Wacko Gail Kerr of Tennessean spouting off about police disposal of firearms

[QuietDan]

IMHO: After Brian Haas of the Tennessean writes a well researched article regarding the pros and cons of Tennessee police destroying firearms versus selling or trading them for revenue, Gail Kerr of the Tennessean swoops in and writes a child-like and emotional editorial, suggesting in part that firearms are intrinsically evil.

Read it and weep:

Gail Kerr: Cops, not legislature, should control confiscated guns | The Tennessean | tennessean.com

Recommend TGO folks post their heartfelt comments here AND after the Tennessean article.

Edited August 14, 2011 by QuietDan
Deleted "Wacko" from title - a little too harsh

[Warbird]

IMHO: After Brian Haas of the Tennessean writes a well researched article regarding the pros and cons of Tennessee police destroying firearms versus selling or trading them for revenue, Gail Kerr of the Tennessean swoops in and writes a child-like and emotional editorial, suggesting in part that firearms are intrinsically evil.

That pretty much sums up everything Kerr writes. She is one of the most unimpressive writers I have ever had the displeasure of reading. The fact that she still has a job says a great deal about the Tennessean. She should, at best, have a column in some local community newsletter.

[Mike.357]

I kind of took her point as being let the local community decide what to do with confiscated firearms. I am good with letting people decide for themselves whats best to do. Legislature does notneed to be involved.

So destroy the gun, what is the difference really? For the most part they still make more.

Sell the gun. That makes more sense to me, a gun is inanimate, has no soul ( in spite of what 1911 fanboys say )

Of course if the lawful owner of the gun is alive it should go back to him or her, no matter the crime.

[Motasyco]

Destroy any gun used in a murder to satisfy the emotional element. Sell or trade the rest.

[vontar]

Destroy any gun used in a murder to satisfy the emotional element. Sell or trade the rest.

I am going back to the part, the gun has no soul even on this. The gun did not comment the crime the person using it did.

However, one person made a very good argument to me as a reason for this, the guns serial number would forever be linked to the murder and it should forever be removed which makes some sense.

[Motasyco]

I am going back to the part, the gun has no soul even on this. The gun did not comment the crime the person using it did.

However, one person made a very good argument to me as a reason for this, the guns serial number would forever be linked to the murder and it should forever be removed which makes some sense.

I understand this and you understand this but, certainly, anybody that has lost a loved one in a murder is going to experience emotional turmoil. The number of guns used in murders is, although I have no statistics at hand, likely well less than half of all guns confiscated. Destroy those used in a murder simply out of respect. It's to make those people feel better. Return stolen guns not used in a murder to the rightful owner. The rest fly under the radar to a sale. Most everybody's happy. What's the downside?

[Worriedman]

Destroy any gun used in a murder to satisfy the emotional element. Sell or trade the rest.

So, a thug breaks in and steals your grandfather's 1911 that he carried in the War with Honor, uses it to rob and murder someone. The police catch him and retrieve the weapon, instead of returning your family heirloom to you they melt it down.

How about holding a public hanging to destroy the perp and return your property?

The fact is, our State Constitution places the responsibility for these decisions in the hands of the Legislature, not the local politicians. We are all happier (or should be) with "Shall Issue" for permits instead letting the politics of local Sheriffs control that aspect.

If they confiscate a go fast car hauling drugs, or cash in the trunk, do we expect them to destroy them because they were used in the commission of a crime?

[JayC]

Last time I checked, the State Constitution prohibits the legislature and all other levels of government from messing with firearms in anyway shape or form except for the wearing of firearms to prevent crime. But hey, why should we pay attention to such an old document

So, a thug breaks in and steals your grandfather's 1911 that he carried in the War with Honor, uses it to rob and murder someone. The police catch him and retrieve the weapon, instead of returning your family heirloom to you they melt it down.

How about holding a public hanging to destroy the perp and return your property?

The fact is, our State Constitution places the responsibility for these decisions in the hands of the Legislature, not the local politicians. We are all happier (or should be) with "Shall Issue" for permits instead letting the politics of local Sheriffs control that aspect.

If they confiscate a go fast car hauling drugs, or cash in the trunk, do we expect them to destroy them because they were used in the commission of a crime?

[DaveTN]

I’m not familiar with this Gail Kerr but I don’t see anything “childlike†or “emotional†in the article.

I agree with her; let the Administrators make those decisions. Why are guns getting special attention anyway? A lot of property and evidence is destroyed; who cares.

Metro’s already said they aren’t selling guns. I applaud them for that; cops don’t belong in the gun business.

So, a thug breaks in and steals your grandfather's 1911 that he carried in the War with Honor, uses it to rob and murder someone. The police catch him and retrieve the weapon, instead of returning your family heirloom to you they melt it down.

Is anyone suggesting that? When a gun is released from evidence that was stolen; it goes back to the legal owner. The state can’t sell it; that’s theft.

[Worriedman]

So, a thug breaks in and steals your grandfather's 1911 that he carried in the War with Honor, uses it to rob and murder someone. The police catch him and retrieve the weapon, instead of returning your family heirloom to you they melt it down.

