Tennessean writing about what police should do with seized guns

[gregintenn]

It's been a while, but I've seen my local game warden auction guns on the courthouse steps.

[zapfbroad]

Sell them in bulk to vetted FFL dealers/distributors. This will mitigate the risk of retaliatory blame on the police department if some unlucky gun gets used twice in a crime as it will pass multiple hands thus transfer responsibility from the dept. and allow the dept. to focus on it's primary tasks while still generating some revenue (any is profit, technically). Furthermore, I think the idea of the police dept as FFL store front is horrible just in principle and takes business from small business owners. Some people would buy the rehashed guns Just because the police are selling. I believe this to be the path of least resistance, if you want to encourage some radical new paradigm with off-duty LEOs picking up a few extra hours workin in the PD gun shop selling to Fred-Jo-Daryll off the street then you're going to need to keep standby with some Permatex grease for them kinks in the gears. Better to speed the process by making this as easy for them to get rid of as so we can get at them sooner.

[DaveTN]

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?

I don’t know, and I doubt you do either.

it's time to stop bending over and taking it up the backside just because someone might get sued

City officials have a responsibility to make an effort not to do dumb azz things that will get them sued.

This isn’t about rights or even about gun laws; Police Departments selling guns is ignorant at face value.

I wouldn’t do it if I was a Chief or Sheriff and I would tell the Tennessee State Legislature that if they were going to force me to sell guns they need to send a representative here to handle the sale.

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.

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.

That is exactly what you are doing on this issue.

[McAllyn]

Is the vehicle used by an intoxicated driver that runs over and kills an innocent bystander destroyed? How does this differ? Why would a firearm be considered "morally soiled" or "possessed by demon spirits" and that vehicle would not?

There are many ways this could be done intelligently in which the departments would benefit greatly. I understand that it's easier to sell them in bulk to a dealer, but I guarantee it would be more lucrative to sell to the public.

Mac

[Lumber_Jack]

I agree with DaveTN, I dont think its about the rational of the gun being a tool for crime or not. It's about the public perception of the department. If a gun sold from a police sezuire is used in a crime, that is political suicide for all elected officials associated. I dont think it should be a law requiring a department to sell their guns. I think it should be an option. I am not for making laws forcing people or agencies to do things like this. I believe they should sell the guns, as it is good revenue for the municipality but i see no need for them to have to sell them.

Brian, I'd go on the record if you wish, I didnt read all of the thread, so I dont know if the story has been finished or not.

[Guest brianhaas]

Thanks so much for the discussion, guys. Good points made by all.

To razorback2003: I've been writing crime for 10 years now and covered some 200+ homicides during that time. I doubt you could tell me anything that would remotely shock me.

To Greg Hebert: Thanks so much, I may use your comment in my story.

To Lumber_Jack: I'm still writing my story, but I think at this point I'm pretty good on comments.

Either way, I'm glad this turned into such a constructive discussion, I appreciate everyone's thoughts on the matter.

-Brian

[mikegideon]

Brian,

Thanks again for writing balanced articles on the subject of guns. As we have discussed in the past, I appreciate good journalists. You're one of the good ones.

[Moped]

Thanks Brian!

[RobertNashville]

I don’t know, and I doubt you do either....

That is exactly what you are doing on this issue.

You have it backward; you are the one surrendering to fear of something that might happen based, by your own admission, on nothing at all.

As was identified by East_TN_Patriot above; there is at least some evidence that this is being done with no problems. Unless you have some actual evidence of problems, your argument against the practice is baseless.

Edited August 6, 2011 by RobertNashville

[tnhawk]

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.

TN law doesn't provide an option for local departments to exercise their choice. They are in violation of the law, if they don't follow it.

[DaveTN]

As was identified by East_TN_Patriot above; there is at least some evidence that this is being done with no problems. Unless you have some actual evidence of problems, your argument against the practice is baseless.

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

That's because two of the guns that their officers took off the streets.. Re-surfaced in nationally known crimes.

The man who shot at Pentagon security guards last month used a handgun that came from Memphis police.

And the shotgun that killed a security officer at a Las Vegas courthouse also traces back to Memphis.

[mikegideon]

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

They should just sell them in bulk to the highest bidding FFL. Then, there will at least be a new point of origin. Shame on those guns for doing more crime. Obviously, repeat offenders shoud be destroyed.

Personally, I wouldn't mind if they ground up all the ring of fire junk. It's stupid to destroy quality fireams, unless you really believe they have a soul.

[DaveTN]

TN law doesn't provide an option for local departments to exercise their choice. They are in violation of the law, if they don't follow it.

