Tennessean writing about what police should do with seized guns

[RobertNashville]

You mean evidence like this...

Should Police in Tennessee Sell Confiscated Guns? | WDEF News 12 | News, Weather and Sports for Chattanooga and the Tennessee Valley

No...I mean evidence to support your unreasonable fear that police agencies have been or will be sued just because some legally disposed of firearm is eventually used in some crime somewhere.

You said...."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" yet you later admitted you had no evidence of departments being sued and you've haven't offered any yet to support your fears of all these lawsuits.

Unless it's a relic, pretty much any firearm used in a crime is traceable to someone...so what?

Unless the "someone" didn't didn't do their due diligence/didn't follow the law in disposing of the firearm (i.e. sold it to someone who cannot legally buy/possess a firearm) then the source of the firearm is immaterial. Being afraid that some spouse or family member might sue someday because their spouse or child was killed or injured from a legally sold firearm is surrendering to the same irrational fears that drive the anti-gun culture and placing blame for crime precisely where it doesn't belong rather than on the criminal.

Edited August 7, 2011 by RobertNashville

[gregintenn]

So when does the story go to print, Brian?

[durtyzulu]

Gun auction!

[Guest WyattEarp]

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.

that's absurd (not blasting you Dave, just the implication of that statement). What does it matter how a gun was used? The only way the public should be outraged is if the weapon was sold to another felon, and the proper procedures weren't followed. A gun is a gun is gun, and it doesn't matter whether it was previously used in the commission of a crime or not, any gun if placed in the wrong hands can be used for wrong doing, but if the procedures are followed (background check, etc) and a gun previously used in the commission of a crime is now in the hands of a responsible firearms enthusiast or law abiding citizen, then I don't see what the problem is?

The gun is not the problem, it's the people in possession of them that make choices with what to do with that weapon.

The thought processes of the general public are beyond ignorant and baseless. Sure let's be outraged at the gun, but not the person using the gun for improper purposes. I can see this one at trial.

Prosecutor: The state calls the handgun to the witness stand

Bailiff: Will the handgun please rise and raise your right hand, and put your left hand on the Bible. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God?

Handgun: I do

Judge: You may be seated

Prosecutor: Were you or were you not used in the previous commission of a crime?

Handgun: I was.

Prosecutor: And were you or were you not previously scheduled for destruction?

Handgun: I was.

Prosecutor: So how you did you end up in the hands of John Doe who shot and killed Jane Doe.

Handgun: No idea sir.

Prosector: No further questions.

Judge: Defense, any cross examination?

Defense: You are a handgun are you not?

Handgun: Yes I am.

Defense: Can you or can you not pull your own trigger?

Handgun: No I can not.

Defense: Can you or can you not load yourself?

Handgun: No I can not.

Defense: So let me get this straight, it would take someone operating you to load you and then mishandle you, for it to be an improper usage would be I correct in that assumption?

Handgun: Yes sir.

Defense: So in effect, that would render you an inanimate object, incapable of harming anyone at anytime unless picked up and misused or used for wrondgoing by a human person, am I correct?

Handgun: Yes sir, well...at least common sense would tell any rationale and reasonable person so. But then again, there are a lot of ignorant people in the world, which seems to be why I get misused so much.

[Guest brianhaas]

So when does the story go to print, Brian?

Hopefully tomorrow. I held off so I could include more voices. I wanted to include a gun shop owner and Curtis, owner of The Armory in Lebanon, was kind enough to talk to me.

If you don't see it in tomorrow's paper, it just got pushed back. It happens quite often.

Thanks again to everyone for the spirited discussion.

-Brian

[hkgonra]

If the serial numbers are scratched they should have a new number put on them and then auction them off to the highest bidder. The trade-in the whole lot to the supplier route usually yields the department 10 cents on the dollar at best.

Make it a requirement that all bidders have a valid tn handgun permit and a department would have the ability to verify that in about two seconds.

[Alleycat72]

If someone is injured by a car, do they melt the car down? Imagine the outrage if people found out the police were using cars that were seized from drug dealers. Holy crap, what if parts from crime cars were sold to the public? The only answer is to ban all cars.

[DaveTN]

Make it a requirement that all bidders have a valid tn handgun permit

That will never fly….. and it shouldn’t IMO.

[DaveTN]

The story is up this morning.

[Guest nicemac]

Should cops sell guns? | The Tennessean

[chances R]

that's absurd (not blasting you Dave, just the implication of that statement). What does it matter how a gun was used? The only way the public should be outraged is if the weapon was sold to another felon, and the proper procedures weren't followed. A gun is a gun is gun, and it doesn't matter whether it was previously used in the commission of a crime or not, any gun if placed in the wrong hands can be used for wrong doing, but if the procedures are followed (background check, etc) and a gun previously used in the commission of a crime is now in the hands of a responsible firearms enthusiast or law abiding citizen, then I don't see what the problem is?

The gun is not the problem, it's the people in possession of them that make choices with what to do with that weapon.

.

I understand Dave, it happens everyday when criminals are released back into the public.........I vote for destroying the criminals and the weapon, but if not, we got to release both. But the obvious, real danger is the criminal.

[gregintenn]

Good article, Brian. It is impossible for me to determine your personal point of view from the article. That is, in my opinion, a mark of a professional journalist. They seem to be in short supply today.