Is anyone suggesting that? When a gun is released from evidence that was stolen; it goes back to the legal owner. The state can’t sell it; that’s theft.

Yes.

Destroy any gun used in a murder to satisfy the emotional element. Sell or trade the rest.

Hence my reply to his comment.

Edited August 14, 2011 by Worriedman

[DaveTN]

Yes.

Hence my reply to his comment.

I meant are Police Departments destroying guns that were stolen from law abiding citizens just because they were used in a crime? Once the weapon is released by the DA from evidence; it goes back to the legal owner. The state can keep it as evidence as long as they see fit; but they damn sure can’t sell it.

[Worriedman]

I’m not familiar with this Gail Kerr but I don’t see anything “childlike†or “emotional†in the article.

From the article:

This is not a gun rights issue. It’s about the autonomy of local law enforcement to make the best decisions possible for their communities.

Law Enforcement is charged to do just that, enforce the laws, they are NOT empowered to make the laws. Local LE has no autonomy to make decisions regarding laws, thank God. Her entire article is an emotional response, not a single correct fact involved.

A lot of property and evidence is destroyed; who cares.

Let's take this a step further. A thief breaks into you home, takes a weapon and a vehicle. They drive the vehicle to a location , rob and murder a Citizen. The police recover the vehicle and the weapon, should they destroy both, is there a difference in the two? Do they owe the original owner the value of both if they are destroyed to satisfy a "feel good" emotional response, or should private insurance pay the loss, driving up cost for everyone else? Our constitution says that no one is to be deprived of their personal property without just compensation, if the LE agency retrieves stolen personal property of any nature, should they destroy it without compensation?

cops don’t belong in the gun business.

LE departments sell confiscated property all the time, e.g. cars, do they belong in the automobile business?

[Worriedman]

I meant are Police Departments destroying guns that were stolen from law abiding citizens just because they were used in a crime? Once the weapon is released by the DA from evidence; it goes back to the legal owner. The state can keep it as evidence as long as they see fit; but they damn sure can’t sell it.

Was not talking about the Police Department selling a weapon, was replying to Motasyco's idea of destroying a weapon used in a murder.

Destroy any gun used in a murder to satisfy the emotional element.

Destroy those used in a murder simply out of respect. It's to make those people feel better.

You jumped in and added your take on a separate issue, that of selling weapons used in crime, I was responding to Motasyco's suggestion of destroying weapons that have been used in a murder. His take is clear in two different post on the issue.

[DaveTN]

Law Enforcement is charged to do just that, enforce the laws, they are NOT empowered to make the laws. Local LE has no autonomy to make decisions regarding laws, thank God. Her entire article is an emotional response, not a single correct fact involved.

Let's take this a step further. A thief breaks into you home, takes a weapon and a vehicle. They drive the vehicle to a location , rob and murder a Citizen. The police recover the vehicle and the weapon, should they destroy both, is there a difference in the two? Do they owe the original owner the value of both if they are destroyed to satisfy a "feel good" emotional response, or should private insurance pay the loss, driving up cost for everyone else? Our constitution says that no one is to be deprived of their personal property without just compensation, if the LE agency retrieves stolen personal property of any nature, should they destroy it without compensation?

LE departments sell confiscated property all the time, e.g. cars, do they belong in the automobile business?

I’m not suggesting that they destroy anything that has a lawful owner.

A gun used in a murder is going to be tied up in evidence for a very long time, possibly until the offender dies. If the cops don’t know who the owner is; it gets destroyed. If they do know who the owner is; it gets returned to them. Not sold to you.

Cars are only sold when they are seized from criminals. They don’t sell your car if they recover it after it has been stolen.

The Police have been mentioned and people are overreacting like crazy. What laws do you think the Police are making up? I read the law; its doesn’t require that gun be sold unless there is a court order. Has there been a court order to sell a gun that the Police have refused to sell? Because then they would be in contempt of court.

I still say cops selling guns is crazy at face value. Only a lunatic legislator would even propose forcing a Police Administrator to sell guns he doesn’t want to sell.

[Worriedman]

The Police have been mentioned and people are overreacting like crazy. What laws do you think the Police are making up?

From the article:

“Those who are not in law enforcement are telling law enforcement what to do,” said Maggi Duncan, director of the Tennessee Association of Police Chiefs.

Part of the emotional response of Ms Kerr was quoting this statement from the Director of Chiefs of Police. I for one see this kind of attitude as dangerous. I fully support LE in their prescribed responsibility of ENFORCING laws, and have a high respect for them, but they do not need to be in the business of deciding what they do with regard to laws. That is what the elected representatives of our State are charged with deciding.

[Worriedman]

I meant are Police Departments destroying guns that were stolen from law abiding citizens just because they were used in a crime? Once the weapon is released by the DA from evidence; it goes back to the legal owner. The state can keep it as evidence as long as they see fit; but they damn sure can’t sell it.