If you are talking about 39-17-1317, it would be a violation if a Chief or Sheriff is refusing to sell a weapon where a written court order has been issued for the sale. Is that happening?

[DaveTN]

They should just sell them in bulk to the highest bidding FFL. Then, there will at least be a new point of origin. Shame on those guns for doing more crime. Obviously, repeat offenders shoud be destroyed.

Personally, I wouldn't mind if they ground up all the ring of fire junk. It's stupid to destroy quality fireams, unless you really believe they have a soul.

None of us are going to get a good deal on a gun; no matter what happens. So I couldn’t care less if they sell them to an FFL, as long as they can’t come back as a cost to the taxpayers.

I don’t like the involvement the Federal government already has in selling guns, let alone allowing (or forcing) the state and city governments to get involved.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Based on the premise that the gun is the problem, rather than the offender,

your premise has flaws, DaveTN. Somehow or another, I doubt the gun, coming

from any legitimate source, caused any problem at all. Does the gun's history

have anything to do with it?

[mikegideon]

None of us are going to get a good deal on a gun; no matter what happens. So I couldn’t care less if they sell them to an FFL, as long as they can’t come back as a cost to the taxpayers.

I don’t like the involvement the Federal government already has in selling guns, let alone allowing (or forcing) the state and city governments to get involved.

I just think destroying quality weapons because they were involved in a crime makes about as much sense and sacrificing chickens in your back yard.

Again, if they just sold them the same way they sell LEO trade-ins, it should eliminate any of the agency's liability.

[Mr. Brooks]

Maybe I'm missing something but if the LEO agencies were required to sell the guns by law wouldn't that pretty much remove any liability they could have?

[DaveTN]

Based on the premise that the gun is the problem, rather than the offender,

your premise has flaws, DaveTN. Somehow or another, I doubt the gun, coming

from any legitimate source, caused any problem at all. Does the gun's history

have anything to do with it?

If you are asking me a question, I’m not sure what it is?

I could care less what kind of gun it is or what the history of the gun is.

“Cops selling confiscated guns.†Say that out loud and tell me that sounds like a good idea to you.

“Firemen selling fireworks and space heaters.†See how that works.

(I bet the fireworks and space heater people think thats a great idea)

I really don’t care what they sell; I was just giving my opinion.

[mikegideon]

Yep. The anti's get their headlines when ANY gun is sold. Should LEA's support the notion that a "crime gun" is more eveil than a regular gun? I'm gonna go sacrifice that chicken now.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

If you are asking me a question, Im not sure what it is?

I could care less what kind of gun it is or what the history of the gun is.

Cops selling confiscated guns. Say that out loud and tell me that sounds like a good idea to you.

Firemen selling fireworks and space heaters. See how that works.

(I bet the fireworks and space heater people think thats a great idea)

I really dont care what they sell; I was just giving my opinion.

Give them back to the lawful owner, unless found

guilty of a crime, otherwise put them back on the

market through a sale to FFL's.

Take a commodity out of the marketplace and

the marketplace suffers.

Otherwise sack the damned Asset Forfeiture

and seizure laws outright. There is no justice

in government sanctioned theft. My opinion.

I'm not really concerned about firemen. They

are quite a good bunch and don't have a

tendency to stick you up with the power of

a gun barrel pointed at you.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gregintenn]

Give them back to the lawful owner, unless found

guilty of a crime, otherwise put them back on the

market through a sale to FFL's.

Take a commodity out of the marketplace and

the marketplace suffers.

Otherwise sack the damned Asset Forfeiture

and seizure laws outright. There is no justice

in government sanctioned theft. My opinion.

I'm not really concerned about firemen. They

are quite a good bunch and don't have a

tendency to stick you up with the power of

a gun barrel pointed at you.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

IBTL!!!!

[Guest bnoland]

My department wont even sell us our old firearms. They say they dont want to get the FFl to do it. I am sure they trade them in on our new ones.

Edited August 7, 2011 by bnoland

[dlm37015]

nashville melts them down about 2 times a year i cried along time after watching a boss double being thrown in the foundry

[Pain103]

There is a difference in seized and taken for evidence. Typically seized would mean you used an item for certain crimes and can be seized by the department. This can be appealed by a hearing which is done on a normal basis. Then evidence taken for a crime is secured until deposition from the court. They will usually order either the weapon to be returned or forfeited. I personally see no reason why a weapon that the department isn't going to use shouldn't be sold to someone who can lawfully own it. But I do believe the money should only be lawfully used for purposes of the Law Enforcement Department as drug seizures are mandated by law.

[Guest pfries]

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 suitsâ€, 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.

I am not understanding the immunity??? They don't trace a gun back to the FFL and sue them? Why would this be any different?