That looks like a long barreled nickel Colt Python, or perhaps a Diamondback in the foreground of the picture of your article. That is a quite expensive and collectable revolver.

Edited August 10, 2011 by gregintenn

[Guest nicemac]

It is impossible for me to determine your personal point of view from the article. That is, in my opinion, a mark of a professional journalist. They seem to be in short supply today.

Agreed, on all three points you make Greg.

[Mr. Brooks]

+1

That is a well written article.

[Guest brianhaas]

Thanks for the kind words, and I appreciate you guys posting my story. I'm a little slow on the draw today.

I largely wanted to just present the issues and arguments surrounding this debate amid one cold, hard fact: Departments need to do SOMETHING about these firearms, particularly since they can't legally destroy them anymore.

I really appreciate the good debate here and thanks for everyone's input on the matter. This is exactly why I joined this forum and you guys have not disappointed.

-Brian

[hkgonra]

That will never fly….. and it shouldn’t IMO.

why not ?

[monkeylizard]

why not ?

Why should you have to have paid a couple of hundred dollars into a training course and a permit fee to participate at an auction to buy an item that you don't need a permit to buy any place else? It should work like any other purchase from an FFL. Pay the TICS fee and off you go.

Edited August 10, 2011 by monkeylizard

[hkgonra]

Why should you have to have paid a couple of hundred dollars into a training course and a permit fee to participate at an auction to buy an item that you don't need a permit to buy any place else? It should work like any other purchase from an FFL. Pay the TICS fee and off you go.

My point was at a LE auction they could (if the state law was fixed as it should be) verify your HCP was valid for free in their computers and you walk out the door with it. It would be a private sale.

[Guest hickok45]

A police department's being liable / responsible for what is done with a gun going to a person who is legal to purchase it is absolutely goofy. IF that's the case, then every seller of any gun anywhere is at huge risk! Second Amendment haters would just love that.

My favorite line in the article is regarding "getting guns off the street." My son and I have a comedy video idea we've been meaning to get to on that very subject. :-)

"Guns on the street." Police officials need to think before they utter that ridiculous phrase. Let's see, what are the numbers now in America; are there not about 100,000,000 legally owned firearms "on the street." If "on the street" means in the hands of felons, then I guess maybe do a background check and don't sell them to felons. :-) All this silly "on the street" talk implies that guns are evil and need to be taken "off the street."

I believe there have been several dictators through history who've actually achieved that goal! Didn't work out so well for the citizenry.

Provided the auction / sale were handled properly, with background checks, of course, selling these guns would be no different from the sales going on daily at Bass Pro or any of the many fine gun shops around Middle Tennessee. It's basically a non-issue, or should be.

I feel better now. :-)

Hickok45

[gregintenn]

I believe I speak for the majority here when I say we're glad to have you, Brian. I'm not looking for a champion for my side in the press. I believe that if the media in general simply worked objectively on a story and reported their findings honestly, we as law abiding gun owners would have nothing to fear from them.

[hipower]

A police department's being liable / responsible for what is done with a gun going to a person who is legal to purchase it is absolutely goofy. IF that's the case, then every seller of any gun anywhere is at huge risk! Second Amendment haters would just love that.

My favorite line in the article is regarding "getting guns off the street." My son and I have a comedy video idea we've been meaning to get to on that very subject. :-)

"Guns on the street." Police officials need to think before they utter that ridiculous phrase. Let's see, what are the numbers now in America; are there not about 100,000,000 legally owned firearms "on the street." If "on the street" means in the hands of felons, then I guess maybe do a background check and don't sell them to felons. :-) All this silly "on the street" talk implies that guns are evil and need to be taken "off the street."

I believe there have been several dictators through history who've actually achieved that goal! Didn't work out so well for the citizenry.

Provided the auction / sale were handled properly, with background checks, of course, selling these guns would be no different from the sales going on daily at Bass Pro or any of the many fine gun shops around Middle Tennessee. It's basically a non-issue, or should be.

I feel better now. :-)

Hickok45

Very Well Said, Sir.

[Guest WyattEarp]

Thanks for the kind words, and I appreciate you guys posting my story. I'm a little slow on the draw today.

I largely wanted to just present the issues and arguments surrounding this debate amid one cold, hard fact: Departments need to do SOMETHING about these firearms, particularly since they can't legally destroy them anymore.

I really appreciate the good debate here and thanks for everyone's input on the matter. This is exactly why I joined this forum and you guys have not disappointed.

-Brian

I think that's one of the best unbiased articles I've read on the internet in a long time Brian, thank you for your contribution, and I applaud you for not entrenching it with your opinion and bias, very very few journalists seem to be able to do this in this day and age. Nice job presenting both sides, educating the readers on the facts and then letting them make their decision for themselves.

The media needs more journalists like yourself. Keep up the good work.

[monkeylizard]

Just got home and saw my copy of the paper. Front page. Congratulations, Brian.

[zapfbroad]

Thank you sir for your discriminate reporting. Congrats on front cover, given all that has transpired over the last few days in news its good to see some editorial consideration being implored to educate on a local interest as opposed to descend into fear mongering for a buck. Your article was good coverage of an issue. I will be content if it doesn't encourage a single person to buy a gun at least it's a refreshing divergence from the typical 'run for the hills he's got a gun' story. Kudos.

via EPIC4G SRF1.1.0 by Android Creative Syndicate

[QuietDan]

So Brian Haas,

What gun story are you going to write next?