Not the wishes of the spokesman for the Nashville Police, Don Aaron, from the article:

“But if a firearm is used in a homicide or other violent crime, it would be an affront to the victim and the victim’s family to just let that firearm go wherever

According to Mike Dunavant, district attorney from Tipton County:

Guns used in homicides should never be recirculated but held indefinitely as evidence.

If in fact that is a weapon that was stolen from a Citizen, and the rightful owner is realized, does that property deserve to be kept from him or her?

Further Mr. Dunavant says:

We all know that once those guns are back out in circulation, they can be stolen, they can be lost, they can fall into the wrong hands.â€

Isn't every gun subject to the same vicissitudes of possibility, is a gun that has been once used in a violent crime more likely to "fall into the wrong hands" than a brand new one purchased to replace one that has been stolen?

Emotional knee jerk reaction in my opinion.

[DaveTN]

Part of the emotional response of Ms Kerr was quoting this statement from the Director of Chiefs of Police. I for one see this kind of attitude as dangerous. I fully support LE in their prescribed responsibility of ENFORCING laws, and have a high respect for them, but they do not need to be in the business of deciding what they do with regard to laws. That is what the elected representatives of our State are charged with deciding.

No emotional response from Kerr, she was just quoting Maggi Duncan.

A Police Chief or a Sheriff is not simply enforcing the laws; they are responsible for public safety. I still don’t see where you think they are making up any laws. Some of them have said they aren’t going to sell guns…. Period.

I have read the law and as long as they aren’t defying a court order, it doesn’t appear to me they are required to sell. If I am wrong in that assessment a Judge needs to call them on it.

Personally… If I was the Chief of Metro I would tell the legislature I am not selling any gun without a court order to do so (on each and every one) and even then someone better waltz their azz down from the capitol with an FFL in their hand. I know he can’t do that for fear of losing his job, but they are trying to bully him into doing something that is wrong.

Not the wishes of the spokesman for the Nashville Police, Don Aaron, from the article:

“But if a firearm is used in a homicide or other violent crime, it would be an affront to the victim and the victim’s family to just let that firearm go wherever"

Was he specifically addressing the situation of the gun belonging to the victim of a burglary? Does Metro PD return stolen guns to their rightful owners when they have been recovered and not used in a murder?

According to Mike Dunavant, district attorney from Tipton County:[

"Guns used in homicides should never be recirculated but held indefinitely as evidence."

If they are evidence in a murder they could be needed if there was an appeal.

If in fact that is a weapon that was stolen from a Citizen, and the rightful owner is realized, does that property deserve to be kept from him or her?

Not if it isn't needed for evidence at trial.

Emotional knee jerk reaction in my opinion.

This whole thing is. If the Police Administrators want to sell guns; so be it. If they want to destroy them; that should be okay too as long as there is not a legal owner that was not involved in the crime.

[daddyo]

Gail predicted blood in the streets and barroom shootouts when the restaurant carry bill became law. I challenged her logic by email, and I even got a couple of replies, but neither of them showed any sort of rational thought. All she could say was "guns and alcohol don't mix".

After some time had passed, I emailed her again and pointed out that there had been no deaths related to law-abiding citizens carrying in restaurants or bars and asked her if she would retract her previous statements. I never got a reply.

She's nothing more than a bag of hot gas.

[Motasyco]

Was not talking about the Police Department selling a weapon, was replying to Motasyco's idea of destroying a weapon used in a murder.

You jumped in and added your take on a separate issue, that of selling weapons used in crime, I was responding to Motasyco's suggestion of destroying weapons that have been used in a murder. His take is clear in two different post on the issue.

This is not "my take" on the issue. I agree that the weapon is not at fault and I see no difference in a weapon used in a murder and one used in any other crime. This was purely a suggestion or solution that would have little impact on the overall number of weapons available for sale but would throw a crumb to those opposing the concept due to the emotional issue. It's called a compromise. I believe it's sometimes worth giving up a battle in order to win the war. It doesn't matter what law or rule is in place, someone will always be unhappy. If we can keep the unhappy to a minimum, a rule or law is more likely to stay in place.

[Jonnin]

I see that but compromise is how we got to the state we are in now, with dozens of special purpose firearms laws that supposedly are OK even if they violate the right to bear arms, including the concept of a permit. The only reason a gun should be destroyed, ever, is if it is too dangerous to shoot (will explode or the like due to poor condition), and even then, "destroyed" should mean little more than removal of the firing pin or similar, with possibly some sort of universal danger symbol that can be stamped in a known location to warn people of the poor condition. I am also ok with the destruction of illegal modified firearms that cannot be repaired or cost too much to fix, such as a full auto glock or the like --- however those, if functional, SHOULD be kept and used by the police/swat for tatical situations.

[Guest uzzi]

I don't understand how when you sell a gun to a non-felon citizen who has the legal right to own the gun it is somehow putting the gun "back on the street." In addition, to sell the gun, wouldn't the buyer have to go through the normal background check as they would with any gun shop? She makes it seem like they are dumping the guns on the street in the back door for anyone to come by and pick up and do with as they wish. Ignorance! I see guns that are police department trade ins go pretty fast and are great deals! They are usually in good shape and hardly used.

[daddyo]

Lying - it's what Gail does.