doesn’t pay when they get sued or settle “nuisance suits”, as a taxpayer I pay. Therefore I’m against it without total legal immunity (and I don’t think that can even be done).

As gun owners we have too much to lose and nothing to gain.

[RobertNashville]

I'm sure some police agencies already do sell seized firearms...has there ever been any lawsuit filed because of it? Has the plaintiff ever won such a suit?

Law enforcement agencies would and should have the same immunity as any other business selling a gun to a person who, constitutionally, has a right to own one (and no more)...it's time to stop bending over and taking it up the backside just because someone might get sued - otherwise we all just might as well pull out the white flags and bow to the irrational fears of the ignorant public and/or those looking for an easy way to take care of their retirement by suing.

Edited August 5, 2011 by RobertNashville

[East_TN_Patriot]

Kentucky has done a similar program for years. All firearms seized by law enforcement agencies MUST BE surrendered to the Kentucky State Police and the KSP is required to sell them at public auction to licensed dealers for resale. That money then goes into a grant fund that awards money to agencies for the purchase body armor and other types of police equipment. See Kentucky Revised Statute 500.090, KRS 500.093, and KRS 16.220. They made that change to the law when I was an officer in Kentucky. I am not aware of any instance where a gun seized by a police agency in the Commonwealth of Kentucky was sold and then later used in a crime. A quick Google search did not turn anything up either. It confirms what we already know, and peer-reviewed study after peer-reviewed has shown: guns purchased and owned by law-abiding citizens are not the problem.

[Mike.357]

could a police department even be an FFL? If they can't then selling the guns is not even an option.

[Guest tngw1500se]

Just my $0.02 but I wonder - what do law enforcement agencies do with any other seized property? Whatever they do with other property I suggest that they should do the same with a firearm (subject to background checks per Federal law, etc.).

The only thing that makes a vehicle or any other piece of property different from a "firearm" is public perception, usually fueled by unjustified emotion-based opinion.

Makes way to much sense!

[East_TN_Patriot]

could a police department even be an FFL? If they can't then selling the guns is not even an option.

My presumption is that if they are sold at public auction directly to private individuals, they would have to use an auction company that possessed an FFL and all the same rules would apply. It would be just like any auction where firearms are sold. However, in my experience, the departments sell them to an FFL dealer, who then sells them to the public.

[R_Bert]

I have purchased several firearms originating from law enforcement organizations which sold to my ffl. I have no idea if they were issued or seized. Why would the ones in question be any different ?

[Rightwinger]

I’m a former Police Officer and a Tax Payer. If someone’s kid was killed by a gun that was sold by the Police Department many people (including many here), would be going nuts wanting to sue the cops. The public outrage would be overwhelming.

People see money in outrage everywhere. Car dealerships should be cowering in their skins because every car that's sold doesn't require any background checks to see what the purchasers driving record is. I wonder if Leonard Little's dealer should own up that he shouldn't have sold him a vehicle without a proper background check. Leonard Little

The root of the problem is holding people accountable, not objects.

I say sell em and then hold everyone that breaks a law accountable to the FULLEST degree. I'll even pay a "penal tax" to help build the luxury resorts (in abandoned coal mines preferably) to put them there.